Visit https://ebookultra.

com to download the full version and

explore more ebooks

Optimal Control Systems 1st Edition D. Subbaram

Naidu

_____ Click the link below to download _____

https://ebookultra.com/download/optimal-control-
systems-1st-edition-d-subbaram-naidu/

Explore and download more ebooks at ebookultra.com

Here are some suggested products you might be interested in.
Click the link to download

Hydraulic Control Systems 2nd Edition Noah D. Manring

https://ebookultra.com/download/hydraulic-control-systems-2nd-edition-
noah-d-manring/

Successful Instrumentation and Control Systems Design

Michael D. Whitt

https://ebookultra.com/download/successful-instrumentation-and-
control-systems-design-michael-d-whitt/

Optimal Control of ODEs and DAEs 1st Edition Gerdts

https://ebookultra.com/download/optimal-control-of-odes-and-daes-1st-
edition-gerdts/

Optimal Control of Greenhouse Cultivation 1st Edition

Gerrit Van Straten

https://ebookultra.com/download/optimal-control-of-greenhouse-
cultivation-1st-edition-gerrit-van-straten/
Interval Analysis Application in the Optimal Control
Problems 1st Edition Razmjooy

https://ebookultra.com/download/interval-analysis-application-in-the-
optimal-control-problems-1st-edition-razmjooy/

Optimal Control of Induction Heating Processes 1st Edition

Zdenek Dostál

https://ebookultra.com/download/optimal-control-of-induction-heating-
processes-1st-edition-zdenek-dostal/

Applied Linear Optimal Control Examples and Algorithms 1st

Edition Arthur E. Bryson

https://ebookultra.com/download/applied-linear-optimal-control-
examples-and-algorithms-1st-edition-arthur-e-bryson/

Compound Energy Systems Optimal Operation Methods 1st

Edition. Edition Obara Shin'Ya

https://ebookultra.com/download/compound-energy-systems-optimal-
operation-methods-1st-edition-edition-obara-shinya/

Optimal Control with Applications in Space and Quantum

Dynamics 1st Edition Bernard Bonnard

https://ebookultra.com/download/optimal-control-with-applications-in-
space-and-quantum-dynamics-1st-edition-bernard-bonnard/
Optimal Control Systems 1st Edition D. Subbaram Naidu
Digital Instant Download
Author(s): D. Subbaram Naidu
ISBN(s): 9780849308925, 0849308925
Edition: 1
File Details: PDF, 13.90 MB
Year: 2002
Language: english
OPTIMAL
CONTROL
SYSTEMS

~,.~t~.~
".. .u&:iuut ~
-:
....aIMlJ f~t jS~ J

'1 6 .3 z. : ~ OJ"':'
lrAr If I 1 a : ~ i!J1i
Electrical Engineering
Textbook Series
Richard C. Dorf, Series Editor
University of California, Davis

Forthcoming and Published Titles

Applied Vector Analysis
Matiur Rahman and Isaac Mulolani

Continuous Signals and Systems with MATLAB

Taan EIAli and Mohammad A. Karim

Discrete Signals and Systems with MATLAB

Taan EIAIi

Electromagnetics
Edward J. Rothwell and Michael J. Cloud

Optimal Control Systems

Desineni Subbaram Naidu
OPTIMAL
CONTROL
SYSTEMS
Desineni Subbaram Naidu
Idaho State Universitv.
Pocatello. Idaho. USA

CRC PRESS
o
Boca Raton London New York Washington, D.C.
Cover photo: Terminal phase (using fuel-optimal control) of the lunar landing of the Apollo 11 mission.
Courtesy of NASA.
TJ
"l13
N1. b'~
<'l ~ot

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Naidu, D. s. (Desineni S.), 1940-

Optimal control systems I by Desineni Subbaram N aidu.
p. cm.- (Electrical engineering textbook series)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-8493-0892-5 (alk. paper)
1. Automatic control. 2. Control theory. 3. Mathematical optimization. I. Title II.
Series.

2002067415

This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reprinted material
is quoted with permission, and sources are indicated. A wide variety of references are listed. Reasonable
efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and the publisher cannot
assume responsibility for the validity of all materials or for the consequences of their use.

Neither this book nor any part may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic
or mechanical, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or by any information storage or
retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publisher.

The consent of CRC Press LLC does not extend to copying for general distribution, for promotion, for
creating new works, or for resale. Specific permission must be obtained in writing from CRC Press LLC
for such copying.

Direct all inquiries to CRC Press LLC, 2000 N.W. Corporate Blvd., Boca Raton, Florida 33431.

Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are
used only for identification and explanation, without intent to infringe.

Visit the CRC Press Web site at www.crcpress.com

© 2003 by CRC Press LLC

No claim to original u.S. Government works

International Standard Book Number 0-8493-0892-5
Library of Congress Card Number 2002067415
Printed in the United States of America 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
Printed on acid-free paper
 v

"Because the shape of the whole universe is most per-

fect and, in fact, designed by the wisest Creator, nothing
in all of the world will occur in which no maximum or
minimum rule is somehow shining forth. "
Leohard Euler, 1144
vi

Dedication

My deceased parents who shaped my life

Desineni Rama Naidu

Desineni Subbamma

and

My teacher who shaped my education

Buggapati A udi Chetty

 vii

Preface

Many systems, physical, chemical, and economical, can be modeled

by mathematical relations, such as deterministic and/or stochastic dif-
ferential and/or difference equations. These systems then change with
time or any other independent variable according to the dynamical re-
lations. It is possible to steer these systems from one state to another
state by the application of some type of external inputs or controls.
If this can be done at all, there may be different ways of doing the
same task. If there are different ways of doing the same task, then
there may be one way of doing it in the "best" way. This best way can
be minimum time to go from one state to another state, or maximum
thrust developed by a rocket engine. The input given to the system
corresponding to this best situation is called "optimal" control. The
measure of "best" way or performance is called "performance index"
or "cost function." Thus, we have an "optimal control system," when a
system is controlled in an optimum way satisfying a given performance
index. The theory of optimal control systems has enjoyed a flourishing
period for nearly two decades after the dawn of the so-called "modern"
control theory around the 1960s. The interest in theoretical and prac-
tical aspects of the subject has sustained due to its applications to such
diverse fields as electrical power, aerospace, chemical plants, economics,
medicine, biology, and ecology.

Aim and Scope

In this book we are concerned with essentially the control of physical
systems which are "dynamic" and hence described by ordinary differ-
ential or difference equations in contrast to "static" systems, which are
characterized by algebraic equations. Further, our focus is on "deter-
ministic" systems only.
The development of optimal control theory in the sixties revolved
around the "maximum principle" proposed by the Soviet mathemati-
cian L. S. Pontryagin and his colleagues whose work was published in
English in 1962. Further contributions are due to R. E. Kalman of the
United States. Since then, many excellent books on optimal control
theory of varying levels of sophistication have been published.
This book is written keeping the "student in mind" and intended
to provide the student a simplified treatment of the subject, with an
viii

appropriate dose of mathematics. Another feature of this book is to

assemble all the topics which can be covered in a one-semester class.
A special feature of this book is the presentation of the procedures in
the form of a summary table designed in terms of statement of the prob-
lem and a step-by-step solution of the problem. Further, MATLAB©
and SIMULINK© 1 , including Control System and Symbolic Math
Toolboxes, have been incorporated into the book. The book is ideally
suited for a one-semester, second level, graduate course in control sys-
tems and optimization.

Background and Audience

This is a second level graduate text book and as such the background
material required for using this book is a first course on control sys-
tems, state space analysis, or linear systems theory. It is suggested that
the student review the material in Appendices A and B given at the
end of the book. This book is aimed at graduate students in Electrical,
Mechanical, Chemical, and Aerospace Engineering and Applied Math-
ematics. It can also be used by professional scientists and engineers
working in a variety of industries and research organizations.

Acknowledgments
This book has grown out of my lecture notes prepared over many years
of teaching at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Kharagpur, and
Idaho State University (ISU), Pocatello, Idaho. As such, I am indebted
to many of my teachers and students. In recent years at ISU, there are
many people whom I would like to thank for their encouragement and
cooperation. First of all, I would like to thank the late Dean Hary
Charyulu for his encouragement to graduate work and research which
kept me "live" in the area optimal control. Also, I would like to mention
a special person, Kevin Moore, whose encouragement and cooperation
made my stay at ISU a very pleasant and scholarly productive one for
many years during 1990-98. During the last few years, Dean Kunze
and Associate Dean Stuffie have been of great help in providing the
right atmosphere for teaching and research work.

IMATLAB and SIMULINK are registered trademarks of The Mathworks, Inc., Natick, MA,
USA.
 ix

Next, my students over the years were my best critics in providing

many helpful suggestions. Among the many, special mention must be
made about Martin Murillo, Yoshiko Imura, and Keith Fisher who
made several suggestions to my manuscript. In particular, Craig Rieger
(of Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory
(INEEL)) deserves special mention for having infinite patience in writ-
ing and testing programs in MATLAB© to obtain analytical solutions
to matrix Riccati differential and difference equations.
The camera-ready copy of this book was prepared by the author
using H\'IEX of the PCTEX32 2 Version 4.0. The figures were drawn
using CoreiDRAW3 and exported into H\'IEX document.
Several people at the publishing company CRC Press deserve men-
tion. Among them, special mention must be made about Nora Konopka,
Acquisition Editor, Electrical Engineering for her interest, understand-
ing and patience with me to see this book to completion. Also, thanks
are due to Michael Buso, Michelle Reyes, Helena Redshaw, and Judith
Simon Kamin. I would like to make a special mention of Sean Davey
who helped me in many issues regarding H\'IEX. Any corrections and
suggestions are welcome via email to naiduds@isu. edu
Finally, it is my pleasant duty to thank my wife, Sita and my daugh-
ters, Radhika and Kiranmai who have been a great source of encour-
agement and cooperation throughout my academic life.

Desineni Subbaram Naidu

Pocatello, Idaho
June 2002

2:rg..'lEX is a registered trademark of Personal 'lEX, Inc., Mill Valley, CA.

3CorelDRAW is a registered trademark of Corel Corporation or Corel Corporation Limited.
x

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The permissions given by

1. Prentice Hall for D. E. Kirk, Optimal Control Theory: An Intro-

duction, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1970,

2. John Wiley for F. L. Lewis, Optimal Control, John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., New York, NY, 1986,

3. McGraw-Hill for M. Athans and P. L. Falb, Optimal Control:

An Introduction to the Theory and Its Applications, McGraw-Hill
Book Company, New York, NY, 1966, and

4. Springer-Verlag for H. H. Goldstine, A History of the Calculus of

Variations, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, 1980,
are hereby acknowledged.
 xi

AUTHOR'S BIOGRAPHY
Desineni "Subbaram" Naidu received his B.E. degree in Electrical Engineer-
ing from Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati, India, and M.Tech. and Ph.D.
degrees in Control Systems Engineering from the Indian Institute of Technol-
ogy (lIT), Kharagpur, India. He held various positions with the Department of
Electrical Engineering at lIT. Dr. Naidu was a recipient of a Senior National
Research Council (NRC) Associateship of the National Academy of Sciences,
Washington, DC, tenable at NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton,
Virginia, during 1985-87 and at the U. S. Air Force Research Laboratory
(AFRL) at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (WPAFB), Ohio, during 1998-
99. During 1987-90, he was an adjunct faculty member in the Department of
Electrical and Computer Engineering at Old Dominion University, Norfolk,
Virginia. Since August 1990, Dr. Naidu has been a professor at Idaho State
University. At present he is Director of the Measurement and Control Engi-
neering Research Center; Coordinator, Electrical Engineering program; and
Associate Dean of Graduate Studies in the College of Engineering, Idaho State
University, Pocatello, Idaho.
Dr. Naidu has over 150 publications including a research monograph, Sin-
gular Perturbation Analysis of Discrete Control Systems, Lecture Notes in
Mathematics, 1985; a book, Singular Perturbation Methodology in Control
Systems, lEE Control Engineering Series, 1988; and a research monograph
entitled, Aeroassisted Orbital Transfer: Guidance and Control Strategies, Lec-
ture Notes in Control and Information Sciences, 1994.
Dr. Naidu is (or has been) a member of the Editorial Boards of the IEEE
Transaction on Automatic Control, (1993-99), the International Journal of
Robust and Nonlinear Control, (1996-present), the International Journal of
Control-Theory and Advanced Technology (C-TAT), (1992-1996), and a mem-
ber of the Editorial Advisory Board of Mechatronics: The Science of Intelli-
gent Machines, an International Journal, (1992-present).
Professor Naidu is an elected Fellow of The Institute of Electrical and Elec-
tronics Engineers (IEEE), a Fellow of World Innovation Foundation (WIF), an
Associate Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
(AIAA) and a member of several other organizations such as SIAM, ASEE,
etc. Dr. Naidu was a recipient of the Idaho State University Outstanding Re-
searcher Award for 1993-94 and 1994-95 and the Distinguished Researcher
Award for 1994-95. Professor Naidu's biography is listed (multiple years) in
Who's Who among America's Teachers, the Silver Anniversary 25th Edition
of Who's Who in the West, Who's Who in Technology, and The International
Directory of Distinguished Leadership.
Contents
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Classical and Modern Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Optimization................................. 4
1.3 Optimal Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3.1 Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3.2 Performance Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3.3 Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.3.4 Formal Statement of Optimal Control System .... 9
1.4 Historical Tour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.4.1 Calculus of Variations .................... 11
1.4.2 Optimal Control Theory .................. 13
1.5 About This Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.6 Chapter Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.7 Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2 Calculus of Variations and Optimal Control 19

