Title: To George Washington from Timothy Pickering, 21 March 1792
From: Pickering, Timothy
To: Washington, George

Sir,
Philadelphia Wednesday Evening March 21. 1792.

The manner in which I have been employed to effect the present visit of the Chiefs of the Five Nations, renders me peculiarly interested that the negociations with them should conform with the direct object of the invitation. This object is indelibly impressed on my mind; it having been the main argument offered by me, to convince them of the real friendship of the United States. I feel interested in its accomplishment, because it involves the good faith of the United States. For, agreeably to my instructions; “I informed them how desirous you were that the Indians should have imparted to them the blessings of husbandry and the arts:” And I repeated to them your words—“That the United States will be true and faithful to their engagements.”
Having assured them of the assistance of the United States to introduce among them the knowledge of husbandry and a few other important arts connected with it, I invited a small number of the principal chiefs to come to Philadelphia, after the last Corn Harvest, to negociate the plan for their introduction. The visit too, independently of its principal object, might make useful impressions. They delayed coming. The destructive defeat of our army took place. This sad event might prevent their coming. Good policy dictated a fresh invitation. And that it might not seem to flow from fear or discouragement—I thought the renewal of the invitation should appear to proceed wholly from me. The idea was liked by General Knox. I wrote a message to be sent by Mr Kirkland. As I recollect, the General informed me that it was approved by you.
In the message I reminded them of my former invitation to come to the Great Council Fire of the United States, in order to fix the time and manner of introducing among them the knowledge of farming—of smith’s & carpenter’s work—of spinning & weaving—and of reading and writing: these being the arts I had before expressly mentioned.
I added—“That I was impatient for their arrival, that they might receive strong proofs, that the words I spoke to them were true—that they came from my heart—and that the United States are faithful to their engagements.”

The invitation was confined to this single object. Permit me, therefore, to express my opinion, That until the entire arrangement relative to it be formed, to their full satisfaction—no other object should be brought into view. But this being adjusted; with such strong proofs before them of the candor—the truth—the justice & the liberality of the United States—they will be convinced that we are really their friends: and thus they may be led to entertain a belief that we are heartily disposed to be the friends of the other tribes now in arms against us: and impressed with this belief—they may listen to overtures to become mediators between us. But if the latter be proposed in the first instance—the natural order of things will be reversed; and, I fear, every object of their visit defeated.
If the secretary of war had asked me a single question on the subject, I should freely have suggested to him these ideas. This evening I chanced to hear that he (doubtless not adverting to the terms of the invitation) is preparing a speech, to be delivered tomorrow, in which the disposition of the Five Nations to become mediators, is to be sounded. I have therefore thought it my duty, without loss of time, to submit them to your consideration. I have no desire to appear in the matter: having nothing in view but to prevent a serious mischief.
There is an additional reason for the caution here suggested, which I beg leave to mention.
Last Thursday, when the Indians gave me their formal answers to my invitation, they stated many causes of their delay. Among other things they told me that Brant had been the means of detaining them. “Brant, (said they) who knows as much as white people know, told us that the real design of the invitation was not on the paper—but behind it.” That is the avowed object of the invitation was merely ostensible: while the real object was kept out of sight.
There is another reason, which I ought not to conceal. Indians have been so often deceived by White people, that White Man is among many of them, but another name for Liar. Really, Sir I am unwilling to be subjected to this infamy. I confess I am not indifferent to a good name, even among Indians[.] Besides, they recieved, and expressly considered me, as “your Representative[”]; and my promises, as the promises of [“] The Town Destroyer.” Sir, for your honour & the honour & interest of the United States, I

wish them to know that there are some white men who are incapable of deceiving.
I acknowledge sir, that my feelings have been excited: and if I have expressed myself in a stile unusual in addressing you, I trust you will ascribe it to the true cause—the interesting situation in which I stand. With great respect I am sir, Your most h’ble & obedt servt

T.P.


Title: To George Washington from Thomas Jefferson, 22 March 1792
From: Jefferson, Thomas
To: Washington, George

[Philadelphia] Mar. 22. 1792.

The Secretary of state having had under consideration the expediency & extent of a Convention with Spain to be established for with respect to fugitives from the United states to their adjoining

provinces, or from those provinces to the United States, Reports to the President of the United States the inclosed Analytical view of the motives & principles which should govern such a Convention, and the Project of a convention adapted thereto, which he is of opinion should be forwarded to messrs Carmichael & Short, with powers to treat & conclude thereon.

Th: Jefferson


Title: John Lamb to Tobias Lear, 22 March 1792
From: Lamb, John
To: Lear, Tobias

 New York, 22 Mar. 1792. Requests Lear’s “favor, in delivering the enclosed.”


Title: To George Washington from Otho Holland Williams, 22 March 1792
From: Williams, Otho Holland
To: Washington, George

(Private)
Dear Sir,Baltimore 22d March 1792
The receipt of your obliging letter of the 14th Instant gave me very great pleasure, as it gratified a wish to know that your plants were not lost; and that you had a prospect, ultimately, of receiving them safe at Mount Vernon.
I have, for some time past, deliberated on the propriety of consulting you on a circumstance relative to our State Government; and if my mind could admit of an idea that any unworthy motive might possibly be ascribed as the inducement I should certainly have resolved on being silent.
Several persons are nominated, by different interests, as successor to Mr Plater in the Office of Governor of this State; but no one, as yet, seems to obtain a decided preference.
The line of my public conduct has always been direct and decisive; and although I have never Assumed the lead in political controversy, neither have I at any time implicitly followed the dictates of any party. This conduct while it has rendered me more respectable in the opinion of the friends of the present forms of Government, makes me less exceptionable in the opinion of others. In consequence of which, and the persuasion of some respectable men I am induced to believe that I should be honored with an election to the office if I would accept the appointment.
But, my Dear Sir, the office is only temporary and is incompatible with that which I hold under the United States; and although the former may be deemed the most honorable, it is not, all circumstances considered, more profitable than the latter; which, although not permanent is nevertheless bestowed upon a better tenor, and is a convenient addition to the means of supporting my family.
The undeviating Respect, Esteem, Affection and Veneration which I have constantly manifested for your person and Character

must give you the most perfect assurance that I think it impossible you should afford the least countenance to an indirect measure with a view to favor an individual to the prejudice of the public; and I flatter myself that you believe me incapable of wishing your condescension to a thing unworthy of the most exalted elevation of Character—I trust too, that you think I would not, on my own account, risque a proposition improper, or unjust; and in this confidence I beg leave to suggest to you that in the event of my being elected to the Office of Governor of this State, it would be a great inducement to my acceptance, if I could know that Mr William Smith, late of Congress, would be my successor in the Office of Collector for the port of Baltimore; For although I could not possible participate with him the profits of the Office of Collector during my continuance in the other Yet, besides the pleasure of serving him, I could rely upon his liberality and friendship (at a proper time) for his making, in my favor, a vacancy in that Office which for the satisfaction of friends, and perhaps the gratification of ambition, I had relinquished to him. His qualifications for the discharge of its duties, and the respectability of his character leave me no room to apprehend any exception on his account.
My hesitation arose from the delicate nature of the subject which I have not mentioned, and will not mention, even to Mr Smith, without your approbation. I am, Dear Sir, With the most perfect Esteem, respect and attachment; Your most obedient and most Humble Servant

O. H. Williams


Title: From George Washington to the United States Senate, 23 March 1792
From: Washington, George
To: United States Senate

Gentlemen of the Senate.
United States [Philadelphia]March 23d 1792.

At the conferrences which Colonel Pickering had with the five Nations at the painted post, the last year, ideas were then held out of introducing among them some of the primary principles of civilization. In consequence of which, as well as more firmly to attach them to the interests of the United States, they have been invited to the seat of the general government.
As the representation now here, is respectable for its characters and influence, it is of some importance that the chiefs should be well satisfied of the entire good faith and liberality of the United States.
In managing the affairs of the indian tribes, generally, it appears proper to teach them to expect annual presents, conditioned on the evidence of their attachment to the interests of the United States—The situation of the five nations, and the present crisis of affairs would seem to render the extension of this measure to them highly judicious—I therefore request the advice of the Senate, whether an Article shall be stipulated, with the five nations, to the following purport.
To wit: “The United States, in order to promote the happiness of the five nations of indians, will cause to be expended ann[u]ally the amount of one thousand five hundred dollars, in purchasing for them clothing, domestic animals and implements of husbandry, and for encouraging useful artificers to reside in their Villages.”

Go: Washington


Title: From George Washington to Hannah Fairfax Washington, 24 March 1792
From: Washington, George
To: Washington, Hannah Fairfax

Dear Madam,
Philad. 24th March, 1792.

Having lately received from Sir Isaac Heard a letter, with a sketch of a genealogical table of the family of Washington, I have

taken the liberty to enclose copies of them to you, begging your assistance to enable me to comply with the request he has made (if among the Papers of my deceased relation there be any trace of this matter) that I will complete the sketch, by making the additions which are there wanting—or rather by filling up the blanks.
As I have heretofore paid but little attention to this subject, and my present avocations not permitting me to make the necessary researches now, I am induced to ask your aid, presuming, as your late Husband’s father was older than mine you might, either from your own knowledge or a recurrence to documents, or tables in your possession, be able to complete the sketch, and thereby put it in my power to comply with the request of Sr Isaac Heard, which seems to be made with much earnestness, and to which an attention seems due, on account of his politeness. This must be my excuse for giving you the trouble of receiving and answering this letter as soon as you can make it convenient. I am &c.

Go: Washington.


