Title: From Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, 15 May 1793
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Washington, George

[Philadelphia, May 15, 1793]
State of facts as supposed.
Mr. Jenet Minister Plenipotentiary from the Republic of France arrives at charsletown. There he causes two privateers to be fitted out, to which he issues Commissions, to cruise against the enemies of France. There also, the Privateers are manned and partly with citizens of the United States, who are inlisted or engaged for the purpose, without the privity or permission of the Government of this Country; before even Mr Jenet has delivered his credentials and been recognized as a public Minister. One or both these Privateers make captures of British Vessels, in the neighbourhood of our Coasts, and bring or send their prizes into our Ports.
The British Minister Plenipotentiary among other things demands a restitution of these prizes. Ought the demands to be complied with?
I am of opinion that it ought to be complied with, and for the following reasons.
The proceedings in question are highly exceptionable both as they respect our rights and as they make us an instrument of hostilities against Great Britain.
The jursidiction of every Independent Nation, within its own territories, naturally excludes all exercise of authority, by any other Government, within those Territories, unless by its own consent, or in consequence of stipulations in Treaties. Every such exercise of authority therefore not warranted by consent or treaty is an intrusion on the jurisdiction of the Country within which it is exercised; and amounts to an injury and affront, more or less great, according to the nature of the case.
The equipping manning and commissioning of Vessels of War, the inlisting, levying or raising of men for military service, whether by land or sea—all which are essentially of the same nature—are among the highest and most important exercises of sovereignty.
It is therefore an injury and affront of a very serious kind, for one Nation to do acts of the above description, within the territories of another, without its consent or permission. This is a principle so obvious—in itself—that it does not stand in need of confirmation from authorities.
Yet the following passage from Vatel, as to one of the points, included in the case, is so pertinent and forcible that it cannot be improper to quote it. It is found Book III Chapt II § 15 in these words.
“As the Right of levying soldiers belongs solely to the Nation, so no person is to inlist soldiers in a foreign country without the permission of the sovereign. They who undertake to inlist soldiers in a foreign Country, without the sovereign’s permission; and, in general, whoever alienates the subjects of another violates one of the most sacred rights, both of the Prince and the state. Foreign Recruiters are hanged immediately and very justly, as it is not to be presumed, that their sovereign ordered them to commit the crime; and if they did receive such an order they ought not to obey it: their sovereign having no right to command what is contrary to the law of Nature. It is not, I say apprehended that these Recruiters act by order of their sovereign, and usually they who have practiced seduction only are, if taken, severely punished. If they have used violence and made their escape, they are claimed and the men they carried off demanded. But if it appears, that they acted by order, such a proceeding in a foreign sovereign is justly considered as an injury, and as a sufficient cause for declaring war against him, unless he condescends to make suitable Reparation.”
The word soldiers here made use is to be understood to mean all persons engaged or inlisted for military service—seamen as well as landmen. The principle applies equally to the former as to the latter. This, it is imagined, will not be questionned.
In the case under consideration there was neither Treaty, nor consent, to warrant what was done. And the case is much stronger than a mere levying of Men.
The injury and insult to our Government then, under the facts stated, cannot be doubted. The right to reparation follows of course.
It remains to inquire whether we are under an obligation to redress any injury which may have accrued to Great Britain, from the irregularity committed towards us.
The existence of such an obligation is affirmed upon the following grounds.
It is manifestly contrary to the duty of a Neutral Nation to suffer itself to be made an instrument of hostility, by one power at war against another. In doing it, such Nation becomes an Associate, a Party.
The United States would become effectually an instrument of hostility to France against the other powers at War—if France could ad libitum build equip and commission, in their ports, vessels of War—man those vessels with their seamen—send them out of their ports to cruise against the enemies of France—bring or send the vessels and property taken from those enemies into their ports—dispose of them there; with a right to repeat these expeditions as often as she should find expedient.
By the same rule, that France could do these things—she could issue Commissions among us at pleasure for raising any number of troops—could march those troops towards our frontiers attack from thence the territories of Spain or England—return with the plunder, which had been taken within our territories—go again on new expeditions, and repeat them as often as was found advantageous.
There can be no material differences between the two cases—between preparing the means in, and carrying on from our Ports naval expeditions—and preparing the means in and carrying on from our territories land expeditions, against the enemies of France. The principle in each case would be the same.
And from both or either would result a state of war between us and those enemies of the worst kind for them, as long as it was tolerated. I say a state of war of the worst kind because while the resources of our Country would be employed in annoying them, the instruments of this annoyance would be occasionally protected from pursuit, by the privileges of our ostensible neutrality.
It is easy to see, that such a state of things would not be tolerated longer than ’till it was perceived—and that we should quickly and with good reason be treated as an associate of the power whose instrument we had been made.
If it is inconsistent with the duties of neutrality to permit the practices described to an indefinite extent, it must be alike inconsistent with those duties to permit them to any extent. The quality of the fact, not the degree, must be the Criterion.
It has indeed been agreed, that we are bound to prevent the practices in question in future, and that an assurance shall be given to the British Minister, that effective measures will be taken, for that purpose.
But it is denied, that we are bound to interpose, to remedy the effects which have hitherto ensued.
The obligation to prevent an injury usually, if not universally, includes that of repairing or redressing it, when it has happened.
If it be contrary to the duty of the UStates as a Neutral Nation to suffer cruisers to be fitted out of their ports to annoy the British Trade, it comports with their duty to remedy the injury, which may have been sustained, when it is in their power so to do.
If it be said that what was done took place before the Government could be prepared to prescribe a preventative; and that this creates a dispensation from the obligation to redress—
The answer is—
That a Government is responsible for the conduct of all parts of the community over which it presides; that it is to be supposed to have at all times a competent police every where to prevent infractions of its duty towards foreign Nations—that in the case in question the Magistracy of the place ought not to have permitted what was done—and that the Government is answerable for the consequences of its omissions.

It is true that in a number of cases a Government may excuse itself for the nonperformance of its duty—on account of the want of time to take due precautions—from the consideration of the thing having been unexpected and unforeseen &c. &c. And justice often requires that excuses of this kind bona fide offered should be admitted as satisfactory.
But such things are only excuses not justifications, and they are only then to be received when a remedy is not within the reach of the party.
If the Privateers expedited from Charletown had been sent to the French dominions, there to operate out of our reach, the excuse of want of time to take due precautions ought to have been satisfactory to Great Britain. But now that they have sent their prizes into our Ports, that excuse cannot avail us. We have it in our power to administer a specific remedy, by causing restitution of the property taken—and it is conceived to be our duty to do so.
It is objected to this, that the Commissions, which were issued, are valid between the parties at War, though irregular with respect to us—that the captures made under it are therefore valid Captures, vesting the property in the Captors; of which they cannot be deprived without a violation of their rights, and an aggression on our part.
It is believed to be true that the Commissions are in a legal sense valid as between the parties at War. But the inference drawn from this position does not seem to follow.
It has been seen, that what has been done, on the part of the French, is a violation of our rights—for which we have a claim to reparation and a right to make war, if it be refused.
We may reasonably demand then, as the reparation to which we are intitled, restitution of the property taken, with or without an apology for the infringement of our sovereignty. This we have a right to demand, as a species of reparation, consonant with the nature of the injury, and enabling us to do justice to the party, in injuring whom we have been made instrumental.
It can therefore be no just cause of complaint, on the part of the Captors, that they are required to surrender a property, the means of acquiring which took their origin in a violation of our rights.
On the other hand, there is a claim upon us to arrest the effects of the injury or annoyance to which we have been made accessory. To insist therefore upon the restitution of the property taken will be to enforce a right, in order to the performance of a duty.
The effects of captures under the Commissions, however valid between the parties at War, have no validity against us. Originating in a violation of our rights, we are no wise bound to respect them.
Why then (it may be asked) not send then to the animadversion and decision of the Courts of Justice?
Because, it is believed, they are not competent to the decision. The whole is an affair between the Governments of the parties concerned—to be settled by reasons of state, not rules of law. Tis the case of an infringement of our sovereignty to the prejudice of a third party; in which the Government is to demand a reparation, with the double view of vindicating its own rights and doing justice to the suffering party.
A comparison of this case with that of contraband articles can only mislead. A neutral Nation has a general right to Trade with a power at War. The exception of contraband articles is an exception of necessity; it is a qualification of the general right of the neutral Nation in favour of the safety of the Belligerent party. And from this cause and the difficulty of tracing it in the course of commercial dealings that for the peace of Nations, the external penalty of confiscation is alone established. The Neutral Nation is only bound to abandon its subjects to that penalty not to take internal measures to prevent and punish the practice. The state of peace between two Nations on the other hand makes it intrinsically criminal in either nation or in the subjects of either to engage in actual hostilities against the other. The sovereign of each Nation is bound to prevent this by internal regulations and measures—and of course to give redress where the offence has been committed.
What has been agreed to be done in the present case acknowleges the distinction and establishes the consequences. While it was refused to interfere to prevent the shipment of arms, it has been agreed that measures should be taken towards punishing our citizens who engaged on board the privateers; and to assure the British Minister that effectual measures would be taken to prevent a repetition of the thing complained. Hence a recognized distinction of principle and a virtual recognition of the consequences contended for.

