Title: H. G. Letter I, 20 February 1789
From: Hamilton, Alexander,“H. G.”
To:

New York, February 20, 1789.
Dear Sir,
Your letter of the 18th instant, has duly come to hand, and entitles you to my particular thanks. In return I shall endeavor fully to comply with your request, and furnish you, in a series of letters, with all the materials in my power, to enable you to judge what conduct it will be proper for you to pursue, in relation to the ensuing election for Governor. Your influence is considerable; and you do well to examine before you resolve on what side to bestow it.
The present Governor was bred to the law, under William Smith, Esquire, formerly of this city. Some time before the late revolution, he resided in Ulster county, and there followed his profession with reputation, though not with distinction. He was not supposed to possess considerable talents; but upon the whole, stood fair on the score of probity. It must however be confessed, that he early got the character with many of being a very artful man; and it is not to be wondered at, if that impression, on the minds in which it prevailed, deducted something from the opinion of his integrity. But it would be refining too much to admit such a consequence to be a just one. There certainly are characters (tho’ they may be rare) which unite a great degree of address, and even a large portion of what is best expressed by the word CUNNING, with a pretty exact adherence, in the main, to the principles of integrity.
Mr. Clinton, from his youth upwards, has been remarkable for a quality, which, when accompanied by a sound and enlarged understanding, a liberal mind, and a good heart, is denominated firmness, and answers the most valuable purposes; but which when joined with narrow views, a prejudiced and contracted disposition, a passionate and interested temper, passes under the name of obstinacy, and is a source of the greatest mischiefs, especially in exalted public stations.
This Gentleman, immediately preceding the contest with GreatBritain, was several times returned a member of assembly for the county in which he lived; and being of a warm, zealous, resolute temper, became in a great measure the head of one of the parties which then prevailed in the legislature. The merit or demerit of these parties is not now worthy of discussion—nor can they, or the principles upon which they reciprocally moved, be too soon or too entirely buried in oblivion.
In the beginning of 1775, the contest with Great-Britain had become serious; and we all remember the interesting question then agitated in our assembly, respecting the co-operation of this state in the general measures of America. Here Mr. Clinton and Mr. Philip Schuyler

   Then called Colonel Schuyler, and since General Schuyler.

 were the leaders of the minority, who advocated the propriety of that co-operation, and both these gentlemen, for their conduct upon the occasion, will always be entitled to credit from the friends of the revolution. To compare the degree of merit to which they may respectively lay claim, would be an invidious task. But as the partizans of Governor Clinton have taken pains to propagate an opinion of superior merit in him, in regard to this transaction, it is but justice to the other gentleman, to observe that he was equally open and decided in the part he took in that question: That as none will pretend to ascribe to Mr. Clinton greater abilities than to Mr. Schuyler, the exertions of the latter must have been at least as useful as those of the former; and that Mr. Schuyler has in his favor the additional circumstance of having risked a large property, which Mr. Clinton had not to risk, upon the event of the revolution.
With sincere esteem,   I remain, dear sir,   Your obedient servant
H___ G___

To ___ ___. Esq.
}

Suffolk County.


Title: H. G. Letter II, 21 February 1789
From: Hamilton, Alexander,“H. G.”
To:

New-York, February 21, 1789.
Sir,
Shortly after the breaking out of the war with Great-Britain, Mr. Clinton received an appointment as brigadier-general, in which capacity he served until he was elected governor of the state, some time in the early part of the year 1777.
In both these situations, from the condition of the state, which, during the greatest part of the war was its principal theatre, Mr. Clinton was frequently engaged in military duties. There is, however, no part of his character, which has been more misrepresented than the military part of it. His panegyrists describe him to us as the “war worn veteran”—the complete soldier—the consummate general. One would imagine from their stories of him, that he had often, in the language of Sergeant Kite, “breakfasted upon ravelins, and picked his teeth with palisadoes.” That he was the first of American generals; a Marius in courage, a Caesar in skill, inferior in nothing to a Turerne or a Monteculli, an Eugene or a Marlborough. But trust me, my dear Sir, this is mere rant and romance. That Mr. Clinton is a man of courage, there is no reason to doubt. That he was upon most occasions active and vigorous cannot be justly disputed. In his capacity of governor he was ever ready to promote the common cause—prompt in affording the aid of the militia, when requisite, and scrupling not, when he thought his presence might be of use, to put himself at the head of them. But here his praise as a soldier ends. Beyond this he has no pretension to the wreath of military renown. No man can tell when or where he gave proofs of generalship, either in council or in the field. After diligent enquiry, I have not been able to learn that he was ever more than once in actual combat. This was at Fort Montgomery, where he commanded in person; and which, after a feeble and unskilful defence, was carried by storm. That post strongly fortified by nature, almost inaccessible in itself, and sufficiently manned, was capable of being rendered a much more difficult morsel to the assailants than they found it to be. This I own was not the common idea at the time; but it is not the less true. To embellish military exploits, and varnish military disgraces, is no unusual policy. Besides, governor Clinton was then at the zenith of his popularity, a circumstance which disposed men’s minds to take a great deal for granted. One particular in this affair deserves to be noticed. It is certain that the governor made a well-timed retreat, (I mean personally, for the greatest part of the garrison were captured), a thing which must have occasioned no small conflict in the breast of a commander nice in military punctilio. But squeamishness on this head, had been ill placed. It was undoubtedly the duty of the Brigadier to provide in season for the safety of the Governor.
Those who are best acquainted with the particulars of the burning of Esopus, in the fall of the year 1777, assert that his Excellency was culpably deficient in exertion on that occasion. The fact seems to have been, that a large body of men remained unemployed in the vicinity, under his direction, while the descent of the enemy was made with little or no opposition. And there is room to suppose, that if a better countenance had been kept up, the evil might have been prevented.
Very sincerely your’s,
H___ G___.

To ___ ___, Esq.
}

Suffolk County.


Title: H. G. Letter III, 22 February 1789
From: Hamilton, Alexander,“H. G.”
To:

New-York, February 22, 1789.
Dear Sir,
You mention towards the close of your letter, two reports circulating in your county, which you say operate to the advantage of Mr. Clinton; the one, that at the time he first took the chair of government, “the great men” as they are insidiously called, declined the station, through apprehension of the dangers that might attend it. Not less willing then to set him up as a mark for the resentment of the power, with which we were contending, in case of an unfortunate issue to the war, than eager now to deprive him of the well earned fruits of his courage, after it has been happily terminated: the other, that the exertions made by this state during the war are chiefly to be attributed to his influence.
Truly, my dear Sir, had the terms of your letter been less positive, I could not have supposed it possible, that suggestions so unfounded as these, and so easy to be disproved by the testimony of all well-inform[ed]-men, could ever have been propagated.
So far is the first report from being true, that it is a fact notorious to those who were acquainted with the transactions of the period, that in the very first election for Governor in this state, General Schuyler was a competitor with Mr. Clinton for the office, and it is alleged would have been likely to prevail, had not the votes of a considerably body of militia, then under the immediate command and influence of the latter, turned the scale in his favour.
Neither is there much more of truth in the second report. Mr. Clinton’s zeal and activity in forwarding the revolution were unquestionably conspicuous. But to ascribe to him the chief merit of the exertions of the state, is to decorate him with the spoils of others. There were, at every period of the war, choice spirits in both houses of the legislature; his equals in zeal and fortitude—his superiors in abilities. These men needed not his incitement, to invigorate their efforts, nor his counsel to direct their plans.
One of the number only I shall name; Egbert Benson, Esq; the present Attorney General. This gentleman, in the capacity of a member of the assembly, long had a principal agency in giving energy and animation to the measures of the state.
In confining myself to the mention of Mr. Benson, it is not because there are not others, who have an equal claim to it; but it is because it is his peculiar good fortune to have talents and virtues, and yet to be unenvied. And as it is my intention you should be at liberty, to make any use of these letters, which you may think proper, I am unwilling to attempt an enumeration of all the characters alluded to, lest if incomplete, it should be the occasion of offence.
Though not immediately connected with the subject, there is one circumstance, which I cannot forbear mentioning before I conclude. Mr. Benson during the war was considered as the confidential friend and advisor of the Governor. Not long after the peace it was perceived, that this relation between the two persons, began to be weakened, and it is sometime since it has been understood to have entirely ceased. The first appearance of the change was, to discerning men, an ill omen of the future. But Benson was an unfit confidant for the new system of policy. He was honest and independent. Materials better adapted for tools were wanted; and they have been selected with admirable judgment.
Your’s, with much regard,
H___ G___

To ___ ___ Esq.
}

Suffolk County.


