Title: The Defence No. XXXVIII, [9 January 1796]
From: “Camillus”,Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[New York, January 9, 1796]

The manner in which the power of Treaty as it exists in the Constitution was understood by the Convention, in framing it, and by the people in adopting it, is the point next to be considered.
As to the sense of the Convention, the secrecy with which their deliberations were conducted does not permit any formal proof of the opinions and views which prevailed in digesting the power of Treaty. But from the best opportunity of knowing the fact, I aver, that it was understood by all to be the intent of the provision to give to that power the most ample latitude to render it competent to all the stipulations, which the exigencies of National Affairs might require—competent to the making of Treaties of Alliance, Treaties of Commerce, Treaties of Peace and every other species of Convention usual among nations and competent in the course of its exercise to controul & bind the legislative power of Congress. And it was emphatically for this reason that it was so carefully guarded; the cooperation of two thirds of the Senate with the President being required to make a Treaty. I appeal for this with confidence to every member of the Convention—particularly to those in the two houses of Congress. Two of these, are in the House of Representatives, Mr. Madison & Mr. Baldwin. It is expected by the adversaries of the Treaty that these Gentlemen will in their places obstruct its execution. However this may be, I feel a confidence that neither of them will deny the assertion I have made. To suppose them capable of such a denial were to suppose them utterly regardless of truth.
But though direct proof of the views of the Convention on the point cannot be produced—yet we are not wholly without proof on this head. Three Members of the Convention dissented from the Constitution, Mr. Mason, Mr. Gerry & Mr. Randolph. Among the reasons for his dissent published by Mr. Mason, we find this clause “By declaring all Treaties supreme laws of the land, the Executive and the Senate have, in many cases, an exclusive power of legislation, which might have been avoided by proper distinctions with respect to Treaties, and requiring the assent of the House of Representatives where it could be done with safety.” This shews the great extent of the power in the conception of Mr. Mason—that in many cases it amounted to an exclusive power of legislation; nor did he object to the extent, but only desired that it should have been further guarded, by certain distinctions and by requiring in certain cases the assent of the House of Representatives.
Among the objections to the constitution addressed by Mr Gerry to the legislature of Massachusettes we find one to have been “that Treaties of the highest importance might be formed by the President with the advice of two thirds of a quorum of the Senate.” This shews his idea of the magnitude of the power; and impliedly admitting as well as Mr Mason the propriety of this, he seems only to have desired that the concurrence of the senate should have embraced two thirds of the whole body instead of two thirds of a quorum. But how small and how insignificant would the power of Treaty be, according to the doctrine lately advanced with regard to its constitutional limit?
As to the sense of the Community, in the adoption of the Constitution this can only be ascertained from two sources, the writings for and against the Constitution and the debates in the several state Conventions.
I possess not at this moment materials for an investigation which would enable me to present the evidence they afford. But I refer to them, with confidence, for proof of the fact, that the organisation of the power of Treaty in the Constitution was attacked and defended, with an admission on both sides of its being of the character which I have assigned to it. Its great extent & importance—its effect to controul by its stipulations the legislative authority were mutually taken for granted—and, upon this basis, it was insisted by way of objection—that there were not adequate guards for the safe exercise of so vast a power—that there ought to have been reservations of certain rights, a better disposition of the power to impeach, and a participation, general or special, of the House of Representatives. The reply to these objections, acknowleging the delicacy and magnitude of the power, was directed to shew that its organisation was a proper one and that it was sufficiently guarded.

   Fœderalist Vol II No XLII has these passages “the power to make treaties and to receive and send ambassadors speak their own propriety. Both of them are comprised in the articles of confederation with the difference only that the former is disembarrassed by the plan of the convention of an exception by which treaties might be substantially frustrated by regulations of the states.” This plainly alludes to the proviso which has been cited and commented upon. “It is true that when treaties of commerce stipulate for the appointment of articles the admission of foreign consuls may fall within the power of making commercial treaties” and in No. LXIV are these passages “the power of making treaties is an important one, especially as it relates to War Peace and commerce; and it should not be delegated but in such a mode and with such precautions as will afford the highest security that it will be exercised by men the best qualified for the purpose and in the manner most condusive to the public good.” “There are few who will not admit that the affair of Trade and Navigation should be regulated by a system cautiously formed and steadily pursued and that both our treaties and our laws should correspond with and be made to promote it.” “Some are displeased with it (that is the power of treaty) not on account of any errors or defects in it, but because as the treaties when made are to have the force of laws they should be made only by men invested with legislative authority”—“others though content that treaties should be made in the mode proposed are averse to their being the supreme laws of the land.”

   It is generally understood that two persons were concerned in the writings of these papers who from having been members of the convention had a good opportunity of knowing its views—and were under no temptation at that time, in this particular, to misrepresent them.

   In the Address and reasons of dissent of the Minority of the convention of Pennsylvania to their constituents they state that they had suggested the following proposition among others for an amendment to the constitution “That no treaty which shall be directly opposed to the existing laws of the United States in Congress assembled shall be valid until such laws shall be repealed or made conformable to such treaty.” This shews that it was understood that the power of treaty in the constitution extended to abrogating even pr[e]existing laws of the United States which was thought exception[a]ble; while no objection was made to the idea of its controuling future exercises of the legislative power. The same address states in another place that the President and Senate “may form Treaties with foreign Nations that may controul and abrogate the constitution and laws of the several states.”

   In the 2d volume of the debates of the convention of Virginia which is the only part I possess—there are many passages that shew the great extent of the power of treaty in the opinion of the speakers on both sides. As quotation would be tedious I will content myself with refering to the papers where they will be found (viz) 91, 99, 131, 137, 143, 147, 150, 186. It will in particular appear that while the opposers of the constitution denied the power of the house of Representatives to break in upon or controul the power of treaties, the friends of the constitution did not affirm the contrary but merely contended that the House of Representatives might check by its influence the President and Senate on the subject of treaties.

The manner of exercising a similar power under the Confederation shall now be examined.

