To Thomas Jefferson from Edmund Randolph, 25 July 1793
From Edmund Randolph
July 25. 1793.
E. R. to Mr. J.
We have been at cross purposes about the inclosed letter of July 24. 1793. in answer to Mr. Genets of the 9th. I am much mistaken, if my note intimated a doubt of its propriety. I certainly always approved it. My remarks as to delay1 were applicable to the answer to the inflammatory memorial;2 to which General Knox suggested an addition. Is that some word3 omitted in the first sentence of the inclosed?
I have lost my copy of the laws of Congress, at the session commencing in 1792. Look at the index of the laws of last session, under the head of territory; and you will find, that a limitation act has been disapproved by congress. Perhaps the necessity of laying the act before them will appear from the laws, which I miss. But I confess, that it does not strike my eye in the act concerning the Southern territory, the ordinance4 establishing the Northern territory, nor the cession of No. Carolina. I will examine further.
RC (DNA: RG 59, Letters from and Opinions of the Attorney General); endorsed by TJ as received 26 July 1793. Enclosure: TJ to Edmond Charles Genet, 24 July 1793.
My note: Randolph to TJ, [ca. 24 July 1793]. answer to the inflammatory memorial: TJ to Edmond Charles Genet, [ca. 16 July 1793]. In May 1792 Congress disapproved a Limitation Act, passed by the governor and judges of the Northwest Territory in 1788, which set specific time limits for commencing certain civil actions and prosecuting certain crimes (, iii, 1396; Theodore C. Pease, ed., The Laws of the Northwest Territory, 1788–1800, Illinois State Historical Library, Collections, xvii [1925], 25–6). See also Report on the Proceedings of the Southwest Territory, 19 June 1793.
1. Preceding three words interlined.
2. Word interlined in place of “letter.”
3. Thus in manuscript.
4. Word interlined in place of “resolution.”