Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Oliver Wolcott, Junior, 2 October 1800
From: Wolcott, Oliver, Jr.
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Washington Oct. 2d. 1800
Dear Sir
(Private)

I wrote you a hasty Letter yesterday in which I returned the draught which accompanied your favour of September 26th. In my opinion the style temper and spirit of the composition are well suited to the subject & will do you honour. I have only to submit a few criticisms to your consideration.
The observations respecting Mr. T. Pinckneys predilection for France—in page 19. and his official conduct in London, in page 21. had I think better be omitted.
The reference to your conversations with Vice Consul Rozier, will I hope, also be omitted.

Page 38. The President did not declare his opinion respecting the departure of the Envoys to be settled when he first came to Trenton. In a Letter from Massachusetts, he directed the Secretaries to consult together and prepare a draft of Instructions, and he intimated, that he would suspend the departure of the Envoys for some time. The draft of Instructions was prepared and the President after his arrival at Trenton candidly consulted all the Secretaries on the principles of the negociation, but was silent on the question whether the mission ought immediately to proceed. The instructions were settled in a consultation which terminated only after 11 oClock in the Evening. The next morning before breakfast, the President informed the Secy of State by Letter, that he had decided, that the Envoys should depart immediately. The peculiar indelicacy of his conduct consisted in first encouraging an expectation that the mission would be suspended untill a change of circumstances occurred—secondly in availing himself of opinions so far only as they could serve his own concealed views & thirdly in deciding contrary to what was expected, without hearing the arguments of the Officers on a collatteral point which he well knew they deemed of importance. It must be evident that no mans character can be safe, when opinions can be required in a partial manner. Justice demanded either that the Secretaries should not be at all consulted, or that they should be permitted to record their sentiments respecting any points, which in their Judgements were connected with the general question of the Mission.
Page 42. I perceive no reason why the eventual provision for negociation, should not have been public. Indeed secrecy is impracticable with respect to the appointment of Ministers under our Constitution.
Page 49. The two insurrections cost collectively near a million & an half of Dollars.
Page 49. Two persons were convicted. One appeared from documents which were laid before the President to be a person greatly deficient in reason—in short nearly an Idiot—the other such an one as you have described.
Page 50. I have heard that the declaration attributed to the President was made, but I do not clearly recollect the evidence. It rests in my memory however that I was candidly informed, that the declaration was made in presince of several persons to Doct. Rush.
Page 50. That Messrs. Dallas & Lewis addressed such a Letter to the President is certain. Lewis mentioned the fact to his friends in Philadelphia & Dallas read the Letter to Mr. Liston!! I feel some delicacy in mentioning the circumstance of the Letter and would not do so, if the fact had not other wise have become public. If the paragraph is retained you ought to rest the fact on evidence derived from the conversations of the Council—the name of Mr. Liston ought not to be mentioned. It is a curious fact however that Dallas, Ned Livingston and other Democrats, have been more frequently in the train & much more intimate with Mr. Liston, than the men who are accused as belonging to the British faction. I do not suspect these Democrats of being bribed by Mr. Liston, though on less evidence than exists against them, they have been willing to keep alive suspicions against much honester men.
Page 51. It will I think be suffiscient to state that the facts are founded on the best Information—they will not be disputed.
Page 54. I have no reason to doubt the correctness of this declaration as you mean to be understood—but it will be well to reflect, whether you have not advised some connection with England with the view of prosecuting joint hostilities with France—if so, the declaration ought to be properly qualified.
