TO MR. THOMAS MOORE
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
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
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 of life, would be more injurious to them than had the supposed inventors never existed; because the natural understanding of its members would have suggested the same things or others as good. How long the term should be is the difficult question. Our Legislators have copied the English estimate of the term, perhaps without sufficiently considering how much longer, in a country so much more sparsely settled, it takes for an invention to become known, and used to an extent profitable to the inventor. Nobody wishes more than I do that ingenuity should receive a liberal encouragement: nobody estimates higher the utility which society has derived from that displayed by yourself; and I assure you with truth, that I shall always be ready to manifest it by every service I can render you. To this assurance I add that of my great respect and esteem, and my friendly salutations.
TO J. MADISON
I return you the pamphlet of the author of War in Disguise. Of its first half, the topics and the treatment of them are very commonplace; but from page 118 to 130 it is most interesting to all nations, and especially to us. Convinced that a militia of all ages promiscuously are entirely useless for distant service, and that we never shall be safe until we have a selected corps for a year's distant service at least, the classification of our militia is now the most essential thing the United States have to do. Whether, on Bonaparte's plan of making a class for every year between certain periods, or that recommended in my message, I do not know, but I rather incline to his. The idea is not new, as, you may remember, we adopted it once in Virginia during the revolution, but abandoned it too soon. It is the real secret of Bonaparte's success. Could H. Smith put better matter into his paper than the twelve pages above mentioned, and will you suggest it to him? No effort should be spared to bring the public mind to this great point. I salute you with sincere affection.
TO THE HONORABLE JOHN SMITH
Dear Sir,—Your two letters of March 27th and April 6th have been received. Writing from this place, where I have not my papers to turn to, I cannot even say whether I have received such as you ask copies of. But I am sorry to answer any request of yours by saying that a compliance would be a breach of trust. It is essential for the public interest that I should receive all the information possible respecting either matters or persons connected with the public. To induce people to give this information, they must feel assured that when deposited with me it is secret and sacred. Honest men might justifiably withhold information, if they expected the communication would be made public, and commit them to war with their neighbors and friends. This imposes the duty on me of considering such information as mere suggestions for inquiry, and to put me on my guard; and to injure no man by forming any opinion until the suggestion be verified. Long experience in this school has by no means strengthened the disposition to believe too easily. On the contrary, it has begotten an incredulity which leaves no one's character in danger from any hasty conclusion. I hope these considerations will satisfy you, both as they respect you and myself, and that you will be assured I shall always be better pleased with those cases which admit that compliance with your wishes which is always pleasing to me. Accept my salutations, and assurances of great esteem and respect.
TO MR. MADISON
I return you Monroe's letter of March 5th. As the explosion in the British ministry took place about the 15th, I hope we shall be spared the additional embarrassment of his convention. I enclose you a letter of Michael Jones for circulation, and to rest with the Attorney General. It contains new instances of Burr's enlistments. I received this from Mr. Gallatin, so you can hand it to General Dearborne direct.
I expect to leave this on the 13th, but there is a possible occurrence which may prevent it till the 19th, which however is not probable.