March the 11th, 1792. Consulted verbally by the President, on whom a committee of the Senate (Izard, Morris, and King) are to wait to-morrow morning, to know whether he will think it proper to redeem our Algerine captives, and make a treaty with the Algerines, on the single vote of the Senate, without taking that of the Representatives. My opinions run on the following heads: We must go to Algiers with cash in our hands. Where shall we get it? By loan? By converting money now in the treasury? Probably a loan might be obtained on the President's authority; but as this could not be repaid without a subsequent act of legislature, the Representatives might refuse it. So if money in the treasury be converted, they may refuse to sanction it. The subsequent approbation of the Senate being necessary to validate a treaty, they expect to be consulted beforehand, if the case admits. So the subsequent act of the Representatives being necessary where money is given, why should not they expect to be consulted in like manner, when the case admits. A treaty is a law of the land. But prudence will point out this difference to be attended to in making them; viz. where a treaty contains such articles only as will go into execution of themselves, or be carried into execution by the judges, they may be safely made; but where there are articles which require a law to be passed afterwards by the legislature, great caution is requisite. For example; the consular convention with France required a very small legislative regulation. This convention was unanimously ratified by the Senate. Yet the same identical men threw by the law to enforce it at the last session, and the Representatives at this session have placed it among the laws which they may take up or not, at their own convenience, as if that was a higher motive than the public faith. Therefore, against hazarding this transaction without the sanction of both Houses. The President concurred. The Senate express the motive for this proposition, to be a fear that the Representatives would not keep the secret. He has no opinion of the secrecy of the Senate. In this very case, Mr. Izard made the communication to him, sitting next to him at table, on one hand, while a lady (Mrs. McLane) was on his other hand, and the French minister next to her; and as Mr. Izard got on with his communication, his voice kept rising, and his stutter bolting the words out loudly at intervals, so that the minister might hear if he would. He said he had a great mind at one time to have got up, in order to put a stop to Mr. Izard. * * * * * March the 11th, 1792. Mr. Sterret tells me, that sitting round a fire the other day with four or five others, [Mr. Smith of South Carolina was one], somebody mentioned that the murderers of Hogeboom, sheriff of Columbia county, New York, were acquitted. "Aye," says Smith, "this is what comes of your damned _trial by jury_."