Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Robert Totten, 25 August 1786
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Totten, Robert

[New York, August 25, 1786. On the back of the letter that Totten wrote to Hamilton on July 31, 1786, Hamilton wrote: “Answered Aug. 25. 1786.” Letter not found.]


Title: Subscription to the Associated Manufacturing Iron Company, 26 August 1786
From:
To:

New York, August 26, 1786. On this date the “Original Articles of Agreement of the associated Manufacturing Iron Company” of the City and County of New York were filed in the Clerk’s office. Hamilton’s name appears on the list of subscribers as the purchaser of two shares.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Ebenezer Hazard, 1 September 1786
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Hazard, Ebenezer

New York, September 1, 1786. Answers questions concerning a government contract for carrying the mail which Hazard had sent to Hamilton on August 1, 1786.


Title: Alexander Hamilton and Egbert Benson to John Lansing, Junior, 1 September 1786
From: Hamilton, Alexander,Benson, Egbert
To: Lansing, John, Jr.

Newark [New Jersey] September 1, 1786. “We set out this afternoon on a journey to Anapolis in obedience to the appointment of the Legislature respecting the proposed commercial arrangements and are thus far on our journey. This of course renders it impossible for either of us to be at the intended trials in which Mr. Rensselaaer is concerned.”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Nathan Miller, 1 September 1786
From: Miller, Nathan
To: Hamilton, Alexander

New York, September 1, 1786. Will pay a bill drawn on Miller by Samuel Broome in Hamilton’s favor in about three weeks.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Richard Varick, [1 September 1786]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Varick, Richard

[New York, September 1, 1786]
Mrs. Hamilton insists on my dining with her to day as this is the day of departure and you (who are not a prophane batchelor like Benson) will know that in such a case implicit obedience on my part is proper. This deprives me of the pleasure of dining with you.
Yr. friend & serv

A Hamilton
Sepr. 1st 1786


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Elizabeth Hamilton, [8 September 1786]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Hamilton, Elizabeth

[Annapolis, September 8, 1786]
I wrote to you My beloved Betsey at Philadelphia; but through mistake brought off the letter with me; which I did not discover till my arrival here. I was not very well on the first part of the journey; but my health has been improved by travelling and is now as good as I could wish. Happy, however I cannot be, absent from you and my darling little ones. I feel that nothing can ever compensate for the loss of the enjoyments I leave at home, or can ever put my heart at tolerable ease. In the bosom of my family alone must my happiness be sought, and in that of my Betsey is every thing that is charming to me. Would to heaven I were there! Does not your heart re-echo the wish?
In reality my attachments to home disqualify me for either business or pleasure abroad; and the prospect of a detention here for Eight or ten days perhaps a fortnight fills me with an anxiety which will best be conceived by my Betseys own impatience.
I am straitened for time & must conclude. I presume this will find you at Albany. Kiss my little ones a thousand times for me. Remember me affectionately to Your Parents, to Peggy, to all. Think of me with as much tenderness as I do of you and we cannot fail to be always happy
Adieu My beloved
A Hamilton
AnapolisSepr. 8. 1786


Title: Thomas Cushing, Francis Dana, and Samuel Breck to Alexander Hamilton and Egbert Benson, 10 September 1786
From: Cushing, Thomas,Dana, Francis,Breck, Samuel
To: Hamilton, Alexander,Benson, Egbert

New York. Sept. 10. 1786
Gentlemen
Understanding on our arrival in this City last Fryday evening, that you had gone on for the Convention at Annapolis the week past, we take the Liberty to acquaint you and beg you to communicate to the Convention if it should be opened before we arrive there, that we shall set off from this Place to morrow to join them, as Commissioners from the State of Massachusetts, which we hope to do in the course of this week. The Commissioners from Rhode Island were to sail from thence for this city on the 7th Instant; so that they may be expected soon after us.
With great Respect    Your most obed humble Servts
Thomas Cushing
Fra. Dana
Sam Breck
The GentlemenCommissioners for New York


Title: Annapolis Convention. Address of the Annapolis Convention, [14 September 1786]
From: Hamilton, Alexander,Annapolis Convention
To:

[Annapolis, September 14, 1786]
To the Honorable the Legislatures of Virginia, Delaware Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York.
The Commissioners from the said states, respectively assembled at Annapolis, humbly beg leave to report.
That, pursuant to their several appointments, they met, at Annapolis in the State of Maryland, on the eleventh day of September Instant, and having proceeded to a Communication of their powers; they found, that the States of New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia had, in substance, and nearly in the same terms, authorised their respective Commissioners “to meet such commissioners as were, or might be, appointed by the other States in the Union, at such time and place, as should be agreed upon by the said Commissioners to take into consideration the trade and Commerce of the United States, to consider how far an uniform system in their commercial intercourse and regulations might be necessary to their common interest and permanent harmony, and to report to the several States, such an Act, relative to this great object, as when unanimously ratified by them would enable the United States in Congress assembled effectually to provide for the same.”
That the State of Delaware, had given similar powers to their Commissioners, with this difference only that the Act to be framed in virtue of those powers, is required to be reported “to the United States in Congress Assembled, to be agreed to by them, and confirmed by the Legislatures of every State.”
That the State of New Jersey had enlarged the object of their Appointment, empowering their Commissioners, “to consider how far an uniform system in their commercial regulations and other important matters, might be necessary to the common interest and permanent harmony of the several States,” and to report such an Act on the subject, as when ratified by them “would enable the United States in Congress Assembled, effectually to provide for the exigencies of the Union.”
That appointments of Commissioners have also been made by the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and North Carolina, none of whom however have attended; but that no information has been received by your Commissioners of any appointments having been made by the States of Connecticut, Maryland, South Carolina, or Georgia.
That the express terms of the powers to your Commissioners supposing a deputation from all the States, and having for object the Trade and Commerce of the United States, Your Commissioners did not conceive it advisable to proceed on the business of their mission, under the Circumstance of so partial and defective a representation.
Deeply impressed however with the magnitude and importance of the object confided to them on this occasion, your Commissioners cannot forbear to indulge an expression of their earnest and unanimous wish, that speedy measures may be taken, to effect a general meeting, of the States, in a future Convention, for the same and such other purposes, as the situation of public affairs, may be found to require.
If in expressing this wish, or in intimating any other sentiment, your Commissioners should seem to exceed the strict bounds of their appointment, they entertain a full confidence, that a conduct, dictated by an anxiety for the welfare, of the United States, will not fail to receive an indulgent construction.
In this persuasion your Commissioners submit an opinion, that the Idea of extending the powers of their Deputies, to other objects, than those of Commerce, which has been adopted by the State of New Jersey, was an improvement on the original plan, and will deserve to be incorporated into that of a future Convention; they are the more naturally led to this conclusion, as in the course of their reflections on the subject, they have been induced to think, that the power of regulating trade is of such comprehensive extent, and will enter so far into the general System of the foederal government, that to give it efficacy, and to obviate questions and doubts concerning its precise nature and limits, may require a correspondent adjustment of other parts of the Fœderal System.
That there are important defects in the system of the Fœderal Government is acknowledged by the Acts of all those States, which have concurred in the present Meeting; That the defects, upon a closer examination, may be found greater and more numerous, than even these acts imply, is at least so far probable, from the embarrassments which characterise the present State of our national affairs—foreign and domestic, as may reasonably be supposed to merit a deliberate and candid discussion, in some mode, which will unite the Sentiments and Councils of all the States. In the choice of the mode your Commissioners are of opinion, that a Convention of Deputies from the different States, for the special and sole purpose of entering into this investigation, and digesting a plan for supplying such defects as may be discovered to exist, will be entitled to a preference from consideration, which will occur, without being particularised.
Your Commissioners decline an enumeration of those national circumstances on which their opinion respecting the propriety of a future Convention with more enlarged powers, is founded; as it would be an useless intrusion of facts and observations, most of which have been frequently the subject of public discussion, and none of which can have escaped the penetration of those to whom they would in this instance be addressed. They are however of a nature so serious, as, in the view of your Commissioners to render the Situation of the United States delicate and critical, calling for an exertion of the united virtue and wisdom of all the members of the Confederacy.
Under this impression, Your Commissioners, with the most respectful deference, beg leave to suggest their unanimous conviction, that it may essentially tend to advance the interests of the union, if the States, by whom they have been respectively delegated, would themselves concur, and use their endeavours to procure the concurrence of the other States, in the appointment of Commissioners, to meet at Philadelphia on the second Monday in May next, to take into consideration the situation of the United States, to devise such further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the constitution of the Fœderal Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union; and to report such an Act for that purpose to the United States in Congress Assembled, as when agreed to, by them, and afterwards confirmed by the Legislatures of every State will effectually provide for the same.
Though your Commissioners could not with propriety address these observations and sentiments to any but the States they have the honor to Represent, they have nevertheless concluded from motives of respect, to transmit Copies of this report to the United States in Congress assembled, and to the executives of the other States.

By order of the Commissioners

Dated at Annapolis
}

September 14th. 1786

Resolved that the Chairman sign the aforegoing Report in behalf of the Commissioners
Then adjourned without day.

Egbt: Benson
}
New York

Alexander Hamilton

Abra: Clark
}
New Jersey

Wm Chls Houston

Js. Schureman

Tench Coxe

Pennsylvania

Geo: Read
}
Delaware

John Dickinson

Richard Bassett

Edmund Randolph
}
Virginia

Js. Madison Jr.

