Title: Report on the Petition of James Bingham, John Hertell, James Craven, and John Evans, [27 February 1794]
From: Treasury Department,Hamilton, Alexander
To: Speaker of the House of Representatives

[Philadelphia, February 27, 1794Communicated on March 3, 1794]
[To the Speaker of the House of Representatives]

The Secretary of the Treasury, to whom was referred by an Order of the House of Representatives of the 12th of February 1791, the Petition of James Bingham, John Hertell, James Craven and John Evans of the City of New York, Guagers, thereupon respectfully makes the following Report—
The Petition seeks Compensation for computing and marking a Number of Cases of Geneva, prior to the operation of the Collection Law of the 4th of August 1790, when there was no specific allowance established by Law for the Service mentioned.
It is a convenient general rule that public Services performed in the ordinary routine, should be left, as to compensation, to the existing legal provisions when they were performed, that retrospective Compensations should be avoided; and that where allowances are inadequate, the remedy should have a future Operation only.
In the present case there do not occur in the Opinion of the Secretary any Motives sufficiently cogent to induce a deviation from the general rule, and to justify on his part a Suggestion favourable to the prayer of the Petitioners.
Which is humbly submitted

Alexander HamiltonSecy. of the Treasury.
Treasury Department February 27th 1794.


Title: Report on the Petition of Oliver Bowen, [27 February 1794]
From: Treasury Department,Hamilton, Alexander
To: Speaker of the House of Representatives

[Philadelphia, February 27, 1794Communicated on March 3, 1794]
[To the Speaker of the House of Representatives]

The Secretary of the Treasury to whom was referred by an Order of the House of Representatives of the 16th of February 1793, the Petition of Oliver Bowen, thereupon respectfully reports as follows—
The petition seeks an Allowance of Interest upon a Settlement made by the State of Georgia in the year 1783, for Supplies furnished during the late War.
The Secretary is of Opinion that an interference and allowance of the kind desired by the Petitioner would be altogether without precedent against the Course of public business, and in its principle would lead to inextricable embarrassment and Confusion.
Which is humbly submitted

Alexander HamiltonSecy. of the Treasury
Treasury Department February 27th 1794.


Title: Report on the Petition of George Fechem, [27 February 1794]
From: Treasury Department,Hamilton, Alexander
To: Speaker of the House of Representatives

[Philadelphia, February 27, 1794Communicated on March 3, 1794]
[To the Speaker of the House of Representatives]

The Secretary of the Treasury to whom was referred the Petition of George Fechem of Massachusetts, by an Order of the House of Representatives, of the 4th of February 1793 thereupon respectfully submits the following Report—

The Object of the petition is the settlement of three different Claims against the United States of the following nature.
The first arises on a Contract for a quantity of liquor, furnished for the Use of the army at West-point.
The second Claim relates to expenses said to have been incurred, as an Express.
The third is for boarding and nursing a sick soldier.
With regard to the Claim first mentioned, it appears from a certain Contract, concluded at Fishkill on the 27th of June 1780, that the Petitioner supplied the Army at West-point with a quantity of Liquor, which agreeably to the said Contract, amounted to 100,235 dollars, payable on or before the 1st. October 1780, with Interest until paid, and with an Allowance for whatever depreciation might happen.
Application was made by the Petitioner to Ephraim Blaine, Commissary General of Purchases for payment; who, on the 28th. of October 1780, obtained a Warrant from Congress, upon the Commissioner of Loans for the State of Massachusetts, for the purpose of discharging the said Contract. This Warrant, being for the exact Amount mentioned in the Contract, was paid by the Commissioner of Loans to the Petitioner in full, on the 15th. of November 1780, as appears by his own receipt.
This payment, it is conceived, was at the time considered as in full for the Contract beforementioned. The business was transacted by Mr. Fechem himself and it is not known that he then, nor until the present Application, made any further demands on that Account.
It would appear from the terms of the Contract, that the petitioner was intitled to Interest and to Allowance of depreciation (if any). Why it was not claimed at the proper time, when Mr. Fechem received payment, can only be matter of Conjecture. A Resolve of Congress of the 26th of August 1780, leads however to a surmise, that the Petitioner may have considered the payment in the manner it was made, favorable and satisfactory; the Resolve is in the Words following:
“That all and singular the Creditors of these United States, for Supplies furnished the Army, or the transportation thereof, shall be entitled to receive the just Value of the Sums due to them respectively, in the bills of Credit emitted pursuant to the Act of the 18th. of March last, the Value of the sums due to be ascertained according to the current Value of continenal Bills of Credit compared with Specie, at the time the Money became due, at the place where the Supplies were furnished; provided the same do not exceed the prices fixed for such Supplies, by the Act of the 25th. of February last, or a proportional value for services done, and articles furnished, not mentioned in the same Act; but if the nominal Sum in continental currency, contracted for, when reduced to Specie Value as aforesaid, shall exceed the fixed prices aforesaid, the Creditor shall be entitled to receive the Amount of the Supplies furnished or Services done at the said fixed or proportionate prices, in the New Bills aforesaid, or the nominal Sum contracted for in continental Bills of Credit, and no more at his election.”
It appears that the Petitioner made his election to receive the Sum due him in new Emission Bills of Credit, which, considering the prices of the Articles, it is presumable, may have been deemed good payment. But if the justness of the Claim were still doubtful, it is barred by the Act of Limitation of the 23d. of July 1787.
In regard to the Second Claim, an Account is produced by the Petitioner in which it is stated that he was ordered by Major General Howe, to carry Letters from Fishkill to Philadelphia where he was detained from the 19th. to the 30th. of October 1780; that he was then impressed by Colonel Blaine to carry letters to the Eastward. This Account is made up of traveling Expenses &ca. from the 15th of October to the 15th. November 1780.
It appears incidentally by the Documents relative to the former Claim abovementioned, that the Petitioner came to Philadelphia about the time he states; the Warrant which he received from Colonel Blaine being dated the 28th. of October 1780, and that on the 15th. of November 1780, (the date on which the Account of travelling Expenses terminates) the Petitioner received payment for his Warrant in Boston.

But there is no proof of Mr. Fechem’s coming to Philadelphia as an Express by order of Major General Howe, and of his being thence sent as an Express to the Eastward by Colonel Blaine. This Claim would therefore not only be inadmissible on the Score of not being supported by proper Vouchers, but it is besides precluded by the Act of limitation.
The last of the Claims in the Order in which they have been mentioned, is that for boarding and nursing a sick Soldier, from the 10th of December 1783 to the 17th of February 1784. This relates to a period when the Army was disbanded. There are no Vouchers produced in Support of the Claim, and there is no Law of the United States authorizing the Charge.
Upon the whole, the Secretary is of Opinion that no reasons appear in the nature of the Claims of the Petitioner sufficiently special to require an interference of the Legislature, and to supersede the Act of limitation by which they are all precluded.
All which is humbly submitted

Alexander HamiltonSecy. of the Treasury.
Treasury Department February 27th 1794.


Title: Report on the Petition of Hugh Ferguson, [27 February 1794]
From: Treasury Department,Hamilton, Alexander
To: Speaker of the House of Representatives

[Philadelphia, February 27, 1794Communicated on March 3, 1794]
[To the Speaker of the House of Representatives]

The Secretary of the Treasury to whom was referred by an Order of the House of Representatives of the 3d. of February 1792, the petition of Hugh Ferguson, thereupon respectfully Reports as follows—
It appears from the documents of the Treasury, that the petitioners Accounts have been regularly and finally settled by the Commissioner for settling the Accounts of the Commissary Department; that upon the Settlement, there was a balance found due to him of Two thousand two hundred and fifty nine Dollars and eighty two Cents; and that he received a Certificate for this balance, bearing Interest from the first of January 1778. This will be more particularly seen by a certified Copy of the Settlement herewith transmitted.
No circumstances appear in the Case of a nature sufficiently special to outweigh the cogent Considerations which oppose the revision of past Settlements. The point upon which it could turn, would, it is conceived, be essentially a question of Depreciation.
All of which is respectfully submitted

Alexander HamiltonSecy. of the Treasury
Treasury Department, February 27th 1794.


Title: Report on the Petition of Lawrence Fonda, [27 February 1794]
From: Treasury Department,Hamilton, Alexander
To: Speaker of the House of Representatives

[Philadelphia, February 27, 1794Communicated on March 3, 1794]
[To the Speaker of the House of Representatives]

The Secretary of the Treasury, to whom was referred the Petition of Lawrence Fonda, by an order of the House of Representatives of the 16th of March 1792 thereupon respectfully makes the following Report—
It appears that the Petitioner was an Assistant Deputy Commissary of Forage under the direction of Andrew Bostwick Deputy Commissary General of Forage for the State of New York from June 1778 to October 1779, that he continued in Office under the direction of Morgan Lewis from that time to August 1780, and that he received Compensation from the 1st. of October 1779 to the 1st. of August 1780.

But there is no evidence of his having been compensated for the antecedent period. The Accounts of Mr. Bostwick have been neither rendered nor settled, and his Situation leaves little hope for the future that the Defect will be remedied.
The Character of the petitioner justifies a belief that his representation is well founded, yet in point of precedent there would be great danger to the Public in admitting Claims of this nature where the accounts of principals are not in possession of the public offices. And from Burnings, Bankruptcies and other Causes, there are numerous examples of the want of such Accounts.
The difficulty of an adjustment on the Suggestion of the party will be seen in the present Case, when it is observed that the Petitioner having been a purchaser under Mr. Bostwick, it ought to be known from his Accounts whether any and what Monies may have been advanced, for purchases, how they were applied and accounted for, before an adequate idea could be formed of the State of the Claim for Compensation.
It does not appear that the petitioner has advanced a claim in time to avoid the operation of the Acts of Limitation: To make an exception in his favour under the Circumstance which has been stated would not in the opinion of the Secretary be adviseable.
The allowance of a Claim for the amount of the Physician’s Bill, would, it is believed, be without precedent and full of inconvenience. There is no Sanction for it in the Laws.
All which is respectfully submitted.

