Title: Report on the Petition of Joseph Ball and Isaac Ledyard, [21 November 1792]
From: Treasury Department,Hamilton, Alexander
To: Speaker of the House of Representatives

[Philadelphia, November 21, 1792Communicated on November 22, 1792]
[To the Speaker of the House of Representatives]

The Secretary of the Treasury, to whom was referred by the House of Representatives the petition of Joseph Ball and Isaac Ledyard, respectfully submits the following report thereupon.
The said petition contains the following suggestions.
“That an armed Dutch Ship, named the Renown, owned chiefly by Mr. John Ball, Burgher of St. Eustatius, and employed by him in a trade between that place and Virginia, was, on the 4th. day of March 1781, in the Bay of Chesapeake, having on board her cargo, consisting of one hundred and eighty three hogsheads of Crop Tobacco, manned and equipped for sea, with twenty carriage guns, and a sufficient supply of small arms and ammunition, and then having received sailing orders.”
“That at this time, and under these circumstances, the said Ship was impressed by the honorable Thomas Jefferson Esquire, then Governor of the State of Virginia, with the advice of their Council of State, to co-operate with General Baron Steuben, in an attack which was then meditated against a British Army in Portsmouth, under the command of General Arnold.”
“That Captain William Lewis, her commander, did enter regular protest.”

“That her Cargo was relanded to fit her for war, and afterwards destroyed by the British, when they took and burned Norfolk.”
“That soon after, a British fleet came to the relief of their troops in Portsmouth. That the ship Renown was pursued up the river, as far as was practicable for ships of her burthen to go, and there taken. That his Excellency Governor Jefferson, in Council, caused the ship and cargo to be valued, and warranted them against all losses and detentions in consequence of the seizure. That the command of the ship was afterwards assumed by General Baron Steuben, with consent of his Excellency Governor Jefferson, and that he did, in like manner, as before by Governor Jefferson, warrant the property in the name and behalf of the United States. All which appears by original and attested papers, copies of which are hereunto subjoined. That Hunter, Banks and Company, who were agents for the said ship in Virginia, did petition the Legislature of that State, praying pay for said Ship and Cargo, and their Committee did report, as above, but more fully, and that order should issue on their Treasurer for payment, which report was not acted upon. That some time after Mr. Ball came, himself, to America, renewed the application to the State of Virginia, and continued his solicitations until September 1786, when he died in Virginia. That the State of Virginia did finally refuse to pay for the Ship, but agreed to pay her hire. That Mr. Ball being, for a long time, absent from America, was unacquainted with the propriety of presenting his claim to the Auditors and Comptrollers of accounts of the United States, and looking to them for payment, the ship being lost in their service, and the property warranted by their General, and then Commander in chief in that department. That by the death of Mr. Ball, and derangement of the affairs of Hunter, Banks, and Company, your petitioners could not be in possession of the necessary vouchers and information, to establish their claim against the United States, before the present Session of your honorable House.”
The Copy of a Report, (which is presumed to be authentic) of a Committee of the House of Delegates of Virginia, states the transaction which is the subject of the said petition, in the following manner.
“It appears to your Committee, that the said Ball, Hunter, Banks and Company, were on the fourth day of March, in the year of our Lord 1781, owners of the Ship, Renown: That the said Ship was then in port in James River within this Commonwealth, commanded by Captain William Lewis, loaded with one hundred and eighty three hogsheads of Crop Tobacco, from the Warehouses of Shockoes and Birds, mounting twenty guns, provided with a considerable quantity of good musquets, ammunition and stores, equipped for sea, and destined originally to St. Eustatius, but afterwards to France, when the capture of that Island was announced; That on the said fourth day of March 1781, Thomas Jefferson Esquire, then Governor, meditating a descent upon the garrison of Portsmouth, in conjunction with a French squadron then daily expected within the Capes, issued, with the advice of the Council of State, an Order for engaging voluntarily or impressing all the armed Vessels of private property, which could be immediately collected together, with the whole of the equipments directing them to be employed in the purpose aforesaid. That the said William Lewis obeyed the impress made of the ship, and was assured by a letter from Governor Jefferson, dated in Council on the 8th day of March 1781, that his vessel and her loading were considered, as at the risque of the State, and that a reasonable hire should be paid for the use of the said Vessel and her crew. That the said ship, after having been first appraised, by order of the Governor, was employed in public service, and with the military view aforesaid, for the space of twenty six days, to wit, from the said fourth day of March 1781, to the thirtieth day of the same month in the same year: That during that time, it appears, that the said ship might have proceeded to sea, without the danger of capture, since several vessels did actually sail from James River, and escape into the Ocean, and afterwards arrive at their destined ports in safety, and since the British Cruisers were obliged to confine themselves within the Elizabeth river, from an apprehension of the French naval armament, which remained in the neighborhood of Portsmouth, for a considerable time: That on the said thirtieth day of March 1781, the said ship being discharged from public service, could not prosecute her intended voyage, by reason of the derangement which took place, in consequence of her having been impressed, as aforesaid, and of the arrival of a large fleet of British ships of War in James river. That the said ship attempted to elude their hostility, by proceeding up the said river to Osborne’s Warehouses, being the highest point of navigation for vessels of her burthen. That the British fleet also moving up the said river, and the British land forces marching to Osborne’s, the said ship was, some time in the month of April 1781, captured, with her rigging, tackle, apparel, furniture and cargo, and was wholly lost to the said Ball, Hunter, Banks and Company; for which loss, they have neither hitherto received any compensation, nor indeed have they, as yet, obtained any satisfaction for the services rendered to the Commonwealth, by the said Ship, except a small sum on account of the wages of the Marines of the said Ship.”
“That the said ship, with her guns, tackle and apparel, was appraised by three merchants, and valued to be worth eight hundred thousand pounds of James River upper inspected Tobacco.”
“That her cargo on board amounted to one hundred and ninety five thousand four hundred and ninety six pounds of Richmond Tobacco.”
And the same report, upon that state of facts, submits two resolutions, in the following words—
“Resolved, that it is the opinion of this Committee, that the loss of the said ship and her cargo was occasioned by her being impressed into the service of this Commonwealth.”
“Resolved, that it is the opinion of this Committee, that the Auditors of public Accounts ought to audit the demand of the said Ball, Hunter, Banks and Company, for the loss of the said ship and her cargo, and to grant a Warrant upon the Treasurer, payable in  months, for the amount of what shall appear due to the said Ball, Hunter, Banks and Company thereupon.”
It is represented, that this report was referred to a Committee of the whole House, but never acted upon.
No document is produced, as alledged in the petition, shewing that Major General De Steuben “did warrant the property in the name and behalf of the United States.”
There is indeed produced a copy of a letter dated the 8th of January 1781, from the Officer, addressed “to the Commodore or commanding Officer of the armed merchant vessels lying at, or above Osborne’s,” which, after directing him to proceed down the river with the vessels under his command, to endeavor to intercept some small vessels, belonging to the enemy, lying in Appamatox, adds this assurance “Should any damage happen to any part of your fleet, I do hereby assure you, in the name of the United States, that satisfaction shall be made to the Owners, by the public.”
But besides that this appears to be a special guarantee for a special enterprize, it is more than two months prior to the impress of the Ship Renown (the first order for which, issued by the Governor of Virginia, was not till the 4th of March following) and could therefore have no reference to that vessel.
As to the assumption of the command of the said Ship by Major General De Steuben, the following facts appear.
1st. That the said General, on the 9th of the same month of March wrote a letter, addressed to the Commodore of the Fleet, lying at Hood’s, (who is understood to have been the Commander of the Renown) directing him, in consequence of the Bay and rivers being entirely commanded by the British Vessels, not to proceed lower down the river, than Hood’s, but to remain there with all the vessels, that came down, ’till further orders.
2nd. That the said General, on the 14th of the same month of March, wrote a letter, addressed to Captain Lewis of the Renown, among other things, directing him to deliver all the Musquet-cartridges on board the vessels from Richmond, to Mr. Lureman; adding, “if Captain Pryor is arrived, he will take the trouble off your hands.”
3d. That the said General, on the 17th of March, wrote another letter, addressed to Captain Lewis of the Renown, in these words,—“Whilst the enemy command the water, the situation of our vessels at Hood’s seems not altogether safe. I think it, therefore, advisable, that you order all the vessels to go up as high as Turkey Island. This will make very little difference, in point of time, when they are wanted down, and will ensure them from any danger from the enemy.” This letter is accompanied by one of the same date, from John Walker to Captain Lewis, informing him, that the removal to Turkey Island, directed by the said General, was by the desire of the Governor of the State.
4th. That the said General, on the 24th of April following, wrote another letter, addressed to Captain Lewis of the Renown, in these words.
“The enemy’s movements indicate an intention to penetrate up the river, they are now near City point; should they have hazarded a force inferior to what we have, so high up, I think it would be shameful and unpardonable in us to permit it. What is the force of the vessels they have up, I do not yet know; so soon as it is ascertained, I will acquaint you, and, in the mean time, I beg you to have the vessels at Osborne’s in readiness, that in case a favorable opportunity should offer, of striking a stroke, you may be able to embrace it, at a moments warning. Any number of militia, that may be necessàry, shall be ready to be put on board.”
It does not appear, from any of the documents produced, that the said General had been advised of the discharge of the Renown, from the service of the State; which was done by a letter from the Governor in Council, dated the 29th of March 1781.
It appears, that on the 4th of March 1781, a commission issued under the seal of the Commonwealth of Virginia, to Captain Lewis, constituting him Captain of an armed Vessel in the service of the Commonwealth, so long as he should remain within the Bays, rivers, or other waters of the said Commonwealth.
Upon the foregoing state of facts, and a careful attention to the several documents, which accompany the petition, the Secretary is of Opinion.
That nothing has been shewn, amounting to a guarantee of the said vessel, either actual or virtual, on behalf of the United States, and that, consequently, whatever claim of indemnity may exist, is against the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Such, too, appears to have been the clear sense of the parties. Of that Commonwealth only, has relief been sought, ’till the period of the present application to Congress. The Committee of the House of Delegates evidently viewed the State of Virginia, as alone responsible. No allusion is made by them, to any responsibility on the part of the United States.

