Title: Treasury Department Circular to the Collectors of the Customs, 22 July 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Collectors of the Customs

Sir,
Treasury Department,July 22, 1792.

When an appeal was made to me, by certain Officers of the Customs, respecting the fees to which they were entitled under the Coasting Act, I took the only method then in my power, to aid my own judgment to a right decision. The Attorney General not being at the seat of Government, I applied to two of the most able Counsel in the city of New-York, (one of whom is the Attorney of the United States for the District) for their opinions. I carefully examined the law, myself; and, agreeing with those Gentlemen in the construction of it, I signified the result in a Circular communication.
It, however, has since appeared that the construction, then adopted, has been deemed by some of the Officers of the Customs so clearly unfounded as, in their opinion, to warrant a departure from the instruction given. And it has also appeared that respectable law opinions were opposed to those of the Gentlemen whom I had consulted.
Had I not been in continual expectation, that a new law would have obviated the difficulty, I should have taken much earlier measures to settle the question in some definitive, and, if possible, satisfactory mode. But session after session having passed, and further delay being still possible (though I confidently reckon on a new Coasting law in the course of the next session) I have thought it incumbent upon me to bring the affair to an issue.
Circumstanced as it was, amidst a diversity of legal opinions, it seemed to be the proper course to consult the Attorney General, who, by law, is the adviser of heads of departments, as to questions of law.
This has been done, and the event is, that his opinion differs from that which was originally adopted, and communicated by me. A copy of his answer to the questions put to him is herewith transmitted.
In this state of a matter, which so directly concerns the interests of the Officers, I think it proper to rescind the instruction hereto-fore given; though my own view of the subject remains unchanged. Each Officer will then pursue that course, which appears to him conformable to law, to his own interest and safety, and to the good of the service.
Having said that my view of the subject remains unchanged, I think fit to specify more particularly, than I have yet done, the reasons which govern it.

1. It is conceived to be an important general rule (where no principle of public policy calls for a free interpretation) that the subject shall not be taxed or burthened by construction. This rule, I think, will be violated, if the sixty cents is made a several compensation for several services; because the coupling of the two objects, which are supposed to be distinct services, by the word “and,” and the naming of the compensation but once, at the end of the sentence, does, according to the most obvious, literal and grammatical construction, connect the two objects into one service, entitled to one compensation. The particle “for” does not, in my opinion, weaken this conclusion, as it is in such cases a mere expletive, used, or not, according to the ear of the writer. The rule which has been mentioned is particularly necessary to be attended to, in regard to fees of Office, since the experience of all countries has shewn, that latitude, in this particular, is liable to much abuse, to the great vexation and oppression of the citizen.
2. Though it is true that the words “and” and “or” are sometimes considered as synonimous in legal constructions; yet it is generally to answer some purpose, which the law favours, as the giving effect to some general maxim of law, some general rule of property, some general principle of public policy, &c. The constructive extension of fees of Office is presumed not to be of this nature. The very act upon which the present question arises appears anxious to guard against the danger of abuse from this quarter, by annexing penalties to the demanding of any other or greater fees than are allowed. If there had been no case in which the two items concurred as parts of one entire service, it would have been a good reason for considering them as distinct, though with some violence to literal construction; but as they do so unite in certain cases, it is a strong argument against the separation contended for.
3. It appears to have been the intention of the Legislature to make a separate enumeration of the same or exactly similar services, annexing to each a separate compensation; and avoiding the conjunction of dissimilar services, though attended with equal compensations, as in the instances of permits to land goods of foreign growth or manufacture and bonds; for each of which services twenty cents are allowed. The idea of greater affinity between the services in question, as a reason for their union, is not founded. In the cases, in which they are really distinct, they are as dissimilar as any two operations can be. The circumstance alluded to is said to be a slight one. Alone, it is confessed, it would have no very decisive weight, though it would not be to be disregarded; yet it is of a nature to fortify other considerations.
4. An Entry and the receiving of and qualifying to a Manifest, in all cases under the 27th section, are essentially one and the same act; to construe them as several in these cases, would be to multiply one act and one service into two acts and two services; and yet it is not perceived, if a several compensation is understood to be annexed to them, as several services, how it should not apply, when they are performed by one person, as well as when they are performed by two persons.
5. The association of an entry with the receiving of and qualifying to manifests in cases arising under the 27th section is a natural one; the two things being coupled, or rather the one thing constituting the other; but the association of the latter, in cases arising under the 25th and 26th sections where outward bound vessels are contemplated, with the entries of inward bound vessels, would be unnatural and incongruous. The entry being the primary and leading idea, the receiving of and qualifying to the manifest, as incidents to it, are naturally mentioned in the same clause; but not so, if they refer to a substantive and independent service, having a different object, and preceding the entry in the order of the transaction.
It has been objected that it would have been tautology to have mentioned the receiving of and qualifying to manifests, if they did not mean something distinct from the entry under the 27th section, of which they form a part. But there are other entries, those under the 28th section, with which they do not coincide; and the supposition is, that they were meant to describe the entries under the 27th section, and that a compensation for those under the 28th has been, through mistake, omitted.
6. The construction, which makes the services and the compensations several, will operate in many instances oppressively to the citizens engaged in the business. If a vessel takes on board foreign goods of no greater value than 200 dollars, or 400 gallons of ardent spirits, in one district, and delivers them in another, even in an adjoining one, she will have to pay—

  Cents.

  For receiving and qualifying to her manifest in the District from which she departs,
  60

  For a permit to proceed to the place of destination,
  25

  For receiving her entry at the port of delivery,
  60

  For a permit to land,
   20

  Making altogether
  165

Again, if a vessel takes on board a single barrel of flour in one district to be delivered in another, even an adjoining one, where there is a Collector or Surveyor, she will have to pay

For receiving her entry at the port of delivery,
60

For receiving and qualifying to her manifest at the same port,
 60

Making together,
120

In both cases considerably more than the freight of the articles may amount to—and more than, it is conceived, would be a due compensation for the services rendered, and a reasonable burthen on the trade.
An idea, indeed, has been entertained, that though the service be several and entitled to a distinct compensation, it is not so in regard to cases of the last mentioned kind, because the receiving of and qualifying to manifests is there involved in the entry. But this, it is conceived, would be a departure from consistency of construction. If a particular compensation is annexed to a particular service, as such, and in the abstract, it follows the service, and attaches itself to it, whether performed by the same or by different persons, whether separately or in connection with another service—especially, if the law designates the latter service as contradistinguished from the former. It is to be remembered too, that the entry always carries with it the receiving of a Manifest, though not always the qualifying to it.
It has been said, that whether the compensation would be excessive or not, is a question merely for the Legislature. But certainly a presumption of the intention of the Legislature, not to burthen the trade, is a circumstance, which ought to serve as a guide in the construction of provisions, which, it must be confessed, are not free from ambiguity. And this presumption in the present case is suggested by the general policy of the Coasting Act, which evidently aims at privileging and protecting the Coasting Trade.
I shall now take notice of some of the arguments which have been used for a construction opposite to that which I adopt, and which have not been already adverted to.
1. It has been observed that it is customary for the fees of entry and clearance to be equal—that this is so by the Collection Law of the United States, and that it is probable the Legislature intended to preserve the same equality in the Coasting Act.
But this equality would not attend the construction, for which it is made an argument.
The true Clearance in the Coasting Act is the permit to depart; and for that the fee is expressly twenty five cents. The entry-fee would be in every case sixty cents in cases under the 27th section, if uniformity of principle be preserved, it would be 120 cents. If the receiving and qualifying to the Manifest are taken in connection with the Clearance, then the expence of a Clearance would be 85 cents, that of an entry in some instance 60, in others 120—for by no mode of reasoning can the fee for the permit to depart, which is the real clearance, be excluded from the comparison.
2. It is objected to my construction, that greater services relating to foreign goods are less compensated, than lesser services relating to domestic commodities; which cannot reasonably be presumed to have been the intention of the Legislature.
This is true, and it constitutes an objection of weight, but not a conclusive one. It is not a very uncommon case for the law to be defective in provisions, necessary to fulfil the intentions of the framers of it; and where the main design of the law would not be fulfilled without supplying, by construction, the deficiency of provision, great latitude ought to be taken. But this is not so as to mere collateral points—no way essential to the principal objects of the law. There, omissions may easily be supposed and admitted, and they ought not to be supplied either by any violence to the literal expression, or at the price of more important inconveniences. Where the question is between individual advantage and public mischief; as by forming a precedent liable to abuse, or by throwing an undue burthen on a branch of industry;—no latitude of construction ought to be indulged to attain the former.
It is certain that the Act in question is very inaccurately drawn, and, in many particulars, unprovisional, which is the reason for admitting it to be so in the particular under consideration.
’Tis not the only instance in which entire classes of services are omitted to be compensated. In this predicament are licenses for vessels under twenty tons—the endorsing upon Registers, &c.—memorandums of changes of Masters and giving notice of them—the administering of oaths, generally, and even where they constitute distinct services, as where the Collector of one District takes the oath of an Owner, in order to the registering of a vessel in another District, which is also attended with the additional service of a transmission to the last mentioned Collector—Permits to land goods not of foreign growth and manufacture.
Hence the idea of finding a compensation for each service is a delusive ground of argument, and that of a proportional compensation is not less so. It belongs indeed to neither construction. It has been already seen that an entry, attended with the only additional circumstance of swearing the Master of a vessel to his Manifest, would carry double the compensation of an entry without that circumstance.
3. It has been remarked, as repelling the inference to be drawn from omissions in other cases, that in this the service has been mentioned by the Legislature, and as of equal respectability with an entry—and that, therefore, it ought not to be denied a compensation.
In what light it may be conceived to have been mentioned has been stated; as incidents to the entry in certain cases descriptive of it. But it will not follow that when circumstances, which are incidents in particular cases, are mentioned, in immediate connection with the main object, that the specification is intended to extend to other cases, in which they are incidents to a different service, namely, the certifying of the duplicate manifest and the permit to depart, or the clearance.
Three circumstances operate, in this view of the subject, against the supposition, that the receiving of and qualifying to manifests were intended to be renumerated as independent services.