Alexander HamiltonSecy. of the Treasury.
Treasury Department February 27th. 1794.


Title: Report on the Petition of James Gamble, [27 February 1794]
From: Treasury Department,Hamilton, Alexander
To: Speaker of the House of Representatives

[Philadelphia, February 27, 1794Communicated on March 3, 1794]
[To the Speaker of the House of Representatives]

The Secretary of the Treasury to whom was referred the Petition of James Gamble by an Order of the House of Representatives of the 14th. instant thereupon respectfully Reports—
That the Claim of the petitioner has been heretofore considered and rejected, as appears, on the Journals of Congress under date the 15th of April 1784.
That the Petitioner having been informed of this decision, (of which it would seem he had no knowledge) has concluded to discontinue the Claim, in consequence of which a Legislative Interference is rendered unnecessary.
All which is humbly submitted

Alexander HamiltonSecy. of the Treasury.
Treasury Department February 27th 1794.


Title: Report on the Petition of William Hardy and Joseph Bedford, [27 February 1794]
From: Treasury Department,Hamilton, Alexander
To: Speaker of the House of Representatives

[Philadelphia, February 27, 1794Communicated on March 3, 1794]
[To the Speaker of the House of Representatives]

The Secretary of the Treasury to whom was referred by an order of the House of Representatives of the 24th May 1790, the Petition of William Hardy and Joseph Bedford, thereupon respectfully Reports—
That upon inquiry it is understood to be true, that the Petitioners were employed by direction of the late Board of Treasury, in the examination, counting and destroying of the Old Emission Money, and that there remains a certain Sum due to them respectively, which the Board refused to allow, because part of the Charge for which Compensation is claimed relates to a period, which is subsequent to the time, when the Board had directed the Treasurer to discontinue the business in which the petitioners were engaged.
The Treasurer not having complied with the direction of the Board (which however cannot be referred to any improper motive) whatever responsibility it might involve on his part to the Government, does not appear an adequate Cause for refusing Compensation to persons whom he continued to employ, and who in fact rendered a Service useful to the public, deserving compensation, and who were to be considered as public Agents not as private Agents of Mr. Hillegas. In this light the Case of the petitioners presents itself as a proper one for relief, which in the opinion of the Secretary would be justly afforded by authorising the accounting officers of the Treasury to admit and settle the Claim.
All which is humbly submitted

Alexander HamiltonSecy. of the Treasury.
Treasury Department February 27th 1794.


Title: Report on the Petition of Joseph Henry, [27 February 1794]
From: Treasury Department,Hamilton, Alexander
To: Speaker of the House of Representatives

[Philadelphia, February 27, 1794Communicated on March 3, 1794]
[To the Speaker of the House of Representatives]

The Secretary of the Treasury to whom was referred by the House of Representatives the Petition of Joseph Henry respectfully submits the following Report—
The above mentioned Petition seeks compensation by way of rent for the use of a Lot of Ground in the County of Frederick in the State of Virginia which in February 1781, was let by Mathias Bush to certain Agents of that State for the Accommodation of British Prisoners of War captured by the Army of the United States. The Petitioner claims as Assignee of Mathias Bush.
The foundation of the Claim is an Agreement under Seal between Philip Bush as Agent of Mathias Bush, and Joseph Holmes, John Smith and Isaac Zane, in Character of Agents for the State of Virginia, demising the land “for and during the War between the United States and Great Britain, to cut, use and enjoy all the Timber that might be wanting for the Use of the United States or any of them either for building or fuel for Troops belonging to the same or prisoners captured by them or any nation in Alliance with them” in Consideration that the State of Virginia should pay a yearly Sum of twenty Pounds, Virginia Currency, and Six pence ⅌ Cord for all the Wood that should be used.
A Certificate of Joseph Holmes is produced, shewing the quantity of Wood calculated to have been used, and stating the Sum to be paid on the Agreement, as well for rent as Wood at three hundred and forty Pounds Virginia Currency.
An Order of Council of the Commonwealth of Virginia of the 27th. of July 1790, is also produced, referring the Petitioner to the General Government for payment, on the ground of the Contract appearing to have been made for Continental purposes—whence it is to be inferred that the Claim remains unsatisfied.
It results therefore that Mathias Bush or the Petitioner, as his Assignee had a well founded and well ascertained Claim which is still unsatisfied.
But being grounded on a Contract with the State of Virginia, though for purposes relative to the United States, and originating under their Authority, it is conceived, that it was the most proper course of the Transaction, according to the practice of the times, that the State of Virginia should have satisfied the Demand and charged it to the United States.
To vary this course at present would be liable to strong Objections. The extent or number of cases, in which similar Claims might arise is unknown. Questions concerning Acts of limitation, as well of the particular States as of the United States, might embarrass. Investigations of Claims founded on transactions with Officers and Agents of particular States, respecting which the public Offices of the United States do not afford competent evidence, the real State of which can only be known from sources over which the United States have no Superintendence or Controul, must be regarded as liable to hazard, uncertainty and abuse; especially, when it is added, that in some Cases the losses of papers and Vouchers of the States are impediments to an adequate investigation even by themselves. Though a particular instance should seem to be free from material difficulty, the precedent might lead to more future perplexity than could beforehand be appreciated.
If the Claim is to be regarded as originally against the United States, it is barred by the Acts of Limitation. ’Tis probable the same Circumstance would attend most other cases that could arise. It must increase the difficulty of maintaining the necessary barriers derived from those Acts against Claims alleged to arise from Transactions immediately with or by the Officers and Agents of the United States, if they are waved in favor of Claims arising from transactions with Officers and Agents of the particular States.
Upon the whole, the Secretary does not perceive that the Claim of the Petitioner can be recognized by the United States without forming a precedent endangering embarrassment and disorder.
All which is humbly submitted.

Alexander HamiltonSecy. of the Treasury.
Treasury DepartmentFebruary 27th. 1794.


Title: Report on the Petition of John Hobby, [27 February 1794]
From: Treasury Department,Hamilton, Alexander
To: Speaker of the House of Representatives

[Philadelphia, February 27, 1794Communicated on March 3, 1794]
[To the Speaker of the House of Representatives]

The Secretary of the Treasury to whom was referred by an Order of the House of Representatives of the 17th of April 1792, the Petition of John Hobby of Portland thereupon respectfully reports as follows—
The Petitioner is possessed of a Certificate issued in his favour by the Late Quarter Master General for 163 dollars and 12 Ninetieths, which Certificate has not been admitted at the Treasury for the like reason as stated in a Report on the Petition of Timothy Pickering.
The Act of the 12th. of February 1793 being considered as providing for this Claim, it is conceived that it will be expedient to let the Petitioner avail himself of the Regulations of that Act.
Which is humbly submitted

Alexander HamiltonSecy. of the Treasury.
Treasury DepartmentFebruary 27th. 1794.


Title: Report on the Petition of John R. Livingston, [27 February 1794]
From: Treasury Department,Hamilton, Alexander
To: Speaker of the House of Representatives

[Philadelphia, February 27, 1794Communicated on March 3, 1794]
[To the Speaker of the House of Representatives]

The Secretary of the Treasury to whom was referred by the House of Representatives, the Memorial of John R. Livingston respectfully reports thereupon as follows—
The object of the said memorial is to seek the revision of certain Statements of the Account of the Memorialist with the United States, and a Settlement upon principles deemed by him more equitable.
The facts which appear in relation to these Statements, are as follow—
The Accounts to which the memorial relates are for manufacturing powder in the Years 1776 & 1777, and though some of the Vouchers for said Accounts appear to have been delivered to the Secret Committee in the year 1777, and others to the Commissioner of Accounts at Albany in the Year 1778, yet no Statement appears to have been made until May 1784, when the Accounts were examined by the Clerks of the Treasury and a balance found due to the United States in Specie the Sum of Eight hundred and forty three dollars and Sixty ninetieths. The Memorialist was also by said Settlement held accountable to the public for three thousand, four hundred and eighty two pounds of refined Saltpetre, which was valued at two thousand, Six hundred and eleven dollars and forty five ninetieths; the Statement made by the Clerks was approved by Mr. Mercier the late Auditor, but it is not found that it was ever confirmed by the then Comptroller of the Treasury.
It also appears that Benjamin Walker Esqr. late Commissioner, was, in the Year 1789, directed by the Board of Treasury to examine and liquidate the Claims of the Memorialist, who demanded a balance of Seven thousand three hundred Dollars from the United States. By the Statement made by Mr. Walker, a balance of Nine hundred and eighty-nine dollars and thirty four ninetieths was admitted to be due to the Memorialist, as appears by Mr. Walker’s Report to the Board of Treasury herewith transmitted.
To this Statement made by Mr. Walker, the Board of Treasury did not agree; and they appear to have examined the Statement which was made by the Clerks in May 1784, and to have confirmed the same by determining that the balance of 843 ⁶⁹⁄₉₀ Dollars was due to the United States with Interest thereon, and also the current Value of 3482 lbs of Saltpetre and ten Barrels of Sulphur, at the time the same were received.
But it does not appear, that this decision was ever passed to the Register to be recorded, which affords a presumption, that it might have been intended to be held suspended by the Board for. reconsideration It may therefore be viewed as not having gone through all the forms requisite to its absolute and final Completion.
Under this Circumstance, from the very material Variance between the different Statements, from the probability, that there may have been, as suggested by the Memorialist, some manifest Omissions to his prejudice, It is respectfully submitted as a Case which may deserve the favorable Consideration of Congress, so far as to direct a further and final Settlement by the Accounting Officers of the Treasury.
Which is humbly submitted

Alexander HamiltonSecy. of the Treasury.
Treasury DepartmentFebruary 27th. 1794.