St. George Tucker


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Robert Milligan, 26 September 1786
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Milligan, Robert

[September 26, 1786. On October 1, 1786, Milligan wrote to Hamilton: “I have your favour of the 26th Septr.” Letter not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Robert Milligan, 1 October 1786
From: Milligan, Robert
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Philadelphia, October 1, 1786. “I have your favour of the 26th Septr. Your objection to taking Mr Seixas’s bond is conclusive; his base acknowlegement of the amount of our claim I cannot consent to accept. Let an amicable suit be instituted and judgment confessed by Mr Seixas for the balance, with stay till 1st October 1789.”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Samuel Broome, 2 [October] 1786
From: Broome, Samuel
To: Hamilton, Alexander

New Haven [Connecticut, October] 2, 1786. Requests Hamilton to collect the balance of a debt owed to Broome by Nathan Miller.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from David Forman, 18 October 1786
From: Forman, David
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Auburn, Pennsylvania, October 18, 1786. On November 7, 1786, Forman wrote to Hamilton: “I wrote you from Auburn (near Philada) on the 18th. ult.” Letter not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from John Sitgreaves, 23 October 1786
From: Sitgreaves, John
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Philadelphia, October 23, 1786. “Your favor of the 17th. was handed me this morning. Mr. Robert Bowne my Attorney … [will] call upon you for the One hundred and sixty Pounds received from Mr. Bostwick.”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Alexander Macaulay, 24 October 1786
From: Macaulay, Alexander
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Alexandria, Virginia, October 24, 1786. Is detained at Alexandria. Asks Hamilton’s assistance in settling various financial affairs in New York City.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Peter Van Schaack, 25 October 1786
From: Schaack, Peter Van
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Kinderhook [New York] October 25, 1786. “I enclose you a Case for your Opinion, with a Fee. Tis a confused Business but I hope you will hit upon a clue to lead us through the Labyrinth. I have it also in Charge to retain you on Behalf of the Vandenberghs and Van Vechtens.”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from John Lansing, Junior, 28 October 1786
From: Lansing, John, Jr.
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Albany, October 28, 1786. States that the sheriff of Montgomery County who “has been attached for a Contempt in proceeding to the Sale of Croghan’s Land,” wishes Hamilton “to take the necessary Steps to defend him.”


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to John Chaloner, [30 October 1786]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Chaloner, John

[New York, October 30, 1786]
Dr Sir
Inclosed I send you Mr. Church’s Power of Atty to me to receive his bank dividends &c. and a power from me to you to receive the last and the next.

I will be obliged to you to get the money & forward it by the first proper opportuni[t]y to this place.
Pray let me know how matters go on with the bank. What is intended? When is the next election of Directors? Can bank stock be sold at any rate & at what rate?
I remain Dr Sir   Yr Obed ser

A Hamilton
October 30. 1786


Title: Circular Letter to the State Societies of the Cincinnati, [1 November 1786]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: State Societies of the Cincinnati

[New York, November 1, 1786]
Gentlemen
It is our duty to inform you, that we have been appointed by the New York State Society of the Cincinnati a Committee of correspondence, with instructions to frame and transmit to the other State Societies a circular letter, on several matters of importance to the Society of the Cincinnati in general.
In pursuance of this trust, we send you an extract from the proceedings of our Society, began the fourth of July last and continued by adjournments to the twelveth of August following. This extract will itself explain the objects intended to be communicated by this letter, and will leave little to be added by us.
Among other things comprised in it, you will find the Report of a Committee on the proceedings of the General Society of the Cincinnati, at their last meeting; which report approved by our Society contains its dissent from the alterations proposed to be made in the Original Constitution, and assigns the principal reasons of that dissent. These reasons might be enforced by many additional considerations of weight; which, however, we shall omit, as we are persuaded your own reflections will supply them.
We cannot help thinking, that even those Societies, which have adopted the proposed alterations, will on a review of the matter, be struck with the objections Stated in the Report, and will chearfully concur in a plan for revising the business and digesting it into shape, that will be satisfactory to all the parts of the Institution.
At any rate, there appears to be an absolute necessity for such a revisal, if it were only to let in a mode of combining the views and sentiments of the respective Societies in some definitive result; without which, alterations agreed on every side to be proper, will either not be made at all, or made partially, and on principles dissimilar and subversive of the Uniformity of the Institution. This obvious idea will, we trust, demonstrate the Justness of the opinion—That it will be adviseable for each State Society to instruct and empower its delegates, at the next general meeting, to agree upon and finally establish all such alterations, in the Original constitution, as shall be thought, by a Majority expedient. The extension of the authority of the delegates to the final establishment of the alterations to be agreed upon is in our opinion indispensable. The prospect of an unanimous concurrence of all the particular Societies in any plan, which might be referred to their ultimate deliberations, would be remote; And the objects of the Society are too simple and limited to require such a referrence.
Before we dismiss the Subject of the proposed alterations, we shall submit an observation on that part of them, which relates to the exclusion of the clause, by which it is made a fundamental principle of the Society: “To promote and cherish between the respective States that Union and national honor so essentially necessary, to their happiness and the future dignity of the American empire.”
We flatter ourselves, we speak the sense of the Society of which we are members, as well as our own, in declaring, that we reverence the sentiment contained in that clause, too much to be willing to see it expunged. Nor can we believe that its continuance will on reflection, give umbrage to any whose views are not unfriendly to those principles which form the Basis of the Union and the only sure foundation of the tranquility and happiness of this Country. To such men it can never appear criminal, that a class of citizens who have had so conspicuous an Agency in the American Revolution as those who compose the Society of the Cincinnati should pledge themselves to each other, in a voluntary association, to support, by all means consistent with the laws, That noble Fabric of United Independence, which at so much hazard, and with so many sacrifices they have contributed to erect; a Fabric on the Solidity and duration of which the value of all they have done must depend! And America can never have cause to condemn, an Institution, calculated to give energy and extent to a sentiment, favorable to the preservation of that Union, by which she established her liberties, and to which she must owe her future peace, respectability and prosperity. Experience, we doubt not, will teach her, that the members of the Cincinnati, always actuated by the same virtuous and generous motives, which have hitherto directed their conduct, will pride themselves in being, thro every vicissitude of her future fate, the steady and faithful supporters of her Liberty, her Laws and her Government.
Permit us now Gentlemen to call your attention to two other resolutions contained in the extract, transmitted herewith, one relating to a limitation of the number of the members to be Elected in addition to those already elected in the Society of this State—The other relating to the right of the State Societies to Elect foreigners as Members of the Cincinnati; We believe the spirit of both these resolutions will appear to you prudent, and conducive, perhaps we might say essential, to the respectability of the Society. The first speaks for itself, and the last has the reasons for it detailed in a letter from Major L’Enfant included in the extract. The opinion of our Society in this respect is founded on the particular terms of the clause of the constitution providing for the election of Honorary members, which seem inapplicable to any but citizens of the respective States eminent for abilities and “Patriotism.”
But we presume, if there should be any difference of Opinion as to the right of electing Foreigners, there will be none as to the expediency of referring that matter exclusively to the general Society; who will no doubt be properly impressed with the necessity of circumspection, in admitting the claims of candidates of that description, and who will be less likely to be importuned with ill founded pretensions. The Society of this State will be happy to find, that the views of the Societies of the other States coincide with theirs, in the objects of this letter. Should this not be the case we at least persuade ourselves, they will be considered as the dictates of a pure zeal for the honor and interest of the Institution.
We are very respectfully Gentlemen your obedt. and humble Servants
Alexander Hamilton
Jas. Duane
Wm. Duer
New York November 1st 1786
To the President of the Society of the Cincinnati of the State of Pensylvania


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from David Forman, 7 November 1786
From: Forman, David
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Middle Town Point [New Jersey] November 7, 1786. “I wrote you from Auburn (near Philada) on the 18th. ult.” Asks when “the Monies from Robt. Cocks would probably be Recd. &c.”


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to John Chaloner, [22 November 1786]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Chaloner, John

[New York, November 22, 1786]
Dr Sir
I received your letter with the draft on Mr Ray which I presented immediately. He would not accept it payable in specie. I did not protest because by your letter it appears to be an affair of accomodation and that you retain the money in your hands. Nor do I now return the draft because Mr. Ray tells me endeavours are making to turn paper into specie for the payment of it; if these do not succeed in a few days I will send it back to you.
I remain with great regard   Yr Obed ser
A Hamilton
November 22d. 1786
J Chaloner


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to John Chaloner, [1 December 1786]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Chaloner, John

[New York, December 1, 1786]
Dr Sir
I send you the bill drawn on Mr. Ray protested as you desire in your last. You will be so good as to send forward the Specie by the first opportunity as the Packet sails in a short time.
Yr Obed serv

A Hamilton
Decr. 1st 1786


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from John Chaloner, 13 December 1786
From: Chaloner, John
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Philada Decr, 13, 1786
Alexr Hamilton Esqr
Dr Sir
Yours of the 1st Inst covering Mr Whites Bill & Protest I reced the 10th Inst since which no Oppo has offerd by which I could send you the money. I shall embrace the first. Did the money I sent you by Mr Lawry come safe to hand? Our Assembly is now on the subject of the Bank & a proposition before them to restore the old Charter. Mr Morris is opposed to any alteration least it should faciltitate those who wish to take their money.
I am with respt Dr Sir   Your most obdt Serv
John Chaloner


