Title: The Answer, [8 December 1796]
From: “Americus”,Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[New York, December 8, 1796]

For The Minerva.
The French republic have, at various times, during the present war, complained of certain principles, and decisions of the American government, as being violations of its neutrality, or infractions of the treaty made with France in the year 1778. These complaints were principally made in the year 1793, and explanations, which, till now, were deemed satisfactory, were made by Mr. Jefferson’s correspondence, in August of that year. They are now not only renewed with great exaggeration, but the French government have directed that it should be done in the tone of reproach, instead of the language of friendship. The apparent intention of this menacing tone, at this particular time, is to influence timid minds to vote agreeable to their wishes in the election of president and vice-president, and probably with this view, the memorial was published in the news-papers. This is certainly a practice that must not be permitted. If one foreign minister is permitted to publish what he pleases to the people, in the name of his government, every other foreign minister must be indulged with the same right. What then will be our situation on the election of a president and vice president, when the government is insulted, the persons who administer it, traduced, and the electors menaced by public addresses from these intriguing agents? Poland, that was once a respectable, and powerful nation, but is now a nation no longer, is a melancholy example of the danger of foreign influence in the election of a chief magistrate. Eleven millions of people have lost their independence from that cause alone. What would have been the conduct of the French directory, if the American minister had published an elaborate, and inflammatory address to the people of France against the government, reprobating the conduct of those in power, and extolling that of the party opposed to them? They would have done as the Parliament of England did in 1727, when the Emperor’s resident presented an insolent memorial to the king, and published it next day in the newspapers. “All parties concurred in expressing the highest indignation and resentment at the affront offered to the government by the memorial delivered by Monsieur Palm, and more particularly at this audacious manner of appealing from the government, to the people under the pretext of applying for reparation and redress of supposed injuries.” In consequence of an address from both houses, Monsieur Palm was ordered to quit England immediately. And is it not necessary that we should adopt some remedy adequate to this evil, to avoid these serious consequences which may otherwise be apprehended from it?
The conduct of the American government to preserve its neutrality, has been repeatedly justified by arguments drawn from the law of nations; and in the application of its principles, they have gone as far, in every instance, and in one particular instance, farther in favor of France, than the strict rule of neutrality would justify. It would therefore answer no valuable purpose, to state the same principles, and deduce the same consequences, in order to justify ourselves on the same ground, that we have already done; but as the reproaches of the French republic are founded on an idea, that our construction, and application of the law of nations, is erroneous, partial, and inimical; it may be worth while to examine, whether we cannot justify ourselves by the example of the French nation itself. I presume a better rule of justification against any charge, cannot be required, than the conduct of those who have made it, in like cases.
I propose therefore, to compare the decisions of the American government, in the several points wherein they have been complained of in Mr. Adet’s memorial, with the laws of France on the same points.
It is asserted that the American government has violated the 17th article of the treaty of 1778, by arresting French privateers, and their prizes; and that it has exercised shocking persecutions towards them.
It will be found on an accurate inquiry, that all the prizes brought in under French commissions, that have been restored, have been found to be in one, or the other, of the following descriptions:
1. Those captured within a marine league of the shores of the United States.
2. Where the capturing vessel was owned, and principally manned, by American citizens.
3. Where the capturing vessel was armed in our ports.
As to the jurisdiction exercised by the U. States, over the sea contiguous to its shores, all nations claim and exercise such a jurisdiction, and all writers admit this claim to be well founded; and they have differed in opinion, only as to the distance to which it may extend. Let us see whether France has claimed a greater, or less extent of dominion over the sea, than the United States. Valen, the king’s advocate at Rochelle, in his new commentary on the marine laws of France, published first in 1761, and again by approbation in 1776,

   Book 5. Title 1.

 after mentioning the opinions of many different writers on public law on this subject, says “As far as the distance of two leagues the sea is the dominion of the sovereign of the neighboring coast; and that, whether there be soundings there or not.” It “is proper to observe this method, in favor of states whose coasts are so high, that there are no soundings close to shore; but this does not prevent the extension of the dominion of the sea, as well as in respect to jurisdiction as the fisheries to a greater distance, by particular treaties, or the rule herein before mentioned, which extends dominion as far as there are soundings, or as far as the reach of a cannon shot; which is the rule at present universally acknowledged.” The effect of this dominion, the same author says, “According to the principles of Puffendorf, which are incontestible, is, that every sovereign has a right to protect foreign commerce in his dominions, as well as to secure them from insult, by preventing others from approaching nearer to a certain distance.” In extending our dominion over the sea to one league, we have not extended it so far, as the example of France, and the other powers of Europe would have justified. They therefore can have no right to complain of our conduct in this respect.
The second description of cases, which has induced the American government to restore prizes claimed by the French, is, where our citizens have made the capture under a French commission.
The third article of the ordinances of the marine of France, which the commission now given to French privateers require to be observed, (Valin, 2 Vol. 235) is as follows: “We prohibit all our subjects from taking commission from foreign kings, princes, or states, to arm vessels for war, and to cruize at sea under their colors, unless by our permission, on pain of being treated as pirates.” The commentator says these general and indefinite prohibitions have no exception. They extend to commissions taken from friends or allies, as well as neutrals, and those that are equivocal: and they were considered as necessary consequences of the laws of neutrality.
“If, says Valin, the commission of the foreign prince be to cruize against his enemies who are our allies, or those with whom we intend to preserve neutrality, it would afford just ground of complaint on their part, and might lead to a rupture.” The rule extends as well to subjects domiciliated as not domiliciated in the kingdom, and foreign countries; “for Frenchmen are not the less Frenchmen, for having gone to live in foreign countries.” If France may rightfully prohibit her citizins from accepting foreign commissions to make prize of the property of her friends, why should the United States be reproached for exercising a similar right? A necessary consequence of this wise and just prohibition is, that all prizes taken contrary to it should be restored with damages to the party injured.
The third description of prizes restored, is where they have been fitted, and armed in the ports of the United States.
I find no direct, positive provision by the marine laws of France, prohibiting this; but the whole tenor of those laws suppose that vessels of war, are armed in the ports of the sovereign who give the commission. French privateers must not only fit out in a French port, but are bound to bring all prizes made by them into some particular port, or ports expressed in their commissions. Valin. 2 Vol. 276. And it is certain that the king of France, previous to his alliance with the United States, delivered up some American prizes, to the English, because the capturing vessel had been armed in a French port.

