The New Hampshire gazette (Portsmouth [N.H.]), 1795-12-08 00:00:00

THE New Hampshire Gazette.
Published by JOHN MELCHER, Printer to the State of New Hampshire, at his Office, corner of Market-Street, Portsmouth.
Vol. XL.—Num. 2036.]
TUESDAY, December 8, 1795.
[9s. pr. Annum]
From the (N. Y.) Daily Advertiser.
EXPLANATION
By Mr. HAMMON, on the subject of a late attack upon the President of the United States, and the former and present Secretary of the Treasury, in relation to the compensation of the President.
A VERY virulent attack has recently been made upon the President of the United States, the present Secretary of the Treasury, and myself as his predecessor in office, on the ground of extra payments to the President on account of his salary.
The charges against all the three are no less heinous than those of intentional violation of the Constitution, of the laws and of their respective oaths of office. I annex the epithet intentional, because, though not expressly used in the terms of the attack, it is implied in every line of it: since an involuntary error of construction, if that could even be made out, would not warrant the imputations "of contemning and despising every principle which the people have established for the security of their rights, of setting at defiance all law and authority and of servile submission and compliance with the lawless will and pleasure of a President."
Were considerations personal to myself alone to be consulted, the present attempt would be treated with no greater attention than has been shewn to all the anonymous slanders by which I have been so long and so implacably pursued. But convinced, by a course of observation for more than four years, that there exists in this country an unprincipled and daring combination, under the influence of sinister aims, to obstruct by any means which shall be necessary and can be commanded, not short even of force, the due and efficient administration of the present government, to make out most important national interests subservient to the views of a foreign power, and, as means to these ends, to destroy by calumny and misrepresentation the confidence of the people in the truly virtuous men of our country, and to transfer it, with the power of the state, to ambitious, intriguing, and hypocritical pretenders to extraordinary merit and patriotism. Perceiving likewise, that this infatuated combination, in the belief that the well earned esteem and attachment of his fellow-citizens towards the present chief magistrate of the United States is the principal remaining obstacle to the execution of their plan, are making the most strenuous and systematic efforts to extinguish those sentiments in the breasts of the people—I think it a duty to depart from my general rule of conduct, and to submit to the public, with my name, an explanation of the principals which have governed the Treasury Department on the point in question.
I shall state in the first place, that the rule with regard to expenditures and appropriations which has uniformly regulated the practice of the department, is this: viz. to issue no money from the Treasury but for an object for which there was a law previously passed, making an appropriation and designating the fund from which the money was to arise. But there being such a law and an adequate fund to support the expenditure, it was deemed justifiable as well before as after the service was performed or the supply obtained for which the appropriation was designed, to make disbursements from the Treasury for the object, if it appeared safe and expedient so to do. If made before, it was an advance or anticipation for which the party was charged and held accountable, till exonerated by the performance of the service or by the furnishing of the supply—If afterwards, it was a payment, and went to some general head of account as such.
Thus if a sum was appropriated for provisions for the army for a particular year, it was common to make advances on account of the contractors long before the supplies were furnished. If the law was passed in one year for the next, there would be no hesitation to make the advance immediately after the passing the law, and before the year to which the appropriation was applicable, had commenced. So also sums would be furnished to the department of War in anticipation of the monthly pay of the officers and soldiers and other items of expenditure. And so likewise advances have been made for the use of the President and of the Members of both Houses of Congress in anticipation of their respective compensations. It will without difficulty be comprehended that this practice of the Treasury has in some cases been essential to the due course of the public service.
Every good judge will be sensible that from the insufficiency of individual Capitals to such large advances as the supplies of an army require, it was indispensable to the obtaining them, that anticipations from the Treasury should enable the Contractors to do what otherwise they would have been unable to do; and that these anticipations must also have had the effect of procuring the supplies on cheaper terms to the United States.
When it is considered too that the army has operated for several years past, at the distance of five or six hundred miles from the seat of government, and a considerable part of the year from the rudeness of the country and obstructions of waters, it is impracticable to transmit monies to the scenes of payment—it will be perceived that without advances from the Treasury in anticipation of their pay, not only a compliance with the engagements of the government would have been impossible, but the troops must have been always left unreasonably in arrear. In June 1794, Congress, passed a law declaring that the army should in future be paid in such manner as that the arrears should not exceed two months—Compliance with this regulation renders anticipations at certain seasons matters of physical necessity: yet that law gave no special authority for that purpose.
A particular case, by way of example, in which, distinct from general rules, advances or anticipations in the War Department are necessary, respects the recruiting services of the officers detached on this service, who are for a long time distant from their corps, require the accommodation of an advance of pay to be able to discharge their duty. Towards the possibility of enlisting men, it is indispensable they should carry with them the bounty money, and this upon conjecture of what may be done, and with the possibility that from not being able to obtain the men, the ultimate expenditure may not take place. This instance will suggest to reflection an infinite number of cases, in the course of the public service, in which a disbursement from the Treasury must precede the execution of the object, and may exceed the sum finally requisite for it.
These cases indicate the expediency and even necessity of the construction which has regulated the practice of the Treasury. And it might be shewn, if necessary, that it is analogous to the practice under the former government of the United States, and under other governments; and this too where the theory of expenditures is, as expressed in our Constitution, that no money shall be expended, but in consequence of an appropriation by law.
It remains to see whether this rule of conduct, so indispensable in the practice of the Department, be permitted by a fair interpretation of the constitution and the laws.
The general injunction of the Constitution (Article I. IX.) is, that "no money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law."
The question upon the clause is, whether, when an appropriation has been made for a particular service or supply, the actual disbursement from the Treasury must follow the service or supply, in the nature of payment, or may precede it in the nature of an advance? I hold the last construction which is, that adopted by the Treasury to be the true one.
The clause just cited appears to me to be exactly equivalent to this other clause—"No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but for which there is an appropriation made by law," in other words, before money can legally issue from the Treasury for any purpose, there must be a law authorising an expenditure, and designating the object and the fund. This being done, the disbursement may be made consistently with the Constitution, either by way of advance or anticipation, or by way of payment. It may precede or follow the service, supply, or other object of expenditure. Either will equally satisfy the words, "in consequence of," which are not words of strict import, but may be taken in several senses—In one sense, that is "in consequence of" a thing, which being bottomed upon it, follows it in order of time.
A disbursement must be either an advance or anticipation of a payment—'Tis not presumable, that the Constitution meant to distinguish between these two modes of disbursement—It must have intended to leave this matter wholly to convenience.
The design of the Constitution in this provision, was, as I conceive, to secure those important ends, that the purpose, the limit, and the fund of every expenditure should be ascertained by a previous law. The public security is complete in this particular, if no money can be expended but for an object to an extent and out of a fund, which the laws have prescribed.
Even in cases, which effect only individual interests, if the terms of a law will bear several meanings, that is to be preferred, which will best accord with convenience. In cases which concern the public, this rule is applicable with still greater latitude.—Public convenience is to be promoted, public inconvenience is to be avoided. The business of administration requires accommodation to so great a variety of circumstances that a narrow construction would in countless instances arrest the wheels of government.
It has been shewn, that the construction which has been adopted at the Treasury, is in many cases essential in practice.—This inclines the scale in favour of it—the words "in consequence of" admitting of various significations,
The practice of the Legislature, as to appropriation laws, favours this construction.