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from John Chaloner, 16 December 1786
From: Chaloner, John
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Philada Decemr. 16th. 1786.
Dear Sir,
Since my last the Assembly has adopted the Report of the Committee and have ordered a Bill to be brot in to Restore the Charter of the Bank restricting its duration and Capital; the time and sum is not yet mentioned. This displeasing a number of Stockholders has occasioned a petition to be preferd to the House praying that the Bank may be organized and put on a similar footing with respect to its regulations as the Bank of England—and particularly in the following particulars Viz Directors to be chosen by a Majority of Directors present each Stockholder to have One Vote—No person to be a Director without he holds four Shares—No person to Vote at Elections for directors without he has been an owner of Stock some given time so as to prevent the transfer of Stock for Election purposes. I have on my own account signed and promoted as much as is in my power this petition, and I believe if adopted it will so effectually remove the Jealousy and apprehension of Government as no longer to Cause the Bank to be an object of their Resentment; which was solely occasioned by the influence a few people had among the Stockholders to allways nominate and Elect the directors: and by their Continuing to sit as Directors did in a great measure influence and Comand the Trade of the City and give a bias to all Elections for assembly or other purposes.
The Resentment of Government being removed, I doubt not but the Stock will Rise and come to par: whereas now it is below 10 ⅌ Ct Discount. Wether this measure will succeed is very uncertain; I think it propable that it may. The Stockholders by call of the Directors on the 14th Inst are to meet on Monday the 8th of January to choose Directors. I have as yet met no oppo to send you the money which White’s Bill was to have answered. I shall embrace the first that I can with Confidence rely on. In the meantime I remain   Sir   Your most Obdt Servt
John Chaloner


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Jacob Hardenbergh, 16 December 1786
From: Hardenbergh, Jacob
To: Hamilton, Alexander

New Brunswick [New Jersey] December 16, 1786. Wishes to retain Hamilton as an attorney in an ejection suit against a tenant.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Thomas McKean, 26 December 1786
From: McKean, Thomas
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Philadelphia, December 26, 1786. Requests Hamilton to collect a debt of £50 owed McKean by Richard Dowdle.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Stephen Lush, 31 December 1786
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Lush, Stephen

[New York, December 31, 1786. The catalogue description of this letter states that Hamilton alluded “to the necessity of his attending the legislature of New York in January.” Letter not found.]


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to James Duane, [1786]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Duane, James

[New York, 1786.] Encloses draft of a certificate and asks Duane “to affix the seal of the Corporation” of the City of New York to the draft.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Cornelius Hendrickson, [1786]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Hendrickson, Cornelius

[New York, 1786.] “Mr. Laurence Kortright of this City has requested me to write to you concerning a suit in Chancery which has been depending between Mr Cornelius P. Lowe and himself on a matter in which the estate of his brother to which You are an Executor is concerned; and in which suit Mr. B Livingston of this place and myself were employed as Council for Mr. Kortright. I send you herewith an exemplification of the Chancellor’s decree by which you will see the principles upon which the affair has been decided.”


Title: Introductory Note: Notes on the History of North and South America, [December 1786]
From:
To:

These Notes, which Hamilton divided into two parts entitled “Notes on the History of North America” and “Notes on the History of South America,” were prepared for a brief which he used in a case involving a land controversy between Massachusetts and New York. Some students of Hamilton have mistakenly assumed that these notes were prepared while Hamilton was a student in 1773 at the school maintained by Francis Barber in Elizabethtown, New Jersey. The basis of this error is undoubtedly the following note, in an unidentified handwriting, affixed to these Notes: “Early Geographical & Political Notices on U States by AH. exd. by F.B.” For the brief for which these notes were in reality prepared, see Julius Goebel, Jr., ed., The Legal Papers of Alexander Hamilton.
The controversy between New York and Massachusetts involved western lands claimed by both states. As the Massachusetts claim was based on early charters, it was, in the words of a New York delegate to the Continental Congress, “a State Pretention which has laid dormant more than One Hundred and fifty Years” (Burnett, LettersEdmund C. Burnett, ed., Letters of Members of the Continental Congress (Washington, 1921–1938)., VII, 340, note 4). In 1783, Massachusetts’s claim was reasserted. “We were not a little surprised,” James Duane and Ezra L’Hommedieu wrote to George Clinton, “lately to hear the Delegates for the Massachusets seriously mention on the Floar of Congress The Claim of that State to the western Lands in the state of New York, and declare they had Instructions from their State on every Occasion to assert that Claim, and prevent any Act of Congress from passing which might be construed in favour of the Title of New York in preference to that of the Massachusets” (Burnett, LettersEdmund C. Burnett, ed., Letters of Members of the Continental Congress (Washington, 1921–1938)., VII, 340). In the spring of 1784, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts petitioned the Continental Congress to appoint a Federal court to decide the controversy. Congress assigned the first Monday in December, 1784, for the appearance of the agents of Massachusetts and New York “at the place in which Congress shall then be sitting” (JCCJournals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (Washington, 1904–1937)., XXVII, 547). The legislature of New York appointed James Duane, John Jay, Robert R. Livingston, Egbert Benson, and Walter Livingston agents for the state and authorized them to employ counsel (Laws of the State of New York, ILaws of the State of New York Passed at the Sessions of the Legislature Held in the Years 1777, 1778, 1779, 1780, 1781, 1782, 1783 and 1784 Inclusive, being the First Seven Sessions (Albany, 1886).I, 5). On June 9, 1785, they named Hamilton and Samuel Jones “counsellors and solicitors on the part of this state” (see James Duane, John Jay, and Robert R. Livingston to Hamilton and Jones, June 9, 1785). Jones presumably refused the appointment (see Hamilton to Jones, June 9, 1785). Massachusetts appointed John Lowell, James Sullivan, Theophilus Parsons, and Rufus King, and in its May session the General Court empowered “the agents appointed by this government, to defend the territory on the West Side of Hudson’s River, against the claims of the State of New York” (Acts and Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1786–1787 [Boston, 1893], 53).
When the agents assembled at Trenton, where Congress was then sitting, they agreed on the men who should compose the Federal court. James Duane, one of the New York agents, wrote to Colonel Robert Livingston on January 6, 1785:
“… we agreed on nine Gentlemen to be our Judges any five to form a quorum. Mr. Robt. Hanson Harrison, Chief Justice of Maryland (formerly Secretary to General Washington) was named by both parties. Mr. Tho. Johnson an eminent Lawyer lately Governour of Maryland, Mr. George Reade of Delaware, Mr. Isaac Smith one of the Judges and Mr. William Patterson late Attorney General both of New Jersey were nominated by us, and by Massachusetts Mr. John Rutledge late Governour of South Carolina, Mr. George Wythe Chancellor of Virginia and Mr. William Grason and Mr. James Monroe of the same State.” (Burnett, LettersEdmund C. Burnett, ed., Letters of Members of the Continental Congress (Washington, 1921–1938)., VIII, 10, note 2.)
The first Tuesday in June, 1785, was agreed on for the opening of the court. It was soon evident, however, that no court could convene at such an early date, for it proved impossible to find five judges who would agree to hear the case. Harrison, Grayson, and Rutledge, for example, refused to serve and it was necessary to appoint judges in their places. (For acceptances, declinations, and new appointments, see JCCJournals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (Washington, 1904–1937)., XXVIII, 125n, 181, 181n, 182, 187n, 199, 211, 320, 351–52, 440–41; XXIX, 582, 707n, 776–77.) The convening of the court was therefore postponed until November 15, but, again because of the absence of a quorum, the hearing was deferred.
It became apparent, as the passing months proved it impossible to convene a court, that New York and Massachusetts must themselves decide the issue. In 1786, both states passed acts providing for the settlement of the controversy without recourse to the Federal courts. The Massachusetts agents proposed on September 7, 1786, that the agents of the two states meet at Newport, Hartford, or New Haven to settle the controversy; the New York agents selected Hartford and suggested November 6 as the date for the conference. The meeting finally convened on November 30. (See Burnett, LettersEdmund C. Burnett, ed., Letters of Members of the Continental Congress (Washington, 1921–1938)., VIII, 509, for references to the negotiations that took place between the agents.)
The conferees at Hartford agreed that New York should have “sovereignty and jurisdiction” of the disputed area and that Massachusetts should have “the right of preemption of the soil from the native Indians” (JCCJournals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (Washington, 1904–1937)., XXXIII, 623). The text of the agreement was, on motion of Nathan Dane, the Massachusetts delegate, printed in the Journals of the Continental Congress under date of October 8, 1787.
On January 13, 1787, Governor George Clinton announced to the New York legislature that the boundary dispute with Massachusetts had been settled “otherwise than by a Fœderal Court” by commissioners of New York (New York Assembly JournalJournal of the Assembly of the State of New York (Publisher and place vary, 1782–1786)., 1787, 6). The matter ceased to be of congressional concern after the adoption of a motion “that all further proceedings in and relative to the said federal court as also the commissions of the judges thereof cease and determine” (JCCJournals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (Washington, 1904–1937)., XXXIII, 619).
It is impossible to determine for how long Hamilton was the counsel for the New York commissioners. His bill to the state for “services in examining the controversy collecting testimony and drawing brief for the hearing” was submitted on November 18, 1788, and paid on April 14, 1789. He may have served as legal adviser from June, 1785 (see James Duane et al. to Hamilton and Samuel Jones, June 9, 1785), until the termination of the dispute December 16, 1786. It is more probable that he drew up his brief in the weeks or months following his commission as counsel from the New York agents, for when he was employed, the agents believed the dispute would be settled by a Federal court that would convene as soon as the requisite number of proposed judges had agreed to serve.


