“ a breach of neutrality. after the very words of the treaty were finally agreed to, it took some time, perhaps some days, to make out all the copies in the very splendid manner of Bonaparte’s treaties. whether the 30 ^th. of Apr. 1803. the date expressed, was the day of the actual compact, or that on which it was signed, our memories do not enable us to say. if the former, then it is strictly conformable to the day of the compact: if the latter, then it was post-dated, instead of being ante-dated: the motive assigned too is as incorrect as the fact. it was so far from being thought by any party a breach of neutrality, that the British minister congratulated m ( ^~ r) King on the acquisition & declared that the King had learned it with great pleasure; & when Baring, the British banker asked leave of the minister to purchase the debt & furnish the money to France, the minister delcared to him that so far from throwing obstacles in the way, if there were any difficulty in the paiment of the money, it was the interest of Great Britain to aid it. 4: he speaks of a double set of opinions & principles, the one ostensible to go on the journals & before the public, the other efficient & the real motives to action. but where are these double opinions and principles? the Executive informed the legislature of the wrongs of Spain & that preparation should be made to repel them by force if necessary. but as it might still be possible to negotiate a settlement, they asked such means as might enable them to meet the negociation, whatever form it might take. the 1 ^st. part of this system was communicated publicly, the 2 ^d. privately; but both were equally official, equally involved the responsibility of the Exec ( ^~v ) e, & were equally to go on the journals. 5. that the purchase of the Floridas was in direct opposition to the views of the Executive as expressed in the President’s official communication. it was not in opposition even to the public part of the communication, which did not recommend war, but only to be prepared for it. it perfectly harmonised with the private part which asked the means of negociation in such terms as covered the purchase of Florida as evidently as it was proper to speak it out. he speaks of secret communications between the Executive & members, of backstairs influence &c. but he never spoke of this while he and m ( ^~ r) Nicholson enjoyed it almost solely. but when he differed from the Executive in a leading measure, & the Executive, not submitting to him, expressed it’s sentiments to others, the very sentiments (to wit for the purchase of Florida) which he acknoleges they expressed to him, then he roars out upon backstairs influence. 6. the Committee, he sais, forbore to recommend offensive measures.’ is this true? did not they recommend the raising [ ] regiments? besides if it was proper for the comm( ^~e ) e to forbear recommending offensive measures, was it not proper for the Executive & legislature to exercise the same forbearance? he sais Monroe’s letter had a most important bearing on our Spanish relations. Monroe’s letter related almost entirely to our British relations. of those with Spain he knew nothing particular since he left that country. accordingly in his letter he simply expressed an opinion on our affairs with Spain, of which he knew we had better information than he could possess. his opinion was no more than that of any other sensible man; & his letter was proper to be communicated with the English papers & with them only. that the Executive did not hold them up on account of any bearing on Spanish affairs is evident from the fact that it was communicated when the Senate had not yet entered on the Spanish affairs, & had not yet recieved the papers relating to them from the other house. the moment the Representatives were ready to enter on the British affairs, Monroe’s letter, which peculiarly related to them, and was official solely as to them, was communicated to both houses, the Senate being then about entering on the Spanish affairs.

" It remains now to consider on what authority these corrections of fact can be advanced without compromitting the Executive. it would seem to be best that the writer should assume the mask of a member of the legislature. as to the 1 ^st. & 2 ^d. articles it might be said that altho the instructions to the ministers for the Spanish negociation were never officially made known, yet that they were often the subjects of conversation during the sessions at Washington, where it was understood that they were as above stated, however that if Decius pretends to know that they were not, let him bring forward his proofs, or avow the back-stairs information he recieved to the contrary. as to the 3 ^d. all the circumstances were freely mentioned by the different members of the administrñ in ”

This copy has been separated from a volume of pamphlets and rebound in half morocco. It has the serial number 11 on the title-page in ink, and was probably from the Jefferson collection.

Bought from Cheetham. The entry on his bill, July 1, 1806, reads: “ To a copy of an impartial enquiry into the Conduct of Governor Lewis forwarded Mar 4 1806. .50. ”

Other works by James Cheetham appear in this catalogue.

Morgan Lewis, 1754-1844, soldier and jurist, became governor of New York in 1804, in which position he became the centre of political factionalism, due in part to the fact that his wife was the daughter of Robert R. Livingston. Later Lewis was a President of the New-York Historical Society and of the Society of the Cincinnati. He was one of the founders of New York University.

Separated from a volume of pamphlets and rebound in a half binding. Numbered 14 in ink on the title-page, and probably Jefferson’s copy.

A proposal to appropriate the capitol to the purposes of an institution for the cultivation of the arts, the Capitol Hill being as well fitted for this object, as it is unfortunate for the residence of congress.

This copy was separated from a volume of pamphlets and rebound in a half binding. Numbered 15 in ink on the title-page. Probably Jefferson’s copy.

Benjamin Henry Latrobe, 1764-1820, architect and engineer, was born in England and came to the United States in 1796. In 1803 he was appointed by Jefferson surveyor of the public buildings of Washington. Latrobe was in constant correspondence with Jefferson concerning the Capitol buildings. For a full account of the buildings and the controversies see Fiske Kimball, Thomas Jefferson, Architect.