Title: Conversation with George Hammond, [28–29 May 1792]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[Philadelphia, May 28–29, 1792]
Accordingly within two or three days after the receipt of your Lordship’s dispatch, I waited upon Mr Hamilton. After some conversation upon other topics, I adverted to the sentiments expressed by the deputies of the six nations in their conferences with the President (as mentioned in my dispatch No 21) relative to the neglect of them at the conclusion of the peace between Great Britain and the United States. Mr Hamilton replied that he had not seen all the communications which had passed between the President and the Indians, but it was possible that the latter might have employed the kind of arguments to which I alluded. Upon this I said that this language and complaint of the Indian deputies had impressed me with an opinion that the present was a moment peculiarly favorable not only to the immediate restoration of peace, but to the future establishment of tranquillity in the northern part of this continent on a permanent basis. I added (as a sentiment of my own) that I thought a project might be devised which would conciliate all the clashing interests of the Indians, the United States, and the King’s government of Canada, and bind them in one common system of harmony and reciprocal benefit. I then stretched out loosely the general outline of the proposition contained in your Lordship’s dispatch, and enforced the numerous advantages that would arise from the adoption of it—the security that it would afford to the Indians by the removal of future grounds of complaint—the final arrangement of the subjects at present in discussion between our two countries—and the future prevention of any collision of interest between the subjects of the crown and the citizens of the United States, who would be thus separated from each other by the interposition of an intermediate territory, on which neither party would be allowed to form settlements.
Mr. Hamilton having heard me with great attention, did not attempt to enter into any discussion of the arguments I had alledged, but replied briefly and coldly, that he wished me to understand that any plan, which comprehended any thing like a cession of territory or right or the allowance of any other power to interfere in the disputes with the Indians, would be considered by this government as absolutely impracticable and inadmissible.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Nathan Keais, 28 May 1792
From: Keais, Nathan
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Port Washingon [North Carolina] May 28, 1792. “I here inclose … Copys of Several bonds taken in consequence of the Contract … for staking the shoals and Channels within Ocracock Barr and Old topsail inlet. This I have done with all possible dispatch as the Stakes in and about Ocracock are principally down.…”


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Henry Knox, 28 May 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Knox, Henry

Sir
Treasury department28 May 1792

The Accountant for the departt. of War having mentioned to me as on your part that it was requisite immediately to furnish to the officers on the recruiting service, a further sum of money for that service and having suggested that some arrangement was necessary in relation to the transmitting of it to them—I have the honor to propose the following.

Let warrants issue by the Secy of war Countersign’d as the law requires upon the Treasurer in favor of the supervisor of the revenue within the State in which the recruiting officers are, specifying in it the names of the officers for whom the money is intended, and the Sum for each. Let these warrants be deposited wh. the Treasurer and let the Treasurer out of the monies which shall have been deposited in his hands for the Use of the war department remit in Bank post notes filled up in the name of the Supervisor the Amot of the warrant.
Let the accountant be Charged to inform the Supervisor of the officers to whom the money is to be paid the places where they are understood to be and the Sum to be paid to each, and let him also advise each officer of the amot which has been remitted for him and to whom. The requisite instructions from the Treasury to Secure the Cooperation of the Supervisors will be furnished. They will be directed 1st. on receipt of the money to send receipts for it by duplicates to the Treasurer 2d to advise the recruiting officers of its having come to hand & 3d to pay it to them, taking on themselves to forward it whenever it can be done with Safety.
The receipt of the Supervisor annexed to the Warrt. will be a Voucher to the Treasurer for the paymt, a Charge will be made in the Books of the Accountant to each Supervisor for the Sum remitted to him, from which he will exonerate himself by transmitting the receipts of the officers to whom he shall have paid the money who will then be Charged in the same Books wh. the amot paid to him respectively to be afterwards Accounted for.
At the foot you will find the names & places of abode of the Supervisors from Virginia to massachusetts inclusively. I understand [from] Mr Howell that the arrangement need not extend farther.
P.S.   In any Case in which you may deem it adviseable to send the money by a Special messenger a warrt. Can issue in favour of such messenger and a Charge in the Books of the Accountant raised against him to be discharged by the production of the officers receipts.
nath Gorham Esqe. Supervisor of the Revenue Boston. Massatts.

John S Dexter
do
Providence R Island

John Chester
do
weathersfield Connecticut

noah Smith
do
Bennington Vermont

Richd. Morris
do
New York New York

Aron Dunham
do
Trenton New Jersey

andrew Barrett
do
near Dover Delaware

Geo. Gale
do
Baltimore Maryland

   Joshua Wentworth   Supervisor   Portsmouth   New Hampshire
Edward Carrington
do
Richmond Virginia


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Jeremiah Olney, 28 May 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Olney, Jeremiah

Sir;
Treasury Department May 28th 1792

I am to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 10th Instant.
Whatever constructions may have been put upon the Act for regulating the coasting trade, it is very certain that the law makes no provision for a second registry in the case as stated by you. It will be a natural conclusion therefore to suppose, that if any Ship or Vessel has been once registered agreeably to the forms prescribed by the Act, it supersedes the necessity of a second register unless some of the Casualties mentioned in the law have taken place.
I am with consideration   Sir   Your most humble Servt.
A Hamilton
Jeremiah Olney Esqr.Collector Providence


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from William Seton, 28 May 1792
From: Seton, William
To: Hamilton, Alexander

My Dear sir
New York 28th May 1792

Your kind letter of the 23d, I did not receive till after the last post for the week was gone out; I have seen Mr. Cutting and informed him I was ready to pay the judgement against the Baron. He said he would make out the Account & call upon me. The amount will be upwards of £500. As our Bank Stock is now only at 28 ⅌ Cent premium I think it will be better to have the Note of 1200 Dollars you enclosed to me, discounted, as before its period of payment I think the Stock will be higher. Mr. Troup has endorsed it. I cannot however help expressing a regret, that the extreme delicacy of your feelings should induce you to part with a Stock so extremely more valuable than its present price in the Market. In virtue of your Power of Attorney, I have signed the Books for all your Dividends—Vizt

Dividend on 1 Novr. 1790
Dolls
26.25

Surplus Dividend 30 April 1791

186.

Dividend on 1 May 1791

26.25

Dividend on 1 Novr. 1791

52.50

Dividend on 1 May 1792

 30.

Doll.
321.—

which Sum is carried to the credit of your Account, which was overdrawn before Dolls. 245⁷²⁄₁₀₀—so that the ballance now due to you in Bank is Dolls. 75.²⁸⁄₁₀₀.
I trust you cannot doubt of the pleasure it will ever give me to obey your Commands—& how much you gratify my feelings by employing me in any way that I can testify the sincere respect & esteem with which I am Dear sir
Your Obliged Obed Hble Ser
Wm Seton


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Thomas Willing, 29 May 1792
From: Willing, Thomas
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia, May 29, 1792. On June 11, 1792, Hamilton acknowledged the receipt of Willing’s “letter of the 29th of last month.” Letter not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from William Duer, 30 May 1792
From: Duer, William
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[New York, May 30, 1792. The calendar summary of this letter reads as follows: “Much embarrassed by his engagement with Ohio Company.” Letter not found.]


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to William Ellery, 30 May 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Ellery, William

[Philadelphia, May 30, 1792. On June 11, 1792, Ellery wrote to Hamilton: “I have recd.… your Letter of the 30th of the last month.” Letter not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Thomas Jefferson, 30 May 1792
From: Jefferson, Thomas
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia] May 30, 1792. “Th: Jefferson presents his respectful compliments to the Secretary of the Treasury, and sends him the above extract at the request of mr Short who, being unwell, wrote only a few lines to Th: J.”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Thomas Marshall, 30 May 1792
From: Marshall, Thomas
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Sir
N York May 30th. 1792

’Tis with extreem regret I intrude upon your time, but will be as concise as possible, in short Sir, I respectfully solicit your Countenance to Benjm. Walker Esqr. for the Loan, (upon my Bond) for 300 Dollars, for which I am perfectly willing to give legal Interest. The following are my reasons for this Solicitation—to keep my accounts even for at present I am 12 £ Dr. on my Books, and positively arising from no Extravagence, but from the Inadequacy of my Income to the expences attached to my Situation. My ⟨–⟩ and Turners will have within two Dollars a week as much as myself, which, all things Considered will render their places more beneficial than mine. For instance, a Turner of tolerable Capacity was engaged by me about two months back, being (from Sickness) much reduced, he solicited me to lend him 12 Dollars, and being afterwards unwel, the Debt amounted to 18. Dol. 7 Shillings, and on Monday Morning last the Man (at the suit of a Landlord at whose House he had boarded & Lodged) was sent to Jail. I shall in all probability loose the money for of Course the Society cannot notice it, but yet Sir, without doing what I never knew a Manufactoror do, I Cannot avoid the Danger to my other people. I have at least 20 Dollars advanced to them for the purpose of purchasing Tools, (for I agree with them to find their ⟨–⟩) and this I stop at so much per Week. I mean to remove into the Country next week, if possible previous to which I must supply myself several Necessaries my present Circumstance will not permit of. I will not longer intrude but hope that the above cited reasons will be sufficient to induce you to Comply from a Conviction of the propriety of the measure. I board at Mr. Robinson, Builder, Verletenburgh Hill, and in Expectation of the favour of your Answer I remain respectfully Sir   Your Most Obedient   Humble Servent
Thomas Marshall
The Honble.Alexr. Hamilton Esqr.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to William Seton, 30 May 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Seton, William