The directions, at different times given by Major General De Steuben, wear no other complexion, than that of directions given to a vessel in the service of the State of Virginia. This view of them, on the 17th of March, at least, is confirmed by a letter of Mr. Walker, to Captain Lewis. The presumption is, that the same impression continued on the 24th of April.
The Secretary forbears to urge the objection of the Acts of limitation, which bar the claim, as against the United States; because, if it had been otherwise well-founded, he should be strongly inclined to the opinion, that the circumstances are sufficiently special, to justify an exception in its favor.
All which is humbly submitted.

Alexander Hamilton,Secry. of the Treasry.Treasury Department,November 21st 1792.


Title: Report on the Petition of George Blanchard, [21 November 1792]
From: Treasury Department,Hamilton, Alexander
To: Speaker of the House of Representatives

[Philadelphia, November 21, 1792Communicated on November 22, 1792]
[To the Speaker of the House of Representatives]
The Secretary of the Treasury, to whom was referred by the House of Representatives, the petition of George Blanchard, respectfully submits the following Report thereupon.
The petition seeks compensation for services alleged to have been performed, under the order of the Navy-Board for the eastern department, by Edward Blanchard; stating, that the accounts for those services were rendered, in due time, to the Clerk of that Board; but that, owing to their not being preferred, according to the requisitions of the several Acts of limitation, the accounting Officers of the Treasury now deem themselves restrained from adjusting them.
It has been heretofore stated to the House of Representatives, that the accounts of the said Navy-Board had not been settled.

It is represented to the Secretary, that serious difficulties stand in the way of a final and satisfactory adjustment.
Upon the books of the Board, Edward Blanchard stands charged with sundry sums advanced in old Emission, which together amount to £8.300. money of Massachusetts, but only one entry to his credit appears, for a Bill against the Ship Boston, amounting to £134 like money.
Search has been made among the papers of the Board, deposited in the Treasury, but the accounts, alleged to have been delivered to the Clerk of the Board, have not been found.
It appears, that on the 14th of March 1787, Edward Blanchard wrote to Benjamin Walker, Commissioner for settling the accounts of the Marine Department, informing him, in general terms, of his claim, and stating the exhibition of his accounts to the Clerk of the Board; that in a reply to this letter of the 23d of the same month, the Commissioner informs Mr. Blanchard, that the different sums, paid him, stood against him on the books of the Board, that no accounts of his were to be found among their papers, and that it was necessary, he should furnish his accounts from the beginning (the sooner, the better)—That this intimation of the Commissioner appears to have remained unanswered, ’till the first of April 1789, when Mr. Blanchard wrote to the Commissioner, apologizing for the delay, ascribing it to his ill health, hurry of business, and the hope of again finding the accounts which were delivered to the Clerk of Board; adding, that they were then drawn over and should be forwarded for settlement, when he should please to direct, which accounts were forwarded to the Auditor’s Office, some time in .
From these facts it will result, that the case is one, which requires a cautious treatment. Considering the state of the accounts of the Navy-Board, the delay which has ensued, a settlement now on principles safe and satisfactory, in reference to the public, cannot be unattended with material difficulty; but imperfect means of investigation being to be had. In connection, too, with other cases, in which the accounts of the public Officers, which are incapable of being settled, or are destroyed, could alone furnish adequate evidence of the merit of claims, the precedent of a relaxation of the Acts of limitation, if they are a bar in this instance, would be an inconvenient one.

If those Acts present no bar, no special interposition of the Legislature is necessary. The claim will be considered and decided upon, in the course of the Treasury, whenever the state of the accounts of the Navy-Board shall afford sufficient light.
The Secretary, upon the whole matter, is, with all deference, of opinion, that it is advisable to leave the petitioner to the course of Treasury settlement.
Which is humbly submitted,

Alexander Hamilton,Secry of the Treasry.
Treasury DepartmentNovember 21st 1792.


Title: Report on the Petition of Benjamin Brown, [21 November 1792]
From: Treasury Department,Hamilton, Alexander
To: Speaker of the House of Representatives

[Philadelphia, November 21, 1792Communicated on November 22, 1792]
[To the Speaker of the House of Representatives]

The Secretary of the Treasury, to whom was referred, by the House of Representatives, the petition of Benjamin Brown, submits the following Report thereupon.
The Act of the last Session, entitled “An Act providing for the settlement of the claims of persons under particular circumstances barred by the limitations heretofore established,” removes all obstacles to the claim of the petitioner, arising from the Acts of limitation if otherwise well founded.
But it appears, that Peter Greene, Attorney to Benjamin Brown, received, on the 13th of August 1788, a Certificate from the Commissioner for settling the accounts of the Marine Department, for the balance of pay due to said Brown for his services on board the Frigate Trumbull; which satisfies the claim of the petitioner.
Respectfully submitted,

Alexander HamiltonSecry of the Treasry.
Treasury DepartmentNovember 21st 1792.


Title: Report on the Petition of Pitman Collins, [21 November 1792]
From: Treasury Department,Hamilton, Alexander
To: Speaker of the House of Representatives

[Philadelphia, November 21, 1792Communicated on November 22, 1792]
[To the Speaker of the House of Representatives]

The Secretary of the Treasury, to whom was referred, by the House of Representatives the petition of Pitman Collins, respectfully makes the following Report thereupon.
The petition seeks compensation for a vessel alleged to have been impressed into the service of the United States, during the late war, to have been wrecked on her voyage, and to have finally fallen into the hands of the enemy.
The circumstance of the impress, the essential ground of the claim, is supported by no other testimony, than the deposition of the petitioner, which, on general principles, it would be neither regular nor safe to admit.
The claim itself is barred by the Acts of limitation, and is exceptionable from long delay in preferring it; for which delay, no adequate cause is assigned.
On both which accounts, the Secretary respectfully submits an opinion, that the prayer of the petition ought not to be granted.

Alexander Hamilton,Secretary of the Treasy.
Treasury Department,November 21st 1792


Title: Report on the Petition of Hugh Cunningham, [21 November 1792]
From: Treasury Department,Hamilton, Alexander
To: Speaker of the House of Representatives

[Philadelphia, November 21, 1792Communicated on November 22, 1792]
[To the Speaker of the House of Representatives]

The Secretary of the Treasury, to whom was referred by the House of Representatives, the petition of Hugh Cunningham, submits the following report thereupon.
Respectfully referring the House of Representatives, to his report of the 17th Instant, on the subject of depreciation generally; The Secretary begs leave to add,
That the claim of the petitioner is in the capacity of an Officer of the State of Pennsylvania, and has reference to that State only, on the part of which it appears to have been rejected.
Which is humbly submitted

Alexander Hamilton,Secretary of the Treasury
Treasury Department,November 21st 1792


Title: Report on the Petition of Margaret Fisher, [21 November 1792]
From: Treasury Department,Hamilton, Alexander
To: Speaker of the House of Representatives

[Philadelphia, November 21, 1792Communicated on November 22, 1792]
[To the Speaker of the House of Representatives]

The Secretary of the Treasury, to whom was referred by the House of Representatives, the petition of Margaret Fisher, respectfully makes the following Report thereupon.
The petition seeks compensation for expenditures and services, alleged to have rendered and made, by Henry Fisher (the petitioner’s deceased husband) he having been stationed, during the late war, at Lewes near Cape Henlopen, under the appointment and instruction of the Council of Safety of the State of Pennsylvania.
As far as may regard a general compensation, for the time and service of the petitioner’s late husband, ’tis evident, from the nature of his appointment, that the application can be properly addressed only to the State of Pennsylvania.
Special services, immediately rendered to the United States, and expenses, incurred for their purposes, would be entitled to compensation and reimbursement, according to their nature and extent. But to these also an objection arises, in the present case, from the Acts of limitation, no account having been exhibited against the United States, ’till .
From the face of the account, it appears, that several of the items would not be admissible in the course of the Treasury, if no bar existed; and the propriety of some others could not be safely investigated at so late a day. There is a possibility, that some of the articles charged may have been paid for by the officers, to whom, or to whose order, they may have been furnished.
For so long a delay, no sufficient reason, by way of excuse, is assigned.
Wherefore, though the Secretary is under a general impression, from the documents produced to him, that there are probable grounds of equitable claim upon the United States, on behalf of the petitioner, in some particulars, he does not consider it, as a case, presenting reasons of sufficient force, for making an exception to the operation of the Acts of limitation; the cautious maintenance of which, as a general rule, is recommended by so many weighty considerations.
All which is humbly submitted

Alexander HamiltonSecry. of the Treasry.
Treasury Department,November 21st 1792.


