I intended in my late visit to albemarle to have communicated freely2 with you, and mr madison,3 on the subject of internal improvment, in reference to the power of the general govt, especially as to the appropriation of the public money, but circumstances were unfavorable then, to such a communication. my object has been, rather to state, certain facts and considerations, which I was compelled to advert to, in deciding on that great question,4 than to enter on the question itself, for having communicated fully my views to Congress, when that decision was taken,5 I can add nothing on it now, which is6 worthy of attention.7

When I came into this office, rumours were circulated, that I differd in opinion from mr Madison, respecting the right of Congress to adopt and execute such a system of improvment. It was asserted that I thought, that the power, did exist.8 These rumours were circulated, with greater activity, just before the meeting of Congress, and in consequence, I9 bestowed on the subject, all the consideration, which the time & my other engagments permitted, and having made up, a decided opinion, that the power had not been granted, I declar’d it, in the first message to Congress, after my election. From that period, there was cause to apprehend, at every succeeding10 session, that an act would be passd asserting the right, & thus my attention was drawn continually to it. An act finally did pass, which I negativ’d, for the reasons stated, in the message announcing the decision.11

In examining the question, I review’d, what had been previously done, by Congress, and had been sanctiond by my predecessors,12 and particularly by yourself & mr madison, for whose example, as to purity of principle, & strength of judgment, I have always entertaind the highest respect. I examind also the ground, on which the acts, thus sanctiond, rested. my attention was necessarily drawn to the Cumberland road,13 and to several others which had been constructed,14 a bill relating to the former, having brought the subject before me. That road was provided for, by the compact with ohio, by which the expense attending it, was to be defray’d by the appropriation of 1⁄20th part of the net proceeds, of the sales of lands, in that state, which might be made after the 30th15 of June 1802., the consent of the States, through which the road should pass, being first obtain’d. The election of Representatives, for the territory was to be made, in october, & the convention to meet on the first monday in novr, of that year, so that the appropriation, would commence its operation, before the compact proposed, was acceded to.16 Nearly 1.500.000 dolrs had been expended on that17 road, when I came into this office, a large portion of which, had been advancd from the Treasury, by anticipation of the fund referrd to, which has not yet been reimbursed, & probably never will be. For the construction of the other roads, the money appropriated, was drawn directly from the Treasury.

The question however turnd, more especially, on the Cumberland road, and on the principle, on which the appropriation was made in its favor. On full consideration,18 I could perceive no difference between the appropriation of money arising from the sale of land, or from direct taxes, imposts, & excises;19 nor could I perceive any difference between an appropriation founded on a compact with a new State, or without such compact.20 The power to admit new States, into the union, involved none, as I presumed, to give them money or land.21 That the unsold land, in a new state, should still belong to the U States, after such admission, would follow of course,22 altho’ it should not be provided for, by compact. Had nothing been said about it, it cannot be presumd that the new State would be [not claimd or?] To be admitted into the union23 on a footing with the original States, the citizens of the new, owning the land which they had bought & paid for,24 is all that they could claim. To prevent all doubt however on this point, it was proper, to specify in the conditions, on which admitted, that the new state should have no right to the unsold land. The US. own land, in most of the original States, as custom house offices, & in some I believe, as post offices. The property is protected by the Laws of the States. The unsold land in the new States would stand on the same ground. To admit them, to the rights of the original states, is an act of great magnanimity, as well as wisdom. To allow25 them rights not belonging to the new States, wod merit a different character. I concluded therefore that the power to admit new states, granted none, to give to such States, the public lands within them.

The money, under any view which may be taken of the subject, arising from the sale of the public lands, is the property of the U States. It is not the Gift of a new State, it [could not prob.?] make any difference.26 nor can any right be deriv’d, from a compact with the new State, as to the mode of disposing of it, and especially in the original States. That right can be derivd from the constitution only, and was the same before the compact that it was after it. The question therefore which occur’d was, what had been done by Congress, and been sanctiond by mr Madison & yourself? a road had been laid out from Cumberland to27 Wheeling, passing through the three States above mentiond, and in the construction of which, the sum above mentiond, had been expended, & in the mode stated.28

the U States therefore did not derive their right to this unsold land, from the compact—nor could they derive the right to appropriate, either the land or money, arising from its sale, either to the construction of a road or to any other purpose within the state, and much less, within an original State from such compact—

Nor would the compact have been onerous, to prohibit the taxation, tho I applaud the policy pursued—the right to pursue it however is derivd from another source—the power granted over the public money, & the national purpose to which applied.