But，asIhadbeforecommunicatedtoyousomeloosethoughtsonthatsubject，andhavesinceconsidereditwithsomewhatmoreattention，I
　　havethoughtitmightnotbeunusefulthatyoushouldpossessmyideasinamorematuredformthanthatinwhichtheywerebeforegiven。Unforeseencircumstancesmayperhapsobligeyoutohazardanopinion，onsomeoccasionorother，onthissubject，anditisbetterthatitshouldnotbeatvariancewithours。Iwritethis，too，myself，thatitmaynotbeconsideredasofficial，butmerelymyindividualopinion，unadvisedbythoseofficialcounsellorswhoseopinionsIdeemmysafestguide，&shouldunquestionablytakeinform，werecircumstancestocallforasolemndecisionofthequestion。
　　WhenEuropeassumedthegeneralforminwhichitisoccupiedbythenationsnowcomposingit，andturneditsattentiontomaritimecommerce，wefoundamongitsearliestpractices，thatoftakingthegoodsofanenemyfromtheshipofafriend；andthatintothispracticeeverymaritimeStatewentsoonerorlater，asitappearedonthetheatreoftheocean。If，therefore，wearetoconsiderthepracticeofnationsasthesole&sufficientevidenceofthelawofnatureamongnations，weshouldunquestionablyplacethisprincipleamongthoseofnaturallaws。Butit’sinconveniences，astheyaffectedneutralnationspeaceablypursuingtheircommerce，andit’stendencytoembroilthemwiththepowershappeningtobeatwar，andthustoextendtheflamesofwar，inducednationstointroducebyspecialcompacts，fromtimetotime，amoreconvenientrule；that”freeshipsshouldmakefreegoods；”andthislatterprinciplehasbyeverymaritimenationofEuropebeenestablished，toagreaterorlessdegree，init’streatieswithothernations；insomuch，thatallofthemhave，moreorlessfrequently，assentedtoit，asaruleofactioninparticularcases。Indeed，itisnowurged，andIthinkwithgreatappearanceofreason，thatthisisgenuineprincipledictatedbynationalmorality；&thatthefirstpracticearosefromaccident，andtheparticularconvenienceoftheStateswhichfirstfiguredonthewater，ratherthanfromwell-digestedreflectionsontherelationsoffriendandenemy，ontherightsofterritorialjurisdiction，&onthedictatesofmorallawappliedtothese。Thusithadneverbeensupposedlawful，intheterritoryofafriendtoseizethegoodsofanenemy。Onanelementwhichnaturehasnotsubjectedtothejurisdictionofanyparticularnation，buthasmadecommontoallforthepurposestowhichitisfitted，itwouldseemthattheparticularportionofitwhichhappenstobeoccupiedbythevesselofanynation，inthecourseofit’svoyage，isforthemoment，theexclusivepropertyofthat，andnation，withthevessel，isexemptfromintrusionbyanyother，&fromit’sjurisdiction，asmuchasifitwerelyingintheharborofit’ssovereign。Innocountry，webelieve，istheruleotherwise，astothesubjectsofpropertycommontoall。Thustheplaceoccupiedbyanindividualinahighway，achurch，atheatre，orotherpublicassembly，cannotbeintrudedon，whileit’soccupantholdsitforthepurposesofit’sinstitution。Thepersonsonboardavesseltraversingtheocean，carrywiththemthelawsoftheirnation，haveamongthemselvesajurisdiction，apolice，notestablishedbytheirindividualwill，butbytheauthorityoftheirnation，ofwhoseterritorytheirvesselstillseemstocomposeapart，solongasitdoesnotentertheexclusiveterritoryofanother。Nonationeverpretendedarighttogovernbytheirlawstheshipofanothernationnavigatingtheocean。
　　Bywhatlawthencanitenterthatshipwhileinpeaceable&orderlyuseofthecommonelement?Werecognizenonaturalpreceptforsubmissiontosucharight；&perceivenodistinctionbetweenthemovable&immovablejurisdictionofafriend，whichwouldauthorizetheenteringtheone¬theother，toseizethepropertyofanenemy。
　　Itmaybeobjectedthatthisprovestoomuch，asitprovesyoucannotentertheshipofafriendtosearchforcontrabandofwar。
　　Butthisisnotprovingtoomuch。Webelievethepracticeofseizingwhatiscalledcontrabandofwar，isanabusivepractice，notfoundedinnaturalright。Warbetweentwonationscannotdiminishtherightsoftherestoftheworldremainingatpeace。Thedoctrinethattherightsofnationsremainingquietlyundertheexerciseofmoral&