Title: To George Washington from Arthur St. Clair, 26 March 1792
From: St. Clair, Arthur
To: Washington, George

Sir,
Philadelphia March 26th 1792

I beg leave to offer you my unfeigned Thanks for the honor conferred upon me by the Appointment to the command of the Army of the united States the last Campaign. Though that Campaign was unfortunate, I am not conscious that any thing within my power to have produced a more happy Issue, was neglected. As I was prompted, Sir, to accept that Command by no motives of either Ambition or Interest, but by a fervent Wish to be of Service to my Country, and a Belief, perhaps too fondly entertained that I could be so; that I am led to decline it in future proceeds neither from Disgust nor Disapointment.
Having been much afflicted with Sickness during nearly the whole of the Campaign, tho’ I flatter myself the public Interests did not suffer by it; and although my Health is now tolerably restored, my Constitution has received a very severe shock, and I might not again be able to go through the weight of Business which necessarily follows the command of an Army.
Although Sir, I am myself persuaded that every thing was done, in the Course of the last Campaign, that could be done on my part, fully to answer the public Expectations, yet it is denied by some, doubted by many, and known to but few out of the Army—A Wish to rectify the public Opinion, and a Duty that, I conceive I owe to myself, induces me to request that an Enquiry into my Conduct may be instituted—When that is over I may hope to be permitted to resign the Commission of Major General which I now hold. Should the Result of the Enquiry be that, in any Instance, the Duties of my Station were neglected; or, that I did not improve every Hour, and every Opportunity to the best Advantage; or, that the Operations of the Army, after it was in a Condition to operate, were delayed one Moment in consequence of my illness, I shall patiently submit to the merited Censure.
To whoever may be appointed my Successor, I shall be happy

Sir, to give every Light and information my Situation as General of the Army, or of Governor of the western Territory put in my Power to obtain, and to evince to you Sir, and to the World, that the Confidence you were pleased to repose in me was not misplaced. With every Sentiment of Gratitude, of Respect, and allow me add of Affection I have the honor to be Sir, Your most obedient Servant

Ar St Clair


Title: To George Washington from Benjamin Galloway, 27 March 1792
From: Galloway, Benjamin
To: Washington, George

Sir,
Annapolis [Md.] March 27th 1792.

I have taken the Liberty of making the following Communication, in confidence that it will be attributed to a proper Motive, though it should not eventually be productive of the desired Consequence—a Young Gentleman, who served the United States in the Cavalry during the late War; who was afterwards honoured with an Appointment in your Family, and who now resides on the Eastern Shore of the State of Maryland, by a casual concurrence of unfortunate Circumstances, has sustained a considerable Loss of property, insomuch that he has it in contemplation to remove himself, an amiable Wife, and large young Family to the Western Waters—being incapacitated to encounter the Difficulties necessarily connected with such an Undertaking, the probable Consequences would be extremely distressful to himself and Family: I am perswaded Inclination will not be wanting in your Disposition, Sir, to make such provision for him as will enable him to continue in this Country, should a favourable Opportunity offer for so doing, by such an Appointment in the Service of his Country, as his Qualifications entitle him to fill, with Credit to himself and advantage to the Commonwealth—I am with perfect Consideration. Sir. Your Obedient & devoted Servt

Benjamin Galloway


Title: To George Washington from William Archibald McCrea, 27 March 1792
From: McCrea, William Archibald
To: Washington, George

Sir,
Philadelphia March 27th 1792

The eminent Station of Supreme Magistrate, which your Excellency holds, in the Administration of the Government of this Country, naturally leads the Great & numerous People over whom you preside, to consider you as their, Friend, their Protector, & their Father. Appellations which Associate with themselves respectful Esteem, Gratefull Remembrance, & Filial Affection. Having been taught, from my early Youth, to contemplate you, as acting for your Country, in all the above mentioned beneficent Characters, I am the more emboldened to trouble you with the present Application, beleiving that your Goodness will excuse it, should you finally deem it inexpedient to comply with my request—The Necessity I am under to provide for my Family & the consciousness I feel that I could discharge the Duties of the Office of Treasurer of the National Mint, have led me to make known my Situation, in hopes that if no Person better qualified to serve the Public appeared as a Candidate for that Office, that it might be conferred on me, in consideration of my peculiar Circumstances.
Your Excellencys Time is too Valuable for me to go into a minute Detail. I will therefore only mention some of the more important Occurrences of my Life, as the Grounds of my present Application.
I am now in the 27th Year of my Age, I was born at Newark in New Castle County in the State of Delaware. My Fathers Name was William McCrea a Merchant of that Place, who died when I was but six Months old—My Mother who is still living, after the Death of my Father, married Mr Job Ruston late of Chester County in the State of Pensylvania Deceased. By Her kind care & Attention, I received an Academical Education at Newark. After which I served a regular Apprenticeship to the Profession of Physick, under the Tuition of Doctr William W. Smith late of this City Deceased[.] Soon after I Married & Settled at Newark, in the State of Delaware with good Prospects—But I met with the Misfortune to have my House take Fire in the Night Time—The Fire was not discovered ’till a considerable part of the House was in Flames, when it was impossible to suppress it—By this heavy

Misfortune I lost my House, all my Furniture, almost the whole of the Cloathing of my Family, all my Books, Medicines, Shop, Furniture & in short the principal part of my Personal Estate—I was then advised to remove to Pencader in the same state. I did so—It was an unfortunate Step. The Vicinity was by no means equal to what I was led to expect—I therefore, a little more than two Months since, removed from the State of Delaware to this City, with my Family, in hopes of being able to find employment decently to support them, & in which I could derive greater Advantages from my Education, than at Pencader, beleiving that every Man ought to render himself as usefull to his Country, & as beneficial to Society as his Education & Circumstances will Admit.
I am at present out of Business, the Losses I have sustained as before mentioned, depressed my Situation in Life—But they have not lessened my Abilities, my Integrity, or my Zeal to serve the Public—It was an accidental Misfortune such as often commands Commiseration. I think I can satisfactorily discharge the Duties of the Office I Solicit, & I can produce ample sureties for my Fidelity in it, with recommendatory Testimonials of my Character, Conduct & Reputation in Life, which I expect to receive in a few Days from the State of Delaware, in Addition to those herewith communicated, & which I shall then beg leave Also to Submit to your Inspection. Will your Excellency therefore forgive my troubling you with this Application?
Should I be Appointed to the Office, I will do every thing in my power that you may not have cause to regret it—Fidelity, Industry, & Attention to the Duties of it shall mark my conduct—It would add much to the Happiness of myself & Family; & their Gratitude & their Blessings would be incessant—If contrary to my expectations my conduct should not give satisfaction; on the least Intimation of it, however remote, from your Excellency, I would resign the Office without the least Hesitation. Permit me to beseech your Excellency to consider my Situation, & the Testimonials I shall produce, &, if you think it compatible with the Publick Good, to give me a Nomination to the before mentioned Office, which will for ever oblidge, Your Excellency’s most Obedient and most Humble Servt,

William A. McCrea


Title: To George Washington from Thomas Jefferson, 28 March 1792
From: Jefferson, Thomas
To: Washington, George

Sir
Philadelphia Mar. 28. 1792.

I have the honor to inclose you two letters from Judge Symmes of Jan. 25th & 27th. his letter of Sep. 17. mentioned in the first of these was received by me Nov. 23. and after being laid before you, was answered Dec. 4. the part of the answer respecting leave from you to come to Philadelphia was in these words. “the President does not conceive that the Constitution has given him any controul over the proceedings of the Judges, and therefore considers that his permission or refusal of absence from your district would be merely nugatory.”
With respect to the escort for the judges on their circuits, you will be pleased to determine whether the good of the service will permit them to have one from the military, or whether that part of the letter shall be laid before the legislature to make regular provision for an escort. That part of the letter respecting jails, must, as I apprehend, be laid before the legislature.
The complaint against Capt. Armstrong, in the letter of Jan. 27. coming formally from a judge, will require notice. a civil prosecution in the courts of the Territory appears to me most proper. perhaps a formal instruction to the Governor as Commander in chief to put his officers on their guard against any resistance to civil process might have the effect of preventing future disputes. I shall have the honor of waiting on you to take your pleasure on these several subjects, & have now that of being with sentiments of profound respect & sincere attachment Sir Your most obedt & most humble servt

Th: Jefferson


Title: Tobias Lear to Matthew Clarkson, 29 March 1792
From: Lear, Tobias
To: Clarkson, Matthew

Sir,
Philadelphia, March 29th 1792.

The President of the United States has received your letter of the 22d instant, expressing an intention of resigning the Office of Marshal for the New York District.
While the President regrets the loss of your services to the public, he hopes the circumstances which have induced a resignation of your appointment, are such as will conduce to your personal happiness and prosperity. But, Sir, permit me to say, that I know it will not only be pleasing to the President, but releiving him from an addition to the weight of his important business at this moment, if you will continue to exercise the duties of your Office some little time longer, until he shall have time to turn his thought towards a proper character for your successor. But if this shou’d be incompatible with your views, the return of your Commission will be an evidence of it to the President, who must then fix upon another person immediately to fill the Office. I have the honor to be, very respectfully, Sir, Your most Obedt Servt

Tobias Lear.Secretary to the Presidentof the United States.


Title: From George Washington to Thomas Jefferson, 30 March 1792
From: Washington, George
To: Jefferson, Thomas

[Philadelphia] Friday Morning [30 March 1792]

The enclosed Instrumt does not accord with my recollection of Mr Blodgets proposed Loan—and I confess I had much rather see a clear expression of the intention than to meet an explanation of it afterwards by one of the parties, to the contract.
The number of Lots to be Mortgaged I do not positively recollect—but sure I am one half were to be North of an East & West line from the Presidents House. I do not remember that the words “valuable Lots” were inserted in the proposition of Mr Blodget—& think the Mortgaged Lots were releasable by the substitn of other—If therefore the subsequent instrument should not place these matters in a very precise point of view, a foundation will be laid for much discontent, & probably disputes.
Did you see Mr White yesterday? and in that case what was his opinion respecting M——n’s acceptance in the manner suggested?


Title: To George Washington from Henry Knox, 30 March 1792
From: Knox, Henry
To: Washington, George

Sir.
War-department, March 30th 1792.

I have the honor to submit you, an order of a committee, to inquire into the failure of the late expedition. As I do not conceive myself authorized to deliver these papers of myself, I beg your permission, that they may be laid before the committee, if you should see no impropriety therein, together with major general St Clair’s letters; or such others, as the committee may request. I have the honor to be Sir, with the highest respect, Your most obedient servt

H. Knoxsecy of War


Title: Tobias Lear to Thomas Jefferson, 31 March 1792
From: Lear, Tobias
To: Jefferson, Thomas

United States [Philadelphia] 31st March 1792.

By the President’s command T. Lear has the honor to transmit to the Secretary of State, letters from Mr Seagrove, that the Secretary may take extracts therefrom for the purpose mentioned this day.
The President wishes to know if the Copies of Mr Hammond’s letter which have been sent to the President were intended to be put into the hands of the Secretary of War to be transmitted by him to Mr Seagrove.

Tobias Lear.Secretary to the President of the United States.