2.1 Basic Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.1.1 Function and Functional .................. 19
2.1.2 Increment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.1.3 Differential and Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.2 Optimum of a Function and a Functional ............ 25
2.3 The Basic Variational Problem ................... 27
2.3.1 Fixed-End Time and Fixed-End State System ... 27
2.3.2 Discussion on Euler-Lagrange Equation ........ 33
2.3.3 Different Cases for Euler-Lagrange Equation .... 35
2.4 The Second Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.5 Extrema of Functions with Conditions .............. 41
2.5.1 Direct Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.5.2 Lagrange Multiplier Method ................ 45
2.6 Extrema of Functionals with Conditions ............ 48
2.7 Variational Approach to Optimal Control Systems . . . . . 57

xiii
XIV

2.7.1 Terminal Cost Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

2.7.2 Different Types of Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
2.7.3 Sufficient Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
2.7.4 Summary of Pontryagin Procedure ........... 68
2.8 Summary of Variational Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
2.8.1 Stage I: Optimization of a Functional . . . . . . . . . 85
2.8.2 Stage II: Optimization of a Functional with
Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
2.8.3 Stage III: Optimal Control System with
Lagrangian Formalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
2.8.4 Stage IV: Optimal Control System with
Hamiltonian Formalism: Pontryagin Principle ... 88
2.8.5 Salient Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
2.9 Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

3 Linear Quadratic Optimal Control Systems I 101

3.1 Problem Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 101
3.2 Finite-Time Linear Quadratic Regulator ........... 104
3.2.1 Symmetric Property of the Riccati Coefficient
Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
3.2.2 Optimal Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
3.2.3 Optimal Performance Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 110
3.2.4 Finite-Time Linear Quadratic Regulator:
Time-Varying Case: Summary ............. 112
3.2.5 Salient Features. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 114
3.2.6 LQR System for General Performance Index ... 118
3.3 Analytical Solution to the Matrix
Differential Riccati Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
3.3.1 MATLAB© Implementation of Analytical
Solution to Matrix DRE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 122
3.4 Infinite-Time LQR System I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 125
3.4.1 Infinite-Time Linear Quadratic Regulator:
Time-Varying Case: Summary ............. 128
3.5 Infinite-Time LQR System II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
3.5.1 Meaningful Interpretation of Riccati Coefficient . 132
3.5.2 Analytical Solution of the Algebraic
Riccati Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 133
3.5.3 Infinite-Interval Regulator System:
Time-Invariant Case: Summary ............. 134
3.5.4 Stability Issues of Time-Invariant Regulator. . .. 139
 xv

3.5.5 Equivalence of Open-Loop and Closed-Loop

Optimal Controls ....................... 141
3.6 Notes and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
3.7 Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

4 Linear Quadratic Optimal Control Systems II 151

4.1 Linear Quadratic Tracking System: Finite-Time Case 152
4.1.1 Linear Quadratic Tracking System: Summary 157
4.1.2 Salient Features of Tracking System . . . . . . . .. 158
4.2 LQT System: Infinite-Time Case ................. 166
4.3 Fixed-End-Point Regulator System ............... 169
4.4 LQR with a Specified Degree of Stability . . . . . . . . . .. 175
4.4.1 Regulator System with Prescribed Degree of
Stability: Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 177
4.5 Frequency-Domain Interpretation ................ 179
4.5.1 Gain Margin and Phase Margin ............ 181
4.6 Problems.................................. 188

5 Discrete-Time Optimal Control Systems 191

5.1 Variational Calculus for Discrete-Time
Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
5.1.1 Extremization of a Functional .............. 192
5.1.2 Functional with Terminal Cost ............. 197
5.2 Discrete-Time Optimal Control Systems ........... 199
5.2.1 Fixed-Final State and Open-Loop Optimal
Control. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 203
5.2.2 Free-Final State and Open-Loop Optimal Control 207
5.3 Discrete-Time Linear State Regulator
System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
5.3.1 Closed-Loop Optimal Control: Matrix Difference
Riccati Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
5.3.2 Optimal Cost Function .................. 213
5.4 Steady-State Regulator System .................. 219
5.4.1 Analytical Solution to the Riccati Equation .... 225
5.5 Discrete-Time Linear Quadratic Tracking System . . . .. 232
5.6 Frequency-Domain Interpretation ................ 239
5.7 Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
XVI

6 Pontryagin Minimum Principle 249

6.1 Constrained System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
6.2 Pontryagin Minimum Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 252
6.2.1 Summary of Pontryagin Principle . . . . . . . . . . . 256
6.2.2 Additional Necessary Conditions ............ 259
6.3 Dynamic Programming. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
6.3.1 Principle of Optimality .................. 261
6.3.2 Optimal Control Using Dynamic Programming . 266
6.3.3 Optimal Control of Discrete-Time Systems .... 272
6.3.4 Optimal Control of Continuous-Time Systems .. 275
6.4 The Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman Equation ............ 277
6.5 LQR System Using H-J-B Equation ............. " 283
6.6 Notes and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288

7 Constrained Optimal Control Systems 293

7.1 Constrained Optimal Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 293
7.1.1 Time-Optimal Control of LTI System ........ 295
7.1.2 Problem Formulation and Statement . . . . . . . .. 295
7.1.3 Solution of the TOC System ............... 296
7.1.4 Structure of Time-Optimal Control System .... 303
7.2 TOC of a Double Integral System ................ 305
7.2.1 Problem Formulation and Statement. . . . . . . .. 306
7.2.2 Problem Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
7.2.3 Engineering Implementation of Control Law ... 314
7.2.4 SIMULINK© Implementation of Control Law .. 315
7.3 Fuel-Optimal Control Systems ................... 315
7.3.1 Fuel-Optimal Control of a Double Integral System 316
7.3.2 Problem Formulation and Statement ......... 319
7.3.3 Problem Solution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 319
7.4 Minimum-Fuel System: LTI System ............... 328
7.4.1 Problem Statement ..................... 328
7.4.2 Problem Solution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 329
7.4.3 SIMULINK© Implementation of Control Law. . 333
7.5 Energy-Optimal Control Systems ................ 335
7.5.1 Problem Formulation and Statement ......... 335
7.5.2 Problem Solution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 339
7.6 Optimal Control Systems with State
Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 351
7.6.1 Penalty Function Method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 352
7.6.2 Slack Variable Method ................... 358
 xvii

7.7 Problems .................................. 361

Appeddix A: Vectors and Matrices 365

A.1 Vectors ................................... 365
A.2 Matrices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367
A.3 Quadratic Forms and Definiteness ................ 376

Appendix B: State Space Analysis 379

B.1 State Space Form for Continuous-Time Systems ...... 379
B.2 Linear Matrix Equations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 381
B.3 State Space Form for Discrete-Time Systems . . . . . . .. 381
B.4 Controllability and Observability ................. 383
B.5 Stabilizability, Reachability and Detectability ........ 383

Appendix C: MATLAB Files 385

C.1 MATLAB© for Matrix Differential Riccati Equation .. 385
C.l.1 MATLAB File lqrnss.m .................. 386
C.l.2 MATLAB File lqrnssf.m .................. 393
C.2 MATLAB© for Continuous-Time Tracking System ... 394
C.2.1 MATLAB File for Example 4.1(example4_l.m) . 394
C.2.2 MATLAB File for Example 4.1(example4_1p.m). 397
C.2.3 MATLAB File for Example 4.1(example4_1g.m). 397
C.2.4 MAT LAB File for Example 4.1(example4_1x.m). 397
C.2.5 MATLAB File for Example 4.2(example4_l.m) . 398
C.2.6 MATLAB File for Example 4.2( example4_2p.m). 400
C.2.7 MATLAB File for Example 4.2(example4_2g.m). 400
C.2.8 MATLAB File for Example 4.2( example4_2x.m). 401
C.3 MATLAB© for Matrix Difference Riccati Equation ... 401
C.3.1 MAT LAB File lqrdnss.m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 401
C.4 MATLAB© for Discrete-Time Tracking System ...... 409

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425
List of Figures
1.1 Classical Control Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Modern Control Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 Components of a Modern Control System ............ 4
1.4 Overview of Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.5 Optimal Control Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.1 Increment ~f, Differential df, and Derivative j of a

Function f (t) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.2 Increment ~J and the First Variation 8J of the Func-
tional J .................................... 24
2.3 (a) Minimum and (b) Maximum of a Function f (t) . . . . . 26
2.4 Fixed-End Time and Fixed-End State System ........ 29
2.5 A Nonzero g(t) and an Arbitrary 8x(t) ............. 32
2.6 Arc Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.7 Free-Final Time and Free-Final State System ......... 59
2.8 Final-Point Condition with a Moving Boundary B(t) .... 63
2.9 Different Types of Systems: (a) Fixed-Final Time and
Fixed-Final State System, (b) Free-Final Time and Fixed-
Final State System, (c) Fixed-Final Time and Free-Final
State System, (d) Free-Final Time and Free-Final State
System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
2.10 Optimal Controller for Example 2.12 ............... 72
2.11 Optimal Control and States for Example 2.12 ......... 74
2.12 Optimal Control and States for Example 2.13 ......... 77
2.13 Optimal Control and States for Example 2.14 ......... 81
2.14 Optimal Control and States for Example 2.15 ......... 84
2.15 Open-Loop Optimal Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
2.16 Closed-Loop Optimal Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

3.1 State and Costate System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

3.2 Closed-Loop Optimal Control Implementation ....... 117

X'lX
xx

3.3 Riccati Coefficients for Example 3.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 125

3.4 Closed-Loop Optimal Control System for Example 3.1 126
3.5 Optimal States for Example 3.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 127
3.6 Optimal Control for Example 3.1 ................ 127
3.7 Interpretation of the Constant Matrix P ........... 133
3.8 Implementation of the Closed-Loop Optimal Control:
Infinite Final Time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 135
3.9 Closed-Loop Optimal Control System . . . . . . . . . . . .. 138
3.10 Optimal States for Example 3.2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 140
3.11 Optimal Control for Example 3.2 ................ 141
3.12 (a) Open-Loop Optimal Controller (OLOC) and
(b) Closed-Loop Optimal Controller (CLOC) ........ 145

4.1 Implementation of the Optimal Tracking System ..... 157

4.2 Riccati Coefficients for Example 4.1 ............... 163
4.3 Coefficients 91(t) and 92(t) for Example 4.1 ......... 164
4.4 Optimal States for Example 4.1 .................. 164
4.5 Optimal Control for Example 4.1 ................ 165
4.6 Riccati Coefficients for Example 4.2 ............... 167
4.7 Coefficients 91(t) and 92(t) for Example 4.2 ......... 168
4.8 Optimal Control and States for Example 4.2 ........ 168
4.9 Optimal Control and States for Example 4.2 ........ 169
4.10 Optimal Closed-Loop Control in Frequency Domain ... 180
4.11 Closed-Loop Optimal Control System with Unity
Feedback. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 184
4.12 Nyquist Plot of Go(jw) ........................ 185
4.13 Intersection of Unit Circles Centered at Origin
and -1 + jO ............................... 186

5.1 State and Costate System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 205

5.2 Closed-Loop Optimal Controller for Linear Discrete-Time
Regulator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 215
5.3 Riccati Coefficients for Example 5.3 ............... 219
5.4 Optimal Control and States for Example 5.3 ........ 220
5.5 Optimal Control and States for Example 5.3 ........ 221
5.6 Closed-Loop Optimal Control for Discrete-Time
Steady-State Regulator System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 223
5.7 Implementation of Optimal Control for Example 5.4 . .. 226
5.8 Implementation of Optimal Control for Example 5.4 ... 227
5.9 Riccati Coefficients for Example 5.5. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 231
 XXI

5.10 Optimal States for Example 5.5 ................ " 232

5.11 Optimal Control for Example 5.5 ................ 233
5.12 Implementation of Discrete-Time Optimal Tracker .... 239
5.13 Riccati Coefficients for Example 5.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 240
5.14 Coefficients 91(t) and 92(t) for Example 5.6 ......... 241
5.15 Optimal States for Example 5.6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 241
5.16 Optimal Control for Example 5.6 ................ 242
5.17 Closed-Loop Discrete-Time Optimal Control System. . . 243

6.1 (a) An Optimal Control Function Constrained by a

Boundary (b) A Control Variation for Which -8u(t)
Is Not Admissible ........................... 254
6.2 Illustration of Constrained (Admissible) Controls ..... 260
6.3 Optimal Path from A to B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 261
6.4 A Multistage Decision Process .................. 262
6.5 A Multistage Decision Process: Backward Solution .... 263
6.6 A Multistage Decision Process: Forward Solution ..... 265
6.7 Dynamic Programming Framework of Optimal State
Feedback Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 271
6.8 Optimal Path from A to B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290

7.1 Signum Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 299

7.2 Time-Optimal Control ........................ 299
7.3 Normal Time-Optimal Control System ............. 300
7.4 Singular Time-Optimal Control System ............ 301
7.5 Open-Loop Structure for Time-Optimal Control System 304
7.6 Closed-Loop Structure for Time-Optimal Control System 306
7.7 Possible Costates and the Corresponding Controls .... 309
7.8 Phase Plane Trajectories for u = + 1 (dashed lines) and
u = -1 (dotted lines) ......................... 310
7.9 Switch Curve for Double Integral Time-Optimal Control
System ................................... 312
7.10 Various Trajectories Generated by Four Possible Control
Sequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 313
7.11 Closed-Loop Implementation of Time-Optimal Control
Law ..................................... 315
7.12 SIMULINK@ Implementation of Time-Optimal
Control Law ............................... 316
7.13 Phase-Plane Trajectory for 1'+: Initial State (2,-2) and
Final State (0,0) ............................ 317
xxii