Title: Report on the Petition of Aquila Giles, [21 November 1792]
From: Treasury Department,Hamilton, Alexander
To: Speaker of the House of Representatives

[Philadelphia, November 21, 1792Communicated on November 22, 1792]
[To the Speaker of the House of Representatives]

The Secretary of the Treasury, to whom was referred the Memorial of Aquila Giles, in behalf of sundry inhabitants of Long Island, by an Order of the House of Representatives of the 12th of February 1791, thereupon respectfully submits the following Report.
The Memorial sets forth, that the provision made by Congress, by their Act passed the 12th of August 1790, for discharging certain debts, contracted by Abraham Skinner, on account of the subsistence of the Officers of the late Army, while in captivity, did not comprise the whole of the claims of the said inhabitants, there remaining still unsatisfied claims, to the amount of near six hundred pounds, similar to those provided for, except, that the said remaining claims had not been included in the general estimate, returned into the Office of Finance, by the late Commissary of prisoners; And the Memorialist prays, that provision may be made to place the Claimants upon an equal footing with those who were provided for by the Act before alluded to.
It must be understood from this statement, that it is presumed to be the case, that the claimants are in possession of certificates issued for them, by the said Commissary of prisoners.
The Secretary respectfully begs leave to refer the House of Representatives, for his opinion respecting the most eligible mode of proceeding in regard to claims similarly circumstanced, to his report upon the Memorial of the Executors of Edward Carnes.
Which is humbly submitted

Alexander Hamilton,Secry. of the Treasry.
Treasury Department,November 21st 1792.


Title: Report on the Petition of Udny Hay, [21 November 1792]
From: Treasury Department,Hamilton, Alexander
To: Speaker of the House of Representatives

[Philadelphia, November 21, 1792Communicated on November 22, 1792]
[To the Speaker of the House of Representatives]

The Secretary of the Treasury, to whom was referred, by the House of Representatives, the petition of Udney Hay, respectfully makes the following Report, thereupon.
The said petition seeks payment of interest upon a certain promissory note recited therein, from Christopher Greene and Return Jonathan J. Meigs to Simon Frazer, which is understood to have been given, for a sum of money advanced for the use of certain Citizens of the United States, prisoners of war at Quebec, in the year 1776, and which stipulates the reimbursement of the sum advanced, within a year from the date, with lawful interest till paid.
It appears, that some time in August or September 1785, application was made to the United States in Congress assembled, for payment of the principal and interest of the said Note.
It further appears, that Congress, on the 28th of September 1785, passed a resolution, in the words following.
“That the Board of Treasury take order for paying to Return Jonathan Meigs, late a Colonel in the service of the United States, and to the legal representatives of Christopher Greene deceased, late a Colonel in said service, the sum of two hundred dollars, the same having been expended for the use and comfort of the unfortunate prisoners in Quebec, in the year 1776.”
The payment of principal, thus directed to be paid, has not been accepted; the payment of interest as well as principal being insisted upon.
As there is an express stipulation of interest on the note, it is clear, that the parties, by whom it was given, are as much bound for the payment of the interest, as of the principal; and that, unless the public indemnification should include both, the relief intended will be partial and defective. The equity of paying the interest, as well as the principal, is, in such a case, without a question. It is not a case, in which, difficulty can arise, from any established principle of Treasury settlement.

The recognition of the debt, by the provision heretofore made, appears to the Secretary to require, that the provision should be so extended, as to complete the relief designed to be afforded.
All which is humbly submitted

Alexander Hamilton,Secry. of the Treasry.
Treasury Department,November 21 1792.


Title: Report on the Petition of John Jones, [21 November 1792]
From: Treasury Department,Hamilton, Alexander
To: Speaker of the House of Representatives

[Philadelphia, November 21, 1792Communicated on November 22, 1792]
[To the Speaker of the House of Representatives]

The Secretary of the Treasury, to whom was referred by the House of Representatives, the petition of John Jones, respectfully makes the following Report thereupon.
The petition seeks a compensation for certain storehouses, which, it is alleged, were destroyed by the enemy, during the late war with Great Britain, upon the ground of a contract alleged to have been made with certain persons, on behalf of the State of Pennsylvania, stipulating an indemnification for the stores, if injured or destroyed by the enemy.
By the petitioner’s own shewing, the claim belonged exclusively to the cognizance and adjustment of the State of Pennsylvania. Any interference of the United States would be repugnant to the course of similar transactions, and, as a precedent, full of inconvenience.
The assumption of the State debts, on which the petitioner relies, has, for obvious reasons, been confined to liquidated claims. An extension of it to those of an opposite description, would be replete with embarrassment; placing the adjustment of them where there were not competent means of ascertaining their merit.
Had the claim originally been upon the United States, it is barred by the Acts of limitation.
All which is respectfully submitted,

Alexander Hamilton,Secry. of the Treasry.
Treasury Department,November 21st 1792.


Title: Report on the Petition of Prudent La Jeunesse, [21 November 1792]
From: Treasury Department,Hamilton, Alexander
To: Speaker of the House of Representatives

[Philadelphia, November 21, 1792Communicated on November 22, 1792]
[To the Speaker of the House of Representatives]

The Secretary of the Treasury, to whom was referred by the House of Representatives, the petition of Prudent La Jeunesse, respectfully submits the following Report.

The petition suggests no specific ground of claim on the justice of the United States, but rather appears to seek a gratuity, in consideration of having espoused the cause of the United States, early in the late war, of having abandoned his residence in Canada, to follow its fortunes, and of being in distress.
No circumstances of merit or suffering are adduced, sufficiently strong or discriminating to call for a special interposition in favor of the petitioner.
Which is humbly submitted.

Alexander Hamilton,Secry. of the Treasry.
Treasury Department,November 21st 1792.


Title: Report on the Petition of William McGilton, [21 November 1792]
From: Treasury Department,Hamilton, Alexander
To: Speaker of the House of Representatives

[Philadelphia, November 21, 1792Communicated on November 22, 1792]
[To the Speaker of the House of Representatives]

The Secretary of the Treasury to whom was referred by the House of Representatives, the petition of William M’Gilton, respectfully makes the following Report thereupon.
The petitioner, by his said petition, claims compensation for his services, as a Clerk to John Reynolds, an Assistant Commissary of Issues, from the 14th of October 1780, to the 18th of January 1781.
It appears, that the accounts of the said John Reynolds have never been rendered at any of the proper public Offices; so that it cannot appear with official certainty, that the petitioner was his Clerk, neither can it be ascertained, whether he received compensation or not.
Under these circumstances, the Secretary is of opinion, that it is not advisable to remove the bar, to which his claim is liable, for want of having been presented in time, according to the Acts of limitation.
Which is humbly submitted,

Alexander Hamilton,Secry. of the Treasry.
Treasury Department,November 21st 1792.


Title: Report on the Petition of Reuben Murray, [21 November 1792]
From: Treasury Department,Hamilton, Alexander
To: Speaker of the House of Representatives

[Philadelphia, November 21, 1792Communicated on November 22, 1792]
[To the Speaker of the House of Representatives]

The Secretary of the Treasury, to whom was referred, by the House of Representatives, the petition of Reuben Murray, respectfully submits the following Report.
The petition seeks compensation for certain advances, alleged to have been made in Canada, in the year 1776, for the benefit of a detachment of sick soldiers under the charge of the petitioner.
The nature of the claim is a meritorious one, but at this late date, a proper investigation is hardly possible. It is barred by the Acts of limitation: No claim prior to the present petition appearing to have been preferred against the United States.

No proofs accompany the petition.
The Secretary is, therefore, of opinion, that there does not appear sufficient ground for granting the prayer of the petition.
Which is humbly submitted.

Alexander Hamilton,Secry. of the Treasry.
Treasury Department,November 21st 1792.


Title: Report on the Petition of Ebenezer Prout, [21 November 1792]
From: Treasury Department,Hamilton, Alexander
To: Speaker of the House of Representatives

[Philadelphia, November 21, 1792Communicated on November 22, 1792]
[To the Speaker of the House of Representatives]

The Secretary of the Treasury, to whom was referred, by the House of Representatives, the petition of Ebenezer Prout, respectfully makes the following Report thereupon.
The said petition seeks compensation for the services of the petitioner, as Clerk to Joshua Mercereau, Assistant Commissary of prisoners, and William Hunt, Assistant Commissary of Issues.
The accounts of the said Joshua Mercereau have long since been settled. They include no charge for pay to the petitioner, but allowances, it is represented, were made him for compensations to persons, whom he had employed to assist him. Regularly he was entitled to a Clerk. The allowance, at this day, of a compensation to a person, who may have acted in that capacity, would be a very inconvenient precedent.
It is also stated to the Secretary, from the proper Office, that William Hunt received pay for himself and clerks, up to the 31st of October 1779, which, it is to be presumed, included the petitioner. He is not intitled to depreciation, according to the established rules on that head.
The claim is barred by the Acts of limitation, and no special circumstances appear, to recommend an exception to their operation in favor of the petitioner.
Which is respectfully submitted,

Alexander HamiltonSecry. of the Treasry.
Treasury DepartmentNovember 21st 1792.


Title: Report on the Petition of David M. Randolph, [21 November 1792]
From: Treasury Department,Hamilton, Alexander
To: Speaker of the House of Representatives

[Philadelphia, November 21, 1792 Communicated on November 22, 1792]
[To the Speaker of the House of Representatives]

The Secretary of the Treasury, to whom was referred the petition of David M. Randolph, respectfully makes the following report thereupon.