To judge of the similarity of the provision it will be useful to quote the terms in which it is made. They are these “The U States in Congress assembled shall have the sole and exclusive right & power of entering into Treaties and Alliances, provided that no Treaty of Commerce shall be made whereby the legislative power of the respective states shall be restrained from imposing such imposts and duties on foreigners as their own people are subjected to or from prohibiting the importation or exportation of any species of commodities whatsoever.” (Article IX)
It will not be disputed that the words “Treaties and alliances” are of equivalent import and of no greater force than the single word Treaties. An alliance is only a species of Treaty, a particular of a general. And the power of “entering into Treaties,” which terms confer the authority under which the former Government acted, will not be pretended to be stronger than the power “to make Treaties,” which are the terms constituting the authority under which the present Government acts. It follows that the power respecting treaties under the former and that under the present Governt. are similar.
But though similar, that under the present Government is more comprehensive; for it is divested of the restriction in the proviso cited above—and is fortified by the express declaration that its acts shall be valid notwithstanding the constitution or laws of any state. This is evidence, (as was the fact) of a disposition in the Convention to disembarrass and reinforce the power of making Treaties.
It ought not to pass unnoticed, that an important argument results from the proviso which accompanies the power granted by the Confederation as to the natural extent of this power. The declaration, that no Treaty of Commerce shall be made restraining the legislative power of a state from &c [imposing such duties and imposts on foreigners as their own people are subject to, or from prohibiting the importation or exportation of any species of commodities whatsoever] is an admission 1 that the general power of entering into Treaties includes that of making Treaties of Commerce, and 2 that without the limitation in the proviso, a Treaty of Commerce might have been made which would restrain the legislative authority of the State in the points interdicted by that proviso.
Let it not be said that the proviso by implication granted the power to make Treaties of Commerce; for besides that this is inconsistent with the more obvious meaning of the clause—the first article of the Confederation leaves to the States individually every power not expressly delegated to the U States in Congress assembled. The power of Congress therefore to make a Treaty of Commerce and every other Treaty they did make—must be vindicated on the ground that the express grant of power to enter into Treaties & alliances is a general, which necessarily includes as particulars, the various treaties they have made & the various stipulations of those Treaties.
Under this power thus granted & defined, the alliance with France was contracted; guaranteeing in the case of a defensive War her West India possessions, and when the casus fœderis occurs obliging the U States to make War for the defence of those possessions and consequently to incur the expences of War.
Under the same power, Treaties of Commerce were made with France, the U Netherlands, Sweden and Prussia. Besides that every Treaty of Commerce is necessarily a regulation of Commerce between the parties—it has been shewn in the antecedent comparison of those Treaties with the one lately negotiated, that they produce the specific effects of restraining the legislative power from imposing higher or other duties on the articles of those nations than on the like articles of other nations and from extending prohibitions to them which shall not equally extend to other nations the most favoured; and thus abrige the exercise of the legislative power to tax, and the exercise of the legislative power to regulate Trade. These Treaties likewise define & establish the same case of piracy which is defined in the Treaty with G Britain. Moreover the Treaty with France as has been elsewhere shewn with regard to rights of property naturalizes the whole French Nation.
The Consular Convention with France, negotiated likewise under the same power grants to the Consuls of that Country various authorities and jurisdictions, some of the judicial nature, which are actual transfers to them of portions of the internal jurisdiction and ordinary judiciary power of the Country the exercise of which our Government is bound to aid with its whole strength. It also grants exemptions to French Consuls from certain kinds of taxes & to them and French Citizens from all personal services; all which are very delicate interferences with our internal police and ordinary jurisdiction.
Under the same Power the Treaty with Morrocco was formed, which besides various other regulations relative to War and several relative to Trade, contains the rule that neither party shall make War, without a previous demand of reparation, in restraint of the general discretionary power of Congress to declare war.
Under the same power, the Treaty of Peace with Great Britain was made. This treaty contains the establishment of a boundary line between the parties which, in part, is arbitrary and could not have been predicated upon precise antecedent right. It prohibits the future confiscation of the property of adherents to G Britain, declares that no person shall on account of the part he took in the war suffer any future loss or damage in his person liberty or property and provides for the release of such persons from confinement & the discontinuance of prosecutions against them. It is difficult to conceive a higher act of controul both of the legislative & judiciary authority than by this article. These provisions are analogous in principle to those stipulations which in the [second and ninth] articles of the Treaty under examination have given occasion to a constitutional objection.
Under the same power, various Treaties with Indians inhabiting the Territory of the U States have been made establishing arbitrary lines of boundary with them; which determine the right of soil on the one side and on the other. Some of these Treaties proceed on the principle of the U States having conquered the Indian Country and profess to make gratuitous concessions to them of the lands which are left to their occupation. There is, also, a feature of importance common to these Treaties, which is the withdrawing of the protection of the U States from those of their Citizens who intrude on Indian lands leaving them to be punished at the pleasure of the Indians.
Hence it appears, that except as to the stipulation for appointing Commissioners, the Treaties made under the confederation contain all the features identically or by analogy which are topics of Constitutional objection to the Treaty before us. They restrain in certain instances the legislative power to lay taxes. They make numerous and equivalent regulations of Trade—they confer the benefits of naturalization as to property. They define cases of piracy—They create causes of Expenditure. They direct and modify the power of war. They erect within the country tribunals unknown to our Constitutions & laws in cases to which they are competent, whereas the Treaty with G B only provides for the appointment of arbitrators in cases to which our Tribunals & laws are incompetent. And They make dispositions concerning the Territory & property of the U States.
It is true, that some of the Treaties made under the former Government, though subsequent to the proposing of the articles of Confederation to the States, were prior to the final adoption of these Articles; but still it is presumeable that the Treaties were negotiated with an eye to the powers of the pending National Compact. Those with Great Britain Sweden Prussia & Morrocco & the convention with France were posterior to the completion of that Compact.
It may perhaps be argued that a more extensive construction of the power of Treaty in the confederation than in our present constitution was countenanced by the Union in the same body of legislative powers, with the power of Treaty. But this argument can have no force when it is considered that the principal legislative powers with regard to the objects embraced by the Treaties of Congress were not vested in that body but remained with the individual states. Such are the power of specific taxation, the power of regulating Trade, the power of naturalization &c.
If in theory, the objects of legislative power are excepted out of the power of Treaty, this must have been equally, at least, the case with the legislative powers of the state Governments, as with those of the U States. Indeed the argument was much stronger for the exception, where distinct Governments were the depositories of the legislative power than where the same Government was the depository of that power and of the power of Treaty. Nothing but the intrinsic force of the power of Treaty could have enabled it to penetrate the separate spheres of the State Governments. The practice under the confederation, for so many years acquiesced in by all the states is therefore a conclusive illustration of the Power of Treaty and an irresistible refutation of the novel and preposterous doctrine which impeaches the Constitutionality of that lately negotiated. If the natural import of the terms used in the Constitution were less clear and decisive, than they are, that practice is a commentary upon them and fixes their sense. For the sense, in which certain terms were practiced upon a prior Constitution of Government, must be presumed to have been intended in using the like terms in a subsequent Constitution of Government for the same Nation.
Accordingly, the practice under the present Govt. before the late Treaty has corresponded with that sense.
Our treaties with several Indian Nations regulate and change the boundaries between them & the U States—and in addition to compensations in Gross they stipulate the payment of certain specific & pepetual annuities. Thus a Treaty in August 1790 with the Creeks (Article 4th) promises them the yearly sum of One thousand five hundred Dollars. And similar features are found in subsequent Treaties with the Six Nations, the Cherookees and the North Western Indians. This last has just been ratified by the unanimous voice of the Senate. It stipulates an annuity of 9500 Dollars, and relinquishes to the Indians a large tract of land which they had by preceding treaties ceded to the U States.
Hence we find that our former Treaties under the present Government as well as one subsequent to that under consideration contradict the doctrine set up against its constitutionality—in the important particulars of making dispositions concerning the Territory and property of the U States—and binding them to raise and pay money. These Treaties have not only been made by the President and ratified by the Senate, without any impeachment of their constitutionality but the House of Representatives has heretofore concurred and without objection in carrying them into effect by the requisite appropriation of money.
The consular convention with France stands in a peculiar predicament. It was negotiated under the former government, and ratified under the present; and so may be regarded as a treaty of both governments, illustrative of the extent of the power of Treaty in both. The delicate and even the extraordinary nature of the provisions it contains have been adverted to. Though all reflecting men have thought ill of the propriety of some of them, as inconveniently breaking in upon our interior administration, legislative, executive and judiciary; only acquiesing in them from the difficulty of getting rid of stipulations entered into by our public agents under competent powers, yet no question has been heard about their constitutionality. And Congress have by law assisted their execution by making our judicial tribunals and the public force of the country auxiliary to the decrees of the foreign tribunals which they authorize within our territory.
If it should be said, that our constitution by making all former treaties and engagements as obligatory upon the United States under that constitution, as they were under the confederation, rendered the ratification of the convention a matter of necessity—the answer is that either the engagements which it contracted were already conclusive or they were not—if the former, there was no need of a ratification, of the latter, there was no absolute obligation to it. And in every supposition, a ratification by the President with the consent of the Senate could have been predicated only upon the power given in the present constitution in relation to treaties; and to have any validity must have been within the limit of that power.
But it has been heretofore seen that the inference from this instrument is no less strong, if referred to the power under the confederation, than if referred to the power under the present Constitution.
How happens it that all these Invasions of the Constitution if they were such were never discovered, and that the departments of the Government & all parties in the public councils should have cooperated in giving them a sanction. Does it not prove that All were convinced that the power of Treaty applied in our exterior relations to objects which in the ordinary course of internal administration & in reference to ourselves were of the cognizance of the legislative power? and particularly that the former was competent to bind the latter in the delicate points of raising and appropriating money? If competent to this, what legislative power can be more sacred, more out its reach?
Let me now ask (and a very solemn question it is, especially for those who are bound by oath to support the Constitution)—Has it not been demonstrated that the provisions in the Treaty are justified by the true & manifest interpretation of the Constitution sanctioned by the practice upon a similar power under the Confederation, and by the practice in other instances under the present government?
If this has been demonstrated, what shall we think of the candor & sincerity of the objections which have been erected on the basis of a contrary supposition? Do they not unequivocally prove that the adversaries of the Treaty have been resolved to discredit it by every artifice they could invent? That they have not had truth for their guide & consequently are very unfit guides for the public Opinion, very unsafe guardians of the public weal?
It is really painful & disgusting to observe sophisms so miserable as those which question the constitutionality of the Treaty retailed to an enlightened people and insisted upon with so much seeming fervency & earnestness. It is impossible not to bestow on sensible men who act this part—the imputation of hypochrisy. The absurdity of the doctrine is too glaring to permit even Charity itself to suppose it sincere. If it were possible to imagine that a majority in any branch of our Government could betray the Constitution and trifle with the Nation so far as to adopt and act upon such a doctrine—it would be time to despair of the Republic.
There would be no security at home, no respectability abroad. Our Constitutional Charter would become a dead letter & The Organ of our Government for foreign Affairs would be treated with derision whenever he should hereafter talk of negotiation or Treaty. May the Great Ruler of Nations avert from our Country so greivous a calamity!

