Title: To John Adams from Oliver Wolcott, Jr., 28 March 1800
From: Wolcott, Oliver, Jr.
To: Adams, John

T.D. March 28th. 1800.

The Secy of the Treasury in obedience to the command of the President of the US requiring the opinion of the Heads of the Executive Departments, on the Memorial of sundry Citizens of Baltimore, praying that a pardon may be granted to Levin Jones late Master of the American Brigantine David Stewart, respectfully submits the following Report.
It appears that the said Levin Jones is charged in a Bill found by a Grand jury of the Dist. of Maryland with the crime of willful murder committed on the person of William Davies, Gunner of the said Brigantine David Stewart, during her passage from Leghorn to Baltimore in Feby. 1799. and that a Bill was found against the said —— The defence  on the part of the said Jones it is alleged that the death
It is alledged by the memorialists on behalf of Capt. Jones, that a mutiny existed on board the said Brig—and that the death of the said William Davies, was occasioned by his unlawful opposition to the command of the Master—& that the Bill was found on the testimony of persons, concerned in the Munity  who were of course interestested in establishing the charge of Murder  against Captain Jones, thereby to avoid the punishment due to their own Guilt. Several  depositions taken before the Consul of the U States at Gibraltar in March 1799, are exhibited, by which it appears probable, that a Mutiny really existed and that  the Act of Capt. Jones, was justifiable under the peculiar circumstances in which he was placed.
On the ground however that the act impartial & proper witnesses of the transaction, were absent , Capt. Jones has thought proper to abscond and avoid a trial, and his friends now pray that a pardon may be granted,  that he may thereby be enabled to return with safety to his friends & Country.
The Secy. is of opinion that it is incumbent on Capt. Jones to submit to the justice of his Country in full confidence that a fair and impartiall Trial will be allowed, and that even in the event of a conviction, the President will hear an application for pardon & decide thereon as humanity  and justice will shall require—
The voluntary absence of the accused, is of itself an offence, which on public principles, forbids a compliance with the wishes expressed by his friends in his favour.
All which


Title: To John Adams from Timothy Pickering, 29 March 1800
From: Pickering, Timothy
To: Adams, John

Department of State March 29. 1800

On the petition of David Steward & other respectable citizens of Baltimore, praying the President to order a nolle presequi in the case of Captain Levin Jones, late master of the American Brigantine called the David Stewart, who has been indicted for the crime of murder committed, as alledged on the body of William Davis one of his crew, on the high seas. The Secretary of State, in obedience to the President’s direction, submits to him the following opinion.
That in general it must be inexpedient to stop investigations of the courts of justice into alledged offences against the laws, especially when they are of a kind to be punished capitally. Because it is difficult to estimate satisfactorily the weighing evidence, until the whole shall on both sides be exhibited, and consequently to decide on the innocence or guilt of the accused: so that to quash the process in this stage of it, might be deemed a premature act; and an unnecessary interference with the judiciary department. Because masters of vessels being at sea necessarily vested with discretionary power, many exercise it with undue rigour, and some with extreme cruelty; and complaints against whom, therefore, merit enquiry for the protection of a very useful class of citizens, and for the interest of commerce. Because in the present case the absence of several essential witnesses as stated by the petitioner, will induce the court to postpone the trial, allow Captain Jones a reasonable time to procure them. Because the natural  tenderness of Juries, in trials of capital offences, demanding very strong evidence of guilt to induce conviction, innocence can scarcely be in danger. And because, if finally a trial should be had without those witnesses, and a conviction follow their depositions, which state the facts circumstantially, and concur in shewing the necessity of force on the part of Capt. Jones to quell the mutiny, will furnish strong  and, as it appears to the Secretary, adequate ground for a pardon. Those depositions are originals, authenticated by the American Consul Gavino  at Gibraltar, whose signature is to the Secretary well known, and who, in a letter dated the 23d of March 1799, transmitted copies of them to the department of State.
By the inclosed extract of a letter from Mr. Appleton American Consul at Leghorn, dated the 7th. of January 1799, it appears that the disposition of Captain Jones’s crew to mutiny was manifested at that place, and that strong measures were necessary to reduce them to obedience. Nevertheless, for the reasons above stated, the Secretary is of opinion, that the prayer of the people ought not to be granted.

Timothy Pickering


Title: From John Adams to James McHenry, 31 March 1800
From: Adams, John
To: McHenry, James

Philadelphia March 31 1800

The President of the United States, requests the Secretary of War to send him without delay a list of the officers of the army who were appointed during the last recess of the Senate of the United States, that the President may be enabled to make their nominations as the constitution requires.


Title: From John Adams to James McHenry, 31 March 1800
From: Adams, John
To: McHenry, James

Philadelphia March 31 1800

The President of the United States requests of the Secretary of War, immediate information, whether the commissions have been sent to all the officers of the army or not, and if not, how many remain to be sent.


Title: From John Adams to Benjamin Stoddert, 31 March 1800
From: Adams, John
To: Stoddert, Benjamin

Philadelphia March 31st 1800

The President of the United States requests the Secretary of the Navy to take immediate measures for carrying into execution the resolution of congress of the 29th, for presenting to Capt Thomas Truxton, a golden medal emblematical of the late action, between the United States frigate Constellation of thirty eight guns & the French ship of war La Vengeance of fifty four, in testimony of the high sense entertained by Congress of his gallantry & good conduct in the above engagement, wherein an example was established exhibited by the Captain officers sailors & mariners honorable to the American name & instructive to its rising navy.


Title: From John Adams to Benjamin Stoddert, 31 March 1800
From: Adams, John
To: Stoddert, Benjamin

Philadelphia March 31st 1800

The President of the U.S. requests the Secretary of the Navy to employ some of his clerks in preparing a catalogue of books for the use of his office. It ought to consist of all the best writings in Dutch, Spanish French & especially in English, upon the theory & practice of naval architecture, navigation, gunnery Hydraulicks, Hydrostatick & all branches of mathematicks, subservient to the profession of the sea. The lives of all the admirals, English, French Dutch or any other nation, who have distinguished themselves by the boldness & success of their navigation or their gallantry & skill in naval combats. If there are no funds, which can be legally applied by the Secretary to the purchase of such a library, application ought to be made to Congress for assistance.


Title: From John Adams to United States Senate, 31 March 1800
From: Adams, John
To: United States Senate

Gentlemen of the Senate
United States March 31st 1800

I nominate John Brooks of Massachusetts to be a Major General in the army in the place of Henry Knox who has declined His appointment

John Adams


Title: To John Adams from James McHenry, 31 March 1800
From: McHenry, James
To: Adams, John

War Department 31 March 1800.

The Secretary of War in compliance with the desire of the President communicated through the Secretary of State, has the Honour respectfully to submit the following facts and opinions in the case of Captain Levin Jones, against whom a bill has been found by a Grand Jury for Murder.
It is respectfully conceived that the Prerogative of granting a nolle prosequi ought not to be exercised but with great caution and on the fullest information that, from the Nature of the case, can be obtained; especially after an indictment found for the atrocious crime of Murder. An Application is made to the President, by a number of respectable Merchants of the City of Baltimore, for a nolle prosequi for Captain Levin Jones indicted  Court for the State of Maryland at November term last past, for the murder of William Davis, a Gunner on board of the Brig called the David Stewart, of which the said Jones was Commander.
The Ground of this application is ten Depositions taken before the Consul of the United States at Gibraltar, on the eighteenth day of March last, (1799). The applicants declare “that the character of Captain Jones is strictly entitled to esteem for his uniform observance of integrity and general propriety.”
1. It appears that the Brig David Stewart sailed from Leghorn on the twenty third of February 1799 for Baltimore; that there were then on board of the said Brig (besides Captain Jones) two mates, the first called Bailey and the second William Church—Three passengers Daniel Adlington, Nathaniel Sherman, and Antonio Pavlovich (or Cavolovich), William Davis, Gunner; Antonio Aschiero—Boatswain and about seventeen Seamen; the names of seven of whom were Yankee Bill, William Tall, William Tittle, John Aspridge, John Morris, Washington Jones and John Hodson, called a Boy, and about ten others names unknown in all about twenty five or twenty six.
2. It appears that on the 24th. of February 1799, Captain Jones killed William Davis, and Captain Jones alledged that on that day said Davis and seven others mutinied, and that he killed Davis for that cause. It appears that Capt. Jones put two of the Mutineers, Yankee Bill whom he had wounded, and William Tittle on Board of Capt. Lasher; that three others of the mutineers, whose names also are unknown, were, put in Irons on board the Brig; and that ten others of them, names unknown, were pardoned by Capt. Jones.
3. It appears that the Brig David Stewart arrived at Gibraltar on the eleventh of March, 1799.—that ten depositions were taken at Gibraltar on the eighteenth of the same month, of the following persons, to wit; Captain Christopher Lasher, Commander of the Ship Elizabeth, Antonio Cavolovich and Daniel Adlington, Passengers. Antonio Aschiero, Boatswain, John Morris, William Tall and John Aspridge Mariners, and on the nineteenth, William Church second Mate, Nathaniel Sherman Passenger and Washington Jones Mariner on board the said Brig.
4. It appears that the Mutineers had neither Arms nor Weapons, and that there was then on board the Brig Captain Jones, who was armed, three passengers, his two mates, ten or twelve Seamen, Captain Lasher and the Crew of his Boat in all about twenty.
5. It appears that Captn. Jones was indicted at Baltimore at last November term, that he fled from Justice, and has not delivered himself up.
6. It does not appear that the above depositions were taken in consequence of any application to Lord St. Vincent. It was not appear why the deposition of Bailey, the first mate, and the other Seamen were not taken, and it is probable that Capt. Jones was at Gibraltar when the depositions were taken.
7. It does not appear on whose testimony the indictment was found against Capt. Jones, which can be ascertained by comparing the names on the Indictment with the shipping articles.
8. It does not appear from Capt. Lasher’s Deposition that there was a mutiny when he was on board.
9. The facts stated by Antonio Cavolovich, Antonio Aschiero and John Morris, do not amount to a mutiny; but their opinion of the plan to possess themselves of the Brig, if well founded, is a strong circumstance: the evidence of John Morris of the Conspiracy, is also corroborative of that intention.
10. The Facts stated by William Tall and John Aspridge, do not amount to a mutiny, altho’ the declaration of William Davis was most outrageous and violent.
11. The facts stated by Daniel Adlington shew that there was no mutiny, but that there was a great disobedience of Orders and that the Resistance of Davis was to prevent his being put on board Captn. Lasher.
12. The facts stated by William Church, Nathaniel Sherman and Washington Jones, are more full than any others, but still it may be doubted whether they amount to a mutiny.
13. All the depositions were taken ex parte.
14. It is very probable that all or most of the witnesses came to Baltimore, and their depositions ought to have been taken in that City.
On the whole, the Secretary is respectfully of opinion that before a nolle prosequi should issue, there should be further inquiry which can be procured from Baltimore, from the Attorney of the District and others. The character given to Captn. Jones has no relation to the Subject. It is said that the Justice, who issued the Warrant against Captn. Jones, took Bail, and that he remained in Baltimore until the Indictment was found.
All which is most respectfully submitted.

