TO MR. GALLATIN.
December 7, 1808.
1. D. W. Coxe and the ship Comet. The application to send another vessel to the Havanna, to bring home the proceeds of the cargo of the Comet, charged with a breach of embargo, must be rejected for three reasons, each insuperable. 1st. The property was not shipped from the United States prior to December 22d, 1807, and therefore is not within the description of cases in which a permission by the executive is authorized by law. 2d. The limitation of time for permissions has been long expired. 3d. Although in an action on the bond of the Comet, the fabricated testimony of distress may embarrass judges and juries, tramelled by legal rules of evidence, yet it ought to have no weight with us to whom the law has referred to decide according to our discretion, well knowing that it was impossible to build up fraud by general rules. We know that the fabrication of proofs of leaky ships, stress of weather, cargoes sold under duress, are a regular part of the system of infractions of the embargo, with the manufacture of which every foreign port is provided, and that their oaths and forgeries are a regular merchandise in every port. We must therefore consider them as nothing, and that the act of entering a foreign port and selling the cargo is decisive evidence of an intentional breach of embargo, not to be countervailed by the letters of all the Charles Dixeys in the world; for every vessel is provided with a Charles Dixey.
My opinion is therefore that no permission ought ever to be granted for any vessel to leave our ports (while the embargo continues) in which any person is concerned either in interest or in navigating her, who has ever been concerned in interest, or in the navigation of a vessel which has at any time before entered a foreign port contrary to the views of the embargo laws, and under any pretended distress or duress whatever. This rule will not lead us wrong once in a hundred times.
2. I send you the case of Mr. Mitchell and the ship Neutrality, merely as a matter of form; for I presume it must be rejected on the ground of limitation. These petitioners are getting into the habit of calling on me personally in the first instance. These personal solicitations being very embarrassing, I am obliged to tell them I will refer the case to you, and they will receive a written answer. But I hope, in your amendments to the law, you will propose a repeal of the power to give permissions to go for property.