The said petition seeks compensation for a quantity of flour, taken by the then enemy, in the year 1776; founding the claim upon the following suggestions.
1st. That Richard Randolph, the petitioner’s testator, some time early in the year 1776, contracted to furnish a certain quantity of flour to one Benjamin Baker, for the use of the American troops then stationed in the vicinity of Norfolk; towards the execution of which contract, 240 barrels of flour were put on board a sloop, commanded by a Captain Peck, to be delivered to the said Baker.
2d. That on her way to the intended place of delivery, the Sloop was stopped by an order of Major General Lee, detained under guard for eleven days, and in consequence of the detention, captured by the enemy with her cargo.
The first of these suggestions is satisfactorily supported by the concurrent testimony of Benjamin Harrison junior, Robert Roberts and Benjamin Baker, (Documents A, B, and C).
But the second of them does not appear to the Secretary, to be supported in such a manner, as, officially considered, ought to be deemed entirely satisfactory.
The deposition of Richard Randolph is full and explicit, to the point. But whatever weight this may [be] entitled to, in the private contemplation of persons acquainted with the character of the deponent, it cannot, in an official view, be admitted as a voucher. The principle of excluding the testimony of the party interested, as in support of his own claim, is not less necessary to be observed, for the security of the public, than for the security of individuals. It is also matter of remark, that this deposition is at a distance of near ten years from the circumstance testified, which, with every allowance for the most scrupulous good faith, is of a nature to weaken the reliance on the accuracy of the Statement.
It is true, indeed, that the deposition of Benjamin Harrison, junior, is in affirmance of the same point. But the mode of expression used implies an indefinite and imperfect recollection of the transaction. The words of his deposition, in one place, are these, “This deponent, thinks that in a day or two after receiving information of the detention of the vessel, he went to Williamsburg and procured an order from General Lee to countermand his order for stopping this vessel, which order he gave to the said Peck, then at Williamsburg, with his, the deponent’s commands to go immediately to Sandy point, to take charge of his vessel, and proceed to Smithfield or Suffolk, as he should most convenient for avoiding the enemy.” In another place, the following clause is added;—“This Deponent perfectly remembers General Lee being at Curl’s, the seat of the said Randolph, on his return from South Carolina, to join the northern army, and thinks that, in his presence, General Lee agreed, with the said Randolph, during a conversation on the subject, that the above mentioned Vessel, with the aforesaid quantity of flour, on board, was stopped by his orders, and was taken in consequence thereof, and that he would try to get him paid by Congress, whenever he had leisure.”
Interpreting the first clause by the last, the inference seems to be, that the deponent did not mean to state, as an ascertained fact, the alleged agency of General Lee, intending only to assert a persuasion more or less distinct.
And the objection from distance of time is stronger in this, than in the first instance; a period of near fourteen years having intervened.
The following circumstances are of a nature to occasion additional uncertainty.
The letter (document D) which is produced from Richard Taylor, who is stated to have been the Officer commanding at the place, where the vessel was detained, mentions; that the Captain of the vessel was sent for to Williamsburg, by a Committee, which then sat there, though Mr. Taylor did not know what he was detained for (implying that he was detained by the Committee). This intervention of a civil body furnishes an argument, that the detention might have been by their Order.
It does not appear, that General Lee ever made any representation in favor of the claim to Congress.

But admitting, as alleged, that the detention was by his order, the cause of it was wholly unexplained. It cannot be conceded, that the mere detention of a vessel, for some days, by a military Officer, is under all circumstances, a sufficient ground for claiming compensation from the public for any loss, which may have ensued. The position of the enemy, as it regarded the probability of a supply falling into their hands, may have rendered the detention justifiable.
Neither does it appear, except by the concession alleged to have been made by General Lee, at the house of Mr. Randolph, that the loss of the flour was in consequence of the detention; a circumstance equally material with the one last mentioned. It is clear, that there was danger of capture from the enemy in any event. Mr. Harrison states, that the enemy then marauded in small tenders up James river, in which river the capture took place. It is, in the abstract, possible, that the detention might have even given a better chance of escape. The concession by General Lee, supposing it established, not being accompanied by facts or reasons, would hardly be conclusive.
With every disposition personally to confide in the candor and truth of the representations, which are made, as they regard the impressions of the parties concerned, the considerations, which have been noticed, furnish, at this day, weighty official objections to the admission of the claim.
It is, besides, barred by the Acts of limitation.
And it appears from the shewing of the petitioner and the documents produced, that no regular step was taken towards an application to the government, till late in the year 1785, between nine and ten years after the origination of the claim.
All which circumstances being considered, and the difficulty, if not impracticability of a completely satisfactory investigation, at so late a period, an exception to the operation of the Acts of limitation, in favor of the petitioner, is, with all deference, conceived not to be advisable.
Respectfully submitted,

Alexander Hamilton,Secry. of the Treasy.
Treasury DepartmentNovember 21st 1792.


Title: Report on the Petition of Stephen Steele, [21 November 1792]
From: Treasury Department,Hamilton, Alexander
To: Speaker of the House of Representatives

[Philadelphia, November 21, 1792 Communicated on November 22, 1792]
[To the Speaker of the House of Representatives]

The Secretary of the Treasury, to whom was referred by the House of Representatives, the Memorial of Stephen Steele, submits the following report thereupon.
That the Memorialist prays for the allowance of an Account, exhibited by him, amounting to five hundred and one pounds, eight shillings and seven pence, New York Currency, for work and materials expended in preparing and fitting up field-pieces and howitzers, for the use of the United States, between the ninth of February and seventh of September, 1776.
That he has suggested, that by the removal of many persons, who were Agents in the business which he transacted, and the loss of certain documents, which were taken by the enemy, he has not been able to obtain a settlement in the usual mode, although he has made frequent applications therefor.

The Secretary is informed by the accounting Officers of the Treasury that a due examination has been made, and that no evidence can be found that the claim was exhibited in season; and that it is considered, as barred under the existing limitation Acts of Congress.
It has also been represented to the Secretary, that an account of the Memorialist under the date of September 12th 1776, for services of a similar nature to those, for which compensation is now claimed, amounting to three hundred and sixty pounds New York Currency, was certified by the then Colonel of Artillery, on the 24th of September 1776, and afterwards paid by Nathaniel Cranck, an Officer of the Quarter Master’s department.
It also appears, that the Memorialist was a Captain of a Company of Wheelwrights, in the year 1777, and received payment, on sundry rolls, for the services of himself and Company, of John Keese, Esquire, then an Officer in the Quarter Master’s department.
From which circumstances, and inasmuch as by the attestation of the petitioner accompanying his memorial, it appears, not only, that his vouchers have been lost, but that the fact of their loss can no otherwise be ascertained, than by his own testimony, strong objections arise to his claim, independent of its being barred by the Acts of limitation.
The zeal of the petitioner in the cause of his country, his having suffered a loss of property, and his present distress, are believed to be truly represented; but circumstanced, as his case is, the special interposition of the legislature in his favor, does not appear to be recommended by any considerations sufficiently special or cogent.
All which is humbly submitted,

Alexander HamiltonSecry. of the Treasry.
Treasury DepartmentNovember 21st 1792


Title: Report on the Petition of Sundry Merchants of Wilmington, North Carolina, [21 November 1792]
From: Treasury Department,Hamilton, Alexander
To: Speaker of the House of Representatives

[Philadelphia, November 21, 1792Communicated on November 22, 1792]
[To the Speaker of the House of Representatives]

The Secretary of the Treasury, to whom was referred the petition of sundry merchants of Wilmington in the State of North Carolina, by an order of the House of Representatives of the 26th of May 1790, thereupon respectfully reports:
That the case of the petitioners, as appears by their own shewing, is one arising wholly under the laws of the State of North Carolina, prior to its acceding to the present Constitution of the United States, and, of course, is without the reach of relief from the United States.
Which is humbly submitted,

Alexander Hamilton,Secry. of the Treasry.
Treasury DepartmentNovember 21st 1792.


Title: Report on the Petition of Thomas Wickes, [21 November 1792]
From: Treasury Department,Hamilton, Alexander
To: Speaker of the House of Representatives

[Philadelphia, November 21, 1792Communicated on November 22, 1792]
[To the Speaker of the House of Representatives]

The Secretary of the Treasury, to whom was referred the petition of Thomas Wickes, by an order of the House of Representatives, of the 13th of April 1790, thereupon respectfully reports:
That the case, in which the petitioner seeks relief, is one of those provided for in the Act of Congress, passed the 12th of August 1790.
That the claim, appearing to have been included in a return made to the proper Officer, prior to the operation of the Acts of limitation, there is, in the opinion of the Secretary, in the present instance, nothing to obstruct a regular settlement at the Treasury, in the usual course.
Which is humbly submitted

Alexander HamiltonSecry. of the Treasry.
Treasury DepartmentNovember 21st 1792.