　　socialduties，aretogivewaytotheconvenienceofthosewhopreferplundering&murderingoneanother，isamonstrousdoctrine；andoughttoyieldtothemorerationallaw，that”thewrongswhichtwonationsendeavortoinflictoneachother，mustnotinfringeontherightsorconveniencesofthoseremainingatpeace。”Andwhatis_contraband_，bythelawofnature?Eithereverythingwhichmayaidorcomfortanenemy，ornothing。Eitherallcommercewhichwouldaccommodatehimisunlawful，ornoneis。Thedifferencebetweenarticlesofoneoranotherdescription，isadifferenceindegreeonly。Nolinebetweenthemcanbedrawn。Eitherallintercoursemustceasebetweenneutrals&belligerents，orallbepermitted。Cantheworldhesitatetosaywhichshallbetherule?Shalltwonationsturningtigers，breakupinoneinstantthepeaceablerelationsofthewholeworld?Reason&natureclearlypronouncethattheneutralistogoonintheenjoymentofallit’srights，thatit’scommerceremainsfree，notsubjecttothejurisdictionofanother，norconsequentlyit’svesselstosearch，ortoenquirieswhethertheircontentsarethepropertyofanenemy，orareofthosewhichhavebeencalledcontrabandofwar。2
　　Nordoesthisdoctrinecontravenetherightofpreventingvesselsfromenteringablockadedport。Thisrightstandsonotherground。Whenthefleetofanynationactuallybeleaguerstheportofitsenemy，nootherhasarighttoentertheirline，anymorethantheirlineofbattleintheopensea，ortheirlinesofcircumvallation，orofencampment，orofbattlearrayonland。Thespaceincludedwithintheirlinesinanyofthosecases，iseitherthepropertyoftheirenemy，oritiscommonpropertyassumedandpossessedforthemoment，whichcannotbeintrudedon，evenbyaneutral，withoutcommittingtheverytrespasswearenowconsidering，thatofintrudingintothelawfulpossessionofafriend。
　　AlthoughIconsidertheobservanceoftheseprinciplesasofgreatimportancetotheinterestsofpeaceablenations，amongwhomI
　　hopetheUSwilleverplacethemselves，yetinthepresentstateofthingstheyarenotworthawar。NordoIbelievewarthemostcertainmeansofenforcingthem。Thosepeaceablecoercionswhichareinthepowerofeverynation，ifundertakeninconcert&intimeofpeace，aremorelikelytoproducethedesiredeffect。
　　TheopinionsIhaveheregivenarethosewhichhavegenerallybeensanctionedbyourgovernment。InourtreatieswithFrance，theUnitedNetherlands，Sweden&Prussia，theprincipleoffreebottom，freegoods，wasuniformlymaintained。Intheinstructionsof1784，givenbyCongresstotheirministersappointedtotreatwiththenationsofEuropegenerally，thesameprinciple，andthedoingawaycontrabandofwar，wereenjoined，andwereaccededtointhetreatysignedwithPortugal。InthelatetreatywithEngland，indeed，thatpowerperseveringlyrefusedtheprincipleoffreebottoms，freegoods；anditwasavoidedinthelatetreatywithPrussia，attheinstanceofourthenadministration，lestitshouldseemtotakesideinaquestionthenthreateningdecisionbythesword。AtthecommencementofthewarbetweenFrance&England，therepresentativeoftheFrenchrepublicthenresidingintheUS，complainingthattheBritisharmedshipscapturedFrenchpropertyinAmericanbottoms，insistedthattheprincipleof”freebottoms，freegoods，”wasoftheacknowledgedlawofnations；thattheviolationofthatprinciplebytheBritishwasawrongcommittedonus，andsuchanoneasweoughttorepelbyjoininginawaragainstthatcountry。Wedeniedhisposition，andappealedtotheuniversalpracticeofEurope，inproofthattheprincipleof”freebottoms，freegoods，”wasnotacknowledgedasofthenaturallawofnations，butonlyofit’sconventionallaw。AndIbelievewemaysafelyaffirm，thatnotasingleinstancecanbeproducedwhereanynationofEurope，actingprofessedlyunderthelawofnationsalone，unrestrainedbytreaty，has，eitherbyit’sexecutiveorjudiciaryorgans，decidedontheprincipleof”freebottoms，freegoods。”Judgingofthelawofnationsbywhathasbeen_practised_amongnations，wewereauthorizedtosaythatthecontraryprinciplewastheirrule，andthisbutanexceptiontoit，introducedbyspecialtreatiesinspecialcasesonly；thathavingnotreatywithEnglandsubstitutingthisinsteadoftheordinaryrule，wehadneithertherightnorthedispositiontogotowarforit’sestablishment。Butthoughwewouldnotthen，norwillwenow，engageinwartoestablishthisprinciple，weareneverthelesssincerelyfriendlytoit。WethinkthatthenationsofEuropehaveoriginallysetoutinerror；thatexperiencehasprovedtheerroroppressivetotherightsandinterestsofthepeaceablepartofmankind；thateverynationbutonehasacknolegedthis，byconsentingtothechange，&thatonehasconsentedinparticularcases；thatnationshavearighttocorrectanerroneousprinciple，&toestablishthatwhichisrightastheirruleofaction；andiftheyshouldadoptmeasuresforeffectingthisinapeaceableway，weshallwishthemsuccess，andnotstandintheirwaytoit。Butshoulditbecome，atanytime，expedientforustoco-operateintheestablishmentofthisprinciple，theopinionoftheexecutive，ontheadviceofit’sconstitutionalcounsellors，mustthenbegiven；&thatofthelegislature，anindependent&essentialorganintheoperation，mustalsobeexpressed；informingwhich，theywillbegoverned，everymanbyhisownjudgment，andmay，verypossibly，judgedifferentlyfromtheexecutive。Withthesamehonestviews，themosthonestmenoftenformdifferentconclusions。Asfar，however，aswecanjudge，theprincipleof”freebottoms，freegoods，”isthatwhichwouldcarrythewishesofournation。
