Title: Enclosure: [Draft of a Response to Concerns about the Jay Treaty], [29 March 1796]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Washington, George

Gentlemen
I have received your resolution  and have considered it with the attention always due to a request of the House of Representatives. I feel a consciousness (not contradicted I trust by any part of my conduct) of a sincere disposition to respect the rights privileges and authorities of Congress collectively and in its separate branches—to pay just deference to their opinions and wishes—to avoid intrusion on their province—to communicate freely information pertinent to the subjects of their deliberation. But this disposition, keeping steadily in view the public good, must likewise be limited and directed by the duty, incumbent upon us all, of preserving inviolate the constitutional boundary between the several departments of the Government: a duty enjoined by the very nature of a constitution which defines and distributes the powers delegated among different dipositories, enforced by the solemn sanction of an oath, and only to be fulfilled by a regard no less scrupulous for the rights of the Executive than for those of every other Department.
When I communicated to the House of Representatives the Treaty lately made with Great Britain, I did not transmit the papers respecting its negotiation, for reasons which appeared to me decisive.
It is contrary to the general practice of Governments to promulge the intermediate transactions of a foreign negotiation without weighty and special reasons. The motives for great delicacy and reserve on this point are powerful. There may be situations of a Country, in which particular occurrences of a negotiation, though conducted with the best views to its interest and even to a satisfactory issue, if immediately disclosed, might tend to embarrassment and mischief in the interior affairs of that Country. Confidential discussions and overtures are inseparable from the nature of certain negotiations and frequently occur in others—essays are occasionally made by one party to discover the views of another in reference to collateral objects—motives are sometimes assigned for what is yielded by one party to another: which, if made public, might kindle the resentment or jealousy of other powers, or might raise in them pretensions not expedient to be gratified. Hence it is a rule of mutual convenience and security among nations that neither shall without adequate cause and proper reserves promulge the details of a Negotiation between them: otherwise one party might be injured by the disclosures of the other, and sometimes without being aware of the injury likely to be done.
Consequently, The general neglect of this rule in the practice of a Government would naturally tend to destroy that confidence in its prudence and delicacy—that freedom of communication with it; which are so important in the intercourses between Nation and Nation, towards the accommodation of mutual differences, and the adjustment of mutual interests.
Neither would it be likely to promote the advantage of a Nation, that the Agents of a foreign Government, with which it was at any time in Treaty, should act under the apprehension that every expression, every step of theirs would presently be exposed, by the promulgation of the other party, to the criticism of their political adversaries at home. The disposition to a liberal and perhaps for that very reason a wise policy in them might be checked by the reflection that it might afterwards appear from the disclosures on the other side, that they had not made as good bargains as they might have made. And while they might be stimulated by this to extraordinary effort and perseverance; maxims of greater secrecy and reserve in their Cabinet would leave their competitors in the negotiation without the same motive to exertion. These having nothing to fear from the indiscretion of the opposite Government would only have to manage with caution their communications to their own. The consequences of such a state of things would naturally be an increase of obstacles to the favourable close of a negotiation, and the probability of worse bargains for the Nation, in the habit of giving indiscreet publicity to its proceedings.
The Agents of such a Nation, themselves, would have strong inducements to extreme reserve in their communications with their own government; lest parts of their conduct might subject them in other quarters to unfriendly and uncandid constructions—which might so narrow the information they gave as scarcely to afford sufficient light either with regard to the fitness of their own course of proceeding or the true state and prospects of the negotiation with which they were charged.
And thus in different ways the channels of information to a Government might be materially obstructed by the impolitic practice of too free disclosure in regard to its foreign negotiations.
Moreover—It is not uncommon for the instructions to negotiating Agents, especially where differences are to be settled, to contain observations on the views and motives of the other party, which after an amicable termination of the business, it would be contrary to decorum, unfriendly and offensive, to make public. Such instructions also frequently manifest views, which, if disclosed, might renew sources of jealousy and ill will which a Treaty had extinguished—might exhibit eventual plans of proceeding which had better remain unknown for future emergencies, & might even furnish occasion for suspicion, and pretext for discontent, to other powers. And, in general, where more had been obtained by a Treaty than the ultimata prescribed to the negotiation, it would be inexpedient to publish those ultimata: Since, among other ill effects, the publication of them might prejudice the interest of the Country in future negotiations with the same or with different powers.
These reasons explain the grounds of a prevailing rule of Conduct among prudent Governments, (viz) not to promulge without weighty cause nor without due reserves the particulars of a foreign negotiation. It so happens indeed that many of them have no immediate application to the case of the present Treaty. And it would be unadviseable to discriminate here between such as may and such as may not so apply. But it would be very extraordinary, situated as the UStates were in relation to Great Britain, at the commencement of the negotiation if some of them did not operate against a full disclosure of the papers, in which it is recorded.
Connected with these general reasons against the transmission of the papers with the Treaty, it was proper to consider if there were any special reasons which recommended in the particular case a departure from the rule, and especially whether there was any purpose to which the house of Representatives is constitutionally competent, which might be elucidated by those papers.
This involved a consideration of the nature of the constitutional agency of that house, in regard to Treaties.
The Constitution of the U States empowers the President with the advice and consent of the Senate two thirds concurring to “Make Treaties.” It no where professes to authorise the House of Representatives, or any other branch of the Government, to partake with the President and Senate in the making of Treaties. The whole Power of making Treaties is therefore by the terms of the Constitution vested in the President and Senate.
To make a Treaty, as applied to Nations, is to conclude a contract between them obligatory on their faith. But that cannot be an (obligatory) contract, to the validity and obligation of which the assent of another power in the state is constitutionally necessary.
Again: The Constitution declares that a Treaty made under the authority of the U States shall be a supreme law of the land—let it be said “a law.” A law is an obligatory rule of action prescribed by the competent authority: But that cannot be an obligatory rule of action, or a law, to the validity and obligation of which the assent of another power in the state is constitutionally necessary.
Hence, a discretionary right in the House of Representatives, to assent or not to a Treaty, or what is equivalent to execute it or not, would negative these two important propositions of our constitution I   That the President and Senate shall have power to make Treaties II   That a Treaty made by them shall be a law—and in the room of them would establish this proposition “That the power of making Treaties resides in the President, Senate and House of Representatives.” For whatever coloring may be given a right of discretionary assent to a contract is in substance a right to participate in the making of it.
Is there any thing in the constitution which by necessary implication changes the force of the express terms that regulate the deposit of the Power to make Treaties?
If there is, it must be found in those clauses which regulate the deposit of the Legislative Power. Here two questions arise—
I   Can the Power of Treaty reach and embrace objects upon which the legislative power is authorised to act, as the regulation of Commerce, the defining of piracy &c or are these objects virtually excepted out of the operation of that power?
II   If it can reach and embrace those objects, is there any principle which as to them gives to Congress or more properly the House of Representatives, a discretionary right of assent or dissent?
The affirmative of the first question is supported by these considerations.
I   The words which establish the Power of Treaty are manifestly broad enough to comprehend all Treaties.
II   It is a reasonable presumption, that they were meant to extend to all treaties usual among nations, and so to be commensurate with the variety of exigencies and objects of intercourse which occur between nation and nation; in other words that they were meant to enable the Organ of the Power to manage with efficacy the external affairs of the Country in all cases in which they must depend upon compact with another nation.
III   The Treaties usual among nations are principally those of Peace, Alliance and Commerce. It is the office of Treaties of peace to establish the cessation of hostilities and the conditions of it, including frequently indemnifications, sometimes pecuniary ones. It is the office of Treaties of alliance to establish cases in which nations shall succour each other in war stipulating a union of forces, the furnishing of troops, ships of war, pecuniary and other aids. It is the office of Treaties of Commerce to establish rules and conditions according to which nations shall trade with each other, regulating as far as they go the external commerce of the nations in Treaty—whence it is evident that Treaties naturally bear in different ways upon many of the most important objects, upon which the legislative power is authorised to act, as the appropriation of money, the raising of armies, the equipment of fleets, the declaring of war, the regulation of Trade. But
IV   This is no objection to the Power of Treaty having a capacity to embrace those objects   1   Because that latitude is essential to the great ends for which the Power is instituted   2   Because unless the Power of Treaty can embrace objects upon which the legislative power may also act, it is essentially nugatory—often inadequate to mere treaties of Peace—always inadequate to Treaties of Alliance or Commerce 3 Because it is the office of the legislative power to establish separate rules of action for the nation of which it is— its arm being too short to reach a single case in which a common obligatory rule of action for two nations is to be established IV Because inasmuch as a common rule of action, for independent nations can only be established by compact, it necessarily is of the office of the Power of Treaty to effect its establishment V Because the power of legislation being unable to effect what the power of Treaty must effect, it is unreasonable to suppose that the former was intended to exclude the action of the latter VI Because on the other hand there is no incongruity in the supposition that the Power of Treaty, in establishing a joint rule of action with another nation, may act upon the same subject which the Legislative Power may act upon, in establishing a separate rule of action for one nation VII Because it is a common case for the different powers of Government to act upon the same subject within different spheres and in different modes. Thus the legislative power lays and provides for the collection of a particular tax—the Executive Power collects the tax and brings it into the Treasury. So the power of Treaty may stipulate pecuniary indemnification for an injury and the Legislative power may execute the stipulation by providing & designating the fund out of which the indemnification shall be made. As in the first case the Executive Power is auxiliary to the Legislative, so in the last legislative Power is auxiliary to the Power of Treaty. VIII Because this doctrine leads to no collision of powers, inasmuch as the stipulations of a Treaty may reasonably be considered as restraints upon the legislative discretion. Those stipulations operate by pledging the faith of a nation and restricting its will by the force of moral obligation, and it is a fundamental principle of social right that the will of a nation as well as that of an individual may be bound by the moral obligation of a contract. IX Because the organ of the Power of Treaty is as truly the Organ of the Will of a Nation as that of its legislative Power; and there is no incongruity in the supposition, that the will of a Nation, acting through one organ, may be bound by the pledge of its faith through another Organ. From these different views of the subject it results, that the position that the Power of Legislation, acting in one sphere, and the power of Treaty, acting in another sphere, may embrace in their action the same objects, involves no interference of constitutional Powers; and of course that the latter may reach and comprehend objects which the former is authorised to act upon; which it is necessary to suppose it does do since the contrary supposition would essentially destroy the Power of Treaty: whereas the stipulations of Treaties being only particular exceptions to the discretion of the Legislative Power, this power will always still have a wide field of action beyond and out of the exceptions.
