From Thomas Jefferson to George Read, Jr., 10 February 1805
To George Read, Jr.
Washington. Feb. 10. 1805.
Th: Jefferson presents his compliments to mr Reid, and his apologies after 30. years abstraction from law questions, for intruding into them with mr Reid who is in daily familiarity with them. but he means only to make such suggestions as may draw mr Reid’s own attention to the subject of their yesterday’s conversation. he has no law books here but the Abridgments. by turning to Comyns’ digest Prohibition. A.1. to Bacon’s abr. Prohibition K. mr Reid will find a multitude of cases proving the universality of the use of the writ of Prohibition: & 3. Blackst. c. 7. (112) says expressly ‘this writ may issue either to inferior courts of common law, &c or it may be directed to the courts Christian, chivalry, admiralty &c.’ whether therefore we consider the state courts as proceeding by a common law, or a foreign law, they seem subject to be kept within their limits by a prohibition. the importance of this question to the US. renders it interesting because if the disaffected court of Sussex can lay hold of all the revenue arising in the Delaware, without any controul, it will produce a kind of legal insurrection which may extremely embarrass the general government. should the question even be doubtful, or should the federal judge refuse to issue a prohibition, the question, in my opinion, ought to be made to come before the supreme court for the purpose of settling the point. he again apologises from the importance of the case for even suggesting to mr Reid, what he is so much abler to investigate for himself.
PoC (ViW: Tucker-Coleman Collection); endorsed by TJ.
yesterday’s conversation: Read, who was in town to serve as a witness in the Senate trial of Samuel Chase, dined at the President’s House along with several other legal dignitaries on Saturday, 9 Feb. (National Intelligencer, 11 Feb.; Appendix II).
A writ of Prohibition allows an appellate court to prevent a lower court from exceeding its jurisdiction (, 1248).
disaffected court of Sussex: in October 1804, the Favorite, a Philadelphia ship, became incapacitated and was temporarily abandoned in Delaware Bay while carrying goods from Bordeaux. A group of individuals from Sussex County, Delaware, boarded the ship, salvaged goods estimated to be worth $14,000, prevented members of the ship’s crew from participating in the salvage operation, and stored the goods in Lewes. The salvors claimed a moiety of the goods, a claim disputed by the ship’s owners. When Allen McLane, the collector for the district, ordered the goods transferred to Wilmington so that the amount of duties might be ascertained, the salvors secured, on 16 Dec., a writ of replevin from the Sussex sheriff preventing McLane from proceeding and allowing them to take possession of the property. Because the salvors held goods that had never received official customs markings, McLane contended that a violation of the revenue laws had occurred and that the goods should be treated as a forfeiture to the United States. Gallatin monitored the situation closely and likely alerted TJ to the case. As U.S. attorney for Delaware, Read entered a libel on behalf of the government’s claim to the property on 23 Feb. (Relfs Philadelphia Gazette, 22 Dec. 1804; Wilmington Mirror of the Times & General Advertiser, 27 Feb.; , 10:470; William Cranch, Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Supreme Court of the United States, 1801-1815, 9 vols. [Washington, D.C., 1804-17], 4:347-66; Caesar A. Rodney to TJ, 19 Mch.).