The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 5 (of 9). Томас Джефферсон

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ authorized to announce to the collector of Savannah, his removal, if you judge it for the public good. I recollect nothing of Bullock, the attorney, and not having my papers here, I am not able to refresh my memory concerning him. I expect to leave this, on my return to Washington, about three weeks hence. Your estimate of the number of foreign seamen in our employ, renders it prudent, in my opinion, to drop the idea of any proposition not to employ them. As we had made up our minds on every article of the British treaty, when consulting together, and this idea was only an after thought referred for enquiry and consideration, we had better take more time for it. Time strengthens my belief that no equal treaty will be obtained from such a higher as Lord Auckland, or from the present ministry, Fox being no longer with them, and that we shall be better without any treaty than an unequal one. Perhaps we may engage them to act on certain articles, including their note on impressment, by a mutual understanding, under the pretext of further time to arrange a general treaty. Perhaps, too, the general peace will, in the meantime, establish for us better principles than we can obtain ourselves.

      I enclose a letter from Gideon Fitz. Affectionate salutes.

      TO MR. NIEMCEWICZ

Monticello, April 22, 1807.

      Dear Sir,—I received on the 20th your favor of the 10th instant, and yesterday I wrote to desire the Secretary of State to forward your passport to Elizabethtown. In the visit you propose to make to your native country, I sincerely wish you may find its situation, and your own interests in it, satisfactory. On what it has been, is, or shall be, however, I shall say nothing. I consider Europe, at present, as a world apart from us, about which it is improper for us even to form opinions, or to indulge any wishes but the general one, that whatever is to take place in it, may be for its happiness. For yourself, however, personally, I may express with safety as well as truth, my great esteem and the interest I feel for your welfare. From the same principles of caution, I do not write to my friend Kosciusko. I know he is always doing what he thinks is right, and he knows my prayers for his success in whatever he does. Assure him, if you please, of my constant affection, and accept yourself my wishes for a safe and pleasant voyage, with my friendly salutations and assurances of great esteem and respect.

      TO MR. MADISON

Monticello, April 25, 1807.

      Dear Sir,—Yours of the 20th came to hand on the 23d, and I now return all the papers it covered, to wit, Harris's, Maunce's, and General Smith's letters, as also some papers respecting Burr's case, for circulation. Under another cover is a letter from Governor Williams, confidential, and for yourself alone, as yet. I expect we shall have to remove Meade. Under still a different cover you will receive Monroe's and Pinckney's letters, detained at the last post. I wrote you then on the subject of the British treaty, which the more it is developed the worse it appears. Mr. Rodney being supposed absent, I enclose you a letter from Mr. Reed, advising the summoning Rufus Easton as a witness; but if he is at St. Louis, he cannot be here by the 22d of May. You will observe that Governor Williams asks immediate instructions what he shall do with Blennerhasset, Tyler, Floyd, and Ralston. I do not know that we can do anything but direct General Wilkinson to receive and send them to any place where the judge shall decide they ought to be tried. I suppose Blennerhasset should come to Richmond. On consulting with the other gentlemen, be so good as to write to Williams immediately, as a letter will barely get there by the 4th Monday of May. I enclose you a warrant for five thousand dollars for Mr. Rodney, in the form advised by Mr. Gallatin.

      We have had three great rains within the last thirteen days. It is just now clearing off after thirty-six hours of rain, with little intermission. Yet it is thought not too much. I salute you with sincere affection.

      TO MR. THOMAS MOORE

Monticello, May 1,1807.

      Sir,—On the 14th of April I wrote to you, on the presumption that a law respecting the western road had passed the Legislature of Pennsylvania, in the form enclosed by Mr. Dorsey, and which I enclosed to you. I have now received from the Governor an authentic copy of the law, which agrees with that I forwarded to you. You will therefore be pleased to consider the contents of that letter as founded in the certainty of the fact that the law did pass in that form, although not certainly known at that time, and proceed on it accordingly. I shall be in Washington on the 16th and 17th inst., should you have occasion for further communication with me. I salute you with esteem and respect.

      TO MR. MADISON

Monticello, May 1, 1807.

      Dear Sir,—I return you Monroe's, Armstrong's, Harris's, and Anderson's letters, and add a letter and act from Gov. McKean, to be filed in your office. The proposition for separating the western country, mentioned by Armstrong to have been made at Paris, is important. But what is the declaration he speaks of? for none accompanies his letter, unless he means Harry Grant's proposition. I wish our Ministers at Paris, London, and Madrid, could find out Burr's propositions and agents there. I know few of the characters of the new British administration. The few I know are true Pittites, and anti-American. From them we have nothing to hope, but that they will readily let us back out. Whether they can hold their places will depend on the question whether the Irish propositions be popular or unpopular in England. Dr. Sibley, in a letter to Gen. Dearborne, corrects an error of fact in my message to Congress of December. He says the Spaniards never had a single soldier at Bayou Pierre till after 1805. Consequently it was not a keeping, but a taking of a military possession of that post. I think Gen. Dearborne would do well to desire Sibley to send us affidavits of that fact.

      Our weather continues extremely seasonable, and favorable for vegetation. I salute you with sincere affection.

      P. S. The pamphlet and papers shall be returned by next post.

      TO MR. OLIVER EVANS

Monticello, May 2, 1807.

      Sir,—Your favor of the 18th came to hand two days ago. That the ingenuity of an advocate, seeking for something to defend his client, should have hazarded as an objection that it did not appear on the face of the patent itself, that you had complied with the requisitions of the act authorizing a patent for your invention, is not wonderful; but I do not expect that such an objection can seriously embarrass the good sense of a judge. The law requires, indeed, that certain acts shall be performed by the inventor to authorize a monopoly of his invention, and, to secure their being done, it has called in, and relied on, the agency of the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and President. When they are satisfied the acts have been done, they are to execute a patent, granting to the inventor the monopoly. But the law does not require that the patent itself should bear the evidence that they should have been performed, any more than it requires that in a judgment should be stated all the evidence on which it is founded. The evidence of the acts on which the patent is founded, rests with those whose duty it is to see that they are performed; in fact, it is in the Secretary of State's office, where the interloper or inventor may have recourse to it if wanting. If these high officers have really failed to see that the acts were performed, or to preserve evidence of it, they have broken their trust to the public, and are responsible to the public; but their negligence cannot invalidate the inventor's right, who has been guilty of no fault. On the contrary, the patent, which is a record, has conveyed a right to him from the public, and that it was issued rightfully ought to be believed on the signature of these high officers affixed to the patent,—this being a solemn pledge on their part that the acts had been performed. Would their assertion of the fact, in the patent itself, pledge them more to the public? I do not think, then, that the disinterested judgment of a court can find difficulty in this objection. At any rate your right will be presumed valid, until they decide that it is not. Their final decision alone can authorize your resort to any remedial authority,—that is to say, to the Legislature, who alone can provide a remedy. Certainly an inventor ought to be allowed a right to the benefit of his invention for some certain time. It is equally certain it ought not to be perpetual; for to embarrass society with monopolies for every utensil existing, and in all the details СКАЧАТЬ