1. They are in no case such. They are either pre-requisites to the certificate and permit directed by the 25 and 26th sections, which are the principal services there, or concomitants of the entry directed by the 27th section.
2. If the specification was intended to refer specially to cases under the 25 and 26th sections, as has been alleged, the expression would naturally have been “for receiving, qualifying to and certifying every manifest.”
3. The receiving and qualifying to manifests are constantly incidents to entries and clearances under the Collection Law; and yet they have no distinct renumeration as such. The qualifying to any document is, in none of the Revenue laws, a subject of particular compensation, and yet as the certificate is not mentioned, and as the permit to depart has a distinct fee, there seems to be no other act left, to which the fee of 60 cents is to attach itself. Is it probable that the Legislature intended so considerable a recompence for a service in this case, which in every other they have omitted to reward? Certainly, at least, the argument which asserts that those services would not be intended to be performed for nothing, fails. If they are rewarded under the Collection law, in the fee for a Clearance; so may they equally be conceived to be rewarded under the Coasting Act, in the fee for the permit to depart, which is there the Clearance also. This fee cannot even be said to be inadequate to the whole service, in that case to be performed; the parts of which are the administering an oath, the certifying upon the manifest, which is supposed to be produced by the party “that it had been sworn (or affirmed) to, and delivered according to law,” and the granting permit to depart. Some stress has been laid upon the word every. I take this to be, as here used, merely calculated to denote the singular number; and to operate distributively only, as to the plural word “vessels” which follows.
I shall barely add, for greater caution, that the instruction which is meant to be rescinded is merely that which relates to the meaning of the following clause: “For every entry of inward Cargo directed to be made in conformity with this Act, and for receiving of and qualifying to every manifest of vessels licensed to trade as afore-said.”

With much consideration,   I am, Sir, your obedient Servant,
A Hamilton
P.S. I should think it a better and more equitable construction of the Act than that which considers the two things as several, to reject, as mere surplussage, the words “and for receiving of and qualifying to every manifest of vessels licensed to Trade,” annexing no fee to it, in any case; but leaving the entry in every case, as well on the 28 and 27th sections, to be entitled to a fee of sixty cents.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, 22 July 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Washington, George

Private
Sir
Philadelphia July 22 1792

I wrote to you on Monday last, transmitting a resolution of the Commissioners of the Sinking fund. Nothing in the way of public business requiring your attention has since occurred.
There is a matter I beg leave to mention to you confidentially in which your interposition, if you deem it adviseable, may have a good effect.
I have long had it at heart that some good system of regulations for the forwarding supplies to the army, issuing them there and accounting for them to the department of wa⟨r should⟩ be established. On conversing ⟨with the⟩ Secretary at War, I do not ⟨find⟩ that any such now exists; nor have the intimations I have taken the liberty to give on the subject, though perfectly well received, hitherto produced the desired effect. The utility of the thing does not seem to be as strongly impressed on the mind of the Secy at War as it is on mine.
It has occurred to me that if you should think fit to call by letter upon the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary at War to report to you, the system and regulations under which the procuring issuing and accounting for supplies to the army is conducted, it would produce what appears to be now wanting. I submit the idea accordingly.

With the most perfect respect & truest attachment I have the honor to be Sir   Your most Obed & hum serv
A Hamilton
⟨Presi⟩dent of the U States


Title: Account with John Nixon, 23 July 1792
From: Nixon, John,Hamilton, Alexander
To:

Alexander Hamilton Esqr
Philada. July 23rd. 1792

  To John Nixon Dr For Rent of 2 Stores (occupied by Mr Pierce) from Sepr. 8th 1791 to this Day, is 10 Months & 15 Days @ 70/ ⅌ Month
£ 36..15..0

For Rent of 2 other Stores (also occupied by him) from Octr 22 1791 to this day, 9 Months @ 70 / ⅌ Month
  31..10..0

£ 68.. 5 0


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Sharp Delany, [23 July 1792]
From: Delany, Sharp
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia, July 23, 1792. On July 26, 1792, Hamilton wrote to Delany: “I approve of the arrangement proposed in your letter of the 23rd, instant.” Letter not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from William Seton, 23 July 1792
From: Seton, William
To: Hamilton, Alexander

My Dear sir
New York 23d. July 1792

I would not give an earlier reply to your favour of the 17th. till I should have seen the Partys you mention. I have had an interview with Mr. Greene & Mr. Pollock, and the latter I think has with great readiness & propriety met your wishes on the subject. (I say wishes because I offered neither interferance or even recommendation on your part). He has consented to stay suit against Mr. Greene for Twelve Months, he giving satisfactory security that if the accounts between them are not adjusted in the meanwhile, he will then be forthcoming to submit to a judiciary process. This has been complied with on the part of Mr. Greene & the business now rests on that footing—which considering everything is a much as could be expected from Mr. Pollock & I hope will meet your approbation, on my part.
With respect to ourselves & the Branch we go on in perfect Harmony, & there does not appear any disposition on their part to do otherwise. They have called upon us this day for 50,000 Dollars in Gold, which Mr. Burrall tells me is to go to Philadelphia, they had 26,000 Dollars in Silver the other day for their own use. We receive & pay their Notes indiscriminately with our own, & I believe they do the same—we make large interchanges now & then. I feel very grateful for the strength of your expressions on this head, & should any Circumstance occur that augurs hostilities, I shall adress my self freely to you—but I trust there will not.
I am with the greatest sincerity   My dear sir   Your Obliged Obdt. Serv
Wm Seton
Alexr. Hamilton Esqr.


Title: Treasury Department Circular to the Collectors of the Customs, 23 July 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Collectors of the Customs

Sir,
Treasury Department,July 23, 1792.

On a revision of the Act concerning the Post Office, I find the construction communicated in my Circular of the 25th ultimo to be erroneous, the 10th section of that Act expressly imposing specific rates of postage, according to circumstances, for every letter or packet carried from one port to another, in the United States, by sea, not only in packet boats or vessels, the property of, or provided by the United States, but also “in every private ship or vessel.” This provision had escaped attention.
A question arises, whether this will require an entry, in any case, in which a vessel was not antecedently bound by law to make entry. I am of opinion that it will not, as there is nothing affirmatively enjoining an entry, in such cases, and it would be too considerable an innovation in the general policy of the laws, to be required by implication.
Yet the Master of every vessel arriving from one port to another, where a Post Office is established, ought, before he “breaks bulk” to deliver the letters, which are directed to be delivered there, in conformity to the 12th section; and so doing, would be entitled to the compensations prescribed by the 13th section. And it is not clear, but that an omission would be punishable by indictment, where the vessel is not subject to an entry. This, however, is a point most fit for the consideration of the Post Masters.
I am, Sir,   Your obedient Servant,
A Hamilton


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from John Wendall, [23 July 1792]
From: Wendall, John
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Ports-mouth, New Hampshire, July 23, 1792. On August 30, 1792, Hamilton wrote to Wendell: “I have to acknowledge your favor of the 23d of July.” Letter not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from William Green, 24 July 1792
From: Green, William
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Sir
New York.the 24th July 1792

I do myself the honor to enclose to you an Abstract of the Acts of the British Parliament respecting their East India Trade to the Year 1760 Inclusive.
Arrangements are under consideration, but not decided on, for my case; with the result of which, I shall make you early acquainted: but by this post; I am desirous only to convey this Abstract with a line that I may not appear negligent. But I think I shall be able to be particular in my communications of tomorrow or thursday. In the interim I beg you to be persuaded of the perfect respect & consideration of
Sir   Your most Obedt. humble Servant
William Green
Alexr. Hamilton Esqr.
&c &c &c


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to John Nicholson, [24 July 1792]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Nicholson, John

[Philadelphia, July 24, 1792. On July 26, 1792, Nicholson wrote to Hamilton: “I sit down to answer your letter of the 24th Instant.” Letter not found.]


