Title: From Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, 9 August 1793
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Washington, George

Treasury DepartmentAugust 9, 1793
Sir,

I have the honor to transmit herewith the Copy of a letter from the Comptroller of the Treasury of the 7th instant. containing substantially the information requisite to a judgment of the motives which determined the Treasury to persist in declining for the present the payment of the warrants stated by Mr Fraunces to be in his possession.
These principally turn upon the following considerations—
I   That there appears to heve been an extensive and complicated agency on the part of Mr Duer for the late Board of Treasury, respecting the negotiation, exchange and payment of sundry kinds of papers, including warrants of the nature of those in question, which, the various accounts respecting it not having been finally settled at the Treasury, renders it impossible for the present officers of the Department to pronounce with certainty what of those warrants are rightfully outstanding and a just claim upon the public.
II   That there are other kinds of Public paper in a similar predicament.
III   That there is a presumption that the particular warrants in possession of Mr Fraunces may have been once taken up and satisfied by Mr Duer as a Public Agent out of Public funds, though afterwards thrown into circulation for private purposes.
IV   That Mr Fraunces before he became possessed of them knew the facts, which support that presumption; and consequently became possessed of them mala fide, as a speculation upon what he supposed to be the strictness of public obligation.

V   That from this state of things, it is unsafe for the public to an unknown extent to continue to take up and satisfy public paper of the description comprized in Mr Duer’s agency; and that in the particular case, it is very questionable whether a Court of Justice would support the claim of Mr Fraunces even on rigid principles of law.
The following circumstances will evince still more clearly the impropriety of Mr Fraunces’s pertinacity on the occasion.
Mr Fraunces was a Clerk of the Board of Treasury during the greatest part, if not the whole period, of the transactions in question, and was in a situation to be well acquainted with their Course.
Mr Fraunces being found a Clerk in the Treasury, at the time of the commencement of the present administration of it, was continued in it ’till some time in March last; and well knew before his departure that objections were made at the Treasury to the payment of the still-outstanding warrants, ’till further light could be obtained.
With all this knowledge to guide him, he ventures upon the speculation, and plunges himself into the embarrassment in which he alleges himself to be.
There is therefore the reverse of reason for a departure from the rule of conduct, which has been a considerable time since adopted at the Treasury, in his favour.
Mr Fraunces endeavours to derive a topic of censure on the refusal to pay the warrants from the circumstance of a very considerable sum of those warrants having been previously discharged by the present Department, which he represents as an inconsistency in its conduct.
A short history of the business will be the best answer to this insinuation.
One of my first acts, upon coming into my present Office, was to ascertain what demands upon the Treasury, requiring immediate payment in specie, existed; in order to laying before Congress an estimate for an appropriation. My call for this information was addressed to the Register of the Treasury, who had been in that office under the old establishment, and whose province it was, both from the nature of his Office and the usage of the Treasury, to furnish information of that sort.
He accordingly reported to me among other things a statement of warrants which had been issued by the late Board of Treasury and which appeared to be still outstanding and unsatisfied. This statement formed a part of an estimate submitted by me to the House of Representatives on the 19th of September 1789, which was the foundation of an appropriation of 190,000 Dollars for satisfying warrants of the above description.
On the 28th of July 1790, the Register reported to me, a further statement, which was also communicated to the House of Representatives; from which it appeared that some of the warrants deemed outstanding in the first statement had been satisfied and that others not mentioned in it were outstanding; but as the sum of the warrants omitted was less than that of the warrants which had been included in the first statement though satisfied, the matter was left on the basis of the first appropriation, which appeared sufficient to cover all the warrants really outstanding.
The reason assigned by the Register for this inaccuracy and which appears to have been the true one was—“That the Accounts of the Treasurer and Receivers of Taxes had not yet been adjusted at the Treasury; which prevented his having a certain guide to ascertain the particular warrants, that formed the agregate of the excess of warrants drawn by the late Board beyond the actual receipts of monies into the Treasury.”
But during this period and for a long time after, I was ignorant of the existence and extent of Mr. Duers Agency for the Board of Treasury. No circumstance in the course of the immediate business of my Office led to the discovery, and no person who had been in the way of knowing it had informed me of it.
Of the Officers of the Treasury under the old establishment, none remained, but Mr. Duer and the Register. Mr. Duer probably from the difficulty of rendering a prompt and satisfactory account of his Agency kept it out of sight; and the Register either perhaps not acquainted with it, as having been pretty much seperated from the active operations of the Department, or from a Character naturally reserved and inofficious said nothing about the matter.
One Occurrence only led me (some time after my coming into Office but the particular period is forgotten) to a partial knowledge of the transaction. Some Certificates of pay due to the Officers of South Carolina were presented at the Treasury for payment and upon enquiry I was told by Mr. Duer that the Board had put into his hands funds for the payment of Certificates of that kind, that the greatest part of them had been satisfied and that as the residue occurred the holders might be referred to him and he would take them up.
But this as stated appeared to be only a particular provision, commensurate with a particular case. The general subject of the agency was kept out of view until a long time afterwards, as the progressive settlement of Public Accounts unfolded the transactions of the late Board.
The accounting officers of the Treasury first and successively acquired the information in the course of official business, which was successfully inparted to me, but it was not till after the present Comptroller came into his present Office, that I became apprized of the extent of the thing.
Early and great pains were taken to bring the late Treasurer to a settlement of his Accounts, but it was for a long time eluded under different pretexts: he continuing in Philadelphia and his papers remaining in a private House at New-York; till owing to an anxiety about their situation and the danger to the Public if an accident should happen to them, I caused them to be seized under the direction of the then Comptroller and placed in the Bank of New-York carefully packed up and sealed for safe Custody.
It was not however, till after our arrival at this place that a material progress could be made in the settlement of these accounts. Much has been done in it; but questions connected with Mr. Duers Agency still postpone its final completion.
The settlement of the old Accounts of the Commissioners of loans has also been pursued with diligence and with success; though they were unavoidably delayed by their connection with the Treasurers accounts and Mr Duers Agency.
As these settlements proceeded, that Agency became more and more devellopped. But it was not till late in the year 1791, that an adequate idea of it was obtained.
It appears by recurrence to official records that from the 23d of November 1789 when the Treasury began to be in a situation to make payments on that account to the 23d of November 1790 there had been paid in discharge of warrants issued by the late Board of Treasury 157630 Dollars & 94 Cents; that subsequent to this period there have only been paid of those warrants on the 6th of July 1791 to Abijah Hammond 150 Dollars on the 12th of October 1792 to Henry Knox 33 Dollars & 33 Cents.
During the whole of the period when the payments were made except the last mentioned trifling one, I was altogether ignorant of the general considerations which have latterly operated against a continuance of those payments; which sufficiently accounts for the difference of conduct.
But those general considerations have been strengthened by the following more particular ones.
The warrants now outstanding lay dormant, from the time the appropriation was made for their payment till after the time of Mr Duer’s late failure (an interval of more than two years) when they began to make their appearance at the Treasury.
Considering that the appropriation for these warrants was so long a matter of general notoriety, and that money during the whole period was in great and universal demand, the reflection naturally pressed itself upon the Treasury, that some great peculiarity must have attended those so long kept back, and no sufficient solution appeared but in the supposition that they might have been taken up by Mr Duer in the course of his agency. The appearance at the Treasury about the same time of paper of other kind which had been understood to be absorbed, served to strengthen and extend the alarm.
These circumstances at any rate were of a nature to enforce the propriety of caution; and a resolution was accordingly taken to make no further payments till further light could be obtained and further legislative precautions could be established to guard the public, as far as possible, against the danger of suffering by any abuses, which might have been committed.
Accordingly in consequence of suggestions from the Treasury, the law mentioned in the close of the comptrollers letter was passed during the last session; which provides that all claims upon the united States for services or supplies or for other cause matter or thing furnished or done previous to the 4th day of March 1789, whether founded upon certificates or other written documents from public officers or otherwise, which had not already been barred by any Act of limitation and which should not be presented at the Treasury before the first day of may 1794 should forever after be precluded from settlement of allowance; with the exception only of loan office certificates, certificates of final settlement, indents of Interest, balances entered in the books of the Register of the Treasury, certificates issued by the Register of the Treasury commonly called Registered certificates loans of money obtained in foreign countries and certificates issued pursuant to the Funding Act. Neither of which exceptions covers either of the species of Paper, to the discharging of which Mr Duer’s agency appears to have extended.
The claims presented under this Act are to be received and recorded by the Auditor; and the accounting officers of the Treasury are to make Report to Congress upon all such of them as shall not be allowed to be valid according to the usual forms of the Treasury.
The plain design of this act is to fix a period, when all claims which admit a suspicion of abuse shall cease to bind; so that there may be an ultimate term to the dangers to the public in this way, which from the former loose and irregular manner of conducting the public business have been great—that in the interim whatever is doubtful may be held suspended, till the issue shall discover and set bounds to the extent of the mischief, if any, which exists; holding individuals who may have been accessory to any abuse during this time, under the check of that suspence, and of an investigation which is to continue open till the expiration of the term limited for presenting claims; and reserving to Congress the ultimate judgment in those cases where conflicting considerations may render the course which ought to be pursued doubtful.
Under this very necessary and prudent law the Department now acts, and being in the dark about the true situation of the warrants in question refers the holders of them to that ultimate justice, consistently with the security of the public, which this law contemplates.
Other holders more meritorious than Mr Fraunces as well as himself have been referred to this issue. They have acquiesced; he has appealed.
The most scrupulous maxims of good faith will, it is presumed, justify a Government, under circumstances so peculiar, in forbearing to admit claims, till it shall have taken precautions to ascertain the ground. It is probable that the nicety of public credit will require in the end some sacrifices of Interest, which strict justice would not dictate; but prudence requires that the extent of such sacrifices should be first known.
Mr. Fraunces refers to a letter as inclosed which shews (says he) that “what is now known at the Treasury has been long since known” I find no other letter inclosed than that from Mr Taylor which only traces the knowlege of the Treasury back to the 26th of last month.
The circumstance mentioned in that letter proves to be a mistake, as will be seen by a certificate of the Register herewith transmitted.
But if it had been true, it would have furnished a very strong objection against paying the warrants; for to consider a paper which has been once satisfied and stolen off a public file, as an existing claim will not easily find principle or precedent to support it; and if a practice so alarming had been detected it would have afforded a very powerful motive for additional caution.
Mr Fraunces mentions a conversation with me, in which I had stated that the public might have a claim upon the warrants as Mr Flint had promised a payment in such warrants on account of his Tobacco contract; and it was possible those presented by Fraunces might have been a part of those promised by Flint.
It is true that something of this kind was dropped by me in the course of one of the interviews which Mr Fraunces importunately pressed upon me.
The facts are as follow and were referred to in that sense.
Mr Flint owes a sum of money to the united States for a parcel of Tobacco which he purchased of the late Board of Treasury. He had in his possession warrants issued by the Board which he produced to the officers of the Treasury, declaring they were reserved for a payment on account of the contract when the monies became due. It was cursorily remarked to Mr Fraunces among other things, but without much stress being laid upon it, that it might appear upon more full inquiry that the warrants he held were part of those promised by Mr Flint and that it might then be a question whether the united States would not have a right to claim a set off against them of an equal sum of their debt from Mr Flint.
I added that this might be the better done as it was a serious question whether the warrants were in their nature negotiable.
To this Mr Fraunces replied that their negotiability could not be objected to as it had been the practice of the Treasury to pay them to the holders upon a blank endorsement. I answered that this was not conclusive, because it was known that Bonds under seal were not in strictness negotiable; yet if an obligee of mine should endorse my bond and deliver it to another I should without scruple pay the amount to him upon the strength of such endorsement if I had no valid set off against it, as the property of the prior owner; but if I had such set off, I should refuse payment and should expect to be Justified by law.
But I added withall that this was a circumstance I had only mentioned incidentally; that my reasons for refusing payment were of a more cogent nature, immediately relative to the security of the Public.
The truth is, that I did not care to go into a particular explanation with Mr Fraunces, but chose rather to deal in general expressions. Not Mr Duer only but the members of the late Board of Treasury and the late Treasurer are more or less implicated in the affair. What degree of culpability falls upon either of these parties is not yet definitely ascertained; and I have considered it as most equitable and delicate not to make, what is hitherto supposed, a matter of public eclat; until at least it shall be better understood. Another reflection has also had some influence in producing reserve. It is this that Mr Duer if not rendered desperate by a disclosure, may in order still to preserve some public character exert himself to recover paper which may have improperly escaped him as the means of liquidating the demands which the united States at present have upon him, and of avoiding a disgraceful promulgation. Indeed there is reason to infer from some thing which in my last conversation but one with Mr Fraunces fell from him, that this is now the case. Mr Duer was endeavouring to get back the warrants; suggesting that they had been only pledged by him for a part of their value.
I think it proper to observe that my letter to Mr Fraunces which he has recited at length was prior to those disclosures of his which have tended to place his claim in a still more unfavourable light.
As to his having danced attendance at the Treasury for near two months (as he expresses it) the blame is wholly with himself. He was told in his first interview with me most explicitly that the warrants would not be paid for the present; and was advised on that ground to notify his claim to the Auditor. He nevertheless persevered in importuning me hoping perhaps to interest my humanity against my judgment and counting something upon a disposition on my part to serve him which it now clearly appears he never merited.
I thought it incumbent upon me to ask an explanation of that part of his letter in which he seems to impute to me some undue motives; but he hitherto evades it.
With the most perfect respect I have the honor to be   Sir   Your most obdt & humble Servt