7.14 Phase-Plane Trajectory for 7-: Initial State (-2,2) and

Final State (0,0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
7.15 Phase-Plane Trajectory for R+: Initial State (-1,-1) and
Final State (0,0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318
7.16 Phase-Plane Trajectory for R_: Initial State (1,1) and
Final State (0,0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318
7.17 Relations Between A2(t) and lu*(t)1 + u*(t)A2(t) ...... 322
7.18 Dead-Zone Function. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 323
7.19 Fuel-Optimal Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
7.20 Switching Curve for a Double Integral Fuel-Optimal
Control System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324
7.21 Phase-Plane Trajectories for u(t) = 0 .............. 325
7.22 Fuel-Optimal Control Sequences ................. 326
7.23 E-Fuel-Optimal Control. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
7.24 Optimal Control as Dead-Zone Function ........... 330
7.25 Normal Fuel-Optimal Control System ............. 331
7.26 Singular Fuel-Optimal Control System ............. 332
7.27 Open-Loop Implementation of Fuel-Optimal Control
System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
7.28 Closed-Loop Implementation of Fuel-Optimal Control
System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334
7.29 SIMULINK@ Implementation of Fuel-Optimal Control
Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334
7.30 Phase-Plane Trajectory for "Y+: Initial State (2,-2) and
Final State (0,0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336
7.31 Phase-Plane Trajectory for "Y-: Initial State (-2,2) and
Final State (0,0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336
7.32 Phase-Plane Trajectory for R 1 : Initial State (1,1) and
Final State (0,0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337
7.33 Phase-Plane Trajectory for R3: Initial State (-1,-1) and
Final State (0,0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337
7.34 Phase-Plane Trajectory for R 2 : Initial State (-1.5,1) and
Final State (0,0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338
7.35 Phase-Plane Trajectory for R4: Initial State (1.5,-1) and
Final State (0,0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338
7.36 Saturation Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343
7.37 Energy-Optimal Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344
7.38 Open-Loop Implementation of Energy-Optimal Control
System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
 XXlll

7.39 Closed-Loop Implementation of Energy-Optimal

Control System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 346
7.40 Relation between Optimal Control u*(t) vs (a) q*(t) and
(b) 0.5A*(t) ................................ 348
7.41 Possible Solutions of Optimal Costate A*(t) ......... 349
7.42 Implementation of Energy-Optimal Control Law ...... 351
7.43 Relation between Optimal Control u*(t) and Optimal
Costate A2 (t) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 358
List of Tables
2.1 Procedure Summary of Pontryagin Principle for Bolza
Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

3.1 Procedure Summary of Finite-Time Linear Quadratic

Regulator System: Time-Varying Case. . . . . . . . . . . .. 113
3.2 Procedure Summary of Infinite-Time Linear Quadratic
Regulator System: Time-Varying Case. . . . . . . . . . . .. 129
3.3 Procedure Summary of Infinite-Interval Linear Quadratic
Regulator System: Time-Invariant Case . . . . . . . . . . .. 136

4.1 Procedure Summary of Linear Quadratic Tracking System159

4.2 Procedure Summary of Regulator System with Prescribed
Degree of Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 178

5.1 Procedure Summary of Discrete-Time Optimal Control

System: Fixed-End Points Condition .............. 204
5.2 Procedure Summary for Discrete-Time Optimal Control
System: Free-Final Point Condition ............... 208
5.3 Procedure Summary of Discrete-Time, Linear Quadratic
Regulator System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
5.4 Procedure Summary of Discrete-Time, Linear Quadratic
Regulator System: Steady-State Condition . . . . . . . . .. 222
5.5 Procedure Summary of Discrete-Time Linear Quadratic
Tracking System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238

6.1 Summary of Pontryagin Minimum Principle ......... 257

6.2 Computation of Cost during the Last Stage k = 2 ..... 269
6.3 Computation of Cost during the Stage k = 1,0 ....... 270
6.4 Procedure Summary of Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman (HJB)
Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280

xxv
XXVI

7.1 Procedure Summary of Optimal Control Systems with

State Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 355
Chapter 1

Introduction
In this first chapter, we introduce the ideas behind optimization and
optimal control and provide a brief history of calculus of variations and
optimal control. Also, a brief summary of chapter contents is presented.

1.1 Classical and Modern Control

The classical (conventional) control theory concerned with single input
and single output (8180) is mainly based on Laplace transforms the-
ory and its use in system representation in block diagram form. From
Figure 1.1, we see that
Y(s) G(s)
(1.1.1)
R(s) 1 + G(s)H(s)

Reference
Input
R(s) + -
Error
Signal
E(s)
compensator
.. Gc(s)
Control
Input ...
U(s)
B
PIant
G (s)
p
Output
yes)

Feedback

H(s) ...

Figure 1.1 Classical Control Configuration

1
2 Chapter 1: Introduction

where s is Laplace variable and we used

(1.1.2)

Note that

1. the input u(t) to the plant is determined by the error e(t) and
the compensator, and

2. all the variables are not readily available for feedback. In most
cases only one output variable is available for feedback.

The modern control theory concerned with multiple inputs and multi-
ple outputs (MIMO) is based on state variable representation in terms
of a set of first order differential (or difference) equations. Here, the
system (plant) is characterized by state variables, say, in linear, time-
invariant form as

x(t) = Ax(t) + Bu(t) (1.1.3)

y(t) = Cx(t) + Du(t) (1.1.4)

where, dot denotes differentiation with respect to (w.r.t.) t, x(t), u(t),

and y( t) are n, r, and m dimensional state, control, and output vectors
respectively, and A is nxn state, B is nxr input, Cis mxn output, and D
is mxr transfer matrices. Similarly, a nonlinear system is characterized
by

x(t) = f(x(t), u(t), t) (1.1.5)

y(t) = g(x(t), u(t), t). (1.1.6)

The modern theory dictates that all the state variables should be fed
back after suitable weighting. We see from Figure 1.2 that in modern
control configuration,

1. the input u( t) is determined by the controller (consisting of er-

ror detector and compensator) driven by system states x(t) and
reference signal r (t ) ,

2. all or most of the state variables are available for control, and

3. it depends on well-established matrix theory, which is amenable

for large scale computer simulation.
1.1 Classical and Modern Control 3
Plant
Control
Output
Input .. p
..
u(t) y(t)

State
x(t)
R eference
Input
.. C '"
r(t)

Controller

Figure 1.2 Modern Control Configuration

The fact that the state variable representation uniquely specifies the
transfer function while there are a number of state variable representa-
tions for a given transfer function, reveals the fact that state variable
representation is a more complete description of a system.
Figure 1.3 shows components of a modern control system. It shows
three components of modern control and their important contributors.
The first stage of any control system theory is to obtain or formulate
the dynamics or modeling in terms of dynamical equations such as dif-
ferential or difference equations. The system dynamics is largely based
on the Lagrangian function. Next, the system is analyzed for its perfor-
mance to find out mainly stability of the system and the contributions
of Lyapunov to stability theory are well known. Finally, if the system
performance is not according to our specifications, we resort to design
[25, 109]. In optimal control theory, the design is usually with respect
to a performance index. We notice that although the concepts such as
Lagrange function [85] and V function of Lyapunov [94] are old, the
techniques using those concepts are modern. Again, as the phrase mod-
ern usually refers to time and what is modern today becomes ancient
after a few years, a more appropriate thing is to label them as optimal
control, nonlinear control, adaptive control, robust control and so on.
4 Chapter 1: Introduction

I Modem Control System

I
~

~r ~ r
System Dynamics System Analysis System Synthesis
(Modeling) (Perfonnance) (Design)

r r ~

State Function of V Function of H Function of

Lagrange Lyapunov Pontraygin
(1788) (1892) (1956)

Figure 1.3 Components of a Modern Control System

1.2 Optimization
Optimization is a very desirable feature in day-to-day life. We like to
work and use our time in an optimum manner, use resources optimally
and so on. The subject of optimization is quite general in the sense
that it can be viewed in different ways depending on the approach (al-
gebraic or geometric), the interest (single or multiple), the nature of the
signals (deterministic or stochastic), and the stage (single or multiple)
used in optimization. This is shown in Figure 1.4. As we notice that
the calculus of variations is one small area of the big picture of the op-
timization field, and it forms the basis for our study of optimal control
systems. Further, optimization can be classified as static optimization
and dynamic optimization.
1. Static Optimization is concerned with controlling a plant under
steady state conditions, i.e., the system variables are not chang-
ing with respect to time. The plant is then described by algebraic
equations. Techniques used are ordinary calculus, Lagrange mul-
tipliers, linear and nonlinear programming.

2. Dynamic Optimization concerns with the optimal control of

plants under dynamic conditions, i.e., the system variables are
changing with respect to time and thus the time is involved in
system description. Then the plant is described by differential
1.2 Optimization 5

OPTIMIZATION

Algebraic Approach

Multiple Interest

Game Theory

Stochastic

Multiple Stage

Dynamic Programming

Calculus and Linear and Nonlinear Functional

Lagrange Multipliers Programming Analysis

Figure 1.4 Overview of Optimization

6 Chapter 1: Introduction

(or difference) equations. Techniques used are search techniques,

dynamic programming, variational calculus (or calculus of varia-
tions) and Pontryagin principle.

1.3 Optimal Control

The main objective of optimal control is to determine control signals
that will cause a process (plant) to satisfy some physical constraints
and at the same time extremize (maximize or minimize) a chosen per-
formance criterion (performance index or cost function). Referring to
Figure 1.2, we are interested in finding the optimal control u*(t) (* in-
dicates optimal condition) that will drive the plant P from initial state
to final state with some constraints on controls and states and at the
same time extremizing the given performance index J.
The formulation of optimal control problem requires

1. a mathematical description (or model) of the process to be con-

trolled (generally in state variable form),

2. a specification of the performance index, and

3. a statement of boundary conditions and the physical constraints

on the states and/or controls.

1.3.1 Plant
For the purpose of optimization, we describe a physical plant by a set of
linear or nonlinear differential or difference equations. For example, a
linear time-invariant system is described by the state and output rela-
tions (1.1.3) and (1.1.4) and a nonlinear system by (1.1.5) and (1.1.6).

1.3.2 Performance Index

Classical control design techniques have been successfully applied to lin-
ear, time-invariant, single-input, single output (8180) systems. Typical
performance criteria are system time response to step or ramp input
characterized by rise time, settling time, peak overshoot, and steady
state accuracy; and the frequency response of the system characterized
by gain and phase margins, and bandwidth.
In modern control theory, the optimal control problem is to find a
control which causes the dynamical system to reach a target or fol-
1.3 Optimal Control 7

low a state variable (or trajectory) and at the same time extremize a
performance index which may take several forms as described below.

1. Performance Index for Time-Optimal Control System:

We try to transfer a system from an arbitrary initial state x(to) to
a specified final state x( t f) in minimum time. The corresponding
performance index (PI) is
t!
J =
i to
dt = t f - to = t*. (1.3.1 )

2. Performance Index for Fuel-Optimal Control System: Con-

sider a spacecraft problem. Let u(t) be the thrust of a rocket
engine and assume that the magnitude Iu( t) I of the thrust is pro-
portional to the rate of fuel consumption. In order to minimize
the total expenditure of fuel, we may formulate the performance
index as
t!
J =
i to
lu(t)ldt. (1.3.2)

For several controls, we may write it as

(1.3.3)

where R is a weighting factor.

3. Performance Index for Minimum-Energy Control Sys-

tem: Consider Ui (t) as the current in the ith loop of an electric
network. Then 2:i!1 u;(t)ri (where, ri is the resistance of the ith
loop) is the total power or the total rate of energy expenditure of
the network. Then, for minimization of the total expended energy,
we have a performance criterion as

(1.3.4)

or in general,
t!
J =
i to
u'(t)Ru(t)dt (1.3.5)
8 Chapter 1: Introduction

where, R is a positive definite matrix and prime (') denotes trans-

pose here and throughout this book (see Appendix A for more
details on definite matrices).
Similarly, we can think of minimization of the integral of the
squared error of a tracking system. We then have,

i
t!
J = x/(t)Qx(t)dt (1.3.6)
to

where, Xd(t) is the desired value, xa(t) is the actual value, and
x(t)= xa(t) - Xd(t), is the error. Here, Q is a weighting matrix,
which can be positive semi-definite.

4. Performance Index for Terminal Control System: In a ter-

minal target problem, we are interested in minimizing the error
between the desired target position Xd (tf) and the actual target
position Xa (tf) at the end of the maneuver or at the final time t f.
The terminal (final) error is x (t f) = Xa (t f) - Xd (t f ). Taking care
of positive and negative values of error and weighting factors, we
structure the cost function as

(1.3.7)

which is also called the terminal cost function. Here, F is a positive

semi-definite matrix.
5. Performance Index for General Optimal Control System:
Combining the above formulations, we have a performance index
in general form as

i
t!
J = x/(tf)Fx(tf) + [X/(t)QX(t) + u/(t)Ru(t)]dt (1.3.8)
to
or,

i
t!
J = S(x(tf),tf) + V(x(t),u(t),t)dt (1.3.9)
to

where, R is a positive definite matrix, and Q and F are positive

semidefinite matrices, respectively. Note that the matrices Q and
R may be time varying. The particular form of performance index
(1.3.8) is called quadratic (in terms of the states and controls)
form.
1.3 Optimal Control 9

The problems arising in optimal control are classified based on the

structure of the performance index J [67]. If the PI (1.3.9) contains
the terminal cost function S(x(t), u(t), t) only, it is called the Mayer
problem, if the PI (1.3.9) has only the integral cost term, it is called
the Lagrange problem, and the problem is of the Bolza type if the PI
contains both the terminal cost term and the integral cost term as in
(1.3.9). There are many other forms of cost functions depending on our
performance specifications. However, the above mentioned performance
indices (with quadratic forms) lead to some very elegant results in
optimal control systems.

1.3.3 Constraints
The control u( t) and state x( t) vectors are either unconstrained or
constrained depending upon the physical situation. The unconstrained
problem is less involved and gives rise to some elegant results. From the
physical considerations, often we have the controls and states, such as
currents and voltages in an electrical circuit, speed of a motor, thrust
of a rocket, constrained as

(1.3.10)

where, +, and - indicate the maximum and minimum values the vari-
ables can attain.