Title: Receipt from William Pearce, [24 July 1792]
From: Pearce, William,Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[Philadelphia, July 24, 1792]

Received July 24. 1792 of Alexander Hamilton seventy five Dollars on account of the Manufacturing Society.
Wm Pearce


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Edward Carrington, 25 July 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Carrington, Edward

My Dear Sir
Philadelphia July 25. 1792

I have received and thank you for your two letters of the 11 instant.
When I asked your opinion concerning the most fit position for a branch of the Bank, I had no idea, that the question would have been decided with so much precipitation, as has happened. After some loose conversations with individual directors, in which the comparitive merits of different places were slightly discussed, & left as I understood for further information—I was surprised with an intimation, that the place had been decided upon—that Richmond was that place—and that some day in August had been assigned for choosing Directors. A predominating motive, though an insufficient one, appears to have been that most of the Bank Stock held in Virginia is held by persons in and about Richmond.
The reasons assigned in your letter in favour of another place are prodigiously weighty. Without committing you, they shall be made known before the thing is finally finished. But I suspect it has gone too far.
Your observations concerning the temper of the people of your state are, as far as they go, consoling. Reflections, according with them, had arisen in my mind; though I could not be sure, that I might not overrate circumstances. I shall wait with expectation, for the further communication, which you are so obliging as to promise.
What you remark concerning the non execution of the Excise Law in N Carolina is very interesting. The probable effect of a continuance of the affair in the same posture is obvious. It has been the wish to win the object from time and reflection. But this can no longer be relied upon. The thing must be brought to an issue; and will be, as soon as the new arrangement respecting compensations is completed. If process should be violently resisted in the parts of N Carolina bordering on your state, how much could be hoped from the aid of the Militia of your State?
Truly Yours
A Hamilton
Ed Carrington Esqr


Title: Enclosure: [From Tenche Coxe], [25 July 1792]
From: Coxe, Tench
To: Hamilton, Alexander

In pursuance of the powers and authorities vested in me by the Acts of Congress (of the 3d. of March 1791. and the Eighth of May 1792.) relative to the duties on distilled spirits and to the collection thereof, the following alterations and additions to the arrangement of Officers and distribution of compensations made on the 15. day of March 1791. are hereby adopted and established.
1st. The District of Maryland shall be divided into three Surveys. The first consisting of all the Counties on the western side of the Chesapeak Bay (except Montgomery, Frederick, Washington and Alleghaney) namely Harford, Baltimore, Ann Arundel, Prince George’s, Calvert, Charles and St. Mary’s. The duties of the Inspector of this survey shall be performed by the supervisor. The second survey is to consist as at present, of the counties of Montgomery, Frederick, Washington and Alleghaney. The duties of this Survey will continue to be performed by the Inspector thereto appointed. The third Survey is to consist of all the counties on the Eastern Shore of Chesapeak bay, namely Cecil, Kent, Queen Anne’s, Talbot, Dorset, Worcester, Somerset, and Caroline; for which an Inspector will be appointed. The duties of this survey are to be performed by the Supervisor, until that appointment shall be made.
2. The Commissions to be allowed to the Supervisors and Inspectors of surveys shall be upon the whole amount of the duties collected within their respective districts and Surveys upon Stills, and spirits distilled in the United States, and which have or shall accrue after the last day of June 1792.
3. The Supervisors of New Hampshire, Connecticut, New York, Vermont, New-Jersey and Pennsylvania shall each receive a commission on the said amount of the revenue in their respective districts (excepting what accrued prior to the first day of July 1792) of one per centum, in lieu of the commission of one half per centum before allowed.
The Supervisor of Delaware shall receive a commission in manner afore-said of two per centum in lieu of one per centum.
The Supervisors of Maryland, North Carolina, & South Carolina shall each receive a Commission in manner afore-said of one and an half per centum in lieu of one per centum.
The Supervisor of Georgia shall receive a commission, in manner, afore-said, of two per centum, in lieu of one per centum.
4. To the salaries of the following Supervisors there shall be additions as set against the names of their offices to commence on the first day of July 1792.

The Supervisor of Massachusetts an addition of
200
Drs. per annum.

The Supervisor of Rhode Island
100.
“

The Supervisor of New York
100.
“

The Supervisor of Maryland
100.
“

The Supervisor of Virginia
200.
“

The Supervisor of South Carolina
100.
“

5. The compensation to the Inspector of the third survey of the District of Maryland, when appointed, shall be a salary of four hundred & fifty dollars ⅌ annum & a commission of one per centum.
6. The compensation to the Inspector of the second survey of the District of South Carolina shall be a salary of Four hundred & fifty Dollars ⅌ annum, and a commission of one per centum in lieu of his former compensation.
7. The Collectors of the Revenue shall be entitled to receive the following commissions upon the Revenue on Stills and distilled spirits by them collected; that is to say, upon the revenue upon spirits distilled from foreign materials two per centum; upon the revenue upon Spirits distilled from domestic materials and upon Stills employed on the said materials in Cities, towns or Villages, four per centum; and upon the revenue upon Stills not in Cities Towns or Villages, five per centum.
8. There shall be allowed to the officers of Inspection who shall legally sign Certificates to accompany each Cask of distilled spirits, and to the officers or other persons, who shall be authorised to mark the same, the sum of five Cents for each & every Cask of Spirits distilled in the United States, so marked and certified, to be divided between the officer or person who shall mark, and the officer who shall sign the Certificates for the same, if those duties shall be performed by different persons.
9. There may also be allowed to persons employed to guage Spirits distilled in the United States, the sum of two Cents and one half for each Cask so guaged, if the person thus employed shall be an Officer of Inspection authorised to mark the Casks containing the said spirits, or to sign Certificates to accompany the same. But if the person employed to guage such distilled Spirits be not an officer of Inspection authorised to mark or issue Certificates for the same, he may be allowed a sum not exceeding six cents for the service of guaging each Cask.
10. There shall likewise be allowed to the Collectors of the revenue for measuring the capacity of each Still, and marking the still & head, according to Law, the sum of Fifty Cents.
11. The Supervisors of the several Districts shall be at liberty to allow to such of the Collectors of the revenue, as, for the execution of the public service, it shall appear to them really necessary, so to compensate, a yearly sum over & above their other emoluments, not exceeding in a district the number of Collectors, nor the average or medium sum to each, or to the whole number, which are set against the same below. That is to say—
In New Hampshire the Supervisor may allow to 2 Collectors 50 Drs. each.
In Massachusetts to 10 do. 400 Dollars to be divided at discretion among them.

In Rhode Island

to 1.

In Vermont

2.

In Connecticut

4.

In New York

2.

In New Jersey

5.

In Pennsylvania

14.

In Delaware

3.

In Maryland

9.

In Virginia

24.

In North Carolina

14.

In South Carolina

8.

In Georgia

 3.

that is to
89.
Collectors

60 Dollars each, at an average or medium, to be divided within each District at the discretion of the Supervisors.
12. There may be allowed to Eighty auxiliary officers of Inspection, to be appointed by the Supervisors in Counties wherein no Collector of the revenue resides, a sum not exceeding twenty Dollars each for keeping an office to receive entries, issue Licences, and to perform such other services in aid of the Collectors as may be legally authorised and as they may be willing to execute for that compensation. Of these there may be,

in Rhode Island
1.

in New Hampshire
2.

in Massachusetts
10.

in Vermont
4.

in New York
10.

in Pennsylvania
5.

in Maryland
2.

in Virginia
20.

in North Carolina
11.

in South Carolina
10.

in Georgia
5.

13. There shall be allowed to the officers of Inspection & the persons employed to mark foreign distilled spirits, Wines and Teas, the sum of Five Cents for every Cask or package of the Merchandize above mentioned, which shall be legally marked and certified, to be equally divided between the officer signing the Certificate & the officer or person marking the Cask or package, if those duties shall be performed by different persons.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Tench Coxe, 25 July 1792
From: Coxe, Tench
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Treasury Department, Revenue Office, July 25, 1792. Transmits and explains “a contract made by the Collector of Ports-mouth in New Hampshire with Titus Salter for keeping and supplying the light house on New Castle Island at the Mouth of Piscataqua River.”


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to William Ellery, [25 July 1792]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Ellery, William

[Philadelphia, July 25, 1792. On August 6, 1792, Ellery wrote to Hamilton: “I have recd. your … letters of the 21. 25. & 26 of the last month.” Letter of July 25 not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Isaac Gregory, [25 July 1792]
From: Gregory, Isaac
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Plank-bridge, North Carolina, July 25, 1792. On August 20, 1792, Hamilton wrote to Gregory: “Your letter of the 25th. ultimo … has been received.” Letter not found.]


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Jedediah Huntington, 25 July 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Huntington, Jedediah

Treasury Department, July 25, 1792. “Your letter of the 22d instant has been received. My Circular of the 23d will have satisfied you on the point of enquiry.”


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Rufus King, 25 July 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: King, Rufus

My Dear Sir
Philadelphia July25. 1792

I received lately a letter from you in which you express sentiments according with my own on the present complexion of your party politics; as, if a letter of mine to you did not miscarry, you will have seen. I wished that Clinton & his party should be placed in a just light before the people, and that a spirit of dissatisfaction within proper bounds should be kept alive; and this for National purposes, as well as from a detestation of their principles and conduct.
But a resort to first principles in any shape is decidedly against my judgment. I don’t think the occasion will in any sense warrant it. It is not for the friends of good government to employ extraordinary expedients which ought only to be resorted to in cases of great magnitude and urgent necessity. I reject as well the idea of a Convention as of force.
To rejudge the decision of the Canvassers by a Convention has to me too much the appearance of reversing the sentence of a Court by a Legislative decree. The Canvassers had a final authority in all the forms of the Constitution and laws. A question arose in the execution of their office not absolutely free from difficulty which they have decided (I am persuaded wrongly) but within the power vested in them. I do not feel it right or expedient to attempt to reverse the decision by any means not known to the Constitution or Laws.
The precedent may suit us to day; but tomorrow we may rue its abuse.
I am not even sure that it will suit us at all. I see already publications aiming at a revision of the constitution with a view to alterations which would spoil it. It would not be astonishing, if a Convention should be called, if it should produce more than is intended. Such weapons are not to be played with. Even the friends of good government in their present mood may fancy alterations desireable which would be the reverse.
Mens minds are too much unsettled every where at the present juncture. Let us endeavour to settle them & not to set them more afloat.
I find that strong minded men here view the matter in the same light with me; and that even Mr Jays character is likely in a degree to suffer by the idea that he fans the flame a little more than is quite prudent. I wish this idea to be conveyed to him with proper management. I have thoughts of writing to him.
You see, out of the reach of the contagion, I am very cool and reasonable; if I were with you I should probably not escape the infection
Farewell
A Hamilton
Francis Childs is a very cunning fellow. In Philadelphia in the person of his proxy Freneau, he is a good Antifœderalist & Clintonian; in New York he is a good Fœderalist and Jayite—Beckley & Jefferson pay him for the first & the Fœderal Citizens of New York for the last. Observe a paragraph in his Dayly Advertiser of the 18th instant. These things ought, in a proper way, to be brought into view.