   It is very probable that a Treaty with Algiers is now on its way to the U States which may be expected to contain similar stipulations with that with Morocco. This Treaty which will have cost the U States no trifling sum & will [be] of very great value to our Trade must fall equally on the doctrine which I oppose.

Camillus


Title: Certificate on Robert Lenox, [11 January 1796]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[New York, January 11, 1796]

I certify, that I have an impression on my memory as strong as a circumstance so remote, and of such a nature admits, of my having towards the close of our late war with Great Britain, understood from some of the officers charged on the part of the United States, with the affair of prisoners and from officers of our army, who had been prisoners with the British, that Robert Lenox, now of this city, merchant, then having some connections with some of the British commissaries’ of prisoners, had repeatedly manifested a kind and accommodating disposition towards our prisoners; an impression, which upon our regaining possession of New York, and my becoming acquainted with Mr. Lenox, induced me to shew him marks of cordiality and esteem.

Alexander Hamilton.New York, Jan. 11, 1796.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from William Heth, 11 January 1796
From: Heth, William
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Virginia 11th January 1796
My dear Sir

I should have written to you long since, but from some doubts that a packet to you might excite curiosity, in your Post Office, not knowing of what kidney, your post-master & his clerks may be.
Capt Stratton who now takes charge of this, promises to deliver it in person, and tho it is without Signature, you will be at no loss to guess from whom it comes, as it serves to enclose the piece mentioned to you last Winter, written by —— you know who. Had it been forwarded to you when in Office, even Coll Hamilton, might for a moment have attributed it to views, & motives, by which the Author is incapable of being actuated. But admit that he then had motives for flattering you, he can have none now, and therefore he does not blush to say, that he loves you as a private friend; admires you as an able & most faithful public servant; and venerates you as a Man of most superior talents.
A single line from you, informing of the same recd of this, will be very pleasing. The author will send you some other things lately written by him in the same stile.
Do you expect to be in Phila in the course of the Winter, or ensuing spring? I asked the Question, because public-business may oblige me there and I should be pleased to meet with you.
Mention me most respectfully to Mrs. Hamilton, and believe me to be most
faithfully & affectionately   Yrs

Coll A HamiltonNew-Yorke


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from John Patterson, 12 January 1796
From: Patterson, John
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Lansingburgh [New York] January 12, 1796. “A Journey to Kinderhook on particular business prevented my receiving the pleasure of your letter untill my return two days ago.… I enclose this to my oldest son who will wait upon you with it and receive your commands for his Brother John. Having said so much I must beg to add a few words more as to your intended Pupil.… I must request you will please to order Indentures to be drawn and he will forward them to me to perfect and at the same time send you my Bond for the money.…”


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Angelica Church, 13 January 1796
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Church, Angelica

[New York, January 13, 1796. On February 19, 1796, Angelica Church wrote to Hamilton: “Your letters of January the 13th are received.” Letters not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Jonathan Dayton, 15 January 1796
From: Dayton, Jonathan
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Philadelphia, January 15, 1796. “Your letter of the 4th is before me.… There cannot, I presume, exist a doubt as to my right to a portion of the Certificates alluded to in your letter.… Mr Stevens the elder declared before his death to my father that he would transfer them to me.… The short Interrogatory respecting our political prospect with which you conclude your letter, cannot be answered in a few words. Our session has hitherto been remarkably tranquil, but we can have no security that it will continue so, much longer. That Instrument, the cause of so much pleasure to some & of displeasure to others, that Compact which has already drawn forth so many pens & occasioned so much warmth—The treaty (as ratified) has for some time past been impatiently expected, and will, when it arrives & is laid before the House, produce, or I err exceedingly, agitations, collisions & oppositions, the extent of which cannot be foreseen or calculated.”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Robert Morris, 15 January 1796
From: Morris, Robert
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Alexander Hamilton Esqre
Phila 15 Janry 1796
Dear Sir