These laws are generally distinct from those which create the cause of expenditure. Thus the act which declares that the President shall be allowed at the rate of twenty-five thousand dollars per annum, it is that which declares that each Senator and Representative shall be entitled to so much per day, that which determines that each Officer and Soldier shall have so much per month, &c.—neither of these acts is an act of appropriation. The Treasury has not conceived itself authorised to spend a single cent upon the basis of any such act; regarding it merely as constituting a claim upon the government for a certain compensation, but requiring prior to an actual disbursement for such claim, that a law be passed authorising the disbursement out of a special fund. This is what is considered as the law, by which the appropriation is made; from which results to the public a double security.
Hence every year a particular act (sometimes more than one) is passed appropriating certain sums for the various branches of the public service, and indicating the funds from which the monies are to be drawn. The object, the sum and the fund are all that are to be found in the acts. They are commonly, if not universally silent as to any thing further.
This I regard as conclusive of the clause in the Constitution. The appropriation laws are in execution of that provision, and fulfil all its purposes.—And they are silent as to the distinction between anticipation and payment in other words as to the manner of disbursement.
Hence I conclude if there exists a law appropriating a certain sum for the salary of the President, an advance upon that sum in anticipation of the service, is as constitutional as a payment after the service has been performed; in other words, the advance of a quarter's salary at the beginning of a quarter is as much warranted by the Constitution as the payment of it at the end of the quarter.
It is in this sense that the present Secretary of the Treasury has affirmed, that not one dollar has at any time been advanced for the use of the President for which there was not an existing appropriation. He did not say that no money had been advanced in anticipation of the service; for the fact is otherwise; but nothing is more true than that the sums disbursed were within the limit of the sums appropriated. If there was an excess at the end of one year, there had been a previous appropriation for a succeeding year, upon which that excess was an advance.
It is objected to this practice, that the death of the party between the advance to him and the expiration of an equivalent term of service, by superceding the object of the advance, would render it a misexpenditure of so much money, and therefore a violation of the Constitution.
I answer, that the same casualty might have the same effect in other cases, in which it would be against common sense to suppose that an advance might not be made with legality and propriety.
Suppose for example, a law was to be passed directing a given quantity of powder to be purchased for public use, and appropriating a definite sum for the purchase, and suppose intelligence to the Secretary of the Treasury, that the quantity required could be procured for prompt payment at Boston—It cannot in such a case be doubted, that the full sum appropriated might be legally advanced to an agent to proceed to Boston to make the purchase—yet the agent might die, and the money never be applied according to its destination, or the desired quantity might be procured for a less sum and a balance remain in his hands.
In either case there would be money drawn from the Treasury, which was not applied to the object of the law; in the last case there is no final object for the disbursement because the balance is a surplus. This proves that the possibility of a failure or falling short of the object, for which an advance is made, is not an objection to its legality. Indeed the consequence is a possible one in every case of an anticipation, whether to contractors or to other public agents, for a determined or undetermined purpose.
The consequence is, that the sum unapplied must be accounted for and refunded. This distinction here again is between an advance and a payment.—More cannot, certainly be finally paid than is equal to the object of an appropriation, though the sum appropriated exceed the sum necessary. But more may be advanced to the full extent of the appropriation, than may be ultimately exhausted by the object of the expenditure, on the condition which always attends an advance, of accounting for the application and refunding an excess. This is a direct answer to the question, whether more can be paid than is necessary to satisfy the object of an appropriation. More cannot be paid, but more may be advanced, on the accountability of the person to whom it is advanced.
The case stated by way of example is also conclusive to the point that money may be
drawn from the Treasury in anticipation of the object of expenditure.
But risk of loss to the public may attend the principle: this is true, but it is as true in all the cases of advances to contractors &c. as in those of advances upon salaries and compensations—nor does this point of risk affect the question of legality; it touches merely that of the prudent exercise of discretion. When large sums are advanced, it is usual to obtain security for their due application or for indemnification. This security is greater or less, according to the circumstances of the parties to whom the advances are made; when small sums are advanced especially if for purposes quickly fulfilled, and to persons who are themselves adequate sureties, no collateral security is demanded—the head of the department is responsible to the government for observing proper measures and taking proper precautions. If he acts so as to incur justly the charge of imprudence or profusion, he may be dismissed or punished according to the nature of his misconduct.
But the principle which is set up would, it is said, be productive of confusion, distress, and bankruptcy at the Treasury; since the appropriation for the support of government is made payable out of the accruing duties of each year, and an established right, in the officers of government to claim their compensations, either on the first day of the year, or on the first day of a quarter before the services was rendered, would create a demand at a time when there might and possibly there would not be a single shilling in the Treasury arising out of the appropriations to satisfy it.*
It is not pretended, that there is an established right in the officers to claim their salaries by anticipation, at the beginning of a year, or at the beginning of a quarter. No such right exists.—The performance of the service must precede the right to demand payment. But it does not follow that because there is no right in the officer to demand payment, it may not be allowable for the Treasury to advance upon account for good reasons. A discretion of this sort in the head of the department can at least involve no embarrassment to the Treasury, none of the formidable evils indicated, for the officer who makes the advance being himself the judge whether there is a competent fund, and whether it can be made with convenience to the Treasury he will only make it, when he perceives that no evil will ensue.
Let me recur to the example of advances to contractors for supplying the army. Suppose that in the terms of contract certain advances were stipulated and made;—but it turned out nevertheless, that the contractor, disappointed in the funds on which he had relied, could not execute his contract without further advances. Here there would be no right on his part to demand such further advances, but there would be a discretion in the Treasury to make them. This is an example of a discretion to do what there is not a right to demand. The existence of this discretion can do no harm, because the head of the Treasury will judge whether the state of it permits the required advances. But it is essential, that the discretion should exist, because otherwise there might be a failure of supplies, which no plan that could be substituted might be able to avert.
Yet the discretion is in neither case an arbitrary one—It is one which the head of the Department is responsible to exercise with a careful eye to the public interest and safety. The abuse of it, in other words the carelessness and wanton exercise of it would be a cause of dismissal for incapacity or of punishment for mal-conduct.
Thus advances on account of salaries, or to contractors for procuring public supplies might be carried so far, and so improvidently managed, as to be highly culpable and justly punishable; but this is a distinct question from the violation of Constitution or law, in all the cases, it is a complete answer to the objection of embarrassment to the Treasury, that not the will of the parties, but the judgment of the head of the department, is the rule and measure of the advances, which he may make, within the bounds of the sums appropriated by law.
I consider the law which has been cited with regard to the pay of the army, as a legislative recognition of the rule of practice at the Treasury. The Legislature could not have been ignorant that it was impracticable at certain seasons of the year, to convey the money to the army; to fulfil their direction, without an advance from the Treasury before the pay became due. They presuppose a right to make this advance, and enjoin that the troops shall not be left more than two months in arrear.
The origin of this law enforces the observation. It is known that it passed in consequence of representations, that the pay of the army was left too long in arrear, and it was intended to
* These ideas with regard to the administration of the fund appropriated are very crude and incorrect; but it would complicate the subject to go into the developments.

quicken the measures of payment. No person in either house of the Legislature, I believe, doubted that there was power to precede the service by advances, so as to render the payment even more punctually than was enjoined.
Indeed such advances, when the army operated at a distance, were necessary to fulfil the contract with it. Its pay became due monthly, and in strictness of contract was to be made at the end of each month, a thing impossible unless advanced from the Treasury before it became due. No special authority was however, ever given for this purpose to the Treasury, but it appears to have been left to take its course on the principle, that the disbursement might take place as soon as there was an appropriation, though in anticipation of the term of service.
