Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Masahod de La Mar, 1 July 1793
From: De la Mar, Masahod
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Amsterdam, July 1, 1793. States that he had been “appointed by his Imperial Majesty, Muley Isham, Emperor of Morocco, Envoy Extraordinary to their High Mightinesses of ye United Netherlands” and transmits the Emperor’s request that Congress appoint William Sharpe “(an American of Wilmington, Delaware State) to act as their Consul for the American Nation, and fully Empower Said Gentleman by Letters or otherwise as their representative on the Coast of Barbary.”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Wilhem and Jan Willink, Nicholaas and Jacob Van Staphorst, and Nicholas Hubbard, 1 July 1793
From: Willink, Wilhem,Willink, Jan,Van Staphorst, Nicholaas,Van Staphorst, Jacob,Hubbard, Nicholas
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Amstd. 1 July 1793.

We had the pleasure on the first May, to advise our having effected a prolongation of the instalment of one million Florins due here the first of June by the United States and on the 9th. Ulto. only received your respected favor of 2 April by the British Packet: the extreme long passage of which would afford an additional proof was any requisite, of the propriety of our conduct in obtaining the prolongation and indeed of our good Fortune too, as by a fresh loan, it would have been difficult to raise the money in sufficient good time, owing to the immense Amount of Loans lately offered to the public here at the same time, all at five per Cent Interest, and each of them interfering with the success of the others.
The letter you wrote us the 2d. May has likewise come to hand.
We have received from the Treasurer of the United States

£
12,096.15.6

Robt. Morris drft at 60 days Sight on Bourdieu

“
600.——
}
Prager & Co. do. a do. on Mark Prager Senior.

“
400.——

“
600.——

Philip Nicklin & Co. do. a do. on Robt. Bent of Liverpool pble in London

“
800.——
}
John Ross do. a do. on Edwd. McCulloch & Co.

“
700.——

“
500.——

“
2,000.——

Danl. Badcock do. a do. on Rowlett & Corp.

“
1,000.——

Thos. Buchanan & Co. do. a do. on G. & J. Buchanan of Glasgow pble in London

“
1,000.——

 Geo: Douglas do. a do. on Wm. Douglas

“
500.——

Henry Sadler do. a do. on H. & J. Johnston

“
240.——

John Cosens do. a do. on Hibbert Fuhr & Hibbert

“
2,000.——

J. & T. Atkinson do. a 90 do. on Hodgson & Atkinson

“
4,500.——

dft of the Bank of the U. S. on John & Fra: Baring & Co.

“
2,500.——

do. of do. on John Hy. Cazenove Nephew & Co.

“
5,000.——

do. of Thos. Willing and Wm. Bingham on Jn. & Fra: Baring & Co.

£
34,436.15.6

Stg

f
12,000.——
}
Prager & Co. bills at 60 days Sight on Urde. Levi Salomons & Sons

“
10,000.——

“
8,000.——

f
30,000.

Hd Cy

All which have been accepted except the followg of wch. we forward the protests to the Treasurer of the United States to enable him to obtain security for same from the drawers or endorsers, Vizt.

£
800.——
}
John Ross bills a 60 d. sight on Edwd. McCulloch & Co.

“
700.——

“
500.——

“
600.——

Ph. Nicklin & Co. a do. on Rob. Bent of Liverpool pble in London

£
2600.——

Stg

The acct. of the U. S. will be regularly credited with the avails of all these remittances, which yield very advantageously, owing to the high Ex. upon London.
Pursuant to your directions We return back to the Treasurer of the U. S. his remittances

£
11,250.——
on J. & F. Baring & Co.

“
11,250.——
“ on J. & F. Baring & Co.

£ 22 500.——Stg in drafts of the Bank of the U. S. after having first cancelled them by cutting a hole through the Christian name of the President of the Bank.
On the 11th. Ulto. we informed the houses upon whom these Bills were drawn, that they would not be presented, being unnecessary to the purpose for which they were destined: and the receipt of this information has been acknowledged to us.
We transmit you inclosed the accot. curt. of the U. S. with us up to the 1st. June, the Balance whereon due by us Hd. Cy. f233,992.10. 8 we tranfer to thy credit in a new a/c.
You mention Sir that on receiving information of the Loan, you would draw for the sums in our hands that would thereby be rendered unnecessary. A Loan not having been effected but simply a Prolongation of the Instalment that fell due the 1st. ulto. we are persuaded that in making your disposals upon us you will attend to the interest due by the U. S. the first of Septbr. next, on Six millions of florins at five per Cent, and that we shall experience like regularity in receiving remittances for the interests and reimbursments, that will successively be payable here by the U. S.
The demands for money by the European belligerant Powers will continue to be so great and pressing, and force them to such sacrifices in the Charges, as will render highly improbable the success for a long time to come, of Loans for ye. U. S. under five pr. Ct. interest; and to obtain any even at this rate, may require a watchfull eye to discover, and an immediate decision to seize upon the favorable moment, that may soon pass by in times, so critical and pregnant with great events as the present. Mr. Short’s actual distance would at all times prevent our waiting his approbation with effect, and especially now that the correspondence is so shackled, uncertain and circuitous. Wherefore we submit to your judgment Sir, in case the United S. should resolve to borrow at five p. C. interest this propriety of investing us with instructions to avail ourselves of the first oppy. to effect a Loan for them, convinced as we are that such will continue to be for their Interest, while monies raised here at that rate can be profitably and desirably employed in the purchasing of the domestic funded debt at the present prices. But We request you not to rely upon the produce of any Loan whatever untill you will have our advices of its Success. We are respectfully &ca.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Edward Carrington, 2 July 1793
From: Carrington, Edward
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Richmond July 2. 1793
My dear Sir

I am favored with yours of the 15th June, with a Copy of the Account which accompanied your report, of the same date, to the President.
It is true that suggestions such as you have heard have been thrown out here, and, according to the disposition of the hearers, have been credited and discredited. This you must expect will be the case, until time or events, shall take from your Persecutors the fabricated plausibilities which it is in their power to present to the ignorant and illiberal part of the Community. Upon the passing off of the next Session of Congress without direct and effectual steps to convict you of the alleged crimes, or upon an attempt to convict, & a failure, their influence must sink. I have pressed this idea here, and trust it will be generally entertained. The Story of Virginia alone sending to Congress virtuous and wise Men, is a tale which cannot long be sustained even in the minds of the most ignorant. Empty clamor will, for a Season, catch the public ear, and, while it is employed on indefinite complaints, popular Men may, for a considerable time, keep up the delusion; but when they venture to descend to specified crimes in any particular officer, they shortly impeach & convict, or give up their clamors. The people will not believe them actuated by motives of public justice, while they continue their allegations, and yet forbear those legal proceedings by which a fair issue might be obtained. Should your persecutors not come forward at the next Session with an impeachment, it is my opinion, my good Friend, that you should explicitly call for one. It would ensure at once their destruction: their forbearance would be sufficient with the impartial; but your calling for it, and their declining, would deprive the malavolent of all pretext for calumny. I think that such a demand, early in the session, would cut up by the roots, the system of intrigue which will be, & perhaps is already, practiced upon New Members for sapping you and your Measures, as it will tend to open their eyes to the variety of the complaints they hear.

The Statement you enclosed is such as I was prepared for from the impressions I received upon reading the Reports made to the last session of Congress, even without the June remitance to Holland, and it is such as agrees, in substance, with Mr. Randolphs (the Attorney Genl) information since he came to Virga. It has been insisted upon that your Reports fixed 2,000,000 dollars as actually tangible for the purchases of the Debt. To me it appeared, from reading the Reports, that that sum might be considered as a Surplussage, upon an estimation of the amount of all the Revenues collected, & to be collected, accruing to a certain period, and all the loans received to a certain time; but that, during the procrastinations in the coming in of the Revenues, from long Credits and delays, some of the loaned monies must be employed in anticipations. This was the idea I formed from reading the Reports, and this ought, in my opinion, to have been naturally expected by every Man who would give himself the trouble to think for a moment on the subject, even without calculating. For want of the statements to which your reports referred, I have not been enabled to form so accurate a judgment in full, as I wished—these I have not as yet seen—could you without too much trouble send them to me?
I was exceedingly glad to receive your letter and the statement which accompanied it. It enables me to be more explicit in my opinions, and I shew it to every one with whom I converse, where there appears a disposition to be informed.
Your determination to continue in office and to Stem the Storms which envy, malice, or ambition can generate against you, is that on which, in my opinion, your salvation depends. Stand fast, and you cannot fail—Resign, under pressure of the present opposition, and you fall irretrievably. You will receive from me nothing but the dictates of candor. If I know my own Heart, I have no attachments in public life but what are sanctified by a thorough conviction, that they carry with them the public good. Upon this ground I profess to feel a strong attachment to you, and am exceedingly solicitous that you retain the confidence of a Country which has received from the measures you have devised great good.
I am with the greatest regard   your sincere Friend   & He. st

Ed. Carrington
Alexander Hamilton Esq


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Andrew G. Fraunces, 2 July 1793
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Fraunces, Andrew G.