I wrote to you on the 16 Novr & on the 18th Decemr. You have not acknowledged the receipt of either of those letters, but as they were sent by Post I must suppose they got to your hand. Should that be the Case and any part of the Contents are not satisfactory, explain yourself freely, for I am entirely disposed to act in conformity with your desires in the business depending between us. I expect soon to hear of Mr. Marshalls Arrival in London & perhaps Mr Church and he may adjust the business for us.
I am very Sincerely Dr Sir   Yours

RM


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, [19 January 1796]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Washington, George

[New York, January 19, 1796]
Sir

The Bearer of this letter is Doctor Bolman whom you have heared of as having made an attempt for the relief of the Marquis la Fayette which very nearly succeeded. The circumstances of this affair, as stated by Doctor Bolman & Mr. Huger, son of B Huger of St Carolina deceased, who assisted, do real credit to the prudence management and enterprise of the Doctor and shew that he is a man of sense and energy.
He appears to have been induced to think that he attempted a service which would strongly recommend him to the favour of this Country; in which idea I have reason to believe that Mr Pinckney among others encouraged him—and as a consequence of it he hopes for some civil employment under our Government. His expectations of what he may begin with are not high—it being principally his object to obtain some present provision in a way which may lead him, if he discovers talents to something better. He appears to be a man of education—speaks several languages converses sensibly is of polite manners & I dare say has the materials of future advancement.
I have not left him unapprised of the difficulties in his way, but he concludes to go to Philadelphia to ascertain what is or is not possible, relying at least on a kind reception from you.
He brought me letters from Mr & Mrs Church which speak handsomely of him. I believe they had a chief agency in promoting his undertaking
At his request I give him this letter to you.
With respectful & Affecte Attachment   I have the honor to be   Sir   Your very Obed ser

A HamiltonJany 19. 1796

P.S. The Doctor is a German

The President of The UStates


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Maturin Livingston, [20 January 1796]
From: Livingston, Maturin
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[New York, January 20, 1796]
Sir

I this moment received your note of the 18th instant, and do not hesitate to give it an immediate answer. It is so long since the conversation alluded to in it took place, (and in which many of the company joined) that I can not now charge my memory with all that then passed. I well remember however generally, that the procedure of the town meeting at New York on the subject of the treaty, and what succeeded it relative to yourself Commodore Nicholson and me, occupied a considerable part of that conversation. The Manner in which the altercation between yourself and me was introduced, I have been informed has been related to you by Mr B Livingston. The relation must remove every impression of my having introduced the subject, nor have I any recollection of commenting upon it in the way you have been informed.
I am Sir   Your Humble Servt.

Maturin LivingstonJany 20th 1796
Alexander Hamilton Esqr


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Maturin Livingston, [21 January 1796]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Livingston, Maturin

[New York, January 21, 1796]
Sir

It is not my wish to cavil nor can I as a reasonable man have any desire to pursue the question between us further than a due regard to my own delicacy may demand. But having weighed maturely the contents of your letter of yesterday I am obliged to think that it is not sufficiently explicit. The course of your own ideas and conduct hitherto must afford you a consciousness whether on the occasion alluded to there could have been an intention on your part to throw at me the imputation menti⟨oned⟩ in my first letter, and if there was any situation which may prevent a recollec⟨tion⟩ of what passed, it is still in your power at this time to satisfy what is due to delicacy by a disavowal of the exceptionable sentiment.
I am Sir   Your humble ser,

M Livingston Esq


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Théophile Cazenove, 22 January 1796
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Cazenove, Théophile

New York, January 22, 1796. “Upon Sounding the members of the Legislature, I find that great difficulties will attend a bill so formed as to confirm absolutely & without limitation, existing titles, notwithstanding the alienisation of those who may have acquired Lands—But that a proposition to confirm them, upon the condition of a transfer, within a term of 15 a 20 years, to Citizens, or of the acquirers becoming Citizens within that term, is listened to with more favour. If you think this will answer the purpose of your friends I will thank you to let me Know it as soon as may be.…”


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Robert Morris, 22 January 1796
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Morris, Robert

[New York, January 22, 1796. On February 10, 1796, Morris wrote to Hamilton: “I was preparing to answer your favour of the 22d ulto.” Letter not found.]


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, 22 January 1796
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Pinckney, Charles Cotesworth

New York January 22. 1796
Dear Sir

Give me leave to recommend to your civilities Mr. Winstanly the bearer of this an English Gentleman who came to this City some years. After former generosity and carelessness of temper disposes of a little fortune, he has assumed the business of Landscape Painting and in pursuance of his plan visits your County, which also he is desirous through curiosity of seeing before he goes to Europe. He appears to have a warm passion for his present pursuit, in which he may be said to be self taught—and what is more to his purpose, talent. With good opportunities I dare say he will arrive at eminence. In introducing him to you I give him a proof of my regard. With esteem & attachment
I am Sir  Your obed serv

A HamiltonJan 22. 1796
Charles C. Pinckney Esq


Title: Certificate on John Hanson by Anthony L. Bleecker, Peter S. Curentius, Alexander Hamilton, John Lamb, and Hercules Mulligan, [24 January 1796]
From: Bleecker, Anthony L.,Curentius, Peter S.,Hamilton, Alexander,Lamb, John,Mulligan, Hercules
To:

[New York, January 24, 1796]

We the Subscribers do certify that we were acquainted with Capt John Hanson deceased in his life time, and at an early period of the Revolution of the United States, and have satisfactory grounds to believe that he was firmly attached to the cause of the Revolution and to the liberties of this Country. We also certify, that we particularly recollect as eye Witnesses his conduct on a certain Evening in the year MDCLXXVI, when cannon were removed from the battery in the City under the fire of a British Man of War, on which occasion the said Capt Hanson was distinguished by his activity in forwarding the Removal.