Title: To George Washington from Arthur St. Clair, 31 March 1792
From: St. Clair, Arthur
To: Washington, George

Sir,
Philadelphia March 31st 1792

I have had the honor to receive your Letter of the twenty eighth instant. While I lament that Circumstances prevent an Investigation into my Conduct by a Court of Enquiry, I cannot but accquiesce in the Reasons you have assigned why it cannot take Place, And I beg leave to present my thanks for the Desire to have gratified me, had it been practicable, which you have been pleased to manifest.
In my Letter to you Sir, of the twenty-sixth, I expressed an Intention of retiring from the Army when the Enquiry should be over: The only Reason I had for wishing to retain my Commission until that time was, that if any misconduct should appear, in the Course of the Enquiry, I might be amenable to a Court Martial, which a Resignation would have precluded—The House of Representatives Sir, have directed an Enquiry into the Causes of the failure of the last Campaign to be made by a Committee of their own Body: The same Reason that influenced me when a Court of Enquiry was contemplated, operates now with

equal Force; and therefor it may be proper that I should still retain my Commission; but, as it will soon be requisite that some Person be at the Head of the Army who is to continue to command it, it is necessary, Sir, that I should inform You explicitly, which I now do, of my fixed Resolution to resign the Moment that Enquiry is finished should no fault be found; that any Embarrassment which may exist, with respect to providing a Successor for me, may be removed.
Be pleased to observe Sir, that my sole Object is to give Effect to public Justice, in the usual Way by a Court Martial, should it appear that, in any manner whatsoever, the Misfortunes of the last Campaign can be attributed to me—and it is the proper, and I believe the only Tribunal where military Crimes and Misconduct can be enquired into and punished; or, where an Officers Reputation, infinitely dearer than Life, can be vindicated. Should the public Service, however, require that another Officer of the same Rank with me be appointed immediately, I am ready to make the Resignation forthwith, notwithstanding that it may seem to proceed, and, at a distance, will be supposed to have arisen, from a Sense that the Volume of Calumny and Defamation, which is daily pouring from the Press into the public Ear, has too much foundation for me to meet it—that I shrink from the Consequences and chuse to shelter myself in a private Station: I am ready Sir, upon this Occasion, as I ever have been upon every other, to sacrifice every private and personal Consideration to the Public Good. With every Sentiment of Respect I have the Honor to be Sir, Your most obedient Servant

Ar St Clair


Title: To George Washington from Anonymous, March 1792
From: Anonymous
To: Washington, George

Sir
[March 1792]

I know you to be good—and you are great, independent of public opinion—I mean intrinsically great, if you were not possessed of that opinion. But you are possessed of it, and stand higher, beyond all comparison in the estimation of persons of every description than any man. The virtuous part of the community who have for years put everything to hazard to obtain a Government, likely to insure their happiness, woud therefore look up to you wth anxious hope, and implore your protection against the wicked artifices of a set of democratical incendiaries who are endeavouring to level the federal Edifice to the ground. They have unfortunately got the whole delegation from Virginia under their direction. For the aggrandizement of Mr Jefferson they are endeavouring to make you odious. I trust they will not succeed. If you wd exert yourself—they wd shrink into insignificance. Mr Hamilton is the object of Mr Jefferson’s mortal aversion. He knows his superior merit and talents, and is indefatigable in his endeavors to compass his ruin. His emissaries are constantly at work to revile all his plans, and to withdraw from him the confidence of the Public, of wch he at present is most justly possessed. Two of the most impudent and inflammatory tools of the party are Giles, and Mercer. It is said the latter is determined to plunge this Country into a quarrel wth England by insulting the British Minister. I do not believe you know that the National Gazette was established under the immediate patronage of Mr Jefferson and Mr Madison, and that Mr Freneau the Printer of it is a Clerk in the Secretary of State’s Office wth a Salary as Interpreter. Examine the productions wch appear in that Gazette. Is it proper that the Secretary of State should encourage the malevolent attacks wch are continually making against the Government? Be assured Sir that those Men are at the head of a most wicked Faction, chiefly composed of Virginians, but assisted by some other restless, ambitious Men. Their objects are to destroy Mr Hamilton, by making him odious in the public Eye, to place Mr Jefferson at the head of the Government, to make Mr Madison prime Minister, to displace the Vice President at the next Election, to lay this Country prostrate at the feet of France, to affront and quarrel wth England, to take advantage

of the cry of the ignorant multitude in favor of Democracy, and thus to establish an absolute Tyranny over the minds of the populace by the affectation of a most tender regard to the rights of Man, and a more popular Government.


Title: List of Plants from John Bartram’s Nursery, March 1792
From: Bartram, John
To: Washington, George

[March 1792]

Catalogue of Trees, Shrubs & Plants, of Jno. Bartram.

Nos.

Plants
feet high

a 1.
Rhododendron maximum
2
grow from 5 to 10.

Evergreen, large maximum rose coloured blossoms. [“Mountain laurel,” great laurel, rosebay]

E. d 2.
Ulex europeus
2.
3 to 4.

Embellished with sweet scented flowers, of a fine yellow colour. [Furze]

a 3
Hypericum kalmianum
2
3 to 4.

Profusely garnished with fine Gold coloured blossoms. [“Shrub St. John’s wort”]

4.
H[ypericum]. Angustifolium
3.
3 to 6.

Evergreen; adorned with fine yellow flowers.

e 5.
Taxus procumbens
1.
3 to 6.

Evergreen; of a splendid full green throughout the year—red berries. [Yew]

E 6.
Buxus aureis [aureus]
1.
3 to 10.

Elegant, call’d gilded box.

E 7.
Daphne mezerium [mezereum]
2.
1. to 3.

An early flowering sweet scented little shrub. [Mezereon, paradise plant]

8
Calycanthus floridus
5.
4 to 8.

Odoriferous, its blossoms scented like the Pine apple. [“Sweet Shrub of Carolina,” Carolina allspice]

9.
Berberis canadensis
3.
2. to 4.

Berries of a perfect coral red [barberry]

E. 10.
Æsculus hippocastanum
2.
20, 40, to 50.

A magnificent flowering & shady Tree. [Horse chestnut]

11.
Evonimus atrapurpurous
3.
6 to 8.

Its fruit of a bright crimson in the Autumn (burning bush). [Euonymus atropurpureus]

12.
Fothergilla gardeni[i]
6.
2 to 4.

Early in blossom; flowers in spikes, white & delicate. [Dwarf fothergilla, dwarf witchalder]

13.
Franklinia alatamaha
1.
3, 15 to 20

Flowers large, white & fragrant—native of Georgia. [Franklin tree]

14
Baccharis
3.
4 to 6.

In autumn silvered over with white silky down.

15.
Laurus estivalis [æstivalis]
1.
5 to 8.

Aromatic & beautified with coral red berries. [Bay tree]

16.
Kalmia angustifolia (with the Gaultheria [procumbens], or mountain tea [wintergreen])
1 to 2.

Evergreen; garnished with crimson speckled flowers. [“Thyme leav’d Kalmia,” lambkill, sheep laurel]

17
Ilex angustifolia
1
3 to 6.

Evergreen, new. [Holly]

18.
Dirca palustris
2.
2. to 3.

Early in bloom; singular—(call’d Leather wood). [“Leather Bark”]

19.
Thuja occidentalis
4
15, 30, to 40.

A handsome evergreen Tree; beautiful foliage, & odoriferous. [American arborvitae, white cedar]

20.
Zanthorhiza apiifolia
6.
1 to 3.

Singular flowers early: its root affords a splendid transparent yellow dye (call’d Yellow root, in Carola). [Xanthorhiza simplicissima]

21.
Jeffersonia egrilla
1.
4 to 10

Foliage of deep splendid green, & embellished with a delicate plumage of white flowers (call’d Iron wood.)

22.
Magnolia tripetala
1.
8 to 15.

Foliage ample, expansive & light, plumed with large white flowers, which are succeeded by large crimson strobile. [“Umbrella Tree”]

23.
Magnolia acuminata
1.
30, 80 to 100.

Erect with a pyramidal head, the dry strobile odoriferous. [“Cucumber Tree”]

24.
Halesia tetraptera [or carolina]
1.
4, 10, to 15.

The flowers abundant, white, of the shape of little bells. [Carolina silverbell]

25.
Viburnum opulifolium
1.
3 to 7.

of singular beauty in flower and fruit.

26
Viburnum Arboreum
2.
6, 10, 15.

very shewy in flower. fruit eatable.

27.
Viburnum Alnifolium
2.
3 to 6.

handsome flowering shrub. [Viburnum lantanoides; hobble bush]

28.
Cupressus disticha
1.
50, 80, 100.

stature majestic, foliage most delicate, wood of a fine yellow colour, odoriferous & incorruptible. [“Bald Cyprus”]

E. 29.
Sorbus sativa
1.
10, 15, 30.

Its fruit pear & apple shaped, as large & well tasted when mellow.

30.
Carpinus ostrya
3.
10, 15. 20.

handsome form, dress becoming, fruit singular. (Hop tree). [“Horn Beam”]

31.
Sorbus aucuparia
2.
8, 15, 30.

Foliage elegant, embellished with umbells of coral red berries. [European mountain ash]

32.
Acer striatum
1.
10 to 20.

singularly beautiful; the younger branches inscribed with silvery lines, or scrawls, on a dark purpleish green ground. [Acer pensylvanicum; striped maple, moosewood]

b 33.
Acer glaucum
2.
30, 50.

beautiful foliage. spreading & shady—(Silver-leaf’d Maple).

34.
Acer sacharinum
1.
50, 80, 100.

A stately Tree, in his native forests—(Sugar Maple)

E 35.
Acer platanoides
2.
30, 50.

graceful stature, full of asscending branches, foliage & flower elegant, casts a grateful shade on the Lawn. [Norway maple]

e 36.
Stewartia malachodendron
4
5 to 8.

Floriferous, the flowers large & white embellished with a large tuft of black or purple threads in their centre. [Silky stewartia or stuartia]

37.
Clethra alnifolia
1.
3 to 6

Flowers abundant in spikes, exceedingly sweet scented. [“Clethra,” sweet pepperbush]

38.
Styrax grandifolium
1
3 to 10.

a most charming flowering shrub, blossoms snow white & of the most grateful scent; (called Snow-drop tree). [Snowbell, storax]

E. b. 39.
Philadelphus coronarius
2.
4, 6, 10.

a sweet flowering shrub, (call’d Mock Orange)

40.
Philadelphus inodorus
1.
5, 7, 10.

his robe a silvery flower’d mantle.

e 41.
Pinus Strobus
6.
50, 80, 100.

Magnificent! he presides in the evergreen Groves (white pine).

E. f 42.
Pinus communis
2.
20, 40, 60.

a stately tree, foliage of a Seagreen colour, & exhibits a good appearance whilst young. (Scotch Fir).

