FOR the reasons mentioned in it, I wrote the following letter to the Chancellor, and to the Chief Justice and other Judge of the Supreme Court, viz.

[Here Jay embedded a copy of his letter to the New York State Chancellor (Robert R. Livingston), Chief Justice (John Lansing Jr.), and Associate Justices of the New York State Supreme Court (Egbert Benson, James Kent, Morgan Lewis, and Jacob Radcliff) of 18 Mar. 1801, above.]

IN answer to this letter I have received the three following, viz.

[Here Jay embedded copies of his letters from John Lansing Jr., of 26 Mar., RRL of 21 Mar., and John Lansing Jr., Egbert Benson, James Kent, and Jacob Radcliff, of 26 Mar. 1801, all above.]

IT appears to me proper that this correspondence should be known to the Legislature, and therefore it is communicated thus particularly.

ON considering it in connection with my message of the 26th of last month,1 it gives me pleasure to believe, that I have done whatever my duty required, relative to the claim, which, for the first time during my administration, has interrupted and suspended the business of appointments. A like sense of duty will keep me mindful, that as I received and have constantly possessed and exercised the exclusive right of nomination, as one of the rights belonging to the office which I hold, so I am under the highest obligations to transmit it unimpaired to my successor, unless the office should, in the mean time, be divested of it by competent authority.

ON whatever foundations or principles this my rest, or whatever inducements may, at this particular period, have caused a dormant claim to rise in opposition to it, the rules of official decorum will not, in my opinion, permit the Governor of the State to embark in disputations concerning them. It cannot therefore be proper for me to take other notice of the excusatory statements and reasonings, (irregularly sent to the House of Assembly, by three members of the Council) than to express my regret that those statements and reasonings are less correct, liberal and candid than they might have been.

BUT it cannot be improper for me to give and repeat positive assurances that I shall be ready to dispatch the necessary appointments whenever, and as soon as a majority of the Council shall be willing to let that business again proceed in its accustomed course, until their claim to change that course shall be decided in their favor. I will cheerfully do whatever may depend on me to facilitate a constitutional decision of their claim; and whatever their decision may be, I shall acquiesce in it.

HOW, or in what manner such a decision is to be had by judgement of law, still remains to be ascertained. It is as plain to me as it seems to be to the Judges, that there is no mode, to be adopted by me, of having the question judicially determined: but that no such mode can be devised and adopted by the Legislature, would be an extraordinary position.

THERE is a mode which has been much spoken of, and which appears to me to deserve attention; viz. That an act be passed to authorize and direct the Supreme Court to try and determine the question, on a proper issue, to be devised by them; and that their judgment be immediately removed to the Court of Errors, and there receive an ultimate and final decision.2

THE embarrassments which the pubic must experience from leaving this question unsettled, and my solicitude to prevent the duration and increase of those embarrassments, will, I hope, apologize for the earnestness, with which I again recommend this interesting subject to your consideration.