The foregoing observations vindicate, I trust, the construction of the Treasury as to the power of making disbursements in anticipation of services and supplies, if there has been a previous appropriation by law for the object, and if the advances never exceed the amount appropriated; and at the same time evince, that this practice involved no violation of the constitutional provision with respect to appropriations.
I proceed to examine that clause which respects the pay of the President. It is in these words:—“The President shall at stated times receive for his services a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States or any of them.”
I understand this clause as equivalent to the following: “There shall be established by law for the services of the President, a periodical compensation , which shall not be increased nor diminished during the term for which he shall have been elected, and neither the United States nor any state shall allow him any emolument in addition to his periodical compensation.”
This will, I think, at first sight appear foreign to the question of a provisional advance by the Treasury, on account of the compensation periodically established by law for his services.
The manifest object of the provision is to guard the independence of the President from the legislative controul of the United States or of any state, by the ability to withhold, lessen, or increase his compensation.
It requires that the law shall assign him a definite compensation for a definite time: It prohibits the Legislature from increasing or diminishing this compensation, during any term of his election, and it prohibits every state from granting him an additional emolument. This is all that the clause imports.
It is therefore satisfied as to the United States, when the Legislature has provided that the President shall be allowed a certain sum for a certain term of time,—and so long as it refrains from making an alteration in the provision. All beyond this is extraneous to the subjects.
The Legislature having done this, an advance by the Treasury in anticipation of the service cannot be a breach of the provision.—’Tis in no sense an additional allowance by the United States.—’Tis a mere advance upon account of the established periodical compensation. Will legal ideas or common parlance warrant the giving the denominations of additional compensation to the mere anticipation of the term of an established allowance? If they will not, tis plain such an advance is no breach of this part of the constitution.
If the clause is to be understood literally, it leads to an absurdity. The terms are: “The President shall at stated times receive, &c. And again: “He shall not receive within that period,” &c.
His allowance is at the rate of 25,000 dollars per annum, 6250 dollars quarter yearly. Suppose at the end of a year an arrear of 5000 dollars was due to him, which he omits to receive till some time in the succeeding year, and in the succeeding year actually receives that balance with his full salary for the last year, ’tis plain that he would not have received in the whole more than he was allowed by law, and yet in the stated period of one year he would have received 30,000 dollars, five thousand more than his salary for the year. In a literal sense then the constitutional provision as to actual payment would not have been complied with; for within the first of the stated periods he would not have received the compensation allotted and within the second of them he would have received more. In a literal sense, it would be necessary to make the payment at the precise day, to the precise amount, neither more nor less; which as a general rule the indispensable forms of the Treasury render impossible. It follows, that actual receipt and payment are not the criterion, but the absolute definitive allowance by law. An advance before hand or a payment afterwards, are equally consistent with the true spirit and meaning of this part of the constitution.
Let us now see if the construction of the Treasury violates the law which establishes the President’s compensation:
The act of the 24th of September, 1789, allows to the President at the rate of “25,000 dollars per annum, to commence from the time of his entering on the duties of his office, and to be paid quarterly out of the Treasury of the United States.”
The question is, what is to be understood by these words, “to be paid quarterly out of the Treasury of the United States?”
The conception of the Treasury has been that these words, as used in this and in the analogous cases, were meant to define the time when the right of an individual to the compensation earned became due; not as a command of the Treasury to issue the money at the precise day and no other.
As mentioned above, the indispensable form
of the Treasury, in compliance with the law establishing the department, and to secure a due accountability, make it impracticable to pay at the day; and if expressions of the kind in question are to be construed literally and as a positive injunction to the Treasury to issue the money at the period defined, it will be as much a breach of the law to pay afterwards as to advance before hand.
The position that an after payment would be a breach of the law, will hardly be contended for; and if not, the alternative seems to be, the construction adopted by the Treasury. Such expressions denote simply that at certain periods individuals acquire a perfect right to particular sums of money for their services, which it becomes a matter of course to pay; but they are not obliged to receive it at the day; nor is the Treasury restrained from paying it afterwards; or from anticipating by way of advance, if there are adequate reasons for such anticipation.
It is not true, as alleged, that the invariable practice of the Treasury as to compensations for services , differs in principle from what was done in the case of the President. Instances to the contrary have been stated. As to what regards the army, there has been sufficient explanation.
But it will be useful to be more particular as to the course which has been pursued with reference to the two Houses of Congress.
The law that regulates their compensations, (passed the 29th of Sept. 1789) allows to each member a compensation of six dollars for every day he shall attend the House to which he belongs, together with six dollars for every 20 miles of distance to and from his place of residence, and directs that the compensation which shall be due shall be certified by the President, of the Senate, or Speaker of the House of Representatives, and shall be paid as public accounts and paid out of the Treasury.
By an arrangement between each House and the Treasury Department, the course actually pursued has been as follows:
Certain gross sums, usually at the commencement of each session, and from time to time afterwards, have been advanced from the Treasury at request, to the Secretary of the Senate for the members of the Senate, to the Speaker of the House of Representatives for the members of that House, on account and frequently in anticipation of their accruing compensations.
The Secretary of the Senate, and the Speakers of the House of Representatives, disbursed the monies to the individuals, and afterwards upon the close of each session settled an account at the Treasury, accompanied with the certificates required by law, and the receipts of the members, which were examined, adjusted, and passed as other public accounts. They also refunded to the Treasury, the monies which remained in their hands, respectively beyond the compensations due to the members of the Senate and House of Representatives, as will appear by referring to the printed statements annually laid before Congress.
“Whether there were any advances actually made to the members, in anticipation of their compensations, was a point never discussed between the Treasury and the Officers of the two Houses, with whom the money was deposited; but I understand that examples of such advances did exist in relation to the House of Representatives. The fact is, however, immaterial to the point in issue. That must be tested by the times of the advances from the Treasury ; and it is also certain that these were actually made in anticipation of compensations to grow due; and it is also certain, that the course was well understood by both Houses of Congress, and is exhibited by the accounts of the Treasurer laid before them in each session.
If therefore the advances for the President were unconstitutional and illegal, those for both Houses of Congress, were equally so; and if the President be chargeable with a violation of the Constitution, of the laws, and of his oath of office, on account of extra advances to his Secretaries, whether with or without his privy, the members of both Houses of Congress without exception have been guilty of the same crimes, in consequence of the extra advances with their privy to the officers of their respective Houses.
A distinction may possibly be attempted to be taken in the two cases, from this circumstance—that the law which allows the compensation of the members of the two Houses does not use the words “to be paid every day out of the Treasury” while that which establishes the President’s compensation does use the terms “to be paid quarterly out of the Treasury.” But this distinction would be evidently a cavil—when a law fixes the term of a compensation, whether per day, per month, per quarter, or per annum, if it says nothing more, it is implied that it is payable, in the same sense as if this was expressly said.—This observation applies as well to the monthly pay of the army as to the daily pay of Congress. The motive to the arrangement which was made for the payment of Congress was two fold. It was to obviate embarrassment to them by facilitating and accelerating the receipt of their compensations, and to avoid an inconvenient multiplication of adjustments, entries, warrants, and payments. The theory of the provision admitted of as many Treasury settlements, entries, warrants, and payments, each day, as there were members in both Houses.
Having examined the question as it stands upon the constitution and the laws, I proceed to examine the course of the fact.
But previous to this I shall take notice of one point about which there has been doubt, and which was not definitively settled by the accounting officer of the department until after the President’s first term of four years was completed. It respects the time of the commencement of the President’s compensation—
the law establishing it, refers to the time of his entering upon the duties of his office, but without defining that time.
