Title: From Alexander Hamilton to William Short, 7 May 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Short, William

Sir
Treasury Department May 7th 1792

The President having ratified the three last loans, namely one of six millions of florins at five per Cent interest; one of three Millions at four per Cent and that which has been negociated at Antwerp, I herewith transmit you the instrument of ratification concerning the latter. The two former I have thought best to enclose directly to the Commissioners in Amsterdam under an impression that this at the time of its arrival may possibly not find you at the Hague.
I have the honor to be   with great consideration   Sir   Your Obedt. Servant
A Hamilton
William Short Esqr.Minister Resident of theUnited States at the Hague


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from William Short, 14 May 1792
From: Short, William
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Sir
Paris May 14 1792

I recieved the day before yesterday your letter of the 21st. of March expressing your wish that a loan should be opened at the same rate with that of Antwerp. It found me in correspondence with our bankers with respect to the charges on one to be made as soon as a proper moment should occur at 4. p. cent interest—the rate of the last opened in Amsterdam, of which you had not recieved our letters of notification at the date of yours.
I had desired them to fix the charges at 4½ p. cent which I am persuaded would leave them the same clear profits as on the first loan, & with which of course they should be satisfied. I was apprehensive however they would insist on higher, & was not therefore surprized on recieving their answer the day before yesterday covering your letter of March 21st, in which they say that the charges cannot be lower than 5. p. cent, & that they were not sure of success at this moment, but would use their utmost endeavour whenever the instant should be favorable. I have informed them that I supposed the 5. p. cent was asked on the footing of their being obliged to give more to their undertakers & therefore consented to it—authorizing them to open the loan as soon as the moment would admit of it. The present warfaring appearance of Europe may force a rise in the rate of interest perhaps, but nothing shall be left undone to procure a loan at the present rate of 4. p. cent. If it can be effected at all it may be for the charges allowed as well, as if they were more considerable; & of course I think it improper to propose an augmentation, although it would be much better to increase them than to allow an increase of interest. You may rest assured of being informed without delay of the opening of a new loan, as well as the prospects which may precede it if there should be delay.
I had the honor of informing you in my two last letters of what had been done here with the minister of marine. Mr. Morris has since arrived here (on the 7th. of this month) of which I immediately informed the Minister of Marine. Having not yet an answer from him, I should imagine he had not yet obtained of the committee the explanation he expected from them with respect to the six millions mentioned in my last. Your letter of the 21st. shewing your intention to employ further sums for the purchase of the public funds, & your disposition to give even an high rate of interest for monies to be thus applied, has suggested that it would be agreeable to you if the monies at present in the hands of our bankers arising on the last loan shd. be put at your disposition for that purpose instead of going to the minister of marine for succours to St. Domingo. I have shewn your letter to Mr. Morris who is of opinion as well as myself to do this. I therefore wish to inform you that the last loan (of December) at 4. p. cent interest shall be held to answer your draughts. Its amount was three millions of florins no part has been paid to France. Of course, there is only to be deducted the amount of applications known to you—& wch. will appear from the bankers accounts transmitted to you in which should be included the payments for interest in february & march & the same for the 1st. of next month. Should the minister of marine obtain from the committee a report according to his wishes, & come forward in the promise made to hold the 800,000 dollars at his disposition in America, Mr. Morris proposes to answer it by informing him that he has already learned from the government that 400,000 have been furnished & does not know but that the monies at your disposition may have been already applied that way. I apprehend however the assembly will include the six millions voted in the twelve millions drawn for, although the minister was formerly persuaded of the contrary, & that the affair will take that turn. Should he delay the renewal of his application it will be an additional reason to give him, that the monies had been in the interval otherwise employed.
Mr. Morris has recieved here under cover to him & delivered to me the triplicate of your letter of Jan 28. for me—neither the first or second has come to my hands, & of course I have not recd. your report therein mentioned. Nor have I recd. your letter of the 30th. Novr mentioned there also. All the others which you have announced have been recd. My late letters to you have been of January 26. March 24. April 22. & 25.
I have formerly informed you of the footing on wch. the payments made here on the Antwerp loan stood—as well as the cogent reasons for having them made at Antwerp instead of being remitted by bills of exchange. Mr. Morris has recieved a letter from the Sec. of State, by which he apprehends it to be the intention of government to transfer to France the loss by depreciation on the assignats. He of course waits for further instructions before settling the rate at which the U. S. are to be credited for the payments made from Antwerp. In consequence of your letter to me of Sep. 2. I informed the minister here & the commissaries of the treasury, of the intention of the U. S. not to take advantage of this depreciation. I did not include the payments previously made although your letter authorized it, supposing it best to leave this for your future consideration. Of course no indemnity will be made for them. My letters announced this intention of the U. S. only to begin with the Antwerp loan. The rate of exchange & the current difference between Specie & paper here, being known, will furnish the basis for regulating this business finally, which Mr. Morris will do on recieving your further instructions. I hope they will arrive ere long & that the business will be finally settled by him to your satisfaction. I shall give him the letters which have passed on that subject.
I have mentioned to Mr. Morris what I communicated to you with respect to the proposals of Boyd & Kerr. Since then a very great rise having taken place in the exchange (it was with Amsterdam as low as 27½ & rose to 35. & is now 30) has suspended their ideas on this subject, as such a rise would have proved ruinous to them. They consider it however only a suspension, although it is probable they will be more timorous now, the game being much less sure than they expected. Should they come forward again Mr Morris will no doubt do what so advantageous an operation for the U. S. would dictate. These advantages I mentioned to you in my letter of March 24.
I shall not have the honor of writing to you again from hence as I shall set out for the Hague towards the end of the month. I am now much busied & hurried in my preparations of departure, having never known until the 7th. of this month whether I was to go there or to Madrid first, & of course was not able to conform my preparations thereto. Until then I had only learned through Mr Morris & the gazettes in general terms that I was appointed to the Hague, & joined in a commission at Madrid. I have the honor to be Sir, most respectfully your obedient & humble servant
W Short
Alexander Hamilton   Secretary of the Treasury, Philadelphia


Title: Conversation with George Hammond, [1–2 July 1792]
From: Hamilton, Alexander,Hammond, George
To:

[Philadelphia, July 1–2, 1792]

In one of my recent conversations with Mr Hamilton, I took occasion from the accidental mention of some circumstances relative to the Mississippi, to enquire of him the actual state of the negociation with the Court of Spain on the subject of the navigation of that river. Mr. Hamilton informed me that the negociation was indeed pretty far advanced, but that the conditions, by which the object of it was to be attained, did not at present appear to be so extensively beneficial as might have been desired, since the Spanish government still pertinaciously resisted any cession to the United States of a Sea-port communicating with the Mississippi. He added that an acquisition of this nature was essential to the security and improvement of all the other advantages derivable from the internal navigation of the river, and he presumed that if it could not be effected by negociation, the necessity of obtaining it by any means must at some period ultimately lead to a rupture between this Country and Spain.
This language afforded me a fair opportunity of repeating to Mr Hamilton my expectation that, whatever might be the event of the negociation this Country would not enter into any engagements with Spain, which might be injurious to the rights secured by treaty to Great Britain. Mr Hamilton assured me that all the members of this government were unanimous in opinion that the participation of Great Britain in the free navigation of that river was to the United States an object of advantage and not of jealousy. To this I answered that, if such were the real dispositions of the Gentlemen composing this administration I trusted that, whenever the subject came into discussion, I should find these inclined to such a regulation of the boundaries as would afford to his Majesty’s subjects an effectual communication with the Mississippi. Mr Hamilton in reply said he conceived it would well deserve the attention of the United States to consent to as liberal a measure of accommodation in that respect as would not be detrimental to their own interests.
As the information I have received from Mr Hamilton does not seem exactly to co-incide with the account communicated by Mr Carmichael to Lord St. Helens, I must own that I am disposed to ascribe the difference to an alteration of system in the Spanish Court rather than to any deception on the part of Mr Hamilton: As in my communications with him I have never yet at any time had reason to suspect him of artifice or imposition.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Tench Coxe, 2 July 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Coxe, Tench

Treasury Department, July 2, 1792. “It appears to be requisite that the sum of one thousand Dollars, which was advanced by the Collector of New York to the late Supervisor, should be refunded by the present Supervisor, in order that it may be carried into the proper account.…”


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Sharp Delany, 2 July 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Delany, Sharp

Treasury Department, July 2, 1792. “I have this day decided upon the case of Hollingsworth, Shallcross, Lovering and Le Maigre. There being no appearance of fraud or wilful negligence in the transaction, the interest of all parties in the forfeiture is remitted to the Petitioners, upon their paying costs and charges.…”


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to William Ellery, 2 July 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Ellery, William

[Philadelphia, July 2, 1792. On July 16, 1792, Ellery wrote to Hamilton: “I have recd. your … letter of the 2nd. of July last.” Letter not found.]


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, [2 July 1792]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Washington, George

[Philadelphia, July 2, 1792]

Mr. Hamilton presents his respects to the President & has the honor to enclose the sketch of a letter to be written by Mr. Lear to Mr. Langdon.
2d July 1792.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Charles Lee, 4 July 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Lee, Charles

Sir
Treasury DepartmentJuly 4 1792.