Rufus King Esq.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Jeremiah Olney, 25 July 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Olney, Jeremiah

Sir
Treasury DepartmentJuly 25th 1792.

I have before me your letter of the 16th instant, concerning certain Brandy, intended to be exported by Messrs Clark and Nightingale.
There can be no doubt that the Brandy, being a foreign article, will be liable, as the law stands, to duty on its return. The drawback cannot be allowed, unless the proof required, of its having been actually landed at a foreign port, is produced.
I am, Sir,   Your Obedt Servant.
Alexander Hamilton
Jeremiah Olney Esqr.
Collr Providence.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to William Seton, 25 July 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Seton, William

My Dear Sir
Philadelphia July 251792

I received your obliging letter by the Post of day and thank you for the first instance of your friendly attention, which it announces. Mr. Pollock certainly has done the utmost that Mr. Greene could have asked and as much as his situation can require, if it is remediable at all.
I have directed the Collector of New York to divide his deposits between your institution & the Branch until he places with you a sum which with what you already have will amount to 100 000 Dollars on account of the U States; a sum it is my intention as far as circumstances will permit to keep continually in your hands. This intention however need not go beyond ourselves.
Truly & most Cordially   Yrs
A Hamilton
William Seton Esq


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to William Short, 25 July 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Short, William

Sir
Treasury DepartmentJuly 25th. 1792

Your letters of the 25th of April and 14th of May have duly reached me; since the receipt of that of the 22nd of April which was acknowleged in mine of the 30th of June.

In consequence of your letter of the 14th of May I have directed drafts on the Commissioners for five hundred thousand Guilders, and as soon as these are sold, I shall cause further drafts to be made to the extent of [five hundred thousand] Guilders in addition to the above mentioned five hundred thousand. The residue of the monies hereto-fore announced [to have been borrowed,] will be left subject to your disposition towards payment of interest on the Dutch and Antwerp loans, during the present year, and of the Debt to France, with the surplus.
In speaking of the Interest on the Dutch and Antwerp loans, I wish to be understood that I rely for the payment of this interest during the present year on the funds which are or shall be in the hands of the Commissioners, arising from loans that have been or may be made. Whether you will leave unemployed in their hands, monies equivalent to the interest for the intire year, or will rely upon a further loan to be made, applying a greater proportion of the monies already obtained in payment to France, ought to be regulated upon the degree of certainty of effecting such further loan on admissible terms. This therefore is left to your discretion.
The statements A & B herewith transmitted will shew you the view which I have of the monies that would remain in the hands of the Commissioners on the loans hereto-fore known to have been effected, after paying all the bills hereto-fore drawn and deducting the interest on the Dutch and Antwerp loans to the end of the present year—namely [2120477 Guilders and 15 stivers]. From this sum you will only have to deduct, to satisfy any further disposition on my part the sum of [Five hundred Thousand Guilders,] still intended to be drawn for.
This statement however ought not to be acted upon by you as definitively accurate. It will be proper that you ascertain with the Commissioners with greater certainty what will remain at your disposal.
Mr. Morris must have misapprehended the tenor of the Secretary of State’s letter, from which he inferred, that it was the intention of [this] Government to transfer to France the loss by depreciation [on] the Assignats. It has been determined by the President that the United States will not take advantage of the depreciation, but will make an equitable adjustment of the affair.
You observe “that the rate of exchange and the current differences between specie and paper being known here (that is at Paris) furnish the basis for regulating the business.” I remark that much will depend on the manner of applying these data. They may be so applied as to create a positive loss to the United States; as if the rate of exchange below par should be less than the rate of depreciation, and the former should be added, the latter deducted.
For example. By a French paper of the 20th of April, if I understand it aright, exchange between Paris and Amsterdam was about 36 ⅌ Cent against Paris, the depreciation of the Assignats about 60 ⅌ Cent.
If then the computation were made by adding the rate of exchange and deducting the rate of depreciation there would be a loss upon [every] hundred Guilders in Amsterdam paid in Paris of 45 Guilders and ⁶⁰⁄₁₀₀ of a Guilder.

Thus, add to 100 Guilders 36 ⅌ Cent for the rate of exchange the product is
136
Guilders

Deduct for depreciation 60 ⅌ Cent or
81.
60

There would remain
54.
40

as the equivalent for 100 Guilders in Amsterdam, which would involve a loss of 45. ⁶⁰⁄₁₀₀ Guilders per hundred.
I take it for granted that this method of applying the data cannot have been contemplated, as it would throw upon the United States a heavy real loss in consequence of the disorders which exist in the affairs of France. Though the United States are not disposed to take any undue advantage, they cannot be supposed to be willing to suffer a loss.
You will have perceived from my letter of the 4th of June last, that it was the Presidents pleasure, that your Agency in the whole of the pecuniary affairs, originally committed to you, as well respecting [the] debt to France as otherwise, should continue; and that Mr Morris as representative of the United States, at the Court of France, would be instructed to co operate. I understand the Secretary of State that this instruction has been forwarded; though I feel full confidence that the requisite co operation will have been afforded independently of any instruction.
With very great consideration and Esteem,   I have the honor to be   Sir   Your obedt Servant
Alexander Hamilton
PS. A Copy of the report of the 23d of January last is here enclosed.

[William Short Esquire
&ca. &ca]


Title: Enclosure A: [Statement of the Payments to be Made], 25 July 1792
From: Meyer, John
To:

  [Philadelphia, July 25, 1792]

A
A Statement of the payments to be made by Messrs Willink, van Staphorst & Hubbard, and of the monies in their hands, on the 1st of February 1792.—

  The account current of the said date States

  a balance due to the united States of

  2,500,220.

  On the last 3/m loan they received

  1791
  Decr 31
  509,000

  1792
  Jany 31
  701.000

  remained to be received
  1,790.000
  1,790,000

  3,000,000

  In the hands of the commissioners

  4,290,220.

  Payments to be made

  Draughts remaining unpaid for List B.
  175,044.15

  Jany 27
  Draught No 541 favour Thos Jefferson
  95,947.10

  April 17
  Draughts No 542 a 628 John Kean
  500,000.

  June 30
  Draughts No 630 Thos Jefferson
  123.750

  July
  Draughts No 631 a 715 &ca  John Kean
   500,000

  1,394.742. 5

Interest to be paid

March 1st on 2½ million at 5 pCt
125,000.

June 1st on 7 million do
350.000

Septr 1st on 6 million do
300.000
2,169,742. 5—

Leaving the Sum not disposed of

 2,120,477.15

  Treasury Department July 25th 1792
  John Meyer
  Pe Clk


Title: Enclosure B: [Statement of the Treasury Draughts], 25 July 1792
From: Meyer, John
To:

  [Philadelphia, July 25, 1792]

B
A Statement of the Treasury draughts on the Commissioners in Amsterdam which remained unpaid on the 1st of February 1792.

1791

Guilders

October
31
No
361
10,000

Novr
2
No
386 a 391
 6 draughts
a 4000 each
24,000

 “

No
410 a 411
 2 ditto
a 3000
6,000

 “
5
No
425 & 426
 2 ditto
3,044.15

 “
8
No
439
918.14. 8

 “
10
No
442 a 450
 9 ditto
a 1000
9,000.

No
454 a 459
 6 ditto
a 1000
6,000.

No
460 a 467
 8 ditto
a 2000
16,000.

No
469 a 480
12 ditto
a 2000
24,000.

N
481 a 492
12 ditto
a 3000
36,000

N
500
3,000

N
514
1,000

N
516
1,081. 5. 8

N
519 a 522
 4 ditto
a 5000
20,000.

No
523
2,000

N
526
4,000

N
527
5,000

N
537
  4,000

175,044.15

Treasury Department July 25th 1792
John Meyer
Pe Clk


Title: T. L. No. I, [25 July 1792]
From: “T. L”,Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[Philadelphia, July 25, 1792]

For the Gazette of the United States.
Mr. Fenno,
The Editor of the “National Gazette” receives a salary from government.
Quere—Whether this salary is paid him for translations; or for publications, the design of which is to vilify those to whom the voice of the people has committed the administration of our public affairs—to oppose the measures of government, and, by false insinuations, to disturb the public peace?
In common life it is thought ungrateful for a man to bite the hand that puts bread in his mouth; but if the man is hired to do it, the case is altered.
T. L.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Otho H. Williams, 25 July 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Williams, Otho H.

Sir
Treasury DepartmentJuly 25, 1792.

After the receipt of this you will divide your deposits between the Bank of Maryland and the Branch of the Bank of the United States, until the first of October ensuing, and thenceforth deposit the public money wholly in the said Branch. The same vouchers, as hereto-fore, must be taken and forwarded from each.
I am, Sir,   Your Obed Servant.
A Hamilton
P.S. It is at your discretion either to divide between the two Banks the sum each week to be deposited ⟨or⟩ deposit alternately one week with ⟨on⟩e the other with the other.

