Title: To George Washington from Oliver Wolcott, Jr., 26 March 1796
From: Wolcott, Oliver Jr.
To: Washington, George

            Treasury Department March 26th 1796

          The Secretary of the Treasury in obedience to the command of the President of the United States, respectfully submits his opinion, upon certain questions arising out of the following case.
          On the 24th instant the following Resolution was passed in the House of Representatives of the United States.
          “Resolved that the President of the United States be requested to lay before this House a Copy of the instructions given to the Minister of the United States who negociated the Treaty with Great Britain communicated by his Message of the 1st instant, together with the correspondence & documents relating to the said Treaty; excepting such of said papers as any existing negociation may render improper to be disclosed.”
          The general question to be considered is this, whether it be or be not expedient for the President to comply in whole or in part with the request contained in said resolution?
          The importance of this question may be inferred from the unqualified terms of the Resolution which clearly assert a right on the part of the House to demand the instructions and documents relating to the negociation of a ratified Treaty.
          It has been urged with great force in the course of the debate, that the House of Representatives has a right to judge of a Treaty which affects objects upon which Congress can constitutionally legislate and that their co-operation & sanction are necessary to make it the Law of the Land.
          This position has been supported by the following construction which has been given to the Constitution.
          That the power of making Treaties without the co-operation of the House, though expressed in general terms, is in fact

limited by that part of the Constitution which defines the legislative power, or power of Congress: thus though it seems to be admitted that if a Treaty did not operate upon any objects of legislation delegated to Congress, it might be valid without the consent of the House of Representatives, yet in cases where the aid of the Legislature is necessary to give effect to a Treaty, or where a Treaty acts upon any objects of Legislation, the Sanction of the House is necessary and may be given or witheld according to the judgement formed by them of its expediency.
          This construction evidently gives to the House of Representatives a negative voice or concurrent authority with the President & Senate, in respect to the Treaty lately negociated with Great Britain, and as it is presumed can be shewn, in respect to all Treaties whatever.
          This important question then arises. Has a Treaty made by the President, with the advice and consent of two thirds of the Senators who may be present in Session, the force and obligation of Law, without the consent of the House of Representatives?
          To a right Judgement upon this question a review of the public Acts and proceedings of the United States in respect to the obligation of Treaties appears to be proper.
          The ninth Article of the late confederation empowered the United States in Congress assembled to enter into Treaties & Alliances provided that no Treaty of Commerce should be made whereby the legislative power of the respective States should be restrained from imposing such imposts & duties on foreigners as their own people should be subjected to, or from prohibiting the exportation or importation of any species of goods or Commodities whatever.
          Thus it appears that although Congress under the Confederation, had no legislative powers whatever, and though they possessed no authority to regulate the general Interests of Commerce by any internal regulations or even to restrain the clashing systems of the seperate States; yet the power of forming commercial Treaties with foreign nations was expressly given and actually exercised.
          The sense entertained by Congress of the obligation of Treaties is manifested by the following Resolution which was unanimously adopted on the 21st of March 1787.
          “Resolved that the Legislatures of the several States cannot of right pass any Act or Acts for interpreting explaining or

construing a national Treaty or any part or clause of it: nor for restraining, limiting or in any manner impeding retarding or counteracting the operation & execution of the same, for that on being constitutionally made, ratified & published, they become in virtue of the Confederation part of the Law of the Land, and are not only independent of the power & will of such Legislatures, but also binding and obligatory on them.”
          On the 13th of April 1787, a Circular letter to the States was unanimously agreed to in Congress, in which the principles of the resolution before recited are fully demonstrated.
          The documents annexed to Mr Jefferson’s letter to Mr Hammond dated the 29th of May 1792 shew that the States of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New-York, Delaware, Maryland, and North Carolina passed Laws in compliance with the resolution of Congress and that New-Jersey & Pennsylvania declared that no Law existed with them contrary to the Treaty with Great Britain. It also appears that respectable Official Characters in several of the States declared that the principles set forth in the resolution of Congress had been generally recognised. Among these authorities that of Mr Monroe deserves notice, especially as the Representatives of Virginia strenuously contend at present for the claim asserted in the House of Representatives.
          Mr Jeffersons opinion of the obligation of Treaties and of the general sense of the States is decidedly expressed in the letter before referred to; his words are, that the Resolution of Congress of March 21st 1787 requiring a repeal of all Acts contrary to the Treaty of Peace, and the proceedings of the States thereupon were all supererogation, for that “requiring such a repeal was only to take away pretext; for that it was at all times perfectly understood that Treaties controulled the Laws of States; the confederation having made them obligatory on the whole; Congress having so declared & demonstrated them; the Legislatures & Executives of most of the States having admitted it; and the Judiciaries of the separate & State Governments so deciding.”
          These facts will it is believed warrant the following conclusions.
          1st That it was the general sense of the people of this Country that the power of making Treaties vested in Congress by the Articles of Confederation was capable of controlling the Legislative powers which then existed in the United States.