Alex Hamilton
The President of The United States.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Charles François Bournonville, 10 August 1793
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Bournonville, Charles François

Treasury Department Aug 10th 1793
Sir

Pursuant to your letter of yesterday I had examination made, respecting the funds in the hands of the Collector of Norfolk
It appearing however that all the monies at present in his hands have been drawn for I have to regret that the draught requested cannot be furnished.
I am Sir with consideration   Your obedt Servt

Alexander Hamilton
Mr BournonvilleSecretary to the French Embassy


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Jedediah Huntington, 10 August 1793
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Huntington, Jedediah

[Philadelphia, August 10, 1793. The dealer’s catalogue description of this letter reads: “acknowledging draft of $2000.” Letter not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Rufus King, 10 August 1793
From: King, Rufus
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[New York, August 10, 1793. On August 13, 1793, Hamilton wrote to King: “The Post of to day brought me your letter of the 10th.” Letter not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from George Washington, 10 August 1793
From: Washington, George
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Philadelphia Augt. 10th. 1793.
Dear Sir,

I thank you for giving me the perusal of the letters to you, which are herewith returned. And I pray you to draught, on my behalf, what you may conceive to be a short, but proper & respectful response to the letter of the Chairman—or to the resolves—or to both as you shall judge best (for they come in a form so unusual that I scarcely know the mode that will be most eligable) and let me be furnished therewith tomorrow evening, or early on Monday morning.
Quere—If the introduction of G—— C—— in the resolutions, affords a good occasion to notice the promptness & efficacy of this aid—and that of all the Governors (as far as facts are known to me) where there has been occasion for their exertion—would it not be good policy to make proper mention thereof?
Yours always

Go: Washington
Colo. Hamilton


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Wilhem and Jan Willink, Nicholaas and Jacob Van Staphorst, and Nicholas Hubbard, 12 August 1793
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Willink, Wilhem,Willink, Jan,Van Staphorst, Nicholaas,Van Staphorst, Jacob,Hubbard, Nicholas

Treasury Department August 12th 1793
Gentlemen

I have lately the pleasure of your letters of the 22d of April and first of may.
The last was particularly acceptable, as it removed all anxiety about the June payment, in a mode quite satisfactory to me.
The low prices at which our stocks have been for some time past, owing to the state of affairs in Europe (which has tended to lower them in two ways, by lessening the foreign demand, and by opening new channels for the more beneficial employment of our domestic capital) indicate the expediency of extending the purchases of Stock, on account of the Government, which at present yields a very considerable advantage.
Upon this ground it is judged adviseable to endeavour to obtain a loan in Holland for three millions of florins; though better terms should not be obtainable than five per cent interest and four per cent charges.
Not expecting that Mr Short will be in Holland when this letter reaches you and having full confidence in your pure zeal for the Interests of the united States, I have concluded to address an instruction for the above purpose immediately to you.
In the event therefore of Mr Short’s not being in Holland when this letter is received, you will take measures of yourself to obtain a loan for the above sum, within the limit above specified.
I count nevertheless upon your zealous exertions, if the state of the market should possibly admit of it, to obtain the loan at a lower rate of Interest. The success of your endeavours for that purpose will be particularly gratifying to me, and will be in more than one way useful to our affairs.
It is important too that I should receive the earliest advice of what you shall do.
The enclosed letter for Mr Short advises him of the present arrangement and desires him to cooperate in whatever may be necessary to give the business due form.

With great and real consideration & esteem   I am Gentlemen Your obedt Servt

Alexander Hamilton
Messrs Wm & J. Willink N & J van Staphorst & Hubbard


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Charles François Bournonville, [13 August 1793]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Bournonville, Charles François

[Philadelphia, August 13, 1793]

Mr. Hamiltons Compliments to Mr. Bournonville. The last return from The Collector of Norfolk shews a sum of 2500 Dollars in his hands subject to future disposition. If this sum can be of any convenience to Mr. B for the purpose lately mentioned it will be at his command.
Aug 13th.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Thomas FitzSimons, 13 August 1793
From: FitzSimons, Thomas
To: Hamilton, Alexander

August 13, 1793. “I am informed (by a letter Just now received) of the death of Mr Ballard Surveyor of Baltimore, and am strongly Urged by some Respectable people there to apply for your Interest for a Mr Robert Walsh of that Place as his Successor …”


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Thomas Jefferson, [13 August 1793]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Jefferson, Thomas

[Philadelphia, August 13, 1793]

The Secretary of The Treasury proposes to the Secretary of State a Meeting of the Trustees of the Sinking Fund at the Office of the Secy of State the day after tomorrow twelve oClock. If convenient to him he will please to give notice accordingly to The Atty General. If the Sy of the Treasury hears nothing to the contrary he will attend of course.
Tuesday Aug 13th 1793


Title: Introductory Note: To Rufus King [13 August 1793]
From:
To:

[Philadelphia, August 13, 1793]

