From James Madison to John P. Van Ness, Richard Bland Lee, and Tench Ringgold, 23 May 1815
To John P. Van Ness, Richard Bland Lee, and Tench Ringgold
Montpelier May 23. 1815
Gentlemen
I have recd. your letter of the 16th. inclosing a letter from Messrs. Carroll, Law & May, with your answer.
It is very agreeable to learn that your progress and prospects are so favorable to the undertaking committed to you.
In carrying into execution the law for rebuilding the public Edifices, it will best comport with its object & its provisions, not to deviate from the models destroyed, farther than material & manifest conveniency, or general & known opinion, may bring the alterations within the presumed contemplation of Congress. How far those proposed by Mr. Latrobe for whose judgment & taste I have great respect, are of this character, I suspend an opinion, untill I can form one with the advantage of being on the spot, which will not be delayed very many days. In the mean time, the general progress of the business will probably not be affected.
From the view of the subject which first presents itself, it does not appear that the object of the letter from the gentleman above named, can be legally complied with. The fund for the rebuildings, being exclusively appropriated to that object, is not applicable to any other; and the present case will not, like the unforeseen & contingent one produced by the destruction of the public buildings justify a resort to the fund provided for cases of necessity and contingency.1
It is to be understood however that no interference is intended, with any purpose they may form, of providing of themselves & tendering to Congress, accommodations, on such conditions as they may think equitable & proper. It is meant only that the Executive is not authorized to contribute to it by advances from the Treasury; or to anticipate in any manner the course which it lies with Congress to adopt. Accept my respects
James Madison
RC (DLC: Commissioners of the City of Washington Records, 1791–1869); draft (DLC). Draft dated 26 May 1815 in the Index to the James Madison Papers.
1. On the draft JM canceled the following here: “The Rejection wd. be the greater, as it is understood, that the subject recd. their consideration, of Congress, and that no provision was made for it. If it were certain that the omission was altogether casual, or resulted from miscalculations which they themselves could not fail to regret, there might be ground for the Executive to take on itself the responsibility of supplying the omission. But no evidence is before me that the omission is to be so explained. It is very possible that the reasons for it might be different with different members. The impression left on my mind, on the subject of a temporary accomodation of Con was that the Bill, if not introduced on the presumption that there wd. be a summer session for which the Building in use wd. be particularly inconvenient, failed from a belief that there wd. be no summer session. As the bill itself if I am under no mistake had in view also, an accommodation contiguous to that originally provided, there wd be in that consideration another difficulty in complying with the wishes of those gentlemen.”