I have to request that the Boat mentioned in your letter of the 11th of April last may be delivered to the Collector of Cedar Point.
In your letter, under date the 21st of September last, was enclosed a copy of an order of the District Court for compensating Charles Page, who was called as a Witness in the suit against William Simpson, which, agreeably to my Circular letter of the 8th Ultimo, can now be settled.
I am, Sir, with consideration,   Your Obedt Servant.

A Hamilton
Charles Lee Esqr.
Alexandria


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Charles Lee, 5 July 1792
From: Lee, Charles
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Sir!
Collectors Office, Alexandria [Virginia]5th. July 1792

Your Circular of the 25th. June last, has been received in which among other things is explained how the additional 10 per Cent on the duties upon Goods, imported in Vessels not of the United States is to be computed; I shall conform to your instruction though I own had I not received it, the computation would have been made on the total Duties without distinguishing the old from the new duties, the last Act having substituted other duties in lieu of the old and not expressing the distinction taken by you.
Permit me to suggest the doubts which occur in the construction of the 8th. Section of the Act for raising a further sum of money for the protection of the frontiers &c.
1st. Whether the duties payable one half in six, one quarter in nine and one quarter in 12 months, ought not to be bonded in separate bonds; I have supposed they ought to be, in order that the mode already prescribed for stating the Bonded Duties in the books, may be continued and so a consistency and uniformity will be preserved in this respect, and because in some instances it would be inconvenient to the revenue by occasioning a delay of payment of the dividends last coming due.
For instance if one Bond be taken for the payment of the Duties by instalments, if default be made in paying the first instalment and a suit be commenced the Bond must be transmitted to Richmond to the Clerks Office to obtain a Judgment, and when the 2nd. Instalment shall be payable, it will not be paid, because the Bond cannot be seen, and a receipt cannot thereon be endorsed in presence of the Merchant, the Bond not being in the Office of the Collector, but of the Clerk of the Court.
3rd. Whether the Duties arising on Salt and all other goods, except on the produce of the West Indies, may be Bonded though the amount be less than 50 Dollars, payable by each Importer. I understand the Law to require immediate payment of the duties on the produce of the West Indies if the amount be under 50 Dollars and not in the other cases. This seems to be warranted by the order as well as by the words of the sentence, which will not admit of any other grammatical interpretation.
I am Sir! respectfully   Your most Obedient Servant
Charles Lee, Collectorat Alexandria


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Jeremiah Olney, 5 July 1792
From: Olney, Jeremiah
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Providence, July 5, 1792. “On Monday Morning, the 2nd. Instant, the Master of the Ship Hope from Surinam, the Cargo of which was discharged the preceding Saturday afternoon, informed me that from a hint given by one of his Sailors, he had discovered a bag and one keg of brown Sugar, weighing 109 lb, concealed within the Sealing of the Cabin, but by whom he could not learn: a design to defraud the Revenue being evident in this transaction, I seized the Sugar, and requested the District Attorney to file a Libel against it.…”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Jeremiah Olney, 6 July 1792
From: Olney, Jeremiah
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Sir.
Providence, Custom House, 6th. July 1792.

I have received your several Letters of the 26, 27th. & 28th of June. The circular Letter, dated the 6th of February last, to which you refer has never come to hand; I am therefore under the necessity of postponing the notification of Mr. Arnold’s delinquincy until I do receive it.
I have the honor to be &c.
Jereh. Olney Collr.
Alexr. Hamilton Esqr.
Secy. of the Treasury.


Title: Draft of a Resolution for the Society for Establishing Useful Manufactures, [6 July 1792]
From: Hamilton, Alexander,Society for Establishing Useful Manufactures
To:

[Newark, New Jersey, July 6, 1792]

[Resolved that 50 Houses be built for the accommodation of the Workmen to be employed in the service of the Society] and of other Mechanics who may choose to settle at the Town of Patterson [and that the materials thereof be Stone & Clay & Pointed] unless [the expence of such materials] shall [exceed] by [Thirty per Cent the expence of a House of the same Dimensions of Wood] in which case they shall be of wood and that the dimensions of each of the said houses shall be in length 24 feet in width 18 feet in height from the lower floor to the Plate 12 feet each house having a Cellar & a Garret [& that a Sum not exceeding 8500 Dollars be appropriated for defraying the expence] thereof.
That the foregoing houses stand each of a lot of ¼ of an acre and that the house and lot be valued at Two hundred & fifty Dollars—that any Mechanic being of good character & a married man may be accommodated with a house and lot either upon a lease for one or more years not exceeding 20 years at an annual rent of Twelve & a half Dollars payable quarter yearly or with a right to become the proprietor thereof at the said value of 250 Dollars paying for the same at any time and in any proportions he shall think fit upon condition that he pay in the mean time at the rate of 5 ⅌ Ct. ⅌ annum on the whole or so much of the said principal sum as shall remain unpaid until the whole be discharged.
That any Mechanic who may incline to build for himself may have a lot of the above dimensions at the sum of 80 Dollars upon the like terms of payment as above specified so as the whole term of payment shall not exceed twenty years.
That William Hall Joseph Mort [Thomas] Marshall & William Pearce may each have a lot not exceeding half an acre of ground at the rate of 175 Dollars ⅌ Lot, and that there be advanced to William Hall & Joseph Mort each a sum not exceeding 1000 Dollars upon condition that the same be applied to the erecting of a dwelling house upon the Lot to him appertaining. The value of the said Lot and the sum advanced to be payable in four equal installments the first at the end of 5 years the second at the end of five years next succeeding the third at the end of 5 years next succeeding & the 4 at the end of 5 years then next succeeding with interest at the rate of [five] ⅌ Centum ⅌. annum.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Tench Coxe, 9 July 1792
From: Coxe, Tench
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Sir,
Treasury DepartmentRevenue Office July 9th: 1792.

Among the papers which I had the honor to present to You, several suggestions in regard to the compensations to the Inspectors of the Revenue for ports will be observed. When the directions of the Legislature in regard to foreign distilled Spirits, wines and teas are considered it will be perceived, that the duties of the port Inspectors of the Revenue, and those of the Inspectors of the customs deputed by them are extended, and that their responsibilities are encreased. In regard to Teas some of the most responsible services originally performed by the Collectors are transferred to them. The influence of these Circumstances, increased no doubt by his own interest, has occasioned one of the Supervisors to suggest the Idea of the duty on foreign Spirits being paid ultimately into their Hands. Altho’ this cannot be done as the laws now stand, even should it appear equitable and expedient, yet a question arises in regard to the three Articles which are within the Care of the Revenue officers, whether the attention required of them does not entitle them to a share of the Commission accruing on those high duties in a greater degree than the Collectors of the Customs whose services in relation to these Articles are so much less troublesome. The certificate business is very important, as it regards imported articles, the whole burden of it falls on the officers of the Revenue. As it respects teas, very little being imported except at Salem, Boston, Providence, New York and Philadelphia, Inspectors of other ports need not be compensated but in a small degree. The importation of wines is more diffusive in regard to the places of entry, and that of Spirits is general. Tho’ the present arrangement contemplates only distilled Spirits, it may not be improper perhaps informing it to take all the Services of the Revenue Officers (viz: those relative to Wines and Teas) into view, and the Case of the persons (who are not inspectors of the customs) who have been deputed by the Inspectors of ports or appointed by the Supervisors as in New York &c. require consideration. In making the contemplated Arrangement the actual Emoluments of the Inspectors of ports (in their quality of Surveyors or Collectors) should be taken into the Calculation. Should any thing be granted to the port Officers, a retrospect will probably be found just. The propriety of withholding it from those who have refused to perform the service so as to dishonor Goverment, impede its operations and incommode the Merchants, is respectfully suggested for Consideration. It is probable that the retrospective Compensations to the Revenue officers would be satisfactory tho less than what may be requisite in future. There are some argument[s] for some compensation to inspectors for ports, which seem to be almost conclusive. An expence of Clerk hire and in some degree of a Deputy is incurred also of Office Rent, lights and fuel. The inspection of the Exportation of Spirits distilled in the United States, is a duty irrelative to the original Nature of their offices and to the Customs or impost.
The Supervisors appear to have aimed at placing the secondary and particularly the subordinate offices of Inspection in the hands of very respectable persons. This was a good view, as the law was unpopular in some places, but required bounds. It has not perhaps been duly limited, nor has it proved in every instance that a respectable and influential man has made an active and efficient Collector. A Consequence has followed also, which is inconvenient—the expectation of a compensation rather proportioned to the personal Character of the Officer than the Nature of the service or the Amount of the Revenue collected within his sphere.
There appear in some Districts to be too many collectors. In Virginia there are 58, which I suppose to be one for each County. Three Counties of Pennsylvania have only one, viz. Philadelphia, Bucks and Montgomery.
I do not believe the postages are included in the returns of charges—they are not mentioned in any.
A regular guager at a Salary as proposed at New York, would be an expensive Officer. The Revenue in that district has not been collected on 300 puncheons of domestic Spirits. It is probable guagers would execute that quantity of Business for Merchants in the six principal ports for a compensation of ten Cents pr. Cask. The Idea of trying the proof at the same time and of making a return is a very valuable one. Unless an account of the proof as well as the Quantity of Spirit be taken the Revenue must suffer, and practices destructive of candid dealing with the United States, on the part of the distillers will be introduced.
It [is] thought by the Comptroller that the simplicity which will be given to the accounts and the consequent facility of adjusting them, strongly recommend the grant of a Commission on the gross Amount of duties to the Supervisors and Inspectors of Surveys.
The Supervisor of Massachusetts seems to be of opinion that his Collectors can be satisfied without a restrospective compensation, if some charges which he specifies can be defrayed by the United States.
It is observable in the District of New York that Mr. Geary who is a confidential Guager is a distiller. The continuance of this precedent appears so dangerous, as to be inadmissible—also that there is in the estimate a charge for two office rooms for the Supervisor, who has only one Clerk, and for fuel for the two offices. The question whether an office keeper, messenger & Stamper of certificates should be regularly employed occurs also in that district. The Supervisors Estimate of 81,000 Dollars for the duties on foreign Spirits imported [into] New York must be very far short of the true Amount.
It is uncertain how far the practice has been observed in the several ports of performing the revenue services relative to foreign Spirits, wines and teas by deputing the Inspectors of the Customs. A circular letter has been prepared on that subject for all the Districts, but those of New York, Pennsylvania and Maryland, in regard to which the facts are known and variant.
In Rhode Island a small charge of fuel for the Collectors, Inspectors and Supervisors office is made.
It merrits particular attention that the conversion of the Molasses distilleries every where into grain and fruit distilleries which appears certain, will enhance the Commissions of the officers in those Scenes.
The charges of marking and certifying old Stock are not entitled to a place among the ordinary expences of collecting this Revenue—nor are any of the Charges accruing in the offices of the port Inspectors.
The cases of some at least of the Supervisors who are also inspectors of Surveys appear to merit consideration.