This letter marks Hamilton’s initial involvement in a protracted and acrimonious dispute between Rufus King and John Jay on the one hand and Edmond C. Genet on the other. Briefly stated, the controversy centered on whether Genet on July 6, 1793, at the height of the crisis over the sailing of the Little Sarah, had or had not told Alexander J. Dallas that “he would appeal from the President to the People.” King and Jay publicly charged that Genet had made such a statement; Genet denied the charge. While Hamilton was not a central figure in the dispute, he undoubtedly did his best—particularly in the controversy’s earlier stages—to encourage Jay and King. At the same time he tried to remain out of the direct line of fire of the combatants. To change the metaphor, if Hamilton did not start the fire, he assiduously poured oil on it whenever the opportunity arose.
The dispute began with the following letter, dated August 12, 1793, which Jay and King sent to New York newspapers: “Certain late publications render it proper for us to authorize you to inform the Public, that a report having reached this City from Philadelphia, that Mr. Genet, the French Minister, had said he would appeal to the People from certain decisions of the President; we were asked, on our return from that place, whether he had made such a declaration—we answered, That He Had, and we also mentioned it to others, authorising them to say that we had so informed them.”
Genet had arrived in New York City on August 7 and received an enthusiastic welcome from his supporters in the city. Although rumors of his reputed “appeal to the people” had been in circulation before the statement by Jay and King, the publication of the letter caused considerable consternation among Republicans. Genet immediately replied to the charges in a public letter addressed to the President. This letter, dated August 13, 1793, reads in part as follows: “To you alone, through the Secretary of State, have I complained of the principles you have adopted and remonstrated against decisions which have resulted therefrom. To you alone have I declared that the federal government, far from manifesting any regard for our generous conduct towards this country—for the new advantages which we were offering to her commerce—or for the reiterated demonstrations of our real and disinterested friendship, were sacrificing our interests to those of our enemies, by their interpretation of the treaties which exist between us. To you have I represented without reserve, that this conduct did not appear to correspond with the views of the people of America, with their desire to observe with fidelity their public engagements, or with their affectionate regard for the cause of liberty, upon which their very existence and prosperity depend. Certain decisions of your tribunals and verdicts of your juries, added to the sentiments of your fellow citizens publicly expressed, might permit me without a crime to draw this inference.
“Nevertheless, certain persons, actuated by views which time will develope, despairing to attack my principles, have descended to personal abuse. In hopes of withdrawing from me that esteem which the public feel and avow for the representative of the French republic. They publish with great warmth that I have insulted you, and that I have threatened you with an appeal to the people, as if you would permit any one with impunity to treat you with disrespect, or as if the slightest hint of an appeal, which a magistrate deserving of his high office, should ardently desire, was to you the greatest offence I could offer.
“It is become necessary Sir, to dissipate these dark calumnies by truth, and publicity. I dare, therefore, to expect from your candor and probity an explicit declaration, that ‘I have never intimated to you an intention of appealing to the people; that it is not true that a difference in political sentiments has ever betrayed me to forget what was due to your character or to the exalted reputation you had acquired by humbling a tyrant against whom you fought in the cause of liberty.’ A publication of your answer will be the only reply which shall be given to those party-men, who never fail to confound the individual with affairs of state, which they too often make use of as a pretext for their zeal and a reason for dastardly appearing under anonymous signatures.…”
On August 16, 1793, Jefferson replied to this letter on behalf of the President, stating that “it is not the established course for the diplomatic characters residing here, to have any direct correspondence with him. The Secretary of State, is the organ through which their communication should pass. The President does not conceive it to be within the line of propriety or duty for him, to bear evidence against a declaration which, whether made to him or others, is perhaps immaterial; he therefore declines interfering in the case.” After this exchange of letters, in spite of a clamorous newspaper controversy between Federalists and Republicans over Genet’s statements, the matter remained in abeyance until November, 1793.
On November 14 Genet reopened the affair with a letter to Attorney General Edmund Randolph. “More pressing avocations,” Genet wrote, “have hitherto prevented my applying to you on the subject of a public insult to my nation and to myself, which I understand, from gentlemen of the law here, you are the person officially to be made acquainted with. I enclose you, Sir, a newspaper, printed in New-York, in which the chief justice of the United States, Mr. Jay, and a senator of the United States, Mr. King, have certified to the public, as a declaration of mine, what is utterly and totally false. To you, Sir, who are doubtless acquainted with the contemptible arts practised by party to hurt the characters, supposed to obstruct their views, it is needless to enlarge upon the injury this certificate has done the cause of my country in the opinion of this, or the personal dilemma into which it has, as was intended, plunged myself. The lie having effected its purpose, I can, unfortunately for justice, but too slowly follow it with detection. It is, however, a duty I owe my official character, to procure a public prosecution of a calumny, which nothing but their public situations, who are the authors of it, induces me to think more of than the rest of the low newspaper abuse to which I have been so much accustomed.
“As you are, as I am informed, from your official situation, the prosecutor of outrages committed by citizens of the United States, either against foreign nations or their representatives to the United States, I am satisfied that it is sufficient for me to acquaint you of the scandalous falsity of the charge against me, to induce you to take such steps, at the ensuing federal court, as the honor of your own country, as well as of mine, exact upon such an occasion. I shall attend you for this purpose at any time and place you point out, and desire to be favored with your answer, when and where that must be.”
On the same day Genet addressed another letter to Jefferson, enclosing his letter to Randolph and stating that he had “to this moment omitted nothing to ascertain the falsity of the perfidious imposture, to which these gentlemen have not been ashamed to add their names. It is with this view, I ventured to write to the President of the United States; it is with this view, that my friends have called, in many papers, upon Mr. Jay and Mr. King, to produce the proofs of their assertion; but the answer which you were charged to make me, Sir, being as indecisive as the silence of these gentlemen was profound, a judicial enquiry alone remains for me to confound those who have traduced me, both as delegate of the French people and as an individual.” On November 19 Randolph replied to Genet that he would be willing to confer on the matter with the French minister upon the latter’s return to Philadelphia.
Jay and King were now faced with the necessity of proving their allegations. They thereupon wrote to Hamilton and Henry Knox stating that they intended to publish a complete account of the transaction and requesting a certificate from them as to the truth of Genet’s threat. Hamilton and Knox complied, and when the statement by Jay and King dated November 26, 1793, and addressed “To the Public” appeared in the newspapers, it was accompanied by a supporting certificate from Hamilton and Knox.
Jay and King also hoped that Jefferson, Alexander Dallas, and Thomas Mifflin could be persuaded to support the charges against Genet. In their letter “To the Public” the two men had based their statement on Jefferson’s account of the meeting as transmitted to Washington. Much of the information contained in this account had been supplied to King by Hamilton in his letter of August 13. Jefferson’s testimony had thus become almost as crucial to proving the truth of Jay’s and King’s allegations as that of Dallas, to whom Genet’s remarks were originally made. Jefferson had written to James Madison in September: “You will see much said & again said about G’s threat to appeal to the people. I can assure you it is a fact.” The Secretary of State, however, had no intention of pulling Federalist chestnuts out of the fire. Apparently he had considered issuing a publication concerning the appeal, for there is an undated autograph draft in the Thomas Jefferson Papers, Library of Congress, stating that although he regretted entering the controversy, he felt that his continued silence might lead to unjust surmises. In view of the many versions of the episode to which he had been exposed, Jefferson maintained that he no longer trusted his memory as to the correct facts and therefore would publish the report he gave to Washington in July. Jefferson apparently reconsidered making a public statement, for none was ever published.
Because Genet’s statements had been made to Dallas, the latter’s testimony was crucial. On December 6 Dallas inserted a notice in a Philadelphia newspaper promising a statement, and on December 9 the same paper carried a long account by Dallas concerning what had taken place at his midnight meeting with Genet. Dallas described in detail Genet’s general remarks concerning Franco-American relations and concluded that although he was “responsible for the fidelity of the recital, I am not responsible for any inference, which has been, or may be, drawn, from the facts that it contains.… But it will be expected, perhaps, that I should give a more direct reply to the specific charge, which states, that I had reported to the Governor, and communicated to Mr. Jefferson, ‘that Mr. Genet had declared that he would appeal from the President to the People.’
“Upon enquiry, I find, that the Governor thinks that I made use of the word appeal, towards the close of my report, in this manner: ‘—that, if, after the business was laid before Congress, Mr. Genet did not receive satisfaction on behalf of his nation, he would publish his appeal, withdraw, and leave the governments themselves to settle the dispute.’ The word appeal appears, however, in my opinion, to be more applicable to those facts, which represent, that Mr. Genet, controverting the justice and force of the President’s decisions on the treaty, &c., declared a determination to address Congress on the subject: but, in either place, if it is not construed necessarily to import, that I heard a declaration from Mr. Genet, ‘that he would appeal from the President to the People,’ I am content to admit the expression as mine.…”
In December Washington was drawn into the controversy. On December 18 Jefferson wrote to Randolph stating that Genet’s charges against Jay and King had been laid before the President and that the latter, “never doubting your readiness on all occasions to perform the functions of your office, yet thinks it incumbent on him to recommend it specially on the present occasion, as it concerns a public character peculiarly entitled to the protection of the laws. On the other hand, as our citizens ought not to be vexed with groundless prosecutions, duty to them requires it to be added, that if you judge the prosecution in question to be of that nature, you consider this recommendation as not extending to it; it’s only object being to engage you to proceed in that case according to the duties of your office, the laws of the land, and the privileges of the parties concerned.” Both Jay and King viewed the President’s referral of the matter to the Attorney General as a reflection on their behavior. In December they wrote to Washington, complaining about the conduct of Jefferson and Randolph and requesting for publication a copy of Jefferson’s report to the President concerning Jefferson’s interview with Dallas. “Much difficulty occurred relative to this letter,” King later observed. “Randolph who with Jefferson, were treated with much severity in it, endeavoured to induce the President to reply, and to justify his and their conduct. Hamilton advised the President to grant the Copy required, and to reply in such a manner, as would not acknowledge the Charge of injustice alledged against him, in the letter from Mr. Jay & me; and Mr. Knox was desirous of preventing the affair terminating in a rupture between the President, Jay and myself, and was therefore solicitous of some middle course, which would satisfy no one, but end in burying the affair in oblivion. He suggested our taking back the Letter to the President, and that we should propose a personal interview, in order to heal the wounds inflicted by the Letter—we declined … Finally it was thus arranged. The President sent for Mr. Jay—they conversed freely upon the subject, the President justified his own conduct, and expressed his opinion, that nothing incorrect, or unfriendly had been intended by Jefferson, or Randolph, and complained of the severity of our Letter—Spoke of the difficulty of his situation, and of the necessity of his conducting with great Caution. Mr. Jay explained our Situation.… Much conversation passed at this interview; the President expressed his friendship for Mr. Jay and his respect, and regard, for me, &c. Mr. Jay finally proposed to the President by way of concluding the affair, that he should furnish us with an authenticated Copy of Mr. Jefferson’s Report … and that the original Draft of the letter that we wrote to the President, should also be delivered to him. This arrangement was agreed in. Mr. Jay sent the Draft to me immediately on his return to New York, and I delivered it to the President, which together with the Letter, and a paper in the President’s handwriting, justifying his conduct, and which he gave me to read, he, in my presence, put into the fire.…”
The controversy continued until early 1794. On December 18, 1793, Randolph wrote to Genet declining to proceed against Jay and King, but the French Minister was undeterred. On December 10 he had written to the French Minister for Foreign Affairs that “Si le congress ne me rend point Justice après avoir pris connoissance de ma Correspondence qui est actuellement sous ses yeux, J’attaquerai Washington lui même à la Cour Fédérale et Je le forcerai à paroitre à la Barre pour prouver ce qui le avancé.” Finally his case was taken by Edward Livingston. The episode was brought to a close by the arrival in Philadelphia in February, 1794, of Jean Antoine Fauchet, the new French Minister, who brought orders for Genet’s arrest and threats that if he did not discontinue his suit Genet’s mother and sisters in France would stand hostage for his conduct.
For the documents in these volumes pertaining to the Jay-King controversy with Genet, see “Cabinet Meeting. Opinion on the Case of the Little Sarah,” July 8, 1793, note 2; “Cabinet Meeting. Opinion on Vessels Arming and Arriving in United States Ports,” July 12, 1793; Hamilton to King, August 13, 23–24, 1793; Jay and King to Hamilton and Knox, November 26, 1793; Jay to Hamilton, November 26, 1793; King to Hamilton, November 26, 1793; Hamilton and Knox to Jay and King, November 27, 1793; “Statement by Alexander Hamilton and Henry Knox on Edmond Charles Genet’s ‘Appeal to the People’,” November 29, 1793; Hamilton and Knox to Jay, November 29, 1793.