Title: Report on the Petition of John McLean, [27 February 1794]
From: Treasury Department,Hamilton, Alexander
To: Speaker of the House of Representatives

[Philadelphia, February 27, 1794Communicated on March 3, 1794]
[To the Speaker of the House of Representatives]

The Secretary of the Treasury, to whom was referred, by an Order of the House of Representatives of the 26th. of December 1793, the Petition of John McLean, thereupon respectfully reports, as follows—

The Petitioner claims compensation for damages done upon his Farm in Dutchess County in the State of New York by the American Army in the Year 1778. This being a Case in principle similar to that of Joseph Beale and others, reported upon the 19th. of November 1792, the [Secretary] respectfully refers the House to that Report.
The Claim is understood to be barred by the Acts of limitation, and nothing special appears recommendatory of a discrimination in favor of the Petitioner.
Which is humbly submitted

Alexander HamiltonSecy. of the Treasury.
Treasury DepartmentFebruary 27th. 1794.


Title: Report on the Petition of Joseph Packwood, [27 February 1794]
From: Treasury Department,Hamilton, Alexander
To: Speaker of the House of Representatives

[Philadelphia, February 27, 1794Communicated on March 3, 1794]
[To the Speaker of the House of Representatives]

The Secretary of the Treasury to whom was referred the Petition of Joseph Packwood by an Order of the House of Representatives, of the 21st. of June 1790, thereupon respectfully makes the following Report—

It appears from the Statement of the petitioner that he shipped certain Goods at the Island of Hispaniola, on his own Account, destined for New London, in the Schooner John and Joseph; that the Vessel on her Voyage was captured by a British Ship, on or about the 1st. of April 1776, and afterwards retaken by a continental Vessel, and brought into the Port of New London: that possession was taken of the said Schooner and cargo by the Continental agent, Nathaniel Shaw, and appropriated for the Use and benefit of the Public; one half of the Net Proceeds having been allowed and paid to the petitioner.
The legality of these proceedings is questioned by the Petitioner on the ground that the transaction took place prior to the declaration of Independence of the United States—that there was at that time no Law declaring the recaptors, in such cases intitled to Salvage, and that the Schooner and her Cargo were never condemned in any Court of Admiralty, the Petitioner admittingly verbally that this was because there was no Court then organized.
The Petitioner is mistaken that there was at the time no law relative to prizes recaptured. A Resolution of Congress passed as early as the 5th. of December 1775 which directs, that when a Vessel was recaptured which had remained in possession of the enemy more than ninety Six hours, the one half of the proceeds (if the Vessel was not condemned, in which Case the whole would go to the Captors) should revert to the Owners, and the other half to the Captors, and agreeably to the said resolution the division appears to have been made.
It is mentioned by the Petitioner that the proceedings in his Case were contrary to the Sense of the resolutions of Congress of the 23d. of March 1776, by which it is provided, that no Vessel bringing Arms, Ammunition or Warlike Stores, for the Use of the United States, or of any of the Inhabitants thereof, shall be made prize of. But these resolutions evidently extend only to the Subjects of Great Britain bringing Arms, Ammunition &ca. for the Use of the United States or of any of the Inhabitants thereof, and are therefore not applicable to the Case of the Petitioner.
The presumption at this day (and indeed nothing is alleged to the Contrary) is, that the Petitioner received in Substance the proper measure of Justice and according to the intent of the resolution of Congress of the 5th. of December 1775—that a want of formality is the basis of his application—that a ground of this kind cannot safely be admitted as a basis for the special interposition of Congress, in relation to a transaction of so early a date, when the requisite organs of Government were not yet sufficiently established and regulated.
It is also understood that the Claim is barred by the Acts of Limitation.
All which is humbly submitted

Alexander HamiltonSecy. of the Treasury.
Treasury DepartmentFebruary 27th. 1794.


Title: Report on the Petition of Timothy Pickering, [27 February 1794]
From: Treasury Department,Hamilton, Alexander
To: Speaker of the House of Representatives

[Philadelphia, February 27, 1794 Communicated on March 3, 1794]
[To the Speaker of the House of Representatives]

The Secretary of the Treasury to whom was referred by an order of the House of Representatives of the 3d. of March 1792, the Petition of Timothy Pickering, thereupon respectfully reports as follows—
It is understood that the Claims, to which the said petition refers, have been liquidated and covered by written Certificates of the proper Officers.
The[y] have not been heretofore admitted by reason of a certain rule of the Treasury, founded upon the Construction of Acts of Congress, not to allow any Claims of which a Return had not been made to the Treasury by the proper Officer pursuant to those Acts.
It is conceived, that Claims of this nature are among those contemplated in the Act of the last Session, intitled “An Act relative to Claims against the United States, not barred by any Act of limitation, and which have not been already adjusted” and that they will find their most proper Course under the provisions of that Act.
All which is humbly submitted

Alexander HamiltonSecy. of the Treasury
Treasury DepartmentFebruary 27th. 1794.


Title: Report on the Petition of Samuel Prioleau, Junior, [27 February 1794]
From: Treasury Department,Hamilton, Alexander
To: Speaker of the House of Representatives

[Philadelphia, February 27, 1794Communicated on March 3, 1794]
[To the Speaker of the House of Representatives]

The Secretary of the Treasury, to whom was referred the Memorial of Samuel [Prioleau, Jr.], respectfully reports thereupon as follows—
The Memorial seeks compensation for sundry buildings of the Memorialist situate in the Town of Charleston, which are alleged to have been pulled down by Order of General Lincoln, then Commander of the Army of the United States, that the Materials might be applied to the defence of the Town.

The Allegation is supported by Certificates of George Melven Assistant Deputy Quarter Master General, and of John Neufville and J. Saraizn who appear to have been appointed by Governor Rutledge to appraise the buildings, which they certify to be worth 10,000 pounds South Carolina Currency, Exchange with Great Britain 700 for one.
It would appear likewise from an Indorsement, in the hand writing of the then Secretary of Congress on the paper herewith transmitted, that Application had been made to Congress by the Memoralist in February 1782, and that they had ordered his papers to be filed in the Comptroller’s Office, a mode which was sometimes adopted by way of referring the case, to future consideration, after the termination of the War. But no Order for the purpose appears in this Instance on the Journal, as does in some other instances.
It is, in the Opinion of the Secretary, a clear principle, that Compensation is due from the State to a Citizen whose buildings have been taken down, and the Materials applied to public Use by Order of the Commanding General of an Army in the Service of such State; and that therefore supposing the facts stated to be sufficiently proved, the Memorialist had a just Claim for Compensation from the United States.
A question arises whether that Claim is now barred by the Acts of Limitation. It does not appear to have been preferred in the manner required by those Acts. But there is room to consider the Application to Congress in 1782, and a reference of the Case by them to future Consideration as a virtual exception to the Operation of those Acts.
The Claim is of a Nature to require, in the opinion of the Secretary a favorable Consideration. He therefore submits it as adviseable to authorise the accounting Officers of the Treasury to examine into, and if duly established to allow the Claim.
Which is respectfully submitted.

Alexander HamiltonSecy. of the Treasury.
Treasury DepartmentFebruary 27th. 1794.


Title: Report on the Petition of James Read, [27 February 1794]
From: Treasury Department,Hamilton, Alexander
To: Speaker of the House of Representatives

[Philadelphia, February 27, 1794Communicated on March 3, 1794]
[To the Speaker of the House of Representatives]

The Secretary of the Treasury to whom was referred the Memorial of James Read by an order of the House of Representatives of the 29th. of April 1790, thereupon respectfully reports.
That the facts stated by the memorialist are understood to be true.
That the paper No. 2 herewith is a true Copy of a report made on the Subject to Congress by the late Board of Treasury upon a former Application.
That the ground of the said report rejecting the claim of additional compensation to the Memorialist, for discharging the duties of Paymaster, whilst acting as Secretary to the Agent of Marine, and admitting the Claim for Expences, in removing the Books and papers of his Office from Bordentown to Baltimore appears under all the Circumstances of the Case to be good and equitable.
Conformably to these ideas, it will, in the Opinion of the Secretary, be right, to allow the Claim for expences, it being not barred by any Act of Limitation; and to authorize the Accounting Officers of the Treasury to make a Settlement of those objects with the Memorialist.
All which is humbly submitted

Alexander HamiltonSecy. of the Treasury.
Treasury DepartmentFebruary 27th. 1794.


Title: Report on the Petition of Barent I. Staats, [27 February 1794]
From: Treasury Department,Hamilton, Alexander
To: President of the Senate

[Philadelphia, February 27, 1794Communicated on March 3, 1794]
[To the President of the Senate]

The Secretary of the Treasury to whom was referred by the Senate the petition of Barent I Staats respectfully reports thereupon as follows
The claim of the petitioner appears to be one of those, for the due consideration and adjustment of which, provision is made by the Act passed the 12th of February 1793 relative to claims against the United States not barred by any act of Limitation and which have not been already adjusted.
It appears therefore adviseable that the Petitioner should be left to the Course of relief prescribed by that Act.
Which is respectfully submitted

Alexander HamiltonSecy of the Treasy
Treasury Department February 27th 1794


Title: Report on the Petition of William Stearns, [27 February 1794]
From: Treasury Department,Hamilton, Alexander
To: Speaker of the House of Representatives

[Philadelphia, February 27, 1794Communicated on March 3, 1794]
[To the Speaker of the House of Representatives]

The Secretary of the Treasury to whom was referred by the House of Representatives, the Petition of William Stearns thereupon respectfully reports as follows—

The Petitioner in Capacity of Administrator of the Estate of Peleg Stearns deceased, claims compensation for certain property stated to have been taken by and applied to the use of the Continental Army at Charlestown in the State of Massachusetts in the year 1775.
It appears by the petitioner’s own Shewing that the Claim was brought before the Commissioner of the United States appointed pursuant to a resolution of Congress of the 3d. of June 1784 and was adjusted by him on such principles as he deemed right, according to which Compensation was made. Reasons of conclusive force dissuade from unsettling the proceedings of the Commissioners who acted under that resolution. There would be no end to the applications for revision, and in most Cases no Satisfactory criterion by which to distinguish those intitled to relief from those of a Contrary Character.
A Report of the Secretary of the 19th. of November 1792 on the Petition of Joseph Beale and others, suggests several cogent Considerations which are applicable to the Case and operate against the prayer of the Petitioner.
All which is humbly submitted.

Alexander HamiltonSecy. of the Treasury.
Treasury Department February 27th. 1794.