          2nd That Treaties constitutionally made, ratified and published possessed in virtue of their own powers the force and obligation of Laws.
          3d That embarrassments having been experienced in consequence of the non execution of the Treaty of Peace, the Convention which framed the Constitution must have intended such an organization & deposit of the power of making Treaties as would render its exercise at once safe & efficacious.
          A summary view of the structure of the Government proposed by the Convention and of the distribution of its powers is next proposed.
          All Legislative powers granted to the General Government are declared to be vested in a Congress; which Congress is to consist of a Senate & House of Representatives.
          The general powers of Congress are given or to be deduced from a collective construction of the eighth, ninth & tenth sections of the first Article—some powers are indeed given by other Articles, but they are not of a nature to require consideration at this time.
          The eighth Section defines certain objects over which Congress shall have power, but the design of this definition was clearly nothing more than to discriminate between the powers of Legislation which were to be exercised by the General Government and those which were to remain in the State Governments.
          The ninth Section contains a denial of some powers, not proper to be exercised and limitations upon others vested in Congress by the preceding Section—The main design of the Section was clearly to prevent the assumption of certain powers by implication and accurately to define others, which had been granted in general terms.
          The tenth Section contains a denial of some powers to the respective States and limitations upon others—the prevention of disputes respecting a supposed concurrent jurisdiction over Objects, the regulation of which, it was intended to confide exclusively to the General Government was a principal inducement in framing this Section.
          An Analytical view of these Sections therefore proves that the great object of that part of the Constitution which defines the Legislative power was to fix the limits of Jurisdiction between the General and State Governments—the distribution of power

between the Departments of the General Government, is to be found by a very different course of enquiry.
          As however it is pretended that the Executive Department cannot without the concurrence of Congress definitively make Treaties which limit or controul the objects of Legislation, it may be proper to enquire how far Congress possesses exclusive jurisdiction over objects clearly within their sphere of authority.
          The power of raising revenue is one of the most important possessed by Government, yet this may be exercised indefinitely, over most objects, both by the General & State Governments—the fact is more generally true than otherwise, that where there are no words which give exclusive Jurisdiction, the jurisdiction is concurrent: As some very important powers vested in Congress are in fact concurrent with the State Governments, it does not follow either from the reason of the definition of the powers vested in Congress, or the strict letter of the Constitution, but that other powers may be concurrent with particular Departments of the General Government.
          The Second Article of the Constitution declares that the Executive power of the Government shall be vested in a President of the United States of America; in the specification of Executive powers that of making Treaties is expressly mentioned, but this power like most others is subject to the controul or negative voice of the Senate—that is, a Treaty cannot be valid, unless it be made by the President, by & with the advice & consent of two thirds of the Senators present—In other words the President in respect to Treaties is to initiate or perform an inchoative Act the completion of which is reserved to the Senate.
          The obligations resulting from a Treaty are ascertained by the third & sixth Articles of the Constitution, the former of which declares that the judicial power shall extend to Treaties made under the Authority of the United States, and the latter, that such Treaties shall be the Supreme Law of the Land.
          Here it may be asked, what are Treaties? the Answer is, that they are Compacts between Sovereign and independent States, originating in free consent and deriving their obligation from the plighted faith of one nation to another—their Objects are relative to Peace, War, Commerce, and Security.
          The power of making Treaties, is the same thing as the power of pledging the faith of one nation to another—this power is by the

