Title: To Alexander Hamilton from William Ellery, 8 April 1794
From: Ellery, William
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Colles Offe. [Newport, Rhode Island] Apl. 8th 1794
Sir,

Just after I had recd. the Resoln. laying an Embargo I was informed that there were in this Port two vessels which were cleared out at Providence for foreign Ports. I desired the Surveyor to inform the masters of them that they were under an Embargo, and must not proceed on their voyages. He did same. They waited upon me. I read the Act to them, told them that they might return to Providence; but that they were prohibited from going to foreign ports. They concluded to return and in a few days left this harbour, stood up the bay with a seeming intention to return to the Port of Providence; but as soon as they had gained the North End of Conanicut, they passed out to Sea through the West passage between Connancit and the shore of Narraganset. Considering that it would be a Hardship to detain them here, and not in the least suspecting that they would attempt to go to sea, I permitted them to depart; and I have to regret my confidence in their integrity, and their respect for the Resolution of the United States; and have to regret the contempt they have shown to a Law of the United States. One of these Vessels is the Brig Maria of Providence commanded by Metcalf Bowler and bound to St. Thomas the other is the Sloop Nancy of Providence Zebedee Hunt master and bound to Monte Christo.
In the forenoon of the 31st of the last month the Schooner Boyne Thomas Greene master, belonging to and bound from St. Johns New Brunswick to New york put into this harbour by reason of a head wind, her laden consistg. of three barrels of Codfish, two puncheons of rum one barrel Potatoes, two barrels of Salmon, one box & nine Smoaked ditto, one bole Herring, one box of furrs, and Twenty six tons of plaister of Paris as ballast, and having on board passengers comprizing women and children. In the afternoon the master of her came to the Custom House produced his papers, and it appearing that the Vessel was regularly cleared for New york, upon his giving the usual bond in such cases he was furnished with a certified copy of his manifest, and proposed to proceed with the first fair wind. But a number of my fellow citizens, who put a difft. construction on the Resolution for an Embargo than I do, and who perhaps were heated by the ill treatment our commerce and some of the masters of our vessels have received from British subjects determined to stop her. In the evening of that day John Wanton Capt. of the Fort came to my house, and asked me whether I wanted any assistance to stop the vessel, I told him that as she was not bound to a foreign part, and the Resolution laying an Embargo had made no descrimination of vessels I conceived I had no authority to stop her. He rose suddenly from his chair, swore that he would stop her, and immediately left my house. I was informed, and I dont doubt it to be true, He with a number of others in two boats boarded the Schooner as she lay in the harbour, weighed her anchor, ran her aground in a dock, and stripped her of her sails. The Vice-Consul last friday wrote a letter to the Genl. Assembly on this occasion, and a part owner of the Vessel who was the bearer of it, was on the same day referred by the Assembly to the Governour. The Governor I am well informed has the matter under his consideration; but had not made up his mind on the subject yesterday.
Upon receiving the Resolution and before the arrival of the Boyne I consulted the District Judge respecting the Embargo, and among other questions I asked this—Suppose a vessel belonging to and cleared from a foreign port to any district of the United States should put into this Port had I right to stop her until the term of the Embargo should expire? It was his opinion that the Resolution did not warrant my detaining her. I have since taken the opinion of the District Atty. on my conduct relative to the Boyne, and it [is] his opinion that I acted rightly, and that I had no right to detain her. I wish for your opinion on the subject. The Vessel is still detained by the Capt. of the Fort.
I am Sir, your most obedt. servt.

Wm Ellery Coll
Alexr. Hamilton Esqe.Secry of the Treasury


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from George Washington, [8 April 1794]
From: Washington, George
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia, April 8, 1794]
Dr Sir,

Annexed to your Statemen⟨t⟩ of “Principles and course of Procee⟨d⟩ings” I have given the certificat⟨e⟩ required.
I am yours always

Go: Washing⟨ton⟩
Tuesday 8th. April 1794


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, 8 April 1794
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Washington, George

Philadelphia April 81794
Sir

I have analised the declaration which you have been pleased to make upon the copy of the paper of the first instant delivered by me to the committee of Inquiry into the state of the Treasury Department—and find, with regret, that the terms used are such as will enable those, who are disposed to construe every thing to my disadvantage, to affirm “That the Declaration of The President has intirely waved the main point and does not even manifest an opinion that the representation of the Secretary of the Treasury is well founded.”
To this it would be added, that the reserve of The President is a proof that he does not think that representation true—else his justice would have led him to rescue the officer concerned even from suspicion on the point.
That this will be the Interpretation put upon your declaration, I have no doubt, and in justice to myself I cannot forbear to make this impression known to you, and to bring the declaration under your revision.
I am the more certain that this construction will be put upon the fact from what has heretofore taken place. In the course of the discussion of the last session, an argument of this kind was, in private, urged against me. “If Mr. Hamilton had really acted by the authority of The President or in due communication with him would not the President take some method either directly to Mr. Madison or through Mr. Jefferson or Mr. Randolph to make known to him, that this ground of accusation did not exist? His not doing it, which may be inferred from Mr. Madison’s urging the point, is a proof that there was no cooperation on his part.”
In addition to this I have learnt from an authentic source that a particular Gentleman supposed to possess good opportunities of information has intimated in a manner to induce a belief of its having come from you—That it never was your intention that any of the loans which were made should have had reference to the Act making provision for the Reduction of the public Debt and that you never knew any thing of the operation while it was going on.
Under all that has happened Sir, I cannot help entertaining and frankly expressing to you my apprehension, that false and insidious men, whom you may one day understand, taking advantage of the want of recollection, which is natural, where the mind is habitually occupied with a variety of important objects, have found means by artful suggestions to infuse doubts and distrusts very injurious to me.
My consciousness of what has been the real tenor of my conduct and my conviction of the fairness and rectitude of your mind compel me to this conclusion.
Upon this as upon every other occasion my desire is to encounter directly and without detour whatever embarrassment may stand in my way. If contrary to what I understood from Mr. Lear during the discussion of the matter in Congress, and what I inferred from the late conversations with you—the affair does not stand well in your mind—I request the opportunity of a full and free conference on the subject, to recapitulate and go over all the circumstances which have occurred, in the hope of recalling to your Memory what may have escaped it—and with a wish to abide the result in an explicit form, that is, by a declaration, which shall render the main fact unambiguous or shall record the doubt.
As on the one hand I expect what is due to the situation—so on the other I seek no palliation of delinquency, no cover for any defect of conduct.

The situation is indeed an unpleasant one. Having conducted an important piece of public business in a spirit of confidence dictated by an unqualified reliance, on the [one] hand, upon the rectitude candour and delicacy of the person under whom I was acting, on the other, by a persuasion that the experience of years had secured to me a reciprocal sentiment (whatever imperfections it may have otherwise discovered) and by the belief likewise that however particular instances might be forgotten, the general course of proceeding in so important an affair could not but be remembered—I did not look for a difficulty like that which now seems to press me. Knowing too that there existed in my written communications with The President (not only those which have been specified but others) so many direct and indirect indications of what was truly the course pursued—I still less apprehended a difficulty of that nature when the occasion for explanation should occur.
Not seeking to escape responsibility for any improper execution of the laws, if any has happened, I did not imagine that want of immediate authority from the President to do what they would justify would be suffered to remain (the appeal being made to him) a topic of objection to my conduct.
In the freedom of these remarks, I flatter myself, Sir, that you will perceive nothing but that just sensibility which a man of honor, who thinks his veracity is exposed to question, ought to feel, and that you will be persuaded I continue yet to retain undiminished all that respect which a long established conviction of the existence of an upright and virtuous character ought to inspire.
With this sentiment I have the honor to remain   Sir   Your most Obedient   & most humble servant

Alexander Hamilton
The President of The United States.


Title: Meeting of the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund, [9 April 1794]
From: Commissioners of the Sinking Fund,Adams, John
To:

[Philadelphia, April 9, 1794]

At a Meeting of The Commissioners of the Sinking fund, mentioned in the Act making provision for the reduction of the public debt, at the Senate Chamber April 9. 1794.
Present,
The Vice President of the United States,
The Secretary of the Treasury,
The Secretary of State,
The Attorney General
A report from Joseph Nourse, register of the Treasury, was read, stating that the dividends of interest arising on the first quarter of the present year on the stock standing to the credit of the said Commissioners, and also to the credit of Samuel Meredith, Treasurer, in trust for the United States, amounted to sixteen thousand five hundred & sixty eight dollars & seventy seven Cents.
Whereupon, Resolved, that the same be forthwith applied towards sinking the public debt by purchasing stock upon rules & principles conformable to the last resolution of the board.
Resolved, that the sum of fifty thousand dollars be also appropriated & applied in like manner.
Resolved, that Samuel Meredith, be the Agent for making the said purchases of Stock.
Signed by order of the board,

John Adams.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Henry Knox, 12 April 1794
From: Knox, Henry
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia, April 12, 1794. On May 14, 1794, Tench Coxe wrote to Hamilton and referred to “the two Estimates No 1 & 2 of the Secrety of War, contained in his letter to you of the 12th. of April last.” Letter not found.]