Page 55. & 56. This subject is of peculiar delicacy as it affects others who are your friends. I think you ought not to suggest a doubt respecting the Treaty which was not explicitly avowed by you under the signature of Camillus & that you ought to refer to that work for your opinions. As to the mode of ratification, there were different opinions among men whose intentions were equally good, the merits of which opinions cannot now be discussed. I am of opinion that no advantage can result from turning the public attention to points, which then were & ever will remain doubtful.
Your proposal to send Mr. Jefferson or Mr. Madison to France I always thought a mistake. I believe a disclosure of it will do you no good & that in the progress of our affairs, the knowledge that such advice was given by you, will do harm. It is a fact however which you have an unquestionable right to publish if you think proper. The time may come, (but I think it has not yet arrived,) for a full disclosure of the part which every man has acted in relation to the great questions which have arisen at different periods under the present Government.
The last page ought in my opinion to be considerably altered. I think the Letter may with propriety be sent to your friends elsewhere, than in New England, if it is published at all. The Letter ought and will influence the Election—if it is sent merely as a defence of your character & that of your friends & not to influence the Election, the publication should be deferred till after the Election is over. A principal merit of the composition consists in its candour & temper—particular caution is therefore necessary in stating all the motives of the publication. I have thought hitherto that Mr. Adams ought by all fair & honourable means, to be deprived of Votes. If your Letter should be sent to Connecticut in its present form, I suspect that it would be inferred to be your expectation at least, that Mr. Adams would obtain all the Votes of that state—the expression of such an expectation might in some degree contribute to produce that effect. I expect to visit my friends in a short time and wish the question to remain undetermined.
There is a party in this state (Maryland) who consider Mr. Adams as a character exactly suited to their views, & I believe it to be their intention to give him their exclusive support. To counteract this policy it is necessary that some federal Votes should be withdrawn from Mr. Adams—this would not increase the chance of Mr. Jeffersons election, though it would probably be the means of referring the choice of a President to the House of Representatives.
Perhaps the motives of writing the Letter may be thus explained. 1st. That [it] is necessary to the defence of your character & secondly that for the reasons assigned, you are seriously apprehensive of fatal consequences from a reelection of Mr. Adams—that you find however many federalists, whose opinions you respect, who entertain no such apprehensions—that your Letter is dictated by a desire of informing them of facts & circumstances, which have guided your judgement & of which they are presumed to be unacquainted That you are apprized of the bad consequences which might result from a public investigation of the conduct & character of Mr. Adams—& that deference for the opinions of those who are his friends & supporters, has induced you to confine the circulation of your Letter to Gentlemen of known respectability & prudence who will dispassionately weigh your objections and decide according to what shall appear to be the true Interest of the Country. What precedes is written upon the supposition that the Letter is to be transmitted according to your suggestion; but as to the measure itself I can give no opinion; my feelings and individual judgement are in favour of it. I never liked the half way plan which has been pursued; it appears to me that federal men are in danger of loosing character in the delicate point of sincerity—nevertheless when I consider the degree of support which Mr. Adams has already recd.; that our friends in Massachusetts say, that they still prefer the election of Mr. Adams: that the Country is so divided and agitated as to be in some danger of civil commotions, I cannot but feel doubts as to any measure which can possibly increase our divisions. You can judge of the state of public opinion in the eastern States better than I can—if the popular sentiment is strong in favour of Mr. Adams—if the people in general approve of his late public conduct—or if there is a want of confidence for any reason in Genl. Pinckney, I should think the publication ought to be suppressed; on the contrary if the publication would increase the Votes for Genl Pinckney & procure support to him in case he should be elected, it would certainly be beneficial.

