From Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Thweatt, 15 June 1804
To Archibald Thweatt
Washington June 15. 04.
Dear Sir
I recieved last night your favor of the 11th. and have given the papers inclosed an attentive perusal and consideration. the paiments are certainly applied in the way strictly just & established by usage, and the case of the executors, as prefactorily stated, is done truly, fully & ably. one single fact only I have corrected with the pencil in the 1st. page. the question of a reference to arbitrators depends on the description of the arbitrators chosen. the natural tribunal of the country is a jury. to this kind of arbiter all contracts look ultimately. the gentlemen of the country, of understanding and integrity, when selected as arbitrators, are in truth a jury of the first order. but in a dispute with a merchant, lawyers are exceptionable arbitrators. I speak as having been one myself and participating in the exception. all questions of general principle they invariably determine in the most favorable way for the merchant. e.g. whether interest shall be allowed? the mode of calculating it? whether commission shall be allowed? the sufficiency of evidence &c. &c. it is a prejudice they contract from being habitually employed to maintain these claims for merchants, & the bias produced on their minds, without being sensible of it, by their desire to court the business of the merchants. hence the English law, which is our law, on the allowance of interest is totally changed by practice in this country, & all in favor of the merchant. in the present case, if honest, sensible gentlemen of the country who have never been practising lawyers or merchants, can be selected for arbitrators, they would be preferable to a jury: but no other arbiter. but of this mr Eppes will judge for himself. the 12th. article of agreement, by declaring that all the monies paid should be to the credit of the bonds, & consequently no deduction for interest proves no commission was intended. the verbal agreement was explicitly that mr Hanson should have no commission. doubtful words in a written contract may always be explained by averment. the testimony of mr Skipwith, who is disinterested, will be decisive & indispensible. my affectionate compliments to mrs Thweat & the house of Eppington, & friendly salutations to yourself.
Th: Jefferson
PoC (DLC); at foot of text: “Mr. Thweat.”
Archibald Thweatt (1772-1844), a Petersburg lawyer, married Lucy Eppes, the sister of John Wayles Eppes, in 1802, and the two later inherited Eppington, the Eppes plantation in Chesterfield County, as well as the family’s mill on the Appomattox River. Before shifting his attention to his rural holdings, Thweatt was nominated as a bankruptcy commissioner for Petersburg and was active in the city’s civic and economic affairs. Between 1813 and 1818, he represented Chesterfield for four terms in the Virginia House of Delegates (Martha W. McCartney, “A Documentary History of Eppington, Chesterfield County, Virginia” [unpublished typescript, 1994], 71-2, 83; Norfolk Gazette and Publick Ledger, 1 July 1807; Savannah Republican, 12 May 1808; Richmond Enquirer, 5 Oct. 1830; , 273, 277, 285, 289; , 2:85n; Vol. 37:510-11, 710).
Thweatt’s favor, recorded in SJL as received from Petersburg on 14 June, has not been found. The enclosed papers were likely related to a suit brought in 1801 by Robert Gilliam, representative of the estate of Bathurst Skelton, against the executors of the Wayles estate. Because of TJ’s connection to the Skelton estate through the dower right of Martha Jefferson, who was Skelton’s widow, he was technically on both sides of the suit. Thweatt continued to represent the Wayles executors until the suit’s resolution, which was probably in 1813 (, 1:304-5; 2:464; 7:99; Vol. 35:320-1, 445-6).
Richard hanson was the attorney of the principal creditor of the Wayles estate (Vol. 15:643).