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, 12 April 1794
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Washington, George

Philadelphia, April 12, 1794. Submits “two resolutions of the Commissioners of the Sinking fund of the 9th instant.”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Daniel Delozier, 13 April 1794
From: Delozier, Daniel
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Baltimore, April 13, 1794. On May 1, 1794, Hamilton wrote to Delozier: “I duly received your letter of the 13th of April.” Letter not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from William Ellery, 14 April 1794
From: Ellery, William
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Colles Offe. Port of Newport [Rhode Island]Apl. 14th 1794
Sir,

In my last of the 8th of this month I gave you an account of the departure of two Vessels belonging to Providence for foreign Ports in defiance of the embargo, the names of those Vessels and of their masters and the places to which they were respectively bound. One of them, the Brig Maria is owned by Samuel Butler, and Samuel Butler junior, Cyrus Butler, Seth Wheaton and Richard Jackson junr. all of Providence Merchants, the other, the Schooner Nancy, is owned by Welcome Arnold of the same Providence.
In that letter I also gave you an account respecting the Schooner Boyne of St. Johns. The day after I wrote that letter the Vice-Consul received a letter from our Governor informing him that the Schooner Boyne was considered as coming within the intention of the Act of Congress laying an Embargo, and that She must remain at Newport unless the President of the United States should think fit to permit her to depart. Since that the Part Owner of the Boyne has hired a Vessel to take him, her Passengers and part of his Plaister of Paris to New York; and by him the Vice-Consul has written a letter to Mr. Hammond, the British Minister, representing what has occurred relative to the Boyne, and inclosing therein a copy of the Governor’s letter. I suppose that the Vessel is still in the custody of John Wanton the Capt. of the Fort. I have not thought proper to interfere in this business; for I would not wish to oppose my opinion to that of the Governor, and the Capt. of the Fort, is so rash, headstrong, abusive and uninformed that I would not chuse to have any conversation with him.
Last friday I received your letter of the 3d current, concerning fortifying this Port, have appointed Walter Channing of Newport Merchant Agent for the purposes therein mentioned; and shall attend to the directions it contains. At the same time I recd. letters from the Secry of War on the same subject. I am informed that our Genl. Assembly at their late session ceded their right to the fort and its environs and authorized the proprietors of lands in the Town of Newport to dispose of them to the United States for the purpose of fortifications. I am Sir yr. obedt. servant.

Wm Ellery Collr.
Alexr. Hamilton Esqr.

PS   I have this day written a letter to the Secry at War enclosg. a copy of the letter to me from Mr. Channing acceptg. the Agency.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Jeremiah Olney, 14 April 1794
From: Olney, Jeremiah
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Custom HouseDistrict of Providence 14th Apr. 1794.
Sir

In my Letter of the 31st Ulto. I acquainted you that I had hopes of a favourable Decision of the Superiour Court that was to meet at Washington County on the 7th Inst. Relative to the Suits of Messrs. Arnold & Dexter in the Case of the Brigantine Neptune but to my Surprise the opinion of the Court was, that said Suits ought to be Sustained against me, Two of the Judges for & Three against me—but they did not find any damages, leaving that for a Jury to assess. I am anxious to bring the matter to an Issue, shall therefore apply to the Same Court, which is to meet in the County of Kent on the 28th Int. for a Special Jury to be Taken up, by the high Sherrief of Providence County, for the purpose of ascertaining the Dammages—& if any is given, I shall take the proper Stepts to bring this business before the Supreme Court of the United States, for the present Construction of the law, will put it in the power of Every person whose bond is in Suit and unpaid, to obtain a Credit by an evasive Transfer of his Property, on the Arrival of his Vessel.
I have the Honor to be very respectfully   Sir   your Most Obed. Hm. Sr.

Jereh. Olney Collr.
Alexr. Hamilton Esqr.Secretary of the Treasury.


Title: Edmund Randolph to Alexander Hamilton, Henry Knox, and William Bradford, 14 April 1794
From: Randolph, Edmund
To: Bradford, William,Hamilton, Alexander,Knox, Henry

Philadelphia April 14. 1794.
Gentlemen

The President wishes your opinion, as to the step, proper to be taken, upon the inclosed address. To send to congress, what the President thinks unfit for himself, will be unkindly received; being uncivil in itself. To acknowledge the body, as such, is in every view inadmissible. So that the question seems to turn upon this; whether it be better to treat the paper with unqualiffied and silent contempt; or to return it to James Marshal, as an individual, to this effect; “that the President receives no applications from a body, as such, whose constitution is not known in the laws; and that the paper is therefore returned to him, as the individual, from whom it came.” Silent contempt I prefer.
I have the honor, gentlemen   to be with great respect   Yr. mo. ob. serv.

Edm: Randolph
The Secretary of the Treasury,The Secretary of War, andThe Attorney general of the U S.


Title: Report on Exports from the United States for the Year Ending September 30, 1793, [14 April 1794]
From: Treasury Department,Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[Philadelphia, April 14, 1794] This report consists of a general statement of exports from the United States for one year ending on September 30, 1793, a “Supplement A” concerning exports, and a “Summary B” giving the total value of exports to each nation in both the general statement and the supplement.


Title: Introductory Note: To George Washington, [14 April 1794]
From:
To:

The threat of war with Great Britain in the spring of 1794 was met in the United States with proposals for reprisals, for strengthening American defenses, and for negotiation. Most individuals who urged negotiation also advocated that the task be entrusted to a special envoy. Secretary of State Edmund Randolph stated on April 6 that he was “among the first, if not the first, who suggested this mission” to Washington, while at the same time proposing that the nomination be postponed until “after congress shall have given nerve to our affairs.” It is not clear when Washington decided that such a mission was necessary, but it was sometime before he wrote to Randolph on April 15 of his intention to appoint “a special Envoy” to Great Britain. Some leading Republicans, who opposed the decision to nominate an envoy extraordinary, were particularly disturbed by reports that Hamilton might be that envoy. Rufus King’s notes concerning some of the events leading up to the appointment of an envoy to Great Britain indicate that he and Senators Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut and George Cabot and Caleb Strong of Massachusetts made every effort to have Hamilton nominated. On March 12, 1794, Ellsworth had visited the President and as spokesman for the other Senators had described Hamilton as “the character whose qualifications afforded a very commanding preference.” Washington expressed “some doubts” about Hamilton, who according to the President “did not possess the general confidence of the Country—that there could be no doubt in his (the President’s) mind, but that there existance was of some consequence.” Convinced that Hamilton should secure the appointment, King turned to Robert Morris, Senator from Pennsylvania, informing him of Ellsworth’s interview with Washington and asking him, “if occasion required,” to support Hamilton’s appointment. On April 8, according to King, Washington sent for Morris “to consult him respecting an Envoyship to London.” When Washington said that he was considering John Adams, Hamilton, John Jay, and Thomas Jefferson for the mission, Morris “objected to the first, and the last—and expressed his preference for the second.”
King’s notes cite Randolph as the principal source of opposition to Hamilton’s appointment. According to King, “Every effort has been made through Randolph the Secretary of State to defeat Hamilton’s appointment—there is reason to suppose that Fauchette, the French Minister has not failed to employ his influence to this end. Randolph in Speaking to Hamilton upon the subject of the appointment, casually said, ‘at that time I had not conversed with Mr. Fauchette.’ After further conversation, Hamilton brought the Secretary back, by observing that he had said, ‘that at this time &c’ and then asked him whether Mr. Faucet had expressed any Opinion in opposition to the appointment. Randolph replied, that he would not be more particular; but the intimation which fell unguardedly from Randolph, being in reference to Hamilton’s aversion to the French Revolution, may be considered as satisfactory Evidence of the interference of the French Minister.”
After Randolph’s friend, James Monroe, Senator from Virginia, and his brother-in-law, John Nicholas, a member of the House of Representatives from the same state, had written to Washington strongly opposing Hamilton’s nomination and the policy of sending any envoy, the Secretary of State felt constrained to give Washington a “declaration of the most absolute and unequivocal ignorance of what was meditated and of what was done.” In the same letter of April 9, 1794, Randolph continued: “I cannot learn, that any body had undertaken to say, that you had determined to nominate any particular gentleman. At any rate nothing has fallen from me except the conversation which you permitted me to hold, upon the affair; and in which the individual was spoken of, only as a character, which stood forward.”
Nicholas had written to the President on April 6, 1794: “It is rumoured in the city that you are about to send an Envoy to the court of Great Britain and that your choice will probably fall on the Secretary of the treasury. You will pardon me for saying that the measure in itself is improper because unnecessary and that when connected with the instrument it bodes mischief to yourself and your country.… I cannot conceive it possible that Congress will adjourn without doing something which will no longer leave it optional with Great Britain to do us justice.… I confess myself astonished to hear the nomination which is made for this office at a time when perhaps more than half America have determined it to be unsafe to trust power in the hands of this person however remotely it is connected with many of the odious traits of his character—at a time when at least one half the legislature are afraid to exert themselves in the most trying situations of their country, lest his present powers should enable him to wrest them to purposes which he is supposed by them to entertain.… Did it never occur to you that the divisions of America might be ended by the sacrafice of this one man…?”
Monroe wrote to Washington at some length on April 11 concerning his objections to Hamilton’s nomination. After describing Hamilton as a member of a monarchial party strongly attached to the British and generally believed to have connections with the British administration, he added: “Should a person therefore of such character & principles be sent to England, and upon an occasion so attractive of the publick notice, it would not only furnish an opportunity for political intrigue against republicanism here, and against our connection with France, but as I have reason to believe, be regarded in America in a light, unfavorable to the authority appointing him, nor would it fail to be viewed by France, in respect to the byas of our publick councils, otherwise than with the strongest jealousy and dissatisfaction, and if the mission should not succeed in its object, and a state of things insue so as to require the friendship and cooperation of that country with this, our situation would be as mortifying as it would be alarming, nor could neither ask with propriety for aid, nor could she with pleasure grant it afterwards.”
Jefferson held similar views. On April 24, not having heard of Jay’s appointment, he wrote to Monroe: “… I learn by your letters & mr Madison; that a special mission to England is meditated, & H. the missionary. A more degrading measure could not have been proposed: and why is Pinckney to be recalled? For it is impossible he should remain there after such a testimony that he is not confided in.… I suspect too the mission, besides the object of placing the aristocracy of this country under the patronage of that government, has in view that of withdrawing H. from the disgrace & the public execrations which sooner or later must fall on the man who partly by creating fictitious debt, partly by volunteering in the payment of the debts of others, who could have paid them so much more conveniently themselves, has alienated for ever all our ordinary & easy resources, & will oblige us hereafter to extraordinary ones for every little contingency out of the common line; and who has lately brought the P. forward with manifestations that the business of the treasury had got beyond the limits of his comprehension.…”
In his letter to Washington of April 14, printed below, Hamilton removed himself from consideration for the post and suggested Jay’s nomination. According to Rufus King’s memorandum for April 12, “Mr. Jay arrived to hold a Circuit Court in Philadelphia. He came to my room, the Conversation soon turned to the present situation of the Country. I told him… that I had heard that the President had mentioned the Vice President, Hamilton, Jefferson, and him, as persons whom he had thought of for the Envoyship—That his friends were decided that it must be him, or Hamilton; that so far as regarded the particular knowledge of the Cabinet, and the details of Commerce, Hamilton might deserve the preference—but that in all other respects we should be perfectly satisfied with him—that these points were not very important and if on the other hand we consider weight of Character abroad, as well as at home, his appointment might be more advantageous than that of Hamilton. Besides that Hamilton was essential to his present Station. Mr. Jay made no reply respecting himself, but appeared fully to agree in the propriety of Hamilton’s appointment.”
Even before he received Hamilton’s letter of April 14 Washington had concluded that Hamilton’s nomination was out of the question and that he should give serious consideration to the selection of Jay. According to King, on April 8 Washington mentioned Jay’s name, among others, to Robert Morris. On April 15 he wrote to Jay: “At as early an hour this morning, as you can make convenient to yourself, I should be glad to see you.… I will expect to have the satisfaction of conversing with you on an interesting subject.” At his morning meeting with Jay, Washington offered him the envoyship, and on the afternoon of the same day, in the words of King, “Hamilton, Strong, Cabot, Ellsworth and myself, went to Mr. Jay… to press upon him the necessity which exists that he Should not decline the Envoyship—that in Short he was the only man in whom we could confide, and that we deemed the situation of the Country too interesting, and critical to permit him to hesitate.” On April 16, the Chief Justice told the President that he would accept the position as envoy, and on the same day Washington sent Jay’s appointment to the Senate. On April 19, the Senate approved the nomination.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, [14 April 1794]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Washington, George