Notwithstanding your impressions to the contrary I am not convinced that Mr. Adams can seriously injure your character. At the moment of an election many men who consider themselves honest will affect or be really convinced in some degree of things, which in more serene moments they cannot bring their minds to believe.
I am with great sincerity yrs
Oliv Wolcott.
Alexander Hamilton Esqr
P. S. It would seem from the Papers, that the mission to France had terminated as I predicted. I am not however such a Wizard as to tell what is to be done next. The situation of the Country is such as to demand all the skill of the great Master of Diplomacy.
O: W:


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to James Wilkinson, 8 October 1800
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Wilkinson, James

[New York, October 8, 1800. On October 13, 1800, Wilkinson wrote to Hamilton: “I have this Day recd. your Letter of the 8th. Inst.” Letter not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from William Vans Murray, 9 October 1800
From: Murray, William Vans
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Paris 9. Octr. 1800.
Dear Sir,
I was extremely flatterd by the confidence which your letter by Mr. Colbert proved you have in my disposition to follow your wishes. A letter from you is no affair of ceremony—it is an obligation on any man who flatters himself with the hope of your personal esteem. Mr. C. gave it to me yesterday. I immediately in particular addressed a letter to Bonaparte, & made use of your name, wh. I was sure would be pleasing to him. To day I dined with him. The Secretary of State—Mr. Maret a very clever fellow, assured me that he received it kindly & I even hope something good from it—if any come, it will be your work. I never before spoke or wrote to B. on any affair, other than public business. It will be very pleasing to you to perceive, if we succeed, that your silent agency works good to the unhappy & meritorious at such a distance. I know nothing better belonging to reputation.
In two days I go to the Hague, to my post. Wherever I am I beg you to command my services in all things in my power.
I am with sincere respect and affectionate esteem   Dear Sir   Yrs &c. &c
W. V. Murray.
Genl. HamiltonNew York.
You will know that Mr. Thugut was lately dismissed—Count Lehrback put in this place—Count de Cobentzel named to come here to treat.
Count C. is by to day in French territory—here the basis for Luneville will be established or in 30 days the armistice will cease & the war be renew’d. As to Engd. it is uncertain! They may safely treat with this government—& the last campaign to Holld. convinced me that G. B. is a cypher in this war except in respect to stipends! Be assured of that.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Philip Schuyler, 9 October 1800
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Schuyler, Philip

New York, October 9, 1800. Advises Schuyler on the settlement of the estate of his brother Courtlandt Schuyler and states that he plans to go to Albany.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to William Lewis, 10 October 1800
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Lewis, William

[New York, October 10, 1800. On October 11, 1800, Lewis wrote to Hamilton: “Your letter of yesterday I received this morning.” Letter not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from George Cabot, 11 October 1800
From: Cabot, George
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Brookline [Massachusetts] Saturday Oct.~ 11th. 1800
My dear sir
Your letter of the 2d did not reach me until last evening, it having been accidentally detained at the Stage house in this village several days. The President is on the point of departure for the Seat of Govt so that no opportunity of conveyance by a private Gentleman cou’d be found, I have therefore sent your letter by a sure hand to the post office whence it undoubtedly goes in the President’s regular package of letters to Quincy this day. I have chosen this method as more sure of reaching his own hand than if I had sent it by a Servant who wou’d have been obliged to deliver it perhaps to another servant instead of the President or his Secretary. our people after all their scolding seem now to admit more generally that Massachusetts ought fairly to vote for A & P but you know that we can only give conjectures until the meeting of our legislature. altho’ I am not “an influential man” & wish I was not thought to be, I expect at least one & if printed several copies of your justificatory letter.
Dr. Dwight is here stirring us up to oppose the Demon of Jacobinism. a new paper to be entitled the “New England Anti-jacobin” is to be published at Boston & circulated as extensively as possible especially thro New England. the labors of many good men are expected in its support & you among the rest. some good may reasonably be expected from it in the dissemination of useful truth in correcting some of the dangerous errors embraced by the Federalists in uniting & keeping them united & in some measure preparing them for the evils they cannot shun. but the object is too vague & the means too inconstant to satisfy all our anxieties.
the President has been endeavering to be calm & discreet & has discovered a desire to be visited by the Individuals of the “Damned Faction” whom he has formerly proscribed.
your’s affectionately
G Cabot