Mr. Adet’s memorial charges that the English have been permitted to arm their vessels, and bring their prizes into our ports.
As to this charge, the fact is simply denied. In the cases mentioned, the vessels said to have taken in guns for their defence, were gone, before he made his representation: yet he complained, and the government did nothing. I ask what could they have done? Mr. Adet will answer, they might have declared war, against Great Britain: and it is certain, this was the only remedy that remained, in such a case: but neither our interest, nor our duty would have permitted us to have adopted it. Our interest did not permit us to give up our neutrality, and engage in a foreign war, the event of which would have produced many and certain evils, and could not by any possibility have produced any good; and it was contrary to every principle by which a just nation would desire to act, to have made war on a whole people, because one or two of them had clandestinely taken arms on board for their defence, in one of our ports, without the knowledge of their government, or of ours.
The memorial complains that we have infringed the 17th article of the treaty of 1778, by restraining the prohibition therein contained only to the ships of war, and privateers of their enemies, who should come into our ports, with their prizes.
The literal sense of the 17th article, is, that no armed ship who shall have made prizes from the French people, shall receive an asylum in our ports. The 22d article says that no privateer, fitted under a commission of the enemy of either, shall have asylum in the ports of the other. Neither of these articles say any thing of prizes. The literal application of them therefore would exclude the capturing vessels, but give admission to their prizes; which would never have been the intention of the parties. The law of nations, expressly adopted by France, relative to the right of asylum, may illustrate these articles of the treaty. Ord. Louis XIV. art. XIV. declares, “That no prizes made by Captains under a foreign commission, shall remain in our ports, longer than twenty-four hours, unless detained by bad weather, or unless the prize shall have been made from our enemies.” But this article, says Valin, is only applicable to prizes carried into a neutral port, “and not at all to armed vessels, whether neutrals or allies, who have taken refuge there, without prizes, either to escape the pursuit of enemies, or for any other cause. They may, in this case remain as long as they please.” By the law of neutrality, simply, French prizes could only have remained twenty-four hours in our ports, but by the treaty they have obtained the priviledge of remaining as long as they please. This privilege has not only been allowed them in its fullest extent, but we had gone a step further, and as a favor permitted them to sell their prizes, which neither the treaty nor the law of nations required; and which was of more importance than all the rest put together. This favor, as favors generally are, is now claimed as a right, and the withholding is considered as an injury. Let us see what the ordinances of the French marine have said on this point. Ord. Louis XIV Tit prises. Art. XV. “If in the prizes brought into our ports by vessels armed under a foreign commission, there be any merchandizes belonging to our subjects, or allies, those belonging to our subjects shall be restored, and the rest shall not be put into any store house, or be purchased by any person under any pretext whatsoever.” “And all this, says Valin, is founded on the law of neutrality.” By the treaty of Utrecht, Louis XIV, and his grandson, the king of Spain, agreed mutually, to permit the prizes made by one to be brought in and sold in the ports of the other. But this the same author says, was only a particular arrangement, so much the less to be proposed for a general rule, as the two nations had given up the duties on prize goods sold in their dominions; which however did not last long, on account of the abuses to which it gave rise. Abuses similar, I presume, to those to which the same permission gave rise in this country.
The next ground of complaint is the British treaty and its consequences. This treaty is said to deprive France of all the advantages stipulated in a preceding treaty; and this is done by an abandonment of the modern law of nations.
If we may credit the declaration of the king of France, there were no exclusive advantages stipulated for France, in that treaty. His ambassador delivered a paper to the British court, dated the 13th of March 1778, wherein after announcing the treaty between France and the United States, he says, “His majesty declares at the same time, that the contracting parties have paid great attention not to stipulate any exclusive advantages in favor of the French nation: and that the United States have reserved the liberty of treating with every other nation whatever, upon the same footing of equality and reciprocity.”
The injury supposed to have resulted from an abandonment of the modern public law, assumes two propositions, neither of which is true: 1st. That neutral ships make neutral property: 2d. That materials for building ships, are not among the articles considered as contraband of war. By the marine laws of France, Reg. Dec. 1744, Art. 5, it is directed that “If there are found on board of neutral vessels, of whatever nation they may be, merchandizes or effects, belonging to the enemies of his majesty, they shall be good prize, even tho they are not of the growth or manufacture of the enemy’s country; but the vessels shall be released.” Previous to this regulation, and contrary to the law of nations, as Valin acknowledges, if either the ship or the cargo, or any part of it, was enemy’s property, the whole was confiscated, by the laws of France. And at this day, neutral property on board of enemy’s ships, are, by the same laws, liable to confiscation.
As to contraband of war, timber is enumerated among the articles that are so, by Vattel Lib. III, chap. VII, but Valin is much more particular, 2 Vol. 264. “In the treaty of commerce concluded with the king of Denmark, the 23d of August, 1742, pitch and tar were declared contraband; as also rosin, sail-cloth, hemp, cordage, masts and timber, for the building of ships. There would have been, therefore, no reason to complain of the conduct of the English, if they had not violated particular treaties; for of right (de droit) these things are contraband at present, and have been so, since the beginning of this century, which was not the case formerly.” By the modern law of nations, expressly adopted by France, enemies property on board neutral ships is good prize; and by the same law, the number of contraband articles has been increased so as to include the materials for ship building. All the situations were probably foreseen, in which the treaty might operate favorably or unfavorably for France, at the time it was made. It might have been stipulated that materials for ship-building should be deemed contraband, instead of declaring that they should not; or, that the United States should not enter into any treaty in which they should be made so. Neither of these being the case, there is no ground of complaint, except that the consequence is inconvenient, at present, to France, and the belligerent powers allied to her. If timber and naval stores are contraband by the law of nations, to declare them to be so by a treaty, cannot be considered as a privilege granted to one nation, or as injury to any other. The French nation will not persist in asserting, that because the exercise of rights which she has claimed as legitimate on similar occasions, becomes inconvenient when exercised by others, she may therefore refuse to acknowledge and respect them. This would be the language of an haughty despot, in a conquered country, not of justice, honor and good faith from one friend to another.
It is said that the 18th article of the treaty with Great-Britain, suspends all the commercial relations between the United States and France, by preventing the supplies looked for by France from this country.
This article has not introduced any new case, in which provisions may be contraband; It only alters the consequence resulting from a seizure of them, when they are so. Valin (2 vol. 264) says, “By our law, and the law of nations, provisions are not prohibited, except to places besieged or blockaded.” The article complained of, says explicitly, that when provisions and other articles not generally contraband, are become so, according to the existing law of nations, and shall, for that reason, be seized, they shall not be confiscated, but the owners shall be completely indemnified, and receive besides a reasonable mercantile profit. This principle operated as an encouragement for American vessels to seek the French markets, by insuring them against loss, if they happened in any instance to be interrupted in the voyage—France, I presume, might consider our vessels bound with provisions to a place besieged or blockaded, liable to seizure, after due notice of the fact; if, instead of this, they contend for the privilege of paying for them according to the terms of the treaty with Great-Britain, I suppose it will not be denied to them. But, if under pretence that a vessel is bound to a besieged or blockaded port, when she is not, either France or Great Britain should seize or detain her, it is an injury not authorized by the treaty, or the law of nations. This is what both nations have done, when their interest or necessities required it—sometimes with, and often without any apology—and what they will often continue to do, I fear, as long as they know we cannot punish them for it.
These injuries are said to have been received while every object around reminds us of the tyranny of Britain and the generous Assistance of France, during the American war.
The generosity of France and the ingratitude of the United States have been often suggested by some of our own Citizens, and we are now reproached with it by France herself. Gratitude is due for favors received; and this virtue may exist among nations as well as among individuals: but the motive of the benefit must be solely the advantage of the party on whom it was conferred, else it ceases to be a favor. There is positive proof that France did not enter into the alliance with us in 1778 for our advantage; but for her own. The whole course of the negociation, as well as a positive knowledge of the fact, proves this. She resisted all our solicitations for effectual assistance for near three years; and rose in her demands during the campaign of 1777, when our affairs presented the most threatening aspect. Memorials were presented in August and September of that year, while General Burgoyne was advancing from Canada, in a stile of importunity, proportioned to the danger we were in from a junction of the two armies; and they were received with increased coldness from the same cause. But when the knowledge of the capture of Burgoyne’s army arrived in December; fearing we might be able to do the business without them, the French Court began to change its tone. In January the British minister gave notice in the House of Commons, that he meant to propose terms of accomodation with America. The French ministry, on the arrival of this intelligence in France, immediately pressed the conclusion of the treaty which they had resisted for three years, and proposed terms much more favorable for us, than those our Commissioners had offered, and they had refused three months before. The treaty was signed on the 8th February. I perceive no generosity in all this. They did then, as we have done now, and as every discerning nation will do, they regarded only their own interest and advantage, and not that of any other nation. In the interval between the declaration of independence and the alliance, with France, that Court sometimes ordered away our privateers, and sometimes restored their prizes: They refused to receive an ambassador, or acknowledge our independence: All of which was for fear of bringing France prematurely into the war. The fact is, that the French spoke of very different terms, as the condition of their assistance, before the Capture of Burgoyne, from those actually agreed on afterwards. There can be no doubt, that our success on that occasion, and the disposition it appeared to have produced in the British ministry, were the immediate causes of that alliance. It was certainly the interest of the French to unite with America in the war against Great Britain. They therefore acted right in doing this at last, tho with too much refinement in putting it off so long; but it is not the interest of the United States to be engaged in any war whatsoever—much less do they desire to imbrue their hands in the blood of one nation, to gratify the hatred, or serve the interest of another. We have acted right hitherto, in laying it down as a principle, not to suffer ourselves to be drawn into the wars of Europe, and if we must have a war, I hope it will be for refusing to depart from this principle.
Our government has acted with firmness, consistency, and moderation, in repelling the unjust pretensions of the belligerent powers, as far as reason and argument could have weight. If it has not attempted, in every instance, to preserve our rights by force, wherein the remedy would have been worse than the disease, they have not yielded them by concession, in any instance. Into whosoever hands the administration of the government may now come, they are called on by the suggestions of a wise policy, and the voice of their country to pursue the same general line of conduct, that has been hitherto pursued, without yielding to the violence of party on either side.
They will then be sure of the approbation and support of the most virtuous, which it is hoped are the most numerous part, of all parties. On the contrary, if, departing from these principles, they unnecessarily involve their country in the horrors of war, they will meet the merited execration of good men, and in the end, the punishment justly due to such conduct, from an injured people.