Title: Report on the Petition of Edward Telfair and John Wereat, [27 February 1794]
From: Treasury Department,Hamilton, Alexander
To: Speaker of the House of Representatives

[Philadelphia, February 27, 1794Communicated on March 3, 1794]
[To the Speaker of the House of Representatives]

The Secretary of the Treasury to whom was referred by the House of Representatives, the Petition of Edward Telfair and John Wereat respectfully reports thereupon as follows—
The object of the petition is to obtain compensation for a quantity of Melasses stated to have been furnished to the Commissary General in Georgia for the use of the Troops of the United States; the Claim for which was prevented to have been duly preferred and substantiated by the loss of the Books and papers of the Petitioners in consequence of events of War in 1778.
The documents now offered as a Substitute for those lost (except the Affidavits of the parties which could with difficulty be admitted) are not of a nature to identify and ascertain the transaction with as much precision as it is conceived ought to attend a Case where a Claim is to be established by a substitute for the regular and proper evidence.
But in addition to this it appears, that James Rae, the person to whom the Melasses is alleged to have been furnished, stands charged with large Sums supplied him by the Public; of the Expenditure of which he has rendered no account.
The Government is therefore destitute in this instance, as in others, of the aid of the evidence which ought to arise from the transactions of the Officer who is alleged to have been the instrument of contracting the debt—and from cogent reasons which have been stated in other Cases, it is conceived to be of great importance to the public interest, to maintain rigidly the Bar arising by the Acts of Limitation, in all Cases in which the want of a Settlement of the Accounts of a public officer deprives the Government of the evidence which the[y] would afford of the Validity or invalidity of Claims.
It would be, in the opinion of the Secretary, highly dangerous to establish a special exception to the operation of the Acts of Limitation, in favor of a Claim, the proper evidence of which is lost and which can only be made out by circumstantial & substituted proof, and that too in a Case, where the person who was the agent of the public, and who might have satisfied the Claim with public monies, has rendered no account of the Expenditure of the Monies entrusted to him.
All which is humbly submitted.

Alexander HamiltonSecy. of the Treasury.
Treasury Department February 27th. 1794.


Title: Report on the Petition of Peter Pray Van Zandt, [27 February 1794]
From: Treasury Department,Hamilton, Alexander
To: Speaker of the House of Representatives

[Philadelphia, February 27, 1794Communicated on March 3, 1794]
[To the Speaker of the House of Representatives]

The Secretary of the Treasury to whom was referred by an order of the House of Representatives of the 14th. July 1790, the petition of Peter pra Van Zandt, thereupon makes the follow Report—
That the Subject of this petition has been decided upon by the Commissioner of the Revenue and the Auditor, subsequent to the reference of it to the Secretary—and that the interposition of Congress therefore does not appear necessary or adviseable.
Which is humbly submitted

Alexander HamiltonSecy. of the Treasury.
Treasury Department February 27th. 1794.


Title: Report on Several Petitions Barred by the Acts of Limitation, [27 February 1794]
From: Treasury Department,Hamilton, Alexander
To: Speaker of the House of Representatives

[Philadelphia, February 27, 1794Communicated on March 3, 1794]
[To the Speaker of the House of Representatives]

The Secretary of the Treasury to whom were referred by the House of Representatives, the several Petitions noted at foot hereof, respectfully reports thereupon as follows—
The Claims to which the said petitions severally relate, are barred by the Acts of Limitation.
The Secretary has repeatedly and especially in his Report of the 16th. of April 1792, suggested the weighty reasons which operate against relaxations in regard to the Acts of Limitation.
There appear in the Cases, now submitted, no reasons sufficiently special or discriminating to render it, in his Judgment, expedient or safe, to make them Objects of particular Legislative exception.
Which is humbly submitted

Alexander HamiltonSecy. of the Treasury.
Treasury Department February 27th. 1794.

Names of the Petitioners above referred to

Mordecai Sheftall
William McNeal.

Esther Johnson
Anne Latta & James Latta

John Sutlief
John Brandon

Peter Rockafeller
Englebert Kemmena

Sarah Greaton
William Read


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Otho H. Williams, 27 February 1794
From: Williams, Otho H.
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Baltimore, February 27, 1794. “Mr. Hollingsworth Attorney for this district intimated to me yesterday, that the suits commenced on the Bonds of John Vochez, acting Partner of the House of Zacharie Coopman & Co.; and his securities were about to end in Judgment the ensuing Court; That from the circumstances of the House and some of the Securities … He is apprehensive that to precipitate the Judgment and Execution will be attended with such distress to the parties as to endanger the Security of part of the Money at least.… I submit the subject to your consider⟨ation⟩.”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Tench Coxe, 28 February 1794
From: Coxe, Tench
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia, February 28, 1794. On February 28, 1794, Hamilton sent to George Washington “a Communication from the Commissioner of the Revenue, of this date, with its enclosures.” Letter not found.]


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Stephen Girard, 28 February 1794
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Girard, Stephen

Treasury Department, February 28, 1794. “I am to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 26th. Instant, a Copy whereof I have immediately sent to the Secretary of State, to whom all such applications are to be made, and who I doubt not will pay due attention to your representation.”


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, [28 February 1794]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Washington, George

[Philadelphia, February 28, 1794]

The Secretary of the Treasury presents his respects to the President, & has the honor to send him a Communication from the Commissioner of the Revenue, of this date, with its enclosures respecting the Survey comprehending Kentucke. Also a letter from the Collector of Charlestown of the 6th instant, with its enclosures respecting the case of the Spanish Vessel the St. Joseph. These dispatches appear to him important enough to be submitted to the particular attention of the President.
February 28. 1794.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Thomas Willing, 28 February 1794
From: Willing, Thomas
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia, February 28, 1794. On March 3, 1794, Hamilton wrote to Willing: “I received your letter of the 28th ultimo.” Letter not found.]


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Benjamin Lincoln, 1 March 1794
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Lincoln, Benjamin

[Philadelphia, March 1, 1794. On March 20, 1794, Lincoln wrote to Hamilton: “Your letters of the 10th: Ulto & first instant have been received.” Letter of March 1 not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from William Henderson, 2 March 1794
From: Henderson, William
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Newyork March 2d. 1794
Dear sir

A recent and severe family affliction has prevented my attending to the business on which we lately corresponded and must be my excuse for not replying to your letter sooner—indeed I hoped that Mr. Hammond would have been able to make the arrangement, as he appeared anxious that the object should be effected in a ⟨w⟩ay satisfactory to you; & to which I should have been ready to accede. If the necessity for having this business concluded is not pressing, and can be delayed for a short time, I purpose going to Philada. which will afford an opportunity of making this negociation, better than it can be done by letter.
I am sir with great respect and esteem   Your Very Humb. servt.

Wm Henderson
Honb Alexr. Hamilton


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Thomas Pinckney, 2 March 1794
From: Pinckney, Thomas
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[London, March 2, 1794. On July 12, 1794, Hamilton wrote to Pinckney: “I am to acknowledge the receipt of your favor of the second of March 1794.” Letter not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from William Ellery, 3 March 1794
From: Ellery, William
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Newport, Rhode Island] March 3, 1794. “I have received your letter of the 7th of Feby. last acknowledging the reception of a duplicate Receipt of the Bank of Providence No. 58 for seven thousand Dolls.… I hope my Petition will not be forgotten.”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from John Lamb, 3 March 1794
From: Lamb, John
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[New York, March 3, 1794. On March 6, 1794, Oliver Wolcott, Jr., wrote to Lamb: “The Secretary of the Treasy. has referred it to me to reply to your letter of the 3d. instant.” Letter not found.]


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Thomas Willing, 3 March 1794
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Willing, Thomas

Treasury Department March 3d 1794
Sir

I received your letter of the 28th ultimo, respecting the terms upon which the Directors of the Bank propose to furnish Bills of Exchange on Amsterdam for the use of the Government.
These terms, under all the circumstances of the case appear to me reasonable and consistent with that spirit of accommodation to the public service which has so uniformly marked the conduct of the Directors. I therefore accede to them. The Treasurer will be instructed to receive the bills of the Bank, and to arrange the sums and form in which they are to be drawn.
I request that as the Bank shall receive advice of further sums at their disposal, they will be pleased to advise me of it, and of their terms of sale, that I may have an opportunity of electing, whether to take them on public account or not. My determination will in each case be prompt.
I have the honor to be   with respect Sir,   Your most obedt Servt

Alexander Hamilton
The President of the Bank of the united States


Title: Report on Rules and Modes of Proceeding with Regard to the Collection, Keeping, and Disbursement of Public Moneys, and Accounting for the Same, [4 March 1794]
From: Treasury Department,Hamilton, Alexander
To: Select Committee Appointed to Examine the Treasury Department