James McHenry


Title: From John Adams to United States House of Representatives, March 1800
From: Adams, John
To: United States House of Representatives

Gentlemen of the house of representatives
Feb.-March 1800

In compliance with your resolution of the instant I lay before you a copy of the requisition made by the Minister plenipotentiary of his Britannic majesty that Thomas Nash committed to gaol at Charlestown in South Carolina under a charge of being guilty of pyracy and murder on board the British frigate Hermione sailing on the high sea should be delivered up to Justice in pursuance of the 27th. article of the treaty of amity commerce and navigation between the United States and his Britannic majesty and copies of the other papers and letters mentioned in the resolution relative to the delivery of the said Thomas Nash who is the same person otherwise called Jonathan Robins.
Believing a judicial examination of the evidence of criminality proper and requisite for a just execution of that article of the treaty, my desire and request was communicated by the secretary of State to the judge of the district of South Carolina, that Thomas Nash then confined in gaol under a charge of pyracy and murder committed in the British frigate Hermione upon the high sea should be delivered up to justice to the officer authorised to receive him on the part of his Britannic majesty to receive him provided there was such evidence of criminality as according to the laws of the United States would justify his apprehension and commitment for trial if the crime had been committed in South Carolina.
The judge having in  conformity to my intentions fairly examined and impartially weighed the evidence produced before him was of opinion that there was such evidence of criminality against the prisoner as according to the laws of the United States would justify his commitment for trial if the crime had been committed in South Carolina and directed him to be delivered up to justice to the officer authorised on the part of his Britannic majesty to receive him which was done accordingly.
Though the delivery of Thomas Nash has been substantially right yet perhaps the mode may not be wholly free from exception, and if the wisdom of congress shall suggest a better mode of proceeding for carrying into effect upon future occasions the salutory stipulation contained in the 27th. article it shall meet with my approbation & ready concurrence—


Title: From John Adams to United States Senate, 1 April 1800
From: Adams, John
To: United States Senate

April 1. 1800

Message of the President with Military Nominations
Benjamin EaselyGeorgiaCaptainBenjamin F. TrapierSouth CarolinadittoNoah KelseyGeorgia.dittoZachariah NettlesSouth CarolinadittoJohn MitchelldittodittoJohn BrowndittoFirst LieutenantCharles BoyledittodittoWilliam Taylor Junr.dittodittoJosias Heyward dittodittoPeter Williamson GeorgiadittoStanmore ButlerSouth CarolinadittoGeorge ClaytonGeorgiadittoWilliam W TrapierSouth Carolina dittoThomas Osborne JunrdittoSecond LieutenantCharles Codnor AshdittodittoJohnson WellbornGeorgiadittoWilliam Darkeyditto dittoFrancis RogersSouth Carolina dittoCharles Jones JenkinsdittodittoSixth Regiment of Infantry.James ReadNorth CarolinaLieutenant Colonel CommandantAlexander Duncan MooredittoMajor.William Brickellditto dittoJames Taylor dittoCaptainWilliam Dickson ditto dittoEli Gaither ditto dittoEdmund Smithwick ditto dittoWilliam Hall ditto dittoJohn Williams ditto dittoJohn Nicholas ditto dittoSamuel G. Barron ditto dittoMaurice Moore ditto dittoJames MackeydittoFirst LieutenantMcKinney Long ditto dittoBenjamin Smith ditto dittoCarleton Walker ditto dittoEdward Jones ditto dittoDavid T. W. Cook dittoSecond LieutenantMarcus Sharpe ditto dittoJames MorrisNorth CarolinaSecond LieutenantJohn Wilkinsonditto dittoJohn Carroway ditto dittoAbner Pasteur ditto dittoBenjamin Forsyth ditto dittoHugh Montgomery ditto dittoAlexander Hunter ditto dittoRoger Cutler dittoSurgeon.Seventh Regiment of Infantry.William H. BlueVirginiaCaptainvice Turner declined2d Lieut.John Heiskell"First Lieutenant vice Carrington declined"Jesse Dold"dittovice Morgan Paymaster"Horatio Stark"dittovice Heiskell Adjutant"Marquis Combs"dittovice Stark Quarter MasterGeorge Armistead"dittovice Godwin resignedWilliam Saunders"Second Lieutenantvice Heiskell promotedBartlett Anderson"dittovice Dold promotedFrancis W. Cook."dittovice Stark promotedPhilip Roots"dittovice Combs promotedJohn F. Powell"dittovice Deane declinedJacob Call"dittovice Armistead promoted.
Francis H. Peyton"SurgeonThaddeus Capron"Surgeons Mate.
James W. Wallace"dittoEighth Regiment of Infantry.Laurence ButlerVirginiaMajorvice Morgan declined2d. Lieut.James Tutt"First Lieutenantvice Bent Paymaster"Simon Owens"dittovice Tate AdjutantJohn Meredith"Second Lieutenantvice Settle declinedJohn Stephens"dittovice Wills declinedRobert Bell"dittovice Tutt promotedUriah Blue"dittovice Owens dittoRichard Taylor"dittovice Williams declinedRobert Little"dittovice Humphries Quarter Master
Edward Conrad"SurgeonSamuel M Griffith"Surgeons MateNinth Regiment of Infantry.Richard EarleMarylandCaptain   vice Nicholson declinedJohn Thompson"First Lieutenantvice Howard declinedRobert Gover"dittovice Pinckney PaymasterGeorge Peter"Second Lieutenantvice Hughes AdjutantJoseph Bentley"dittovice Ford declinedBenjamin Nowland"dittovice Cooper Quarter MasterRobert Geddes
 " SurgeonDardan Brown"Surgeons MateCharles A Beatty"ditto.Tenth Regiment of Infantry.Robert Westcott Pennsylvania Captain vice Atlee declinedAlexander McNair"First Lieutenantvice Nelson declinedDavid Irwing"dittovice Westcott declinedPaul Weitzell"dittovice Sharp PaymasterDavid Offley"dittovice Irwing AdjutantSamuel R. Franklin"dittovice Offley Quarter Master2d. Lieut.William Morrow"dittovice Franklin Paymaster
John Hay "Second Lieutenantvice Porter declinedRobert George Barde"dittovice Witner declinedJoseph Knox"dittovice Morrow promotedWilliam Hurst "SurgeonGeorge Wilson"Surgeons MateJames Irwine"dittoEleventh Regiment of Infantry.1 Lieutt. Samuel ErwinPennsylvaniaCaptainvice Hunt resignedJohn CaldwellDelawareFirst Lieutenantvice Ogden Quart. MastrCharles B GreenNew Jerseydittovice McWhorter PaymasterWilliam J. Anderson"dittovice Potter Adjutant2d. Lieut.Thomas Bullman"ditto vice Reading resigned"Henry Drake"dittovice Erwin promoted.
Thomas Y. How"Second Lieutenantvice Bullman promotedJoseph Vancleve"dittovice Read resignedLaurence Mulford"dittovice Drake promotedJohn Chetwood"SurgeonJohn Howell"Surgeons MateJohn C. Wynans""Twelfth Regiment of Infantry.Captain Dowe J. FondyNew York  Majorvice Hutton declined2d. Lieut.William Cocks"First Lieutenantvice Paulding declined"William Cumming"dittovice Smith Paymaster"Joseph C. Cooper"dittovice Jones declined"Thomas H. Williams"dittovice Cocks AdjutantIsrael Loring"Second Lieutenantvice Cocks promotedJoseph Herkeimer"dittovice Harrison declinedJacob Mancius"dittovice Cumming promotedNathaniel Smith"dittovice Cooper dittoCornelius Kip"dittovice Hoffman promotedTobias V. Cuyler"dittovice Williams promotedWalter B. Vrooman"dittovice Brown deceasedJohn H. Douglas"Surgeons MateSamuel Davis"dittoThirteenth Regiment of InfantryNathaniel Ruggles Connecticut First Lieutenantvice Mosely PaymasterJohn Beers"dittovice Clark AdjutantNathaniel Noyes"Second Lieutenantvice Wells declinedFanning Tracey"dittovice Learned declinedJoseph Trowbridge"SurgeonTimothy Pierce"Surgeons MateJohn Orton Junr"dittoFourteenth Regiment of InfantrySamuel Mackay MassachusettsCaptainvice Pierce declinedJohn Hastings"dittovice Lithgow dittoHenry Sargent"First Lieutenantvice Beale declinedFrancis Barker"dittovice Soley declinedWilliam Gardner"dittovice Ashman declinedRufus Child"dittovice Duncan PaymasterPeyton Gay"Second Lieutent.vice Bates declinedThomas Hale"dittovice Ingraham resignedCharles Blake"SurgeonFifteenth Regiment of InfantryEli ForbesMassachusettsCaptain   vice Philips declinedThomas Stevens"First Lieutt:vice Swan PaymasterAugustus Hunt"dittovice Cutler Quarter Mr.Nathan Parks"Second Lieut.vice Hall declined.
Oliver Mann"SurgeonJonathan White"Surgeons MateEbenezer Laurence"dittoSixteenth Regiment of Infantry.Rufus GravesNew HampshireLieut Col. CommandantCornelius LyndeVermontMajorIsrael W KellyNew HampshireFirst Lieutt.vice Gardner declinedThaddeus Kendall"dittovice Hutchins dittoMarmaduke WaitVermontdittovice Whitney dittoBenjamin F StarkeNew HampshireSecond Lieut.vice Green ditto