Treasury Department, July 2, 1793.
Sir,

I received your application of yesterday, respecting two warrants drawn by the late Board of Treasury. I do not think it necessary at present, to answer the several questions stated in your former letter, to which you refer. All I can say on the subject is, that as far as can now be judged, these warrants will constitute a good demand in favor of the holders upon the public: But there are some unsettled matters which prevent my giving you now a final opinion on the point.
I am Sir, your obedient servant,

Alex. Hamilton.
Mr. Andrew G. Frances.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Edmond Charles Genet, 2 July 1793
From: Genet, Edmond Charles
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia, July 2, 1793. On July 5, 1793, Hamilton wrote to Genet: “I find on my Table this morning your letter of the 2d instant.” Letter not found.]


Title: Treasury Department Circular to the Collectors of the Customs, 2 July 1793
From: Treasury Department
To: Collectors of the Customs

Treasury DepartmentJuly 2nd. 1793
Sir

I have made the following arrangement, to secure to the Marshall of the District of [Massachusetts] the means of satisfying contingent demands from time to time incident to his Office; and it is requested that you co-operate towards carrying it into effect.
He is to receive from you annually a sum not exceeding [three hundred] Dollars, to be paid to him half yearly, one moiety on the first of January and the other on the 1st of July out of the public monies that may be in your hands. As the first half year of the present year is already elapsed the two moieties for 1793 may if demanded be paid together.
In the receipts which you shall take for the payments that you may make to him, you will govern yourself by the precedent herewith transmitted to you. One of these receipts (which ought to be in duplicates) you will send to the Office of the Comptroller of the Treasury with your accounts; as the vouchers of your payments, they will entitle you to the proper Credit at the Treasury.
With consideration   I am Sir   Your obed Servt

A Hamilton

Received the  day of  1793 of Samuel Meredith Treasurer by the hands of [B Lincoln] Collector of [Boston] Dollars on account of disbursements to jurors and for the contingent expences of Courts of the United States holden within the District of  Marshall


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Jeremiah Olney, 3 July 1793
From: Olney, Jeremiah
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Custom-House,Providence 3rd. July 1793.
Sir.

I am obliged by your reply to my Questions relative to the SeaLetters; but if the blank in the English translation of the Certificate is filled to correspond with the Dutch Original, as you direct, it will read very awkwardly—thus “We Samuel Cha⟨rles⟩ Esquire, make known, that the master of John Thomas of Providence, appearing before us, has declared upon oath, that the Vessel, called the Nancy,” &c.
On the 26th of June, I acquainted you with the occurrence of a Case relative to the arrival here of a Registered Vessel wch. cleared from New-York after the First of June, with an expired License: I now beg leave, in order to obtain your Instructions, to inform you, that Two small Enrolled Vessels have since arrived here, in similar circumstances; One having been cleared at New-York, and the other at Little Egg-Harbour, after the expiration of their Licenses; the Masters declaring that the Collectors told them, they must procure new ones at the District to which their Vessels belonged. If this is a right construction of the Law, Coasting Vessels will frequently meet with great embarrassments; for by the Ice, or other unavoidable accidents, they may be prevented from returning home for several Months, when, their Licenses having expired, they must either continue where they then are, or by proceeding to another District, incur the Penalty of confiscation of Vessel and Cargo, or at least, the payment of foreign Tonnage and Fees. Your Opinion on this point will be particularly pleasing to me.
I have the Honor, most respectfully to be,   Sir   Your Obedt. and Most Hume. Servant

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


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from John M. Pintard, 4 July 1793
From: Pintard, John M.
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Madeira 4th July 1793
The HonbleAlexander Hamilton.
Dear Sir

Thinking that your Stocks of Madeira might be nearly exausted I have Shiped on Board the Brig Molly Capt E Morris one pipe of choice old wine Marked CM & consigned it to my Friends Messrs. Woodrop & Joseph Sims of Philadelphia with directions to deliver it to you provided you choose to take it. Should you Conclude on taking it they will furnish you with the cost of it together with the charges thereon which you will be pleased to Settle with them.
Mrs. Pintard joins me in Respectfull Compliments to you and Mrs Hamilton and Beleive me to be with great Respect
Dear Sir   Your most obedient   and very Humble Sert

John M Pintard


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from William Rawle, 4 July 1793
From: Rawle, William
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia, July 4, 1793. On July 17, 1793, Hamilton wrote to Rawle and referred to “your letter of the 4th inst.” Letter not found.]


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Edmond Charles Genet, 5 July 1793
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Genet, Edmond Charles

Treasury Department July 5th 1793
Sir

I find on my Table this morning your letter of the 2d instant.
As you ground the proposition, it contains on a conversation with me, I conclude there has been some misapprehension. I can recollect nothing, but what, as I understood it, had reference merely to some matter of form, which you had omitted and which you were desirous of having adjusted in a different mode in relation to the forms of accountability prescribed by the Treasury of France; which I declared myself ready to facilitate. But it was no part of my meaning that this was to operate as a new advance by liberating an equal sum of three millions. This not being within any arrangement heretofore approved by the President, cannot be adopted by this Department.
With great respect & consideration   I have the honor to be   Sir Your obedt Servt

Alex Hamilton
The Minister Plenipotentiaryof the Republic of France


Title: Pacificus No. III, [6 July 1793]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[Philadelphia, July 6, 1793]

France at the time of issuing the proclamation was engaged & likely to be engaged in war, with all or almost all Europe; without a single ally in that quarter of the Globe.
In such a state of things, it is evident, that however she may be able to defend herself at home (a thing probably still practicable if her factions can be appeased, and system and order introduced) she cannot make any external efforts, in any degree proportioned to those which can be made against her.
By this situation of things alone, the UStates would be dispensed from an obligation to embark in her quarrel.
It is known that we are wholly destitute of naval force. France, with all the great maritime Powers united against her, is unable to supply this deficiency. She can not afford us that species of cooperation, which is necessary to render our efforts useful to her and to prevent our experiencing the intire destruction of our Trade and the most calamitous inconveniences in other respects.
Our guarantee does not respect France herself. It does not relate to her own immediate defence or preservation. It relates merely to the defence & preservation of her American colonies; objects of which (though of considerable importance) she might be deprived and yet remain a great and powerful and a happy Nation.
In the actual situation of this Country, and in relation to an object so secondary to France, it may fairly be maintained, that an ability in her to supply in a competent degree our deficiency of naval force is a condition of our obligation to perform the Guarantee on our part.
Had the United States a powerful marine or could they command one in time, this reasoning would not be solid; but circumstanced as they are, it is presumed to be well founded.
There would be no proportion between the mischiefs and perils, to which the UStates would expose themselves by embarking in the War, and the benefit which the nature of their stipulation aims at securing to France, or that, which it would be in their power actually to render her, by becoming a party.
This disproportion would be a valid reason for not executing the Guarantee. All contracts are to receive a reasonable construction. Self preservation is the first duty of a Nation; and though in the performance of stipulations relating to war, good faith requires that the ordinary hazards of war should be fairly encountered, because they are directly contemplated by such stipulations, yet it does not require that extraordinary and extreme hazards should be run; especially where the object, for which they are to be run, is only a partial and particular interest of the ally, for whom they are to to be run.
As in the present instance good faith does not require, that the UStates should put in jeopardy their essent⟨ial⟩ interests, perhaps their very existence, in one of the most unequal contests, in which a nation could be engaged—to secure to France what?—her West India Islands and other less important possessions in America. For it is to be remembered, that the stipulations of the UStates do in no event reach beyond this point. If they were upon the strength of their Guarantee, to engage in the War, and could make any arrangement with the Belligerent Powers, for securing to France those Islands and those possessions, they would be at perfect liberty instantly to withdraw. They would not be bound to prosecute the War one moment longer.
They are under no obligation, in any event, as far as the faith of treaties is concerned; to assist France in the defence of her liberty; a topic on which so much has been said, so very little to the purpose as it regards the present question.
The Contest in which the UStates would plunge themselves, were they to take part with France, would possibly be still more unequal, than that in which France herself is engaged. With the possessions of Great Britain and Spain on both Flanks, the numerous Indian tribes, under the influence and direction of those Powers, along our whole Interior frontier, with a long extended sea coast—with no maritime force of our own, and with the maritime force of all Europe against us, with no fortifications whatever and with a population not exceeding four Millions—it is impossible to imagine a more unequal contest, than that in which we should be involved in the case supposed; a contest from which, we are dissuaded by the most cogent motives of self preservation, as well as of Interest.
We may learn from Vatel one of the best Writers on the laws of Nations that “If a State which has promised succours finds itself unable to furnish them, its very inability is its exemption; and if the furnishing the succours would expose it to an evident danger this also is a lawful dispensation. The case would render the Treaty pernicious to the state and therefore not obligatory. But this applies to an imminent danger threatening the safety of the State; the case of such a danger is tacitly and necessarily reserved in every Treaty.”