E 43.
Pinus Larix
1.
40 to 60.

elegant figure & foliage. [“Larch Tree”]

E 44.
Thuja orientalis
1
6 to 12

Foliage pleasing. [Oriental arborvitae]

45
Robinia villosa
4
1, 2, 3, 5, 6.

a gay shrub, enrobed with plumed leaves & roseat flowers. [“Peach Blossom Acacia”]

e 46.
Pinus balsamea
6.
20 to 40.

a tree of pleasing figure, delicate foliage, evergreen, & affords fragrant & medicinal balsam (Balm of Gilead Fir).

f. 47.
Pinus abies virginiana
5.
50, 80, 100.

A Stately evergreen Tree, his foliage of delicate appearance; the wood useful and durable, & of great value (Hemlock Spruce).

E 48.
Cornus mascula [or mas]
1.
5, 8, 10.

flowers early, the fruit oblong of the size of a plum, of a fine crimson colour, and wholsome pleasant eating. [Cornelian cherry]

E. 49.
Prunus cerasus, flore roseo
1
5, 10, 20,

more or less according to the stock; a very beautiful flowering tree, its blushing blossoms double—(double flowering cherry).

e 50.
Prunus maritima
1
5 to 8,

flowers early, fruit of a dark purple sweet & pleasant eating. [“Beach or Sea-side-Plumb”]

f. 51.
Prunus missisipi
1
6, 8, 10, 12.

Fruit of the largest size, oval; of a perfect deep crimson colour, possesses an agreeable taste, & affords an animating marmolade. [“Crimson Plumb”]

52.
Prunus chicasa
1
6, 8, 10.

Early flowering, very fruitful; the fruit nearly round, cleft, red, purple, yellow, of an inticing look, most agreeable taste & wholsome. [“Chicasaw Plumb”]

e 53.
Glycine frutescens
3.

A rambling florobundant climber; the blossoms in large pendant clusters, of a fine celestial blue, well adapted for covering arbors. [Wisteria frutescens; “Kidney Bean Tree,” wisteria]

54
Æsculus pavia

[Red buckeye]

55.
Æ. ″ ″ varietas
2.
6, 8, 10, 12, 15

their light & airy foliage, crimson & variegated flowers, present a gay & mirthful appearance; continually, whilst in bloom visited by the brilliant thundering Humingbird. The root of this Tree is esteemed preferable to soap, for scouring & cleansing woolen Cloths.

e. 56.
Æsculus virginica
1
20, 40, 50

beautiful foliage Flowers pale yellow. [Yellow horse chestnut]

57.
Æsculus alba
1
1, 4, 6.

The branches terminate with long erect spikes of sweet white flowers.

E. 58.
Juniperus sabina
1
1 to 5

Evergreen. [Savin]

a 59.
Evonimus americanus
1
4, 7.

evergreen, presents a fine appearance in Autumn, with crimson fruit. [Euonymus americanus; spindle tree]

E. f. 60.
Prunus Laurus cerasus
1
10, 15, 20.

A beautiful evergreen tree of Europe; its green leaves are said to possess a dangerous deleterious quality. [Prunus laurocerasus; cherry laurel, English laurel]

61.
Yucca filamentosa
2

beautiful ornamental evergreen [Adam’s needle]

62.
Yucca gloriosa

flowering plants. [Spanish dagger]

c. 63.
Myrica gale
4
2 to 4.

possesses an highly aromatic, and very agreeable scent. [“Bog gale,” sweet gale, bog myrtle]

E. b. 64.
Platanus orientalis
2
60, 80, 100.

a famous tree celebrated for the beauty of his foliage, expansion, and grateful shade he affords. [Oriental sycamore, oriental plane]

d. 65.
Amorpha fruticosa
1.
4, 6 to 8.

[Bastard indigo]

66.
Amorpha cærulia [cœrulea]
2.
 2–4.

Foliage light and delicately pennated, garnished with flowers of a fine [Bastard indigo]

E. e. 67.
Salix variegata
1
10 to 15.

Silver blotched willow.

68
Mespilus nivea
1
10 to 15.

An early flowering shrub, of uncommon elegance (Snowy mespilus). [Medlar]

69.
Mesp. pubescens
2
2, 3, 4

Somewhat resembling the foregoing; but of less stature & the flowers not so large, nor of so clean a white: both produce very pleasant fruit.

70.
Mesp: pusilla
1
1 to 2½

flowers early, the blossoms white & abundant; exhibits a fine appearance.

71.
Mesp. prunifolia
1.
2, 4, 5.

Presents a good appearance, when all red with its clusters of berries. [Aronia prunifolia; chokeberry]

E. f. 72.
Colutia [Colutea] arborescens
3.
3, 6, 10.

exhibits a good appearance, foliage pinnated, of a soft pleasant green, colour, interspersed with the large yellow papillionacious flowers, in succession. [Bladder senna]

E. 73.
Rhus Italicum
1.
8 to 12.

[Sumac]

E. 74.
Mespilus pyracantha
4.
4, 8, 10.

a beautiful flowerg shrub, evergreen in mild seasons. [Pyracantha coccinea; firethorn]

75.
Itea virginiana [or virginica]
3.
3 to 6.

a handsome flowerg shrub. [Virginia sweetspire, Virginia willow, tasselwhite]

76.
Cornus alba
1.
3, 6

white berried swamp Dogwood.

77.
Prunus divaricata
2.
6, 8.

diciduous, flowers white in raumes [racemes], stems diverging & branches pendulous. [Prunus cerasifera divaricata; cherry plum]

78.
Hydrangia [Hydrangea] arborescens
3.
3, 5, 6.

Ornamental in shruberies, flowers white in large corymbes.

79.
Andromeda axil[l]aris
1.
1 to 3.

Evergreen. [Bog rosemary]

80
Acer pumilum
3.
4. 8.

handsome shrub for coppices, foliage singular, younger shoots red. [Dwarf maple]

E. 81.
Amygdalus persica, flore pleno
1.
8, 10, 12.

of great splendour & amiable presence. [Prunus persica, flore pleno; double-flowered peach]

e 82.
Magnolia glauca
1.
3. 10. 15.

charming—the milk-white roseate blossom possesses an animating fragrance. [Magnolia virginiana; “Rose Laurel,” sweet bay, swamp magnolia]

83.
Sambucus rubra
1
3, 5, 7.

early flowering and handsome; its coral red berries in large clusters, ripe abt midsummer. [Sambucus canadensis; American elder, sweet elder]

84
Rubus odoratus
3.
3 to 7.

foliage beautiful; flowers of the figure, colour & fragrance of the rose. [Flowering raspberry, thimbleberry]

f. 85.
Rosa Pennsylvanica flor: pleno
2.
2 to 4

flowers monthly from May ’till Novembr [Rosa palustris; swamp rose]

86.
Lonicera inodora
1
5, 10, 20

Twine’s round, & ascends trees spreading its bloom over their boughs. [Honeysuckle]

b. 87.
Ribes oxyacanthoides
1
3, 5.

fruit small & smooth. [“Prickly Gooseberry”]

88.
Populus balsamifera
1.
7. 15. 20.

foliage beautiful, its buds in the spring replete with an odoriferous balsam. [Balsam poplar]

E. f. 89.
Crategus [Cratægus] aria
1.
20, 30.

foliage beautiful; silvered with white cottony down, underside. [Hawthorn]

90.
Pt[e]lea trifoliata
2.
4 to 9.

singular, (call’d the foil tree) [“Trefoil Tree,” hop tree]

91.
Lonicera symphoricarpos
1.
2. 4.

singular; appears well in winter when garnished with clusters of red berries. [“Indian Currants”]

E. 92.
Laurus nobilis
1.
10. 20. 30.

Sweet Bay, a celebrated Evergreen—leaves odoriferous. [“Red Bay,” bay laurel, sweet bay]

e. 93.
Rhus triphyllum
5.
3 to 7.

Singular early flowering shrub. [“Poison Oak,” sumac]

E. 94.
Citisus laburnum
1.
10. 15.

foliage delicate, embellished with pendant clusters of splendid yellow papillionacious flowers. [Cytisus anagyroides laburnum, Laburnum anagyroides; golden-chain]

E. 95.
Periploca græca
2.
7 to 10.

climbing up trees & shrubs; flowers very singular. [Silk vine]

96.
Hibiscus coccineus
1.
8 to 10.

a most elegant flowering plant; flowers large, of a splendid crimson colour. [Scarlet rosemallow]

97.
Bignonia crucigera
1
40 to 50.

A climber, mounting to the tops of trees & buildings; flowers abundant. [“Cross Vine,” trumpet flower]

98.
Bignonia semper virens
2

A climber as famous, at least for the richness of his robe; flowers of a splendid golden yellow, & odoriferous; very proper for covering arbors &c. [“Yellow Jasmin”]

99.
Betula (alnus) maritima
2.
6, 10. 12.

singular; retains his verdure very late in the autumn. [“Sea side Alder”]

f. E. 100.
Amygdalus pumila, flor: pleno
1
2 to 4

A most elegant flowering shrub; ornimental in vases for Court yards &c. [Prunus pumila, flore pleno; sand or dwarf cherry, dwarf doubleflowering almond]

c. 101.
Arundo donax
1.
5. 6. 8.

Maiden Cane.

e 102.
Callicarpa americana
1.
3 to 6.

Very shewy & pleasing; the flowers of a delicate incarnate hue, & vast clusters of purple berries. [“Bermudas Mulberry,” French mulberry, American beautyberry]

f. E. 103.
Syringa persica
2.
3 to 5.

(Persian Lilac) elegant; its flexile stems terminate with heavy panicles of purple blossoms, of animating fragrance.

e 104.
Mimosa virgata
1.
3. 5. 10.

Singularly beautiful in its plumed foliage—native of Pearl Island near the Misisipi.

E. 105.
Punica granatum flor. plen:
1
3, 6, 10.

the figure & splendour of its flowers exceed description. [Pomegranate]

b. e. 106.
Aristolochia sipho.
1

Climbs & spreads over trees & other supports, to a great height & distance: flowers of singular figure; its abundant large leaves, present it as a vine well adapted for covering arbors. [Aristolochia macrophylla; Dutchman’s pipe]

The following letters in the margin, serve to explain the natural soil & situation of the Trees, shrubs &c.

a. rich, moist, loose or loamy soil, in shade of other trees.
b. rich deep soil.
c. wet moorish soil.
d. Dry indifferent soil.
e. A good loamy moist soil in any situation.
f. Any soil & situation.
E. Exoticks.