Americanus.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Robert Morris, 8 December 1796
From: Morris, Robert
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Alexander Hamilton Esqr
Philada Decemr 8. 1796
Dear Sir

I intended to have sent you Bank notes. Disappointments which are in this City day by day happening have prevented, but the above draft of Joseph Higbie in favor of Garrett Cottringer for $1000 will be honored and you can have it discounted, so that I hope this Remittance will answer the Purpose and you will Credit me for the same.
I am truly   Yrs

RM

J Higbies draft 8 Decr at 30 ds on Robinson & Hartshorne $1000.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Oliver Wolcott, Junior, [8 December 1796]
From: Wolcott, Oliver, Jr.
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia, December 8, 1796]
Dr. Sir

I have recd. your Letter of Decr. 6th. The Warrant for the sum due to the Bank of New York was issued punctually, by some neglect or accident in the Treasurers Office, it remained undischarged. I have taken measures for the payment.
By a Letter from Mr. Wilkes I find that the Bank claim a payment of Interest by way of discount and the 200.000 Dollars continued on Loan on the security of a deposit of Stock. This was not understood by me, nor does it appear a reasonable condition, I will however take measures to prevent any disadvantage to the Bank from the misconception of what was their construction.
The Loan of 120.000 Dolls. has really operated as an advance by the Branch Bank, & has been no other relief, than as it enabled me to assist the Bank here in a critical moment. These Institutions have all been mismanaged, I look upon them with terror, they [are] at present the curse, & I fear they will prove the ruin of the Government. Immense operations depend on a triffling Capital fluctuating between the Coffers of the different Banks; At present business in this City is on the point of stagnation.
I will thank you to inform the President of New York Bank or any other confidential person, that they may rest assured of as full & cordial assistance in any pressure of their affairs, as shall be in my power. I think however that they must principally rely on Sales of Stock, & in my opinion any sacrifice ought to be preferred to a continuance of temporary expedients. In the present state of the Treasy. anticipated payments are not practicable.
It is matter of importance that the proxies for electing Directors should not be placed in improper hands; some attention to this will be useful, if you find it convenient without exciting suspicions of Treasy. interference.
The Treasy. of N. York might have a number of Votes, which would be useful.

Perhaps intimations from the Bank of N York had best to come through you, they will be confidential.
The President will lay the correspondence with France since Genets time, before Congress. A Letter is preparing by Colo. Pickering to Mr. Pinckney in answer to Adet.
Tom Payne has published a book against the President containing the most infamous calumnies: it is a systematical measure of France to destroy the publick confidence in the Friends of Govt. or “Washington Faction.” The question whether our Commerce is or is not to be attacked, depends intirely on the Military operations in Germany & Italy.
If you will part with the Reports of the British Comrs. of Accts. I shall be glad to purchase them. The 1st Volo. is with you the 2d. & 3d. are here. I shall be glad to have the book soon with a bill including Gallatins work.
Yrs. with truth

Oliv WolcottDecr. 8. 96
A Hamilton Esq


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Stephen Higginson, 9 December 1796
From: Higginson, Stephen
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Boston Decr 9. 1796
Dr Sir

Your Letter of 28 of last month I received, & communicated its contents to some of our Electors. a majority of them were at first inclined to throw away their Votes from Mr Pinckney lest he should rise above Adams; but your information as to Vermont; with some observations made to them shewing the danger of so doing decided all but three, who were determined upon interested & personal motives to waste theirs. several hours were spent in discussion before they voted, the result was 16 for Adams, 13 for Pinckney, 2 for Governor Johnston & 1 for Mr Elsworth. Several of Adams’s particular friends were very busy to induce those three to stand firm. They are extremely alarmed for his safety & not without reason. if the other NE: States have been united for Adams & P:, as I expect, the latter will probably get sufficient seperate Votes in the middle & southern States to bring him in; & if Jeffersons friends shall have despaired of his election before the day, they may give many Votes to Pinckney to exclude Adams, in which case he may have a large majority. what then is to be done? Mr Adams & many of his friends will be very clamorous, They will swear the union of Pinckney with him was a trick to prevent his election; & many of Us here shall never again be upon terms with him, he will never forgive our not being willing to hazard all to serve him. his disposition will not brooke the disappointed; & he may be hurried by his temper to break with every one who preferred the public to him.
Should he fail, which I expect, some attempts should be made to conciliate & appease him, or serious inconveniences may result. It may be well for you & Govr. Jay with the president &c to contemplate the Event & arrange for it. Your Judge Smith sent Letters to some of our Electors, & I believe to Newhampshire, soliciting Votes for Burr very strongly, & rather pressing for Jefferson. Mr Holton recd. one from him, & I believe Mr. Gerry also; but Holton was so circumstanced he could make no attempts in favour of Burr, who will not have one Vote I presume in NE: We have yet no accounts from New hampshire, Rhode Island or Connecticut.
Should Pinckney be elected care must be taken early to guard him against Adet &c, who have strong hopes, I know, of attaching him to their Views & party. This will remain with you in the middle States to effect.
With much respect I am Sir yours &c

Stephen Higginson


Title: Federal Republican, [12 December 1796]
From: “Federal Republican”,Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[New York, December 12, 1796]

For the Minerva.
To the Citizens of New-York.
Fellow Citizens,
Elections in Republics are always of importance. The approaching one may with truth be said to be peculiarly so. No one can doubt that the steady and prosperous course of our government, hitherto is very much owing to the well deserved weight and influence of the excellent and beloved patriot, who now fills the presidential chair, and is shortly to quit it. If our best hopes are realized, as to his successor, the state of parties forbids us to expect that he will possess the universal confidence which has enabled his predecessor to stem the torrent of faction, and keep the vessel of state upright. It is then, evidently, of far greater importance than it has heretofore been, that the legislative department shall be well composed, and particularly that there shall be a majority in the House of Representatives, of a character truly American, unequivocally attached to the constitution of our country, resolved to execute the government with fairness, and to pursue under all circumstances, a course of measures, conducive to the true interest of our nation, unbiassed and unwarped by foreign influence or menace. In this great and essential object, all lesser considerations should be lost.
Two candidates are presented to our choice, James Watson, and Edward Livingston. Let us see who of them has the best title. Mr. Watson served his country with reputation, in the army during our war with Great Britain. Mr. Livingston was too young to take any part. Mr. Watson has been repeatedly elected in our state legislature, and has conducted himself with prudence. Mr. Livingston began his public career, as a member of Congress, at its last session, and it was marked with extreme temerity and impropriety. With a total disregard of that modesty, which is one of the best criterions of merit in a young man, and even a duty in an inexperienced young man, he set out with attempting a flagrant inroad upon the constitution of his country—one which if it had not been defended by the firmness of the President and the good sense of the people, would have precipitated us into incalculable evils. Every step of this extraordinary transaction was marked with impropriety. If he was even resolved to participate in the attempt, it was arrogant and unbecoming in him to take the lead. These were plain symptoms that he had not even acted in due concert with the party, with which he had inlisted; for though they came into the measure, they pursued it on ground differently from that which he had taken. His manner of conducting the thing was in other respects exceptionable; characterised by virulent and disgusting exclamations against men who (if they had even erred as he pretended in the measure he combated) had acquired from the uniform tenor of their public and private life, a title to decent treatment at least, and by a manifest spirit of hostility to That Man who has merited and has obtained the love and veneration of all good citizens. When Mr. Livingston’s immediate constituents, and with unexampled unanimity by their memorial to the House of Representatives expressed their sense to him against the course he was pursuing—did he take this sense as a guide? Did he pursue the maxim which the leaders of the party have constantly in their mouth, viz. that the Representative ought to be governed by the sense of his constituents? No such thing—he superciliously persisted to the last in opposing a provision for the treaty. Thus his conduct on the opening of his political career, may justly be denominated, assuming, rash, foolish, intemperate and obstinate.
In the comparison therefore of services, Mr. Watson has positive merit—Mr. Livingston not only no positive merit but positive demerit.
In the comparison of other qualifications, the advantage is full on the side of Mr. Watson. If Mr. Livingston has some outside showey talents, they are more than counterbalanced by the good sense and discretion, knowlege of business and of commerce, maturity of years and experience of Mr. Watson.
Mr. Watson is also a man of republican principles, manners and habits—Let all who have eyes judge for themselves how this description will apply to Mr. Livingston—His democracy, if genuine, is at least more at its ease in a coach.
If we advert to private character, that of Mr. Watson in a religious and moral sense will stand the test. I leave that of Mr. Livingston to the observation and judgment of his fellow-citizens.
One point I must however more particularly touch. To prejudice Mr. Watson it is alleged that he has made his fortune by speculation. This word speculation is of very vague and indefinite meaning. Every merchant is a speculator by the nature of his calling. Is he therefore a bad man? But be all that as it may, one thing is certain—that if Mr. Watson has been a speculator, Mr. Livingston has also been one, and the objection if it means any thing lies against one candidate equally with the other. Here the account is balanced.
But what turns the scale decidedly in favor of Mr. Watson, is his uniform attachment to the constitution and government of his country. Tho known to entertain sentiments friendly to the French revolution, without approving its excesses, he has never been disposed to sacrifice the peace and interest of the country to France—nor is there any danger that he will ever consent to sacrifice the rights and honor of the country to any foreign nation, whether a kingdom or a republic. It is a further consideration in his favor that he is a man free from pecuniary embarrassment and under no temptation from this cause to betray his trust. In choosing a man for an important public station, it is no objection to him that he is not rich. But if he be deeply embarrassed with debt, and withal has habits of expense, it is a very serious objection to him. It may expose his virtue to a severe trial. The example of a certain ex-secretary is a warning to us in this particular.