[Philadelphia, May 30, 1792. On June 3, 1792, Seton wrote to Hamilton: “I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letters of the 24th & 30th. May.” Letter of May 30 not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Tench Coxe, 31 May 1792
From: Coxe, Tench
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Treasury Department, Revenue Office, May 31, 1792. “Prior to the recommencement of the building of the Light House on Bald Head, I found it necessary to make an examination of that part of the work which has been executed under the direction of the Commissioners appointed by the Legislature of North Carolina: and I do myself the Honor to state to you some ideas that have occured, together with the plan of proceeding, which appears most eligible in order, that you may be enabled to know the pleasure of the President thereon. First. The firmness of the ground on which the building stands, does not appear to be sufficiently ascertained.… Secondly. The foundation not being in any part of Stone, but entirely of brick and from its situation liable to be affected by salt moisture, there is some hazard of its being rendered too infirm in time by the crumbling of the Bricks to endure so great a Weight as the building above.… Third. By comparison with the light houses of Chessapeak, Delaware and New York the Walls of that at Bald head appear to be weak.… Fourth. The lanthorn is proposed to be Wood and without sufficient linings of Sheet Metal to guard against fire. On Account of these four objections I beg leave to suggest the following precautions additions to and variations from the original plan.… First. That an examination of the ground on which the building has been Commenced should be made by digging as near as will be safe a pit or hole down to the level of the foundation and below that level on one side, and another on the opposite side that if there be any want of firmness in the ground it may be discovered.… Second. It may be useful to erect some broad and firm butments of stone (if attainable) or of Brick to be laid with Stone lime within and without the building of the depth of the foundation and laid to the height of the level of the Earth.… Third. It will diminish the Comparative weakness of the Walls, if the masonry should be carried up to the height of Ninety feet instead of one hundred.… Fourth. The lanthorn should be secured from fire by a bed of mortar under the floor and by sheet copper, as the expence of an iron frame will not be within the Compass of the grant.…”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Tobias Lear, 31 May 1792
From: Lear, Tobias
To: Hamilton, Alexander

United States May 31st 1792.
By the President’s command T. Lear has the honor to transmit to the Secretary of the Treasury the enclosed copy of a Letter from the Secretary of State to the President; and to request that the Secretary of the Treasury will let the President know when the sum mention’d in the enclosed Letter will be conveniently ready for his order.
Tobias LearS.P.U.S.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, 31 May 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Washington, George

[Philadelphia, May 31, 1792.] “… the place of Keeper of the Light house on Thatcher’s Island in the State of Massachusetts has become vacant by the death of Mr. Hustin. The following persons are respectably recommended—Joseph Sayword—Henry White—Samuel Hustin, son of the deceas’d Keeper, and Rowe.…”


Title: The Vindication No. I, [May–August 1792]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[Philadelphia, May–August, 1792]
It was to have been foreseen, that though the virtuous part of those who were opposed to the present Constitution of the UStates while in deliberation before the People would yield to the evidence which experience should afford of its usefulness and safety, there were of a certain character opponents, who as happens in all great political questions would always remain incurably hostile to it. That in the course of its administration, its greatest merits would be in the eyes of such men its greatest blemishes, its most brilliant successes to them occasions of bitter chagrin and envious detraction, its slightest mismanagements subjects of malignant exaggeration, its most trivial misfortunes the welcome topics of virulent accusation and insidious misrepresentation. With some men, the hardest thing to forgive is the demonstration of their errors—the manifestation that they are not infallible. Mortified vanity is one of the most corroding emotions of the human mind; one of the most inextinguishable sources of animosity and hatred.
It was equally to have been foreseen that personal disappointments, would be likely to alienate from the Govt some individuals who had at first advocated its adoption, perhaps from motives not the most patriotic or commendable; that personal rivalships and competitions would throw others into an opposition to its measures without much regard to their intrinsic merits or demerits, and that a third class would embrace the path of opposition as the supposed road to popularity & preferment, raising upon every colorable pretext the cry of “Danger to Liberty” and endeavouring to disseminate among the people false terrors & ill grounded alarms. Phœnomena like these have deformed the political horison and testified the depravity of mankind in all countries and at all times.
It was likewise to have been expected that among the well meaning friends of the Government, there would be a part competent to the proper management of the affairs of the Union, who sensible from experience of the insufficiency of the former system gave their assent to the substitute offered to their choice rather from general impressions of the necessity of a change than from an accurate view of the necessary compass of the authorities which ought to constitute it. When they came to witness the exercise of those authorities upon a scale more comprehensive than they had contemplated and to hear the incendiary comments of those who will ever be on the watch for pretexts to brand the proceedings of the government with imputations of usurpation and tyranny and the factious or indiscreet clamours of those who in and out of the legislature with too much levity torture the Constitution into objections to measures which they deem inexpedient, it was to have been expected, I say, that some such men might be carried away by transient anxieties and apprehensions and might for a moment add weight to an opposition which could not fail to grow out of other causes and the real objects of which they would abhor.
There is a yet another class of men, who in all the stages of our republican system, either from desperate circumstances, or irregular ambition, or a mixture of both, will labour incessantly to keep the government in a troubled and unsettled state, to sow disquietudes in the minds of the people and to promote confusion and change. Every republic at all times has it Catalines and its Cæsars.
Men of this stamp, while in their hearts they scoff at the principles of Liberty, while in their real characters they are arbitrary persecuting intolerant and despotic, are in all their harangues and professions the most zealous, nay if they are to be believed, the only friends to Liberty. Mercenary and corrupt themselves, they are continually making a parade of their purity and disinterestedness and heaping upon others charges of peculation and corruption. Extravagant and dissipated in their own affairs, they are always prating about public œconomy and railing at the Government, for its pretended profusion. Conscious that as long as the confidence of the people shall be maintained in their tried and faithful servants, in men of real integrity and patriotism, their ambitious projects can never succeed, they leave no artifice unessayed, they spare no pains to destroy that confidence and blacken the characters that stand in their way. Convinced that as long as order and system in the public affairs can be maintained their schemes can never be realised, they are constantly representing the means of that order and system as chains forged for the people. Themselves the only plotters and conspirators they are forever spreading tales of plots and conspiracies—Always talking of the republican cause, and meaning nothing but the cause of themselves and their party, virtue & Liberty constantly on their lips, framed usurpation and tyranny in their hearts.
There is yet another class of opponents to the Government & its administration, who are of too much consequence not to be mentioned, a sect of political Doctors—a kind of Popes in Government—standards of political orthodoxy who brand with heresy all opinions but their own—men of sublimated imaginations and weak judgments pretenders to profound knowlege, yet ignorant of the most useful of all sciences, the science of human nature—men who dignify themselves with the appellation of Philosophers, yet are destitute of the first elements of true philosophy—Lovers of paradoxes, men who maintain expressly that Religion is not necessary to Society, and very nearly that Government itself is a nuisance, that Priests and Clergymen of all descriptions are worse than useless.
Such men the ridicule of any cause which they espouse and the best Witnesses to the goodness of that which they oppose have no small share in the clamours which are raised and in the dissatisfactions which are excited.
While the real object of those clamours, with the persons most active in propaging them, is opposition to the Government, the pretence is opposition to the administration of it. While they are straining every nerve to render it odious, they are profuse in their professions of attachment of it. To oppose avowedly the work of the people would be too barefaced. It would not accord with that system of treacherous flattery which is the usual engine of these pretended “Friends” but real “Betrayers” of the People. Circumstances require that the mode of attack should be changed. The Government is to be good if not excellent but its administration is to be execrable, detestable, a mere sink of corruption, a deep laid plan to overturn the republican system of the Country.
Suspicious of the most flagitious prostitution and corruption in office, of improper connections with brokers and speculations to fleece the community, of the horrid depravity of promoting wars and the shedding of human blood for the sake of sharing collusively in the emoluments of lucrative contracts, suspicions like these are if possible to be thrown upon men, the whole tenor of whose lives gives the lie to them, who before they came into office were never either land-jobbers or stoc[k] jobbers or jobbers of any other kind, who can appeal to their fellow citizens of every party and description to attest that their reputations for probity are unsullied; that their conduct, in all pecuniary concerns, has been nicely correct and even exemplarily disininterested, who it is notorious have sacrificed and are sacrificing the interests of their families to their public zeal, who whenever the necessity of resisting the machinations of the enemies of the public quiet will permit them to retire, will return poorer than they came into office, and will have to resume under numerous disadvantages, the pursuits which they before followed under every advantage. Shame where is thy blush, if detraction so malignant as this can affront the public ear. Integrity where is thy shield, where thy reward, if the poisonous breath of an unprincipled cabal can pollute that good name, which thou incessantly toiled to deserve!
People of America can ye be deceived by Arts like these? Will ye suffer yourselves to be cheated out of your confidence in men who deserve it most? Will ye be the dupes of hypocritical pretenders?
Think for yourselves. Look around you, consult your own experience. If any of you have doubts, listen calmly and dispassionately to the arguments and facts which in the course of the following numbers shall be opposed to the suggestions which would persuade you that the administration of your government has been in the aggregate weak or wicked or both!


