Report on the Petition of Richard Lawrence, 14 March 1787
Report on the Petition of Richard Lawrence
[New York] Office for foreign Affairs 14th. March 1787
The Secretary of the United States for the Department of foreign Affairs to whom was referred the Petition of Richard Lawrence, complaining that he is confined in the Gaol of the City of New York on Actions and Judgments at Law, commenced and had against him according to the Form of an Act of the State of New York, passed the 17th. March 1783, entitled an Act for granting a more effectual Relief in Cases of certain Trespasses—
Reports
That as the said Act is recited at Length in his Report of the 13th. Day of October last,1 and which also contains his Reasons for considering it as being a direct Violation of the Treaty of Peace, he hath until now postponed reporting on this Petition, in Expectation that the Resolutions of Congress on the Complaints stated in that Report; would reach every Case of the like Nature. But as that Report still remains under Consideration, and as the said Richard Lawrence and other Petitioners still remain confined in Prison, He thinks it his Duty for the Reasons specified in that Report briefly to observe that in his Opinion the said Act and all Prosecutions under it for military Damages committed during the late War, are Violations of the Faith of the Treaty of Peace, and as such ought to be done away.—
He forbears reporting any Resolution as proper in his Opinion to be taken on this Head, because he thinks that considering how the national Government is circumstanced, the Resolutions contained in his former Report are the most expedient that he is able to devise.—
All which his submitted to the Wisdom of Congress.—
John Jay
DS, DNA: PCC, item 81, 3: 189–90, 192 (EJ: 3964). Endorsed: “Report of Secy forn Affairs / on Pet: R. Lawrence / Entd. read 15 March 1787 / See Journal f:f: Affairs / June 13th 1788 on report / read May 28th —1788—”. LbkCs, DNA: PCC, item 124, 3: 8–9 (EJ: 4590); NNC: JJ Lbk. 3.
1. See JJ to the President of Congress, 22 Aug. 1786, and Extracts from John Jay’s Report to Congress on Violations of the Treaty of Peace, 13 Oct. 1786, both above. For Lawrence’s petition of 9 Aug. 1786, see DNA: PCC, item 42, 4: 442–43. See also JJ’s letter of inquiry on the cases to Alexander Hamilton, 15 May 1788, ALS, DLC: Hamilton (EJ: 10348); LbkC, , 3: 349–50 (EJ: 2267); 4: 648–49; and JJ’s report to Congress, 26 May 1788 [DS, DNA: PCC, item 81, 3: 63–69 (EJ: 3938); LbkC, DNA: PCC, item 124, 3: 173–79 (EJ: 4625); 34: 222–30], in which he asserted that Lawrence’s cases (during which his lawyers included Brockholst Livingston and Alexander Hamilton) were not presented properly, his rights under the treaty not being stressed. There was thus no overt violation of the treaty by the courts, whose judgment could only be reversed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings. He proposed a suitable explanatory letter to be sent to the British foreign minister. Congress adopted JJ’s recommendations on 13 June 1788, at which time it referred the matter back to JJ to take order. JJ complied in his letter to Carmarthen of 13 June 1788, LS, with enclosed copies of his correspondence with Sir John Temple and the related court records, UkLPR (EJ: 5040); LbkC, , 302–3 (EJ: 2529). JJ’s letter to Temple of 27 June 1788 informed him of this outcome, LS, UkLPR (EJ: 2042); Dft, NNC (EJ: 9413); LbkC, , 3: 388 (EJ: 2287).