Title: No Jacobin No. V, [14 August 1793]
From: “No Jacobin”,Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[Philadelphia, August 14, 1793]

For the American Daily Advertiser.
The observations hitherto made, have been designed to vindicate the Executive of the United States from the aspersions cast upon it by the Jacobin. Let us now examine what has been the conduct of the Agents of France.
Mr. Genet, charged with the commission of Minister Plenipotentiary from the French Republic to the United States, arrived first at Charleston, in South Carolina. Instead of coming immediately on to the seat of Government, as in propriety he ought to have done; he continued at that place, and on the road so long, as to excite no small degree of observation and surprize.

Here at once the system of electrifying the people, (to use a favourite phraze of the Agents of France) began to be put in execution. Discerning men saw from this first opening of the scene, what was to be the progress of the drama. They perceived, that negotiation with the constitutional organs of the nation, was not the only mean to be relied upon, for carrying the points, with which the Representative of France was charged; that popular intrigue was at least to second, if not to enforce the efforts of negotiation.
During the stay of Mr. Genet at Charleston, without a possibility of sounding or knowing the disposition of our government on the point, he causes to be fitted out two privateers, under French colours and commissions, to cruise from our ports against the enemies of France. Citizens of the United States are engaged to serve on board these privateers, contrary to the natural duties of humanity between nations at peace, and contrary to the positive stipulations of our treaties with some of the powers at war with France. One of these privateers makes a prize of an English vessel, brings her into the port of Charleston; where a Consul of France proceeds to try, condemn and sell her; unwarranted by usage, by treaty, by precedent, by permission.
It is impossible for a conduct less friendly or less respectful than this to have been observed. To direct violations of our sovereignty, amounting to a serious aggression, was added a dangerous commitment of our peace; without even the ceremony of previously feeling the pulse of the Government.
The incidents that attended Mr. Genet’s arrival here, previous to his reception, though justly subject to criticism, shall be passed over in silence. Breaches of decorum lose their importance, when mingled with injuries and outrages.
This offensive commencement of his career was not made an objection to his reception; though it would probably have been so, in any other country in the world. It has not been alleged either, that there was any want of cordiality in that reception. We shall see what return has been made to this manifestation of moderation and friendship. Knowing, as we do, the opposition of the government to the pretension of fitting out privateers in our ports it cannot be doubted, that an early opportunity was taken to make known its disapprobation to the French minister. Nor is it possible, that the executive of the United States can have neglected to remonstrate against so improper an exercise of consular jurisdiction, as that which has been mentioned: yet we have seen, that the practice of fitting out privateers has been openly persisted in. Their number has been so increased, and their depredations have been so multiplied, as to give just cause of alarm for the consequences to the peace of this country. It is also matter of notoriety, that the consuls of France have gone on with the condemnation of prizes; that one of them has had the audacity, by a formal protest to the District court of New-York, not only to deny its jurisdiction, but to arrogate to himself a complete and exclusive jurisdiction over the case.
The aggravating circumstances which attended the fitting out the Little Democrat at this port under the very nose of the government; the means which were used to obtain a suspension of her progress until the return of the President to the seat of government; the refusal which those overtures met with; the intemperate and menacing declarations, which they produced on the part of the French Minister, have been the subject of general conversation.
How much more there is in the case—what further contempts of the government may have succeeded the return of the president, can only be matter of conjecture. We know, however, that the Little Democrat proceeded to sea; and we conclude from the known consistency of our chief magistrate, that this could not have been with his consent.

Prosecutions have been instituted and carried on against some of our citizens, for entering into the service of France. It is known, that Mr. Genet has publicly espoused and patronised the practice; even, as is asserted, without contradiction to the seeing of counsel for carrying on the defence of the guilty; and we see but a few days since, an advertisement from the consul of France at Philadelphia inviting to enter into her service not only her own citizens but all Friends in Liberty including of course the citizens of the United States.
We read of cases in which one nation has raised men for military service in the dominions of another with the consent of the nation in whose territories they were raised; but the raising of men, not only without the consent, but against the will of the government of the country in which they are raised, is a novelty, reserved for the present day, to display the height of arrogance on one side, and the depth of humiliation on the other.
This is but a part of the picture.

No Jacobin.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, 14 August 1793
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Washington, George

Treasury Departmt. Augt. 14. 1793.

The Secretary of the Treasury has the honor respectfully to communicate to the President of the United States the copy of a letter which has this moment been received from the Collector of this port, informing of the arrival of two prizes sent in by the privateers Citizen Genet & Carmagnole.

A Hamilton


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Benjamin Lincoln, 15 August 1793
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Lincoln, Benjamin

Treasury Department August 15th 1793
Sir

The office of discount and deposit at Boston, having at my request paid draughts of sundry Collectors for bounties to Fishing Vessels to the amount of 32,970 Dollars and 47 Cents, I am to request that you will as fast as you shall be in cash on account of the duties on imports and Tonnage replace that advance to the above amount; taking duplicate receipts for each payment according to the form at foot, and transmitting one of each with your Quarterly Accounts.
You will also note each payment in your weekly returns so as to specify its object.
I am Sir with consideration   Your obedt Servt
Form of Receipt
Received, Boston the  day of  1793 of Benjamin ⟨Lincoln⟩ collector the sum of  Dollars  being on account of advances made at this office for bounties on Fishing Vessels upon draughts of Sundry Collectors.

Benjamin Lincoln Esqr, Collector Boston.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Peter R. Livingston, 16 August 1793
From: Livingston, Peter R.
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Manor Livingston [New York] 16 Augt. 1793
My Dear Sir

I thank you for your favr. in answer to mine of the 12t Ulto. and am happy the contingency did not take place as was then by all conjectured it would.
I must now my Friend ask the favor of you if any thing else should turn up that you judge will answer for me so that I can once more return with my family to the City and live, that you would be so kind as to have my name putt upon the list to be presented to the Worthy President and assist with such assistance only as will be consistant with your Station.
If you have any Vacancy in your Office that will answer for my Son James that is intirely out of business as a young man, or any other place that you judge will answer shall thank you to think of him. Our most Affectionate Regards Attend You and yours.
Your friend and Hub. Sevt.