Philadelphia April [14] 1794
Sir

The present is beyond question a great, a difficult & a perilous crisis in the affairs of this country. In such a crisis it is the duty of every man, according to situation, to contribute all in his power towards preventing evil and producing good. This consideration will I trust be a sufficient apology for the liberty I am about to take of submitting without an official call the ideas which occupy my mind concerning the actual posture of our public affairs. It cannot but be of great importance that the chief Magistrate should be informed of the real state of things; and it is not easy for him to have this information but through those principal officers who have most frequent access to him. Hence an obligation on their part to communicate information on occasions like the present.
A course of accurate observation has impressed on my mind a full conviction, that there exist in our councils three considerable parties—one decided for preserving peace by every effort which shall any way consist with the ultimate maintenance of the national honor and rights and disposed to cultivate with all nations a friendly understanding—another decided for war and resolved to bring it about by every expedient which shall not too directly violate the public opinion—a third not absolutely desirous of war but solicitous at all events to excite and keep alive irritation and ill humour between the UStates and Great Britain, not unwilling in the pursuit of this object to expose the peace of the country to imminent hazards.
The views of the first party in respect to the questions between G Britain and us favour the following course of conduct—To take effectual measures of military preparation, creating in earnest force and revenue—to vest the President with important powers respecting navigation and commerce for ulterior contingencies—to endeavour by another effort of negotiation confided to hands able to manage it and friendly to the object, to obtain reparation for the wrongs we suffer and a demarkation of a line of conduct to govern in future—to avoid ’till the issue of that experiment all measures of a nature to occasion a conflict between the motives which might dispose the British Government to do us the justice to which we are intitled and the sense of its own dignity—If that experiment fails then and not till then to resort to reprisals and war.
The views of the second party, in respect to the same questions favour the following courses of conduct—to say and to do every thing which can have a tendency to stir up the passions of the people and beget a disposition favourable to war—to make use of the inflamation which is excited in the community for the purposes of carrying through measures calculated to disgust Great Britain and to render an accommodation impracticable, without humiliation to her, which they do not believe will be submitted to—in fine, to provoke and bring on war by indirect means without declaring it or even avowing the intention; because they know the public mind is not yet prepared for such an extremity and they fear to encounter the direct responsibility of being the authors of a War.
The views of the third party lead them to favour the measures of the second—but without a perfect coincidence in the result. They weakly hope that they may hector and vapour with success—that the pride of Great Britain will yield to her interest—and that they may accomplish the object of perpetuating animosity between the two countries without involving War.
There are some characters, not numerous, who do not belong to either of these classes—but who fluctuate between them as in the conflict between Reason & Passion, the one or the other prevails.
It may seem difficult to admit in the situation of this Country that there are parties of the description of the two last men who can either systematically meditate war or can be willing to risk it otherwise than by the use of means which they deem necessary to insure reparation for the injuries we experience.
But a due attention to the course of the human passions as recorded in history and exemplified by daily occurrences is sufficient to obviate all difficulty on this head.
Wars oftener proceed from angry and perverse passions than from cool calculations of Interest. This position is admitted without difficulty when we are judging of the hostile appearances in the measures of Great Britain towards this country. What reason can there be why it should not be as good a test of similar appearances on our part? As men, it is equally applicable to us—and the symptoms are strong of our being readily enough worked up into a degree of rage and phrenzy, which goes very far towards silencing the voice of reason and interest.
Those who compose the parties whose measures have a War-Aspect are under the influence of some of the strongest passions that can actuate human conduct. They unite from habitual feeling in an implacable hatred to Great Britain and in a warm attachment to France. Their animosity against the former is inflamed by the most violent resentment for recent and unprovoked injuries—in many instances by personal loss and suffering or the loss and suffering of intimate friends and conections. Their sympathy with the latter is increased by the idea of her being engaged in defending the cause of liberty against a combination of despots who meditate nothing less than the destruction of it throughout the world. In hostility with Britain they seek the gratification of revenge upon a detested enemy with that of serving a favourite friend and in this the cause of liberty. They anticipate also, what is in their estimation a great political good, a more complete and permanent alienation from Great Britain and a more close approximation to France. Those even of them who do not wish the extremity of war consider it as a less evil than a thorough and sincere accommodation with Great Britain and are willing to risk the former rather than lose an opportunity so favourable as the present to extend and rivet the springs of ill will against that Nation.
However necessary it is to viel this policy in public—in private there are not much pains taken to disguise it. Some Gentlemen do not scruple to say that pacification is and ought to be out of the question.
What has been heretofore said relates only to persons in public character. If we extend our view from these to the community at large, we shall there also find a considerable diversity of opinion—partizans of patience negotiation and peace, if possible, and partisans of war. There is no doubt much of irritation now afloat—many advocates for measures tending to produce war. But it would be a great mistake to infer from these appearances that the prevailing sentiment of the Country is for war—or that there would be either a willing acquiescence or a zealous cooperation in it if the proceedings of the government should not be such as to render it manifestly beyond question, that war was inevitable but by an absolute sacrifice of the rights and interests of the Nation—that the race of prudence was completely run and that nothing was done to invite hostility or left undone to avoid it.
It is to my mind unequivocal, that the great mass of opinion in the Eastern States and in the State of New York is against War if it can be avoided without absolute dishonor or the ultimate sacrifice of essential rights and interests—and I verily believe that the same sentiment is the radical one throughout the UStates, some of the towns perhaps exepted, where even it is much to be doubted whether there would not be a minority for the affirmative of the naked question of war or of measures which should be acknowleged to have a tendency to promote or produce it.
The natural inference from such a state of the public mind is—that if measures are adopted with the disapprobation and dissent of a large and enlightened minority of Congress, which in the event should appear to have been obstacles to a peaceable adjustment of our differences with Great Britain—there would be under the pressure of the evils produced by them a deep and extensive dissatisfaction with the conduct of the Government—a loss of confidence in it—and an impatience under the measures which War would render unavoidable.
Prosperous as is truly the situation of this country, great as would be the evils of War to it, it would hardly seem to admit of a doubt, that no chance for preserving peace ought to be lost or diminished, in compliance either with resentment or the speculative ideas, which are the arguments for a hostile course of conduct.
At no moment were the indications of a plan on the part of Great Britain to go to War with us sufficiently decisive to preclude the hope of averting it by a negotiation conducted with prudent energy and seconded by such military preparations as should be demonstrative of a Resolution eventually to vindicate our rights. The revocation of the instructions of the 6th of November even with the relaxation of some pretensions which Great Britain has in former wars maintained against Neutral Powers is full evidence that if the system was before for War it was then changed. The events which have taken place in Europe are of a nature to render it probable that such a system will not be revived and that by prudent management we may still escape a calamity which we have the strongest motives internal as well as external to shun.
I express myself thus because it is certainly not an idle apprehension that the example of France (whose excesses are with too many an object of apology if not of justification) may be found to have unhinged the orderly principles of the People of this country and that War by putting in motion all the turbulent passions and promoting a further assimilation of our principles with those of France may prove to be the threshold of disorganization and anarchy.
The late successes of France have produced in this country conclusions much too sanguine with regard to the event of the Contest. They no doubt afford a high probability of her being able eventually to defend herself especially under a form of administration of such unexampled vigour as that by which she has of late managed her affairs. But there will be nothing wonderful in a total reverse of fortune during the ensuing campaign. Human nature must be an absolutely different thing in France from what it has hitherto shewn itself to be throughout the globe and in all ages if there do not exist in a large proportion of the French Nation germs of the profoundest discontent ready to burst into vegetation the moment there should appear an efficacious prospect of protection and shade from the progress of the invading armies. And if having possessed themselves of some of the keys of France the principle of the commencing campaign should be different from that of the past—active field operations succeeding to the wasteful and dilatory process of seiges—who can say that Victory may not so far crown the enterprises of the coalesced powers as to open the way to an internal explosion which may prove fatal to the Republic? Tis now evident that another vigorous campaign will be essayed by the Allies. The result is and must be incalculable.
To you, Sir, it is unnecessary to urge the extreme precariousness of the events of War. The inference to be drawn is too manifest to escape your penetration. This Country ought not to set itself afloat upon an ocean so fluctuating so dangerous and so uncertain but in a case of absolute necessity.
That necessity is certainly not yet apparent. The circumstances which have been noticed with regard to the recent change of conduct on the part of G Britain authorise a strong hope that a negotiation conducted with ability and moderation and supported at home by demonstrations of vigour and seriousness would obviate those causes of collision which are the most urgent—might even terminate others which have so long fostered dissatisfaction and enmity. There is room to suppose that the moment is pecularily favourable to such an attempt. On this point there are symptoms of a common sentiment between the advocates and the opposers of an unembarrassed attempt to negotiate—the former desiring it from the confidence they have in its probable success—the latter from the same cause endeavouring either to prevent its going on under right auspices or to clog it with impediments which will frustrate its effect.
All ostensibly agree that one more experiment of negotiation ought to precede actual war; but there is this serious difference in the practice. The sincere friends of peace and accommodation are for leaving things in a state which will enable Great Britain without abandoning self-respect to do us the justice we seek. The others are for placing things upon a footing which would involve the disgrace or disrepute of having receded through intimidation.
This last scheme indubitably ends in War. The folly is too great to be seriously entertained by the discerning part of those who affect to believe the position—that Great Britain fortified by the alliances of the greatest part of Europe will submit to our demands urged with the face of coertion and preceded by acts of reprisal. She cannot do it without renouncing her pride and her dignity, without losing her consequence and weight in the scale of Nations—and consequently it is morally certain that she will not do it. A proper estimate of the operation of the human passions must satisfy us that she would be less disposed to receive the law from us than from any other nation—a people recently become a nation, not long since one of her dependencies, and as yet, if a Hercules—a Hercules in the cradle.