Title: The Vindication No. II: Second Version, [May–August 1792]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[Philadelphia, May–August, 1792]
Of all the measures of the Government, that which has been most bitterly inveighed against is the Funding System contained in the Act making provision for the Debt of the United States. As well for this reason, as on account of its superior importance, the objections which have been made to it are intitled to an examination in the first place.
It is a curious phœnomenon in political history (not easy to be parallelled) that a measure which has elevated the credit of the country from a state of absolute prostration to a state of exalted preeminence should bring upon the authors of it reprobation and censure. It is certainly what in the ordinary course of human affairs they could not have anticipated—they are even not chargeable with arrogance if they indulged from it the hope of credit & applause—and if the clamours which have been raised have truly proceeded as the clamourers assure us from patriotic motives, it must be confessed that they have the additional merit of Novelty and singularity. There must be something original in the passions as well as in the ideas of the sect to which they are attributable. It will be hardly possible not to believe that some mysterious work of political regeneration has begun to make its way in the world and that all those who have not been the subjects of it are in a state of pitiable darkness and error.
The two first points which in considering the funding system present themselves to attention are the existence and the composition of the Debt funded.
A person, who unacquainted with the fact should learn the history of our debt from the declamations with which certain news papers are perpetually charged would be led to suppose that it is the mere creature of the present government, for the purpose of burthening the people with taxes and producing an artificial and corrupt influence over them. He would at least take it for granted that it had been contracted in the pursuit of some wanton or vain project of ambition or glory. He would scarcely be able to conceive that every part of it was the relict of a War which had given independence and preserved liberty to the Country; that the present Government found it as it is in point of magnitude (except as to the diminutions made by itself) and has done nothing more than to bring under a regular regimen and provision what was before a scattered and heterogeneous mass.
And yet this is the simple and exact state of the business. The whole of the Debt embraced by the provisions of the funding system consisted of the unextinguished principal and arrears of interest of the debt which had been contracted by the UStates in the course of the late War with Great Britain and which remains uncancelled and the principal and arrears of interest of the separate debts of the respective States contracted during the same period; which remained outstanding and unsatisfied; relating to sources and supplies for carrying on the War. Nothing more was done by that system, than to incorporate these two species of debt into one mass, and to make for the whole one general comprehensive provision.
There is therefore no Arithmetic no logic by which it can be shewn that the Funding system has augmented the aggregate of the debt of the Country. The sum total is manifestly the same; though the parts which were before divided are not united.
There is consequently no color for an assertion, that the System in question either created any new debt or made any addition to the old. And it follows that the collective burthen upon the people of the UStates must have been as great without as with the union of the different portions and descriptions of the Debt. The only difference can be that without it that burthen would have been otherwise distributed and would have fallen with unequal weight instead of being equally borne as it now is.
These conclusions which have been drawn respecting the new increase of the Debt proceed upon the presumption that every part of the public debt as well that of the States individually as that of the UStates was to have been honestly paid. If there is any fallacy in this supposition the inferences may be erroneous; but the error would imply the disgrace of the United States or of parts of them; a disgrace from which every man of true honor and genuine patriotism will be happy to see them rescued.
When we hear the epithets “vile matter” “corrupt mass” bestowed upon the public Debt and the owners of it indiscriminately maligned as the harpies and vultures of the community, there is ground to suspect that those who hold the language though they may not dare to avow it contemplate a more summary process for getting rid of debts than that of paying them. Indeed Charity itself cannot avoid concluding from the language and conduct of some men (and some of them of no inconsiderable importance) that in their vocabularies creditor and enemy are synonimous terms and that they have a laudable antipathy against every man to whom they owe money either as individuals or as members of the Society.
It has been said, that the sum of the Debt, to be ultimately provided for, has been artificially increased by the plan for the settlement of Accounts between the United & Individual States. This point will be most properly the subject of a distinct examination; as the Act for the settlement of accounts is a distinct one from that which establishes the funding system. It will appear upon examination that there is no foundation for the assertion and moreover that the plan which has been adopted by the present Government for the settlement of Accounts is essentially a recapitulation of that which was adopted under the Confederation; and which established principles which were not only equitable in themselves but could not have been reversed without an infraction of the public faith.


Title: The Vindication No. III, [May–August 1792]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[Philadelphia, May–August, 1792]
My last number contained a concise and simple statement of facts tending to shew that the public Debt was neither created nor increased by the Funding system, and consequently that it is not responsible either for the existence or the magnitude of the Debt.
It will be proper next to examine the allegations which have been made of a contrary tendency.
In the first place it is asserted that the debt is greater than it ought to be, because from the state of depreciation in which the government found it a much less provision for it than that which was made might have sufficed. A saving of nearly one half it is said might have been made by providing for it in the hands of Alienees at least, at 8 or 10/ in the pound; who having come by it at a much less rate would have been well compensated by such a provision.
To a man who entertains correct notions of public faith, and who feels as he ought to feel for the reputation & dignity of the country, it is mortifying to reflect that there are partisans enough of such a doctrine to render it worth the while to combat it. It is still more mortifying to know that in that class are comprehended some men who are in other respects soberminded and upright, friends to order, and strenuous advocates for the rights of property.

In reasoning upon all subjects it is necessary to take as a point of departure some principle in which reasonable and sound minds will agree. Without this, there can be no argument, no conclusion, in moral or political any more than in physical or mathematical disquisitions.
The principle which shall be assumed here is this—that the established rules of morality and justice are applicable to nations as well as to Individuals; that the former as well as the latter are bound to keep their promises, to fulfil their engagements, to respect the rights of property which others have acquired under contracts with them.
Without this, there is an end of all distinct ideas of right or wrong justice or injustice in relation to Society or Government. There can be no such thing as rights—no such thing as property or liberty. All the boasted advantages of a constitution of Government vanish in air. Every thing must float on the variable and vague opinions of the Governing party of whomsoever composed.
To this it may be answered, that the doctrine as a general one is true; but that there are certain great cases which operate as exceptions to the rule and in which the public good may demand and justify a departure from it.
It shall not be denied that there are such cases; but as the admission of them is one of the most common as well as the most fruitful sources of error and abuse it is of the greatest importance that just ideas should be formed of their true nature foundation and extent. To Minds which are either depraved or feeble, or under the influence of any particular passion or prejudice it is enough that cases are only attended with some extraordinary circumstances to induce their being considered as among the exceptions. Convenience is with them a substitute for necessity, and some temporary partial advantage is an equivalent for a fundamental and permanent interest of Society. We have too often seen in the United States examples of this species of levity. The treaties of the UStates the sacred rights of private property have been too frequently sported with from a too great facility in admitting exceptions to the maxims of public faith, and the general rules of property. A desire to escape from this evil was a principal cause of the Union which took place among good men to establish the National Government, and it behoved to friends to have been particularly cautious how they set an example of equal relaxation in the practice of that very Government.
The characteristics of the only admissible exception to the principle that has been assumed are 1—Necessity. IId there being some intrinsic and inherent quality in the thing which is to constitute the exception, contrary to the Social Order and to the permanent good of society.
Necessity is admitted in all moral reasonings as an exception to general rules. It is of two kinds, as applied to Nations—where there is want of ability to perform a duty and then it is involuntary, and where the general rule cannot be observed without some manifest and great national calamity.
If from extraordinary circumstances a nation is disabled from performing its stipulations, or its duty in any other respect, it is then excuseable on the score of inability. But the inability must be a real not a pretended one—one that has been experimentally ascertained, or that can [be] demonstrated to the satisfaction of all honest and discerning men. And the deviation ought to be as small as possible. All that is practicable ought to be done.
A nation is alike excuseable in certain extraordinary cases for not observing a right or performing a duty if the one or the other would involve a manifest and great national calamity. But here also an extreme case is intended; the calamity to be avoided must not only be evident and considerable, it must be such an one as is like to prove fatal to the nation, as threatens its existence or at least its permanent welfare.
War for instance is almost always a national calamity of a serious kind; but it ought often to be encountered in protection even of a part of the community injured or annoyed; or in performance of the condition of a defensive alliance with some other nation. But if such special circumstances exist in either case that the going to war would eminently endanger the existence or permenent welfare of the Nation, it may excuseably be foreborne.
Of the second class of exceptions the case of certain fœdal rights which once oppressed all Europe and still oppresses too great a part of it may serve as an example; rights which made absolute slaves of a part of the community and rendered the condition of the greatest proportion of the remainder not much more eligible.
These rights, though involving that of property, being contrary to the Social order and to the permanent welfare of Society were justifiably abolished, in the instances, in which abolitions have taken place, and may be abolished in all the remaining vestiges.
Wherever indeed a right of property is infringed for the general good, if the nature of the case admits of compensation, it ought to be made; but if compensation be impracticable, that impracticability ought to be an obstacle to a clearly essential reform.
In what has been said the cases of exception have been laid down as broad as they ought to be. They are cases of extremity—where these is a palpable necessity where some great and permanent national evil is to be avoided—where some great & permanent national good is to be obtained.
It must not be to avoid a temporary burthen or inconvenience, to get rid of a particular though a considerable one or to secure a partial advantage. A relaxation of this kind would tend to dissolve all social obligations, to render all rights precarious and to introduce a general dissoluteness and corruption of morals.
A single glance will suffice to convince that the case of the Debt of the UStates was not one of those cases which could justify a clear infraction of the fundamental rules of good faith and a clear invasion of rights of property acquired under the most unequivocal national stipulation. If there was any doubt before the real facility with which a provision for the debt has been made removes it; a provision which touches no internal source of revenue but the single article of distilled spirits, and lays upon that a very moderate duty.
But a history of the real state of the Debt when it was taken up by the Government will put the matter out of all doubt. This shall constitute the subject of my next number.


