2519. EMBARGO, Amendments to law.—
If, on considering the doubts I shall suggest,
you shall still think your draft of a supplementary
Embargo law sufficient, in its present
form, I shall be satisfied. 1. Is not the first paragraph against the Constitution, which
says no preference shall be given to the ports
of one State over those of another? You
might put down those ports as ports of entry,
if that could be made to do. 2. Could not your
second paragraph be made to answer by making
it say, that no clearance shall be furnished
to any vessel laden with provisions or lumber,
to go from one port to another of the United
States, without special permission, &c. In that
case, we might lay down rules for the necessary
removal of provisions and lumber, inland,
which should give no trouble to the citizens,
but refuse licenses for all coasting transportation
of those articles but on such applications
from a Governor as may ensure us against
any exportation but for the consumption of his
State. Portsmouth, Boston, Charleston, and
Savannah, are the only ports which cannot be
supplied inland. I should like to prohibit collections,
also, made evidently for clandestine
importation. 3. I would rather strike out the
words, “in conformity with treaty,” in order
to avoid any express recognition at this day
of that article of the British treaty. It has
been so flagrantly abused as to excite the Indians
to war against us, that I should have no
hesitation in declaring it null, as soon as we
see means of supplying the Indians ourselves.
I should have no objections to extend the
exception to the Indian furs purchased by
our traders and sent into Canada.—
To Albert Gallatin. Washington ed. v, 267.
Ford ed., ix, 189.
(W.
March. 1808)
