1. The letter to JJ was probably not sent until 15 July. See PTJ description begins Julian T. Boyd, Charles T. Cullen et al., eds., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson (42 vols. to date; Princeton, N.J., 1950–) description ends , 26: 488. TJ prepared similar letters to the two associate justices then in Philadelphia (William Paterson and James Iredell) by 18 July. Because James Wilson of Philadelphia was riding circuit at the time, he did not receive a letter, but he had returned by the time the justices began to consider TJ’s communications on the matter.

2. The request for the justices’ opinions was driven by Genet’s decision to defy the administration’s instructions to hold the Little Sarah in Philadelphia’s harbor, on which see the editorial note “John Jay and the Genet Affair,” below. GW called a cabinet meeting on 12 July (PTJ description begins Julian T. Boyd, Charles T. Cullen et al., eds., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson (42 vols. to date; Princeton, N.J., 1950–) description ends , 26: 484–85) to discuss how to respond to Genet’s defiance of neutrality regulations. On 12 July TJ also wrote Genet and George Hammond in response to various “representations” received from them regarding prizes and vessels arming and arriving in the ports. He informed them that GW had “determined to refer the questions arising thereon to persons learned in the laws” to obtain the “Best advice possible on the sense of the laws and treaties respecting the several cases.” He requested that the various ships and prizes not depart until GW’s determination was known. PTJ description begins Julian T. Boyd, Charles T. Cullen et al., eds., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson (42 vols. to date; Princeton, N.J., 1950–) description ends , 26: 487–88.

3. See TJ to the Justices of the Supreme Court, 18 July, and the Questions Proposed to be Submitted to the Supreme Court Justices of that date, below. The decision to consult the justices was public by 17 July. On that day, JJ visited GW to inquire when he would receive specific information as to matters on which their opinion was desired. He may also have suggested that they might not find it appropriate to comply. See DHSC description begins Maeva Marcus et al. eds., The Documentary History of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1789–1800 (8 vols.; New York, 1985–2007) description ends , 6: 744–45.