Sir,—Your letter of September the 22d waited here for my return, and it is not till now that I have been able to acknowledge it. The explanation of his principles given you by the French Emperor, in conversation, is correct as far as it goes. He does not wish us to go to war with England, knowing we have no ships to carry on that war. To submit to pay to England the tribute on our commerce which she demands by her orders of council, would be to aid her in the war against him, and would give him just ground to declare war with us. He concludes, therefore, as every rational man must, that the embargo, the only remaining alternative, was a wise measure. These are acknowledged principles, and should circumstances arise which may offer advantage to our country in making them public, we shall avail ourselves of them. But as it is not usual nor agreeable to governments to bring their conversations before the public, I think it would be well to consider this on your part as confidential, leaving to the government to retain or make it public, as the general good may require. Had the Emperor gone further, and said that he condemned our vessels going voluntarily into his ports in breach of his municipal laws, we might have admitted it rigorously legal, though not friendly. But his condemnation of vessels taken on the high seas, by his privateers, and carried involuntarily into his ports, is justifiable by no law, is piracy, and this is the wrong we complain of against him.
Supposing that you may be still at Clermont, from whence your letter is dated, I avail myself of this circumstance to request your presenting my friendly respects to Chancellor Livingston. I salute you with esteem and respect.
TO MR. GALLATIN.
Washington, October 16, 1808.
* * * * * * * *
Massey's Commission.—A half-sighted lawyer might, perhaps, say that a commission signed with a blank for the name,—afterwards filled up, was a nullity, because, in legal instruments, any change in a material part of a bond, deed, &c., after sealing and delivery, nullifies it. But I am not certain whether there are not cases, even in ordinary transactions at law, where it is otherwise,—e. g., a power of attorney sent to a distance, with a blank for the name, a blank commission, a blank subpœna, &c. But in matters of government, there can be no question but that the commission sealed and signed, with a blank for the name, date, place, &c., is good; because government can in no country be carried on without it. The most vital proceedings of our own government would become null were such a construction to prevail, and the argumentum ab inconvenienti, which is one of the great foundations of the law, will undoubtedly sustain the practice, and sanction it by the maxim "qui facit per alterum, facit per se." I would not therefore give the countenance of the government to so impracticable a construction by issuing a new commission. Affectionate salutations.
TO GEORGE BLAKE, ESQ.
Washington, October 17, 1808.
Sir,—However favorably the enclosed papers represent the case of Alexander Frost, yet it would be against every rule of prudence for me to undertake to revise the verdict of a jury on ex parte affidavits and recommendations. If the judges and yourself who were present at the trial think the defendant a proper object of pardon, I shall be ready, on such a recommendation, to issue it. I ask the favor of your information on this subject, and salute you with esteem and respect.