Adams Family Correspondence, volume 15
I will write to you, if it be only for the Pleasure of giving you a
Proof under my hand, that I am alive.— We have had no Topicks this Winter but Banks,
Insurance offices, Toll Bridges and Turnpike Roads, till lately a Manifesto has appeared
of the Republican Democrats against Governer Strong, made up partly from Dallas’s and
partly from the Connecticutt one which Mr Tracy answered.1 Your quondam Brother Senator Mr Bidwell has the Reputation of the Composition, and if We may
judge by the internal Evidence of dispassionate and deliberate Sophistry and
Misrepresentation, not without reason. Mr Sullivan for
Governor instead of Mr Strong. Mr Heath for Lt. Govr against Mr Robbins. As my
Master Gridley used to Say, Non vult fac.2
I leave the national affairs to The Administration and to Congress. Shall We have Such a declaration from the Republicans in Congress, concerning the future Election of President And Vice President?
The Inquiry into Mr Chace’s Candor and
Frankness proceeds but Slowly.3 So do the
Louisiana Bills and the Seamans Bills. The latter is a more difficult matter to manage
than the former. The Right of the English to impress British Seamen on board of our
Ships in their own Ports Harbours and Rivers, is difficult to deny, unless We deny the
Right of impressing their own Seamen in any Case, which We perhaps have no business
with. But upon the high Seas, I never could comprehend their right to impress any
Seamen, even Deserters from their own Navy. Upon what Law of Nations, upon what Treaty,
upon what Law of Great Britain can Such a Claim be founded.? I had, when any thing
depended upon me, great difficulties upon this Subject. None of the English Writers not
even Judge Foster, has asserted a Right of impressing Seamen, from their own Merchant
Ship in any of the Ports of their own Colonies, or any where upon the high Seas.4 Considering the Relations between the U.S.
and the British Dominions, this is a Subject of great delicacy and Importance: and there
is more danger from irritations of temper, than 345 from the Magnitude
and Intricacy of the Subject. More is to be dreaded too, from the Same Source, in Mr Munroes negotiations of a new Treaty, than from any other
cause.5
Our Countrymen will find Ettiquette a more important Subject than
they ever thought it. No People under Heaven have quicker feelings of this kind than our
Men and Women. They never knew themselves till now. If Briton Should Send their Dukes as
Ambassadors as they ought to do, I Suppose, Ministers of State and Senators too would
give Way. Perhaps the Vice President too.6 But the President ought not, tho the Prince of orange does, or did. To be Sure, there
is Some difficulty in keeping up the Reverence in the Minds of our own People for their
Secretary of State and his Lady, living upon 5000 dollars a year and a foreign Minister
living on 4 or 5000 Sterling with a Service of Plate of 3000 Guineas. But this will be
remedied in time. Our People have as much Pride as English or French, and when this
pride takes a turn as it will whenever the ruling Party becomes strong enough to banish
its fears, Provision will be made for Pomp enough to Satiate the Hauteur of a Virginian
Democrat which is little less than that of a polish Palatine. My Love to Your Wife and
Children to Mrs Johnson and hers, and Mr Helen and his.
Do the President and Mr Madison preserve their health under all
their fatigues. Mr Gallatins pale face will never be made
paler by any application to Business or Study. His Constitution is hardened to both by
habit,
The entire Confidence I have in your Candor and Integrity, and the certain knowledge I have of your Talents and Information, place me at much ease on your Account. I do not disapprove of your Conduct in the Business of Louissiana. I think you have been right, though I know it will become a very unpopular Subject in the Northern States, especially when they See the accounts of Expences which must be occasioned by it.7
In the Supream Court I know you have Some Business and I hope you have more than I know of.8 My kindest regards to the Judges if you have a natural oppertunity.
Your Brother has been taken Notice of by the Government without any Solicitation of any kind, and he is the means of a more agreable soicety than We could have without him.9 He is close to his Studies and will do very well.