   See Book III Chap VI § 92

  ..
If too (as no sensible and candid man will deny) the extent of the present combination against France is in a degree to be ascribed to imprudences on her part—the exemption to the UStates is still more manifest and complete. No country is bound to partake in hazards of the most critical kind, which may have been produced or promoted, by the Indiscretion and intemperance of another. This is an obvious dictate of reason, with which the common sense and common Practice of Mankind coincide.
To the foregoing considerations it may perhaps be added, with no small degree of force, that military stipulations in national Treaties contemplate only the ordinary case of foreign war, and are irrelative to the contests which grow out of Revolutions of Government; unless where they have express reference to a Revolution begun, or where there is a guarantee of the existing constitution of a nation, or where there is a personal alliance for the defence of a prince and his family.

   Puffendorf, Book VIII Chapt IX Section IX

The Revolution in France is the primitive source of the War, in which she is engaged. The restoration of the monarchy is the avowed object of some of her enemies—and the implied one of all of them. That question then is essentially involved in the principle of the war; a question certainly never in the contemplation of that Government, with which our Treaty was made, and it may thence be fairly inferred never intended to be embraced by it.
The inference would be that the UStates have fulfilled the utmost that could be claimed by the Nation of France, when they so far respected its decision as to recognise the newly constituted Powers; giving operation to the Treaty of Alliance for future occasions, but considering the present war as a tacit exception. Perhaps too this exception is in other respects due to the circumstances under which the engagements between the two Countries were contracted. It is impossible, prejudice apart, not to perceive a delicate embarrassment ⟨bet⟩ween the theory and fact of ⟨our political relations⟩ to France.
On these ground, also, as ⟨well⟩ as on that of the present War being of⟨fensive⟩ on the side of France—The USta⟨tes have⟩ valid and honorable pleas to offer ⟨against⟩ the Execution of the Guarantee, ⟨if⟩ it should be claimed of them by France. And the President was in every view fully justified in pronouncing, that the duty and interest of the UStates dictated a Neutrality in the War.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Otho H. Williams, 6 July 1793
From: Williams, Otho H.
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Private.
Ceresville [Maryland] 6 July 1793
My Dear Sir,

Your letter of the 21st. of June did not come to hand before the fourth Instant—sometime after the heat of the season, and habitual indisposition had obliged me to quit Baltimore.
If it is not too late to mention a successor to the Collector of Annapolis, I would name Robert Denny, formerly an Officer in the Maryland line, and who served me four or five years as deputy in the Office which I held in the Customs under the State Government. It was called the Naval Office but comprehended all the duties, and all the powers, which are, under the general government, distributed among Collectors, Naval Officers, and surveyors; He is perfectly qualified; is ready at business, correct, and constant in his application; and he is respectable.
John Davidson, formerly Major in the Maryland line, and for some time of our State Council would I think accept the Office cheerfully; and I think him very well qualified to discharge the duties of it.
My own sensations persuade me that you are never indifferent about my welfare. An Esteem as perfect as mine is for you, could not be so uniformly maintained if there were any doubt of a reciprocal regard, equally sincere, whatever mortifications I may have suffered from malicious Misrepresentations, or incidental Misunderstandings.

A Hamilton Esqr.


Title: Cabinet Meeting. Opinion on the Case of the Little Sarah, [8 July 1793]
From: Jefferson, Thomas
To:

[Philadelphia, July 8, 1793]

At a Meeting held at the State House of the City of Philadelphia July the 8. 1793
Present
The Secretary of State
The Secretary of the Treasury
The Secretary at War
It appeared, that Brigantine called the Little Sarah has been fitted out at the Port of Philadelphia, with fourteen Cannon and all other equipments indicating that she is intended (as a Privateer) to cruise under the authority of France, and that she is now lying in the River Delaware at some place between this City and Mud Island; that a Conversation has been had between the Secretary of State and the Minister Plenipotentiary of France in which conversation the Minister refused to give any explicit assurance that the Brigantine would continue until the arrival of the President and his decision in the case; but made declarations respecting her not being ready to sail within the time of the expected return of the President from which the Secretary of State infers with confidence that she will not sail till the President will have an opportunity of considering and determining the case. That is the course of the Conversation, the Minister declared that the additional guns which had been taken on by the Little Sarah were French property but the Governor of Pensylvania has declared that he has good ground to believe that at least two of her cannon were purchased here by Citizens of Philadelphia. The Governor of Pensylvania asks advice what steps under the circumstances he shall pursue.
The secretary of the Treasury and The secy of War are of opinion that it is expedient that immediate measures should be taken provisionally for establishing a battery on Mud Island, under cover of a party of Militia, with direction that if the Brig Sarah should attempt to depart before the pleasure of the President shall be known concerning her military coertion be employed to arrest and prevent her progress.
The Secretary of State dissents from this opinion.

Th: Jefferson

Information having also been received that part of the Crew of the Sarah are citizens of the UStates; as can be testified by Charles Biddle of this City.
The abovementioned heads of Department agree that this information shall be communicated to the Atty of the District in order that pursuant to his former instructions he may take measures for apprehending and bringing them to Trial.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from James Duff, 8 July 1793
From: Duff, James
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Cadiz, July 8, 1793. Has “brought to a conclusion the depending concerns of the Ship Tartar” and sends Hamilton “as attorney to John Church Esqr. for ⅛ proportion thereof … a note of an a/c for that object on which you are credited for the whole of your said proportion of the proceeds.”


Title: Reasons for the Opinion of the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary at War Respecting the Brigantine Little Sarah, [8 July 1793]
From: Hamilton, Alexander,Knox, Henry
To:

[Philadelphia, July 8, 1793]