[Philadelphia, March 4, 1794]
[To the Select Committee Appointed to Examine the Treasury Department]
I.   As to the Collection.
Public monies have proceeded from six sources. The duties on Imports and Tonnage—Duties on Spirits distilled within the United States—Foreign Loans—Domestic loans—Duties on patents and coined cents—Debts from individuals.
In the first instance—The duties on imports and tonnage are received by the Collectors of the Customs. The duties on Spirits distilled within the United States, by the Collectors of Divisions, who pay them over to the Inspectors of Surveys, who pay them over to the Supervisors of Districts. The Foreign Loans, by the Bankers abroad, under whose immediate agency they are made. The domestic loans, duties on patents, coined cents, and debts from individuals, by the Treasurer.
It is the general rule, that the Treasurer is the medium of all receipts and disbursements of public monies, which are received and disbursed within the United States; and that all receipts and disbursements must be sanctioned by Warrants in favor of, and upon that Officer: These Warrants are signed by the Secretary of the Treasury, countersigned by the Comptroller, and registered and attested by the Register. Those for receipts must have an acknowledgment of the Treasurer, in order to the discharge of the payer. Those for disbursements must have an equivalent acknowledgment on behalf of the party receiving, in order to the discharge of the Treasurer. This description of Warrants will apply, as often as the term shall be hereafter used.
This general rule with regard to receipts has been carried into effect, by five modes of proceeding.
1st:   By Bills or drafts drawn by the Treasurer, under the special direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, upon those, who have in their hands public monies, which drafts, before they pass from the Treasurer’s hands, are registered and countersigned by the Register of the Treasury, or by a confidential Clerk designated by him for that purpose. This course is applicable, as well to monies drawn from abroad, as to those accruing within the United States; except that foreign Bills are always countersigned by the Register himself.
2nd   By deposits made by the Supervisors of the revenue and the Collectors of the customs, in the several Banks, pursuant to a general direction from the Secretary of the Treasury; which, immediately upon their being made, are passed by the Banks to the credit of the Treasurer; the Officer, who makes the deposit, taking duplicate receipts from the Bank in which it is made, one of which is immediately forwarded to the Treasury; and the Bank making weekly returns, one to the Secretary of the Treasury, another to the Treasurer, which specify the deposits made.
3d   By remittances of the Supervisors and Collectors to the Treasurer. These remittances are generally in Bank-bills, though they are sometimes in Bills or Orders on individuals, sometimes by mutual credits, where the Treasurer, as agent for the War department, has a sum to pay to one of those Officers charged with some agency relative to the War deparament, and in two or three very inconsiderable instances in specie. All the modes, except that of Bank bills, are very limited; and they all appear in the weekly returns of the Officers to the Secretary of the Treasury, and to the Commissioner of the Revenue.
4th   By special directions from the Secretary of the Treasury, to the Supervisors and Collectors of the customs, to make advances, provisionally, for certain specified purposes requiring local advances. These are always written, and specify their objects. The course is, for duplicate receipts to be taken of the persons, to whom the advances are made, one of which being sent to the Treasury, is the foundation of a Warrant.
5th   By Warrants upon the persons who are to pay, in favor of the Treasurer. But the four first modes, which all operate as modes of remittance to the Treasury, resolve themselves, eventually, into the fifth. All advances and payments must be finally sanctioned by Warrants, in order to their legal validity. No party, who pays money, can be discharged, but upon a Warrant, and that, as already mentioned, receipted upon by the Treasurer. The Bills or Drafts drawn by the Treasurer, are either deposited by him in Bank, or remitted by him to certain public Officers or Agents, according to directions from the Secretary of the Treasury. These persons are of two descriptions: 1st: The Commissioners of Loans, who are charged with paying interest on the public debt, in the several States, and with the payment of pensions to invalids: 2nd: Agents and Contractors for military supplies.

The Bills deposited in Bank are deposited to be sold by the Banks, according to general instructions from the Secretary of the Treasury. Those upon the Supervisors and Collectors of the Customs, are credited by the Bank to the Treasurer, immediately upon their being deposited. Those upon the Agents of the United States abroad have not been so credited; but after the monies have been received by the Bank, they have been passed over to the Treasurer, upon Warrants.
Instructions to the Treasurer for drawing, depositing or remitting bills are, generally, if not universally written. Those to the Banks for disposing of them are equally so.
Weekly returns from the several Collectors of the customs, Supervisors of the revenue, and Banks, enable the Secretary to regulate his directions to the Treasurer for drawing.
II.   As to the keeping
The Treasurer, pursuant to general instructions from the Secretary of the Treasury, keeps the public monies in his custody or controul in the several Banks. Formerly the Banks of North America, New York, Massachusetts and Maryland, were places of deposit. At present, the public monies are kept in the Bank of the United States, and the several Offices of discount and deposit, at Boston, New York, Baltimore and Charleston, and in the Bank of Providence. All monies in the Treasury form a common mass. The Treasurer has never any public money in his possession or custody, which is not, in fact, deposited in Bank, from the moment his possession or custody commences, till it ceases by the disbursement of it, for public purposes, except in the cases of Bank-bills, orders upon individuals &c. heretofore enumerated as remittances by the Supervisors of the revenue, and Collectors of the Customs to the Treasurer; and these also, immediately after the receipt of them, constitutes deposits in Bank to the credit of the Treasurer.
The Secretary of the Treasury, or any other Officer of the Department, besides the Treasurer, never has, for a moment, the possession or custody of any part of the public monies (except in the cases hereafter specified) and the possession or custody of the Treasurer, is, as already stated, exercised through the Banks. The only exceptions to this observation respect certain inconsiderable sums occasionally placed in the hands of the Commissoner of the revenue, for the service of the light house establishments, and certain other small sums, for contingencies of the Offices of Secretary, Comptroller, Commissioner of the revenue, and Auditor, which are, from time to time, in proportion to their expenditure, placed in the hands of the Register, for disbursement, who renders an account of the disbursement, which undergoes a regular and formal settlement, as other public accounts. The same is done by the Commissioner of the revenue.
The monies of the United States, which are disbursed abroad, are kept by the Bankers, under whose agency the loans are made, till they are disbursed for the purposes of their destination.
III.   As to disbursement.
1st   Within the United States.
It has been already stated, as a general rule, that the Treasurer is the medium of all receipts and disbursements, within the United States.

This rule, as to disbursements, is carried into effect, by three different modes of proceeding.
1st   By Warrants issuing, in the first instance, upon the treasurer, which is the general course, and the invariable one, where payments are made immediately at the Treasury.
2nd   By drafts of the Treasurer, under special direction of the Secretary, registered and countersigned by the Register.
3d   By special directions from the Secretary of the Treasury, to the Supervisors, and Collectors, to make advances of money, provisionally, for certain specified purposes, requiring local advances, as mentioned in a preceding place. These directions never extend to any monies, which have once passed to the credit of the Treasurer.
The two last modes resolve themselves eventually into the first. Warrants finally issue for the sums paid either upon the drafts of the Treasurer, or under the directions of the Secretary.
There is, besides, an auxiliary mode of effecting public payments in certain cases.
It occasionally happens, that the omission or delay of appropriations by law, renders it impossible, to satisfy, in regular course, demands upon the Treasury, which have been incurred pursuant to law, and the satisfying of which is essential to the public credit and service.
In such cases, the course has been, for the Secretary of the Treasury to request informal advances by the Banks, to the persons, to whom the payments are to be made, to be reimbursed, when provision is made by law. These advances have been made in the confidence, that the Secretary of the Treasury would not request them, but in cases, in which there was a moral certainty of a future provision, and in which, justice and good faith would necessarily oblige the Legislature to make it. The accounts of such advances are distinct from that of the Treasurer, and the advances are reimbursed, when provision is made by law, by warrants upon the Treasurer. Of a similar nature, are deposits, which have been made with Banks in certain cases. Of these, there have been three examples; one with the Bank of North America, mentioned and explained in my reports of last Session, two with the Bank of the United States, as offsetts against the first and second instalments of the two million loan. The two first of these deposits respected the proceeds of foreign bills; the last relates to part of a loan had of the Bank itself.
All but the last have been closed and carried into the accounts of the Treasurer, by Warrants. The last waits the sanction of the Legislature.
No money once placed to the credit of the Treasurer, in Bank, is touched, but upon his own check or order. And his Bank book constantly exhibits his receipts and disbursements according to the course of the public service.
2nd   In foreign Countries
The course of disbursements in foreign countries is particularly explained in my report to the House of Representatives, during the last Session, dated the 13th. of February 1793.
IV.   As to the duties of the respective Officers.
The duties of the several Officers of the Treasury department, with regard to the collecting, receiving keeping and disbursing of public monies, and regulating and keeping the accounts thereof, are as follow:
The Secretary of the Treasury superintends the collection and receipt, and the disbursement of public monies. In consequence of this, all authorities for transferring them from one public Agent to another, or for the final disbursement of them, originate with him. He directs the drawing of monies into the Treasury, and regulates the time, manner, and circumstances, subject to the sanctions prescribed by law: and judges, exclusively of other Officers of the Department, when and what disbursements are to be made, subject, nevertheless, to the check of the Comptroller, who, in countersigning warrants, is jointly responsible with him, for their being conformable to appropriations by law, and to the further check and settlement of the accounts of all persons, to whom he may have caused advances of public money, by the Auditor and Comptroller. All warrants for the payment of money into the Treasury, or for the payment of money out of the Treasury, are first signed by him. It is also his duty, to decide on the forms of keeping all public accounts.
The Comptroller is to countersign all warrants drawn by the Secretary of the Treasury, as well for the payment of money into the Treasury, as for the payment of money out of the Treasury. To enforce the regular and punctual payment of all monies collected for, or due to the United States, he is to direct prosecutions for all delinquencies of Officers and persons indebted.
He is to prepare for the consideration and decision of the Secretary, the forms of keeping all public accounts; is, in the last resort, to settle all public accounts; and, consequently, to superintend the keeping of them. It is his duty, to see, that all expenditures of public money are according to appropriations by law, and that all persons, who have the handling of them, duly account.
The Auditor, (as auxiliary to the Comptroller) is to receive all public accounts, for the purpose of settling them, to examine and adjust them, in the first instance, to certify the balances, which he finds; and to transmit each adjustment made by him, together with the vouchers and his certificate, to the Comptroller, for final decision.
The Commissioner of the Revenue, under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, superintends the collection of the duties on Spirits distilled within the United States. It is a part of his duty to receive returns of the monies, from time to time, in the hands of the Supervisors, from which he makes a weekly abstract for the Secretary of the Treasury, to enable him to direct the drawing for those monies.
The Treasurer receives, keeps and disburses the monies of the United States. All his receipts, as well as his disbursements, are sanctioned by warrants of the description already given. As incident to these duties, he draws, under the direction of the Secretary, all bills which are drawn for public monies, arising from sources foreign or domestic, which bills, as already mentioned, are always registered, or entered and countersigned by the Register: or in the case of domestic bills, by his confidential Clerk, in his stead.
The Register immediately conducts the keeping of all the Accounts of the United States, those for receipts and expenditures included. As incident to this, he records and attests all warrants for the receipt and payment of monies; also all drafts of the Treasurer, for the like purposes, subject to the observation above.
V.   As to the Accounts of Receipts and Expenditures.
These are governed by the following general principles and Regulations.