I am, my dear son, with my best Wishes and / Prayers for Blessings on you and yours, your / affectionate Father
RC (Adams
Papers); internal address: “The Honb J. Q. Adams /
S. U. S.”; endorsed: “My Father. 25. Feby: 1804. / March
1804 recd: / Do: Ansd:.” LbC (Adams Papers); APM Reel 118.
Tr (Adams Papers).
On 30 Aug. 1803 a committee of Connecticut Democratic-Republicans
published an address to local voters, urging them to elect party candidates in the
upcoming election. Connecticut should turn away from the federalism of JA
and Alexander Hamilton, the pamphlet argued, accusing both men of advocating the
abolition of state governments and working to subvert the U.S. Constitution. Uriah
Tracy responded with a pamphlet dated 6 Sept., labeling the address a “barren scene of
fake premises and false conclusions.” Tracy called JA’s
Defence of the
Const.
“the best defence of true elective republican principles, that
there is extant” and argued that Hamilton not only supported the tenets of the
Constitution but “did more towards effecting its adoption than most, perhaps than any
one man” (Democratic-Republican General Committee, Republican
Address to the Freemen of Connecticut, [Hartford?, 1803], p. 3, 4, 5, 15, Shaw-Shoemaker, No. 4068; Uriah Tracy,
To the Freeman of Connecticut, [Litchfield, Conn.,
1803], p. 5, 6, 10, Shaw-Shoemaker,
No. 5180).
Boston attorney Jeremiah Gridley mentored JA during
his early years as a lawyer. The phrase JA quoted roughly translates to
“He does not wish to do anything” (vols. 1:62, 9:116; Ronald B. McKerrow, ed., The Works of Thomas
Nashe, 5 vols., London, 1904, 4:348).
On 5 Jan. 1804 Virginia Democratic-Republican John Randolph
introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives calling for a committee to
consider drafting articles of impeachment against U.S. Supreme Court justice Samuel
Chase. Chase’s partisan comments from the bench, dating back to 1800, constituted high
crimes and misdemeanors, Randolph argued. Debate over three days fell largely along
party lines. On 7 Jan. 1804 the House voted 81 to 40 in favor of appointing a
committee of inquiry. The resulting panel reported on 12 March with a recommendation
to impeach, and the full House concurred the same day by a vote of 73 to 32. Seven
articles of impeachment were presented on 26 March, charging that Chase “in his
judicial capacity, conduct himself in a manner highly arbitrary, oppressive, and
unjust.” An eighth article was added when the full slate was approved in November,
paving the way for Chase’s trial and ultimate acquittal by the Senate in February and
March 1805 (Adam A. Perlin, “The Impeachment of Samuel Chase: Redefining Judicial
Independence,” Rutgers Law Review, 62:732–748, 780
[Spring 2010];
Annals of Congress
, 8th Cong., 1st sess., p. 805, 806, 824–825,
875–876, 1237–1241).
English jurist Sir Michael Foster (1689–1763) in the 1743 case of
Rex v. Broadfoot and an ensuing essay, The Case of the King against Alexander Broadfoot, Oxford,
1758, presented a foundational argument for the right of the Crown to impress sailors
into the British Navy (
DNB
).
Thomas Jefferson nominated James Monroe as minister to Great
Britain on 11 Nov. 1803, and the Senate confirmed the nomination four days later.
Monroe, who was already in Europe on a mission to France to negotiate access to the
Mississippi River, was instructed in a 5 Jan. 1804 letter from James Madison to seek a
maritime convention with Britain. Madison provided Monroe with a proposed convention
that would focus on impressment, blockades, and contraband. Madison wrote that
although Britain had the right to impress its own subjects, the impossibility of
accurately distinguishing those subjects from American citizens meant that the most
just practice was to end all impressment from U.S. vessels. Monroe failed to obtain
concessions during extended negotiations, and the ensuing Monroe-Pinkney Treaty of
1806 made no mention of impressment. Jefferson therefore refused to submit it to the
Senate and it was never ratified (Jefferson, Papers
, 40:227–228, 229, 230–231;
U.S. Senate, Exec. Jour.
, Papers, Secretary of State Series
, 6:282–308;
Robert W. Tucker and David C. Hendrickson, Empire of Liberty:
The Statecraft of Thomas Jefferson, N.Y., 1990, p. 211).