Federal Republican


Title: [From Alexander Hamilton to the Citizens of New-York], [13 December 1796]
From: “A True American”,Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[New York, December 13, 1796]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Luke Codwise, 15 December 1796
From: Codwise, Luke
To: Hamilton, Alexander

New York, December 15, 1796. “Mr. J W Delaney & myself having made a settlement of our Accounts you will please discontinue the Suit commenced against him on my Account.”


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to William Cooper, [16 December 1796]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Cooper, William

[New York, December 16, 1796]
Dr. Sir

I have received your letter with a Post note of a thousand dollars on account of the Mortgage of the lands formerly Holkers in which Mr. Church is interested. The papers respecting this affair in my possession will be looked up & sent to Mr. Laurance by Mondays Post. This letter will serve you as a Receipt. Yrs. truly

A HamiltonN Y   December 16. 1796
William Cooper Esqr


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Rufus King, 16 December 1796
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: King, Rufus

New York Decr. 16. 1796

I have received, my dear Sir, your several letters of the 25 of August 10 & 11th. of Septr. You know my sentiments towards you too well to ascribe my delay in answering them to any other cause than the imperiousness of avocations with which I could not dispense.
Public opinion, taking the Country at large, has continued since you left us to travel on in a right direction, and, I trust, will not easily deviate from it. You will have seen before this reaches you Mr. Adet’s communications. We conjecture, as to the timing of them, that they were intended to influence the election of President by the apprehension of War with France. We suppose also they are designed in the same way to give support to the partizans of France and that they have for eventual object the placing things in such a state, as will leave France at liberty to slide easily either into a renewal of cordiality or an actual or virtual war with the U States. If the war of Europe continues, the efforts of France will be likely to be levelled as a primary object against the Commerce and Credit of Great Britain and to injure these she may think is adviseable, to make war upon our Trade forgetting perhaps that the consequence may be to turn it more intirely into the channels of Great Britain. These reflections will be obvious to you. I only make them to apprize you of the view which is taken of the subject here. Thus far appearances do not indicate that the purpose of influencing this Country has been obtained. I think in the main the effect has been to impress the necessity of adhering more firmly to the Government.
You need not be told that every exertion, not degrading to us, will be made to preserve peace with France. Many of the opposite party, however they may be pleased with appearances of ill humour in France, will not wish it to go the length of War. And we shall endeavour to avoid it, in pursuance of our general plan of preserving peace with all the World. Yet you may depend that we shall not submit to be dictated to or to be forced into a departure from our plan of neutraily, unless to repel an attack upon us.
Our anxiety has been extreme on the subject of the Election for President. If we may trust our information, which there is every reason to trust, it is now decided that neither Jefferson nor Burr can be President. It must be either Adams or Pinckney, the first most probably. By the throwing away of votes in New England lest Pinkney should outrun Adams, it is not unlikely that Jefferson will be Vice President. The event will not a little mortify Burr. Virginia has given him only one Vote.
It was to be expected of course that the Senates answer to the Presidents speech would be flattering to him. But the result in the house of representatives has been better than was expected. An address which I have not yet seen but stated by our friends to be a very good one has passed the house with only twelve dissentients consisting of the most fiery spirits. The address is not only generally complimentary to the President but includes, it is said, an explicit approbation of his administration—which caused the division. Edward Livingston is in the minority.
After giving you these consolatory accounts, I am now to dash the Cup a little, by telling you that Livingston is in all probability reelected in the City. The principal cause has been an unacceptable candidate on our part, James Watson. There were four Gentlemen who would certainly have succeeded but neither of them would accept. In Watson we could not unite opinions. He was more disagreeable than I had supposed to a large body of our friends—and yet after the declining of the four persons alluded to we could not do otherwise than support him. For he had gotten a strong hold on most of the leading Mechanics who act with us.
But in the state at large we shall better our representation, and I hope for a majority in the next house of Representatives. As an omen of this, there are several new members in Congress from different states, who hitherto vote with our friends.
The favourable change in the conduct of Great Britain towards us strengthens the hand of the friends of Order & peace. It is much to be desired that a Treatment, in all respects unexceptionable from that quarter, should obviate all pretext to inflame the public mind.
We are labouring hard to establish in this country principles more and more national and free from all foreign ingredients—so that we may be neither “Greeks nor Trojans” but truly Americans. Adieu
Affectly Yrs.

A Hamilton
Rufus King Esq


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Herman LeRoy, William Bayard, and James McEvers, 16 December 1796
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: LeRoy, Herman,Bayard, William,McEvers, James

New York, December 16, 1796. Discusses the Holland Land Company’s interest in Robert Morris’s proposed negotiations with the Seneca Indians.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Stephen Higginson, 20 December 1796
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Higginson, Stephen

[New York, December 20, 1796. On January 12, 1797, Higginson wrote to Hamilton: “Your Letter of 20 of last month I have received.” Letter not found.]


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Oliver Wolcott, Junior, [21 December 1796]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Wolcott, Oliver, Jr.

[New York, December 21, 1796]
Dr. Sir

I did not understand by your letter of the 17th. of November whether you meant or not to authorise the immediate commencement of the sale of Stock. If you think this measure will become indispensable, it may be well to anticipate the execution; though indeed sales of Stock are at this juncture nearly impracticable. Yet I imagine it will be agreeable to the Bank to have permission to anticipate.
A very prudent letter has lately been written by the President of the Bank of the U States to the Office of Discount here, among other things, advising a reduction of the ballance due from the Bank of NYork to 100000 Dollars. This letter, which in my opinion leaves, as it ought to do, to the Directors of the Office here discretion to execute the idea with due regard to circumstances, has however been construed by them in too peremptory a light—and accordingly they have drawn from the Bank of New York pretty rapidly 150000 Dollars—which begets an apprehension that subsequent calls may be equally rapid, and exciting fear and jealousy is likely to produce too sudden a retrenchment of the business of the Bank of New York, and as the Office, being confined as they suppose to discounting twice their capital cannot by increased accommodations fill the void, there is danger of stagnating & convulsing the business of the City so as to give a shock to Credit. The Direction here are sensible of the danger, but several of them take the intimation from Philadelphia in too strict a sense—& cannot resolve to alleviate the apprehensions of the Bank of New York.
Though this Bank of NY has reduced and is reducing its discounts, there are circumstances of the moment which continue to incline the ballance in favour of the Office, but it is easy to see, taking in the payments of the Government in February, that there will be a natural change and consequently it is every way imprudent to force them.
If the last loan of the Bank of New York to Government had no other use than that which you hint, this still was very important. And it is interesting all round that a disposition should exist to repeat similar accommodations. But you easily see how cautious & disaffected spirits are armed against it when they can say “We told you that you would embarrass yourself by your loan to Government” & in truth if this had not been made the Bank of New York would now stand on high ground.
Pray interpose with Mr. Willing to obtain an explanatory letter leaving more clearly the time & manner of accomplishing the Reduction of the present Ballance to their discretion.
I will say nothing more of any anticipated payment—but if this were practicable to the extent of 50 or 100000 Dollars it would be consolatory to the Directors & leave the residue more to your convenience.
Dont derive from this letter any source of alarm. Every thing is sound with both Banks here. I know the state of both. But there is danger that fear and jealousy in the Directors of the Bank of New York may produce evil which it is unnecessary to hazard.
I shall send you the first opportunity the volume of Reports of Comrs.
Yrs. truly

A Hamilton

PS Mr Caleb Brewster is a candidate for the Office of first Mate in the Revenue Cutter here. I remember he rendered very meritorious services in the War & I am told has been bred a seamen. In these respects he has a good claim. His character otherwise is not known to me. But if it affords no objection I think he will be an eligible man.
It is said Walker is to resign. In this case Jonathan Burrall wishes to succeed. There cannot you know be a more fit man & he will be intirely acceptable here.

Ol Wolcot Junr Esq


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Oliver Wolcott, Junior, [23 December 1796]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Wolcott, Oliver, Jr.

[New York, December 23, 1796]
My Dear Sir

I wrote to you two days ago on the subject of obtaining an instruction from the Bank of the U States to the Direction of the Office here to prevent a speedy repetition of their call on the Bank of New York. This Bank has so large a proportion of its whole Capital in the power of the Office that if it be not tranquillized on the subject of demands from that quarter, it will be driven to such violent operations as cannot fail to convulse Credit & among other evils prevent the collection of the Revenues. The danger is urgent & a prompt explanation is essential.
The situation of the Bank of NYork is no doubt materially owing to the prolongation of the old & the new loan to Government. Its Capital is 900,000 Dollars—its discount 1600000. Here is certainly no imprudence.
Many of the Merchants here are anxious for an accommodation for the duties similar to that which I upon certain trying occasions made. I know not what is possible on your part.
Yrs. truly

A Hamilton
Decr. 23. 1796
O Wolcot Jun. Esq


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Oliver Wolcott, Junior, 28 December 1796
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Wolcott, Oliver, Jr.

