Title: To George Washington from Philadelphia Citizens, 15 June 1795
From: Citizens of Philadelphia
To: Washington, George

            Philadelphia,15th June 1795.
            To the President of the United States,

          The Grand Inquest for the City of Philadelphia, with the highest deference and respect, present.
          That the general regret and indignation, excited by the circumstances of the late Insurrection, being succeeded by sentiments of pride and satisfaction, naturally impressed by the wise, humane, and effectual manner, in which the violated authority of the laws has been vindicated and restored, the Grand Inquest conceive that it is justifiable to express, an earnest wish that the interesting scene may be finally closed, without exacting from the offenders the dreadful forfeit of their lives. The same benevolent policy which induced you to endeavour to recall every deluded Citizen to a sense of his duty, without the application of force, will, it is repectfully hoped, recommend an exercise of your Constitutional power to pardon, when the infliction of punishment can produce no public advantage, which the effect of your other patriotic measures has not already ensured. For, if the principal objects of punishment are to reform the sufferer, and to warn others from the perpetration of similar offences, the Grand Inquest are persuaded, that the death of the two culprits, left by the law at this time dependent upon your mercy, cannot add to the remorse, which the detestation of the Community has awakened, nor impair that security against a repetition of such crimes, which results from an experien⟨ce⟩ of the practical energy of the Government.
          The Grand Inquest are neither disposed, nor able, to extenuate the offences, that have been perpetrated by the convicts, to whose cases they have referred: but in addition to the remark, which they have made on the subject, it may not be improper to observe that the Leaders in the recent outrage offered to the Laws, have escaped either by flight, or by a reliance on the faith

of Government: The victims offered, therefore, to the justice of the Country, if not the most innocent, are, probably, the most ignorant; and the impunity, which has been obtain⟨ed⟩ by the art and machinations of others, may not, perhaps, be unseasonably requested, in pity to their folly and delusion.
          But the Grand Inquest, in making this respectful interposition in favor of the wretched convicts, are more[o]ver forcibly impelled by a reference to the Penal Code of Pennsylvania, and to the universal horror of their fellow-citizens, at the idea of inflicting the punishment of death. If High Treason had been committed against this Commonwealth, the legal sentence would only have amounted to a long imprisonment at hard labour; and, in administring the laws of the Union, there is the most perfect confidence, that you will accommodate every laudable sentiment, of every local description of your Fellow Citizens, where it can be done consistently with the laws and interests of the Union.
          Under these impressions, The Grand Inquest earnestly entreat that the mercy of the President may be conferred on [  ] Vigol and [  ] Mitchell, now under sentence of death in the Jail of Philadelphia, for the crime of High Treason: and, in making this request, they enjoy perfect confidence, that his compliance will be an event highly grateful to his constituents; that it will not be productive of any consequences injurious to the peace, or safety, of the Community; and that it will display to the world, an association of the principles of Power and Humanity, which cannot fail to exalt the reputation of the American Government.

            Will: Adcock foreman[and 15 additional signatures]


Title: From George Washington to Alexander White, 15 June 1795
From: Washington, George
To: White, Alexander

            (Private)
            Dear Sir,
            Philadelphia 15th June 1795

          After an unqualified acceptance of the Office of Commissioner of the Federal City, and a lapse of time at an important season

for business, it would be uncandid not to say that I feel pain at your hesitating now, to enter upon the duties of that office.
          I had not heard before the receipt of your letter, that you had resumed the practice of the law; nor did I suppose that you could, with your family, transplant yourself in a moment to the Federal city; although I wished it might happen at as early a period as you could make it convenient, foreseeing advantages which would result from the measure.
          The proposition was not made to you under an idea that you were skilled in the principles of Architecture—or because I supposed you had any particular knowledge of work, or the quantum to be exacted from workmen. The first is varying continually, according to the demand for, or the exorbitance of, the people: and care only is necessary when the latter is executed by contract, or the piece, to prevent, as much as the nature of the case will admit, imposition; and when day wages are given, (which in all practicable cases ought to be avoided) to have an eye that the overlookers of them are diligent.
          For these, I have no doubt your judgment, inclination and industry are quite adequate. In all other respects, I am equally persuaded, you are well qualified to discharge the duties of Commissioner; and it would give me, and I think I may add the public also, entire satisfaction if you could make it conveniet and agreeable to yourself, to devolve your time and attention to this business.
          Unless this is done, I should not feel myself justified in the change of compensation to the Commissioners, from six dollars a day while they were in Session to sixteen hundred dollars per Annum. That change being the result of conviction, that as the city progressed, nothing short of constant attendance (allowing for those occasional absence which every person in the discharge of public trust require, at times) would enable the Commissioners, to answer the end of their appointment. Therefore the above sum, which was conceived adequate to this service, was resolved to be given. With esteem and regard, I am—Dear Sir; Your Obedt Hble Servt

            Go: Washington


Title: Philip Vigol Stay of Execution, 16 June 1795
From: Washington, George
To:

            By the President of the United States.
            [16 June 1795]

          Whereas at a Circuit Court of the United States holden at Philadelphia in and for the Pennsylvania District of the middle Circuit, Philip Vigol late of Fayette County in the said District, yeoman was duly convicted and attainted of Treason against the said United States, and by the sentence of the same Court was ordered to be taken to the place of execution on the seventeenth of June instant, and there to be hanged by the neck till he be dead, as by the records of the said Court appears: And Whereas it hath been certified to me by Benjamin Rush William Shippen and Samuel P. Griffith—all of the City of Philadelphia, Physicians, that the said Philip Vigol appears to them, on due examination had, to be at this time, deranged in his understanding and of unsound mind, Therefore be it known that I George Washington President of the United States, duly considering the Premises have thought proper to respite and hereby do respite the execution of the said sentence, until the first wednesday of November next: and the Marshal of the said District is hereby commanded to take notice of the same and to cause execution of the said Sentence to be stayed accordingly.
          In Testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed this sixteenth day of

June in the year of our Lord, 1795, and of the Independence of America the nineteenth.

            Ge. WashingtonBy the President,Edm. Randolph.


Title: To George Washington from Aaron Burr, 18 June 1795
From: Burr, Aaron
To: Washington, George

            Philada 18 June 1795

          Mr Burr presents his respectful Compliments to the President of the United States. He requests to be informed whether it will be agreeable to the President to converse with him on the subject of the treaty lately submitted to the consideration of the Senate, and if so, that he will be pleased to appoint an hour for that purpose.


Title: To George Washington from William Jackson, 18 June 1795
From: Jackson, William
To: Washington, George

            Sir,
            Philadelphia June 18th 1795

          When in Europe I supposed that the collection of State papers, contained in the volumes of which I presume to request your acceptance, might be useful—as such, and as a small tribute of the most grateful respect, I entreat you to receive them. all that perfect esteem can make me, I am Sir, your obliged and faithful servant

            W. Jackson


Title: To George Washington from Joseph de Maisonneuve, 18 June 1795
From: Maisonneuve, Joseph de
To: Washington, George

          Letter not found: from Joseph de Maisonneuve, 18 June 1795. On 14 Nov., Timothy Pickering wrote Maisonneuve: “I am directed by the President of the United States to acknowledge the receipt of your two letters to him, one dated the 8th of April, the other the 18th of June last” (DNA: RG 59, Diplomatic and Consular Instructions, 1791–1801).


Title: To George Washington from Tobias Lear, 19 June 1795
From: Lear, Tobias
To: Washington, George

            My dear Sir,
            Georgetown [D.C.] June 19th 1795

          I have been duly honored with your respected favor of the 15th instant, and shall, agreeably to your wishes, invest the balance in my hands in the Stock of Alexandria Bank as soon as a proper opportunity of doing it shall offer. I have been expecting a fall; but as the time of dividend draws so near I doubt whether they will be much below the principal & 4½ pr Cent Interest— and if they are to be had for about that price I shall buy.
          I pray that my best respects may be made acceptable to Mrs Washington and good wishes to the family—being very truly— and with the most perfect respect, my dear Sir, Your obliged & grateful friend

            Tobias Lear.


Title: To George Washington from Timothy Pickering, 19 June 1795
From: Pickering, Timothy
To: Washington, George

            War Office June 19. 1795.

          The Secretary of War respectfully presents to the President the name of Mr George Clymer for one of the Commissioners to hold the treaty with the Creek Indians.
          Mr Fitzsimons, it is understood, will contest Mr Swanwick’s election for the city of Philadelphia.

          Mr John D. Cox is highly esteemed for his integrity and candour—his law-knowledge and sound judgement: But he is thought to be slow in conceiving, and particularly exposed to be led astray by artful, designing men.
          Mr Clymer possesses the requisite abilities, integrity, experience in business, and firmness.