I.   Because there can be no doubt, either upon principle or authority that the permitting or suffering or what is equivalent the not taking effectual measures to prevent, when known, the fitting out of privateers, in our ports, by one of the belligerent powers, to cruise against any of the others is an unequivocal breach of neutrality.
II   Because the President in conformity with an unanimous opinion of the heads of Departments and the Attorney General, founded upon the above principle, has caused his disapprobation of the practice to be signified to the Ministers both of Great Britain and France, accompanied with an express assurance to the former—that effectual measures would be taken to prevent a repitition of the practice.
III   Because consequently not to take such measures in the present instance would be to depart from the declaration of neutrality, and to contravene the positive assurance given to the Minister of Great Britain; an omission as dishonorable as it must be dangerous to the Government; implying either a want of ability or a want of consistency and good faith. And as it will indubitably furnish a just cause of complaint against the United States—so it is natural to expect that it may involve them in War. It becomes the more serious in consequence of the non-surrender of the prizes, which were brought into our Ports by the Privateers, sans Culottes and Citizen Genet, fitted out at Charles-town.
IV   Because the fitting out of this Privateer is a transaction involving on the part of the Agents of France a gross outrage upon and an undisguised contempt of the Government of the United States. It is aggravated by the circumstances of having been done under the immediate eye of the Government—after an explicit and serious communication of its disapprobation and after an expectation given, that no similar attempt would be repeated. The Secretary of State reported to the President as the result of a conversation with the French Minister, on the subject of the two Privateers before mentioned what was equivalent to an apology for having done it and to at least a tacit promise to forbear a repetition. Yet it is still done, and is even attempted to be justified.
V   Because it is impossible to interpret such conduct into any thing else than a regular plan to force the United States into the War. Its tendency to produce that effect cannot be misunderstood by the Agents of France. The direct advantage of the measure to her is obviously too inconsiderable to induce the persisting in it, contrary to the remonstrances of the Government—if it were not with a view to the more important end just mentioned: a conduct the more exceptionable because it is accompanied with the fallacious disavowal of an intention to engage us in the War.
VI   Because there is satisfactory evidence of a regular system, in pursuit of that object, to endeavour to controul the Government itself, by creating, if possible, a scism between it and the people and inlisting them on the side of France, in opposition to their own constitutional authorities. This is deducible not only from a great variety of collateral incidents but from direct written and verbal declarations of the French Minister.
The Memorial lately presented by him to the Secretary of State, the most offensive paper, perhaps, that ever was offered by a foreign Minister to a friendly power, with which he resided, announces unequivocally the system which is alleged to exist.
Besides the exorbitant pretensions, which that paper advances—of a right in defiance of the declared sense of the Government—to fit out armed vessels from the Ports of the United States and even to inlist their own citizens in their own territories in the service of France—to hold Courts within their jurisdiction for the condemnation of prizes, unsanctionned by compact, contrary to the rights of neutrality—contrary even to the spirit of the regulations of France for her own consular establishments—besides the loose unfounded charges of breach of Treaty, rudely urged, which it contains—that paper more than insinuates the imputation on the President, of ill-will to France, under the instigation of foreign influence; of having gone beyond his duty and his authority, by the decision of matters not within his province; and sufficiently implies an appeal from him to Congress, if not to the people—whose disposition is at least indelicately put in contrast with his. Language of this sort, if even better founded than it is in the present instance can never be used by a diplomatic character, without a culpable violation of Decorum. He has nothing to do but with the constitutional organ of the Government for foreign intercourse. In his official communications he ought never to look beyond him. Nor can he do it, without disrespect to the Nation as well as to the Government.
The declaration of the Minister of France to Mr. Dallas, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pensylvania, as related by him to the Governor of that Commonwealth and to the Secretary of State, is a further confirmation of the same system. That Declaration, among other exceptionable things, expressed “That he (the Minister of France) would appeal from the President of the United States to the People.” It would be a fatal blindness, not to perceive the spirit, which dictates such language, and an ill-omened passiveness not to resolve to withstand it with energy.
VII   Because to refuse an assurance, that the Privateer should remain in Port, ’till the President could arrive to decide upon her situation, was an additional high-handed contempt of the Government; which is in no shape palliated by the ambiguous intimations of a probability that she would not be ready to depart before his return; intimations, which from experience, in other cases, can in no degree be relied upon.
VIII   Because not to act with decision under such circumstances will be to prostrate the Government—to sacrifice the dignity and essential interests of the Nation. Indecision in such a case must necessarily tend to destroy, both at home and abroad, a due respect for the government—to weaken its arm—to embolden the enterprizes of an intriguing and daring foreign Agent—to encourage and multiply those who are disposed to adhere factiously to him—and ultimately to put the country in the condition of being dictated to by that foreign Agent, and at war with all the enemies of the Nation he represents. It is a truth the best founded and of the last importance, that nothing is so dangerous to a Government as to be wanting either in self confidence or self-respect.
IX   Because Decision may even tend to preserve Peace with France herself. If the enterprises of her Minister are not checked, in their present stage, it may clearly be inferred from his character, that they are likely to be carried to a length which will render a rupture between the two Countries inevitable, should they not previously produce one with the Powers who are opposed to France.
X   Because the measure which is recommended is but a consequence of the instruction given to the different Governors on the 24th of May last. Addressed to them in their military capacity, expressly to be executed by the agency of the Militia, it included necessarily the use of military coertion, when that should be found requisite to the end to be accomplished. It is therefore not to adopt a new principle, but to second an order already given by the President, founded upon mature deliberation and the unanimous opinion of the heads of Departments with the Attorney General. It is therefore due to the known and declared pleasure of the President. A governor who from situation could not have recourse to the advice now asked would fail in his duty not to employ in a similar case the means recommended, without further sanction. The Governor of Pensylvania might justifiably do so in the existing instance; but the case having been previously drawn into consultation, between him and the heads of Departments, he has thought fit to ask their advice, and in giving it conformably with the true spirit of the President’s Instruction, they would only faithfully execute the trust reposed in them by him.
XI   Because there will be no solid ground to expect hereafter at other places a vigorous or efficacious execution of that instruction; if the example be given of an evident relaxation at the very seat of the general Government.
XII   Because the measure proposed is only provisional and can have no other effect than to evince the determination of the Government; unless the vessel attempts to depart contrary to the intimation of the Minister, as understood by the Secretary of State. In such an event, the necessity of it will be attested by the occasion.
XIII   If there be delicacy on one side, there is still greater delicacy on the other. France would have justly nothing to complain of in reference to an act, which was merely a vindication of our own sovereignty—in our own territory—against a manifest deliberate and outrageous violation of it by her Agent. If she be at all reasonable or equitable she will disavow the proceeding and the Agent and take no offence. An appeal to her justice and friendship ought for this purpose to follow a resistance to the encroachment.
But, if effectual measures be not taken, the other powers will have just cause of complaint—not only upon principle but upon the strength of positive assurance. If war is to be hazarded, ’tis certainly our duty to hazard it with that power, which by injury and insult forces us to choose between opposite hazards—rather than with those powers who do not place us in so disagreeable a dilemma. To adopt as a rule of conduct, that if we are to be involved in the war, it must be at any rate against the powers who are opposed to France, and that we ought rather to give them cause for attacking us, by suffering ourselves to be made an instrument of the hostilities of France, than to risk a quarrel with her, by a vigorous opposition to her encroachments would be a policy as unjust and profligate, as it would be likely to prove pernicious and disgraceful.
A proceeding like that proposed cannot colorably be considered by any Nation as an Act of hostility. If attempts are made in neutral ports to equip armed vessels, without permission of the Neutral Sovereign, they are clandestine; if they are detected and suppressed it is regarded as a matter of course, as a penalty of which the Adventurers are to take their chance. It would be a disgrace to the sovereign to whom they belong and an offence to the Neutral Nation even to make it a subject of complaint.
Philadelphia July 8. 1792Alex HamiltonHenry Knox


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to John Vaughan, 8 July 1793
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Vaughan, John

Treasury DepartmentJuly 8th. 1793
Sir,

In reply to your letter of the 6th. Instant, I am to inform you, that the two draughts dated the 5th. July 1793 and drawn upon me at 30 days sight in your favor by Mr. Genet Minister Plenipotentiary of the Republic of France; the One for Four Hundred and Thirty one Dollars and Sixty Eight Cents and the Other for Two Thousand, five Hundred and thirty Nine Dollars and forty four Cents, will be punctually paid at the Treasury when they become due.
I am with great consideration   Sir   Your Most Obedient Servant

A Hamilton
John Vaughan Esquire


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Stephen Girard, [10 July 1793]
From: Girard, Stephen
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Philada. [July 10, 1793]
Sir

Having received Notice from Mr Clement Biddle notary Public, that four Bills of Exchange on Mr Delaforest particularised at foot were unpaid and delivr’d to him for Protest from Bank of the United States I have apply’d to Mr Genet who has refered me to You for payment. As I have been told that you Could not pay those bills before the 3d of September next I beg as a particular favour that You Will accept them to be paid at any period which you will think Reasonable.
I am Respectfully

No. 351
one Bill dated cape francois 14 Novr 92 payt. at 6 Mo.

Sight for

566
Dolls.

352
one ditto
Same date & sight
566

365
One ditto
27 novr do.
1200

366
One ditto
ditto ditto
1234
⁹⁰⁄₁₀₀

3566
⁹⁰⁄₁₀₀
Dr.

P S The above four Bills were presented to Mr. Delaforest the 31 Decemr 1792.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Thomas Jefferson, [10 July 1793]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Jefferson, Thomas

[Philadelphia, July 10, 1793]

The Secretary of the Treasury presents his Compliments to the Secretary of State. He has signed the Counterpart; but for the present leaves in the words as a privateer to consider jointly of some substitute the kind of vessel not being wholly indifferent & there being a doubt whether the general words would be descriptive enough.
The letter supposed to have been received from the Commissioner of loans cannot be found. Yet the impression is so strong of one of the import mentioned to Mr. Jefferson having been received that the reality of it is scarcely doubted. This inference too is confirmed by the circumstance that no answer to the letter to the Commissioner appears on file and it is utterly unlikely that it should have remained so long unanswered. A Duplicate will go by tomorrow’s Post. It is regretted that the Doubt cannot now be cleared up.

July 10


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Jeremiah Olney, 10 July 1793
From: Olney, Jeremiah
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Providence, July 10, 1793. “I have recd. your Letter of the 25th of June. My Accounts for the first quarter of the present Year, having been compleated and transmitted to the Treasury on the First Day of April, I supposed the Summary amount of Duties, for that period, unnecessary; and that it was required only because, in many instances, the Accounts were and will be unavoidably delayed several Weeks after the expiration of the quarter. The requisition of the 12th. of October 1792, had since slipped my Memory until the receipt, Yesterday, of your Letter, or the Summary for the last quarter should have been forwarded immediately after its close.…”


Title: Pacificus No. IV, [10 July 1793]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[Philadelphia, July 10, 1793]

A third objection to the Proclamation is, that it is inconsistent with the gratitude due to France, for the services rendered us in our own Revolution.