Peter R Livingston


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from John Lynch, 16 August 1793
From: Lynch, John
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Philadelphia, August 16, 1793. Asks to be appointed surveyor of the Port of Baltimore to succeed Robert Ballard, “As that Gentleman has deceased.”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Tench Coxe, 17 August 1793
From: Coxe, Tench
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia, August 17, 1793. On January 20, 1794, Hamilton wrote to George Washington: “I have the honor to send herewith a letter to me from the Commissioner of the Revenue of the 17 of August 1793.” Letter not found.]


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Samuel Smith, 17 August 1793
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Smith, Samuel

[Philadelphia, August 17, 1793. On August 20, 1793, Smith wrote to Hamilton: “Yours of 17 Inst. I have recd.” Letter not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from George Wray, 17 August 1793
From: Wray, George
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[August 17, 1793. On January 29, 1794, Wray wrote to Hamilton: “In a letter bearing date Augt. 17th 1793 I wrote to You.” Letter not found.]


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Etienne Dutilh and John G. Wachsmuth, 19 August 1793
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Dutilh, Etienne,Wachsmuth, John G.

Treasury Department August 19th. 1793
Gentlemen

I am to acknowlege the receipt of your letter of the 2nd instant informing me that you are the holders of the following bills of Exchange drawn by the Administration of St Domingo on the late Consul General of France; and which remain unpaid.

Dolls

Vizt.
No
377
for
3540

“
378
“
4290

“
359
“
800

“
371
“
382

“
379
“
1772

“
389
“
433
 — 7
Escalins

“
385
“
5,257
 — 7
— do.

16,474.
14

Making in the whole, Sixteen thousand, four hundred, seventy four Dollars and fourteen Escalins.
I have therefore to inform you, that if the Minister of the French Republic does not discharge the said Bills before the third of September next, they will then be paid at the Treasury of the United States upon application being made for the purpose.
I am Gentlemen   Your obedt. Servant

A Hamilton
Messrs E. Dutilh & WachsmuthPhilada.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Jeremiah Olney, 19 August 1793
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Olney, Jeremiah

Treasury Department August 19th 1793
Sir

I have to reply to your letter of the 26th ultimo.
I take it for granted the parties alluded to will not on reflection do what is expected; because it is not certain that they will find the judicial construction as favourable as that of the Treasury, with which it is a rule, in a doubtful case, to lean in favour of the Merchants and because also, they might be sensible that the most convenient rule is to exclude retrospection, whether for or against the Government.
If suits shall be brought, you will make it known to the Attorney of the District, in order that measures be taken to a proper defence; giving me notice of it at the same time.
with consideration   I am Sir   Your obedt Servt

A Hamilton
Jere Olney EsqrCollector Providence


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from John Fitzgerald, 20 August 1793
From: Fitzgerald, John
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Alexandria [Virginia] August 20, 1793. Acknowledges receipt of Hamilton’s “Circular letter to the Collectors of the Customs of the 4th. Instant.”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Samuel Smith, 20 August 1793
From: Smith, Samuel
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Balte. 20th. Augt. 1793
Sir

Yours of 17 Inst. I have recd. The late proceedings of the Executive give satisfaction to every Body. It is only Askd—why was not this done sooner to which I have answerd—that the President had promised lenient Measures & depended on the promise of Mr Genet respectg. the Vessells Commissiond in America being orderd off not to return & that he had pledgd his Honor to grant no New Commissions. This satisfies within the Circle of my Information but the same question will be Ask’d every where for the present proceeding on what all said Ought to be done & places the Business in such Point of View that all may understand—the fear is—is it not too late? The Govr. is at the springs. He is right I am Certain but the seat of Government being from the seat of Trade he is not So well Informd as you are. There are Some wrong headed Englishmen here as well as at New York who by meddling (for People do not like anything that has the Appearance of Brittish Interference) make Enemies to their Nation & resist the friendship which is due from America to the French Nation, in doing which People do not always distinguish well between the Minister & the Nation—however, here, we are all right & the Name of Genet begins to be detested. I am amazd that the story of the Rendezvous house should be Continued; there was no foundation for it. An Irishman desirous of Custom hung out the 17 July the National flag but finding he Could not attract the French to his House he pull’d it down. On the Drum beating, my Brother Robert—Capt. Stricker & two Magistrates went to the Point & made full inquiry (for It was determin’d to stop it) & they found there was no foundation for the report. The Englishmen here know it & yet they will be foolish enough to repeat the subject still. Mr. Thornton has bad Advisers & he is too Apt to believe. There is one Privateer here she arriv’d with the fleett & has Clear’d. She was seizd a few Days past by Mr. Kilty One of the Govs Council—but on inquiry It was Clearly provd that she had only the same Arms which were on Board on her Arrival. The Captain behavd politely & he was dischargd. He is taking off the French that are a burthen to us at present & one solitary Young Irish Man. The Consul went on Board the fleet from ship to ship & Such as Chose to Man the ships of War steppd out Volunteers & have been sent off by the Way of Philad. It is Conjectur’d by some they are destined for Providence—but It never has been declard publickly & there has been no Rendezvous houses. The Captains of the ships were Calld to the Consul’s House & Consult’d before the Application was made to the sailors. I forgot to mention that Mr. Kilty was here five Days, by order of the Council making inquiry relative to Vessells Arming, that he Could recieve none that he went thro the Shipping to satisfy himself—that he then applied to Mr Thornton who Could give him no Information only that he had heard Such things. Mr. Kilty then applied to Mr. Jas. Buchanon (a Violent Scotch Man) who could give him no Information but rather offered Insult. Where there is So large a fleet & So many Sailors there will be many appearances which Men badly Advisd, I mean factiously Advis’d & will take for facts. Be Assurd that this state is right & except half a dozen fools of no Consequence at Chester will Act right. I write in Confidence & am
Dr sir   Your Obedt servt

S. Smith


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Charles François Bournonville, 21 August 1793
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Bournonville, Charles François

Treasury DepartmentAugust 21st 1793
Sir

I am to inform you that the two Bills in favor of Messrs. Cunningham & Nesbit for Twenty five thousand five hundred Dollars have been registered at the Treasury in order to be comprised in the payment on the 3d of September next.
This operation will no doubt be confirmed by Mr Genet.
I am Sir with consideration   Your obedient Servant

Alexander Hamilton
Mr. BournonvilleSecretary to the Embassy of France


Title: Conversation with George Hammond, [21–30 August 1793]
From: Hammond, George,Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[Philadelphia, August 21–30, 1793]

The additional instruction to British Ships of war and privateers, which your Lordship has been pleased to communicate to me, had reached this country two or three weeks antecedently to the arrival of the packet, and had excited considerable alarm both in the merchants and in the members of the government. A day or two after the receipt of it, I had a conversation with Mr. Hamilton, who regarded it as a very harsh and unprecedented measure, which not only militated against the principal branch of the present American exports but from the exception, in one case, in favor of Denmark and Sweden, appeared to be peculiarly directed against the commerce and navigation of the United States. For these reasons it would be incumbent upon this government, to make a representation on the subject to the Court of London. In the mean time, he earnestly desired me, if I received any exposition of it from your Lordship, to state it to the American administration, as a timely explanation might remove the unfavorable impressions it had made. In my answer I defended it, as well as I was able, on the ground of expediency, and of its not being contrary to the Law of nations, and on the conviction that the exception in favor of Denmark and Sweden arose solely from the stipulations of particular treaties. I however perceived that he was not convinced by my reasoning.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Thomas Mifflin, 21 August 1793
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Mifflin, Thomas

Treasury DepartmentAugust 21. 1793.
Sir

I have had the honor of your letter of the 29th of July last, which the press of business has prevented my sooner answering.
The Certificates to which you refer have not been admitted upon the Loan proposed by the Acts of Congress payable in evidences of State debt.
The following circumstances have attended the case.
Certificates of the description of those called New Loan Certificates of Pennsylvania, to the amount of 65,210 Dollars and 28 Cents, were offered for subscription under the Act entitled “An Act supplementary to the Act for making provision for the debt of the United States.”
It appeared (a circumstance which had not come to my knowledge ’till after those certificates were so offered) that there was a law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania which rendered it questionable whether they could legally be considered as a subsisting debt of the Commonwealth, a quality necessary to their being assumeable; and an opinion of the Attorney General of Pennsylvania was communicated to me, shewing that he did not view them as a subsisting debt of the Commonwealth.
This led me to state the case for the consideration of the Attorney General of the United States, who gave me an opinion that the Acts of the Pennsylvania Assembly of the 27th of March 1789, and of the 30th of March, and 1st of April 1790 abolished the Certificates in question as debts of the State, except for the purpose of being re-exchanged for continental Certificates; and therefore that the former, as wanting the due recognition from that State, could not be legally received upon loan.
To this opinion I was about to conform and to direct the rejection of the Certificates offered to the Loan.
But having learnt that there was a probability of a judicial investigation of the point, I forebore to give a final instruction concerning it and left the matter suspended.
When the Commissioners were about to close the settlement of Accounts between the United and Individual States it became necessary to certify to them the amount of the debt of this Commonwealth which had been admitted upon Loan. The course pursued was to certify absolutely the sum which had been subscribed and finally admitted and to state in a note the amount and situation of the Certificates in question which had been offered to the Loan and not admitted. It is understood that this amount was not embraced in the statement of the Commissioners.
There has been no suspension of the Interest on so much of the debt of this Commonwealth as was subscribed and admitted upon the loan.
These circumstances amount to a virtual rejection of the Certificates to which your enquiry is understood to have reference.
I state them particularly, that the precise course of the business may be accurately seen.
With the greatest respect,   I have the honor to be Your Excellency’s Most Obed’ and humble Servant.