Title: The Vindication No. IV, [May–August 1792]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[Philadelphia, May–August, 1792]
The Debt proper or the original Debt of the UStates in its primary form may be classed under four general heads I the Old emissions of Continental money II The Loan office Debt contracted for monies lent to the Government III the army debt contracted for the pay and commutation of the army IV the debt of the five Great Departments as they are called in the resolution of Congress being for services and supplies in the Marine Department, The Quarter Master’s Commissary’s cloathing and Hospital Departments. Emanations from these were the Registered Debt so denominated from new kinds of Certificates issued by the Register of the Treasury in lieu of the former evidences—Indents of Interest, being a species of paper payable to bearer which by different resolutions of Congress were issued on account of arrears of Interest on the old Debt. The new emission money is not added to the enumeration because it was issued upon funds of the respective States with only a Guarantee of the UStates and falls perhaps most properly in the class of State Debts.
Of this original debt it appears by a statement of the Register of the Treasury published in   not less than  in its first concoction belonged to Citizens of the States from Pensylvania to New Hampshire inclusively the remaining belonging to States from Maryland to Georgia inclusively in nearly the following proportions

to Maryland
to Virginia
to N Carolina
to S Carolina
to Georgia

The reasons of this state of things are obvious. Until the  the principal theatre of the War had been in the States from Pensylvania North and after that period to the close of it the principal part of the enemy’s force remained stationed at New York which obliged to the keeping upon the same quarter large bodies of troops, till the termination of the War.
The natural consequence of this state of things was that a very large proportion of the means for carrying on the war, men money and other supplies were drawn from the States comprehended in the first division. They indeed possessed greater comparitive resources than the more Southern States & with only the same degree of zeal could furnish more to the common cause. Obvious causes always conspire to occasion larger aids to be drawn from the vicinity of the war than from more distant parts of the Country; and the main dependence of the UStates being credit a large debt was created in the scene from which the principal supplies came.
The use of this statement of the original distribution of the debt will appear hereafter.
A leading character of every part of the Debt is, that it was in its origin made alienable. It was payable to the holder, either in capacity of Assignee or bearer; far the greatest part of the latter description. The Contract therefore was, in its very essence, a contract between the Government and the actual holder.
A considerable part of the debt was consequently alienated by the first proprietors at different periods from its commencement down to the time of passing the funding Act.
But there has been much exaggeration both as to the quantity alienated and as to the rates of alienation. The declamations on the subject have constantly represented far the greatest part of the debt in the hand of alienees and have taken the lowest price at which it ever was in the market, as the common standard of the alienation. The changes have been rung upon Two shillings and 6d. in the pound in all the arguments which have advocated a violation of the rights of the alienees.
Neither the first nor the last supposition is true.
As to the first point, namely the quantity of the debt alienated, there are no documents by which it can be satisfactorily ascertained, which of course gives full scope to imagination.

But there is an important fact which affords strong evidence that the quantity has always been much less considerable than has been supposed.
In the year  the State of New York passed a law permitting the holders of Continental securities to bring them in and receive in exchange for them state securities upon certain conditions which were generally deemed for the advantage of the holders to accept. The same arrangement embraced an exchange of old state securities for new.
In the event of this exchange which was completed by the  it appeared that about  of the Debt remained in the hands of the original proprietors.
It may be stated as a fact that there has always prevailed in the States North of New York a more firm confidence in an eventual provision for the Debt than existed in that state and it may be inferred that the alienation was still less in those states than in the state of New York.
In Jersey and Pennsylvania it is probable that the alienations were not more considerable in their degree than in New York. In Maryland they may be supposed to have been still less on account of that state having made a better provision for its debts than any other & having included in it Continental securities in the hands of its own citizens, by an exchange of Certificates.

It is probable from information though not certainly known that a more considerable alienation in proportion had taken place in the States South of Maryland.
But making all due allowance for this and taking into the account that the principal part of the Debt was originally owned from Pensylvania North, the probability still is that the progress of alienation has been much less rapid than has been conjectured.
Nothing is more natural than a mistake on this point. The Dealers in the debt in the principal Cities appeared to be continually engaged in buying and selling large sums, and it has not been their fault generally to underrate the extent of their dealings. Thence it came to be imagined that the whole debt or the greatest part of it was in the market; whereas a small sum comparitively was sufficient to satisfy all the appearances. Bandied incessantly from hand to hand a few hundred thousand Dollars appeared like as many millions.
The best inquiries on the subject will lead to an opinion that there never was prior to the funding system three millions of Dollars of floating Debt in all the great Stock-Markets of the U States.
And the whole sum which had been acquired by foreigners was about
From all which it is very questionable whether ⅓ of the Debt in the hands of alienees at the time when Congress began to Deliberate concerning a provision for it would not be an ample allowance.
With regard to the terms of alienation they have varied from 20/ down to 2/6 in the pound.

There are several considerable classes of alienees, who hold the debt at full or high values.
I   Those who advanced monies or furnished supplies to public officers upon Loan Office Certificates issued to those Officers in their own names. [An] example of this exists in the cases of purchases made during the War by public officers. Warrants from the Treasury would frequently be drawn in their favour upon the Commissioners of Loans who would often furnish loan office certificates in their own names in payment of those warrants. For these certificates the officers would sometimes procure the current paper in exchange and would transfer the certificates to those who advanced the money. In other cases they would pay for supplies in the certificates themselves which they would in like manner transfer. This is a very extensive case.
II   Those whose money has been placed in the funds by Trustees or Agents who took out certificates in their own names and afterwards assigned them to the true proprietors.
An instance of this was mentioned in the debates in Congress on the subject of a discrimination between original & present holders, and can be ascertained by any one who will take the pains to inquire. It was that of a Mr. Caldwell a respectable clergyman and zealous patriot in New Jersey, who acted for some time during the war in the capacity of Deputy Quarter Master. In that capacity he frequently had money to pay to Individuals; which at their desire he would place in the Loan office for them, take certificates in his own name and afterwards transfer them to the persons whose money he had deposited.
There are likewise instances not a few of Trustees and Agents for absent persons and minors who placed the monies of those whom they represented in the loan offices, took out certificates in their own names and afterwards transferred them to the parties intitled.
III   Those who by laws of particular states were compelled to take certificates at the full value in payment of Debts.
A law of the State of New York passed in the year  obliged all persons who had resided within the British lines during the war to receive in satisfaction of their debts from those who had been without the lines, certificates.
IV   Those who at different periods voluntarily received certificates in payment of Debts. This in some states is a very extensive case. From the precarious situation in which all persons were placed by the revolution whose property was merely personal it was no uncommon thing for creditors to receive from their Debtors certificates in payment of debts and this was almost always at high values.
Even since the peace compromises between Creditors and Debtors especially those whose fortunes had been injured by the War, in which Certificates were received at full value


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Ebenezer Tucker, 1 June 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Tucker, Ebenezer

Treasury Department, June 1, 1792. Encloses warrant “from the Collector of Perth Amboy to John Allen Smith appointing him Inspector of the Customs and Commandant of the Revenue Boat Patterson.”


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Richard Harison, [2 June 1792]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Harison, Richard

[Philadelphia, June 2, 1792]
My Dear Sir

The Patents to the Ohio Company, in conformity to the Act, were issued before the President went to Mount Vernon. I hope no inconvenience will have ensued. Mr. King having written to me on the same subject, I have sent him a rough sketch of the exterior line of the whole tract granted by the several Patents.
Yrs. sincerely
A Hamilton
Philadelphia June 2d. 1792


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Tobias Lear, 2 June 1792
From: Lear, Tobias
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia] June 2, 1792. “… The President approves of Joseph Sayword to be Keeper of the Lighthouse on Thatchers Island, in the State of Massachusetts.…”


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Benjamin Lincoln, 2 June 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Lincoln, Benjamin

Treasury DepartmentJune 2 1792.
Sir

Your letter of the 4th of March remains yet to be answered.
The question there stated is in substance, whether a Citizen residing out of your state, coming to Boston, and there purchasing a Vessel, must necessarily take and subscribe the oath or affirmation required by law, before the Collector of the District where such Citizen usually resides, in order to obtain a certificate of Registry for such Vessel from your Office.
I am of this opinion, it being conformable to the seventh section of the Coasting Act. The design of the provision seems to be that the identity of the person who appears as owner, and his being a Citizen can be best known by the Collector of the District where he resides.
Captain Sayward has been mentioned to the President as a Candidate for the Office of Keeper of the Light House on Thatcher’s island, and I expect shortly to announce his appointment.
I am, with great consideration,   Sir, Your Obedt Servant
A Hamilton
Benjamin Lincoln Esqr.Collector, Boston


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Edmund Randolph, 2 June 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Randolph, Edmund

[Philadelphia, June 2, 1792. On June 21, 1792, Randolph wrote to Hamilton and referred to “your communication of the 2d instant.” Letter not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Maria Reynolds, 2 June [1792]
From: Reynolds, Maria
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia] Saturday Morning the June 2 [1792]
Dear Sir

I once take up the pen to solicit The favor of seing again oh Col hamilton what have I done that you should thus Neglect me Is it because I am unhappy But stop I will not say you have for perhaps you have caled and have found no opportunity to Come In at least I hope you have I am now A lone and shal be for afew days I believe till Wensday though am not sartain and would wish to se you this Evening I[f] poseble If not as soon as you can make It Convenent oh my dear freend how shal I pleade Enough what shal I say Let me beg of you to Come and If you never se me again oh If you think It best I will submit to It and take a long and last adieu
Mari
Col hamilton
for heaven sake keep me not In suspince Let me know yor Intention Either by a Line or by Catline.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to James Reynolds, [3–22 June 1792]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Reynolds, James

[Philadelphia, June 3–22, 1792]

It is utterly out of my power I assure you ’pon my honour to comply with your request. Your note is returned.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from William Seton, 3 June 1792
From: Seton, William
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Bank of N York3rd. June 1792.
sir.