As little to the purpose is the example of cases in which particular Nations permit the levying of Troops among them by the parties at War. The almost continually warlike posture of Europe can alone have produced the toleration of a practice so inconsistent with morality and humanity; but allowing these examples their full force; they are at an infinite distance from the case of raising equipping and organising within the neutral territory an armed force sending it on expeditions against a party at War & bringing back their spoils into the Neutral Country.
If the view which has been taken of the subject is a just one, Great Britain will have a right to consider our refusal to cause restitution to be made, as equivalent to our becoming an accomplice in the hostility—as a departure from neutrality—as an aggression upon her.
Hence we shall furnish a cause of War and endanger the existence of it.
I infer then, that we equally owe it to ourselves and to Great Britain to cause restitution to be made of the property taken. In the case of so palpable and serious a violation of our rights, aggravated by several collateral circumstances, the mention of which is purposely waved, a decided conduct appears most consistent with our honor and with our future safety.
Philadelphia May 15. 1793Alex Hamilton


Title: Introductory Note: From Andrew G. Fraunces, 16 May 1793
From:
To:

This letter from Andrew Fraunces initiated a controversy over the payment of two warrants issued by the Board of Treasury in 1787 and 1789. Although Fraunces maintained that he had purchased these warrants in early May, 1793, it cannot be stated with certainty just how he obtained them or whether he ever actually owned them. During June, July, and August, 1793, Fraunces wrote to both Hamilton and George Washington demanding payment, and in a pamphlet dated August 25, 1793, he published his correspondence with both men. On December 18, 1793, he submitted the pamphlet to Frederick A. C. Muhlenberg, Speaker of the House of Representatives, as a memorial to Congress. After Congress had dismissed his memorial on February 19, 1794, he approached various officials in the Treasury Department in an unsuccessful effort to secure payment. Finally, in December, 1795, when the disposition of the payment of all such warrants was lodged in Congress, Fraunces’s case was closed, for he could no longer appeal to the Treasury Department and he had already been refused by Congress.
In his memorial to Congress Fraunces argued that the Treasury had paid similar warrants in the past and that in his conduct of the Treasury Department Hamilton had permitted personal considerations to influence his decisions. In an effort to substantiate these charges Fraunces cited Hamilton’s part in the purchase of Baron Glaubeck’s claim against the United States. Although Hamilton did not directly refute Fraunces’s accusations, he did collect what he considered relevant information for both Washington and the House committee appointed to consider Fraunces’s memorial. The material assembled by Hamilton provided the essential facts covering his role in the transactions involving Baron Glaubeck and a description of the problems that had arisen in connection with the warrants issued under the Board of Treasury.
Fraunces was correct in his assertion that warrants similar to those which he had presented had been paid. One of the two warrants for which he wished to receive payment was the first of three warrants (Warrants No. 1155, 1156, 1157) that had been drawn on the treasurer, Michael Hillegas, on May 29, 1787, payable to James O’Hara “or order … on account of provisions issued to the Indians from 1 Decr. 1787 to 30th June 1788 and on account of 41,789½ Rations of Provisions furnished the Governor of the Western Territory for Indian Treaties in 1788.” When the third of these warrants (Warrant No. 1157) was presented by William Constable to the Treasury Department on July 19, 1790, Constable received payment under the act of September, 1789, which had appropriated one hundred and ninety thousand dollars for warrants that had been issued by the Board of Treasury and that had not been paid. In somewhat the same fashion on March 5, 1790, Warrant No. 237, dated November 19, 1787, was paid to Royal Flint as assignee of Michael Hillegas. Fraunces, on the other hand, was refused payment on Warrant No. 236.

Fraunces’s case, which rested in part on the point that warrants similar to his had been paid in the past, was weakened by the fact that by May, 1793, when he presented his warrant, the Treasury’s policy toward warrants had changed. Originally the Treasury Department had paid all warrants without question, but by 1793 Hamilton had become aware that the records for many specie transactions under the Board of Treasury were not available and that it was impossible to judge the validity of any particular warrant without such records. The inadequacy—or even lack—of records can be attributed to the fact that the accounts of William Duer, who had served as secretary to the Board of Treasury, were not available. Duer had been imprisoned for debt in March, 1792, and he had submitted neither his accounts nor the warrants which he had insisted would substantiate these accounts.
The regulations of the Board of Treasury required the register of the Treasury to record before issuance all warrants drawn on the receivers of taxes or commissioners of loans and all warrants drawn on the treasurer. If this had been done, the final account of the two sets of warrants would have balanced and left a clear record of all receipts and expenditures. During the last years of the Confederation, however, these regulations were frequently ignored, and procedures for recording and canceling warrants can best be described as haphazard. On numerous occasions Hillegas was not at the seat of government, and warrants on the treasurer were paid by the secretary to the Board of Treasury, who delivered the receipts to the treasurer at some unspecified later date. Warrants on the receivers of taxes were often not recorded until such warrants had been returned by the receivers as vouchers for their specie accounts. These warrants were, however, recorded by the register when the treasurer had no cash to pay a warrant drawn upon him. In that case, two warrants were drawn at the same time: one on the treasurer to be receipted by the payee and one on the receiver of taxes in the same amount, payable to the treasurer and endorsed for the benefit of the individual to whom the government owed money. The second warrant presented by Fraunces (Warrant No. 236) was one on a receiver of taxes which had been endorsed for this purpose.
On November 19, 1789, Warrant No. 236 had been drawn on Nathaniel Appleton, receiver of taxes for Massachusetts, in the amount of three thousand five hundred dollars.  On July 26, 1793, John M. Taylor wrote to Fraunces that he had “made every possible research into the actual situation of your Treasury warrant, and I find an account current of Nathaniel Appleton’s stated by Mr. Hillegas, late Treasurer of the United States, in the Comptroller’s office, certified by the Register, that of 18,000 dollars and odd of warrants drawn on Appleton in said Hillegas’s favor by the Board of Treasury, of which yours is one, but 600 remain unpaid. If this be true, it will appear that William Duer has stolen them off the files and put them into circulation.… Mr. [William] Simmons [a clerk in the auditor’s office] tells me he will do all in his power to search this out. I shall call on him to day, and if he has made the intended search, I will communicate the result thereof.…” Fraunces enclosed this letter from Taylor in his letter to Washington of July 30, 1793. On August 2, 1793, Joseph Nourse wrote to Richard Harrison, the auditor of the Treasury: “Upon Reference to the Copies of certain Statements made in this Office … I have Certified that no Payment was ever made by Nath: Appleton the late Commissioner of the Loan Office for the State of Massachusetts upon a Warrant No. 236 … whereas it woud appear by a Paper furnished about the same Time Entitled ‘List of Warrants drawn by the Board of Treasury on Nathaniel Appleton Receiver of Continental Taxes Massachusetts’ that it had been paid: this apparent Contradiction may be easily Explained: Both were official Papers and were given to the Clerk (who perfectly understood them) to Enable him to Settle the Accounts of the late Commissioners of the Loan Office and also of the Treasurer of the United States. The Use therefore that has been made of a Referrence to one Document without having a Connection with the Other was improper. With Respect to my first Statement … it is a fact that the said Warrant No. 236 was never paid by Mr. Appleton altho’ by Mr. Hillegas’s Account upon which the second Statement was made it is Considered by him as an Absolute Receipt.… The Mode of doing Business at the Treasury when that Warrant issued was this. The Board from the Want of Funds at the immediate Seat of Government drew warrants on the Commissioners of the Loan Offices. This warrant No. 236 for Instance was drawn on Mr. Appleton: at the same time another Warrant issued on the Treasurer in favour of the Person to whom Payment was to be made. As it was to Arnold Henry Dorhman Esqr. the Treasurer therefore Endorses to Dorhman the warrant upon Appleton and takes Dorhman’s Receipt upon the warrant which the Board had drawn in his favour.…”
This warrant on Appleton had been presented to Hamilton for payment on December 26, 1792, by Jasper Murdock. On April 14, 1794, it was presented to the auditor of the Treasury by John M. Taylor in his own right under “An Act relative to claims against the United States, not barred by any act of limitation, and which have not been already adjusted.” The auditor’s report of January 19, 1795, on claims filed under this act states that “This warrant appears to have been presented at different times and by different persons, at the Treasury, but payment there has been uniformly refused, from an opinion that it had, with others of the same complexion, been already discharged out of funds belonging to the public.”
The dispute between Hamilton and Fraunces also became a part of the continuing attempt of certain Republican politicians to discredit Hamilton by uncovering corruption in the Treasury Department. Fraunces had been a clerk under the Board of Treasury and had continued in that capacity from the organization of the Treasury Department in 1789 until March, 1793, when he was dismissed. Fraunces was of particular interest to Hamilton’s Republican opponents, for he had considerable firsthand knowledge of Treasury procedures and had left the Treasury Department with a grudge against the Secretary. On June 22, 1793, John Beckley, clerk of the House of Representatives, began a letter to an unnamed addressee which he completed on July 2. The letter reads as follows:
“Some information, which I have received from Mr. [Jacob] Clingman, seems to be so connected with what you already possess in relation to Mr. Hamilton, that I cannot withhold communicating it. He says that Andrew G. Fraunces was here, about ten days ago, with letters from Duer to Hamilton, and carried back answers. That Fraunces brought with him, and received payment, at the Treasury, for two Warrants issued by the old Board of Treasury, which he purchased in New York, on speculation, and by which he cleared fifteen hundred dollars: that before he purchased those warrants, and when they were offered to him, they were indorsed on the back with red ink, in a date which he did not then recollect ‘presented at the Treasury of the United States, and refused payment—Jos: Nourse, Regr.’ Whereupon, that he, Fraunces, wrote to Hamilton to know whether they would be paid, and if so, to send him a Certificate under his hand to that effect; which Hamilton did, and Clingman says that he has seen both Fraunces’s letter, and Hamilton’s answer and certificate.