Alexander Hamilton
His Excellency, The Governor of Pennsylvania.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to John M. Pintard, 21 August 1793
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Pintard, John M.

[Philadelphia, August 21, 1793. On the cover of a letter from Pintard, dated July 4, 1793, Hamilton wrote: “Aug. 21. Wrote him with thanks informing of my declining the Wine.” Letter not found.]


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to George Bush, 22 August 1793
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Bush, George

Treasury Department.August 22d. 1793.
Sir,

I received your letter of the 20th. instant, communicating to me the arrival of the Privateers, Petit Democrat and Caramagnole, with the Ship Ann & Susan from Londonderry.
One of the duties enjoined upon the collectors of the customs in my circular instructions of the 4th instant was that they are immediately to notify the arrival of such vessels, or Prizes taken by them, to the Govenor and Attorney of the District. This instruction ought to have been strictly observed, and the Govenor is to be notified whether sick or well.
An entry of the said Ship and her Cargo is not to be permitted, while she remains in possession of the captors: but if an entry has been made (as would appear from your letter) you will prevent the landing of any goods from on board of her. Should they be landed without your permit the provisions of the 26th. Section of the collection law are to be enforced.

It will be proper to have affidavits taken before the District Judge, or before a magistrate, setting forth the declaration which you mention to have been made by the Captain of the Democrat—and to send those affidavits to the District Attorney.
I am Sir,   Your Obedient Servant.

A Hamilton.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from James Lovell, 22 August 1793
From: Lovell, James
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Boston, August 22, 1793. On November 29, 1793, Hamilton wrote to Lovell: “Various circumstances have prevented an earlier answer to your letter of the 22d of August last.” Letter not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from John Nicholson, 22 August 1793
From: Nicholson, John
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia, August 22, 1793. On August 26, 1793, Hamilton wrote to Nicholson: “I received your letter of the 22d instant.” Letter not found.]


Title: Treasury Department Circular to the Collectors of the Customs, 22 August 1793
From: Treasury Department
To: Collectors of the Customs

Treasury DepartmentAugust 22, 1793.
Sir,

Though it was not expressly said, yet I presume it will have been understood, as clearly implied in the instruction contained in my circular of the 4th instant, that the liberty to enter vessels and their cargoes, brought in as prizes, by the armed vessels of France, was not, after the receipt of that letter, to include vessels and cargoes taken and brought, or sent in, by armed vessels originally fitted out in the ports of the United States, while remaining in possession of their captors.
It will follow, that if an attempt should be made, to land goods from on board such vessels, they are to be seized, and proceeded against as directed by the 26th section of the Collection Law. Lest the implication above-mentioned should not have been obvious to all, I have concluded to give this further explanation.
I ⟨am, with considera⟩tion,   ⟨Sir⟩


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, 22 August 1793
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Washington, George

Treasury Department, August 22, 1793. Encloses “for the perusal of the President, the copy of a communication which has just been receiv’d from the Collector of Wilmington in the State of Delaware.”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Benjamin Weld, 22 August 1793
From: Weld, Benjamin
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Boston, August 22, 1793. On November 5, 1793, Hamilton wrote to Benjamin Lincoln: “I had prepared an answer to a letter from your Deputy of the 22d of August last.” Letter not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Oliver Wolcott, Junior, 22 August 1793
From: Wolcott, Oliver, Jr.
To: Hamilton, Alexander

T. D.C. Off. Aug. 22d. 1793
Sir

I have the honour to enclose a copy of a Letter recd. in this office from the Sec. of War, the object of which is, that provision be made for discharging at the Office of the Accountant some part of the pay due to the Commissd. & Non Commissd. officers, and Privates of the Army.
There is nothing in the Law which contemplates an arrangement of this kind; but in case it can be carried into effect without risque to the public, it may perhaps be considered as susceptible of executive modification. There is no doubt that it would in many instances afford an essential accomodation to the Army.
To attempt any thing of the kind in favour of the non commissd. officers & privates would however occasion such intricacy in the details & so expose the public to the risque of making double or improper payments, that in my opinion, however desirable the object may be in some points of view, it ought to be abandoned as impracticable. With the Commissd. Officers, the inconveniences would not be equally great, and with respect to them I take the liberty to submit the following plan for consideration.
Let the Officers who wish to be availed of the arrangement, execute an instrument according to the form (A) to be lodged with the Pay Master of the Army. And let the Pay Master of the Army, grant a Certificate according to the form (B) to be lodged with the Accountant of the War Department with a power of Attorney from the Officer.
The Accountant on receiving these Papers may then proceed to discharge the sums relinquished, for such subsequent Periods as the Officers shall appear from the Muster Rolls, to be transmitted, to remain in the public service.
There is no mode, which can be proposed that will not increase the business of the public Officers & render the accounts more intricate, but this plan is as free from objections as any that I have been able to devise.
I have &c

Hon A H.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Isaac Hazlehurst, [23 August 1793]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Hazlehurst, Isaac

[Philadelphia, August 23, 1793]
Dr. Sir

Be so good as to let me know whether a person has been engaged for the purpose we conversed about yesterday Morning.
Yr. very obed servant

A Hamilton
Aug 23d
Isaac Hazlehurst Esqr.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, 23 August 1793
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Washington, George

Treasury Dept. Augt. 23d. 1793.

The Secretary of the Treasury has the honor to submit to the President a communication from the Commissioner of the revenue relating to contracts for the stakage of the shoals and channels of No. Carolina. He agrees in opinion with the Commissioner that it will be expedient to refuse No. 1. and ratify the others. It may even be better in the end, if a more eligible contract cannot be effected, to adopt some mode, though at greater expence to the public, to have the business done by a person employed at wages for the purpose. In such cases where, from local situation, few can conveniently undertake, which begets a disposition to exact, it is sometimes adviseable at a present sacrifice to demonstrate that the public will at no rate submit to unreasonable terms.

A. Hamilton


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Oliver Wolcott, Junior, 23 August 1793
From: Wolcott, Oliver, Jr.
To: Hamilton, Alexander

T. DC. Off Aug: 23d. 1793
Sir,

I have the honour to submit to your consideration, a draft of a Letter to the Contractors of the Army, respecting the payment of Subsistence to Officers—and a proposal for an alteration in the form of the Abstract of Rations issued, which will be particularly necessary in case the proposed arrangement is adopted.
It has occurred as a question whether the third section of the Act making alterations in the Treasy & War Depts. does not require that when the Subsistance of Officers is discharged in money, that payment should be made, by the P M of the Troops—if this should be unsuited as the case the proposed arrangement must be abandoned. In case the plan is adopted, I take the liberty to submit whether the communication to Contractors should not be made from your Office.
I am

A H.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from John Bard, 24 August 1793
From: Bard, John
To: Hamilton, Alexander

New york Augst. 24 1793
Dear Sir

I cannot help offering you my sincere Gratulations, on an event which lately happened here which you have been acquainted with. There never could have been a more compleat Tryumph, than this City felt at our late numerous meeting, Numerous beyond Example on any former Occasion within my rememberance: and in this numerous and most respectable meeting of our Citizens, not one Dissenting Voice, but every one with uplifted hands gave the most strong and lively consent to the resolutions drawn up upon this popular and Virtuous occasion. The little feeble asemblage of our Malcontents which preceded this general and generous declaration of our Citizens, Sunk into nothing; and now they make a virtue of Necessity, and Affect to join the general Voice on this subject; some of them may be Converted. It must be a pleasing reflection to you, as it is to your Friends, to find the public prints from one end of the union to the other, teem with the most heartfelt approbation and Sanction of our Illustrious Presidents Proclamation, enjoining a perfect Nutrality. Your Publications on this, as on former Important and great Occasions, have brought Irresistable conviction to every discerning and Impartial mind; and have and will prove a Tower of strength on which we may rely, to repell the Efforts of a restless, Spirited Faction, Enemies to our peace, Security, prosperity and Happiness. Accept Sir, amidst the approving Voice, of our whole Common Country, this sincere offering of a private Humble Friend who will ever be ambitious of being known to Coll Hammilton among his most Faithfull Friends & Admirers.
I am Sir with ye most perfect affection   yours

Jno. Bard Senr.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Stephen Higginson, 24 August 1793
From: Higginson, Stephen
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Boston Augt. 24. 93
Dr Sir

