The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 5 (of 9) / Being His Autobiography, Correspondence, Reports, Messages, Addresses, and Other Writings, Official and Private

by Thomas Jefferson

TO SIMEON THEUS, ESQ.

Monticello, September 10, 1808.

Sir,—According to the request of Mr. Gallatin's letter, herewith enclosed, I have considered the petitions of Grove, Himely, Everingham, and Ogier & Turner, referred to me by him, and forward you the decisions for your government. They are addressed to yourself directly, to avoid unnecessary delay to the parties, by passing them through him, as regularly they should have been.

Grove's Case.

Although the circular of the 1st of July limited no precise day for the departure of vessels under permits, yet in all such cases, a reasonable time only is to be understood, such as using due diligence, will suffice for the object. Such regulations can never be deemed but as temporary, and especially in times when the political circumstances governing them are liable to daily change. The time between the receipt at Charleston, of the circulars of July 1st and August 1st, was from the 19th or 20th of July to the 16th of August,—twenty-seven days; and within this time Mr. Grove states explicitly that he had prepared and cleared out the ship Pierce Manning, for the Havanna, and that she would have sailed before the 16th of August but for adverse winds. Considering, therefore, that the limitation of departure to the 15th of August was not known at Charleston till the 16th, so that not a moment's warning was given of it there, I think that, satisfactory proof being exhibited to the collector, that she was ready for sailing, or even very nearly ready on the 16th of August. She may now be permitted to depart, on condition that she does depart within such time as the state of her preparation, somewhat of course relaxed during the suspension, may in the judgment of the collector render necessary.

The reasons for originally limiting a day, increased by time require the exaction of this condition.

Himeley's Case.

This petition has no date; but it imports to have been written on the day of the receipt of the circular of August 1st at Charleston, and consequently on the 16th of August. It affirms that the brig Three Brothers, for Matanzas, then had on board the crew and necessary provisions, and assigns a probable reason why she could not have been ready sooner. For the reasons, and on the conditions stated in Grove's case, (that is to say, on proof of the facts to the collector, and her prompt departure,) she ought to have a permit.

Everingham's Case.

I put entirely out of sight, as having no bearing on this case, everything which passed prior to the receipt of the circular of July 1st, and consider the case as beginning de novo then, and under that circular. The petitioner declares expressly that on the publication of that circular, (July 20th,) he used every exertion to prepare the ship Diana for a voyage to the Havanna, and had just prepared her therefor when the circular of August 1st was received. The expression just prepared, is not absolutely definite. It may respect time or degree. It implies, however, that she was very nearly, if not quite, prepared. And if the collector receives satisfactory proof that he was nearly prepared, although she might not be in absolute readiness at the first moment of receiving the warning, and on the conditions stated in Grove's case.

The case of the schooner James is very different. The petitioner only states that he had applied to the collector, and obtained leave prior to August 1st,—had begun to use exertions, &c., and had ordered her to be careened and graved, &c., when the circular of August 1st arrived, to wit, August 16th, twenty-seven days had therefore intervened, and nothing more than an order given to careen. In the other cases we have seen that the twenty-seven days were sufficient to be in a state of actual readiness, even where a part of the loading was to be sent for from another State. No permit, therefore, can be granted in this case.

Ogier & Turner's Case.

The petitioners state that Ogier had time, after the receipt of the circular of July 1st, to prepare and despatch one vessel; but that they were only preparing other vessels when the second circular was received, to wit, August 16th, whereupon the collector refused to let them despatch the vessels which they had been preparing as aforesaid. A due diligence then having enabled them to despatch one vessel in the twenty-seven days, a like diligence, had it been used, might have despatched others. But from the tenor of their petition, the preparations of the others seem to have been merely incipient, and not near completion. They have consequently lost the claims on that equity which extends relief against rigorous rules, where due exertions have been used to fulfil them, and have been defeated only by accidental and unavoidable want of notice. They are not entitled to permits in this case.