New York January 24. 1796.
A Hamilton
John Lamb
Peter S. Curtenius
Hercules Mulligan
Anthony L. Bleecker


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Jonathan Burrall, [25 January 1796]
From: Burrall, Jonathan
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[New York, January 25, 1796]
Dr Sir,

Our practice is to demand payment of Notes which fall due on the 4th. July, the day before, as in case of Sundays and Christmas days. This practice has prevailed in this Office and at the New York Bank from their first establishment.
Yours respectfully

Jon: BurrallJany 25th 1796.
Alexr. Hamilton Esqr.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Théophile Cazenove, 25 January 1796
From: Cazenove, Théophile
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Philadelphia, January 25, 1796. Acknowledges receipt of Hamilton’s letter of January 22, 1796. Discusses legislation necessary for the ownership of land in New York State by aliens.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Charles Wilkes, [25 January 1796]
From: Wilkes, Charles
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[New York] Monday Noon [January 25, 1796]
Sir
It has been the constant practice of the Bank, to demand payment on the 3d of July, for all notes which become payable on the 4th—that day being, by the regulations of the Bank, a holiday.
I am with great respect   Your obet Servt
Chas Wilkes
Alexr Hamilton Esqe.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Rufus King, [29 January 1796]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: King, Rufus

[New York, January 29, 1796]
My Dear Sir
If the News Papers till truth it would appear that Massachusettes has anticipated New York. But it is intended by our friends in the Legislature to give some pointed discountenance to the propositions. It was expected that it would have been done to day, but by the divergings of some men who seek popularity with both sides, they have gotten into an unnecessary debate upon the propositions in detail, which will lose time; but in the result a handsome majority will do right.
Laurance is hurt, & as far as I see not without some reason from particular circumstances, at being left out of the Direction of the Bank. It will be balm to his feelings to be put into the direction of the Office here & I believe it will be an improvement of the Direction to do it. I wish you would endeavour to bring it about. Speak to Bayard of our City and to Wharton of Philadelphia. This is a suggestion of my own for Laurance rather rides a high horse upon the occasion.
Yrs. truly
A Hamilton
Ruffus King Esqr.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Thomas FitzSimons, 4 February 1796
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: FitzSimons, Thomas

[New York, February 4, 1796. Hamilton endorsed a letter from FitzSimons dated December 17, 1795: “Ansr. Feby. 4 179[6] agreeing & naming Mr. Lewis—Referees to decide as Judges in Chancellory Law & Fact.” Letter not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Robert Morris, 10 February 1796
From: Morris, Robert
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Alexr Hamilton EsqrNew York
Philada. Feby 10. 1796
Dr Sir
I was preparing to answer your favor of the 22d ulto when I was informed that you are to be here on the 17th of this month which I am very glad of as it will give me the Oppy of adjusting the business personally & I hope to your Satisfaction.
I am most truly   Yrs
RM


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from George Washington, 13 February 1796
From: Washington, George
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Phila. 13th. Feby. 1796
My dear Sir,
In the moment I was closing & dispatching my letters to the Post Office, I learnt from the Attorney General of the U.S. that you would be here on the 17th. My mind being continually uneasy on Acct. of Young Fayette, I cannot but wish (if this letter should reach you in time, and no reasons stronger than what have occurred against it) that you would request him, and his Tuter, to come on to this place on a visit; without avowing, or making a mystery of the object—Leaving the rest to some after decision. In haste. Yours always & most
Affectionately
Go: Washington
Colo Hamilton


Title: Draft on the Bank of the United States, [18 February 1796]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[Philadelphia, February 18, 1796]
Cashier of The Bank of The United StatesDollars 46
Pay to Mr. Bicknel or bearer Forty six Dollars
Philadelphia Feb. 18. 1796Alexander Hamilton


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Angelica Church, [19 February 1796]
From: Church, Angelica
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[London, February 19, 1796]
My dear Brother
Your letters of January the 13th are received but no plan of the lot, and no description of the house. I am sensible how much I trouble I give you, but you will have the goodness to excuse it, when you know that it proceeded from a persuasion that I was asking from one who promised me his love and attention if I returned to America; If friendship is only a name, for what do I exchange ease and taste, by going to the New World, where politics excludes all society, and agreeable intercourse, where all that is not given to Fame seems to be regretted and forgotten. My Love to Betsey I do not write by this Ship but will by Monday.
I believe Mr. Marshall has made no progress in settling the affairs of your Honorable friend.
Adieu my dear and naughty Brother, it will be impossible for me to Charter a Vessel for how can I bring out furniture when I do not know the number of rooms my house contains. What an agreeable amiable fellow, has Jay’s Little treaty turned into a defender of what he never would himself have deigned to submit to. Voila mon sentiment, changes le si vous veules.
Adieu
Febr. 19. 1796.


Title: Opinion on the Claim of Oliver Pollock, [27 February 1796]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[Philadelphia, February 27, 1796]
At the request of Mr. Pollock I certify that I have a distinct recollection that in the course of conversations with him, respecting his pecuniary claims on the United States, he expressed the idea of his having further claims on the United States beyond those admitted and liquidated; and that I have also some recollection, but indistinct and imperfect, that when a warrant came to be issued for the balance due to him, he objected to the wording of it, as amounting to a declaration that the sum to be paid was to be in full of all demands; and that in consequence of his representation, either words were added to the first warrant, or a new one was made out, altered in conformity to the within copy, that is to say, so as to import in the warrant a full satisfaction for claims liquidated and credited only.
Alexander Hamilton,February 27, 1796.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from John Jay, 4 March 1796
From: Jay, John
To: Hamilton, Alexander

New York 4th. March 1796.
Sir
In pursuance of a concurrent Resolution of the two Houses of the Legislature of the third and fourth instant I desire You as a Counsellor at Law to defend in behalf of this State a certain Suit brought against Lewis Cornwall by or in behalf of Alexander Colden for the Recovery of a Farm sold to the said Lewis by the Commissioners of Forfeitures for the Southern District.
You will herewith receive a Copy of the said Resolution, and of the Petition of Lewis Cornwall which gave Occasion to it.
I have the Honor to be   Sir   Your Most Ob. & H’ble Servt.
John Jay.
Alexander Hamilton Esqr.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Gouverneur Morris, 4 March 1796
From: Morris, Gouverneur
To: Hamilton, Alexander

