I have learnt with real mortification that the engineers successively appointed, have withdrawn from their undertaking to carry on the defensive works of New Orleans. It is more regretted as capable persons in that line are more difficult to be got, and it takes so long for the information to come here, and the place to be supplied. Two other persons applied to here have declined going. Whether General Dearborne has at length been able to engage one I am not informed. I fear that these disappointments will lose us the season in a work which more than any other it was my desire to have had completed this year. Certainly these losses of time shall be shortened by us as far as is in our power. I salute you with esteem and respect.
DEAR SIR,--Yours of August 3d, which ought to have been here on the 8th, was not received till yesterday. It has loitered somewhere, therefore, ten days, during which three mails have been received. I proceed to its contents.
_Somes's case._ The rule agreed to at our meeting of June 30th was general, that no permissions should be granted for Europe, Asia, or Africa, and there is nothing in Somes's case to entitle it to exemption from the rule, more than will be found in every case that shall occur; as a precedent then, it would be a repeal of the rule, and in fact of the embargo law. He might have sent his proofs to Malta through England, either by the British packets or by our avisos. If he has not done it, and cannot now do it, it is his fault; the permission therefore must be refused.
_Coquerel's case._ 1. The question whether he had a right to expect a permit is against him. None in writing was given; no note or memorandum on any paper is found warranting the fact, nor is there even any trace of it in the memory of the collector. On what evidence then does it rest? Merely on the words of the owner and captain that the language of the collector conveyed an impression on them that they were to have a permit: but we well know where this sort of evidence would land us.
2d. But suppose we had had a positive or written permission, why was it not used? Could it be believed to be good for this year, next year, or ten years hence? The reason of the thing must have shown to every one that it was good _under existing circumstances_ only, and might become null if not used till these were changed. But the written notification of August 1st, giving a final day, annuls all permits after that day; and not a single circumstance is stated which entitles them to a prolongation of the time, which would not entitle every other, and consequently repeal the limitation of time and the law. I see no ground, therefore, for relieving him from the operation of the rule.