1.3.4 Formal Statement of Optimal Control System

Let us now state formally the optimal control problem even risking rep-
etition of some of the previous equations. The optimal control problem
is to find the optimal control u*(t) (* indicates extremal or optimal
value) which causes the linear time-invariant plant (system)

x(t) = Ax(t) + Bu(t) (1.3.11)

to give the trajectory x* (t) that optimizes or extremizes (minimizes or

maximizes) a performance index

J = x'(tf)Fx(tf) + J.
to
tJ
[x'(t)Qx(t) + u'(t)Ru(t)]dt (1.3.12)

or which causes the nonlinear system

x(t) = f(x(t), u(t), t) (1.3.13)

10 Chapter 1: Introduction

to give the state x*(t) that optimizes the general performance index

i
tf
J = S(x(tj), tf) + V(x(t), u(t), t)dt (1.3.14)
to

with some constraints on the control variables u( t) and/or the state

variables x(t) given by (1.3.10). The final time tf may be fixed, or free,
and the final (target) state may be fully or partially fixed or free. The
entire problem statement is also shown pictorially in Figure 1.5. Thus,

Optimal Control System I

+ . •
Plant
I Cost Function
II Constraints

, ,
J J ~

~
J*
...~
J* ..
.
r
u*(t) u(t) u*(t) u(t)

(a) Minimum (b) Maximum

Figure 1.5 Optimal Control Problem

we are basically interested in finding the control u*(t) which when

applied to the plant described by (1.3.11) or (1.3.13), gives an optimal
performance index J* described by (1.3.12) or (1.3.14).
The optimal control systems are studied in three stages.
1. In the first stage, we just consider the performance index of the
form (1.3.14) and use the well-known theory of calculus of varia-
tions to obtain optimal functions.
2. In the second stage, we bring in the plant (1.3.11) and try to
address the problem of finding optimal control u*(t) which will
1.4 Historical Tour 11

drive the plant and at the same time optimize the performance
index (1.3.12). Next, the above topics are presented in discrete-
time domain.

3. Finally, the topic of constraints on the controls and states (1.3.10)

is considered along with the plant and performance index to ob-
tain optimal control.

1.4 Historical Tour

We basically consider two stages of the tour: first the development of
calculus of variations, and secondly, optimal control theory [134, 58,
99, 28]1.

1.4.1 Calculus oj Variations

According to a legend [88], Tyrian princess Dido used a rope made
of cowhide in the form of a circular arc to maximize the area to be
occupied to found Carthage. Although the story of the founding of
Carthage is fictitious, it probably inspired a new mathematical dis-
cipline, the calculus of variations and its extensions such as optimal
control theory.
The calculus of variations is that branch of mathematics that deals
with finding a function which is an extremum (maximum or minimum)
of a functional. A functional is loosely defined as a function of a func-
tion. The theory of finding maxima and minima of functions is quite
old and can be traced back to the isoperimetric problems considered
by Greek mathematicians such as Zenodorus (495-435 B.C.) and by
Poppus (c. 300 A.D.). But we will start with the works of Bernoulli. In
1699 Johannes Bernoulli (1667-1748) posed the brachistochrone prob-
lem: the problem of finding the path of quickest descent between two
points not in the same horizontal or vertical line. This problem which
was first posed by Galileo (1564-1642) in 1638, was solved by John,
his brother Jacob (1654- 1705), by Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716), and
anonymously by Isaac Newton (1642-1727). Leonard Euler (1707-1783)
joined John Bernoulli and made some remarkable contributions, which
influenced Joseph-Louis Lagrange (1736-1813), who finally gave an el-

IThe permission given by Springer-Verlag for H. H. Goldstine, A History of the Calculus

of Variations, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, 1980, is hereby acknowledged.
12 Chapter 1: Introduction

egant way of solving these types of problems by using the method

of (first) variations. This led Euler to coin the phrase calculus of vari-
ations. Later this necessary condition for extrema of a functional
was called the Euler - the Lagrange equation. Lagrange went on to
treat variable end - point problems introducing the multiplier method,
which later became one of the most powerful tools-Lagrange (or Euler-
Lagrange) multiplier method-in optimization.
The sufficient conditions for finding the extrema of functionals in cal-
culus of variations was given by Andrien Marie Legendre (1752-1833)
in 1786 by considering additionally the second variation. Carl Gustav
Jacob Jacobi (1804-1851) in 1836 came up with a more rigorous anal-
ysis of the sufficient conditions. This sufficient condition was later on
termed as the Legendre-Jacobi condition. At about the same time Sir
William Rowan Hamilton (1788-1856) did some remarkable work on
mechanics, by showing that the motion of a particle in space, acted
upon by various external forces, could be represented by a single func-
tion which satisfies two first-order partial differential equations. In 1838
Jacobi had some objections to this work and showed the need for only
one partial differential equation. This equation, called Hamilton-Jacobi
equation, later had profound influence on the calculus of variations and
dynamic programming, optimal control, and as well as on mechanics.
The distinction between strong and weak extrema was addressed by
Karl Weierstrass (1815-1897) who came up with the idea of the field
of extremals and gave the Weierstrass condition, and sufficient condi-
tions for weak and strong extrema. Rudolph Clebsch (1833-1872) and
Adolph Mayer proceeded with establishing conditions for the more gen-
eral class of problems. Clebsch formulated a problem in the calculus of
variations by adjoining the constraint conditions in the form of differ-
ential equations and provided a condition based on second variation.
In 1868 Mayer reconsidered Clebsch's work and gave some elegant re-
sults for the general problem in the calculus of variations. Later Mayer
described in detail the problems: the problem of Lagrange in 1878, and
the problem of Mayer in 1895.
In 1898, Adolf Kneser gave a new approach to the calculus of varia-
tions by using the result of Karl Gauss (1777-1855) on geodesics. For
variable end-point problems, he established the transversality condi-
tion which includes orthogonality as a special case. He along with
Oskar Bolza (1857-1942) gave sufficiency proofs for these problems.
In 1900, David Hilbert (1862-1943) showed the second variation as a
1.4 Historical Tour 13

quadratic functional with eigenvalues and eigenfunctions. Between 1908

and 1910, Gilbert Bliss (1876-1951) [23] and Max Mason looked in
depth at the results of Kneser. In 1913, Bolza formulated the problem
of Bolza as a generalization of the problems of Lagrange and Mayer.
Bliss showed that these three problems are equivalent. Other notable
contributions to calculus of variations were made by E. J. McShane
(1904-1989) [98], M. R. Hestenes [65], H. H. Goldstine and others.
There have been a large number of books on the subject of calculus
of variations: Bliss (1946) [23], Cicala (1957) [37], Akhiezer (1962) [1],
Elsgolts (1962) [47], Gelfand and Fomin (1963) [55], Dreyfus (1966)
[45], Forray (1968) [50], Balakrishnan (1969) [8], Young (1969) [146],
Elsgolts (1970) [46], Bolza (1973) [26], Smith (1974) [126], Weinstock
(1974) [143], Krasnov et al. (1975) [81], Leitmann (1981) [88], Ew-
ing (1985) [48], Kamien and Schwartz (1991) [78], Gregory and Lin
(1992) [61], Sagan (1992) [118], Pinch (1993) [108], Wan (1994) [141],
Giaquinta and Hildebrandt (1995) [56, 57], Troutman (1996) [136], and
Milyutin and Osmolovskii (1998) [103].

1.4.2 Optimal Control Theory

The linear quadratic control problem has its origins in the celebrated
work of N. Wiener on mean-square filtering for weapon fire control dur-
ing World War II (1940-45) [144, 145]. Wiener solved the problem of
designing filters that minimize a mean-square-error criterion (perfor-
mance measure) of the form

(1.4.1)

where, e( t) is the error, and E {x} represents the expected value of the
random variable x. For a deterministic case, the above error criterion
is generalized as an integral quadratic term as
00

J = 10 e'(t)Qe(t)dt (1.4.2)

where, Q is some positive definite matrix. R. Bellman in 1957 [12]

introduced the technique of dynamic programming to solve discrete-
time optimal control problems. But, the most important contribution
to optimal control systems was made in 1956 [25] by L. S. Pontryagin
(formerly of the United Soviet Socialistic Republic (USSR)) and his as-
sociates, in development of his celebrated maximum principle described
14 Chapter 1: Introduction

in detail in their book [109]. Also, see a very interesting article on the
"discovery of the Maximum Principle" by R. V. Gamkrelidze [52], one
of the authors of the original book [109]. At this time in the United
States, R. E. Kalman in 1960 [70] provided linear quadratic regulator
(LQR) and linear quadratic Gaussian (LQG) theory to design optimal
feedback controls. He went on to present optimal filtering and estima-
tion theory leading to his famous discrete Kalman filter [71] and the
continuous Kalman filter with Bucy [76]. Kalman had a profound ef-
fect on optimal control theory and the Kalman filter is one of the most
widely used technique in applications of control theory to real world
problems in a variety of fields.
At this point we have to mention the matrix Riccati equation that
appears in all the Kalman filtering techniques and many other fields.
C. J. Riccati [114, 22] published his result in 1724 on the solution for
some types of nonlinear differential equations, without ever knowing
that the Riccati equation would become so famous after more than two
centuries!
Thus, optimal control, having its roots in calculus of variations de-
veloped during 16th and 17th centuries was really born over 300 years
ago [132]. For additional details about the historical perspectives on
calculus of variations and optimal control, the reader is referred to some
excellent publications [58, 99, 28, 21, 132].
In the so-called linear quadratic control, the term "linear" refers to
the plant being linear and the term "quadratic" refers to the perfor-
mance index that involves the square or quadratic of an error, and/or
control. Originally, this problem was called the mean-square control
problem and the term "linear quadratic" did not appear in the litera-
ture until the late 1950s.
Basically the classical control theory using frequency domain deals
with single input and single output (SIS0) systems, whereas modern
control theory works with time domain for SISO and multi-input and
multi-output (MIMO) systems. Although modern control and hence
optimal control appeared to be very attractive, it lacked a very impor-
tant feature of robustness. That is, controllers designed based on LQR
theory failed to be robust to measurement noise, external disturbances
and unmodeled dynamics. On the other hand, frequency domain tech-
niques using the ideas of gain margin and phase margin offer robustness
in a natural way. Thus, some researchers [115, 95], especially in the
United Kingdom, continued to work on developing frequency domain
1.5 About This Book 15

approaches to MIMO systems.

One important and relevant field that has been developed around
the 1980s is the Hoo-optimal control theory. In this framework, the
work developed in the 1960s and 1970s is labeled as H2-optimal control
theory. The seeds for Hoo-optimal control theory were laid by G. Zames
[148], who formulated the optimal Hoo-sensitivity design problem for
SISO systems and solved using optimal Nevanilina-Pick interpolation
theory. An important publication in this field came from a group of four
active researchers, Doyle, Glover, Khargonekar, and Francis[44], who
won the 1991 W. R. G. Baker Award as the best IEEE Transactions
paper. There are many other works in the field of Hoo control ([51, 96,
43, 128, 7, 60, 131, 150, 39, 34]).

1.5 About This Book

This book, on the subject of optimal control systems, is based on the
author's lecture notes used for teaching a graduate level course on this
subject. In particular, this author was most influenced by Athans and
Falb [6], Schultz and Melsa [121], Sage [119], Kirk [79], Sage and White
[120], Anderson and Moore [3] and Lewis and Syrmos [91], and one
finds the footprints of these works in the present book.
There were a good number of books on optimal control published
during the era of the "glory of modern control," (Leitmann (1964) [87],
Tou (1964) [135], Athans and Falb (1966) [6], Dreyfus (1966) [45], Lee
and Markus (1967) [86], Petrov (1968) [106], Sage (1968) [119], Citron
(1969) [38], Luenberger (1969) [93], Pierre (1969) [107], Pun (1969)
[110], Young (1969) [146], Kirk (1970) [79], Boltyanskii [24], Kwaker-
naak and Sivan (1972) [84], Warga (1972) [142], Berkovitz (1974) [17],
Bryson and Ho (1975) [30]), Sage and White (1977) [120], Leitmann
(1981) [88]), Ryan (1982) [116]). There has been renewed interest with
the second wave of books published during the last few years (Lewis
(1986) [89], Stengal (1986) [127], Christensen et al. (1987) [36] Ander-
son and Moore (1990) [3], Hocking (1991) [66], Teo et al. (1991) [133],
Gregory and Lin (1992) [61], Lewis (1992) [90], Pinch (1993) [108], Do-
rato et al. (1995) [42], Lewis and Syrmos (1995) [91]), Saberi et al.
(1995) [117], Sima (1996) [124], Siouris [125], Troutman (1996) [136]
Bardi and Dolcetta (1997) [9], Vincent and Grantham (1997) [139],
Milyutin and Osmolovskii (1998) [103], Bryson (1999) [29], Burl [32],
Kolosov (1999) [80], Pytlak (1999) [111], Vinter (2000) [140], Zelikin
16 Chapter 1: Introduction

(2000) [149], Betts (2001) [20], and Locatelli (2001) [92].

The optimal control theory continues to have a wide variety of appli-
cations starting from the traditional electrical power [36] to economics
and management [16, 122, 78, 123].