The latitude of the Power of Treaty granted by analogous terms in the articles of our late confederation as practiced upon for years in treaties with several foreign Powers and acquiesced in by the Governments and citizens of these states, is an unequivocal comment upon the meaning of the provision in our present constitution and a conclusive evidence of the sense in which it was understood by those who planned and those who adopted the Constitution—supporting fully the foregoing construction of the Power. That latitude cannot be indebted to the circumstance of all the power granted by the confederation being in one body—for that body had legislative power in but very few cases & none in some very important cases embraced by its treaties. The examples of past practice under our present Government without the least question of its propriety afford a further corroboration of the intended & accepted sense of the Constitutional instrument.
The negative of the second question above stated is supported by these considerations.
I   A discretionary right of assent in the House of Representatives (as before shewn) would contradict the two important propositions of the Constitution—That the President with the Senate shall have power to make Treaties—That the Treaties so made shall be laws.
II   It supposes the House of Representatives at liberty to contravene the faith of the Nation engaged in a Treaty made by the declared constitutional Agents of the Nation for that purpose—and thus implies the contradiction that a Nation may rightfully pledge its faith through one organ, and without any change of circumstances to dissolve the obligation may revoke the pledge through another organ.
III   The obvious import of the terms which grant the Power of Treaty can only be controuled, if at all, by some manifest necessary implication in favour of the discretionary right which has been mentioned. But it has been seen that no such implication can be derived from the mere grant of certain powers to the House of Representatives in common with the other branch of the legislative body. As there is a rational construction which renders the due exercise of these powers in the cases to which they are competent compatible with the operation of the power of Treaty in all the necessary latitude, excluding the discretionary cooperation of the house of Representatives, that construction is to be preferred. It is far more natural to consider the exercise of those powers as liable to the exceptions which the power of Treaty granted to the President and Senate may make; than to infer from them a right in the House to share in this power in opposition to the terms of the grant and without a single expression in the constitution to designate the right. It is improbable that the constitution intended to vest in the house of Representatives so extensive a controul over treaties, without a single phrase that would look directly to the object. It is the more improbable, because the Senate being in the first instance a party to treaties, the right of discretionary cooperation in the House of Representatives, in virtue of its legislative character, would in fact terminate in itself, though but a part of the legislative body—which suggests this question,—Can the House of Representatives have any right in virtue of its general legislative character which is not effectually participated [in] by the Senate?
IV   The claim of such a right on the ground that the Legislative power is essentially deliberative, that wherever its agency is in question it has a right to act or not—and that consequently where provision by law is requisite to execute a Treaty there is liberty to refuse it—cannot be acceded to without admitting in the legislative body and in each part of it an absolute discretion incontroulable by any constitutional injunctions limits or restrictions; thereby overturning the fabric of a fixed & definite constitution and erecting upon its ruins a legislative Omnipotence.
It would, for example, give to Congress a discretion to allow or not a fixed compensation to the Judges, though the constitution expressly enjoins “that they shall at stated times receive for their services a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office”; and would sacrifice this solemn & peremptory command of the Constitution to the opinion of Congress respecting a more essential application of the public money. Can this be true? Can any thing but absolute inability excuse a compliance with this injunction, and does not the constitution presuppose a moral impossib[il]ity of such inability? If there be a legal discretion in any case to contravene this injunction, what limit is there to the legal discretion of the legislative body? What injunction, what restrictionof the constitution may they not supersede? If the Constitution cannot direct the exercise of their authority in particular cases how can it limit it in any? What becomes of the appeal to our Courts on the constitutionality of a legislative act? What becomes of the power they solemnly assert to test such an act by the constitutional Commission and to pronounce it operative or null according to its conformity with a repugnance to that Commission? What in fine becomes of the Constitution itself?
This inquiry suggests a truth fundamental to the principles of our Government and all important to the security of the People of the U States—namely that the legislative body is not deliberative in all cases, that it is only deliberative and discretionary where the constitution and the laws lay it under no command nor prohibition—that where they command, it can only execute—where they prohibit it cannot act. If the thing be commanded and the means of execution are undefined it may then deliberate on the choice of the means—but it is obliged to devise some means. It is true that the Constitution provides no method of compelling the legislative body to act, but it is not the less under a Constitutional legal and moral obligation to act, where action is prescribed, & in conformity with the rule of action prescribed.
In asserting the authority of laws as well as of the constitution to direct and restrain the position is to be understood with this difference. The constitution obliges always—the laws ’till they are annulled or repealed by the proper authority. But till then they oblige the legislative body as well as individuals; and all their antecedent effects are valid and binding. And the abrogation or repeal of a law must be by an act of the regular organ of the national will for that purpose in the forms of the constitution; not by a mere refusal to give effect to its injunctions and requisitions; especially by a part of the legislative body. A legal discretion to refuse the execution of a preexisting law is virtually a power to repeal it—and to attribute this discretion to a part of the legislative body is to attribute to it the whole instead of a part of the legislative power in the given case. When towards the execution of an antecedent law further legislative provision is necessary, the past effects of the law are obligatory; and a positive repeal or suspension by the whole legislature is requisite to arrest its future operation. The idea is essential in a government like ours that there is no body of men or individual above the law; not even the legislative body till by an act of legislation they have annulled the law.
The argument from the principle of an essentially deliberative faculty in the legislative body is the less admissible, because it would result from it that the Nation could never be conclusively bound by a Treaty. Why should the inherent discretion of a future legislature be more bound by the assent of a preceding one than this was by a pledge of the public faith through the President & Senate.
Hence it follows that the house of representatives have no moral power to refuse the execution of a treaty, which is not contrary to the constitution, because it pledges the public faith, and have no legal power to refuse its execution because it is a law—until at least it ceases to be a law by a regular act of revocation of the competent authority.
The ingredient peculiar to our Constitution, in that provision, which declares that Treaties are laws, is of no inconsiderable weight in the question. It is one thing whether a Treaty pledging the faith of the Nation shall by force of moral duty oblige the legislative will to carry it into effect; another whether it shall be of itself a law. The last is the case in our constitution which by a fundamental decree gives the character of a law to every Treaty, made under the authority which it designates. Treaties therefore in our government of themselves and without any additional sanction have full legal perfection as laws.
Questions may be made as to the cases in which and the authority by which under our constitution a Treaty consonant with it may be pronounced to have lost or may be divested of its obligatory force; a point not necessary now to be discussed. But admitting that authority to reside in the legislative body—still its exercise must be by an act of Congress declaring the fact and the consequence, or declaring war against the power with whom the Treaty is. There is perceived to be nothing in our constitution, no rule of Constitutional law, to authorise one branch alone, or the House of Representatives in particular, to pronounce the existence of such cases, or from the beginning to refuse compliance with such a Treaty without any new events to change the original obligations. A right in the whole Legislative body consisting of the two houses of Congress by a collective act to pronounce the cases of non operation & nullity of a Treaty asserts every thing that can reasonably be claimed in favour of the legislative Power, presents a consistent rule & obviates all pretence of collision.
How discordant might be the results of a doctrine that the House of Representatives may at discretion execute or not a constitutional Treaty! What confusion, if our Courts of Justice should recognise & enforce as laws treaties, the obligation of which was denied by the House of Representatives!—and that on a principle of inherent discretion which no decision of the Courts could guide. We might see our commercial & fiscal systems disorganised by the breaches made in antecedent laws by posterior treaties, through the want of some collateral provisions requisite to give due effect to the principle of the new rule.
Can that doctrine be true which may present a Treaty operating as a law upon all the citizens of a country and yet legally disregarded by a portion of the legislative body?
The sound conclusion appears to be—that when a Treaty contains nothing but what the constitution permits, it is conclusive upon All and All are bound to give it effect. When it contains more than the constitution permits it is void either in the whole or as to so much as it improperly contains.
While I can discover no sufficient foundation in the constitution for the claim of a discretionary right in the House of Representatives to participate in giving validity to Treaties; I am confirmed in the contrary inference by the knowlege I have that the expediency of this participation was considered by the Convention which planned the Constitution and was by them overruled.
The greatness of the power of Treaty under this construction is no objection to its truth. It is doubtless a great power, and necessarily so, else it could not answer those purposes of national security and interest in the external relations of a Country for which it is designed. Nor does the manner in which it is granted in our constitution furnish any argument against the magnitude which is ascribed to it—but the contrary. A treaty cannot be made without the actual cooperation and mutual consent of the Executive and two thirds of the Senate. This necessity of positive cooperation of the Executive charges him with a high responsibility, which cannot but be one great security for the proper exercise of the Power. The proportion of the Senate requisite to their valid consent to a treaty approaches so near to unanimity, that it would always be very extraordinary, if it should be given to one really pernicious or hurtful to the State. These great guards are manifest indications of a great power being meant to be deposited. So that the manner of its deposit is an argument for its magnitude rather than an argument against it, and an argument against the intention to admit with a view to security the discretionary cooperation of the House of Representatives rather than in favour of such a right in them.
Two thirds of the two houses of Congress may exercise their whole legislative power, not only without but against the consent of the Executive. It is not evident on general principles, that in this arrangement, there is a materially greater security against a bad law than in the other against a bad Treaty. The frequent absolute necessity of secrecy not only in the conduct of a foreign negotiation, but at certain conjunctures as to the very articles of a Treaty is a natural reason why a part and that the least numerous part of the legislative body was united with the Executive in the making of Treaties in exclusion of the other and the most numerous. But if the deposit of the Power of Treaty was less safe & less well guarded, than it is conceived to be, this would not be a good argument against its being in fact exclusively deposited, as the terms of the Constitution which establish it import it to be. It would only be an argument for an amendment to the Constitution modifying the deposit of the power differently & superadding new guards.
If the House of Representatives called upon to act in aid of a Treaty made by the President & Senate believe it to be unwarranted by the cons[ti]tution which they are sworn to support—it will not be denied that they may pause in the execution; until a decision, on the point of constitutionality, in the Supreme Court of the United States shall have settled the question.
But this is the only discretion in that House, as to the obligation to carry a Treaty made by the President & Senate into effect, in the existence of which I can acquiesce, as being within the intent of the constitution.
Hence there was no question in my opinion of the competency of the House of Representatives, which I could presuppose likely to arise, to which any of the papers now requested could be deemed applicable; nor does it yet appear that any such question has arisen, upon which the request has been predicated.
Were even the course of reasoning which I have pursued less well founded than it appears to me to be—the request of papers, as a preliminary proceeding of the House, would still seem to be premature.
A question on the Constitutionality of a Treaty can manifestly only be decided by comparing the instrument itself with the Constitution.

