In the several views, therefore, of personal merit, justice, generosity and policy, I presume to recommend the Chevalier de Mezieres, and his interests, to the notice and patronage of your Excellency, whom the choice of your country has sufficiently marked as possessing the dispositions, while it has at the same time given you the power, to befriend just claims.  The Chevalier de Mezieres will pass over to Georgia in the ensuing spring; but should he find an opportunity, he will probably forward this letter sooner.  I have the honor to be, with sentiments of the most profound respect,

your Excellency’s most obedient

and most humble servant,

Th:  Jefferson.

LETTER CXLIV.—­TO THE GEORGIA DELEGATES IN CONGRESS, Dec. 22, 1785

TO THE GEORGIA DELEGATES IN CONGRESS.

Paris, December 22, 1785.

Gentlemen,

By my despatch to Mr. Jay which accompanies this, you will perceive that the claims of the Chevalier de Mezieres, nephew to the late General Oglethorpe, to his possessions within your State, have attracted the attention of the ministry here; and that considering them as protected by their treaty with us, they have viewed as derogatory of that, the doubts which have been expressed on the subject.  I have thought it best to present to them those claims in the least favorable point of view, to lessen as much as possible the ill effects of a disappointment:  but I think it my duty to ask your notice and patronage of this case, as one whose decision will have an effect on the general interests of the Union.

The Chevalier de Mezieres is nephew to General Oglethorpe; he is a person of great estimation, powerfully related and protected.  His interests are espoused by those whom it is our interest to gratify.  I will take the liberty, therefore, of soliciting your recommendations of him to the generosity of your legislature, and to the patronage and good offices of your friends, whose efforts, though in a private case, will do a public good.  The pecuniary advantages of confiscation, in this instance, cannot compensate its ill effects.  It is difficult to make foreigners understand those legal distinctions between the effects of forfeiture of escheat, and of conveyance, on which the professors of the law might build their opinions in this case.  They can see only the outlines of the case; to wit, the death of a possessor of lands lying within the United States, leaving an heir in France, and the State claiming those lands in opposition to the heir.  An individual thinking himself injured makes more noise than a State.  Perhaps too, in every case which either party to a treaty thinks to be within its provisions, it is better not to weigh the syllables and letters of the treaty, but to show that gratitude and affection render that appeal unnecessary.  I take the freedom, therefore, of submitting to your wisdom the motives which present themselves in favor of a grant to the Chevalier de Mezieres, and the expediency of urging them on your State as far as you may think proper.