            Timothy Pickering


Title: To George Washington from William Peachey, 20 June 1795
From: Peachey, William
To: Washington, George

            Dear and much venerated Sir
            Baltimore June 20th 1795

          The young Gentleman who will have the Honour of presenting this to you is a nephew of mine who having been bred to the Sea became attached to that Line of Business. As soon as he heard that some Ships of War were directed to be built for the Protection of the American Trade, requested me to give him a Letter of Introduction to the Power who had the Appointment

of the Officers thereto. Being unwilling to encroach on your Time so consequential to the Country over which you preside, and informed that such Matters went usually thro’ the Secretary of State, I addressed a Letter to him on the Subject. He referred my Kinsman to the Secretary at War (then General Knox) who coud, at that time, only register him; but, as I was informed observed that as his Modesty had only solicited a first Lieutenancy, there was no doubt but he woud succeed in his Wishes. Mr Heath, the Representative of the district in which I live, after his Return from Congress, inform’d me he had mentioned the Application to you and that you had not disapproved of it, asking at the time if he had been put on the Register. In consequence whereof Capt: Peachey has held himself in Readiness to obey your Call to the duty, but hearing nothing from the War department since, in which the Officer has been changed and having thrown himself out of Business, now goes on to the Seat of the General Government, in order to be assured of what he may expect from that Quarter and to know when his Service will probably be required, that, if not soon he may, in the mean Time get Employment in the mercantile Navigation. Be assured I would not urge this matter if I did not believe him to be a bold, active and expert Seaman. I hope therefore you will pardon me for sending him, at this time to the Fountain Head. My Letter to the Secretary of State I expect is in the War Office which be pleased to call for. I am Dear Sir, with every Sentiment of Esteem your mo: obedient and Affectionate

            Willm Peachey


Title: From Timothy Pickering to Bartholomew Dandridge, Jr., 20 June 1795
From: Pickering, Timothy
To: Dandridge, Bartholomew Jr.

            War Office June 20. 1795.

          Mr Dandridge will be pleased to lay before the President the inclosed letter from Mr Seagrove & the Newspaper which accompanied it.

          The Secretary of War has had copies made of the Talks of the Creek Chiefs, which he proposes to forward by post next Monday, to Governor Blount.


Title: To George Washington from William Pearce, 21 June 1795
From: Pearce, William
To: Washington, George

          Letter not found: from William Pearce, 21 June 1795. On 28 June, GW wrote Pearce: “I have received your letter of the 21st with its enclosures.”


Title: From Timothy Pickering to Bartholomew Dandridge, Jr., 23 June 1795
From: Pickering, Timothy
To: Dandridge, Bartholomew Jr.

            War Office June 23. 1795.

          If the President should approve of the inclosed letter to the Governor of New-York, it will be transmitted, with the two papers therein referred to, by to-morrow’s post.
          Mr Dandridge will be so good as to lay them before the President.

            T. Pickering


Title: Notes from Edmund Randolph, c.24 June 1795
From: Randolph, Edmund
To:

            [c.24 June 1795]

          The resolution of the Senate is to this import: that the Senate advise and consent to the ratification of the treaty, upon condition, that an article be added to it, which shall suspend so much of the 12th article, as respects the West-India trade: and that the President be requested to open without delay further negotiations upon this head.
          The expectation of the supporters of this resolution is, that the President will send to the Senate an article to this effect, drawn in form, and ask them, whether they do assent to such an article, if it be inserted in the treaty; that upon their saying, that they will, the President will now ratify the treaty provisionally, put it into the hands of his minister, with an instruction to exchange it for a similar treaty.
          This subject cannot be taken into consideration by the President too early; as it involves some critical, delicate and hazardous points.
          1. If he sends an article ready drawn, it will be asked, why did he do so? The answer is, that he was anxious to prevent delays in concluding the treaty. Does he mean to exhibit his approbation of the treaty so strikingly? Thus much is true, that unless such a proposition should originate from him, it cannot originate from the Senate; because they have no right to make independent propositions upon an executive matter. I say independent for I consider the proposition of a qualified ratification, as connected with their constitutional power over the treaty.
          2. As a qualified ratification is a new thing in diplomatic history; so may our forms of proceeding be accommodated to the newness of our situation. Hence the President has, on one occasion, inquired of the Senate, whether they would ratify a treaty with a certain clause in it. But he has never yet gone so far, as to ask them now to approve a particular article, which he proposes; and now beforehand to approve a treaty, which shall have that article in it. It is true, that the Senate will see as fully now, as they can hereafter, what will be in the treaty. But if the regular

course of proceeding being to have before them the act, which they are to confirm, it will be viewed by the world as an excessive ardour to get at the treaty, were the President to overleap the usual forms by such a proposition.
          3. Does he mean to ratify now, so as to render it unnecessary for the treaty to come back to himself, after the new suspending article is inserted? If he does, the propriety of putting the final seal on an act, before it is complete, or of delegating to another the power of seeing that it is complete, is, to say the least, very doubtful. And if the President ought not to do this for himself, ought he to apply to the Senate to do it for themselves?
          4. The propriety of this proceeding will be determined by the public according to the effects, intended to be produced. These will be clearly seen to be, to prevent a future senate from negativeing the ratification, as they may do, if the question be not settled now, and to cut off delay. Whether the latter is so important as to counterbalance the impressions, arising from the former, the President will determine.
          5. Perhaps it will be incumbent upon the President to satisfy himself on these questions: 1. Will he bind himself now to ratify upon the change being made in the West India article, so that he cannot refuse to ratify, let other circumstances be, as they will—2. what kind of person, and who is to be employed in this new business?
          1. Silence—2. positive declaration—3. qualified declaration.
          1. Silence throws a doubt on Pt’s intentions; the effect incidental to an unsettled state of things.

            From silence, assent argued—why not express.
            P. must express to B. Govt else delay—why not now?

          Qu: if form settled satisfactorily.

            Is article necessary to be propounded?
            May it not defeat immediate adjustment?

          2. positive.

            Message.
            The resolution of the Senate, by which “they do consent to and advise the Pt of the U.S. to ratify the treaty of Amity, commerce and navigation, lately concluded between his B. M. and the U.S. of America,” on the co⟨ndi⟩tion therein expressed, was yesterday notified to me. It is expedient, that I should inform you, in

what sense I understand that resolution. It is, that, as soon as the condition shall be fulfilled in conformity with the instructions and approbation of the President, his ratification is to take effect and he may cause the ratification to be exchanged. (I shall therefore proceed upon this idea, unless the contrary be stated to me; and, if the condition be agreed to, I shall ratify the said treaty).
            1st alternative—I shall therefore hold myself free to act upon this construction, unless the contrary be stated to me.
            2d Alternative. I shall therefore proceed upon this idea, unless the contrary be stated to me; and if the condition be agreed to, I shall ratify the said treaty, should no justifying cause shall cause oppose such a measure.
            Qu: if necessary to say any thing about further negotiation.

            Draft of an article to be added.
            Whereas the President and Senate of the U.S. of America have expressed their desire that there be added to the foregoing treaty an article, suspending the operation of so much of the 12th article as respects the trade, which his majesty thereby consents may be carried on between the U.S. and his islands in the West Indias, in the manner and on the terms and conditions therein specified.
            It is therefore agreed, that the operation of so much of the said article, as is now recited be suspended.

            Message.
            The resolution of the Senate, by which “they do consent to and advise the President of the U.S. to ratify the treaty of Amity, commerce and navigation, lately concluded between his B.M. and the U.S. of America,” on the condition therein expressed, was yesterday notified to me—I infer from hence, that it is not the expectation of the Senate, that the treaty should be returned to them for consideration; and that as soon as the condition shall be fulfilled in conformity with the instructions and approbation of the President, he is free to cause the ratification to be exchanged. But as I am desirous when I deliver my final judgment on the treaty of being assured, that I have truly understood the sense of the senate; I submit to them whether an article, which shall be in substance the same with the draught, now forwarded, will fulfil the condition intended by the resolution.


Title: To George Washington from Edmund Randolph, 25 June 1795
From: Randolph, Edmund
To: Washington, George

            June 25. 1795.

          E. Randolph has the honor of suggesting to the President, whether it may not be expedient to take the opinion of the gentlemen in writing on the following points: 1. Is not the resolution of the senate, respecting the treaty between the U.S. and

G. Britain, intended to be their final act; or do they expect, that the new article shall be submitted to them, before the treaty takes effect? 2. Does the constitution permit the President to ratify the treaty, without submitting the new article, after it shall be agreed to by the British King, to the advice and consent of the senate?
          Upon these points E.R. has satisfied himself. But he knows, that it is contemplated to embarrass the treaty, by objecting to the course, which may be observed in its ratification; and therefore is anxious, that the President be supported in his measures upon it, by the best advice, which is at hand.
          Mr Adet has proposed a conference with E.R. tomorrow morning. The hour proposed is 9 o’clock. Whatever has been lying in his breast, will no doubt then appear.


Title: From George Washington to the U.S. Senate, 25 June 1795
From: Washington, George
To: United States Senate

            Gentlemen of the Senate,
            United States June the 25th 1795.

          It has been represented by our Minister Plenipotentiary near the French Republic, that such of our commercial relations with France, as may require the support of the United States in detail, cannot be well executed without a Consul-General. Of this I am satisfied; when I consider the extent of the mercantile claims, now depending before the French government; the necessity of bringing into the hands of one agent the various applications to the several committees of administration, residing at Paris; the attention which must be paid to the conduct of consuls and viceconsuls; and the nature of the services, which are the peculiar objects of a minister’s care, and leave no leisure for his

intervention in business, to which consular functions are competent. I therefore nominate
          Fulwar Skipwith, to be Consul-general of the United States in France.
          I also nominate John Kelty, of Maryland, to be Inspector of the revenue for Survey No. 1. in the District of Maryland.
          William Nichols, of Pennsylvania, to be Marshal of and for the Pennsylvania District—vice David Lenox, resigned.
          John Davis, of Plymouth in Massachusetts, to be Comptroller of the Treasury of the U. States; vice Jonathan Jackson, declined.
          John Stockton, to be Commissioner of Loans for the State of Delaware; vice James Tilton, resigned.
          Dudley Atkins Tyng, of Massachusetts, to be Collector for the District of Newburyport; vice Edward Wigglesworth, superceded. and
          George Forster, to be Collector for the District of Sunbury in the State of Georgia; vice James James, who was appointed by the name of John James in February last, & who has declined.