The Supervisor of Maryland thinks the compensations of the Inspector of the small Survey No. 2 of four Counties is too small. His Judgment may be influenced by the recollection that there is a much larger survey under his own Inspection. The Supervisor of Virginia, thinks that the inspectors of his seven surveys who have 9 to 10 Counties each on a Medium under their charge, are and ought to be satisfied with their Compensations, which are precisely the same as to Salary and rate of Commission.
You will perceive, sir, objections are strongly urged by the Supervisor of Virginia and supported by one of his Inspectors (General Stevens) against marking and certifying Spirits distilled in the Country, and the Supervisor adds that he did not include that service in his estimate of Compensations.
I have the honor to be, with the most respectful Attachment, sir,   Your most obedt. Servant
Tench Coxe,Commissr. of the Revenue
The honble.
The Secretary of the Treasury.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to William Ellery, [9 July 1792]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Ellery, William

[Philadelphia, July 9, 1792. On July 30, 1792, Ellery wrote to Hamilton: “I have received your letter of the 9th of this month.” Letter not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Sharp Delany, [10 July 1792]
From: Delany, Sharp
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia, July 10, 1792. On July 12, 1792, Hamilton wrote to Delany and referred to “your letter of the 10th instant.” Letter not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Rufus King, 10 July [1792]
From: King, Rufus
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[New York] Tuesday 10 July [1792]

You will see by our papers to what we are tending—hitherto I have been quite aside, and have not engaged in the controversy. The addresses from albany and other northern Towns, together with Mr. Jays answers leave no room to doubt that the question will be brought to a decision in some way or other—if it can be done under any authority of Law I shall rejoice, because I consider the Determination to be a precedent dangerous to free Elections. Still however I do not clearly see the prudence of an appeal to the People—yet others have no doubts on that subject, and there is reason to conclude that Mr. Jay deems the occasion such as will justify the step should it be found that the powers of government are insufficient to afford a Remedy. He has an idea of a convention for the sole purpose of canvassing the canvassers and their Decision.
But Mr. Clinton is in fact Governor, and though he may not be free from anxieties & Doubts, he will not willingly relinquish the Office—the majority, and a very great one are now against him—should he persist, and the sword be drawn, he must go to the wall—but this my dear Sir, is a dreadful alternative, and what & whom it may affect is altogether uncertain. If this case will justify a recurrence to first Principles, what are we not to expect from the disputes, which must & will arise in the Succession of the Presidency? and how are we able to place confidence in the security of our Government?
Tuesday Evening
Mr. Jay has arrived. Notice was given in the morning papers that he would be in Town this Evening, and “the friends of Liberty” were invited to go forth to meet him. I took Benson with me in my carriage. The concourse was immense, & Mr. Jay has been recd. with the ringing of Bells, firing of cannon, huzzaings & clapping of hands. The shout was for “Jay & Liberty.”
Yr’s &c.
R King


Title: Receipt from Andrew Mayer, [10 July 1792]
From: Hamilton, Alexander,Mayer, Andrew
To:

[Philadelphia, July 10, 1792]

Received Philadelphia July 10th 1792 of Alexander Hamilton Seventy four Dollars & sixty seven Cents on account of William Pearce.
Andrew Mayer


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Edward Carrington, 11 July 1792
From: Carrington, Edward
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Richmond, July 11, 1792. On July 25, 1792, Hamilton wrote to Carrington: “I have received … your two letters of the 11 instant.” Letters not found.]


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Tench Coxe, 11 July 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Coxe, Tench

Treasury Department, July 11, 1792. Returns “Contract between the Superintendant of the Delaware Lighthouse and Benjamin Rice … which the President has approved.”


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Samuel Gerry, 11 July 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Gerry, Samuel

Treasury Department, July 11, 1792. Cites case of the Schooner Dolphin, which was “admeasured” at both Baltimore and Marblehead. Asks why results of the “ad-measurement” at Marblehead were different from those at Baltimore and asks “to be particularly informed of the usal process which prevails at your port for the admeasuring of vessels.”


Title: Proposals to Contract for the Construction of the Manufacturing Plant of the Society for Establishing Useful Manufactures, [11 July 1792]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[Philadelphia, July 11, 1792]

Proposals to contract for the following purposes will be received at New York by N Lowe at New Ark by Elisha Boudinot at New Brunswick by John Bayard and at Philadelphia by  Vizt.

1   To cut a Canal from the River Passaick beginning at a point near a Station where stands a Stake marked No. 1 & continuing thence to the brink of a Precipice at or near a rock marked No. 3. This canal must be thirty feet wide and must be sunk to a level with the Surface of the water in the driest season.
II   To erect flood gates in the said Canal near the brink of the Precipice.
3.   To erect a Dam on the River Passaick above the Great Falls and below the Place of the Canal. The Dam to be four feet above the level of the Surface of the Water at the driest season.
4   To erect a dry Wall across a Gully adjacent to the above-mentioned precipice, in a direction from the said Station No. 3 to another Station being a stake marked No. 6 on or near the summit of a hill extending from the one to the other and to make a wooden trough upon the said Wall sixteen feet wide by seven feet deep.
5   To extend a trough of the same dimensions from the said Station No. 6 to another Station being a Tree marked No. 7 with a dry wall on one side, the whole length thereof, of the thickness of six feet.
6   To erect at the Town of Patterson near the Falls of the Passaick a stone building 55 feet long by 32 feet wide four Stories high exclusive of a cellar the whole length thereof.
7   To erect another stone building at the said Town of Patterson 78 feet long by 31 feet wide three Stories high exclusive of a Cellar the whole length thereof.
8   To erect another stone building, at the said Town of Patterson 38 feet long by 27 feet wide two stories high exclusive of a Cellar the whole length thereof.
9   To erect another Stone building 68 feet long by 36 feet wide two stories high exclusive of a cellar the whole length thereof.
10   To erect fifty houses of Stone or Wood as may be afterwards determined each 24 feet long by 18 feet wide, in height from the lower floor to the Plate 12 feet, with a cellar and a Garret. Two houses to be under one roof with a party wall. The proposals will specify severally the rates at which these buildings will be undertaken in stone and wood.
Descriptive plans of the several objects above specified number 2. 3. 4. 5. 7. 8. 10 may be seen in the possession of Nicholas Low at New York Elisha Boudinot at New Ark John Bayard at New Brunswick   at Philadelphia & William Hall at the Town of Paterson at the Great Falls of the Passaick. The said Wm. Hall will give such explanation as may be necessary.
A descriptive plan of the building above specified No. 6 may be seen in the possession of the four first above mentioned persons & of Thomas Marshall at the Town of P[aterson] who will give &c
A descriptive plan of the building above specified No. 9 may be seen &c. Wm. Pearce
All materials are to be found brought to the spot & erected by the Contractors, to whom liberty will be granted under proper regulations to use any stones or Timber which may be on the lands of the Society.
The proposals may comprehend either the whole or any one or more of the foregoing objects. The proposers may accompany their proposals by the suggestion of any other methods which shall occur to them for constructing a competent Wall across the Gully from Station No. 3 to station No. 6 and for conveying the Water from thence to Station No. 7 and the terms upon which they may be disposed to contract according to those methods.
All the works for conveying the water must be warranted for seven years.
Proposals must be in writing & under seal addressed to the Society for establishing useful Manufactures.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Benjamin Walker, 11 July 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Walker, Benjamin

Dr. Sir
Philadelphia July 11. 1792

The bearer of this Mr. Douthat is lately from Europe. His views are towards the Woolen Manufacture, which he professes to understand in all its branches—and he is steering his course to Hartford in Connecticut.
As he is a stranger & I presume stands in need of œconomy, I will thank you to put him in the way of the cheapest conveyance to his destination. Will not this be by Water?
Yrs. sincerely
A Hamilton
B Walker Esqr.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Sharp Delany, 12 July 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Delany, Sharp

Sir
Treasury Department July 12. 1792.