Title: Election Circular, [23–28 February 1789]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[New York, February 23–28, 1789]
Sir
As it will evidently be of great use in the ensuing election to have some Gentlemen of activity in each ward to superintend the business and promote activity among the electors the Committee appointed to forward the election of John Laurence Esquire will be much obliged by your assistance for those purposes, in the ward to which you belong, and request the same accordingly. With this view they will be happy to see you at Bardin’s on Monday Evening next at seven oClock to concert the preparatory arrangements.
I am Sir   Your Obedient & hum servant
A HBy order of the Committee


Title: H. G. Letter V, 25 February 1789
From: Hamilton, Alexander,“H. G.”
To:

New-York, February 25, 1789.
Dear Sir,
In your’s of the 23d instant, which has just come to hand, you observe that there are persons in your county, who entertain favourable impressions of the present governor, for the good order preserved in this city, upon the evacuation of it by the British troops; and which you say is ascribed to his moderation, care and decision. This is an idea, not confined to your county. Mr. Clinton and his friends, have had the address to disseminate it, in this and in other parts of the district. The apprehensions excited, by some inflammatory publications, prior to our taking possession of the city, disposed mens’ minds to regard it as a great merit in the executive, that they were not subjected to general plunder and massacre. But this compliment to him includes a supposition of licentiousness and fury in the citizens in general, who returned within the district at that period, which they do not deserve, and which in truth form no part of the American character.
It must be confessed, that there were a few very violent men; and that these, for the sake of present consequence, endeavoured to work upon the passions of others for intemperate purposes. But the number of those who were inclined to violate the laws, or disturb the public peace, was at no time considerable enough to make the danger serious. The greater part were either for liberal and moderate measures, or at worst for some legislative discriminations. It is worthy of remark, that some of the most heated have been, at all times warm adherents to the governor, and objects of his peculiar patronage.
What was the precise line of conduct pursued by his Excellency at the juncture in question, I have never been able clearly to ascertain. But to many, and to me among the rest, it appeared indecisive and temporising—savouring more of artifice and duplicity, than of real prudence or energy. A popular chief magistrate, as Mr. Clinton then certainly was, standing on the firm ground of national faith and the constitution, by an independent use of his influence, might in all probability have prevented some measures of that day which have been both injurious and disreputable to the state.
The inclination of the governor to hinder tumult or commotion is not to be questioned. In his situation, a man must have been both abandoned and mad, not to have had that inclination. Regard to his own authority and consequence, independent of other motives, was sufficient to produce it. But there are circumstances, which warrant a conclusion, that he had formed a plan of building up his own popularity in the city, upon that of certain individuals, who were then advocates for persecution; not indeed in the shape of mobs and riots, but of law; by banishment, disfranchisement, and the like: And that his conduct was guided by condescentions to them, which in some measure involved him in their policy. There is a fact to this effect, the particulars of which I do not now distinctly recollect, but which as far as my memory serves me, was of the following complexion—The council appointed for the temporary government of the southern district, on account of some irregularities which had happened, passed a resolution, or framed a proclamation; for repressing the spirit that had occasioned them, which was entrusted to the governor for publication. Instead, however, of executing the intention of the council, he communicated their act to two of the persons alluded to, and upon their advice or remonstrances, withheld it from publication till the next meeting of the council, a majority of whom were then prevailed upon to rescind it.
It is not undeserving of attention, that the chief agents in promoting the laws, passed after the evacuation of the city, of which the inhabitants of the southern district had reason to complain, were men who have been constantly devoted to the governor; and that the persons who have had the greatest share in mitigating or abrogating those exceptionable laws, have been in opposite views to him. And it ought not to escape observation, that there has never been any official act of the governor calculated to affect the alteration or repeal of those laws.
It is with reluctance, my Dear Sir, that I look back to transactions, which cannot be too soon forgotten. All parties now rejoice in the effects of a more liberal policy. And I should not have been induced to revive topics of so disagreeable a nature, had it not been necessary as well to the advancement of truth, as to the performance of my promise to you.
I remain, your friend and servant,
H___ G___.

To ___ ___ Esq.
}

Suffolk County.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to the Citizens of New York, [26 February 1789]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Citizens of New York

[New York, February 26, 1789]
The Committee appointed by the Meeting at Bardin’s Tavern, on Monday evening, for the purpose of carrying into execution the views of the meeting respecting the election of Mr. John Lawrence, as a representative of this district in Congress, having understood that a meeting was held this evening at the Coffee house in opposition to that nomination, which has been adjourned till to-morrow evening, at Bardin’s Tavern; and thinking it of importance to the union of the city, that the intended meeting should be a full one, beg leave to recommend the general attendance of their fellow citizens upon that occasion,

By Order of the committee,
Alexander Hamilton, Chairman.
Thursday, Feb. 26, 1789.


Title: H. G. Letter VII, 28 February 1789
From: Hamilton, Alexander,“H. G.”
To:

New-York, February 28, 1789.
Dear Sir,
The embarrassments experienced in carrying through the first plan, the increase of the national debt, and other circumstances induced Congress to devise a new system of impost, which was finally agreed upon on the 18th of April 1783. In this system, the appointment of the officers, to collect the duties, was referred to the several states, which it was supposed would remove the principal objection to the former plan. All the states, except New York, substantially adopted it, annexing certain precautions for the more secure exercise of the powers granted to Congress. But New-York persisted to the last in withholding her assent. She passed indeed a law for granting an impost on different principles; but as Congress could not accept this, without releasing the other states, and setting the whole business afloat, it was evident to all the world, that the act of New-York was nothing better than a mere evasion of the thing asked.
The Governor, undoubtedly, took an active part in opposition to this measure. It is true, he declared in the Convention, that he had always been a friend to the impost, but could not agree to the manner in which Congress proposed to exercise the power. This is plainly a subterfuge. He was a friend to an abstract something, which might be any thing or nothing, as he pleased; but he was an enemy to the thing proposed. A general impost being a measure, not within the provision of the confederation, could only be brought about by some general plan devised by the common councils of the union, and submitted to the adoption of the several states. There could else be no concert, no common agreement. To oppose therefore the specific plan offered, and yet pretend to be a friend to the thing in the abstract, deserves no better name than that of hypocrisy.
I am possessed of unquestionable evidence to prove, that he used personal influence with members of the legislature to prejudice them against the granting of the impost. You may obtain a confirmation of this, from one of the gentlemen who represented your own county in the year 1786. The argument employed with him was, that Congress being a single body, and consequently without checks, would be apt to misapply the money arising from it. This looks like more than an objection to the mode. If the money was to be granted in any shape, that consequence, if to be apprehended at all, might follow.
A question of a very delicate and serious nature, arises on this conduct of the governor. Is it justifiable in the chief magistrate of a state to employ his personal influence with individual members of the legislature, in relation to any matter of public concern, which is to come under their deliberation? To me an interference of this sort appears highly exceptionable.
With sincere regard, I am, Dear Sir, Your most obedient Servant,
H___ G___.

To ___ ___, Esq.
}

Suffolk County.


Title: H. G. Letter VIII, 2 March 1789
From: Hamilton, Alexander,“H. G.”
To:

New-York, March 2, 1789.
Dear Sir,
The second particular, which I have stated as evidence of Mr. Clinton’s enmity to the union, is, that he has treated Congress as a body in a contemptuous manner.
A proof of this exists in his refusal to convene the legislature of this state, in the year 1786, upon pressing and repeated applications of Congress; sheltering himself under the frivolous pretence, that the constitution did not leave him liberty to do it.
The constitution empowers the Governor to convene the legislature “on extraordinary occasions.” This provision is evidently calculated to enable him to call together, the legislature whenever any thing of importance out of the ordinary routine of state business should occur. To put any other meaning upon it is absurd, and would embarrass the operations of government. It cannot be supposed that the constitution intended by “extraordinary occasions,” nothing but wars, rebellions, plagues or earthquakes. The word “extraordinary,” as used in this case, can only be construed as equivalent to special; and a special occasion is any thing of moment out of the common and expected course. It merits attention that the words of the constitution are simply that the governor “shall have power to convene the legislature upon extraordinary occasions.” This mode of expression has plainly an authorising and empowering, not a restricting operation. It is true that the Governor is bound in the exercise of this power, to observe a reasonable discretion; and not to act with caprice, levity or wantonness; but the same may be said of every other power with which he is entrusted, and does not affect the constitutional sense of the provision.
Let us now, sir, take a view of the nature of the application and refusal. The legislature of the state, in May, 1786, passed the act I have already mentioned, in lieu of one, conformable to the plan proposed by Congress and agreed to by the other twelve states, (for even Rhode-Island had at length got the better of her scruples.) Congress were of opinion, for the most obvious and solid reasons, that they could derive no advantage from the act of New York; that to attempt it would be to let go their hold on the twelve adopting states, who had made the passing of similar acts by all the states, the condition of their grants: That the act of New-York, independent of the objection just mentioned, was framed upon principles mischievous in their nature, and calculated not only in a great measure to defeat the revenue, but to prevent several of the states from entering into the plan. One of these principles was that the paper money of the state should be receivable in payment of the duties. If Congress had acceded to such a plan, the consequence should have been that the other states, which had emitted paper money would insist upon the same privilege, by which mean the duties would be paid in nominal money of different degrees of value, in some states at a depreciation of forty or fifty per cent; a circumstance which would have diminished the produce of the impost, rendered the burthen unequal upon the citizens of different states, and deterred the states averse to paper money from engaging in the scheme.
Congress for these and other good reasons considered the act of New-York as amounting to nothing. They felt at the same time that the honor and interest of the union were suffering for want of the co-operation of this state. They experienced the most painful embarrassment, in particular from the just demands of those foreigners, who had lent us money to carry on the war. They saw themselves without resource even for paying the interest of the foreign debt, except by new loans abroad for that purpose; a resource which had the pernicious effect of an accumulation of the debt, (for which all our estates must be considered as mortgaged) by the tremendous process of compound interest.
In this disgraceful and ruinous situation, the representatives of the United States make a solemn application to the Governor to convene the legislature for the purpose of reconsidering their act. He refuses to comply, assigning the curious reason, that the constitution empowers him to convene the legislature only on extraordinary occasions, and that the present does not appear to him such—To give color to this idea he intimates the recent consideration of the business by the legislature.
He seems in this proceeding, not only to have taken it for granted, that the legislature would be immoveable by the most solid reasons for altering their policy (which if true he had no right to presume) but also to have forgotten, or not to have chosen to recollect, that the legislature to be convened was not to be regarded as the same body, which had before decided, having been formed by a subsequent election of the people. The measure would therefore have had to undergo a new examination by a new body.
He notwithstanding refuses. Congress impelled by the exigency of the situation pass new resolutions, declaring their opinion that the critical and embarrassed situation of the finances of the United States, required that the system of impost should be carried into immediate effect, and that they deemed the occasion sufficiently important and extraordinary to request that the legislature of this state should be convened; and therefore again earnestly recommending it to the executive to convene the legislature. The Governor persists in his refusal, and the legislature is not convened.
Now, sir, I will boldly appeal to every candid mind, whether this transaction is not evidence, as well of a splenetic and disrespectful disposition towards the government of the United States, as of a temper inflexibly haughty and obstinate. In what a humiliating light must he have considered Congress, not to have looked upon their earnest and repeated application, on a matter which they and all the other states thought of the most serious moment to the union, in a situation notoriously distressing and critical, as an occasion sufficiently special to leave him at liberty to call the legislature together! How much of contempt and disregard towards the representative authority of confederated America was implied in such a construction! The merits of the impost system are of no consequence in the consideration of the subject. The whole is a question of decorum and due deference in the head of a particular member of a confederacy towards the head of the whole confederacy. In this light it is evident that the conduct of the Governor on the occasion was an insult to the people of the United States, and of course to the people of this state, through their representatives in Congress.

I remain with the truest attachment,   Dear Sir,   Your obedient and humble servant,
H___ G___.

To ___ ___. Esq.
}

Suffolk County.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to the Electors of the City and County of New York, [3 March 1789]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Electors of the City and County of New York

[New York, March 3, 1789]
To the Electors of the City and County of New-York.
Fellow-Citizens,
Having been appointed by two different, and very numerous meetings of the inhabitants of this city, among other purposes, for that of forwarding the election of John Lawrence, Esq. as the representative of this district in Congress, we think it our duty to state to such of you as may not have been present at those meetings, what we understand to have been the motives to his nomination, and the circumstances which have attended it.
It appeared, from the particular situation of this state in regard to the new constitution, to be peculiarly necessary to use great care in the choice of the person who was to represent this district. In proportion as there was reason to apprehend that such a choice as we should not approve, was likely to be made in most of the other districts, it became important that our immediate representative should be of a character, which united in a considerable degree all the qualifications requisite to the due support of the credit and interest of the state, and to the advancement of the particular interests of the district; that he should be of a character calculated to acquire a proper degree of weight with his colleagues, and to induce, on their part, a co-operation in such measures as the public good should require. And in addition to the rest, that he should be of a character which afforded complete security that he would be disposed to withstand every attempt to destroy or weaken the national government.
To these ends, it was conceived that he ought to be a man of integrity, of sense, of information, of early and decided attachment to the federal constitution, and of tried firmness of temper. The two last qualifications were considered as not less important than any of the former; because, though the constitution for the United States has been ratified by a very great majority of the people, it cannot yet be regarded as entirely out of danger. It is a truth which we mention with reluctance, but which ought not to be lost sight of, that many of its most powerful adversaries, so far from relinquishing their hostility to it, seem still to meditate its destruction, in the plausible, but insidious shape of amendments. And on this account it is of serious moment, that as far as depends on us, no man should be entrusted with its administration in the outset, whose attachment to it has been either tardy or equivocal, who does not possess decision or firmness of temper sufficient to resist attempts to injure it, or who is under any influence or bias, which in any possible combination of circumstances, might incline him to yield to the artifices of its enemies.
Among the other qualifications which were taken into consideration, that of a talent for public speaking was not unattended to; and though this was not deemed an indispensable one, it was yet regarded as one which could not fail to contribute in a material degree to the usefulness of the candidate.
Taking all circumstances into consideration, it was conceived that Mr. Lawrence united the requisite qualifications in such a degree as to render him, upon the whole, and in the present state of things, a more eligible candidate than any other proposed. It did not pass unnoticed, that he might be deficient in the article of mercantile knowledge; but it was supposed that a man of information, accustomed to political enquiry could easily supply that deficiency, by consulting such of his constituents as were capable of advising him on the subject; and the known disposition of Mr. Lawrence left no reason to doubt that he would always take care to avail himself of this resource.
It was also considered that commercial arrangements were not the only matters which required our care. The preservation of the government itself, in its due force and vigor, is an object of the first consequence; and the establishment of the temporary residence of Congress in this city is another point in which we are deeply concerned. It must, doubtless, therefore be of great importance, from among the persons presented to our choice, to select the man in whose hands the general interests and our immediate interest, in those two points, are least likely to suffer, and most likely to be advanced.
The foregoing were some of the reasons which appear to us to have prevailed upon the first meeting to nominate Mr. Lawrence, and upon the last to confirm it.
We perceive, with regret, that notwithstanding those meetings have furnished the strongest evidence of the general sense of the city, there are still persons who persist in holding up Mr. Broome as a candidate, and endeavour to have it believed that the body of merchants concur in his favor.
To guard against the influence of such a misrepresentation, we think it necessary to assure you, and we doubt not their conduct in the election will evince it, that the great body of the merchants coincide in Mr. Lawrence’s nomination. We assert this, because they very generally attended the two meetings, and at each gave their assent to the nomination.
We infer from this, and there are appearances which strengthen the inference, that other motives than the desire of having a mercantile character to represent us, operate with many of those who are most active in promoting Mr. Broome’s election. Nothing can be better suited to the policy of those who differ in their sentiments from the inhabitants of this city, than to sow divisions among us. They know that if they can set different classes of men against each other, dissentions may spring up among us, which they may hereafter turn to their own purposes. Against this worst of evils we trust our fellow citizens will be on their guard. We have experienced the happy effects of union among ourselves, and we cannot be too watchful against every thing that may lead to disunion.
It is asserted that Mr. Broome will have extensive support in Westchester. Of this, at least, we can assure you, that the federalists in that county will generally vote for Mr. Lawrence. We have received an authentic account that at a meeting held at the White Plains, on Thursday last, with a view to the election of a representative, Mr. Lawrence was agreed upon. In his support, we beg leave to recommend to our fellow citizens UNANIMITY and EXERTION.

By Order of the committee,
Alexander Hamilton, Chairman.
March 3.


Title: H. G. Letter IX, 3 March 1789
From: “H. G.”,Hamilton, Alexander
To:

New-York, March 3, 1789.
Dear Sir,
I have mentioned as a third circumstance tending to prove the enmity of the Governor to the UNION, “That his behaviour towards the individuals composing Congress has been of a nature calculated to give them just cause of disgust.”
I am well informed, that his Excellency never made a visit to, or had any intercourse of civilities with either of the two last Presidents of Congress. This neglect on his part appears the more pointed; as it is well known that he had been upon a footing of intimacy with one of the gentlemen previous to his appointment. I I mean General St. Clair. This gentleman had been heard to lament that the Governor’s conduct towards him, in an official respect, had put it out of his power to keep up the amicable intercourse, which had formerly subsisted between them. It seems as if the character of a President of Congress amounted in the Governor’s estimation to a forfeiture even of the rights of private friendship.
This behaviour to the official head of Congress is to be regarded in a stronger light than mere disrespect to the individual. It may justly be esteemed disrespect to the body themselves, and to have been dictated by a disposition to humiliate the government, which they administered.
The same spirit run through the Governor’s conduct towards the members of Congress in general. Very few, if any of them experienced any attentions whatever from him.
Whatever apology may be made for the Governor’s want of decent hospitality towards the representatives of the United States; I believe it will be difficult to find an excuse for his personal neglect of them. There are civilities which cost nothing; and these might have been bestowed without any violation of the frugality of his Excellency’s maxims.
It may be asked how it can be determined where the fault lay, whether with the Governor, or with the individuals of Congress. I answer, that with regard to the Presidents of Congress there can be no doubt. As that body sat in the state, it was unquestionably the duty of the Governor to pay the first attentions to the President after his election. This rule has been understood throughout America; and its propriety is felt evident. The omitting to pay those attentions was a mark of disregard to the government of the Union, for which there can be no excuse, and which admits of but one interpretation.
Dear Sir,   Your’s sincerely, &c.
H___ G___.