When in a constitutional and legal sense, did the President enter upon the duties of his office?
The constitution enjoins that before he enters upon the execution of his office, he shall take a certain oath, which is prescribed. This oath was not taken till the 30th of April, 1789. If we date the entrance upon the duties of his office at the time of taking this oath, it determines the epoch to be 30th April, 1789.
But there is room for another construction. The 4th of March, 1789, is the day when the term for which the President, Vice-President, and the members of Congress, were first elected, was deemed to commence. The Constitution declares that the President shall hold his office for four years; and it is presumably that the clause respecting his compensation contemplates its being for the whole term for which he is to hold his office. Its object may otherwise be evaded.
It is also, I believe, certain that the President may execute his office and do valid acts as President, without previously taking the oath prescribed; though in of doing, if voluntary, he would be guilty of a breach of the constitution and would be liable to punishment. The taking of the oath is not therefore necessarily, the criterion of entering upon the duties of office.
On the strength of these facts, it may be argued that by force of the Constitution, during the commencement of the President’s term of service on the 4th of March, 1789, the law respecting his compensation ought to be considered as referring to that period for a virtual entrance upon the duties of his office.
In stating this construction, however equitable it may be deemed I must not be understood to adopt it. I acknowledge that the other as most agreeable to the more familiar sense of the terms of the law has appeared to me preferable, and it was accordingly established, though not till after all the advances, for the first four years had been made. The result in point of fact would however have varied as the one or the other had been deemed the true construction.
I return to an examination of the course of the transaction.
Authentic statements which have been published with some supplementary ones received from the Treasury upon the occasion, exhibit the following results:
FIRST RESULT. —The sums advanced for the use of the President, from the Treasury, have never exceeded the sums previously appropriated by law; though they have some times exceeded, some time fallen short of, the sums actually due for services. This is thus explained:
An act of the 29th of September, 1789, appropriated for paying the compensation of the President, Dollars 25,000
The sums advanced to the 8th of April, 1790, and charged to the appropriation, are 25,000
An act of the 26th March, 1790, appropriated for the same purpose, 25,000
The sums advanced from May 4th, 1790 to the 28th February, 1791, and charged to this appropriation, are 25,000
An act of the 11th Feb. 1791, appropriated for the same purpose, 25,000
The sums advanced from the 28th Feb. 1791, to the 28th Dec. in the same year, and charged to the appropriation, are 22,150
Excess of appropriation beyond the advances, 2,850
An act of the 23d Dec. 1791, appropriated for the same purpose, 25,000
The sums advanced from the 3d Jan. 1792, to the 15th Jan. 1793, and charged to this appropriation, are 25,000
An act of the 28th Feb. 1793, appropriated for the same purpose, 25,000
The sums advanced from the 9th March, 1793, to the 27th December in the same year, and charged to this appropriation, are 25,000
An act of the 14th March, 1794, appropriates for the same purpose, 25,000
The sums advanced from the 17th March, 1794, to the 1st of Jan. 1795, and charged to the same appropriation, are 25,000
An act of the 2d January, 1795, appropriates for the same purpose, 25,000
The sums advanced from the 12th January, 1795, and prior to 1st of October in the same year, and charged to this appropriation, are 12,500
Excess of appropriation beyond advances on the 1st of October, 1795, 12,500
Excess of appropriation on the act of the 11th Feb. 1791, 2,850
Total excess of appropriations beyond advances to the 1st Oct. 1795, 15,350
Thus it appears not only that the disbursements have never exceeded the appropriations; but, on the contrary, that the appropriations have exceeded the disbursements. An accurate attention to dates shews particularly that there was always a pre-existing appropriation which was never exceeded by the disbursements, having regarded to order of time.
The residue of the proposition is illustrated by the quarterly statement of salary and advances as foot.
2d. RESULT. The Treasury never has been in advance for the President beyond the sums actually accrued, and due to him for services to
the amount of one quarters salary. The largest advance at any one time is 6,134 dollars, a quarter’s salary is 6,250 dollars.
The particulars of this result appear in the annexed statement. This statement is digested by quarters of the calendar year, which is the established course of the Treasury, and a course essential to the order of its affairs; that is to say, it is essential there should be certain fixed periods to which the ordinary stated disbursements are referred, and in conformity with which the accounts of the Treasury are kept.
3d. RESULT. On the first of October, 1795, there was actually due to the President for his compensation over and above all advances for his use, the sum of 846 dollars. This likewise appears from the statement, and entirely refutes the malevolent suggestion of an accumulation of advances to twelve or fifteen thousand dollars.
4th. RESULT. The sums advanced for the President prior to the commencement of the term of his second election the 4th of March, 1793, fell short of the sums appropriated for his compensation 2,850 dollars, thus:
The aggregate of the sums appropriated for four years from the 29th Sept. 1789, to the 23d Dec. 1791 inclusive, is Dollars 100,000
The amount of all the sums advanced prior to the 4th March, 1793 is 97,150
Excess of appropriations beyond advances, 2,850
It is nevertheless true that not only there have been frequent anticipations of the President’s salary (as appears more particularly in the statement at foot) but counting from the 30th of April 1789, at the commencement of his compensation, the sums advanced for his use to the 3d of March 1793, the expiration of his first term of election, exceed those actually due up to that period by 1042 dollars and 69 cents.
If on the contrary the construction were adopted which dates his compensation on the 4th of March 1789, there would have been a balance due to him on the 4th of March 1793 of 2,850 dollars.
But proceeding on the first supposition, the whole question falls upon the legality of advance—If it was legal to make him advance in anticipation of his salary within any period of his election—within one quarter on account of a succeeding quarter—it was equally legal to do it within one year on account of a succeeding year, and within one term of an election on account of a succeeding term. The only enquiry would be in either case—Will the sum advanced be within the bounds of the sums before that time appropriated? It has been seen that the sums appropriated for the first four years of service exceed those advanced prior to the commencement of the second period of election by 2,850 dollars. Besides this, on the 28th of February 1793 there was a further appropriation of 2,500 dollars so that at the beginning of the second term the total appropriation exceeded the total disbursements by 27,850 dollars.
Thus has it been shewn, that the advances for the use of the President have been governed by a rule of construction which has obtained in analogous cases, or more truly which has regulated the general course of disbursements from the Treasury, a rule which, I trust, has been demonstrated to be consonant with the constitution and with the laws.
It is requisite to inquire further whether there has been any improper use or rather abuse of the discretion which is contended for; for here there is likewise an unquestionable responsibility. It is seen that the advances have at no time equalled one quarter’s salary.
I ask, was it unreasonable or unfit, if constitutional and legal, to afford the President of the United States an accommodation to this extent?
I pledge my veracity, that I have always understood, and to this moment I have good reasons to be satisfied, that the expenses of the President, those of his household, and others incident to his official situation, have fully equalled if not on some occasions exceeded the allowance made to him by the United States. Under this conviction, especially, how could the head of a department hesitate, by so small an accommodation as the advance of less than a quarter’s salary, to enable the President of the United States to meet his expenses as they occurred, without being obliged to intranch upon his own private resources, or to resort to the expedient of borrowing to defray the expenses imposed upon him by public situation? I knew that no possible risk could attend the advance, little considerable as it was. The estate of the President was answerable in case of death or other premature vacancy, and abundant for the indemnification of the Government.
Reasons of a peculiar kind forbade hesitation—namely, the scale of expense was unavoidably such as to render the income even of what is deemed a large landed property in this country a slender auxiliary—Without an advance from the Treasury, it was not improbable borrowing might be necessary—Was it just to compel the President to resort to that expedient for a purpose in fact public, at his private expense? Was it for the dignity of the Nation that he should have been exposed to a necessity to an embarrassment of this sort?