The practice of demanding Tonnage of a licensed vessel, when clearing out on a foreign voyage, and delivering up her license, as mentioned in your letter of the 10th instant, is conceived not to be conformable with law. A vessel cannot be liable to the Tonnage Duty whilst trading under a legal license. The practice must therefore be discontinued, and the Tonnage, charged in such cases, ought to be refunded to the parties.
It might happen, as you state, that a vessel would pay Tonnage but twice in three years, as a licensed vessel; if, in the last month of the year, she should clear for Europe, and, after a voyage of six months, was to renew her license, paying Tonnage for one year—then, at the expiration of the year, should again clear for a foreign port, and return in six months. But such vessel would, in the mean time, pay the Tonnage Duty upon each entry from her foreign voyage, and would fully have complied with what the laws require in those cases.
I am, Sir,   Your Obedt Servt.
Alexander Hamilton
Sharp Delany Esqr.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Thomas Jefferson, 12 July [1792]
From: Jefferson, Thomas
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Sir
Philadelphia July 12. [1792]

By an act of Congress passed on the last day of their session it was made the duty of the Secretary of state to have seals prepared for the courts of the two Western governments, but nothing particular was said as to the resource for making payment for them. I have therefore to ask the favor of information from you whether there are any funds which you should think it justifiable to apply to the payment of these objects. I assume they will amount to several hundred dollars. I have the honor to be with great respect Sir
Your most obedt. and most humble servt
Th: Jefferson
The Secretary of the Treasury


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from John Lowell, 12 July 1792
From: Lowell, John
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Sir
Roxbury [Massachusetts] July 12th: 1792.

I recd. your Letter of the 30th: of June last by the Post of Saturday: I recd. the Papers you refer to & returned a new Statement of the Cases, on which I conversed with you when I was in Phila. last Winter. You then seemed to think that Norton might be entituled to a Remission but that Lincoln & others should be pardoned. Soon after my Return I recd. a Letter from you in which you say that you must make further Enquiry as to Norton’s Case at Martha’s Vine Yard. Mr. Gore informs me that you have forwarded to him a Pardon for Lincoln & others. I presume from these Circumstances that by some Means these Transactions have escaped your Recollection. The Papers when I last saw them you took out of a File in your own Room in the Office. If however they are mislaid I will get them made out again & send them on, for If I can relieve a Moments Attention of a Mind perhaps almost overplied with public Energies believe me Sir I not only think it the Duty of a Friend to his Country but I shall receive Pleasure from doing it. I am with Sentiments of the most perfect Esteem & Respect
Your most obedt. Servt
J Lowell


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Jeremiah Olney, 12 July 1792
From: Olney, Jeremiah
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Providence, July 12, 1792. Transmits “Accounts and Returns for the last Quarter” and “a Receipt of the Cashier of the Providence Bank for 1,000 Dollars, which I have charged to the United States.” States: “your circular Letter of the 25th of June, I have recd., and will attend to the contents.…”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Benjamin Walker, 12 July 1792
From: Walker, Benjamin
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Dear Sir
New York July 12. 1792

You will oblige me in giving the necessary directions for permitting me to transfer on the Power of Atty from Colonel Smith.
I will thank you also for your advice what steps are best to pursue to save something out of the 50,000 dollars of the Manufacty Society committed to Dehurst. He remitted Macombs bills to his Correspondent Mr. Hill. Mr. Hill pledged these bills for money taken up in London. The bills are not accepted but they lay over and eventually there is every prospect that they will be paid. Mr. King to whom the Pilot boat was sent acquainted Phyn & Ellice on whom the bills are drawn, that they belonged to the Society and desired them not to pay them. Such is their situation at present and I think something may be done—the money borrowed on the bills by Hill is not perhaps half the Amount. Payment of the bills can be refused in honour. They then will come back and have Claim on Macombs Estate—or Smith may compound for them there by paying the money borrowed on them. You had better see Dewhurst who is in Philadelphia—he can tell more exactly the state of the Affair. No time should be lost in doing something.
Notwithstanding you told us at Newark that the Coasting fees were to be taken on the first Construction—& that we were intitled to pay for the three bonds under the New Law—the Collector will not comply till he receives a Letter from you on the subject. It is no object to him who receives so much—but to my small pittance every little addition is of Consequence.
I am Dr. Sir   Very sincerely your most Obed Servt
Ben Walker
Willett & Wilcocks fired a Shot yesterday Evening without execution.

A. Hamilton Esqr.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Sharp Delany, [13 July 1792]
From: Delany, Sharp
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia, July 13, 1792. On July 26, 1792, Hamilton wrote to Delany: “I have considered the case represented in your letter of the 13. instant.” Letter not found.]


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Sharp Delany, 13 July 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Delany, Sharp

Treasury Department, July 13, 1792. “I have desired eleven Hydrometers to be sent to Your Office, which I request you will please to forward by water to the Collectors of the several ports.…”


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to William Gardner, [13 July 1792]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Gardner, William

[Philadelphia, July 13, 1792]

I duly received your letter of the 24th ult. and it gives me pleasure to learn that your determination is in favor of a continuance in office.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Thomas Jefferson, 13 July 1792
From: Jefferson, Thomas
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Philadelphia, July 13, 1792. “Permit me to request the favor of you to cause a warrant to be issued on the Treasurer of the United States payable to George Taylor Junior to the amount of five hundred and twenty dollars for defraying the contingent expences of the Department of State.”


Title: Meeting of the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund, [13 July 1792]
From: Hamilton, Alexander,Commissioners of the Sinking Fund
To:

[Philadelphia, July 13, 1792]

At a meeting of the trustees of the sinking fund, July 13, 1792.
Present: The Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Attorney General.
The Secretary of the Treasury having informed the Board, that there were, at the disposal of the Board, pursuant to the 7th section of the act, entitled “An act supplementary to the act making provision for the debt of the United States” forty thousand four hundred and fifty-one dollars fifty-one cents and four mills, arising from dividends of interest on the public debt, hereto-fore purchased, under the authority of the Board:
Resolved, That the interest on so much of the debt of the United States as has been purchased, or redeemed for or by the United States, and as may have been paid into the Treasury thereof, in satisfaction of any debt or demand, and the surplus of any sum or sums appropriated for the payment of interest upon the said debt, which may have remained after paying such interest, be applied, within the time limited for that purpose, to the purchase of the several kinds of stock, at the lowest prices for which they can be obtained, if not exceeding the respective rates authorized by a resolution of the Board, of the ——— day of last ———.
That Samuel Meredith, Treasurer, be the agent for making the said purchases.
That they be made by receiving sealed proposals for any sums which parties offering shall incline to sell, preferring the lowest offers, with regard, as far as may be, to the purchasing of equal proportions of the several kinds of stock; and that the said agent, forthwith, advertise to receive such proposals until the 28th day of July, instant, inclusively.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from William Ellery, 16 July 1792
From: Ellery, William
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Newport, Rhode Island] July 16, 1792. “I have recd. your letter of the 25 of June last, advising me that my accounts as Superintendant of the Light house on James Town Island from the 13th. of Sept. to 31st. of Decr. 1791 have been adjusted at the Treasy. and that there is stated to be due from the United States to me the Sum of Seven hundred and thirty seven dollars & fifty three and one half cents.… On inspecting my accounts of Expenditures as Superintendt. of the Light house I find that I had in the time above-mentioned expended Seven hundred and forty seven dollars and four and one half Cents. to which sum a common~ of one per centum, and a common~ on the amount of the one per centum being added the result is Seven hundred and fifty four dolls. and fifty eight and one half cents.… This appearing to be the case I cannot with propriety acknowledge a debt adjusted as my due the 31st of Decr. 1791. by giving a receipt therefor, when I conceive it to be short of what was then due to me. I have therefore transmitted two receipts of the same tenour and date, one of them to your Office, and the other to the Treasurer for the Sum of Seven hundred fifty four dollars and fifty eight one half cents.… If I am right please to pass this sum to my credit in the settlement to the 31st of Decr. last. If wrong I wish to be put right.…”


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Charles Lee, 16 July 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Lee, Charles

Sir
Treasury DepartmentJuly 16 1792

I have this day decided upon the case of Thomas Triplett. I could not consider the excuse which was alleged as a sufficient cause to induce a total remission. The interest of the United States is remitted to him, and he is to pay fifty Dollars for the benefit of persons, other than the United States. [That is to say there is a total remission on paying fifty Dollars & reasonable Costs & charges to be assessed by the Judge.] A duplicate of my decision is sent to the Clerk of the District Court, at Richmond.
A decision on the case of William Wilson and Company will be made directly I receive some additional information from the District Judge, to whom I have applied for this purpose.
I am, Sir, with consideration,   Your Obedt Servant
A Hamilton
Charles Lee Esqr.
Alexandria


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Jeremiah Olney, 16 July 1792
From: Olney, Jeremiah
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Sir
Custom HouseDistrict of Providence 16 July 1792.