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from John G. Coffin, 11 October 1800
From: Coffin, John G.
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Boston, October 11, 1800. “If you have not found it convenient to have placed my claim against the United States for Compensation for doing the duty of Quarter Master at Fort Niagara in a train for settlement, I will thank you to forward it to me, that I may offer it to the accountant of the War Department for payment.…”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from William Lewis, 11 October 1800
From: Lewis, William
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Philadelphia 11 Octr. 1800.
Dear Sir
Your letter of yesterday I recieved this morning, requesting to “know with exactness, what passed between the President and the Counsel of Fries &c.” and as nothing that I deem improper ever passed between them, I shall without hesitation furnish all the information in my power. It seems proper however to accompany it with some additional information, as I do not wish a part of the transaction to be seen without a view of the whole. Fries being a poor man and unable to fee Counsel, Mr. Dallas and I were assigned his counsel by the court. On the morning of the day appointed for his trial, in the presence and hearing of the jurors assembled for the purpose, the Honorable Mr. Chase, the presiding Judge, addressing himself to the prisoners counsel, and I believe to the counsel for the prosecution, observed from the bench, that he understood there had on a former occasion, been a great waste of time in discussing the law of Treason, and a variety of topics which were altogether immaterial, which had nothing to do with the business before the court, and which the court would not now suffer to be gone into. He added, that to prevent any thing of the kind, the court had considered and made up their minds on the law, and drawn up a charge for the jury respecting it, to be handed to them as soon as the case was fully opened on the part of the prosecution. He also added that they (the Judges) had ordered two copies to be made out, and one of them to be delivered to the Counsel for the prosecution, and the other to the prisoner’s counsel for their government in conducting the trial, and that if they had any thing to say respecting the law, they must address themselves not to the jury but to the court, who were the proper judges of it. One of the copies was I believe delivered to Mr. Rawle the district Attorney, and another was offered to me as counsel for the prisoner, but I declared that my hand should never be tainted, by the touch of a paper containing a prejudged opinion in any case in which I was of counsel, much less in a capital one, and I refused to receive it. The Attorney for the prosecution was not ready for trial, and it was postponed ’till the next day. As there was but little controversy respecting the facts, and as the life or death of the prisoner altogether depended on questions of law which had been predetermined, and the charge respecting them had been prepared for the jury before they were sworn, and as it was authoritatively announced from the bench, that the Prisoner’s counsel were to be deprived of what they deemed a legal and constitutional right, of addressing the jury in a criminal case, as well on the law as on the evidence, Mr. Dallas and I immediately concluded not to degrade the profession to which we belonged, by acting under an appointment from the court on any such terms, and withdrew ourselves from the prisoner’s defence.
The next morning Judge Chase addressing himself to me, (for I believe Mr. Dallas had not come into court,) asked if the prisoner was ready for trial? I observed, that he must answer that question himself. He was soon after brought to the bar, and on his telling the court, he was without counsel, I informed the court of the cause of it, but not without observing, that when ever I was employed as counsel, I would be as tenacious of my professional rights, and of the rights of my Client as any man, but that I would never act under an appointment from any court with terms annexed, degrading to me, and precluding all manner of services to the person that I might be appointed to defend. The court then said that the papers which seemed to have given offence to the prisoner’s counsel, and had occasioned a noise, were all called in and burnt or destroyed, and that as there was now an end to them, we might proceed in our own way, and we were also told that we might address ourselves either to the court or the jury on questions of law as we might think proper. In justice to Judge Chase I must add, that his condescension now, surpassed if possible, his high toned dogmatical conduct on the preceding day, but this however did not take place until I had declared it to be the legal and constitutional right of the jury, in all criminal prosecutions, to determine the law as well as the facts, that it had in England been uniformly the practice, since counsel had been admitted for the prisoners, and that I never had nor never would address myself to the bench in a trial on a criminal prosecution. I further observed, that although the offensive papers might be burnt, the predetermination of the court was not, and that Mr. Dallas and I should adhere to the resolution which we had taken. He avowed the same determination. The trial commenced and proceeded, without any counsel on the part of the prisoner, though if my recollection be accurate, the court offered to assign him other counsel. No counsel of reputation could I suppose, accept of the appointment after what had passed, and none were appointed. In the course of the trial one or more adjournments took place, and during one of them, a juror separated from his fellows and went to his lodgings at a tavern, where he held a conversation respecting the prisoner, his conduct and the evidence that appeared against him, but this conversation was not considered by the court, as sufficiently material to viciate the verdict, and sentence of condemnation passed against the prisoner. Soon after this, the President’s Son asked me, if I had any objections to let his Father see my notes of the points that I had intended to make for Fries, with my authorities in support of them, and I am pretty sure that he said his Father wished to see them. I answered, that I had no objections, and that his father might see them. The President however never sent to me for them, nor did I ever send them to him, nor did a single line or word ever pass between him and me respecting Fries or his trial, nor did any thing further than I have stated, ever pass between the President’s Son and me on the subject, nor between the President and me directly nor indirectly.
It may perhaps be proper to add, and it is all that I can add, that when I was in consultation with the Attorney General of the United States on other business, and when I neither thought of Fries nor his trial, he (the Attorney General) observed to me, that as he might perhaps be applied to, or spoken to (for I forget the precise words) by the President, respecting Fries, he wished to know Mr. Dallas’s reasons and mine for thinking he ought not to be hanged, and to have a note of the law authorities on which our opinions were founded. I promised to comply with his request, and I believe that a similar one was made of Mr. Dallas.