“Clingman also says, that Fraunces told him, he could, if he pleased, hang Hamilton. And altho’ he considers Fraunces as a man of no principle, yet he is sure that he is privy to the whole connection with Duer, and is the agent between them, for supplying the latter with money, and that he saw him when last in New York, pay money to Duer’s Clerk (who brought a note to him for it) and took his receipt. He tells me too, that Fraunces is fond of drink and very avaricious, and that a judicious appeal to either of those passions, would induce him to deliver up Hamilton’s and Duer’s letters and tell all he knows.
“Clingman further informs me, that Mrs. Reynolds has obtained a divorce from her husband, in consequence of his intrigue with Hamilton to her prejudice, and that Colonel Burr obtained it for her: he adds too, that she is thoroughly disposed to attest all she knows of the connection between Hamilton and Reynolds: This, if true, is important.
“Clingman has been sent for by Hamilton, and had an interview with him this week, in which he used every artifice to make a friend of him, and asked many leading questions about, who were his friends? What he would do to serve him &c &c. &c. He is to be with him again tonight, and has promised to call on me tomorrow morning, and inform me of all that passes. If he should, I will add it to this letter.
“June 25th. The proposed interview did not take place till today; it was to the following effect.
1st   Was he (Clingman) intimate with Mr. A. G. Fraunces of New York?
Answer.   He knew him.
2nd   Did he ever board at his house?
Answer.   He never did.
3d.   Did he not frequently dine and sup with him?
Answer.   He had once dined with him at a stranger’s house.
4th.   Did he not frequently visit Mr. Fraunces’s Office?
Answer.   He had been there several times.
5th.   Did he not visit Mr. Beckley sometimes?
Answer.   He knew Mr. Beckley, as he had seen him at Mr. Muhlenberg’s.
“Mr. Hamilton then observed that Clingman did not put that confidence in him that he ought, as every thing that he (Clingman) said, was as secret as the grave.
“Mr. Hamilton then asked if Mr. Beckley did not visit at Mr. Muhlenberg’s, and what other persons frequented Mr. Muhlenberg’s house.
“Mr. Hamilton said that Clingman should not mind what Fraunces said, as he spoke much at random and drank.
“June 27th. Mr. Clingman left this yesterday morning for New York, and, I expect, will, as well as Fraunces, be well watched by Hamilton’s Spies. I do not think it will be advisable that Clingman should be applied to, or in any manner, made acquainted with any thing here communicated respecting Fraunces or Hamilton, as he will continue to give me every information, or evidence, he can collect respecting them. You will make such a confidential use of the contents of this letter, as you may deem proper.…”

On June 27 Clingman wrote to Beckley:
“I got to York only late last night, and this morning called on Mr. A. G. Fraunces, who is just agoing to Philada. Mr. A. G. Fraunces seems to be vexed with Colo H——and shewed me a power of Attorney of his own writing corrected by Colo. H—— and which correction is in his hand writing for the purchase of the Baron De Glaubeck’s pay, which he the said Fraunces purchased for Colo. H—— and D——er, from one Bazel, and for which they gave him fifty dollars for doing the business. He further told me, that Colo. H—— had agents in Philada. who purchased Stock for him, and in a few days after, the stock was sold to the Commissioner of the United States, which was appointed to purchase Stock, at a higher price, which agents name he mentioned to me; and further said, that he had carried checks to the said agents from Colo. H—— and he hath promised me, that the moment he gets to Philadelphia, to get a certificate from one of those agents, to certify that he had transacted such business, and that he had received money from him, A. G. Fraunces, for that business: and further told me, that he could prove and was known to a connection in speculation with D——er. All which A. G. Fraunces is willing to swear to and can bring other witnesses beside himself.
“Now, my dear Sir, if you think that these facts will be sufficient to do his business, I would wish you to stay in Philada. and write me word, and I will come on immediately.
“I am somewhat afraid, that Fraunces will fall back from what he has said, but he declares, that he will stick to what he has told me, and that beside his own oath, he can bring proof to support it: and as to the power of Attorney, I have seen it myself, and know that the corrections is in Colo. H—— own handwriting.”
Beckley enclosed a copy of Clingman’s letter in his letter of June 22 to an unknown correspondent and added the following postscript, dated July 1:
“A. G. Fraunces is now here, and, I am told, in treaty with Hamilton for delivering up to him all such letters and papers, as he (Fraunces) may be possessed of, in relation to Hamilton’s speculations and connection with Duer; and for which, Hamilton is to pay him two thousand dollars. I have written to Clingman, and expect him here this night. Should he come, I think it probable, he may so far counterwork Hamilton, as to possess himself of some further, and corroborating evidence to that of Fraunces’s. If he does not come this evening, or by tomorrow night at farthest, I shall conclude that he has declined it, and shall therefore set off the next day, with my family, for the Virginia Springs, and expect to be absent from this until the tenth of September. In the mean time, I hope it will be in your power, from the information now given you, so to manage Fraunces, thro’ the influence of Clingman (whom, I now think, it will be advisable for you to confide in, seeing how far he has committed himself in his letter to me) as to obtain some decisive proof, during my absence. When I return, should it be necessary, and you will drop me a line thro’ our common friend, Melancton Smith, I will come on to New York, and aid, with my best endeavors, to unravel this scene of iniquity.
“Perhaps the following hints may be worth attention.
1st   To urge Clingman to get from Fraunces the power of Attorney for Glaubeck’s pay, with Hamilton’s correction.
2d:   To obtain Bazel’s deposition respecting that transaction.
3d   To get Fraunces’s letter to Hamilton, and Hamilton’s answer respecting the two Treasury Warrants, mentioned in the beginning of this letter.
4th   To obtain the original, or copies of any receipts of Duer’s, for monies paid to him by Fraunces.
5th   To enquire respecting Mrs. Reynolds’s divorce, and to obtain her certificate or affidavit of all she knows.
6th.   To make like enquiry, and obtain like evidence from Mr. Reynolds.
7th.   To obtain some corroborating evidence from Fraunces, besides his own, of Hamilton’s having purchased public stock on his private account.
8th.   To obtain any like corroborating evidence respecting the connection with Duer.
9th   To obtain Fraunces’s certificate or affidavit of all that passed at his late and present interview with Hamilton.
“The instrumentality of Clingman in this business, you see, will be highly important; but in your communications with him, I do not wish that he should see any thing that I have written to you: altho’ you must necessarily acquaint him with the source of your information. My own opinion is, that he may be fully depended on; but you know human nature too well, not to observe every proper caution. Nor can I forbear to hint, how quickly Hamilton will take alarm, at the remotest appearance of your concern in the business.”
In New York several of Hamilton’s supporters watched the Fraunces affair develop with some uneasiness. William Willcocks, Robert Affleck, and Robert Troup wrote to Hamilton concerning the publication of Fraunces’s pamphlet, the arrival of a lawyer from Philadelphia who questioned Thomas Bazen as a witness in the question of Baron Glaubeck’s pay, and the various affidavits and charges which Fraunces had made. There were also occasional newspaper references to the dispute between Fraunces and Hamilton during September, October, and November, 1793.

On December 18, 1793, “The Speaker informed the House that he had received a letter subscribed A. G. Fraunces, inclosing a petition against the management of the Secretary of the Treasury, addressed to the House of Representatives, accompanied by sundry documents.” The memorial was read on December 19, 1793, and referred to a committee. The committee’s report was given on December 30, 1793, and considered on January 6, 17, 1794. On February 19 the House adopted two resolutions commending the Secretary of the Treasury.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Andrew G. Fraunces, 16 May 1793
From: Fraunces, Andrew G.
To: Hamilton, Alexander

New-York May 16, 1793.
Sir,
Warrants for a considerable amount of the late Treasurer of the United States, and on certain Loan-Officers, drawn by the late Board of Treasury, are put into my hands, in order that I may obtain a settlement from the Treasury of the United States.
In turning over the laws relative to appropriations, I observe provision was made in the year 1789, for this purpose. As I do not wish to make a journey to Philadelphia, unless the business could be done, I have taken the liberty of troubling you in this way, and of requesting you to favor me, by saying whether they will be paid on presentment or not.
I have the honor to be, with respect and esteem,   Sir, your most obedient servant,
Andrew G. Fraunces.
The Hon. A. Hamilton, Esq. Secretaryof the Treasury of the United States.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Joseph Whipple, 16 May 1793
From: Whipple, Joseph
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Portsmouth [New Hampshire] May 16, 1793. “Agreeably to your directions of the 2d instant.… I enclose you a Copy of the manifest of the Cargo of the Brig Rising Sun, as exhibited by the Master on the day of the Vessels arrival—also Schedules of the articles Seized and of those found on board the Vessel after the delivery of the Cargo, agreeing with the Masters mem: produced after the Seizure.… The goods taken out in the night time being of the Value of 80 dollars only, the Vessel is not liable to Seizure—those that were found on board & not contained in the Manifest are of the Value of 292½ Dollars & were undoubtedly withheld from the Manifest or corrected by the Sailors with fraudulent intentions, but I do not find they are liable to Seizure although the master is subject to penalties on account of their omission.…”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Otho H. Williams, 16 May 1793
From: Williams, Otho H.
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Baltimore, May 16, 1793. “This is to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 14th Instant.… The instructions contained in your letter relative to this important business shall be attentively observed.”