Title: Notes on the History of North America, [December 1786]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[December, 1786]

North America

Purchase Vol 5 Page 809 § 2
}

50. 60——

The Map of Sebastian Cabot cut by Clement Adam relateth that John Cabot a venetian and his son Sebastian set out from Bristol and discovering the land called it Prima Vista and the Island before it St Johns. But (says Purchase) Cabot discovered all along the Coast as far as Florida.

Idem 814. 815 § v
In 1607 Henry Hudson discovered those parts to the latitude of fourscore degrees.

La Hontan Vol 1 P. 211—
Frederick Aschild a Dane was the first discoverer of North America.

The discoveries in South America appear to have extended North to about the 35 degree of North Latitude.

Robinsons H of A 2d Volume

Book 4 P. 2—Cites Herrera Dec 1 lib VI c 16—
}

In the foregoing period North America had been discovered from the coast of Labrador to the confines of Florida; by the English and Portuguese.

Humes history of Eng Vol 3 Page 335–336

Anno 1497 1498

Henry 7 sent Sebastian Cabott (a Venetian) in quest of Discoveries who fell in with the main land of NA about the 60° & sailed Southwards without making any conquest or settlement.

Hume Idem—
Anno 1502

Elliot and other Merchants in Britain made a like attempt.

Princes Chronology NE Page 2
Anno 1600

About this period the French and English begin to be competitors for North America. First they send to Fish and Trade and then to settle.

Purchase vol 2. 1677 No 10—
Cabott discovered as far South as the 38° of NL.

Purchases Pilgrim vol 4P. 1809 No. 10 & 20—}

Marginal Note Corteregalis a Portuguese in 1500 & 1501 made voyages to these parts.

Idem—1812
First possession was taken by Queen Eliz in 1584. In 1585 Sir Walter Raleigh settled a Colony.

Idem Vol 5 § 2–50 & 60
Hints at discoveries in North America by Gasper Corteregale a Portuguese Stephen Gomez a Spaniard and Sebastian Cabot.

Canada & Acadia or New France

Prince NE Ch: P 2
The French direct their views to Canada and Acadia.

Idem P. 37
Anno 1613

Had made settlements about Sagadahock at Mount Mansel St Croix and Port Royal. Dislodged by the Government of South Virginia.

Idem P. 94—
Anno 1620
Besides the natives the nearest plantation to the Plimouth settlers was a French one at Port Royal who had another at Canada.

Idem 111—
Anno. 1621
King James gives Sir William Alexander a Patent for Nova Scotia, extending from Cape Sables to the bay of St Mary, thence N to the River St Croix thence N to Canada River so down the River to Gachepe thence SE to Cape Breton Islands thence round to Cape Sables again with all seas and Islands within six leagues of the Western Northern and Eastern parts & within 40 leagues to the Southward of cape Breton & Cape Sables to be called Nova Scotia.

2 Vol Collection of Voyages and Travels page 796—
}

Novr. 8. 1603

797

Patent from King Henry the 4th. of France to Monsieurs De Monts for inhabiting La Cadia Canada and other places in New France dated as ⅌ Margin to extend from the 40 to the 46 degree of Latitude.

1604
}

1605

French visit Cape Sable Bay Francoise The River Lequelle Port Royal at which last Place they dwelt three years.

802

813
}

815

Quare
{
Fortify themselves at the Island St. Croix in 44 degrees. Visit the River Kennebecke & Cape Malabar.

816
Return to Port Royal

821 May 11.
1606

{
Mr. De Poutrincourt sets out from France on a new voyage.

828________
In August arrive at Port Royal.

838________
Mr. De Poutrincourt after several excursions returns to Port Royal

Purchases Pilgrim 4 vol P. 1807 No. 30. 40.50.__________________
French establishments at Quebec: Champlains discovery of the St Laurence & the lakes from the Gulph upwards 1200 miles.

1809 No. 10. 20.____________________
Sir Samuel Argall in  dispossessed the French at Port Royal: they surrendered ⟨– – –⟩.

Purchases Pilgrim Vol 4 Page 1872—
Map: by which New France is laid down NW of Canada River New England on the South East terminating about 40 leagues South of cape Cod without including Hudsons River.

Idem Vol. 3 P. 857
Hondius’ Map of New France, Montreal &c.

Idem Vol. 5   825 § 3
Champlain made a Voyage to Canada in 1603.

Idem—      826
In 1604 Monsieur De Monts in consequence of a Patent from Henry the 4th of France for the Country from 40 to the 46 degree, visited those parts that trend Westward from Cape Breton; fortified Port Royal. “One of the Ports he visited was called Lanalet from a French Captain who had made forty two voyages there.”

Idem       828—
Mentions Quebec and a Lake in Nova Franica threescore leagues long.

La hontan Voyages Vol 1 Page 7 _______
}

Speaks of their arrival at Quebec in 1684.

8 _______
Speaks of soldiers of the Regiment of Carignan who had been inhabitants there 40 years.

11 _______
Quebec lies in the latitude of 47°. 12m.

12
Description of Quebec by which it appears to have been an ancient settlement.

18 _______
Trois Rivieres a town in latitude 46°. French had peopled the St Laurence higher up.

19 _______
Montreal then settled in 45°. of latitude. The banks of the St Laurence well peopled.

23 _______
Speaks of Indian Villages on the South side of Lake Ontario or of Frontenac.

25 _______
Fort Frontenac was then built. Charles 2d. instructed his Governor of New York to advise the Iroquois nations to live in peace with the French.

30 _______
Progress to Fort Frontenac.

34—
}

80—

Missilimakenack was then a French post. Letter from thence dated May 26. 1688.

38.39—
Speaks of the Governor of New York in transactions with the five nations.

70—
Letter dated from Niagara Aug 2. 1687.

92.
Fort St Joseph then in existence.

206—
“Canada reaches from the 39 to the 65 degree of latitude that is from the South side of Lake Erie to the North side of Hudsons bay & from the 284 to the 336 degree of longitude viz from the River Mississippi to Cape Rase in the Island of New found land.” “I mean (says he) the countries in which the French trade with the natives for beavers and in which they have forts magazines Missinaries and small settlements.”

“Tis above a Century and a half since Canada was discovered. John Verasan was the first discoverer.’ About the beginning of last Century a Colony was sent over from Rouen who effected a settlement. The Colony computed to contain 180,000 souls.

220—
Acadia extends from the River Kennebecca to L’isle Percee near the mouth of St Laurence.

N England

Princes NE. Ch. P. 2
The English Claim South and North Virginia—Newfoundland and Bermudas—Virginia extending from Florida to the bay of Fundy, The Northern part took the name of New England in 1614.

Idem P. 17

Anno 1606
}

April 10.

King James by Patent divides Virginia into two colonies. The Southern between 34 & 41 he gives to London Company. The Northern between 38 & 45° N he gives to Plymouth Company forbidding to plant within 100 miles of each other.

Idem P. 21

1607
}

May 11

Plimouth Adventurers under George Popham as President and Rawly Gilbert as Admiral form a settlement at the Mouth of Sagadehock.

Idem P. 25
1608—

This Colony breaks up & returns to England.

Idem P. 33—
1611—

Voyage by Sir Edward Harlie & Nicholas Hobson towards the same Quarter. Have a little Quarrel with Indians who assault the Ship & take some of them. “No more speeches of plantations”.

Idem P 39 & 40—
1614

Capt John Smith makes a voyage to N Virginia, ranges the Coast along from Penobscot to Sagadehock, Acocisco, Passataquack, Tragabigzanda.

Called Cape Anne the Massachusettes Isles. Finds two French Ships who had been there six weeks. Sails to Accomack thence to Cape Cod, sails for England, arrives at London, makes a map of the Country and first calls it New England.

Idem P. 43

1615
}

July—

1616

44 . . .

Two ships sent to Fish at N England. A few ships sail for New England to Fish.

45
This year Eight volunteer ships go to New England.

47 . . .
1617

Smith undertakes a voyage to settle in N England which by contrary winds is frustrated. He is appointed Admiral of New England for life.

54—
1618—

Two ships go to Fish in New England.

60—
1619

Sir F: Gorges sends Cap Thos. Dermer on a fishing voyage to N England.

                      Idem P. 63—
                      1619

Capt Dermer sails from Monahegan (an Island) near Sagadahock along the Coast to the mouth of James River: passes between Long Island and the main.

1620—
This year 6 or 7 sail go to N E to fish.

Idem P. 67—
This Spring Dermer returns to New England. Discovers many goodly rivers and pleasant coasts and Islands 80 leagues E from Hudsons River to Cape Cod, but arriving at New England again writes a letter &c.

N B. NE does not appear to have been then understood to extend further Southward than cape Cod. This was the Southern extent of Smiths coasting when he gave the name.

                      Idem 70—

                            1620
                            }

                            July—

King James gives a warrant to prepare “a new Patent of Incorporation” for the Adventurers to North Virginia between 40 & 48°. North, stiling them the “Council for the Affairs of NE & their successors.”

                      Idem—72—
                      Novemb 9—

The first adventurers from Plymouth made land at Cape Cod, stand to the Southward to find some place of settlement about Hudsons River, meeting contrary winds they get into the Cape harbour; where or in the neighbourhood they make a landing; but their design and patent being for Virginia & not New England, they enter into a

Idem—73—
compact and association for their settlement & government.