Constitution expressly committed to the President, subject to the controul of the Senate—the obligations arising from public faith when pledged by the representative Organ of our nation in all foreign concerns; agreeably to the mode prescribed by the Constitution, are justly and properly declared to be Laws—the Legislative power is bound not to contravene them, on the contrary it is bound to regard and give them effect. If to omit the exercise of the powers committed to any branch of the Government, would be to annul a Treaty; such an omission would be a violation of the Constitution in that branch which refused to Act.
          An attempt was made in the House of Representatives, in the course of the debate upon the resolution now under consideration, to distinguish between the effect of a Treaty upon a Law of a State and a Law of the United States: there appears however to be no ground for any distinction. In the first place it may be observed, that as all national & external concerns are under the management of the General Government, the Laws of the particular States will hereafter rarely furnish subjects of complaint to foreign nations, and of course rarely be affected by Treaties—to confine the legal operation of Treaties merely to a correction or repeal of State Laws, would be in fact nearly tantamount to a declaration that no Treaty was binding until confirmed by an Act of Congress. Secondly—All Treaties must of necessity operate either to change or to confirm the existing & legal state of things—in either case the power of Legislation must be abridged or directly controulled—the power of Congress to legislate is as effectually limited by the want of a power to repeal as to enact Laws—the Legislative power cannot therefore for this reason, afford a reasonable limitation upon the power of making Treaties.
          3d A power of making Peace cannot be exercised by Treaty, without repealing an Act for declaring war. If the power of making Treaties exercised in its most simple form, implies of necessity the power of repealing a pre existing Law, there ceases to be any criterion for determining what Laws may & what Laws may not be repealed.
          It has been enquired—If Treaties possess the power of repealing Laws, what are the limits which restrain the President & Senate from absorbing all the powers of the Legislature? To this question it may be answered that the power of making

Treaties must of necessity be very indefinite; it must be allowed to be competent to the adjustment of any dispute with a foreign nation under any circumstances; that the power is indefinite is however no proof that it is not fully vested as is contended solely in the President & Senate; that it is capable of abuse is no argument that the House of Representatives possess a controulling authority—Many of the powers vested in Congress are also indefinite—there are no other restraints upon the powers of declaring war, of raising Armies & of equipping Navies, and of Taxation except the virtue & discretion of Congress.
          It is possible to conceive that Congress may declare war unjustly, may raise Armies & equip Navies for purposes of ambition & may tax immoderately & unwisely: It is also possible to conceive that the President may make & the Senate consent to an unwise Treaty, but neither supposition is any proof that the powers are not vested—nor are the evils which result from the abuse of authority to be entirely guarded against by human wisdom—the greatest abuses may happen under the most restricted forms of Government which have been yet devised.
          But though Treaties made by the President & Senate, have the force and obligation of Laws in the United States, it is conceived that they are intitled to no precedence over Acts of Congress—the House of Representatives has at any time a power to originate a Bill for declaring war, or for doing any other Act inconsistent with a Treaty, and an Act declaring a Treaty to be void would repeal its legal obligations & afford evidence that the Contract was at an end.
          In discussing propositions which are at variance with Treaties, the Legislature are under no peculiar restrictions; they are always bound to regard the obligations of Justice, morality & good faith, and their decisions are ever in contemplation of Law presumed to be consistent with these obligations.
          It is not therefore true as has been said that Treaties cannot repeal Laws and that Laws cannot repeal Treaties, the reverse is true—Statutes & Treaties of the United States, are alike supreme Laws of the Land and the last Act of which ever description will controul the former.
          It is not intended to assert that Treaties can extend to every object of Legislation, there is no doubt that the forms of the