Those who make this objection disavow at the same time all intention to advocate the position that the United States ought to take part in the War. They profess to be friends to our remaining at Peace. What then do they mean by the objection?
If it be no breach of gratitude to refrain from joining France in the War—how can it be a breach of gratitude to declare that such is our disposition and intention?
The two positions are at variance with each other; and the true inference is either that those who make the objection really wish to engage this country in the war, or that they seek a pretext for censuring the conduct of the chief Magistrate, for some purpose, very different from the public good.
They endeavour in vain to elude this inference by saying, that the Proclamation places France upon an equal footing with her enemies; while our Treaties require distinctions in her favour, and our relative situation would dictate kind offices to her, which ought not to be granted to her adversaries.
They are not ignorant, that the Proclamation is reconcileable with both those objects, as far as they have any foundation in truth or propriety.
It has been shewn, that the promise of “a friendly and impartial conduct” towards all the belligerent powers is not inconsistent with the performance of any stipulations in our treaties, which would not include our becoming an associate in the Wars; and it has been observed, that the conduct of the Executive, in regard to the 17th and 22 articles of the Treaty of Commerce, is an unequivocal comment upon those terms. The expressions indeed were naturally to be understood with the exception of those matters of positive compact, which would not amount to taking part in the War; for a nation then observes a friendly and impartial conduct, towards two powers at war—when it only performs to one of them what it is obliged to do by the positive stipulations of antecedent treaties; those stipulations not amounting to a participation in the war.
Neither do those expressions imply, that the UStates will not exercise their discretion, in doing kind offices to some of the parties, without extending them to the others; so long as those offices have no relation to war: For kind offices of that description may, consistently with neutrality, be shewn to one party and refused to another.
If the objectors mean that the UStates ought to favour France, in thin⟨gs relating⟩ to war and where they are not bound ⟨to do it⟩ by Treaty—they must in this case al⟨so abandon⟩ their pretension of being friends to pea⟨ce. For⟩ such a conduct would be a violation ⟨of neutrality,⟩ which could not fail to produce war.
⟨It⟩ follows then that the ⟨proclamation⟩ is reconcilable with all that those ⟨who⟩ censure it contend for; taking them upon their own ground—that nothing is to be done incompatible with the preservation of Peace.
But though this would be a sufficient answer to the objection under consideration; yet it may not be without use to indulge some reflections on this very favourite topic of gratitude to France; since it is at this shrine we are continually invited to sacrifice the true interests of the Country; as if “All for love and the world well lost” were a fundamental maxim in politics.
Faith and Justice between nations are virtues of a nature sacred and unequivocal. They cannot be too strongly inculcated nor too highly respected. Their obligations are definite and positive their utility unquestionable: they relate to objects, which with probity and sincerity generally admit of being brought within clear and intelligible rules.
But the same cannot be said of gratitude. It is not very often between nations, that it can be pronounced with certainty, that there exists a solid foundation for the sentiment—and how far it can justifiably be permitted to operate is always a question of still greater difficulty.
The basis of gratitude, is a benefit received or intended, which there was no right to claim, originating in a regard to the interest or advantage of the party, on whom the benefit is or is meant to be conferred. If a service is rendered from views chiefly relative to the immediate interest of the party, who renders it, and is productive of reciprocal advantages, there seems scarcely in such a case to be an adequate basis for a sentiment like that of gratitude. The effect would be disproportioned to the cause; if it ought to beget more than a disposition to render in turn a correspondent good office, founded on mutual interest and reciprocal advantage. But gratitude would require more than this; it would require, to a certain extent, even a sacrifice of the interest of the party obliged to the service or benefit of the party by whom the obligation had been conferred.
Between individuals, occasion is not unfrequently given to the exercise of gratitude. Instances of conferring benefits, from kind and benevolent dispositions or feelings towards the person benefitted, without any other interest on the part of the person, who confers the benefit, than the pleasure of doing a good action, occur every day among individuals. But among nations they perhaps never occur. It may be affirmed as a general principle, that the predominant motive of go⟨od⟩ offices from one nation to another is the interest or advantage of the Nations, which performs them.
Indeed the rule of morality is ⟨in⟩ this respect not exactly the same between Natio⟨ns⟩ as between individuals. The duty of making ⟨its⟩ own welfare the guide of its action⟨s⟩ is much stronger upon the former than upon the latter; in proportion to the greater magnitude and importance of national compared with individual happiness, to the greater permanency of the effects of national than of individual conduct. Existing Millions and for the most part future generations ar⟨e⟩ concerned in the present measures of a government: While the consequences of the private actions of ⟨an⟩ individual, for the most part, terminate with himself or are circumscribed within a narrow compass.
Whence it follows, that an individual may on numerous occasions meritoriously indulge the emotions of generosity and benevolence; not only without an eye to, but even at the expence of his own interest. But a Nation can rarely be justified in pursuing ⟨a similar⟩ course; and when it does so ought to confine itself within much stricter bounds.

   This conclusion derives confirmation from the reflection, that under every form of government, Rulers are only Trustees for the happiness and interest of their nation, and cannot, consistently with their trust, follow the suggestions of kindness or humanity towards others, to the prejudice of their constituent.

 Good offices, which are indifferent to the Interest of a Nation performing them, or which are compensated by the existence or expectation of some reasonable equivalent or which produce an essential good to the nation, to which they are rendered, without real detriment to the affairs of the nation rendering them, prescribe the limits of national generosity or benevolence.
It is not meant here to advocate a policy absolutely selfish or interested in nations; but to shew that a policy regulated by their own interest, as far as justice and good faith permit, is, and ought to be their prevailing policy: and that either to ascribe to them a different principle of action, or to deduce from the supposition of it arguments for a self-denying and self-sacrificing gratitude on the part of a Nation, which may have received from another good offices, is to misconceive or mistake what usually are and ought to be the springs of National Conduct.
These general reflections will be auxiliary to a just estimate of our real situation with regard to France; of which a close view will be taken in a succeeding Paper.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Stephen Girard, 11 July 1793
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Girard, Stephen

Treasury Department, July 11, 1793. “I am to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 10th inst. informing me that the … Bills of Exchange (of which you are the holder) drawn by the Administration of the French Colony of St Domingo on the late Consul General of France, were sent to Clement Biddle Esqr to be protested.… I have therefore to inform you that if the minister of the French Republic does not discharge the said bills, before the third of September next, they will then be paid at the Treasury of the United States upon application being made for that purpose.”


Title: Cabinet Meeting. Opinion on Vessels Arming and Arriving in United States Ports, [12 July 1793]
From: Jefferson, Thomas,Hamilton, Alexander,Knox, Henry
To:

[Philadelphia, July 12, 1793]

July 12, 1793. At a meeting of the heads of the departments at the President’s on summons from him, and on consideration of various representations from the Ministers Plenipotentiary of France & Great Britain on the subject of vessels arming & arriving in our ports, and of prizes it is their opinion that letters be written to the said Ministers informing them that the Executive of the US., desirous of having done what shall be strictly conformeable to the treaties of the US. and the laws respecting the said cases has determined to refer the questions arising therein to persons learned in the laws: that as this reference will occasion some delay, it is expected that in the mean time the Little Sarah or Little Democrat the Ship Jane and the ship William in the Delaware, the Citoyen Genet & her prizes the brigs Lovely Lass & Prince William Henry, and the brig Fanny in the chesapeake do not depart till the further order of the President.
That letters be addressed to the Judges of the Supreme court of the US. requesting their attendance at this place on Thursday the 18th. instant to give their advice on certain matters of public concern which will be referred to them by the President.
That the Governor be desired to have the ship Jane attended to with vigilance, and if she be found augmenting her force and about to depart, that he cause her to be stopped.

Th: Jefferson
Alexander Hamilton
H Knox


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Peter R. Livingston, 12 July 1793
From: Livingston, Peter R.
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[July 12, 1793. On August 16, 1793, Livingston wrote to Hamilton: “I thank you for your favr. in answer to mine of the 12th. Ulto.” Letter not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Patrick Hart, [13 July 1793]
From: Hart, Patrick
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Thompsons Indian Queen Fourth street [Philadelphia]saturday morning [July 13, 1793]
Alexr Hamilton Esqr
sir

I take the liberty to hand You the Enclosed statement respecting an embarrassment I am at present under regarding the Brig Peace expected to arrive dayly in Virginia & request the favor (if consistant) of Your opinion on the Subject which will operate to prevent the detention & expence that may other wise ensue. I set out for Richmond Virga. on Monday Morning in the stage & shall be happy to be favored with any commands You may have. I am with the utmost respect
sir   Yr obt sert.

Pat Hart


Title: Enclosure: [Statement Regarding the Brig Peace], [13 July 1793]
From:
To:

Statement
William Hart, a resident of Manchester in Virginia and a Citizen, went to the East Indies in January 1792 on business and to take a view of that country. He left a general power of Attorney with P. Hart to act for him in all cases whatever.
He owned an American Brig named the Peace, which P. Hart, his Attorney, has since sold as she was at sea on a voyage to Europe, to Alexander Brydie of Richmond a citizen likewise, for which P. Hart as Attorney for William Hart granted A. Brydie a bill of Sale with a copy of the register in it agreeable to Law, expecting that A. Brydie would be able to get a new register for her in his own name when she arrived in this country.
But, P. Hart is informed by A. Brydie, that a doubt has arisen with the Colector, Col. Heth, as W. Hart is absent from this country whether or not, she is entitled to the priviledges of an American Bottom.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to John Hopkins, 13 July 1793
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Hopkins, John

[Philadelphia, July 13, 1793. On July 16, 1793, Hopkins wrote to Hamilton: “I have received your favor of the 13th inst.” Letter not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from John Walker, 13 July 1793
From: Walker, John
To: Hamilton, Alexander

To Mr. Alexander Hamilton Secy. to the United States of America
[London] July the 13th. 1793
Sir,