1st   Every receiver of public monies (except as a creditor of the United States, of the precise sum due to him) is made to account for them immediately to the Treasury Department.
This embraces, 1st: All those Officers, who, in the first instance, collect and receive the revenues of the United States. 2nd The Treasurer of the United States, who is the center of their collections and receipts; 3d All persons, who receive public monies, for any purpose whatever; with the above exceptions.
The Organs of the Department, for bringing persons to account, are the Auditor and Comptroller.
But it results from the constitution of the Department that all expenditures, at some period, pass under the separate consideration of the Secretary, Comptroller and Auditor. In many cases, the accounts are settled before any advances are made, but in those instances where advances are unavoidable, from the nature of the services; as to the Commissioners of Loans, the Contractors and other agents for the War department; the parties, who receive advances, are, by the terms of the Warrants for advances, held accountable until a final settlement.
The general rule is, that all persons are to account quarter-yearly. This rule is observed with great punctuality, as to the Collectors of the duties on imports and tonnage; as to the Treasurer, as well in his capacity, as Agent to the War department, as in that of Treasurer of the United States; and as to the Commissioners of Loans. The Revenue from Spirits distilled within the United States, from causes, which have unavoidably obstructed its regularity, has not gone thro’ an equally regular course of accounting; as to time, with the duties on imports and tonnage. The Accounts of the Contractors for the Army, and some other public accounts, do not admit of a compliance with the general rule. The most protracted class of accounts are, however, generally rendered and settled within a year after the advances.
The accounts of receipts and expenditures are kept at three different Offices of the Treasury, besides that of the Treasurer; more summarily, at the Offices of the Secretary and Comptroller, and more fully and formally, at the Office of the Register. But at each of these Offices, there is a regular record of all Warrants issued, both for receipts and expenditures; and the accounts of expenditure are kept under distinct heads of appropriation. The Treasurer also keeps a regular account of receipts and expenditures, but without reference to the particular appropriations.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from George Washington, 4 March 1794
From: Washington, George
To: Hamilton, Alexander

United States, March 4, 1794. “Pay to the Secretary of State, in pursuance of the act providing for the relief of such of the inhabitants of St. Domingo, resident within the United States, as may be found in want to support, ten thousand six hundred dollars.…”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Tench Coxe, 5 March 1794
From: Coxe, Tench
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Treasury Department, Revenue Office, March 5, 1794. Requests a “warrant of four hundred Dollars, intended to make a payment to the undertaker of the copper work of the Bald head light house, and for some small contingencies of the light house service.”


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to William Seton, 5 March 1794
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Seton, William

[Philadelphia, March 5, 1794. On March 8, 1794, Seton wrote to Hamilton: “Late last night I received your favour of the 5th.” Letter not found.]


Title: Testimony During Impeachment Proceedings Against John Nicholson, [5 March 1794]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[Philadelphia, March 5, 1794]

Alexander Hamilton, Esq. Sec. Treasury U. S. sworn.
Ques. by the defendant’s Counsel. Do you recollect what passed at any conference between yourself and the Comptroller-General, and what difficulty occurred to you respecting the subscribability of New-Loans?
I recollect there were several conferences between the Comptroller-General and myself, am unable to distinguish with precision the one alluded to, I recollect one interview in particular in which this point was discussed, that is, whether interest on the state debt should be suspended. I really charge my memory with nothing more than, that Mr. Nicholson urged arguments to induce me to believe that the spirit of that part of the Act of Congress was only to prevent the payment of double interest, and that a surrender was neither practicable nor equitable, as none of these had been subscribed, this inconvenience could not arise, the intention of the Act of Congress was fulfilled, I was convinced the reasoning was just, there being no basis on which the U. S. could demand a surrender.
If the New-Loans in my view of them at that time had not been subscribable, this difficulty could not have arisen. The Comptroller always appeared to me to be of the opinion that they were subscribable—none were subscribed in the former loan. The enquiry whether any had been subscribed to the loan was directed to the commissioner of loans, the information must ultimately have come from him—Mr. Wolcott might have been the intermediate agent, I can’t remember.
Ques. Have any been subscribed to the second loan?
Ans. I can’t without previous preparation answer that enquiry, I could have easily ascertained it, I do not recollect, my conjecture is that there were none, there were some certificates of that description which were not finally admitted. I recollect there were some discussions.
Ques. Are they entirely rejected or are they depending?
Ans. They took a course somewhat peculiar, in the view of the Treasury they are virtually excluded, the time allowed for the loan being passed; after the Attorney-General’s opinion on a point raised they were not admitted, this point arose after the second loan opened. The subject had not engaged my consideration nor did it come forward in a prominent point of view until after the second assumption. The Attorney-General of the state of Pennsylvania gave his opinion that they are abolished, as debts of this state. I may have read the Act of March 1789, but I do not recollect having seen it until after the closure of the first loan. I did not see that Act during the first conference.
On Ques. by Mr. Bradford. It did not occur to me that the Act of 1789 was passed after the adoption of the Federal Constitution, until the business was closed at the Treasury—the Constitution was not considered by me until afterwards.
Ques. Can you furnish a copy of the opinion of the Attorney-General on that point?
Ans. Certainly.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Henry Lee, 6 March 1794
From: Lee, Henry
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Richmond March 6th94
My dear sir

Use your first leisure & tell me all the political news, especially whether it is possible that Congress mean to pick a quarrel with G. B.

An alarm on this subject affects many here. Is it not better to bear temporary evils & by negotiation to diminish or dismiss them, than with a view to releive ourselves from them to plunge ourselves into the miserys of war? If our councillors be so lost to the true understanding of the best interest of the U. S. they will entail on posterity irremediable mischeifs & may by one blow pull down the political edifice which is just about rearing its head among the nations of the earth & offers most comfortable quarters to the human race.
Surpize astonishment & indignation alternately agitates my mind when I reflect on the tales I hear & the publications I read appertaining to this business.
It is further whispered here too that you mean to resign. Can you reconcile such pusillanimity to your feelings. What a ⟨set⟩ the President must have about him. They persuade him to stand at the helm & when the storm threatens desert the ship. I ⟨did⟩ not for a moment believe it possible for you thus to act.
Pardon my frankness & regard me as usual. Adieu

Henry Lee


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Richard Bland Lee, 6 March 1794
From: Lee, Richard Bland
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Philadelphia March 6. 1794
Sir,

Having received a letter from Mr. Francis Corbin a gentleman with whom you, I beleive, are acqauinted, requesting that Mr. George Turner may be mentioned as a candidate for the Collectorship of Rappahannock—I lose no time in informing you thereof. I have always heard a good character of Mr. Turner—particulerly as an attentive, punctual, & intelligent agent in all pecuniary affairs, with which he has been intrusted. Mr. Corbin informs me that all his family, who are very wealthy, will be responsible for his ability & fidelity in the execution of the office should he be appointed.
With great respect I am   Sir Yr. Obt. Sert.

R B Lee


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Benjamin Lincoln, 7 March 1794
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Lincoln, Benjamin

Treasury Department March 7th 1794
Sir

A paper of which the inclosed is a copy was put into my hands by a Gentleman by way of information. It is said, that the original was addressed to the British Consul at Boston.
I request from You an explanation of this affair. The threat of the resentment of the Citizens was a circumstance, if it existed, particularly unguarded and improper in an official communication.
With much consideration & esteem

Benjamin Lincoln EsqrCollector Boston


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from William Short, 7 March 1794
From: Short, William
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Aranjuez [Spain] March. 7th. 1794
sir

I had last the honor of writing to you on the 15th. ulto. & have since then forwarded to the Commissioners at Amsterdam, the power there mentioned for carrying the loan they had opened, into effect. The power was translated into the Spanish language from a model they sent me in Dutch, passed before a Notary public & legalized by the Dutch Minister, in the customary form.
From the time of my arrival in this country I had the honor of informing you that M. de Gardoqui considered the debt of the U.S. as much more considerable than the 174,011 dollars stated by you & for which I learned from Mr Carmichael an obligation or bond had been given by Mr. Jay. I then & on every other occasion which presented itself informed him of my orders extending to that debt only, that the payments making were on account of that debt, & that if there were any other, he would do well to make it known to you. He seemed quite uncertain of the nature or amount of any other debt; still always said there was a very considerable sum due some how or other by the U.S. to Spain, over & above the 174,011 dollars. It was in vain that I pressed him again & again to have it ascertained & communicated to you. He always promised it should be done, & as often probably forgot it.
That there might be no confusion in this business I desired the bankers to state the account of their payments as soon as they should have completed the amount of 174,011 dollars with the interest thereon, & send it to me that I might obtain the release from that debt. This they did in their letter of Oct. 4. which I recieved on the 30th of Nov. I immediately informed M. de Gardoqui thereof by my letter of the same date of which I inclose a copy, as well as the translation of his answer & a copy of my reply.
You will observe he simply says, as he has hitherto done, that the debt is more considerable. Although my reply, repeating the request to grant the proper release from the debt I was authorized to pay, was so long ago as the 10th. of Dec. I have recieved no kind of answer to it I should have renewed by demand but that two of the bills of exchange, were afterwards protested for non-payment, so as that the payment was rendered defective for their amount. They were returned by me to our bankers who have informed me of their recieving them & added that they should recover them, & would without delay remit here the deficiency occasioned by the nonpayment of those bills with interest so that the statement they had made might remain without alteration. I have been only waiting for the arrival of those bills in order to repeat the subject of my last to the Minister of finance. I expect them by the first packet, there having been a very considerable delay in the letters from Holland, the latest recieved here being about the middle of Jany.
I suppose it proper to obtain the discharge in full of the 174,011 dollars, or to have the original bond returned, that there may be no confusion in applying the payments made towards the principal as well as interest of that debt, to any other open account which may exist, although unknown to me, between the U.S. & Spain. In the meantime proper receipts have been obtained for the monies paid. The usage observed was for Mr. de Gardoqui to acknowlege the reciept of the bills as soon as indorsed to him—& when they were paid he sent me treasury reciepts for their amount, which now remain in my hands as follows. May. 1, 1793 for 3.260.940 reals vn. & 2. md.—May 2. for 629.740 rs vn. 30. mdes.—June 17. for 432.861 rs. vn. 31 mdes.—Sep. 30 for 68512. rs. vn. 4 mdes.—Novr. 28. for 505.286. rs. vn. 19. mdes.—Dec. 14. for 412.638 rs. vn. 8. mdes. Dec. 17. for 26494 rs. vn. 18. mdes.
I have more than once had the honor of writing both to you & the sec. of State, relative to the amount of the bills left with me by him, & which were given by me to Messrs. Grand of Paris to be recieved when their term expired. I have never had an answer from either relative thereto. In my letter of the 17th. of October last, I informed you of their having written to propose to me to remit the amount of these bills to Holland according to the then rate of each. I did not answer their letter. As they wrote to the sec. of State at the same time on that subject, it is probable Government may have given some orders respecting the business to Mr. Morris. Lest that should not be the case however, I wrote to Mr. Morris lately on learning that the assignats & specie were at par in France informing him of this business, & advising him to direct Mr. Grand to pay the sum at present into the French treasury on account of the debt due by the U.S. as this would be a means of avoiding loss on that sum. I take it for granted Mr. Grand will consider the authorization of Mr. Morris as sufficient.
I cannot help repeating how painful a circumstance it is to remain for so long a time, now more than twelve months, without learning whether the letters I have have the honor of addressing to Government are any of them recieved. The last of mine which has been acknowleged by you was dated Nov. 2 1792. Nor have I yet learned from the sec. of State whether any of those I have written since my arrival in this country have been recieved by him.