            Go: Washington


Title: From Timothy Pickering to Bartholomew Dandridge, Jr., 27 June 1795
From: Pickering, Timothy
To: Dandridge, Bartholomew Jr.

            War-Office June 27. 1795.

          Mr Dandridge will be pleased, at a convenient time, to lay the inclosed letter before the President. The writer, David Campbell, of the southwestern territory, begged it might be presented; otherwise The Secretary of War would not have troubled the President with its perusal. It contains merely an eulogy on Governor Blount, as the writer says “in energetic strains.” He aims at the poetic stile; and perhaps very properly; as poets deal in fiction.
          The other papers inclosed are from Governor Blount. This is the second time he has written since the receipt of a letter from the Secretary of War, of the 23d of March last, which contained many pointed animadversions on the Governor’s proceedings in relation to the Indians; but of which he has yet given no explanation.


Title: From George Washington to Israel Shreve, 27 June 1795
From: Washington, George
To: Shreve, Israel

            Sir,
            Philadelphia June 27th 1795.

          Had the terms on which I offered you my land in Fayette county been complied with on your part, the bargain, as I informed you in my letters, would have been conclusive on mine. But this not being done, and the end of June likely to be as unproductive as the first of it, of the payment which was then to have been made, I conceive my self under no obligation to fulfil the offer I made you on the 14th of January last, of the abovementioned land. Nevertheless, if by the first day of August next, you shall pay One thousand pounds Pennsylvania curry with interest thereon from the first day of June—and interest on the remaining sum from the sd first of June agreeably to the former proposals, in the letter abovementioned—and do, moreover, pay up all arrearages of Rent (on account of which I learn from Colo. Cannon, to my very great surprize, much is due) the conveyance will be made to you in the same manner as if payment had, according to agreement, taken place on the first of this month. If it is not, I do here by declare, that the former agreement & the present offer, will be considered as null & void, to all intents and purposes, as much so, as if no negotiation had ever taken place between us for the said land. With esteem & regard I am—Sir Your Very Hble Servt

            Go: Washington


Title: From George Washington to William Pearce, 28 June 1795
From: Washington, George
To: Pearce, William

            Mr Pearce,
            Philadelphia 28th June 1795

          I have received your letter of the 21st with its enclosures, and am very glad to find by it that your Wheat crop is likely to turn out pretty well. The sample of the grain which you sent me is not bad; but are the ears large, or small? If the former, and filled with grain as good as that which you sent me, I shall have no cause to repine; notwithstanding the injury it sustained by the rains and frosts of the open winter. Continue to observe, & compare with the grain which grew nearest to it, that that was cut on the 17th instant. If in doing this it shall be found, ultimately, not to have shriveled, and that a bushel of it is as heavy as a bushel of other wheat (of the same kind, & nearly of the same quality in appearance, while growing) and will moreover yield as much flour it may be considered as an unequivocal evidence of the propriety of early cutting: for even admitting there should be no waste from over ripeness, & shedding of grain in the latter part of Harvest—nor no risk from beating rains which break the straw, & lay it down but too frequently at that s⟨eas⟩on, yet, the advantage which would be derived from the difference, in the straw, cut at these two periods, is alone an object of great magnitude, in support of the stock; and would amply counterbalance, & compensate for some shrinkage in the grain.

          As the weather, latterly, has been seasonable, & your oats (now) must be in head, a pretty good idea may be formed of the crop; that is—whether the prospect is good; bad; or indifferent: of which you will let me know. At the sametime, it wd be pleasing to hear how your Corn, Potatoe, Buck Wheat, &ca &ca look— and what the prospect for grasses is.
          I had in my own mind, fixed on Monday the 13th of July to commence my journey for Mount Vernon; but having heard of the chiefs of two distant Indian nations being upon their road on a visit to me, and on business also; it is highly ⟨probable⟩ I shall not have it in my power to get out so soon. Have Veal, Mutton & Lambs in good order for us; and reserve a good many of the last years Oats for the Stable, as there can be no question of a heavy demand for them; for we already know that many intend to visit us, so soon as they hear of our arrival. I am Your friend &ca

            Go: Washington


Title: To George Washington from William Pearce, 28 June 1795
From: Pearce, William
To: Washington, George

          Letter not found: from William Pearce, 28 June 1795. On 5 July, GW wrote Pearce: “Your letter of the 28th, with the enclosed reports, was duly received.”


Title: To George Washington from Burgess Ball, 29 June 1795
From: Ball, Burgess
To: Washington, George

            Dear sir,
            Bigg Spring near Leesburg [Va.] 29th of June—95

          I take the liberty of requesting your Oppinion & advice respecting a Trip my wife & myself have a thought of making in a few Weeks. For many years past we have been visitting the different Baths in Virginia, in hopes thereby of removing many Complaints she has long been afflicted with, but, as yet, no Amendment seems to’ve taken place, & on the contrary her Breast & Bowells are more & more effected. The Sea Air and Bathing in Salt Water has often been recommended, and our Plan now is to

go to the Eastward, to such place as we may have the best opportunity for Sailing and Bathing—Rhode Island I’ve often hear’d recommended, but, knowing myself nothing of any of the Places frequented for Health, we wish your particular advice in the matter. If Sailing is thought most advisable, I’ve a thought of going in the Packetts from one place to another, shd the Expence be not too great, of which I know nothg about. I expect ’twill be best to take no Servants, but one or two Invalids we’ve a thought of taking for their health also—Miss Milly we shall endeavour to prevail on to go with us. I have just finish’d my Early wheat, the Grain of which I think is more perfect than any Crop I ever before saw—The latter wheat is in general much injur’d by the Rust, on this and the other side of the Mountain as I had a Letter from Sam a few days ago mentiong the damage with & about him. My Health is much mended but not well reinstated—Fannys grows worse, and Miss Milly is far from being in a good State, thus situated, and knowg that you can have the best Information and can best advise us, I take the freedom of thus troubling you. From Alexanda we meen to embark for the Port (if practicable) most suitable, and I’ve written to my friends there to know when the different Packetts arrive & when they leave that Port. Fanny unites in best respects &c. to Mrs Washington & yourself, & I am Dear sir Yr Affect. Hbe. Servt

            B: Ball

            P.S. Since writing the above I’ve been thinkg, that probably, cd we get on Board some of the revenue Cutters, they being generally about the Capes, it might give us more Sea air, but of this I can form but little Judgmt either.

              B:B.


Title: To George Washington from John Jay, 29 June 1795
From: Jay, John
To: Washington, George

            private
            My dear Sir
            New York 29 June 1795

          The enclosed contains my Resignation of the office of chief Justice—I cannot quit it, without again expressing to You my acknowledgments for the Honor you conferred upon me by that appointment; and for the repeated marks of confidence & attention for which I am indebted to You.
          It gives me pleasure to recollect and reflect on these circumstances—to endulge the most sincere wishes for your Health and Happiness—and to assure you of the perfect Respect Esteem and Attachment with which I am Dear Sir your obliged & affectionate Friend and Servant

            John Jay


Title: To George Washington from Edmund Randolph, 29 June 1795
From: Randolph, Edmund
To: Washington, George

            June 29. 1795.

          E. Randolph has the honor of sending to the President the substance of two conversations held to-day—He wishes to record them, and will therefore receive them, with the President’s permission, when he waits upon him tomorrow—As Mrs Adet is to pay her respects to Mrs Washington tomorrow at two o’clock, E.R. will avail himself of the interval, which will be left between her going away, and three o’clock, to do the daily business with

the President, unless he shall be pleased to indicate a different hour.


Title: From Timothy Pickering to Bartholomew Dandridge, Jr., 30 June 1795
From: Pickering, Timothy
To: Dandridge, Bartholomew Jr.

            Dear Sir,
            War-Office June 30. 1795.

          I mentioned to the President to-day the request of Mr Boudinot that the President would sign 50 diplomas for the New Jersey Cincinnati. The President thought he had signed that number during the late session of Congress. The inclosed papers will show that General Knox was to request it: but I suppose the blanks were never sent to the President. For I now find in this office one bundle containing 50, unsigned, and a like bundle I sent to-day to the Presidents to be signed. Now the resolve of the Jersey Society shows that the whole number to be procured was but 100.
          If the President should find leisure this afternoon to gratify the wishes of the New-Jersey Society, I could transmit the diplomas to Mr Boudinot conveniently by Mr Simmons, who will set out in to-nights stage. But if not perfectly convenient to the President, to sign the diplomas this afternoon, I should doubtless meet with some other conveyance between this and Friday morning. Your obt servt

            Timothy Pickering


Title: To George Washington from Oliver Wolcott, Jr., 30 June 1795
From: Wolcott, Oliver Jr.
To: Washington, George

            Treasury Department June 30th 1795.