Decemr. 31—
fix their settlement at Plymouth, the first English town in all that Country.

Page 84 & 85—
Form of the compact dated 11 Nov. 1620. They conceived themselves in a state of nature.

Idem P. 94—
Besides the Natives the nearest plantation to them is a French one at Port Royal who had another at Canada.

95—
The only English settlements were at Virginia, Bermudas & Newfoundland. In this year Nov 3 unkown to and unsought by the adventurers a Patent was signed for the Incorporation of the Adventurers to the Northern Colony of Virg between 40 & 48 degrees of N Latitude.

                      Prince NE Chro Page 101
                      1621

Treaty of alliance with Massasoit the Great Sagamore of the Neighbouring Indians.

                      111…
                      do.

Nine Sachems subscribe an Instrument of Submission to King James (in the neighbourhood of Plymouth).

                      112…
                      do.

Visit Massachusettes bay, get a considerable quantity of beaver and return home. The Sachem of the bay (though not the Massachusettes Queen) submits to King James on condition of protection.

                      114.

                            do.
                            }

                            Nov. 9

Receive a letter from Mr. Weston in which he writes “We (ie the Adventurers) have procured you a charter the best we could better than your former and with less limitation.”

                      118—
                      Ano 1622

Make another visit to Massachusettes trade and return.

                      119.
                      Idem

                      June—

Arrive at Plymouth two ships with Adventurers to form a settlement at Massachusettes for which Weston had procured a Patent. They remain at Plymouth during the Summer, and then go to Weymouth in Massachusettes.

                      125—
                      1623—

The Governor with some Indians go to Manomet a town near 20 Miles S of Plimouth—stands on a Fresh River running into a bay which cannot be less than 60 Miles from thence. Twill bear a boat of 8 or ten tons. Hither the Dutch or French or both used to come. Tis about 8 Miles to the bay of Cape Cod. The Sachem of the Place with many others own themselves subject to King James.

                      131. 132
                      Idem

The Massachusettes settlement breaks up this year.

                      133
                      Id:

Capt J. Mason, Sir F Gorges and others having obtained patents from the New England Council for different tracts they send over persons to form a settlement, who settle 25 leagues NE from Plymouth near Smith’s Isles at a place called Little Harbour West of Piscataqua River near the Mouth.

                      141.
                      Idem Sep.

Capt Robert Gorges & others arrive at Massachusettes bay to form a plantation. Pitches upon the place Weston had abandonned, to Wit, Weymouth.

144.Anno 1624.

This Plantation breaks up. This Spring Mr. D Thompson who had begun a settlement at Piscataqua removes to Massachusettes bay & possesses a fruitful Island & Neck of land.

                      151.
                      Idem

A plantation is begun at Cape Anne under the Plymouth people.

                      152
                      (1625)

This year Capt Wollaston & others begin a settlement at braintree in Massachusettes.

                      162.
                      (1626)

Sometime in the fall Mr. Conant with the settlers at Cape Anne remove to Salem & there establish themselves.

                      Idem 170
                      (1627)

About this year a patent is procured for the Massachusettes colony.

                      1623

                      171—
                      March 19

The Council for New England sell to Sir Henry Roswell and four five others the tract comprehended in the Massachusettes Charter (prout the Charter). “By the Massachusettes colony Charter & records it seems the three former wholly sold their rights the three latter retaining theirs in equal partnership with the said associates.” Names of Grantees: Sir Henry Rosswell Sir John Young, Thomas Southcoat John Hunphry John Endicott & Simon Whitcomb.

                      180—

                            1629
                            }

                            March 4

King Charles grants a patent to the Massachusettes Colony to the above named & their associates. Note first the government is carried on in England.

                      192—
                      Aug 29—

The Council of proprietors vote that the Patent & Government be transferred to Massachusettes.

                      196—

                            1630
                            }

                            Jany 19.

The Council for New England grant to William Bradford and others a patent for all the Country between Cohasset Rivulet on the North & Naragansett River towards the South &c. (prout the description).

                      Purchases Pilgrims Vol 4 Page 1830—
                      }

There were disputes between the Virginia Company and New England adventurers decided in favour of the latter who obtained a New patent. “They were to have their grant agreeable to the liberty of the Virginia Company the frame of their government excepted.”

Idem 1871 . . .
Charter to Sir William Alexander for Nova Scotia.

Idem 1872.
Map in which New France is laid down NW of Canada River, New England SE terminating about 40 leagues South of Cape Cod without including Hudsons River.

                      Idem Vol 5 P 829
                      }
                      No. 50

                      830

Speaking of North and South Virginia: “of the North (says he) our method requires first mention. Mawooshen was many years together visited by our men extending between 43 & 45 degre[e]s &c.”

Note He mentions This present year 1616
These Northern parts (says he) are lately called New England. “A map

1616
and discovery hereof was set forth this last year by Capt John Smith. It lieth between 41°. & 45m.” He speaks of Smiths Arguments for a New Colony & expresses his hope of having English colonies renewed.

Collection of Voyages and Travels 2 Vol

P. 738
“In the year 1606 King James did license a plantation there on condition not to plant within an hundred miles of each other.”

In 1609 first settlement made on the banks of Saga de hoc which lasted only a year.

Shortly after a second settlemen[t] was undertaken under Capt Hobson which failed.

In 1614 & 15 a third and fourth voyage was performed but neither with any good success.

In 1620 the first successful settlement.

Douglass’s Summary 374
Originally, according to Capt Smiths map approved of by the Court of England New England extended from twenty Miles east of Hudsons River Northward &c.

4 Purchase 1870
The Indians affirm confidently that New England is an Island and that the Dutch or French pass through from sea to sea between us and Virginia.

Woods New Eng Prospects No. 1. 2. This book is No. 227 in the Pensyl library. It was published in 1639 said to have been written in 1633. The author lived 4 years in the Country.
“The place whereon the English have built their colonies is judged by those who have best skill in discovery either to be an Island surrounded on the North Ride with the Spacious River Canada and on the South with Hudson’s River or else a peninsula these two Rivers overlapping one another having their rise from the great lakes &c.”

Pamphlet Intitled “Virginia richly valued” printed in 1650 by E Williams No. 261 Phil Library.
Same Ideas as to N England.

Virginia

                      Collection of Voyages and Travels
                      P 740—

“Virginia is next adjoining Westerly to New Netherland.”

It extends along the coast from 33 to 39 divided into two parts Northern & Southern.

Northern first settled in 1606 from 37 to 39.

Purchases Pilgrim Vol 3 P. 869
Hondius Map of Virginia and Florida.

                      Vol 5 Page 834 § 3 Part. 2.
                      }

Virginia according to Capt Smiths account (whom Purchase speaks of as a discoverer of the Northern parts) extends between 34 & 44 degrees of North Latitude bounded on the East by the Great Ocean by Florida on the South on the North Nova Francia: Its Western limits unknown.

The Part planted in 1606 lies between 37 and 39.

Idem Page 853 . . .
Title of Chap. 8 “Of the Countries situate Westward from Florida and Virginia towards the South Sea.”

                      Idem 829 No. 40 &
                      }

                      Marginal Note

Bartholomew Gosnold an Englishman discovered Northern parts of Virginia somewhere about 40°. 20m.

                      Idem 829
                      }
                      No. 50—

                      830

Mentions Patent to Virginia from 30° to 45° not to plant within 100 miles of each other.

New York

                      Prince N E Chro: P 28
                      Anno 1609

This summer Henry Hudson an Englishman employed by the Dutch sails to Newfoundland and all along the Coast as far as the 33d degree of N L; now discovers Hudsons River (as supposed).

                      2 Vol Collection of Voyages & Travels Page 739
                      }

As [the bounds of] New England Westward, and by the South ends with the Promontary Malabar so the Dutch Plantation begins here and

1611
extends itself most Westward & more Southward towards Virginia: was first found out in the year 1609 by Master Henry Hudson an Englishman employed by the States of the Low Countries, who after making the discovery returned to Amsterdam and was sent out the next year. Speaks of Nassau River by which he seems to mean Connecticut River.

“On the North side of the Dutch Plantation springeth the River Machican called the Great North River” “There is yet another River bigger than the former called South River” described as the Dalaware.

                      Princes NE Chro:
                      P 67
                      1620

This Spring Capt Dermer returns to New England meets with certain Hollanders who had a trade in Hudsons River some years.

                      Idem.
                      125.
                      1623

The Plymouth adventurers visit Manomet a town standing on a Fresh River 20 Miles South of Plymouth. Here the Dutch and French used to come.

                      Idem.
                      165.
                      (1627)

About mid march (say March 9. 1627) The Governor of the Dutch Plantation writes a letter of congratulation and offer of service to the Plymouth adventurers. This letter is dated from Fort Amsterdam at Manhattans—“The Dutch had traded in those Southern parts divers years before the Plymouth adventurers came; but began no plantation till four or five years after their coming.” A letter of thanks and acceptance of friendship is returned.

                      172
                      (1628)

A second communication takes place—letters and commodities. Trade is carried on for divers years between the Plymouth people & the Dutch colony.

                      La Hontan Vol 1 Page 210
                      }

                      211

Henry Hudson having obtained a ship from the Dutch discovered New Holland which is now called New York.


Title: Notes on the History of South America, [December 1786]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To:

South America

Rob. H of A B 2d P 73—
Christopher Columbus, a subject of Genoa, the first discoverer of America.