John Adams


Title: To John Adams from Benjamin Henfrey, 1 April 1800
From: Henfrey, Benjamin
To: Adams, John

Sir
April the 1st. 1800—

Having noticed in the publick papers, that a motion had been made in Congress, by an Honble. Member, to empower your Excellency, to send out a person, or persons, to treat with the Indians; for the Land where the Virgin Copper is on Lake Superiour, And having made a Tour to the Lakes, for the purpose of Ascertaining this important fact, in which I succeeded to the satisfaction of the Company, on whose Account I went out, (and of which I was a partner) as your Excellency will see by the inclosed letters from two of the Gentlemen interested which I beg that your Excellency will peruse and consider of a private nature.
I also humbly commit to your perusal the inclosed Pamphlet with a view to give your Excellency all the means in my power of judging how far I may be an eligible person to go out (as a practical Mineralogist & Miner) with the Gentlemen whom your Excellency may entrust with this important negociation, and should I be so fortunate as to be thought worthy of your Excellencys notice every care and exertion in my power shall be used to bring this Important object into speedy Operation and which may soon be accomplished after the business is arranged with the Indians.
Knowing something of the temper of the Natives who are to be treated with may I venture to inform your Excellency that I am acquainted with an Indian Trader in that Country who has very great Influence among them and who (I will answer for) is a firm friend to this Government full proof of which he gave during General Waynes and former Indian Wars, he is a native of New Jersey and a Man of information and property.
This person could be engaged if your Excellency should approve the Measure and as I spent near two years amongst the Indians on the Lakes It may be in my power to render some service to the Gentlemen whom you may appoint to go out on this business.
May I inform your Excellency that after General Waynes treaty and while he was Absent at Philadelphia that several of the Nations on the Wabash and Lake Michigan had begun to raise the Hatchet against one another and which General Wilkinson empowered me to go and try to bury which I happily effected and they have remained at peace ever since. During my Tour I redeemed and brought In several unfortunate Captives  a Certificate of one party. A Certificate of one party I have the honor to inclose to your Excellencys. I also induced some Chiefs of the Pottowatamics & Ottawas to come in from the West of Lake Michigan and who told General Wayne that they were come to add another Link to the great Chain that he had formed and that he would find it none of the weakest.
Being an Englishman I deem it proper to note these particulars that your Excellency may be convinced of My sincerity it may also be proper to note that I am eight years in the Country and that I have obtained Certificates of Citizenship both of this state & of the Union.
Should I be so fortunate as to be thought eligible for the place I humbly solicit, if Your Excellency will Order your Commands to be addressed as under they shall be immediately attended to by / Sir / Your Obedt & most Humble Servant
Benjamin HenfreyGap Copper Mines near Lancaster
PS May I inform your Excellency that on my return from the Nor. Western territory I gave a peice of the Copper to General James Wilkinson who shewed it to your Excellency in Jany 1797. Since which I have been prosecuting this work, at Considerable expence with a Company who do not enable me to carry on the works with spirit. I am now executing a small Contract for the Secretary of the Navy for Copper Nails. Should I have the Honor to be employed by order of your Excellency these works will still be carried on.


Title: To John Adams from James McHenry, 1 April 1800
From: McHenry, James
To: Adams, John

Sir.
War Department 1 April 1800

The Seccy. of War begs leave to inform the President that commissions have been transmitted, to all the officers of the new regiments whose appointments have been confirmed by the Senate.
It would have been a very useless and unnecessary expence to have made out commissions for those appointed in the recess of the Senate, inasmuch as new ones must have been issued on their appointment being advised by the Senate.
The uniform practice of the office has been, not to issue a commission to any officer whose appointment depended upon the concurrence of the Senate until that concurrence was obtained.
I have the honour to be with the greatest respect, Sir your ob. st.

James McHenry


Title: From John Adams to United States Senate, 2 April 1800
From: Adams, John
To: United States Senate

Gentlemen of the Senate
April 2d. 1800.

I nominate the following List of Promotions and Appointments in the Army of the United States
            Promotions and Appointments in the Army of the United States

            Chaplains.Israel Evans...Massachusetts.Andrew Hunter... New JerseyWilliam Hill... Virginia

            First Regiment of Artillerists & EngineersLieut. James Sterret...Captain...vice Demlar deceased." George Izard... ditto...  vice Pope deceased"
 Robert Rowan... ditto...vice Massey deceasedSecond Regiment of Artillerists & EngineersCaptainDecius Wadsworth...Major...vice Brooks deceasedLieut. Theordore Memminger... Captain...vice Wadsworth promoted.William A. Barron...Massachusetts.ditto.First Regiment of Infantry.Captain Thomas Martin...Major...vice Cushing. Division 2 Mass.1 Lieut. Ferdinand L. Claiborne... Captain...vice Hreemer, cashierd" Elijah Strong...  ditto...vice Britt... deceased." Nicholas Rosencrantz... ditto...vice Martin promoted.2d Lieut. Philemon C. Blake... First Lieutenant. vice Claiborne promoted"Moses Hook... ditto...vice Semple Adjutant"Joseph H Dwight...ditto...vice Peyton Paymaster"Joshua S. Rogers...ditto...vice Strong promoted"Andrew Van Wort...ditto...vice Rosencrantz promoted"Peter Robinson...dittovice Rogers. QMaster.Second Regiment of Infantry1 LieutNanning I Vischer...Captain...  vice Turner Brigade Inspector
2 Lieut.John Whipple... First Lieutenant.vice Butler resigned"John V. Glen...ditto...vice Whipple Quarter Master"Zebulon M. Pike...ditto...vice Richmond Adjutant
"Nathan Heald...ditto...  vice Thompson deceased
"William Laidlie...ditto...vice Vischer promoted.
"John Wilson...ditto...vice Allison deceased
"James Dill...ditto...vice Wilson. Pay Master.Third Regiment of Infantry.1 Lieut.Peter Marks...Captain...vice Guion Brigade Inspector
2d Lieut.Hugh McCall...First Lieutenant  vice Davidson deceased
"Samuel Lane...ditto...vice Scott resigned."
 Patrick McCarty...ditto...vice Fero resigned" Matthew Arbuckle...  ditto...vice Strother resigned"John Horton...  ditto...vice Smith appointed Adjutant
" John Saxon...ditto...vice Boote-Aid to Genl Wilkinson"James Ryan...  ditto...vice Schuyler Quarter Master" Stephen S. Gibbs...ditto...vice Marks promoted.Fourth Regiment of Infantry.1 Lieut. Campbell Smith...Captain...vice Thompson resigned
2. Lieut.Gabriel Jones...First Lieutenant...vice Swaine Quarter Master"
 Samuel McGuire...ditto...vice Chandler. Pay Master" Thomas Blackburn... ditto...vice Salmon... Adjutant
                    " Daniel Newnan...ditto...vice Smith... promoted.

John Adams


Title: From John Adams to United States Senate, 2 April 1800
From: Adams, John
To: United States Senate

Gentlemen of the Senate
United States April 2d 1800.

I nominate Richard Wall Esqr. of Georgia to be naval officer for the port & district of Savannah in the place of Lach. McIntosh Esqr. resigned.