My judgment and feelings answered both these questions in the negative. I entertained no doubt of the constitutionality or legality of the advance—and I thought the making of it, due the situation; due to property; due to every public consideration connected with the subject; I can never regret it.
How far the President was privy to the course of advancing, I cannot say—But it is certain they have been all made to his private Secreta-
(For the remainder see last page.)

“horror and doubt distrest” “His troubled thoughts, and from the bottom stir” “The hell within him.”
MR. MELCHER,
I HAD almost precluded myself from any farther place in your paper, a consideration that has given my opponent a degree of assurance, which otherwise he might not have discovered; as it is not always fit that a poltron should triumph even in his own opinion, a deviation, for once, from my intention may be excusable.
Bradshaw, poor unhappy man! comes forward at last in his own natural garb, foaming with malice and despair, and pours forth a volley of scurrility unequalled, at least in modern times; what spirit short of infernal could have dictated the venomous ideas contained in his last publication? surely none but a savage mind could have suggested such an harangue with no other provocation than that on which he pretends to found it; with what eagerness he grasps at the least shadow of an opportunity to give vent to his revengeful feelings!—did he direct his malevolence against A Republican only, it could easily be accounted for—incapable of defence with nobler weapons, it might be expected that envy and rage would point him to such as he has assumed: but as if to fill up the measure of his iniquities, and give to calumny its full scope—Mr. Randolph is again introduced—if no other evidence of Bradshaw's folly and wickedness could be produced, not only virtue, but common sense must condemn him for this alone; but placing virtue and propriety out of the question (terms which lose their meaning when applied to him) he must be a dastardly fellow, who, skulking under his own insignificance for security, can without the least provocation thus wantonly sport with the character of one who for ought he knows, is, at least an honest man; were the blackest crimes which jealousy itself has dared to suggest against him, undeniably proved, greater severity could not be justified.
After gratifying his malignant passions in talking of blood, carnage, Robespierre and the guillotine, our hero suddenly assumes an air of moderation, and once more retails out the old story that has been so often repeated. As all the items contained in this narration have been duly noticed heretofore, except one, which appears to be new, I shall attend to that only, not as a matter of any importance in itself, but that the reader may see how little reliance is to be placed on Bradshaw's declarations. “I opposed A Citizen's Statement (says he) in the following particulars. 1st. I said there never was but one address offered for signing, and that after the ratification of the President.”
A Citizen did not assert that there was more than one address offered for signing, nor did Bradshaw say there was not; there was no opposition therefore in that particular, on the contrary Bradshaw's observations on this point seem to carry an idea that there were two—(see his reply to A Citizen of Portsmouth)—A Citizen asserted that different attempts were made to obtain signatures to the address and at different periods—the one before and the other after the President's ratification, that the first did not succeed for reasons given, &c. this if Bradshaw denies could easily have been proved, it was a matter of general notoriety; most of the other assertions of A Citizen that Bradshaw was not willing to admit, were of such a nature that if true could not easily be proved by positive evidence, but A Republican has no more doubt of their truth than of those he could prove by deposition—but enough of this.
In some part of Bradshaw's last publication he says he “endeavoured to settle disputes amicably and rationally,”—Bradshaw talking of reasoning and a blind man of colours form a just, if not a forcible simile—vain man! thou art incapable of argument, however essential a requisite in thy profession, thy little-mind will ever afford a fund of petty sophistry and quibbles, the petulance of thy temper, a fruitful source of envy, and invective, while an inherent obstinacy joined with its usual concomitant ignorance, so necessary to the prosecution and happy termination of every dispute that has truth for its object—all this A Republican saw and prudently (as he thinks) declining entering a field of argument, at the same time giving his opponent an opportunity to quit the contest when he might have saved himself from the disgrace that always attends the man who falls a sacrifice to his own unruly passions.
Bradshaw's observations on the memorable story of “ Uncle Toby and the fly ” are too futile to deserve an answer, it certainly has merit, and that it should suffer from being generally known, is a new doctrine under the sun—that it operated with full force on him, and even more than answered the purpose of its introduction is abundantly evident.
Thus have I once more noticed my adversary, and given a short description of his character, conduct, &c.—did I choose to follow his base example I might proceed and load him with abusive epithets, but I decline the odious task, and leave him to founder in his own filth, rather than wound the public ear with any further detail of his wretchedness—if I have painted him in false colours, or (though consistent with truth) have exercised any unmerited severity, I am ready to take it back & restore fourfold for the injury.
It has seemed necessary thus to state his faults, but I really pity the man; suffer me kind reader to solicit thy commiseration in his behalf, consign him not over to that horrid destiny which seems to await him, but rather cover his frailties with the mantle of compassion, sigh for the depravity of human nature, and rejoice that thou thyself art not beset with such infirmities.
A REPUBLICAN.
PHILADELPHIA, Nov. 26.
Yesterday arrived the brig Harmony , Captain Tinker, from Bourdeaux, which place he left on the 25th of Sept. and the mouth of the River on the 28th. Oct. 6, lat. 44, 21, long. 14, spoke the ship Jane of London, Capt. Russell, prize to a French squadron which sailed from Rochfort some time before, consisting of frigate La Tarte , the commodore's ship, the La Forte , mounting 50 guns, thirty of which were twenty-four's including 4 corvettes. The prize master on board the Jane informed Captain Tinker, that on the 24th Sept. lat. 34, 30, long. 26, the above squadron fell in with the Jamaica homeward bound fleet, consisting of 190 sail of merchantmen, under convoy of the Medusa of 50 guns, Capt. Normand, and a frigate.
The French had taken twelve large ships belonging to the fleet of which the Jane was one and a brig which they set fire to. The captured ships were immediately manned, and ordered off for the first convenient ports in France. The Jane was steering for Bayonne. The prize master further informed Capt. Tinker that the French squadron were in pursuit of the rest of the fleet, when he lost sight of them. They sent the chief mate of the Jane on board the Harmony . The prize master treated Captain Tinker very respectfully, and told him to take as much sugar and coffee as he thought he might stand in need of during the voyage.
Capt. Tinker conceived it very probable that the captured ships would be brought safe in, as there were no British ships of war on that part of the coast for which they were destined.
NEW-YORK, (Argus.) Nov. 30.
Latest from FRANCE. We flopped the press to announce the arrival at this port, late last evening, of the ship James , Captain Wells, in 45 days from Hull—which affords a joyful opportunity of counteracting the effects that the foreign accounts in this Argus via Boston, would naturally have produced in every patriotic mind. A very friendly correspondent has handed us “ THE STAR ,” a London Ministerial paper of the ninth October, by this arrival, that contains the proceedings of Convention of October 1, 2, 3, and 4, which we have only time cursorily to run over, but by which we ascertain this FACT, in contradiction to the London accounts to October 3 via Boston, that the disturbances at Paris were mere BUGBEARS, as is fully verified by the following extract from the above mentioned paper.—
PARIS, 15 Vendemiaire, Oct. 5.
It was not necessary to be in the Convention yesterday, to believe that there were any disturbances at Paris. The agitation was confined to some Primary Assemblies and the Committees of Government: all the rest was calm. The day was very bad; no person walked the streets; armed corps surrounded the Convention, which no body thought of attacking. Battalions of the Fauxbourgs had been raised and marched to guard the Convention. It is curious to see the Assembly reduced to trust its defence to the same men against whom the columns of Paris were marched on the first days of Prairial.
