From James Madison to Edmund Randolph, 10 June 1783
To Edmund Randolph
RC (LC: Madison Papers). Unsigned but in JM’s hand. Docketed by Randolph, “J Madison June 10. 1783.” Apparently when he penned the letter, rather than when he recovered it many years later, JM wrote “Edmd. Randolph Esqr.” at the bottom of the first of three folios. Cover missing.
Philada. June 10th. 1783
My dear friend
Yesterday’s mail brought me two letters from you one of the 15 Ulto.1 inclosing the intervening sheet of the Journals which ought to have come two weeks ago, the other of the 29th. from Williamsbg. inclosing Mrs. Randolphs letter to Mrs. Trist.2 I have recd. no copy of the Journal from your assistant.3
Mr. Jones will have informed you that the Mission of Payne to R. Island by Congs. was a fiction of malice. If the trip was not a spontaneous measure of his own, I am a stranger to its origin.4
I am told by one of the Judges of appeal that no case has yet required from them a construction of the epochs which are to limit captures. The 3d. of March was generally applied at first to the American seas, but that opinion has rather lost ground.5 In N. York it is said that the 3d. of Apl. is adhered to.6 As the like phraseology is said to have been used in former Treaties, the true construction might be found I sd. suppose in Admiralty precedents.7
We have recd. the instruction relative to Commercial Treaties. The principle on which it is founded corresponds precisely with my idea. But I know not how far the giving an opportunity to the States of exercising their judgments on proposed Treaties, will correspond in all cases with the doctrine of the Confederation which provides for secrecy in some such cases.8 The deviation how ever if there be any is trivial, and not being an intended one can have no ill consequences. No progress has been made towards a Treaty with G. B. owing partly to a desire of hearing further from Europe & partly to the paucity of States represented in Congs. It would seem that the plan of regulating the Trade with America by a Parliamentary Act has been exchanged by the present Ministry for an intended Treaty for that purpose. Mr. Laurens was asked by Mr. Fox whether the American Ministers had powers for a commercial Treaty. his answer was that he believed so; that a revocation of Mr. Adam’s powers had appeared some time ago in print, but he considered the publication as Spurious. From this it wd. seem that this act of Congs. had never been communicated by the latter to his colleagues.9 He lately complained of this revocation in a very singular letter to Congs.10 I consider it as a very fortunate circumstance that this business is still within our controul, especially as the policy of authorizing conditional Treatys only in Europe is so fully espoused by Virga.11
Mr. Livingston has taken his final leave of the departmt. of F. Affairs. No nomination for a successor has yet been made though the time assigned for the election has passed, nor does the conversation center on any individual.12 I have forborne on various accts. to hold forth our friend McLurg.13 I can form no conjecture on whom the choice will ultimately fall.
The offers of N. Y. & Maryld. of a seat for Congs. are postponed till Ocr. next in order to give time for other offers & for knowing the sense of the States on the subject. Copies of those acts are to be sent to the Executives of each State.14
I have forgotten the request of Mr. Mercer for several weeks to make his apology for failing to open a correspondence with you. The regular one maintained between yourself & me, he supposes, would leave little but repetition to him, and his other correspondents, I suppose give him competent employment.15
Congress have resumed at length the Cession of Virga. the old obnoxious report was committed, and a new report has been made which I think a fit basis for a compromise. A copy of it is inclosed for the Govr. I have also transcribed it in my letter to Mr. Jones. As it tacitly excludes the pretensions of the Companies,16 I fear obstacles may arise in Congs. from that quarter. Clarke from N. Jersey informed Congs. that the Delegates from that State being fettered by instructions, must communicate the plan to their constituents.17 If no other causes of delay should rise the thinness of Congs. at present will prove a material one.18 I am at some loss for the policy of the Companies in opposing a compromise with Virga. They can never hope for a specific restitution of their claims, they can never even hope for a cession of the Country between the Alleghany & the Ohio by Virga.19 as little can they hope for an extension of a jurisdiction of Congs. over it by force. I should suppose therefore that it wd. be their truest interest to promote a general cession of the vacant Country to Congress, and in case the titles of which they have been stript sd. be deemed by them reasonable, and Congs. sd. be disposed to make any equitable compensation, Virga. wd. be no more interested in opposing it than other States.
I inclose different papers to you & to Mr. Jones & recommend an interchange.20
2. Randolph’s letter of 29 May has not been found. For Mrs. Randolph’s intention to write to Mrs. Nicholas Trist, see , VI, 381.