John Adams


Title: To John Adams from James McHenry, 2 April 1800
From: McHenry, James
To: Adams, John

Sir.
War Department 2 April 1800

I find myself indespenssibly compelled, altho’ with the most perfect deference and respect, to represent, that the greatest embarrassments and impediments, in conducting the business of, and well grounded complaints against, the Department of Government, with which I have the honour to be charged, have been occasioned by delays occurring in the office of the accounting officer, or refusals, to adjust and settle accounts, principally of a contingent nature allowed by me, and to justify which delays or refusals—he appears, to rely, either upon principles, which are conceived to be unfounded, or powers not supposed to be vested in him.
The situation of things, produced by the existing collisions, of a branch with the Principal of the Department respecting objects of a contingent nature, the denial of information to applicants, as to the vouchers necessary to support charges, in other cases—and a practice recently adopted, of refusing compensation for extra service, on the ground of officers receiving the pay and emoluments, attached to their respective military grades, and no more being expressly provided for by law—will most iffectually tend, to put down a military establishment in an indirect way, for officers will not be able to subsist—if allowance for extra service, and increased expense thereby occasioned, which military subordination might seem not to permit them to refuse, shall be denied.
To recur back to the constitution of the Department of War. By an “act to establish an Executive Department, to be denominated the Department of War” passed the 7th of Augt. 1789, it is provided by the first section thereof—“That there shall be an Executive Department , to be denominated the Department of War; and that there shall be a principal officer therein, to be called the Secretary for the Department of War, who shall perform and execute such duties, as shall from time to time be enjoined on, or entrusted to him, by the President of the United States, agreeably to the Constitution, relative to military commissions, or to the land or naval forces, ships, or warlike stores of the United States, or to such other matters, respecting military or naval affairs, as the President of the United States, shall assign to the said Department, or relative to the granting of lands to persons entitled thereto, for military services rendered to the United States, or relative to Indian affairs: and furthermore that the said principal officer, shall conduct the business of the said Department in such manner, as the President of the United States shall from time to time order or instruct”.
The Department of War, by this act, is made one of the great executive members of the government, and the Secretary or Chief officer thereof, is made the organ of the Supreme Magistrate, or President, as to all matters relative to the army, or the military, and it is from the Chief Magistrate, that all the acts of the Secretary are presumed to emanate,—for he is expressly subjected to the orders and instructions of the President.
“An act making alterations in the Treasury and war Departments” passed the 8th of May 1792, provides,—“That there be an Accountant to the Department of War who shall be charged with the settlement of all accounts, relative to the pay of the army, the subsistence of officers, bounties to soldiers, the expences of the recruiting service, the incidental and contingent expences of the Department, and who shall report from time to time, all such settlements, as shall have been made by him, for the inspection and revision of the accounting offices of the Treasury; and the said accountant, shall also be charged, with the settlement of all claims for personal service authorized by the act of this Congress of the 27th of March last, and of all military claims, lodged in the late office of the Pay Master General, and commissioner of army accounts, which are not foreclosed by the acts of limitation of the late Congress, and he shall report from time to time all such settlements as have been made by him, for the inspection and revision of the Treasury”
By the enumerated duties prescribed to the accountant, by this act, he would seem to be entirely a ministerial officer, and to be cloathed with no one Executive function. His connection with the Department of War, arises only from his being enjoined to settle all accounts, and those of a military nature only: But his connection with the Treasury is much more intimate; he is to report all settlements made by him, either for the inspection or revision of the accounting officers, or of the comptroller of the Treasury:—he is also by the 9th section of the same act, to take his instructions—prescribing the forms not only of keeping and rendering the accounts of his office, but he is to enjoin, that the forms where they have been prescribed shall be observed by all persons accountable to him for public monies.
It has therefore in practice and theory heretofore been considered, that the Secretary only, as the organ of the President, but on his own responsibility, has the power to establish regulations respecting military expenditure, and to determine as well, what charges shall come particularly under the head of contingencies, as the principles upon which they shall be settled, subject only to controul by an order from the President. That the Secretary’s allowance of an account, for a charge of a contingent nature, was a sufficient authority for the accountant to credit the same, and indeed that it was beside his duty, or competency, to object.
At the same time, that such opinions prevailed, and were the guides of practice relative to contingent accounts, (the Secretary, who was and could be alone acquainted with the circumstances of equity attending each particular case, when no general regulation applied to it,—exclusively exercising the right of determining its allowance or otherwise)—it is proper to mention, that all cases, clearly within the provisions of a law, or of a general regulation of the Department, have been left to settlement by the Accountant, as a subauditor of the Treasury, and in such cases, all construction considered to vest with the comptroller, whether required by the Accountant himself, or the party accounting or demanding settlement,—in virtue of the final appeal given to the comptroller, in favour of a party conceiving himself aggrieved by the settlement of the Accountant.
The Department of War being considered as one of the great members of the Government, the Secretary thereof, it is understood, has heretofore been charged with, the exercise of all the Executive functions (subject to the controul and orders of the Chief Magistrate only) which concern the military affairs of the United States, in all cases which do not require the direct agency of the President. That he consequently is charged with a general superintendance over all its subordinate branches, and acting upon his individual responsibility, that he has not exceeded or passed out of the sphere of his peculiar duties, or authorities,—ought not to be controuled by any of his subordinate officers. It is a fixed military principle, that responsibility cannot attach inverso ordine, and it is equally true when applied in any department for transacting the business of the public. If a subordinate can controul a principal, it is his duty to do so: an act is done incurring responsibility, it was the duty, if he had the power, of the subordinate, to prevent it, and would he not by not preventing incur a part of the responsibility? In this way could public business be transacted at all? It is the principle of the best governments, and it should be the principle of Departments, to center all responsibility in a point. The act of the Superior should be absolute to the subordinate, and the acts, the latter in consequence, should be considered as merely ministerial.
Of the numerous instances of opposition to the decisions of the Secretary by the accountant of the War Department it is proper to present a few, in order to a due understanding of the nature of the embarrassments and impediments occasioned, and the disgusts thereby produced. Those presented have recently occurred, and have drawn from the accountant more explicitly the grounds or reason of his opposition.
One of these cases, is that of Brigadier General Macpherson, called into command to conduct the expedition against the insurgents in Northampton and other counties of Pennsylvania.
In consequence of the generals application to the Secretary, and representation of circumstances inducing an expence, exceeding the emoluments of his office, while in command and which could not be avoided, from the peculiar nature of the service consistently with its due execution, the Secretary was induced to consider the situation in which this officer had been placed, as presenting equitable claims for remuneration of his actual and necessary expenditures for and in the public service. He accordingly under the first impressions he had of the case, wrote a letter to the accountant, dated the 24th of January last, a copy of which is inclosed (marked A) informing him of his opinion, that the extraordinary expences incurred by General Macpherson, for himself and family, guards or guests at Taverns, should be admitted to the order account, and directing that they should be so admitted with the usual precautions.
To this letter the accountant replied on the 5th February, copy of which is inclosed (marked B.) informing that he knew of no former case that would apply to the present, and exhibiting the charges appearing on the general account with copies of the vouchers therefore, and requiring the Secretary explicitly to state whether under circumstances, these extraordinary allowances should be made.
The Secretary again wrote to the accountant on the 7th of February (copy marked C.) informing him, that upon further consideration of the subject, he was decidedly of opinion, that justice and the interests of the government, as well as usage require, that a commanding general, on an expedition of sudden emergency, and short continuance, should be allowed the expences of a table, suited to his family; enumerated instances which had established the principle and practice, in parallel circumstances, and expressed an opinion, that a different course would have discredited the government, and proved a bar, to qualified men from serving the public in like situations.
To this last letter, which was certainly explicit, the accountant replied on the 8th of February (copy marked D.) opposing an opinion, that no additional allowance, to what is pointed out by law or established regulations of accounts in his office, as the emoluments of an officer can without the interference of the authority which fixed those emoluments be increased and declining to admit any extra charges without the interference of Congress.
The account of General Macpherson in consequence lies unsettled, and this deserving officer remains unremunerated for expences unavoidably incurred on an expedition, conducted by him, in a military and economical manner, much to his own honour, and the public advantage.—The sole principle of objection to his account, appearing to be, that as he held an office to which the law has specially attached pay and emoluments, no extra allowance could be made to him, under any circumstances but by Congress.
It requires also to be noticed relative to this case, that General Macpherson is a Provisional General, and intitled to pay and emoluments only when called into and employed in actual service.
Another case is a claim of Doctor Charles Brown Surgion of the 1. Regiment of Artillerists and Engineers, exhibited by his letter dated the 9 December last, inclosing an account of charges (copies marked E.) for compensation for attending on sick Indians, from the 4th Novr. 1794, to the 5 July 1799, including a charge of 150 Dollars for attending on sick Indians (who are stated to have been numerous) during the treaty at Greenville, and also a charge for the rent of a house, General Wayne is stated to have ordered him to rent, at Detroit, for the use of the Indians, it being improper to admit them into the fort, or where the sick of the garrison were attended. These several charges are supported by such vouchers, as the death of General Wayne, now, perhaps, leaves it in the power of Doctor Brown to produce with respect to some of them, by the certificate of General Wilkinson with relation to a charge since that period,—and may be agreeably to practice and usage further substantiated by the oath of the claimant. They are unquestionably of a contingent nature.
After this claim was referred, the Secretary on the 12 December inclosed a copy of the letter and account to the accountant, requesting him to instruct Doctor Brown, what vouchers and evidence, are necessary to be produced to entitle his claim to be considered and acted upon (copy reference marked F.). On the 8th of March the Secretary received from the accountant a reply (copy marked G.) which after stating the claim and his conception of the vouchers, concludes, that Doctor Charles Brown was at the time (of the extra services, for which compensation is claimed) and is still a surgion in the line of the army of the United States, whose pay and emoluments, have been fixed by law, and with an opinion, that if his claim was sufficiently substantiated for rendering services to the Indians for the period charged, that no additional allowances, to what is pointed out by law, can be made to him, for extra services, without the interference of Congress.
It will be observed, that the reference in this case was intended and expressed to be for the purpose of obtaining for Doctor Brown information relative to the vouchers, it was proper to produce, for supporting his claim, and by no means transferred the authority of judging upon those vouchers, or the justice of the claim. That instead of confining himself to the requisition made of him, the accountant proceeds, with an alacrity, plainly discernable, to interpose an opinion, designed to tie up the hands of the hands of the Secretary, that no vouchers, however strong, can justify any compensation to Doctor Brown for extra services, grounded upon the same principle, as in the first case—that he holds an office, the pay and emoluments of which have been fixed by law, and therefore no extra allowance beyond these can be made to him, except by a congressional appropriation.
Another case, is that of Silas Dinsmore late a temporary agent to the Cherokee nation of Indians, who called upon the Secretary to inform him, that he conceived he had further claims, than those, for which he had been settled with, against the United States, arising from extraordinary expences incurred in his late agency, which he had always conceived himself intitled to be reimbursed for,—and intended to reserve out of the settlement made with him by the accountant, and that he designed to lay his claims before Congress, if the head of the War Department supposed himself not competent, to direct their adjustment. The Secretary requested Mr. Dinsmore to state the nature of his claims in writing, which he did in a letter dated the 21 December last (copy marked H.) The Secretary deemed himself competent, according to the usual course of business to direct a settlement of his claims The authority he conceived to be derived through the President, under the 13 section of an “act to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes, and to preserve peace on the frontiers”, passed the 19th of May 1796, which section is retained in the act for the same purposes, passed the 3d. of March 1799, and gives a power entirely discretional respecting the objects of the same, limited only by the scale of expence for the whole. An equitable support to a claim for some extra compensation, was also supposed to arise, from the fact, that the successor of Mr Dinsmore, required and would not accept the appointment, without additional emoluments, beyond those allowed to his predecessor,—and this altho’ the situation and disposition of the Indians is now very different from what it was, at the time of Mr. Dinsmores appointment, and for a considerable time after. Mr Dinsmore went into the nation, at great personal risque, for the Indians were turbulent, ill disposed many of them, to the United States, and wholly unsettled. He continued to act under this risk, and the very circumstances which occasioned it, obliged him, to great expences in his table, to conciliate the Indians, and more frequent journeys, to different quarters, to explain misconceptions, and prevent animosity—than from present appearances, will be imposed upon his successor with greater emoluments.
Superadded to these considerations, the declaration of the claimant, that General Knox, when he was originally appointed proposed to him a yearly salary of one thousand dollars, and for his expences, four rations a day, the value of the latter to be regulated by the price given by Government at the nearest frontier post, but that he declined the rations as an equivalent for his expected necessary expences, and they were accordingly not stipulated in his instructions, it being understood at the same time, between General Knox (to whom I have written a letter of inquiry) and himself, and always by himself, that he was to have a salary of 1000 Dollars clear, and that his necessary expences for a table, entertaining Indians, his horses, and indispensible journies, to promote the interests of the United States, were to be defrayed by the public,—was thought to be entitled to credit, particularly as the conduct of Mr. Dinsmore has uniformly exhibited integrity, industry, and intelligence, and met with approbation as a public agent.
Altho’ the Secretary has written to General Knox he feels a conviction, upon further investigation, that the declaration of Mr. Dinsmore, of the understanding between him and that officer, is fully supported—by several strong and direct evidences. It has been the practice to allow expences, or rations towards them, to agents among the Indians. In the first instructions to Mr. Dinsmore, no rations are allowed, but at his appointment by General Knox, he had the sum of two hundred dollars advanced to him, on account of the incidental and contingent expences of the Indian Department, and when he received his last instructions, from the present Secretary, he declined precisely as he represents to have done under the first, accepting four rations per day, as an equivalent for his table and necessary incidental expences, the nature of which he was then perfectly acquainted with. Upon his so declining, he was actually told by the Secretary, who had every reason to repose confidence in his integrity, to try whether in the then situation of things, the four rations, would not cover his necessary expences for a table and incidents,—and if experience shewed they would not,—that the Secretary would do what was right. Mr. Hawkins principal temporary agent for the Southern Indians has 2000 dollars per annum, and twelve rations—which compensation was fixed after due deliberation and advice. The successor of Mr Dinsmore refused to accept, at the same salary, and four rations, but was induced for six rations as an experiment.