I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letters of the 24th & 30th. May agreably to the request contained in the former Messrs. Beach & Canfield of Newark have been paid the sum of four thousand three hundred and fifty Dollars, for which you have their receipt enclosed. The further payments shall be made to them as you desire upon the Certificates of Mr. Melancton Smith for the quantities of shoes they may deliver at the rate of 82²⁄₉ Cents pr. pair.
I have the honour to be with the greatest respect   sir   Your obliged Obedt. Humb. servt.
Alexander Hamilton Esqr.Secretary of the Treasury of the United States


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from William Ellery, 4 June 1792
From: Ellery, William
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Newport, Rhode Island] June 4, 1792. “I have received your letter circular of the 22nd. of the last month and will correspond in future with the Commissioner of the Revenue touching all matters relating to the Light house establishment and take his directions thereon.…”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Oliver Wolcott, Junior, 4 June 1792
From: Wolcott, Oliver, Jr.
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Treasury Department, Comptroller’s Office, June 4, 1792. “I have considered the question stated by Samuel Bayard Esq Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States … & am of opinion that charges for postage which may be incurred by him in executing his official duties can be properly allowed.… The Letters from Mr. Bayard to the several Clerks can be ⟨ma⟩rked as paid & the postage charged to him, to be settled quarterly with the Post Master & allowed in Mr. Bayards Accounts.”


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

Providence, June 5, 1792. “I have received, under cover with several Acts of Congress, your circular Letters of the 21st. of February and the 10th of May. Due attention shall be paid to their contents. I have never had occasion to take any Bond of the kind mentioned in the latter.…”


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Otho H. Williams, 5 June 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Williams, Otho H.

Treasury Department   June 5th 1792
Sir

I have before me your letters of the 18th of March, 18th of April, 8th & 27th of May.
I do not observe that it is stated how the Officers who were absent came to be so; so that I am at some loss to judge whether the absence was justifiable or not. I am however rather of opinion that their compensations follow their commissions, as public Officers, and that so long as they are retained in service they must be paid computing from the dates of their respective Commissions. It is at the same time proper matter of inquiry under what circumstances they were absent, in order that the propriety of their conduct may be judged of.
With regard to claims for compensation prior to the dates of Commissions, where any officers have been employed by authority in performing any service, in relation to the Cutter, an allowance not exceeding a Dollar ⅌ day has been admitted by the Accounting Officers; and it is reported to me that a sum of 155 Dollars and eighty three Cents has been admitted in favor of Capt Gross. If any hands were employed in aid, I presume due regard would be had to their case. But as to claims without special service on the ground of being retained, they will not be admitted.
If a contract cannot be effected, it is of necessity to subsist the Men in the other mode you mention as the only practicable one; but a contract even on higher terms than those heretofore limitted would be more agreeable to me. It ought to be so regulated as to secure the supply of the seamen in a satisfactory manner.
What however is necessary to render the Cutter useful must be done ’till what is desireable can be done.
Water and such were not contemplated as parts of the ration. They will be contingent charges, where they cannot be procured without expence. This however ought to be done as much as possible; and I should hope would be in the main practicable.
It was my intention to commit to you the business of supplies, equipment and repairs and the direction of the movements of the Cutter in conformity to the general instructions and indications which had been or might be given, without the necessity of a previous special reference to me in particular and ordinary cases. If any thing extra and out of the course of what may have been generally indicated should be contemplated, I should be glad to have it mentioned prior to the incurring of any extra expence.
As to additional sails and an additional boat they had better be deferred to be considered hereafter, when the expence of the first establishment is finally ascertained. I take it for granted the Cutter has now one good boat.
More hands than the law provides for cannot of course be allowed.
Those who have had most to do with them remark in Masters of Vessels a strong disposition towards multiplying objects of expence. You will doubtless be upon your guard against this propensity when applications for new purposes are made.
Hitherto the Cutters in the Chesapaek have been of little utility. Under the powers you have as now explained to you I shall rely on your judgment, attention and zeal for rendering them as serviceable as they ought to be without being vexatious to the trade.
With great consideration   I am Sir   Your obedt Servant
A Hamilton
Otho H. Williams EsqrCollector Baltimore


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Benjamin Lincoln, 6 June 1792
From: Lincoln, Benjamin
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Boston, June 6, 1792. “I mentioned to you under the 15 Feby last that we had put our hands on four hogs. N E Rum in old we[s]t India Casks. The matter came to trial yesterday. It was admitted that the rum was distilled in Portland but contended that the duties were duly paid. This being proved the spirits were acquitted. If these things can be practised with impunity a wide door will be opened through which frauds on the revenue may pass undetected.… There was lately exported from this port a quantity of Coffe to Cadiz. On the arrival of the vessel there the Master discovered a new duty on the Coffee so heavy as to preclude the possibility of selling it without loss consequently did not land it. The exporter wishes to be exempt from paying a second duty on the Coffee. Can he be? If I do not receive particular instruction on the subject I shall receive the duty on the Coffee as in all other cases.…”


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to William Ellery, 7 June 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Ellery, William

[Philadelphia, June 7, 1792. On July 10, 1792, Ellery wrote to Hamilton: “I have recd. your letters of the 7th 22nd. and 28th of the last month.” Letter of June 7 not found.]


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to William Heth, 7 June 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Heth, William

Private
My Dear Sir
Philadelphia June 7. 1792

The same cause which delayed my answering several of your Official Letters has postponed the acknowlegement of your three private letters of the 5. 27 & 29th of February. The truth is, my situation hitherto has thrown upon me more business than it was possible for me to get through; and the intrigues of faction, to which I have been obliged to be attentive, have added not a little to my burthen. I hope from your friendship the proper allowances for my apparent neglect.
As to the question, which regards the permanency of the custom house at Bermuda Hundred—as far as it turns on the point of having but one Port of entry in the State, you may be perfectly at your ease; but as it respects mercantile accommodation in relation to the best position in the district, I am really at a loss what to say to you. No formal representation has yet come from the Merchants on that point; but if it could be made appear that another situation was truly more convenient to them, City Point, Broadway or any other, it would probably be substituted—and even if they should become clamorous for another, on only colorable pretences, it might happen that an attention to popularity would produce a change.
You must therefore judge on this point from your own knowlege of circumstances and take your measures accordingly. The permanency of a Port of Entry in your district you may confide in.
The event will have relieved you from any anxiety on the subject of a certain exchange of office. It could not have happened without your ascertained consent. I am ignorant whether there was any project of the kind—never having had any intimation of it but from yourself. I have however been witness to so many plots and counterplots so much intrigue and cabal in certain quarters, that I can wonder at nothing.
You speak of a Branch of the Bank at Richmond. On this point I wish your confidential opinion. I take it for granted that it will not be long before a branch will be established either at Richmond Petersburg or Norfolk. I own that I have not data enough to judge which of these places ought to be preferred. Deposits, by Individuals are of very great importance to a Bank. In order to the enjoying of this advantage, it is necessary that the place where it is seated should have a considerable mercantile circulating Capital. This, Norfolk certainly has. Is it the case also with Richmond or Petersburgh & with which of them most? Where do the Merchants who carry on the business of your district principally reside? What is the course of its trade? What are the comparitive advantages of the several places?
As to your personal concerns, as far a[s] real esteem & friendship on my part can be of use to you, or can tend either to your security or advantage, you may firmly count upon it.
Farewell My D Sir
A Hamilton
W Heth Esqr.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Edmund Randolph, 7 June 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Randolph, Edmund

[Philadelphia, June 7, 1792. On June 10, 1792, Randolph wrote to Hamilton and referred to “your favor of the 7 Instant.” Letter not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Samuel A. Otis, 8 June 1792
From: Otis, Samuel A.
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia, June 8, 1792. On June 8, 1792, Hamilton wrote to Otis: “I am to acknowledge the receipt of your favor of this date.” Letter not found.]


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Otho H. Williams, 8 June 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Williams, Otho H.