Constitution & the powers of the different Departments & Organs of Government are superior to the influence of a Treaty; the limitation of the power of making Treaties, may in some respects be difficult as the exigencies of Society cannot be foreseen, but in respect to matters of mere internal concern, there appears to be nothing upon which the power of making Treaties can operate, in derogation or extension of the power of Legislation.
          It being assumed as a consequence of the preceding remarks, that Treaties are Laws and that the power of making Treaties is exclusively vested in the President & Senate, it becomes proper to enquire, why this power was so deposited. To this question it may be replied that Secrecy & dispatch are frequently necessary to the successful negociation of Treaties. There being no ground to expect these qualities in a numerous public body, the Executive Department was of course considered as the only proper deposit for this power. Assuming therefore as a position that the Constitution contemplated the necessity of Secrecy & personal Confidence in executive proceedings, it is the right of the President so to administer the Government as to preserve its principles inviolate.
          The Resolution of the House of Representatives appears to consider the right of reserving public documents as extending only to such as relate to pending negociations—there is however no ground for this distinction—in respect to Treaties already compleated there may and probably do exist many particulars on which good faith & prudence require the observance of Secrecy—At any rate the probability of such cases, renders it proper that the maxims of administration should have reference to their existence.
          The propriety of a call for papers is moreover rendered doubtful by the duty enjoined upon the President by the Constitution to give to Congress information from time to time of the State of the Union & to recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary & expedient. It may be fairly understood to be the sense of the Constitution, that the Presidents declaration of a state of facts is a sufficient ground for the proceedings of Congress—at any rate the presumption ought always to be, that every Department will discharge its duty.
          Except when an Impeachment is proposed & a formal enquiry

instituted, I am of opinion that the House of Representatives has no right to demand papers relating to foreign negociations either pending or compleated.
          Whether a compliance with the present call be expedient under the peculiar circumstances of the Treaty with Great Britain, is a question which admits of distinct considerations.
          A compliance considering the lengthy debate which preceded the Resolution and in which the right of the House to controul Treaties was asserted would too much bear an appearance of concession to principles subversive of the just powers of the President & Senate.
          On the other hand, a refusal would furnish some pretext for Clamour and unjust imputations against the Executive Department & the negociator of the Treaty.
          If there was reason to believe that a refusal would diminish the public confidence in the Government this would be a powerful argument in favour of a compliance. It is however to be remembered that the public confidence may be as certainly destroyed by a submission to improper demands as by a conduct tending to inspire jealousy.
          That the public jealousy can be excited to any considerable degree is not probable. It is known to the world that Mr Randolph was acquainted with the whole course of the negociation & that his malignity would prompt him to disclose any measures which could embarrass the Executive will not be doubted—All the Correspondence was submitted to the Senate and is admitted to have been seen; The knowledge of what the papers contain has therefore become too general to admit of the propagation of an opinion, that the President or negociator would be affected by a more full disclosure. The public would therefore in my opinion attribute a refusal on the part of the President to its proper motive, a determination to support the Constitution.
          For these reasons and others which I have not time to add, it appears to me inexpedient to comply with the call of the House.
          If the President shall determine not to comply with the Resolution, his Message may contain the following sentiments, which it is believed will justify his decision.
          That the President has considered the Resolution of the House of Representatives passed on the 24th instant, with all that

attention & respect which is justly due to a request of the House, and to the importance of a question which in its consequences may affect the Constitution and that a sense of duty requires him to communicate the result of his reflections.
          That the Constitution has assigned to each Department of the Government distinct powers & that as every Department is equally bound by the Constitution, it is reasonable that in the regular exercise of its proper duties, each, should receive from the others, a proper share of trust and confidence; that the true interests of the people, not only require vigilance & fidelity from all parts of the Administration, but that they also require that the powers which have been delegated to the Government, should be exercised in the mode & by the Organs designated in the Constitution.
          That among the powers delegated to the Government of the United States is that of making Treaties; and that Treaties made in pursuance of the Constitution possess the validity & obligation of Laws of the Land.
          That the power of making Treaties is by the Constitution solely vested in the President & Senate of the United States, & that in the distribution of this power between the President & Senate, it is conceived that the right of instituting negociations, of instructing Ministers, and of making or receiving propositions which are to form the basis of Treaties, rests exclusively with the President; that the right of approving or rejecting in whole or in part, all proposals respecting Treaties rests exclusively with the Senate, and that the concurrent assent of the President & Senate agreeably to the Constitution, with a subsequent ratification of the parties concerned & a promulgation according to Law definitively fix the obligations of a Treaty upon the United States.
          That in the exercise of the duties committed to the President, secrecy & personal confidence are sometimes essential, and that a regard to the public Interests and to the obligations of good faith will not always permit a full disclosure of all documents connected with foreign negociations.
          That for these reasons & to avoid the consequences of a precedent which would embarrass future intercourse with foreign nations, the President has considered it to be his duty to withold a compliance with the Resolution of the House.