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to ———, [18 May 1793]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[Philadelphia, May 18, 1793]

You ask me if the News-papers of Philadelphia give a true picture of the conduct of its citizens on the occasion of the arrival of Mr. Genet, and whether the great body of them are really as indiscreet as those papers represent them.
It gives me pleasure to be able to answer you in the negative. I can assure you upon the best evidence that comparitively speaking, but a small proportion of them have had an agency in the business.
Though the papers in the morning of the day of Mr. Genets arrival announced his approach and at  oClock  three guns were fired from the Frigate as a signal to those who were disposed to go to meet him at Gray’s ferry, as had been previously concerted and notified in the papers—and though we are told by some of the printers that all the outlets from the city were crouded with persons going out to meet Mr. Genet—the fact is that a very inconsiderable number indeed went out. It is seldom easy to speak with absolute certainty in such cases but from all I could observe or have been able to learn, I believe the number would be stated high at a hundred persons.
In the evening of the same day, according to notice in an evening paper, which came out earlier than usual for the purpose, a Meeting was convened at the State House Yard, under the direction of the same persons who had projected the going out to Gray’s. This Meeting was also inconsiderable. From forty to 100 persons give you the extremes of the numbers present, as reported by those who were at the Meeting or in a situation to observe it.
Here a Committee was appointed to prepare an address to Mr. Genet—and another Meeting of the Citizens was advertised for the ensuing Evening at  at the same place the object of which it seems was to consider & approve the address.
This last Meeting is stated differently, from 300 to 1000. An accurate observer, who was a byestander and paid particular attention to the matter assures me that there were between five and six hundred assembled. I rely upon this as about the truth.
The persons who were met approved the address, which had been prepared, and as you have seen nominated a Comittee to present it, whom they accompanied to Mr. Genets lodgings at the City Tavern.
On their way to the City Tavern, their number was, as you will imagine, considerably increased. A croud will always draw a croud, whatever be the purpose. Curiosity will supply the place of attachment to or interest in the object.
What number may have been assembled in the vicinity of the City Tavern it is impossible to say. The Evening being pretty far advanced was alone an obstacle to judging.
But the true test was the Meeting in the State House Yard. Tis there we are to look for the real partisans of the measure. And according to this standard it may be pronounced that not a tenth part of the City participated in it.
You ask who were its promoters.
I answer, that with very few exceptions, they were the same men who have been uniformly the enemies and the disturbers of the Government of the UStates. It will not be surprising if we see ere long a curious combination growing up to controul its measures, with regard to foreign politics, at the expence of the peace of the Country—perhaps at a still greater expense. We too have our disorganizers. But I trust there is enough of virtue and good sense in the people of America to baffle every attempt against their prosperity—though masked under the specious garb of an extraordinary zeal for liberty. They practically, I doubt not, adopt this sacred maxim, that without government, there is no true liberty.
I agree with you in the reflections you make on the tendency of public demonstrations of attachment to the cause of France. Tis certainly not wise to expose ourselves to the jealousy and resentment of the rest of the world, by a fruitless display of zeal for that cause—it may do us much harm—it can do France no good (unless indeed we are to embark in the War with her, which nobody is so hardy as to avow, though some secretly machinate it). It cannot be without danger and inconvenience to our interests to impress on the Nations of Europe an idea that we are actuated by the same spirit, which has for some time past fatally misguided the measures of those who conduct the affairs of France and sullied a cause once glorious and that might have been triumphant.
The cause of France is compared with that of America during its late revolution. Would to Heaven that the comparison were just. Would to heaven that we could discern in the Mirror of French affairs, the same humanity, the same decorum the same gravity, the same order, the same dignity, the same solemnity, which distinguished the course of the American Revolution. Clouds & Darkness would not then rest upon the issue as they now do.
I own, I do not like the comparison. When I contemplate the horrid and systematic massacres of the 2d. & 3d. of September—When I observe that a Marat and a Robertspierre, the notorious prompters of those bloody scenes—sit triumphantly in the Convention and take a conspicuous part in its measures—that an attempt to bring the assassins to justice has been obliged to be abandonned—When I see an unfortunate Prince, whose reign was a continued demonstration of the goodness & benevolence of his heart, of his attachment to the people, of whom he was the Monarch—who though educated in the lap of despostism, had given repeated proofs, that he was not the enemy of liberty—brought precipitately and ignominiously to the block,—without any substantial proof of guilt, as yet disclosed—without even an authentic exhibition of motives, in decent regard to the opinions of mankind—When I find the doctrines of Atheism openly advanced in the Convention and heared with loud applauses—When I see the sword of fanaticism extended to force a political creed upon citizens who were invited to submit to the arms of France as the hargingers of Liberty—When I behold the hand of Rapacity outstreched to prostrate and ravish the monuments of religious worship erected by those citizens and their ancestors. When I perceive passion tumult and violence usurping those seats, where reason and cool deliberation ought to preside—
I acknowlege, that I am glad to believe, there is no real resemblance between what was the cause of America & what is the cause of France—that the difference is no less great than that between Liberty & Licentiousness. I regret whatever has a tendency to confound them, and I feel anxious, as an American, that the ebullitions of inconsiderate men among us may not tend to involve our Reputation in the issue.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Andrew G. Fraunces, 18 May 1793
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Fraunces, Andrew G.

Treasury Department, May 18, 1793.
Sir,

Your letter of the 16th instant has been duly received. The want of sufficient light with regard to the warrants in question must defer the payment of them. I advise the holders to notify them as claims under the act of the last session, entitled, “An Act relative to claims against the United States not barred by any act of limitation, and which have not been already adjusted.”
I am, Sir, with esteem,   Your most obedient servant,

Alexander Hamilton
Mr. Andrew G. Fraunces,New-York.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to George Thacher, 18 May 1793
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Thacher, George

PhiladelphiaMay 18. 1793
My Dear Sir

Your letter of the 28th. of April has been received.
The complaint against Mr. Cook has lately come forward under a more precise form—so as to have rendered a precise inquiry necessary for his character and for my justification. The making of it has been committed to Mr. Jonathan Jackson—as a man of sense probity & delicacy & whose impartiality will be drawn into question by no local circumstance.
Should it unfortunately issue against Mr. Cook, I will not fail to pay proper attention to your suggestion.
With sincere regard   Yr Obed ser.

A Hamilton
G Thatcher Esq


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Gouverneur Morris, 20 May 1793
From: Morris, Gouverneur
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Sain Port near Paris 20. May 1793
My dear Sir

You have annexed Copies of my Letters of the eleventh and twelfth of last month since which I have received from Amsterdam the receipts of Col. Laumoy which are lodged with Mr. Grand. I learn at the same Time that the Creditors of the United States have consented to postpone the reimbursement due to them in June so that the Difficulties in that quarter are removed to my no small Satisfaction for I had received from Mr. Short very alarming Letters on the Subject pressing me to go forward to Amsterdam where he conceived it necessary to take Steps to which if on the Spot his Powers were inadequate and which he supposed I who had no Powers whatever might take upon me to do. As this could have answered no good End to the public and would have exposed me to Suspicion here and to Censure on your Side of the Water besides the Inconveniencies which my Absence might Occasion to our Countrymen whose Affairs oblige them frequently to apply to me I thought it better to avoid that Journey and try what Resources might be found in the disjointed State of things here. Accordingly I prepared Matters for a Loan of £.300000. Stg to be paid about 14 years hence and that for £150000 Cash which is you know at the rate of 5. p% Interest. I will not trouble you with all the particulars they being unnecessary. Only this the Commission of Bankers and every Thing else was to be included so as to produce the simple Effect above stated. My Engagements were of Course only eventual but suspended on the Intelligence I should get from Amsterdam and this was long delayed and of Course I was in a State of considerable Anxiety which was most happily releived by the Intelligence that my Efforts were unnecessary.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Richard Morris, 20 May 1793
From: Morris, Richard
To: Hamilton, Alexander

New York, May 20, 1793. “I am favoured with your letter of the 8th. instant and am happy my conduct touching the Seized Gina. mett your Approbation.… I am Making up all my Accounts and Could forward them with the Abstracts this day but upon Examining I find that the whole Emoluments that Rest with me for 13 Months and 20 Days is only 526 dollrs. and 52 Cents. which will not Indemnify me for my Actual Expences in living in town for that time, but if you Approve I think I may be Saved. The Contingencies for printing, paper, &c, &c, &c, &c, in the whole if charged by Each particular will Amount to 317.45 Cts. This will Leave a Saving of 482.55 from the 800 Appropiated by the presidents Arrangement for the Contingencies of this State. My Attentions to those Expences has had Some Share in Increasing the Savings and if I should be Justified and permitted in the place of Chargeing the particular Contingencies to charge the 800 dollars as Allowed by the President for Contingencies of this State, it will do a little more than make me Whole for my Expences. I mention this to you as my friend if it can be done without Giveing you trouble I shall be glad, I do not mean that it Should produce Solicitation I had rather put up with the first loss. Your letter shall be my Guide. The Sooner the Better.…”


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Benjamin Lincoln, 23 May 1793
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Lincoln, Benjamin

Treasury Department, May 23, 1793. “You will herewith receive a package of Sea letters, which I request you to distribute among the Collectors of your State, as they shall apply for them. A further and a larger parcel will be forwarded to you, for the same purpose in a few days.…”


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to William Short, 23 May 1793
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Short, William

[Philadelphia, May 23, 1793. The catalogue description of this letter reads: “Introducing Major Jackson to the United States Minister at the Hague.” Letter not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Otho H. Williams, 24 May 1793
From: Williams, Otho H.
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Baltimore, May 24, 1793. On June 12, 1793, Hamilton wrote to Williams: “Your letter of the 24th Ultimo was received some time ago.” Letter not found.]