A question whether a Treaty be consistent with or adverse to the interests of the U States must likewise be decided by comparing the stipulations which it actually contains with the situation of the U States in their internal and external relations.
Nothing extrinsic to the Treaty, or in the manner of the negotiating, can make it constitutional or unconstitutional, good or bad, salutary or pernicious. The internal evidence it affords is the only proper standard of its merits.
Whatever therefore be the nature of the duty or discretion of the house, as to the execution of the Treaty, it will find its rule of action in the Treaty. Even with reference to an animadversion on the conduct of the Agents who made the Treaty—the presumption of a criminal mismanagement of the interests of the U States ought first it is conceived to be deduced from the intrinsic nature of the Treaty & ought to be pronounced to exist previous to a further inquiry to ascertain the guilt or the guilty.
Whenever the House of Representatives, proceeding upon any Treaty, shall have taken the ground that such a presumption exists in order to such an inquiry, their request to the Executive to cause to be laid before them papers which may contain information on the subject will rest on a foundation that cannot fail to secure to it due efficacy.
But under all the circumstances of the present Request (circumstances which I forbear to particularise) and in its present indefinite form, I adopt with reluctance and regret but with intire conviction the opinion that a just regard to the Constitution and to the duty of my office forbid on my part a compliance with that request.
(G W)

If the President should conclude to send the papers reserving parts not proper to be sent instead of the last paragraph the conclusion may be this
“But though under all the circumstances of the present request (circumstances which have produced great hesitation) I should deem myself warranted in witholding the papers—I am nevertheless induced by a desire to cultivate harmony and to obviate unfavourable inferences in a case which has excited so much sensibility, to transmit to the House all such parts of the papers requested as can be material in any event for their information and as can be communicated without impropriety. These comprehend the commissions given to our Envoy, so much of the instructions to him as shew the extent & limits of his discretion & all the material parts of his correspondence.”
(G W)


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Robert Morris, 30 March 1796
From: Morris, Robert
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Alexander Hamilton Esqre
Philada 30 March 1796
Dear Sir
I delivered your letter to Wm Lewis Esqre together with yours to me and a draft of the Mortgage. He promised attention but as the Supreme Court is Sitting I believe he is much hurried. It will be over in a few days & then I suppose we shall get the business finished. In the mean time I drop this line that you may know that no delay occurs on my part. On the Contrary I wish to put you perfectly at ease & always am
Dr Sir Yrs Sincerely
RM


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Rufus King, 1 April 1796
From: King, Rufus
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia, April 1, 1796. On April 2, 1796, Hamilton wrote to King: “Thank you for yours of yesteday.” Letter not found.]


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Rufus King, 2 April 1796
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: King, Rufus

[New York] April 2. 1796
Thank you for yours of yesteday. I have no copy of the paper sent. The greatest part went in the original draft though considerably reformed according to joint ideas & somewhat strengthened by new thoughts. A letter I have received tells me that it came to hand after the ground which was acted upon had been formally considered & taken in Council & that it is reserved for future use in the event of an expected criticism of the message.
I have asked for it conditionaly to prune correct &c. If I get it you shall have a copy. But you must take care that there is no crossing of path. Yrs. truly
A. Hamilton


Title: Admission to Practice Law in the United States Circuit Court for the New York District in the Eastern Circuit, [6 April 1796]
From: United States Circuit Court for the New York District in the Eastern Circuit
To: Hamilton, Alexander,Hoffman, Josiah Ogden,Livingston, Brockholst,Du Ponceau, Peter Stephen

[New York, April 6, 1796]
Ordered,
That Alexander Hamilton, Josiah Ogden Hoffman, Brockholst Livingston and Peter Stephen Du Ponceau be and they are hereby respectively admitted to practice as Counsellors of this Court. Whereupon they were respectively qualified as Counsellors and respectively subscribed the oath on the roll of Counsellors.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, [8 April 1796]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Washington, George

[New York, April 8, 1796]
Sir
I have done something but not what I intended. The sitting of two Courts & my professional engagements there prevent the execution of my plan. I no longer withold the paper lest circumstances should render it of any use.
Most Affecy & resp
A H
April 8. 1796
President


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Justus Erich Bollmann, 10 April 1796
From: Bollmann, Justus Erich
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia, April 10, 1796. On April 13, 1796, Bollmann wrote to Hamilton: “A few days ago I had the pleasure to inclose You a copy of a letter which I had written to the President of the United States.” Letter not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Fisher Ames, 13–14 April 1796
From: Ames, Fisher
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia, April 13–14, 1796. On April 15, 1796, Hamilton wrote to Rufus King and referred to “A letter by yesterday’s Post from our Friend Ames. Letter not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Justus Erich Bollmann, 13 April 1796
From: Bollmann, Justus Erich
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Philadelphia April 13. 1796
Sir,
A few days ago I had the pleasure to inclose You a copy of a letter which I had written to the President of the United States. In consequence of that I was called on Friday last to the State office, where Mr. Pickering told me that the President had some inclination to make a new effort to relieve the Marquis, and desired me at the same time to communicate to him by writing my Ideas on this subject. This occasioned a letter to the Secretary of State, of which I take the liberty to send You again a Copy, repeating once more that I always shall be very glad if You will enable me to regulate my Conduct with respect to myself as well as to the marquis, after your advice!
It was impossible not to have myself in view when I wrote the 8th paragraph of the inclosed letter, but I am so much convinced of what it asserts being essential and strictly true, that I would have written it exactly the same were I myself entirely out of the question!
It would be precious if this message were connectible with some other commercial and political object; it would be advantageous even, because the principal object, being in somewhat a secret one, would be more covered! I have received great kindness and attention from Prince Henry, when I was in Germany, and I am personally acquainted with the two sons of Count Bernstorf; of which the eldest is envoy extraordinary at the Court of Berlin!
I have the honor to be with the highest esteem   Sir   Your most obt. & hbe. st.
J. Erich Bollmann170 Market street


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to John Marshall, 14 April 1796
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Marshall, John

[New York April 14, 1796. On April 25, 1796, Marshall wrote to Hamilton: “Yours of the 14th only reached me by the mail of this evening.” Letter not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Germain Pierre Decrosses, 16 April 1796
From: Decrosses, Germain Pierre
To: Hamilton, Alexander

New York, April 16, 1796. “j’ai eu l’honneur de me presenter chez vous ce matin, mais je nai pas eu celui de vous y rencontrer. je quitte sous huit-jours cette terre hospitaliére pour aller dans un pays ou se trouvent réunis tous les fléaux qui peuvent affliger l’humanité. des raisons d’une grande importance me font desirer d’être recû citoyen americain. je suis resident ici dans cette ville de New-york depuis six ans, et cent temoins peuvent le certifier et le cautioner. la ⟨cour supr⟩ême federale est-elle assemblée. dans ce cas rien de plus aisé, mais si elle ne l’est pas, n’y at-il pas un moyen dy suppleer, et de pouvoir me faire jouir des droits priviléges et immunités que ma bien certainement acquis un aussi long sejour.… j’ai eu l’honneur de vous être presenté par le colonel walker, et sur les bontés et l’interêt particulier dont veut bien M’honorer Mr. jay votre ami et si digne de l’etre.…”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Woodbury Langdon, 18 April 1796
From: Langdon, Woodbury
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Portsmouth [New Hampshire] April 18, 1796. “I conceive it will be necessary for you to have the original note which I hold against Michael Wentworth deceased, in order to settle matters with Mr. Edward Goold. I intended to have left it with you on my return from Philadelphia, but forgot it when I was with you last.…”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Oliver Wolcott, Junior, 18 April 1796
From: Wolcott, Oliver, Jr.
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia, April 18, 1796. On April 20, 1796, Hamilton wrote to Wolcott: “I have received your letter of the 18th. instant.” Letter not found.]