          The Secretary of the Treasury in obedience to the requisition of the President of the United States respectfully submits his opinion upon the following questions, arising upon the resolution passed by the Senate on the 24th of the present month, respecting the proposed Treaty with Great Britain.
          1st Is, or is not, the said resolution intended to be the final act of the Senate, or do they expect that the new article which is proposed, shall be submitted to them before the Treaty takes effect?
          2nd Does or does not the Constitution permit the President to ratify the Treaty without submitting the new article after it shall be agreed to by the British King, to the Senate for their further advice & consent?
          To the first question the Secretary of the Treasury replies, that the said resolution of the Senate is a final act of that body, by which they have expressed in the terms of the Constitution, their approbation of every article in the said proposed Treaty, excepting a part of the twelfth article to which the Senate have not assented. And it is the opinion of the said Secretary, that in case a form of ratification shall be adopted by the President and be accepted by his Brittanic Majesty, reciting an article suspending the operation of that part of the 12th article to which the Senate have not assented; that the said resolution will be fully satisfied & the proposed Treaty will become valid & obligatory upon the contracting parties, without the further concurrence of the Senate.
          To the second question the said Secretary replies, that the powers of commencing negociations with foreign nations & of propounding, or receiving propositions, which are intended to be introduced into Treaties with the United States, are by the Constitution exclusively vested in the President—that in making

treaties the powers of the Senate are merely deliberative & that their advice & consent can be expressed only upon such propositions, as are submitted to their consideration.
          It is conceived however that the Senate are not confined to to a general affirmative or negative decision, on a proposed Treaty embracing distinct propositions; but that they may regularly limit their concurrence by such exceptions as they judge proper.
          In deciding upon a proposed Treaty which has been submitted to the consideration of the Senate, the President is however to regard the entire act as modified by any exceptions, and may approve or reject the same as he shall judge proper. But in case the President shall see fit, to approve of a proposed Treaty with the exceptions of the Senate, he may accordingly ratify the same, without submitting for their further advice & consent, such rescinding clauses or articles, as it may be necessary to introduce into the Treaty, for the mere purpose of giving effect to the concurrent decisions of the President & Senate. All which is most respectfully Submitted to the consideration of the President of the U. States by

            Oliver Wolcott jrSecr. of the Tresy


Title: From George Washington to James McHenry, 1 July 1795
From: Washington, George
To: McHenry, James

          Letter not found: to James McHenry, 1 July 1795. A purported ALS was offered for sale by Parke-Bernet, The James McHenry Papers, Part I: Public Auction Sale, (3 May 1944), item 213.


Title: From George Washington to John Rutledge, 1 July 1795
From: Washington, George
To: Rutledge, John

            Dear Sir
            Philadelphia 1st July 1795.

          Your private letter of the 18th ulto and Mr Jay’s resignation of the Office of chief Justice of the United States, both came to my hands yesterday.
          The former gave me much pleasure, and without hesitating a moment, after knowing you would accept the latter, I directed the Secretary of State to make you an official offer of this honorable appointment. To express to you my wish that it may be convenient, and agreeable to you to accept it. To intimate, in that case, my desire, & the advantages which would attend your being in this city the first monday in August (at wch time the next session of the Supreme court will commence)—and To inform you, that your Commission as chief Justice will take date on this day (July the first when Mr Jay’s will cease) but that it would be detained here, to be presented to you on your arrival.
          I shall only add, that the Secretary will write to you by Post, and by a water conveyance also if there be any Vessel in this harbour which will sail for Charleston in a few days—and that, with much sensibility for your good wishes—and an assurance of the sincerest esteem & regard I am—My dear Sir Your most Obedient and Affectionate Hble Servt

            Go: Washington


Title: From George Washington to John Jay, 2 July 1795
From: Washington, George
To: Jay, John

            My dear Sir,
            Philadelphia 2d July 1795

          Your letter of the 29th Ulto resigning the Office of Chief Justice of the United States I received yesterday, & with sincere regret.
          For the obliging sentiments you have expressed for me in your private letter which accompanied it, I as sincerely thank you.
          In whatever line you may walk, my best wishes will always accompany you; they will particularly do so on the theatre you are about to enter upon; which I sincerely wish may be as smooth, easy and happy, as it is honorable. With very great esteem & regard I am—my dear Sir Your Obedt & Affecte

            Go: Washington


Title: From George Washington to Alexander Hamilton, 3 July 1795
From: Washington, George
To: Hamilton, Alexander

            (Private, & perfectly confidential)
            My dear Sir,
            Philadelphia 3d July 1795

          The treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation, which has lately been before the Senate, has, as you will perceive, made its public entry into the Gazettes of this city. Of course the merits, & demerits of it will (especially in its unfinished state) be freely discussed.
          It is not the opinions of those who were determined (before it was promulgated) to support, or oppose it, that I am sollicitous to obtain; for these I well know rarely do more than examine the side to which they lean, without giving the reverse the consideration it deserves; possibly without a wish to be apprised of the reasons, on which the objections are founded. My desire is to learn from dispassionate men, who have knowledge of the subject, and abilities to judge of it, the genuine opinion they entertain of each article of the instrument; and the result of it in the aggregate. In a word, placed on the footing the matter now stands, it is, more than ever, an incumbent duty on me, to do what propriety, and the true interest of this country shall appear to require at my hands on so important a subject, under such delicate circumstances.
          You will be at no loss to perceive, from what I have already said, that my wishes are, to have the favorable, and unfavorable side of each article stated, and compared together; that I may see the bearing and tendency of them: and, ultimately, on which side the balance is to be found.
          This treaty has, I am sensible, many relations, which, in deciding thereon, ought to be attended to; some of them too are of

an important nature. I know also, that to judge with precision of its commercial arrangements, there ought likewise to be an intimate acquaintance with the various branches of commerce between this Country and Great Britain as it now stands; as it will be placed by the treaty; and as it may affect our present, or restrain our future treaties with other nations. All these things I am persuaded you have given as much attention to as most men; and I believe that your late employment under the General government afforded you more opportunities of deriving knowledge therein, than most of them who had not studied and practiced it scientifically, upon a large & comprehensive scale.
          I do not know how you may be occupied at present; or how incompatible this request of mine may be to the business you have in hand. All I can say is, that however desirous I may be of availing myself of your sentiments on the points I have enumerated, and such others as are involved in the treaty, & the resolution of the Senate; (both of which I send you, lest they should not be at hand) it is not my intention to interrupt you in that business; or, if you are disinclined to go into the investigation I have requested, to press the matter upon you: for of this you may be assured, that with the most unfeigned regard—and with every good wish for your health & prosperity I am Your Affecte friend and Obedient Servant

            Go: Washington

            P.S. Admitting that his B: Majesty will consent to the suspension of the 12th article of the treaty, is it necessary that the treaty should again go to the Senate? or is the President authorized by the resolution of that body to ratify it without?

              G.W.


Title: To George Washington from Gouverneur Morris, 3 July 1795
From: Morris, Gouverneur
To: Washington, George

            private
            My dear Sir
            London 3 July 1795

          This Letter will be confin’d to a single Object. I had Yesterday the Honor to see Lord Grenville. After some general Conversation we fell naturally on the State of Things between this Country and America. On the Capture of our provision Vessels (premising that I had no Right to interfere) I exprest a Wish that the Redress intended might be speedy, as Delay was hurtful to the Merchant. His Lordship told me that he beleivd every Thing possible was done to facilitate the Settlement, and was inclin’d to think the Price allowed would render the Capture rather useful than injurious to the Owners. He then told me he was glad of the Opportunity to mention some Things which had led him to apprehend he had been mistaken as to the Dispositions of our Government. He had acted in the Perswasion that these were friendly & could make Allowances for those Acts which in free Governments must be attributed to the popular Will of the Moment, but those Things which he had in Contemplation seemd to proceed from the Government itself. His Lordship instanced as one of them a Report of Mr Innes to the Governor of Kentucky in which he states that the Withholding an Acknowlegement of our Right to a free Navigation of the River Mississippi by the Court of Spain must be attributed in part to british Influence. His Lordship repeated to me his Sentiments on that Subject already confided to Mr Jay who will doubtless have communicated them to you. It results that the Declaration of Mr Innes is both unjust & injurious. I took upon me to say that such Expressions must not be considered as coming from the Government of America but meerly as the Opinion of the Person by whom they were uttered, and I know you so well that I am sure I run no Risque in giving this Assurance. Permit me however my dear Sir to observe that it seems most consistent not only with the Prudence but the Dignity of Government to prevent as much as possible these hot Speeches lest we should fall into the State describ’d by Butler “when hard Words Jealousies and Fears set Folks together by the Ears”. His Lordship was particular in mentioning that these Things do not excite Irritation but Apprehension. This Distinction consists with his Majesty’s

Dignity but the ultimate Object is the same since either must lead to disagreable Consequences. Now there is every Reason to beleive that the Governments mean well and fairly to each other, it would therefore be peculiarly unfortunate that Misunderstandings should arise especially in the present Moment on Ground the most foreign to your Temper and Disposition. Adieu my dear Sir I am always and truly yours

            Gouv. Morris


Title: To George Washington from Henry Latimer, 4 July 1795
From: Latimer, Henry
To: Washington, George

            Wilmington [Del.] 4th July 1795

          I was yesterday informed by Colonel Bedford of New Castle, the Ships from Ireland had proceeded for Philadelphia before my Letter had reached him.
          other Vessels are daily expected, upon their arrival he will have due inquiry made, and if Servants likely to answer your purposes can be procured he will engage them. I have the Honor to be with particular respect Your Excellencys Obedient servant

            Henry Latimer


Title: To George Washington from Edmund Randolph, 4 July 1795
From: Randolph, Edmund
To: Washington, George

            Philadelphia July 4. 1795.