Title: Report on the Petition of Henry Howell Williams, [21 November 1792]
From: Treasury Department,Hamilton, Alexander
To: Speaker of the House of Representatives

[Philadelphia, November 21, 1792Communicated on November 22, 1792]
[To the Speaker of the House of Representatives]

The Secretary of the Treasury, to whom was referred, by the House of Representatives, the petition of Henry Howell Williams, makes the following Report thereupon.
Respectfully referring the House of Representatives, to his general report of the 19th Instant, concerning the provision heretofore made for cases of the property of citizens used, damaged or destroyed by the Troops of the United States.
The Secretary begs leave to add, that it appears by the petitioner’s own shewing, that the State of Massachusetts has considered his case, and granted him a conpensation: And that it further appears, from a document, which was produced by the petitioner, that the compensation allowed by the State was meant to be in full.
The State of Massachusetts having decided upon a matter respecting one of its own citizens, having made him a considerable compensation, for the loss which he sustained; that compensation having been made, as in full, and having been accepted by the petitioner, it would be, as far as the information of the Secretary goes, without precedent, in any similar case, to revise the compensation made, on the suggestion of its being inadequate; nor, considering the various incidents of the war, would comparative justice be promoted by doing it.
Though duly sensible of the respectability of the petitioner, and of the extent of the losses, which he originally sustained, the Secretary cannot but regard the considerations, which have been stated, as a bar to the object of his petition.
Which is respectfully submitted

Alexander HamiltonSecry. of the Treasy.
Treasury DepartmentNovember 21st 1792


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Ambrose Vasse, [21 November 1792]
From: Vasse, Ambrose
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia, November 21, 1792.] “As a Citizen of the United States I beg leave to solicit through your mediation my Country’s protection in an affair which interests not only me personally, but even the American Trade in general. Engaged in the Hispaniola business, I have thro my Correspondents Messrs Coopman & Co of Cape François sold to the Administration of that Colony sundry provisions to a large amount and at such reduced prices as to leave barely a proffit equal to the freight—for the neat proceeds whereof the House at Cape François remitted to me thro the channell of their agents here Bills drawn by said Administration on Mr De la Forest Consul General of France in this City: the acceptance of said Bills has been refused & consequently the payment remains very uncertain. Mr De La Forests Advertisement in the Papers of this day declares positively that they will not be paid as their dates are later than the 9th of September.… May I flatter myself that you will honor me with your protection and will use your influence with the minister of France, in order to obtain Justice as well for myself as for my fellow Countrymen and sufferers and to prevail on him to authorise Mr De la Forest to accept & pay all the drafts, drawn on him by the Administration of Hispaniola and most particularly such as have been drawn upon the abovementioned Circumstances.”


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Otho H. Williams, 21 November 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Williams, Otho H.

Treasury DepartmentNovember 21. 1792
Sir

Captain Porter of the Revenue Cutter Active having communicated to me, that he has reasons to be dissatisfied with the conduct of his third Mate Mr. James Forbes, I have to desire that you will make proper enquiry into the affair, in which the Naval Officer is requested to assist; communicating to me the result. Enclosed is an extract of Captain Porters letter for your information.

I am   Sir   Your Obedt. servant

Alexander Hamilton
Otho H. Williams Esqr.Collector, Baltimore.


Title: Conversation with George Hammond, [22 November 1792]
From: Hammond, George,Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[Philadelphia, November 22, 1792]

On the second morning after the receipt of Governor Simcoe’s letter, I waited on Mr Hamilton and requested him to inform me whether this government had then learnt the result of the Indian Council held at the Miamis rapids. Upon his answering in the negative, I stated to him loosely and generally that I had received information from Governor Simcoe that the Indians had evinced a willingness to meet early in the spring at Sandusky any persons deputed by the American government to treat with them—and that in consequence of this disposition they had sent a formal message to Governor Simcoe soliciting his Majesty’s good offices—not only as mediator, but also as the principal party in the several treaties concluded with them subsequently to the year 1763 and antecedently to the separation of the colonies from Great Britain. I did not enter into any other particulars than merely to express my sense of the propriety of this application to the King—as a power essentially interested in the restoration of tranquillity on the frontiers of his dominions and as the possessor of those treaties that defined the Indian boundaries as existing at the period of ceding the territory comprehended in them to the United States. Which cession could unquestionably transfer no other rights of soil or of any other nature than such as his Majesty had actually enjoyed. I concluded by requesting that my present communication might be considered as purely informal, in the making of which I was actuated by no other motive than a friendly anxiety to give this government intelligence of an event which materially affected it and with which it was unacquainted. Mr Hamilton in reply, thanked me for the confidence which I had placed in him, but expressed his persuasion that this government would not deem it expedient to accede to the Indian proposition of mediation since he conceived that such a proceeding would diminish the importance of the United States in the estimation of the Indians, and might eventually lead to a disagreeable discussion with Great Britain, in the case of any essential difference of opinion arising between her government and that of the United States, in arranging the conditions of the peace. He was proceeding to add other observations of a similar tendency, but I terminated the conversation by saying that I had formerly communicated to him my personal individual opinion (to which I still adhered) in favor of this proposition, a recurrence to which on the part of the Indians appeared to me extremely natural, as affording the most feasible mode of adjusting the present unhappy differences. But as he imagined that the American administration would refuse to adopt it, it was at present totally unnecessary for me to enter into any examination of the motives which might dictate that refusal.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from William Heth, 23 November 1792
From: Heth, William
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Collectors OfficeBermuda Hundred [Virginia] 23d. Nov. 92
Sir

Sickness, loss of Clerks—but more especially, the close attention which I have been obligd to pay to the preparing of my last quarters accounts, has prevented me til now, from complying with the order of the Senate enclosed by you the 31st. August last.
The low wages at which, I have hitherto employd my Clerks, has induced me to subjoin a note to my statement of emoluments, which, I hope will not be deemd improper.
You were informed in a private letter, in what manner I was left at a throng season—and how distressing the consequences had nearly proved. The Young Man who served me as an apprentice, I do not expect is alive at this hour. I missd him, much more than the other, who acted as my deputy. So that my application has been, & must continue to be for some time—if my Head will permit—as close as it was on the first of my opening of the Office.
You requested me to examine & to send you my remarks on the coasting Act which was prepared at last session. I have never had one moments leisure to look at it since my return. But with respect to the Division of the fees mentioned in the 34th section—lines 9–19—the absurdity is too great to pass unnoticed, and which you readily acknowledged when i pointed it out to you in Phila. As it now stands, it puts me in mind of a vulgar saying, which I hope you will pardon me for repeating—“Whats yours is mine, & whats mine is my own.” The Surveyor is to receive for his own use the fees on all the business which he is authorised to do—viz enter & clear vessels—& then he is to share wth the Collector the fees, in which he has no agency or concern. As I formerly urged, so I still think, that every man ought to enjoy the fruits of his own labor (this opinion is against my own Interest, for the moiety offers wch. I have recd from the surveyor at Richmond, has been more than all the rest of the fees under the Coasting Act.) But the principle which has obtaind, & which Seems to be preserved in the new act, of giving a moiety of fees to a man, who, from one end of the year to the other, has no agency in the coasting business, who is not at the ex-pence of a single cent, and in short, who has no more concern in discharging the duties prescribd therein than you have—is inconsistent with every principle of Justice, reason & common sense. I mean the Surveyors of the Ports of entry. The Collector—where there is no Naval Officer—does the whole duty, & is at the whole expence. Yet, the Surveyor receives his two Dollars for measuring a vessel, wch. is all he does towards her being registerd, & then receives one half of the fees for registering bonds & Trading licence, the last of which, are found by the Collector, & who is at other expence and trouble, unnecessary to repeat to you. But, if there is to be a division of fees, let them be general under this act; I mean, between the superior of the District, and the Surveyor of the Port, who has any agency in the business on which the fees arise; and this perhaps, might be best, & more consistent with the intentions of Congress; for, to Judge from some parts of the law, it would seem, as if they meant that the Collector, being the superior Officer, and in some measure responsible for the Conduct of the Surveyors, having frequently occasion to give them advice & instruction—& thro’ whom all prosecutions for offences, are directed—should receive a moiety of all fees under that act. And upon the whole, I believe it would best promote the public service & prevent impositions which might sometimes be committed, but for that check & controul, wch this division of fees produces—only keep the Surveyors of the Ports of entry out of the question, except in cases where they perform service, and all will be right enough.
I have been more troublesome to you in this way lately, than I expected to have been in twelvemonths—but, I could no longer resist the strong impulse of duty. I trust that I shall not feel myself bound to Interupt you again this Winter unless your letters should call for answers.
I am   Sir,   with very great respect   Yr Mo. Ob servt

Will Heth Coll
The Secretaryof the Treasury


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from David Ross, 23 November 1792
From: Ross, David
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Bladensbg [Maryland] Novr. 23d 1792
Sir