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Henry Knox, 25 May 1793
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Knox, Henry

Treasury DepartmentMay 25 1793
Sir

Inclosed is a letter from Mr Stephen Bruce, on the subject of certain articles furnished by him upon the order of Lieutenant Greaton and disallowed in the settlement of his accounts on the principle of their not having been conformable to instructions—together with a copy of the settlement at the Treasury shewing what those articles were.
I request to be informed whether the requisition of these articles by the officer or officers concerned be justified by any instruction or license from your department; or by any usage in like cases; and if not whether there are any & what reasons to induce their being paid for by the Public. I request your particular attention to the article of room-hire.
The practice appears to the Treasury to be of a nature to involve a danger of double supplies complexity in the public accounts—opportunities of abuse and such as without cogent reasons ought not to be countenanced.
If it can plead no authority license or usage—will not the good of the public service require that any inconveniences to be sustained should fall on the Officer concerned—that his conduct should be animadverted upon and that an injunction should be incorporated with the instructions of the Recruiting Officers against demanding any articles of a similar nature, or any not strictly within the letter of the instructions?
I have the honor to be very respectfully Sir   Your Obedient & humble servant

A. Hamilton
The Secy at War


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Tobias Lear, [25 May 1793]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Lear, Tobias

[Philadelphia, May 25, 1793]
Dear sir,

The proper fund for the payment of the enclosed is the 10,000 Dollars for defraying the contingent Expences of the Government. Will you add a few words directing it to be paid out of that fund?
Yours

A Hamilton
25 May 1793.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, [25 May 1793]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Washington, George

[Philadelphia, May 25, 1793]

The Secretary of the Treasury presents his respects to the President; submits the draft of an Act relative to the points lately determined upon by the President.
May 25 1793


Title: Enclosure: [An Act Making Allowances for Certain Services], [25 May 1793]
From: Hamilton, Alexander,Washington, George
To:

[Philadelphia, May 25, 1793]

An act making allowances for certain services & contingencies in the collection of the Revenue during the year ending on the 30 day of June 1792.

Whereas it has been found necessary to provide a compensation for the legal admeasurement of Stills during the year ending on the 30 day of June 1792. it is hereby established & declared, that there may & shall be allowed to the Collectors of the Revenue on spirits distilled in the United States and upon Stills, for each & every Still by them respectively measured according to law on or before the said 30 day of June 1792. the Sum of Thirty Cents.
And whereas it has also been found necessary that certain services & expences of divers officers of inspection & persons actually employed in the business of the Revenue wch. have unavoidably arisen out of the first operations of the Act of the 3d. day of March 1791, and in the year aforesaid, & certain compensations to the same should be allowed & defrayed.
The Supervisors of the Revenue for the several Districts herein after mentioned are hereby authorised to allow to the officers & persons employed within their respective Districts, for services & Duties actually by them performed and expences paid during the year aforesaid & not yet compensated or defrayed, the sums set against the said Districts respectively—that is to say

In the District of South Carolina a sum not exceeding
600 Dollars

In the District of North Carolina
100.

In the District of Virginia
350.

In the District of Maryland
150.

In the District of Delaware
150.

In the District of Pennsylvania
300.

In the District of New York
400.

In the District of Connecticut
200.

Given under my hand at
Philadelphia on the 25 dayof May 1793.
Geo: Washington


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Otho H. Williams, 28 May 1793
From: Williams, Otho H.
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Collectors Office Baltr. 28 May 93
Sir

Inclosed are, A, a copy of my letter to the Surveyor of the port respecting a French Privatier and her prize lately arrived; B, a Copy of the Surveyors report and, C, a translation of the French Commission in possession of the commander of the Privateer.
As the laws of Congress, which govern the conduct of the Officers of the customs have no reference to the present case, and as we have received no instructions relative to the construction of existing treaties I am forced to hesitate about the proper conduct to be observed upon this new occasion.
I am Sir,   Your most obedient   Humble Servant

O H Williams
A Hamilton Esqr.Secretary of the Treasury


Title: Introductory Note: Cabinet Meeting. Opinion on the Depredations of the Creek Indians Upon the State of Georgia, 29 May 1793
From:
To:

Throughout 1792 and the early months of 1793 the Washington Administration had received reports of Indian depredations and Spanish intrigue on the southern frontier. In 1790 the Creek Nation under the leadership of Alexander McGillivray had signed a treaty of peace and friendship with the United States at New York, which among other stipulations had provided for a survey of the boundary between the United States and Creek territory. A similar treaty was signed with the Cherokee in 1791. The Creek treaty, moreover, placed the Indian towns within the United States territory under the protection of the Federal Government and prohibited all but licensed traders from entering the Creek country. By 1793 the survey for the boundary had not been run, and there was an open frontier between Georgia and the Creek country.
The Treaty of New York and the 1791 treaty with the Cherokee constituted a direct challenge to Spain’s view that the Indian tribes on the southwestern frontier were under her direct protection. Francisco Louis Hector, Baron de Carondelet, who on December 30, 1791, succeeded Esteban Miró as governor and intendant of Louisiana and West Florida, began a series of vigorous efforts to weld the southern tribes into an effective unit to halt American expansion. To prevent the running of the boundary between the United States and Creek territory and to draw the Indians more closely under Spanish influence Carondelet employed a number of agents among the tribes in the area: Pedro Olivier was sent to reside among the Creeks, Juan de la Villebeuvre to the Chickasaw and Choctaw, and John McDonald to the Chickamauga. He also made extensive use of the British trading firm of Panton, Leslie, and Company, which in exchange for the governor’s protection of its trading privileges was more than willing to aid in the furtherance of Spanish ambitions. Carondelet, however, was not solely responsible for the delay in the settlement of the boundary and other outstanding problems between the Creeks and the United States. He was aided by the opposition of many Creek factions to the New York treaty, by the reluctance of McGillivray to effect a final settlement, and by the attempts of the adventurer William Bowles to create a pro-British faction among the Creeks. The result was that on July 6, 1792, McGillivray signed a treaty with the Spanish at New Orleans. This treaty virtually abrogated the Treaty of New York.
In the early months of 1793 the Federal authorities in Philadelphia were deluged with reports of Indian raids on the southern frontier settlements, particularly those on the Georgia frontier. On April 29 Edward Telfair, the governor of Georgia, informed Henry Knox that “there is little expectation of avoiding a general war with the Creeks and Cherokees. Blood has been spilt in every direction on the extended frontier of this State, and one man killed in the State of South Carolina.… If I find the pressure become great, the opposition must keep pace with the several emergencies. I shall make the necessary communications to the Governor of the State of South Carolina, in order to obtain aid, as I have every reason to hope that provident measures have been taken to that effect. Should general hostilities continue, it will be well to give Governor [William] Blount [of the Southwest Territory] the needful instructions, to cause a co-operation on his part.” On May 8 Telfair reported that the situation continued to deteriorate: “Such is the havoc and carnage making by the savages, in every direction on our frontier, that retaliation by open war becomes the only resort. The horrid barbarities committed … have impelled me to cause the additional aid of six troops of horse to be drawn into service, to range on the frontiers, and also to establish a camp at Shoulderbone, to consist of three battalion companies; and I have directed a general officer to repair to the said camp, to be reinforced as circumstances may require. The late respite is only to be attributed to the height of the waters, and, so soon as they subside, I have nothing to expect but an immediate renewal of the like barbarities. Every measure in my power to repel and annoy shall be. taken, and, as far as means will extend, shall be carried into effect. Let no idea of peace so far amuse as to divert the necessary and immediate preparations for war. Every information you may receive tending thereto must proceed from ignorance or design. The field is now taken; the people must be protected, and a failure, in this juncture, will affect the operations of Government in a serious degree.…”
The Federal Government was somewhat skeptical of Georgia’s complaints. Although it was evident that Creek depredations on the Georgia frontier were increasing at an alarming rate, it was equally apparent that they were not unprovoked by residents of Georgia. The Georgians were as dissatisfied as the Creeks with the tentative boundary suggested by the Treaty of New York and on numerous occasions ignored the provision of the treaty forbidding entry into Creek territory and conducted retaliatory raids into Indian country. Georgia, indeed, was never reconciled to the possibility that a final settlement of the boundary would exclude her permanently from the tempting Creek lands, and on more than one occasion James Seagrove, United States Indian agent to the Creeks, implied that Telfair was exaggerating the crisis on the frontier in order to promote a general Creek war. Similar reports came from Major Henry Gaither, the ranking Federal Army officer in Georgia, who maintained a running battle with Telfair on the question of calling out militia to protect the settlements and on the issuing of arms from Federal stores to equip them.
Because the United States was planning a major campaign under the leadership of Major General Anthony Wayne against the northwestern tribes, the Washington Administration wished to avoid a war in the south. On November 26, 1792, in response to requests from officials on the southern frontier for permission to send punitive expeditions against the Indians, Knox wrote to Blount: “I can … with great truth assure you that the extension of the Northern Indian War to the Southern tribes would be a measure into which the Country would enter with extreme reluctance. They view an Indian War in any event of it as unproductive either of profit or honor.… the President … for great political reasons ardently desires a general tranquillity in the Southern quarter. He is exceedingly apprehensive that the flame of War once kindled in that region upon the smallest scale, will extend itself, and become general.” On May 14, 1793, Knox again presented the Government’s position in a letter to Blount: “You have been fully informed of the difficulties which have existed to prevent the President of the United States from giving orders in consequence of your representations, for the most vigorous offensive operations against the hostile indians. If those difficulties existed while the Congress were in Session, and which it was conceived they alone were competent to remove, they recur in the present case with still greater force, for all the information received at the time Congress were in session were laid before both houses, but no order was taken thereon nor any authority given to the President of the United States, of consequence his authority remains in the same situation it did on the commencement of the last session. It is indeed a serious question to plunge the nation into a war with the southern tribes of Indians, supported as it is said they would be. But, if that war actually exists, if depredations are repeated and continued upon the frontier inhabitants, the measure of protection is indispensible, but that protection can only be of the defensive sort. If other, or more extensive measures shall be necessary, they must probably result from the authority expressly given for that purpose.”
Any decision concerning Federal intervention on the southern frontier was complicated by the necessity of considering its effect on the delicate discussions under way between the United States and Spain. In 1793 William Short and William Carmichael were in Madrid attempting with indifferent success to negotiate with Spain on the southern boundary, the navigation of the Mississippi, and Spanish-American commerce. By the end of May, 1793, however, the acrimonious discussion between Jefferson and Josef de Viar and Josef de Jaudenes, the representatives of Spain in the United States, threatened to present a serious obstacle to negotiations between the two powers. On November 3, 1792, in a letter to Carmichael and Short, Jefferson wrote: “… although we have been constantly endeavoring, by every possible means, to keep peace with the Creeks; that in order to do this, we have even suspended, and still suspend the running a fair boundary between them and us, as agreed to by themselves … and that we have constantly endeavored to keep them at peace with the Spanish settlements also; that Spain, on the contrary, or at least the officers of her Government … has undertaken to keep an agent among the Creeks, has excited them and the other southern Indians to commence a war against us, has furnished them with arms and ammunition for the express purpose of carrying on that war, and prevented the Creeks from running the boundary which would have removed the source of differences from between us.” Viar and Jaudenes replied on May 25, 1793, with a statement that Blount had distributed medals to the Indians and had asked their aid for the United States in the event of a war with Spain. On June 18, 1793, they accused the United States of inciting “the Chicakasaws to commence war against the Creeks with the palpable views, that they, being less numerous than the Creeks, may be under the necessity to ask the protection of Govr. Blount & his troops, & so give him then a good occasion of asking a recompense from the Chickasaws lands to form an establishment at the place called the Encores Amargas … & have a source whence to incommode & intercept the communication between New Orleans & the establishments of Spain at the Illinois & New Madrid.…”
On June 30, 1793, Jefferson presented the Government’s views on the Spanish charges concerning the situation on the southern frontier in a letter to Carmichael and Short. After refuting the claims of the Spanish representatives, Jefferson concluded: “And lastly, these gentlemen say, that, on a view of these proceedings of the United States, with respect to Spain and the Indians their allies, they forsee that our peace with Spain is very problematical in future. The principal object of the letter being our supposed excitements of the Chickasaws against the Creeks, and their protection of the latter, are we to understand from this, that, if we arm to repel the attacks of the Creeks on ourselves, it will disturb our peace with Spain? That if we will not fold our arms, and let them butcher us without resistance, Spain will consider it as a cause of war? This is indeed so serious an intimation, that the President has thought it could no longer be treated of with subordinate characters, but, that his sentiments should be conveyed to the government of Spain itself, through you.… If we cannot otherwise prevail on the Creeks to discontinue their depredations, we will attack them in force. If Spain chooses to consider our self defence against savage butchery as a cause of war to her, we must meet her also in war.…”