Title: To George Washington from Henry Knox, 1 April 1792
From: Knox, Henry
To: Washington, George

[Philadelphia] April 1. 1792

I submit two letters one from Genl Wayne and the other from Colonel Willet, and I have seen Colo. Burr relatively to the latter. In the morning when I wait upon you I will detail, the business. I have directed Capt. Trueman to be in readiness to set off on tuesday. I am Sir with perfect respect Your humble Sert

H. Knox


Title: From George Washington to George Augustine Washington, 1 April 1792 [letter not found]
From: Washington, George
To: Washington, George Augustine

Letter not found: to George Augustine Washington, 1 April 1792. GW’s nephew wrote him from Mount Vernon on 8–9 April: “Your favor of the 1st Inst. came to hand at the usual time.”


Title: To George Washington from Thomas Jefferson, 2 April 1792
From: Jefferson, Thomas
To: Washington, George

[Philadelphia] April 2. 1792.

Th: Jefferson—has the honor to return to the President the letters of Seagrove from which he has had an extract taken.
He incloses also the names of three gentlemen who have expressed their willingness to serve in the Mint. the President knows them personally & will judge of their fitness.


Title: To George Washington from Henry Knox, 2 April 1792
From: Knox, Henry
To: Washington, George

 [Philadelphia] 2 April 1792. Submits “the Indians reply to Your speech to Colonel Pickering.”


Title: From George Washington to Thomas Jefferson, 3 April 1792
From: Washington, George
To: Jefferson, Thomas

[Philadelphia] Tuesday—Ten Oclock 3d April 1792

The President has examined the enclosed—thinks it exactly conformable to the loan proposed by Mr Blodget—and approves of it accordingly.
Mr Jefferson will request the Attorney General to draw (with care & caution) a Deed proper for the occasion.


Title: Editorial Note
From:
To:

Congress’s presentation of “An Act for an apportionment of Representatives among the several States according to the first enumeration” to Washington for his approbation on 26 Mar. 1792 set the scene for the first presidential veto in U.S. history. Recognizing the controversial nature of the bill, which increased the U.S. House of Representatives to 120 members, gave the size of each state’s delegation, and stipulated that congressional representation would be based on a ratio of one member for every 30,000 citizens, Washington called on Henry Knox, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and Edmund Randolph in early April to give him their opinions about whether he should sign or veto the bill. Secretary of War Knox and Secretary of the Treasury Hamilton opposed a presidential veto in this instance. Knox argued on 3 April that as the Constitution was unclear about how representatives were to be apportioned, Washington’s decision should be based on whether the bill was equitable. In Knox’s opinion it was (see Document I). Hamilton wrote Washington on the following day that although he had not yet read the bill, it seemed to him to be constitutional and, as important, “consistent with equality.” Both Knox and Hamilton believed that where the Constitution might be reasonably interpreted in two different ways and neither interpretation was contrary to the public good Congress should prevail and the bill be signed into law (see Document II). Attorney General Randolph and Secretary of State Jefferson strongly disagreed. In separate letters dated 4 April, they argued that the bill was unconstitutional because it established the total number of representatives, 120, by dividing the aggregate of the federal census by 30,000. They contended that the Constitution required the choice of a common divisor—a number that would divide each state’s population

 evenly—and the division of the population residing in each state by that number to establish the size of the House of Representatives. In addition, as the bill gave an additional member to each of the eight states with the largest fraction left over after dividing by 30,000, the number of representatives in those eight states illegally exceeded the stipulated one for every 30,000 (see Documents III and IV). After careful consideration Washington concluded that Randolph and Jefferson were correct that the bill was “contrary to the common understanding of” the Constitution and “to what was understood at the time by the makers of it.” Even so, he hesitated to veto the bill. Because “the vote for & against the bill was perfectly geographical, a Northern ag[ains]t a Southern vote,” Washington “feared he should be thought to be taking side with a Southern party.” Worried that “there would ere long be a separation of the union . . . [Washington] went home, sent for Randolph the Atty Genl desired him to get mister Madison immediately & come to me [Jefferson], & if we three concurred in opinion that he should negative the bill, he desired to hear nothing more about it but that we would draw the instrument for him to sign. they came. our minds had been before made up. we drew the instrumt. Randolph carried it to him & told him we all concurred in it. he walked with him to the door, and as if he still wished to get off, he said, ‘& you say you approve of this yourself?’ ‘yes, Sir,[’] says Randolph, [‘]I do upon my honor.’” On 5 April the president returned the bill to the House of Representatives (see Document VI). After receiving Washington’s veto message, Congress threw out the original bill and decided, on 10 April, to apportion representatives at “the ratio of one for every thirty-three thousand persons in the respective States.”


Title: I: From Henry Knox, 3 April 1792
From: Knox, Henry
To: Washington, George

Sir
War department. April 3d 1792.

Agreeably to your directions as delivered to me this day by the Attorney General, I have endeavoured to take into consideration the expediency of your giving your approbation to the Act intituled “An Act for an apportionment of Representatives among the several states according to the first enumeration,” the constitutionality thereof being doubted by some persons.

I might plead my inability to give an opinion on so important and doubtful a point, as not possessing that previous information more peculiarly resulting from a study of the Law, and from not having seen the merits of the question discussed in any of the debates of the house.
It is therefore with the highest diffidence I venture on the subject.
The point upon which the question turns is, whether the numbers of representatives shall be apportioned on the aggregate number of all the people of the United States, or on the aggregate numbers of the people of each state, notwithstanding several large fractions may exist in each state unrepresented.
It has been said that either construction may be deemed to be within the letter as well as the spirit of the constitution, if this opinion should be just, which I freely confess I am not qualified of myself at this time to decide, it would result that the assent of the President of the United States is to be governed by the political equity of the measure.
In this view of the case I find my mind less embarrassed with doubt; for although some smaller fractions may be unrepresented yet most of the large ones are comprehended—In the bill eight states each having a fraction of upwards of twenty five thousand are provided with a representative; whereas in the other seven states no one of which would have more than Twelve thousand eight hundred and sixty six—only one state that number, and the whole Seven states but little more than fifty thousand federal numbers unrepresented, provided all idea of virtual representation should be rejected according to the principle of the bill itself—but on the contrary were the fractions of the eight states possessing the largest fractions not considered upwards of Two hundred thousand federal numbers would be unrepresented.
As then the Senate and house of representatives have passed this Law (by small majorities indeed) and as the constitutionality is only doubted not proved but the equity of the measure apparent, it would appear rather a delicate measure for the President to decide the question contrary to the bill as passed.
If precedents are to be drawn from the conduct of the King of Great Britain in similar cases of doubtful laws, it would render the propriety of the President’s disapprobation still more questionable.

I have the honour to be Sir with perfect respect Your most obedient servant

H. Knoxsecy of War


Title: II: From Alexander Hamilton, 4 April 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Washington, George

Philadelphia April 4 1792

The Secretary of the Treasury presents his respects to the President of the United States. He was informed, yesterday, by the Attorney General, that his opinion concerning the constitutionality of the Representation Bill was desired this morning. He now sends it with his reasons but more imperfectly stated than he could have wished—through want of time. He has never seen the bill, but from the accounts he has had of it he takes it for granted that he cannot have misconceived its contents so as to cause any material error in the process of his reasoning.


Title: III: From Thomas Jefferson, 4 April 1792
From: Jefferson, Thomas
To: Washington, George

[Philadelphia] Apr. 4. 1792.

The Constitution has declared that “Representatives & direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers,” that “the number of representatives shall not exceed one for every 30,000, but each state shall have at least one representative; & until such enumeration shall be made, the state of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse 3. Massachusets &c.[”]
The bill for apportioning representatives among the several states, without explaining any principle at all, which may shew it’s conformity with the constitution, or guide future apportionments, says that New-Hampshire shall have three members, Massachusets 16. &c. we are therefore to find by experiment what has been the principle of the bill, to do which it is proper to state the federal or representable numbers of each state, and the members allotted to them by the bill. they are as follows.

Vermont
85,532
3

New Hampshire
141,823
5

Massachusets
475,327
16

Rhode island
68,444
2

Connecticut
235,941
8

New York
352,915
11

New Jersey
179,556
6

Pennsylvania
432,880
14

Delaware
55,538
2

Maryland
278,513
9

Virginia
630,558
21

Kentuckey
68,705
2

North Carolina
353,521
11

South Carolina
206,236
7

Georgia
70,843
2

3,636,312
120

It happens that this representation, whether tried as between great & small states, or as between North & South, yeilds, in the present instance, a tolerably just result, and consequently could not be objected to on that ground, if it were obtained by the process prescribed in the Constitution. but if obtained by any process out of that, it becomes arbitrary, & inadmissible.
The Ist member of the clause of the constitution above cited is express that representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers. That is to say, they shall be apportioned by some common ratio. for proportion, & ratio, are equivalent words; & it is the definition of proportion among numbers, that they have a ratio common to all, or in other words a common divisor. now, trial will shew that there is no common ratio, or divisor, which, applied to the numbers of each state, will give to them the number of representatives allotted in this bill. for trying the several ratios of 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. The allotments would be as follows:

29.
30
31.
32.
33.
the bill

Vermont
2
2
2
2
2
3

New Hampshire
4
4
4
4
4
5

Massachusets
16
15
15
14
14
16

Rhode-island
2
2
2
2
2
2

Connecticut
8
7
7
7
7
8

New York
12
11
11
11
10
11

New Jersey
6
5
5
5
5
6

Pennsylvania.
14
14
13
13
13
14

Delaware
1
1
1
1
1
2

Maryland
9
9
8
8
8
9

Virginia
21
21
20
19
19
21

Kentuckey
2
2
2
2
2
2

North Carolina
12
11
11
11
10
12

South Carolina
7
6
6
6
6
7

Georgia
2
2
2
2
2
2

118
112
109
107
105
120

Then the bill reverses the Constitutional precept, because, by it, “representatives are not apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers.”
It will be said that though, for taxes, there may always be found a divisor which will apportion them among the states according to numbers exactly, without leaving any remainder, yet, for representatives, there can be no such common ratio, or divisor, which, applied to the several numbers, will divide them exactly, without a remainder or fraction. I answer then, that taxes must be divided exactly, & representatives as nearly as the nearest ratio will admit; and the fractions must be neglected: because the constitution wills absolutely that there be an apportionment, or common ratio; & if any fractions result from the operation, it has left them unprovided for. in fact it could not but foresee that such fractions would result, & it meant to submit to them. it knew they would be in favor of one part of the union at one time, & of another at another, so as, in the end, to balance occasional inequalities. but instead of such a single common ratio, or uniform divisor, as prescribed by the constitution, the bill has applied two ratios, at least, to the different states; to wit that of 30,026 to the seven following R. Island, N. York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, Kentuckey & Georgia, and that of 27,770 to the eight others, namely Vermont, N. Hampshire, Massachusets, Connecticut[,] N. Jersey, Delaware, N. Carolina, & S. Carolina, as follows:

divided by 30,026 give
 and
divided by 27,770 give

R. Island
68,444
2

Vermont
85,532
3

N. York
352,915
11

N. Hampshire
141,823
5

Pennylvania
432,880
14

Massachusets
475,327
16

Maryland
278,513
9

Connecticut
235,941
8

Virginia
630,558
21

New Jersey
179,556
6

Kentuckey
68,705
2

Delaware
55,538
2

Georgia
70,843
2

N. Carolina
353,521
12

S. Carolina
206,236
7

and if two ratios may be applied, then 15 may, & the distribution become arbitrary, instead of being apportioned to numbers.