I have thought that in the present state of things it may be useful for you to know what has been done here relative to the french Claims of a right to fit out privateers in our ports, & the feelings & conduct of people this way on that Subject. Upon inquiry I can not learn that you will have received any farther information than what the news papers will give you but from them you will not learn all that may be useful. Upon this Subject there is but one opinion in every part & throughout this State, except in this Town; there there are but a few who advocate the french Claims, & these are made up of inveterate Antifederalists & men desperate in their circumstances. The former will join any party, & pursue any measures to embarrass the union; & among these are Our Governor, Lt. Governor & some others in public Life, together with some of the principal officers in your Department, employed in the Customs. These have thrown every obstacle in the way of the merchants & others who have endeavoured to check the Spirit for privateering which appeared among our Citizens; & they encouraged the french Consul & his partizans in fitting our Cruizers, by advocating openly their right to do it, & by more privately advising them how to conduct. Mr. Gore has exerted himself much to restrain them; but he has derived no Aid from the Custom house—he has found it difficult to make them act even where the line of duty was too clear to be contested; & where it was not so clear they have declined moving at all. Their whole weight indeed has been obviously in favour of the french Claims & against Government. Some of them have so conducted from habit & inclination, having been always connected intimately with the disaffected & Opposers of all Government, whether of this State or the Union; others may hereafter appear to have had a particular Interest in promoting the business. Nor will the Executive of our Government afford more Aid to the union. Memorials were presented to the Govr. by the merchants & mr. Gore, when the Privateers were fitting out, stating the facts supported by Evidence. This led him to call on the Attorney General for his Opinion, who replied in writing that the french had no such right by Treaty. But the weight of his privy Counsellors overbalanced, aided by his own feelings, every thing else; & they were permitted to go out, & cruize at the mouth of our harbours. Fair promises were made of doing what should appear to be proper; but no decission was ever had on any Question, & the french Consul met with no interruption from our Governmt.
In a few days two prizes & the privateer arrived here, on the day when your circular Letter made its appearance in the papers. One of the prizes was replevied by the marshal, he took possession of her but the  Consul with an armed force from the frigate dispossessed the marshal, & carried the prize under the Stern of the frigate, & gave the Captain of the frigate written orders to protect her from any Arrests. The marshall remained on board in appearance a prisoner, & for three days. Memorials & remonstrances were made during this time to the Governor, the Consul & the Capt of the Frigate to no purpose. The former would not move in the business—the Consul would not order her to be released; & the Capt. said that he could not release her by his instructions without an order from the Consul, but added that the latter was a fool & blockhead so to conduct. Thus they remained ’till this day when the Capt of the Frigate provoked & tired of his situation went to Sea, leaving the prizes behind, when the marshal again got possession of the prize & has brought her to the wharfe. The other prize, American property, was ordered two days ago to be also replevied, & this precept given to the Sheriff, a Governors man, who went to ask leave of the Consul to take possession. He was refused leave, & has not dared to do it till after the Frigate was gone when he ventured on board, but was soon dispossessed by some armed men, or rather prevented taking possession, under the orders of the Consul.
Thus has a small privateer been fitted out agt Law, under the Eyes of the Custom house Officers & the Government of the State. She has sent in prizes which have remained here three days without any Steps being taken. Our Laws have been trampled on, & our Executive Officers, the marshal & Sheriff, been prevented by force from doing their duty, by the orders of a french Consul & the Capt. of this same privateer. The privateer is again equipping & when ready will proceed on a new Cruize. The Spirits of the people in Town are inflamed, in other Seaports they blaze, & in the Country they begin to wax warm. It would be easy to destroy the Privateer prizes & Crew, but the Laws ought to have their course, & no disorders should be committed by the people. But the operation of the Laws must be slow & interrupted when those whose official duty it is to execute do themselves obstruct them.
There certainly is not a hundred men in this Town who are even indifferent on this Subject; but a full half of them, & the most zealous against Government, are men in public Office either under the Union or the State Government. Strange as it may seem, the most violent Antis that We have are men who eat the Bread of the public; & this is the effect in most cases of that accomodating principle of bribing off opposition by Offices.
I have taken the liberty of giving this short view of what has passed that you may see how far you may rely on the energy of men in Office to execute the Laws, from a Sense of duty & upon general principles. Those of the Union, some of them, will go no farther than the clear Letter of instructions will oblige them. They like their Offices too well to hazard them by disobeying position & clear Orders; but these they will execute with a slow & heavy movement and where there is a doubt they will certainly obstruct. Nor will our State officers, who reside here, give you more aid. They are in the Vortex of the Govs. influence, & to this They owe their offices. If any thing is to be done by the Officers here of either set, there must be the full force of clear & positive direction; & this involves in it some difficulty. It is now said in excuse for the Gov~. &cs that they have no directions, & there being no Laws positive, the path of duty is obscure, they must wait explanation. But if directions are given them by dictating you offend the Sovereignty of the State. They are d——d Crew, & they will impede all they can.
I think you ought to know your ground to stand firm, & I have given you not a heighthened view of it. My motive is friendly both as to you & the public, & I am with truth & respect yours &c.

Stephen Higginson

Mr. Gore has behaved well certainly. I shall be kept out of sight I know by you as I wish unless some good will come of appearing openly.


Title: Thomas Jefferson to Alexander Hamilton, Henry Knox, and Edmund Randolph, [24 August 1793]
From: Jefferson, Thomas
To: Hamilton, Alexander,Knox, Henry,Randolph, Edmund

[Philadelphia, August 24, 1793]

Th. Jefferson submits to the Secretaries of the treasury & War & the Atty Genl. some sketches of Notes to be signed for the President. As they are done from memory only, they will be pleased to insert whatever more their memories suggest as material. Particularly, the final conclusion as to the express-vessel will be to be inserted, which is most accurately know to the Secy. of the Treasury. When completed, a fair copy shall be made & sent for signature.

Aug. 24. 93.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from William Ellery, 26 August 1793
From: Ellery, William
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Newport, Rhode Island] August 26, 1793. “I have received your Circular Letter to the Collectors of the Customs containing an Instruction concerning contraventions of our neutrality, which instruction I shall cause to be executed in this District, as far as it is in my power with the greatest vigilance activity, care and impartiality. I have written to the Surveyors in this district and shall send them copies of your letter and of the Rules adopted by the President of the United States. Inclosed is a copy of a letter I wrote to the Collector for the District of Newyork on the 23d. of July last respecting the Brig Enterprize of Bristol Samuel Slocum formerly commander, also copies of the same papers of which I transmitted copies to him.… I have recd. a letter from Col. Lamb dated 21st Augt. 1793 in which he writes that ‘In consequence of the information contained in your letters respectg. the conduct of the former owners, and the Captain of the Brigantine Enterprize of Bristol, I have seized the Vessel, and I wish to be informed as early as possible, in what manner the charge of smuggling goods from on board the said Brigantine can be supported, and the delinquency proved.’ I have written to him by this Post and the substance of my letter is that I expect the person who copied the account of the Cargo returned in the Enterprize, a copy of which copy I had transmd. to him will swear that his copy was a true one of the original acct.… and that the date of the Acct. would show that the articles therein mentioned were impd. in the Brig Enterprize in 1790. That I had sent him a copy of the Dec͠n of William Barker, who sailed for the West Indias a few days after I obtained it, and who I am informed will swear to it upon his return, and that his testimony would corroborate the evidence that the Account would afford and put the matter out of doubt. That in order to take the deposition of the person who copied the Acct. of the Cargo of the Enterprize it was necessary that I should be furnished with a copy of the Libel.…”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from John E. Howard, [26 August 1793]
From: Howard, John E.
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Baltimore, August 26, 1793]
Dr. Sir

I received a letter, without date, from you respecting the recommending a character as Collector of the port of Annapolis, which I delayed answering in expectation of seeing some person from that place who could give me information as to the persons most likely to accept.
There are many proper persons in that place, but I am doubtful whether any one of them would accept of the appointment.

Mr. Carroll in conversation a day or two ago, mentioned his having received a similar letter from you and that he had recommended Mr. John Randall, but he did not know that he would serve. If Mr. Randall will serve I will join in recommending him, for he is a man of business and I believe of strict integrity.
You will have no difficulty in finding a Surveyor for this Port, for I am told there are 30 candidates.
Your late instructions to the Collectors which have been published, relating to privateers and their prizes, and the Arming of Vessels in our ports, have given great satisfaction to many persons, and I believe to the people generally in this place. Some there are of very different politics, and if reports are to be depended on, it is not very surprizing that they are so, for it is said that out of only two dutch vessels & their cargoes, condemned as prizes, the agents will make £10,000, and the French Consul is to have one fifth for his trouble in condemning the vessels & cargoes. It will readily be supposed that many persons become interested either as agents or purchasers, if not as owners of the privateers.
The resolutions of the City of Richmond & the address of the City of Hartford, with the resolutions of other Towns must satisfy Mr. Genet that he will get nothing by appealing to the people from any determinations of the executive.
Some publications in the Philadelphia papers, particularly those under the signature of Pacificus, have satisfied the doubts of many with respect to the taking part with France in the war. So much for french affairs—and the conduct of the English privateers in stopping our vessels makes it much to be wished that Peace in Europe, at least between England and France, may soon take place.
I am Dr Sir   with great respect   Yr. Obed. Servt.