Title: Cabinet Meeting. Opinion on the Depredations of the Creek Indians Upon the State of Georgia, 29 May 1793
From:
To:

[Philadelphia] May 29th 1793

The President of the United States having assembled the heads of the respective departments and the attorney General, laid before them for their advice thereon, sundry communications from the Governor of Georgia, and others, relatively to the recent alarming depredations of the creek Indians upon the state of Georgia.
Whereupon after the subject was maturely considered and discussed it was unanimously advised
That the Governor of Georgia be informed that from considerations relative to foreign powers, and the pending treaty with the Northern Indians, it is deemed adviseable for the present, to avoid offensive expeditions into the Indian Country. But from the nature of the late appearances, it is thought expedient to encrease the force to be kept up for defensive purposes. The President therefore authorises, the calling into, and keeping in service, in addition to the troops heretofore stationed in Georgia, one hundred horse, and one hundred infantry, to be employed in repelling inroads as circumstances shall require. As it does not yet appear that the whole nation of the creeks, is engaged in hostility, it is confided that this force will be sufficient for the object designated. The case of a serious invasion of the territory of Georgia, by large bodies of Indians must be referred to the provisions of the constitution. The proceeding with efficacy in future requires absolutely, that no unnecessary expence should be incurred in the mean time.
The above corps of horse to be raised for any period of time not exceeding twelve Months as may be found most practicable, subject to be dismissed at any time sooner as the government may think fit. The infantry to be called into service according to the course of the militia Laws endevoring to secure their continuance in service for the like time.
That General Pickens be invited to repair to the seat of Government, for the purpose of information and consultation; a proper compensation for his expences, and loss of time to be allowed.
That a further supply of one thousand arms with correspondent accoutrements be forwarded to the state of Georgia. Arms and accoutrements, for the cavalry to be also provided and forwarded.
That an Agent be sent to the Creeks to endevor to adjust the surrender of those Indians who have lately committed murders on the citizens of Georgia; to conciliate, and secure such of the Indians as may be well disposed to the United States, in the event of a war with the Creek nation, and if possible to prevent that extremety.

Th: Jefferson
H Knox
Edm: Randolph
Alexander Hamilton


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from John Addison and Peter Van Gaasbeck, 30 May 1793
From: Addison, John,Van Gaasbeck, Peter
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Kingston, New York, May 30, 1793. On June 15, 1793, Hamilton wrote to Addison and Van Gaasbeck: “I received two or three days since your letter of the 30th. of May.” Letter not found.]


Title: Treasury Department Circular to the Collectors of the Customs, 30 May 1793
From: Treasury Department,Hamilton, Alexander
To: Collectors of the Customs

Treasury Department,May 30, 1793.
Sir,

It being the opinion of the Executive, that there is no general law of the land, prohibiting the entry and sale of goods captured by foreign powers at war—and consequently that such entry and sale are lawful; except in cases where a prohibition is to be found in the treaties of the United States—
It becomes the duty of this Department to make known to you, that the entry of vessels captured and brought into our ports by the ships of war and privateers of France, and of their cargoes, is to be received in the same manner, under the same regulations, and upon the same conditions, as that of vessels and their cargoes which are not prizes. One of these conditions is, of course, the payment or securing the payment of the duties imposed by law on goods, wares and merchandize imported, and on the tonnage of ships and vessels.
But the same privilege will not extend to any of the other Belligerent Powers, being contrary to the 17th and 22d articles of our Treaty with France.
With consideration,   I am, Sir,   Your obedient servant,


Title: Agreement with the President, Directors, and Company of the Bank of the United States, [31 May 1793]
From: Hamilton, Alexander,President, Directors, and Company of the Bank of the United States
To:

[Philadelphia, May 31, 1793]

Articles of Agreement between Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury, on behalf of the United States of the one part, and the president Directors & Company of the Bank of the Ud. States of the other part, made & concluded the 31st day of May in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred & ninety three. Whereas by the third section of the Act entitled, an Act making appropriations for the support of Government for the year 1793 the President of the U: States is authorised to borrow on accot. of the said States, any sum or sums, not exceeding in the whole 800,000 Dollars, at a rate of interest not exceeding 5 ⅌ Centum pr. annum, & reimbursable at the pleasure of the United States, and it is also thereby declared to be lawful for the Bank of the UStates to lend the said Sum. And whereas the President of the United States by an Instrument under his hand bearing date the 21st day of March 1793, did empower the Secretary of the Treasury to carry into execution the authority so vested in him.
Now therefore these presents witness, that pursuant to the authority & provisions aforesaid it hath been & hereby is agreed, by & between the said parties of the first & second part as follows, vizt. 1st—The said President, Directors & Company shall lend to the United States the said sum of 800,000 Dollars, to be advanced & paid into the Treasury of the United States in four equal monthly installments; the first, on the first day of June; the second, on the first day of July; the third, on the first day of August; & the fourth, on the first day of September of this present year. 2d. The several sums which shall be from time to time advanced, shall respectively bear interest from the time of each advance, at the rate of five ⅌ Centum ⅌ annum, & shall each be reimbursed, or repaid within the term of six months after the advance thereof, reserving nevertheless, to the UStates the right at their pleasure to reimburse the whole, or any part of the monies which shall have been so lent & advanced, as much sooner as they shall think fit.
In testimony whereof the said Secretary of the Treasury hath caused the Seal of the Treasury to be affixed to these presents, & hath hereunto subscribed his hand; & the said President, Directors & Company have also caused the Seal of the Bank of the UStates to be affixed to the same the day & year aforesaid. Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury (L.S.). witness to signing by the Secy. of the Treasury Henry Kuhl. Thos. Willing, prest. (L.S.). signed in the presence of Henry Clymer. Thos. M. Willing. attest John Kean, Cashr.


Title: Defense of the President’s Neutrality Proclamation, [May 1793]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[Philadelphia, May, 1793]

1.   It is a melancholy truth, which every new political occurrence more and more unfolds, that there is a discription of men in this country, irreconcileably adverse to the government of the United States; whose exertions, whatever be the springs of them, whether infatuation or depravity or both, tend to disturb the tranquillity order and prosperity of this now peaceable flourishing and truly happy land. A real and enlightened friend to public felicity cannot observe new confirmations of this fact, without feeling a deep and poignant regret, that human nature should be so refractory and perverse; that amidst a profusion of the bounties and blessings of Providence, political as well as natural, inviting to contentment and gratitude, there should still be found men disposed to cherish and propagate disquietude and alarm; to render suspected and detested the instruments of the felicity, in which they partake; to sacrifice the most substantial advantages, that ever fell to the lot of a people at the shrine of personal envy rivalship and animosity, to the instigations of a turbulent and criminal ambition, or to the treacherous phantoms of an ever craving and never to be satisfied spirit of innovation; a spirit, which seems to suggest to its votaries that the most natural and happy state of Society is a state of continual revolution and change—that the welfare of a nation is in exact ratio to the rapidity of the political vicissitudes, which it undergoes—to the frequency and violence of the tempests with which it is agitated.