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Rufus King, [20 April 1796]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: King, Rufus

[New York, April 20, 1796]
Dr. Sir
Yesterdays Post brought me a letter from you which gave me pleasure. The papers will apprize you of the proceedings of the Merchants & Traders here on yesterday. There is among them also “unexampled unanimity” & as far as I can judge the current is in our favour throughout the City. Persons to day are going through the different wards.
Yrs. sincerely
A HamiltonApril 20. 1796
P.S. Our friends in the House will do well to gain time.

Rufus King Esq


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Oliver Wolcott, Junior, 20 April 1796
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Wolcott, Oliver, Jr.

New York April 20. 1796
Dr. Sir
I have received your letter of the 18th. instant. The money paid me for you shall be placed to your Credit in the Office of Discount & Deposit as you desire.
The British Ministry are as great fools, or as great rascals, as our Jacobins—else our Commerce would not continue to be distressed as it is by their Cruisers, nor would the Executive be embarrassed as it now is by the new proposition.

Not knowing the precise form of that proposition, I cannot have an opinion what is right on the part of the Executive. But if I understand it, it ought to be sufficient for the Executive to declare that the article in the Treaty with the Indians can never operate nor will be permitted to operate in contravention of the Treaty with G Britain. It relates to a right reserved for our benefit which we can and will wave & being in a Treaty of subsequent date, it naturally gives way to another of prior date with which it is consistent. The Executive ought to be careful about admitting the propriety of a new condition though it ought to be ready to give all due satisfaction. It should not even shun a new explanatory article if reasonable in itself—but should agree to it upon the strength of its own reasonableness not as a new condition foreign to the Treaty. This affair requires great caution. But as I said I do not know enough to give advice worth much.
Yet the Government must take care not to appear pusyllanimous. I hope a very serious remonstrance has long since gone against the wanton impressment of our seamen. It will be an error to be too tame with this overbearing Cabinet.
Our City is in motion against the plan of the Majority in the House of Representatives with regard to the Treaty. The current appears to be strong with us. The papers will tell you the measures in contemplation.
But I was sorry to learn that a proper qualified communication was not made to the House of Representatives of the late communication from the British Agent. The Executive may hereafter be blamed for withholding so important a fact. Yet not knowing the whole affair I cannot judge well on this point more than on the other.
Yrs
A Hamilton
Oliver Wolcott Esq


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Walter Livingston, 22 April 1796
From: Livingston, Walter
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Livingston Manor [New York] April 22, 1796. Asks Hamilton to serve as his attorney in a suit against “the Executors of my late brother Robt. C. L. for the recovery of my ⅓ of three Bonds given to him by Mr. Robt. Morris for £3333 23/68 pensy. Curry. each—as a doceur for not biding for the Lands held by Massachusets in this State.… to Consult with Mr. Saml. Jones, respecting the Action commenced for me against Jno. R. Livingston for ½ of the Ship Somerset and her Cargo,” and to “consult with Mr. Jones respecting the Suit commenced against Ben. Seixes on his Note in favor of P Colt for 10977 Dols. Defd. Debt.”


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Fisher Ames, 23 April 1796
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Ames, Fisher

[New York, April 23, 1796. On April 23, 1796, Hamilton wrote to Rufus King: “I have written to Ames this day.” Letter not found.]


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Rufus King, [23 April 1796]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: King, Rufus

[New York, April 23, 1796]
Dr. Sir
I have received your two letters & shall this day attend to the one which requires it. I see however no objection to it as it stands & I do not now perceive how the further object you aim at could be accomplished in the manner you seem to desire.
I have written to Ames this day concerning the course of things in our City. He will communicate to you as, I have not time to repeat. We are decidedly well. But it is intended today to continue the Petition in circulation & tomorrow it will be sent. I thought it adviseable to publish an extract from your letter without naming you.
Yrs. truly
A HamiltonApril 23 1796
R King Esqr


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Rufus King, 24 April [1796]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: King, Rufus

[New York] April 24 [1796]
Dr. Sir
I return you a certain draft, with a little substitute for the close of it proposed by Mr. J—— with an eye to your suggestion.
Our Petition went yesterday by express. It had more than 3200 signers which is within about 300 of the highest poll we ever had in this City on both sides, at the most controverted election. Nothing can more clearly demonstrate our unanimity & I feel no doubt of equal or greater unanimity throughout the state.
The Meeting men have not dared to publish the names of this Committee, because it imprudently contained a considerable proportion of persons hostile to its object—several of them actually on our Petition. You see by this their embarrassment & their weakness.
Yrs.
A H


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from John Marshall, 25 April 1796
From: Marshall, John
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Richmond April 25th. 96
Dear Sir
Yours of the 14th only reachd me by the mail of this evening. I had been informed of the temper of the house of representatives & we had promptly taken such measures as appeard to us fitted to the occasion. We coud not venture an expression of the public mind under the violent prejudices with which it had been impressd, so long as a hope remaind that the house of representatives might ultimately consult the interest or honor of the nation. But now when all hope of this has vanishd, it was deemed adviseable to make the experiment however hazardous it might be. A meeting was calld which was more numerous than I have ever seen at this place & after a very ardent & zealous discussion which consumd the day, a decided majority declard in favor of a resolution that the welfare & honor of the nation requird us to give full effect to the treaty negotiated with Britain.
This resolution with a petition drawn by an original opponent of the treaty will be forwarded by the next post to Congress. The subject will probably be taken up in every county in the state or at any rate in very many of them. It is probable that a majority of the counties will avow sentiments opposd to ours—but the division of the state will appear to be much more considerable than has been stated. In some of the districts there will certainly be a majority who will concur with us & that perhaps may have some effect. As Man is a gregarious animal we shall certainly derive much aid from declarations in support of the constitution & of appropriations if such can be obtaind, from our sister States. The ground we take here is very much that of Mr. Hillhouse. We admit the discretionary constitutional power of the representatives on the subject of appropriations but contend that the treaty is as completely a valid & obligatory contract when negotiated by the President & ratified by him with the assent & advice of the Senate as if sanctiond by the house of representatives also under a constitution requiring such sanction. I think it woud be very difficult perhaps impossible to engage Mr. H. on the right side of this question. If you have any communications which might promote a concurrence of action we shall be proud to receive them.
With much respect & esteem I am dear Sir your Obedt.
J Marshall


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Philip Schuyler, 25 April 1796
From: Schuyler, Philip
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Albany Monday April 25th 1796
Dear Sir
Unadvised of the measures pursuing at New York, relative to the treaty with Britain, It was not deemed prudent to convene the citizens here on the Subject, until we received information from your city. On Saturday morning the mail arrived, and the Herald announced what had been done—about forty Citizens were immediately convened, and unanimously agreed to petition in the words of the new York petition, with no other variation than what was requisite to Accomodate It to the people in this quarter. Five hundred copies where immediately printed, proper persons appointed to invite the Signature of the Citizens individually, before sunset this was compleated, all having subscribed Except about  who declined, many decided Antifœdarelist concurred and signed.
A circular letter was prepared, directed to the Supervizers, Assessors & town Clerks, of the Several towns in this and the counties to the Eastward, northward & westward of this. Several of these, with copies of the petition are already dispatched, and the residue will be sent to day. We believe the Subscribers will be numerous.
The petition from this city will be sent to Philadelphia by this days mail.
We are anxious to hear the result of the Application to the citizens of New York, and If favorable, wish It to ⟨be⟩ communicated in a formal manner, by the New York committee.
The inclosed, is a copy of the letter, which accompanied the copy of the petition to the several towns.
Pray drop me a line, advising me of the latest intelligence from Philadelphia, on this important subject.
Adieu my Love to all with You   Yours most affectionately
Ph: Schuyler
Alexander Hamilton Esqr


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from William Lewis, 27 April 1796
From: Lewis, William
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia, April 27, 1796. On April 27, 1796, Robert Morris wrote to Hamilton: “Mr. Lewis … says he has written you two letters, the last of them this morning.” Letter of April 27 not found.]