When one nation inflicts injuries upon another, which are causes of war, if this other means to negotiate before it goes to War, the usual and received course is to prepare for War and proceed to negotiation—avoiding reprisals till the issue of the Negotiation. This course is recommended by all enlightened Writers on the laws of Nations as the course of moderation propriety and wisdom and it is that commonly pursued except where there is a disposition to go to war or a commanding superiority of Power.
Preparation for War in such cases contains in it nothing offensive. It is a mere precaution for self defence under circumstances which endanger the breaking out of War. It gives rise to no point of honor which can be a bar to equitable and amicable negotiation. But acts of reprisal speak a contrary effect—they change negotiation into peremptory demand and they brandish a rod over the party on whom the demand is made. He must be humble indeed, if he comply with the demand to avoid the stripe.
Such are the propositions which have lately appeared in the House of Representatives for the sequestration or arrestation of British Debts—for the cutting off of all intercourse with Great Britain till she shall do certain specific things. If such propositions pass they can only be regarded as provocatives to a Declaration of War by Great Britain.
The sequestration of Debts is treated by all writers as one of the highest species of Reprisal. It is moreover contrary to the most approved practice of the present century, to what may be safely pronounced to be the modern rule of the law of Nations—to what is so plainly dictated by original principles of Justice and good faith that nothing but the barbarism of times in which war was the principal business of man could ever have tolerated an opposite practice—to the manifest interest of a people situated like that of the UState; which having a vast fund of materials for improvement in various ways ought to invite into the channels of their industry the Capital of Europe, by giving to it inviolable security—which, giving little facility to extensive revenue from taxation, ought for its own safety in war to cherish its credit by a religious observance of the maxims of credit in all their branches.
The proposition for cutting off all intercourse with G Britain has not yet sufficiently devellopped itself to enable us to pronounce what it truly is. It may be so extensive in its provisions as even to include in fact though not in form sequestration by rendering remittances penal or impracticable. Indeed it can scarcely avoid so far interfering with the payment of debts already contracted as in a great degree to amount to a virtual sequestration. But however this may be—being adopted for the express purpose of retaliating or punishing injuries to continue until those injuries are redressed it is in the spirit of a reprisal—Its principle is avowedly coertion—a principle directly opposite to that of negotiation, which supposes an appeal to the reason and justice of the party. Caustic and stimulant in the highest degree, it cannot fail to have a correspondent effect upon the minds of those against whom it is directed. It cannot fail to be viewed as originating in motives of the most hostile and overbearing kind—to stir up all the feelings of pride and resentment in the nation as well as in the cabinet—and consequently to render negotiation abortive.
It will be wonderful if the immediate effect of either of these measures be not either War or the seizure of our vessels wherever they are found, on the ground of keeping them as hostages for the debts due to the British Merchants and on the additional ground of the measures themselves being either acts of hostility or evidence of a disposition to hostility.
The interpretation will naturally be that our views originally pacific have changed with the change in the affairs of France, and are now bent towards War.
The measures in question, besides the objection to them resulting from their tendency to produce war, are condemned by a comprehensive and enlightened view of their operation in other respects.
They cannot but have a malignant influence upon our public and mercantile credit. They will be regarded abroad as violent and precipitate. It will be said there is no reliance to be placed on the steadiness or solidity of concerns with this people. Every gust that arises in the political sky is the signal for measures tending to destroy their ability to pay or to obstruct the course of payment. Instead of a people pacific, forbearing moderate and of rigid probity we see in them a people turbulent hasty intemperate and loose—sporting with their individual obligations and disturbing the general course of their affairs with levity and inconsiderateness.
Such will indubitably be the comments upon our conduct. The favourable impressions now entertained of the character of our government and Nation will infallibly be reversed.
The cutting off of intercourse with Great Britain to distress her seriously must extend to the prohibition of all her commodities indirectly as well as directly. Else it will have no other operation than to transfer the Trade between the two countries to the hands of foreigners to our disadvantage more than to that of Great Britain.
If it extends to the total prohibition of her commodities, however brought, it deprives us of a supply, for which no substitute can be found elsewhere, a supply necessary to us in peace and more necessary to us if we are to go to War. It gives a sudden and violent blow to our revenue which cannot easily if at all be repaired from other resources. It will give so great an interruption to commerce as may very possibly interfere with the payment of the duties which have heretofore accrued and bring the Treasury to an absolute stoppage of payment—an event which would cut up credit by the roots.
The consequences of so great and so sudden a disturbance of our Trade which must affect our exports as well as our Imports are not to be calculated. An excessive rise in the price of foreign commodities—a proportional decrease of price and demand for our own commodities—the derangement of our revenue and credit—these circumstances united may occasion the most dangerous dissatisfactions & disorders in the community and may drive the governt. to a disgraceful retreat—independent of foreign causes.
To adopt the measure in terrorem and postpone its operation will be scarcely a mitigation of the Evil. The expectation of it will as to our imports have the effect of the reality; since we must obtain what we want chiefly upon credit. Our supply and our revenue therefore will suffer nearly as much as if there was an immediate interruption.
The effect, with regard to our peace will be the same. The principle being menace and coertion will equally recommend resistance to the policy as well as the pride of the other party. Tis only to consult our own hearts to be convinced that nations like individuals revolt at the idea of being guided by external compulsion. They will at least only yield to that idea after resistance has been fruitlessly tried in all its forms.
Tis as great an error for a nation to overrate as to underrate itself. Presumption is as great a fault as timidity. Tis our error to overrate ourselves and to underrate Great Britain. We forget how little we can annoy how much we may be annoyed.
Tis enough for us, situated as we are, to be resolved to vindicate our honor and our rights in the last extremity. To precipitate a great conflict of any sort is utterly unsuited to our condition to our strength or to our resources. This is a truth to be well weighed by every wise and dispassionate man as the rule of public action.
There are two ideas of immense consequence to us in the event of War. The disunion of our enemies—the perfect union of our own citizens. Justice and moderation united with firmness are the means to secure both these advantages. Injustice or Intemperance will lose both.
Unanimity among ourselves, which is the most important of the two ideas, can only be secured by its being manifest, if war ensues, that it was inevitable by another course of conduct. This cannot and will not be the case, if measures so intemperate as those which are meditated take place. The inference will be that the war was brought on by the design of some and the rashness of others. This inference will be universal in the Northern States, and to you Sir I need not urge the importance of those states in war.
Want of unanimity will naturally tend to render the operations of War feeble and heavy—to destroy both effort and perseverance. War undertaken under such auspices can scarcely end in any thing better than an inglorious and disadvantageous peace. What worse it may produce is beyond the reach of human foresight.
The foregoing observations are designed to convey to the mind of the President information of the true state of things at the present juncture and to present to his consideration the general reasons which have occurred to me against the course of proceeding which appears to be favoured by a majority of the House of Representatives.
My solicitude for the public interest, according to the view I have of it, and my real respect and regard for him to whom I address myself lead me to subjoin some reflections of a more delicate nature.
The crisis is such a one as involves the highest responsibility on the part of every one who may have to act a part in it. It is one in which every man will be understood to be bound to act according to his judgment without concession to the ideas of others. The President, who has by the constitution a right to object to laws, which he deems contrary to the public interest, will be considered as under an indispensable obligation to exercise that right against any measure, relating to so vast a point as that of the peace of the Country, which shall not accord with his opinion. The consideration of its having been adopted by both Houses of Congress and of respect for their opinion will have no weight in such a case as a reason for forbearing to exercise the right of objection. The consequence is that the not objecting will be deemed conclusive evidence of approbation and will implicate the President in all the consequences of the measure.
In such a position of things it is therefore of the utmost importance to him as well as to the community that he should trace out in his own mind such a plan as he thinks it would be eligible to pursue and should endeavour by proper and constitutional means to give the deliberations of Congress a direction towards that plan.
Else he runs the risk of being reduced to the dilemma either of assenting to measures, which he may not approve, with a full responsi[bi]lity for consequences—or of objecting to measures which have already received the sanction of the two houses of Congress with the responsi[bi]lity of having resisted and probably prevented what they meditated. Neither of these alternatives is a desireable one.
It seems adviseable, then, that The President should come to a conclusion, whether the plan ought to be preparation for war and negotiation unincumbered by measures which forbid the expectation of success—or immediate measures of a coercive tendency to be accompanied with the ceremony of a demand of redress. For I believe there is no middle plan between those two courses.
If the former appears to him to be the true policy of the Country, I submit it as my conviction that it is urgent for him to demonstrate that opinion as a preventive of wrong measures and future embarrassment.
The mode of doing it which occurs is this—to nominate a person, who will have the confidence of those who think peace still within our reach, and who may be thought qualified for the mission as envoy extraordinary to Great Britain—to announce this to the one as well as the other House of Congress with an observation that it is done with an intention to make a solemn appeal to the justice and good sense of the British Government to avoid if possible an ulterior rupture and adjust the causes of misunderstanding between the two Countries—and with an earnest recommendation that vigorous and effectual measures may be adopted to be prepared for war should it become inevitable—abstaining for the present from measures which may be contrary to the spirit of an attempt to adjust existing differences by Negotiation.
Knowing as I do Sir that I am among the persons who have been in your contemplation to be employed in the capacity I have mentioned, I should not have taken the present step, had I not been resolved at the same time to advise you with decision to drop me from the consideration and to fix upon another character. I am not unapprised of what has been the byass of your opinion on the subject. I am well aware of all the collateral obstacles which exist and I assure you in the utmost sincerity that I shall be completely and intirely satisfied with the election of another.
I beg leave to add that of the persons whom you would deem free from any constitutional objections—Mr. Jay is the only man in whose qualifications for success there would be thorough confidence and him whom alone it would be adviseable to send. I think the business would have the best chance possible in his hands. And I flatter myself that his mission would issue in a manner that would produce the most important good to the Nation.
Let me add Sir that those whom I call the soberminded men of the Country look up to You with solicitude upon the present occasion. If happily you should be the instrument of still rescuing the Country from the dangers and calamities of War, there is no part of your life, Sir, which will produce to you more real satisfaction or true Glory than that which shall be distinguished by this very important service.
In any event I cannot doubt Sir that you will do justice to the motives which impel me and that you will see in this proceeding another proof of my sincere wishes for your honor & happiness and anxiety for the public weal.
With the truest respect and attachment   I have the Honor to be   Sir   Your most obedient & humble servant