          In addition to the above observations it may perhaps be proper to state, that all the communications from the Minister of the United States were laid before the Senate for their information. All of which is respectfully submitted

            Oliver Wolcott JrSecy of the Treas.


Title: From George Washington to Tobias Lear, 27 March 1796
From: Washington, George
To: Lear, Tobias

            My dear Sir,
            Philadelphia 27th March—96

          Your letters of the 21st & 23d instant have filled us with pain and anxiety, from which, probably, we shall not be relieved before tuesday; tho’ we shall hope, on that day, to hear that both Fanny and Maria are much better, if not entirely recovered.
          Upon receipt of the first of the letters abovementioned, I made immediate enquiry in what train the business respecting the arsenal on Potomack was in, and have since been informed by the (present) Secretary of War, that he has written to you on the subject. I wish sincerely that the sickness in your family had not prevented your journey to this City—& that it may not retard it much longer as the Departments at this juncture are so full of business as to require more attention, & urging in particular matters than the pressure of my own allows me to bestow. When you come we will make room for you to lodge in some manner or other as the only spare room we have will, I expect, be occupied by young Fayette & his Tutor.
          I wish devoutly, in which Mrs Washington cordially unites, that this letter may find Fanny & Maria perfectly restored—My best regards to them and with affection I am always Yours

            Go: Washington


Title: To George Washington from William Pearce, 27–29 March 1796 [letter not found]
From: Pearce, William
To: Washington, George

          Letter not found: from William Pearce, 27–29 March 1796. On 3 April, GW wrote Pearce: “Your letter of the 27th Ulto, with a Postscript of the 29th, came duly to hand yesterday.”


Title: To George Washington from David Forman, 28 March 1796
From: Forman, David
To: Washington, George

            Sir
            Chester Town Maryland 28th March 179⟨6⟩

          engaged as you are in public duties, espetially at this important Era it is with diffidence that I beg leave to state to your Excly, that in the fall of the year 1789 I made an adventure and settlement with a considerable Number of Nega Slaves and other property Value of Ten thousand pounds Currancy to the then held as Spanish Cuntry of Louisiana, but within the limmits of the Uniteed States agreeably to the Treaty of Peace with Great Brittain in the year 1783, under the direction of my Brother; he dyed last Summer.
          His widow and Six Children returned to my protectio⟨n⟩ last December; leaveing behind them of my property and in the hands of the Spaniards, Near Ninety Negro Slaves Stock &c. to the value of between Twelve and fifteen thousand pounds. for the recovery of which, I propose th⟨is⟩ spring to go to that Country. By the last treaty with the Court of Spain, I discover that the lands purchased by my Brother, as well as those granted to him by the Spanish Government, Slaves &c. &c. are thrown within the Acknowledged lines of the United States, and I have been led to belive, that if my past servacies would warrant your Excly

to repose so Mutch Confidence in me, as to authorise and appoint me the Commissioner pointed out by this late Treaty to ascertain the Southern Boundery and receive the territorial possession of those lands, it would very materially aid me in obtaining Justice without in the least interfeering with any public functions that may be assigned me. I have Sir been thus consise in my statement to avoid an improper waste of your time, at this so important a crisis. and Shall I not Sir be pardoned for requesting to be favoured with your Answer for a business so Interesting and important to my Family, and if that appointment is not made, yt I may have the Honour of waiting on you respecting it. I have the Honour to be, with every sentiment of respect Sir your most obdt Humble Servt

            David Forman

            P.S. having removed from New Jersey to this place Your Excly will be pleased to direct to me at Chester Town.


Title: To George Washington from George Washington Motier Lafayette, 28 March 1796
From: Lafayette, George Washington Motier
To: Washington, George

            Sir,
            28. March 1796.