2   Yet so the fact unfortunately is—such men there certainly are—and it is essential to our dearest interests to the preservation of peace and good order to the dignity and independence of our public councils—to the real and permanent security of liberty and property—that the Citizens of the UStates should open their eyes to the true characters and designs of the men alluded to—should be upon their guard against their insidious and ruinous machinations.
3   At this moment a most dangerous combination exists. Those who for some time past have been busy in undermining the constitution and government of the UStates, by indirect attacks, by labouring to render its measures odious, by striving to destroy the confidence of the people in its administration—are now meditating a more direct and destructive war against it—a⟨nd⟩ embodying and arranging their forces and systematising their efforts. Secret clubs are formed and private consultations held. Emissaries are dispatched to distant parts of the United States to effect a concert of views and measures, among the members and partisans of the disorganising corps, in the several states. The language in the confidential circles is that the constitution of the United States is too complex a system—that it savours too much of the pernicious doctrine of “ballances and checks” that it requires to be simplified in its structure, to be purged of some monarchical and aristocratic ingredients which are said to have found their way into it and to be stripped of some dangerous prerogatives, with which it is pretended to be invested.
4   The noblest passion of the human soul, which no where burns with so pure and bright a flame, as in the breasts of the people of the UStates, is if possible to be made subservient to this fatal project. That zeal for the liberty of mankind, which produced so universal a sympathy in the cause of France in the first stages of its revolution, and which, it is supposed, has not yet yielded to the just reprobation, which a sober temperate and humane people, friends of religion, social order, and justice, enemies to tumult and massacre, to the wanton and lawless shedding of human blood cannot but bestow upon those extravagancies excesses and outrages, which have sullied and which endanger that cause—that laudable, it is not too much to say that holy zeal is intended by every art of misrepresentation and deception to be made the instrument first of controuling finally of overturning the Government of the Union.

5   The ground which has been so wisely taken by the Executive of the UStates, in regard to the present war of Europe against France, is to be the pretext of this mischievous attempt. The people are if possible to be made to believe, that the Proclamation of neutrality issued by the President of the US was unauthorised illegal and officious—inconsistent with the treaties and plighted faith of the Nation—inconsistent with a due sense of gratitude to France for the services rendered us in our late contest for independence and liberty—inconsistent with a due regard for the progress and success of republican principles. Already the presses begin to groan with invective against the Chief Magistrate of the Union, for that prudent and necessary measure; a measure calculated to manifest to the World the pacific position of the Government and to caution the citizens of the UStates against practices, which would tend to involve us in a War the most unequal and calamitous, in which it is possible for a Country to be engaged—a war which would not be unlikely to prove pregnant with still greater dangers and disasters, than that by which we established our existence as an Independent Nation.
6   What is the true solution of this extraordinary appearance? Are the professed the real motives of its authors? They are not. The true object is to disparage in the opinion and affections of his fellow citizens that man who at the head of our armies fought so successfully for the Liberty and Independence, which are now our pride and our boast—who during the war supported the hopes, united the hearts and nerved the arm of his countrymen—who at the close of it, unseduced by ambition & the love of power, soothed and appeased the discontents of his suffering companions in arms, and with them left the proud scenes of a victorious field for the modest retreats of private life—who could only have been drawn out of these favourite retreats, to aid in the glorious work of ingrafting that liberty, which his sword had contributed to win, upon a stock of which it stood in need and without which it could not flourish—endure—a firm adequate national Government—who at this moment sacrifices his tranquillity and every favourite pursuit to the peremptory call of his country to aid in giving solidity to a fabric, which he has assisted in rearing—whose whole conduct has been one continued proof of his rectitude moderation disinterestedness and patriotism, who whether the evidence of a uniform course of virtuous public actions be considered, or the motives likely to actuate a man placed precisely in his situation be estimated, it may safely be pronounced, can have no other ambition than that of doing good to his Country & transmitting his fame unimpaired to posterity. For what or for whom is he to hazard that rich harvest of glory, which he has acquired that unexampled veneration and love of his fellow Citizens, which he so eminently possesses?
7   Yet the men alluded to, while they contend with affected zeal for gratitude towards a foreign Nation, which in assisting us was and ought to have been influenced by considerations relative to its own interest—forgetting what is due to a fellow Citizen, who at every hazard rendered essential services to his Country from the most patriotic motives—insidiously endeavour to despoil him of that precious reward of his services, the confidence and approbation of his fellow Citizens.
8   The present attempt is but the renewal in another form of an attack some time since commenced, and which was only dropped because it was perceived to have excited a general indignation. Domestic arrangements of mere convenience, calculated to reconcile the œconomy of time with the attentions of decorum and civility were then the topics of malevolent declamation. A more serious article of charge is now opened and seems intended to be urged with greater earnestness and vigour. The merits of it shall be examined in one or two succeeding papers, I trust in a manner, that will evince to every candid mind to futility.
9   To be an able and firm supporter of the Government of the Union is in the eyes of the men referred to a crime sufficient to justify the most malignant persecution. Hence the attacks which have been made and repeated with such persevering industry upon more than one public Character in that Government. Hence the effort which is now going on to depreciate in the eyes and estimation of the People the man whom their unanimous suffrages have placed at the head of it.
10   Hence the pains which are taking to inculcate a discrimination between principles and men and to represent an attachment to the one as a species of war against the other; an endeavour, which has a tendency to stifle or weaken one of the best and most useful feelings of the human heart—a reverence for merit—and to take away one of the strongest incentives to public virtue—the expectation of public esteem.
11   A solicitude for the character who is attacked forms no part of the motives to this comment. He has deserved too much, and his countrymen are too sensible of it to render any advocation of him necessary. If his virtues and services do not secure his fame and ensure to him the unchangeable attachment of his fellow Citizens, twere in vain to attempt to prop them by anonymous panygeric.
12   The design of the observations which have been made is merely to awaken the public attention to the views of a party engaged in a dangerous conspiracy against the tranquillity and happiness of their country. Aware that their hostile aims against the Government can never succeed til they have subverted the confidence of the people in its present Chief Magistrate, they have at length permitted the suggestions of their enmity to betray them into this hopeless and culpable attempt. If we can destroy his popularity (say they) our work is more than half completed.
13   In proportion as the Citizens of the UStates value the constitution on which their union and happiness depend, in proportion as they tender the blessings of peace and deprecate the calamities of War—ought to be their watchfulness against this success of the artifices which will be employed to endanger that constitution and those blessings. A mortal blow is aimed at both.
14   It imports them infinitely not to be deceived by the protestations which are made—that no harm is meditated against the Constitution—that no design is entertained to involve the peace of the Country. These appearances are necessary to the accomplishment of the plan which has been formed. It is known that the great body of the People are attached to the constitution. It would therefore defeat the intention of destroying it to avow that it exists. It is also known that the People of the UStates are firmly attached to peace. It would consequently frustrate the design of engaging them in the War to tell them that such an object is in contemplation.
15   A more artful course has therefore been adopted. Professions of good will to the Constitution are made without reserve: But every possible art is employed to render the administration and the most zealous and useful friends of the Government odious. The reasoning is obvious. If the people can be persuaded to dislike all the measures of the Government and to dislike all or the greater part of those who have [been] most conspicuous in establishing or conducting it—the passage from this to the dislike and change of the constitution will not be long nor difficult. The abstract idea of regard for a constitution on paper will not long resist a thorough detestation of its practice.
16   In like manner, professions of a disposition to preserve the peace of the Country are liberally made. But the means of effecting the end are condemned; and exertions are used to prejudice the community against them. A proclamation of neutrality in the most cautious form is represented as illegal—contrary to our engagements with and our duty towards one of the belligerent powers. The plain inference is that in the opinion of these characters the UStates are under obligations which do not permit them to be neutral. Of course they are in a situation to become a party in the War from duty.
17   Pains are likewise taken to inflame the zeal of the people for the cause of France and to excite their resentments against the powers at War with her. To what end all this—but to beget if possible a temper in the community which may overrule the moderate or pacific views of the Government.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Thomas Jefferson, 1 June 1793
From: Jefferson, Thomas
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Philadelphia June 1. 1793
Sir

I have the honor to inclose you the following portion of a Draught of a letter to M. Genet in answer to his ⟨– – –⟩.

do.
to order away the privateers fitted out in our ports.

do.
to Messrs Carmichael & Short on the letter of Viar & Jaudenes.

do.
to Viar & Jaudenes in answer to their letter.

with these are all the preceding letters respecting the same subject.

The ideas are in the form approved by Genl. Knox, Mr. Randolph & myself and we have agreed to meet at my office on Monday at 12 oclock to consider of any alterations which you would wish to impose on my giving them my signature.
I also inclose two other papers for your signature; the third which relates to the letters of Genl Williams which is merely in the form of a memorandum to which no signature was thought to be requisite.
I have the honor to be with great respect Sir

Th: Jefferson
The Secretary of the Treasury


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from William Bell, 2 June 1793
From: Bell, William
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Philadelphia June 2. 1793
Sir

The note, which I endorsed for Mr. Edmund Randolph for twenty five hundred dollars, and is now in your hands, I acknowledge to be as binding on me, as if a demand had been made from me for the same, when it became due or at any time since.

