RC (NHi: Gallatin Papers); endorsed by Gallatin: “President Delaware piers.” PrC (DLC). Recorded in SJL as a letter to the Treasury Department with notation “piers in Delaware.” Enclosures: (1) Daniel W. Coxe to James Madison, Philadelphia, 8 Oct., arguing the importance of authorizing the customs collector at Natchez to grant clearances to American ships “loading with American Produce at New Orleans, & bound to British European Ports” (Madison, Papers, Sec. of State Ser. description begins William T. Hutchinson, Robert A. Rutland, J. C. A. Stagg, and others, eds., The Papers of James Madison, Chicago and Charlottesville, 1962–, 33 vols. Sec. of State Ser., 1986–, 9 vols.; Pres. Ser., 1984–, 6 vols.; Ret. Ser., 2009–, 1 vol. description ends , 4:1–3). (2) Printed broadside consisting of the British statute of 22 June 1802 repealing several acts relating to the admission of certain articles in neutral vessels by issuing Orders in Council for that purpose, to continue in effect until 1 Jan. 1804; and a letter from Green & Wainewright dated Liverpool, 14 Aug., explaining that the act provided that U.S. produce can only be imported in British vessels or in American ships, built and registered in the United States, with the master and “three-fourths of the Crew at least American” (same, 4:2n; Gallatin, Papers description begins Carl E. Prince and Helene E. Fineman, eds., The Papers of Albert Gallatin, microfilm edition in 46 reels, Philadelphia, 1969, and Supplement, Barbara B. Oberg, ed., reels 47–51, Wilmington, Del., 1985 description ends , 7:613). (3) Extract of Green & Wainewright to Coxe, Liverpool, 18 Aug. 1802, noting that existing British laws do not allow the importation of American produce from New Orleans, but customs officers think it will be allowed if the produce is transferred from boats from the U.S. settlements to “Ships having regular Clearances from an American Custom House on the Mississippi”; cotton not grown in the U.S. would have to be sent to the British West Indies or any other port where it could be transferred to British vessels; if the plan suggested “is not practicable, the Vessels must touch at a port of the United States for a Clearance & the Crew must be particularly attended to as We have been Witness to several very disagreeable circumstances thro’ this point” (same, 7:614; Madison, Papers, Sec. of State Ser. description begins William T. Hutchinson, Robert A. Rutland, J. C. A. Stagg, and others, eds., The Papers of James Madison, Chicago and Charlottesville, 1962–, 33 vols. Sec. of State Ser., 1986–, 9 vols.; Pres. Ser., 1984–, 6 vols.; Ret. Ser., 2009–, 1 vol. description ends , 4:2–3n).

On 17 July 1789, the New York Daily Advertiser recorded OPPOSITION to proposed legislation for the establishment and support of lighthouses by South Carolina congressmen Thomas Tudor Tucker and William Loughton Smith. The bill authorized the U.S. government to assume the expenses for building and maintaining lighthouses. The state had only to apply to the Treasury secretary and cede to the federal government the land upon which the lighthouse was to be built. Tucker and Smith argued that the bill was an infringement on the rights of the states and that lighthouses “were not necessarily incidental to the power of commerce.” If Congress were given this power, they declared, it “might with equal justice take possession of the mouths of rivers, and seize all such convenient places, as they should deem proper for the regulation of trade.” On 7 Aug. 1789, Washington signed the “act for the establishment and support of Lighthouses, Beacons, Buoys, and Public Piers” (U.S. Statutes at Large description begins Richard Peters, ed., The Public Statutes at Large of the United States . . . 1789 to March 3, 1845, Boston, 1855–56, 8 vols. description ends , 1:53–4; Biog. Dir. Cong. description begins Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, 1774–1989, Washington, D.C., 1989 description ends ).