J E. Howard
BaltimoreAugt. 26th. 1793


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to John Nicholson, 26 August 1793
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Nicholson, John

Treasury Department August 26th 1793.
Sir

I received your letter of the 22d instant with its enclosures.
I herewith transmit for your information the Copy of my letter to the Governor of Pennsylvania on the subject of the New Loan Certificates, by which you will perceive the light in which the matter stands at the Treasury.
I am Sir   with consideration   Your obedt Servant

Alexander Hamilton
John Nicholson EsqrComptroller General of Pennsylvania


Title: No Jacobin No. VIII, [26 August 1793]
From: “No Jacobin”,Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[Philadelphia, August 26, 1793]

For the American Daily Advertiser.
It was intimated, in the commencement of these papers, that Mr. Genet had threatened to appeal from the President of the United States to the people. The fact, tho’ understood from its source in this city, has of late acquired more formal authenticity.
A declaration of this nature demonstrates a total ignorance of the genius and character of the citizens of this country, as well as an intire want of delicacy and decorum in its author. The people of the United States are a people equally sober and enlightened; their notions of liberty are rational and orderly; they know, that true liberty can only be supported on the basis of government and law—that the magistracy must be duly respected—that the officers whom they elect are the representatives of their power and dignity—that disrespect to these is offence to them—that an attempt by any foreign agent, to sow discord between them and those to whom they have committed the guardianship of their interests, is an enterprize against their tranquility and honour, as affrontive as it is dangerous. It supposes nothing less than that they are capable of arranging themselves under foreign banners, to countroul and overturn the constitutional authorities they have themselves created.
When Mr. Genet conceived and expressed the idea of appealing from the President to the people, he must have considered the latter as light, vain and precipitate; as likely to be governed by impulse more than reason; as susceptible of being flattered by a seeming deference to their authority into an approbation of a direct and contemptuous breach of it in the person of their executive representative; into measures inconsistent with their dignity, their interest, their peace and their safety.
To endeavour, by a lengthy comment, to display the impropriety of this conduct would be to weaken the force of the fact. It speaks for itself. There is something in it which comes directly home to the feelings of every man whose feelings are truly American, who possesses and cherishes a becoming pride of national character; producing at once a spontaneous and unqualified indignation.
Yet there are men among us, who call themselves citizens of the United States, degenerate enough to become the apologists of Mr. Genet. He is (say they) a foreigner, not well acquainted with our language; his meaning may have been different from his expression; by the people, he may have intended their representatives in Congress. These are the best of the excuses offered for him.
But it happens, that the only one of these suggestions which has the colour of truth is, that he is a foreigner; one of the grounds of his culpability.
He understands our language remarkably well, as he has proved by correct extemporaneous answers to popular addresses; and was not at all likely to have used expressions materially foreign to his meaning. He understands too well the distinction between the people and their representatives, to have confounded the one with the other—to have intended Congress when he mentioned the people. Mr. Genet would blush to make such excuses for himself.
But there are not wanting persons who take a bolder flight, and rejecting the humble stile of apology, assume the haughtier tone of justification. Why, say they, should not Mr. Genet talk of appealing from the President to the people? Is the president an absolute sovereign, or is he only the temporary agent of a free nation? If the latter, if the people are the sovereign, why should not an appeal be carried from him to them?
The answer to this rant is obvious and conclusive.
The general security of nations has established it as a sacred and inviolable maxim, forming an essential bulwark of their internal tranquility, that no agent of a foreign sovereign shall, on any pretext, attempt to create a schism between the citizens and the rulers of a state, whatever be its form of government, whether despotic or free, monarchical or republican. The interest of every nation is to every other always distinct, frequently rival. In the intercourses between nations, each can bring to the aid of its views all the influence of its power and wealth: If it were permitted to add to this potent agency, regularly exerted, the free employment of the means of cabal and sedition, every government would be in constant danger of being convulsed and subverted by every other. And as none would in practice tolerate a pretension so hostile to its safety, the admission of it in principle could only serve to multiply tenfold the occasions of war, between nation and nation. The peace and safety of states therefore require, that all pretence of right in the missionaries of one nation to influence the citizens of another, to overrule the decisions of their own government, should be rigorously excluded. This exclusion is the common interest of nations and of governments.
The right of appealing from the rulers of a nation to the nation itself, as far as it has foundation in truth, belongs exclusively to the members of that nation. By them alone can it be safely exercised. Their weapons must be those of reason and argument. They must rely wholly on convincing the judgment and conciliating the affections of the people. They must confine themselves within the limits of the laws, or the laws will punish them. They have no armies, no fleets, to second or enforce their logic.
But the case would be widely different with the representative of a foreign power. His appeal would be backed with all the strength, wealth and weight of the nation to which he belonged. He would have in his hands powerful means of corrupting and intimidating; his harangues, delivered under the muzzles of the cannons of his ships, might have a force much greater than they could derive from their eloquence. Exempt by his character from the animadversion of the laws, he might boldly hazard what private persons could not attempt. After having in vain endeavoured to convince a majority of the nation, and having only been able to seduce to his views a profligate and unthinking minority, he might then bring to the aid of his friends the purse and the sword of his own country. The calamities of a foreign might be added to the horrors of a civil war to accomplish what his appeal had fruitlessly essayed.
What an immense difference then between the appeal of the representative of a foreign nation and that of private citizens! What treason against the tranquility of nations, to vindicate the propriety of such an appeal! What baseness, what prostitution in a citizen of this country, to become the advocate of a pretension so pernicious, so unheard of, so detestable! Language is too poor to give a name to so abandoned a renunciation of principle!

No Jacobin.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Jeremiah Olney, 26 August 1793
From: Olney, Jeremiah
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Providence, August 26, 1793. “I have recd. your circular Letter of the 4th. Instant, relative to ‘contraventions of our neutrality.’ You may rely upon my particular and vigilant attention to the Instructions therein contained.”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Theodore Sedgwick, 26 August 1793
From: Sedgwick, Theodore
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Stockbridge [Massachusetts] 26. Augt. 1793.
My dear sir,

The inclosed will give you some pleasure as an indication of public opinion. It was delivered to a very large assembly comprehending almost every man of influence in the county, nineteen twentieths of whom approved the sentiments expressed in the apostrophe to Lewis.
We are confidently told that Congress will assemble before the constitutional period. I hope not, because it would evince the influence of the infamously seditious publications, which have abounded in your papers. If indeed the question whether this country was under obligation to observe a neutrality in the present war was a doubtful one, and the Executive wished information from congressional investigation, the Presidents proclamation should not have preceded that event. I have another motive which induces me to wish this measure may not be adopted. However reluctant I was, not to be elected a member of the present house, and some part of that reluctance you was at the time acquainted with, I should now much regret its not being in my power to attend; and at present it would be altogether impossible. Mrs. Sedgwick I have reason to hope is now recovering from a most deplorable state of illness. Should my hopes be gratified, I will not desert my post.
William Lyman is elected a member. He now professes himself federal. I hope Neglect will not make him otherwise. Mr. Wolcott whom he highly respects, is well acquainted with him. I wish he might know this circumstance. On second thoughts I will not give you this trouble. I will write to him myself.
With great esteem & affect. regard,   I am dear sir,   your friend & most obedt. Servt.

Theodore Sedgwick.
The Hon Mr. Hamilton.

P. S. what is the report of the Commissioners on the public accts?; or is that report a secret?


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Samuel Smith, 26 August 1793
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Smith, Samuel

[Philadelphia, August 26, 1793. On September 30, 1793, Oliver Wolcott, Jr., wrote to Robert Elliot and referred to “A Copy of a Letter from the Sec. of the Treasy. to Samuel Smith Esq dated August 26th. 1793.” Letter not found.]


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to David Henley, 27 August 1793
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Henley, David

Treasury DepartmentAugust 27th 1793.
Sir

The Secretary at war having informed me that he had appointed you an Agent for his department to reside in the Territory South West of the Ohio—I have concluded to commit to you the making of the contract for the supply of the Rations which may be wanted in that Quarter during the year 1794. Inclosed is an advertisement for receiving proposals, which, immediately upon your arrival at Knoxville, you will cause to be inserted in the Gazette at that place.
If an offer should be made, which, upon full enquiry into the prices of provision and cost of transportation in that quarter, should appear to you reasonable, you are at liberty to close the contract, provided the Offerer can give good security for the performance on his part.
The rule is to take the lowest offer of any person who can give satisfactory security. There must be not less than two sureties.
You will avail yourself as to all these things of the advice of Governor Blount and other respectable Characters on the spot.

Should no offer, of the reasonableness of which you are fully satisfied, be made, you will forward all the offers to me by express, with such remarks as occur to you, and you will wait my determination.
In the meantime you will make such temporary arrangement with the present Contractors or otherwise for the supply of the Troops in service as you shall think advisable, so that they may not suffer.
At foot are the prices of the Contract for the present year. They appear to me high, though I have not sufficient knowledge of local circumstances to judge with accuracy. They are given to you by way of information.
I rely on your caution and circumspection in this affair. The object may prove of consequence, and it therefore merits great care and attention.
I doubt not the like care will extend to all the objects of public supply which will fall under your charge.
With consideration and esteem,   I am, Sir,   Your Obedt Servant.

Alexander Hamilton

The price of rations per contract of James King for the present year is twelve cents per ration throughout, at any place within the limits of the Territory south of the river Ohio; at the respective places of rendezvous, and on the march—with a proviso in regard to Captain Kerrs company, that they do not cross the Tenessee or clinch River.
For the cavalry per ration including forage twenty three cents.

David Henley Esq.