Messrs Clarke and Nightingale are about Exporting a Quantity of Brandy to Cape Francois—imported into this district in the Ship Lark in May last from Bourdeaux—and have applyed to me for information. Wheather said Brandy may not on Return of the Vessel be relanded here, (in case it cannot be Sold to advantage in the Cape) Free of duty and the Exportation Bond Cancelled without a Breach of Law, no fraud being intended; or, if they shall be Subject to pay the duties on relanding it, whether they will not be entitled to receive the Draw Back of the first duties when it becomes due, and on Producing a Certificate that said Brandy had been actually landed and delivered at the Cape their Bond shall not be cancelled? But as the 62 Section of the Collection law & 55 Section of the Excise Act seems so pointed against relanding any Goods Wares or Merchandize, intended for Exportation, with intent to draw back the duties, or to obtain any allowance given by law on the Exportation thereof, I have thought it my duty to decline giving them a Definitive answer, untill I should be favoured with your opinnion Relative to the Case.
I enclose my genl. Return of Exports for the last Quarter, amounting to 95,844 Dolls. and 3 Cents.
I have the Honor to be &c.
Jereh. Olney Collr.
Alexr. Hamilton Esqr.
Secretary of the Treasury.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, 16 July 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Washington, George

Sir,
Philadelphia July 16. 1792.

I have the honor to enclose a Resolution of the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund of the 16th. inst:, for your consideration and approbation.
My absence from Town and hurry after my return, prevented the making of the arrangement before you left this place. I shall hope to receive your determination previous to the day which limits the receiving of proposals, as the purchases must be made within the month. Nothing else new has occurred since your departure.
With perfect respect & the truest attachment,   I have the honor to be &c.
A. Hamilton


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Wilhem and Jan Willink, Nicholaas and Jacob Van Staphorst, and Nicholas Hubbard, 16 July 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Willink, Wilhem,Willink, Jan,Staphorst, Nicholaas van,Staphorst, Jacob van,Hubbard, Nicholas

Gentlemen,
Treasury DepartmentJuly 16th. 1792.

I have directed the Treasurer of the United States to draw Bills upon you, for five hundred thousand Guilders, at ten days sight, in favor of John Kean Esquire, Cashier of the Bank of the United States, which drafts, I request, may be duly honored, when presented.
I am &c.
Alexander Hamilton
Messrs. Willink, Van Staphorst
& Hubbard.
Amsterdam.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from John Daves, 17 July 1792
From: Daves, John
To: Hamilton, Alexander

New Bern [North Carolina] July 17, 1792. “I received yours dated June 21st and in obedience thereto have made inquiry for proper Persons to fill the second & third Mates birth of the Revenue Cutter of this State. For the second mates birth I beg leave to recommend James Sandy of this Town, being a sober man a good seamen a good Pilot.… Capt: Cooke of the Cutter begs leave to recommend his son William Harrison Cooke, for the third Mates birth.…”


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to William Seton, 17 July 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Seton, William

My Dear Sr
PhiladelphiaJuly 17. 1792

I find on examination that I have drawn out of the Bank of New York more money than I intended. It was my intention to keep there about 100 000 Dollars but I will contrive ere long to replace; and in the mean time I wish you to understand that if any ballance in favour of the Branch should at any time press you unduly I will upon notice come to your aid as far as my deposits there will permit. I do not however believe that this will be necessary as I have full evidence that a good disposition towards you will continue to be cultivated.
A Mr. Greene of your City has solicited my interposition to prevent if possible a suit being brought against him, which it seems is committed to the agency of Mr. Pollock, and which if brought will as he represents be ruinous to him. I answered him at first that any interference of mine would be very delicate that I was not intimate enough with Mr. Pollock to take such a liberty with him, and that I should imagine it would be fruitless if I did, as he would probably be bound down by instructions. The distress with which he was menaced made him urgent and my good nature at length gave way so far as to induce me to promise that I would write on the subject to some friend of mine who was an acquaintance of Mr. Pollock. In compliance with this promise I shall now trouble you with a few words on the subject of Mr Greene.
This Gentleman some time since imported from the British East Indies to Rhode Island a large quantity of goods, for which he regularly paid the duties at the place of Exportation and which he afterwards shipped to Ostend where they were sold to certain persons whose names I have forgotten. These persons having afterwards gone to England, Mr. Greene brought a suit against them there and was non suited upon the strength of a British Statute—which annuls the contracts of all British subjects who trade to India without license from the East India Company. The sum in question was upwards of 40 000 Sterling.
Such is the representation of Mr. Greene and if true his case is certainly unfortunate.
This representation has been made to the Government here & has been committed to our Minister to the Court of Great Britain to examine fully into it and to endeavour to obtain redress for Mr. Greene.
The actual toleration of the Trade by the local Government would amount in good faith to a license from the Company and ought, as it now appears, to have secured Mr. Greene from the penalties of the Act.
In this situation he thinks it hard to be pursued by British Creditors in this Country.
The little knowlege I have of Mr. Greene makes me uncertain what degree of credit is due to his representation. Not admitting it to be literally accurate could I wish to say or do any thing which if it were in my power might divert Mr. Pollock from any measures which the security of his friends or propriety of conduct as an Agent may dictate. I wish him only through you to be apprised of the state of things as it regards the interposition of this Government, with this observation that Mr. Greens presence in England will probably be of consequence to the prosecution of his affair, by enabling him to furnish all the requisite evidence in the progress of the discussion. How far this may make it the interest of Mr. Pollock’s principal, that a suit, which would detain him here, should not be commenced, he will best judge.
You can be at no loss My Dear Sir to appreciate my situation in this affair and you will have the goodness to move in it in such a manner as will commit me & embarrass others as little as possible.
You see I do not scruple to burthen you even with the consequences of my weaknesses. I rely on your friendship & obliging disposition.
Truly Yrs
A Hamilton
Wm. Seton Esqr


Title: Receipt from William Pearce, [18 July 1792]
From: Hamilton, Alexander,Pearce, William
To:

[Philadelphia, July 18, 1792]

Received Philadelphia July 18. 1792 of Alexander Hamilton Two hundred & fifty Dollars on account of the Society for establishing useful manufactures.
Wm Pearce


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Wilhem and Jan Willink, Nicholaas and Jacob Van Staphorst, and Nicholas Hubbard, [18 July 1792]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Willink, Wilhem,Willink, Jan,Staphorst, Nicholaas van,Staphorst, Jacob van,Hubbard, Nicholas

[Philadelphia, July 18, 1792. A “List of papers received from the files of the Office of the House of Representatives, for the use of the Committee appointed to enquire into the State of the Treasury department” dated April 8, 1794, refers to “Copy of letters from the Secretary of the Treasury, to Wilhem, Willink &c. relating to the application of the monies arising from the loans—of the respective dates following to wit … July 18th,” 1792. Letter not found.]


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Otho H. Williams, 19 July 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Williams, Otho H.

Sir
Treasury department, 19 July 1792

It was with real reluctance and regret that I found myself, as I conceived, in a situation, not only to be justified but constrained to use a stile of expostulation in my letter of the 28th. of last month. It is my earnest wish that the public business committed to my superintendance may proceed with harmony and cordiallity between myself & those united with me in the execution of it. And I may truely add that my impression of you have always been of a nature to give force to that sentiment in a case, in which you were concerned. But I thought and still think, that the affair, which is the subject of this correspondence warranted dissatisfaction on my part. And as far as there may have been an expression of it, I do not fear that it can be a matter of surprize, to any one whose sensibility is not too much alarmed to leave the judgment impartial.
Let the circumstances be reviewed.