London 4 March 1796
My dear Hamilton
I have just now written to the President to communicate some Intelligence lately receiv’d from Paris. This I have done in Abstract but my Correspondent has written to me as follows: “The Government here are highly displeas’d with ours. You may easily guess the Reason. It is come to a very serious State. A Fleet is to be sent to our Shore with a new minister. A definitive Answer must be given in fifteen Days. The Government are to declare to us within a few Days that our Treaty with them is annulled. This will put Mr. Munroe in a cruel Dilemma. He is already much displeas’d and a War will probably be the Consequence. The British will be glad of this. Perhaps we may have here a Revolution from the Industry ⟨of th⟩e Jacobins. The Finances are worse than ever they cannot stand ⟨much longer.”⟩ This letter is dated in Paris the 15th. ⟨of la⟩st Month. You may be sure by my communicating this to you that I have Confidence in the Source from whence it is derived. Now my dear Friend I have barely stated to the President the Intention as to the new Minister. His late Declaration as to the existing french Government has prevented me from saying a Word to him on a Subject where he has I think committed himself. To you I will declare my Conviction that this Government cannot stand whether the Monarchy be restor’d or not. The People in general are averse to it. The Adherents to the royal Cause grow daily more numerous. If I knew decidedly the Steps to be taken in Aid of them I could tell you almost with Certainty whether they would be successful for the State of that Country now presents sufficient Data on which to reason soundly. I need not say to you that if the french Rulers persist in the Measures which are above mentioned, America will probably be obligd to take Part in the War. On a former Occasion when they talk⟨ed somewhat⟩ highly I told them that they could certainly force us into the Contest but as certainly it would be against them, let the Predelections in their Favor be ever so great, because it would be Madness in us to risque our Commerce against the navy of the world. That to join them would do them no Good and must do us much Evil. That Time they beleived me. What Representations Mr. Munroe may make I cannot pretend to divine and much less the Effect of them. Supposing however that you should be driven to make this Election you will naturally weigh not only the naval Force but also the financial Resources of the opposed Powers. The noisy Folks with you will undoubtedly be loud on our Obligations to France and on the long List of our Grievances from England. As to the former I think we should always seek to perform Acts of Kindness towards those who at the Bidding of their Prince s⟨tept forw⟩ard to fight our Battles. Nor would I ever permit a frigid Reasoning on political motives to damp those Effusions of Sentiment which are as laudable in a nation as they are decorous to a private Citizen. But would it be kind to support that Power which now tyrannizes over France and reduces her Inhabitants to unheard of Misery? Would it be grateful to mix with, much less to league with those whose Hands are yet red with the Blood of him who was our real Protector? Would it be decent? As to the Conduct of Britain towards us, altho I see as clearly as others the Grounds which we have to complain and can readily account for the Resentments which have been excited, yet I give due Weight to the Causes by which that Conduct was instigated: and if in some Cases I find it unjustifiable, I cannot consider it as in all Cases inexcusable. Provided therefore that our Honor be saved, I am so far thinking that the Injuries we have endured should become the source of inextinguishable Hatred and perpetual War that I would rather seek in future Amity and good Offices the fair Motive for consigning them to utter Oblivion. I have not my dear Hamilton any such View of our present political Machinery as to judge what may be the Effect of lofty Menace. I apprehend that some feeble Counsels will be given: Whether they will be receivd and pursued you best know and will doubtless act accordingly. What I have to ask is that you would put yourself in the Way of being consulted. I mean locally, for should you be at a Distance the Time may be too short for Communication.
It is possible after all that the Demand may turn on a single Point viz: that we shall no longer pretend to claim an Exemption from Seizure for those Goods of an Enemy [which may be found in our Ships. If so the Case is plain and easy. We slide back to the Law of Nations which it is our Interest to preserve unimpeached. Probably we shall be called on for our Guarantee of St Domingo and here many questions will arise in the Course of which we shall see perhaps some wise and virtuous Slave Masters contending for the propriety of general emancipation with all its consequent Train of Crimes. It appears certain to me that the french Directory would not risque high Language to us if they had not receiv’d previous Assurances that the People would force our Government to sacrifice the national Interest. Those Assurances were I presume given and the present Plan propos’d while victory seem’d yet bound to the french Standards; and while you receiv’d official Assurances of the prosperous State of their internal Affairs. The Scene is now not only chang’d but almost revers’d, and I presume that the Language if not the Conduct of certain Persons will experience a similar Change. Adieu I am forc’d to conclude thus abruptly. You know I am always and truly yours—]
Alexander Hamilton Esqr.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Robert Morris, 5 March 1796
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Morris, Robert

[New York, March 5, 1796. On March 6, 1796, Morris wrote to Hamilton: “I am glad to see by your line of yesterday.” Letter not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Robert Morris, 6 March 1796
From: Morris, Robert
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Alexander Hamilton Esqre N York
Phila 6 March 1796
Dear Sir
I am glad to see by your line of yesterday that you had got safe home. I am at present in treaty for the Sale of some Lands of Pennsa & perhaps some of the Tracts I proposed to you may be included in the sale. If they are, others shall be Substituted & you may rely that I will not lose a day unnecessarily in preparing & transmitting the Mortgages, but instead of putting the whole into one Mortgage I think it will be best to put one parcel of contiguous Tracts into one Mortgage & another in another & so on—then if any one of those Parcels should be sold, I can pay or exchange the Security without affecting the others.
You omitted to Return the Copy of Mr Greenleafs Deed for the Washington Lotts. The Original is gone to be recorded & I have no other Copy, therefore I request you to send it to me. I am very busy but you shall soon hear again from
Yrs
RM


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, [7 March 1796]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Washington, George

[New York, March 7, 1796]
Sir,
I found Young La Fayette here and delivered him your Letter which much relieved him. I fancy you will see him on the first day of April.
Mr. Livingston’s motion in the House of Representatives, concerning the production of papers has attracted much attention. The opinion of those who think here is, that if the motion succeeds, it ought not to be complied with. Besides that in a matter of such a nature the production of the papers cannot fail to start [a] new and unpleasant Game—it will be fatal to the Negotiating Power of the Government if it is to be a matter of course for a call of either House of Congress to bring forth all the communication however confidential.
It seems to me that something like the following answer by the President will be advisable.
“A right in the House of Representatives, to demand and have as a matter of course, and without specification of any object all communications respecting a negotiation with a foreign power cannot be admitted without danger of much inconvenience. A discretion in the Executive Department how far and where to comply in such cases is essential to the due conduct of foreign negotiations and is essential to preserve the limits between the Legislative and Executive Departments. The present call is altogether indefinite and without any declared purpose. The Executive has no cases on which to judge of the propriety of a compliance with it and cannot therefore without forming a very dangerous precedent comply.
It does not occur that the view of the papers asked for can be relative to any purpose of the competency of the House of Representatives but that of an impeachment. In every case of a foreign Treaty the grounds for an impeachment must primarily be deduced from the nature of the Instrument itself and from nothing extrinsic. If at any time a Treaty should present such grounds and it shall have been so pronounced by the House of Representatives and a further inquiry shall be necessary to ascertain the culpable person, there being then a declared and ascertained object the President would attend with due respect to any application for necessary information.”
This is but a hasty and crude outline of what has struck me as an eligible course. For while a too easy compliance will be mischievous, a too peremptory and unqualified refusal might be liable to just criticism.
Most Respectfully & Affectionately   I have the honor to be   Sir your Obed sert
A Hamilton
The President of the U. States.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Robert Morris, 8 March 1796
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Morris, Robert

[New York, March 8, 1796. On March 12, 1796, Morris wrote to Hamilton and referred to “your letters of the 10th & 8th Inst.” Letter of March 8 not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from William Greene, 9 March 1796
From: Greene, William
To: Hamilton, Alexander

New York, March 9, 1796. States his determination to abide by whatever opinion Hamilton “should form” in “the case of Messr. John Calogan & Sons.” Discusses his dispute with the firm of Shaw and Randall over a cargo of wine and the writ issued against him for £10,000 damages.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to George Clinton, 10 March 1796
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Clinton, George

[New York, March 10, 1796. Letter not found.]