Treasury DepartmentJune 8. 1792.
Sir

In answer to your letter of the 4th instant, concerning the Cutter, Active, I refer you to mine of the 5th.
With regard to the addition of 10 ⅌ Ct to be made to the several rates of duties, in respect to all goods, Wares and Merchandizes imported in Ships or Vessels not of the United States, agreeably to the 2d Section of the Act “making further provision for the payment of the debt &ca,” I am of opinion that your practice is consistent with the true construction of the laws. The same construction, it appears, has obtained generally in the Custom houses.
I find, on a review of my correspondence, an opinion communicated to you in my letter of the 25th November 1789 to this effect “That you cannot register any Vessel whose husband or Acting Owner does not usually reside at or near some port within your District”.
This opinion was given in answer to a question stated in your letter of the 14th November; [and was founded on the circumstances of the particular case;] and by way of explanation I shall add, that I meant, you cannot register a Vessel under such circumstances, because you are not authorised to administer the Oath required by law, which must be taken before the Collector of the District in which such Owner or Ship’s husband usually resides, as prescribed by the seventh section of the Act. The design of the provision seems to be that the identity of the person, who appears as Owner, and his being a Citizen, can be best known by the Collector of the District where he resides. [The opinion given is therefore to be understood so as to admit of the exceptions resulting from the seventh Section.]
I am, with consideration, Sir,   Your Obed Servant
A Hamilton
Otho H Williams Esqr
Baltimore.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from William Heth, 9 June 1792
From: Heth, William
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[June 9, 1792. “The French Consul at Norfolk has lately adopted a practice of taking the registers of vessels from such Masters belonging to his Nation, as called there to report on their passage to this district. If he has a right so to do, I shall not be surprized, if some Masters should depart from hence without paying tonnage.” Letter not found.]


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Benjamin Walker, [9 June 1792]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Walker, Benjamin

[Philadelphia, June 9, 1792]
Dr. Walker

I enclose you a letter which I have received from Mr Marshall. If you can with propriety accommodate him it will be well. I doubt not his embarrassements are real & his emoluments in proportion to his merit are small.
Yrs. sincerely
A Hamilton
June 9. 92
Benjamin Walker Esq


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Otho H. Williams, 9 June 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Williams, Otho H.

Philad June 9. 1792
My Dear Sir

I feel myself not a little a delinquent in regard to a certain paper you forwarded it to me. I will now explain the reasons of its non appearance. Though I thought it a merited & a very good reproof on certain folks as well as calculated to throw useful light on transactions interesting to the fame of our deceased friend—as the business depending was taking a favourable turn when I received your letter—I doubted the expediency of starting any new Game; lest it should wound the pride and jar the nerves of more than the Individual meant to be chastised—and so perhaps do harm to a cause we both wished to promote.
If things had continued in an unpromising train I should have been willing to have taken the chance of the publication. In me, it would have gratified feelings of more than one kind.
I at first intended to reserve the publication for the conclusion of the business, but then I doubted whether it was worth while to stir again the question. It could not serve the original purpose and it was not necessary to the fame of the General. That stands unassailable, with success.
If any impressions have fallen under your Notice, which induce you to think this last conclusion erroneous—the publication at this time will not be too late for that purpose.
Adieu My Dear Sir   Believe me always truly & affectionately Yrs
A Hamilton
P. S.   With your permission I will retain the paper as an interesting record of some particulars which were not before known to me.
Otho H Williams Esq


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Fisher Ames, 10 June 1792
From: Ames, Fisher
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Boston June loth. 1792
Dear Sir

Those who percieve the arduous nature of your duties, ought to wish to aid you in executing them. Whether the auther of the Path to Riches, had it in view to afford you such aid, or not, I think it fit to send you the work, as our political economy lies much within your department. You have found the path for our Country, and it is advancing in it, tho’ you have not sought it for yourself. To drop this obscure way of writing, I enclose Judge Sullivans pamphlet on Banks &c. The modest title page delights me. Where is the upright man to plead for a people? Possibly this enquiry may be made by the people whom the auther so much desires to plead for. The fee expected for pleading is supposed to be the Chair of Governor. Another view is suggested. A state Bank will afford a good field of speculation, of Which fame, that evil tongue says, many of the legislature were not unmindful at their last Session, when the Tontine was in discussion. My friends tell me that the  the Chair, the pride of state sovereignity  Copy federal institutions and the thirst for speculations will move different parties, and produce some sort of bank or Tontine project, and that resistance will be fruitless.
The inconsistent jargon of this pamphlet will make you smile. It will not amuse the many, nor instruct the few, but its bulk will deter many from reading it who will vote for a state Bank, presuming that there are arguments enough for it in that great Book.
All goes well in the State. The people really prosper, and what is more they know and say it, and give credit to the General Government & for the change they have witnessed. I feel persuaded they are perfectly well affected to good measures. I only fear that the high sense of honor in the paying duties is cooling. When money is in the case Merchants need watching. Mr Gore mentions some facts which indicate the need of Vigilance.
I do not wish you to answer this. I would not write at all, if by doing it I should impose that task upon you.
I am dear Sir, with perfect esteem   Your most obt. humble servant.
Fisher Ames


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Edmund Randolph, 10 June 179[2]
From: Randolph, Edmund
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Philadelphia June 10th. 179[2].
sir.

In our conversation Yesterday we reduced the substance of your favor of the 7 Instant to this question: Whether you ought, under any modification, to suspend the payment of Interest to a State, which is intitled under the 17th. section of the act “making provision for the debt of the United states,” to receive interest to the amount of the nonsubscribed deficiency; In trust for the nonsubscribing creditors of the State?
By the Same section it is provided, that this interest shall continue to be paid to a State, until there be a settlement of Accounts between the United States and It.
The loan is however again opened by the act of May the 8th. 1792, from the first day of June 1792 to the first day of march 1793, on the same terms with the former loan.
If the first of march 1793 had now arrived, and the sum allotted to any State had been filled up by the subscriptions, that State woud cease to receive an Interest on any part of the allotted sum. For then there woud be no deficiency, nor any person Remaining, for whose benefit the trust was created. Under the Old Act indeed this interest would have been continued until the Settlement of accounts. But as it is manifest that this stipulation was made in contemplation of a deficiency; the very moment when that deficiency shall be removed, the groundwork of a state’s claim to interest is removed also. To suppose, that congress granted this money to the States, whose limited complement was exhausted, would be to charge them with a wanton loan from the Federal Treasury.
But I cannot assent to the propriety of Suspending the Payment of interest altogether until the 1st of March 1793. It may happen, that none of the creditors, who have hitherto refused to Subscribe, may be now inclined to Subscribe; and by the nonpayment their situation, which is intended to be equal to that of Subscribers may be renderd worse.
The strict line therefore woud be, as often as a quarters interest becomes due, to diminish the payment in proportion to the progress of the new subscription. But perhaps it would be more adviseable and be more satisfactory, if the deduction was to commence on the payment for the succeeding quarter. A quarter has something of the nature of an Integer; and the fixation of thirty days, the Interval between the Opening of the new subscription and the end of the present quarter, might favour of too much rigor.
I have the honor sir to be yr. mo. ob. serv.
Edm: Randolph
The Secretary of the Treasury


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from William Ellery, 11 June 1792
From: Ellery, William
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Newport, Rhode Island] June 11, 1792. “I have recd. your Letter inclosing sundry Acts of Congress, and also your Letter of the 30th of the last month respectg. the Brig Chance, and have communicated the same and a State of the case to the Atty. of the District.… By a letter from the Comptroller of the 29th. of the last month it appears that I am not yet credited for the Scales & Weights I purchased for the Port of Bristol. Permit me to refer you to my Letter of the 19th. of last March, and to request that you would signify your approbatn of that purchase.… Permit me also to renew the wishes expressed in my letters of the 5th of March & 17th of April last for your directs. respecting the tare of Sugar &c.; and to ask for your directs relative to the Thermometer mentioned in my letter of the 9th. of April last.”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from William Seton, 11 June 1792
From: Seton, William
To: Hamilton, Alexander

New York 11th June 1792
My Dear sir

I now enclose you the Bond of Baron Steuben which I took up from Mr. Cutting with his receipt for £506.13 which I paid him. I wished him to be more particular in the receipt, but he said you had already been informed of all the items that composed the Sum. Bank Stock still keeps from 26 to 28 ⅌ Cent and therefore have not sold yours, as I am convinced it must rise, at least it ought to rise if People wish to purchase a Stock that will give them good interest for their money.
By the hands of Colo. Walker I received your favour of the 25th May. It was accompanied with a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Society for establishing Usefull Manufactures that he should negotiate a Loan for Ten thousand Dollars upon a pledge of Publick Stock. Our Board immediately agreed to the Loan and to a charge of 5 ⅌ Cent interest, only,—to be charged upon the Sum as drawn out of the Bank. It was taken up upon such a footing as you could have wished, & acceeded to with the most earnest wish to promote the beneficial public purpose intended.
In the month of July last year, Mr Pearce the Manufacturer arrived here from Ireland. He brought me Letters from Mr Digges requesting my patronage &c & care of the Modells that he brought. I complied in every sense & receiving afterwards a Letter from the Secretary of State & Mr. Coxe of what importance these Modells were, & directions how to forward them &c, I paid Mr. Pearce’s passage & gave him Money to enable him to get to Phia. The modells I sent by my Son in Law Mr Vining. For the Money I advanced to Mr. Pearce, which was 120 Dollars, I took his Note of hand, which I sent to Mr. Coxe as Mr. Jefferson wrote me all charges would be thankfully repaid. However I have never yet been paid & Mr. Cox writes me that Pearces Note to me is in your hands. I take the liberty of Mentioning this, that it may not be forgot, as it was purely pro bono publico that I advanced the Money.
I am with the highest respect & esteem   Dear sir   Your obliged Obed Hbl Servt
Wm Seton
P.S.   your Letter was forwarded by the Packet.
Alexander Hamilton Esq


Title: Treasury Department Circular to the Collectors of the Customs, 11 June 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Collectors of the Customs

Treasury Department,June 11, 1792.
Sir,

Some misapprehension having arisen in regard to the provisions concerning Manifests, contained in the 9, 10, 11 and 12th sections of the Collection Law, it becomes proper to enter into certain explanations—to convey the sense and expectations of this Department on the subject.
It occurs, in the first place, that these Manifests are only required, where vessels are owned in whole or part by Citizens or Inhabitants of the United States. There is therefore, no hardship imposed on persons, who, from situation, are likely to be ignorant of the law.
Secondly. Though nothing is said in either of the above enumerated sections, that would not be satisfied, if the Manifests were on board, and ready to be delivered upon the arrival of a vessel within four leagues of the coast of the United States, whether they were made out at the place of departure, or at sea; yet it is clear, from express words in the 16th section, that they ought to be on board at the time of the departure of the vessel from the foreign port or place, at which her cargo was taken in. The general design of the provision, equally with the words alluded to, require this construction.