To ___ ___. Esq.
}

Suffolk County.


Title: H. G. Letter X, 4 March 1789
From: “H. G.”,Hamilton, Alexander
To:

New-York, March 4, 1789.
Dear Sir,
Sometime in the latter part of the year 1785, or beginning of 1786, the state of Virginia proposed the holding a convention for the purpose of devising some system of commercial regulations for the United States. This state among others acceded to the proposition; and the deputies from different states appointed pursuant to it met at Annapolis in the fall of 1786. But the number actually assembled formed so incomplete a representation of the union, that if there had been no other reason, it would have been inexpedient for them to proceed in the execution of their mission. In addition to this, they were unanimously of opinion, that some more radical reform was necessary; and that even to accomplish the immediate end for which they had been deputed, certain collateral changes in the federal system would be requisite, to which their powers in general could not be deemed competent. Under these impressions, they with one voice earnestly recommended it to the several states to appoint deputies to meet in convention, in the then ensuing month of May, with power to revise the confederation at large, and to propose such alterations and amendments as should appear to them necessary to render it adequate to the exigencies of the union.
The report of this convention was in course handed to the Governor on the return of the deputies of this state from Annapolis.
I have ascertained it beyond a doubt, that in a conversation on the subject of this report, he expressed a strong dislike of its object, declaring, that in his opinion, no such reform as the report contemplated, was necessary—that the confederation as it stood was equal to the purposes of the union, or with little alteration could be made so; and that he thought the deputies assembled upon that occasion, would have done better to have confined themselves to the purpose of their errand.
This was the first thing that gave me a decisive impression of the insincerity of his Excellency’s former conduct. The opponents of the impost system had in their writings and conversation held up the organization of Congress, as a principal objection to the grant of the power required by that system. The same sentiment had been conveyed by the Governor. The want of checks from the constitution of Congress, as a single body, seemed to be the bulwark of the opposition. But now that a proposal was made which evidently had in view a different construction of the federal government, the language was all at once changed. The old confederation as it stood, or with little alteration, was deemed to be competent to the ends of the union.
This then seemed to be the true state of the business. On the one hand Congress, as constituted, was not fit to be trusted with power; on the other, it was not expedient to constitute them differently. To me it appears impossible to reconcile all this to a sincere attachment to an efficient federal government.
Thus, sir, have I explained to you my meaning in the assertion, That the Governor disapproved of the very first step taken towards the effectual amendment of the old confederation.
I remain with esteem,   Dear Sir,   Your very humble Servant,
H___ G___.

To ___ ___. Esq.
}

Suffolk County.


Title: H. G. Letter XI, 6 March 1789
From: “H. G.”,Hamilton, Alexander
To:

New-York, March 6, 1789.
Dear Sir,
One of the circumstances stated to you in mine of the 26th of February, to shew that the Governor is unfriendly to the UNION, is that he prejudged and condemned the new Constitution before it was framed.
This fact has been long since given to the public; to which no other answer, that I have heard, has been made by his Excellency, or his friends, than that he as a citizen had a right to entertain and declare such sentiments as appeared to him proper. This is a position not to be denied; but it is equally undeniable that his constituents have as good a right to judge of the propriety of his opinions and conduct, and of the views by which they seem to be actuated.
While the Convention was sitting at Philadelphia, the Governor, I am well informed, made unreserved declarations of his opinion, that no good was to be expected from the appointment or deliberations of that body. That the most likely result was that the country would be thrown into confusion by the measure. That it was by no means a necessary one; as the confederation had not had a sufficient trial, and probably on more full experiment would be found to answer all the purposes of the Union.
Here we discover the clearest indication of a predetermined opposition in the mind of his Excellency. He is not a man governed in ordinary cases by sudden impulse. Though of an irritable temper, when not under the immediate influence of irritation, he is circumspect and guarded; and seldom acts or speaks, without premeditation and design.
Language of the kind I have mentioned, from him, clearly betrayed an intention to excite prejudices before hand against whatever plan should be proposed by the Convention. For such conduct, or for such an intention, no apology can be made. The United States conceived a Convention to be a proper and necessary expedient. They appointed one, this state concurring. Their deputies were actually assembled, and in deliberation. The step once taken, it became the duty of every good man to give the attempt a fair chance. It was criminal to endeavour to raise prepossessions against it. That very conduct might have led to the mischief predicted. It was certainly not his Excellency’s fault that his predictions were not fulfilled. In all probability, if his whole party had been as pertinacious as himself, the confusion he foretold would now exist. But happily for the United States some of them were more prudent, and we are in peace.
The declarations of the Governor on this occasion fix upon him the charge of inconsistency. How can what he said in the instance in question be reconciled with his declaration in the Convention, “that he had always lamented the feebleness of the Confederation?”
Your’s, with great regard,
H___ G___.

To ___ ___, Esq.
}

Suffolk County.


Title: H. G. Letter XI, [7 March 1789]
From: “H. G.”,Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[New York, March 7, 1789]
Dear Sir,
The next in order of the circumstances, alledged in proof of the unfriendly disposition of the Governor to the Union, is that he opposed the new constitution after it appeared, with unreasonable obstinacy.
To judge of the propriety of this observation, it ought to be recollected, that the merits or demerits of that constitution must after all, be in a great measure a speculative question, which experience only can solve with certainty.
It ought also to be recollected that the convention who framed it, consisted if not wholly, at least generally, of men, from whom America had received the strongest proofs of patriotism and ability. That this body so composed, (with the exception of only three individuals) united in the plan, which was the result of their joint deliberations: And that a FRANKLIN and a WASHINGTON are among the number of those, who gave their approbation to it.
It ought further to be attended to, that when the convention of this state came to a decision, ten out of the thirteen states had adopted the constitution, and that a majority of the characters in each state, most distinguished for virtue and wisdom were among its advocates.
These, Sir, are truths, which, (notwithstanding the clandestine arts made use of to traduce some of the best and brightest characters of America for being friends to the constitution) no man of candor or information among its opponents will deny.
I do not infer from them, that the constitution ought on those accounts to have been considered as a good one; but I contend, that they dictated greater moderation in the opposition, than appeared in the Governor’s conduct. They ought to have taught him, that unless he had better assurance of his own infallibility, than an imparital estimate of himself would justify, there was a possibility of his being mistaken in his speculations; and that as a further resistance to the general sense of America was pregnant with manifest inconveniencies and hazards, it became him to sacrifice the pride of opinion to a spirit of accommodation.
I should be the last to blame any man for opposing the adoption of the constitution, while its establishment was yet a question in the United States; but when that was no longer the case; when nine states, the number required by the constitution to its establishment, had adopted it; when it had thereby become the government of the Union, I think further opposition was not justifiable by any motives of prudence or patriotism. These considerations had their proper weight with a great proportion of the Governor’s party.
Out of sixty-four members of which the convention of this state consisted, there were at first only nineteen in favour of the constitution. In the conclusion, there was a majority which did actually adopt it. But the Governor persisted to the last in his negative.
All those of his party, who concurred in the adoption (and among whom were some of its ablest leaders) are to be regarded as so many witnesses to the unreasonable obstinacy of the Governor’s conduct on the occasion. Why did they agree to adopt? Because they saw that a contrary course was replete with danger to the peace and welfare of this state and of the Union. They acted in that like moderate and prudent men. Why did not his Excellency act a similar part? Let facts decide! Let the collective complexion of his language and behavior inform us! The inference from the whole will certainly not exempt him from the imputation of obstinacy, nor give us a very favourable impression of his inclination to preserve the tranquility and union of the states.
I entertain no doubt that your judgment of this instance of the Governor’s conduct will correspond with mine; as I have understood that the conduct of the members of your country had met your intire approbation. The gentlemen, are among the number of those who though like yourself not attached in the abstract to the constitution as it stands, prudently yielded to the considerations of expediency, which recommended its adoption.
Accept my best wishes for your   health, and believe me   always your’s
H___ G___.

To ___ ___, Esq.
}

Suffolk County.