          E. Randolph has the honor of informing the President, that he is prevented from waiting on him this morning by a tenesmus in his bowels, which has been very painful to him for four hours, and keeps him constantly on his legs. He is afraid, that it will deprive him of waiting on the President in any other part of the day.
          It is pretty certain, that the intended outrage in Kensington is suppressed; and that the leading men have been reasoned into a submission to order.


Title: From George Washington to Thomas Johnson, 5–6 July 1795
From: Washington, George
To: Johnson, Thomas

            Dear Sir,
            Philadelphia 5[–6]th July 1795

          Your favor of the 15th Ulto, came to my hands at a time when my attention was much occupied on some matters of importance. To this circumstance, and to my knowledge (as you will perceive by the enclosed extract of a letter from the Secretary of State to the Commissioners of the federal city) that one of your requests had been anticipated; and to the expression of your apprehension, that another would probably come too late; is to be ascribed my silence ’till now. I have, however, desired the Secretary of State to give it as my opinion to the Commissioners, that all transactions respecting the square which is in dispute between you, and them (in behalf of the public) ought to be suspended until the pending adjudication is terminated, unless they can assign reasons to the contrary which do not occur to me: and I can but again, and again, express my regret, that so unpleasant a dispute should have arisen. But unless the Commissioners are impeached for malpractice in office; or are specifically charged with incapacity and unfitness to discharge the several duties entrusted to them; I do not see on what ground,

or with what propriety I could institute an enquiry into their conduct: beyond this, I am sure I should have no right to proceed.
          The answer which I gave Mr D. Carroll to a request not dissimilar to the one made by you, but more limited in its object, is herewith inclosed, as a just statement (as far as I have recollection) of all the transactions respecting this dispute, that passed between yourself, Messrs Scott and Thornton and me, in the course of my journey to—from—and at Mount Vernon in April last. The letter of those Gentlem. which came to me at that place, did not, even at the moment of its reception, strike me as an official act of the board; but rather as a comment on the existing dispute, and explanatory of the motives which had actuated their conduct. In this view, the propriety of ordering a copy to be furnished might be questioned. If it be of record in the office it is already comprehended in the direction they have received in the letter of the 23d Ulto from the Secretary of State to them, a copy of which (instead of an extract) I have this moment received from that office. With the greatest esteem & regard I am—Dear Sir Your obedt and Affecte Servant

            Go: Washington


Title: From George Washington to William Pearce, 5 July 1795
From: Washington, George
To: Pearce, William

            Mr Pearce
            Philadelphia 5th July 1795

          Your letter of the 28th, with the enclosed reports, was duly received.
          I think it very likely that I shall commence my journey for Mount Vernon about the middle of this month—but as business may detain me a few days longer than I expect, I will not speak positively at this time. In my next, I shall, I hope, be able to name the day I shall leave the city. But let not this prevent your writing as usual, as I shall meet the letter on the road, if it does not arrive here, before I set out.
          If the dormant windows are not put in, on each side of the Pediment, front side of the stable, I could wish (if it does not interfere with the more important work of Donaldson) that it might be set about; it would not only add to the look of the building, but the grain & hay both, would derive benefit from the air it wd receive from those windows; As would the Stables, if the back dormant windows could be compleated on the range with those already in, and of the same size, & appearance.
          Davy’s lost lambs, carry with them a very suspicious appearance; and it will be to be regretted, if he betakes himself to Rogueries of that sort; for in that case, no thing will escape, if he can avoid detection; & grain will be less liable to it than animals. If the lambs had been poisoned, or had died a natural death, or their deaths had been occasioned by any accident, their bones would have been forth coming, and his not being able to produce them, is an argument both of his guilt, and of his not expecting to be called upon for that evidence of the truth of his assertion, & fair dealing. This circumstance will make it necessary to watch him a little closer. He has some very sly, cunning & roguish negroes under him; among whom none has a greater

disposition to be so, or who he can make a more useful agent of, than Nathan; his mother and father.
          How, when the Manufacturing Season is over, or the water is scarce, is Ben at the Mill employed? Surely the Miller (who ought himself under these circumstances to be employed in Coopering) does not keep him in the Mill merely to save himself the trouble of taking off, & pulling on a few bags of grist, in the week—I have often intended to enquire into this matter; but always, at the time of writing, forgot to do it.
          What is the matter with Ruth & Ben, (not the Ben that cut himself) at River Farm, that week after week they are returned Sick? The first of them, Ruth, has been aiming, for sometime to get herself excused from work. More than they are able to do in reason, I do not expect; but I have no idea of their being totally exempted, whilst work proportioned, and adapted to their strength & situation, can be found for them. The example is bad, and will be too readily (as is the case at present with several more of them) attempted; if, under the plea of pains, &ca &ca they find they can carry their point.
          I am sorry to hear you are indisposed, and that Groves is ill—I hope this letter will find you both recovered. I am Your friend & well wisher

            Go: Washington


Title: To George Washington from William Pearce, 5 July 1795
From: Pearce, William
To: Washington, George

          Letter not found: from William Pearce, 5 July 1795. On 12 July, GW wrote Pearce: “Your letter of the 5th, and the reports of the preceeding week, have been received.”


Title: To George Washington from Alexander Hamilton, 6 July 1795
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Washington, George

          Letter not found: from Alexander Hamilton, 6 July 1795. On 7 July, GW wrote Hamilton: “Your letter of yesterday is this moment received.”


Title: To George Washington from Edmund Randolph, 6 July 1795
From: Randolph, Edmund
To: Washington, George

            July 6. 1795.

          E. Randolph has the honor of returning to the President his letter to Mr Johnson with a few pencilled suggestions. The letter from Messrs Scott and Thornton to the President on the 20. April 1795. does not seem to E.R. to be one, which Mr Johnson can require; because it is not an act of the board, directing one thing or another to be done; it is only a comment upon the transaction

in general. A court of equity would not draw such a paper from their possession; if it has any connection with the dispute, it will naturally come forth in their answer or they may suppress it. But it is certain, that, unless the President means to communicate to Mr Johnson all the observations and asperities, which they utter against him, this letter is not properly communicable to him by the President’s order. At the same time, if they choose to do so, there could be no objection to it. Perhaps, however, it may not be amiss to say to Mr Johnson in addition to the letter now going to him; that altho’ the President does not hold himself at liberty to dictate to the commissioners to give to him a copy of the letter of the 20th April 1795, yet that he (the President) has determined not to come to any conclusion, or to form any prejudice on either side, until the matter shall be heard in court.
          Quære, if the letter of the 20th of April 1795 be one of those papers, which the President supposed he had returned to the commissioners, and informed Mr Carroll of? E.R. concludes, that it is not. But if it be so, ought not something to be said to Mr Carroll, to correct the mistake—A memorandum is sent to Mr Taylor for the copy which the President calls for.


Title: From George Washington to Alexander Hamilton, 7 July 1795
From: Washington, George
To: Hamilton, Alexander

            My dear Sir,
            Philadelphia 7th July 1795

          Your letter of yesterday is this moment received. Not a line from Mr Pinckney. I fancy he left London for Madrid about the 8th or 10th of May—Nor has the government any thing but News-paper accounts of the order you allude to. Yours ever & Affectly

            Go: Washington


Title: To George Washington from Timothy Pickering, 7 July 1795
From: Pickering, Timothy
To: Washington, George

            War Office July 7. 1795.

          The Secretary of War respectfully lays before the President of the U. States the draught of a speech to the Chickasaws and Choctaws now in Philadelphia, as representatives, the former of their nation—the latter of the Five Upper Towns.
          The Indians will be held ready to wait on the President at any hour he shall be pleased to receive them, upon notice this evening or to-morrow morning, of the time most convenient.


Title: To George Washington from Edmund Randolph, 7 July 1795
From: Randolph, Edmund
To: Washington, George

            Private
            Dear Sir
            Philadelphia July 7. 1795.

          I this morning received the inclosed letter. It relates to a subject, which, notwithstanding the suggestions of Mr King, Mr Burr, Mr Bradford and some other gentlemen, I positively forbid to be mentioned to you. Why I forbid it, the reasons are very, very many; for altho’ the wish of the most respectable of the bar in this city might have seemed to countenance it; yet

One reason overpowered in my mind every other; that I did not think it right in itself, and that the world would not think it so. It shall never be said, that I would ask for myself, what would be improper for your character to grant.
          But this letter has really led me into a train of reflection, which I have endeavoured to suppress, but which pours too rapidly into my mind to be resisted.
          I foresee, as I believe with certainty, that the present chief-magistrate will not be prevailed upon to continue in office after the expiration of this term; and I cannot well reconcile to myself the idea of serving, where I now am, under any other—This is not all—With an abstinence from company, which does not comport with my station, I run in debt, and hazard again those difficulties, from which the sales of my estate are likely to relieve me. The incessant anxiety of my wife, founded upon the experience of the last eighteen months, urges me even now, to adopt as alternative, either to put down my carriage, and live in a very circumscribed style; or to go again into the practice of the law. That the latter is the most lucrative course is to me obvious. But it would enevitably throw me into the lower parts of Virginia, and I do not wish to go farther south than Alexandria at any rate—The former does not correspond with public expectation; and public expectation must in a degree be consulted.
          Time has rolled so fast and unperceived over my head, that I have not, until a year or two past calculated, how few remain for very active exertion. Nor have I, until a year or two ago, been persuaded, that, if an accident should befal you, the union is split in twain; unless it should be placed above the machinations of its enemies during your administration. In the event of a dissolution, Virginia will not be, for me or my family, a proper country to dwell in.
          Thus circumstanced, and looking to all events, I think I ought to capacitate myself to take my position, in whatsoever part of the U.S. I may find most comfortable. Philadelphia is at present the most so; and no place appears likely to come into competition with my wishes, until the fœderal city shall receive congress. There, if the Union should remain intire, I mean to fix the fortunes of my son.
          I am now brought to that stage of my reflections, at which my sensibility is most alive. A transposition into Mr Blair’s office

would seem to separate me rather more from you. As to yourself, my continuance on my present ground can be no farther important, than to close the weighty matters, now depending. These I would not quit, for my own honor, if I could not go through them notwithstanding. It is among the most pleasant of my sensations, that in spite of the ferment, raised by a few wicked men, I shall have some future credit in being in your confidence until you have established peace and order in the United States.
          I shall intrust none sir, but yourself, with these thoughts; never meaning to say to you thro’ a second hand any thing of this nature. It is probable, that until after the supreme court, the subject will lie dormant; and that there may be no necessity to think of it until february. My only object is now, to relieve myself from a course of reflection, which might otherwise lie heavy upon my mind. I have the honor to be my dear sir, with the most cordial and grateful attachment, yr affectionate and sincere humble serv.