If, therefore, it appears that no Manifests were on board at the time of the departure of the vessel from the foreign port or place, where her Cargo was taken in, it will become the duty of the officers to enforce the penalties of the act (which are found in the 10 and 12th sections) subject to the powers of mitigation and remission, vested in the Secretary of the Treasury. Here will be room for a liberal attention to the difficulties which are natural to the first execution of new regulations.
The proviso to the 10th section is a further mean of giving an accommodating operation to the regulation; taking care not to defeat the main design. If the Manifests have once been on board, and have been lost or mislaid without fraud or collusion; if they have been defaced by accident, or, if they are incorrect, through mistake, in each of these cases, the forfeiture is remitted, and the Collector is, in the first instance, the judge.
If any circumstances, therefore, required by the 9th section, are omitted—if any parcels of the cargo should not be included in the Manifests—if, upon the whole, the omission can be fairly ascribed to misapprehension, inadvertence, hurry or mistake, there is latitude to avoid a rigorous enforcing of the provision; and it is incumbent upon the Collector to make reasonable and due allowances, having regard to the usual course of business.
It has been suggested that it is impracticable to comply with some of the requisitions of the 9th section. That which respects the expressing of the marks and numbers of packages, in words at length, is particularly mentioned.
On a review of these requisitions, understood as they ought to be, I do not perceive any real impracticability in any of them. That which requires the expression of marks and numbers, in words at length, is the most questionable of any, and it must be confessed, that where the numbers are unconnected, and the packages numerous, it might occasion a prolixity which would amount to an inconvenience; but where the numbers are in succession, the execution would be both simple and easy.
For example—

20 Bales of Cotton,

P. S.

No. 1 to 20
 +

 G.
which is the usual mode,

would be easily expressed thus:

Twenty Bales of Cotton,

P. S.

No. one to twenty
 +

 G.

The marks would be expressed in both cases alike; because, on a reasonable construction, it cannot be intended that marks, consisting of letters, are to be expressed in words; still less, that mere characters, which have no absolute signification, shall be so expressed; as, in the example given, the +. The terms of every legal provision are to be taken in a reasonable and practicable sense, and so as not to involve impossibility or absurdity. If a literal execution be not practicable, it must be approached as nearly as is practicable, pursuing the general intent, and securing a substantial conformity.
But there are cases, in which a provision, though not strictly impracticable, may be so inconvenient as to demand some degree of relaxation. And where the question relates to collateral precautions in Revenue laws, for the security of the Revenue, small deviations from literal strictness may, with due circumspection, be admitted. I will only observe that such deviations ought to be really necessary ones—such, without which the essential course of business might be disturbed, and oppression ensue—and ought to be as seldom, and as little as possible.
A question occurs, as to the tenor of the oath prescribed by the 16th section, as it relates to the subject of Manifests. The Master or Commander of the vessel is, in the cases in which Manifests are required to be on Board, to deliver them to the Collector to whom he makes Report,—and to declare to the truth of them “as they ought to be in conformity to the directions of the act.”
It is to be observed that the precise form of the oath is not prescribed in the law—and is, therefore, left to be devised by those who are to administer it. It is of course to be so framed as to include whatever is directed to be included in it, and no more; but where general terms are used, the particulars which they appear, from the law, to be intended to comprise may be substituted. It would be dangerous, and might lead to unintentional perjury, to oblige a Master or Commander to swear that the Manifests, which he delivers, are, “as they ought to be, in conformity to the directions of the Act.”
The declaration ought, therefore, to express, in substance, that the Manifests, produced and delivered, “contain a true, just and particular account of the cargo, which was on board the vessel at the time of her departure from the foreign port, (naming it) from which she last sailed for the United States, and that all matters and particulars, therein expressed, are true.” What these particulars ought to be must be determined by the directions of the 9th section.
The evidence on which the law appears to rely, as to the fact of the Manifests being on Board at the foreign port of departure, is their being ready to be delivered, upon demand, at any time after the vessel arrives within four leagues of the Coast of the United States.
This, however, would not exclude the admission of other evidence, if there should be any other.
It is observable, that the Act speaks of one or more Manifests, in reference to the same vessel. This is to give greater scope to conform to circumstances. A part of the Cargo may be taken in at one port, and a Manifest made out there; another part, at another port, and another Manifest made out there. Or a Master may have supposed her loading complete, and prepared his Manifest, and he may afterwards take in other articles, and have to make a supplementary one—or there may be reasons of commerce for not including all the Cargo in one Manifest.
This regulation concerning Manifests is considered as of real importance to the Revenue. It will tend, by early ascertaining the true condition of vessels, to prevent plans for smuggling being concerted, after their arrival within the United States, and will be a considerable restraint upon the use of opportunities, which may present between the time of arrival upon the coast, and the final entry at the port of destination.
It is, therefore, expected that careful attention will be paid every where to its observance; with the qualifications, which have been indicated, to avoid any thing that might justly be deemed a grievance.
If the Merchants are made sensible that a compliance is expected, (and pains should be taken to inform them of what is expected) they can, without inconvenience, cause it to be effected by proper instructions to their Masters and Correspondents. A Manifest can surely be as well made out before the departure, as after the arrival of a vessel,—inaccuracies, in both cases, are to be expected, and due allowances made for them.
The 16th section of the Collection Law, considers the report of the Master as a distinct thing from the rendering of a Manifest. But in every case the Manifest may constitute the principal part of the report, which may be annexed to the Manifest, with a reference to it; specifying such other particulars, required to be in the report, as may not be expressed in the Manifest. This will be a perfect compliance with the provision, and will save trouble.
With great consideration, I am,   Sir,   Your obedient Servant,
A Hamilton


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Thomas Willing, 11 June 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Willing, Thomas

Treasury Department June 11th 1792
Sir

I have the honor to enclose for the consideration of the Board of Directors, the draft of an Agreement, for carrying into execution the Eleventh Section of the Act, which incorporates the subscribers to the Bank of the united States.
They will perceive that it is substantially in conformity to the suggestions, contained in your letter of the 29th of last month. As far as there may be any difference in the manner, it is for the sake of pursuing with greater caution the letter of the law; which speaks of “a subscription.”
with respectful consideration   I have the honor to be   Sir   Your obedt Servt
Alexander Hamilton
P.S.   If any alterations appear proper The Board will please to suggest them.
Thomas Willing EsqrPresident of the Bankof the United States


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to William Seton, 12 June 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Seton, William

[Philadelphia, June 12, 1792. On June 25, 1792, Seton wrote to Hamilton: “I have made a long delay in answering your favours of the 12th. & 19th.” Letter of June 12 not found.]


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Benjamin Lincoln, 13 June 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Lincoln, Benjamin

Treasury DepartmentJune 13 1792.
Sir

⟨It appears by⟩ a letter which I have received from ⟨the Collector of Bermuda⟩ Hundred that Captain Silas ⟨Dogget, of the Ship George⟩ of Boston on clearing at his Office for a ⟨foreign port⟩ (Ostend) in May 1791, delivered up a trading license, issued at Boston, which, it is stated, was immediately transmitted to you, and a certificate of the delivery granted to Dogget. From Ostend the Captain returned to Boston; and being about to depart from thence to the District of Bermuda Hundred, he asked Mr Rice for the trading license, which he had delivered up at Bermuda Hundred, and which, being found, and not cancelled, was given to him without his paying the Tonnage Duty; and that this identical license was again delivered up by the said Captain, on his clearing for Cadiz.
I communicate the circumstance to you, as the transaction was doubtless irregular; the redelivery of the license, after a foreign voyage, being against the express letter of the law.