Title: Introductory Note: From Robert Morris, [27 April 1796]
From:
To:

[Philadelphia, April 27, 1796]
This letter is the first in Morris’s correspondence with Hamilton that refers to a debt which Benjamin Walker was trying to collect from Morris. Hamilton became involved in this matter because both men consulted him about it on more than one occasion and because the debt in question became inextricably intertwined in Morris’s efforts to pay a debt which he owed to John B. Church, who was the English husband of Elizabeth Hamilton’s sister Angelica, and for whom Hamilton acted as agent or representative in the United States.
The debt on which Walker was attempting to secure payment had been contracted by William S. Smith, John Adams’s son-in-law, on behalf of the Pulteney Associates. In 1790–1791 both Smith and William Temple Franklin were in England to promote the sale of American securities and lands. Their major customer proved to be William Johnstone Pulteney, a leading British capitalist and a member of the House of Commons, who in 1791 agreed to buy from Robert Morris 1.2 million acres in the Genesee country of western New York. Associated in this purchase with Pulteney was William Hornby, who had been governor of Bombay. The man who served as intermediary and made the preliminary arrangements for Pulteney’s purchase was Patrick Colquhoun, a merchant of Glasgow, who had once lived in Virginia. The organization which these men formed was variously known as the Pulteney Association, Pulteney Associates, London Associates and London Association. For his part in arranging the sale of Morris’s property, Colquhoun was given an interest of one-twelfth in the purchase, while Pulteney’s and Hornby’s interests were respectively nine-twelfths and two-twelfths.
On his return to the United States in 1791, Smith in his capacity as agent for the Pulteney Associates loaned Morris $100,000 which belonged to Pulteney and Hornby. According to the terms of this loan Morris was to repay Smith with funded debt in two installments due on July 1, 1792, and January 1, 1793, together with interest payments. To secure the payment of this debt Morris conveyed to Smith the Morris Reserve comprising some five hundred thousand acres of Genesee lands. This transaction was accomplished by a deed and defeasance, which taken together constituted a mortgage. The deed was recorded in the office of the Secretary of State of New York, but the defeasance was not recorded. The defeasance stated in effect that if Morris paid his debt to Smith, the land pledged for the payment of the debt would be returned to Morris.
Morris met the first of the two payments owed to Smith, but he failed to pay the remaining $50,000 when this obligation fell due. This was the situation in May, 1795, when Smith assigned the mortgage to Walker, who had succeeded Smith as the representative of the Pulteney Associates. On assuming his new responsibilities Walker was alarmed to learn that Morris had sold two tracts in the Reserve which had been mortgaged to Smith. Accordingly, in October, 1795, Walker sued in Chancery for an injunction to prevent additional sales of the Reserve by Morris and to foreclose Morris’s equity of redemption.
By 1796, the injunction sought by Walker had been issued, and it was in the spring of that year that Hamilton became directly involved in the dispute between Walker and Morris. In the letter printed below Morris is proposing to secure the payment of his debt to John B. Church by mortgaging to Hamilton one hundred thousand acres of the Morris Reserve, all of which had already been mortgaged to Smith (and was now mortgaged to Walker) and was tied up by Walker’s suit in Chancery. To have the suit dismissed and thus clear the way for mortgaging the one hundred thousand acres to Hamilton, Morris needed $50,000 in cash to pay Walker. To secure this sum, as he mentions in the letter below, he asked Samuel Ogden to act as his agent and to sell some of Morris’s lands in the Morris Reserve. On May 10, 1796, Morris was able to report to Hamilton that Ogden had sold fifty thousand acres to Othniel Taylor and Asa Danforth for $57,500 and that he had proposed to Walker that he “would convey the said 50,000 acres to him and assign to him the above mentioned Contract which binds the parties to pay $57,000 and interest.” Walker was apparently receptive to Morris’s proposal, for Chancellor Robert Livingston, in response to a petition by Walker’s attorney, gave Morris permission to mortgage the one hundred thousand acres to Hamilton to secure the debt to Church. Accordingly, on May 16, Morris and Hamilton agreed on a mortgage to Hamilton of the one hundred thousand acres and a bond for the payment of $81,679.44 to Church.
Morris soon had good reason to believe that whatever solutions he had devised merely served to create new problems. After he and Hamilton had agreed on the bond and mortgage for the debt to Church, Walker announced that he would not accept an assignment of the contract with Taylor and Danforth. Because Walker’s refusal among other things jeopardized Morris’s agreement with Hamilton, Morris reneged on Ogden’s sale to Taylor and Danforth and conveyed the fifty thousand acres to Garrett Cottringer, Morris’s bookkeeper and business associate. This, in turn, produced a delay in perfecting the mortgage of the one hundred thousand acres to Hamilton, for this property had a common border with the fifty thousand acres which had been conveyed to Cottringer. It was only after Cottringer’s name had been inserted in the mortgage to Hamilton that the mortgage was perfected on May 31, 1796.
Having reached an agreement concerning his debt to Church, Morris was then in a position to turn his attention to the $50,000 which he still owed to Pulteney and Hornby as a result of the loan made by Smith in 1791. Bypassing Walker, he worked out an arrangement with Charles Williamson, Pulteney’s agent in the Genesee country, for Cottringer to convey the fifty thousand acres in Cottringer’s name to Williamson. For his part Williamson agreed that this conveyance would cancel Morris’s debt of $50,000 to Pulteney and Hornby; that the four hundred and fifty thousand acres of the Morris Reserve, which remained after the conveyance of fifty thousand acres to Williamson, would be reconveyed to Morris; and that Walker’s suit in Chancery would be dismissed. In announcing this agreement to Hamilton in a letter on January 7, 1797, Morris wrote: “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 Compensation you say is right.”
In March, 1797, Hamilton sent to Morris Williamson’s deed of fifty thousand acres, but Morris’s troubles with Walker were still not over, for the suit in Chancery remained. Morris was not completely relieved of this particular part of his financial misery until June 6, 1797, when the Chancellor directed that Walker’s suit be dismissed.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Oliver Wolcott, Junior, 29 April 1796
From: Wolcott, Oliver, Jr.
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Phila. Apl. 29. 1796
Dr. Sir
Private
I have recd. your favour of the 20th. The affair with Bond stands thus, & is truly attended with some perplexing circumstances.

The communication states, that provisional orders have been given for the surrender of the Posts whenever the House of Representatives shall have indicated an intention to give effect to the Treaty & when an article shall have been negociated explanatory of the sense of the two nations that the 8th article of our Treaty with the Indians shall not abrogate from the rights stipulated in favour of British subjects by the 3d. article of the Treaty with Great Britain. The style of the Memorial is respectful & the doubtful article in the Indian Treaty is attributed to want of information on our part of the Stipulation in the B. Treaty.

I have thought that a declaration by the Executive, that we admit the doctrine of the Law of nations, ought to be sufficient, & that insisting upon an explanatory article was pressing a point rather unreasonably against us. As however Mr. Bond says that he is instructed to insist on an article, & as the terms can be adjusted so as compleatly to save the national honour, perhaps we are bound to consent. I feel however that the Executive ought not to have been embarrassed at present.
There being two points to be settled, before we obtain the Posts, one concerning the Legislation & the other the Senate, it has appeared to me that a partial communication would be improper, & that a general one would be inexpedient. A message to the House would moreover unnecessarily stimulate the passions of the opposition. A resolution for giving effect to the Treaty is under consideration. The presumption ought to be that they will do their duty. On this ground, the Senate have forborne to connect a provision for the B. Treaty with the bills which have been sent up respecting the other Treaties. The principle which has governed the Senate, if correct, requires the Executive to forbear his interference.
Some difficulty may be apprehended in obtaining a ratification of the explanatory article in the present state of the Senate, but it will be surmounted.

I think the government will succeed in the present contest, but it remains doubtful whether order can be long preserved. Unless a radical change of opinion can be effected in the Southern States, the existing establishments will not last eighteen months. The influence of Messrs. Gallatin, Madison & Jefferson must be diminished, or the public affairs will be brought to a stand. No proper attention is paid to the current business of the Government by the House; every thing is in the hands of the Committees, nothing is understood & few matters of importance in a train for being compleated. Before the Treaty question commenced, the Treaty furnished a pretence for delay—the length of the session & the languor of the members will furnish another pretext, after that question shall have been determined.
Mr. Patten, the Post Master, communicated to me yester day a singular circumstance. Some time since, letters were delivered into his Office, for Robert Cowper & a Doctor Graham of Suffolk in Virginia. By some means Mr. Patten discovered that these Letters had been brought from Virginia, & this he says induced him to suspect some mischief & to write to Virginia. I have seen the answer which he (Patten) recd. from Robt. Cowper in which he says that the Letter to him was signed with your Name—that to Doct. Graham was signed with the name of Mr. Van Allen of Congress. It seems that the Letters were forgeries, & contain something which if true might injure yours & Mr. V Allens characters. This is doubtless some Jacobin Trick. I shall try to detect it & give you information. At present I have no particulars.
I am truely yrs.
Oliv. Wolcott Jr.
Alex Hamilton Esq


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Rufus King, 1 May [1796]
From: King, Rufus
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia] Sunday 1 May [1796]
In committee of the whole on friday it was resolved by the casting vote of Muhlenburgh the chairman, to make provision by Law for carrying the Treaty with England into Effect. Yesterday the Resolution of the Committee of the whole was passed in the House by 51. against 48. A proposition to prefix to the Resolution a Preamble declaring the Treaty to be injurious to the Interest of the US. and assigning the short duration of its temporary articles as a reason why it should be permitted to go into Effect, was negatived by 50. against 49. and the Resolution was immediately, and without Division, referred to a Committee with instructions to prepare and report a Bill or Bills in conformity with the Resolution. The failure of the Party in their intention to denounce the Treaty, I am fearful will not discourage them in a second attempt. A majority of five or Six (If I am not mistaken) would join in a vote of condemnation, but in the shape in which the proposition was offered, some of the most inveterate Opponents of the treaty, voted in the negative because they said, if they voted for the Preamble, it would be then proper for them to vote for the Resolution which they were determined not to do. Though from the State in which the Business now is, I hope the attempt will not be made, yet if an independent Resolution shd. be offered, declaring the Treaty to be injurious &c &c I am apprehensive it would be adopted. This however would not defeat the Procession for the Execution of the Treaty—51 votes in the affirmative; the speakers vote with that of Mr. Freeman of Massachusetts, both of whom are in favor of the Provisions, make 53, affirmative voices, a Majority of the whole Number of Reps.
Yr’s &c
RK


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from William Tatham, 2 May 1796
From: Tatham, William
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Confidential
At the Court of SpainAranjuez 2d. May 1796.
Sir,
Being fully satisfied that the sentiments of our two very young Representitives in this Country holding the appointments of Charge de Affairs and Consul, of the United States are so different from those you have openly avowed that you will not be amongst the number of their correspondents, a knowledge of your public Character without a personal acquaintance induces me to communicate to you what concerns our Country at perhaps the most critical period it has experienced since our establishment.
The French Ambassadour Perignon attended by The General Officer & his Suite late Comr. in Chief of the Army of Rousillon arrived here a few days ago & had his introduction at court which is said to have been less favourable above stairs than below; I do not feel myself at liberty to state particulars.
God only knows in what this european war will end. “Divide and Conquer” seems to me to be the ill judged maxim, and our fate will really be a hard one if we are compelled to take a part in it for want of firm unanimity and attention to our internal interests!