The Legislature pass an Act introducting a new branch of the Revenue, involving among other things the appointment of a new sett of Officers. They are aware that the new provision will have to encounter objections and obstacles; and that among other topics of objection the multiplication of Officers and the expence of Collection are likely to be urged. Towards obviating both, they indicate their sense, that it may be expedient to call in the aid of the Officers of the customs, in the execution of the law.
The expence of executing this new system being untried is unknown. Difficulties are found to attend a previous legislative speculation of the proper compensations and allowances. It is therefore made the duty of the executive to regulate that detail, under a limitation as to the totality of the expence to be incured.
The executive, in concerting the necessary arrangements for carrying the law into effect, finds itself urged to avail itself of the aid contemplated by the legislature, not only by the same considerations which influenced them, and by respect for the intimation in the law on that head, but by a conviction, upon examination, that the restriction as to expence rendered such an expedient indispensable, from the impossibility of compensating a sufficient number of distinct officers.
The President therefore, in his general arrangement concludes to appoint—the Collectors of the Customs, at ports where there are no Surveyors, and the Surveyors at Ports where those Officers are established—Inspectors of the Revenue for the respective ports; charging them with the performance of services which though originating under the new system are immediately connected with the revenue of the Customs, which were before entrusted to their care and management.
The Secretary of the Treasury, in the details, connected with and resulting from the general plan, designates another description of Officers of the Customs, namely the Inspectors, as assistance to those who had previously been appointed by the President.
And relying on the efficacy of this resource, no other is pointed out, by which the Inspectors of the Revenue for ports can procure the requisite assistance for fulfilling the law. The instructions respecting the whole matter are transmitted to all the Collectors of the Customs, and their co-operation is desired.
I mentioned in my former letter, as a motive to this arrangement, that there was no danger of an interferance of duties. In this you differ from me. Let facts decide.
The duties of a Surveyor of the Customs by the 6th. Section of the Collection law are “to superintend and direct the Inspectors, measurers, and guagers within his district, to visit and inspect the ships and vessels which arrive within his district, with power to put on board one or more inspectors, to ascertain the proof of distilled Spirits, to examine whether goods imported in any ship or vessel and the deliveries thereof are conformable to the entries of such goods and the permits for landing the same” and he is placed under the Controul of the Collector.
The duties of the Inspector of the Revenue for a port under the Act in question and the inspections concerning it are—1st to receive the reports of Masters of vessels having on board distilled spirits brought from foreign ports, 2d. to receive from owners, importers and consignees, entries of such Spirits after they have been previously certified by the Collector of the Customs and to inspect record and indorse the permits granted by them. 3rdly to superintend the landing of Spirits, cause the Casks and vessels containing them to be marked and to Issue the requisite certificates to accompany them 4—to certify the quantities and particulars of distilled Spirits entered and landed at one port in cases in which a part of those imported in a vessel are intended to be delivered at another port. 5th—to superintend the shipment of distilled spirits intended to be exported in order to their being entitled to the benefit of drawbacks.
On comparing the particulars of the duties of these two offices it will be seen, that they are either substantially the same or closely allied to each other, and that they would be more naturally performed by the same than by different persons.
If the law had in the first instance annexed the duties of an Inspector of the Revenue for a Port to those of the Surveyor of a Port (which perhaps would have been a desirable course) no doubt could have been entertained of their perfect congruity. Their being united by an executive arrangement cannot, in this respect, vary the effect.
Responsibility to different superiors, is the only circumstance which can give colour to suppose the possibility of collusion. But the duties in the two Cases are so much parts of a whole that it would be no easy matter to make them clash, even by design; and if so improper a design could appear, there are not wanting means of repressing it.
The union therefore of the Offices of Surveyor and Inspector of the revenue, for a part, clearly does not naturally involve any interference of duties.
It remains to see if that of Inspector of the Customs and deputy inspector of the Revenue for a port is chargeable with any greater degree of incompatibility.
As Inspector of the Customs, the person who bears that Office, is by the Collection law put under the immediate direction of the Surveyor. As deputy Inspector of the Revenue he is under the immediate direction of the same person in the capacity of Inspector of the Revenue. Here the responsibility to the same superior, in both capacities is found to second the analogy of duties.
As Inspector of the Customs his duties are not specifically defined by law—he is to be employed generally in aid of the Customs, and by the day, upon a compensation not exceeding a dollar and a quarter ⅌ day. But from certain intimations in the law, and from practice, the prominent features of his duty consists in aiding the Surveyor in the inspection of vessels and in overseeing the landing of goods. I say in aiding the Surveyor, because it is expressly declared, that the Surveyor shall superintend and direct him and shall have power to put on board of each Vessel one or more Inspectors.
As deputy Inspector of the Revenue, under the arrangement which has been adopted, he is to assist the same Surveyor in the capacity of Inspector of the Revenue, in overseeing the landing of certain goods, with the additional circumstance of marking the Casks and packages containing them, when landed, and of delivering descriptive certificates to accompany them.
This additional circumstance may be regarded as a natural appendage of the principal service to be performed, and in most cases may be executed without difficulty by the same person.
If on particular occasion, through any extraordinary press of business, some embarrassment might be experienced, the remedy as I mentioned in my former letter would be a special and temporary appointment of additional Inspectors, an expedient in the discretion and power of the Collector, and the use of which in certain cases is contemplated by the collection law itself, which expressly authorizes the Surveyor to put on board a vessel, one or more inspectors.
To this you made two objections. First, that men selected for their integrity and abilities might be diverted from the business of the Customs, by a department over which you had no controul, to execute that of the revenue, leaving you to supply their places by unworthy or ignorant persons picked up in a hurry. Secondly—That it might expose those whom you had selected to perform certain duties to less compensation, in performing others, than they would be entitled to for performing those to which they had been appointed, or perhaps to no compensation at all.
The answer to the first objection is plainly this. The officers in question in the capacity of deputy Inspectors of the Revenue have no services to perform, but such as are in substance, however they may be in form, exclusively relative to the Customs; They have no concern with any but imported articles, the duties upon which are paid to and received by the Collector of the Customs only; and the direct object of the services they are to perform is the security of that branch of the revenue. They have nothing to do with the in-land duties. They are therefore in fact, though not in Name, auxiliary officers of the Customs. The criterian, upon this occasion, must be that the services to be performed are relative to duties on imported articles, which duties are payable to officers of the Customs. And it has been shewn that the services to be performed in both cases are either the same or coincident. Nothing therefore like a neglect of the service of the Customs was involved in the arrangement, on the contrary it tended to second and promote that service.
It may be further answered that you would alway have a right to say to the Inspector of the Revenue, who as Surveyor is under your controul “The established Inspectors being at this time too much occupied otherwise to perform the additional services of marking &c, you are for the present to employ for these purposes occasional Inspectors, whom I will appoint to assist you.” It would become his duty in such case to Conform and the inconvenience to which you allude might be avoided.
To the second objection it may be answered—That the compensation from the course prescribed, would rest with yourself, within the limit of a dollar and a quarter per day since the persons employed would be to be compensated as Inspectors of the Customs.
What you remark by anticipation in opposition to this is I conceive easily obviated. If a particular form from the Treasury, from an imperfect view of the law in the first instance, confined the compensation of Inspectors to cases of attendance on board of vessels, the error was by your own shewing rectified on further consideration, and the sense of the law was admitted to be that compensation would follow any services rendered by the Inspectors in aid of the Customs.
But you observe that it was “impossible for you to conceive the propriety, even if it might be admitted at the Treasury, of charging the Customs with expences incidental to the Revenue.”
But when it is observed, as is truely the case, that these expences are incidental to the Customs and not to the Revenue as distinguished from them, in other words “the in-land duties” it cannot be very difficult to conceive the propriety of the charge, which likewise, it was to have been presumed from the arrangement adopted by the head of the department would have been admitted at the Treasury. And it surely would have been perfectly safe and intirely in order, to have left the responsibility for a wrong construction in such a case where the law has placed it, namely with the Treasury. I might perhaps have contented myself on this point of the interferance of duties with refering to your own words in your letter of the 3d. of May last to the Surveyor—in which you admit that the duties of the two offices though distinct are “practicable by the same persons.”
From the question of interference, I return to the review of the cause of the transaction, which is the subject in discussion.
The arrangement adopted and notified from the Department of the Treasury, is carried into general execution, without objection or complaint, though in some instances representations are prefered of the considerable addition, which is made to the duties of the Officers of the Customs, and of the reasonableness of some further compensation; which are of necessity refered to future consideration, when greater latitude in the article of expence should be allowed by the Legislature; an event which took place last session of Congress, and the effects of which have been hereto-fore suspended, only by the requisite preliminary inquiries and investigations.
A question arises in your district, as to the obligation of the Inspectors of the Customs to perform the additional services required of them. Not a syllable of this is communicated to the Treasury. No opportunity is offered of reconsidering the arrangement—none of providing, by a new instruction to the Officers of the Revenue, a substitute for the expected co-operation of the Inspectors of the Customs in cases of refusal, if such refusal were justifiable.
On an application from those Officers to you—you write to the Surveyor enjoining him to avoid as much as possible demanding of the Inspectors of the Customs services which may interfere with their particular duties as such, and especially such as they are unwilling to undertake—declaring your opinion that they are not bound to officiate in the capacities of deputy Inspectors and that their services must be voluntary.
You state, that in fact you gave no answer at all to the representation of the Inspectors. The Surveyor however States, that the opinion given to him, in the above mentioned letter was also given to the Inspectors, and that in consequence of it, they refused to mark. It would be improper for me now to decide which of these two apparently contradictory statements is the most accurate—but with one only before it was natural I should suppose it correct, especially when I adverted to the Result.
The Surveyor further states, that your deputy “took pains to induce the Inspectors not to mark.”
From a disposition the reverse of unconciliating, I was disposed to suppress these unpleasant particulars. But the turn which your letter has given to the thing appears to me to render it necessary they should now be brought to view.
The issue of the whole affair is, as stated by the Surveyor—that the Inspectors refuse to mark—that he in consequence is compelled to have the Spirits, which are landed Stored, without it, ’till from courtesy and a disposition to oblige him, he is able to prevail upon two or three Inspectors to perform the services at their leisure—that the Merchants complain, and talk of protesting against the officers—that some of the Inspectors go so far as not only to refuse to mark, but to declare that they “will not examine to see if spirits when landed are accompanied with the proper certificates.”
I appeal to your own candour and good sense. Was all this as it ought to have been? Was not the public service embarrassed? Were not the wheels of administration so far clogged? Was no example of disorder given? Had I no causes to feel dissatisfied or pained at such a scene? Could I consistantly with what was due to my official situation, or the public service, forbear to expostulate?
I proceed to take notice of some particulars in your letter.
You express your surprize that what has occured shd. have been represented to me “as a controversy between the officers respecting the limits of duty.” In your letter of the 3d. of May to the Surveyor you state that it has been intimated to you that “a misunderstanding subsisted between the Surveyor and the Inspectors of the Customs for the port of Baltimore respecting the duty of the latter, when deputed by the Inspector of the Revenue to aid the execution of the duties of the latter office.” I regard this misunderstanding as a controversy between the officers concerned respecting the limits of duty—and this was all that was meant by the observation
You ask whether you could have apprehended that the business of the Customs was to have been retarded by that of the Revenue; or that if additional aid was necessary it was material to the Government by which department it was procured? and you add, that there were officers enough in one department and it never occured to you that it was your duty to create more, in order to supply the other, in which the power of creation is by law made adequate to its occasions.
The first of these questions have been already answered. The service to be performed was in every substanial sense, the business of the Customs, and there were means in your power to forward all the parts of it without suffering any part to be retarded by another. But could you imagine, if additional aid was necessary, it was material, by which department it was procured? The instructions, which had been given on the subject, were imparted to you, and the only agents, which these contemplated for the services in question, were the Inspectors of the Customs. No pecuniary provision was made to enable the Officers of Inspection to procure additional aid by exercising their power of creation. It was natural therefore to suppose, that if necessary it was to be procured through the same means from which the aid in ordinary cases was to be derived. Oeconomy recommended the main expedient; uniformity the auxiliry one.
I am satisfied, from your assertion, that the expedient did not occur to you; but if the difficulty, which appeared to you in the case, had been suggested to me, an explanation would have obviated the necessity of embarrasment. I wish this had been done.
If there were existing officers enough in the Revenue department, to answer the purposes, it is unknown to me.
You say that you feel not a little from my suggestion that the Inspectors’ not performing the duties required of them whether legally obligatory on them or not would be a good reason to substitute others.
I can see no cause to retract that opinion—nor am I unwilling to submit to the severest examination the idea, that there are causes in which a non compliance with official requisitions of superior authority, reasonable in themselves, forming a part of a general arrangement, dictated by particular circumstances, and productive of material convenience to the public service, though not strictly within the compass of the duties legally annexed to an office—would betray a disposition so unaccommodating and improper as to justify the substituting of persons better disposed.
I meet without hesitation the allusion you make to the case of the Surveyor. If he had refused to accept and execute the Office of Inspector of the Revenue, I have no doubt that the chief Magistrate would have been justifiable in seeking and substituting some other person, who would have been willing (in conformity to a general arrangement deemed by him eligible for the public service and even intimated as expedient by the Legislature) to act in the double capacity of Surveyor and Supervisor of the Revenue. Nor do I perceive how it can be doubted, as long as it is admitted that the public good ought to be the guide in the exercise of legal discretion; and that there is a discretion in the chief Magistrate to substitute a person willing to fulfil the legal and reasonable intentions of Government, to one who is not so disposed.
This doctrine too is such an one, as I do not feel myself degraded by supposing equally applicable to the Secretary of the Treasury with any other officer in the department; and I shall flatter myself, that I have competent ideas of my Official and personal dignity.
But while I adhere to the principle, I am sensible, that, like every other, it is capable of being abused, but the right or the ill use of it must in this, as in every other case, depend on the circumstances.
You remark on the respectability of the Charactors, who at present fill the offices of Inspectors. I had too much confidence in your care and judgment to doubt that so respectable a trust would be confided to respectable men. But I acknowledge that I can see nothing derogatory in the services, which are expected from them, as deputy Inspectors of the Revenue. If they have been made so, by the manner of executing them, it ought to be corrected, and I shall readily co-operate in any manner for that end, which upon a knowledge of facts shall appear to be requisite.