A Pamphlet intitled Reports to ye House of Representatives which you had the honour to deliver, the 5th. of December 1791 having fallen into my hands, being marked with such strong features of good Sense & just discrimination, that I could not resist the immediate temptation of addressing myself to the Author of such critical and important Observations; I Sir am a Callico Printer have been employ’d as Servant & Master in every department thereof above thirty years, have ever grasp’d the labouring Oar particularly in the improv’d manner of Printing the Copper Plates, which is now done with great expedition and accuracy, & is kept a profound secret here as the machines for the execution of it are so very Ponderous make it next to an impossibility to be carried out of the Kingdom, the whole must be the production of him who shall be capable of the whole Art. To make with his own hands all the Various & different Machinery, to be capable to Judge of, & to engrave the Plates, to be competent of precisely knowing the various Colours, & the certainty of their Working—all of which falls to the lot of but a very few Men—all and every thing in the art of Callico Printing, I can without exaggerating affirm, hath been executed and accomplished by My own hands. I have two Sons that are willing to follow my Fortune, my Eldest about 36 years an excellent Draughtsman & Pattern-drawer & engraver, the Other about 22 years a Print Cutter a complete master of his business both single men. This way of Printing is very much wanted in various Places nearer home, as Holland, Germany, & the low Countries, but alass I am unaquainted with any of their languages, therefore America (which according to your most excellent Reports) seems to extend her fostering Arms to save from poverty & ruin all ingenious & industrious familys. If we can be assur’d of countenance & support of the States, will with Gods blessing translate ourselves across the Atalantic. As to myself I cannot expect to derive (at my time of life) any advantage therefrom, otherwise than the pleasing hope of being instrumental in establishing my Family in a Country I have heard so much of; (that by their industry & skill may disseminate and Establish a Valuable & flourishing manufacture, that shortly may rival this or any other Country in the World). America apears to me, to be the only Place in the whole World for the Protection of the Manufactoral Arts. Apprehensions of failing in new attempts as you notice in Page 36 will be done away, when I can assure that I can estimate the expence according to any given scale of Business intended to be carried on & not like many projectors give a false estimate on purpose to mislead, because I can from experience state the true amount thereof. The Expence will be too heavy for any Private Man that should emigrate from England, & those in easy circumstances, would not risk so long & toilsome a Voyage, & if they should arrive, most of them would (as your Report Page 24 observe) fall into the agricultural line of business, but remarks upon the Report are needless they are so copius, as to exibit the Picture in every Point of View, such are the disasters of the times, that we are constrained to seek abroad that bread, which our native land denies to our toil & assiduity; therefore if the above mentioned offer should Coincide with the Views of your Government; (as the Report seems strongly to reccommend) or Private Individuals; if upon testimonials from Men of Probity & understanding in this Kingdom, to any of their friends in your Nation; setting forth the claim I have to Capability, Assiduity, Sobriety, & morality, should further be embolden’d to intrude on their well known generosity (& which would be essentially necessary to us) by soliciting their favour in defraying the expence of a Passage of myself my wife & Daughter, & my two Sons.
I Remain with all due defference   & esteem Sir your most Obedt. servt. &c

John Walker

P. S. sir if you would condscend to favour me with an answer to the above, please to direct to John Walker to the care of Mr. Josef Carr Music Seller Middlerow Holborne London.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from William Ellery, 15 July 1793
From: Ellery, William
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Newport [Rhode Island] July 15, 1793. “By the last post I recd. your letters of the 25th, 28th and 29th of the last month.… I shall be attentive to, and inquisitive about the circumstances of vessels which shall sail to foreign ports without delivering up their licenses, as required in the second, and for the answer to my question concerng. captured vessels contained in your letter of the 29th. you have my thanks.…”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Comfort Sands, 15 July 1793
From: Sands, Comfort
To: Hamilton, Alexander

New York, July 15, 1793. Recommends “Mr. John Tanner of this City” as “First Lieutenant on board the Revenue Cutter” Vigilant.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Benjamin Walker, 15 July 1793
From: Walker, Benjamin
To: Hamilton, Alexander

New York, July 15, 1793. Recommends John Tanner “as Lieut. for the Cutter” Vigilant.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from John Hopkins, 16 July 1793
From: Hopkins, John
To: Hamilton, Alexander

United States Loan Office[Richmond] State of Virga July 16. 1793.
Sir

I have received your favor of the 13th inst. My letter of the 29th of April last, of which a duplicate is enclosed, will inform you that Mr James Brown as Trustee for William Short Esquire transferred all the Stock standing in his name as Trustee aforesaid to the said William Short to whose Credit it now stands, and is as follows viz.
In six per Cen Stock assumed debt, on Int. from

1st Apl 1793
Dolls
151,008:

 3 per Cent
Do.
do.
do.
11,256:

 Deferred debt
7,504

In 6 per Cent Stock, public debt
1st Apl.

1,093

The assumed debt above mentioned was subscribed originally in the name of James Brown in trust for William Short, and the public debt in his name in trust for St George Tucker; and on the 16th of January last this latter debt was transferred to the Credit of James Brown in trust for William Short, and the whole transferred to Mr Short on the 29th of April last. No other transfers whatever have ever been made by Mr Brown of this Stock since the original subscriptions.
I have the honor to be very respectfully   Sir   Your Mo. Obedt Servant

John Hopkins,Commr of Loans for Virga.
The Honble Alexander Hamilton


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Israel Ludlow, 17 July 1793
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Ludlow, Israel

[July 17, 1793. Letter not found.]


Title: Enclosure: [Account Statement with the Society for Establishing Useful Manufactures], [18 July 1793]
From:
To:

Dr. Alexander Hamilton Esqr: In A/C with The Society for Establishing useful Manufactures
Cr:

1793
1793

Feby. 20
To paid his draft on Benjamin Walker
300.00
Feby. 26
By Cash Advanced Wm. Pearce in Phila. at sundry times
2,340.90

June 8
To Wm. Duer’s Order on F. Ingraham
500
 “  “
By ditto ditto George Parkinson in do: do: £101.6.8 Penn. Curry. is
  270.20

Balle due A Hamilton carried to new Acct:
1,811.10

2,611.10

2,611.10

By balle. due brot. from old Acct: Dolls.
1,811.10


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Edmond Charles Genet, [18 July 1793]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Genet, Edmond Charles

[Philadelphia, July 18, 1793]

Mr. Hamilton presents his Compliments to the Minister of France, regrets extremely that by a neglect of the person to whom the Minister’s Note of the 16th was delivered it did not get to the hands of Mr. Hamilton till this Morning which has prevented an earlier attention to it. Mr. Hamilton is just going to attend a summons of the President. If he shall find that the object of it will not interfere with an interview this forenoon, he will have the honor of notifying Mr. Genet accordingly. Should Mr. Genet not hear from him in an hour, he will please to consider Mr. Hamilton as at his command at any time tomorrow from nine to Eleven.
July 18. 1793


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Tobias Lear, 18 July 1793
From: Lear, Tobias
To: Hamilton, Alexander

United States July 18th. 1793.

By the President’s command T. Lear has the honor to inform the Secretary of the Treasury, that the President having duly considered the Representation of the Commissioner of the Revenue and the other documents relative to the compensations of the Keepers of the Light Houses, which were put into his hands by the Secretary, Approves of the Alterations of certain compensations as suggested by the Secretary, vizt.
1st. For the Keeper of the Light House on

Thatchers Island
pr. Annum
266 ⅔ drs

2
do
Boston Bay

266 ⅔

3
do
Plymouth

200

4
do
Portland Head

160

5
do
Cananicut

160

6
do
New London

120

7
do
Sandy Hook

266.⅔

to commence from the 1st day of the present Month.

The President thinks it proper that the Keeper of the Light-House at Portsmouth be informed, that he must reside on the spot where the Light House is, if he continues in that office, and that he will not be permitted to employ a deputy to take care of the Light House, unless upon some special occasion.

Tobias LearSecretary to the Presidentof the United States


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Joseph Nourse, 18 July 1793
From: Nourse, Joseph
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia, July 18, 1793. “Wrote this Day, the 18 July 1793, a Letter to the Secretary of the Treasury stating that the Contingent Money of the Treasury deposited in Bank was nearly Expended and that an Advance of Twelve hundred Dollars might be made me to defray Expences.” Letter not found.]


Title: Draft of Question to Be Submitted to Justices of the Supreme Court, [18 July 1793]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[Philadelphia, July 18, 1793]

   Agreed

I   Do the Treaties between the United States and France give to France or her Citizens a right, when at War with a Power with whom the UStates are at peace, to fit out originally, in and from the Ports of the UStates, vessels armed for War, with or without commission?

   Agreed

II   If they give such a right Does it extend to all manner of armed vessels or to particular kinds only? If the latter, to what kinds does it extend?

   Agreed

III   Do they give to France or her Citizens, in the case supposed, a right to refit or arm anew vessels, which before their coming within any port of the UStates were armed for war—with or without commission?

   Agreed

IV   If they give such a right, does it extend to all manner of armed vessels or to particular kinds only? If the latter, to what kinds does it extend? Does it include an augmentation of force, or does it only extend ⟨to⟩ replacing the vessel in statu quo?

   Agreed

V   Does the XXII Article of the Treaty of Commerce in the case supposed, extend to Vessels armed for War, on account of the Government of a Power at War with ⟨France,⟩ or to Merchant-armed vessels belonging to the subjects or citizens of that Power (viz), of the description of those which by the English are called Letters of Marque-Ships by the French “Batiments armé en marchandize et en guerre”?
VI   Do the Treaties aforesaid prohibit the UStates from permitting in the case supposed, the armed vessels belonging to a

   Agreed

Power at War with France or to the citizens or subjects of such Power to come within the ports of the UStates there to remain as long as they may think fit except in the case of their coming in with Prizes made of the subjects or property of France?