CFA underlined the previous two sentences and added
a marginal note: “Quere de hoc. (Note of transcriber).” Quere
de hoc is a legal term meaning to “examine this further” (Madison, Papers,
Congressional Series
, 9:373).
An essay by “An Observer” in the Boston Repertory, 10 Feb. 1804, lamented that the United States had “recently thrown
fifteen millions into the treasury of his Bonapartean 347 Majesty” that could have financed the
construction of sixty naval vessels. If the nation needed to draw on its military, the
article claimed, “she may then have cause to regret, that the money paid for the
wilderness of Louisiana, and which will probably be reclaimed by France, had not been
applied to the increase of her naval force.”
For JQA’s appearance before the U.S. Supreme Court
in the case of Head & Amory v. Providence Insurance
Company, see his letter to
JA of 25 Feb., and note 3, below.
Even before TBA’s 6 March admission to the
Massachusetts bar, Gov. Caleb Strong informed the young lawyer that he would be
appointed a justice of the peace for Norfolk County. After learning of the news from
TBA, JQA on 17 Feb. (private owner, 1956) wrote that he
was “very glad to find you have received a Commission of the Peace.” He also updated
TBA on Senate business and characterized the Louisiana government bill
as “such a piece of patch-work as perhaps was never before put together, for a frame
of Government, or Constitution.” As a justice of the peace, TBA
adjudicated minor civil and criminal cases (
TBA to William Meredith, 8 Feb., and
note 2, above; to Meredith, 22
April, below; D/JQA/27, 9 July, APM Reel 30; W. M. Seavey, Powers
and Duties of Notaries Public and Justices of the Peace in Massachusetts,
Boston, 1894, p. 51–52).
y:1804.
I received last Evening yours of the 11th: instt:—1 You cannot employ your leisure more charitably, than in writing me these long letters— They give
me some of the sweetest of my enjoyments, and comfort me amidst the thorns and briars of
the path I am travelling.
I shall endeavour to complete your set of the journals; but I am
not sure that I can get spare sheets of all the numbers you want. I now enclose with the
last and current numbers, three immediately preceeding the first you have received— So that now you will have from N: 25.
inclusive— But you do not tell me what sheets you want of the Senate’s Journals— These are mark’d with letters,
at the bottom of the first page of each sheet.
I am still so much engaged, at once in attendance upon the public
business, and upon the Supreme Court, that I have not even found time to enclose you
these journals, the very day they came out— So that you will now receive at once N’s 55
and 56. of the House’s Journals—2 I wrote
you that I argued last week a question, on a cause of Insurance— We had a Judgment of
the Circuit Court of Rhode-Island (Judges Lowell and Bourne) […] This morning the
opinion of the Court was delivered— Unanimous to reverse the ju[dgment.] Mr: J. T. Mason of Georgetown was with me and argued the Cause
admirably well— [. . . .] against us a Mr: Hunter of
Rhode-Island, a young man of very handsome talents, and […] L. Martin of Baltimore— I
mention all these circumstances, for the fire-side only;
because there they will be interesting— And it will give pleasure to learn that my first
opening at the Supreme Court of the 348 United States has
been successful, as to its issue.—3 With
my own argument I was very far from being satisfied— And it completed my conviction that
the seven years chasm in my attention to legal practise and legal studies can never be
repaired.— I have now another cause to argue, in the course of a few days.— Here we have
a Judgment of the Circuit Court in Boston, (Cushing and Davis) in our favour— But the
papers are so irregular and informal, that the Judgment will be reversed in all
probability, on this account.— The merits however are
clearly with us.4
I have subscribed for the Washington Federalist, and ordered it to
be sent to Quincy, from this time— So tell Shaw, not to stop it at the Post-Office in Boston— I wish you to receive it, at the Post-Office in Quincy; and keep the
file for me till I come home.