New York December 28. 1796
Dear Sir

I received yesterday your’s by Post, which I communicated immediately to the Directors of both Banks, that is, so much as concerned each party. It has been very consolatory to the Bank of New York & will do good. All will be well.
Mr. Alexander McComb applied, while I was in Office, respecting some land he & Edgar had purchased of the Public and on which they had made a partial payment which by the terms of sale was forfieted. I remember my opinion was under all the circumstances that it was proper for the government to give relief, either by a grant of a quantity of land equitably equivalent to the payment or by restitution of the Circumstances. I will thank you, as far your leisure will permit and your judgment correspond, to pay attention to the subject.
Yrs. truly

A Hamilton
Oliver Wolcott Jun Esq


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to ———, [1796]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[1796]
Dear Sir:

Poor Duer has now had a long & severe confinement—Such as would be adequate for no trifling crime. I am well aware of all the blame to which he is liable and do not mean to be his apologist—though I believe he has been as much the dupe of his own imagination as others have been the victims of his projects. But what then? He is a man—he is a man with whom we have both been in habits of friendly intimacy—he is a man, who with a great deal of good zeal has in critical times rendered valuable services to the Country. He is a husband, who has a most worthy & amiable wife perishing with chagrin at his situation—Your relation by blood—mine by marriage. He is a father who has a number of fine children destitute of the means of education & support every way in need of his future exertions.
These are titles to sympathy, which I shall be mistaken if you do not feel. You are his creditor. Your example may influence others. He wants permission, through a letter of license to breathe the air for five years. Your signature to the enclosed draft of One will give me much pleasure.
Yrs.

AH


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Ann Mitchell, [1796]
From: Mitchell, Ann
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[1796]

My Father—James Lytton Senr. deceased—Planter of the Island of St Croix in the year 1769—In his Will confirmed by his Majesty—he bequeathed ¹⁄₇ of his Estate to my Brother James Lytton Junr.—²/₇ths to his Children to be divided when the youngest was of age—²/₇th to my deceased Sisters Son John Hallwood—and in consequence of my being married to a man unfortunate in his conduct—he nominated my daughter Anne Lytton Venton as Heir to the remaining ²/₇ths—The interest only to be paid to me for our joint support during the life of her Father John Venton. But expressly ordering and willing the said ²/₇ths to be paid to me upon his decease. In order to prevent my Husband from taking measures to compel me to aid him in his indeavours to disannul my fathers Will—Major John Coakley and Thomas Lillie Esqr Executors—and my brother—went with me to General Clawsen and obtained permission for me to come to America with my daughter when the said Thomas Lillie having the direction of my Fathers property remited to me such a part of the interest of the ²/₇ths as was sufficient for our support. In 1775 and 1776 my husband and Thomas Lillie both died. My brother then with out informing me—or the aforesaid Legatee John Hallwood gave up my Fathers Estate and concerns to the Dealing Court. Dealing Master James Lowin immediately sold at publick sale a Sugar Plantation—the principal part of the Estate. My Brother became the purchaser at 65 000 Rld. I received letters from him informing me of it and that he would pay me 6 ⅌ Ct on the ²/₇th of the purchase till the payments were due according to the conditions of the sale and 8 pr Ct from then till paid. This he failed to do. In 1778 and 1779 my brother and a Mr Thomas Tucker who was appointed my Curator by Government, very urgently requested my return to St Croix to attend the close of the Dealing. Upon my arrival there with my daughter I was informed by Dealingmaster Towers my Brother and all parties concerned—that as in their opinion the expression of my Fathers Will was somewhat ambiguous they had had a meeting for the purpose of taking it in to consideration—and that they had agreed my right to demand and receive the ²/₇ths was good—it appearing to be my Fathers intention by ordering it to be paid to me to preserve it for me and not from me. The close of the Dealing was protracted. I could not by the most earnest entreaty procure even as much of the interest as would supply my daughter and self with the common necessaries of Life—and had it not been for the humane and friendly assistance of the Revd Doctr Hugh Knox I could not have supported the distress I found my self involved in. My Brother now sold the Estate to a Mr John James taking in part payment St James Island at the value of 5000 Rld—which with the interest of the 65 000 unpaid while he held the Plantation and the difference of (to the best of my knowledge 5000 Rld in the sale mentioned by taking off some Slaves and what he had before received—amounted to more than his own ¹/₇th. John James Purchaser—then came forward as a Curator to a Don Valesco a Mullato boy said to be a Son of my Brother Peter Lytton insane and deceased before my Father he produced a bit of paper said to be found in his house—bequeathing to said Mullato 11 000 Rld requiring a reservation to be made of that sum in the Estate for said boy. In the same year 1780 a Robert Halliday—a man with out property or Credit made a claim and commenced a suit against my Fathers estate for the sum of 28000 Rld. Dealing Master Towers made these claims a fresh pretext for not closing the Dealing and in his Regulation of it made a reservation of 36 000 Rld for them till decided.
My Brother—with David Beekman Esqr Guardian to my Brothers Children and Dealingmaster Towers now declared themselves dissatisfied with their former award respecting the intention of my Fathers Will and again convened to reconsider it. They now determined that the Portion ordered to be paid to me at the death of John Venton my Husband should not be paid to me so long as my Daughter lived—nor to her so long as I lived. Neither has the interest of it been regularly paid to me—nor could I ever yet learn from them what they allowed my daughter and self a claim to—my Brothers ¹⁄₇th being paid the three remaining shares are equal. In 1781 my Nephew John Hallwood Legatee died. He made a Will bequeathing to me ¼ of what remained unpaid of his share but no part to my Brother or his Children. It was left in the hands of the Rev. Doctr. Knox Executor. In 1780 I married a Mr George Mitchel—Burger who had come to St Croix to attend the process of his Brothers Robert Mitchells Dealing—to which Dealingmaster Towers was indebted 10 000 Rix Dollars by a judgment from Copenhagen. In the course of his attendance and different contests he was obliged to contract some debts—his Creditors became urgent with him concluding that if he withdrew himself his Creditors could and would by their united power compel Dealingmaster Towers to bring forward and close our Dealings—which he found he could not—we came to America—but he has been unfortunately disappointed. In 1791 my husband George Mitchel sent me with my daughter to St Croix with a full power of Attorney. On our arrival we found Hollidays suit and Valesco’s claim appeared no nearer a decision than when we left that place. We found that the Dealing Master Towers had not even obliged John James to pay the interest of the sum for which he purchased the Plantation—that he had to the injury of the Heirs died insolvent—that the said Plantation had been Sold again but no payments made—and that no progress was made in the Dealings of my Father James Lytton Senr or Robert Mitchell. I entreated my Brother and David Beekman guardian to his Children, to join me in a petition to Government they would not. I then in my own name only presented a petition to his excellency General Walterstorff praing him to order the suit of Robert Holliday to be decided. The suit was ordered to be decided and the decision was in favor of my Fathers Estate. Robert Holliday was fined 3 mark danish and to pay all charges. Tho a man destitute of reputation or property he was by some means enabled to appeal to the upper court where his suit Still rests. With difficulty I prevailed with my Brother and David Beekman to attend the then Dealingmaster Mr Prom with me. He read my Fathers Will to them—he expressed with indignation his astonishment at the cruel treatment I had received and said—if there was any meaning in words—it was clear to him I ought to have received ²/₇ths of what my Father died possessed of—at the death of my former Husband. To this my Brother objected, that it was contrary to Mr. Tower’s regulation of the Dealing—and as one of the members of the Dg court was absent—they protested against the proceedings of the day—and would never after attend with me—or join me in any measure for bringing the Dealing to a final settlement and close. Dealing Master Prom then told me he saw I should never recover my right—but by a petition to his Majesty—and that he was satisfied that would prove effectual. In despair of obtaining redress by any other means I made a formal demand of my right in the D. Ct.—and returned in 1792 with my daughter to America where we have suffered and still suffer every hardship incident to poverty—without hope of redress but from the Justice and clemency of—