   Agreed

VII   Do they prohibit the UStates from permitting in the case supposed, vessels armed on account of the Government of a Power at War with France or vessels armed for merchandize and war, with or without Commission on account of the subjects or citizens of such Power or any vessels other than those commonly called Privateers to sell freely whatsoever they may bring into the Ports of the UStates and freely to purchase in and carry from the ports of the U States goods merchandize and commodities; except as excepted in the last question?
VIII   Do they oblige the United States to permit France in the case supposed to sell in their ports the prizes which she or her citizens may have made of any Power at War with her, the Citizens or subjects of such Power; or exempt

   Agreed

from the payment of the usual duties, on ships and merchandize, the prizes so made in the case of their being to be sold within the Ports of the UStates?

   Agreed

IX   Do those Treaties particularly the Consular Convention authorise France as of right to erect Courts within the Jurisdiction of the UStates for the trial and condemnation of Prizes made by armed vessels in her service?

   Agreed

X   Do the laws and usages of Nations authorise her as of right to erect such Courts for such purpose?

   Agreed

XI   Do the laws of neutrality considered relatively to the Treaties of the UStates with Foreign Powers or Independently of those Treaties permit the UStates in the case supposed, to allow to France or her citizens the privilege of fitting out originally in & from the Ports of the UStates vessels armed & Commissioned for War either on account of the Government or of private persons or both?
XII   Do those laws permit the UStates to extend the like privilege to a Power at War with France?
Agreed
XII   Do the laws of Neutrality considered as aforesaid permit the UStates in the case supposed to allow to France

   Agreed

or her Citizens the privilege of refitting or arming anew vessels which before their coming within the UStates were armed and commissioned for war. May such privilege include an augmentation of the force of such vessels?
XIII   Do those laws permit the UStates to extend the like privilege to a Power at War with France?

   Agreed

XIV   Do those laws in the case supposed, permit Merchant Vessels of either of the powers at War to arm in the Ports of the UStates, without being commissioned? May this privilege be rightfully refused?

   Agreed

XV   Does it make any difference in point of principle, whether a vessel be armed for War or the force of an armed vessel be augmented in the ports of the UStates with the means procured in the UStates or with the means brought into them by the party who shall so arm or augt. the force of such Vessel? If the first be unlawful is the last lawful?

   Agreed

XVI   Do the laws of neutrality considered as aforesaid authorise the U States to permit to France her subjects or citizens the sale within their Ports of Prizes made of the subjects or property of a power at War with France before they have been carried into some Port of France & there condemned refusing the like privilege to her enemy?

   Agreed

XVII   Do those Laws authorise the UStates to permit to France the erection of Courts within their territory & jurisdiction for the trial & condemnation of Prizes refusing that privilege to a Power at War with France?

   Agreed

XVIII   If any armed vessel of a foreign power at War with another, with whom the UStates are at Peace, shall make prize of the subjects or property of its enemy within the territory or jurisdiction of the UStates—have not the UStates a right to cause restitution of such prize? are they bound or not by the principles of neutrality so to do? if such prize shall be within their power?

   Agreed

XIX   To what distance, by the laws and usages of Nations, may the UStates exercise the right of prohibiting the hostilities of foreign Powers at War with each other,—within rivers, bays and arms of the sea, and upon the sea along the Coasts of the UStates?

   Agreed

XX   Have Vessels armed for war under commission from a foreign Power a right, without the consent of the UStates, to engage within their jurisdiction seamen or soldiers for the service of such vessels being Citizens of that Power or of another foreign Power or Citizens of the UStates?
XXI   Is it lawful for the Citizens of such Power or citizen of the UStates so to engage being within the jurisdiction of the UStates?
XXII   What are the articles, by name, to be prohibited to both or either party.
XXIII   To what extent does the reparation permitted in the 19th article of the treaty with France go.
XXIV   What may be done as to vessels armed in our ports before the President’s proclamation? and what as to the prizes they made before and after?
XXV   May we, within our own ports, sell ships to both parties, prepared merely for merchandize? may they be pierced for guns?

XXVI   May we carry either or both kinds to the ports of the belligerent powers for sale?
XXVII   Is the principle that free bottoms make free goods, and enemy bottoms make enemy goods to be considered as now an established part of the law of Nations?
XXVIII   If it is not, are nations with whom we have no treaties, authorized by the law of Nations to take out of our vessels enemy passengers, not being soldiers, and their baggage?
XXIX   May an armed vessel belonging to any of the belligerent powers follow immediately merchant vessels, enemies, departing from our ports, for the purpose of making prizes of them? If not, how long ought the former to remain after the latter has sailed? And what shall be considered as the place of departure, from which the time is to be counted? And how are the facts to be ascertained?


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Tench Coxe, 19 July 1793
From: Coxe, Tench
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia, July 19, 1793. On July 23, 1793, Hamilton wrote to George Washington and referred to “a communication from the Commissioner of the Revenue of the 19 instant.” Letter not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Edmond Charles Genet, 19 July 1793
From: Genet, Edmond Charles
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Philadelphia 19th. July 1793. 2d. year of the F. R.
Sir,

Mr. Jefferson having informed me by his note of the 19th. of last June that it was the desire of the federal Government that I should not issue any drafts, by virtue of the power vested in me, on the debt of the United States to France until we should have concerted this measure together, I have the honour to give you notice that in order to answer the different branches of expense which the executive council has committed to me, and particularly to supply the urgent wants of the fleet and Squadron of the Republic which are just arrived from Saint Domingo, I find myself under the necessity of disposing of the amount of the two first payments that will be due to the debt of the U.S. to France in bills on the treasury of the U.S. This mode of payment is perfectly convenient for the houses with which I intend to contract for provisions and other necessaries, and in order to make use of it, I wait only to be assured that this arrangement does not in any respect contravene the views and principles of the federal Government.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from James Duff, 20 July 1793
From: Duff, James
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Cadiz, July 20, 1793. Encloses duplicate of a letter sent to Hamilton on July 8, 1793.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, [20 July 1793]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Washington, George

[Philadelphia, July 20, 1793]

The Secretary of the Treasury has the honor respectfully to enclose to the President of the United States a Commission which has been returned by John Finley second mate of the Cutter Vigilant, he having resigned that office.
John Tanner of New York is recommended by Capt: Dennis to the office of first Mate in the said Cutter. His recommendations from several merchants & others, which appear to be stronger than usual, are here with submitted to the consideration of the President.

Alexander Hamilton
Treasy. Dept. July 20. 1793.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from William Ellery, 22 July 1793
From: Ellery, William
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Newport, Rhode Island] July 22, 1793. “… Inclosed… is a Representation made by our Boatmen, of the rise of provisions and fire wood since the establishment of the Custom House, and of the inadequacy of their present pay to their support, The Representation so far as it respects provisions and fire-wood, is true.…”


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Jeremiah Olney, 22 July 1793
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Olney, Jeremiah

[Philadelphia, July 22, 1793. On August 7, 1793, Olney wrote to Hamilton: “I have received your Letters of the 22nd. 24th. and 27th of July.” Letter of July 22 not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from George Washington, 22 July 1793
From: Washington, George
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Philada. 22d. July 1793.
Sir,

A variety of matters which have called for immediate attention, have prevented my taking up your letter of the  inst: enclosing one from our Commissioners at Amsterdam, dated the 1st of May last. It appears from that letter, that the reimbursement of one million of florins, due on the 1st of June 1793, has been prolonged for ten years; & that you have made considerable remittances to them.
I wish therefore to know, whether this prolongation of reimbursement may not lessen the necessity of borrowing to so great an amount as might otherwise be expedient, for the purpose of our foreign Debt, & whether those remittances do not operate a similar effect?

Go. Washington


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Peter Colt, [23 July 1793]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Colt, Peter

[Philadelphia, July 23, 1793]
Sir

The bearer of this is Mr. Taylor, about whom I wrote to you sometime since, is about to go to Patterson to ascertain whether there is any prospect of his being useful to the Society in the Printing Branch. He will explain to you his opportunities and his pretentions—on which I can say no more than I said in a former letter either to Mr. Low or yourself. You will of course inform him what issue his application is likely to meet & if he should incline to proceed to New York I will thank you to give him letters to Mr. Low. & Mr. Watson, to make him & his errand known to them.
With esteem I am   Sir   Your Obed serv

A Hamilton
Philadelphia July 23. 1793
Peter Colt Esqr.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from George Hough, 23 July 1793
From: Hough, George
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Concord, New Hampshire, July 23. 1793.

This may certify, that the following Extract of a Letter I received from Mr. William Woodward, of Hanover, in this State, transmitted to me by the Post, with a written Introduction, at the top of the Letter addressed to me, informing, that it was from Mr John Phillips Ripley, at Philadelphia, dated May 4th. but whether the Treasury department was positively mentioned or not, I do not recollect, (as the Letter is destroyed or mislaid, and cannot be found)—tho I am strongly of opinion that it was. Mr. Woodward, however, in open terms, requested me to publish it, and oblige a number of my political Readers; or in words to that purport—which I did as follows:
“Concord June 6. Extract of a Letter,” &c.