1.6 Chapter Overview

This book is composed of seven chapters. Chapter 2 presents opti-
mal control via calculus of variations. In this chapter, we start with
some basic definitions and a simple variational problem of extremizing
a functional. We then bring in the plant as a conditional optimization
problem and discuss various types of problems based on the bound-
ary conditions. We briefly mention both Lagrangian and Hamiltonian
formalisms for optimization. Next, Chapter 3 addresses basically the
linear quadratic regulator (LQR) system. Here we discuss the closed-
loop optimal control system introducing matrix Riccati differential and
algebraic equations. We look at the analytical solution to the Riccati
equations and development of MATLAB© routine for the analytical
solution. Tracking and other problems of linear quadratic optimal con-
trol are discussed in Chapter 4. We also discuss the gain and phase
margins of the LQR system.
So far the optimal control of continuous-time systems is described.
Next, the optimal control of discrete-time systems is presented in Chap-
ter 5. Here, we start with the basic calculus of variations and then touch
upon all the topics discussed above with respect to the continuous-time
systems. The Pontryagin Principle and associated topics of dynamic
programming and Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman results are briefly covered
in Chapter 6. The optimal control of systems with control and state
constraints is described in Chapter 7. Here, we cover topics of control
constraints leading to time-optimal, fuel-optimal and energy-optimal
control systems and briefly discuss the state constraints problem.
Finally, the Appendices A and B provide summary of results on ma-
trices, vectors, matrix algebra and state space, and Appendix C lists
some of the MATLAB© files used in the book.
1.7 Problems 17
1. 7 Problems

Problem 1.1 A D.C. motor speed control system is described by a

second order state equation,

:h (t) = 25x2(t)
X2(t) = -400Xl(t) - 200X2(t) + 400u(t) ,
where, Xl(t) = the speed of the motor, and X2(t) = the current in
the armature circuit and the control input u( t) = the voltage input
to an amplifier supplying the motor. Formulate a performance index
and optimal control problem to keep the speed constant at a particular
value.

Problem 1.2 [83] In a liquid-level control system for a storage tank,

the valves connecting a reservoir and the tank are controlled by gear
train driven by a D. C. motor and an electronic amplifier. The dynamics
is described by a third order system

Xl(t) = -2Xl(t)
X2(t) = X3(t)
X3(t) = -10X3(t) + 9000u(t)
where, Xl(t) = is the height in the tank, X2(t) = is the angular posi-
tion of the electric motor driving the valves controlling the liquid from
reservoir to tank, X3(t) = the angular velocity of the motor, and u(t) =
is the input to electronic amplifier connected to the input of the motor.
Formulate optimal control problem to keep the liquid level constant at
a reference value and the system to act only if there is a change in the
liquid level.

Problem 1.3 [35] In an inverted pendulum system, it is required to

maintain the upright position of the pendulum on a cart. The linearized
state equations are

Xl(t) = X2(t)
X2(t) = -X3(t) + O.2u(t)
X3(t) = X4(t)
X4(t) = 10x3(t) - O.2u(t)
18 Chapter 1: Introduction

where, Xl (t) = is horizontal linear displacement of the cart, X2(t) = is

linear velocity of the cart, X3(t) = is angular position of the pendulum
from vertical line, X4(t) = is angular velocity, and u(t) = is the horizon-
tal force applied to the cart. Formulate a performance index to keep
the pendulum in the vertical position with as little energy as possible.
Problem 1.4 [101J A mechanical system consisting of two masses and
two springs, one spring connecting the two masses and the other spring
connecting one of the masses to a fixed point. An input is applied to
the mass not connected to the fixed point. The displacements (XI(t)
and X2 (t)) and the corresponding velocities (X3 (t) and X4 (t)) of the two
masses provide a fourth-order system described by
XI(t) = X3(t)
X2(t) = X4(t)
X3(t) = -4XI(t) + 2X2(t)
X4(t) = XI(t) - X2(t) + u(t)
Formulate a performance index to minimize the errors in displacements
and velocities and to minimize the control effort.
Problem 1.5 A simplified model of an automobile suspension system
is described by
mx(t) + kx(t) = bu(t)
where, x(t) is the position, u(t) is the input to the suspension system
(in the form of an upward force), m is the mass of the suspension
system, and k is the spring constant. Formulate the optimal control
problem for minimum control energy and passenger comfort. Assume
suitable values for all the constants.
Problem 1.6 [112J Consider a continuous stirred tank chemical reac-
tor described by
XI(t) = -O.lXI(t) - 0.12x2(t)
X2(t) = -0.3XI(t) - 0.012x2(t) - 0.07u(t)
where, the normalized deviation state variables of the linearized model
are Xl (t) = reaction variable, X2 (t) = temperature and the control
variable u(t) = effective cooling rate coefficient. Formulate a suitable
performance measure to minimize the deviation errors and to minimize
the control effort.
Chapter 2

Calculus of Variations
and Optimal Control

Calculus of variations (Co V) or variational calculus deals with finding

the optimum (maximum or minimum) value of a functional. Varia-
tional calculus that originated around 1696 became an independent
mathematical discipline after the fundamental discoveries of L. Euler
(1709-1783), whom we can claim with good reason as the founder of
calculus of variations.
In this chapter, we start with some basic definitions and a simple
variational problem of extremizing a functional. We then incorporate
the plant as a conditional optimization problem and discuss various
types of problems based on the boundary conditions. We briefly men-
tion both the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formalisms for optimization.
It is suggested that the student reviews the material in Appendices A
and B given at the end of the book. This chapter is motivated by
[47, 79, 46, 143, 81, 48]1.

2.1 Basic Concepts

2.1.1 Function and Functional
We discuss some fundamental concepts associated with functionals along
side with those of functions.
(a) Function: A variable x is a function of a variable quantity t, (writ-

IThe permission given by Prentice Hall for D. E. Kirk, Optimal Control Theory: An Intro-
duction, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1970, is hereby acknowledged.

19
Another Random Scribd Document
with Unrelated Content
well remembered that the French Republic long ago liberated all the
slaves in that island, and declared them free. As to the citizens of
the United States carrying arms and military stores to the enemies of
France, the law of nations has declared the penalty, which is a
forfeiture of the property, and the United States can in no way be
implicated thereby. And as to France landing those negroes on our
shores, he said there was power, and he believed there would be
found a disposition in the people of the United States to repel such
an insult; for if we cannot prevent France or any other power from
invading our territory and insulting our national honor, by landing
their outcasts upon our shores, we shall no longer deserve the name
of an independent nation.
Mr. Jackson, in reply to Mr. Smith and Mr. Mitchill, confessed he had
seen no official document, other than what the honorable mover had
read, but he had seen at Newcastle, in Delaware, a whole fleet
bound to St. Domingo, to force a trade which even captains of
vessels, true Americans, cried shame on. That the honorable
gentleman had called out, why had not the mover brought forward a
resolution against Britain or some other power who had committed
depredations on our commerce! Mr. J. said he wished to begin here,
by preventing our own merchants from doing injury to other nations,
and then to strike at those who insulted us. He for himself was
prepared and willing to attack the first power who had insulted us
with far more superior weapons than arming our ships. He was an
agricultural man, and would suffer with the flour-makers; but he
would call on the honorable gentleman either from Maryland, from
New York, from Massachusetts, or Connecticut, to strike at Great
Britain or any other nation who had injured us, by a resolution of
prohibition of trade or intercourse, and he was the man who would
second it and keep it on till the injuring nation should cry peccavi—
keep it on one twelvemonth, and you would see them all at your
feet. Look at the Legislature of Jamaica petitioning their Governor
from time to time for American intercourse. Look at Trinidad, the
same, in a state of famine. Sir, we have no favors to ask the nations
of the earth; they must ask them of us, or their West India colonies
must starve.
That, however, with respect to documents, he would inform the
gentleman from Maryland, that he had seen, though not official, a
letter from General Ferrand, Governor of St. Domingo, and which
was published in all the principal newspapers of the United States,
complaining to the French Government on this subject, and laying all
the blame to the American Government, if not in direct, in the most
severe indirect terms. That as to the total separation of the self-
created Emperor and nation of Hayti, and its independence of the
parent country, and under which gentlemen declared our rights of
trade founded on the laws of nations—the late attack on that
General by the Emperor proved it did not exist; he was defeated, his
army scattered and driven to the mountains; that Ferrand held the
island as French Governor for the French nation, and the separation
was not such as to warrant the arguments used for a right to trade.
It would be a fatal argument used against us as respected our
Southern States by other powers. On the same grounds, a parcel of
runaways and outcasts from South Carolina and Georgia, to the
amount of some hundreds, now collected on or near the
Okefonokee[28] swamp in Georgia, might be termed an independent
society; or if an insurrection took place in those States, the
rebellious horde, on creating an emperor, be supplied with arms and
ammunition, as a separate and independent nation. This, as the
honorable gentleman from Connecticut had been pleased to term his
fears bugbears, might be no bugbear to him, safe and remote from
the scene of action, near New Haven; but it was a serious bugbear
to him, and would be to the whole southern country, where the
horrid scenes of that island would be reacted, their property
destroyed, and their families massacred.
After a few replicatory remarks from Mr. Logan, the consideration
of the subject was postponed to Monday.

Tuesday, January 7, 1806.

 James Turner, appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State
of North Carolina, for the term of six years, from the third of March,
1805, produced his credentials, which were read, and the oath
prescribed by law having been administered, he took his seat in the
Senate.

Monday, January 13.

Hamet Caramalli, ex-Bashaw of Tripoli.

The following Message was received from the President of the

United States:

To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States:

I lay before Congress the application of Hamet Caramalli, elder
brother of the reigning Bashaw of Tripoli, soliciting from the United
States attention to his services and sufferings in the late war against
that State. And, in order to possess them of the ground on which
that application stands, the facts shall be stated according to the
views and information of the Executive.
During the war with Tripoli, it was suggested that Hamet
Caramalli, elder brother of the reigning Bashaw, and driven by him
from his throne, meditated the recovery of his inheritance, and that
a concert of action with us was desirable to him. We considered that
concerted operations by those who have a common enemy were
entirely justifiable, and might produce effects favorable to both
without binding either to guarantee the objects of the other. But the
distance of the scene, the difficulties of communication, and the
uncertainty of our information, inducing the less confidence in the
measure, it was committed to our agents as one which might be
resorted to, if it promised to promote our success.
Mr. Eaton, however, (our late Consul,) on his return from the
Mediterranean, possessing personal knowledge of the scene, and
having confidence in the effect of a joint operation, we authorized
Commodore Barron, then proceeding with his squadron, to enter
into an understanding with Hamet, if he should deem it useful; and
as it was represented that he would need some aids of arms and
ammunition, and even of money, he was authorized to furnish them
to a moderate extent, according to the prospect of utility to be
expected from it. In order to avail him of the advantages of Mr.
Eaton’s knowledge of circumstances, an occasional employment was
provided for the latter as an agent for the Navy in that sea. Our
expectation was, that an intercourse should be kept up between the
ex-Bashaw and the Commodore, that while the former moved on by
land, our squadron should proceed with equal pace, so as to arrive
at their destination together, and to attack the common enemy by
land and sea at the same time. The instructions of June 6th to
Commodore Barron show that a co-operation only was intended, and
by no means a union of our object with the fortune of the ex-
Bashaw; and the Commodore’s letters of March 22d and May 19th,
prove that he had the most correct idea of our intentions. His verbal
instructions, indeed, to Mr. Eaton and Captain Hull, if the expressions
are accurately committed to writing by those gentlemen, do not limit
the extent of his co-operation as rigorously as he probably intended;
but it is certain, from the ex-Bashaw’s letter of January 3d, written
when he was proceeding to join Mr. Eaton, and in which he says,
“your operations should be carried on by sea, mine by land,” that he
left the position in which he was, with a proper idea of the nature of
the co-operation. If Mr. Eaton’s subsequent convention should
appear to bring forward other objects, his letter of April 29th and
May 1st, views this convention but as provisional; the second article,
as he expressly states, guarding it against any ill effect, and his
letter of June 30th confirms this construction.
In the event it was found, that, after placing the ex-Bashaw in
possession of Derne, one of the most important cities and provinces
of the country, where he had resided himself as governor, he was
totally unable to command any resources, or to bear any part in co-
operation with us. This hope was then at an end, and we certainly
had never contemplated, nor were we prepared to land an army of
our own, or to raise, pay, or subsist, an army of Arabs to march from
Derne to Tripoli, and to carry on a land war at such a distance from
our resources. Our means and our authority were merely naval, and
that such were the expectations of Hamet, his letter of June 29th is
an unequivocal acknowledgment. While, therefore, an impression
from the capture of Derne might still operate at Tripoli, and an
attack on that place from our squadron was daily expected, Colonel
Lear thought it the best moment to listen to overtures of peace, then
made by the Bashaw. He did so, and while urging provisions for the
United States, he paid attention also to the interests of Hamet, but
was able to effect nothing more than to engage the restitution of his
family, and even the persevering in this demand, suspended for
some time the conclusion of the treaty.
In operations at such distance, it becomes necessary to leave
much to the discretion of the agents employed, but events may still
turn up beyond the limits of that discretion. Unable in such a case to
consult his government, a zealous citizen will act as he believes that
would direct him, were it apprised of the circumstances, and will
take on himself the responsibility. In all these cases the purity and
patriotism of the motives should shield the agent from blame, and
even secure a sanction where the error is not too injurious. Should it
be thought by any, that the verbal instructions said to have been
given by Commodore Barron to Mr. Eaton amount to a stipulation
that the United States should place Hamet Caramalli on the throne
of Tripoli, a stipulation so entirely unauthorized, so far beyond our
views, and so onerous, could not be sanctioned by our Government,
or should Hamet Caramalli, contrary to the evidence of his letters of
January 3d and June 29th, be thought to have left the position
which he now seems to regret, under a mistaken expectation that
we were at all events to place him on his throne, on an appeal to the
liberality of the nation, something equivalent to the replacing him in
his former situation might be worthy its consideration.
A nation, by establishing a character of liberality and magnanimity,
gains in the friendship and respect of others more than the worth of
mere money. This appeal is now made by Hamet Caramalli to the
United States. The ground he has taken being different, not only
from our views, but from those expressed by himself on former
occasions, Mr. Eaton was desired to state whether any verbal
communications passed from him to Hamet, which had varied what
he saw in writing. His answer of December 5th, is herewith
transmitted, and has rendered it still more necessary, that, in
presenting to the Legislature the application of Hamet, I should
present them at the same time an exact statement of the views and
proceedings of the Executive, through this whole business, that they
may clearly understand the ground on which we are placed. It is
accompanied by all the papers which bear any relation to the
principles of the co-operation, and which can inform their judgment
in deciding on the application of Hamet Caramalli.
TH. JEFFERSON.
January 13, 1806.