The day before yesterday was a day of contradictions. Could there be any thing more striking than to see the Mountain, which sent 42 Deputies to the Scaffold, seek to bury the transaction in oblivion, by applauding the funeral oration of those whom they assassinate!
The Electors, who met in the Hall of the Theatre Francaise, did not deliberate; they waited the whole day for the election of the Majority of the Sections. Only 20 Sections sent Electors, though 30 at least had adhered to the union. The bureau had not even been formed. The Electors separated at eleven at night.
At midnight Legendre, with the armed force, came to the Hall, where he found nothing but a bell which he carried away as a monument of victory. Such is the foundation upon which attempts are made to build a conspiracy.
Riots have taken place in several parts of the country, but they appear to have been easily suppressed, though in some places, not without effusion of blood. At Verneuil, 10 of the insurgents were killed, and 30 taken prisoners.
A letter from Nantz mentions that the whole army of the Western Pyrenees, amounting to 39,000 men, is arrived in La-Vendee; that Charette is strongly intrenched at Belleville, but that General Conclaux is speedily to attack him in his intrenchments.
The Deputies surrendered by Dumourier, and the French Ambassadors, are, it is said, arrived at Basle where they are to wait till the arrival of the daughter of Louis XVI— Courier U.
To morrow we hope to be able to lay before our readers all the late interesting proceedings of Convention. On the 1st October, after lengthy debate, which nothing intercepted, they decreed the union of Belgium , amid the loudest applauses. On the 2d they decreed, that the new Legislature should convene on the 5th Brumaire (27th Oct.) instead of 15th (Nov. 5) as before proposed—and several other decrees were passed to accelerate the elections and arrivals of the deputies. On the 3d, decrees were passed for restoring order in the noisy sections, which was found not to be very alarming; decreed that these electoral bodies who had declared themselves permanent , should immediately dissolve , which they did on the appearance of Commissioners. Convention sat all night. That Mentz was surrounded was officially announced—its garrison consisted only of 10,000 instead of 22,000, and had only 6 weeks provisionment. On the 4th many accounts were received from the interior, of the acceptance of the Constitution.
LANSINGBURGH, Nov. 11.
ON Saturday evening the patriotic treaty-man John Welden, whom we mentioned had been lately apprehended in this town, for horse stealing, received at the court-house in Tory , thirty-nine lashes, as a reward due to his merit —and that every disorganizer may speedily receive his arrears of back pay , is our most hearty wish.
N. B. The above is a loud call to a certain Bennington dealer , in Lottery Tickets .
ALBANY, Nov. 27.
We hasten to communicate the following interesting letter from Major DE ZENC, to his friend in this city.
“Little Falls, Nov. 21, 1795.”
“DEAR SIR, “On the 17th inst. I had the pleasure of passing through the Lock and Canal at this place: Several hundred anxious spectators were present, (although it was a rainy day.) On this interesting and pleasing occasion, we embarked, 25 in number including Mr. WESTON, the chief engineer, on board of a boat, calculated to carry ten tons burthen, at the lower Lock, and had eight tons of merchandise on board, the property of Mr. John Porteous; we ascended three Locks, and then gave three hearty cheers, and were answered by the gratified spectators; then sailed along the new Canal, opposite Mr. Porteous's house, and gave three more cheers; from whence we continued our course through the grand lock, into the Mohawk river, above the falls, and then returned to Mr. Porteous's house, to partake of an excellent dinner. I am happy to add, that the workmanship, for strength and goodness, appears equal to any I have seen in Europe ; and as this is the first work of the kind, completed in this western world, the adventurers have every encouragement to persevere in this glorious enterprise, as their revenue must increase with the increase of the population of the country, although the expenses have been great.”
BOSTON, Dec. 7.
The Centinel says, by the help of his Philadelphia correspondent, that the public may expect an antedote in the debates of the Senate , to the “ Jacobin fulminations of the House ,” but he ought to have told his readers, that a gallery never would have been provided for the People in the Senate , had it not been for the persevering exertions of the minority of the Senate against the Treaty , and among them is the hon. Mr. Langdon—this gentleman's character stands too high in estimation of his fellow-citizens, to be affected by the clamours of the Centinel , or the frantic roating of Johnny Fenno . Extract of a letter from London, dated Sept. 14, 1795.
“We are now fitting a vast armament for the purpose of conquering France in the West-Indies . 30,000 men, they say at least, with cavalry, artillery, and what not, are to be sent. The Pope's blessing we shall undoubtedly have, for our good King is said to be very fond of that old gentleman. Two of his sons have visited him, and were received most graciously. We in return have sent an armed force to protect his holiness from the rage of his own subjects, who were in a state of insurrection!”
“As to the conquest of France, we have just now found out that it must be done in the West-Indies ; we are therefore determined to take next spring, all St. Domingo, and every one of the other French islands, in spite of fate! Such brilliant deeds cannot fail in establishing Pitt, and his whole gang in power, which is the leading object, and main spring of their patriotism.”
NEWBURY-PORT, Dec. 4.
On Sunday the 22d of November, ultimo, the brig Clarissa , James Scott, jr. commander, on her way from the Vineyard (where she had been lying for some time) for Boston, was compelled by a severe head wind, to come at anchor, near Nantucket-Point, with both anchors a head. Shortly after parted a cable, and the other anchor, not being sufficient to hold the vessel, she drifted on the above Point, and bilged. To save as much of her cargo as possible (which consisted of dry goods from London) the captain was necessitated to open an avenue through the side of the brig.
On the 21st November, arrived at New-London, sloop Lucy , T. Wilson, from Jamaica, 39 days passage: On the 22d October, about 25 leagues to leeward of the Havanna, spoke Schooner Stork , John Edwards, master, from Kingston, Jamaica, 42 days out, bound to Newburyport, having but 70 gallons water then on board; Captain Wilson favored them with some water, candles, fire-wood, &c. they intending to put into the first port in the United States . Captain Wilson was boarded by a French privateer Schooner, commanded by Capt. Alexander, from Charleston, who after enquiring the news, dismissed him. Martial law is still in force in Jamaica, and the probability is, that it will continue for some length of time; the Maroons are yet troublesome, but the Slaves in no one instance have shown a disposition to join them, and are entirely peaceable. The present situation of the island affects business very materially; and there is but very little doing on the north side. The Governor had issued a proclamation commanding all the French people to depart the island, and vessels to be procured by government to convey them, those who were enrolled in the militia excepted.
American Vessels at Petit-Guave, Oct. 29.—
Brig Lark , of Boston—Captain, mate, and all hands but one dead; she was a prize to a French privateer, but had been tried and cleared.
Sloop Hope , of Philadelphia—every person belonging to her had died.
Brig Volans , of Salem—mate and two hands dead and the Captain dangerously ill. She was also a prize.
PORTSMOUTH, Dec. 8.
The brig Rising Sun , Capt. Paul, of this port, 40 days from Demerara, for Boston, with freight, was driven ashore the 22d November, in Herring Cove, near Race Point, Cape-Cod. Chief of the cargo was taken out and freighted round for Boston, and on the Saturday following the brig was got off and carried into Cape-Harbour, where she laid safe without receiving any material damage.
ENTRIES at the CUSTOM-HOUSE, District of PORTSMOUTH, N. H.
   ENTERED FROM     Brig Ranger , Tredick, Turks-Island.   Sloop Sally , Shaw, New-York.   CLEARED FOR   Brig Sally , Walton, Liverpool.   Brig Two Sisters , Fernald, West-Indies.  