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to John Jay, 10 March 1796
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Jay, John

New York March 10. 1796
Sir
I had the honor duely to receive Your Excellency’s letter of the 4th instant. I did not immediately answer it from an indistinct and confused recollection that a state of things existed in reference to the opposite party which did not permit my being concerned for the State. It now appears that I was not mistaken, and that I cannot with propriety execute Your Excellency’s desire.
With perfect respect I have the honor to be Sir   Yr. very obed servant


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Robert Morris, 10 March 1796
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Morris, Robert

[New York, March 10, 1796. On March 12, 1796, Morris wrote to Hamilton and referred to “your letters of the 10th and 8th Inst.” Letter of March 10 not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Robert Morris, 12 March 1796
From: Morris, Robert
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Alexander Hamilton Esqre
Phila 12 March 1796
dear Sir
I am concerned to perceive by your letters of the 10th & 8th Inst a degree of solicitude which I did not expect or intend to excite. You will recollect that it was a point conceded by you that even after the Mortgage I might sell & change the Security for one equally Satisfactory, and as I was in Treaty for a Sale, I thought a delay untill that Treaty finished one way or the other was not of Consequence Sufficient to create uneasiness. I also intended to have the Mortgages drawn & sent to you, but as you prefer having a list of the Lands & their Valuation I will send you the same by Mondays Mail & in the mean time I am as ever
Yours
RM


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Robert Morris, 14 March 1796
From: Morris, Robert
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Alexander Hamilton Esqre
Phila 14 March 1796
Dear Sir
Agreeably to my promise I enclose herewith a List of the Lands which I propose to mortgage to you as Security for the debt due to Mr Church and I think the value more than Sufficient. For some of these Lands the Patents are issued, for some they are not issued, but the Patents are only considered as Evidence of Title, because when Warrants of Survey are granted the money is paid & a return of the Survey upon the Warrants vests the absolute Fee Simple Title in the Warantee who conveys by Deed Poll to whom he pleases. These Deeds Poll are commonly assigned from one person to another & he that holds them is always entitled to the Land and has the right to take out the patents when he pleases and it is only done when he pleases, so that many of the Oldest Estates in Pennsylvania are held to this day without having taken out the Patents. In all decisions in the Courts of Law such Titles have been recognized and confirmed. I have mentioned this matter that you may know every thing respecting the business and at the same time that every Objection may be Removed. I have given Orders for taking out the Patents which is a work of some time owing to the quantity of Business in the Land Office and the slow mode of doing it. In your last letter you supposed that Lands in the preferable Situations might be sold to the Injury or impairing of the Security offered. This was never intended by me, because if any of the Tracks proposed to be mortgaged should be sold either before or after the mortgage takes effect my intention is to substitute other property to your entire Satisfaction otherwise I could not think of making such sales. I believe the Lands standing in my name in the state of new york near Chemung or near the Pennsa Line as marked on DeWitts New Map are now worth about 2 of York Curry P Acre, and I expect soon to be in a Situation to sell the whole, that is about 38000 Acres. If you incline to buy Lands for Mr Church perhaps we may agree for those or some others, so as to discharge this debt with advantage to Mr Church, & in the mean time I am ready to execute the Mortgage as soon as you please.
I am Dr Sir Yrs &c.
RM


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Rufus King, 16 March 1796
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: King, Rufus

New York March 16. 1796
My Dr. Sir
I thank you for letter of the . My opinion on the resolution when it first appeared was that the President should answer in substance as follows. (viz)
“That it could not be admitted as a right of course in the House of Representatives to call for & have papers in the Executive department essentially those relating to foreign negociations which frequently embrace confidential matters. That under all the circumstances & upon so indefinite a call without any declared specific object he did not think it proper nor consistent with what he owed to a due separation of the respective Powers to comply with the call. That if in the course of the proceedings of the House a question of their competency should arise for which any of the papers in question might be necessary an application made on that ground would be considered with proper respect &c.”
But after what has taken place in the discussion, if it can with propriety be got in as to form, I think a stand ought to be made by the President against the usurpation. The following propositions comprise an obvious ground
I   The constitution empowers the President with the Senate to make Treaties.
II   A treaty is a perfected contract between two nations obligatory on both.
II   That cannot be a perfected contract or Treaty to the validity of which the concurrence of any other power in the state is constitutionally necessary. Again—
III   The Constitution says a Treaty is a law.
IV   A law is an obligatory rule of action prescribed by the competent authority. But

V   That cannot be such a rule of Action or a law to the validity of which the assent of any other power is requisite. Again
VI   The object of the Legislative Power is to prescribe a rule of Action for our own Nation which includes foreigners coming among us.
VII   The object of the Treaty Power is by agreement to settle a rule of Action between two Nations binding on both.
VIII.   These objects are essentially different and in a constitutional sense cannot interfere.
IX   The Treaty Power binding the Will of the nation must within its constitutional limits be paramount to the Legislative power which is that Will; or at least the last law being a Treaty must repeal an antecedent contradictory law. And
X   If the Legislative power is competent to repeal this law by a subsequent law—this must be the whole legislative power, by a solemn act in the forms of the Constitution, not one branch of the legislative power by disobeying the law.
XI   The foregoing construction reconciles the two powers and assigns them distinguishable sp[h]eres of Action. While
XIII   The other construction, that claiming that a right of assent is sanction for the House of Representatives, destroys the Treaty making Power & negatives two Propositions in the Constitution to wit I that The President with the Senate are competent to make Treaties. II That a Treaty is a Law.
On these grounds with the Presidents name a bulwark not to be shaken is erected. The propositions amount in my judgment to irresistable demonstration.
Yrs.
A HamiltonMarch 16. 1796


Title: Receipt from Morgan Lewis, [18 March 1796]
From: Lewis, Morgan
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[New York, March 18, 1796]
Received New York March 18th 1796 of Alexander Hamilton [Four thousand two hundred & fifty] Dollars in full for the consideration money of a lot and part of a lot of Ground adjoining thereto situate on the Broadway and Marketfield Street in the City of New York as particularly described in a certain indenture bearing date the first day of May MDCCXCIII made between Carlisle Pollock William Rogers and Samuel Corp of the one part and myself of the other part and according to a deed of Partition for ascertaining the said Part of a lot bearing date the twenty second of November MDCCXCIII made between Isaac Bronson and myself—and I promise forthwith to make and deliver to the said Alexander Hamilton a good and sufficient deed in the Law for conveying and assuring to him his heirs and assigns the lot and part of a lot aforesaid with a Covenant of General Warranty for the same according to the metes and bounds in the said deed specified.
Morn: Lewis.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Barent Bleecker, 20 March 1796
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Bleecker, Barent

New York March 20. 1796
Sir
I presume you have been informed that pursuant to the power given to me by yourself and the other parties concerned, I purchased at Auction the lands in Cosbys Manor claimed by the Trustees of the Ringwood Iron Company. These lands being in the whole 6761 acres cost £2422.13.10 payable ¼ part down one other ¼ on the first Tuesday of next month (April) one other ¼ on the First Tuesday of October next and the remaining ¼ on the first Tuesday of April 1797. The first installment I have paid—and I have therefore to request that you will without delay forward to me your ¼ of that installment and also of the second which will become payable on the 5th of next Month. To preserve the right we have acquired punctuality is essential.
With esteem I am   Sir   Your obedt servant
Alex Hamilton
The sum you are to forward is £302.18.5 ½

