ied what we saw in writing. His answer of December 5 is herewith
transmitted, and has rendered it still more necessary that in presenting
to the Legislature the application of Hamet I should present them at
the same time an exact statement of the views and proceedings of the
Executive through this whole business, that they may clearly understand
the ground on which we are placed. It is accompanied by all the papers
which bear any relation to the principles of the cooperation, and which
can inform their judgment in deciding on the application of Hamet
Caramalli.

TH. JEFFERSON.

JANUARY 15, 1806.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States_:

I now render to Congress an account of the grant of $20,000 for the
contingent charges of Government by an act making appropriations for the
support of Government for the year 1805. Of that sum $1,987.50 have been
necessarily applied to the support of the Territorial governments of
Michigan and Louisiana until an opportunity could occur of making a
specific appropriation for that purpose. The balance of $18,012.50
remains in the Treasury.

TH. JEFFERSON.

JANUARY 17, 1806.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States_:

In my message to both Houses of Congress at the opening of their present
session I submitted to their attention, among other subjects, the
oppression of our commerce and navigation by the irregular practices
of armed vessels, public and private, and by the introduction of new
principles derogatory of the rights of neutrals and unacknowledged by
the usage of nations.

The memorials of several bodies of merchants of the United States are
now communicated, and will develop these principles and practices which
are producing the most ruinous effects on our lawful commerce and
navigation.

The rights of a neutral to carry on commercial intercourse with every
part of the dominions of a belligerent permitted by the laws of the
country (with the exception of blockaded ports and contraband of war)
was believed to have been decided between Great Britain and the United
States by the sentence of their commissioners mutually appointed
to decide on that and other questions of difference between the two
nations, and by the actual payment of the damages awarded by them
against Great Britain for the infractions of that right. When,
therefore, it was perceived that the same principle was revived with
others more novel and