The Message and documents therein referred to were read, and

ordered to lie for consideration,
And on motion, the House adjourned.

Tuesday, January 14.

Inhabitants of Galliopolis.

Mr. Worthington presented the petition of a number of French

settlers of Galliopolis, grantees, on the 3d of March, 1795, of 20,000
acres of land, situated on the Ohio River, and nearly opposite the
mouth of Little Sandusky, on condition that they settle the same
within five years from the date of the letters patent, and stating that
they, being ignorant of this condition, are liable to lose their lands,
although for the space of four years they have paid the taxes
thereon, and praying the interposition of Congress in their behalf;
and the petition was read and referred to Messrs. Worthington, Smith
of Tennessee, and Adair, to consider and report thereon.

Friday, January 17.

Aggressions on Commerce.

On motion, the galleries were cleared, and the doors of the Senate
Chamber were closed; and, after the considerations of the
confidential business,
The following Message was received from the President of the
United States:

To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States:

In my Message to both Houses of Congress at the opening of their
present session, I submitted to their attention, among other
subjects, the oppression of our commerce and navigation by the
irregular practices of armed vessels, public and private; and by the
introduction of new principles, derogatory of the rights of neutrals,
and unacknowledged by the usages of nations.
The memorials of several bodies of merchants of the United States
are now communicated, and will develop these principles and
practices, which are producing the most ruinous effects on our lawful
commerce and navigation.
The right of a neutral to carry on commercial intercourse with
every part of the dominions of a belligerent, permitted by the laws of
the country, (with the exception of blockaded ports and contraband
of war,) was believed to have been decided between Great Britain
and the United States, by the sentence of their commissioners
mutually appointed to decide on that and other questions of
difference between the two nations, and by the actual payment of
the damages awarded by them against Great Britain for the
infractions of that right. When, therefore, it was perceived that the
same principle was revived, with others more novel, and extending
the injury, instructions were given to the Minister Plenipotentiary of
the United States at the Court of London, and remonstrances duly
made by him on the subject, as will appear by documents
transmitted herewith. These were followed by a partial and
temporary suspension only, without any disavowal of the principle.
He has, therefore, been instructed to urge this subject anew, to
bring it more fully to the bar of reason, and to insist on rights too
evident and too important to be surrendered. In the mean time the
evil is proceeding, under adjudications founded on the principle
which is denied. Under these circumstances the subject presents
itself for the consideration of Congress.
On the impressment of our seamen, our remonstrances have
never been intermitted. A hope existed at one moment of an
arrangement which might have been submitted to, but it soon
passed away, and the practice, though relaxed at times in the distant
seas, had been constantly pursued in those in our neighborhood.
The grounds on which the reclamations on this subject have been
urged, will appear in an extract from instructions to our minister at
London now communicated.
TH. JEFFERSON.
January 17, 1806.

The message and document therein referred to were in part read,

and ordered to lie for consideration.

Purchase of Florida.

A confidential message from the House of Representatives, by

Messrs. Bidwell and Early, two of their members, as follows:
Mr. President: We are directed by the House of Representatives, in
confidence, to bring to the Senate a bill, entitled “An act making
provision for defraying any extraordinary expenses attending the
intercourse between the United States and foreign nations;” in which
they request the concurrence of the Senate.
The bill was read and passed to the second reading.
Ordered, That the message and bill last read, be considered
confidential, and that secrecy be observed by the members and
officers of the Senate.

Friday, January 24.

James A. Bayard, appointed a Senator for the State of Delaware, for
the term of six years, commencing on the fourth of March last,
produced his credentials, which were read; and, the oath prescribed
by law having been administered, he took his seat in the Senate.

Friday, January 31.

Purchase of Florida.

The third reading of the bill, entitled “An act making provision for
defraying any extraordinary expenses attending the intercourse
between the United States and foreign nations,” was resumed; and,
on the question to amend the bill, as follows: After the words
“United States,” sec. 1, insert “for the purpose of obtaining by
negotiation, or otherwise, as he may deem most expedient, the free
navigation of the river St. Lawrence, as His Britannic Majesty’s
territory, lying south and east thereof, or any other territory lying
east of the Mississippi, and south of the aforesaid river St. Lawrence
not owned or possessed by citizens of the United States.”
It was determined in the negative—yeas 10, nays 21, as follows:
Yeas.—Messrs. Adams, Bayard, Bradley, Hillhouse, Pickering,
Plumer, Smith of Vermont, Tracy, White, and Wright.
 Nays.—Messrs. Adair, Anderson, Baldwin, Condit, Fenner, Gaillard,
Gilman, Howland, Kitchel, Logan, Maclay, Mitchill, Moore, Smith of
Maryland, Smith of New York, Smith of Ohio, Smith of Tennessee,
Sumter, Thruston, Turner, and Worthington.

Wednesday, February 5.
The President laid before the Senate the report of the
Commissioners of the Sinking Fund, stating that the measures which
have been authorized by the Board subsequent to their report of 5th
February, 1805, so far as the same have been completed, are fully
detailed in the report of the Secretary of the Treasury to the Board,
dated the 4th of the present month; and in the statements therein
referred to, which are herewith transmitted, and prayed to be
considered as part of the report. And the report was read, and
ordered to lie for consideration.
Mr. Smith of Maryland, from the committee appointed the 15th of
January last, on that part of the Message of the President of the
United States which relates to the spoliation of our commerce on the
high seas, and informs us of new principles assumed by the British
Courts of Admiralty, as a pretext for the condemnation of our vessels
in their prize courts, made report, and the report was read, and
ordered to lie for consideration.
The motion, that it be

Resolved, That a committee be appointed to inquire why the

expenditures in the Navy Department, for the year 1805, have so far
exceeded the appropriations for the same, and report thereon to the
Senate;

was resumed and adopted; and ordered that it be referred to the

committee appointed on the 28th January last, to make inquiry into
the specific expenditures of the respective departments, to report
thereon.
 The bill making provision for the compensation of witnesses who
attended the trial of the impeachment of Samuel Chase, was read
the second time, and ordered to the third reading.

Thursday, February 6.
Purchase of Florida.

The Senate resumed the third reading of the bill, entitled “An act
making provision for defraying any extraordinary expenses attending
the intercourse between the United States and foreign nations;” and,
On motion that the bill, and message from the House of
Representatives accompanying the same, be referred to a select
committee, with instructions to inquire and report to the Senate their
opinion, whether West Florida was or was not included in the cession
of Louisiana to the United States by the treaty with France,
concluded on the 30th of April, 1803, together with the evidence
upon which such an opinion may be supported; it was determined in
the negative—yeas 8, nays 23, as follows:

Yeas.—Messrs. Adair, Adams, Bayard, Hillhouse, Pickering, Plumer,

Tracy, and White.
Nays.—Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Bradley, Condit, Fenner,
Gaillard, Gilman, Howland, Kitchel, Logan, Maclay, Mitchill, Moore,
Smith of Maryland, Smith of New York, Smith of Tennessee, Smith of
Vermont, Stone, Sumter, Thruston, Turner, Worthington, and Wright.

On motion to postpone the further consideration of the bill at this

time, and to take up the following resolution:

Resolved, That the President be requested to lay before the

Senate the instructions given to Messrs. Monroe and Pinckney, late
Ministers of the United States to the Court of Spain, together with
the facts and arguments exhibited by them, in their negotiation, in
support of their claims to territories eastward of the Mississippi, as
far as the river Perdido, and of territory on the western side of the
Mississippi, as far as the Rio Bravo; the essay of Mr. Cevallos, the
Minister of His Catholic Majesty, in answer to our Ministers, in
relation to the western limits; and any other documents in his
possession, tending to establish the rightful boundaries of Louisiana:

It passed in the negative.

Friday, February 7.
Purchase of Florida.

The Senate resumed the third reading of the bill, entitled “An act
making provision for defraying any extraordinary expenses attending
the intercourse between the United States and foreign nations;” and,
On motion to postpone the further consideration of the bill at this
time, and take up the following resolution:

Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to

renew our negotiations with the Spanish Government, in such a
manner as may bring every subject in controversy between the two
countries to a speedy termination, equally advantageous to both:

It passed in the negative.

On motion to strike out of the bill the words “two millions,” section
one, and in lieu thereof, insert “one million;” a division was called
for, and the question on striking out was determined in the negative
—yeas 13, nays 18, as follows:

Yeas.—Messrs. Adair, Adams, Bayard, Bradley, Gilman, Hillhouse,

Logan, Mitchill, Pickering, Plumer, Stone, Tracy, and White.
 Nays.—Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Condit, Fenner, Gaillard,
Howland, Kitchel, Maclay, Moore, Smith of Maryland, Smith of New
York, Smith of Tennessee, Smith of Vermont, Sumter, Thruston,
Turner, Worthington, and Wright.

On motion to amend the bill by inserting after the word “applied,”

in the first section, the words “for the purchase from the Spanish
Government of their territories lying on the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf
of Mexico, and eastward of the river Mississippi,” it passed in the
negative—yeas 9, nays 20, as follows:

Yeas.—Messrs. Adair, Adams, Bayard, Gilman, Hillhouse, Pickering,

Plumer, Tracy, and White.
Nays.—Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Bradley, Condit, Fenner,
Gaillard, Howland, Kitchel, Maclay, Moore, Smith of Maryland, Smith
of New York, Smith of Tennessee, Smith of Vermont, Stone, Sumter,
Thruston, Turner, Worthington, and Wright.

On motion to postpone the consideration of the bill until Monday

next, it passed in the negative.
On motion to agree to the final passage of the bill, it passed in the
affirmative—yeas 17, nays 11, as follows:

Yeas.—Messrs. Anderson, Baldwin, Condit, Fenner, Gaillard,

Howland, Kitchel, Maclay, Moore, Smith of Maryland, Smith of New
York, Smith of Tennessee, Smith of Vermont, Thruston, Turner,
Worthington, and Wright.
Nays.—Messrs. Adair, Adams, Bayard, Gilman, Hillhouse, Pickering,
Plumer, Stone, Sumter, Tracy, and White.

So it was Resolved, That this bill pass.[29]

 Monday, February 10.
The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the
consideration of the amendments reported to the bill to suspend the
commercial intercourse between the United States and the French
island of St. Domingo; and, having amended the report, it was in
part adopted, and the bill was reported to the House accordingly;
and the bill having been further amended,
Ordered, That it pass to the third reading as amended.
A message from the House of Representatives informed the
Senate that the House have passed a bill, entitled “An act declaring
the assent of Congress to an act of the General Assembly of the
State of North Carolina;” a bill, entitled “An act declaring the consent
of Congress to an act of the State of South Carolina, passed on the
21st day of December, 1804, so far as the same relates to
authorizing the City Council of Charleston to impose and collect a
duty on the tonnage of vessels from foreign ports;” also, a bill,
entitled “An act to regulate and fix the compensation of officers of
the Senate and House of Representatives;” in which bills they desire
the concurrence of the Senate.
The bills brought up for consideration were read, and ordered to
the second reading.
Mr. Wright, from the committee to whom was referred, on the
31st of January last, the bill for the protection and indemnification of
American seamen, reported it without amendment.
Mr. Thruston, from the committee to whom was referred, on the
5th instant, the bill, entitled “An act for altering the time for holding
the circuit court in the district of North Carolina,” reported the bill
with amendments; which were read, and ordered to lie for
consideration.

Wednesday, February 12.

 British Aggressions.

The Senate resumed the report of the committee, of the fifth

instant, on that part of the Message of the President of the United
States, which relates to the spoliation of our commerce on the high
seas, and of the new principles assumed by the British Courts of
Admiralty, as a pretext for the condemnation of our vessels, in their
prize courts, to wit:

1. Resolved, That the capture and condemnation, under the

orders of the British Government, and adjudications of their Courts
of Admiralty, of American vessels and their cargoes, on the pretext
of their being employed in a trade with the enemies of Great Britain,
prohibited in time of peace, is an unprovoked aggression upon the
property of the citizens of these United States, a violation of their
neutral rights, and an encroachment upon their national
independence.
2. Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested
to demand and insist upon the restoration of the property of their
citizens, captured and condemned on the pretext of its being
employed in a trade with the enemies of Great Britain, prohibited in
time of peace; and upon the indemnification of such American
citizens, for their losses and damages sustained by these captures
and condemnations; and to enter into such arrangements with the
British Government, on this and all other differences subsisting
between the two nations, and particularly respecting the
impressment of American seamen, as may be consistent with the
honor and interests of the United States, and manifest their earnest
desire to obtain for themselves and their citizens, by amicable
negotiation, that justice to which they are entitled.
3. Resolved, That it is expedient to prohibit by law the importation
into the United States of any of the following goods, wares, or
merchandise, being the growth, produce, or manufacture, of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or the dependencies
thereof, that is to say: woollens, linens, hats, nails, looking glasses,
rum, hardwares, slate, salt, coal, boots, shoes, ribbons, silks, and
plated and glass wares. The said prohibition to commence from the
—— day of ——, unless previously thereto equitable arrangements
shall be made between the two Governments, on the differences
subsisting between them; and to continue until such arrangements
shall be agreed upon and settled.

And, on the question to adopt the first resolution, as reported by

the committee, it was determined unanimously in the affirmative—
yeas 28.

Thursday, February 13.