Mr. Dinsmore in fact, has never drawn rations in kind, or received an equivalent in money;—he declined these, and reserved the settlement for his expences, which precludes every idea of final settlement with him. Had he charged for four six rations per day (at 25 cents per ration, the price allowed by law to militia when they find their own rations) for four years and eight months, the time of his service, it would amount to 2556 Dollars. The charge actually exhibited by Mr. Dinsmore is stated at 3069 Dollars. This does not appear to the Secretary excessive, considering that he furnished and supported his own horses, three of which (one a bat) and an attendant were always necessary for his journies—which the unsettled state of the Indians for a considerable part of his service required to be frequent, and that he always stipulated and expected to be reimbursed his necessary expences.
Under the above impressions, the Secretary wrote to the accountant on the 28th of February last (copy marked I.) directing him to settle with Mr. Dinsmore, for the necessary expenses, he incurred in the discharge of his trusts as temporary agent to the Cherokees—from the 25th of June 1794, the time of his appointment, to the 23d February 1799 when he resigned, stating the principal objects, to which his charges should apply, and that if it was impossible, to detail every item for such expenditures (vouchers not being attainable among Indians) to cause the amount to be substantiated by his oath.
On the 12 of March following the accountant certified to me (copy marked K.) copies of the account exhibited to me by Mr. Dinsmore against the United States, and of my letter relative to the same adding the following observations—The foregoing claim appears to be, the foundation of the Secretaries letter authorizing the account to be admitted to the debit of the United States on Mr. Dinsmore substantiating it by his oath. That he had accordingly considered the claim of Mr Dinsmore—and examined the several settlements he has made, as well at the Treasury, as in his office, and is of opinion that the same is inadmissible and should not be allowed on the principle stated by the Secretary of War, thus assuming a controulling power, over the discretion lodged exclusively with the head of the Department, and afterwards affecting to consider by way of colour, that a final settlement had been had with Dinsmore, a fact contradicted by the accountants own statement,—for it admits, that no claim of rations had ever been exhibited, and that if he has not drawn them, nor received payment in lieu thereof, he continues entitled to compensation therefor from the 29 of Augt. 1796 (the day the present Secretary inserted four rations into the new instructions, which the agent refused to accept, as an equivalent for necessary expences, and has declined accordingly receiving to the 23 Febry. 1799, the date of his resignation.
The last case is not that of a military officer, or of extra allowance where the pay and emoluments have been fixed by law. It is a case arising in the administration of Indian affairs, for the expences of which the law appropriates a gross sum, leaving the application entirely discretional. It presents accordingly strong indications in the accountant, to erect himself into a comptroller of all the acts of the Department:—And whose are those acts constitutionally and particularly considered? Those of the Executive of the President, with whom is the discretion lodged? With the Executive, particularly with the Secretary of war, as the organ of the President, with whose powers and authorities, it would be a strange solecism in government, if a mere accountant, a sub auditor could have a right to interfere.
Having respectfully represented to the attention of the President, the few preceding cases, out of multitudes which have occurred and are almost daily occurring, calculated, if the Secretary is to judge from appearances, with design, to create disgust and clamours against the Department of War—he cannot avoid expressing an opinion, that a systematic intention seems to be devised, to weaken, by distracting the course of business under it, the existing government, particularly in the great Executive departments, and that this system in the war Department is coming into activily by practices upon the ignorance, through the pride of a subordinate officer. Such a system, it must be evident would be the most effectual to paralize the hands of the Executive, and it cannot be doubted, it has enemies sufficiently disposed to produce this effect.
Business in the Department of War has heretofore been conducted on the principles, and in the course taken by the Secretary, in such cases as those presented, nor has his authority been disputed until within a short time since;—at first with hesitation, but after more decisively, and now upon fixed and avowed, but false principles and opinions, perhaps, not likely to have suggested themselves, to the officer who practices upon them, for his constant practice had previously been contrary.
In the case of General Macpherson, the precedents detailed in the Secretary’s letter to the accountant, are directly in point, for allowing him the necessary expences of a table, being the commanding General on an expedition, from its nature unusually exposing him to expence and of short duration, and entitled to pay during its continuance only. But in this as well as the case of Doctor Brown, claiming extra compensation for extraordinary service, proved to have been faithfully performed, and both applying to the contingences of the Department, the distribution of which was always considered within the competency of the Secretary only, the accountant has interposed a veto upon the directions of the Secretary, grounded upon an opinion, that both the claimants being officers, the pay and emoluments of whose offices were fixed by law, no further compensation can be allowed them;—thus assuming to himself, as has already been said a controuling power over the acts of the head of the Department, a power not given by the act constituting an accountant, and expressly denied, by a letter—written by the order of the President to him, dated the 28 December 1797 (copy marked L.) which informs him, that he is a sub auditor, that his duties are confined to the settlement of accounts, in the exercise of which duties he is not subject to the controul of the Secretary of War;—that the Secretary is the sole judge of the time and manner of making disbursements of monies advanced to the Treasurer; that the accountant is in no respect comptroller of disbursements ordered by the Secretary;—that the power of Countersigning the warrants of the Secretary was given for the purpose of subjecting the disbursements, to a regular course of examination and settlement, and not for the purpose of restraining advances;—that the Secretary under such restrictions, as are prescribed by the President of the United States and understood by the said secretary, is authorised to determine the rules of compensation and allowance for services of an incidental nature, where no rule has been established by Congress;—and that the accountant is responsible in the first instance to the auditor, and finally to the Comptroller of the Treasury.
This letter certainly and clearly pointed out to the accountant his peculear duties to be, the settlement of accounts only, and established a barrier, against his encroachment on the functions of the Secretary. It was intended to prevent a stagnation of the business of the department, by marking distinctly the duties of its offices and designating where authority was placed, and to prevent a necessity of two concurring wills, that of the Secretary, and that of the accountant—with respect to the disbursement of monies, and the admitting to settlements expences of an incidental nature.
It confined the accountant to accounts only: it left every thing else under the Presidents directions to the head of the Department. Facts and circumstances relative to extra service and incidental expence are best known to the Secretary; his correspondence informs him of the situation of the army, and the nature of services required to be performed; its wants and services entitled to special consideration and compensation, when incidental or extra, are therefore most properly confided to him. For these he may establish permanent rules where they admit of such; and it will be recollected, that certain rules were at his instance, and to obviate frequent references to him, devised by the late Commander in Chief and the Major Generals, and after being submitted to the heads of Departments and the President, adopted on the 19th December 1798 (copy marked M.) relative to extra allowances to officers, detached on service, so as to be obliged to incur expences on the road, and at places, not military posts; or he may in cases not reducible to general rules, or varying from them, determine according to circumstances. In the latter cases, it certainly ought not to be expected that the Secretary should explain and display to the accountant all his reasons and motives, for his orders, to carry such accounts to a settlement.
An extended and particular knowledge of all circumstances relative to the objects coming under the administration of the War Department is necessary to the due exercise of the functions of the Secretary. The accountants duties do not require this, to enable him to settle accounts; it is not required by the Auditor or Comptroller who revise his settlements; nor ought he to be permitted, to carry his views into the motives and reasons, for particular measures or general military dispositions involving extra services and incidental expences.
The Secretary might rely upon the reasons just detailed, for abstracting the accountant from a knowledge of the course of military operations, which have often at no distant time (and always in actual service will) required the most unexceptionable depositaries. But the man who fills the office of accountant at this time furnishes special reasons. He is a person of narrow mind, and the Secretary fears of a malignant disposition, prone to strong prejudices, incapable of embracing a great object, and ignorant of the true principles of our government, especially in the Department of it to which he is attached. Is such a man entitled to communications in military affairs, which require understanding to ensure they will be kept secret? Is he entitled to a controulling power, which in any respect may affect or paralize military operations? In such case would he not soon, reduce every thing to the size of his own conceptions, and dwindle down, if not the government itself, at least the Department of War. But it is repeated, be the accountant whom he may, the administration of a Department, especially that of war, cannot be subjected to the controul of a subaltern or subordinate officer, for its functions emanate from the Supreme Executive, and the necessary ignorance of facts and circumstances, indusing to and attending military arrangements and operations unless by communications from the Secretary, which ought not to be permitted, will always make it proper, that the accountant relative to the contingent accounts be a ministerial officer only.
The principle advanced by the Accountant viz. “That no authority short of Congress can make allowances, to an officer, beyond the pay and emoluments, fixed to his office by law”, will go much further than the position as yet avowed. It will go the whole length of denying to the Executive, in all its branches, any discretion not conferred by some special law, to call forth and compensate any services, not merely of officers, but of any other persons, which are not indicated, and provided for by particular statutes. It will interdict the employment, and compensation of a citizen as a writer, or ever as an express, no less than that of an officer for either purpose. The foundation of the doctrine must be, that there is no power in the Executive to subject the public to expence, in any case not specially provided for by law. What substantial difference can there be, between employing a private citizen for some contingent service, and paying him for it, and employing an officer to do something, not within the sphere of his official duty, and compensating him for it: none can be discovered in theory; for as to such extra service, the officer is a private citizen, and no law declares a distinction. The true rule, and that which has been practiced upon,  would seem to be,—that no officer can have any compensation beyond the emoluments prescribed by law, for services appertaining to his office, nor any special indemnification for expences, except when acting in situations, out of or beyond the ordinary course of service, relative to his grade, or at places, where he cannot avail himself, of the accommodations to which he is entitled in camp, quarters or garrison.
It is certain that in the course of the discharge of its trusts there will occur numerous instances, in which the public service must stagnate, or the Executive must employ and compensate agents, not contemplated by special laws. It follows, that the Executive must have an inherent right to do this, under the restrictions only, that it ought to be done relative to some object, confided to its agency, by the Constitution or by the laws, and that no money ought actually to be paid for which there is not an appropriation by statute, either with reference to the particular purpose, or under the general denomination of Contingencies. This is a right necessarily implied, nor can it be shewn, why the Executive may not claim the exercise of implied powers, as well as the Legislature. There is no public function, which does not include, the exercise of implied as well as express authority.
This reasoning is believed to be consonant with the practice of every government, and with that of ours, as well under the Confederation, as under the present Constitution.
An act of the Congress under the Confederation, if my recollection is correct, once existed, prohibiting the union of two offices in the same person with distinct compensations. Yet even this did not hinder the allowance of special compensations to officers, for special and extra service, still less, did it hinder, the indemnification for extra expences of an officer in peculiar situations. Such compensations and indemnifications were made by the Executive boards, and only in special cases was the resort to Congress, under the former Government. Indeed I am unusually mistaken, if the uniform practice of the Treasury and War Departments under the present Government does not recognize the rule now endeavoured to be supported and reject that advanced by the accountant.
This practice too has been right a different one will be found in experience a fatal clog to public business. The administration at large is interested in discountenancing a different one, as will for their own sakes as of their successors, and that spirit of cavil in the accountant on which it is founded, my observations have convinced me is absolutely ruinous, to the military department of the Government.
There has not it is believed a simple appropriation law passed which does not sanction the preceding reasoning:—there was always a sum for the contingencies of the War Department;—that for last year, 1799, contains this head of appropriation. “For loss of stores, allowances to officers, on being ordered to distant commands, and for special purposes, advertising and apprehending deserters, printing, purchasing of maps, and other contingencies, the sum of 20,000 Dollars”. The power to incur charges which involve expence not falling under any specific head presupposes the right to employ agents, and engage services not particularly contemplated by law. Such appropriations have always been viewed as a virtual sanction of the right, including in them a warrant if necessary to exercise the power;—and this has certainly been the practical construction.
The dangerous metaphysicks of the accountant, however derived, “that no authority short of Congress, can make allowances to an officer beyond the emoluments fixed to his office by law”, regarding the extent to which it may be carried, and its inconsistency with all former practice ought decidedly to be frowned upon. The recognition of his doctrine will be a fatal precedent in the administration. It will prove a palsy destructive of all energy in the Government. Considering too the disposition which prevails among certain men, in a certain body, there ought to be more than common anxiety, not to establish such a fetter upon executive operations.
The Secretary has written the foregoing statements and illustrations under an uncommon pressure of business, at snatched and short intervals, and with frequent interruptions, the exhibit of course is more diffuse, and possesses less consistency than under different circumstances might have been given to it. It was designed respectfully to shew to the President, the impediments which exist to prevent a due administration of the Department of War, upon principles sanctioned by former experience in our own, and recognized as far as known by all other regular Governments; the mischiefs which have arisen from a supposed controul in a subordinate, who is necessarily ignorant of facts and circumstances, in all cases which induce contingent expences, over a Principal, who is well informed of every circumstance, and the fatal stab the new principle will give to the energies of the Executive throughout all its organs, utterly incompatible with all practical utility and striking at the heart of the Government itself.
It is necessary also to represent that the accountant, to his narrow views of particular objects, over which the Secretary has had committed to him an uncontroulled authority, has added correspondent misrepresentations (the circulation of which have engrossed and do still engross much of his time) calculated to insinuate his own vast regard to œconomy, and superior knowledge of the affairs of the department. These indirect attempts, and ex parte statements, may possibly in some persons have produced their intended results. The Secretary most respectfully conceives, that conduct, so indecent, treacherous, and disorganizing should not be concealed from the President.
The Secretary has the honour to be with the most perfect respect the Presidents obedient & hble st.