Another member of the clause of the constitution, which has been cited, says “the number of representatives shall not exceed one for every 30,000, but each state shall have at least one representative.” this last phrase proves that it had in contemplation that all fractions or numbers below the common ratio, were to be unrepresented; & it provides specially that in the case of a state whose whole number shall be below the common ratio, one representative shall be given to it. this is the single instance where it allows representation to any smaller number than the common ratio, and by providing specially for it in this, shews it was understood that, without special provision, the smaller number would, in this case, be involved in the general principle.
The first phrase of the above citation, that “the number of representatives shall not exceed one for every 30,000” is violated by this bill which has given to 8. states a number exceeding one for every 30,000. to wit, one for every 27,770.
In answer to this, it is said that this phrase may mean either the thirty thousands in each state, or the thirty thousands in the whole union, & that in the latter case it serves only to find the amount of the whole representation: which, in the present state of population, is 120 members. Suppose the phrase might bear both meanings: which will Common sense apply to it? which did the universal understanding of our country apply to it? which did the Senate & Representatives apply to it during the pendency of the first bill, & even till an advanced stage of this second bill, when an ingenious gentleman found out the doctrine of fractions, a doctrine so difficult & inobvious, as to be rejected at first sight by the very persons who afterwards became it’s most zealous advocates?—The phrase stands in the midst of a number of others, every one of which relates to states in their separate capacity. will not plain common sense then understand it, like the rest of it’s context, to relate to states in their separate capacities?
But if the phrase of one for 30,000. is only meant to give the aggregate of representatives, & not at all to influence their apportionment among the states, then the 120 being once found, in order to apportion them, we must recur to the former rule which does it according to the numbers of the respective states; and we must take the nearest common divisor, as the ratio of distribution, that is to say, that divisor which, applied to every state, gives to

them such numbers as, added together, come nearest to 120. this nearest common ratio will be found to be 28,658. and will distribute 119 of the 120 members, leaving only a single residuary one. it will be found too to place 96,648 fractional numbers in the 8. Northernmost states, & 105,582 in the 7. Southernmost. the following table shews it:

Ratio of 28,858
fraction

Vermont
85,532
2.
27,816

N. Hampshire
141,823
4.
26,391

Massachusets
475,327
16.
13,599

R. Island
68,444
2
10,728

Connecticut
235,941
8
5,077

N. York
352,915
12
6,619

N. Jersey
179,556
6
6,408

Pensylvania
432,880
15
10
96,648

Delaware
55,538
1
26,680

Maryland
278,513
9
18,791

Virginia
630,558
21
24,540

Kentuckey
68,705
2
10,989

N. Carolina
353,521
12
7,225

S. Carolina
206,236
7
4,230

[Georgia]
70,843
    2
13,127
105,582

3,636,312
119
202,230
202,230

Whatever may have been the intention, the effect of rejecting the nearest divisor, (which leaves but one residuary member) And adopting a distant one (which leaves eight) is merely to take a member from New York & Pensylvania each, & give them to Vermont & New Hampshire.
But it will be said, “this is giving more than one for 30,000.” true: but has it not been just said that the one for 30,000 is prescribed only to fix the aggregate number, and that we are not to mind it when we come to apportion them among the states? that for this we must recur to the former rule which distributes them according to the numbers in each state? besides does not the bill itself apportion among 7. of the states by the ratio of 27,770? which is much more than one for 30,000.
Where a phrase is susceptible of two meanings, we ought certainly to adopt that which will bring upon us the fewest inconveniencies. let us weigh those resulting from both constructions.

From that giving to each state a member for every 30,000 in that state results the single inconvenience that there may be large fractions unrepresented. but, it being a mere hazard on which states this will fall, hazard will equalize it in the long run.
From the other results exactly the same inconvenience. a thousand cases may be imagined to prove it. take one.

fractions

1st
45,000
2
15,000

2d
45,000
2
15,000

3d
45,000
2
15,000

4th
45,000
2
15,000

5th
45,000
2
15,000

6th
45,000
2
15,000

7th
45,000
2
15,000

8th
45,000
1
15,000

9th
44,999
1
14,999

10th
44,999
1
14,999

11th
44,999
1
14,999

12th
44,999
1
14,999

13th
44,999
1
14,999

14th
44,999
1
14,999

15th
44,999
1
14,999

674,993
22

suppose 8 of the states had 45,000 inhabitants each, and the other seven 44,999 each, that is to say each one less than each of the others. the aggregate would be 674,993. & the number of representatives at one for 30,000 of the aggregate, would be 22. then, after giving one member to each state, distribute the 7. residuary members among the 7. highest fractions, & tho’ the difference of population be only an unit, the representation would be the double. here a single inhabitant the more would count as 30,000. nor is this case imaginable only: it will resemble the real one whenever the fractions happen to be pretty equal through the whole states. the numbers of our census happen by accident to give the fractions all very small, or very great, so as to produce the strongest case of inequality that could possibly have occurred, & which may never occur again. the probability is that the fractions will generally descend gradually from 29,999 to 1. the inconvenience then of large unrepresented fractions

attends both constructions: & while the most obvious construction is liable to no other, that of the bill incurs many & grievous ones.
1. if you permit the large fraction in one state to chuse a representative for one of the small fractions in another state, you take from the latter it’s election, which constitutes real representation, and substitute a virtual representation of the disfranchised fractions: and the tendency of the doctrine of virtual representation has been too well discussed & appreciated by reasoning & resistance, on a former great occasion, to need developement now.
2. the bill does not say that it has given the residuary representatives to the greatest fractions; tho’ in fact it has done so. it seems to have avoided establishing that into a rule, lest it might not suit on another occasion. perhaps it may be found the next time more convenient to distribute them among the smaller states; at another among the larger states; at other times according to any other crotchet which ingenuity may invent, & the combinations of the day give strength to carry; or they may do it arbitrarily, by open bargain & cabal. in short this construction introduces into Congress a scramble, or a vendue, for the surplus members, it generates waste of time, hot-blood, & may at some time, when the passions are high, extend a disagreement between the two houses to the perpetual loss of the thing, as happens now in the Pensylvania assembly: whereas the other construction reduces the apportionment always to an arithmetical operation, about which no two men can ever possibly differ.
3. it leaves in full force the violation of the precept which declares that representatives shall be apportioned among the states according to their numbers i.e. by some common ratio.
Viewing this bill either as a violation of the constitution, or as giving an inconvenient exposition to it’s words, is it a case wherein the President ought to interpose his negative? I think it is.
1. the Non-user of his negative begins already to excite a belief that no President will ever venture to use it: & consequently has begotten a desire to raise up barriers in the state legislatures against Congress throwing off the controul of the constitution.
2. it can never be used more pleasingly to the public, than in the protection of the constitution.
3. no invasions of the constitution are so fundamentally dangerous

as the tricks played on their own numbers, apportionment, & other circumstances respecting themselves, & affecting their legal qualifications to legislate for the Union.
4. The majorities by which this bill has been carried (to wit of 1. in the Senate, and 2. in the Representatives) shew how divided the opinions were there.
5. the whole of both houses admit the constitution will bear the other exposition, whereas the minorities in both deny it will bear that of the bill.
6. the application of any one ratio is intelligible to the people, & will therefore be approved: whereas the complex operations of this bill will never be comprehended by them, & tho’ they may acquiesce, they cannot approve what they do not understand.

Th: Jefferson


Title: IV: From Edmund Randolph, 4 April 1792
From: Randolph, Edmund
To: Washington, George

[Philadelphia] April 4. 1792.

The attorney general of the U.S. has the honor of reporting to the President of the U.S., on the representation-bill, as follows:
The points, which involve the question of constitutionality, are three:

1. to ascertain the process, by which the bill fixes the total number of representatives at 120:
2. to ascertain the process, by which the bill distributes that number among the states:
and 3. to try both of them by the standard of the constitution.

The bill does not announce in terms the principle of proceeding, either in the establishment of the total number of 120, or its apportionment among the states. Some principle, however, it must have; otherwise the omission would of itself be glaringly unconstitutional, as creating a precedent for leaving the number of the house of representatives, and the distribution of that number, at the mere will of each different congress. It must therefore be sought by calculation.
1. From calculation then it appears, that neither 30,000, the lowest constitutional limit, nor any higher number, if assumed

as the divisor of the fœderal numbers in each state, separately considered, will produce to each state such a number of representatives, as, when added together, shall amount to 120.
We then naturally turn to the aggregate fœderal number of the U.S.; to wit, 3,615,825; and the only divisor, which can draw 120 members from that number, is 30,000.
This too is the only mode, by which 120 members can be obtained by any act of arithmetic.
2. One hundred and twenty members are, in the next place, to be distributed.
Here too we are informed by calculation, that no common divisor, applied to the fœderal number in each state, will allot as many members, as the bill prescribes. Thirty thousand will fail with respect to eight out of fifteen states: a greater number how little soever above 30,000, will at least be as far from that result; and every number beyond a certain point would be farther and farther still. The other seven states have the exact number of representatives, which arises from a division of their fœderal numbers by 30,000. But, as 30000, taken as the divisor of the fœderal population in each state, gives 112 members; as the remainder of the 120 members is 8; and to each of the eight states, having the highest fractions, one member is added; it may be safely concluded, that congress distributed the 120 members in this form.
3. In trying this double process by the standard of the constitution, we must first determine, whether congress were at liberty to fix the total number of representatives, by dividing the aggregate fœderal population of the U.S., instead of the separate fœderal population of each state.
The following passages in the constitution are material on this head.
“Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states, according to their respective numbers.”
“The number of representatives shall not exceed one for every 30,000; but each state shall have at least one representative, and until such enumeration shall be made, the state of New-Hampshire shall be intitled to choose three” &c.
Hence it is argued, that as in laying direct taxes the sum must be resolved upon, before it can be apportioned; so a number of

