TO WILSON C NICHOLAS.

Monticello, September 7, 1803.

Dear Sir,

Your favor of the 3rd was delivered me at court; but we were much disappointed at not seeing you here, Mr. Madison and the Governor being here at the time. 1 enclose you a letter from Monroe on the subject of the late treaty.  You will observe a hint in it, to do without delay what we are bound to do.  There is reason, in the opinion of our ministers, to believe, that if the thing were to do over again, it could not be obtained, and that if we give the least opening, they will declare the treaty void.  A warning amounting to that has been given to them, and an unusual kind of letter written by their minister to our Secretary of State, direct.  Whatever Congress shall think it necessary to do, should be done with as little debate as possible, and particularly so far as respects the constitutional difficulty.  I am aware of the force of the observations you make on the power given by the constitution to Congress, to admit new States into the Union, without restraining the subject to the territory then constituting the United States.  But when I consider that the limits of the United States are precisely fixed by the treaty of 1783, that the constitution expressly declares itself to be made for the United States, I cannot help believing the intention was not to permit Congress to admit into the Union new States, which should be formed out of the territory for which, and under whose authority alone, they were then acting.  I do not believe it was meant that they might receive England, Ireland, Holland, &tc. into it, which would be the case on your construction.  When an instrument admits two constructions, the one safe, the other dangerous, the one precise, the other indefinite, I prefer that which is safe and precise.  I had rather ask an enlargement of power from the nation, where it is found necessary, than to assume it by a construction which would make our powers boundless.  Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written constitution.  Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.  I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty-making power as boundless.  If it is, then we have no constitution.  If it has bounds, they can be no others than the definitions of the powers which that instrument gives.  It specifies and delineates the operations permitted to the federal government, and gives all the powers necessary to carry these into execution.  Whatever of these enumerated objects is proper for a law, Congress may make the law; whatever is proper to be executed by way of a treaty, the President and Senate may enter into the treaty; whatever is to be done by a judicial sentence, the judges may pass the sentence.  Nothing is more likely than that their enumeration of powers is defective.  This is the ordinary case of all human works.  Let us go on then perfecting it, by adding, by way of amendment to the constitution,