William Bell
To Alexander Hamilton esqr.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from William Ellery, 3 June 1793
From: Ellery, William
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Newport, Rhode Island] June 3, 1793. “When Aaron Usher returned I made all the inquiry I could into the cause of his departure from the American coast, and the sale of his Vessel at Port au Prince. I asked for his protest. He answered he had made none. I told him it would have been proper to have made one at Hispaniola. He said it might; but it would have cost him as much as his vessel was worth. His mate did not return with him, otherwise I should have called upon him and examined him.… Before I received your letter of the 29th. of April Samuel Slocum master of the Sloop Ranger of Bristol arrived here in said Sloop from St. Domingo, and delivered his License, declaring that he had been [driven] from the American coast by adverse and violent winds. I asked him whether he had protested at St. Eustatia the place where he said he first arrived, or at St. Domingo the second place of his arrival. He said he had not, and assigned for reason that one of his owners who was on board the vessel did not direct it to be done, and the owner declared that he did not think it was necessary, as neither the Vessel nor Cargo was insured, and it would have been expensive.… About the same time that Samuel Slocum appeared at my offe. appeared also John Hull late master of the Sloop Wallow of Newport and delivered up his Register and License, declaring that he had been driven by a violent gale of wind from the American coast, and proceeded to the island of St. Thomas where he sold said Sloop. I asked him questions similar to those I had asked Slocum & Usher, and received for answer that he did not know that it was necessary to protest, that his vessel was not insured &c.…”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Edmond Charles Genet, 3 June 1793
From: Genet, Edmond Charles
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[June 3, 1793. An extract of this letter reads as follows: “I pray you to put hereafter in the disposition of Citizen Bournonville, Secretary of Legation of the Republic, the funds destined to the acquittal of the drafts of the Colony of St. Domingo, according to the order of payments settled between you & my predecessor.” Letter not found.]


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Thomas Jefferson, 3 June 1793
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Jefferson, Thomas

Treasury DepartmentJune 3d. 1793
Sir

It was not till within an hour, that I received your letter of the 1st with the papers accompanying it. I approve all the drafts of letters, as they stand, except that I have some doubt about the concluding sentence of that on the subject of Henfield. If the facts are (as I presume they are) established—may it not be construed into a wish, that there may be found no law to punish a conduct in our citizens, which is of a tendency dangerous to the peace of the Nation and injurious to powers with whom we are on terms of peace and neutrality?
I should also like to substitute to the words “have the favourable issue you desire” these words “issue accordingly.”
I retain till tomorrow the paper relating to an Agent to the Choctaws. My judgment is not intirely made up on the point—the state of my family’s and of my own health for some days having prevented due reflection upon it. With great respect I have the honor to be Sir
Your obedient servant

A Hamilton
The Secretary of State


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from George Washington, 3 June 1793
From: Washington, George
To: Hamilton, Alexander

United States 3d. June 1793.

Pay to the Director of the Mint, or his order, five thousand Dollars for the purposes of that Establishment.

Go: Washington

5,000 Ds.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from George Washington, [3 June 1793]
From: Washington, George
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia, June 3, 1793]
Sir,

The question of admitting modifications of the debt of the US. to France, having been the subject of consultation with the heads of the Departments & the Attorney General, and an unanimous opinion given thereon which involves the enclosed propositions from the French Minister, you will be pleased, under the form of a report to me, to prepare what may serve as an answer, making it conformable to the opinion already given.

Go Washington
3d. June 1793.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, 3 June 1793
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Washington, George

Treasury Departmt. 3d. June 1793.
Sir,

The failure of the late enterprize against the United Netherlands may be expected to have made a favourable alteration, in regard to the prospects of obtaining Loans there for the United States. Such an expectation is also countenanced by a late letter from our bankers at Amsterdam, which however as yet gives no certainty, that can be a basis of operation.
The existing instructions from this Department to mr Short do not extend beyond two millions of florins. A comprehensive view of the affairs of the United States, in various relations, appears to me to recommend a still further loan, if obtainable. Yet I do not think it adviseable to take the step, by virtue of the general powers from you, without your special approbation; particularly as there is little probability that the loan can be effected on better terms than five per Cent Interests and four per cent charges. The further loan which I should contemplate would embrace 3,000,000 of florins.
With perfect respect   I am &c.

A Hamilton


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Tench Coxe, 4 June 1793
From: Coxe, Tench
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Philadelphia, June 4, 1793. On June 22, 1793, Hamilton wrote to George Washington and referred to a letter “of the 4 inst. from the Commissioner of the Revenue on the subject of compensations to Keepers of Light houses.” Letter not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Edmund Randolph, 4 June 1793
From: Randolph, Edmund
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Philadelphia, June 4, 1793. “… Inclosed is Mr. Bell’s paper. From Baltimore I shall remit that Sum, which I mentioned to you in part of your kind favor.…”


Title: Draft of a Report on the French Debt, [5 June 1793]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[Philadelphia, June 5, 1793]

The Secy. of the Treasury, to whom were referred by the President of the US. sundry documents communicated by the Min. Plenipy. of the Republic of France, respectfully makes the following report thereupon.
The object of the communication appears to be to engage the US. to enter into arrangements for discharging the residue of the debt which they owe to France by an anticipated payment of the instalments not yet due, either in specie, bank bills of equal currency with specie, or Government bonds, bearing interest & payable at certain specified periods, upon condition that the sum advanced shall be invested in productions of the US. for the supply of the French dominions.
This object is the same which came under consideration on certain propositions lately made by Colo. W. S. Smith who appeared to have been charged by the Provisional Executive Council of France with a negociation concerning it; in reference to which it was determined by the President with the concurring opinions of the heads of department & the Attorney general that the measure was ineligible, & that the proposer should be informed that it did not consist with the arrangements of the government to adopt it.
The grounds of the determination were purely political. Nothing has hitherto happened to weaken them. The decision on the application of the min. pleny. of France will therefore naturally correspond with that on the propositions of Col. Smith. This indeed is signified to be the intention of the President.
It consequently only remains to make known the determination to the minister, in answer to his application with or without reasons.
The following considerations seem to recommend a simple communication of the determination without reasons, viz.
I. The US. not being bound by the terms of their contract to make the anticipated payments desired, there is no necessity for a specification of the motives for not doing it.
II. No adequate reasons but the true ones can be assigned for the non-compliance, & the assignment of these would not be wholly without inconvenience. The mention of them might create difficulties in some future stage of affairs, when they may have lost a considerable portion of their force.
The following answer in substance, is presumed then to be the most proper which can be given.
“That a proposition to the same effect was not long since brought forward by Col. Smith, as having been charged with a negociation on the subject, by the Provisional Executive Council of France. That it was then, upon full consideration, concluded not to accede to the measure, for reasons which continue to operate, & consequently lead at this time to the same conclusion. That an explanation of these reasons would with pleasure be entered into, were it not for the considerations that it would have no object of present utility, & might rather serve to occasion embarrasment in future.”


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Jeremiah Banning, 6 June 1793
From: Banning, Jeremiah
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[Oxford, Maryland, June 6, 1793. On June 21, 1793, Hamilton wrote to Banning “In answer to your letter of the 6th instant.” Letter not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from George Washington, [6 June 1793]
From: Washington, George
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Sir,
[Philadelphia, June 6, 1793]

Upon a mature consideration of your communication to me of the 3d. instant, recommending a still further Loan in Holland, if obtainable, to the amount of 3,000,000 florins—and stating, that in case the recommendation should meet my ideas, my special approbation thereof would be proper, I have thought it necessary, in order to make the subject clear to my mind, before any steps are taken in it, to request you to give me information on the following points—vizt.
1st—Whether all the monies, borrowed under the Acts of the 4. & 12. of Augt. 1790, have been expended on their respective objects? If not, what is the balance?
2d.—Under which of the two Laws do you propose that a loan should be opened?
3d.—If under one, or the other, or both, what is the balance remaining unborrowed, of the two sums allowed to be borrowed?
4. To what use is the money, proposed to be borrowed, to be applied?

Go. Washington
Philadelphia6. June 1793.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Joseph Whipple, 7 June 1793
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Whipple, Joseph

[Philadelphia, June 7, 1793. On June 19, 1793, Whipple wrote to Hamilton: “I had the honor to receive … your letter of the 7th. instant.” Letter not found.]


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Otho H. Williams, 7 June 1793
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Williams, Otho H.

Treasury Department, June 7, 1793. “I duly received your letter of the 28th Ultimo.… In reply to this letter, I have to refer you to my Circular one of the 30th Ultimo.”


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Samuel Smith, 8 June 1793
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Smith, Samuel

[Philadelphia, June 8, 1793. On June 16, 1793, Smith wrote to Hamilton: “I receivd your Letter of the 8 Inst.” Letter not found.]


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from John Cleves Symmes, [8 June 1793]
From: Symmes, John Cleves
To: Hamilton, Alexander

[June 8, 1793. “The Secretary of the Treasury put into my hands a letter from Judge Symmes, dated 8th June on the subject of the land granted to him & his associates.” Letter not found.]


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, 8 June 1793
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Washington, George

Treasury Departmt. 8 June 1793.
Sir,

I have the honor to send you a report on the communication from the Minister plenipotentiary of France respecting the reimbursement of the residue of the Debt of the United States to that Country, altered in conformity to your desire; and to be with perfect respect &c.

Alexander Hamilton