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Wade Mosby, 1 January 179[7]
From: Mosby, Wade
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Richmond, January 1, 179[7]. Acknowledges message that Hamilton will serve as his attorney in the suit brought against him in New York by Leeds and Mumford. States: “I am sure that when you are fully possessed of all the circumstances relative thereto you will find [it] to be one of the most Rascally proceedings you ever were witness to.… I wait your answer hoping that you will quickly put and end to the Suit and rid me of so disagreeable business.”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from James Ricketts, 1 January 1797
From: Ricketts, James
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Elizabethtown, New Jersey] January 1, 1797. “I feel you will think that I have not paid proper attention to your letter. Immediately on the receipt of it I wrote to Mr. Livingston to send me an account of the Dividends which he had made, and the proportions which he had paid me on acct. of his Sisters Legacy, his answer I recd. the day before yesterday which is as follows: ‘I have recd. your letter of the 26th. Inst. and submitted to Mr. Harrison Council for the Estate, whether the Executors could with propriety comply with your request who answer’d as follows: “I think it will be right you should inform Mr. Ricketts that having instituted a Suit at Common Law, he must proceed therein as he shall be advised, but that the Council for the Executors thinks no information should be given to enable you to prosecute any Cause except in Equity.”‘ I do not know that I am perfectly correct with respect to two of the four Dividends that have been made, because I was not informed of them, and Mrs. Ricketts’s proportion of them was detained by the Executors on acct. of the supposed Debts but I believe them to be as follows. The First was a Dividend of 10,000 Dolls of which I recd. my proportion 1000 Dollrs, the Second & third must have been for 10,000 & about 7,000—my proportion of which is abt. 3000 Dollr. (which sum Mr. Livingston agreed to lay out in 6 pr Ct. Stock) the fourth & last Dividend was 10,000 of which I recd. my proportion 1800. I hope my account of it will enable you to proceed.…”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Edward Carrington, 3 January 1797
From: Carrington, Edward
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Richmond, January 3, 1797. “I have just now seen Mr Wade Mosby of my Neighbourhood in the Country, whose Agent … has just returned from N. York where he has employed you in a Suit to which Mr Mosby is a party. He wishes me to say to you what his Character & circumstances are. I have known him from his Childhood to this day, and can with confidence say he is a man who has supported the character of a Gentleman uniformly, and, being himself honest, is too apt to rely on others being so, as he fatally experiences, I verily believe, in the case now under your care. I am sufficiently informed of the transaction between him & Leeds here to be well satisfied that the debt due to Leeds & Mumford, has been bona fide, paid.…”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Robert Morris, 7 January 1797
From: Morris, Robert
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Philada. Jany. 7th. 1797
Dear Sir

I have arranged with Capt Chas Williamson for the debt Contracted with Colo Wm S. Smith in August 1791 of which fifty Thousand Dollars. in Six ⅌ Ct Stock remains to be transferred and delivered & for the performance thereof I have given to Capt. Williamson Assignee of Colo Smith a satisfactory Security, in Consequence Whereof that Tract of Land in the Genesee Country for which I gave Colo Smith a Deed of Conveyance is to be reconveyed to me, and a Suit which was instituted by Colo Walker in the Court of Chancerry is to be withdrawn & rendered Null & Void, for a more full & perfect information of these matters I refer you to the enclosed Copies of the Articles of Agreement between Colo Smith and me, and of the Defeazant executed by him. The Original of the latter is with me, the Original of the former and the Deed of Conveyance were left with Colo Smith and I suppose are now in the hands of Colo. Walker who Acted as Atty to Capt Williamson, the latter will do every thing to be done for restoring to me my Title to the Tract of Land West of the Genesee River free of all incumbrance either by means of my Deed to Colo Smith or of the suit in Chancerry, but I must request your immediate care and attention as a professional Man to see this done in all due Form & without loss of time for which I will chearfully pay the Compansation you will say is right.
I am Dr Sir   Your Obed Servt

Robt Morris.
Alexr. Hamilton Esqr.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Stephen Higginson, 12 January 1797
From: Higginson, Stephen
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Boston Jany 12. 97
Dr Sir

Your Letter of 20 of last month I have received. The election of Mr. Adams seems to be secured, but with an excess only of one vote, which is close work indeed. This, while it avoids the point I before stated to you, will involve another, I fear, more dangerous & difficult. The blind or devoted partisans of Mr. Adams, instead of being satisfied with his being elected, seem to be alarmed at the danger he was in of failing; & they have the folly to say, that this danger was incurred wholly by the arrangement of pushing him & Pinckney together. They go farther & say, that this arrangement was intended to bring in Pinckney & exclude him. They affect to believe this to have been the intention, because the character of Adams for discernment & independence forbid all hope of influencing the decissions of the Executive, he being the president; but had Pinckney been introduced, his pliability would have continued the influence of a few over the measures of the executive, which has been too conspicuous during the present administration. At the head of this Junto, as they call it, they place you & Mr Jay; & they attribute the design to him & you of excluding Mr A: from the Chair, which the arrangement alluded to was intended to effect. They affect also to believe, that it is for the interest of the Country to have Mr. Jefferson for vice president rather than Pinckney—that he will serve readily under mr. Adams, & will be influenced by & coincide with him.
These Sentiments, however foolish & impudent They may appear, are dealt out freely by some of his particular connections, who seem to consider the Country as made for the man, & not the man for the Country; & it is believed, that mr. A: himself entertains them, perhaps has communicated them. Those who know the man, will not be much surprised if he should himself say the same things, when his feelings are up; & it may happen, that believing thus, he may be cool & distant toward those whom he ought to be intimate with & consult upon important occasions. With such impressions he may attach himself to Jefferson, if he conducts with address, & adopt a line of conduct toward his former friends, which will divide & may much weaken the federal interest.
I suggest to you this much, perhaps not new, with a view to prepare you for appearances, which might otherwise alarm some of our friends who may not expect them. Possibly you may think of some mode of preventing the inconveniences which I fear to result from what I apprehend to be Mr Adams feelings.
With due respect I am Sir yours &c


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Isaac Gouverneur and Peter Kemble, 19 January 1797
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Gouverneur, Isaac,Kemble, Peter

[New York] January 19, 1797. “You are hereby requested to produce on the Trial of this cause during the present term whensoever the same shall be the letters from the Plaintiff to you whereof a list is at foot.…”


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to William Loughton Smith, [19 January 1797]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Smith, William Loughton

[New York, January 19, 1797]
My dear Sir

Mrs. De Neufville widow of Mr. De Neufville formerly of Holland is on her way to Philadelphia to solicit the Kindness of Congress in virtue of services rendered the American cause by her husband. You probably Know their history as South Carolina was particularly concerned. From what I have heard it seems to me her pretensions on the score of her husband to the Kindness of this Country are strong—as a distressed and amiable woman she has a claim to every body’s Kindness.
What are you about in Congress? Our affairs seem to be at a very critical point with France. We seem to be brought to the same point with her as we were with Great Britain when Mr Jay was sent there. One last effort of negotiation to produce accommodation and redress, or measures of self defence. Have you any thoughts of an Embargo? There may be Ere long a necessity for it. Are you in earnest about additional revenue—this is very necessary.
Yours truly

Alexander HamiltonJan. 19. 1797


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, 19 January 179[7]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Washington, George

New York Jan 19. 179[7]
Sir

Mrs. De Neuville widow of Mr. De Neuville formerly of Holland lately passed through this City. On her way she called upon me and announced her intention to make application to Congress on the ground of the political services rendered the UStates by her husband, as in fact a principal cause of his pecuniary misfortunes—and expressed a wish that I would bring her case under your eye. I told her that your situation did not permit you to take an agency on similar matters depending before Congress and that you was very delicate on such subjects. She replied that you might perhaps indirectly promote her cause and that from a letter from you to her husband she was encouraged to think you would be disposed to befriend her. I yielded at last to female importunity & promised to mention the matter. I do not know what the case admits of, but from some papers which she shewed me it would seem that she has pretensions on the kindness of this Country.
Our Merchants here are becoming very uneasy on the subject of the French captures and seizures. They are certainly very perplexing and alarming—and present an evil of a magnitude to be intolerable if not shortly remedied. My anxiety to present Peace with France is known to you—and it must be the wish of every prudent man that no honorable expedient for avoiding a Rupture be omitted. Yet there are bounds to all things. This Country cannot see its Trade an absolute prey to France without resistance. We seem to be where we were with G Britain when Mr Jay was sent there—and I cannot discern but that the Spirit of the Policy then pursued with regard to England will be the proper one now in respect to France (viz) a solemn and final appeal to the Justice and interest of France & if this will not do, measures of self defence. Any thing is better than absolute humiliation. France has already gone much further than Great Britain ever did.
I give vent to my impressions on this subject though I am persuaded the train of your own reflections cannot materially vary.
With respectful & Affect Attachmen I have the honor to remain Sir   Yr. very Obedt

A Hamilton
The President of the U States


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Theodore Sedgwick, [20 January 1797]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Sedgwick, Theodore