            Edm: Randolph


Title: To George Washington from William Deakins, Jr., 8 July 1795
From: Deakins, William Jr.
To: Washington, George

            Sir
            Geo. Town [Md.] July 8th 1795

          Mr Hugh Thompson of Baltimore who Married Miss Sprigg has purchased Doctr Stewarts Part of Wodstock Mannor, & I find he is desirous to purchase Yours, he gave Doctr Stewart 8 Dollars ⅌ Acre & from Conversation I have had with him, I am of Opinion he will give you ten Dollars ⅌ Acre Cash, if you are disposed to part with this property I will mention it to him; & If I

can be serviceable in the Negotiation, you may freely Command me. with great Respect & Esteem I am Dear Sir Your Obt Servt

            Will. Deakins Junr


Title: To George Washington from Robert R. Livingston, 8 July 1795
From: Livingston, Robert R.
To: Washington, George

            Dear Sir
            ClerMont [N.Y.] 8th July 1795.

          Possessing no official situation which entitles me to offer my sentiments on political measures I may possibly be deemed intrusive when I offer my unasked advice. But Sir feeling the same ardent love for my country which has so freequently in times of danger & difficulty served as an appology for my letters, I still presume, without any other than that which arises from my solicitude in the present alarming situation of our affairs to offer you the unbiassed sentiments of a citizen whose whole life has been employed in endeavouring to understand & as far as in him lay in promoting the interests of his country, of one who considers your glory as closely connected with that interest & who views the present as a favourable moment to place it above the reach of party violence, & to procure to yourself a second time, by the common consent of America the endearing appellation of the savior of your country. In my present retired situation I have carefully read & considered the treaty with England I see in it not the slightest satisfaction for our wrongs. I see them in some instances authorized. In the commercial part I see articles which tho’ professing to be mutual are in no sort reciprocal, I see a

want of precission in many which may involve us in freequent disputes. But above all I dread in the ratification of the treaty an immediate rupture with France where (as I am informed by Letters from thence) the very apprehension has already excited very disagreeable sensations. To discuss these points or even to dwell on the construction which France may put on the 24th & 25 articles would be an unnecessary waste of your time, since the objections to them could not have esscaped your dicernment, & they may possibly admit of a construction varient from that which they at first view appear to carry with them, but at any rate they were unnecessary, & peculiarly improper at the present moment.
          There are two other articles tho less pointed at, which France can hardly in my opinion consider as much short of a direct declaration of hostilities. By the 17th article it is expressly admitted that enemies property on board of American ships is liable to capture. This is at least a question of considerable doubt since the general assent of civilized nations to the principle of the armed neutrality Britain alone dissenting. & surely this was a very improper moment to turn that doubt into a certainty to the injury of ourselves & our allies. By the latter part of the 12th Article this question it seems is again to be revived within two years after the war. Now as this question is capable of discussion as well at this as at any future time & as it depends in no sort upon the war what other construction can France possibly put upon this delay—than a tacit agreement between us & Britain to aid her (even at our own expence) in her determined hostility to that republic? while we were availing our selves of a contrary principle to protect the property of her rival. This argument derives additional force from the 18th art: which notwithstanding what we have suffered from the british construction of siege & blockade leave it still undefined & of course agreeably to a known principle of the law of nations (Vat.: 2d lib: 17 Cap:) acquiesses in their absurd & unlimmitted construction & enables them (as I am just informed they have done) to renew their attempt to starve France & her colonies. In our treaty with France tar turpentine cordage masts sails plank &c. are expresly declared not to be contraband, by this treaty all these articles are made conntraband. Upon what principle can France suppose that we entered into this stipulation at this time & in the very face of your

proclamation by which you refer to the modern law of nations for a just definition of the word contraband unless it were to disstress them?
          Pardon me sir on the score of my solicitude for the peace & well fare of my country if I intrude upon your time & patience. I dread a war with France as the signal for a civil war at home. She can, & I greatly fear that she will (should the treaty be ratified[)] compel us to enter the lists by claiming the effect of our guarantee of the Islands. Rent as our country unhappily is by parties nothing but personal consideration for your virtues can attatch the public confidence to the measures of government, Nothing but your glory can save under these circumstances the honor of our nation. I have the honor to be Dr Sir with the highest respect & essteem & with the sincerest attatchment Your Most Obt hum. Servt

            Rbt R. Livingston


Title: From George Washington to the Earl of Dundonald, 9 July 1795
From: Washington, George
To: Earl of Dundonald

            My Lord,
            Philadelphia 9th July 1795

          By Mr Jay I had the honor to receive your Lordships favor of the 9th of April, accompanying your treatise “on the intimate connection that subsists between agriculture and chemistry.” The work must be curious and interesting, and for your goodness in sending it to me, I pray your Lordship to accept the best thanks of your most Obedient and Obliged Hble Servant

            Go: Washington


Title: From Timothy Pickering to Bartholomew Dandridge, Jr., 9 July 1795
From: Pickering, Timothy
To: Dandridge, Bartholomew Jr.

            War Office July 9. 1795.

          The Secretary of War requests Mr Dandridge to lay before the President the inclosed letter of John Parker Hale, lieutenant in the corps of artillerists and engineers, desiring to resign. From the information heretofore received by the Secretary, the resignation is not to be regretted.
          Mr Hale wishes to leave town to-morrow morning.


Title: To George Washington from Edmund Randolph, 10 July 1795
From: Randolph, Edmund
To: Washington, George

            July 10. 1795

          E. Randolph has the honor of sending to the President the draft of a letter to Mr Jaudenes in answer to his, respecting the Georgia sales—The papers, which he sent E.R. are (besides his letter, which I read to the President) a letter from the baron de Carondelet, enclosing one from his correspondent in Charleston, and the acts of Georgia translated into Spanish. They all go to the single point of stating to Mr Jaudenes, that such acts have passed, derogatory from the rights of Spain.


Title: From George Washington to John Sinclair, 10 July 1795
From: Washington, George
To: Sinclair, John

            Sir,
            Philadelphia 10th July 1795

          I could not omit so favorable an opportunity, as the departure of Mr Strickland affords me, of presenting my best respects to you; and my sincere thanks for the views of Agriculture in the different counties of Great Britain, which you have had the goodness to send me. and for the Diploma (received by the hands of Mr Jay) admitting me a foreign honorary member of the board of Agriculture.

          For this testimony of the attention of that body; and for the honor it has conferred on me, I have a high sense; in communicating of which to the board, I shall rely more on your goodness than on any expression of mine, to render it acceptable.
          From the first intimation you were pleased to give me of this Institution, I conceived the most favorable ideas of its utility; and the more I have seen, & reflected on the plan since, the more convinced I am of its importance, in a national point of view, not only to your own country, but to all others which are not too much attached to old & bad habits to forsake them and to new countries that are just beginning to form systems for the improvement of their husbandry.
          Mr Strickland has not been idle since he came to this country. To him, therefore, for a description of the climate; the soil; the agriculture, and improvements generally; the modes of carrying them on; the produce of the land; the draught cattle; domestic animals; and the farming implements which are used by our people in the Eastern and middle States, through which he has passed, I shall refer you. Nothing, I believe, has escaped his observation that merited notice.
          You will add to the obligations already conferred on me, by directing your Bookseller to supply me regularly with all such proceedings of the board as are intended for the public; and when they are in a fit state for it, that they may be neatly bound. To this request, I pray he may be desired to add the cost, which shall be paid at sight, to his order here, or remitted to him, as may be most convenient and agreeable to himself. ⟨With very great esteem and respect I have the honor, to be, Sir Yr most Obedt and obliged Hble Servt

            Go: Washington⟩


Title: To George Washington from Alexander Hamilton, 11 July 1795
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Washington, George

          Letter not found: from Alexander Hamilton, 11 July 1795. In a postscript to his letter to Hamilton on 13 July, GW wrote: “I was almost in the act of sending the enclosed letter to the Post Office when your favor of the 11th was put into my hands.”