representatives must be established, before they can be apportioned; and this number can be procured only from the aggregate fœderal population.
It is not doubted, that this number must be the effect of some rule; and in fact we find the constitution declaring it to be, “according to their respective numbers”; that is the numbers of each state.
Let it then be seen, how direct taxes and representatives can be in proportion to numbers; for “proportion” and “apportion” may be accepted on this occasion, as synonimous. Direct taxes may be apportioned according to numbers by the rule of three thus; as the whole population is to the sum required; so is a particular population of a state to the sum, to be paid by that state. Thro’ this means every individual enters into the estimate; and not a cent is lost. But it is not so with representatives. For with what propriety can it be stated with respect to representatives, in a manner analogous to direct taxes? Can it be said, as the whole fœderal population is to the whole number of representatives; so is the particular number of representatives to the particular fœderal population of each state? It cannot be so contended for two reasons; first, because when the inquiry itself is, what shall the whole number of representatives be, it is false reasoning to assume that number as actually known already; and secondly, because, as representation is the deputation of one man to act for many, more than one must be combined in the account, before a representative can exist. Of course the constitution looked for a ratio as to representation; whereas it computed individuals in taxes; that is, numbers shall govern in both cases; but they govern each subject, acccording to its nature; so at least as not to beget an absurdity.
Could congress increase the house of representatives to 240 members? No. Why? Because they must not exceed one for thirty thousand. What 30,000?—of the respective numbers; namely, of each state. If aggregate or collective numbers had been contemplated, how much easier would it have been, and how much more proper, to have substituted other words which were so obviously at hand? It seems to have been designed to make up the total number of representatives, just as a stock in trade is created: each state is a contributor to it; and the contributions added together,

furnish the whole. In this way the first house of representatives is composed under the constitution: New Hampshire is to have three &c.
Why are states to have any representatives, as states, if the aggregate fœderal population is to decide the number? It ought rather to have been said, in the constitution, that the boundaries of the states should not be an obstacle; but that the ratio should yield a member, wherever the numbers should be found to fill up that ratio.
This never was intended. Are not the states distinct in their rights of election? Can the numbers of one county even in the same state assist another county in procuring a member? Is it not repugnant to the spirit of the constitution, to tack the numbers of one state to those of another, for the purpose of procuring a member? Is it not unexampled, that New-York should with its numbers contribute towards a member for New Jersey; when an elector of the former can have no fellow-interest or sympathy with the electors of the latter; and, without a freehold in the latter, would probably be debarred of a suffrage therein?
The fractions, it is true, are very large in many of the states; but such fractions are familiar in practice. In some states representatives are according to a certain ratio of population; but the number above one integer, and not equal to another, has always been laid aside. In the management too of the national bank, many shares between two numbers, constituting a vote, are unrespected. If the fraction of one state can raise a member for another, it may often happen, that the balance, which the states wish to preserve among themselves, may be destroyed unexpectedly by their own act. What would the sensations of South Carolina be, if her blacks should cooperate in giving a member to Connecticut?
It is remarkable, that most of the advocates of the bill do themselves admit, that the constitution is susceptible of the construction abovementioned, as well as of their own.
The argument, deduced from the amendment, proposed to the constitution on the subject of representation, might be shewn to be inapplicable, even if it were admissible. But it is inadmissible; because the amendment has not as yet become the sense of the U.S. It is inapplicable. For altho’ it has been observed, that without recurring to the aggregate fœderal population, it might

happen that three millions of persons would not give one hundred members; the answer is full as strong, to reply, that congress would not be called upon to have one hundred members, unless one hundred times 30,000 should be contained in the separate fœderal populations of the several states. Indeed the amendment proves nothing either way.
In short, it is wonderful, that, after admitting the necessity of applying some ratio, and after perceiving, that the application of that ratio to the aggregate fœderal population, will produce such a number of representatives, as cannot be distributed by any ratio whatever, the friends to the bill should not have abandoned it upon their own principles.
Here lies the radical objection, and the violation of the constitution.
If it be not here, the attorney general must in candor own, that it is no where, in his opinion. For if the 120 members can be established, the subdivision cannot be executed in any other, or in any fairer manner. The ratio of 30,000 is carried thro’ the particular, as well as the aggregate fœderal population, as far as it can; and the remaining eight members are distributed equitably.
This is the best judgment therefore, which the attorney-general has been able to form without longer premeditation. Whether the reasoning on the opposite side ought to weigh against the interposition of a negative, it is not for him to decide.

Edm: Randolph


Title: V: Tobias Lear’s Notes on the Opinions of the Cabinet, c.4 April 1792
From: Lear, Tobias
To: Washington, George

[Philadelphia, c.4 April 1792]

The opinion of the Secretary of State
declares the bill unconstitutional—for it does not apportion the Representatives among the states strictly according to their numbers.
It provides for fractions—which the Constitution never intended.

It leaves the dertermination of apportioning the Representatives without any fixed principle—which may hereafter be productive of great evil, and admits of caballing & bargaining on the subjects.
Bill carried by a small majority—1 in Senate & 2 in the House.
The Whole of both Houses admit that the constitution will bear either to have the bill in its present state—or to have one for 30,000 in each state—leaving the fractions. But the minorities will not admit of the constitutionality of the present bill.
The Atty Genl of the U.S.
The Bill does not express the principle or rule by wh. the number of Representatives is ascertained—it is therefore to be sought by Calculation—which makes one to 30,000. taking the whole number in the U.S.—But it will be found that dividing the number in each state by 30,000, & there will be found 8 states that will have each a membr less than they now have, if divided according to the numbers in the states respectively.
The Constitution looks for a Ratio in Representation; but it computed individuals as to taxes. The bill destroys the distinction of states; for the Ratio yields to numbers.
The advocates of the bill admit that the Constitution is susceptible of another construction, as well as of their’s.
A Ratio is applied to the aggregate population of the U.S. as produces a number that cannot be distributed by any ratio whatever—and in this lays the unconstitutionality of the bill.
The Secretary of the Treasury
has not seen the bill; but presumes that the process, for forming the result of the bill, has been in a certain way, which he mentions.
Thinks either the division of the aggregate number in the U.S. by 30,000, or the particular number in each state by that ratio would be constitutional.
If a direct tax shd be imposed, the only way of apportioning it among the several States would be that which has been pursued in the bill & therefore, it is consonant to the clause in the constitution respectg Representation & taxation.
That there would be a residue arising upon the whole, after dividing the numbers in each state by 30,000, & that it is but right that the states having the greatest fraction should receive

the benefit resulting from dividing the aggregate number in the U.S. by 30,000.
The bill performs every requisite in the Constitution in a manner most consistent with equality.
Altho’ the Bill cannot be said to be unconstitutional, yet there may be another construction of wh. the Constitution is capable. And where it may be taken in either sense, it is best to follow the legislative opinion.
The Secretary of War
It has been said that the Construction of the bill may be deemed within the letter, as well as the spirit of the Constitution—If that is the case, the assent of the President of the U.S. is to be governed by the political equity of the measure.
He approves the bill upon the principle of its giving a representation to the largest fractions.
The constitutionality of the bill being only doubted—not proved—it wd appear a delicate measure for the President to decide against the sense of the legislature.


Title: VI: To the United States House of Representatives, 5 April 1792
From: Washington, George
To: United States House of Representatives

United States [Philadelphia] April 5th 1792.
Gentlemen of the House of Representatives

I have maturely considered the Act passed by the two Houses, intituled “An Act for an apportionment of Representatives among the several States according to the first enumeration;” and I return it to your House, wherein it originated, with the following objections.
First—The Constitution has prescribed that representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers: and there is no one proportion or divisor which, applied to the respective numbers of the States will yield

the number and allotment of representatives proposed by the Bill.
Second—The Constitution has also provided that the number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand; which restriction is, by the context, and by fair and obvious construction, to be applied to the seperate and respective numbers of the States: and the Bill has allotted to eight of the States, more than one for thirty thousand.

George Washington.


Title: To George Washington from Bryan Fairfax, 4 April 1792
From: Fairfax, Bryan
To: Washington, George

Dear Sir
April the 4th 1792.

Your Favor of the 19th of March I received in due time, and have written to Mr Potts, to inform him, that no Money had been received—that there had been a great Remissness in the Prosecution of the Suit—that a few days before I had received Your Letter I had been speaking to a Gentleman of the Law whom I engaged last Summer to join with the one who had been before employed in the Room of one who had entirely neglected it, and that since, I had spoke to him again and had enquired at the Clerk’s Office. And that all that had been done was the bringing a new Suit in the district Court vs the Executors of Dr Savage’s Security.
And after mentioning by way of Excuse for myself (for he

knew that You, Sir, could not attend to it) that when a Suit was commenced a man could further it only by employing a lawyer in it, and after speaking to him from time to time, upon finding nothing done, to employ a second, and afterwards a third, I owned that as Mr Savage’s heir at Law was in these parts a year or two If I had a Scire facias served upon him I was informed it would have been of Service but that it did not occur to me.
Indeed it gives me Concern that there should be such Remissness under my Management especially as I believe & know that You depend on me to do as much in it or more than I would for myself. I might have applied to the Clerk’s Office and have issued a Scire facias myself—But as I was acting for another, it would seem right that the Lawyer should issue such Process as was adviseable—& who could have thought that such continued acting under different hands would have followed—I might also have applied to them once in two or three months instead of doing it twice in a year. On applying at the Clerk’s Office the other day Mr Wagener told me Nothing had been done it in the Suit since it came from Richmond—And he could let me have no Process without a transcript of the Record where by it was remanded, this I know I brot up with me—but into whose hands I put it I don’t remember. However as Colo. Simms says he has brot a new Suit in the district Court it will render needless any further Process from this Court. One thing which hindered my more frequent Applications to the Lawyers was my not having money at Command at all times.
But, Sir, as I seem to be vindicating my Conduct and it might appear that I feared your Censure, and as you might thence from your wonted kindness be induced to write to me again, I beg that You will not give yourself that trouble, because I know that You know me, & I can rest secure in Your Friendship which I have always esteemed so much the more as I have been persuaded that no Person could deprive me of it, & that nothing but my own misconduct could effect it.
I observe that Mr Potts hints at the Money being advanced by the Trustees which is rather an unreasonable Expectation. And I cant say that I was pleased with Mrs Bomford’s Proposal in her last Letter wherein she offered to relinquish half of her demand to me if I would pay the remainder which was a little Reflection

on my Integrity as If I had it in my Power to pay it—Indeed the delay has been so unusual that it seems incredible, which I consider as an excuse for her.
Mrs Fairfax joins with me in our Respects to Mrs Washington—We had a Marriage last Week in our Family my Daughter being married to Mr Griffith the oldest Son of Dr Griffith. I remain with great Respect & Esteem Dr Sir Yr affect. humble Servt

Bryan Fairfax.