I have the honor to be with the most profound respect sir,   Your most obedient & most humble servant


Title: Enclosure: William Short to Diego de Gardoqui, 30 November 1793
From: Short, William
To: Gardoqui, Diego de

Madrid Nov. 30. 1793.
Sir

I do myself the honor of inclosing Y. E a bill of exchange for D 1276.3. 1 drawn by Jacob Dullofels on Messieurs Vercruys & freres which I have this moment received from the bankers of the U. S. at Amsterdam. This they inform me is the complete balance due by the U. S., on their debt specified by their obligation in the Royal treasury of Spain.
I hope therefore Y. E. having examined & found this to be just will direct the obligation to be returned to me & a proper release given to the U. S. for that debt that I may transmit it to the secretary of the Treasury of the U. S.
I have the honor to be with sentiments of the most perfect respect Your Excellency’s   most obedient & most humble servant

W Short
His Excy.Dn. Diego de Gardoqui, Minister of finance &c. &c. &c.


Title: Enclosure: Diego de Gardoqui to William Short, [7 December 1793]
From: Gardoqui, Diego de
To: Short, William

[San Lorenzo, December 7, 1793]

Con el papel de VS. de 30 de Noviembre ultimo he recivido la letra de cambio qe. me dirige de DS 1276.3. 1 á cargo de Vercruysse Herms. á cuenta de la deuda que los Estados unidos de America tienen á favor de la Rl. Hazda. de España, con cuia cantidad me dice VS. queda completo el pago de dha deuda, pero sin embargo de que aun no me han llegado las noticias totales para acreditar la mencionada deuda, peudo asegurar á VS. es mucho mayor de lo que expresa. Lo que participo á VS. en contestacion á su citado oficio.
Dios gue a VS. ms. ans.   Sn Lorenzo 7 de Dizre. de 1793.

Diego de Gardoqui
Sr. dn Guillermo Short


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from William Seton, 8 March 1794
From: Seton, William
To: Hamilton, Alexander

New York   8 March 1794.
My Dear sir

Late last night I received your favour of the 5th. with the enclosure for Mr. Verplanck, which I have sent him. You may rest assured the most immediate attention shall be paid to what you wish, and the Statements forwarded to you as soon as possible, tho it will take some time as we have to go thro’ so many Ledgers, however not a moment shall be lost, and the Interrogetarys can & will be answered in the most satisfactory manner.
I shall stop making any further purchases of Bank Stock for Mr. Church, but not hearing from you, and the prices being such as I thought it an object, let matters go which way they will, I have since I wrote you purchased for him 21 Shares at 12½—25 Shares at 9½ & 5 Shares at 9 ⅌ Cent—in all 51 Shares, & have drawn for 21 of them at the Exchanges of 5½ & 5 ⅌ Cent above par—& for the remainder have partly engaged the Bills at 5 ⅌ Cent. Considering this Exchange, the Dividend & the prices at which the whole 82 have been purchased, the average is so low that I think the investment cannot fail of being very beneficial & satisfactory. I have kept Mr. Church constantly advised of my transactions & I trust it will meet his approbation.
I am with the greatest respect & esteem   Dear sir   Your Obliged Obed Hue Sert

Wm Seton
Alexr. Hamilton Esqr


Title: Introductory Note: To George Washington, [8 March 1794]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Washington, George

[Philadelphia, March 8, 1794]

When this letter was written, the United States appeared to be closer to war with Great Britain than at any time since the end of the American Revolution. Henry Lee wondered whether Congress intended “to pick a quarrel with G.B.,” and the latest advices from Thomas Pinckney in London left little doubt that he considered the outbreak of war with Britain only a matter of time. In a dispatch which Edmund Randolph received on February 18, 1794, Pinckney reported on a conversation with Lord Grenville concerning the retention of British posts in the United States. During the conversation Grenville argued that because the United States had failed to live up to the provisions of the peace treaty for a period of nine years, Britain was no longer obligated to abide by the treaty. Pinckney was also discouraged by Grenville’s answer to a question concerning Britain’s part in the Algerine-Portuguese truce. In concluding his letter, Pinckney requested instructions concerning the removal of consuls and other United States citizens from England and asked that he and his family be sent to France in the event that he should be “directed … to withdraw from hence, which I now think probable.”
British policy toward neutral shipping was a major source of increasing anti-British sentiment in the United States. In his conference with Grenville, Pinckney had discussed the order in council of June 8, 1793, which required the detention of all neutral vessels transporting corn, flour, or meal to France or to ports under French control. Pinckney also reported: “… they cannot now retract their instructions concerning the detaining of corn, neither do they appear to have the inclination, on the contrary, I am informed they meditate fresh embarrassments to our trade.”
On March 7, 1794, the day before Hamilton wrote to Washington, the text of a British order of November 6, 1793, was published in the [Philadelphia] Gazette of the United States and Evening Advertiser. This order reads in part as follows: “Additional instructions to the commanders of all our ships of war and privateers.… That they shall stop and detain all ships laden with goods and produce of any Colony belonging to France, or carrying Provisions or other Supplies to any such Colony, and shall bring the same with their cargoes to legal Adjudication in our courts of Admiralty.” Delay in communications had prevented the arrival of news stating the full extent of the seizures under this order, but reports suggested that many ships had been taken. The order of November 6 had been replaced two months before Hamilton had written to Washington by the more liberal order of January 8, 1794, but news of the third order did not reach Philadelphia until March 28, 1794.

In the meantime—on January 3, 1794—James Madison had proposed a series of resolutions providing for a policy of commercial retaliation against the British. Madison’s resolutions were inspired by Thomas Jefferson’s report on “The Privileges and Restrictions on the Commerce of the United States …,” which had been presented to the House on December 16, 1793, and which argued that the United States should adopt a policy that would curb British restrictions on American trade. Madison’s proposals called for higher duties on certain articles “manufactured by European nations having no commercial treaty with the United States” and for additional tonnage duties on the ships of such nations. These resolutions were, according to Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts, “the great gun of the present session,” and they dominated debate in the House of Representatives during January and the first days of February, 1794. On February 3, the House adopted the first of Madison’s resolutions, but the Republicans, in an effort to thwart Federalist attempts to prevent passage of the remaining resolutions, succeeded in postponing debate on them until March 3. Although debate on Madison’s resolutions was resumed on March 14, they were then eclipsed by other issues. Hamilton’s suggestions in his letter to Washington offer a Federalist alternative to Madison’s resolutions.
Federalist members of both houses of Congress were also considering policies to be pursued in the crisis. Some of these closely resemble the suggestions which Hamilton made in this letter as well as some which he later endorsed. Senators Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, George Cabot and Caleb Strong of Massachusetts, and Rufus King of New York met on March 10, 1794, to discuss what advice they should offer to the President. According to notes which King made they decided that Ellsworth should go to the President the next day and propose that the Government “… adopt vigorous measures to put the Country in a posture of defence, as well by fortifying our principal commercial points, as by organizing absolutely, or provincially an auxiliary military Force, by filling our Arsenals, and by digesting an effectual plan of internal Taxes. That these arrangements being made, that a suitable person should be sent to the West Indies for the purpose of ascertaining the true situation of our Property seized in the English Islands, and assist our Mariners, and Merchants, in defending their Rights. That further, an Envoy extraordinary should be appointed, and sent to England to require satisfaction for the loss of our Property, and to adjust those points which menaced a War between the two Countries.”
On March 10 Sedgwick announced that on March 12 he would present several resolutions. These resolutions, which closely resemble the policy that Hamilton suggests in this letter to Washington, read as follows:
“Resolved, That there be raised, armed, and equipped, fifteen regiments of auxiliary troops, to consist of one thousand men, rank and file, each, with proper officers.
“Resolved, That the commissioned officers thereof be appointed as other officers of the United States, and that the non-commissioned officers and privates be enlisted for the term of two years; and, with this condition, that if war should break out within that time between the United States and any foreign European Power, they shall be bound to serve for the term of three years, after the commencement of the war, if the same shall so long continue.
“Resolved, That, in case of such war, the officers of the said regiments shall be entitled to the like pay and subsistence, and to equal rank and command, with the officers of the present Military Establishment of the United States; but, except in such case, shall be entitled to pay only for the time they shall actually attend on the days of training and exercise, hereafter mentioned.
“Resolved, That each non-commissioned officer and private shall by virtue of his enlistment, be entitled to a bounty, consisting of a suit of clothes per annum, of the value of twelve dollars, and shall also be entitled to a compensation of half a dollar per day, for each day he shall assemble for the purpose of training or exercising; which, except in case of war with some foreign European Power, shall not exceed twenty-four days in one year; and, in that case, each non-commissioned officer and private shall be entitled to the same pay and rations, and shall be subject to the same rules and regulations, as the other troops of the United States.
“Resolved, That the said regiments shall be furnished with arms and accoutrements at the expense of the United States, to be returned at the expiration of their term of service.
“Resolved, That revenues by taxes or duties, competent to the purpose of defraying the expense of raising and paying the said troops, be provided.