3. Randolph to JM, 24 May, and n. 12; 4 June 1783; Beckley to Randolph, 20 June 1783.
4. Randolph to JM, 15 May 1783, and n. 7.
5. The judges of the Court of Appeals in Cases of Capture were Cyrus Griffin, John Lowell, and George Read (, V, 252, n. 2; 368; , XXIV, 186, n. 2, 212). The court convened annually at Philadelphia on the first Monday in May, at Hartford on the first Monday in August, and at Richmond on the first Monday in November (, XXIV, 185). At least two of the judges had to be present for the court to hear and decide cases. Having been elected by Congress on 5 December 1782, Lowell accepted on 12 February 1783, with the proviso that he need not sit as a judge until the court had decided several pending cases involving clients whom he had earlier guaranteed to represent as their lawyer. He apparently began his service on the bench of the court at its session of May 1784 (, V, 300; 301, first n. 1; 368; 369, n. 2; NA: PCC, No. 78, XIV, 531; , XXIV, 186, n. 2, 212; , VI, 560–61; VII, 91).
For “the epochs” see , VI, 391, n. 4; 450 and n. 1; 451, nn. 2–4. The court seems to have avoided “a construction” of these as late as October 1783 (, XXV, 627; , VII, 317).
6. By “N. York” JM signified the British naval headquarters there. Congress, reflecting the provisions of the preliminary treaties of peace agreed upon by Great Britain with the United States and France, adopted a proclamation on 11 April 1783 declaring that in the Atlantic Ocean north of the latitude of the Canary Islands hostilities had legally ceased on 3 March, which was one month subsequent to the exchange of ratifications between Great Britain and France. For the area of the Atlantic Ocean south of that latitude to the equator the time of cessation had been 3 April 1783. All the eastern coastline of the United States as then constituted was north of the latitude of the Canaries ([David] Hunter Miller, ed., Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America [8 vols.; Washington, 1931–48], II, 112–14).
7. Article XXIV of the Treaty of Paris of 1763, although not specifically stated in terms of parallels of latitude, used the word “epochs” and obviously staggered the duration of each of them in direct proportion to the distance in travel time from Paris or London to the designated place (George Chalmers, ed., A Collection of Treaties between Great Britain and Other Powers [2 vols.; London, 1790], I, 481–82).
8. Instruction to Delegates, 23–24 May, and n. 1; Jones to JM, 25 May; JM to Jefferson, 10 June 1783. For the problem of preserving secrecy with regard to confidential matters before Congress, see , V, 397, and n. 1; 398, and n. 10; 420, n. 4; 421, n. 10.
9. JM to Jefferson, 10 June 1783, and nn. 4–6.
10. JM to Jefferson, 6 May 1783, and nn. 5–7.
11. JM to Jefferson, 10 June 1783, and n. 26.
12. Ibid., and n. 16. On 12 June Livingston left Philadelphia for his home in New York (Pa. Packet, 14 June 1783).
14. Ibid., VI, 447; 448, nn. 4, 6, 7; Harrison to Delegates, 17 May; Delegates to Harrison, 27 May, and n. 2. With a circular letter of 10 June 1783 to the executive of each state, President Elias Boudinot sent a copy of the offers by New York and Maryland of a “permanent residence” for Congress (, VII, 182).
15. Although the occasion upon which John Francis Mercer had promised to correspond with Randolph is unknown, an expected exchange of letters between Mercer and Joseph Jones had also failed to take place. No doubt Mercer and his friend James Monroe wrote to each other (Ambler to JM, 10 May, n. 1; Jones to JM, 31 May 1783, and n. 18).
16. Neither the enclosure for Harrison nor JM’s letter and enclosure to Jones have been found. For the “new report,” see JM Notes, 4 June, n. 2; 5 June, n. 1; 6 June, and n. 1. The sixth and especially the seventh numbered paragraphs of the report warrant JM’s statement about the “Companies.” The report was amended and adopted on 13 September 1783 (, XXV, 559–64).
17. JM Notes, 9 June, and nn. 2, 3; 10 June 1783, and nn. 3, 10.
18. JM Notes, 9 June, and n. 1; JM to Jefferson, 10 June 1783.
20. Perhaps the Pennsylvania Gazette of 4 June, the Pennsylvania Journal of 7 June, and the Pennsylvania Packet of 7 and 10 June 1783.