I am obliged to you for gratifying my request by sending me a Copy of Co. Mercers letter and of the Certificates of Mr. Hill and Mr. Crawford as it gives me an opportunity of removing any improper impressions that may be made on those who are unacquainted with all the circumstances.
It was taken for granted Co Mercer would deny his charges if ever he should be seriously called on to support them and you will see I advised him to do it or to fritter them away when he could have done it with rather a better grace—but I did not expect he would assume the appearance as he does by his Queries of wishing it believed he had spoken rather honourably of you than otherwise and that he had only found fault with some of the measures of the Administration—of which he considered you in his Speeches I heard as the author and effected by your undue influence over certain members of Congress—and with respect to the purchase of the Debt on account of the Publick I took it for granted from what he said till I received your letter and read the law that you was by the law constituted the sole and direct purchaser as he spoke of you as such & took no notice of any Board or that you had done it indirectly as he insinuates in his letter to you. For if he had I should also have taken notice in my Publications of the unjust inference he must necessarily have intended should be drawn against the President as well as the other four Gentlemen that they were under your undue influence—but that he has expressed this Sentiment at other places appears by the enclosed Certificates at least as to two of the Gentlemen of the Board.
That Co Mercer has in his Speeches attacked & admitted he had attacked your Integrity and that too in terms more direct than I was acquainted with till on my late particular enquiry, appears from the Certificates of Mr John Worthington and Captain Campbell, and the impressions he appears by the other Certificates to have wished to have made against you and which alone may be sufficient to satisfy you as to the truth of it. Yet I must add some observations on my own account as to what he said at Marlborough to prevent any unjust inference that might otherwise be drawn that I had either misapprehended or misrepresented what he said at that particular place.
I did not apprehend Co Mercer that you was a buyer of Stock with your own money but that as the immediate Purchaser for the Publick you had bought so as to benefit a particular set of men with whom you was privately connected so that in effect you was at the same time both buyer and seller of Stock.
I understand Mr Hill and Mr Crawford both voted for Co Mercer altho he leaves you to infer otherwise yet I have not the most distant inclination to ascribe their Certificates in his language to “wickedness” or even to improper motives but justice to myself obliges me to show truly my own idea of them that they were derived from inattention and that if there has been any misapprehension of what Co Mercer said at Marlborough it is rather on their part than on mine. I am induced to conclude it was from inattention only, and not coupling the whole of his Speech together as I cannot suppose they had not understanding enough if they had been attentive to his whole speech to descern that his praise of you was that of Anthony to Brutus. And I admit that if I had not taken his whole speech together but had happened to have had my attention called off at particular times and have had it engrossed by that part of it wherein he professed to have been in the habits of intimacy and friendship in the Army and to have even then a very high respect for your abilities; I could certify myself as these Gentlemen have done that he had spoken of you in an honourable manner—but the taking together the whole of his Speech at Marlborough only must I apprehend have compelled every one that heard him with attention to consider this only as proceeding from the art of a Popular Speaker with a design to impress his Audience with an idea of his own Impartiality that his censure might thereby acquire a double force and that the People might be induced to believe that facts and the public Good alone could have induced him to speak in the manner he did against one for whom he had otherwise a friendship & respeck. And I can the more readily conclude his censure of you at Marlborough had escaped the attention of these Gentlemen from a circumstance respecting myself for Co Mercers insinuation agt the President by his observation on General Waynes appointment to the Western Army had escaped me & consequently not taken notice of in my Publications till after I was reminded of it by Major Snowden and Mr. John Thomas of Susquehanna who happened to be present. And as to his praise and speaking highly of you in private conversation it could only be with the same view of giving force to his censure unless it might be with a design also of making the very use of it, he now has done if ever he should be called on as to charges he cannot support. And that every unfavourable impression was made even on Mr Hill himself as to your views and conduct as an officer if not as to your Integrity is evident from his own observation to a Gentleman that he was for sending Co Mercer to Congress if it was only to watch the Secretary of the Treasury and the observation of others was what a bad man the Secretary must be if what Co Mercer says is true. But the impressions that were made to your prejudice are wearing off fast and will be entirely removed when it comes to be Publickly known that he has denied having impeached your Integrity but only the Policy of some of the measures of the Administration. These Certificates of Mr Hill and Mr Crawford, also confirm the propriety of my wish to get every thing fixed in writing that there might be no dispute as to what was said. For did not Co. Mercer (as he admits by his Publication) answer when I represented to him the impropriety of charging you without producing some proof, that he thought himself justifiable in saying every thing he believed of you because he could trace the opposition to his election up to yourself, thus supporting his former charges as well as bringing forward a new one instead of seting me right if I had misapprehended him. This was soon after he spoke at Marlborough and before his Speech at Bladensburgh. Therefore can any one believe that Co Mercer could be your friend and could wish to make impressions honourable to you and that there was only a difference of Judgment between you as to the measures of Government when at the very time he spoke at Marlborough he himself thought you was his enemy and had acted so improperly towards him as well as the Publick that altho an officer of the General Government you had meddled in our State election and that too in opposition to himself. And if he had not have intended to charge your Integrity why did he not rectify the mistake as to his intentions, also, on the receipt of your letter in the presence of several Gentlemen instead of making a serious and most direct charge against you of having offered him a bribe to vote for the assumption or at least that you had made the offer to him in such terms that he had a right to take you in jest or earnest which appears by the Certificate of Mr Cramphin which I now send forward and the Certificates of Mr Bayley which I understand has been already forwarded but if it has not on your informing me I will procure it but I do not think I ought to delay this letter for that purpose. It may be proper to mention that I have understood some of Co Mercers friends incline to turn the contents of these Certificates into a joke and that he did not mean any thing unfavourable agt you—but they will find it impossible when they consider the very particular time of making the charge it being on the receipt of your letter calling on him to do you justice by stating what he really did say of you—the painting his own distress for want of money and that you knew this his distress—and when they consider the impressions he made on those present as appears by Mr Cramphins Certificate—and one observed as I am informed what do you think of the Secretary now—and another on being asked if he thought you was in earnest answered he had no doubt you would have given the Money if Co Mercer would have received it—and expressly and at a different time by his own answer to Mr Bayley that your proposition to him was in such terms that he had a right  to take you in jest or earnest. Mr Walter Chandler who was present and may be able to give you additional evidence on this particular subject, I hear is now in Philadelphia.
As concurrent circumstances may perhaps have more weight than charges of the greatest importance agt Co Mercers conduct with those who have no opportunity of informing themselves and who might suppose that what he is alledged to have charged against you has originated in party only where truth is too often sacrificed to the object in view—therefore I shall observe should such a Hero as Co. Mercer represents himself to be, refuse as he does in his Publication to do justice to the innocent Members of Congress for fear of bringing 24 quarrels on his head by giving the names of those corrupt Members who he says are under your influence—on his principle I should have suffered the minds of the People to be poisoned by him against the measures of Government and those who are entrusted with the Administration to be traduced, in silence through fear of his denunciations against his opponents—and that his denunciation was general agt. those that should oppose his election. I have since seen a Certificate of a Gentleman which can be had if necessary. He also asserts in his off hand Reply that “it can be affirmatively proved by 200 or 300 persons present a Marlborough” and this relates to his assertion that he there called Capt Campbell a liar rascal and coward whereas I was there ’till both left the place and heard nothing of it nor have I seen anyone that heard him call Capt Campbell so and every one will presume that if it had been the case only before 2 or 3 it must have had an immediate circulation among all the People. And what could he mean by calling you a mushroom excrescence but that you had jumped into wealth by means of an office you was not entitled to. Or why should he have observed at Marlborough that he knew you when you had not a second shirt to your back if he did not mean some impression to your prejudice should remain notwithstanding he told us at the same time that he did not mean it as a reflection and that it was in the retreat through the Jerseys, when he was nearly in the same situation himself. In his Publication he says “a full detail of these and other curious circumstances (relative to Capt Campbell) is lodged with the Printers” and I was much surprised when I applied the 15 Novr. for a Copy of this detail to be informed by the Gentlemen of the office that no such thing was ever lodged and that on observing this assertion in his Publication a note was sent him from the office that no such detail was lodged and his reply was that it was not ready. He calls your official letter to the Contractor a private correspondence a Copy of which I enclose and which Capt Campbell procured from the office for the purpose mentioned in his answer to me and does he not wish from his Publication, that it should be considered a letter as having relation to his election. It may not be improper to observe as he calls some of his opponents a desperate Banditti that there was respectability of character against Co Mercers election in the district at large and in Annapolis the place of his residence there was not only respectability but a considerable number for the place and also a small Majority in his own County at large agt him notwithstanding all his fine Speeches for which he says he received such shouts of applause so that it turned out as I concluded that it only required a knowledge of the man or the subject to defeat all his oratorial powers of Imposition.
I hear Co Mercer has gone on to Congress and as I do not wish to lose another Post in Copying this and the Vouchers I must request you will let Co Mercer have Copies of them. I shall send a Copy of this letter to Mr Hill & Mr Crawford that they may be thereby enabled to put in a different point of view with respect to themselves anything they may suppose has been misapprehended by
Your friend & obedt Servt.

David Ross
Alexr. Hamilton Esqr.