Barent Bleecker EsquireAlbany


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Timothy Pickering, 22 March 1796
From: Pickering, Timothy
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Department of State March 22. 1796.
Dear Sir
The President is anxious to ascertain whether the gentlemen he has thought of for Commissioners under the 6th & 7th articles of the British treaty will accept of those employments. He has concluded to appoint Egbert Benson Esqr. one of the Commissioners for executing the 6th article, relative to the debts owing to British subjects—if he will accept of the employment. He is held in such high estimation for his abilities & integrity, as to render it extremely desirable that the appointment might meet his acceptance. The compensation will not be less than £1000. sterling a year; & it may rise to £1500: we do not yet know what agreement will be made on this head, under the 8th article of the treaty. The continuance of the employment you and he can judge of better than I. Whether he can hold his present office of Judge on the New-York Bench and the office of commissioner, at the same time, you and he can also determine. But should his acceptance of the latter employment necessarily vacate his seat on that bench, it would naturally conduct him to one more important—in the supreme court of the U.States.
I forbear to intimate any other considerations to induce Mr. Benson’s acceptance of the proposed office: you will more accurately estimate every motive of expedience and public utility which can properly influence his decision.
I hope Judge Benson is in New-York that his immediate determination may be given; if not, you will be so obliging as to write to him for the purpose. In the mean time the President will be obliged by your acknowledging the receipt of this letter, and embracing the earliest moment to communicate Judge Benson’s decision.
I am with sincere respect & esteem   yours
Timothy Pickering
Colo. Hamilton.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from George Washington, 22 March 1796
From: Washington, George
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia, March 22, 1796. On March 24, 1796, Hamilton wrote to Washington: “I had the honor to receive yesterday your letter of the 22.” Letter not found.]


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, 24 March 1796
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Washington, George

New York March 24 1796
Sir
I had the honor to receive yesterday your letter of the 22. The course you suggest has some obvious advantages & merits careful consideration. I am not however without fears that there are things in the instructions to Mr. Jay which good policy, considering the matter externally as well as internally, would render it inexpedient to communicate. This I shall ascertain to day. A middle course is under consideration—that of not communicating the papers to the house but of declaring that the Secretary of State is directed to permit them to be read by the members individually. But this is liable to a great part of the objections which militate against a full public disclosure. I throw it out however here that you may be thinking of it, if it has not before occurred. In the course of this day I shall endeavour to concenter my ideas & prepare something—the premisses of which may be in any event proper, admitti⟨ng⟩ of the conclusion being modified & adapted to your eventual determination.
Respectfully & Affecty   Sir   Yr Obed ser
A Hamilton
The President


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, 26 March 1796
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Washington, George

[New York] March 26 1796
Sir
I perceived by the News Paper that the resolution has been carried. I have not been idle as far a⟨s⟩ my situation would permit but ⟨it⟩ will not be in my power as I had hoped to send you what I am preparing by this day’s Post. The next will carry it. It does not however appear necessary that the Executive should be in a hurry.
The final result in my mind, for reasons I shal⟨l⟩ submit in my next is that the Papers ought all to be refused. I am persuade⟨d⟩ the Communication of the ins⟨tructions⟩ in particular would do ha⟨rm⟩ to The President & to the Govern⟨ment⟩.
Respecty & Affecty


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, 28 March 1796
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Washington, George

N Y March 28. 1796
Sir
I am mortified at not being able to send you by this post a certain draft. But the opinion that reasons ought to be given & pretty fully has extended it to considerable length & a desire to make it accurate as to idea & expression keeps it still upon the anvil. But it is so far prepared that I can assure it by tomorrow’s Post. Delay is always unpleasant. But the case is delicate & important enough to justify it.
I mentioned as my opinion that the instruction to Mr. Jay if published would do harm. The truth unfortunately is that it is in general a crude mass—which will do no credit to the administration. This was my impression of it at the time—but the delicacy of attempting too much reformation in the work of another head of Department, the hurry of the moment, & a great Confidence in the person to be sent prevented my attempting that reformation.
There are several particular points in it which would have a very ill effect to be published.
I   There is a part which seems to admit the idea that an adjustment might be made respecting the spoliations which should leave that matter finally to the ordinary course of the British Courts. This is obscurely & ambiguously expressed but the least colour for such a construction would give occasion for infinite clamour.
II   The negotiator is expressly instructed to accede to the intire abolition of alienism as to inheritances of land. You have seen what clamour has been made about the moderate modification of this idea in the Treaty & can thence judge what a load would fall on this part of the instruction.
III   He is instructed to enter into an article against the employment of Privateers in War. This is manifestly against the policy of a Country which has no navy in a Treaty with a Country which has a large navy. For it is chiefly by privateers that we could annoy the trade of Great Britain. Some would consider this as a philosophic whim; others as an intentional sacrifice of the interests of this Country to G B.
IV   There are several parts which hold up the disreputable & disorganising idea of not being able to restrain our own Citizens.
V   There are parts which though proper to our own Agent, the publication of which would be a violation of decorum towards G Britain—after an amicable termination of the affair & offensive because contrary to the rules of friendly & respectful procedure.
VI   The instructions have too little point (in the spirit of the framer who was in the habit of saying much & saying little) & would be censured as altogether deficient in firmness & spirit.
On the whole I have no doubt that the publication of these instructions would do harm to the Executive & to the character & interest of the Government.
If the President concludes to send papers—they ought only to be the Commissions & Mr. Jay’s correspondence; saying that these are all, that it appears to him for the public interest to send.
But he may be then prepared for as much clamour as if he sent none. It would be said that what was done shewed that the principle had not been the obstacle & that the instructions were witheld because they would not bear the light. Or at most only that part of the instruction should go which begins at these words. “4 This enumeration presents generally the objects which it is desireable to comprise in a Commercial Treaty &c.” to the end of the instructions.
But after the fullest reflection I have been able to give the subject (though I perceive serious dangers & inconveniencies in the course) I entertain a final opinion that it will be best, after the usurpation attempted by the house of Representatives, to send none & to resist in totality.
Affectly & respecy   Yr Obed ser
A Hamilton
The President


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, 29 March [1796]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Washington, George

[New York] March 29 [1796]
Sir
I wish the inclosed could have been sent in a more perfect State. But it was impossible. I hope however it can be made out & may be useful.
It required more time to say all that was proper in a more condensed form.

In considering the course to be pursued by the President it may be well he should be reminded that the same description of men who call for the papers have heretofore maintained that they were not bound by any communication in confidence but were free afterwards to do as they pleased with papers sent them.
Respect & Aff
A Hamilton