Samuel Hill
Informs his friends and customers that he has imported in Capt. Cunningham from London,
And has for Sale at his Store on Spring-Hill,
A general assortment of Fall & Winter
G O O D S, Cutlery and Hard Ware
By wholesale and retail as low as can be purchased in this State, for cash or approved credit.—Alf
RED, white, and blue
 Buntings.  Brafs Kettles; Warming Pans.  Sheet & Bar Lead; Sail, Sein and Herring Twines; Herring Nets of all sizes; 18 and 15 thread Cod-Lines.  Cod and quarter Hooks; boxes Tin Plate.  10 by 8 and 9 by 7 Window Glass; Looking Glasses.  33 hhds. Sugar and 20 hhds. Molasses; 7 bales Cotton entitled to the draw back on exportation.  7 tons Philadelphia Bar Iron; Hollow Iron Ware, & many other articles too numerous for an advertisement. 
Cash and a generous price given for Shipping-Furs.
Portsmouth, Dec. 7.
NOTICE is hereby given that the subscriber has been duly appointed by MARY STOODLY, Administratrix to the estate of WILLIAM STOODLY, merchant, late of Portsmouth, deceased, to receive and settle the claims against the estate of her late husband, all persons therefore who are indebted to or have any demands against said estate are desired to bring in their accounts for settlement without loss of time. No account will be paid except well vouched. ELIJAH HALL.
Portsmouth, Dec. 7, 1795.
Bohea Tea
In half chests and quarter ditto.
—ALSO— 30 casks Raisins, FOR SALE BY
White & Long,
At their Store on Spring-Hill. Portsmouth, Dec. 8, 1795.
TO BE LET,
A Dwelling House & Store In Daniel Street, And Store No. 10
On Portsmouth Pier. Inquire of E. HALL, at No. 2, on said PIER—who has for sale best
St. Ubes Salt.
Just Received by John P. Williams,
And for sale at his Store, at the Boston prices
 20 casks fresh Raisins.  20 do of a good quality. 
St. Martins, St. Ubes, & best table SALT pr. hhd.
 Iron; Steel; 7 by 9 and 8 by 10 Window-Glass pr. box; 20d, 10d, 6d and 4d Nails; Sugar pr. bbl.; Rum; Brandy and Gin; Teas of the best quality; and English Goods as usual. 
—ALSO— 1 or 2 tons good Butter.

ries upon a general arrangement, and not by special directions from him, I think it proper to add that very early in the day, and probably before any advance was made, on an application by Mr. LEAR, for a sum which would constitute an advance, he qualified it by this observation, "if in your opinion it can be done with legality and perfect propriety; I answered, that I had no doubt of either.
I have been accustomed to think that the responsibility, for the due and regular disbursement of monies from the Treasury, lies exclusively with the officer of that department, and that except in a very palpable and glaring case, the charge of blameable participation could not fall on any other person.
As between the officers of the Treasury, I take the responsibility to stand thus—The Secretary and Comptroller in granting warrants upon the Treasurer, are both answerable for their legality. In this respect, the Comptroller is a check upon the Secretary, with regard to the expediency of an advance, in my opinion the right of judging is exclusively with the head of the department. The Comptroller has no voice in this matter. So far therefore as concerns legality, in the issues of money, while I was in the department, the Comptroller must answer with me, so far as a question of expediency, or the due exercise of discretion may be involved, I am solely answerable. And so uniformly, was the matter understood between successive Comptrollers and myself. So also it is essential to the due administration of the department, that it should be understood.
I have stated my reasons for considering the advances made for the use of the President, as constitutional, legal, and proper. But I pretend not to infallibility—'Tis possible, I may have erred. But to convert error into guilt, it must be supposed to have been wilful. To suppose it wilful, it is necessary to trace it to some interested or sinister motive. If any appears, let it be pointed out. It is not common for men to commit crimes of a deep die, without some adequate inducement.
What criminal inducement could have probably influenced the rule of construction as to advances which has been stated to have been adopted and acted upon at the Treasury? What criminal inducement, particularly, could have led to the application of this rule to the President's compensation in so restricted a form as never once to equal one quarter's salary—Who in his senses will believe that the President would consciously have hazarded the imputation of violating the Constitution, the laws, and his oath of office, by imposing on the officers of the Treasury, the necessity of making him so paltry an advance; safely and ridiculously called a donation? Who will believe that those officers would have consented to expose themselves to the same imputation by compliance when they knew that the evidence of their guilt must regularly be communicated in each succeeding session to both houses of Congress and to the public at large; to believe either, is to believe all the parties concerned, foolish in the extreme, as well as profligate in the extreme, destitute equally of intellect as of principle.
To an observation made by Mr. Wolcott on the communications from the Treasury, it has been answered, that there was no merit in the disclosure, because the number of Agents and the forms of the Treasury rendered it unavoidable. The fact is so. But the force of the observation turns upon the egregious folly of intentionally committing the crimes imputed, when it was certain beforehand that the means of detection must be furnished and without delay by the Treasury itself.
It is certain that there never has been the least attempt at mystery or concealment. The documents reported by the Treasury to both Houses of Congress carried in their face the prominent evidence of what was done. Frequent and indiscriminate personal suggestions revealed the principle of action. It is evident, that it must have been understood and acquiesced in, by all the members of the two Houses of Congress.
Hard would be the condition of public officers, if even a misconstruction of constitutional and legal provisions, attended with no symptom of criminal motive, carrying the proof of innocence in the openness and publicity of conduct, could justly expose them to the odious charges which on this occasion are preferred! Harder still would be their condition if, in the management of the great and complicated business of a nation, the fact of misconstruction which is to constitute their guilt is to be decided by the narrow rules of a criticism, no less pedantic than malevolent! preeminently hard, in such circumstances, was the lot of man, who called to the head of the most arduous department in the public administration, in a new government, without the guides of antecedent practice and precedent, had to trace out his own path and to adjust for himself the import and bearings of delicate and important provisions in the constitution and in the laws!
Reposing myself on a consciousness which in no possible situation can fail to prove an invulnerable shield to my tranquility. I leave to a candid public to pronounce the sentence which is due to an attempt on such a foundation, to erect against the President of the United States, my successor in office, and myself, the heinous charges of violation of the constitution; violation of the laws; exertion of arbitrary will, on the one side, abject submission; on the other, misapplication of the public money; and to complete the enormous groupe, intentional PERJURY.
ALEXANDER HAMILTON.
New-York, Nov. 21, 1795.
P. S. An imperfect state of health and much occupation have delayed the explanation longer than was wished.
Quarterly payments of the accounts for compensation of the President of the United States from his taking the oath of Office on the 30th of April 1789, to the 30th of September 1795.