I fear such a change in the War with England as to render our Country a principal Theatre of future operations: perhaps we may be compelled to seek safety in a closer connection with the Canadian Territories of our British Enemies unless the Nations who are now at Peace should all combine for a continuance of it under something like an Armed Neutrality; for if Spain should join the other side in this European contest thro’ necessity I have reason to think that the destruction of Brittish naval power, a Revolution in England, the recapture of Canada (regardless of the King of France’s stipulation) and the surrender of Gibraltar tho’ not agreed upon with the Cabinet of Madrid will at least be contemplated by that of Paris.
Here it is that I am at a loss to find the subsequent security which it behooves Spain and us to look to! for altho’ the Republic of France avows the coequal Right of Countries to govern their own Affairs as the very essence of their Revolution, I cannot comprehend how the purity of that principle is any longer a basis when she goes abroad in search of foreign Colonization, or adopts measures of a dictatorial Complexion towards others who are acknowledged to be equaly free; or do I see how the Crown of Spain can be safe in relying on those successes of a People which go to destroy the Barrier which themselves have set up in their own social Contract, and to level the Power of Monarchy thro’t the Universe in an Anarchy & Confusion beyond every calculation of certainty.
I inclose You in haste a Copy of my Letter to Mr. Rutledge by which You will see how I stand with him & conjecture his way of thinking. I would not have this understood as intended to injure him in his future consequence in life, for I have realy a high opinion of him as to his integrity and Heart; but regardless of private Freindship it is my duty to say as I beleive that unless one of our most temperate and experienced Statesmen is placed here we have no political Security! for these are not Times to trust the Chariot of the Sun in the hands of Phaeton.

I think also well of Young Yznardy personally, & he certainly in his Office supports our dignity under the indulgence of an amiable and gratefull Father with true Andalusian pride: It is however lucky for him to live in his native luxurious Climate in the Reign of Charles the 4th.; & still move so that Long Island is nearer to New York than to Cadiz.
Between them I suppose I shall have to appear at the Bar of the supreme Court in a new Capacity on my return, & in this Case I must request that You will consider yourself retained for me.
As I have not nor never had a secret to hide from the old General (God knows if he is still President) beyond a temporary expediency, I leave you at perfect liberty to transmit this to Him; & if You enquire of my Freinds Colol. E. Carrington or The Hone. J. Steele of the Virga. Council I have no doubt that You will approve my political principles without tacking my faith to the Slave of any Foreign Power. My life is at Stake commit me not to any other living Soul?
I am in haste Yours hastily
Wm Tatham
Hone.Alexr. Hamilton

N. York ☞ News! be guarded & United if possible W.T.

P.S. Just as I am about to close this I am told that “a Courier arrived last night from the United States to Mr. Rutledge.” I suppose he will not fail to let some of his Foreign Companions know more than he will confide to me as I have not seen him since my Letter to him. I shall in every event do all I can to keep our yet happy Country united & quiet.

W.T.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Rufus King, [4 May 1796]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: King, Rufus

[New York, May 4, 1796]
My Dear Sir
Since my last I have received two or three letters from you. The late turn of the Treaty question makes us all very happy. I hope no future embarrassment will arise.
I am intirely of opinion that P.H declining Mr. P—— ought to be our man. It is even an idea of which I am fond in various lights. Indeed on latter reflection, I rather wish to be rid of P.H, that we may be at full liberty to take up Pinckney.
In the event of Pinck[n]ey’s return to this Country, I am of opinion all circumstances considered, it is expedient you should replace him. I hope no great question will in a short period agitate our Councils & I am sure you will do much good on the scene in question. I have called on Jay, but happened not to find him disengaged. I shall quickly see him & shall with great pleasure do every thing requisite on my part.
We believe confidently our election in this City has succeeded; the other party however also claims success. Our Senator Ticket seems admitted on both sides to have prevailed & all accounts assure us of great success throughout the state. The vile affair of whipping Burke & McCredy made our election in the view of the common people a question between the Rich & the Poor. You will easily conceive how much this must have embarrassed & jeoparded.
Yrs. Affectionately
A Hamilton
May 4 1796
Rufus King Esq


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from William Lewis, 4 May 1796
From: Lewis, William
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Philadelphia, May 4, 1796. “When I wrote you a few lines some days since I intended writing you more fully before this time, & this I should have done had I not soon after been informed by Mr. Morris that finding you to be very desirous to have security within the State of New York he had written to you offering you a security of lands within that state which he had no doubt but you would most willingly accept. On learning this I have waited in expectation of your answer being received either by Mr. Morris or myself, but not having since heard from you I have concluded to write to you without further delay. In Pennsylvania we have no Court of Chancery for a mortgagee to apply to in order to foreclose the equity of redemption in case of non-payment by the mortgagor but the remedy is by a scire facias issued under an act of Assembly which enacts that when any lands or tenements are mortgaged for securing the payment of monies if default shall be made by non-payment & it shall be lawful for the mortgagee after the expiration of one year thereafter to sue out a writ of scire facias to summon the mortgagor to shew cause why the mortgaged premises should not be levied on & sold to pay the monies due. This scire facias describes the mortgaged premisses by meets & bounds, courses & distances; the judgment is that execution be had of the premisses so described; the writ of execution follows the description contained in the mortgage & the sale & Sheriff’s deed must be equally particular. But as only part of Mr. Morris’s warrant rights have been actually surveyed & located & as the applications & warrants describe no particular spots nor contain any other description than that of being on or near certain waters &c it is impossible for a mortgage to describe them & as an Execution must pursue the words of the mortgage no sale could be made in this way even tho’ surveys should be made & returned & the Patents should issue after making the mortgage & before issuing the execution. Hence it is evident that unless you take a security in New York you must either wait till all the surveys are returned & allowed or another mode which I believe unexceptionable must be adopted, as has lately been done under my direction in another case. It is that a mortgage be taken of the warrant rights with a power for you, your heirs &c to sell in case of non payment by the mortgagor. In that case the mortgage after reciting the bond will proceed to grant & convey all the warrant rights.… Unless you take security on lands in your state I think the mode proposed by me much better than any other on the same property which I have thought of. You desire me to examine the title of Mr. Morris to these lands but this is impossible at present until the Patents issue since the claims of our Speculators very frequently clash & untill patents issue either party may enter his caveat agt. the other & untill a hearing takes place before the board of propy. it is impossible to procure the necessary materials to form judgt. on. As to the State of Judgts agt. Mr. M. I hardly know what to say except that they are certainly very numerous & I fear to a large amt. tho I rather suppose that but few if any of them are of a nature to affect your proposed security. If you conclude on taking a security here be so good as to inform me of it that I may (now that our Courts are over) set about the necessary enquiries & arrangements without loss of time, but if you can obtain satisfactory security elsewhere I think you had better take it.…”


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Rufus King, [5 May 1796]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: King, Rufus

[New York, May 5, 1796]
Dr Sir.
After reading seal & hand on the inclosed. If such things are to be you cannot leave the Senate. Jay is against it at all events till the European storm is over. We must all think well of this business.
Adieu   Yours Affey
A Hamilton
May 5 1796.
R. King Esqr


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Edward Stevens, [7 May 1796]
From: Stevens, Edward
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia, May 7, 1796]
My dear Friend
Almost ever since your Departure I have been confined to my Chamber by a severe and obstinate Catarrh. Tho’ much better, at present, my Health is still so much deranged, that I dread encountering the Warmth of the Summer Months in this City. I have therefore, determined to take a Voyage to Sea, and as I shall visit St. Croix, before my Return, Mrs. Stevens has concluded to accompany me with our little ones. Our Absence will be but short. If no unexpected Event takes place we shall certainly return by the Month of September. I could not, however, leave America without assuring you of our best Wishes for the Health and Prosperity of yourself and Family. May every Blessing attend you. Mrs. S. unites with me in affectionate Remembrance of Mrs. Hamilton. I remain with unfeigned Attachment.
My dear Sir   Your sincere Freind
Edward Stevens.
Philadelphia May 7th. 1796.