Title: Catullus No. V, [24 November 1792]
From: “Catullus”,Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[Philadelphia, November 24, 1792]

For the GAZETTE of the UNITED STATES.
It was my intention to have closed with my last paper, the discussion of Mr. Jefferson’s conduct in the particulars which have been suggested; but the singular complexion of the last number
   No. IV.
 of a series of papers originating in the American Daily Advertiser, obliges me to resume it.
As if bold assertion were capable of imposing any thing for truth, an attempt is made, in the paper alluded to, to impress the following opinions, 1st, That the extract which was given of Mr. Jefferson’s letter on the subject of a proposition for the transfer of the French debt, is “false,” “deceptive,” and “mutilated.” These are the epithets in different passages applied to it. 2d, That Mr. Jefferson was the mere vehicle, or to use the precise terms, “only the vehicle of cummunication to Congress.” 3d, That he “discountenanced” the proposition. 4th, That the “only” proposition which he made to Congress, was to borrow the money in Holland to discharge the debt.
To give colour to these assertions, I am called upon to produce the entire paragraph from which the extract has been made, and it is suggested, that the whole was deposited in the quarter, from whence the extract is believed to have been taken.
I pledge my veracity that this suggestion is unfounded; as is another—that the information which has been communicated by me is derived from the opportunities of official situation. I affirm unequivocally, that I obtained through different channels a full knowledge of the transaction in February, 1787—being in no public station whatever—that I then saw the extract, which has been published, and which was at that time taken from the original letter, and has been since preserved, in the most authentic form. That I then also received information equally authentic of the general substance of the letter, as relating to the matter in question, and of all other particulars concerning it, which have heretofore been stated, and which have been preserved, in a manner, that admits no doubt of their accuracy or genuineness.
For this, I again appeal to the letter itself, on the files of the department of state, where alone, as far as I am informed, its entire contents are deposited, and which I entertain no doubt will confirm not only the truth of the extract which has been given, but the justness of the representation of the contents of the letter in all other respects.
Considering the extract as genuine, which undoubtedly it is, it speaks for itself—and unequivocally falsifies the suggestion that Mr. Jefferson was “only the vehicle” of communication to Congress. It imports, without the possibility of evasion, advice to accede to the proposition which was made to the Dutch Company, on the dishonorable ground of there being danger, that the public payments would not be punctual, and of its being in that case expedient to transfer the discontents, which would arise from the want of punctuality, from the court of France, to the breasts of a private company. It therefore clearly makes him more than the mere vehicle of communication—the patron and adviser of the measure upon the condition which has been stated. It as clearly refutes the astonishing assertion, that he “discountenanced” the proposition; whatever subterfuge may be brought to colour it. And it equally destroys the other allegation, that the only proposition which Mr. Jefferson made to Congress, was to borrow the money in Holland to discharge the debt.
It has been admitted, that there was another proposition, in the same letter, of that import; but it is denied under the appeal which has been made, that it in any manner derogates from the advice contained in the extract. It is understood to have been offered as an alternative; in case the proposition of the Dutch Company should not be approved—As another mode which might be adopted to effect the payment to France.
It will be remarked by an attentive reader, that while an artful attempt is made to bring into question the genuineness of the extract, a direct denial of its genuineness is not hazarded. Recourse is had to equivocal implications. It is said to be “false and deceptive,” not in terms, but “upon a sound construction”—that “the contents of the letter, even in the extract published, have been shamefully misrepresented”—not that the extract is itself a forgery; but that “other parts of the letter absolutely necessary for the full comprehension of it, are kept back.” The jargon of asserting, that a literal extract from a paper is “false and deceptive, upon a sound construction,” is a proof of the embarrassment of the commentator. Whoever will examine the extract will perceive, that as to the purpose, to which it has been applied, it is an entire thing. The sentiment reprobated is there complete, and can be affected by nothing collateral. The inferences resulting from it can only be repelled by establishing that the extract is in terms false. This I believe will not be pretended.
It is as little true (in the sense in which it is evidently meant to be understood) that the proposition for the transfer of the debt has been imposed upon Mr. Jefferson as his own, as it is that he discountenanced it. It has been acknowledged, that the offer was first made by the Dutch Company; and has only been maintained that Mr. Jefferson advised its acceptance on principles contrary to good morals; a position which can never be overthrown without introducing a new system of ethics. In this sense too, and with the disapprobation, which belonged to it, was it understood by those to whom the advice was addressed, to the honor of the public Councils of the day.
It is suggested that the animadversions upon Mr. Jefferson’s conduct, in these papers, proceed from “private revenge.” This supposes some private injury real or imagined. The assertor must be not a little embarrassed to support the probability of such a cause. It is affirmed that none such exists. Private revenge therefore cannot be the stimulous. Let Facts speak the true motives.

Catullus.


Title: George Washington to Edmund Randolph, [24 November 1792]
From: Washington, George
To: Randolph, Edmund

[United States Novr. 24. 92]
Sir

It appears to me necessary, that processes should issue without further delay upon the Indictments found at the last Circuit Court held at York Town in the Commonwealth of Pensylvania, in reference to the laws laying a duty on Spirits distilled within the United States—and proper, that they should be served by the Marshall of the District of Pensylvania, in person. I am to desire that the requisite arrangements [with the Attorney & marshall of the before mentioned District] may be taken for these purposes; [and], you are authorized to signify to the [latter] my expectation of his immediate Agency in the business.

[G W]
[The Attorney Genl of the U S]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Joseph Whipple, 24 November 1792
From: Whipple, Joseph
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Portsmouth [New Hampshire] November 24, 1792. “Your Circular letter dated the 25th. Octo. came to my hands the 15th. instant: Comformably to a direction therein contained I enclose you an estimate of the amount of Bounties payable on the 31st. of Decr. next on fishing Vessels that have been licenced in this district, the amount whereof is Dollo. 2091.50. I do not conceive that any claims will be made on this office from any other Vessels, and the probability is that some of these may have failed of such Strict compliance with the law, as will entitle them to the bounty it may therefore to be presumed that the above mentioned Sum will be fully sufficient to be retained in my hands for the payment of those Bounties.…”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Oliver Wolcott, Junior, 24 November 1792
From: Wolcott, Oliver, Jr.
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Treasury Department, Comptroller’s Office, November 24, 1792. “I have prepared a sett of forms for the Superintendents of Indian Affairs, which I have now the honor to transmitt for your consideration, also the draft of a Letter on the same subject. These forms have been calculated with a view to the establishment of an Officer, to superintend the examination & settlement of all deliveries of Stores & public property of the United States; which in my opinion will be an indispensible arrangement to secure the necessary responsibility. If such an Officer should be established, I think he ought to be placed in the same relation to the Treasury as the Accountant of the War Department.…”


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Israel Ludlow, 25 November 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Ludlow, Israel

[Philadelphia, November 25, 1792. The catalogue description of this letter reads as follows: “Ordering the Original Survey of Lands in Ohio. ‘The said tract shall extend from the mouth of the Miami to the mouth of the little Miami, and be bounded by the river Ohio on the South … that the President reserves to the U. S., such lands at and near Fort Washington.’ Arranges for military protection.” Letter not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Sharp Delany, 26 November 1792
From: Delany, Sharp
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia, November 26, 1792. On December 13, 1792, Hamilton wrote to Delany: “I received … your letter of the 26th. Ultimo.” Letter not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from William Heth, 26 November 1792
From: Heth, William
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Bermuda Hundred, Virginia, November 26, 1792. On January 1, 1793, Heth wrote to Hamilton: “I wrote you very fully the 26th Novr. last.” Letter not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from John Jay, 26 November 1792
From: Jay, John
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[New York, November 26, 1792. On December 18, 1792, Hamilton wrote to Jay: “Your favours of the 26 of November & 16 instant have duly come to hand.” Letter of November 26 not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Jeremiah Olney, 26 November 1792
From: Olney, Jeremiah
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Providence, November 26, 1792. “As difficulties or losses may occur with respect to the Transmission of Bonds taken for duties, not discharged on the day they fall due, to the District Attorney residing at New Port, it appears to me of considerable importance that you be apprised of the different ways that offer for Transmitting them.… I am induced Sir, Respectfully to entreat your advice and particular instructions as to the mode of conveyance which shall appear to you the most proper for the Transmission, of any unsatisfied Bonds to the District attorney, which I Shall invariably observe.”


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to William Short, 26 November 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Short, William

Treasury DepartmentPhila. Novr. 26, 1792.
Sir

Since my last of the 5th. instant a triplicate of which is here inclosed I have received yours of the 30th of August last.
I have only time to inform you that I have directed the sum of 1,250.000 florins to be drawn upon our Commissioners in Amsterdam immediately; which will leave a sum in their hands sufficient to face the Interest and other payments falling due up to the 1st. of March next including the debt due to Spain.
This arrangement is made so as not to affect the sum of 1.625.000 florins which pursuant to Mr. Morris’s stipulation with the French Treasury was to be paid in France—because it appears from your letter that it was still possible the payment might be concluded. This possibility will therefore govern until I receive further advice on the subject. But should the payment eventually be stopped, I shall also draw for part, if not the whole, of the sum from hence.
I have the honor to be   very respectfully,   Sir,   Your Obedt. servant

Alexander HamiltonWilliam Short Esquire


Title: Treasury Department Circular to the Supervisors of the Revenue, 26 November 1792
From: Treasury Department,Hamilton, Alexander
To: Supervisors of the Revenue

Treasury DepartmentNovember 26. 1792
Sir

The Secretary at War informs me that the arrangement which has been made by him for supplying provisions and other necessaries at the several recruiting rendezvouses within the State of Maryland will expire with the present year; and that a further arrangement will be necessary for the succeeding year.
Convinced that under your care the business would be put upon the most proper footing, I have concluded to ask you to take the trouble of it.
The supplies of provisions are reducible to a precise rate by contract, which is always desirable. Quarter Master’s Articles and Medical Assistance appear not to be susceptible of the same regulation. The course consequently has been to contract for provisions at a given Rate ⅌ Ration, and to allow the Contract⟨or⟩ for all other supplies, which he also engages to furnish, a Commission of 5 ⅌ Cent upon his expenditures. This course, it is presumed, must continue to be substantially followed. It is however left to your discretion, except as to the article of provisions, for which the stipulation of a precise rate ⅌ Ration is deemed essential. The Rations to be supplied are to consist of the following Articles—
One pound of bread or flour,
One pound of beef or ¾ of a pound of pork,
Half a gill of Rum, brandy or whiskey

One quart of Salt

}
Two quarts of Vinegar
per 100 Rations.