Upon the concluding passages of your letter, I shall make no other remark, than that you seem to have made there, as in one or two other instances, a more personal application, than was intended by me, of some observations merely general and argumentative.
In thus fully develloping the view I have taken of the subject I have been influenced by a wish at least to prevent a final difference of opinion between us. If this wish does not succeed, I shall regret it—but having acted upon mature reflection, according to the best light of my judgment and with no feelings whatever, of which I am conscious, to misguide it, it will be a matter of course, on my part to persevere in the expectations I have signified, as far as the complete execution of the arrangement which has been made, may require.
With consideration and esteem   I remain, Sir   Your obedient Servant


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Timothy Pickering, 20 July 1792
From: Pickering, Timothy
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Sir,
Boston July 20. 1792.

I have just read a passage in your circular letter of June 25th to the Collectors of the Customs, putting on the 12th section of the Post-Office-Law a construction which I conceive to be erroneous & which will materially injure the revenue of the department. I recollect your dropping the same idea transiently when I last saw you. I then searched for but overlooked the clause which showed that coasting vessels as well as those from abroad were obliged to deliver their letters at the Post-Office. That clause is in the 10th section. ’Tis the last half of the section, in which “every letter or packet brought into the U. States, or carried from one port therein to another by sea, in any private ship or vessel” is charged with “four cents” of which (by the 13th section) two are to be paid to the master. The charge for such letters being thus prescribed, the 12th section provides the means of compelling their delivery at the post offices, by forbidding the Custom House Officers to admit such vessels “to report, make entry or break bulk,” till the master or commander shall have delivered his letter to the postmaster. The only doubt on my mind respected the meaning of the phrase “by sea.” Some gentlemen at Providence thought that letters going in the packets between that place and Newport, were not within meaning of the act. I asked them what they would call the water between those two places: They answered “only an arm of the sea.” Then, I remarked it is a part of the sea, & within the meaning of the act. Letters passing by the packets between Providence or Newport and New York are in the same predicament; & it must be quite immaterial whether those packets sail on the south or north side of Long Island.
Your not seeing the clause I have now pointed out in the 10th section respecting letters brought by coasting vessels, has led to the construction which so evidently appears erroneous and which therefore I beg you as early as possible to correct.


Title: Treasury Department Circular to the Collectors of the Customs, 20 July 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Collectors of the Customs

Sir,
Treasury Department,July 20, 1792.

It is with great satisfaction I have it in my power to acknowledge the zeal and good disposition, with which the Officers of the Customs generally have executed the instructions which have, from time to time, proceeded from the Treasury Department. I am happy to be able to say, that the instances of exception are few, and I ascribe such as have happened rather to an inaccurate view of the subject than to improper intention.