After more delay than was proper, we wrote him a joint letter, stating three points of defence, and mentioning our authorities in support of them.
One of them was, that the resisting of the execution of a law, not being a militia act, nor a law respecting the military force of the country in the manner that Fries had done does not amount to treason. on this point, different opinions may perhaps be held by men of respectable legal talents, but be this as it may, it seems to me almost impossible, for any two men of real law talents, to form different opinions on either of the following points
1st. On the part of Fries it would have been contended, had he not been deprived of the benefit of counsel, that his trial was at a place unauthorized by law, that the proceedings were, coram non judice and void, that in case of a conviction, the court were legally bound to arrest the judgment, and that no legal execution could take place under it. The offence was committed in a Northampton county, and the trial was had in Philadelphia. The 29th. section of the judiciary act, says “In cases punishable with death, the trial shall be had in the county where the offence was committed, or where that cannot be done without great inconvenience, twelve pettit jurors at least shall be summoned from thence.
Had Fries had the benefit of counsel, it would have been shewed, that the insurrection had long since ceased, and that the due administration of justice had been restored, that the only inconvenience attending a trial in Northampton county, would be confined to the trouble which the Judges might experience in riding there, and of course, that if this inconvenience was sufficient, to cause a change of trial from the proper County, to a more distant one, it will be sufficient on all future occasions, and it will therefore be better to repeal the act, than to continue it in form while it is in substance altogether disregarded.
Or if the inconvenience of attending a trial in the proper county, was so great as to justify a trial in another county, then a suggestion thereof should be made on record, at the instance of the Attorney of the United States, and an entry should also be made, that there could not be a trial in the proper county without great inconvenience, with an entry of an order, for holding a court for the trial in a different county. Nothing of this kind appears on the record, nor did it ever take place. It is therefore believed, that had Fries had the benefit of counsel, either the trial at Philadelphia must have been prevented, or a motion in arrest of judgment must have met with success. Otherwise it would appear, that by law the trial was to be had in the proper county, unless prevented by certain circumstances, and by the record it would appear that the trial was had at another place, without any circumstances being stated to warrant it; that is to say, that neither any suggestion, or proof, or judgment of the court or Judges appears, to authorize an idea, of the existence of any such great inconvenience, as in the act of congress is mentioned. It is believed that had not the prisoner been deprived of counsel, this objection would have been conclusive in his favor on a motion in arrest of judgment, and it is also believed that an execution under a verdict and judgment thus obtained, would have been an illegal homicide under colour of law.
But the prisoner had no counsel to bring these points before the court, and perhaps they were never thought of.
The last point was, that the separating of the jury vitiated the verdict. If the prisoner had been assisted by counsel, it would have been admitted that the separating of the jury in a civil action, or in a case of misdemeanor, does not vitiate the verdict, even where no improper communication appears to have taken place, and I am confident, that I may safely state, that the researches of the court extended no further than to cases of this kind. But it would have been contended, that in a capital case, so cautious and careful is the law, in favor of the life of man, that lest there may have been a tampering with the jury that separates, although the tampering cannot be proved, the bare act of separating, without any improper communication, vitiates the Verdict. It would have been shewn, to be the law of England, that if the jury separate in a capital case, their verdict, if this is known before it is given in, shall not be recieved, without swearing them anew, and going over the trial again, and the position would have been supported, on very high legal authority, that if a verdict is received, after such separation, it is null and void; that no judgment can be rendered on it; that if it is rendered, it is null and void; that no execution can take place under it, that the party may of right demand a pardon, and that the King has no discretion but ⟨is b⟩ound to grant it.
Whether the Attorney General was ever consulted on the subject by the President, or whether the President ever said a single word to him respecting it, I do not know nor have I ever heard. You must excuse me my dear friend, for troubling you with a longer statement than your letter called for, or than you could have expected. I have heard so many strange & unfounded things on this subject, as to make me unwilling to say any thing respecting it, without giving a correct Statement of the whole business. I may not perhaps have given the precise words made use of by Judge Chase, but I am confident, that wherever I have departed from them, it has been in moderating and Curtailing the strength and extent of his mandatory prohibitions. I do not wish to appear in print, but you are at full liberty to mention the contents of this letter, together with my name wherever you please.
I am with high consideration of regard   Your faithful friend and Servant
W: Lewis
Major General Hamilton.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from James McHenry, 12 October 1800
From: McHenry, James
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Baltimore 12 Octbr. 1800
My dear Hamilton
Mr Wolcott informed me by a letter recd yesterday evening that he was to leave the seat of Government (on a visit to his family) to day. He goes by way of Lancaster & I expect will pass through to New York in which case I pray you to give him the inclosed letter. If any accident should prevent his seeing you, be pleased to send it to him. It will shew you what I think of things here and my expectations relative to the number of votes this state may furnish to Mr Adams & Gen Pinckney.
Will Rhode Island vote for Pinckney? Will Massachusetts give him all her votes? Will Connecticut give him the whole number and to Adams not more than six or nine? If these questions can be answered affirmatively Genl Pinckney will be our next President.
Yours affcley
Alexr Hamilton Es