James McHenry


Title: From John Adams to Benjamin Dewitt, 3 April 1800
From: Adams, John
To: Dewitt, Benjamin

Sir
Philadelphia Ap. 3d 1800

I have received & read with great pleasure, your ingenious & instructive memoir on the Onondaga salt springs, & salt manufactories in the western part of the State of N York. I thank you for this valuable present which I shall transmit to the American academy of Arts & sciences at Boston
I am Sir with great esteem your very humble sert


Title: From John Adams to Benjamin Dewitt, 3 April 1800
From: Adams, John
To: Dewitt, Benjamin

SirPhiladelphia April 3d 1800
I received yesterday the letter you did me the honor to write me on the 20th of March in the character of Secretary of the society, for the promotion of Agriculture arts and manufactures. I pray you, Sir, to present me with great respect & esteem to the society, and my hearty thanks for the honor they have been pleased to confer upon me by their unanimous election of me, to be an honorary member. Although nothing could be immagined more flattering to me, than the idea you suggest, that I was elected to retrieve the loss in the illustrious Washington. It operates at the same time as an humiliation, by exciting the consciousness, that the substitute is as inferior in lustre & dignity, as the little farm at Braintree is smaller than the extensive domain of Mount Vernon. The volume of the transactions of the society I shall receive when it arrives with great pleasure.
Accept my thanks Sir for the obliging manner in which you have communicated the will of the society to / Sir your most obedient & humble servt.