Title: H. G. Letter XIII, 9 March 1789
From: “H. G.”,Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[New York] March 9, 1789.
Dear Sir,
The last of the circumstances mentioned by me in my letter of the 26th of February, as evincive of the inimical disposition of the governor towards the union, is that he is unfriendly to the residence of Congress in this city.
This may be inferred from the disrespectful manner in which he has treated that honorable body, aggregately and individually, as detailed in some former letters; and from his fomenting that spirit of party in the legislature, which has left us without a representation in Congress.
But the matter does not rest on this evidence only. I have direct proof, that he has held language clearly indicating an opinion in him real, or affected, that it was a disadvantage to the state to have the seat of the federal government in it. His objections have been drawn from its pretended tendency to promote luxury and dissipation. He has, I am well informed, talked in this stile among others to our friend Judge —, of — county, with some circumstances of aggravation, which from a regard to decency I forbear to repeat.
Now, my dear sir, nothing but a rooted hostility to all federal government could have dictated this sentiment in the breast of the governor. Every man of sense knows that the residence of Congress among us has been a considerable source of wealth to the state; and as to the idle tale of its promoting luxury and dissipation, I believe there has not been for a number of years past a period of greater frugality than that in which Congress have resided in this city. As far as my observation or information extends, it has made no sensible difference in the stile of living as to the article of expence. The truth must be that the governor has supposed that the presence of Congress in the state has had an influence in encouraging the zeal and exertions of the friends to federal government.
Thus it appears that the whole system of thinking adopted by the governor has been manifestly adverse to every thing connected with the federal government; and has led him to view all its concerns through a jaundiced medium.

To what can all this be attributed? To what can be ascribed the regular and undeviating opposition on his part to the measure devised by the joint council of America for strengthening and confirming the union? How shall we explain the different and inconsistent grounds of opposition which he has taken at different periods? To me, my dear sir, the collective view of his conduct will admit of no other supposition than that he has entertained a project for erecting a system of STATE POWER unconnected with, and in subversion of the union. This is my firm and sincere belief; founded upon a long and close attention to the secret and public proceedings of his excellency. Some of the circumstances which have led to it, I am not at liberty to disclose, because I could not do it without a breach of confidence.
Viewing in the light I do the conduct of the governor, I consider it as a sacred duty which I owe to the county, to advise all those with whom I have any connection or intercourse to promote a change. It is possible that the governor finding the execution of his schemes impracticable, may have abandoned them. But I conceive a man capable of adopting such views as too dangerous to be trusted at the head of the state. And I should hold it to be the extreme of credulity and weakness to confide in any assurances of amendment which his friends, to answer a present purpose, may be induced to give.
With unalterable regard,   I remain your’s
H___ G___.

To ___ ___, Esq.
}

Suffolk County.


Title: Motion Intended to Be Made at a Meeting of the Society of the Cincinnati, 11 March 1789
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[New York] March 11, 1789. At a meeting of the New York Society of the Cincinnati “held on the 11th of March, at the Holland Lodge, Hamilton informed the Society that he intended to move at the next meeting, for the following By-Law, to be annexed to those already established by the Society, to wit: ‘That each Treasurer of the Society, before he enters upon the execution of his office, shall give bond, with two sufficient sureties, to the five Trustees, to be named by the Society, in the sum of  dollars, for the faithfull application of the funds of the Society.’”


Title: Subscription to the New-York Manufacturing Society, [17 March 1789]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[New York, March 17, 1789.] On this date Hamilton’s name was listed as one of the subscribers to the New-York Manufacturing Society.


Title: H. G. to Marinus Willett, [19 March 1789]
From: “H. G.”,Hamilton, Alexander
To: Willett, Marinus

[New York, March 19, 1789]
To Marinus Willett, Esq.
Sir,
I perceive by this day’s Advertiser that you have thought proper to come forward, with an air of triumph, to contradict a fact alledged in my sixth letter respecting a proclamation of the council for the temporary government of the southern district.
You have been pleased to preface it with some general observations, and among the rest to make a profession of your faith in the virtue of the present Governor. This at least you might have spared yourself the trouble of doing. He has long been considered as the keeper of your political conscience; and you as the votary of his infallibility. You call yourself his friend; it is supposed you might have added to the description an epithet of more obsequious import. Considering you in this light, you will excuse me if I admit with reserve your authority in any matter, which concerns the personal character of the Governor.
But notwithstanding the opinion entertained of the capacity in which you serve, as I am not apt to think men capable of deliberate falshood, I was on the first perusal of your publication ready to conclude, that you had stated the matter truly, and that what might have been originally only an inference of my informants, from the collateral conduct of the Governor, and his known partiality to yourself and another gentleman, had after a lapse of more than five years assumed in my memory the shape in which it has been communicated. There are, however, circumstances in your narrative, which on further examination have induced me to hesitate in drawing this conclusion.
Two facts are conceded by your account of the transaction; one, that such a proclamation, as is mentioned in the letter, did exist; the other, that it was irregularly suspended by your interposition, and finally suppressed by the council. You, however, deny the privity or connivance of the Governor, and shift the responsibility of postponing the publication, from him to particular members of the council whom you name. You assert at the same time, that your visit to Mr. Holt, though late at night, was accidental; and you assume to yourself the merit of moderation, by assigning, as the motive to your conduct, an apprehension that the proclamation was calculated rather to inflame, than to calm the minds of the citizens.
To test the probability of this account, in some of its parts at least, I shall proceed to state a few facts respecting yourself, which I presume you will not think it expedient to deny. You were an open advocate at the period in contemplation, for the banishment of certain individuals, and you were equally an advocate for discriminating and disqualifying laws. In addition to this, you were one of three persons, who without color of authority, went to the house of Mr. Rivington to interdict the continuance of his business as a Printer; a proceeding which was the immediate cause of the proclamation.
You were therefore interested both in regard to reputation, and influence to effect its suppression. Is it probable then that your visit to Mr. Holt at so critical a juncture, and at so late an hour, as you describe, was purely accidental? Is it probable, that the pains you took to prevent the issuing of the proclamation proceeded from the laudable motive you profess. If neither the one nor the other is probable, is it more probable that your representation of the matter is in the other respects fairer than it appears to be in these?
There is a further circumstance which throws an additional air of improbability on your relation. I affirm, Sir, as a thing within my personal knowlege, that you were at the time in habits of the closest intimacy, friendship and confidence with the Governor. It is not therefore very likely that the step you took was without his participation; though it should be true that other sanction to the irregularity was dexterously obtained. As to the lateness of the hour, it could form no greater obstacle to communication in the case of the Governor, than of the other gentlemen, to whom you allege your having had recourse. It is well known that a rigid attention to etiquette has never been the vice of head-quarters.
I resort to probabilities; because it is now more than five years, since the affair took place; and a distinct recollection of circumstances is hardly to be looked for from those, who might be esteemed disinterested witnesses of the fact. So much is this the case, that the gentlemen named in your publication, can give no satisfactory history of particulars, though some of them appear to retain imperfect traces of your application.
The information which I received, while the transaction was yet recent, was from members of the council now at a distance from this city. These gentlemen have been written to, and the result of the inquiry shall be made known. I conceive it to be due to the cause of truth, that public charges brought against any man, should either be accompanied with the evidence on which they are founded, or when regularly called in question be supported by it, or if originating in mistake, relinquished.
But, Sir, I cannot conclude without taking notice of the very logical inference with which your publication ends. You declare that one charge is unfounded, and you infer that every other is equally so. Had that charge been made in positive terms, as many of the others are, and had not several of the others been objects of general notoriety, you might have had color for your inference, and credit for your sincerity. But as things are situated you can pretend to neither. The fact particularly in question between us, is introduced with an acknowlegement, that I do not distinctly recollect the particulars, and with the qualifying expressions “if my memory serves me.”—While every other article of specific charge is brought in a direct and categoric form. Whenever either of these shall be properly controverted, if the evidence does not accompany it, I pledge myself to produce it. I shall not expect to put his Excellency to the necessity of proving negatives (of which you so piteously complain) but shall content myself with an authentic denial of facts on his behalf. You, Sir, may continue to act your part, and add fresh laurels to your brow, as the champion and instrument of your illustrious chief. But I give you warning, that I shall not be diverted from my main pursuit by cavils or trifles.
I am, Sir,   Your obedient Servant,
H___ G___.
March 19.


Title: Marinus Willett to H. G., [23 March 1789]
From: Willett, Marinus
To: “H. G.”,Hamilton, Alexander

[New York, March 23, 1789]

Marinus Willett informs H___ G___, that it is not his wish to divert him from the pursuit of his plan of defamation. M. Willett, is no letter writer, he had it only in view by a plain and candid relation to detect a false representation of a transaction in which he was a principal. It is by no means his intention to intrude on the public by investigating the causes which led to the proclamation, as it would neither afford them advantage or amusement. There are some things in H___ G___’s address which gives M. Willett reason to think he knows who H___ G___ is; perhaps he is mistaken, but if he is right in the conjecture of his person, M. W. promises himself that by some means or other he will be advised of it—he pledges himself that he will then do himself the honour to wait on H___ G___, when he makes no doubt that he shall be able to convince him, that the account of the proclamation as it has been stated by M. W. is strictly true. And that H___ G___ is under a mistake about Governor Clinton’s being the keeper of M. W.’s political conscience.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Phineas Howell, 24 March 1789
From: Howell, Phineas
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Newburgh [New York] March 24, 1789. States that a meeting of freeholders of Newburgh “by a very great majority” had nominated Robert Yates for governor and Pierre Van Cortlandt for lieutenant governor.