Title: From George Washington to William Pearce, 12 July 1795
From: Washington, George
To: Pearce, William

            Mr Pearce,
            Philadelphia 12th July 1795

          Your letter of the 5th, and the reports of the preceeding week, have been received. I am glad to hear your wheat harvest is secured. If it yields well it will be fortunate as there is no doubt of the price being good. The Indian corn will have no cause to complain from the want of heat, for some days past.
          If nothing more than I foresee at present, happens to prevent it, I shall leave this place (with my family) for Mount Vernon on Wednesday next, the 15th instt, but when I shall arrive at it, is more difficult to decide, as the weather is extremely hot, and my horses very fat. These circumstances must, at any rate, cause my movements to be slow; or I shall hazard too much in my horses.
          Hoping soon to be with you, I shall add no more than to wish you b⟨e⟩tter health; and that your oat & Hay harvest may prove good. I am Yo⟨ur friend⟩

            Go: Wash⟨ington⟩


Title: To George Washington from Edmund Randolph, 12 July 1795
From: Randolph, Edmund
To: Washington, George

            Sir
            Department of State July 12. 1795.

          The two questions, which I had the honor of receiving from you on the 29th Ultimo, being preparatory to the measures, which appear to me most adviseable to be pursued, on the late treaty with Great Britain; I shall take the liberty of connecting the whole subject together.
          Had the senate advised and consented to a ratification in an unqualified manner, the President would have had nothing, but the merits of the treaty, on which to decide. But as the senate have annexed a condition, it is proper to be understood, in what manner they intended, that condition should be executed. That they intended their resolution of the 24th of July 1795 to be a final act; and that they do not expect the proposed article to be submitted to them before the treaty operates; is the plain signification of their words. The further negotiations, which are recommended, are not to precede, but follow the ratification; for these make no part of the condition; and the discussions in

the senate, which are recorded in the executive journal, shew, not only, that they were apprized of the distinction between precedent and subsequent negotiations; but that the attempts for precedent ones all failed. It was possible, that some people might hesitate upon the constitutionality of the senate, leaving to the President alone, to see, that their condition was complied with. In answer to this it may be said, the senate are to advise and consent, that the President make the treaty: they are not to make the treaty themselves. When they advise and consent unconditionally they rely on the integrity of the President, that he will not suffer any words to be inserted in the paper, or omitted from it. In this case they rely, that he will strictly follow their advice. If he ratifies without again consulting them, he undertakes for the accuracy, with which that advice has been followed. If he ratifies, what they did not agree to, their security consists in this; that the treaty will, for that cause, not be the supreme law of the land; and it cannot be concealed from the world by any official forms, since he must set forth the whole truth of the case in the ratification. The very nature of the power, vested in the senate, implies, that they are to act upon something, not yet complete: the completion of it is reserved to the President. Consequently the senate may give their advise and consent without the very treaty, which is to be ratified being before them. To this it may be objected, that, according to these positions, the senate may now advise and consent to the general matter of a treaty, which may not be formed for years to come, and thus forestal the judgment of their successors. My answer is, 1. that it is not necessary at this moment to decide upon this objection; because it is not the general matter of a treaty, which is consigned to the wording of the President; it is only the simple act of suspending part of an article; which is very little more or less, than striking it out by a pen; and the words, which the senate have used are apt words in themselves, for which none can be substituted, which can well create ambiguity—2. If it were necessary to decide upon the objection, I would say, that it can scarcely ever happen, that the senate will submit to the President to work up the general matter of a treaty in any form, which he shall approve—3. But still the objection recurs: can they do so constitutionally? I think not—How then is this distinguishable from what they have now done? In the circumstance of the amendment being nothing more,

than, (as has been already observed) a mere suspension or striking out; in the inevitable consequence, that if any deviation be made from the sense of the senate by the many shapes of speech, which may be chosen, it will be immediately detected; and in the certainty, that the sense of the senate will be expressed, unless there be a wilful departure from it, which would amount to a cause of impeachment, would avail nothing in fact, and is not to be presumed—4 As to the length of time beforehand, which my doctrine would allow to the senate; the restriction would be this: if the President was once to pass his judgment upon it, whether in the negative or affirmative, the subject would be immediately ended; or if before he had passed his judgment upon it, a future senate should by a vote of two thirds annul the preceding vote, it would be constitutionally abolished. So that the power of a succeeding senate need never be supposed in danger. From these considerations I conclude, that the President may ratify without submitting the new article to the Senate.
          If these difficulties shall be cleared away in the President’s mind, he will next arrive at the two great and momentous questions: 1. whether to ratify, as the senate have advised, or reject: 2. and what line of conduct is to be pursued, in either event.
          1. The reasons for ratifying or rejecting have often passed thro his mind; but, as it will aid me in my own conclusions, to bring the principal of those reasons into one summary view, I beg leave to offer this concise statement.
          A treaty is the act of two independent nations; neither having a right to dictate to the other; and each determining upon what it will yield or accept, partly from its sense of right; partly upon its own strength; and partly upon the inferiority and actual Situation of its antagonist. Compare the U.S. and Great Britain together; and war from us would appear formidable to her, no otherwise, than as it would interrupt her trade and manufactures. These being the only avenues, thro’ which G. Britain, as a nation, could have been really wounded by us, She went into the negotiation with no other apprehension of us; unless it might have been, that the supplies for the West Indies would be witholden. To counterpoise this, she calculated upon our aversion to war, founded upon our true policy: she was conscious of her own ability to enter into any commercial reprisals upon us; and understood the temper of our people too well to believe,

that they would have long forborne from the fruits of neutrality for the indulgence of national hatred. We know, that at one period the British ministry would have made war upon us: her losses and our sincere neutrality perhaps changed this hostile disposition; but she must have been perfectly persuaded, that we could stipulate nothing in her favor, which could relieve her from present difficulties in the war with France.
          Under these circumstances, what kind of a treaty could we expect? Not one, dictated by ourselves; nor yet one, different from all, that have ever been made on such occasions, on principles of compromize and mutual concession. If the present constitution of the U.S., which was the act of sister-states was an affair of accommodation; how could it be expected, that two nations, widely alienated from one another, could agree on any other terms?
          Let the treaty be reviewed under the following heads. 1. the rights, which we have obtained: 2. the rights, which we have surrendered: 3. the favors, which we have gained. 4. Miscellaneous matter.
          My first purpose was to class the articles of the treaty under these different heads, and thus examine them individually. But the paper, which you did me the honor of shewing to me, having gone into this detail, I shall speak of them separately, only where I differ from its writer.
          1. The rights gained are the posts and compensation for the captures.
          2. The rights surrendered are
          1. satisfaction for the negroes. The President will recollect the reasoning, contained in the letter to Mr Jay in december last. This still strikes me, as unanswerably true; and I will add another reflection of no small weight; that, if the negotiators did not think proper to ascertain, who was the first aggressor, every thing dependent upon this idea should have been buried; whereas the U.S. are to be burthened with the debts of individuals, solely because the several states are supposed to have been the first aggressors.
          2. The right of sequestering or confiscating the debts, funds &c. of an enemy—It is a sound principle to prevent such acts— But it will be a subject of great clamor in the house of representatives; as insinuating the apprehension of fraud in them; as

being the symptom of a desire to enlarge the authority to make treaties; as taking away one of the means of redress; and as influencing the questions now depending in court, as far as an opinion can go. It is reciprocal, it is true; and important to commercial credit. But I wish the principle only had been declared, without stipulating against the practice. It would have been sufficiently operative; without being a direct attack upon the house of representatives.
          3. The rights surrendered by the 12th article, need not be spoken of; as it is to be suspended.
          4. The rights of the settlers within the precincts and jurisdictions of the posts &c: I understand this as the paper does, not liable to much exception.
          5. The prohibition of our citizens to take commissions from foreign powers. I understand this, as the paper does, liable to no exception.
          6. The provision against reprisals, until justice be refused or unreasonably delayed will contribute to peace.
          7. The prohibition of countenance to foreign privateers &c. This I understand, as the paper does liable to no objection.
          8. I rank among the rights surrendered the clause respecting provisions being seizable. The paper has not taken into the account, that the seizor will be always the judge whether they are so: that G. Britain has avowed her doctrine on the 8th of June 1793; and that she has again commented upon it in the same way by her late order.
          3. The favors, which we have gained are.
          1. The Indian trade, and the power of supplying Canada &c. with European, Asiatic and domestic articles.
          The paper does not touch the great objection, that British vessels come so high up, while ours are admitted only so low down. It is a disadvantage; but its value is not very important. It will be played off more against Mr Jay’s vigilance, than for any other purpose.
          2. The trade to the East-Indies.
          From the article on this subject we certainly derive two advantages: 1. the conversion of what has been hitherto a favor into a compact; namely a direct trade from the East Indies to the United States—2. the prohibition of higher duties on our exportations, than on British exportations. And the paper supposes,

that every thing else is left upon its old footing; and the same indulgencies may be granted after the treaty, as before—This is apparently the case. But these doubts occur. 1. whether Many American merchants will risque themselves upon the chance of receiving these indulgencies in the face of a treaty; and knowing, that they may be deprived of the opportunity of employing their spare time in going from the East Indies to China &c. with a coasting freight, they may not withdraw from the trade— 2: Whether the probability is not greater, that the indulgencies will be withdrawn, after such a treaty than before it. For why has the British government expressly stipulated against the continuance of the privilege, if it was intended to leave a discretionary power to enforce the restriction, or not?
          4. The Miscellaneous matter of the treaty.
          1. All our differences are closed. This is a most valuable quality; altho’ we have made some sacrifices.
          2. The adjustments as to the Mississippi and St Croix are unexceptionable.
          3. The mode of deciding on the captures is agreeable to usage in one respect, and more favorable than usual in another. I wish, that the stipulation against illegal and irregular captures may be found broad enough for full satisfaction to our citizens.
          4. The European trade stands upon the footing of reciprocity; not very important in any way. The prohibitions of additional tonnage and additional duties deprives the U.S. of the power of discriminating between the British and other nations, is not unreasonable, while we mean to keep peace with Great Britain.
          5. The prohibition to make treaties, in derogation of the 24th and 25th articles cannot be important to us, as it is to last only during our amity with Great Britain; and while we are her friends, we surely cannot wish to assist her enemies. It cannot be important to France, because her treaty secures this point; and in any new negotiation, so much of the old treaty may be reserved.
          Other articles are too small to require a comment.
          Here then I return to the question, whether the President ought to ratify, as the senate have advised, or reject?
          Advantages and disadvantages, depending upon moral reasoning, cannot, like pounds, shillings and pence, be weighed in

opposite scales. For want of a Standard of certainty, let us bring them together, in the following contrast.