“I would inform you, that last evening at nine o’clock arrived here, from the Court of the Ex Princes at Coblentz, Count de Noailles, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary from the Prince Regent of France. At a very late hour he waited on the President, with whom he was in private conversation until near morning. Mr. Genet, minister from the Republic, is on his way from Charlestown, S.C. and is daily expected. The crisis of affairs, it is generally thought, will demand a session of Congress.”
George Hough, Editor and
Printer of the Concord Herald and PostMaster at Concord.
N.B.   I would observe, in addition to the foregoing Certificate, that Mr. William Woodward is Son to the Honble Beza. Woodward, Esquire, Judge of Probate for the county he resides in,

   Grafton.

 and one of the Authority of Dartmouth College. The son is a young Gentleman of Reputation, who Received the Honours of said College a very few years since; and from his general character, and the unreserved manner in which he mentioned Mr. Ripley’s name in his letter to me, I have no idea that his intention was to communicate any thing but with the greatest candour and innocence.

Geo. Hough.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from David Ross, [23 July 1793]
From: Ross, David
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Bladensburgh, Maryland, July 23, 1793]
Dear Sir

Your “Democratic Society” with whatever good ⟨in⟩tentions it may be instituted by some yet I fear ⟨oth⟩ers may wish and hope to give it the conse⟨que⟩nce & power of a Jacobin Club—indeed the ⟨ver⟩y name of the Society holds out an idea to ⟨th⟩e People of America that there are such defects ⟨in⟩ our Government as to require an association to guard against them and will of course become the Standard for the Anti’s to resort to, to effect their purposes. Therefore as I feel myself very much interested in preventing its extension to this State I take the liberty to request of you to suggest the most proper & effectual means—for many who are now warm federalists if they should unthinkingly become of the Society may from a false pride desert their present principles rather than a Society they had publickly attached themselves to—& if the Society should acquire a consequence in the States, that consequence may hereafter suggest objects that have not, yet, entered the thoughts of any one of them.
If you should not have leasure enou⟨gh⟩ to gratify my request I hope you will hav⟨e⟩ sufficient to procure & enclose me all the Papers pro & con on the subjects of the Pieces signed “Pacificus” of which I have only seen one.
I have not heard of or from Co. Mercer since my last Publication & I sincerely hope you will think his character sufficiently exposed to prevent the necessity of taking that notice of him and his charges which the laws of honour might otherwise require and that you will conclude an acquittal by your Country the next Congress sufficient as it will be considered so by every one whose good opinion you would wish to retain. I am Sir
Your friend & obedt Servt

David Ross
BladensburghJuly 23. 1793


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, 23 July 1793
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Washington, George

Treasy. Dept. July 23d. 1793.

The Secretary of the Treasury has the honor to submit to The President a communication from the Commissioner of the Revenue of the 19 instant.
The establishment of the compensation to the Keeper of the Portsmouth Light House at the rate therein mentioned appears to the Secretary to be a proper measure.

A Hamilton


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Nathaniel Appleton, 24 July 1793
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Appleton, Nathaniel

Treasury Department, July 24, 1793. “A certificate of transfer … issued from your Office … for 3606 ¹⁶⁄₁₀₀ Dollars 3 ⅌ Cent assumed debt, and another … for 557 ⁶¹⁄₁₀₀ Dollars deferred debt have been returned to the holders on account of erazures which appear in both certificates. A re-transmission of these papers being attended with inconvenience, it is particularly recommended to guard against errors as much as possible.”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Sharp Delany, 24 July 1793
From: Delany, Sharp
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia, July 24, 1793. At a meeting on August 5, 1793, the cabinet discussed “Mr. Delany’s letter of the 24th of July on the question whether duties are to be paid on prize goods landed for sale.” Letter not found.]


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Jeremiah Olney, 24 July 1793
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Olney, Jeremiah

Treasury Department, July 24, 1793. Acknowledges receipt of Olney’s letter “of the 26th ultimo” and states: “From the special circumstances growing out of a new law, I rather forbear to recommend the enforcement of Penalties in this case.”


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, 24 July 1793
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Washington, George

Treasury Depmt. 24 July 1793.
Sir,

In answer to your enquiry of the 22d. inst. I have the honor to observe, that in the communications heretofore made, it is stated, that an additional two millions of Guilders had been already directed to be borrowed & a proposition is submitted to the consideration of the President for authorising a further loan of three millions of florins.
One of the objects of the two million loan was the reimbursement of the one Million which became due in Holland on the first of June last.
The arrangement announced by our bankers in their Letter of the 1st of May last, fulfills that object, & consequently diminishes by one million the aggregate sum deemed adviseable to be borrowed, in the late Reports of the Secretary to the President, so as to leave four millions, instead of five, to be still borrowed upon the plan contemplated.
The remittances from hence make no difference in the result, because they only remain to their original fund, the purpose for which they were intended having been answered by the arrangement above mentioned.
With perfect respect,   I have the honor to be   Sir &a.

Alexr. Hamilton


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Stephen Higginson, 26 July 1793
From: Higginson, Stephen
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Boston July 26. 1793
Dr Sir

We have here our french party & french politics as well as you; & they are taking measures here, as well as with you, to bring us to a serious point. They mean, I am satisfied, to force a decission on the Question of their right to fit out Privateers, to originate new expeditions in our ports to cruise on their Enemy. From the conduct & observations of the Consul here, & what We learn to be the language & conduct of the ministers in Phila., there is strong reason to believe, that it is part of a System of policy toward us which these people are directed to pursue. They will try how far they can use us to their purpose without coming to points. They will then push us to a decission that shall leave them at option to part from us or not as they may think best, & on such ground as will appear decent abroad, & not compel their partizans here to desert them. Such is my View of french politics at this moment, relative to the united States.
This is a critical period in Our Affairs. We have a narrow & difficult pass to go through; & the longer it is delayed the greater will be the danger, in my Opinion. It is asked by Demagogues, why do Individuals or Classes of men interfere, who have no authority to interpret Treaties, not even for themselves as a rule of Conduct? If Government, or those whose Duty it is, think the right claimed by the french is not founded, & against Treaty, the Laws of nations & our interest, The proper Officers would appear & the exercise of the right be prohibited. Such Observations have weight, & many good men, who well intend & who will support Government in the execution of Laws, are much perplexed & made to waver.
In this State there is but one Opinion except in this Town, here dwell all the Seditious & desperate; & here We have lately had to combat & to subdue them, both in a Meeting of the Trade & of the Town. It was a good opening to give a full approbation of the late proclamation, & to get the Citizens pledged in favour of neutrality & the measures of government, & to excite similar feelings & Votes in other Towns. I expect We shall have in this way the voice of a large part of the State, perhaps above a hundred Towns.
These proceedings you will see in the papers, but not the Effects yet.
I offer you these facts & observations, as matter of information, which may or may not be useful. To Judge from the State of things here, the sooner We come to the touchy points, which seem to arise out of our Case & not ⟨to⟩ be avoided, the better it will be. Let us take Our Stand on clear ground, or the best which our case will admit, seems to be here the general language. But here We see in part only, & may not know of difficulties which perplex Government.
Pacificus is operating here without interruption. Our Patriots, though pressed to enter the field, dare not venture on more than Street harangues. I am pledged to meet Dr. Jarvis, the Bell Wether of the flock, either in public discussion in person or upon paper, whenever he shall notify the intention of making a formal attack.
If there is a clear line of distinction, founded in reason & upon Treaty, between the refitting &c of prizes & privateers, as I suppose, & the originating new Armaments in Our ports, it will be very happy for us here to have it drawn. We have so many people who have been in the habit of privateering, who are now hungry & enterprising, & who have many facilities to engage in that business, it will be very difficult to restrain them from being concerned in the Vessels fitted out & perhaps from going in person. In such cases the incitement will be so strong, & the means of covering themselves under french names &c. so easy, that the Evil may extend very far, & many of our Citizens be seduced from their Duty.
I am respectfully Sir your hum Serv

Stephen Higginson


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Thomas Jefferson, 26 July 1793
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Jefferson, Thomas

[Philadelphia] July 26, 1793. Transmits “Copies of two letters from the Commissioner of Loans for Virginia on the subject of Mr. Short’s stock.”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Jeremiah Olney, 26 July 1793
From: Olney, Jeremiah
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Custom-House,Providence 26th July 1793.
Sir.

I have been this Day informed, thro a very direct channel that the Importers, in this Town, of Coffee, Pepper, and Sugars, other than loaf, have agreed to commence Actions, either jointly, or severally, at the next circuit Court, for the recovery of extra Duties, paid at this Office, upon the importation of those Articles, occasioned by my practice relative to Tare, in deducting the percentage from 112 pounds (the general custom of Merchants, and all the Collectors in New-England) instead of 100 pounds (agreeable to the mode pursued by the Southern Collectors, and the Comptroller’s circular directions of the 22nd. of March last which I have since followed.) As these Suits will necessarily create some Expense to the United States, I conceived it to be my Duty to give you the earliest information thereof, that you might adopt such Measures to prevent, or give such instructions to defend, them, as you may judge expedient and proper.

I have the Honor to be &c.

Jereh. Olney Collr.
Alexr. Hamilton EsquireSecretary of the Treasury.