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from John Wynkoop, 25 March 1789
From: Wynkoop, John
To: Hamilton, Alexander

Kinderhook [New York] March 25th. 1789.
Sir,

Your Conduct having always evinced, not only a fervent and enlightened Zeal for the Rights and Liberties of the People but a Capacity of deciding justly on great constitutional Questions; I make no apology for addressing you on this Occasion.
The 25th. Article of the Constitution of this State declares “that the Chancellor and Judges of the Supreme Court, shall not at the same Time hold any other Office, excepting that of a Delegate to the general Congress, upon special Occasions; and that the first Judges of the County-Courts, in the several Counties, shall not at the same Time hold any other Office, excepting that of Senator, or Delegate to the general Congress: But if the Chancellor or either of the said judges be elected or appointed to any other office, excepting as is before excepted, it shall be at his Option in which to serve.”
Peter Van Ness Esqr. who is first Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of this County and one of the Senators for the western District, was chosen a Member of the Council of Appointment, at the last Session of the Legislature, and accordingly took his Seat in the same. He has since done several judicial Acts. It appeared to me incompatible with the Principles of Liberty and of a free Government, that the same Individual should possess and exercise legislative, executive and judicial Powers. I perused our Constitution, and was confirmed in my Opinion. I now consider him guilty of no less a Crime than that of a Usurpation of Power, contrary to the express Letter of the Constitution, which, I believe, disqualified him from being Judge the Moment he accepted the Office of a Member of the Council of Appointment.
Be pleased to let me know your Sentiments on this important Subject by the next Post. I would suggest the Propriety of keeping this Matter secret, as Caution and Circumspection are necessary to my Mode of Attack.
I am,   Sir,   With the greatest Esteem   Your numble Servt.

Jno. C. Wynkoop
Alexander Hamilton Esqr.


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to Jonathan Dayton, [26 March 1789]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Dayton, Jonathan

[New York, March 26, 1789]
Dr Sir

Circumstances prevented my seeing a certain Gentleman. But I have reflected more fully on the subject of our conversation.
I continue strongly inclined to the opinion that the Council ought to have canvassed prior to the day appointed for the Meeting of Congress upon the returns then before them, and that the subsequent canvass has been irregular and is void.
But as to the second point—the prudence of an appeal to Congress, in this commencement of the Government, my doubts have been rather strengthened than diminished by reflection.
I remain with very great regard, Dr Sir   Yr. Obed serv

A Hamilton
March 26, 1789
J. Dayton


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to William S. Johnson, 27 March 1789
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Johnson, William S.

[New York] March 27. 89
Dr Sir

The bearer of this is a Mr. Claxton, who is desirous of being a messenger or something equivalent. I feel an interest in his success, as he is a man of qualifications superior to his present aims. His memorial, which he will deliver you, is of his own drafting, by which you will perceive that he has some literary pretension. He has followed the Printing business; but from the ill effect of it on his health is obliged to seek other employment. He is fœderalist & has suffered as such. He is of good reputation for integrity & has a wife and Children to support.
Yrs. sincerely

A Hamilton


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to ———, [6 April 1789]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[New York, April 6, 1789]
Sir

The Committee appointed to promote the election of Judge Yates as Governor have requested Mr. John Jackson a Merchant of this City to proceed into your County for the purpose of making such communications to the inhabitants of it as may be necessary to inform them of the reasons which influence this City & County in desiring a change in the person of the Chief Magistrate.
From the opinion we entertain of your independence patriotism and influence we have advised Mr. Jackson to apply to you for your assistance in forwarding the object of his mission. This we flatter ourselves you will be disposed to afford.
I am Sir   Yr Obed & hum ser   By order of the Committee


Title: To Alexander Hamilton from Anthony Wayne, 6 April 1789
From: Wayne, Anthony
To: Hamilton, Alexander

6th April 1789
My Dear Hamilton

Permit me to introduce to your acquaintance Brigr General James Jackson, (a representative from Georgia to Congress) he is my particular friend, who in the Campaign of 1782 Commanded the State Legion which composed my Vanguard. I know him to be A Valuable Citizen a good soldier & an honest man, & as such I wish you to introduce him to your Military & other acquaintances, & whatever Civilities he may experience from you I shall consider as confered upon your Affectionate friend & Most Obt Hum Servt

Anty. Wayne


Title: From Alexander Hamilton to the Electors of the State of New York, [7 April 1789]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Electors of the State of New York

[New York, April 7, 1789]

For the New-York Journal, &c.
Mr. Greenleaf,
You are requested to publish this address in your Next Thursday’s paper.
By order of the Committee,
Alex Hamilton, Chairman.
New-York, April 7, 1789.
To the Independent and Patriotic Electors Of the State of NewYork.
In our last address, we mentioned to you our intention of offering some remarks upon that which has been lately published by the committee appointed to promote the re-election of the present Governor. This we shall now do; and we flatter ourselves, that what we shall say will meet with your candid and serious attention. Respect for ourselves, as well as for you, will prevent our imitating the spirit of invective and uncandid accusation, which abounds in that performance. Acting, as we trust we do, from reason, not from passion, we shall continue to address ourselves to the reason, not to the passions of our fellow-citizens.
The writers of the address in question, set out with describing to us the long services of the present Governor—his meritorious administration during the late war, his good conduct in preserving peace and order within the southern district, after its evacuation by the British forces.
We feel no inclination to detract from the merit of the Governor’s services during the war; nor shall we examine whether they have been over-rated or not. We are ready to acknowledge, that they were considerable, and that they entitled him to the esteem of his country.
With regard to the credit given to him for the order preserved in this part of the state after the peace, we shall only observe, that at the most critical period, the management of affairs was in the hands of the council appointed for the temporary government of the southern district; in which the Governor had no greater agency than any other individual member.
But admitting all that can be asked in either of these respects, it surely will not follow, that we ought, therefore to consent to be perpetually governed by the same man; however exceptionable his subsequent conduct may have been. If he has departed from the principles, by which he may have been once actuated—if he has quitted the pursuit of the public good, for that of a selfish and interested policy—if he has betrayed a stronger attachment to his own power, influence and advantage, than to the dignity, respectability and prosperity of the people—if instead of being the impartial head of the state, he has become the zealous head of a party in it—if instead of acting as the appeaser and calmer, he has in any instance acted as the fomenter of dissention—if he has at any time contributed to sacrificing the interests of the state, by encouraging the obstinacy and intemperance of party conflicts; in either of these suppositions, the merit of his early administration will be a very insufficient recommendation to the future choice of the community.
How far imputations of this kind may be applicable to the conduct of the Governor, for some years past, we forbear particularly to discuss. It is certain, however, that a very large proportion of the community are now, on different accounts, greatly dissatisfied with his administration, and that many more entertain serious doubts and apprehensions. The presumption is, that this has not happened without cause. Moderate and discreet men of all parties will at least agree, that the existence of such a state of things, from whatever source it may proceed, is a real evil which calls for some effectual remedy. When discontents with the head of the state have taken possession of a large part of the people, and have been produced by causes which render them likely to last, they form in republican governments a powerful reason for a change; as perhaps the only mean of securing or re-establishing confidence in the government. When those discontents are immediately connected with the party divisions which exist in the state, such a change will generally be found essential to the restoration of harmony among the citizens; a blessing which cannot be too highly prized, nor too anxiously promoted!
That the spirit of party has attained an alarming and pernicious height in the state, must be apparent to all dispassionate observers. It has been conclusively witnessed in the last session of the legislature. Which of the parties was right, which wrong, would be an endless discussion. But it cannot admit of a doubt, that the interests of the state have suffered in the contest;

   Our representatives in Congress are not yet ascertained, and we have no senators appointed.

