TO J. MADISON.
Philadelphia, April 7, 1793.
We may now, I believe, give full credit to the accounts that war is declared between France and England. The latter having ordered Chauvelen to retire within eight days, the former seemed to consider it as too unquestionable an evidence of an intention to go to war, to let the advantage slip of her own readiness and the unreadiness of England. Hence, I presume, the first declaration from France. A British packet is arrived; but as yet we have nothing more than that she confirms the accounts of war being declared. Genett not yet arrived. An impeachment is ordered here against Nicholson, their Comptroller General, by a vote almost unanimous of the House of Representatives. There is little doubt, I am told, that much mala fides will appear; but E. R. thinks he has barricaded himself within the fences of the law.
* * * * *
TO MR. HAMMOND.
Philadelphia, April 18, 1793.
Sir,—I have now the honor to enclose you the answer of the Attorney General to my letter covering yours of March the 12th, on the case of Hooper and Pagan, wherein he has stated the proceedings of Pagan for obtaining a writ of error from the Supreme Court of the United States, for revisal of the judgment of the inferior court pronounced against him; and also, his opinion on the merits of the question, had the writ of error been procured, and the merits thereby been brought into question. From this statement you will be able to judge whether Pagan has, bona fide, complied with the rule which requires that a foreigner, before he applies for extraordinary interposition, should use his best endeavors to obtain the justice he claims from the ordinary tribunals of the country. You will perceive also, that had the writ been pressed for and obtained, and the substantial justice of Pagan's claim thereby brought into discussion, substantial justice would have been against him, according to the opinion of the Attorney General, according to the uniform decisions of the courts of the United States, even in the cases of their own citizens, and according to the decision of this very case in the British provincial court, where the evidence was taken and the trial first had. This does not appear then to be one of those cases of gross and palpable wrong, ascribable only to wickedness of the heart, and not to error of the head, in the judges who have decided on it, and founding a claim of national satisfaction. At least, that it is so, remains yet to be demonstrated.