I have been favd. with yours of the 13 Inst:—1 Having no Reason to expect that I should have occasion for any papers respecting causes tried before me in the Sup[reme] Court of the U. S. I left them at New York.

The written argument You allude to, did not comprehend the Question of Interest— it not being in Controversy among those on the Demurrer. On that Subject I made notes, but no formal written opinion or argumts.—not having those notes nor the necessary Books with me, I could not speedily do Justice to that point.

The Doubt “on which Side of the Question lays the onus probandi respecting the Solvency or Insolvency of the Debtor” appears to me to be a very extraordinary doubt— It is a well settled and universally recd. maxim that the Plaintiff or Demandant must shew his Right to the Thing he demands—and that he who claims to recover under a Statute or a Treaty must shew that his Case is within the Provisions of it.

The Creditor before he can charge the U.S. must shew

That such a Debt as is provided for by the Treaty of Peace, was then and still remains, in the whole or in part, actually due and payable to him; and that the amount due to him cannot now be actually obtained had and recd. in the ordinary Course of Justice[.] If the Debtor be insolvent, he must shew that the Losses he sustained by that Insolvency, were occasioned by Mislawful Impediments which took place contrary to the Treaty of Peace—

The Insolvency of the Debtor and the Losses resulting from it to the Creditor, are to be distinguished.

It is not to be presumed that any Debtor is insolvent— it must be shewn.

It is not to be presumed that an Insolvency, when proved to exist; was caused by the lawful Impediments in question— they were favorable to the Debtor.

The Creditor cannot charge the U. S. unless he further shews

That the Debtor was generally believed and reputed to be solvent, when the Impediments complained of took place.

That he did whatever a prudent and attentive Creditor should do (under such Circumstances) to recover or secure the Debt— That the Debtor took advantage of those Impediments to frustrate his Endeavours— That afterwards the Debtor by misconduct or misfortune, became insolvent, and therefore that the Governmt. which interposed or permitted those Impediments is justly chargeable, not with the Insolvency but with the Losses occasioned by it to the Creditor.

That this opinion is well founded I percieve no Reason to Doubt and I would place it in various and strong points of Light, if the approaching Session of the Legislature, and of the Council of appointmt. and some unfinished Business of the last Council of appointment ^Revision^ did not crowd such a variety of affairs upon me, as scarcely to allow Leisure for these hasty Lines— I am Dr Sir, yours sincerely,