                      Idem
                      P. 83–84–86

After Different applications to the Genoese, to the King of Portugal, England & various disappointments he at last undertakes the

95
voyage in the service of Spain & in 1492 set out on his voyage.

102

Idem 111. 112—
Octr. 12. 1492 discovered land—the Island of San Salvador—& afterwards several other Islands.

Idem 132
Febr. 24. 1493. Returns to Europe & arrives at Lisbon. Goes to Spain. Communicates his success to the Court.

Idem 140—
Ferdinand King of Spain obtains from Pope Alexander 6 a grant of all the lands he had discovered or should discover to the Westward of an

Anno. 1493
imaginary line drawn from pole to pole a

Princes Chronology New Engd. Part 1 P. 2—
hundred leagues to the Westward of the Azores. All to the Eastward was given to Portugal. Bull signed at Rome May 4. 1493.

Idem 141 Anno. 1493
Columbus set out on a second Voyage, November 22 arrives again at Hispaniola.

Idem 163 Anno. 1496
Returns again to Spain And

Idem 169. Anno 1498
Undertakes a third Voyage. And

Idem 170—
In the same year discovers the Continent of America.

                      Idem 183.
                      Anno 1499.

Alonso Di Ojeda a private adventurer made a voyage to the same part of the Coast of the Continent—Paria.

Idem 184. 185
Amerigo Vespucci who accompanied Ojeda in this voyage and wrote an account had the address to make himself be considered as the Discoverer of the Continent & gave a name to it—America.

                      Idem 187—
                      Anno. 1500

The Portuguese discover the Coast of the Brazil; Cabral the Discoverer by accident.

                      Idem 196
                      1501

Roderigo De Bastidas discovers all that part of the Continent from Cape De Veda to the Gulf of Darien called Tierra Firmé.

                      Page 235.
                      Anno. 1509

Settlement on the Continent attempted by Ojeda. Ferdinand erects two governments, one extending from Cape De Vela to the Gulf of Darien, the other from that to Cape Gracios a Dios.

                      Page 242
                      Anno 1511

Juan Ponce De Leon discovered Florida.

                      Idem 251.
                      Anno. 1513

Balboa discovers the South sea by a march through the Isthmus of Darien.

                      Idem 298—
                      Anno 1518

Grijalva discovers New Spain.

Collection of Voyages & Travels 2d. Vol. P. 743—
Visits made by French & Spainards to Florida from 1512 to 1542.


Title: New York Assembly. Remarks on the Petition of John Maunsell, [16 January 1787]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[New York, January 16, 1787]
Mr. Hamilton could see no reason why this petition should not be treated as well as others; it was customary to commit, but it did not follow that the prayer must be agreed with, no, if the committee think it improper they will say so; for his own part he did not feel himself alarmed at such an application. The legislative power of granting he should not now give an opinion on, he observed that Mr. Mansell resides in the state and might naturally desire to obtain property, however he was certain no evil could arise from committing it, and it deserved the same attention and respect as many others less important had met with. He therefore hoped both the last motions would be rejected and that the house agree to appoint a committee of three.


Title: New York Assembly. Remarks on the Answer to Governor George Clinton’s Message to the Legislature, [17 January 1787]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[New York, January 17, 1787]
Several propositions were now canvassed in a desultory manner, for getting over the motion for amendment; and it was agreed, that the committee should rise and report; they had made some progress, which was agreed to; but first Mr. Hamilton said he would reserve himself on this subject until it came again properly before the house; when he hoped to be enabled to use such argument as would strike with conviction the candid part of this house.


Title: New York Assembly. First Speech on the Address of the Legislature to Governor George Clinton’s Message, [19 January 1787]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[New York, January 19, 1787]
Col. Hamilton’s Speech in the House of Assembly, delivered on the 19th instant, and which appeared in our paper of the 20th, being represented as not doing sufficient justice to his Arguments; we have obtained of him a revision of the same, and with the highest pleasure present it to the Public.
Mr. Hamilton—This now leads us to examine the important question presented to us by the proposed amendment. For my own part I have seen with regret the progress of this business, and it was my earnest wish to have avoided the present discussion. I saw with regret the first application of Congress to the Governor; because it was easy to perceive that it involved a delicate dilemma: Either the Governor from considerations of inconvenience might refuse to call the Assembly; which would derogate from the respect due to Congress; or he might call them, and by being brought together at an unseasonable period before the time appointed by law for the purpose, they would meet with reluctance, and perhaps with a disposition less favourable than might be wished to the views of Congress themselves. I saw with equal regret the next step of the business. If a conference had been desired with Congress, it might have been had—circumstances might have been explained; reasons might have been assigned satisfactory to them for not calling the legislature, the affair might have been compromised. But instead of this, the Governor thought proper to answer by a flat denial, founded on a constitutional impediment, and the idea of an invasion of the right of free deliberation was brought into view. I earnestly wished the matter to have rested here. I might appeal to gentlemen in this house, and particularly to the honorable Member who is so zealous in support of the amendment, that before the speech appeared I discovered a solicitude that, by passing the subject over in silence, it might not give occasion to the present discussion. It however came before us in a form very different from that which I should have thought adviseable; for there was no need of an appeal to the legislature. The next step was to appoint a committee to prepare an answer to the speech. It fell to my lot to be a member of that committee. My object still was to avoid the interference of this house in a matter, about which there was a difference of opinion between the United States, and the Governor of this state on constitutional ground. The best way to effect this, was to frame the answer in the most general terms. This has been done; not a word is said even about the Revenue System, which occasioned the request of Congress to convene the legislature. The answer is generally, that the house will take into consideration the different acts of Congress, and make such provisions as appear to them compatible with the abilities and constitution of the state. By not touching at all on the topic connected with the origin of the controversy, I thought we might safely be silent without any implication of censure on the Governor. It was neither my wish to condemn, nor to approve. I was only desirous of avoiding an interference in a constitutional question, which belonged entirely to the province of the executive authority of the state, and about which I knew there would be a difference of opinion, even in this house. I submit it to the house, whether this was not a prudent course, and whether it is not to be lamented, that the proposed amendment forces the discussion upon us. Constitutional questions are always delicate, they should never be touched but from necessity.
But, though I shall be readily acquitted of having had any agency in bringing the house into this disagreeable situation, since the question is brought forward, I shall with freedom meet the discussion. This my duty demands from me, and, whoever may be affected by it, I shall proceed under an impression that my constituents expect from me the free exercise of my judgment, and the free declaration of my sentiments on the matters deliberated upon in this house.
The question, by the honorable member on my right, has been wrongly stated. He says it is this; whether a request of Congress to convene the legislature is conclusive upon the governor of the state? or whether a bare intimation of that honorable body, lays him under a constitutional necessity of convening the legislature? But this is not the true question; From the shape in which the business comes before us, the enquiry truly is, whether a solemn application of the United States to the executive of this state to convene the legislature, for the purpose of deliberating on a matter, which is considered by that body, as of essential importance to the union; and which has been viewed in a similar light by most of the other states individually, is such an extraordinary occasion, as left the governor under no constitutional impediment to a compliance? And it may be added, whether that application, under all the circumstances was an attempt to invade the freedom of deliberation in this house?
Here let us ask what does the constitution say upon the subject? Simply this, that the governor “shall have power to convene the assembly and senate on extraordinary occasions.”
But what is an extraordinary occasion? what circumstances are to concur, what ingredients combine, to constitute one? what general rule can be imagined by which, to define the precise meaning of these vague terms and draw the line, between an ordinary and extraordinary occasion? Will the gentleman on my right (Mr. Jones) furnish us with such a criterion? Profoundly skilled as he is in law (at least in the local laws of this state) I fancy it will be difficult for him to invent one that will suit his present purpose. Let him consult his law books, they will not relieve his embarrassment. It is easy to see that the clause allows the greatest latitude to opinion. What one may think an very extraordinary occasion, another may think a very ordinary one, according to his bias, his interest, or his intellect.
If there is any rule at all, it is this—the governor shall not call the legislature with a view to the ordinary details of the state administration. Whatever does not fall within this description, and has any pretensions to national importance in any view, leaves him at liberty to exercise the discretion vested in him by the constitution. There is at least no constitutional bar in the way.
The United States are entrusted with the management of the general concerns and interests of the community: They have the power of war and peace, they have the power of treaty.
Our affairs with respect to foreign nations, are left to their direction. We must entertain very diminutive ideas of the Government of the Union, to conceive that their earnest call on a subject which they deem of great national magnitude, which affects their engagements with two respectable foreign powers, France and the United Netherlands, which relates to the preservation of their faith at home and abroad, is not such an occasion as would justify the executive upon the terms of the constitution in convening the legislature.
If this doctrine is maintained, where will it lead to? what kind of emergency must exist before the constitution will authorise the governor to call the legislature? Is the preservation of our national faith a matter of such trivial moment? Is the fulfilment of the public engagements, domestic and foreign, of no consequence? Must we wait for the fleets of the United Netherlands, or of France, to enforce the observance of them, before the executive will be at liberty to give the legislature an opportunity of deliberating on the means of their just demand?
This is straining the indefinite words of the constitution to a most unreasonable extreme. It would be a tenable position to say, that the call of the United States is alone sufficient to satisfy the idea of an extraordinary occasion. It is easy to conceive, that such a posture of European affairs might exist, as would render it necessary to convene the different legislatures to adopt measures for the public safety, and at the same time inexpedient to disclose the object ’till they were assembled. Will we say, that Congress would be bound to communicate the object of their call to the executive of every state; or that the executive of this state, in complying with their request, would be guilty of a violation of the constitution?
But the present case is not that of a mere general request; it is specifically to deliberate upon an object of acknowledged importance, in one view or another. On one hand it is alledged to be a measure essential to the honor, interest, and perhaps, the existence of the union; on the other, it is said to be on principles subversive of the constitution, and dangerous to the liberty of the subject. It is therefore a matter of delicacy and moment. And the earnest call of the union, to have it considered, cannot fall within the notion of so common, so ordinary an occasion as would prohibit the executive from summoning a meeting of the legislature.
The only argument urged to denominate it such, is, that it had been recently determined upon by the legislature. But there is an evident fallacy in this position. The call was addressed to a new and different body, totally different in the contemplation of the constitution, and materially different in fact, with respect to the members who compose it. A large proportion of the members of the present house were not members of the last. For aught that either Congress or the governor could officially know there might have been a total change in the individuals, and therefore a total difference in the sentiments. No inference of course could be fairly drawn from the conduct of the last legislature to that of the present. Indeed, however, it might be wished to prepossess the minds of the members of the former house with a contrary idea, it is plain that there is no necessary connection between what they did, at that time, and what it may be proper for them to do now. The act of the last session proves the conviction of the house then, that the grant of the impost was an eligible measure. Many of the members were led to suppose that it would answer the purpose and might have been accepted by Congress. If the experiment has shewn that they were mistaken in their expectations, and if it should appear to them that Congress could not for good reasons accept it, the same motives, which induced them to the grant already made, would determine them to consent to such alterations, as would accommodate it to the views of Congress and the other States, and make it practicable to carry the system into execution.
It may be observed, that as Congress accompanied their request with an explanation of the object, they by that mode of proceeding, submitted the whole matter to the discretion of the governor to act according to the estimate formed in his own mind of its importance.
It is not denied, that the governor had a discretion upon the occasion. It is not contended, that he was under a constitutional necessity to convene the legislature. The resolution of Congress itself does not imply or intimate this. They do not pretend to require, they only earnestly recommend. The governor might at his peril, refuse, responsible however for any ill consequences that might have attended his refusal. But the thing contended for is, that the call of the United States, under all the circumstances, was sufficient to satisfy the terms of the constitution empowering him to convene the legislature, on extraordinary occasions; and left him at full liberty to comply.