   1789.     Sept. 30. Compensation from 30th April to 30th June 1789 Dollars 4,246   Compensation 1 quarter ending 30th Sept. 1789 6,250   10,496   Warrant drawn 26 Sept. 1789 1000   Due to the President 30 Sept. Dec. 31. Compensation due, 9,496 6,250   15,746   Warrants drawn this quarter 13,500   1790. Due the President 31st Dec. March 31. Compensation due 2,246 6,250   8,496   Warrants drawn 8,246,66   Due the President 31st March June 30. Compensation due 249,34 6,250   6,499,34   Warrants drawn 8,253,34   Due the United States, 30th June Sept. 30. Warrants drawn 1,754 9,000   10,754   Compensation due 6,250   Due the United States, 30th Sept. Dec. 31. Warrants drawn 4,504 6,000   10,504   Compensation due 6,250   1791. Due the United States 31st Dec. March 31. Warrants drawn 4,154 8,150   12,404   Compensation due 6,250   Due the United States, 31st March June 30. Warrants drawn 6,154 4,500   10,654   Compensation due 6,250   Due the United States, 30th June Sept. 30. Warrants drawn 4,404 8,000   12,404   Compensation due 6,250   Due the United States, 30th Sept. Dec. 31. Warrants drawn 6,154 5,500   11,654   Compensation due 6,250   1792. Due the United States 31st Dec. March 31. Warrants drawn 5,404 6,000   11,404   Compensation due 6,250   Due the United States, 31st March June 30. Warrants drawn 5,154 6,000   11,154   Compensation due 6,250   Due the United States, June 30 Sept. 30. Warrants drawn 4,904 2,500   7,404   Compensation due 6,250   Due the United States, 30th Sept. Dec. 31. Warrants drawn 1,154 8,000   9,154   Compensation due 6,250   1793. Due the United States, 31st Dec. March 31. Warrants drawn 2,904 8,500   11,404   Compensation due 6,250   Due the United States, 31st March June 30. Warrants drawn 5,154 6,000   11,154   Compensation due 6,250   Due the United States, 30th June Sept. 30. Warrants drawn 4,904 6,000   10,904   Compensation due 6,250   Due the United States, 30th Sept. Dec. 31. Warrants drawn 4,654 7,000   11,654   Compensation due 6,250   1794. Due the United States, 31st Dec. March 31. Warrants drawn 5,404 5,000   10,404   Compensation due 6,250   Due the United States, 31st March June 30. Warrants drawn 4,254 6,000   10,254   Compensation due 6,250   Due the United States, 30th June Sept. 30. Warrants drawn 3,904 7,000  
   Compensation due 10,904 6,250   Due the United States, 30th Sept. Dec. 31. Warrants drawn 4,654 6,000   Compensation due 10,654 6,250   1795. Due the United States, 31st Dec. March 31. Warrants drawn 4,404 7,000   Compensation due 11,404 6,250   Due the United States, 31st March June 30. Warrants drawn 5,154 4,000   Compensation due 9,154 6,250   Due the United States, 30th June Sept. 30. Warrants drawn 2,904 2,500   Compensation due 5,404 6,250   Due the President, 30th Sept. 1795 846   PROOF.   Compensation from April 30, to June 30, 1789, 62 days, 4,246   Compensation from July 1, 1789, to Sept. 30, 1795, 6 years 3 months 156,250   Total due Dols. 160,496   Advanced until the end of 1791, pr. printed statement 72,150   Ditto in 1792 22,500   Ditto in 1793 27,500   Ditto in 1794 21,000   Ditto in 1795, to Sept. 30 13,500   159,650   Balance due the President 846   Dols. 160,496  
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Register's Office, Nov. 13, 1795. Extracted from the Books of the Treasury. JOSEPH NOURSE, Register.
Valuable Estate.
On WEDNESDAY the 16th December next, Will be sold at Public Auction, (If not previously disposed of at private sale) at the New-Hampshire Hotel, At 12 o'clock, A. M.
About 3 acres of tillage Land
BEING an eligible situation, lying on the road leading to Little Harbour, within one mile and an half of the State House; on which is a new, neatly finished Dwelling-House, commanding a beautiful prospect of the harbour and river of Portsmouth.— Alf —
About 37 acres of Land
on the other side of said road, contiguous to the aforementioned, lying easterly on land of Capt. George Blunt, and westerly on land of Mr. Paul Leighton, including a good Orchard, and by a number of divisions, is well calculated for Grazing, Mowing and Tillage, with the convenience of a well and two springs.—The premises being now in the possession of John Wendell, jr.—a plan of which may be seen before, and at the time of sale; the conditions and terms of payment, which will be easy to the purchaser, may be known by applying to
Jacob Walden, Auctioneer. Portsmouth, Nov. 24, 1795.
Mail Stage.
THE proprietors of the Mail Stage that plys between Portsmouth and Boston, in consequence of the increased expences attending the business, are under the necessity of raising the fare from Portsmouth to Boston, and they give notice that after the 10th day of December next the price will be 28/ for a single passage. Portsmouth, Nov. 26, 1795.
Exeter & Haverhill Stages.
THE proprietors of the EXETER and HAVERHILL Stages, in consequence of the increased expences attending the business, are under the necessity of raising the fare from Portsmouth to Boston, and they give notice that after the 10th day of December next, the price will be 4 dollars for each passenger. Exeter, Nov. 26, 1795.
NOTICE is hereby given that a tax of three dollars and fifty cents upon each original right or share of land in the township of Chatham, and county of Grafton, and State of New Hampshire, has been assessed and committed to me to collect, and all other lands in that proportion in said township, and unless the same is paid to me, at my dwelling-house in Stratham, in the county of Rockingham, & State aforesaid, within six weeks from the date of this advertisement, the lands of those who are then delinquent, will be advertised for sale as the law directs. ANDREW WIGGIN, Jr. Prop's Collector. Stratham, Dec. 1, 1795.
Genteel Boarding
FOR one or two persons, in a private family, in the centre of the town; For further particulars apply to the Printer hereof.
Just Imported In the Schooner Industry, and for sale at Stores NO. 2, & NO. 5, Long-Wharf, Best Rock Salt,
suitable for the country, —ALSO— Molasses per Hoghead, AND 500 Spanish Hides. Portsmouth, Nov. 28, 1795.
Piscataqua Bridge
DIRECTORS have ordered a dividend which will be paid by the Treasurer, at his house in Portsmouth. The dividends in future will be made, and paid quarterly in the months of January, April, July and October.
The shares No. 21, 350, 318 and 319 will be sold at public auction, at the house of Mr. John Greenleaf, in Portsmouth, on Wednesday the 30th of December next, at 3 o'clock. P. M. unless the 8th & 9th assessments thereon, with incidental charges are completely paid up on or before said day.
THOMAS MARTIN, Treasurer. Portsmouth, Nov. 20, 1795.
Variety Crockery Store
in Buck Street, Sign of the Golden Teapot.
Abraham Isaac
HAS just received by the ship Apollo from Liverpool, an extensive assortment of Crockery, viz.
Blue Edg'd Ware,
Plates; Twirlins; Muffins; Pudding-Dishes; Oval Dishes; Coffee-Pots; Coffee-Cups and Saucers; Tea-Pots; Tea-Cups and Saucers; Sugar-Boxes; Jugs; Mugs; Bowls; Pepper-Boxes; Salt-Cellars; Mustard-Pots, &c.
Green Edg'd Ware,
Plates; Twirlins; Muffins; Oval Dishes, all sizes; Coffee-Pots; Coffee-Cups & Saucers; Tea-Pots; Tea-Cups and Saucers; Sugar-Boxes; Mugs; Jugs; Bowls; Pepper-Boxes; Mustard-Pots; Salt-Cellars, &c. &c.
Cream color'd Ware
of the above descriptions. Red and white Ware of all sorts.
A great variety of Stone Jugs and Pickle Pots.
A very extensive assortment of Glass Ware,
—VIZ.— Wine-Deccanters; Wine-Glasses; Tumblers; Glass-Cans; Glass-Candlesticks; Vinegar-Cruets; Jelly-Glasses, &c. &c. Japan'd Tea-Canisters, quarter, half pound, pound and two pound.
Burnt China,
Consisting of Tea Cups & Saucers, and some complete Sets.
FRESH FEATHERS
free from damage. Portsmouth, Oct. 30, 1795.