Alexander Hamilton
The President of The U States


Title: Conversation with George Hammond, [15–16 April 1794]
From: Hamilton, Alexander,Hammond, George
To:

[Philadelphia, April 15–16, 1794]

The project of appointing a special commissioner to Great Britain having been … for some time in contemplation, I have necessarily been solicitous to obtain some precise knowledge of the objects of the negociation which will be committed to him. I therefore took occasion from the receipt of your Lordship’s last dispatches and in the course of one or two days afterwards to have some conversation with Mr. Hamilton on the subject of them, and I flattered myself that from communicating to him confidentially and informally the very conciliatory explanations, with which your Lordship furnished me, of the instructions of the 6th of November and of the modifications of them on the 8th of January, I might derive the right of requiring an equal confidential communication on his part with relation to the special commission in question. I was however much surprized at perceiving that he did not receive those explanations with the cordiality I expected, but entered into a pretty copious recital of the injuries which the commerce of this country had suffered from British cruizers, and into a defense of the consequent claim which the American citizens had on their government to vindicate their rights. At the same time he added that it was the wish of the government to avoid proceeding to extremities and previously to attempt any mode of amicable negociation: that for this purpose a person would be sent to the West Indies with a view of instituting appeals in every case of prize which would admit of them, and that, for those cases wherein either from a defect of the law or from any other obstacle of a like nature, (such as the necessity of commencing appeals within a limited time) that process could not be followed, this government would expect from his Majesty’s government an ample compensation for any loss that American citizens might have sustained from the interpretation put on the instruction of the 6th of November by the Judges of the Courts of Admiralty in the West Indies. And that for the accomplishment of this last mentioned object, either himself, Mr. King, or Mr. Jay would be deputed to Great Britain. This language appearing to me so closely to resemble a doctrine professed in the house of representatives, I was determined to obtain a satisfactory explanation of the view of this administration on this essential point: I therefore desired him to inform me expressly, whether I was to understand from what he had advanced, that as an indispensable condition of an amicable arrangement the Gentleman who might be employed in this negotiation would be instructed to require from his Majesty’s government a compensation for all vessels which might have been captured in the British West Indies, and for the recovery of which appeals could not or might not be instituted. To this he replied that the Gentleman who would be dispatched to the West Indies, would be directed to abandon all cases of prize in which the property of the cargo should be satisfactorily proved to be French: but that in the cases in which the proof should not have been conclusive, or for which appeals could not be instituted, this government would expect from Great Britain an indemnification for any loss resulting from the two causes last assigned as an indispensable basis of friendly adjustment. In answer to this explanation, I observed—that from my own personal knowledge I was convinced that artifices to cover property really French under the denomination of American had been practised to such an extent and under such disguises that I did not esteem the deficiency of strictly legal proofs in some instances to be presumptive of general inculpability in others, and that therefore it would require a very nice criterion to ascertain with accuracy the distinction—that the instructions of the 6th of November were definite in their import, were merely declaratory of the system which Great Britain had pursued in former wars in relation to a traffic carried on by neutral nations with her enemy in time of war, or which was not tolerated in peace, and that therefore it was little probable that any prizes could have been condemned under those instructions which would not have been condemned under the former system—that no government could presuppose either ignorance or corruption in any judges employed within its dominions, but that if accusations of this nature could be proved against any of the Judges of the Court of Admiralty in the West Indies, I doubted not that they would be immediately punished—that in every possible case his Majesty’s government would I was certain not throw any impediments in the way of appeals which might be prosecuted—but that in no case could the British Government require from the nation a pecuniary compensation to be granted for injuries sustained by the citizens of a neutral power, (if any such had been really sustained) which that government could not contemplate and which it had certainly not authorized—that in every war powers that are neutral must expect to suffer some inconveniences; but that if ever those inconveniences should not be too nicely scrutinized, they certainly should not be so in a war like the present, in which (as he had often agreed with me) all the dearest interests of society were involved, and which was a contest between government and disorder, virtue and vice, and religion and impiety—and that in the prosecution of this most just of wars the government and people of Great Britain, united as they were in a common interest beyond the precedent perhaps of any former period (as indeed the war itself was without example) could not be intimidated by any menaces from the exercises of any just principles of carrying it on, which they had found it necessary to establish, and, though they would certainly not violate the rights of neutral powers, they could as certainly not suffer those powers to derive from the existence of the war and from the distress of our enemy a commerce which, however, advantageous it might be to them, would be perhaps more beneficial to our enemy. Here Mr. Hamilton interrupted me with some degree of heat and remarked that however the government and people of Great Britain might be united against France, he doubted not that when the wrongs which the American Commerce had suffered were known in Great Britain, a very powerful party might be raised in that nation in favor of this country. In answer to this insinuation, I contented myself with expressing my astonishment at his indulging a belief, which however it had been entertained by the demagogues of the house of representatives, and by the uninformed mass of the American Community, I should never have ascribed to him, and thus I dropped the conversation, which thence took another turn, and we parted amicably. But as I was apprehensive of forming an erroneous opinion on the main point on which Mr. Jay’s negociations seem likely to turn, I yesterday in an accidental conversation with Mr. Hamilton renewed the inquiry, whether I had understood him rightly with respect to the demand, of an indemnification for all American vessels that had been captured by British cruizers and for which appeals could not be prosecuted, being a condition indispensable to an amicable adjustment of this difference. To this he answered in the affirmative, but added that Mr. Jay’s instructions upon this point as well as on the others which have been so long in discussion between the two countries and which he will be directed to endeavor likewise to arrange, will be couched in the most conciliatory language, and will evince the most sincere desire on the part of this government to settle all the grounds of dispute subsisting between the two countries on an amicable and permanent principle.
Though this conversation may be partly considered as confidential, and though I cannot pretend to accuracy in regard to particular expressions, I have esteemed it my duty to be thus circumstantial in detailing it, since your Lordship will thence be enabled to form an opinion of the nature of the negociation in which Mr. Jay will be engaged, and to appreciate the extent of the prevailing popular ferment by the operation of which the apprehensions or feelings of Mr. Hamilton, who has hitherto been uniformly the most moderate of the American Ministers, have been so much excited, as they appear to have been in the conversations I have related.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from John Daves, 15 April 1794
From: Daves, John
To: Hamilton, Alexander