Otho H. Williams Esqr.
Collr Baltimore.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Sharp Delany, 26 July 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Delany, Sharp

Sir
Treasury DepartmentJuly 26. 1792

I have considered the case represented in your letter of the 13. instant respecting the duty on certain Whalebone imported by Mr. Joy.
I do not under such circumstances conceive the article to be exempted from the duty; because the evidence of goods of the growth, produce or manufacture of the United States, which are to be exempted, when brought from a foreign port, is prescribed by the 24th Section of the Collection Law; and one of the requisites is, proof upon Oath, that they were previously exported from the United States, which proof it appears, could not be given in the present case.
I approve of the arrangement proposed in your letter of the 23rd, instant, and you have my consent to employ a couple more hands in the Boat towards the execution of it.
I am   Sir   Your Obedt. Servant
A Hamilton
Sharp Delany Esqr.
Collector, Philadelphia


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to William Ellery, 26 July 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Ellery, William

[Philadelphia, July 26, 1792. On August 6, 1792, Ellery wrote to Hamilton: “I have recd. your … letters of the 21. 25. & 26 of the last month.” Letter of July 26 not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Benjamin Lincoln, 26 July 1792
From: Lincoln, Benjamin
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Boston] July 26, 1792. “A few days since the Brig Sally arrived here from Amsterdam with a quantity of Ginn on board part of which was in Keggs or Anchors as they are called. This was such an open violation of the Law, after full time had passed for the interested to have know their duty & interest if proper attention had been paid to them, that I could not persuade my self that I should be justified if I let the matter pass with impunity. Bonds have been given for the Vessel. A petition is going on for a remission of the Forfeiture.… One of our vessels which sailed for the Northwest Coast of America carried out a quantity of Merchandize imported here from a foreign port. As the duty thereon has been paid the exporter wishes to Avail himself of the drawback prior to the Ships return which probably will not be for two years to come. Untill Her return I cannot receive that evidence of the landing the Goods in a foreign port which the Law requires. What can be done?”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from John Nicholson, 26 July 1792
From: Nicholson, John
To: Hamilton, Alexander

sir
Comptroller Genl. Office [Philadelphia]July 26th 1792

I sit down to answer your letter of the 24th Instant which was received by me on my return home last night.

1st Your Office hath been furnished from time to time from me with the actual state of the New Loan Certificates out, that is those issued for Continental Certificates—And more especially about the period to which you refer when the sum thereof outstanding was stated to be between forty and fifty thousand pounds, and this hath since been reduced near one half by subsequent Exchanges.
2d. The provision made by Pennsa. for the redemption of this paper with the Continental Certificates to such as so chose, was co-extensive with them all, as represented, this representation was agreeable to the Act of the Legislature which accompanied it.
3d The point of inquiry at the conference I had the honor to hold with you on the subject of our negociation at the close of 1791 and beginning of 1792 (the period refered to) was whether any of these New Loan Certificates had been subscribed to the Loan of Congress which had closed the last of September preceding. I stated there were none, if you find it otherwise I will pay you treble their amount. On this and on the subsequent reports of the Commissioner concerning the sums the restriction on transfers from one Office to another was removed.

4th That these Certificates might have been subscribed to the said Loan had the possessors chose, was evident not only from the Act of Congress but these enquiries after the fact made by you in pursuance of that law, to prevent the Union from paying interest twice on the same debt, and considering the different terms between the loan of the State and Continental debt, the short arrears of interest on State debt and the year’s interest for 1791 paid in the one case and not in the other, The United States would have been advantaged by such subscription, but from these or some other causes, existing until the Loan closed as before mentioned none were subscribed.
5th. A Loan is afterwards opened upon the same terms under another Act of Congress, in which last Loan an additional provision for Subscribers thereto, is made, different from the former and such as to make it the interest of the holders of such debt to subscribe to it—and they accordingly do so.
Under this view of the subject I think you will see nothing incompatible with what passed between us for
1st   I did and only could speak with a reference to the Loan then closed.
2d.   I did not then know that a further or future Loan would ever have been opened.
3d   Or if it had whether the terms would have been similar or otherwise—which is the case as it respects the State and the Creditor though not as it respects the United states. The Creditors by a late Act of the State until the 1st of August next have a motive which (in the circumstances of public credit at the time the former loan was opened) did not before exist to subscribe this species of State Certificates—otherwise at the former enquiry on the closure of the Loan you would have found some of this debt subscribed there also.
4th   If I could have foreknown all the events which have happened as to the State of public Credit, the opening the Loan by subsequent Act of Congress, the terms thereof and the encouragement of the Legislature of Pennsa. to subscribe thereto, It would not have been compatible with common sense in me to have stipulated with you that the holders of these Certificates so far as they were not exchanged having two offers, would not embrace the most advantageous. The encouragement proposed by the Legislature of this State as afore-said I thought unwise at the time they deliberated thereon, and mentioned the effect it would have on this Species of our debt as well as on the unfunded depreciation debt, neither of which they seemed to intend directly to redeem, but what I said was not attended to.
After what I have written if any part of what I have said should still seem to militate, I should be glad it would be specified, that I may have an opportunity of shewing you that the character of uncandid or inconsistent (which I heartily despise) are not applicable to sir
Your Most Obt serv
J N
Alexr. Hamilton Esqr
Secty Treasy U states

PS   As I informed you on the closure of the former Loan so now on this, I am of opinion that if any New Loans were subscribed the present Laws of Pennsa. would enable me to give for them an equal Sum of principal and interest respectively in the unsubscribed debt of the United States as required by Act of Congress.
Yours as before

July 26th 1792

J N


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, 26 July 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Washington, George

Sir,
Treasury Departmt. July 26. 1792.

Samuel Hobart, third Mate of the Cutter on the New Hampshire Station, has tendered his resignation and sent forward his Commission which I retain ’till your return not to encumber you with it at Mount Vernon. This occasions two vacancies, as to that Cutter, of first & third Mate. The Collector of Ports-mouth recommends the second Mate, John Adams, for first Mate, and a Benjamin Gunnison, who has been a Master of a Vessel, as second Mate. From a conversation which I had with Mr. Langdon, while here, I believe the recommendation of the Collector well founded.
The Captain of the Cutter, on the New York Station, informs that Mr. Morris the first Mate has accepted an advantageous offer on board of an India-Ship. This leaves the Cutter without any other Officer than the Master, who, and the Collector of New York recommend Capt: Ashur Cook as first Mate, and one John Fenley as second Mate. Captn. Dennis also mentions a son of the present Surveyor of New York for third Mate.
The keeping up in the Cutters their due complement of Officers and Men is now become interesting to the public service. As it will not be easy to obtain better lights, I am induced to submit as they stand the recommendations respecting the first and second Mates of each Cutter. As to the third Mate for the New York Cutter some further enquiry is necessary.
Should you approve, and be without blank Commissions, it is still desireable that I should be able as early as convenient to notify your determination. The persons will enter into service upon that notification and their Commissions can be antedated.

With the most perfect respect and truest attachment, I have the honor to be &c.
Alexander Hamilton

  PS.
  May I be permitted to remind you of the vacancies in the Maryland Cutter, about which you intended to enquire on your way?


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Wilhem and Jan Willink, Nicholaas and Jacob Van Staphorst, and Nicholas Hubbard, 26 July 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Willink, Wilhem,Willink, Jan,Staphorst, Nicholaas van,Staphorst, Jacob van,Hubbard, Nicholas

Gentlemen,
Treasury DepartmentJuly 26th. 1792.

You will herewith receive triplicates of my letters of the 7th. of May and 20th. ultimo, also a duplicate of mine of the 16th. instant.
In the latter, I informed you, that I had directed the Treasurer to draw bills upon you, for 500.000 Guilders, and I have now to add, for your information, that, as soon as these bills are sold, I shall cause further drafts to be made, to the extent of 500.000 Guilders, in addition to the sum above mentioned.
I am &c.
Alexander Hamilton.
Messrs. Willink, Van Staphorst
and Hubbard,
Amsterdam.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Rufus King, 27 July 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: King, Rufus

[Philadelphia] July 27. 92

Desirous of examining accurately the question decided by the Canvassers—I will thank you for a minute of all the authorities which were consulted by you when you gave your opinion.
Yrs. truly
AH
I shall be glad to have them as soon as may be.