Title: To John Adams from Jedidiah Morse, 5 April 1800
From: Morse, Jedidiah
To: Adams, John

Respected Sir,
Charlestown April 5th. 1800

The bearer of this, Aaron Putnam Esq, is the gentleman names to you, as a suitable candidate for the office of Superintendant of the Dock & Navy yard, should such an establishment be made in this harbour. He goes on to the seat of government by the unanimous voice of this town, as their agent to represent their wishes, & to state their proposals, relative to the erection of a Dock &c. in this place; & to express their apprehensions & fears of very injurious & even ruinous effects to this ancient & unfortunate town, should government fix on Noddle’s Island for the said establishment.
Be assured, Sir, that Mr Putnam enjoys the full confidence of the town; & in what relates to this business, is entitled to the confidence of the government, as it is my firm belief (& his past agency in this business has evinced it) he is as solicitous to accommodate the government as the town. And altho he is one of the Proprietors of the land on whh it is proposed that the establishment shall be made, yet he has conducted in the business hitherto, with as much disinterestedness, & solicitude for the public good, as though he had been an agent of the government.
I use the freedom, sir, to mention these things because, in the progress of this business (should the government fix on this place as the most suitable for their purpose) it may be expedient for the government to have some confidential communication with some person on the spot, & acquainted with the state of things here. In this case I know of no person more deserving of such confidence than Mr Putnam.
The mission of Mr Putnam supercedes the necessity of the written statement of facts & advantages relative to this place, whh I had proposed forwarding you, as he will of course state them verbally.
I have the honour to be, / Sir, with the highest respect / & esteem, your / most obedt. / servt

Jedh: MorseP.S. Honble Mr Dexter is appointed by the town to assist Mr Putnam in the business of his mission.


Title: From John Adams to James Kemp, 7 April 1800
From: Adams, John
To: Kemp, James

Sir
Philadelphia April 7th 1800.

I thank you for an ingenious sermon from a well chosen text on the death of my predecessor, which I received with your letter of the 26 March & have read with pleasure.
I am happy that my frail endeavors to respect the religion, of my Country have met your approbation. The detestable pains that have been taken to promulgate the age of reason & other publications as pernicious in this Country have not answered their end. The devisers of mischief have been disappointed & as far as my observation has extended the truth has shewn itself great & that it will prevail. I wish you, Sir, as an able champion for it, all the success which you can possibly wish for yourself.
With much respect / I am Sir your obliged & most obedient servant


Title: From John Adams to James Kiggin, 7 April 1800
From: Adams, John
To: Kiggin, James

Philadelphia April 7th 1800

James Kiggin has lived more than three years in my Family & conducted with the requisite decorum diligence and fidelity

John Adams


Title: To John Adams from Turell Tufts, 7 April 1800
From: Tufts, Turell
To: Adams, John

Sir,
Surinam Apl. 7. 1800

The Letter herewith transmitted has been Sometime written, and laying by me waiting for a safe conveyance—I feel a diffidence in transmitting some Sentiments to you which I find are so freely & confidently expressed—and an honor in being allowed the liberty.—I however cannot forbear relating with some Self complacency—the pains the General has taken to get introduced to me. He came with Capt Matson to my lodgings for that purpose—and on my returning the visit—invited me to dine—which also produced another invitation from the Govr.
Their manœvres are curious & farcical—arising from various Causes—perhaps the principal of which is—a want of cordiality between the two Commanders—and which I shall endeavor to convert if possible to our advantage.—On this subject and others, I have written to the Honble. Secretary of State and beg You to be referred to the Letter to him.
I have ordered four Six baskets of Indian nuts to be put on board the Brig Nancy, Simon Carter master owned by Messrs Smith & Ridgway of Phila. designed for a rarity on the President’s Table. They are considered here as very rich and are brought on to the Table in this Country—after the meats are pealed—in a little Salt & water.
I beg you Sir, to accept of them.—They would have been addressed to your Lady were I certain of her being at Phila.—Other fruits are not now ripe.
I am with the most perfect respect / Your Obedient Servant

Turell Tufts


Title: To John Adams from Thomas Johnson, Jr., 8 April 1800
From: Johnson, Thomas, Jr.
To: Adams, John

George Town 8th. April 1800.

I shall make no Excuse, my dear Sir, for writing to you with Frankness. You may judge from the Resolution I have taken up of entring again the Field of political Contention, if I have Credit enough to be carried there, that I am strongly impressed with the Idea that we are at an awful Crisis.
If our Bark was gliding under a pleasant Breeze and the Crew ready and disposed to join their Efforts for a happy Navigation your Age and Services would entitle you to quit the Tiller and take Repose which I dare say you would willingly do But former Services in my Opinion lay you under new Obligations which cannot consistently be dispensed with no honourable means neglected which may continue you in a Situation to be emminently useful: there is a great deal yet to be done to prevent our becoming a meer Satelite of a mighty Power.
Persuaded that your being in the City this Summer, and as much as you well can, will strengthen and probably extend the favorable Sentiment entertained of you I intreat you at least to visit us. I feel something of Selfishness in this Request a personal Interview with you would be highly gratifying to me; the Men of ’74 are grown Scarce how much then ought such a Rarity to be valued when recommended by intrinsick Worth
I am my dear Sir: / With very sincere Regard / Your obedt. affectionate Servant
Th. Johnson


Title: From John Adams to James McHenry, 10 April 1800
From: Adams, John
To: McHenry, James

April 10 1800

The inclosed resolution of the Senate of the 9th of this month is referred by the President of the United States to the Secretary of War, who is requested to report to the President, to be laid before the Senate, conformably to their request as early as possible.


Title: From John Adams to United States Senate, 10 April 1800
From: Adams, John
To: United States Senate

Gentlemen of the Senate
United States April 10th 1800

I nominate Joseph Beale of Massachusetts to be a Lieutenant in the Navy
George Washington Few of Rhode Island to be a Lieutenant in the Navy.
Charles Webb of Virginia to be a Surgeon’s mate in the navy.

John Adams


Title: From John Adams to Thomas Johnson, Jr., 11 April 1800
From: Adams, John
To: Johnson, Thomas, Jr.

Dear Sir
Philadelphia April 11th 1800

I received this morning your favor of the 8th, from Georgetown with all the pleasure that we usually receive from seeing the face of an old friend, long esteemed, respected, & beloved. I envy you however that vivacity of youth with which you write and even that firm & steady hand, which appears in every character.
For my own part I see no immediate prospect of an awfull crisis more terrifying, than I have constantly beheld for forty years. From the year 1760 to this moment has appeared one uniform state of doubt, uncertainty & danger to me.
Repose is desirable enough for me, but I have been so long a stranger to it that I know not whether I should not find it a mortal ennemy.
I know of nothing, that would give me more pleasure, than to meet you, but whether it will be possible for me to be in the city before November I know not. If any services, which I can render, will be usefull, I neither want a disposition to render nor I hope resolution to suffer under them. I am weary & so are all men at my age, whether in public or private life. I agree perfectly with you that a great deal is yet to be done to prevent our becoming a mere satilite to a mighty power. But I will candidly confess to you I sometimes doubt, which is that mighty power. I think there is danger from two. Nothing could give me more joy than your resolution to come again upon the stage; because I know your noble nature so well that it is impossible you should be the dupe of either. It will always give me pleasure to hear of your welfare, as I / am with great and sincere esteem ancient and modern / your friend and humble servant


Title: To John Adams from Timothy Pickering, 11 April 1800
From: Pickering, Timothy
To: Adams, John

April 11. 1800

The Secretary of State has the honor to lay before the President sundry recommendations of Joseph Forman of Baltimore to be appointed a Consul in France. Mr. Lloyd, Senator from Maryland, knowing that the Consulate of Rotterdam is vacant, by the death of John Baeldemaker, informs that that place would be accepted my Mr. Forman, and solicited that the nomination might be made.

Timothy Pickering


Title: To John Adams from James McHenry, 12 April 1800
From: McHenry, James
To: Adams, John

Sir,
War Department 12th. April 1800—

In the hurry of copying my letter of the 2d. instant, which I had the honor of delivering to you yesterday, I find an error escaped my notice, in the 22d. page 14th. line from the top—the word four being inserted instead of the word six—which was intended.
I am Sir / with the greatest respect / your most obedient / humble servant


Title: To John Adams from William Griffith, 13 April 1800
From: Griffith, William
To: Adams, John

Sir,
N. Jersey Burlington April 13. 1800

I take the liberty of requesting your Excellencys acceptance of the inclosed address to the Citizens of Burlington on the 22d. of feby. last:—
I could not have offered an apology for this  upon any other subject; but I persuade myself  feeblest attempt to honor the memory of General Washington, will be received with pleasure, by his most distinguished friend Co-patriot, and successor:
I am sir, with the greatest respect / your most obedient servant
Wm Griffith


Title: To John Adams from Oliver Wolcott, Jr., 14 April 1800
From: Wolcott, Oliver, Jr.
To: Adams, John

					Treasury Department, April 14, 1800.