British Aggressions.

The report of the committee, made on the 5th instant, on that

part of the Message of the President of the United States which
relates to the spoliation of our commerce, and of the new principles
assumed by the British Courts of Admiralty, was resumed.
Mr. Israel Smith said that he was extremely sorry that he could not
bring his mind to assent to the second resolution; because he
viewed it of great importance that there should be unanimity upon a
subject of this nature. He was not opposed to it from any
constitutional objection, arising from a belief that the Senate had no
right to give their advice and consent to the Executive as to the
course and conditions upon which they desired that an
accommodation might be brought about; but he was opposed to it
from the peculiar impropriety of so doing, deduced from the whole
circumstances of the case, as it now presented itself for
consideration. It would be recollected by the Senate, that many of
our complaints against the British Government were of long
continuance; that they had been the subject of our pointed and
repeated remonstrances, and in a particular manner, the
impressment of American seamen; that, on a former occasion, they
had committed vast spoliations on our commerce, not under the
sanction of the laws of nations, as their subsequent transactions
with our Government have acknowledged; but under the authority of
the particular orders of their Government, thereby subjecting the
property of our merchants upon the high seas, not only to the
restrictions and forfeitures incurred by the law of nations, but also
exposing it to all the vexations and forfeitures growing out of the
caprice of British orders of capture. The late encroachments on our
rights as a neutral nation, and which are now the subject of
consideration, are of a nature similar to those we have before
experienced, and proceed from the same unwarrantable cause; and,
further, are continued in full force and operation at the very moment
our Government is pressing upon their consideration the injustice of
their proceedings, by argument too strong and convincing to admit
of doubt. And how are they answered? By procrastination, and hints
that the necessity of the case is a sufficient justification. The
Executive, indignant at this evasion, and despairing of redress by
any further appeal to their justice and magnanimity, has turned to
the National Legislature, and informed them that what remained to
be done on this interesting subject must rest on the wisdom and
firmness of Congress.
Mr. Anderson.—Mr. President: In discussing the merits of the
resolution now under consideration, it will be necessary that we keep
constantly in view the great principle of the one which has already
passed this House by a unanimous vote, because this second
resolution is predicated upon the principle of the first. In the first we
declare, that the capture and condemnation, under the orders of the
British Government, and adjudication of their Courts of Admiralty, of
American vessels and their cargoes, on the pretext of their being
employed in a trade with the enemies of Great Britain, prohibited in
time of peace, is an unprovoked aggression upon the property of the
citizens of the United States, a violation of their neutral rights, and
an encroachment upon their national independence.
 In order to show that the ground we have taken is correct, I will
take leave to refer to a book (entitled An Examination of the British
Doctrine which subjects to capture a neutral trade, not open in time
of peace) ascribed to a gentleman high in office, who has deservedly
acquired great celebrity in the political world. It will be found that
the principle contended for in the resolution I have cited, obtained
as early as the first rise of regular commerce, and was even reduced
to system as early as 1338. To this doctrine Great Britain acceded by
treaty with Sweden, in 1655, and afterwards, in 1674, she actually
claimed and enjoyed the benefit of a free trade, she being at that
time in peace and the Dutch in war with France. With what kind of
pretext can Great Britain pretend to deprive us of the exercise of the
very rights which she herself has claimed and exercised, upon
precisely the same principles? Besides, those neutral rights have, by
constant and very long usage, become the established law of
nations, and have from time to time been ingrafted into many
treaties even where Great Britain was herself a party. Upon this
doctrine, thus sustained, we request the President to demand and
insist upon the restoration of the property of our citizens, captured
and condemned on the pretext of its being employed in a trade with
the enemies of Great Britain, prohibited in time of peace, and upon
the indemnification of such American citizens for their losses and
damages sustained by these captures and condemnations.
It has been objected that the language of this resolution is too
strong, that the words demand and insist go too far; and that the
absolute restoration of our vessels, &c., will, by these words being
retained, be made sine qua non of an accommodation with Great
Britain. If, sir, we were to express ourselves in less forcible language,
we should, in my opinion, subvert our own principles, and recede
from the high ground we have taken, which might eventually
radically destroy our neutral rights, and completely paralyze our
commerce.
The words demand and insist are diplomatic, and as such most
proper to be used, and the more so, as they seem to be appropriate
to the principle of the first resolution. But, Mr. President, the latter
part of this resolution, by which indemnification may be made, and
new arrangements entered into with Great Britain, so far ameliorates
those precedent words that the President will possess ample powers,
according to a true exposition of the whole taken together, and he
will not, in my opinion, be trammelled in the manner the gentleman
from Ohio conceives. In settling national differences, it has ever
been necessary in some points to give a little, and in others to take,
according to the peculiar circumstances upon which the negotiation
might happen to turn; either upon a point of national honor, or an
interesting point of national commerce, or both so connected as not
well to be severed.
Mr. Mitchell said he hoped the resolution would be adopted in its
full extent. On this subject he differed wholly from the honorable
gentleman from Vermont, (Mr. Israel Smith.)
As the proposition recommended to the Senate by the select
committee was now before them in its most broad and extensive
sense, he should apply his remarks to the principle, rather than to
the form of the resolution under debate.
Toward the end of 1803, more than half the articles of the treaty
between our Government and that of Great Britain had ceased.
Since that event commercial intercourse had been carried on by the
two nations, under their respective laws, without any convention or
pact between them. Inconveniences had been experienced in
various ways from that time to the present. An attempt indeed had
been made two years ago to remove a considerable part of them by
a repeal of the countervailing duties; but that effort not
corresponding with the feelings of the nation, had been relinquished.
The war which was rekindled in Europe soon after the expiration
of the temporary articles of the treaty had embarrassed the
commerce of the great maritime powers, and thrown into the hands
of neutrals an extraordinary proportion of the colonial and carrying
trade. The citizens of the United States, among others, had profited
by the opportunity, and engaged extensively in this neutral
commerce. But it had been the policy of Great Britain, the strongest
maritime nation among the belligerents, to interrupt this intercourse
of neutrals with the colonies of her colonies, as if they had been her
own colonies. A series of outrageous proceedings had been the
result; such as had excited the most lively indignation against them
from Maine to Georgia, and roused the nation with one voice to
resist and repel them.
Mr. Bayard.—Mr. President, if there be any objection to the
resolution now before us, it is that it shelters the Executive
Government from that responsibility as to its measures which
properly ought to attach to it. The duty prescribed by the resolution
is of an Executive nature, and the President is charged with the care
of those interests for which the resolution provides. By prescribing a
course of conduct to the Executive, we release that branch of
Government from responsibility as to the event, and take it upon
ourselves. But, sir, though I feel this objection, yet at the present
moment it is outweighed by other considerations. The state of our
public affairs is critical, and at such a time I think it becomes every
branch and member of the Government to co-operate with cordiality
and zeal in support of each other, and to strive to do more rather
than less than their respective duty.
The design of this resolution, sir, presents itself to my mind in a
very different point of view from that in which it appears to the
gentleman from Vermont, (Mr. Smith.) That honorable member is
opposed to it, because he thinks it gives just cause of offence to the
President: that we prescribe to the President a duty which he ought
certainly to perform without our injunction, and of consequence we
betray doubts that he will do what belongs to his office without our
interference.
For my part, sir, I do not consider the resolution as intended in
any degree for the President, but as designed for the British
Government. I suppose without the resolution the President would
take the course which it marks out. But we intend to manifest by it,
that it is not simply the opinion of the President that specific redress
should be granted for the wrongs we have suffered, but that it is the
concurrent sense of this branch of the Government, that such
redress should be insisted on. I do not mean that we should be
considered as offering an empty menace to the British cabinet, but a
demonstration of the union of different branches of our Government
in demanding satisfaction for the wrongs done us. Foreign
Governments calculate much on our divisions, our union will
disappoint those calculations.
On motion, the Senate now adjourned.

Friday, February 14.

British Aggressions.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the

committee, made on the 5th instant, on that part of the Message of
the President of the United States which relates to the violation of
neutral rights, and the impressment of American seamen.
The second resolution being still under consideration, as follows:
 “2. Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested
to demand and insist upon the restoration of the property of their
citizens, captured, and condemned, on the pretext of its being
employed in a trade with the enemies of Great Britain, prohibited in
time of peace: and upon the indemnification of such American
citizens, for their losses and damages sustained by those captures
and condemnations: and to enter into such arrangements with the
British Government, on this and all other differences subsisting
between the two nations, (and particularly respecting the
impressment of American seamen,) as may be consistent with the
honor and interest of the United States, and manifest their earnest
desire to obtain for themselves and their citizens, by amicable
negotiation, that justice to which they are entitled.”

Mr. Worthington.—On further consideration of the resolution now

before the Senate I confess I feel more opposed to it, and do
believe, on the whole, it will be best not to pass it in its present
form. The resolution must mean something, or it must mean
nothing. It must intend to convey to the President the opinions and
advice of this body, or not to convey it. Now, sir, if it is intended to
convey to the President the opinion and advice of the Senate, which
is certainly my understanding of it, I beg gentlemen to reflect a little
before they adopt it. The advice of this Senate I trust will never be
given to the President without having the desired effect; and let me
add, sir, that from the intimate connection which exists between this
and the Executive branch of the Government, I must believe that the
President would not feel himself justified, nor would he be willing to
take so much responsibility on himself as entirely to reject it. Sir, I
could not justify him if he did. We are equally responsible with him
in our executive capacity, and can we for a moment believe that he
would act contrary to the decided opinion of the Senate, who can at
all times control or defeat him by rejecting a treaty made contrary to
their advice and opinions? What, sir, is the object of the resolution?
 We request the President “to demand and insist upon the
restoration of the property of their citizens, captured and
condemned on the pretext of its being employed in a trade with the
enemies of Great Britain, prohibited in time of peace; and upon the
indemnification of such American citizens for their losses and
damages sustained by these captures and condemnations:” and
afterwards “to enter into such arrangements with the British
Government, on this and all other differences subsisting between the
two nations, (and particularly respecting the impressment of
American seamen,) as may be consistent with the honor and
interests of the United States, and manifest their earnest desire to
obtain for themselves and their citizens, by amicable negotiation,
that justice to which they are entitled.”
Mr. Adair.—Mr. President, the motion before the Senate is to
recommit the resolution to a special committee. Gentlemen in favor
of the resolution as it stands, have called upon us to point out the
alterations we wish to make in it, as a cause of commitment; I will
do so by stating my objections to it in its present shape. The first
resolution on the paper which I hold in my hand, and which met
with a unanimous vote of the Senate two days past, contains a mere
declaration of their opinion on an abstract principle; to this
resolution I fully and freely assent, although I did not vote for it,
being that day unwell and absent. But this second resolution, if it is
to have any effect at all, is meant to convey an instruction to the
President of the United States. It contains a request to him, not only
that he will endeavor to obtain an adjustment of our differences by
treaty, but that prior to this he will “demand and insist upon the
restoration of the property of our citizens captured and condemned
on the pretence of its being employed in a trade with the enemies of
Great Britain, prohibited in time of peace; and upon the
indemnification of such American citizens for their losses and
damages sustained by these captures and condemnations;” that he
will enter into arrangements, &c. This, Mr. President, is the part of
the resolution I object to. It is going too far. It is circumscribing the
powers of the President, and tying him down to a particular point. It
is making that the sine qua non, the basis on which alone he is to
treat; at least it is doing this so far as an opinion of the Senate,
expressed in this way, can do it. It really looks to me, as if, on this
particular point of the restitution, we were afraid to trust our Chief
Magistrate. I presume there is not a member who hears me, who
does not fully believe the captures and condemnations alluded to in
the resolution were unjust; that they are an infringement of our
rights; and that we are entitled to restitution. But let it be
remembered that these condemnations are the solemn decisions of
a court of very high authority in Great Britain; a court that, it is well
known, acts under the counsels (if not the control) of the cabinet.
May we not then reasonably suppose that the British Government
are as fully assured (in their own minds) that these condemnations
are just and warranted, under the law of nations, as we are that
they are unjust and unwarranted; and that they will be as unwilling
to acknowledge in the face of the whole world that they have been
wantonly robbing us of our property, as we will be to acknowledge
that we have paid so much without a cause? It has been well
observed by an honorable member from Tennessee, that in forming
commercial treaties of this kind, there will be various points to
consider, and it may not be necessary to contend for strict justice in
every punctilio; arrangements or treaties, when there are existing
differences to settle, must always be a bargain of compromise and
forbearance; in one point we may give a little, that we may obtain
an equivalent in another. So it may turn out in settling our disputes
with Great Britain. Why then are we not satisfied with expressing our
opinion on the great principle of right; and leave it altogether with
our Chief Magistrate to enter into and point out the details?
Messrs. J. Quincy Adams, Samuel Smith, Pickering, Tracy, and Maclay,
delivered their sentiments.
The motion to recommit the resolution for the purpose of
amending it, was lost—yeas 15, nays 16.
Mr. Worthington then moved to strike out the words in italics, from
the second to the eleventh line.
 Messrs. S. Smith, and White, opposed the motion, which was
disagreed to—yeas 13, nays 16, as follows:

Yeas.—Messrs. Adair, Baldwin, Bradley, Gaillard, Howland, Logan,

Maclay, Moore, Plumer, Smith of Vermont, Sumter, Turner, and
Worthington.
Nays.—Messrs. Adams, Anderson, Bayard, Gilman, Hillhouse,
Kitchel, Mitchill, Pickering, Smith of Maryland, Smith of New York,
Smith of Ohio, Smith of Tennessee, Thruston, Tracy, White, and
Wright