“Resolved, That within two years and six months after the time which shall be prescribed by law for beginning to enlist the said troops, if no war shall in the mean time break out with any foreign European Power, the regiments aforesaid shall be abolished and cease.
“Resolved, That the President of the United States be authorized, if in his judgment the safety or welfare of the United States shall require it, to lay an embargo, generally or particularly, upon ships in the ports or harbours of the United States, for a term not exceeding, at any one time, forty days; and also to prohibit, for a like term, generally or particularly, the exportation of commodities from the United States; and such embargo or prohibition to continue, from time to time, until the expiration of fourteen days after the commencement of the session of Congress next ensuing the present.”
Sedgwick’s resolutions omitted only two of Hamilton’s suggestions—the fortification of ports and a defensive pact among neutrals. Congress was already considering the fortification of ports, and a defensive pact among neutrals was a matter on which the House could take no action.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, [8 March 1794]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Washington, George

The present situation of the United States is undoubtedly critical and demands measures vigorous though prudent. We ought to be in a respectable military posture, because war may come upon us, whether we choose it or not and because to be in a condition to defend ourselves and annoy any who may attack us will be the best method of securing our peace. If it is known that our principal maritime points are out of the reach of any but formal serious operations—and that the government has an efficient active force in its disposal for defence or offence on an emergency—there will be much less temptation to attack us and much more hesitation to provoke us.
It seems then adviseable
1 to fortify the principal ports in the several States (say one in each State) so as to be able to resist a merely maritime attack or anything but a regular seige.
2. to raise 20,000 Auxiliary Troops upon a plan something like the following (vizt.)
To be divided into 10 Regiments.
Each Regiment to consist of two Batallions and of the following Officers & men.
1 Colonel 2 Majors 10 Captains 20 Lieutenants 2 Lieutenants & Adjutants 2 Serjeant Majors 40 Serjeants 3 Musicians & 1000 rank & file.
These Troops to be engaged upon the following terms—to be inlisted for two years, but upon condition, that if a war should break out with any European Power, they shall be obliged to serve 4 years from the commencement of such war upon the same terms as the Troops of the establishment. To receive as a bounty Cloathes with 12 Dollars ⅌ Man. To be under an obligation to meet 40 days in the year and 30 of these days to encamp. When assembled to be paid Officers & men as the Troops of the establishment and to have the same subsistence & rations. To be furnished with arms & accoutrements by the United States, to be surrendered at the expiration of their term of service.
The Officers in time of war to rank & rise with the Officers of the Military establishment. The arrangement to cease ipso facto at the expiration of a certain term (about two years.)
The expence of these operations would be

For the Fortifications
Drs.
150,000

For the Auxiliary troops ⅌ annum

350,000

Drs
500,000

In addition to this, the Legislature ought to vest the President of the United States with a power to lay an embargo partial or general and to arrest the exportation of commodities partially or generally.
It may also deserve consideration whether the Executive ought not to take measures to form some concert of the Neutral Powers for common Defence.
Mr. Hamilton presents his respects to the President, submits to him some reveries which have occupied his imagination. It may be interesting for the President to consider whether some such plan is not demanded by the conjuncture of affairs & if so, whether there ought not to be some executive impulse. Many persons look to the President for the suggestion of measures corresponding with the exigency of Affairs. As far as this idea may be founded, many important & delicate ideas are involved in the consideration.
The pains taken to preserve peace, include a proportional responsibility that equal pains be taken to be prepared for war.
March 8th 1794.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Tench Coxe, 11 March 1794
From: Coxe, Tench
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Treasury Department, Revenue Office, March 11, 1794. “I have the honor to inform you that the situation of the light-house on Cape Fear Island requires the appointment of a keeper.… Mr. Hooper who was appointed to superintend the completion of the building has recommended Mr. Henry Long.… Mr. Hooper is of opinion that the salary should be 300 or 350 dollars ⅌ Annum.… The extract … from Mr. Hoopers letter is transmitted to shew his desire to have his own compensation reconsidered.…”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from William Ellery, 11 March 1794
From: Ellery, William
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Newport, Rhode Island] March 11, 1794. “I acknowledge the Rect. of your [letter] respectg. the case of Saml. Pearsal jr. master of the Sloop Nancy of Fairfield, and now represent the case of George W. Topham master of the Sloop Sarah Ann of Newport, a Registered vessel without a License. She arrived here on sunday last, and the next day the master came to the Custom house and produced a certified manifest and permit from the Colle. of Newyork dated March 7th. 1794. On reading the oath to him when the words composing the whole cargo were pronounced, he manifested great surprize, and said that he could not swear to that; for that there were two bales of goods on board the Sloop which were not in the manifest. He was told that he had transgressed the law.… I told him that I believed his violation of the law was owing to ignorance or inattn. but that it was my duty to enforce it; That I must state the matter to you, and that upon an appln. made by him to you through the District Judge, you would make such a determination as you thought proper.… please to favour with a decision the questn. proposed in my letter of the 3d. of last mo. before the Quarter expenses.”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Benjamin Hawkins, 11 March 1794
From: Hawkins, Benjamin
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia, March 11, 1794. On March 12, 1794, Hamilton wrote to Hawkins: “I have received your Note of Yesterday.” Letter not found.]


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Benjamin Hawkins, 12 March 1794
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Hawkins, Benjamin

Philadelphia March 12th. 1794
Dear Sir,

I have received your Note of Yesterday inclosing the Resolution of the 11th. of January last, in the House of Commons of North Carolina, with a Request of Information.
The Papers of the Commissioners are deposited in the Treasury—but it would not be thought consistant with its Duty to enter into Explanations and Exhibitions of the Nature of those contemplated by the Resolutions, without the Direction of Congress. The Treasury is in this Instance the mere Depository of the Proceedings of distinct and Independant Officers, charged with a special and delicate Trust. It is not conceived that it should of its own Discretion furnish Materials for Investigation concerning the Principles or Grounds of their Conduct or Decisions. Indeed it is not known how far the Papers deposited would disclose the Principles on which the Settlements were made.
The Balances reported by the Commissioners for or against particular States are already placed on the Books of the Treasury. Nothing beyond this can be done without the Interference of a Legislative Act.
With sincere Esteem and Regard   I remain Dear Sir your Obedient Servt.

Alexander Hamilton.
Benjamin Hawkins Esq


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to John Kean, 12 March 1794
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Kean, John

Treasury Department March 12th 1794
Sir

I request that you will cause me to be furnished with the following Statements Viz
1   A Statement of all such monies of the United States which may have been at any time in deposit with the Bank without being passed to the credit of the Treasurer—shewing the times of the receipts of such monies in monthly portions, the Sum or balance at the end of each quarter of a Year, according to the form (A). This Statement to begin with the commencement of any such deposits under my Administration and to continue down to the time of rendering it.
2   A Statement shewing the advances of money on public account which may have been made by the Bank, u⟨pon⟩ my immediate direction or request without the intervention of the Treasurer, the times of such advances, the persons to whom made, and the times and mode of reimbursement (according to the form B). This to embrace the same period as the first mentioned Statement and to shew like that the Sum or balance at the end of each quarter of a year.
3   A Statement shewing what sum at any time passed to the Credit of the Treasury as Cash may in fact have existed in bills of the Treasurer undisposed of, and in Notes unpaid, so as to shew the actual Cash in deposit to the credit of the Treasury. It will be sufficient to State such sum at the end of each Quarter in one line.
4   A Statement of my private account with the Bank for the same period.
It is my desire that these several Statements may be furnished upon the Oaths of the Cashiers and Book keepers of the Bank—and in terms the most particular and unequivocal so as to exclude all room for the Suspicion of Concealment or reserve. I shall be glad too that the Oaths which accompany my private account may state (as the fact upon examination of your books will be found to be) that I have never had any account with the Bank jointly with any other person or persons, and that no other person has had any account with the Bank as my Agent.
These Statements being intended for the information of a Committee lately Appointed by the House of Representatives to inquire into the State of the Treasury Department I hope the occasion will excuse the trouble I am endeavouring to give and will prevent its being thought too Considerable.
I am with much consideration & esteem Sir   Your obedient ser

Alexander Hamilton
John Kean EsquireCashier of the Bank of The UStates


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Wilhem and Jan Willink, Nicholaas and Jacob Van Staphorst, and Nicholas Hubbard, 12 March 1794
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Willink, Wilhem,Willink, Jan,Van Staphorst, Nicholaas,Van Staphorst, Jacob,Hubbard, Nicholas

[Philadelphia, March 12, 1794. On July 1, 1794, Willink, Van Staphorst, and Hubbard wrote to Hamilton: “We have received your two esteemed favors of 12 March, and 8 May.” Letter of March 12 not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Edmund Randolph, [13 March 1794]
From: Randolph, Edmund
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia, March 13, 1794]

E. Randolph has the honor of informing the Secretary of the Treasury; that he supposed that the question on Maher’s claim of a Register was to become a subject of consultation. Otherwise he would have given his opinion before this time.

That opinion is,
1. That, if the possessor of the Vessel will perform the requisites of the law, the Treasury department cannot inquire into the means, by which he acquired the property:
2. That the documents do not manifest any exceptionable fact, the indorsement on Maher’s memorial, not seeming to make a part of these documents, properly so called; and
3. That in a former case, it was determined, that no foreign nation could take umbrage at the proceedings of a Custom-house.
The remedy proposed, of a suit, to be instituted by Maher would subject him to very great inconveniences; and ought not to be insisted on, without the absolute necessity.
March 13th. 1794.