The admission of his discretion does not admit that it was properly exercised, nor does it admit that the footing upon which he placed his refusal was proper.
It does not admit, that the constitution interposed an obstacle in his way, or that the request of Congress implied any thing hostile to the right of free deliberation.
This is the aspect under which the business presents itself to our consideration, as well from the correspondence between Congress and the governor, as from the manner in which it is ushered to us in the speech. A general approbation of his conduct, is an approbation of the principle, by which it is professed to have been actuated.
Are we ready to say, that the constitution would have been violated by a compliance? are we ready to say that the call upon us to deliberate is an attempt to infringe the freedom of deliberation. If we are not ready to say both, we must reject the amendment.
In particular I think it must strike us all, that there is something singularly forced in intimating, that an application of Congress to the governor of the state to convene a new legislature to consider a very important national subject, has any thing in it dangerous to the freedom of our deliberations. I flatter myself we should all have felt ourselves, as much at liberty to have pursued our sentiments, if we had met upon an extraordinary call, as we now do when met according to our own appointment.
There yet remains an important light, in which the subject merits consideration, I mean as it respects the executive authority of the state itself. By deciding that the application of Congress upon which the debate turns was not such an extraordinary occasion as left the governor at liberty to call the legislature, we may form a precedent of a very dangerous tendency; we may impose a sense on the constitution very different from the true meaning of it—and may fetter the present, or a future executive with very inconvenient restraints. A few more such precedents may tie up the hands of a governor in such a manner, as would either oblige him to act at an extreme peril or to omit acting when public exigencies required it. The mere sense of one governor would be no precedent for his successor, but that sense approved by both houses of the legislature would become a rule of conduct. Suppose a few more precedents of the kind on different combinations of circumstances equally strong, and let us ask ourselves what would be the situation of a governor, whenever he came to deliberate on the propriety of exercising the discretion in this respect vested in him by the constitution? Would he not be apt to act with a degree of caution, or rather timidity, which in certain emergencies might be productive of very pernicious consequences? A mere intimation of the constitution to him not to call the legislature in their recess upon every triffling affair, which in its true import would be turned into an injunction not to do it but upon occasions of the last necessity.
We see therefore that the question upon which we are pressed to decide is not less delicate, as it respects the constitution of the state itself, than as it respects the union. And that in every possible view it is most prudent to avoid the determination. Let the conduct of the governor stand on its own merits: If he was right our approbation will not make him more right; if he was wrong, it would be improper to give sanction to his error.
Several things have been said in the debate which have no connection with it, but to prevent their making improper impressions, it may not be amiss to take some notice of them. The danger of a power in Congress to compel the convening of the legislature at their pleasure has been strongly insisted upon: It has been urged, that if they possessed it, they might make it an engine to fatigue the legislature into a compliance with their measures. Instances of an abuse of the like power in the crown, under the former government have been cited.
It is a sufficient answer to all this, to say that no such power is contended for. I do not assert that their request obliged the governor to convene the legislature, I only maintain, that their request on an important national subject was such an occasion, as left him at liberty to do it without any color for imputing to him a breach of the constitution. And that from motives of respect to the union and to avoid any further degradation of its authority, already at too low an ebb, he ought to have complied.
Admitting in the fullest extent that it would be dangerous to allow to Congress the power of requiring the legislature to be convened at pleasure, yet no injury nor inconvenience can result from supposing the call of the United States on a matter by them deemed of importance to be an occasion sufficiently extraordinary to authorise, not to oblige the governor to comply with it.
I cannot forbear remarking, that it is a common artifice to endeavour to insinuate a resemblance between the king under the former government, and Congress; though no two things can be more unlike each other. Nothing can be more dissimilar than a monarch, permanent, hereditary, the source of honor and emolument; and a republican body composed of a number of individuals appointed annully, liable to be recalled within the year, and subject to a continual rotation, which with few exceptions, is the fountain neither of honor nor emolument. If we will exercise our judgments we shall plainly see that no such resemblance exists, and that all inferences deducted from the comparison must be false.
Upon every occasion, however foreign such observations may be, we hear a loud cry raised about the danger of intrusting power to Congress, we are told it is dangerous to trust power any where; that power is liable to abuse with a variety of trite maxims of the same kind. General propositions of this nature are easily framed, the truth of which cannot be denied, but they rarely convey any precise idea. To these we might oppose other propositions equally true and equally indefinite. It might be said that too little power is as dangerous as too much, that it leads to anarchy, and from anarchy to despotism. But the question still recurs, what is this too much or too little? where is the measure or standard to ascertain the happy mean?
Powers must be granted, or civil Society cannot exist; the possibility of abuse is no argument against the thing; this possibility is incident to every species of power however placed or modified. The United States for instance have the power of war and peace: it cannot be disputed that conjectures might occur in which that power might be turned against the rights of the citizen. But where can we better place it? In short where else can we place it all?
In our State constitutions, we might discover powers, liable to be abused to very dangerous purposes. I shall instance only the council [of] appointment: In that council the governor claims and exercises, the power of nominating to all offices.
This power of nomination, in its operation amounts to a power of appointment, for it can always be so managed as to bring in persons agreeable to him, and exclude all others. Suppose a governor disposed to make this an instrument of personal influence and aggrandizement, suppose him inclined to exclude from office all independent men, and to fill the different departments of the state with persons devoted to himself, what is to hinder him from doing it? who can say how far the influence arising from such a prerogative might be carried?
Perhaps this power, if closely inspected, is a more proper subject of republican jealousy, than any power possessed, or asked by the United States—fluctuating and variable as that body is.
But as my intention is not to instil any unnecessary jealousies, I shall prosecute these observations no further. They are only urged to shew the imperfection of human institutions, and to confirm the principle, that the possibility of a power being abused is no argument against its existence.
Upon the whole, let us venture with caution upon constitutional ground. Let us not court, nor invite discussions of this kind—let us not endeavour, still more to weaken and degrade the federal government, by heaping fresh marks of contempt on its authority. Perhaps the time is not far remote, when we may be inclined to disapprove, what we now seem eager to commend; and may wish we had cherished the union with as much zeal, as we now discover apprehension, of its encroachments.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, the house will not agree to the amendment. In saying this I am influenced by no other motive than a sense of duty. I trust my conduct will be considered in this light. I cannot give my consent to put any thing upon our minutes which it appears to me we may one day have occasion to wish obliterated from them.