  Benjamin Lincoln Esqr. Boston


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Oliver Wolcott, Junior, 13 June 1792
From: Wolcott, Oliver, Jr.
To: Hamilton, Alexander

T. DC. Off June 13. 1792
Sir,

The paper referred to by Abishai Thomas Esq. in his Letter dated the 12th instant, is merely a Rect. signed “James Green Jr. Treas. Loan Office” for a number of indented Certificates supposed to be then issued in pursuance of the resolutions of Congress of the 2d. of January & 2nd. of July 1779 in favour of a Chairman of a Committee of Accounts in North Carolina. The Rect. was given by Mr. Green, by order of the General Assembly for a deposit in his hands untill further orders. The manner in which the Rect. is expressed, and the character & office assumed by Mr. Green at the time of this transaction, evidently shew that he acted in the capacity of a State Officer. This opinion is confirmed by the circumstance that no Credit has been passed for the deposit in question in Mr. Greens accounts as Commr. of Loans. There has not been the least evidence adduced that the indented Certificates were ever cancelled—the contrary is fairly to be inferred from the tenor of the Rect.—consequently if Mr. Thomas’ claim should be admitted, the United States would be twice charged with the same debt.
It may also be observed that James Green had no authority to pass a Rect. which should be obligatury upon the United States as a debt; and if the contrary were true, still this Rect. could not be recd. on Loan as it answers none of the descriptions of evidences of debt, mentioned in the Act of Congress passed on the 4th of August 1790.
It is my present opinion that the United States are in no respect bound by the rect. in question, but in case they are in any way affected, the operation of the Rect. ought to be determined by the Commrs. who are to settle the Accounts of the States with the United States.
I am &c
HonA H


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to William Gardner, 14 June 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Gardner, William

Philadelphia, June 14, 1792
Sir,

The Comptroller has intimated to me that there are some expressions in a letter from you to him, indicating some disposition to resign, in consequence of the insufficiency of your compensation. The manner in which you have executed the duties of your office, has been so entirely satisfactory to me, that I shall regret your resignation not a little, and under this impression I am induced to recommend to you to wait the issue of another session. In a report which I made to Congress during the last session, I proposed an increase of your emoluments, and I believe if it had not been for the lateness of the session, when the impatience of Individuals to get home, produced a disposition favorable to objections which tended to prevent the entering upon new business, an additional provision would have been made. The trust of a Commissioner of Loans is so very delicate and important, that it is impossible it can be long left in any state, without such a compensation as will secure a worthy and adequate character in the execution of it.
With much esteem, I am,   Your obedient servant,
A. Hamilton.
Wm. Gardner, Esq.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Robert Purviance, 14 June 1792
From: Purviance, Robert
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Baltimore, Maryland, June 14, 1792. “The 21st. of last month, I was informed by three reputable Merchants of this place, that there had been landed from on board the Sloop Ceres, Jno. T. Child, Master, from district of New Port, a quantity of Rum, part of which was said to be West India, and that they had cause to believe that the same was Rum distilled within the United States.… I was fully convinced of the deception, and accordingly directed the Inspector to make a seizure of the whole of the rum under that description, and likewise to proceed without loss of time to seize on the Sloop.…” Letter not found.]


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to William Short, 14 June 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Short, William

Treasury DepartmentJune 14 1792
Sir,

Your two letters of the 26th of January and 24th of March have come to hand since mine to you of the 7th of May.
For an answer to the first I believe I need do nothing more than refer you to former communications. On the latter some observations arise.
You will consider any suggestions which you may find in my letters concerning a rule for adjusting the value of the payments to France rather as hints than instructions. I must however repeat my wish that the point may be now settled. If left for future liquidation and brought to the seat of our Government considerations may be pressed which may embarrass a proper adjustment of the matter; though foreign to those which ought really to govern in such a case. There can be no juncture more favorable than the present for placing the affair upon an eligible footing.
The management of this matter as well as of every other which may concern the reimbursement to France remains with you. If in complicance with official usages, Mr. Morris’s instrumentality should be requisite, he will be instructed to co operate.
I shall learn with pleasure that the operation which you were meditating with Boyed and Keir has been carried into execution.
That which you State as the only objection to it would not under the existing circumstances be of much weight. The pecuniary ability too of the parties and their connections would be a material security against some of the principal inconveniences, which were to be apprehended from the accumulation in question. And by creating another monied combination interested in the funds of the Country, it may even in some aspects, tend to render its credit less dependent on the speculations and resources of a small number of Individuals.
It will however be a very valuable ingredient in the arrangement, if it shall embrace an adjustment of the Indemnification to France for the depreciation of the Assignats. You will perceive that I am solicitous this point should in no event remain undetermined.
Your anxiety on the subject which closes your letter is natural but not necessary. The situation you have been in is properly appreciated and that of your sucessor will be so likewise. You need not apprehend misconstruction either on the part of the Government or of the Community.
Accept my thanks for the continuance of your attention to the course of the Baltic Navigation, and believe me always to be with sentiments of real consideration & esteem   Sir   Your obedt. Servant
Alexander Hamilton
William Short EsqrMinister Residentfrom the United States at the Hague


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Abishai Thomas, 14 June 1792
From: Thomas, Abishai
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Philadelphia 14 June 1792
Sir

I have duly considered your letter of the 13th with the Comptroller’s answer to your reference to him of my letter to you of the 12th Inst.
The certificate or receipt in question is in fact what the Comptroller has only “supposed” it to be as may be fairly inferred from the face of the paper itself. The deposit being made “until further orders” does not in my opinion destroy the validity of the receipt, because nothing is adduced to shew that such further orders were issued and I am clearly of opinion such never were.
The idea suggested by the Comptroller that Mr. Green “acted in the capacity of a State Officer” is new to me, and I confess I cannot see any ground for that position. That he was an Officer of the United States at the time of this transaction is evident; indeed his signature and title affixed to the paper contended for is demonstrative of this, and the Treasury department have admitted the fact, by receiving on loan all other Certifica⟨tes⟩ issued by him, of the same description with those for which this receipt was given; which were presented for that purpose. Besides the State never had such an Officer, that came to my knowledge, and I believe if such had been established, I should have known it.
Mr. Green having died previous to the settlement of his accounts as Loan Officer, it is probable that no person can now explain fully the transaction, and as I have been informed his accounts are defective in other instances, I see no just cause why this should be selected as an article to be rejected for want of the formality of an item that such a deposit was made and that a corresponding credit existed to the State of North Carolina. Whether “the indented Certificates were ever cancelled” is a matter I cannot directly ascertain, but I conceive it improbable that they should again be put in circulation, no person had authority to withdraw them from the hands of Mr. Green except by order of the General Assembly, and if he held them uncancelled subject to such orders. It is probable they were destroyed among other papers which were buried to prevent their falling into the hands of the enemy.
It being obvious that Mr. Green was not a state officer, it follows that the United States are bound by his official acts, and the Comptroller’s observation, that he “had no authority to pass a receipt which should be obligatory upon the United States,” is in my opinion a position untenable. The Comptroller himself has admitted the contrary by receiving on loan certificates signed by Mr. Green as before recited.
It is true that the paper in question does not literally “answer” any “of the descriptions of evidences of debt mentioned in the act of Congress passed on the 4th August 1790,” but it is an acknowledgment of a deposit in the hands of an Officer of the United States of Certificates which literally do answer one of the descriptions recited in said act, as such I have claimed a right to fund it in behalf of the State of North Carolina. As such I yet hold the opinion that it ought to be received, and notwithstanding your having once decided against me, I have a presentiment that on giving the subject a candid discussion you will adopt my side of the question.

I have the honor to be,   Sir   Yr. obt. Servant
A. Thomas
Secretary of the Treasury


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Jeremiah Wadsworth, 14 June 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Wadsworth, Jeremiah

Philadelphia June 14 1792
Dr Sir

I sent you some days since the statement of monies received by me on account of Mr Church & shall be glad to know it got safe to hand and has answered your purpose. It was as perfect as I could make it.
Yrs truly
A Hamilton
J Wadsworth Esq


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Lewis F. Delesdernier, 15 June 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Delesdernier, Lewis F.

Treasury DepartmentJune 15. 1792.
Sir

I find by a remark, subjoined to one of your accounts, that you leave the monies, falling due on Bonds, in the hands of the Obligors, until a safe opportunity offers for Boston. This practice being against the express letter of the law must be forborn in future. It involves a responsibility, on your part, in as much as motives of safety would less exonerate you in cases where parties should fail in their payments, after indulgence had been granted by you, than in a plain case of theft or robbery.
I conceive the safest mode of securing the public money would be to provide a small iron chest, which might be fastened to the floor; and if one that will answer the purpose can be procured upon reasonable terms I shall have no objection to the expence.
I am, Sir,   Your Obed Servant
Lewis F Delesdernier EsqrCollector Passamaquody.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to John Langdon, 18 June 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Langdon, John

[Philadelphia, June 18, 1792. On June 28, 1792, Langdon wrote to Hamilton: “I was honor’d with your favor of the 18th. Inst. by post.” Letter not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Tobias Lear, 18 June 1792
From: Lear, Tobias
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia] June 18, 1792. Transmits “a letter from John Ritchie, Inspector of the 2d division in Maryland, to the President.”


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Otho H. Williams, 18 June 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Williams, Otho H.

Treasury DepartmentJune 18. 1792.
Sir

I have this day decided upon the two cases of Zacharie Coopman and Company, on behalf of Mr. Nichols, and of John Stump. In both I have remitted the interest of all parties, Upon the petitioner’s paying for all actual and necessary disbursements. Duplicates of my decision go, by the mail of this day, to the Clerk of the District Court, at Baltimore.
I am, Sir, with consideration,   Your Obedt Servant
A Hamilton
Otho H Williams Esqr.
Baltimore.