R King Esqr


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Jeremiah Olney, 27 July 1792
From: Olney, Jeremiah
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Providence, July 27, 1792. “I have recd. your Letter of the 19th Inst. and have charged to the United States the 2, 105.12 paid the Marshall of Rhode-Island District.…”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Otho H. Williams, 27 July 1792
From: Williams, Otho H.
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Ceresville [Maryland] July 27, 1792. “I this day received your letter of the 19 Instant. That my disposition has ever been correspondent to your Wish, for the maintanance of harmony and cordiality, in the department over which you superintend, the whole tenor of my conduct will uniformly evince. I do not even except the instance which has occasioned you the trouble of expostulating; for, notwithstanding the perversion of the purport of my letter, of the 3d. of May to the surveyor, a liberlal construction of it will shew that my intention was to prevent disorder by intimating to him the propriety of exercising with discretion that power which is undeniably reposed in the Executive department but which cannot be carried into compleat effect without being delegated, in a degree, to subordinate officers. In your arguments in support of the doctrine of discretionary Executive power, under certain limitations, you seem to contemplate it only in the hands of Superiors, and even there you admit that it may be abused; but you perhaps did not reflect that it was most liable to abuse in its remotest application. The Inspectors, some of them, and I then understood the complaint to be general, complained of harsh and illiberal treatment, and it was intimated to me that apprehensions were entertained of an intention in the Surveyor to involve one of them at least in a premunire, on account of a former misunderstanding. Reflecting on the probable consequences, and the possibility, which I still contend for, as it actually occurred, of an interference of duties, I was induced to write to the Surveyor requesting him, as much as possible to avoid demanding of the Inspectors of the Customs services which might interfere with their particular duties as such: and added also my opinion that their services ought to be voluntary. My justification is that I had never conceived the idea of compulsory means. That the law requires as specific a qualification to Offi[ce]s in the department of the revenue as in any other, and until persons had been so qualified there could exist I concluded no legal obligation on them to act. Consistency—Expediency, and the expectations which had been formed might have been suggested as motives for their compliance; I could not have doubted the success of the Arguments and relied too confidently perhaps on the discretion of the Surveyor to make the experiment Being unconscious of and expectations from me in a department with which I was unconnected. When an unconciliatory temper—a proud and a Captious Spirit, aggravated the reluctance of some of the Inspectors into a refusal to act, was I instantly to retract the advice and opinion which I had delivered to the Surveyor and to insist that if the Inspectors would not undertake an office, novel and unexpected to them, and obey the directions of the Inspector of the Revenue however despotic, or illegal, that I would remove them from offices which they had before filled with satisfaction to the public? Whether they were despotic depends on the manner of enforcing them. They were illegal because services were required and performed without the requisite qualification and contrary to an express injunction in the law. I was soon informed of the displacement and threatened with a representation to the secretary: But as one person who had been recommended by the Surveyor, and I think one other who served him as Clerk were there employed as occasional Inspectors of the Customs, and as no idea of the expediency of any addition to the number of Inspectors then employed was ever suggested to me, I concluded that like other fraca’s which had happened between them it would soon subside, and the business go on as usual. I could reasonably credit the complaints of the Inspectors because complaints from them had been reiterated before the revenue law came into operation. One of them had been prosecuted by him on a great number of charges, which upon a strict and impartial investigation I concluded to be without foundation. To that decision, for I know of no other cause, I ascribe the designed perversion of the intention of my letter; for if it naturally had the mischievous effects attributed to it the representation to the treasury department ought not to have been delayed for so many Weeks after they were known, and until Ill health and a sickly Season had obliged me to retire from my Office in Town. Whether the complexion of this disagreeable affair recd any unfavorable Shades from the medium through which it passed to the Treasury or not I am warranted in the suspicion that circumstances as well as facts have been misrepresented, otherwise you would not be possessed of ‘unpleasant particulars’ which you reluctantly impart. You think it now proper to inform me that ‘The Surveyor further states that my Deputy took pains to induce the Inspectors not to mark.’ Whatever credit this assertion may claim, I must doubt it. Inclosed is Mr. Deloziers letter to me on the subject; He will support the contradiction by testimony if you think proper to call for it. He is a young Gentleman who has been several years in public service under my particular notice, and from a fortunate experience of his talents I can declare that, he not only possesses a good understanding and an excellent capacity for business, but that he enjoys an amiable disposition and has invariable manifested an integrity which entitles him to my entire confidence. This character will be coroborated by many. The Surveyor personally dislikes him. I will not enter into his motives; but it will be hard for him to make it appear that he has done any thing to embarrass the public service, or to excite prejudices against a government to which he aspires (and I think with well founded hopes) at becoming conspicuously useful.… Having no controul over the officers of the revenue and the authority of the Collector over the Inspectors of the Customs becoming questionable whether I shall ever submit to be the mere instrument of rigorous measures respecting them is a consideration humiliating in the extreme. In such an exigency your own feelings would dictate by determination.”


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Sharp Delany, 28 July 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Delany, Sharp

Treasury Department, July 28, 1792. “I have this day decided upon the case of Asa Gilbert. There being no appearance of fraud in the transaction, the interest of all parties in the forfeiture is remitted to him, upon his paying the legal Duties and all reasonable costs and charges.…”


Title: [Detector No. I], [28 July 1792]
From: “Detector”
To:

[Philadelphia, July 28, 1792]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Samuel Gerry, [28 July 1792]
From: Gerry, Samuel
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Marblehead, Massachusetts, July 28, 1792. On August 18, 1792, Hamilton wrote to Gerry: “Your letter of the 28 Ultimo was duly received.” Letter not found.]


Title: T. L. No. II, [28 July 1792]
From: “T. L.”,Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[Philadelphia, July 28, 1792]

For the Gazette of the United States.
Mr. Fenno,
In your Gazette of last Wednesday, after observing that the Editor of the National Gazette receives a salary from government, I enquired “whether this salary is paid him for translations; or for publications, the design of which is to vilify those to whom the voice of the people has committed the administration of our public affairs.” In his paper of this day, he intimates that he “receives a small stipend for services rendered as French Translator to the Department of State, and, as Editor of a free newspaper.” This excites my curiosity still farther, and I shall hold myself obliged to any of your correspondents, or to the Editor of this really National Gazette (as it now appears to be) if either of them will inform me what inducement our rulers can have to hire a man to abuse them, and whether they do not hereby unnecessarily squander the public money. I have often heard that authors in England, or their booksellers for them, when they find their books do not sell according to their wishes, hire some garretteer to write against them—then publish a reply to his own lucubrations—and so go on, objecting and replying, until the attention of the public is drawn towards the book, and thus it is brought into demand. If there were as many pieces in the National Gazette in favor of government and public characters, as there are against them, I should be apt to conclude that Congress and their officers were playing us the same trick, in hopes of keeping their seats and places for life; but when all the publications are against them, and none in their favor—when this “free newspaper” is always
Free to defame, but never free to praise,
it does not appear easy to account for this branch of national expence. If none of your readers can do it, we must wait with patience ’till the treasury accounts are published, as the Constitution of the United States requires, and then, perhaps, the mystery will be explained.

July 28.
T.L.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Rufus King, 29 July 1792
From: King, Rufus
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[New York] Sunday 29 July 1792
Mr. Jay will be with you this week—you will therefore have an opportunity to converse with him respecting our very unpleasant situation. All the measures which have been pursued have been calculated to induce the Legislature to call a convention to revise the decision of the canvassers. So far as I am able to form an Opinion, a majority of the Assembly are Clintonians, and if so, will not agree to call a convention—should this be the case, the business will then terminate.
I have only a few loose notes concerning the questions decided by the Canvassers. By turning up Bacon or Comins, you will find under the word Sheriff, the english cases referred to, which respect the appointment & discharge of that Office. The Lya[bi]lity of holding the Office beyound the Term for which sheriffs, constables, & other annual Officers are appointed must have arisen from the inconvenience to which the administration of Justice would have been exposed by vacancies in any of those Offices. The Law on that point cannot be doubted—the practice is common in this country as well as in England, and property to a great amount in both Countries is held under decisions of Juries returned by Sheriffs exercising their Office beyound their year.

Old sheriff to continue until another is appointed &c
2. Lill.
633

Moore—
333

1 Hales. P.C.
499

Annually appointed
Str.
625

de facto Officers their acts valid.
Lut. 508—1 Hales p.C.
499

10. Mod. 288—Cro. Eliz.
699

Andrew. 163

2. Barnard. B.R.
193

Same
264

12. Mod
25⟨3⟩

Sheriffs who begin, shall end, an Exon ~ 11. Mod. 35—6 Mod.
290—Ld. Raym. 1072 1 Salk. 322—Dyer &c &c
Officer at Pleasure, is at the Kings pleasure—Salk. 466.
Incompatibility of Office—the constitution declares the sheriffs incapable of holding any other Office.
Tioga votes rejected because they were transmitted by a Deputy’s Deputy.

    a Deputy may appoint a Deputy to do a particular act—

    1 Salk. 95

Clinton votes rejected because the Deputy was appointed by Parol only—

Deputy may be without Deed
9. Rep. 51.b

Cro Eliz. 67

10. Co. 192

3. Mod. 150

Deputy may be by Parol
Jenk. 110. pl. 14

Yr’s sincerely
Rufus King
A Hamilton Esqr.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from George Washington, 29 July 1792
From: Washington, George
To: Hamilton, Alexander

My dear Sir,
Mount Vernon July 29th. 1792.(Private & confidential)

I have not yet received the new regulation of allowances to the Surveyors, or Collectors of the duties on Spirituous liquors; but this by the bye. My present purpose is to write you a letter on a more interesting and important subject. I shall do it in strict confidence, & with frankness & freedom.
On my way home, and since my arrival here, I have endeavoured to learn from sensible & moderate men—known friends to the Government—the sentiments which are entertained of public measures. These all agree that the Country is prosperous & happy; but they seem to be alarmed at that system of policy, and those interpretations of the Constitution which have taken place in Congress.
Others, less friendly perhaps to the Government, and more disposed to arraign the conduct of its Officers (among whom may be classed my neighbour, & quandom friend Colo M) go further, & enumerate a variety of matters, wch. as well as I can recollect, may be adduced under the following heads. Viz.
First   That the public debt is greater than we can possibly pay before other causes of adding new debt to it will occur; and that this has been artificially created by adding together the whole amount of the debtor & creditor sides of the accounts, instead of taking only their balances; which could have been paid off in a short time.
2d.   That this accumulation of debt has taken for ever out of our power those easy sources of revenue, which, applied to the ordinary necessities and exigencies of Government, would have answered them habitually, and covered us from habitual murmerings against taxes & tax gatherers; reserving extraordinary calls, for extraordinary occasions, would animate the People to meet them.
3d.   That the calls for money have been no greater than we must generally expect, for the same or equivalent exigencies; yet we are already obliged to strain the impost till it produces clamour, and will produce evasion, and war on our citizens to collect it, and even to resort to an Excise law, of odious character with the people; partial in its operation; unproductive unless enforced by arbitrary & vexatious means; and committing the authority of the Government in parts where resistance is most probable, & coercion least practicable.