[New York, January 20, 1797]
Dear Sir

I received your late letter in due time. You seem to be of opinion to defer to a future period the commencement of direct taxation. I acknowlege I am inclined to lay gently hold of it now. Leaders of the opposite party favour it now, perhaps with no good design. But it will be well to take them while in the humour and make them share the responsibility. This will be the more easy as they are inclined to take the lead. Our external affairs are so situated, that it seems to me indispensable to open new springs of revenue and press forward our little naval preparation & be ready for augmenting it. But on the whole I have always leaned to the opinion that half a million from direct taxes was enough to begin with—nor should I have proposed more.
What are we to do with regard to our good allies? Are we to leave our commerce a free prey to them? I hope not. It seems to me we are even beyond the point at which we were with G Britain when Mr Jay was sent thither & that something like a similar plan ought to be pursued, that is, we ought to make a final effort to accommodate & then resort to measures of defence. I believe ere long an embargo on our own Vessels will be adviseable; to last till the conduct of France changes or till it is ascertained it will not change. In the last event the following system may be adopted—to grant special letters of mark with authority to repel aggressions and capture assaisants—to equip our frigates—to arm a number of sloops of war of existing Vessels to convoy our merchantmen. This may be a middle term to general hostility though it may slide into the latter. Yet in this case it may be well to let France make the progress. But at all events we must protect our commerce & save our honor.
As to the ballance business the agitation of the question has been every way unfortunate. There is not an individual in the state of New York, who is not profoundly convinced that the settlement was wholly artificial and as it regarded the rule of quotaing manifestly unjust, and consequently that there is no justice in paying it. I never saw but one mode of getting through the business which is for Congress to call for a certain sum of each debtor state annually say a fiftieth part declaring that if not paid each installment shall bear interest from the time it becomes due but till then the principal to carry no interest. I believe the state for harmony sake would yield to such an arrangement. It may be said this will be only a nominal payment. I answer—true—but an artificial ballance ought only to be nominally paid. The conduct of some Gentlemen in the late question has pained me much. It is inconsistent with a tacit pledge of faith. Every New Yorker who had any thing to do with our fiscal arrangements has been personally compromitted.
Yrs. truly

A HamiltonJan 20. 1797
Theodore Sedgwick Esqr


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Robert Morris, 21 January 1797
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Morris, Robert

[New York, January 21, 1797. On January 23, 1797, Morris wrote to Hamilton: “Your letter of the 21st inst. is just received.” Letter not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from George Washington, 22 January 1797
From: Washington, George
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Philadelphia 22d. Jany. 1797.
My dear Sir

Your letter of the 19th. instant was received yesterday.
From the general impression on my mind, relative to Mr. De Neuvilles claim on the justice of this country, a delay, or a refusal to administer it, would be hard; but I must add, that I am too little acquainted with the particulars to form a correct opinion, and were it otherwise, I do not see how I could, with propriety, appear directly or indirectly in the business, as I do not recollect having had any agency therein. The numberless applications of this sort which are made to me (often in the dernier ⟨r⟩esort) without the means of relief, are very distressing to my feelings.
The conduct of France towards the United States, is, according to my ideas of it, outrageous beyond conception: not to be warranted by her treaties with us; by the Law of Nations; by any principle of justice; or even by a regard to decent appearances. From considerations such as these something might have been expected; but on her profession of friendship and loving kindness towards us I built no hope; but rather supposed they would last as long, and no longer, than it would accord with their interest to bestow them; or found it would not divert us from the observance of that strict neutrality which we had adopted, & was persevering in.
In a few days, there will be published a statement of facts, in a letter of references, to General Pickney; containing full answers to all the charges exhibited in Mr Adets notes, against the conduct of this government. After reading them with attention, I would thank you for your sentiments thereon, fully, and frankly communicated; and what you think ought further to be attempted, to preserve this country in Peace, consistently with the respect which is due to ourselves?
In some of the Gazettes, and in conversation also, it is suggested that an Envoy extraordinary ought to be sent to France; But is not General Pinckney gone there already for the express purpose of explaining matters, and removing inquietudes? With what more could another be charged? What would that Gentleman think of having a person treading on his heels, by ⟨the time⟩ he had arrived in Paris, when ⟨the argu⟩ments used to induce him to go there ⟨are all⟩ that could be urged to influence ⟨that other⟩—and where is the character to be ⟨had, ad⟩mitting the necessity, in all respec⟨ts accep⟩table and qualified for such a tru⟨st? The⟩ sooner you can give me your sen⟨timents⟩ on these queries, the more plea⟨sing they⟩ will be to
Dear Sir   Your sincere f⟨rd. &⟩ affectionate ⟨Servant⟩

Go: W⟨ashington⟩


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Robert Morris, 23 January 1797
From: Morris, Robert
To: Hamilton, Alexander

A Hamilton Esqr
Philada Jany. 23d. 1797
Dr Sir

Your letter of the 21st inst. is just received none of a previous date in reply to mine of 31st Ulto ever reached me, nor have I received from you any acknowledgement of the receipt of my letter to you of 7th Inst. which was sent by Captn Williamson in order to have the mortgage to Colo Smith removed & the suit in Chancery brought by Colo Walker discharged. This latter is a very important business as you know and I am anxious to know the needfull therein has been done agreably to the promise of Captn Williamson. With respect to the suit meditated by Mr Bridgen I wish measures to be stopped untill Mr Nicholson the drawer of the bill (who is soon expected) shall return from the City of Washington where he now is when I will consult him and make in consequence such propositions as may be acceptable to the parties unless in the meantime the affair should be adjusted with Ralph Mather the last endorser who I suspect to be the real owner of the bill as I have heard of his endeavoring to make a negotiation on the first bill of the suit whilst Mr Bridgen threatens a suit on the second. I will address you again on this business soon as Mr Nicholson arrives & in the mean time I rely on your taking care of Dr Sir
Yr Obedt Servt

RM

P S I am not sure that Mr Mather offered the same bill for negotiation but I suppose it to be so.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Timothy Pickering, 23 January 1797
From: Pickering, Timothy
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia, January 23, 1797. On February 6, 1797, Hamilton wrote to Pickering: “I duly received your letter of the 23 of Jany.” Letter not found.]


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Timothy Pickering, [23 January 1797]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Pickering, Timothy

[New York, January 23, 1797]
Dear Sir

I remember that very early in the day & prior to any act of Great Britain the French passed a decree violating with regard to all the neutral powers the principle of free ships free goods & I think making provisions liable to seizure. This decree was afterwards rescinded as to America—then again revived & then again revoked. I want copies of these decrees for a particular purpose useful to the Government & presuming they must be on the files of your deparment, you will oblige me much by letting me have copies as speedily as may be convenient.
With respect & true esteem   I am Dr Sir   Yr Obed servt

A HamiltonJan 23. 1797
T Pickering Esqr


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, [25–31 January 1797]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Washington, George

[New York, January 25–31, 1797]
Sir

The sitting of the Court and an uncommon pressure of business have unavoidably delayed an answer to your last favour. I have read with attention Mr. Pickerings letter. It is in the main a substantial and satisfactory paper, will in all probability do considerable good in enlightening public opinion at home—and I do not know that it contains any thing which will do harm elsewhere. It wants however in various parts that management of expression & suaviter in modo which a man more used to diplomatic communication could have given it and which would have been happy, if united with its other merits.
I have reflected as maturely as time has permitted on the idea of an extraordinary mission to France, and notwithstanding the objections, I rather incline to it under some shape or other. As an imitation of what was done in the case of Great Britain, it will argue to the people equal solicitude. To France it will have a similar aspect (for Pinckney will be considered there as a mere substitute in ordinary course to Mr. Monroe) and will in some degree soothe her pride. The influence on party, if a man in whom the opposition has confidence is sent, will be considerable in the event of non success. And it will be to France a bridge over which she may more easily retreat.
The best form of the thing in my view is a commission including three persons who may be called “Commissioners Plenipotentiary & extraordinary.” Two of the three should be Mr. Madison and Mr. Pinckney. A third may be taken from the Northern states and I know none better than Mr. Cabot—who or any two of whom may be empowered to act.
Mr. Madison will have the confidence of the French & of the opposition. Mr. Pinkney will have something of the same advantage in an inferior degree. Mr. Cabot without being able to prevent their doing what is right will be a salutary check upon too much Gallicism, and his real Commercial knowlege will supply their want of it. Besides that he will enjoy the confidence of all the friends of the Administration. His disposition to preserve peace is ardent and unqualified.
This plan too, I think will consist with all reasonable attention to Mr Pinkneys feelings.
Or (which however I think less eligible) Mr. Madison & Mr. Pinkney only may be joint Commissioners—without a third person.
Mr. Cabot (if appointed without being consulted) will I think certainly go. If not the other two may act without him.
The power to the Commissioners will be to adjust amicably mutual compensations and the compensations which may be due by either party and to revise and remodify the political and commercial relations of the two Countries.
In the exercise of their power they must be restrained by precise instructions to do nothing inconsistent with our other existing Treaties or with the principles of construction of those with France adopted by our Executive Government as declared in its public acts and communications & nothing to extend our political relations, in respect to alliance—but to endeavour to get rid of the mutual guarantee in the Treaty or if that shall be impracticable to stipulate specific succours in lieu of it, as so many troops, so many ships, so much money &c, strictly confining the casus fœderis to future defensive Wars after a general & complete pacification terminating the present War, and defining offensive war to be where there is either a first declaration of War against the ally, or first commission of actual hostility on the territory or property of the ally by invasion or capture. As to Commerce with the above restrictions there may be full discretion. These are merely inaccurate outlines.
Unless Mr. Madison will go there is scarcely another character that will afford advantage.
Cogent motives of public utility must prevail over personal considerations. Mr. Pinckney may be told in a private letter from you that this is an unavoidable concession to the pressure of public exigency & the state of internal parties.
With true respect & Affect Attachm   I have the honor to be   Sir Yr. Very Obed servt.

