Monticello, December 16, 1809.
Dear Sir,—I now enclose you the agricultural catalogue. I do not know whether I have made it more or less comprehensive than you wished; but in either case, you can make it what it should be by reduction or addition—there are probably other good books with which I am unacquainted. I do not possess the Geoponica, nor Rozier's Dictionary. All the others I have, and set them down on my own knowledge, except Young's Experimental Agriculture, which I have not, but had the benefit of reading your copy. I am sorry to address this catalogue to Warren, instead of Washington. Never was there a moment when it was so necessary to unite all the wisdom of the nation in its councils. Our affairs are certainly now at their ultimate point of crisis. I understand the Eastern Republicans will agree to nothing which shall render not-intercourse effectual, and that in any question of that kind, the Federalists will have a majority. There remains, then, only war or submission, and if we adopt the former, they will desert us. Under these difficulties you ought not to have left us. A temporary malady was not a just ground for permanent withdrawing, and you are too young to be entitled as yet to decline public duties. I think there never was a time when your presence in Congress was more desirable. However, the die is cast, and we have only to regret what we cannot repair. You must indulge me a little in scolding on this subject, and the rather as it is the effect of my great esteem and respect.
TO MR. SAMUEL KERCHEVAL.
Monticello, January 15, 1810.
Sir,—Your favor of December 12th has been duly received, as was also that of September 28th. With the blank subscription paper for the academy of Frederic county, enclosed in your letter of September, nothing has been done. I go rarely from home, and therefore have little opportunity of soliciting subscriptions. Nor could I do it in the present case in conformity with my own judgment of what is best for institutions of this kind. We are all doubtless bound to contribute a certain portion of our income to the support of charitable and other useful public institutions. But it is a part of our duty also to apply our contributions in the most effectual way we can to secure their object. The question then is whether this will not be better done by each of us appropriating our whole contributions to the institutions within our own reach, under our own eye; and over which we can exercise some useful control? Or would it be better that each should divide the sum he can spare among all the institutions of his State, or of the United States? Reason, and the interest of these institutions themselves, certainly decide in favor of the former practice. This question has been forced on me heretofore by the multitude of applications which have come to me from every quarter of the Union on behalf of academies, churches, missions, hospitals, charitable establishments, &c. Had I parcelled among them all the contributions which I could spare, it would have been for each too feeble a sum to be worthy of being either given or received. If each portion of the State, on the contrary, will apply its aids and its attentions exclusively to those nearest around them, all will be better taken care of. Their support, their conduct, and the best administration of their funds, will be under the inspection and control of those most convenient to take cognizance of them, and most interested in their prosperity. With these impressions myself, I could not propose to others what my own judgment disapproved, as to their duty as well as my own. These considerations appear so conclusive to myself, that I trust they will be a sufficient apology for my not having fulfilled your wishes with respect to the paper enclosed. They are therefore submitted to your candor, with assurances of my best wishes for the success of the institution you patronize, and of my respect and consideration for yourself.
TO MR. EPPES.
Monticello, January 17, 1810.
Dear Sir,—Yours of the 10th came safely to hand, and I now enclose you a letter from Francis; he continues in excellent health, and employs his time well. He has written to his mamma and grandmamma. I observe that the H. of R. are sensible of the ill effects of the long speeches in their house on their proceedings. But they have a worse effect in the disgust they excite among the people, and the disposition they are producing to transfer their confidence from the legislature to the executive branch, which would soon sap our constitution. These speeches, therefore, are less and less read, and if continued will cease to be read at all. The models for that oratory which is to produce the greatest effect by securing the attention of hearers and readers, are to be found in Livy, Tacitus, Sallust, and most assuredly not in Cicero. I doubt if there is a man in the world who can now read one of his orations through but as a piece of task-work. I observe the house is endeavoring to remedy the eternal protraction of debate by setting up all night, or by the use of the Previous Question. Both will subject them to the most serious inconvenience. The latter may be turned upon themselves by a trick of their adversaries. I have thought that such a rule as the following would be more effectual and less inconvenient. "Resolved that at [viii.] o'clock in the evening (whenever the house shall be in session at that hour) it shall be the duty of the Speaker to declare that hour arrived, whereupon all debate shall cease. If there be then before the house a main question for the reading or passing of a bill, resolution or order, such main question shall immediately be put by the Speaker, and decided by yeas and nays.
"If the question before the house be secondary, as for amendment, commitment, postponement, adjournment of the debate or question, laying on the table, reading papers, or a previous question, such secondary, [or any other which may delay the main question,] shall stand ipso facto discharged, and the main question shall then be before the house, and shall be immediately put and decided by yeas and nays. But a motion for adjournment of the house, may once and once only, take place of the main question, and if decided in the negative, the main question shall then be put as before. Should any question of order arise, it shall be decided by the Speaker instanter, and without debate or appeal; and questions of privilege arising, shall be postponed till the main question be decided. Messages from the President or Senate may be received but not acted on till after the decision of the main question. But this rule shall be suspended during the [three] last days of the session of Congress."
No doubt this, on investigation, will be found to need amendment; but I think the principle of it better adapted to meet the evil than any other which has occurred to me. You can consider and decide upon it, however, and make what use of it you please, only keeping the source of it to yourself. Ever affectionately yours.