New Bern [North Carolina] April 15, 1794. “I have seized a Schooner Called the Fox of Washington … she having made a voyage to the West Indies without giving up her Coasting license.… The Attorney has libelled her and is to be tried next Court.”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Joseph Howell, Junior, 15 April 1794
From: Howell, Joseph, Jr.
To: Hamilton, Alexander

War Department, Accountant’s Office, April 15, 1794. “Nothing having been done to relieve me in the settlement of the retained rations of the Officers of the Army, and claims occuring in the present year I am obliged to request that you would be pleased to furnish me with the value of a complete ration at the several places of contract in this year.”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Edward I. Peyton, 15 April 1794
From: Peyton, Edward I.
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Philadelphia, April 15, 1794. “Permit me to supplicate your attention and interference in a Case wherein your Petitioner has infring’d a law of the Revenue not from intention, but arising from ⟨a⟩ total ignorance of such a law existing. Your Petitioner some time since purchas’d four Hhds of Jamaica spirits mark’d 4th. proof, and from motives of facilating its sale reduced three of the said Hhds as near as he cou’d conceive to the standard of 2nd: proof.… Your Petitioner therefore presumes as fraud was neither intended nor committed he is entitled to a restoration of his property.…”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Reed and Forde, 15 April 1794
From: Reed and Forde
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia] April 15, 1794. “We have a Vessell bound from New Orleans to London that has Orders to touch at New York for advice and probably to have some Specie and Letters for American Citizens, we wish to know whether this Vessel’s touching at New York without entering will subject her to detention under the Embargo, the Vessell has no provisions, Naval or military Stores on board.”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Tench Coxe, 16 April 1794
From: Coxe, Tench
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Treasury Department, Revenue Office, April 16, 1794. “… Who are the persons in the several states who have been authorized by you to direct or superintend the business of Military contracts, purchases &ca. and who are the persons in the same to whom Agencies similar to that of Mr. Francis have been heretofore committed?”


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Nathaniel C. Higginson, [16 April 1794]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Higginson, Nathaniel C.

[Philadelphia, April 16, 1794]
Sir

The instructions for regulating your conduct in the Agency to which you are appointed will come to you from the Secretary of State. It is only for me to take with you the requisite pecuniary arrangements. Your compensation as agreed with the Secretary of State for the entire service you are to perform, which you are at liberty to comprise within the term of four Months from the time of your Departure to that of your return is already settled at Two thousand Dollars. For your personal expences, you will be allowed in addition the sum of thirty Dollars per Week, which is in lieu of every thing except those expences that regard the business of your mission. Of these last you will keep an exact account which on your return you will produce with its vouchers for settlement at the Treasury.
You have herewith a Warrant for Five thousand Dollars on account of your compensation and personal expences and the expences of your Agency for which you will be charged and held accountable. If necessary you may draw upon Samuel Meredith Treasurer of the UStates for a further sum not exceeding five thousand Dollars.
You have also herewith an Instrument under my hand & the seal of the Treasury empowering you to engage the Guarantee of the Treasury of the UStates for indemnifying any persons whom you may find it necessary to procure as sureties in appeal against costs & damages. You understand, that this is not to extend to suretyship for restitution of vessels & Cargoes, but merely to the costs & damages of the proceedings in appeal. You will also perceive that it is desireable to commit the UStates as little extensively as possible in this particular; and therefore that it ought to be endeavoured to bring parties interested as much as possible into action on their own accounts.
The vessel in which you go may if you deem it adviseable be retained by you during your continuance on the mission. But if you find that ready opportunities from Island to Island can be had & that a saving can be made by sending back the Vessel & that the public service can as effectually be done, without her detention, you will send her back as soon as that shall sufficiently appear to you to be the case. She is hired at the rate of four hundred Dollars ⅌ Month in lieu of every thing.
I am with great consideration   Sir   Your obedient servant
T.D. April 16th 1794.


Title: Enclosure: Commission to Nathaniel C. Higginson, 16 April 1794
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Higginson, Nathaniel C.

The President of the UStates having been pleased to appoint you Agent to proceed to the British West India Islands and there transact certain affairs relatively to Ships or Vessels of the UStates which since the commencement of the Present War between G B & France have been or may be seized by British Cruisers and sent into the Ports of those Islands or any of them—and having among other things authorised You to cause to be instituted in the Courts of the said Islands appeals from the sentences of such Courts respectively to the proper Court or Courts of G Britain in the cases in which the said Ships or Vessels or any of them or the Cargoes of any of them shall have been condemned and shall appear to you to have been condemned contrary to the laws of Nations with regard to Neutrals—in the execution of which trust it may be necessary for you to procure sureties for the prosecution of such appeals to effect and for paying the costs and damages if any which may attend the proceedings therein and thereupon and in order thereto it may be requisite for you to pledge or engage the Guarantee of the UStates to such persons as may be willing to become sureties for such Costs & Damages—in order to their indemnification therein.
Now therefore I do hereby authorise and empower you on behalf of the Treasury of the UStates to enter into such engagements with any person or persons who at your request may consent to become sureties in or upon any such appeal which you may cause to be instituted as shall be needful & proper to indemnify such person or persons against any costs or damages which they respectively may be put to or incur by reason of their being sureties as aforesaid. And I do hereby promise and engage in my capacity of Secretary of the Treasury that the United States shall & will indemnify all such persons accordingly.
Given under my hand& the seal of the Treasurythe 16th day of Aprilin the year 1794


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Edmund Randolph, [16 April 1794]
From: Randolph, Edmund
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia, April 16, 1794]

E. Randolph, with compliments to Coll. Hamilton, incloses to him a letter from Mr. Hammond requesting the passport. E. R. has written to him, that by applying to Col. H. the passport will be obtained.

April 16th. 1794.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from William Rawle, [16 April 1794]
From: Rawle, William
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia, April 16, 1794]
Sir.

I have the honor to inclose a Letter from the Attorney General received from him this day with a request to transmit it to you. The same cover contains my opinion on the same subject.
Thinking somewhat differently from the Attorney General as to the nature of the debt, but fully coinciding with him as to the nullity of the process I have not, in my opinion, stated the reasons in which it is founded.
I am   with the greatest respect   Sir   your most obedt. humble Servant

W Rawle.
April 16th. 1794


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Edmund Randolph, [17 April 1794]
From: Randolph, Edmund
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia, April 17, 1794]

The Secretary of State has the honor of informing the Secretary of the Treasury, that the President of the United States grants a passport to the Spanish Vessel, to which the inclosed papers relate, she being Parlamentario; and that the Spanish Commissioners are informed, that upon application to the Secretary of the Treasury, they will receive the Passport.

April 17th. 1794.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, [17 April 1794]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Washington, George

[Philadelphia, April 17, 1794]

The Secy. of the Treasury presents his respects to the President of the U.S. & encloses herewith a draft of a passport, requested by mr Hammond for a vessel intended by him to be dispatched to Halifax, and which the Secretary understood from the Secy. of State was to be granted by the President.
Treasy. Dept. April 17, 1794.


Title: Treasury Department Circular to the Collectors of the Customs, 18 April 1794
From: Treasury Department,Hamilton, Alexander
To: Collectors of the Customs

Treasury Department April 18, 1794.
Sir,

You will herewith receive for your Government a resolve of Congress of the second instant, relatively to the embargo.

Another resolution has just passed for continuing the embargo to the 25th. day of May next, which is herewith transmitted.
With great consideration   I am Sir   Your obedient Servant

A Hamilton


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Tench Coxe, 19 April 1794
From: Coxe, Tench
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Treasury Department, Revenue Office, April 19, 1794. “After a careful enquiry into the circumstances of Major Moses Mc.Farlands commutation business I am of opinion that he was misled and sacrificed by another in that affair.… It may be well to remind you that Mr. Mc.Farland was deprived of the use of his Arm in the Revolution war, and has been thereby prevented from returning to his occupation, its having been a handy craft employment.”


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Tench Coxe, 19 April 1794
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Coxe, Tench

Treasury Department, April 19, 1794. “I transmit you a letter from Governor Mifflin to The President of yesterday’s date with the extracts mentioned in it. After due examination & reflection you will make me a full & particular report on the subject.”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Bartholomew Dandridge, 19 April 1794
From: Dandridge, Bartholomew
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia] April 19, 1794. “The President directs me to send the letters herewith enclosed, from Governor Mifflin and John Wanton … and desires, if any measures are necessary to be taken relative to them, that you will report the same to him.”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Stephen Moylan, 19 April 1794
From: Moylan, Stephen
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia] April 19, 1794. “The administrator to the Estate of my Predecessor in Office placed 600 dollars in my hands, to pay Clerks & Stationary, I paid them 500 Dollars & the Stationers Account up to 31st December 1793 their present demand is for the quarter ending 31st March 1794 which was the time two of them were, by me Discharged, the whole due to that time is 500 Dollars.”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Edmund Randolph, 19 April 1794
From: Randolph, Edmund
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia] April 19, 1794. “The Secretary of State has the honor of informing the Secretary of the Treasury that the inclosed applications for passports relate to cases which have been considered by the President, Colo. H. and E. R. as proper, and are sent for the purpose of obtaining them.”