A Hamilton
The President.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Fisher Ames, 26 January 1797
From: Ames, Fisher
To: Hamilton, Alexander

(In confidence)
Philada Jany 26. 1797
Dr Sir

My last was written hastily & under some impressions of the moment which I had not time to unfold. The close respecting your taking a seat in the next house (to be elected) would pass for an awkward compliment if you did not know me (and yourself) too well for such an interpretation.
You desire an inside view of our stage. I begin with the outside. Our relations with France are serious. All the french party seem to expect & desire an extra envoy, which is an objection—as probably they hope thus to soothe the resentments so tardily roused against France—to exhibit a shew of supplication on our part, & to ground some new delusive connection on the adjustment of existing complaints. On the other hand, it would be a literal & exact adherence to the late precedent in regard to G. B. it might afford a pretext for the french to relax, & in case they should not, animate & unite opinions for the necessary result. But as mr Pinkney is gone instructed on this very subject, the course adopted is I believe to rely on his mission & not to send an extra Envoy. I wish you would direct your most mature thoughts to the subject, and if you should not approve the negative, you ought, (permit me to say) chuse your own way of bringing your sentiments into consideration in the proper place. Should it not be an object to negotiate an abrogation of the clause which guarantees the W Indie possessions to France? However vague it may be & valid or urgent as our excuses might seem, the clause would embarrass Govt. & furnish a text for partizans to raise clamors in case of a future war (the U. S being at peace) & our non compliance with a demand for its execution.
More taxes are necessary & when trade is so much disturbed by war & will be not much less effected by peace land taxes Seem to be the only safe resource. But my creed is that three things ought first to concur. To systematize & perfect the collection of our internal revenues, to extend them to the most eligible & productive new objects—and to prepare the public mind for the tax on lands, only to the Amot of the deficiency. Neither of these has been effected. The dread of the latter is at the same time the best means of getting more indirect taxes & of conciliating the people to a land tax. It is necessity, the perception of which will produce Salutary efforts in the first instance & a reasonable acquiescence in the next. A tax on Salt is a good one, but it would be hard to carry through, & it’s foes would combine wtih some of it’s advocates to refuse the draw-back on Salted Fish called a bounty—which is not to be admitted. Snuff is condemn’d as vexatious & trivial, that on auctions as bad in principle. The licence tax extended to taverns & so arranged as in part to augment with the sales of the retailer would be productive. To effect this last idea how would it answer to rate licences for 3 Gallons very low for more & under 20 still higher—if a separate licence by the same dealer for Madiera Sherry & Port still higher for each, as he must be a dealer of capital. To abolish the distinction in favor of home made spirits & to levy it on the Sales of all spirits & wines. Equality would not be produced, but inequality as it now exists would be somewhat diminished.
The public should also see a plan or mode of levying a direct tax pass into a law—the vote for the actual levy of a tax to be suspended till the next session & then to be for the deficiency. The moderation of the tax would, on experiment, destroy & disappoint the prejudices against it, and the preparation of opinions would be the best possible. The aversion would seem to have resisted delayed & diminished the evil to the utmost.
The anti gents make their calculations no doubt that a direct tax will sharpen popular feelings—augment clamors against the debt bank &c—enfeeble & discredit the other species of revenue, especially internal. Perhaps they expect favoritism in the assessments.
Our proceedings smell of anarchy. We rest our hopes on foolish & fanatical grounds—on the superior morals & self supporting theories of our age & country—on human nature being different from what it is & better here than any where else. We cannot think it possible our Govt. should stop or that there is the least occasion to provide the means for it to go on. Internal revenues demand system & vigor. The collection must be watched & enforced. We want officers, courts, habits of acquiescence in our country & the principles in Congress that would begin to form any of these. The western country scarcely calls itself dependent on the union. France is ready to hold Louisiana. The thread of connection is slender & that event I fear would break it. Yet we disband regiments.
Our trade has spoliations to endure from France & G Britain. Yet we are not willing to abandon, or protect it as others do by a naval force. An European would be ready to believe we are in jest in our politics or that newspaper declamation and the frothy nonsense of town meetings speeches comprise the principles of our conduct. For I am obliged to observe even good men adopt errors or pursue truth with a spirit not much more friendly to order & stability in Govt than their adversaries! Who for instance can think without alarm on the frequency & seductive nature of the disgraceful sequestration and anti credit motions in the house. Facts of this vile nature do not occur in other countries, or if they do, they precede & create convulsion. Here they are received as civilly as if infamy did not form an atmosphere about them, contaminating all who breathe in it. We are formed but of late for independent sovereignty—experience has not laid on her lessons with birch, & we forgot them. Our whole system is little removed from simple democracy. What we call the Govt. is a phantom, as long as the Democrats prevail in the house. The heads of departments are head clerks. Instead of being the ministry the organs of the executive power and imparting a kind of momentum to the operation of the laws, they are precluded of late even from communicating with the house by reports. In other countries they may speak as well as act. We allow them to do neither. We forbid even the use of a speaking trumpet, or more properly as the Constitution has ordained that they shall be dumb, we forbid them to explain themselves by signs. Two evils obvious to you result from this. The efficiency of the Govt. is reduced to it’s minimum. The proneness of a popular body to usurpation is already advancing to it’s maximum. Committees already are the Ministers, & while the house indulges a jealousy of encroachment on it’s functions, which are properly deliberative, it does not perceive that these are impaired & nullified by the monopoly as well as the perversion of information by these very Committees. The silly reliance of our coffee house & congress prattlers on the responsibility of members to the people &c &c is disgraced by every page of the history of popular bodies. We expect confidently that the house of representatives will act out of it’s proper character—for if it should act according to it, we are lost.
Our govt. will be in fact a mere democracy which has never been tolerable nor long tolerated.
Our proceedings evince the truth of these speculative opinions. No one was furnished with proper information nobody was answerable for what he presumed to give. The Committee of Ways & Means has not I am told written a page these two years. It collects the scraps & fritters of facts at the Treasury, draws crude hasty results tinctured with localities. These are not supported by any form’d plan of co operation with the members, & the report calls forth the pride of all the motion makers. Every subject is suggested in debate, every popular ground of apprehension is invaded—there is nothing to enlighten the house or to guide the public opinion. All this has happened. I am now preaching daily to those few who will hear me rail and endeavoring to form a common sentiment—that some thing must be done—that it must begin & be approved at the Treasury—that the antis will exult in our shame if we forbear to arrange an efficient plan &c. This is in train, not very far advanced, nor with good omens. It is as to our projected combination you will perceive strictly a secret.
My own wishes are to extend our indirect taxes and to pass a bill prescribing the Mode of levying a land tax, holding up the idea in debate at the time of a small amount only. But the apathy & inefficiency of our body is no secret to you. We are generally in a flat calm, & when we are not, we are near sinking in a tempest. When a Sovereign Convention engrosses the whole power it will do nothing or some violence that is worse. Sooner or later individuals & public bodies will act out their principles. Our’s are I fear essentially more democratic than republican, which latter are alone fit for our country. We think the executive power is a mere pageant of the representative body—a custos rotulorum, or master of ceremonies. We ourselves are but passive instruments whenever the Sovereign people chuse to Speak for themselves, instead of our speaking for them.
The momentum imparted to our political machine is Weak & the resistance strong. Faction appears of course in such a State of things. This I confess naturally excites a counter influence—but the power even of party seems to be dissipated. We are broken to pieces. Some able man of the first order of abilities & possessing the rare union of qualities that will fit him to lead a party is wanting. For want of such a leader, many who would do good are useless. My natural temperament unfits me for a Seat where I cannot bear to sit quite inactive although such efforts as I can make will be unavailing.
No session of Congress has exhibited such a dissipation of the party which has been arrayed in support of the Govt. Th⟨is⟩ will be some excuse for my forebodings of the decline of our affair⟨s.⟩
One might have hoped that Govt would find in party all the combination & energy that is excluded from it’s organisation. I see however that this auxiliary unless compacted together by the violent action of the rival party will subdivide or fall into inaction—and even when roused to the utmost, it is in need of a clear Sighted guide.
As this is the state of our politics what is to be done? The friends of the Govt. have increased within two or three Years in numbers & zeal—but few of them Know or could be made to believe that it’s fair outside conceals such alarming weakness.
Your’s truly

Fisher Ames

I understand Bank Shares have been lately attached by law process. This strikes my mind as a very anarchical proceeding.
Porcupine is a writer of smartness & might do more good, if directed by men of sense & experience—his ideas of an intimate connection with G Britain justly offend correct thinkers—& still more the multitude. He proposes a new daily paper, a business much overdone. It’s circulation out of the City will not be great. Would not a paper once or twice a week, exclusively political, answer better. Pray let Webster have the paragraph for his Minerva.