Title: From George Washington to Henry Knox, 4 April 1792
From: Washington, George
To: Knox, Henry

Dr Sir
[Philadelphia] Wednesday Morng [4 April 1792]

Has G——W——ne decided yet? Has any answer been prepared for G——St———I am anxious to have these matters closed.
Also for the departure of T—— and that the business with the Indians may be brought to a conclusion. Yrs always

G. W——n


Title: From George Washington to Arthur St. Clair, 4 April 1792
From: Washington, George
To: St. Clair, Arthur

Sir.
United States [Philadelphia] April 4th 1792.

I have read and duly considered your letter of the 31st ultimo.
The reasons you offer, for retaining your commission, until an opportunity should be presented, if necessary, of investigating your conduct, in every mode prescribed by law, would be conclusive with me, under any other circumstances than the present.
But, the establishment of the troops allows only of one major general—you have manifested your intention of retiring, and the esential interests of the public require, that your successor should be immediately appointed, in order to repair to the frontiers.
As the house of representatives have been pleased to institute an enquiry into the causes of the failure of the late expedition, I should hope an opportunity would thereby be afforded you, of explaining your conduct, in a manner satisfactory to the public and yourself.


Title: To George Washington from Robert Dick, 5 April 1792
From: Dick, Robert
To: Washington, George

Sir,
Bladensburgh [Md.] 5th April 1792

Your known goodness will, I hope, excuse the trouble of this letter, which I presume to write You in order to introduce to Your notice the bearer of it Mr James Oswald; who is a Son of George Oswald Esqre of Scotstown near Glasgow, and a partner in the business which I have conducted in Virginia and Maryland

for many years. This Young Gentleman is Grand Nephew to Richard Oswald Esqre, the British Plenipotentiary in making the Peace of 1783. He has lately entered into the Navy, and having some time to spare, and a strong desire to see America, he has, with his Father’s approbation, embraced the opportunity of coming in one of our Ships, in order to gratify it.
The notice which you may be pleased to take of him will be a particular obligation confered on, sir Your Most Obedient & humble Servant

Robt Dick


Title: To George Washington from Tobias Lear, 5 April 1792
From: Lear, Tobias
To: Washington, George

My dear & honored Sir,
[Philadelphia]Thursday Morning April 5th 1792.

It is my duty to releive you from suspence on the subject which you had the goodness to communicate to me yesterday, when I have no longer any hesitation in determining on it myself. Permit me, therefore, while my heart overflows with gratitude for this new instance of your kind attention to my welfare, to decline the acceptance of the appointment which you had the goodness to offer me.
And let me, at the same time, beg, that you will not consider this determination as proceeding from the want of a due sense of your fr[i]endship. This additional proof of your concern for me, altho’ grateful to my feelings, was not necessary to convince me of your regard, or to increase my attachment to, or veneration

of yourself—These have been long fixed, and I trust indelibly so.
When you opened this business to me yesterday, I mentioned a resolution I had formed not to engage in any public employment. And in pursuance of this resolution, I should have had no hesitation to have declined at that moment the honor you intended me; but I conceived it to be a mark of respect due to your goodness to re-consider that resolution, and to reflect upon the offer you have made. I have done so—and the result of my reflection is an adherence to my former determination.
But were I not to explain the extent of this resolution you might justly impute to me the want of the first and noblest of virtues—I mean a love of my Country and mankind. When, therefore, I say, that I have resolved not to engage in any public employment, I mean that I shall not do it for the sake of providing a support for myself and those dependent upon me—nor merely with a view of advancing myself to posts of honor and becoming conspicuous. But if ever my Country should call for the personal or other services of its citizens, I will venture to say that no one will be found more ready than myself to hazard or sacrifice every private & personal consideration for the public good; Or if ever an occasion should offer (of which however there seems no probability) where I could render better or more essential service to my Country than another person, I should embrace it with alacrity, and I trust I should not be found insensible to the charms of honor and glory if earned by solid services to my Country or to Mankind.
Actuated by the principles here expressed, I have paid no court to any person—my mind has been independent, and I hope my sentiments, when expressed, have corresponded therewith. By this means I beleive I have offended some, and sure I am that I am less pleasing to many than I should have been, had I pursued a different course. But I hope and trust that I shall not fall in the estimation of the upright and virtuous whenever I am known to them.
Let me, my dear & honored Sir, beg your patience for a moment longer while I observe, that, in my present situation I consider myself as rendering no small service to the public, and in a way peculiarly delightful to my feelings. For such is the importance of your life and of your services to this Country, that the

person who is so happy in his situation as to be able, by attention & assiduity, in any degree to alleviate the weight necessarily imposed upon you, is benefitting his Country, altho’ his services do not attract the attention of the public. And if my conduct hitherto has merited your approbation my reward will be complete; for an invariable adherence to honor, integrity, disinterestedness and purity of views has insured the approbation of my own feelings. If in any instance you conceive I have not acted with propriety, I must rely upon your goodness & sincere friendship for me to point it out without reserve, and let me correct my error.
I am afraid I have already intruded too much on your busy moments, and will only beg permission, som⟨e⟩ time hence, when you are less embarrassed with public concerns than you are at present, to converse with you respecting my future pursuits in life. With the most disinterested attachment and sincere affection I have the honor to be my dear & honored Sir Your’s

Tobias Lear.


Title: To George Washington from Edmund Randolph, 5 April 1792
From: Randolph, Edmund
To: Washington, George

Sir
Philadelphia April 5. 1792

Both Mr Blair and Mr Wilson are now at Trenton. I have never heard Mr Blair say a syllable upon the subject of the representation bill. Some days ago I met Mr Wilson in Sixth Street, and he stopped to ask me, whether Mr Blair had communicated to me an idea, which both of them entertained on a late law of the present session, requiring the judges of the circuit courts to hear applications of pensioners, invalids &c. I informed him, that Mr Blair had not mentioned it to me; but that it was said in town, that they meant to refuse to execute the act. Upon his making a strong remark against its constitutionality, (but by the way I suspect that in this the judges, if they persist, will be found wrong) I observed, that doubts had been entertained by some discerning and respectable men as to the constitutionality of the representation bill. To this he replied, it can never come before me, as a judge, and therefore I will say that congress appear to have

forgotten the source, from which representation flows. We immediately separated, without exchanging another word. I have the honor sir, to be with the most affectionate attachment and respect yr mo. ob. serv.

Edm: Randolph


Title: From George Washington to Alexander Hamilton, 6 April 1792
From: Washington, George
To: Hamilton, Alexander

United States [Philadelphia] April 6th 1792.

In virtue of the last clause of “an Act for the relief of certain Widows, Orphans, Invalids & other persons,” you will cause to be paid to Nicholas Ferdinand Westfall the sum of three hundred and thirty six Dollars out of the fund of Ten thousand Dollars appropriated for defraying the contingent charges of Government, by an Act passed on the 26th day of March 1790.

G: Washington.


Title: To George Washington from Samuel McDowell, 6 April 1792 [letter not found]
From: McDowell, Samuel
To: Washington, George

Letter not found: from Samuel McDowell, 6 April 1792. In his letter to McDowell of 20 Oct. 1792, GW mentioned “Your letter of the 6th of April.”


Title: To George Washington from Gouverneur Morris, 6 April 1792
From: Morris, Gouverneur
To: Washington, George

My dear Sir,
London 6 April 1792

I receive this Instant your favor of the twenty eighth of January and I do most sincerely thank you for the Informations which you have been so kind as to communicate. Beleive me I know how to value the friendship by which they were dictated. I have always thought that the Counsel of our Enemies is wholesome, tho bitter, if we can but turn it to good Account & In order that I may not fail to do so on the present Occasion I now promise you that Circumspection of Conduct which has hitherto I acknowlege formed no Part of my Character. And I make the Promise that my Sense of Integrity may enforce what my Sense of Propriety dictates.

I have hitherto in my Letters communicated to you many Things which I should not willingly entrust to others, and in the Course of Events I may again possess Information which it might be well that you were acquainted with At the same Time it is I presume expected that the public Servants will correspond fully and freely with the Office of foreign Affairs. It might therefore be deemed improper, not to say all, in my Letters to that Office. I wish therefore you would give me your candid opinion on this Subject. I should be extremely sorry to offend or to give Pain, but I cannot have the same unreserved Confidence in others that I have in you and my Letter of the fourth of February will shew that Cases may occur in which I am not even Master of it.
I was told Yesterday that Mr Dundas has said that the United States have asked for the Mediation of this Country to bring about a Peace with the Indians. He told the same Person (a Mr Osgood the new Chief Justice of the new Province of Upper Canada) that the treaty made long since by Sir William Johnson seemed to be the proper Ground on which to fix a Boundary between the United States & the Indian tribes. I learn these facts in such a Way that I am confident of the Truth, and therefore submit them without any Comment to your Consideration.
An Express arrived last Night brings an Account of the Assassination of the King of Sweden the twenty sixth of last Month, at a Masquerade And thus another Crown falls on the Head of a young Sovereign. Those who conceive the french Jacobins to be at the Bottom of a great King-Killing Project approach the Deaths of the Emperor the King of Sweden and the Movements making against France from whence they infer that the King of Prussia should take Care of himself and be cautious of his Cooks and Companions. Such sudden Deaths in so critical a Moment are extraordinary but I do not usually beleive in Enormities and I cannot see how a Club can persue a Path of Horrors in which Secrecy is essential to Success.
The young King of Hungary has made such Reply to the peremptory Demands of France as to cool a little the Extravagance of Joy manifested on his Fathers Death. I am told that he is a Disciple rather of his Uncle Joseph than of his Father if this be so he will not long remain idle. The Death of his Swedish Majesty will however make some Derangement in the Plan of Operations.

How all these Things will end God only knows. I am my dear Sir very sincerely and affectionately yours

Gouvr Morris