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, 19 April 1794
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Washington, George

Treasury Departmt. April 19, 1794.
Sir,

I have received a letter of this date from Mr. Dandridge transmitting me two letters to you, one from Governor Mifflin, the other from John Wanton, and desiring that if any measures should be necessary to be taken relative to them, they should be reported to you.

With regard to the communication from Govr. Mifflin, the subject of it will be put in a train of examination and the result will be communicated.
With regard to that from Mr. Wanton I had received from Mr. Thornton the british Vice Consul the enclosed state of the case of the schooner Bayonne or Boyne—which as you will perceive has been submitted to the Attorney General for his opinion; which is, that the schooner Boyne under the circumstances stated in that paper “is not within the meaning of the resolves of the Legislature laying an Embargo and that she ought to be permitted to proceed on her voyage to New York.”
It was my intention to have sent this morning to the Secretary of war in order that what was proper further to be done might be determined and correspondent instructions given to the military Officer and to the Collector.
[I] believe the opinion of the Attorney General is right, though it puts the effect of the Embargo in some jeopardy as to vessels arriving from abroad.
Perhaps the most adviseable course is to permit the present vessel concerning which there has been some irregularity to proceed to the port of her destination without any condition and to consider & establish some rule of proceeding with proper guards for future cases.
I retain a copy of mr Wanton’s letter to be sent to the Collector of New Port as it contains an impeachment of his conduct that calls for inquiry.
With the highest respect,   I have the honor to be &c.

Alexander Hamilton


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Oliver Wolcott, Junior, 19 April 1794
From: Wolcott, Oliver, Jr.
To: Hamilton, Alexander

T DC.O:19th April 1794.
Sir,

A question has occurred upon the following state of facts upon which I take the liberty to request that a legal opinion may be obtained from the Attorney General of the United States.
By the Act entitled “an Act providing for the settlement of the claims of Persons under particular circumstances barred by the limitations heretofore established,” passed in the 27th. of March 1792, a period of two years was allowed for the presentation at the Treasury of claims for personal services in the late Army or Navy of the United States.
By the Act entitled “an Act making alterations in the Treasury & War Departments,” passed on the 8th of May 1792, the office of Accountant to the War Department was established, which Officer was charged, under the inspection & revision of the Treasury, with the statement of the claims for personal services in the late Army which had been revived by the Act of March 27th. 1792.
By the Act intitled “an Act relative to claims against the United States, not barred by any Act of limitation, & which have not been already adjusted,” passed on the 12th. of Feby 1793 certain claims are directed to be presented to the Auditor of the Treasury before the 1st. of May 1794, on condition of being thereafter precluded from settlement or Allowance.
The question proposed for the consideration of the Attorney General is, whether under the Act last mentioned, unliquidated claims for personal services in the late Army or Navy, may be recd. & adjusted, if presented before the 1st. day of May 1794?

The Honble. A H.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Bartholomew Dandridge, 21 April 1794
From: Dandridge, Bartholomew
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia] April 21, 1794. “… The President desires measures may be pursued in the case of the schooner Boyne as advised in the Secretary’s letter to the President of the 19 instant, relative to that subject.”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Henry Knox, 21 April 1794
From: Knox, Henry
To: Hamilton, Alexander

War Department April 21. 1794
Sir

I have the honor to transmit you an estimate of the quantity and quality of Timber, Plank, Scantling and Copper &c. which will be required for each of the four largest frigates contemplated by the Act entitled “An Act to provide a naval armament” nearly the same quantity will also be wanted for each of the thirty six gunships mentioned in the said Act.
It has been decided by the President of the United States that the said frigates be built in the following ports, to wit

Boston
one

44
gun Ship

New York

do

Philadelphia

do

Baltimore
one
of
36
guns

Portsmouth Virginia
one
of
44
do

Charleston So. Carolina
one
of
36
do

It appears to be of indispensible necessity that immediate arrangements should be made to obtain the articles contained in the estimate and to have them transported to the ports before mentioned— excepting such articles of the timber as may be obtained at, or in the neighbourhood of, the said places.
The live oak and red cedar must principally be obtained from the islands on the coast of Georgia. Some parts however may be obtained in North Carolina, although it is alledged that the farther South the live oak the better.
Different opinions are entertained as to the most certain, and the most oeconomical mode of obtaining the live oak and cedar from Georgia, and transporting the same to the ports where the ships are to be built.
Some persons recommend that one or more persons in whom due confidence may be placed, should repair to the Islands of Georgia, and contract with the proprietors of the timber as it stands for such parts as will serve the moulds, and that a sufficient number of axemen with their provision be sent from the northward, in order to cut the same, and transport it to the places where it is to be used. These persons assert that any contract made in Georgia or other parts to the Southward, will be executed by negroes, whose indolence and carelessness will inevitably produce disappointment or loss.
The moulds for the timbers of both sized ships are preparing and nearly finished. These must be transported to the places where the timber is to be cut, otherwise mistakes would arise and disappointment of course ensue.
Besides the mode before mentioned, there are persons who recommend a contract with some persons, if such could be found, which is said to be the case to procure the timber in Georgia, and transport it to the respective ports or places.
You will please to judge which of these two modes will be preferable. I have understood that in 1776 or 1777 the frames of two 74 gun Ships were cut under the authority of the United States, part at Sunbury and part at a place called Kilkenny near the mouth of Savannah River, and that as the said timber was very large part of it yet remains. It may therefore be proper to look it up, and if it should answer for the frames of the proposed frigates as probable it would be excellent from its long seasoning.
I have the honor to submit to you a letter from Mr Wereat of Georgia upon this subject, the purport of which is confirmed by Brigadier General Gunn of the same state.

The manner in which these vessels ought to be built has been under consideration, that is whether the hull and other parts susceptible of the measure should be built by a contract, or by a capable agent or agents appointed for the purpose of procuring the labor and materials. Upon enquiry however it appears improbable that a contract could be formed with the Shipbuilders in this place for the one directed to be built here. They alledge that if a contract was offered and accepted by two or more it would excite the ill will and envy of those who had no part in it, and as the frigate would require many hands the price of that sort of labor would rise, and that therefore it would be in the power of those not employed to raise the wages of the Journeymen a shilling or two per day, which would occasion great embarrassment, if not ruin, to the undertakers. Hence it would appear to follow as a consequence that if the Shipbuilders of Philadelphia, some of whom have considerable capitals, would decline a contract, that it would be almost or quite impracticable to obtain the building by contract elsewhere. If this should be so, then Agents respectable for their intelligence, activity, and integrity must be sought in the places in which the said frigates are directed to be built.
The President of the United States has approved of the said vessels being built under the directions of some agent or agents which I presume it will be in your department to nominate to him.
I suppose however if you should find it practicable to build them by contract, that the subject will still be reconsidered by him, and as for myself I should find great satisfaction in a contract, if one, upon solid principles, could be obtained.


Title: Cabinet Meeting. Opinion on the Application of Money Given by Law to the Indigent of Santo Domingo, [22 April 1794]
From: Randolph, Edmund,Knox, Henry,Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[Philadelphia, April 22, 1794]

We do ourselves the honor of advising the President of the U. S. to apply the remainder of the money, given by law to the indigent of St. Domingo, resident here, to the furnishing of them with the means of going thither, it being known, that several vessels are now bound thither from different parts of the U. S. with passports for the purpose of conveying them.
April 22, 1794.
Edm: Randolph.
H Knox
Alexander Hamilton.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from William Ellery, 22 April 1794
From: Ellery, William
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Colles Office Port of Newport [Rhode Island]Apl. 22nd 1794
Sir,

Yesterday at noon I received by Express via Providence the Resolution of Congress of the 18 of this month continuing the present Embargo until the 25th. day of May next, and also the Resolution relative to the Embargo of the second of this month.
On Tuesday last towards evening the Ship Britannia of London Edward Redman master arrived here under convoy the Bomb Ketch Vesuvius mounted with 12 cannon and commanded by Thomas Rogers, and the Ketch departed the next morning before sun rising.
The Britannia appears to be a transport Ship in the British Service, which Admiral John Jarvis had employed to bring Genl. Rochambeau and his suite from Martinico to this place. Capt. Redman showed me a letter addressed to him by the Admiral, on the outside was written Secret, and not to be opened until you arrive at latitude 23:30. It contained directions to the Capt. to proceed with General Rochambeau and his Suite, to Newport Rhode Island, and upon landing them and their baggage to proceed immediately to Spithead, and report to the Commissioner’s of the Navy. Both on the outside and at the foot the Letter was Addressed to Edward Redman master of the Transport Ship Britannia, but to the Address at the foot was added Cartel. I write respecting the letter from Recollection but I believe it is substantially right. She has six cannon mounted on her Quarter Deck, is navigated with fifteen men and three boys, and by her Register which is in my Office, and which I shall hold untill I shall receive your opinion on this case, She is 296 tons. The Vice Consul came with the Captain to the Custom-House the day after she arrived with a View to know whether I considered the Ship as within the Embargo or not.
I was possessed of a Newport paper in which the Resolution of April was published but not by authority but which however appeared to me to be genuine. I asked the Captain whether he had any commission, or letters of marque—He replied that he had none, but the Letter of Admiral Jarvis. I then asked him for what reason his Ship was mounted with Cannon? He said that She sailed from Britain under Contract as a Transport, with the fleet under the said Admiral, and that she was mounted with a few cannon on Account of Insurance. He then mentioned that he had sprung his Mizen, and asked me whether he might supply its place with a new One. I told him that he might. The Vice Consul pressed me very hard for my opinion whether She should depart or not, saying that She was in the service of Great Britain, was a Cartel Ship, and that if any thing further was required to constitute her a Ship with a public Commission She had what he considered as a public Commission the Letter referred to from Admiral Jarvis. I told him that there was no occasion to be in a hurry, that it would take some [time to] refit the Vessel. He said that he would write to Mr. Hammond and to our Governour and was answered that he would do as he thought proper, and that I should do what appeared to be my duty. He has written a Letter to the Governor, and I believe one to the British Minister. The Governors Letter to me which I this moment recd. and of which the inclosed is a copy will show his sentiments and apprehensions on this occasion. Genl. Martin being absent I immediately requested Walter Channing Esqr the Commd in Chief for the time being of the Artillery Compy. of the Town of Newport to lend his Assistance to prevent the departure of the Britannia from this Port, and he instantly complied by sending a detachment on board. The vessel is not in my opinion an armed vessel with a public commission in the sense of the Resolution of the 2nd. April; but what privilege she may be intitled to in consequence of her being a transport and a species of Cartel Ship I submit to your better judgment, and desire your opinion on this case. Be pleased also to inform me in what light armed public Packets are to be considered. I could have made this letter less tedious; but I wished to give you every information respecting the Britannia in my power. If She is not exempted from the Embargo I presume She is subject to the same Regulations as merchant Vessel.
I am with great Consideration   Sir yr. most obedt. servt.