				The Secretary of the Treasury respectfully submits the following observations, in obedience to the direction of the President of the United States.The project of a treaty proposed by the minister of His Britannic Majesty, for the reciprocal delivery of deserters from the land and naval service, does not sufficiently provide against the impressment of American Seamen, and is therefore deemed inadmissible. The ideas of the Secretary of the Treasury on this subject are stated in the counter–project hereto subjoined, and will be found to be essentially the same as those of the Secretary of State.The Secretary of the Treasury fully concurs in opinion with the Secretary of State, respecting the reply proper to be given to the notes of Mr. Liston, dated 2d and 4th February last, demanding the restitution of several American vessels, captured by British cruisers, and rescued by the crews of said vessels.All which is respectfully submitted by

					Oliver Wolcott, Secretary of the Treasury.


Title: From Thomas Cooper to John Adams, 15 April 1800
From: Cooper, Thomas
To: Adams, John

United States v Thomas Cooper
 Circuit Court Ap. 1800

Mr Cooper wishes Subpoenas to be made out & served on the following Gentlemen—
The President of the United States
Timothy Pickering
 Jacob Wagner (in Mr Pickerings Office)
John Davenport Member of Congress


Title: To John Adams from Jonathan Dayton, 16 April 1800
From: Dayton, Jonathan,Laurence, John,Otis, Samuel Allyne
To: Adams, John

Sir,
Philadelphia April 16th. 1800

We have the honor to address you on the subject of the appointment to an office, created by an Act lately passed for the establishment of a general Stamp-office, & to recommend Mr. James Greenleaf for the same.
As an accurate Accountant, no one can be better qualified to discharge the duties of this office, and as a man of probity, we have good reason to believe, & indeed have seen very respectable documents to prove, that, in this respect, altho’ unfortunate in his transactions, his character is unimpeachable. We are persuaded Sir, that the services of this gentleman will be valuable to the public, and we therefore indulge a hope that you will think him worthy of the nomination to the Superintendancy of the General Stamp office.
We have the honor to be Sir / with the highest respect / your most obedt. servts.
Jona: DaytonJohn LaurenceSam: A. Otis


Title: To John Adams from James McHenry, 16 April 1800
From: McHenry, James
To: Adams, John

War Department 16th April, 1800.

The Secretary of War respectfully submits the following observations in obedience to the direction of the President of the United States.
The Secretary very much doubts the soundness of the principle, upon which a refusal to deliver up merchant vessels captured by a Belligerent power is founded. It appears to the Secretary, considering the question upon general ground, that merchant vessels belonging to a neutral nation, seized by a Belligerent power upon the high Sea, for violating the Laws of Neutrality, cannot, agreeably to the Law of Nations, be rightfully retaken by a vessel of the neutral power from the Captain, said nor, if retaken and brought into a port of the neutral nation, cannot be rightfully withheld from legal examination and trial  by that nation from the captors. It results from this principle, that a vessel or its cargo, being prize or no prize, cannot be rightfully determined in other tribunals than those of the nation exercising the right of seizure capture, the right to try in the appropriate courts of the country of the Captors following the right to seizure capture.
It may be asked, is the right which a Belligerent power acquires to the property of its enemy seized in a neutral vessel full and perfect. To this it may be answered, that the right thus acquired by seizure is full and perfect as relative to its exemption exempting it from capture by any neutral vessel. For, if the neutral merchant vessel which contains the property, may after its being seized or possessed by the Belligerent power, use force to recover it from the Belligerent power, so may every other  merchant  vessel belonging to the neutral nation. Further, if the crews of our neutral vessels may recapture it would seem that our vessels of war could also recapture, the contrary whereof is to be collected from the Statute which authorizes recaptures of our vessels taken by the French. But the State of Neutrality does not permit a neutral power to espouse in any manner whatever either side, or to prefer one to the other Belligerent party. It is the ir indispensible duty of neutrals duty “Bello se non interponant”. To fight for, or recapture the property of either from the other, is a clear meddling in the War, and a direct violation of every principle of Neutrality.
If the property in a neutral vessel was enemy’s property, or contraband of war, the Belligerent Vessel, having once made prize of it, has a clear right to it, of which the crew of the neutral vessel cannot divest her by recapture. To the Secretary it appears a sound position, that neutral nations ought to regard the parties at war as lawful proprietors of all that they take from each other: consequently, it cannot be right for the Citizens of a neutral nation to interfere to rescue from one of the belligerent powers property which he had taken belonging to the other. A neutral vessel loads with enemy goods at a known risk, that of their being subject to capture, and under the obligation only to use all due endeavours to avoid an enemy or capture; here the obligation of the neutral ends, for she is not permitted if taken to recover the goods by recapture, the nation only to whose citizens or subjects they belonged (or the parties at war with the captors) possessing that right.
By the Law of Nations, a neutral vessel met at sea, is liable to be seized by a vessel of war as the case may be of either of the Belligerent powers. This Law gives the additional right, if the Belligerent vessel is not satisfied with his search, to carry the neutral vessel into the country of the captors, there to be further examined, tried and condemned (if she has violated the neutrality) in its courts, established for the inquiry into the subject, and to compel by force the neutral to submit to search, and also to be carried into the country of the Captors.
“If such Ships shall be attacked in order to an examination, and shall refuse, they may be assaulted, like a House supposed to have Thieves or Pirates in it, refuses to yield up their persons, may be broken up by the Officer, and the persons resisters may be slain.” Molloy de Jure Mar. et Nav. L.1. C.3. s.XIII.
It also accord appears to the Secretary, that, if a neutral vessel found at sea refuses & resists by force to be searched, she, for such conduct, is liable to be condemned as lawful prize If the Law of Nations gives a right to search, it cannot allow a right to resist a search by force. The two Rights cannot exist. They are perfectly inconsistent. If the first is lawful, the latter must be unlawful, consequently liable to some punishment, or the right would be nugatory. If the Law of Nations gives also a right to carry the neutral vessel into the Country of the Captor’s Courts, this right also cannot be resisted or opposed by force, without violating the Law. It would seem to the Secretary, that the persons who resist the search by force, or resist or prevent by force the neutral vessel being carried into the Captor’s Country for trial, must by such conduct be guilty of a Breach of the Law of Nations, and, if so, they must be liable to some punishment; and if the Nation to which they belong (on application to punish them) does not permit them on application to that effect it thereby becomes a party to the wrong. The Secretary cannot think that either the right of search or of carrying the neutral into the country of the captors is founded on superiority of force, but on the law of Nations. This Opinion of the Secretary rests upon Vattel L. 3. C. 7. s. IIII: Marten’s Law of Nations. N. 323: the Report on the Silesia Loan: See on Captures &ca.
The Secretary however cannot venture to disapprove of the Answer proposed to be given by the Secretary of State. He does not know of any precedent of a neutral nation exerting its power in any similar case of recapture in aid of the Right of the Belligerent Power; but unquestionably there is reason so to do, if the idea he has presented of the Law of Nations is accurate. It is He thinks it probable, also without pretending to be positive (the Secretary believes) that instances of recapture like the present are few. If the Crews of our neutral Vessels can recapture, it would seem that our vessels of War could also recapture but I the Secretary collects otherwise from the Statute which authorises recaptures of our Vessels taken by the French.
In some future time, America may stand in Relation to other powers as Great Britain stands at this time, and may wish to make the same claim as that she does now. The Secretary greatly doubts, but with great deference, whether the cases in question of recaptures are cognizable before our Courts of Justice: the Subject seems rather to belong to the Executive. Peculiar caution may be proper for fear at some future period our proceeding may not be urged against us to our detriment. If it appears necessary to reconsider the Subject, the Secretary would beg leave to suggest the propriety of adding, that, as there is no provision by treaty or apposite Law of the United States on the Subject, it might be advisable to make some Stipulation by Treaty.
The Secretary is inclined to believe that, if any, there is not Sufficient Remedy for the Delivery of Deserters from British Vessels. He has understood that some of our Courts have determined that the Law of Congress concerning Seamen relates to American Seamen only. The Claim for British Seamen, who have or may desert is just and ought to be reciprocal. The Secretary thinks the project of Mr. Liston may be substantially accepted, except the Seventh Article, which seems to provide that the United States shall not demand the delivery of any sailors, although their citizens, if they have been employed on board British Vessels, and who have in time of war or threatened hostility voluntarily entered into the British Service or have been compelled to enter therein, according to the Law & practice prevailing in Great Britain. This Article is very inaccurately expressed, for it says “employed or entered into the Service of their own Sovereign or Nation, or compelled to enter therein &c.” If this Article means, what it is apprehended it does, it is wholly inadmissible. It establishes a principle reprobated by this Country. The Counter project of the Secretary of State, in Substance, meets the Secretary’s approbation, but it is submitted whether the adoption of part of the Draught by the Secretary of the Treasury will not improve it.
All which is respectfully submitted.