Title: New York Assembly. Second Speech on the Address of the Legislature to Governor George Clinton’s Message, [19 January 1787]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[New York, January 19, 1787]
Mr. Hamilton, I am sorry sir that I have to address you a second time, when I have already taken up so much of your attention, but as it is universally allowed to be a question of great importance, I trust I shall be excused for entering into a further discussion. I said in setting out in my former arguments, that the question was improperly stated, that it was put upon a wrong ground, that it was not “that the governor was obliged to call the legislature upon the request of Congress”—no, but the question was “whether the words of the constitution put it out of his power to call them, now how are we to decide this, the amendment approves his conduct and says he was right, but it does not say why he was right, in not convening you at an earlier period. Therefore this act of ours must be judged by what it is formed upon. This will lead us to inquire in what shape it comes before the house. First, the United States, upon a new legislature being chosen and not approving the mode of granting the impost by the last, requests of your governor as the welfare of the union depended in a great measure upon a more liberal compliance with their requisitions, that he would convene them to consider upon that important subject, somewhat earlier than the time affixed by law. He answers them and tells us that he cannot do it because the constitution is a bar in his way, and the right of free deliberation will be violated by a compliance. Now we approve his conduct, and do we not approve the principles which dictated it.
Surely the question is literally this, whether he was barred from calling the Legislature by the constitution, and whether such a call was an infringement of the right of free deliberation: this is the thing we are to decide upon. For is it not a reasonable rule, that the meaning of your act must be determined by the meaning of the act in all its latitude, on which your’s is founded. Suppose a person totally indifferent was to read the whole transaction; first, our partial compliance with the requisition of 1783, next the observations of Congress, their request to the Governor, his refusal, and the reasons for the same, and then our vote of approbation. I ask, would he not immediately conclude, that, it was an improper request from Congress, and contrary to the constitution, as well as the right of free deliberation, and that the Governor was precluded by this, from the power of convening us.
Is not this fair reasoning? If this is not the fair and only inference, then I don’t know what it is. What shall I say now to the gentlemen who oppose us? Do Sir hear how the one on my right, (Mr. Jones) reasons, he says he was unwilling to have a question of this nature discussed, and says that he would not decide it, these are surely his words, and it must have appeared so to the House; In the next place he says this is not an extraordinary occasion, so the governor was warranted in refusing to comply; and we must determine so; thus we are to decide, and not to decide.
I say therefore Sir, if we give our approbation on this conduct, we do clearly decide that the governor was barr’d, that he lay under a constitutional impediment, which prevented him from complying with a request of Congress. Now this cannot be made out to be really the case, notwithstanding the governor’s assertion; nor do the gentlemen pretend to say a word to support such an opinion.
The gentleman has made use of arguments, which tend to mislead (I do not say intentionally to mislead) but such is their scope. He says if we do not adopt the amendment it will be a reflection on the governor’s conduct. Certainly not, here is an answer proposed, which says nothing about it, so that it cannot be said we rejected therefrom our approbation, nor is it a censure that we refuse to say any thing about it, the rejection even now of this amendment, can be construed into nothing more than we are only willing to leave the measure upon its own footing, and wish to be silent on so great a constitutional question, that may force one part or the other of government into embarrassments. It is only saying that this measure is of doubtful import, as is really the case; for I say, the request of Congress was of such a nature as to make it an extraordinary occasion. He says otherwise; but what necessity is there for us to determine? then do not let us decide the question, but if we must, then I ask what is an extraordinary occasion, if this [is] not one.
But the governor did not think it one; be it so; let him exercise his judgment, yet his thinking it only an ordinary occasion, does not make it so.
It has been said by the gentleman next me (Mr. Jones) that Congress must always submit the subject upon which their request to have the legislature called together is grounded, unto the governor, and then he exults over my supposing the contrary.
But Sir, surely it is not necessary to enable him to call them that he should be acquainted with their intentions. It is easy to see, that they may be so circumstanced, and in such situations, as to render it extremely improper to give such intelligence; yet at the same time, be an indispensible necessity for calling the legislature together, and when they were met, it would be time enough to have them assigned when it was improper to do so in the first instance. I therefore contend that it was not absolutely necessary to insert their reasons in the request, nor does it follow if a request of Congress should be deemed an extraordinary occasion, that the governor is obliged on such an occasion to convene the legislature; no, he may refuse, and yet be wrong in so doing. The constitution says he shall not call but upon extraordinary occasions; but it does not say he shall call on every extraordinary occasion, there might be a thousand circumstances to make it improper, though it should be really, and even in the governor’s opinion, an extraordinary occasion.
But let us consider this request in another light. Sir, are we not to respect federal decisions; are we on the contrary to take every opportunity of holding up their resolutions and requests in a contemptible and insignificant light, and tell the world, their calls, their requests are nothing to us, that we are bound by none of their measures; do not let us add to their embarrassment, for it is but a slender tie that at present holds us, you see alas what contempt we are falling into since the peace; you see to what our commerce is exposed to on every side. You see us the laughing stock, the sport of foreign nations, and what may this lead to? I dread Sir, to think. Little will it avail then to say, we could not attend to your wise and earnest requests without inconvenience; little will it avail to say it would have hurt individual interest to have left our farms. These things are trifling when compared to bringing the Councils and powers of the Union into universal contempt, by saying their call was unimportant, and that it did not come under the indefinite meaning of extraordinary. See, gentlemen, before you feel what may be your situation hereafter. There is more involved in this measure than what presents itself to your view.
Again, gentlemen, you hear it rung in your ears that from the resemblance between the king, and the Congress of these states, it would be dangerous to come into measures proposed by them and adopted by every state but this. But I say there is no danger; it is impossible; the constitution, the confederation prevents it. Let us hear what kind of reasoning is used, why they have the power of declaring war and peace, and request the power of raising and applying money. This if in a king permanent, hereditary and independent of the people, would be danger, but in an annual body, chosen from ourselves, and liable on the very turn of popular breath to be changed; who are checked by twelve other states, who would not stand by and see the ruin of their associates, as it would involve their own. How can a similitude exist between bodies so different; as different as east from west, or north from south.
I am sorry that these things should be compared, for there is no necessity for sounding this alarm; it is enough the danger of republican governments, that their very nature tends to their destruction, because of their liability to change.
The utmost that the gentleman [’s] argument can go to, is to deter us from declaring it to be an extraordinary occasion; but it does not go to prove, that the governor will be obliged to comply with every extraordinary call of that honourable body. I only answer upon his representation of an improper power exercised by Congress, or any other body, that I believe I shall be found equally forward with this gentleman, to effect their correction. But what can Congress do against this country, surely if they tyrannize we have the power to annihilate them. But let us not alarm ourselves with phantoms and bugbears. I shall now recur, to this mere state of the question, which is as I said before, whether a constitutional bar, or whether our right of free deliberation would have been invaded by an acquiescence on the part of the governor, with the requisition of the United States. Now it only remains for the house to determine, will they put such a construction upon it. If we say nothing on the subject, and reject the amendment, we only say that we are willing to let the original answer pass without any alteration and indeed in all cases where we have a doubt, silence is the best mode for us to pursue.


Title: New York Assembly. Remarks on an Act for Regulating Elections, [23 January 1787]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[New York, January 23, 1787]
The house then resolved itself into a committee of the whole, on the election bill, on the paragraph enabling the inspectors to take aside any ignorant person, and to examine him privately touching his ballot. A small debate arose.
Mr. Hamilton, thought it was very apparent, if the clause prevailed in the house, that it would tend to increase rather than prevent an improper influence. For though the inspector takes an oath that his conduct shall be impartial, yet he can easily interpret this oath, so as to correspond with his own wishes. If he is even an honest man, he will think the public good concerned in promoting a candidate to whom he is attached; and under this impression may see no harm in recommending him to the person offering his vote. His suggestion will be generally attended with success, and the consequence will be, that the inspectors will have the disposition of the votes of almost all unlettered persons in favour of the party to which he inclines. Here then is a more concentered influence over the illiterate and uninformed part of the community, than they would have been subject to if left to themselves. Here they will be liable to an influence more dangerous than the one we wish to avoid.
The question then is, whether it is better to leave them to an accidental influence or imposition, or to subject them to a more regular and extensive influence.
The appointment of inspectors will then become more than it is, an object of party; and it will always be in their power to turn the scale of a contested election. On the contrary if the voters are left to themselves the activity of different parties will make the chance equal; and influence and imposition on one side will be ballanced by an equal degree of it on the other. I therefore move that we strike out the clause.
Mr. Hamilton observed, that this was one of those subjects which was more plausible in theory than in practice—that the gentleman’s reply did not answer nor could it, the objections he had made—the question is whether it is better to let the illiterate take the chance of imposition from parties equally active; the impositions of the one side being balanced by the exertions of the other, and the result must be the same. The question is whether it is more dangerous to leave it to chance influence, or leave it to party views concentered in one person on whom the certain fate of the election depends. I do not mean to impeach the actions of the inspectors, for at present they can but little bias, but if the clause takes place tho’ he swears to do his duty impartially, yet I believe his friendly attention to A. being more than to B. will lead us to conceive that he will little scruple to ask the vote for A. whom he recommends to be as good or a better person than the other; now if this happens sure there are very few ignorant persons, but will be greatly influenced by such inspectors, and on them turns the fate of the election. There is also another reason which should induce us not to adopt the proposed mode, it will occasion a great delay, as some inspectors will have to take down and examine the tickets proposed by the illiterate, while the others will find it difficult to attend the poll. There is therefore the objection of delay as well as influence to avoid which it will be necessary to strike out the clause altogether. I repeat once more it is better to leave them to parties who are equal in their exertions, equally send about tickets and whose chance of influence is wholly equal.


Title: New York Assembly. Motion on an Act for Regulating Elections, [24 January 1787]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[New York, January 24, 1787]
A clause in the bill, ordering the judges of election for governor and lieutenant governor, to destroy the whole ballots of every district where there was an excess of even one vote.
This was shewn by Mr. Hamilton to be a very great injustice to the district, as it was in the power of the clerk or any officer, by putting in an additional ballot, to set aside the votes of 500 persons; he therefore moved, that in any case where there was an excess, such excess should be destroyed by lot.