Wm Ellery Colle
Alexr. Hamilton Esqe.Secry. Treasury


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to William Ellery, 22 April 1794
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Ellery, William

    Treasury DepartmentApril 22. 1794
    Sir

  The Schooner Boyne whereof Thomas Grune is Master ought to have been permitted to proceed to her Port of Destination, New York. An instruction to the Military officer to release her in order that she may proceed will go by this Post from the War Department. Should any accident delay it You will communicate this letter to him as evidence of the President’s intention in order that no further detention may ensue.
  With consideration   I am Sir   Your obedient servant

  Alex Hamilton
  William Ellery Esquire


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to William Seton, 22 April 1794
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Seton, William

Treasury Department April 22d. 1794
Dr Sir

A Vessell is wanted to convey Mr Jay to Great Britain. It is a question whether on acct of our Situation with the Algerines it may not be adviseable to procure a foreign Vessell. Particular reasons induce me to trouble you on this subject and to ask you to have a careful inquiry made what Vessells there are in the Port of New York of any Nation and which are at liberty to be obtainable for such a purpose and to communicate to me as soon as may be the result of your Inquiry. Be so good also as to see Mr Jay and give him the information likewise.
With great esteem   I remain Dear Sir

A H
W SetonNew York


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from George Washington, [22 April 1794]
From: Washington, George
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia, April 22, 1794]
Sir,

Upon examining my letter to you of the 27. June ’93, and my two powers of the 8th of August 1793, the one for making a loan of one million of florins, and the other for making a loan of 1,515,98 dols. & 11 Cents, I wish to have some explanation upon the subject of your letter of yesterday’s date. The questions which arise are these: whether the million of Florins, to be borrowed for the instalment, payable to Holland in June next, be not already appropriated for that purpose; and whether the appropriation now proposed of the three millions of florins will not in some measure be contrary to the appropriation contained in my power of the 8th of August 1793. For it appears to me, that I have directed the money to be borrowed under that power, to be applied to the purchases of the public Debt.
Philada. the 22 day of April 1794
Geo: Washington


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Samuel Bayard, 23 April 1794
From: Bayard, Samuel
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Newyork. 23. April 1794.
Dear Sir

As you had the goodness to mention me favourably to Mr Jay, as a Secretary in the mission, at present contemplated to the Court of St. James’s, I am induc’d to solicit the completion of what you have commenc’d. After what pass’d between you & myself & after the nominations of Mr J. I had an opportunity of fully conversing with him on the subject you had introduc’d to his attention. He said “he confess’d the matter had struck him agreeably, but that nothing could at present be said positively—that we must first see the appointment made, & ascertain the provision for such an object, which the President might allow.” Other things passed, from all which there seem’d to be no doubt but Mr J then proposed me as the companion of his voyage. The delay however of the appointment, afforded him an opportunity of revolving the matter more, & of looking round for the most suitable character—for the one who could best advance the public interest in the important business which calls him to G. Britain. Such a character he apprehended, could be found in that of Mr John Trumbull of Connecticut. His brother the late Speaker of the H. of R. of the US. was consulted & requested to write to Mr T. on the subject. I was charged with the conveyance of the letter & had the pleasure of finding him at this place on his way to Philada. for the purpose of requesting a passage in the vessell that conveys Mr Jay to Europe. He says his business abroad is in a very critical situation & requires his immediate attention. Mr J’s preference of him, as explain’d to me arose simply from Mr Trumbulls acquaintance with charaters & things in London—his particular intimacy with Mr West, & his connections with other people of note. I have conversed the matter over fully with Mr T. & three difficulties occurred to him, which he says he will candidly state, to Mr. J.—first he doubts whether his education & pursuits in life qualify him fully for the place offer’d—again—that his business is so situated that he apprehends he will sustain more loss by an entire devotion of his time to the public business, (which is a previous term with Mr J.) than will be compensated by the allowance made by law to a Secretary—& finally he thinks it probable he might render the public more service unconnected with Mr J. than by residing in his family. For when it becomes generally understood that he is officially connected with the American Envoy, Mr West & his other friends will be extreemly cautious of what they say in his hearing from a persuasion, of its being immediately communicated to Mr J. In the pursuit of his professi⟨on⟩ he could excite no distrust, & at proper times & places could furnish Mr J. with the results of his observations, & of facts collected from his acquai⟨ntances.⟩
If this matter has impressed you ⟨as favorably as⟩ it has done Mr T. & myself—will y⟨ou be so good⟩ as to discuss it with Mr. J.—& if the re⟨sult⟩ be, a resolution, to use the services both ⟨of Mr T.⟩ & myself I cannot disguise that it will confer pleasure & obligation on myself & friends.
My views in the business are far from being confin⟨ed⟩ to self. I promise myself the gratification of adding ⟨to the⟩ American⟨n⟩ stock of information, some new European matter & of exhibiting to Europeans, some light in regard to the State of the American people whose system of government your talents & cautions have so eminently contributed to rear & establish.
I have the honor to be   Dear Sir   with sentiments of sincerest respect & esteem   Your obedt. humble servt.

Sam Bayard


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Tench Coxe, 23 April 1794
From: Coxe, Tench
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Treasury Department, Revenue Office, April 23, 1794. “I have the honor to request that a Warrant may Issue in favor of John Mease as agent for John & C: Wilkins Jr. & Co. of Pittsburg for two Thousand dollars for purchase of whiskey for the Army.…”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Daniel Hale, 23 April 1794
From: Hale, Daniel
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Albany, April 23, 1794. On June 19, 1794, Tench Coxe wrote to Hale and referred to “Your letter to the Secretary of the Treasy. of the 23d of April last offering to supply a quantity of White Oak & Pine plank.” Letter not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Gouverneur Morris, 23 April 1794
From: Morris, Gouverneur
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Sainport near Paris23. April 1794.
Dear Sir

In Conformity to the directions contained in your letter of the 13 Sepr. 1792 sundry payments have been made. I pray your Reference to that list while you examine the enclosed note of those payments. The numbers refer to the order in which the names stand on your list. Moreover as I transmit the Sums both in Dollars and livres I think there will be no difficulty in making the needful Entries. For the Sum of bf. 316–2 it stands thus in the account rendered to me. Commission at one Half per cent on Payments made amounting together to

bf. 52103.. 16 is
bf
260..10
postage of letters at Paris & at Liege

17..10
Stamp Duty on Sundry drafts

12..10
Paid for advertising the payments in the different gazettes

25..12

bf
316.. 2
I have by a letter of this date (confirming to our Bankers in Holland the Credits formerly given on them and amounting to bank florins 52420) desired them to send you a Note of the amount in current florins the accounts of the United States being I beleive in current and not in bank money.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Jeremiah Olney, 23 April 1794
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Olney, Jeremiah

Treasury Department April 23rd. 1794
Sir

I have before me your letter of the 3rd inst stating instances in which the law relatively to an Embargo has been transgressed.
It is true that no specific penalty is imposed in this particular case but the question is, whether the parties are not indictable generally, for violating a legal prohibition, in the District court. You will please to refer the case to the Attorney of the District for his opinion.
Should similar escapes be attempted, the Governor of the State will upon application cooperate with the militia to prevent it.
I am Sir with great consideration   Your obedient Servant

Alexander Hamilton
Jere Olney EsquireCollector Providence


Title: Treasury Department Circular to the Collectors of the Customs, 23 April 1794
From: Treasury Department,Hamilton, Alexander
To: Collectors of the Customs

Treasury Department, April 23d, 1794.
Sir,

It is understood that by virtue of the seventeenth article of our Treaty with Sweden, vessels of that nation are exempted from the operation of the embargo, now in force, in the ports of the United States, pursuant to the resolutions of Congress of the 26th of March and 18th instant.
You will therefore upon application grant clearances, as usual, to such Swedish vessels as may happen to be in your port, and wish to depart, whether laden or in ballast; guarding with due care against imposition; none is to be deemed a Swedish vessel which did not enter as such, and with a Swedish register.
In every instance where such vessel shall have been permitted to depart in consequence of this instruction, I request that you will immediately transmit to me a copy of her clearance.
With great consideration   I am Sir,   Your obedient Servant,

A Hamilton