　　Wishingyousmoothseasandprosperousgales，withtheenjoymentofgoodhealth，Itenderyoutheassurancesofmyconstantfriendship&highconsiderationandrespect。
　　INTERCHANGEABLEPARTS
　　_ToJamesMonroe_
　　_Washington，Nov。14，1801_
　　DEARSIR，——ThebearerhereofisMr。WhitneyatConnecticutamechanicofthefirstorderofingenuity，whoinventedthecottonginnowsomuchusedintheSouth；heisattheheadofaconsiderablegunmanufactoryinConnecticut，andfurnishestheU。S。withmusketsundoubtedlythebesttheyreceive。Hehasinventedmoldsandmachinesformakingallthepiecesofhislockssoexactlyequal，thattake100lockstopiecesandmingletheirpartsandthehundredlocksmaybeputtogetheraswellbytakingthefirstpieceswhichcometohand。Thisisofimportanceinrepairing，becauseoutof10
　　lockse。g。disabledforthewantofdifferentpieces，9goodlocksmaybeputtogetherwithoutemployingasmith。LeblancinFrancehadinventedasimilarprocessin1788andhadextendedittothebarrel，mounting&stock。IendeavoredtogettheU。S。tobringhimover，whichhewasreadyforonmoderateterms。IfailedandIdonotknowwhatbecameofhim。Mr。Whitneyhasnotyetextendedhisimprovementsbeyondthelock。IthinkitpossiblehemightbeengagedinourmanufactoryofRichmd。tho’Ihavenotaskedhimthequestion。Iknownothingofhismoralcharacter。HeisnowonhiswaytoS。Carola。onthesubjectofhisgin。Health&happinesscumcaeterisvotis。
　　AFRICANCOLONIZATION
　　_TotheGovernorofVirginia_
　　JAMESMONROE
　　_Washington，Nov。24，1801_
　　DEARSIR，——IhadnotbeenunmindfulofyourletterofJune15，coveringaresolutionoftheHouseofRepresentativesofVirginia，andreferredtoinyoursofthe17thinst。Theimportanceofthesubject，andthebeliefthatitgaveustimeforconsiderationtillthenextmeetingoftheLegislature，haveinducedmetodefertheanswertothisdate。Youwillperceivethatsomecircumstancesconnectedwiththesubject，&necessarilypresentingthemselvestoview，wouldbeimproperbutforyours’&thelegislativeear。Theirpublicationmighthaveanilleffectinmorethanonequarter。Inconfidenceofattentiontothis，Ishallindulgegreaterfreedominwriting。
　　Commonmalefactors，Ipresume，makenopartoftheobjectofthatresolution。Neithertheirnumbers，northenatureoftheiroffences，seemtorequireanyprovisionsbeyondthosepractisedheretofore，&foundadequatetotherepressionofordinarycrimes。
　　Conspiracy，insurgency，treason，rebellion，amongthatdescriptionofpersonswhobroughtonusthealarm，andonthemselvesthetragedy，of1800，weredoubtlesswithintheviewofeveryone；butmanyperhapscontemplated，andoneexpressionoftheresolutionmightcomprehend，amuchlargerscope。Respecttobothopinionsmakesitmydutytounderstandtheresolutioninalltheextentofwhichitissusceptible。
　　Theideaseemstobetoprovideforthesepeoplebyapurchaseoflands；anditisaskedwhethersuchapurchasecanbemadeoftheUSintheirwesternterritory?Averygreatextentofcountry，northoftheOhio，hasbeenlaidoffintotownships，andisnowatmarket，accordingtotheprovisionsoftheactsofCongress，withwhichyouareacquainted。ThereisnothingwhichwouldrestraintheStateofVirginiaeitherinthepurchaseortheapplicationoftheselands；butapurchase，bytheacre，mightperhapsbeamoreexpensiveprovisionthantheHofRepresentativescontemplated。Questionswouldalsoarisewhethertheestablishmentofsuchacolonywithinourlimits，andtobecomeapartofourunion，wouldbedesirabletotheStateofVirginiaitself，ortotheotherStates——especiallythosewhowouldbeinitsvicinity?
　　CouldweprocurelandsbeyondthelimitsoftheUStoformareceptacleforthesepeople?Onournorthernboundary，thecountrynotoccupiedbyBritishsubjects，isthepropertyofIndiannations，whosetitlewouldbetobeextinguished，withtheconsentofGreatBritain；&thenewsettlerswouldbeBritishsubjects。ItishardlytobebelievedthateitherGreatBritainortheIndianproprietorshavesodisinterestedaregardforus，astobewillingtorelieveus，byreceivingsuchacolonythemselves；andasmuchtobedoubtedwhetherthatraceofmencouldlongexistinsorigorousaclimate。