To James Madison from James Monroe, 10 September 1816
From James Monroe
Sepr. 10. 1816.
Dear Sir
I now enclose you a project of a letter to ct. Nesselrode,1 on the subject of Mr Kosloff, with a short one to Mr Daschkoff, putting it under his last.2 You seemd to think that it wod. be best, to answer Daschkoffs letter, by one to his superior, in which, I entirely concur. In that case, the more concise the letter to Daschkoff the better. It will of course go sealed, I mean that to Ct. Nesselrode. It was impossible to answer Daschkoff without entering into a discussion with him, as I infer from his not answering my last letter to him, and making the application, unconnected with any thing that had passed, and in opposition to much, at least, by suppressing it. Much time has elapsed, owing to many interruptions, and the nec[e]ssity of being free from any, which I have not been till this rain. I wish you to correct both papers, and if the corrections make, the recopying them necessary, that you will be so good as to let Mr Todd do it, & forward them on to Mr Graham, without returning them to me.
Your amendments with a few exceptions only, I adopted in the letter to Mr Gallatin. Those in the letter to the French minister, as they did not alter the Character of the paper, and you did not seem anxious about them, (the same sentiments being expressd in the letter to Mr Gallatin) I omitted.3
I enclose you a letter to Mr Graham, which you will forward, in case you find it applicable, or destroy, instructing himself, if it is not4 respectfully yours
Jas Monroe
I enclose also Mr Daschkoffs letter to me.
In the two paraghs. preceding the last, I have endeavourd to show that the delay in applying to the govt., was one cause, why the arrest, might have taken place, if and after it had, why the govt. would not interpose more effectually. Blame belongs therefore to the Russians. In the next the last, I have also suggested the question of priviledge, & while no sanction is given to it, shewn that if it existed, it was in part lost, at least, by their neglect. In this, it was necessary to suppose, some power in the Executive, as otherwise, its interference would be an abuse; but in that allowed it, I have sought, to avoid encroaching on the rights of the judiciary.
In the last paragh. in the 3d. page I have noted, by the pencil, some words which had perhaps better be omitted. Compromise may imply a disposition to screen a felon. Suffering his escape, or sending him home for trial, are the only other modes, which would have prevented his arrest. These, or either, of them, may be understood, by leaving out the words underlined.
RC and enclosures (DLC: Rives Collection, Madison Papers). Docketed by JM. For surviving enclosures, see nn. 2 and 4.
1. The “project” has not been found, but on 12 Sept. 1816 Monroe wrote to Count Karl Robert Nesselrode (DNA: RG 59, Notes to Foreign Ministers and Consuls) informing him that Monroe had been directed by JM to address the Russian government on the subject of Nikolai Kozlov’s arrest, which the United States had been powerless to prevent because the consul had been detained and released in Philadelphia before the United States had been informed of the matter. Monroe reviewed the conduct of the United States in the proceedings of the case since November 1815 and emphasized the high regard JM had for the emperor of Russia. He explained that pains had been taken to inform the American consul at St. Petersburg about the affair and that Edward Coles, “late Secretary to the President,” was currently en route to Russia with a full report, which JM anticipated would be sufficient to maintain the “most friendly” relations between the United States and Russia. As to the degree of protection to which consul Kozlov might have been entitled under the law of nations against proceedings in local tribunals, Monroe declared that the United States Constitution left the determination of this question to the judiciary and that once a case was before the judiciary, the executive was powerless to intervene.
2. Monroe enclosed a copy of a 14 Aug. 1816 note (1 p.; in French) he had received from Andrei Dashkov in which the minister acknowledged he had been informed that the United States was sending a special courier to Russia and stated that he would have been pleased to have been given the opportunity to send to his government the American response to the note he had written on the Kozlov affair on 4 Mar. 1816. In light of information he had received from St. Petersburg, Dashkov wished to know how the United States viewed the matter, and he asked that he be given the same degree of satisfaction that had been shown to the imperial government. To this Monroe enclosed a one-page draft response to Dashkov, dated 16 Aug. 1816, stating that since the court in Pennsylvania had dismissed the prosecution against Kozlov for want of jurisdiction, the United States regarded the affair as “necessarily terminated.” He pointed out that Kozlov had failed to exercise his right to appeal against the charge brought against him and thus vindicate his character. He repeated that Kozlov’s arrest and release occurred before the United States had known of it and that the “views of this Government” had been explained to Dashkov on his visit to Washington “in an early stage of this transaction.” Under those circumstances, Monroe “thought it the less necessary to state […] in a formal note, the reason why this Government could not promote a trial of the case by the Court of the United States.”
3. See JM to Monroe, 6 Sept. 1816, and n. 1.
4. This was a one-page note, dated 10 Sept. 1816, instructing John Graham how to handle the correspondence with Count Nesselrode and minister Dashkov. Monroe asked that the letter to the count be sent directly to him as Dashkov had no claim to peruse it. Monroe also wondered if a copy of the letter should also be sent to Levett Harris, and if Graham saw no “impropriety” in doing so, he should write to Harris so that the consul would understand why the United States had made “this direct communication.” […] “Having concluded these troublesome papers,” Monroe added, “minor objects shall be immediately attended to. They go to the President for his correction, of course” (DNA: RG 59, ML).