Two pounds of Soap

One pound of Candles

The several rendezvouses, the present rates of provisions at each and the commission upon the expenditures for other supplies are as follow—

Places
prices ⅌ Ration

Commission

Baltimore
10 Cents
}
5 ⅌ Cent

Hagers Town
12 Cents

The places will continue as above specified; but it is hoped that the Rations may be reduced in price. Whether an attempt to form a contract for the whole, or the formation of a contract for each place, ought to be preferred, is left to your judgment.
Medical assistance has been a source of abuse and it is desirable that proper care be taken to guard against it.
The provisions must be furnished upon returns of the principal Officer at each rendezvous, specifying the number of men for whom Rations are required and a receipt upon the Return at each delivery for the number of Rations delivered must be obtained from the same Officer. Should a non-commissioned Officer only be at the rendezvous when any delivery is made, the Commissioned Officer charged with the recruiting service at the place must afterwards examine and certify it. Similar receipts and Certificates must be obtained for all other issues specifying particulars as accurately as the nature of the case admits, and the accounts must finally be settled at the Treasury.
Monies may be paid by you to the Contractor on account, for which duplicate receipts must be taken; one of them, when transmitted to the Treasury, will procure you a Credit for the sum paid, to be charged to the Contractor.
I need not observe to you the great importance of œconomy in the minutest details. The aggregate of saving or expence from attention or inattention to it is immense.
With great consideration,   I am, Sir, Your Obed Servt.

Alexander Hamilton


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Wilhem and Jan Willink, Nicholaas and Jacob Van Staphorst, and Nicholas Hubbard, 26 November 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Willink, Wilhem,Willink, Jan,Van Staphorst, Nicholaas,Van Staphorst, Jacob,Hubbard, Nicholas

Treasury Department,November 26th 1792.
Gentlemen,

You will herewith receive a triplicate of my letter of the 5th instant, and an enclosure for Mr. Short, which you will please to forward.
The Treasurer having been directed to draw upon you, for 1.250.000 florins, I have to request, that his drafts may be duly honored.
I am &c.

Alexander Hamilton.
Messrs. Willink, Van Staphorst,and Hubbard.Amsterdam.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Tobias Lear, 27 November 1792
From: Lear, Tobias
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia] November 27, 1792. Encloses “a Petition … in behalf of the Keeper of the Light House in Portland, to have his salary augmented.”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Jean Baptiste de Ternant, 27 November 1792
From: Ternant, Jean Baptiste de
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Philade. 27 Nove. 1792l’an 4 de la liberté francaise

Le secretaire d’etat m’ayant informé par une lettre du 20 de ce mois dont vous avez connoissance, que sur ma communication officielle du 8, votre gouvernement a arreté de solder ici à mon ordre quarante mille piastres de plus que les cent mille restant à payer sur les fonds précédemment accordés, je vous prie de vouloir bien faire acquitter entre les mains du Consul general Laforest ou à son ordre, le montant total de ces deux sommes dans la proportion et aux epoques suivantes.

Dollars
au lr. Decembre prochain

64,935. ¹⁄₀₀
au 15 du même mois

34,558.⁸²⁄₀₀
au lr Janvr. 1793

10,000.
au 15 du même mois

8,000.
au lr fevr. Suivant

20,958.⁴¹⁄₀₀
au 15 du même mois

380.⁶⁰⁄₀₀
et enfin au 15 avril suivant

1,167.¹⁶⁄₀₀

au total
140,000.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, [27 November 1792]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Washington, George

[Philadelphia, November 27, 1792]

The Secretary of the Treasury presents his respects to the President. The execution of the process by the marshal himself is, for many reasons, so important that it does not appear possible to dispense with it. If there should be any failure in the Deputy it would probably furnish a topic of censure and a source of much embarrassment. The impediment in point of health is to be regretted, but, it would seem, must be surmounted.
November 27, 1792.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Tench Coxe, 28 November 1792
From: Coxe, Tench
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Treasury Department, Revenue Office, November 28, 1792. Announces the death of the keeper of the Chesapeake lighthouse. Suggests that Lemuel Cornick would be a suitable replacement.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Jeremiah Olney, 28 November 1792
From: Olney, Jeremiah
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Custom HouseDistrict of Providence 28th. Novr. 1792
Sir

Agreeable to my expectation, as communicated in a former letter; Welcome Arnold Esqr. has commenced a Suit against me for the detention &c. of his Brigantine Neptune, in not granting a permit to Mr. Edward Dexter (who Received from him a Collusive Transfer of the Cargo) to unload, while his Bond in Suit remained unpaid.
Mr. Dexter has also commenced a Suit for refusing him the usual Credit on the Transfer of Mr. Arnold. These Suits are brought to the State Court to be held in this Town on the 17th day of December next. I have written Mr. Channing on the Subject, and should he deem it expedient to have another Attorney to assist him in the Prossecution of this Business, I shall think myself authorized to engage one, more especially as it is of great moment that Such Collusive Transfers (ment to seek a Credit in evasion of the Law) be effectually Checked in their infancy.

I have the Honor to be   Respectfully   Sir   Your Most Obed. Hum. Serv.

Jereh. Olney Collr.
Alexander Hamilton Esqr.Secretary of the Treasury


Title: Report on the Petition of Griffith Jones, [28 November 1792]
From: Treasury Department,Hamilton, Alexander
To: Speaker of the House of Representatives

[Philadelphia, November 28, 1792Communicated on November 28, 1792]
[To the Speaker of the House of Representatives]

The Secretary of the Treasury, to whom was referred the petition of Griffith Jones, by an Order of the House of Representatives of the 14th. instant, thereupon respectfully reports:
That the case is one of those stated in a former Report to the House, dated the 16th of April 1792, as barred by the Acts of limitation.
That the present petition is accompanied with a Certificate, recently given by William Mumford, late a Clerk in the Commissioners Office for settling the Accounts of the State of Pennsylvania, with the United States, intended to prove that the claim of the petitioner had been presented at the said office, previous to the time limited for receiving claims.
Admitting the fact to be, as stated in the certificate, it does not appear to amount to such an exhibition of the claim, as would remove the case out of the operation of the Acts of limitation.
But the admission of evidence of the nature of that, which is here offered, after so great a lapse of time, would, it is conceived, be, for obvious reasons, extremely dangerous.
Viewing the matter in this light, nothing of weight occurs to the Secretary, that could lead to an opinion different from that, which he has formerly expressed on the subject.

Which is humbly submitted.

Alexander Hamilton,Secretary of the Treasury.
Treasury DepartmentNovember 28th 1792.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Philip Schuyler, 28 November 1792
From: Schuyler, Philip
To: Hamilton, Alexander

New York November 28th 1792
My Dear Sir

Both your letters detailing the conversation held with Mr Willet have been duly received, the contents communicated to a few friends, as I found it unnecessary to extend It, Mr. Willets statement having made no impression with our friends who believed It a Misrepresentation. Mr Van Schaack who was most alarmed at It and who mentioned It to me, was satisfied by my declaration that Willet must have misapprehended or misrepresented what past, as I knew that you was not averse to an examination of the conduct of the Canvassers and that a censure should be conveyed If they had acted corruptly, altho you was decidely of Opinion that the state ought not to be thrown into such a convulsion as might possibly terminate in a manner very painful to the friends of good Government.
When Judge Wilson was here he asked If I had received a line from you on the subject of a proposition he had made you to sell Mr Church lands in Pensylvania, to the Amount of £10000 Sterling at 2/6 per Acre provided double that sum was Advanced him on Loan and for which he proposed giving a mortgage on other lands. I informed him that I had not received a line from you mentioning that business, he pressed me to write you on the Subject. If the lands he proposes to sell were really worth 2/6 per Acre, It might be inconvenient for Mr Church to advance so large a sum as £20000—but as It will be difficult to Asscertain as well the value of the lands Mr Wilson proposes to sell as those he would Mortgage, as the latter would in probability not be productive of an income equal to the Annual interest of the money, as Mr Wilson might not be able to discharge the Interest Annually, Its accumulation might increase beyond the Increase in value of the lands. It therefore does not at present appear to me an Eligible mode of laying out money. I did not mention this to Mr Wilson, but as It may perhaps be better that the negative to his proposition should come from me than from you, I have no Objection that my sense of the business should be communicated unless you should Judge the appropriation an Eligible one.
Our political opponents are evidently embarrassed. The examination into the conduct of the Canvassers, and the testimony of the Wittness and the authenticated documents to prove the general practice of former canvassing committees, they procure, will place Many of the Members in a painful situation on the Question of Censure, and I believe they would be deserted by some should the question be moved, but for three days past the leaders amongst Clintonians have suggested the propriety of an Amendment, and I really beleive they will make the Attempt. If they do, and before the conclussion of the Investigation which is now pursuing, I shall consider it as a victory on our part.
I have a wish to pay you a visit at the Close of the next week, but If the contest is not ended I shall not dare to be absent from absence as my friends would be too much chagrined. I shall however not return to Albany until I have had the pleasure of Embracing you My Dear Eliza and the Little ones, entreat them to Accept my best Wishes, Adieu
Your Ever most affectionately   &c &c

Ph: Schuyler
Honl Alexander Hamilton Esqr &c


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Thomas Willing, 28 November 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Willing, Thomas

Treasury Department November 28th 1792
Sir

I received the resolution of the Directors of the Bank of the united States of Yesterday, relative to my proposition of the 20th instant.
It remains to be determined by the Bank in whose favour the Treasury Bills upon Amsterdam are to be drawn, of which I request to be informed, in order to give the necessary directions.
I have the honor to be   very respectfully   Sir   Your obedt Servt

A Hamilton
The President of the Bank of the united States