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Oliver Ellsworth, 16 October 1800
From: Ellsworth, Oliver
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Havre Oct 16th. 1800
Dear Sir,
I enclose for your perusal, but by no means for publication, an extract of a letter I have just been writing for the Secretary of State.
More could not be done than has been, without too great a sacrifice; and I hope, as the reign of Jacobinism in France is over, and appearances are strong in favour of a general peace, that you will think it was better to sign a Convention than to do nothing.
I am, dear Sir,   with respect & esteem,   your most obedient
Oliv. Ellsworth
General Hamilton

P.S.
I will thank you at a convenient opportunity, to shew the enclosed extract to Govr. Jay & Judge Hobart.
The unfavourable state of my health does not permit my return to America at this late Season of the year. After a few weeks spent in England I shall probably retire for winter quarters to the South of France.
O E.


Title: Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Cooper, and David A. Ogden to Thomas FitzSimons, Herman LeRoy, William Tilghman and Matthew Pearce, 17 October 1800
From: Hamilton, Alexander,Cooper, Thomas,Ogden, David A.
To: FitzSimons, Thomas,LeRoy, Herman,Tilghman, William,Pearce, Matthew

[New York, October 17, 1800. The description of this letter in the dealer’s catalogue reads: “Concerning the conveyance of 175,000 acres of land, probably in N. Y. state.” Letter not found.]


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Ebenezer Stevens, [21 October 1800]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Stevens, Ebenezer

[New York, October 21, 1800]
General Stevens will please to deliver to Capt Huger the papers of the Adjutant Generals Office to be forwarded to B General Wilkinson
A Hamilton