We are to adjourn 12th. next month—5 I hope to see you by the last of it.— You
say nothing in your last of my dear mother’s health— I hope she has recovered— My wife
& children are well— Mrs: Cranch much better—
The bills to protect foreign Seamen,
have not yet been acted upon— Some suppose they will be abandoned; at least in their
most obnoxious principles— I wait patiently and calmly, to see whether we are to have
another deb[at]e upon them.6
RC (private owner, 1961); addressed: “John Adams
Esqr / Quincy. / Massachusetts.”; endorsed by
TBA: “J Q Adams Esqr: / 25th: Feby 1804 / 10th: March Recd: / 13 acknd.” Some loss of text where the seal was removed.
Not found.
Enclosures not found.
On 7 Feb. JQA was sworn in as a counselor of the
U.S. Supreme Court, and on 16 Feb. he argued his first case, joining John Thomson
Mason in representing Boston merchants Joseph Head and Jonathan Amory in the case of
Head & Amory v. Providence Insurance Company, an
appeal of a ruling by U.S. Circuit Court judges John Lowell and Benjamin Bourne
(1755–1808). The case arose after Head & Amory insured cargo aboard the Spanish
brig Nueva Empresa, then subsequently sent the Providence
Insurance Company letters in order to cancel the insurance. While the cancellation was
pending in Aug. 1800, the brig was captured by the British ship Pluto and condemned at St. John’s, Newfoundland. Head &
Amory then attempted to claim $16,000, but the insurance company declared the policy
canceled and refused to pay. JQA argued that mere correspondence did not
constitute a cancellation and that his clients were entitled to payment “upon
principles of law, of justice, of equity and of honour.” Furthermore, he claimed, if the justices accepted the arguments of
opposition attorneys William Hunter (1774–1849) of Providence, R.I., and Luther Martin
of Maryland, they must conclude that through “egregious mistake” or “dilatory
proceedings” the insurance company failed to carry out the orders in the
correspondence. Impressed by the work of the other lawyers, JQA noted, “I
never have witness’d a collection of such powerful legal orators.” He also said that
his dual duties were exhausting, writing that the work “almost overpowers me. I cannot
stand it long.” On 25 Feb. 1804 the court overturned the lower court decision and
ordered the insurance company to pay (D/JQA/27, 13, 17 Feb.,
APM Reel 30; Glen Atkinson and Stephen
P. Paschall, Law and Economics from an 349 Evolutionary Perspective, Northampton,
Mass., 2016, p. 56–57; Cranch, Reports of Cases in the Supreme Court
, 2:128–129,
136, 141–142, 155; Joseph Breed Berry, History of the Diocese
of Massachusetts, 1810–1872, Boston, 1959, p. 68; Charles Warren, A History of the American Bar, Boston, 1911, p. 261;
Biog. Dir.
Cong.
).
JQA was not successful in his second case, Church
v. Hubbart, failing to convince the Supreme Court to
uphold an earlier U.S. Circuit Court decision by judges William Cushing and John
Davis. The lower court ruled that JQA’s client, Boston insurance
underwriter Tuthill Hubbart, did not have to pay John B. Church Jr., the supercargo
for the brig Aurora, for cargo seized by Portuguese
warships during a voyage to Brazil because Church had engaged in illicit trade as
expressly prohibited by a clause in the insurance contract. On 29 Feb. and 1 March,
JQA laid out circumstantial evidence against Church and claimed that
the case had “all the material characteristics of a legal
condemnation for illicit trade.” The Supreme Court ruled on 5 March that
Hubbart failed to adequately document illegal activity and reversed the lower court
ruling (Louis B. Sohn and others, eds., Cases and Materials on
the Law of the Sea, 2d edn., Boston, 2014, p. 422–426; Cranch, Reports of Cases in the Supreme
Court
, 2:224–225; Hamilton,
Papers
, 25:481; JA, Legal Papers
, 3:317;
D/JQA/27, APM
Reel 30).
JQA in a letter to William Smith Shaw on 9 March
(MHi:Misc. Bound Coll.) reported that
the adjournment had been pushed back to 19 March. Congress remained in session until
27 March (U.S. Senate, Jour.
, 8th Cong., 1st sess., p. 404).
See JQA to TBA, 22 Jan., and note 2, above.