              1. Advantages1. Old bickerings settled. except, as to impressments, and provisions.2. Indian wars at an end; at least those, countenanced by G. Britain.3. New opportunities for extending trade in Canada4. Posts surrendered5. Captures compensated6. G. Britain, interested in securing to us the Mississippi.
              2. disadvantages1. Loss of negroes.2. assumption of debts, due to British creditors in certain circumstances.3. the lands, which may be taken from the U.S. by the indulgence to the British settlers.4. the situation of provisions.
              3. doubtful.1. East India trade.2. The European trade cannot be properly called doubtful; but it has no peculiar advantages on our side.

          Independent of these pro’s and con’s, arising upon the face of the treaty, there are some other considerations, intitled to attention; which recommend ratification and dissuade rejection.
          Those, which recommend ratification are
          1. that peace, or rather the noninterruption of our commerce will be secured.
          2. that the danger of being thrown into one set of foreign politics by an abhorrence of the outrages of another will be so far cut up.
          3. that it gives some prospect of extending our commerce with the British dominions.
          4. that as it is not the interest of the U.S. to be on ill terms with France, lest we thereby throw ourselves too much on Great Britain, so vice versa. The U.S. ought to be on good terms with both. It is at least doubtful, whether it be the interest of the U.S., that there should be only one dominant power, or gamecock in Europe.
          The reasons, which dissuade rejection, are
          1. the latitude of authority, with which Mr Jay was vested, and his not having exceeded it.
          2. The little expectation of obtaining a much better treaty.

          3. the possibility of the convulsions of France, re-inspiring Great Britain with her former arrogance.
          4. the impression, which the refusal to ratify will make upon our public, national character; merely because we have not all the advantage on our side. This idea I prefer to the one, adopted by the paper; which supposes us to be called upon by our professions of neutrality to ratify.
          5. the postponement of the surrender of the posts, and its consequences.
          6. the exposure of the twenty senators to a general assault—the consequent alienation of them from the government—the victory to the minority in the senate; who in conjunction with the majority in the house of representatives, will first be loud in their eulogiums on the President, and afterwards never be satisfied, unless they dictate to him. This reason is however of no consequence, if the President be satisfied, that it is right on other grounds to reject the treaty. It is only one of those little things, which may deserve some respect, where the scale of truth hangs in equilibrio.
          To these considerations stand opposed the opinion of a senator, who, under the signature of Americanus, imagines, that the suspension of the 12th Article will suspend the whole of the treaty, except the first ten articles; and the late order, if genuine, for the capture of provisions. That opinion, if true, ought to arrest the ratification; but I cannot, upon any examination, which I have given the subject, discover the principles of it. The last eighteen articles are to expire, only in case the 12th cannot be arranged, before the expiration of two years after the war; and are not affected by any intermediate fate of the 12th article. But the order for capturing provisions is too irreconcileable with a state of harmony, for the treaty to be put into motion during its existence. The reasons are mentioned in the paper, and in another part of this writing. And if no expedient could be found for the emergency, it would be my opinion, that the treaty ought to be absolutely broken up; and if new negotiations could not be opened, that other views of our situation should be examined.
          It is questionable, whether the suspension of the treaty for so just a cause has not some benefits. 1. Before it is completed, this campaign, if not the war, may perhaps be finished—2. the passions of the public will have subsided—3. Possibly some of the

captures may have been decided, and some compensation made, in the ordinary course of proceeding, without the intervention of the treaty; so as to satisfy the people, that the British mean to do justice—4. The subjects, omitted by Mr Jay, to wit, impressments, and orders against the continuance of the capturing system, may be pressed with effect; tho’ not as ultimate—5. It enables the President, as will be seen under the next head, to bring back to himself the treaty, before it is ratified, and thus avoid all risque of censure. 2. The next inquiry is, what step the President will take upon either hypothesis of rejection or ratification—Upon that of rejection, there is but one; namely, an attempt to renew the negotiation.
          My plan for the ratification, tho’ going to the same final object with the paper, is different in the means, which it uses. It is the following:
          The actual position of political affairs in Holland—the actual position of our pecuniary affairs there; as communicated to me by the Secretary of the treasury—the puerile appearance, which it will have, to be shifting ministers about in Europe convince me, that Mr Adams ought not to be drawn over from the Hague to London. If, however, the President shall be pleased to determine otherwise; Mr Adams’s agency will not very materially change the measures, which I propose.
          I take the liberty then of suggesting; that a personal interview be immediately had between the secretary of state and Mr Hammond, and that the substance of the address to him be this.
          “I know, sir, that you are acquainted with the late treaty between the U.S. and his Britannic majesty; and presume, that you have seen the vote of the senate, advising a ratification of it upon condition. That treaty, being still subject to the negative of the President, is now before him, undetermined as to its fate. The candor, which has reigned throughout our proceedings, induces me, with the permission of the President, to explain to you, as the minister plenipotentiary of his Britannic majesty near the United States, what is the course of his reflection upon this momentous transaction. If his majesty could doubt the sincerity of the President’s professions of a desire to maintain full harmony with the British nation; his doubt will vanish, when he is told, sir, as I now tell you, that notwithstanding after the most mature consideration of the treaty, there are several parts, by no

means coincident with his wishes and expectations, yet he had determined to ratify it, in the manner advised by the senate. He had determined to put his hand to it, without again submitting it, even after the insertion of the new article, to the senate.
          “But we are informed by the public gazettes, and by letters, tolerably authentic that vessels, even American vessels, laden with provisions for France may be captured and dealt with, as carrying a kind of qualified contraband. If this be not true, you can correct me.
          “Upon the supposition of its truth, the President cannot persuade himself, that he ought to ratify, during the existence of that order. His reasons will be detailed in a proper representation thro Mr Hammond to his Britannic Majesty. At the same time, that order being removed, he will ratify without delay, or farther scruple. Of this also his Britannic majesty will be informed in the most explicit and unequivocal terms.
          “Now, sir, the object of my interview with you arises from my recollection of your having expressed to me a wish, that the ratifications should be exchanged here, in order that you might have some agency in closing the treaty. I am thus led to believe, that it may not be disagreeable to you, to undertake, what I shall now have the honor of proposing to you.
          “Supposing that Mr Jay’s negotiation would absorb every controversy: that nothing would be left to be done for some time in the ordinary course of residence; or that Mr Pinckney would have returned to London before he was wanted there, he was dispatched as our Envoy to Madrid. He did not commence his journey until the 11th of May last. The secretary of the legation, Mr Deas, is the only person remaining in London as the political agent of the U.S. Being desirous of consummating every thing here, as far as we can, it has occurred to me to state in a memorial to you the situation of the business, and the foregoing declaration of the President’s purpose to ratify. This, we presume, will be immediately transmitted thro’ you to the British ministry. The reply may be handed to Mr Deas. You will also be furnished with a copy of the form, in which the President means to ratify, when the order is rescinded.
          “The President had indeed once thought to order one of our European ministers over to London to supply for this purpose the place of Mr Pinckney. But the most weighty objections

render this impracticable. And it may be also conceived, that to send over a fresh diplomatic character, at this stage of the business, would neither be very easy, nor very expeditious.
          “It is also contemplated by the President, to propose that, for the purpose of saving delay, the ratifications may be exchanged here. For, altho’ he does not doubt the constitutionality of the Senate’s act, and is advised too, that the proposed article, if agreed to by his Britannic majesty, need not be submitted to them before ratification; yet he entertains serious doubts, whether he can himself ratify, without having the very article under his eye, after it shall have been assented to by his britannic majesty. The difference of time in the one form or the other will consist only in a voyage from London to Philadelphia—Provision will be made for the subscription in London of any papers, which form may require.
          “You will oblige me, sir; by giving me your sentiments on this statement.”
          According to Mr Hammond’s reply, so will the government conduct itself.
          If the thing can be arranged with him, it is humbly offered to the President, as the best expedient. If it cannot, let us try, whether Deas cannot be so prepared, as to have little more to do, than what an automaton would be equal to; that is, the mere delivery of papers, and the receiving of answers. If Deas cannot be substituted, then some of our European ministers must of necessity be sent over; unless some qualified person would go from hence, without eclat, in the character of a mere agent. I have the honor Sir to be with the highest respect yr mo. ob. servt

            Edm: Randolph.

            P.S. I forgot to add, as to the order for Seizing provisions a circumstance greatly critical. The reasons, adduced by Mr Adet against the treaty are all against him. But if this order be tolerated, while France is understood to labour under a famine, the torrent of invective from France and our own country-men will be immense.