Your favor of the 25th inst., recd today, induces me to do immediately what I had mentally arranged to do after my return from Trenton—answer your interesting letter of the 4th July. But first allow me to excuse myself from the censure to which I am apparently obnoxious for having postponed the performance of this duty to this late day. I took that letter out of the office in Alexa. on my way to the Mountains, and in less than a week after I reached that country I was taken sick, and continued so off & on during the time I remained there, insomuch, that altho I had two very difficult opinions to prepare for the Trenton Court, it was not in my power to undertake the work ‘till since— my arrival at this place about 5 days past. Another reason which prevented me from answering that letter will appear strange to you—it was, that the lawyers offices in that Neighbourhood could not furnish me with the acts of Congress, without which I could not come to a satisfactory conclusion as to some of the cases which you had reported.

In the first place, let me express the great satisfaction it afforded me to observe that you coincided in the conclusion to which my mind had definitively arrived upon the point about which I had felt some difficulty in the case of the Post M[aster] G[enera]l vs. Reeder. I had determined to deliver the opinion as I had at first prepared it, after adding to it some¹ explanatory observations to illustrate & enforce the reasoning on which it was unfounded, unless your letter, when it should come to hand, should take a different view of that part, & satisfy me that I was mistaken. my confidence in the correctness of the opinion is now complete.

I now come to speak of the cases reported by you as decided at your last Spring Circuit.

1. Ohl vs Eagle insu. Co[mpany]. Whether there is a solid ground for the doubt you express, whether any evidence of property on a ship will answer, short of a written instrument, I will not say, not having sufficiently considered the point, which is quite new to me; but I am quite clear that the parol evid. is admissible to prove an interest greater than that apparent upon the face of the Ships papers & register.

—

2. Plummer vs. Webb. my opinion coincides with yours, upon general principles, for I have it not now in my power to examine Cases on the subject. But if I doubted, your familiarity with, and profound knowledge of maritime law would insure my concurrence.

—

3. Dunlap vs. Stetson. The 1st resolution is the same with one I made in Georgia at the first Court on which I sat after my appointment & I have always acted upon it since. The 2d I decided on the same way in this Court about 2 years past. I entirely agree in all the other resolutions decided in this case, upon general principles of law & equity.

—

4. Wallace vs Agry— I entirely concur in all the resolutions in this case except the first, as to which, I doubt I should have entertained none, if it had appeared on the face of the bill that it was drawn as agent. See Chit. on bills 39-40 and the notes. Let me hear from you again on this point when you next write.

—

5. Post M.G. vs Furbor. I concur in the opinion considering the point as decided, and rightly so in Kirkpatricks Case. By the bye, how do you reconcile Januarys case with that? I have lately had to consider the point and was much pestered by the former case. I decided however upon the ground of the latter.

—

6. Tyler vs. Wilkinson, is a beautiful Case, & I mean at my first leisure, to study it, not doubting but that a more close examination of the principles you have laid down will confirm my present impressions which entirely accord with your decision.

—

7. Stebbin vs. Eddy. I wish the parties in this case had been of any other than the clerical profession. This however is their look out. I think your decision was unquestionably correct.

And now for the case of the U.S. vs. Green, in which you are so kind as to ask my opinion & advice. I have considered the question which arises in the Case with great attention, and was never more clear upon any point than I am upon this—that the U.S. were not intended to be included in that part of the 11th S. of the Jud. Act of [17]89 which respects assigned papers. The Jurisd. of the generall District Courts is provided for by the 9th Sect. and is unqualified & unlimited, except by the same in dispute, in all suits at Com. law where the U.S. sue. The 10th & 11th Sections are employed in prescribing the Jurisd. of two other Courts, namely, the Circuit Courts, and certain district Courts clothed with the functions of a C.C.— the exception is found in the Sect. which describes the Jurisd. of the C.C. and if nothing had been said in it, about the District Courts, it is clear that the exception would have applied to no other than the C.C.— But as the preceding Sect. had created an anomalous Court having the name of a D.C. but with the powers & Jurisd. of a C.C. it became necessary to name that court in the exception, in order that no doubt might atest that the exception was extended to include this with the Circuit Courts, with which they were in all respects closely allied and identified.

If the general district Courts were clearly within the scope of the exception in the 11th S. I should doubt, I confess, whether the act of 1815 would half the U.S. The object of the 4th S. of that act being merely to enlarge the Jurisd. of the general district Courts as to sum, and to extend it to publick officers, there might seem to be no necessity, & perhaps no propriety, in enlarging the construction of that act beyond those objects, so as to withdraw the U.S. from the operation of the exception in the 11th S. if it had included them. Nevertheless, the 4th S. of the act of 1815 may fairly be resorted to as explanatory of the before mentioned sections in the act of [17]89 so far as to show that the U.S. or rather the general District Courts, were not intended to be included in the exception in the 11th Sect[ion].

I do not know whether I feel most mortified or astonished at what you say respecting the demijohn of wine. It would really seem as if all my endeavours to send you something, however trifling in value, were to be defeated by fraudulent practices by some of the persons entrusted with the care of it. you recollect the fate of the barrel of hams.

The wine in question was drawn by my manager, in whom, tho a coloured man, I have as much confidence as in my self. After he had prepared the box, (for he is a carpenter) he conducted me to the store house to say if I approved of the manner in which he had secured the demijohn. I certainly did not examine the contents of that vessel, but I can have no doubt but that it was filled. A faithful servant took it in a Cart to Mr Cazenoves, & the vessel being put about to sail, it was at once put on board. The pillage must have taken place on board, unless, which is barely possible, my manager may by mistake have taken up an empty demijohn, or possibly again, directed some one of his Men to put it into the box, so as to forward him from distinguishing between the weight of an empty & of a full demijohn. I shall immediately write to have this matter enquired into, and if any mistake has arisen the full demijohn will be found in the room where the wine was drawn off. At all events you shall not be deprived of your wine as I have enough of the same pipe or rather quarter Casks (in which I impart my wine & preference to pipes) to spare you another demijohn, provided I should be more successful in getting it to you. I am determined that our friends shall not be merry either at your or my expense in this business.

I shall be delighted to read the article you mention, as I know you to be as willing as you are able to do ample Justice to my friend Mr Marshall. We shall meet with it at Washington I hope.

The 2d vol. of Washingtons reports is completed & Mr Peters is looking out for a safe Conveyance of a copy to you. It contains a vast deal of interesting matter, be the decisions right or wrong. I am waiting impatiently for the remaining sheets of Mason’s 3d vol. which I hope will come down to the present period.

The day after tomorrow I proceed to Trenton where I may be detained about a week, after which I shall return to this place where I anticipate some arduous service during the approaching Court.

Adieu my dear Sir, and accept the most fervent wishes for your health, long life & happiness of your Affectionate friend