Mr. Thruston moved to postpone the resolution, for the purpose of

previously taking up and acting upon the third, which prohibits the
importation into the United States of a variety of articles, the
growth, produce, or manufactures of Great Britain, after the —— day
of —— next, unless equitable arrangements shall be made between
the United States and Great Britain.
This motion was lost—yeas 13.
Messrs. Israel Smith and Bradley then spoke against agreeing to
the resolution. The principal ground taken by them was that it
became the Senate to take stronger ground, and to adopt vigorous
measures, before they requested the Executive to resume
negotiation.
Mr. Tracy advocated the resolution. He did not think negotiation
exhausted. He thought it became the Senate to make one further
attempt towards negotiating our differences, before a resort was had
to warlike measures. The President would be enabled to take this
step, by the Senate, who were a branch of the war-declaring power,
expressing their support of the measures he had taken, at the same
time that they requested a renewal of the negotiation.
Mr. Moore moved to strike out the words “and insist;” which
motion prevailed.
 Mr. Worthington said that, so modified, he should vote for the
resolution.
Mr. Kitchel observed that he was sorry to intrude upon the
patience of the Senate at that late hour; but the observations of the
gentleman who had just sat down induced him to beg their
indulgence for a few moments. The gentleman, in the course of his
observations, seems to have made two propositions as the ground of
his objection, viz: that the resolution now under consideration
contains a censure upon the President, as not having done his duty
in negotiating; and that by passing it we are going to sacrifice the
honor and interests of the United States and its citizens.
Mr. President, I would ask in what manner we shall do either? How
shall we censure the President? He has negotiated until there
appears no prospect of obtaining that justice to which we are
entitled; and he has now submitted the matter to Congress to
pursue such measures as shall appear to them prudent.
And what are we about to do? Sir, we have already unanimously
passed one resolution, in which we say that the capture and
condemnation of the vessels and cargoes of our citizens is an
unprovoked violation of our independence, and an aggression upon
the property of our citizens. And if that declaration is correct what
are we to do further? Are we, upon the strength of that declaration,
to sit down and fold our hands together, and expect Britain to do us
justice, or are we to declare war? Sir, are we prepared at this
moment to declare war? Will it be wise? Will it be prudent, without
one effort to avoid it, with all its horrors of blood and destruction?
Are the people now prepared to meet it, without our making one
more attempt to negotiate? Will they say we have acted wisely? I
believe not. Sir, we are one component part of Congress, who have
the sole power of declaring war; and by this resolution we are going
to say to Britain—not by ourselves, for we are not by the
constitution authorized to speak to foreign nations in this way; but
we are about to request the President, in our behalf, and in our
name, and in the name of the whole people of the United States, to
say to Britain—you have injured us by your unprovoked aggressions,
and we demand satisfaction. We can bear these insults no longer;
therefore, make us compensation for past injuries, and do us justice
in future; and we are willing still to be friends. Wherein does this
censure the President? He has pursued negotiation until he finds it
unavailing. We now ask of him to make one last effort in our behalf,
before we appeal to the last resort of war, and I trust we shall arm
him with power that will give energy to this last negotiation. And
wherein are we going to sacrifice the honor of the United States or
the interests of the citizens? Does it sacrifice our honor to endeavor
to settle our differences in an amicable way, rather than to fly to
arms and deluge the earth with blood? Will it fix a stigma upon us in
the eyes of any rational men or nations? I believe not. And how are
we going to sacrifice the interests of our citizens? Do we do it by
demanding justice for them of Britain? I believe that they themselves
will not view it in that light, when they see it followed by the third
resolution, which I hope will be passed. And, indeed, had it not have
been for the expectations of that resolution being carried into effect,
in such a manner as to give energy to this, I should have withheld
my vote from the first. But, under the full expectation that the third
resolution will pass, and as I do not believe it contains any censure
upon the President, and as I believe it will do honor to the United
States and will have a tendency to secure reparation to our citizens,
I shall cheerfully give it my vote.
Messrs. Logan and Pickering spoke in favor of the resolution, and
Mr. Israel Smith against it; when, after some verbal amendments, the
question was taken upon it, by yeas and nays, and the resolution
carried—yeas 23, nays 7, as follows:

Yeas.—Messrs. Adams, Anderson, Baldwin, Bayard, Gaillard,

Gilman, Hillhouse, Howland, Kitchel, Logan, Maclay, Mitchill, Moore,
Pickering, Smith of Maryland, Smith of New York, Smith of Ohio,
Smith of Tennessee, Tracy, Turner, White, Worthington, and Wright.
 Nays.—Messrs. Adair, Bradley, Plumer, Smith of Vermont, Stone,
Sumter, and Thruston.

So it was Resolved, That the President of the United States be

requested to demand the restoration of the property of their citizens
captured and condemned on the pretext of its being employed in a
trade with the enemies of Great Britain, prohibited in a time of
peace; and the indemnification of such American citizens, for their
losses and damages sustained by these captures and
condemnations; and to enter into such arrangements with the British
Government, on this and all other differences subsisting between the
two nations, (and particularly respecting the impressment of
American seamen,) as may be consistent with the honor and
interests of the United States, and manifest their earnest desire to
obtain for themselves and their citizens, by amicable negotiation,
that justice to which they are entitled.

Wednesday, February 19.

Lewis and Clarke’s Expedition.

The following Message was received from the President of the

United States:

To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States:

In pursuance of a measure proposed to Congress, by a Message
of January 18th, 1803, and sanctioned by their approbation, for
carrying it into execution, Captain Meriwether Lewis, of the first
regiment of infantry, was appointed, with a party of men, to explore
the river Missouri from its mouth to its source, and crossing the high
lands by the shortest portage, to seek the best water communication
thence to the Pacific Ocean; and Lieutenant Clarke was appointed
second in command. They were to enter into conference with the
Indian nations on their route, with a view to the establishment of
commerce with them. They entered the Missouri, May 14, 1804, and
on the 1st of November, took up their winter quarters near the
Mandan towns, sixteen hundred and nine miles above the mouth of
the river, in latitude 47° 21´ 47´´ north, and longitude 99° 24´ 45´´
west, from Greenwich. On the 8th of April, 1805, they proceeded up
the river in pursuance of the objects prescribed to them. A letter of
the preceding day, April 7, from Captain Lewis, is herewith
communicated. During his stay among the Mandans, he has been
able to lay down the Missouri, according to courses and distances
taken on his passage up it, corrected by frequent observations of
longitude and latitude, and to add to the actual survey of this
portion of the river, a general map of the country between the
Mississippi and Pacific, from the 34th to the 54th degrees of latitude.
These additions are from information collected from Indians, with
whom he had opportunities of communicating during his journey,
and residence with them. Copies of this map are now presented to
both Houses of Congress. With these, I communicate, also a
statistical view, procured and forwarded by him, of the Indian
nations inhabiting the Territory of Louisiana and the countries
adjacent to its northern and western borders, and of other
interesting circumstances respecting them.
TH. JEFFERSON.
February 19, 1806.

Thursday, February 20.

Trade with St. Domingo.

The Senate resumed the third reading of the bill to suspend the
commercial intercourse between the United States and the French
island of St. Domingo.
Mr. White.—Mr. President, it will be recollected that the bill, as
originally introduced on this subject by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, (Mr. Logan,) was variant in every shape and feature
from that now before us. The first bill I considered altogether
impotent, and had little or no concern as to its fate; but that now
under consideration, as presented by the committee, is of a very
different complexion, and goes the full length of interdicting all
commerce between this country and the island of St. Domingo.
Our local situation, Mr. President, gives to us advantages in the
commerce of the West Indies over all the nations of the world; and it
is not only the right and the interest, but it is the duty of this
Government, by every fair and honorable means, to protect and
encourage our citizens in the exercise of those advantages. If, in
other respects, we pursue a wise policy, and remain abstracted from
the convulsions of Europe, that for many years to come are not likely
to have much interval; enjoying, as we shall, all the advantages of
peace-wages, peace-freight, peace-insurance, and the other peace
privileges of neutral traders, we must nearly acquire a monopoly of
this commerce. We can make usually a treble voyage; that is, from
this continent to the West Indies, thence to Europe, and back to
America again, in the time that the European vessels are engaged in
one West India voyage. This circumstance of itself, properly
improved, at a period perhaps not very remote, whenever others of
those islands may be released from, or refuse longer submission to
their present colonial restrictions upon commerce, will enable us to
rival even the British in transporting to the markets of Europe the
very valuable productions of the West Indies, such as sugar,
molasses, coffee, spirits, &c. Again, sir, I state nothing new when I
say that the produce of this country is essential to the West India
islands, and the facility with which we can convey it to them, must
at all times enable us to furnish them much cheaper than they can
be furnished by any other people. It requires not indeed the spirit of
prophecy to foretell, that the time must come when the very
convenient and commanding situation we occupy, in every point of
view, relative to the most valuable of those islands, will place in our
hands the entire control of their trade; that is, if we pursue a wise
and politic system of measures in relation to them; holding fast upon
all the great advantages nature has given us, and promptly availing
ourselves of such others as circumstances may throw in our way. As
a source of public revenue; as a means of increasing our national
capital; and, though last, not least, as a nursery for our seamen, the
importance of this commerce to the United States is incalculable,
and should be guarded with a jealous eye; we should never suffer
our rightful participation in it to be diminished by others, much less
have the folly to diminish it ourselves. Those islands are situated in
our very neighborhood, and but for the arbitrary colonial restrictions
upon commerce, to which they are now subject, no other nation
could hold a successful competition with us in their markets, unless
some such ill-judged, baleful, anti-commercial measure, as has now
fallen to the genius of the gentleman from Pennsylvania to contrive,
should enable them to do so.
I will now, sir, notice the relative hostile situations of France and
St. Domingo, and see how far gentlemen are borne out in their
positions—that the people of St. Domingo can be considered only as
revolted slaves, or, at best, as French subjects now in a state of
rebellion; that they are nationally in no respect separated from
France; that to trade with them is a violation of the laws of nations,
and that we have no right to do so. This, so far as I could
understand them, forms a summary of the points that have been
urged in support of the present measure, and in opposition to the
trade; each of which deserves some attention. If I am wrong in
these points, the friends of the bill will please now to correct me;
and I hope gentlemen will become convinced during the discussion,
that the case which so many of them have stated, of any foreign
power succoring and protecting the revolted slaves of the Southern
States, is not the parallel of that before us. As to the first point, it is
to be recollected, that some years past, to quote from high
authority, “during the agonizing spasms of infuriated man, seeking
through blood and slaughter his long lost liberties,” when our
enlightened sister Republic of France was, in her abundant kindness,
forcing liberty upon all the world, and propagating the rights of man
at the point of the bayonet, in one of her paroxysms of philanthropy,
she proclaimed, by a solemn decree of her Convention, the blessings
of liberty and equality to the blacks of St. Domingo too; invited them
to the fraternal embrace, and to the honors of a Conventional sitting.
The wisdom or the policy of this proceeding, it is not my business to
inquire into, but it certainly affords some excuse, if any be
necessary, for the subsequent conduct of those unfortunate people.
The decree abolishing for ever slavery in the West Indies, (French,)
and extending all the blessings of citizenship and equality to every
human creature, of whatever grade or color, then under the
Government of France, passed the Convention in February,
seventeen hundred and ninety-four. The existence of such a paper I
did not expect would have been doubted here till the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Kitchel) actually denied it. In the new Annual
Register, of ninety-four, is the following account of it, page 347: “La
Croix rose to move the entire abolition of slavery in the dominions of
France. The National Convention rose spontaneously to decree the
proposition of La Croix. On motion of Danton, on the 5th, the
Convention resolved to refer to the Committee of Public Safety the
decree of emancipation, in order that they might provide the most
effectual and safest means of carrying it into effect.” But here is the
decree itself, as taken from the Gentleman’s Magazine, and furnished
to me by a friend: “National Convention, 1794, February 4th. The
National Convention decrees that slavery is abolished in all the
French colonies. It decrees in consequence that all the inhabitants of
the French colonies, of whatever color, are French citizens, and from
this day forward shall enjoy those rights which are secured to them
by the declaration of rights, and by the constitution.” And this same
principle the Convention frequently recognized, by receiving at their
bar, in the most complimentary manner, various deputations of
blacks from the West Indies, thanking them for the boon conferred
upon them. One of these instances, among many others, I will
submit, as a curiosity in legislative proceedings, to the Senate:
“National Convention. Order of the day. A band of blacks of both
sexes, amidst the sound of martial music; and escorted by a great
band of Parisians, came into the hall to return thanks to the
Legislature for having raised them to the rank of men. The President
gave the fraternal kiss to an old negress, 114 years old, and mother
of eleven children. After which she was respectfully conducted to an
armed chair and seated by the side of the President, amid the
loudest bursts of applause.” By the original decree, the liberty of the
blacks was established. This ceremony, it seems, was only to show
their equality; and certainly, sir, the President could not have given a
much stronger, or a much kinder evidence of it to the old lady. But,
Mr. President, the claim of those people to freedom does not rest
here. I have in my hand a document of much more recent date, and
even more to be relied upon. It is the proclamation of the then First
Consul, now the Emperor and King, to the people of St. Domingo,
when General Le Clerc went there, in the winter of 1801, at the head
of the French forces, which I will read. First, a short proclamation of
General Le Clerc’s:

LIBERTY. EQUALITY.
PROCLAMATION.
On board the Ocean, off the Cape, the 15th of Pluviose, 10th year
of the French Republic, (Feb. 6, 1802.)
Le Clerc, General-in-chief of the Army of St. Domingo, Captain
General of the Colony, to the inhabitants of St. Domingo:
Inhabitants of St. Domingo! Read the proclamation of the First
Consul of the Republic. It assures to the blacks that liberty for which
they have so long fought; to commerce and to agriculture that
prosperity without which there can be no colonies. His promises will
be faithfully fulfilled; to doubt it would be a crime.
The General-in-chief,
LE CLERC, Captain General.
By order of the General-in-chief,
LENOIR.
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookultra.com