We embark this Day.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from George Washington, 8 May 1796
From: Washington, George
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Philadelphia 8th. May 1796.
My dear Sir,
(Private & confidential)

Your note of the 5th. instant accompanying the information given to you by G.—— M.—— on the 4th. of March, came safe on friday. The letter he refers to, as having been written to me, is not yet received; but others from Mr. Monroe of similar complexion, and almost of as imperious a tone from that government, have got to hand.
That justice & policy should dictate the measures with which we are threatned, is not to be conceived; and one would think that even folly & madness on their part, would hardly go such lengths, without supposing a stimulus of a more serious nature than the Town meetings, & the partial resolutions which appeared in the course of last Summer & Autumn on ours. Yet, as it seems to be the Æra of strange vicissitudes, & unaccountable transactions; attended with a sort of irresistable fatality in many of them, I shall not be surprized at any event that may happen, however extraordinary it may be; and therefore, it may not be amiss to ruminate upon the information which has been received in its fullest latitude; and be prepared to answer the demands on the extensive scale wch has been mentioned.
What then do you think ought to be said in case G.—— M——s information should prove true, in all its parts? And what, if the proceedings, & Instructions of the French Directory should not exceed my conjecture, which is, that encouraged by the proceedings of last Summer on the Treaty (as already mentioned) and aided perhaps by communications of influencial men in this country, thro’ a medium which ought to have been the last to engage in it, that that government may, and I believe will send out an Envoy extraordinary, with Instructions to make strong remonstrances against the unfriendliness (as they will term it), and the tendency of our Treaty with Great Britain; accompanied probably, and expectedly, with discretionary powers to go farther, according to circumstances, and the existing state of matters when he shall have arrived here. Perhaps these Instructions may extend to a releasement from that part of our Treaty with them, which claims exemption from the seizure of Enemies goods in our Vessels. Perhaps, to demand the fulfilment of our guarantee of their West India Islds. as the most likely means of affording them relief, under the circumstances they labor at present. Perhaps too, to endeavor to render null & void our Treaty with G. Britain. Possibly all of them, or the dissolution of the Alliance. But I cannot bring my mind to believe that they seriously mean, or that they could accompany this Envoy with a Fleet, to demand the annihilation of the Treaty with G. Britain in fifteen days; or that War, in case of refusal, must follow as a consequence.
Were it not for the unhappy differences among ourselves, my answer wd. be short & decisive, to this effect. We are an Independent Nation, and act for ourselves. Having fulfilled, and being willing to fulfil, (as far as we are able) our engagements with other nations, and having decided on, and strictly observed a Neutral conduct towards the Belligerent Powers, from an unwillingness to involve ourselves in War—We will not be dictated to by the Politics of any Nation under Heaven, farther than Treaties require of us.
Whether the present, or any circumstances should do more than soften this language, may merit consideration. But if we are to be told by a foreign power (if our engagements with it are not infracted) what we shall do, and what we shall not do, we have Independence yet to seek, & have contended hitherto for very little.
If you have communicated the purport of G—— M——s letter to Mr. Jay, I wish you would lay this also before him, in confidence, and that you & he would be so good as to favor me with your sentiments, & opinions on both; and on the measures which you think would be most advisable to be taken, in case we should have to encounter the difficulties with which we are threatned: which, assuredly, will have been brought on us by the misconduct of some of our own intemperate people; who seem to have preferred throwing themselves into the arms of France (even under the present circumstances of that Country) to that manly, & Neutral conduct which is so essential, & would so well become us, as an Independent Nation.
Before, I close this letter, I will mention another subject, which, tho’ in a smaller degree, is nevertheless embarrassing. This also is communicated in confidence. It respects the wishes of young Fayette, relative to his father. As is very natural, & what might have been expected, he is extremely solicitous that something should be attempted to obtain the liberation of him; and has brought forward several plans (suggested by Doctr Ballman; who, it is to be feared will be found a troublesome guest among us) to effect it.
These will be better understood by the Enclosures now sent, than by any details I could give, when I add to them—the supposition of Fayette & Frestal, that the Doctor is without funds, and will be more embarrassing to them the longer he remains here. No mention, however, that has come to my knowledge of his going away.
The result of my reflection on this subject, and which I have communicated to the two young Men, is, that altho’ I am convinced in my own mind that Mr. La Fayette will be held in confinement by the combined Powers until Peace is established; yet to satisfy them, & their friends of my disposition to facilitate their wishes, as far as it can be done with any propriety on my part, I would as a private person, express in a letter to the Emperor, my wish, and what I believe to be the wishes of this Country towards that Gentleman; viz, that the liberation of him, conditioned on his repairing hither, would be a grateful measure. That this letter I would put under cover to Mr. Pinckney, to be forwarded or not, according to the view he might have of its success; after conversing indirectly with the Diplomatic characters of the combined Powers in London. But that I could not, while in Public Office, have any Agency in, or even knowledge of, any projects that should require concealment, or that I should be unwilling to appear openly & avowedly in. That as Doctr. Ballman had committed an act (however meritorious & pleasing it might be to the friends of Mr. de la Fayette) which was viewed in a very obnoxious light by the Power in whose possession the prisoner was—Had narrowly excaped condign punishment for it himself—and was released upon the express condition that he should never again appear in those Dominions, that I could neither shew him countenance—nor could I furnish him with money to extricate himself from difficulties (if he was in any). Seeing but little difference between giving before, or after, to a man who stands in the light he does between that Power & the Executive of the U States; but that, if he was disposed to quit the latter, I had no doubt, & he might be so assured, that the friends of Mr. de la Fayette would raise a sufficient sum to enable him to do this, and to defray his expences since he has been in this Country. What they will say to him, or he do in this matter, I know not.
If you & Mr. Jay see no impropriety in such a letter as I have mentioned, to be used at the discretion of Mr. Pinckney—I would thank either of you for drafting it. Mr. Jay in particular having been in the habit, & better acquainted with the stile and manner of addressing these sort of characters than I am, would be able to give it a better shape. To return the papers now sent, with the draught required, as soon as convenient, would be acceptable to
Dear Sir   Your Affecte Servt.
Go: Washington
Colo. A. Hamilton


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Robert Morris, 10 May 1796
From: Morris, Robert
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Philada. May 10th. 1796
Dear Sir
Your letter dated April 9th. but which was written yesterday, I presume, came to hand this Morning and I have since the receipt of it and of one from Colo Ogden seen Colo Walker who tells me that he left power with you to adjust with the latter the business of the Mortgage formerly granted by me to Colo W. Smith on behalf of Mr Pulteney &c., therefore I presume it has been settled in some way or other. Colo Ogden has sent me a Copy of the Articles of agreement made by him on my behalf with Othniel Taylor & Asa Danforth for the Sale of 50000 Acres of Land, and in order to have the affair compleatly finished, I proposed to Colo Walker that I would Convey the said 50,000 Acres to him and assign to him the above mentioned Contract which binds the parties to pay $57,500 and interest at the times therein mentioned. My debt to Mr. Pulteney for which the Mortgage was given is about fifty thousand Dollrs of Six ⅌ Ct Stock now Worth about 17/4 in the pound, but that I would Commute it into Money at 20/ or par, and Colo Walker to pay the bale of the Account, & enter Satisfaction on the Mortgage discharging me of the demand. It appears to me that this is necessary in order to give Value to the Mortgage I am to make to you and I have thus explained myself lest Colo Walker might misunderstand or not Recollect clearly my proposition. I think it is fair, honorable and generous such as will be approved by the principal, and therefore I expect that you will advise his Concurrence. I will have the Mortgage to you immediately drawn and the form you prescribe Shall be duly observed. I expect however to hear from you & Col Walker in answer to this letter, as I consider my hands to be tied up by the Chancery Suit, untill the Mortgage is discharged.
I am Dr Sir


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Timothy Pickering, [10 May 1796]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Pickering, Timothy

[New York, May 10, 1796]
Dr Sir
Inclosed is a letter which I will thank you to hand to its destination.

While I have my pen in my hand, give me leave to mention a particular subject to you. Mr. Pinckney, it is said, desires to return to the U States. In this case a successor will be wanted. If we had power to make a man for the purpose, we could not imagine a fitter than Mr. King. He is tired of the Senate & I fear will resign at all events. I presume he would accept the mission to England. Can there be a doubt that it will be wise to offer it to him?
Yrs with much esteem & regard
A Hamilton
May 10. 1796
T Pickering Esq


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Stephen Rochefontaine, 10 May 1796
From: Rochefontaine, Stephen
To: Hamilton, Alexander

West Point by Peekskill, May 10, 1796. “I have had the honor to transmit to you in the course of last week, a Letter detailing the affair which passed between Mr Wilson, a Lieut. in the Corps, and myself; the Injuries offered on both sides had been settled agreeably to the rules of honor adopted by gentlemen, and in consequence of a Particular agreement made by the two seconds; two days after I received a Challenge from Mr. Wilson by his second.… My answer was that I looked on that affair as settled. Some of the officers who are far from being my friends, and who are too Prudent to expose themselves to a gentlemanly explanation, took hold of that circumstance to revenge themslves without danger, they assembled the officers who … Sign’d a Sort of libel in which they declare that they will publish to the world, that after insulting Mr. Wilson, I refused to give him satisfaction; I refused the paper which was not authenticated by any signature, & I did not receive it back, but they Sent me a copy of some charges laid against me before the secretary of War. Mr. McHenry has Sent me the copy of that accusation, and has not Informed me yet what plan he expected to proceed upon. I desired him by this post to grant me a Court of Inquiry instead of a Court Martial.… I wish you would oblige me with your advice.…”


Title: Introductory Note: To George Washington, [10 May 1796]
From:
To:

[New York, May 10, 1796]
The opening paragraph of this letter contains the first reference in Hamilton’s extant correspondence to the preparation of Washington’s Farewell Address. Washington first conceived of the idea of a valedictory address in 1792, when he thought that he would retire at the end of his first term in March, 1793. In May, 1792, he asked James Madison to draft a farewell address, and Madison complied with the President’s request on June 20, 1792. When Washington continued in office for another term, Madison’s draft was put aside.
As the letter printed below indicates, Washington spoke with Hamilton about drafting a farewell address in February, 1796, when Hamilton was in Philadelphia to argue the constitutionality of the carriage tax before the Supreme Court of the United States. On May 15, 1796, the President sent Hamilton his first draft of a farewell address, which consisted of the speech written by Madison in 1792 and a section written by Washington to explain the “considerable changes” that had “taken place both at home & abroad” since 1792. Washington asked Hamilton either to prepare an entirely new address or to revise the President’s first draft. Hamilton decided to do both.
Between May 16 and July 5 Hamilton prepared an outline based on the Madison-Washington draft, which he endorsed “Abstract of points to form an address.” By July 5 Hamilton had finished his own draft. and on that date he wrote to the President: “I have completed the first draft of a certain paper & shall shortly transcribe correct & forward it. I will then also prepare & send forward without delay the original paper corrected upon the general plan of it so that you may have both before you for a choice in full time & for alteration if necessary.” In 1811 John Jay, recalling that he and Hamilton had read and discussed Hamilton’s draft, stated that some amendments had been made, but that none were of any consequence. On July 30 Hamilton sent to the President his “Original Draft” of a farewell address. The first eight paragraphs closely follow the Madison-Washington draft, the middle section is Hamilton’s own work, and the last six paragraphs are modeled on the concluding paragraphs of the Madison-Washington draft.
Hamilton then turned his attention to revising the Madison-Washington draft, and on August 10 he sent to the President a draft “on the plan of incorporating.” Washington, however, did not use this second draft. Instead, on August 25 he returned Hamilton’s “Original Draft,” stating that he preferred it “greatly to the other draughts.” Twelve paragraphs in Hamilton’s two drafts are almost identical, and these have been indicated in the notes to Hamilton’s “Draft on the Plan of Incorporating,” which is printed as an enclosure to Hamilton to Washington, August 10, 1796.
On September 15 Washington submitted the address to the cabinet, and Timothy Pickering wrote to the President on the same day: “The paper you put into my hands to-day was attentively perused by us all. I am now going over it by myself, but it will not be possible to get thro’ in time to return it before bed-time. Before breakfast in the morning I will wait upon you with it.”
On the same day, Washington arranged with David C. Claypoole to have the Farewell Address printed in Claypoole’s [Philadelphia] American Daily Advertiser on September 19, 1796. On February 22, 1826, Claypoole gave the following account of the publication of the address: “A few days before the appearance of this memorable document in print, I received a message from the President, by his private secretary [Tobias Lear] signifying his desire to see me. I waited on him at the appointed time, and found him sitting alone in the drawing-room. He received me kindly; and, after I had paid my respects to him, desired me to take a seat near him—then addressing himself to me, said, that he had for some time past contemplated retiring from public life, and had at length concluded to do so at the end of the present term: that he had some thoughts and reflections on the occasion, which he deemed proper to communicate to the people of the United States, in the form of an Address, and which he wished to appear in the Daily Advertiser, of which I was editor. He paused, and I took the opportunity of thanking him for having preferred that paper as the channel of his communication with the people, especially as I viewed this selection as indicating his approbation of the principles and manner in which the work was conducted. He silently assented, and asked when the publication could be made. I answered, that the time should be made perfectly convenient to himself, and the following Monday was fixed on: he then told me that his secretary would call on me with the copy of the Address on the next (Friday) morning, and I withdrew.
“After the proof sheet had been compared with the copy, and corrected by myself, I carried another proof, and then a revise, to be examined by the President, who made but few alterations from the original, except in the punctuation, in which he was very minute.
“The publication of the Address, dated ‘United States, September 17th, 1796,’ being completed on the 19th, I waited on the President with the original; and, in presenting it to him, expressed my regret at parting with it, and how much I should be gratified by being permitted to retain it: upon which, in an obliging manner, he handed it back to me, saying that if I wished for it, I might keep it; and I then took my leave of him.”
Jared Sparks, in his edition of the Writings of George Washington, states that he copied the following endorsement in Washington’s handwriting from a copy of Claypoole’s newspaper: “designed as an instruction to the copyist, who recorded the Address in the letter-book: the letter contained in the gazette, addressed ‘To the People of the United States,’ is to be recorded, and in the order of its date. Let it have a blank page before and after it, so as to stand distinct. Let it be written with a letter larger and fuller than the common recording hand. And where words are printed with capital letters, it is to be done so in recording. And those other words, that are printed in italics, must be scored underneath and straight by a ruler.” Although the newspaper with Washington’s endorsement has not been found, the copyist did follow his directions. Washington’s final manuscript is dated September 19, 1796.
The Farewell Address was also printed on September 19 in John Fenno’s Gazette of the United States, & Philadelphia Daily Advertiser. Benjamin Franklin Bache printed the address in two installments in the [Philadelphia] Aurora. General Advertiser, September 20, 21, 1796.
After the deaths of Washington and Hamilton, controversy arose over the authorship of the Farewell Address. In 1810 Nathaniel Pendleton, one of the executors of Hamilton’s estate, placed all of Hamilton’s papers relating to the Farewell Address in the hands of Rufus King “to prevent their falling into the hands of the General’s family,” because of “the understood views of Mrs. Hamilton to endeavor to shew that General Hamilton, not General Washington, was the author and writer of the farewell address, ascribed to the latter.…” In 1825 James A. Hamilton and John Church Hamilton tried to obtain these papers from King. In this endeavor they secured the assistance of Nicholas Fish, also an executor of Hamilton’s estate, and Timothy Pickering.
The Hamilton family commenced a suit in the Chancery Court in 1825 to recover Alexander Hamilton’s papers. On October 17, 1826, however, James A. Hamilton received from John Duer, on behalf of King, a bundle of papers endorsed “Papers received by Rufus King from Judge Pendleton in 1810, to be returned.” On the same day, Hamilton informed King that the Chancery suit “is ordered to be discontinued.”
On August 7, 1840, Elizabeth Hamilton reiterated her belief in her husband’s authorship of the Farewell Address in the following statement: “Desirous that my children should be fully acquainted with the services rendered by their Father to our Country, and the assistance given by him to General Washington during his administration, for the one great object, the Independence and Stability of the Government of the United States, there is one thing in addition to the numerous proofs which I leave them and which I feel myself in duty bound to State; Which is: that a short time previous to General Washington’s retiring from the Presidency in the year 1796 General Hamilton suggested to him the idea of delivering a farewell address to the people on his withdrawal from public life, with which idea General Washington was well pleased, and in his answer to General Hamilton’s suggestion, gave him the heads of the subjects on which he would wish to remark, with a request that Mr Hamilton would prepare an address for him; Mr. Hamilton did so, and the address was written, principally at such times as his office was seldom frequented by his clients and visitors, and during the absence of his students to avoid interruption; at which times he was in the habit of calling me to sit with him, that he might read to me as he wrote, in order, as he said, to discover how it sounded upon the ear, and making the remark, ‘My dear Eliza you must be to me, what Moliere’s old nurse was to him.’
“The whole or nearly all the ‘Address,’ was read to me by him as he wrote it and a greater part if not all was written by him in my presence. The original was forwarded to Genl. Washington, who approved of it with the exception of one paragraph, of, I think, about four or five lines, which if I mistake not was on the subject of public schools, which was stricken out. It was afterwards returned to Mr. Hamilton who made the desired Alteration, and was afterwards delivered by General Washington, and published in that form, and has ever since been Known as ‘General Washingtons farewell address.’ Shortly after the publication of the address, my husband, and myself were walking in Broadway, when an old soldier, accosted him, with a request of him to purchase General Washington’s Farewell address, which he did, and turning to me said, ‘That Man does not Know he has asked me to purchase my own work.’
“The whole circumstances are at this moment, so perfectly in my remembrance, that I can call to mind his bringing General Washington’s letter to me, which, returned the ‘address,’ and remarking on the only alteration which he (Genl Washington) had requested to be made.”
As early as 1827 James A. Hamilton and Jared Sparks had discussed the possibility of publishing all of the letters relative to the Farewell Address. Sparks eventually gave John C. Hamilton copies of Alexander Hamilton’s letters. But before John C. Hamilton printed them in 1860 in The History of the Republic, Sparks allowed Horace Binney to print them in An Inquiry into the Formation of Washington’s Farewell Address (Philadelphia, 1859). In 1850 James Lenox purchased Washington’s final version of the Farewell Address at an auction held by the administrators of David Claypoole’s estate, and two months after purchasing the manuscript he published it.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, [10 May 1796]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Washington, George

New York May 10. 1796
Sir
When last in Philadelphia you mentioned to me your wish that I should re dress a certain paper which you had prepared. As it is important that a thing of this kind should be done with great care and much at leisure touched & retouched, I submit a wish that as soon as you have given it the body you mean it to have that it may be sent to me.
A few days since I transmitted you the copy of a letter I had received from Mr G—— M——.
It is rumoured, that Mr. Pinckney entertains a wish to return to this Country. Give me leave to make known to you, that in such an event, I have ground to believe it would not be disagreeable to Mr. King to be the successor. I verily believe, that a more fit man for the purpose cannot be found and I imagine Mr. King will in every event leave the Senate. Should you think well of his appointment, I presume he would be disposed by a previous resignation to make the way easy to his nomination by you. Considering the strong commercial relations of the two countries it is truly very important that each should have with the other a man able and willing to give fair play to reciprocal interests. From what I have seen of Mr. Liston the present Minister of G B & from what Mr. Pinckney and others say of him to me—I believe he will be found a well disposed intelligent and agreeable man.
Very respectfully & affectly I have the honor to be Sir   Your obed Servant
A Hamilton
The President of the U States