 and there is too much probability that they will continue to suffer from the same spirit, until there is, at the head of the state, a man who enjoys the good will of both parties, and is disposed to temper and heal their mutual irritations.
On the subject of the parties which exist in the state, much is said in the address under consideration. Some of the observations contained in it are just; but we do not conceive apply to the case; others of them appear to us altogether fallacious.
It is just, for instance, that difference of opinion, on a great political question, occasionally arising in a community, does not constitute what is understood by the spirit of party. Men, in such cases, ought to take their sides according to their convictions; though they should be cautious not to suffer their zeal to hurry them into irrational extremes.
But when the Governor is objected to, as the head of a party, we presume, it is not on account of the side he took in the question concerning the new constitution. It is true, indeed, that the friends of that constitution are of opinion, that circumstances have attended the Governor’s conduct in relation to it, before it appeared, after it appeared, and before its adoption, and even since its adoption, which savour of prejudice and intemperance, and subject him to suspicions derogatory to his prudence and patriotism. But the objection to him as the head of a party, reaches much further back than the new constitution. Discerning men, soon after the peace, perceived, that he had formed a close connection with a particular set of characters, in whose public and private views he was continually embarked.
It is asked, what could have been his object in thus devoting himself to a party? The answer is plain—to keep himself in place—to perpetuate himself in the enjoyment of the power and profit of the office he holds.
But it is asked again, why, if that was his wish, did he not connect himself with the wealthy and the great? These, it is pretended, would have been better instruments of a scheme of personal aggrandisement.
Such a suggestion has scarcely the merit of plausibility. It is well known, that large property is an object of jealousy in republics, and that those who possess it, seldom enjoy extensive popularity. The Governor was aware that he would have risked the loss, rather than have promoted the continuance of that which he possessed, by connecting himself with men of that class; and that his purpose could be better answered by an opposite course. Besides, from men who would suppose their pretensions not inferior to his, he would be more likely to experience competition and contradiction. The history of republics affords more examples of individuals arriving at dangerous pre-eminence, by a policy similar to that which seems to have been pursued by the Governor, than in any other mode.
It is asserted, in order to excite prejudice, that the opposition to the Governor arises from the wealthy and the great. We believe it to be true, that the principal part of the men of the most considerable property in the state are of opinion, that a change is necessary. But we believe it to be not less true, that the same opinion embraces a large proportion of all other classes of the community. Will it follow that it must be wrong, because men of property concur in it? Are they less interested than the other people in good government? Do they advocate one of their number for the successor? Judge Yates certainly does not fall under that description. What motive then can they have besides the public good, for giving him their support and suffrages?
It has been said, that Judge Yates is only made use of on account of his popularity, as an instrument to displace Governor Clinton; in order that at a future election some one of the great families may be introduced. Let this surmise be candidly considered. It is admitted, that Judge Yates in now a popular character; and it will not be doubted that he is a man of sense and integrity. If he conducts himself with propriety, it is not to be imagined, that with the addition of the influence which will naturally flow from the possession of the office, he will be less able, at the end of three years, to maintain his ground against any partial combinations, which may have been formed against him, than he now is to succeed against the accumulated weight of a twelve years administration. Nothing, therefore can be more far-fetched or strained, than the supposition, that such a design, as is mentioned, is entertained. It is evidently a mere artifice to destroy the effect of Judge Yates’ general good character on the minds of his fellow-citizens, and to divert his friends from exerting themselves in his behalf.
The cry against men of property has been carried to an extreme by the friends of the Governor, which ought to alarm the considerate of every class. There is no stronger sign of combinations unfriendly to the general good, than when the partisans of those in power raise an indiscriminate cry against men of property. It argues similar designs, which, it is feared, may be counteracted, by those whose situations render them most likely to be independent. Such a cry is neither just nor wise: Not just, because no man ought to be hated for being either rich, or poor: providence has distributed its bounties in the manner best adapted to the general order and happiness: Not wise, because it tends to alienate those, who are endeavored to be made odious, from the government under which they live, and to incline them to favor changes in the hope of bettering their condition; and because in the second place, by destroying the confidence of the body of the people in men of property, it makes a co-operation between them, for the defence of their common privileges and interests, more difficult, and consequently renders it more easy for aspiring men, in possession of power, to prosecute schemes of personal aggrandisement and usurpation. These observations, we are confident, will strike the good sense of our fellow citizens.
Many of our most considerate citizens have long been of opinion, that the Governor has possessed an undue and dangerous influence. In our first address we intimated the means by which such an influence might be acquired, through the medium of the council of appointment.
To this it is answered, that the council of appointment consists of four members of the senate, annually chosen by the assembly, and that it is improbable the Governor should be able materially to influence appointments made by a council so constituted. This we take to be the substance of the answer. Let us see, if it be a satisfactory one.
It is to be remembered, that though the council is constituted as stated, the Governor is a standing member of it, and in case of equal division has a casting vote. It is likewise to be attended to, that he has constantly claimed the right of previous nomination, and we are greatly misinformed if he has not extensively practised upon that pretension. The exercise of such a power places the choice essentially in the Governor. If he is first to name the man, who may be appointed, none can be appointed who are not agreeable to him. It is true the council may negative his nomination; but even this will require a majority; for, if equally divided, he can turn the scale in favor of his own nomination. If the person proposed be rejected by a majority, still it is in his power to propose another of his own liking, and to repeat this as often as he pleases until an appointment is made in some degree conformable to his wishes. We do not presume, that a practice has been answerable to the full extent of the principle. The power of previous nomination has been long since called in question, and it is probable that it has been found expedient to exercise it with caution, and oftentimes even to forbear the use of it. But in the general course of things it is presumable, that the operation of that pretension has given the Governor a prevailing influence in appointments.
But, independent of the power of previous nomination, the mere circumstance of being a standing member of so small a council with a casting vote must give a man of tolerable address a preponderating weight in its arangements, and consequently an extensive influence, from the distribution of offices. Those who are in pursuit of them will naturally look up to him, as one who must at all events have an agency in the business. Even the members of the council will be apt to gratify him to obtain his concurrence at the time, and upon future occasions, in appointments in which themselves personally or their friends are or may be interested. There are besides various expedients which an artful man may employ to carry his points in such a council. Times and places of meeting may be so managed as to exclude from attendance those whose presence may not be desired. There is room to suppose, that the present Governor has not been inattentive to these advantages, and that he has even gone so far as to avoid making appointments, in the usual course, by a council disagreeable to him, in order to have them made by one more at his devotion.
Public opinion, we apprehend, corresponds with this reasoning concerning the Governor’s influence in appointments. Those who are in quest of offices generally think themselves sure of success, if they have reason to believe they have secured his co-operation.
The considerations, which have been stated, are, we think, sufficient to shew, that the council of appointment is such an engine, as we before represented it to be; and that the conclusions which have been drawn from it are natural and pertinent.
Whether an improper or excessive influence has in fact been derived from the use of that engine, those who have been attentive to the progress of public affairs must decide for themselves. Appearances must be carefully consulted; and if there are instances in which members of the legislature have been seen to change one party, or system disagreeable to the Governor, for another party or system, agreeable to him, and if that change of conduct has been observed to be speedily followed by the reception of lucrative appointments, the conclusion from such a fact would be irresistible.
The argument which is used against the supposition of such an influence can have no weight. It is said, that such a supposition is a reproach to our representatives which ought to excite indignation. This is one of those arguments, if it may be called an argument, which proves too much, and is capable of being used at all times, & under all circumstances. If it amounts to any thing, it amounts to this, that it ought never to be supposed, that our representatives can be improperly influenced; a position contrary to experience and human nature, and calculated to destroy that watchfulness in the people over the conduct of their representatives, which is an indispensible security of republican government.
We have too good an opinion of the virtue of our country-men to believe, that any large proportion of those, who may in any case have united in the views of the Governor, have been under a sinister influence; but we think it very supposeable, that a few may have been in his situation, and that these few, by their advice and example, may have operated upon others, so as to place a majority on the side, where it might not otherwise have been.
In making these observations, our great object is to shew, that such an influence, as is apprehended, may be supposed consistently with probability and the usual progress of things. The reality of its existence, as we have already remarked, must be judged of from circumstances. If there are appearances which even render it probable, the rules of republican caution will admonish us to seek a change.
A very respectable part of the community are of opinion, that the length of time, for which the present Governor has been in office, is alone a sufficient reason for his removal. This however is a sentiment which this committee have never expressed. The idea contained in our first address is, that considering the means of influence derived to our executive, from the nature of our council of appointments, the administration of a Governor ought to be free from blame and from all suspicion of undue attachment to place or to profit, and very satisfactory to the community at large, to render it prudent in the people to leave so powerful an engine in his hands for a long succession of years. In this sentiment, we doubt not we shall be joined by every prudent and independent citizen.
How far however some of the gentlemen, who combat the position, that long continuance in office is of itself a sufficient reason, in republican governments, for a change of men, are consistent with themselves, requires some explanation. Mr. Melancton Smith, one of the committee in the convention of this state, objected to the constitution of the president of the United States, on account of the want of the principle of rotation, or in other words, because he, like the Governor of this state, may be re-elected as often as the people think proper; and proposed or advocated an amendment to alter that circumstance, which was adopted by our state convention. The great argument was, the danger in republics of trusting power too long in the same hands. It will be difficult to shew, that the spirit of this objection does not operate against the re-election of a man, who in this state has held the reins of government for near twelve years. It might even with great force be urged, that it is more wise to observe the principle of rotation in practice, than to make it one of the fundamentals of a constitution. For though it might be imprudent to deprive the people of the liberty of making use of a man, in particular emergencies, when his services might happen to be essential, it may be very prudent in them to make changes from time to time, when no public exigencies call for particular men, merely to guard against the danger of a too long continuance in office.
In our first address we intimated the ill effects of the want of decent republican hospitality towards the members of Congress, and other public characters, whom the affairs of the government call to reside in this city. This has been answered by describing in strong terms the evils of extravagance and dissipation. It is asked, whether it would be agreeable to the citizens of this state to see the principal magistrate constantly engaged in a scene of dissipation and luxury? We answer, most certainly not. We should be as ready to reprobate this conduct as the contrary extreme. But is there no medium between extravagance and parsimony? Cannot a chief magistrate observe the requisite attentions of hospitability, without running into riot or intemperance, or exceeding the bounds of decent frugality and orderly living? Is it not even his duty to attend to the former as well as the latter? Must not the supposition that it is so, have been one of the inducements of the legislature in annexing to the office the liberal emoluments, which have been constantly annexed to it? Can we believe, that our representatives would have been so lavish of the money of their constituents as they must have been, if that was not a motive?
It is with reluctance we dwell on this subject, but the friends of the Governor, by pressing his apology too far, have made it necessary. The charge against him in this respect is not, that he has been frugal, but that he has been penurious; not that he has paid a reasonable regard to a comfortable provision for his family, but that he has applied the greatest part of his public allowance to the accumulation of a large fortune, neglecting what was due to the decorum and dignity of his station.
It is, we conceive, impossible to join with his friends in ascribing his conduct, in this respect, to the laudable motive they assign, the desire of setting an example of moderation and frugality. If he had been actuated by such a motive, why has he been always ready to accept such liberal allowances of the public money? Why did he never say to the legislature, “I wish to ease the burthens of the people. I find by experience that you have been more bountiful than is requisite to the decent and proper support of the office. Let my salary be retrenched.”