4th   They cite propositions in Congress, and suspect other projects on foot, still to encrease the mass of the debt.
5th.   They say that by borrowing at ⅔ of the interest, we might have paid of[f] the principal in ⅔ of the time; but that from this we are precluded by its being made irredeemable but in small portions, & long terms.
6th.   That this irredeemable quality was given it for the avowed purpose of inviting its transfer to foreign Countries.
7th.   They predict that this transfer of the principal, when compleated, will occasion an exportation of 3 Millions of dollars annually for the interest; a drain of Coin, of which as there has been no example, no calculation can be made of its consequences.
8th.   That the banishment of our Coin will be compleated by the creation of 10 millions of paper money, in the form of Bank-bills now issuing into circulation.
9th.   They think the 10 or 12 pr Ct. annual profit, paid to the lenders of this paper medium, are taken out of the pockets of the people, who would have had without interest the coin it is banishing.
10th.   That all the Capitol employed in paper speculation is barren & useless, producing, like that on a gaming table, no accession to itself, and is withdrawn from Commerce and Agriculture where it would have produced addition to the common mass.
11th   That it nourishes in our citizens vice & idleness instead of industry & morality.
12th.   That it has furnished effectual means of corrupting such a portion of the legislature, as turns the balance between the honest Voters which ever way it is directed.
13th.   That this corrupt squadron, deciding the voice of the legislature, have manifested their dispositions to get rid of the limitations imposed by the Constitution on the general legislature; limitations, on the faith of which, the States acceded to that instrument.
14th   That the ultimate object of all this is to prepare the way for a change, from the present republican form of Government, to that of a monarchy; of which the British Constitution is to be the model.
15th.   That this was contemplated in the Convention, they say is no secret, because its partisans have made none of it—to effect it then was impracticable; but they are still eager after their object, and are predisposing every thing for its ultimate attainment.
16th.   So many of them have got into the legislature, that, aided by the corrupt squadron of paper dealers, who are at their devotion, they make a majority in both houses.
17th   The republican party who wish to preserve the Government in its present form, are fewer even when joined by the two, three, or half a dozen antifederalists, who, tho’ they dare not avow it, are still opposed to any general Government: but being less so to a republican than a Monarchical one, they naturally join those whom they think pursuing the lesser evil.
18th.   Of all the mischiefs objected to the system of measures beforementioned, none they add is so afflicting, & fatal to every honest hope, as the corruption of the legislature. As it was the earliest of these measures it became the instrument for producing the rest, and will be the instrument for producing in future a King, Lords & Commons; or whatever else those who direct it may chuse. Withdrawn such a distance from the eye of their Constituents, and these so dispersed as to be inaccessible to public information, and particularly to that of the conduct of their own Representatives, they will form the worst Government upon earth, if the means of their corruption be not prevented.
19th.   The only hope of safety they say, hangs now on the numerous representation which is to come forward the ensuing year; but should the majority of the new members be still in the same principles with the present—shew so much deriliction to republican government, and such a disposition to encroach upon. or explain away the limited powers of the constitution in order to change it, it is not easy to conjecture what would be the result, nor what means would be resorted to for correction of the evil. True wisdom they acknowledge should direct temperate & peaceable measures; but add, the division of sentiment & interest happens unfortunately, to be so geographical, that no mortal can say that what is most wise & temperate, would prevail against what is more easy & obvious; they declare, they can contemplate no evil more incalculable than the breaking of the Union into two, or more parts; yet, when they view the mass which opposed the original coalescence, when they consider that it lay chiefly in the Southern quarter—that the legislature have availed themselves of no occasion of allaying it, but on the contrary whenever Northern & Southern prejudices have come into conflict, the latter have been sacraficed and the former soothed.
20th.   That the owers of the debt are in the Southern and the holders of it in the Northern division.
21st.   That the antifederal champions are now strengthened in argument by the fulfilment of their predictions, which has been brought about by the Monarchical federalists themselves; who, having been for the new government merely as a stepping stone to Monarchy, have themselves adopted the very construction, of which, when advocating its acceptance before the tribunal of the people, they declared it insuceptable; whilst the republican federalists, who espoused the same government for its intrinsic merits, are disarmed of their weapons, that which they denied as prophecy being now become true history. Who, therefore, can be sure they ask, that these things may not proselyte the small number which was wanting to place the majority on the other side—and this they add is the event at which they tremble.
These, as well as my memory serves me, are the sentiments which, directly and indirectly, have been disclosed to me.
To obtain light, and to pursue truth, being my sole aim; and wishing to have before me explanations of as well as the complaints on measures in which the public interest, harmony and peace is so deeply concerned, and my public conduct so much involved; it is my request, and you would oblige me in furnishing me, with your ideas upon the discontents here enumerated—and for this purpose I have thrown them into heads or sections, and numbered them that those ideas may apply to the corrispondent numbers. Although I do not mean to hurry you in giving your thoughts on the occasion of this letter, yet, as soon as you can make it convenient to yourself it would—for more reasons than one—be agreeable, & very satisfactory to me.
The enclosure in your letter of the 16th. was sent back the Post after I received it, with my approving signature; and in a few days I will write to the purpose mentioned in your letter of the 22d. both to the Secretary of War & yourself. At present all my business—public & private—is on my own shoulders, the two young Gentlemen who came home with me, being on visits to their friends—and my Nephew, the Major, too much indisposed to afford me any aid, in copying or in other matters.
With affectionate regard I am always—Yours Go:
Washington
Alexr. Hamilton Esqr.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Elisha Boudinot, 30 July 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Boudinot, Elisha

Dear Sir:
[Philadelphia] 30th July, 1792.

I expected to have set out to-day to join the Committee to-morrow at Newark, but it is not possible. To-morrow morning I shall embark in the Early Stage, and hope to reach you in the afternoon; but I pray that no business may be deferred on my account.
Truly yours,
Alexr. Hamilton.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, 30 July 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Washington, George

Sir,
Treasury Department July 30. 1792.

I have the honor to transmit herewith sundry papers relative to an arrangement, which has been concerted between the Commissioner of the Revenue and myself, on the subject of compensation to the Officers of Inspection, in consequence of additional latitude given to The President of the United States by the Act of the last Session entitled, An Act concerning the duties on spirits distilled within the United States. This arrangement, founded on the best lights hitherto in the possession of the Department, is respectfully submitted to your consideration & disposal.
More adequate compensations than those hereto-fore allowed (and which from necessity were restricted within narrower limits than were originally deemed proper) are essential to the effectual execution of the law. Many Officers wait the issue of a new arrangement to decide their continuance or non-continuance in Office.
The additions now proposed will, it is not doubted, leave the aggregate expence within the limits prescribed by law; the contingent items having been estimated largely for greater caution.

Intimations have been received that the non-execution of the Law in certain scenes begins to produce discontent in neighbouring ones, in which a perfect acquiescence had taken place. This is natural, and implies a danger of a serious nature, if not timely obviated. The inadequateness of compensation, by preventing the acceptance of Offices, where the Law is least popular, is one of the causes of that non-execution. It is interesting that this cause be removed as a preliminary to the vigorous enforcing of the law in the delinquent scenes; which makes it desireable that a more competent arrangement of compensations should be adopted as speedily as shall consist with due consideration and your convenience.
With the highest respect and the truest attachment, I have the honor to be &c.
Alexander Hamilton


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, 30 July[–August 3] 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Washington, George

Sir
Philadelphia July 30th [–August 3] 1792

I received the most sincere pleasure at finding in our last conversation, that there was some relaxation in the disposition you had before discovered to decline a reelection. Since your departure, I have lost no opportunity of sounding the opinions of persons, whose opinions were worth knowing, on these two points—1st the effect of your declining upon the public affairs, and upon your own reputation—2dly. the effect of your continuing, in reference to the declarations you have made of your disinclination to public life—And I can truly say, that I have not found the least difference of sentiment, on either point. The impression is uniform—that your declining would be to be deplored as the greatest evil, that could befall the country at the present juncture, and as critically hazardous to your own reputation—that your continuance will be justified in the mind of every friend to his country by the evident necessity for it. Tis clear, says every one, with whom I have conversed, that the affairs of the national government are not yet firmly established—that its enemies, generally speaking, are as inveterate as ever—that their enmity has been sharpened by its success and by all the resentments which flow from disappointed predictions and mortified vanity—that a general and strenuous effort is making in every state to place the administration of it in the hands of its enemies, as if they were its safest guardians—that the period of the next house of representatives is likely to prove the crisis of its permanent character—that if you continue in office nothing materially mischievous is to be apprehended—if you quit much is to be dreaded—that the same motives which induced you to accept originally ought to decide you to continue till matters have assumed a more determinate aspect—that indeed it would have been better, as it regards your own character, that you had never consented to come forward, than now to leave the business unfinished and in danger of being un-done—that in the event of storms arising there would be an imputation either of want of foresight or want of firmness—and, in fine, that on public and personal accounts, on patriotic and prudential considerations, the clear path to be pursued by you will be again to obey the voice of your country; which it is not doubted will be as earnest and as unanimous as ever.
On this last point, I have some suspicion that it will be insinuated to you, and perhaps (God forgive me, if I judge hardly) with design to place before you a motive of declining—that there is danger of a division among the electors and of less unanimity in their suffrages than hereto-fore. My view of this matter is as follows:
While your first election was depending I had no doubt, that there would be characters among the electors, who if they durst follow their inclinations, would have voted against you; but that in all probability they would be restrained by an apprehension of public resentment—that nevertheless it was possible a few straggling votes might be found in opposition, from some headstrong and fanatical individuals—that a circumstance of this kind would be in fact, and ought to be estimated by you, as of no importance—since their would be sufficient unanimity to witness the general confidence and attachment towards you.
My view of the future accords exactly with what was my view of the past. I believe the same motives will operate to produce the same result. The dread of public indignation will be likely to restrain the indisposed few. If they can calculate at all, they will naturally reflect that they could not give a severer blow to their cause than by giving a proof of hostility to you. But if a solitary vote or two should appear wanting to perfect unanimity, of what moment can it be? Will not the fewness of the exceptions be a confirmation of the devotion of the community to a character, which has so generally united its suffrages, after an administration of four years at the head of a new government, opposed in its first establishment by a large proportion of its citizens and obliged to run counter to many prejudices in devising the arduous arrangements, requisite to public Credit and public Order? Will not those, who may be the authors of any such exceptions, manifest more their own perverseness and malevolence than any diminution of the affection and confidence of the Nation? I am persuaded, that both these questions ought to be answered in the affirmative; and that there is nothing to be looked for, on the score of diversity of sentiment which ought to weigh for a moment.
I trust, Sir, and I pray God that you will determine to make a further sacrifice of your tranquillity and happiness to the public good. I trust that it need not continue above a year or two more—And I think that it will be more eligibible to retire from office before the expiration of the term of an election, than to decline a reelection.
The sentiments I have delivered upon this occasion, I can truly say, proceed exclusively from an anxious concern for the public welfare and an affectionate personal attachment. These dispositions must continue to govern in every vicissitude one who has the honor to be very truly and respectfully
Sir   Your most Obedt. & hum serv
A Hamilton
August 3d. Since writing the foregoing I am favoured with your interesting letter of the 29th of July. An answer to the points raised is not difficult & shall as soon as possible be forwarded.