But as a few instances exist of deliberate deviations from instructions, and as explanations, in one or two cases, disclose opinions which in practice would be subversive of uniformity in the execution of the laws, it becomes advisable to state the ideas, which are entertained at the Treasury respecting the nature of the power of the head of the department “to superintend the Collection of the Revenue,” and the obligation incident to it on the part of the Officers immediately charged with that Collection.
This will be done, to obviate, as far as possible, misconceptions, which may not only disturb the course of public business, but may lead to disagreeable discussions, and even, perhaps, to painful altercations.
It is my earnest wish to cultivate harmonious and cordial cooperation; and it is essential to this, that correct opinions should be mutually entertained. If those I shall express are liable to objections, I shall be glad they may be freely made, and I promise maturely and candidly to consider the force of them.
The Act constituting the Treasury Department, expressly makes it the duty of the head of the Department “to superintend the Collection of the Revenue.”
The power of superintending the Collection of the Revenue, as incident to the duty of doing it, comprises, in my opinion, among a variety of particulars, not necessary to be specified, the right of settling, for the Government of the Officers employed in the Collection of the several branches of the Revenue, the construction of the laws relating to the Revenue, in all cases of doubt.
This right is fairly implied in the force of the terms, “to superintend,” and is essential to uniformity and system in the execution of the laws.
It is evident that without it the most incongruous practices upon the same laws might obtain in different districts of the United States—according to the different portions of intelligence and attention of different Officers, and according to the different mediums through which objects are often seen, even with equal degrees of intelligence and attention.
Merchants might have to pay higher duties at one port, than at another, upon the same articles; higher fees at one port than at another for the same services; and might otherwise be subjected to very dissimilar burthens and requisitions. Such a state of things would undoubtedly be a state of disorder; inconsistent with every idea of a well regulated government, and would have a natural tendency to produce discontent and disgust among individuals, and to bring upon the laws contempt and odium.
It is true that a remedy, in a large proportion of the cases, might be obtained from the Courts of Justice; but the vexatious course of tedious law suits to decide whether the practice of one Officer, or of another, was the most legal, would be a mode of redress very unsatisfactory to suffering parties—and very ill suited, as an ordinary expedient, to the exigencies and convenience of Trade.
A reference has been made to the Oath of Office, prescribed by the first Collection law for the Officers of the Customs.
They are by that law severally required to swear or affirm, that they will execute and perform all the duties of their respective Offices according to law; whence it seems to have been inferred, that they are bound each to pursue his own opinion of the meaning of the law.
But it is conceived that an Officer of the Customs executes his duty, according to law, when, in the cases mentioned, he conforms his conduct to the construction, which is given to the law, by that Officer, who, by law, is constituted the general Superintendant of the Collection of the Revenue. The power to superintend must imply a right to judge and direct, of course an obligation to observe the directions which are given, on the part of those, to whom they are addressed. The observance of them therefore cannot be contrary to the engagement of an Officer to execute the duties of his Office according to law; because, as a general principle, it is a part of his duty, enjoined by the law, to pursue those directions; and because of course the responsibility for a wrong construction rests with the head of the department, when it proceeds from him.
It is not possible to conceive how an Officer can superintend the execution of a law, for the collection of a tax or duty, or for any other purpose, unless he is competent to the interpretation of the law, or in other words, has a right to judge of its meaning. If then that competency and right are attached to the head of the Treasury Department, as general Superintendant of the Collection of the Revenue, it must follow that his judgments are directory to those, who are merely Superintendants within particular spheres, as the Collectors of the Customs, within their respective districts. For it is an universal principle of jurisprudence, and a clear dictate of reason, that authorities within particular spheres, are subordinate to a general authority relating to the same subject, and pervading the whole of them.
I am aware of the reasonable limitations to which the general principle is subject; as restrictions, in the nature of things, upon abuses of authority, applying as well to the operation of laws as of instructions relating to their execution. But the admission of exceptions in extraordinary cases, does not militate against the general rule.
With regard to the oath,

   In the new Collection law, the words “according to law” are omitted, which is barely mentioned to shew that the Legislature laid no stress upon them.

 which is prescribed to the Officers of the Customs, it is to be observed that it is equally prescribed to all of them, from the Collector down to the Inspector of the Customs. It is easy to discern the confusion which would result from the principle, that each of these Officers is bound, by his Oath, to pursue his own construction of the law, though contrary to that of his official Superior.
Two instances shall be mentioned, for the sake of illustration, in which the binding force of instructions from this department has been either questioned, or, in practice, denied.
One relates to the duty on Spikes. The Acts of the first and second session, which impose duties on imported articles, lay a duty of one cent per pound on “nails and spikes,” expressly naming each, and thereby implying that the one was not included in the other. In the Act of the last Session, “for raising a further sum of money for the protection of the frontiers, and for other purposes therein mentioned,” Nails are rated at two cents per pound, and nothing is said about Spikes.
The construction upon this at the Treasury, and which has been signified by the Comptroller, is, that the duty on spikes remains as before, and that the duty on nails only is varied; the reasons of which construction are, that the Legislature named spikes, in one instance, and did not name them in the other, and though there is a duty of ten per centum ad valorem on manufactures of iron generally; yet it is with the exception of those otherwise particularly enumerated; which expressions not being confined to the Act, in which they are used, by the usual word herein, or any word of similar import, naturally extend to enumerations in any prior Act, as well as to those in that in which they are used. Consequently spikes being among the enumerated articles, in the previously existing law, were considered as excepted, and as continuing under the same duty as before. The last Act does not alter the duties generally, but merely on such articles as are therein enumerated and described.
A doubt has nevertheless been communicated, not only as to the justness of this construction, but whether an Officer who doubts is, in such a case, at liberty, from the tenor of his Oath, to comply with it.
The other case alluded to, relates to the question of fees under the Coasting Act. The instructions which were given on this head, though punctually observed in most of the districts, have been materially departed from in some of them.
The first being a case, relating merely to the quantum of revenue, is certainly one in which the opinion of the Officer at the head of the finances of the United States ought to be conclusive.

The second being a question between the pecuniary rights of the Officers, and the pecuniary obligations of the Citizens, in a point in which their contentment or dissatisfaction with the laws, and the interest and convenience of a most precious branch of Commerce, the Coasting Trade, were materially concerned—it is conceived that the opinion of the Officer who, by law, is charged with the general superintendance of the Collection of the Revenue, ought to have prevailed.
These examples are mentioned to shew to those Officers, whose practice has been undeviatingly conformable to the general principle which has been inculcated—that the assertion of it has been called for by instances of departure from it: And the foregoing observations are addressed circularly, rather than to the individual Officers, whose practice in those instances has rendered them necessary, for three reasons—1. That as misconceptions have taken place in some instances, it is possible that similar misconceptions may happen in others, and it is wished to anticipate and prevent them, from an ardent desire to avoid sources of misunderstanding as well as occasions of interruption to the due course of the public business—2. From the possibility that deviations may have happened in more instances than are known at the Treasury—and 3. From a wish to pursue the most delicate mode of animadversion. But while I am desirous, on public principles, of establishing what I suppose to be correct views of the just and necessary authority of this Department, I trust that nothing I have said will tend to discourage freedom of observation on any instruction which may issue from it. I shall constantly think myself indebted to any Officer who shall give me an opportunity of revising an opinion, with the aid of his remarks, which may appear to him not consonant with law, with his own rights, or with the good of the service. To every communication of this sort I have always paid, and shall always pay careful attention. And as often as I can be convinced of an error, I shall, with chearfulness, acknowledge and retract it.
With great consideration,   I am,   Sir, your obedient Servant,
A Hamilton


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Benjamin Walker, 20 July 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Walker, Benjamin

My Dear Walker
Philadelphia July 20th. 1792

The power being legally competent to the purposes desired, I have instructed the Comptroller to give the needful direction to The Commissioner of Loans.
But in friendship to you, I cannot suppress some jealousies which are afloat and which have run before your application as if to prevent a compliance with it. You know the late events with regard to Duer Macombe &c have awakened much suspicion and you will not be surprised, if some portion of it should have lighted upon you.
It is insinuated that there is danger the latitude desired by you upon the strength of your power may be made use of to change the present state of the security of the Creditors of Duer & Macombe.
To this I have answered—1 that if Col Walker should turn out to be a man not strictly and delicately honest I should begin to suspect myself 2 That as your power was legally competent I should run more risk of censure in obstructing its operation, should any ill consequences attend the obstruction than I should do, by giving it a free course, though not agreeable to official forms prescribed for inferior officers in ordinary cases.
But you see my friend; from all this, that unusual circumspection is necessary on your part; and that you must be cautious not to make a change of property under circumstances that can even be tortured into an imputation on your Integrity.
I do not perceive what in the present state of things can be done with Dewhurst. I have myself conversed with him and I understand him as promising to do every thing in his power to indemnify the Society for any loss they may sustain in consequence of a diversion of their funds to the benefit of his English Creditors.
But what says Mr. McComb? If the bills return (the others being paid) ought his other Creditors to derive an accidental benefit to the prejudice of the Society by a dividend of a fund specif[ic]ally pledged to secure the ultimate payment of those bills? According to my present opinion this will be a thing to be contested. Yrs. truly
A Hamilton
B Walker Esquire


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to William Ellery, [21 July 1792]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Ellery, William

[Philadelphia, July 21, 1792. On August 6, 1792, Ellery wrote to Hamilton: “I have recd. your … letters of the 21. 25. & 26 of the last month.” Letter of July 21 not found.]


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Benjamin Lincoln, 21 July 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Lincoln, Benjamin

My dear Sir
Philadelphia July 21st 1792

In the District of Edgar-town there is a Harbour called Holmes hole, where the Collector has appointed an Inspector (Ebenr Smith). It is represented to me, that many vessels come to anchor in that harbour, which are destined for other ports, and it is thought expedient to keep a boat there, for the purpose of boarding vessels, receiving manifests, and to transmit them to the ports, to which they are respectively bound. This Kind of Service it is said has been performed by the Inspector.
If you have any Knowledge of the situation of the Place, so as to form a judgement, to what extent the harbour is frequented, I should be glad of your opinion, how far the expence & maintenance of a boat would be compensated by the advantage that could be derived from the nature of the Service; and what kind of boat would suffice.
If you are acquainted with Mr Smith I could also wish to be informed, whether he is a fit character to have the charge of such a Boat.
I am Dear Sir
Benj. Lincoln Esqr


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Jedediah Huntington, [22 July 1792]
From: Huntington, Jedediah
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[New London, Connecticut, July 22, 1792. On July 25, 1792, Hamilton wrote to Huntington: “Your letter of the 22d instant has been received.” Letter not found.]