   His friends give him credit for the reduction of his salary the last session; but if he had any share in the business, it cannot be considered as very meritorious at the eve of an election, at which he knew he would be strongly opposed

 Such we think would have been the language and conduct of patriotic moderation; but the disposition to receive much and spend little, bespeaks the predominancy of a passion, which certainly is no ornament in a public character.
As to the quantity of the property which may have been amassed by the Governor, during his administration, this is a subject which we should have left untouched, were it not for some observations in the address which seem to require notice. Whether the intimations of fraudulent or indirect practices in that gentleman, which have appeared in the public prints, have really been serious accusations of imprudent adversaries, or fictitious charges brought by the friends of the Governor, for the sake of refuting them, and having it believed, that he has been ill-treated, we will not undertake to decide. But thus much we shall say, that the supposition of such practices has no share in the motives which, in our estimation, render his re-election unadviseable. And though we do not agree in the opinion, that the idea of his being possessed of a large fortune is groundless, yet we should not impute blame to him on that account in any other view, than as he may be justly chargeable with penury, in the manner of acquiring it. It is undeniable, that he has received from the state, what may de deemed a handsome fortune, in a few accumulated payments,

   On a settlement of his accounts, some time in the year 1782, there was a balance in his favour of upwards of 8000 pounds. This sum he retained out of monies borrowed by him on the public account, about that period, or some time in the year subsequent. His salary since that period has amounted to about 9000 pounds, and there can be no doubt from the manner of his living, that considerably more than one half of this has been saved. The mere interest of 8000 pounds for six years, is 3920, so that taking it for granted, the Governor has not left his money idle, and excluding the idea of extraordinary increase by land speculations, we have here data for supposing a fortune not much short of 20,000 pounds.

 and that he has made several profitable speculations in land. Some of these are publicly known, and others of them, we have good grounds to believe, are covered under the names of third persons.
The address under consideration contains many observations on the Governor’s conduct and views, in relation to the constitution of the United States. To examine the justness or propriety of them would involve a discussion into which we do not think it expedient to enter. After all that could be said, the judgement of every man would be regulated very much by previous opinions, and by a recurrence to facts. These indeed are the only satisfactory standard to which we can resort. Professions or assertions will never countervail, in any reasonable mind, the evidence which arises from them.
We must, however, observe that in our opinion, the friends to amendments of whatever party, will do well to join in the support of Judge Yates. That gentleman, by having the confidence of both parties in this state, will be more likely to have the confidence of the United States, than one who is supposed by many of the most intelligent friends of the constitution among us to desire its entire subversion. And it must be evident, that as far as the Governor of a state can contribute to the attainment of amendments in the national constitution, the man who is most likely to have the confidence and good will of the union will be the most likely to effect it.

In our first address we advanced this sentiment, that all should join “in the support of the constitution established by the people of the United States, and that all should join in the re-consideration of the parts which have been the subject of objection.” On this point we are charged with inconsistency, and it is asserted, that there is every reason to believe, that the principal opponents to the Governor do not wish to see any amendments to the constitution, and are averse to a re-consideration of it. As far as we are concerned, we affirm, that the charge is destitute of truth, and we defy those who make it to produce any thing like proof of its being well founded.
It is true, that on the occasion of the election of a representative of this district in Congress, we most of us contended for the propriety of choosing a person attached to the constitution; but this certainly has nothing to do with a disinclination to amendments, or to a reconsideration of the system; nor will it in any candid mind appear to militate against the sincerity of the desire, which we profess to have, of reconciliation and union, between the different parties in the state. It was not to be doubted, that in other parts of this state every effort would be made, by those who opposed the constitution, to choose for representatives men of sentiments similar to their own, and it could not reasonably be expected, under such circumstances, that its friends, in a friendly district, would not be equally strenuous for representatives of their own sentiments. Could it be expected that we should abandon the distinctions which actually exist, previous to a foundation being laid for a reciprocal renunciation of them? This is the desireable object at which we and our fellow citizens now aim. Nor can a better proof be given of it, than in the disposition manifested to support a man of political opinions different from those generally entertained by them and by us. And we strongly flatter ourselves, that the desireable end in contemplation will be attained, by the co-operation of all those throughout the state who wish to see the spirit of faction and dissention extinguished.
We forbear any further comment on the address of our opponents. We trust that nothing they have offered, which has the semblance of argument, remains unattended to; and we do not choose to pursue them into any other field. We trust, that all the considerate, disinterested, and independent, all the sincere lovers of peace and harmony, all those who are unwilling to sacrifice the good of the state to the aggrandizement or advantage of an individual, will heartily unite in the endeavour to appease the distractions of the community. It is evident, that a large proportion of it is, in all probability, irreconcileably dissatisfied with the administration of the present chief magistrate. There can therefore be no rational hope of future union or concord under his auspices. And we boldly appeal to the breast of every good citizen, & ask what inducement there can be to support the re-election of Governor Clinton, which ought to stand, even for an instant, in competition with the blessings of union and concord.

By order of the Committee,
Alexander Hamilton, Chairman.


Title: H. G. Letter XIV, 9 April 1789
From: “H. G.”,Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[New York] April 9, 1789
Dear Sir,

In mine of the 25th of February last, I observed, that there were reasons to conclude that the Governor’s conduct, immediately after the evacuation of this city, had been influenced by condescentions to those who were at the time advocates for persecution, which in some measure involved him in their policy; and in confirmation of this idea I mentioned some circumstances, as they then presented themselves to my memory, which had attended the suppression of a proclamation issued by the council for the temporary government of the southern district, in consequence of certain irregularities committed in this city, by some of the persons alluded to. You have no doubt seen in the newspapers Mr. Willet’s statement of this affair, and the correspondence which ensued between that gentleman and myself.
Pursuant to the assurance contained in my letter to Mr. Willet, I shall now disclose to you the result of the enquiries I have made. It has turned out as was to have been apprehended. Neither of the gentlemen to whom I have applied, has a distinct recollection of particulars. One of them indeed recollects little more than that he was a good deal displeased with the transaction. The other has a perfect remembrance of some circumstances, though not of all. Among other things, he well recollects, that he was much dissatisfied with the Governor’s conduct in the affair, and that the impression, which he had at the time was, and constantly since has been, that there had been, on the part of the Governor, an undue and improper acquiescence, at least, in the conduct of the persons concerned in suspending the printing of the proclamation. But what the facts or appearances were, which produced that impression, have now, in a great measure, escaped his memory.

   Mr. Willet by applying to the Printer, may satisfy himself of the fairness of this representation, and of the respectability of the authority on which it is founded.

Thus stands the affair. The investigation has not weakened in my mind the evidence, that the circumstances attending the suppression of the proclamation were evincive of condescentions, on the part of the Governor, towards the advocates for persecution, at the period in question, which in some measure involved him in their policy. This, by reference to my letter, you will perceive was the sole purpose for which the transaction was quoted. I do not insist, that the particulars as first stated, are accurate. You will observe they are stated with hesitation and uncertainty; but I feel an entire conviction that the aggregate complexion of the affair was such as I have supposed it to be.
I remain with sincere regard,   Dear Sir,   Your very humble Servant,

H___ G___

To___ ___. Esq.
}

Suffolk County.


Title: Account with the State of New York, [14 April 1789]
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[Albany, April 14, 1789]

State of N.Y. to Alexander Hamilton for services as Member of Congress

from
21 Feby–5 May
73
days

“
26 May–14 June
19

“
30 July–18 Oct
79

171
“

deduct from attendance
43

128 @ 24

£153.12 audited 14 April 1789


Title: Receipt for Money Received from New York State, 14 April 1789
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To:

[New York] April 14, 1789. Acknowledges receipt of £112 for services as counsel in a controversy between New York and Massachusetts.


Title: H. G. to Marinus Willett, [15 April 1789]
From: “H. G.”,Hamilton, Alexander
To: Willett, Marinus

[New York, April 15, 1789]

H___ G___. having been informed that Mr. Willet has received a letter from the Attorney General, stating the circumstances of the interview between them, takes occasion to express his expectation that Mr. Willett will communicate it to the public.