The President of the U States


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to William Ellery, [31 July 1792]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Ellery, William

[Philadelphia, July 31, 1792. On August 20, 1792, Ellery wrote to Hamilton: “I have recd. your letter of the 31st. of the last month.” Letter not found.]


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Jeremiah Olney, 31 July 1792
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Olney, Jeremiah

Treasury Department, July 31, 1792. “The Collector of Barnstable has informed me of a seizure made by him of one Hogshead of Rum, three Hogsheads of Molasses, one barrel of Sugar and two hundred and forty bushels of Salt, said to have been fraudulently landed out of the Sloop Polly of Sandwich. It is stated that the Vessel had left the District of Barnstable before the Collector had any knowledge of the fraud; and as it is to be inferred that a forfeiture of the said Sloop has also been incurred, I have to request that you will cause her to be seized, if she should be found in your District.…”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Thomas Smith, 1 August 1792
From: Smith, Thomas
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Sir
Loan Office [Philadelphia] Penna Augt 1, 1792

I have received a letter from Mr. A. J. Dallas secretary to the Commonwealth with enclosures which I now forward for your inspection.

The whole of the subscriptions since the 1st June last in Certificates of the Assumed Debt of this State, amo. to £ 46,985. equal to 125,293 30/ which with 674,675 Dollars received before the 30th sepr. 1791 makes in the whole 799,968 30/.
Mr. Donnaldson Regr & Mr Nicholson Compr. are of opinion that there are very few of the Certificates of the State Debt now outstanding.
I have had but one small Certificate of the sort called the New Loan Issued by David Rittenhouse Treasr & John Nicholson Compr. under the funding law of this State since my conference with you which I offered to receive but informed the Person that nothing further could be done in it untill I received further Instructions on which it was withdrawn.
I have the honor &c.
Honble. Alex. Hamilton secy Treasy U S.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from George Washington, 1 August 1792
From: Washington, George
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Sir,
Mount Vernon, August 1st. 1792

I learn with pleasure from the War Office, by the Secretary’s last dispatches,  that our Northwestern frontier is in a state of tranquility: it may be construed into an indication that some of the messages which have been sent by Government have reached the hostile Tribes,  and have occasioned them to deliberate thereon. Devoutly is it to be wished that the result may be favorable, both for themselves and the Ud. States.
No expectation of this, however, ought to suspend, or in the smallest degree relax the preparations for War; but as War under any circumstances is expensive, and with such a long & rugged land transportation as the one by which we have to convey the supplies for the Army must, for the quantum of them, be extremely so. It behoves us to be as precise in all our arrangements—as œconomical in our provisions—as strict in our issues, and as correct in accounting for them to the War or Treasury Departments (as the case may happen to be) as possible. That I may know under what regulations these matters are, I have, by this days post, written to the Secretary of War desiring him to report to me the mode which is pursued by his direction from thence, for providing, transporting, issueing & accounting for them. If the Treasury Department has an agency in any of these matters, I require a similar report from thence also.
Mr. Kean by a Letter which I have received from him, accepts his renewed Commission for settling the Accounts between the United States, & the individual States; which, please to say to him, gives me pleasure—and add, that any efforts he can make to bring this business to a speedy & happy issue, I shall consider as rendering an important service to the Union; because I view the closing of these Accots. speedily as extremely essential to it’s interest & tranquility. Let me know if Mr. Langdon (the Commissioner) is returned to his duty? and, in that case, when?
I am &c.
G: Washington


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Tench Coxe and Richard Harrison, 2 August 1792
From: Coxe, Tench,Harrison, Richard
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Sir,
Treasury DepartmentAugust 2nd. 1792.

In addition to the Circumstances relative to the Case of the Secretary at War, transmitted from the Comptrollers office for our determination we have the honor to state to you the following facts for the purpose of obtaining the Attorney generals opinion after a knowledge of them.
We find that the first appearance of the claim in question, in any form, is in an account current dated at the “War Office, December 30th: 1786” and signed “HKnox” against the ballance of which, being 610 31/90 Dollars, the following words are written. “To Cash retained in my hands to defray my travelling expences for various Journeys on public service during the years 1785 and 1786 equal to  Dollars. An application will be made to Congress for an allowance on this Head, which when granted the necessary vouchers will be produced” carried out in the columns 610..31 and cast with the preceeding part of the Account as will be seen on examination of it, for which purpose we have the honor to in-close it. In the report upon this account made by the Auditors examining Clerks to the Auditor, which was confirmed, no notice is taken of this item. In this state the matter appears to have remained untill it was presented to the late Auditor (Mr. Wolcott) after the commencement of the present general Government, when the precise amount was included in an account current and was rejected by the Auditor and Comptroller under the Circumstances stated in the first letter. It is necessary to remark that the communications between the Secretary at War and the late Comptroller were prior to the decision of the Comptroller by three months and that if those communications were to be deemed to contain the appeal the Comptroller three months after acted upon it—If they are not the Appeal then is to be sought elsewhere. The paper dated on the 31st. December 1790, is not addressed to the Comptroller, wherefore it should seem not to have been intended as an appeal to him and being of a date more than six months after the Auditor’s settlement it would appear necessary to throw off the restraint imposed by a limitation of the legislature to receive it as such had it been addressed to the Comptroller. It appears further on enquiry that this paper was not presented to the Treasury, as a seperate claim for the objects specified in it, but that it must have continued in the War Office, untill June 1791, when it was first presented at the Auditors Office as an accompanyment of an ordinary account current between the United States and the War Department, dated in that month and commencing with a credit to the United States for the exact sum as ballance, which the settlement of 11th. and 19th. June 1790 (by the Auditor and Comptroller) established. It appears to us that this paper therefore was not intended as an appeal from the Auditor to the Comptroller, that it was presented twelve months after the expiration of the time limited, by the express provisions of the legislature, that it was truly, a reclaim in the mass of a new account of certain items previously rejected by the officer of accounts, which rejection had acquired the ordinary legal force by the lapse of twelve months.
We do not conceive that the opinion stated in the account from the War Department of December 30th: 1786 that an application to Congress was necessary, invalidates any legal right to the monies in question, which were before in the Secretary, but we have stated it to shew that the Case was a long while within the knowledge of the officers of the Treasury. No testimony or information is brought up on the application of June 1791, which was not offered in March 1790. Under all the circumstances stated we ask the favor of you, Sir, to obtain the Attorney General’s opinions upon these three Questions.
1st.   Has the Secretary at War ever appealed to the Comptroller of the Treasury from the settlement of the Auditor of the Treasury in regard to the account in Question.
2dly.   If he has appealed is that appeal availing considering the lapse suggested.
3dly.   If there has not been an appeal or if there has been an appeal and it is not availing on account of the lapse suggested, can the officers named, in the 7th. Section of the act making alterations in the Treasury and War Departments take up and adjust this claim of the Secretary at War.
It is worthy of consideration that the third Question may be thought to involve a similar right in every other person on whose accounts Mr. Wolcott as Auditor has ever determined which we presume was not intended by the legislature—and that it may be deemed to establish as a consequence the re-examination of any settlement at the Treasury whenever new officers shall form a Judgment different from their predecessors on the same facts and information.
We have the honor to be with perfect respect, Sir, your most Obt. Servts.
The honble.
The Secretary of the Treasury.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to William Ellery, [2 August 1792]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Ellery, William

[Philadelphia, August 2, 1792. On August 20, 1792, Ellery wrote to Hamilton: “I have received your letter of the 2nd of this month.” Letter not found.]


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

Treasury Department, August 2, 1792. “I have directed a packet to be sent to you by water, containing two Thermometers which I request you will forward by a safe conveyance; the one to the Collector of Barnstable, and the other to the Collector of Frenchman’s bay.”


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Richard Harrison, [3 August 1792]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Harrison, Richard

[Treasury Department, August 3, 1792. Letter listed in dealer’s catalogue. Letter not found.]