          At the moment in which my Friend and I were making arrangements to go to Philadelphia at your desire and invitation, I received a resolution of the House of Representatives, extremely honorable for my father; it was accompanied by a letter from Mr Livingston, equally obliging for myself.
          Penetrated with gratitude for this public mark of bounty, as little expected as merited on my part, I answered it in the best manner in my power. Encouraged by the interest which you are pleased to take in what regards me, I hasten to forward to you a copy of the resolution and of the letter which I received, together with my answer.
          The first desire of my heart being to submit to you every act of mine and to merit your approbation, I venture to request you to point out to me the conduct I should pursue on this occasion, in order to do that which may be most agreeable to you. I have the honor to be, with the most profound respect, sir, your most humble & most obedient servant

            (signed) G. W. M. Lafayette


Title: From George Washington to Thomas Law, 28 March 1796
From: Washington, George
To: Law, Thomas

            Dear Sir,
            Phila. 28th March 1796.

          By letters recd from Hope Park, dated the 22d instt, we are informed that your Marriage with Miss Custis was celebrated the day before.
          On this pleasing occasion we offer you and Eliza, our sincere, & affectionate congratulations; and vows for the perfect happiness of you both, in the union you have formed.
          Whether here, or at Mount Vernon we shall always be happy to see you, and at either place when you are there we pray you to consider yourselves at home. With great & sincere regard we remain Your affectionate

            G.W.M.W.


Title: From George Washington to George Lewis, 28 March 1796 [letter not found]
From: Washington, George
To: Lewis, George

          Letter not found: to George Lewis, 28 March 1796. On 9 April, Lewis wrote to GW: “Your letter of the 28th of last month, acknowledging the receipt of my two last letters, I receiv’d.”


Title: To George Washington from Alexander Hamilton, 29 March 1796
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Washington, George

            Sir
            March 29 [1796]

          I wish the enclosed could have been sent in a more perfect State. But it was impossible—I hope however it can be made out & may be useful.
          It required more time to say all that was proper in a more condensed form.
          In considering the course to be pursued by the President it may be well he should be reminded that the same description of men who call for the papers have heretofore maintained that they were not bound by any communication in confidence but were free afterwards to do as they pleased with papers sent them. Respect. & Aff.

            A. Hamilton


Title: To George Washington from Timothy Pickering, 29 March 1796
From: Pickering, Timothy
To: Washington, George

            Sir,
            Department of State March 29. 1796.

          I have examined the cases mentioned in Mr Livingston’s speech, in which he affects to draw certain conclusions that the President has heretofore admitted, by the nature of his communications to the House of Representatives, that their interference is necessary to the due formation and binding force of treaties: but not one applies to the point. All the instances cited relate to communications prior to the making of the treaties: whereas the object now contended for is, a right to sanction or reject treaties after they are made.
          Mr Livingston’s first reference is to the message of the 7th of August 1789, in which the President, agreeably to his constitutional duty, gives information of the state of the Union, in relation to the Indian tribes who were committing hostilities on our frontiers. The question depending was doubtless this; Whether offensive war should be made, or pacific measures taken to settle all differences with the southern tribes, by holding a treaty with them? And in case the Congress, instead of making war, should think it “most expedient to terminate all differences by an amicable treaty,” the President suggests the measure of a temporary commission of three persons to hold it. But as no money had then been provided for such a purpose, the application to Congress was indispensable. The sum of 20,000 dollars was in consequence appropriated, and the pay of the commissioners fixed.
          On the 22d of July 1790, Congress appropriated the further sum of 20,000 dollars, to defray the expences of holding treaties, maintaining a friendly intercourse, and preserving peace with the Indian tribes.
          Mr Livingston might have mentioned another appropriation of this kind; it was in 1793; and extended to 100,000 dollars, to enable the President to hold a treaty and make peace with the Indians Northwest of the Ohio.
          On the 3d of March 1791, the sum of 20,000 dollars was appropriated to effect a recognition of the treaty of the U. States with the Emperor of Morocco.
          The next case is that of the Algerines and other Barbary powers, for which, and some other objects relating to our intercourse

with foreign nations, an appropriation was made to the amount of one million of dollars.
          In all these cases, the negociations were to be conducted in a mode entirely different from that usual with the civilized nations of Europe. It was necessary to have the money in hand, to be paid during the negociations with the savages of America & the pirates of Barbary, or immediately on their conclusion. In these cases, then, it was necessary that the acts of Congress should precede the treaties: and hence the necessity of the President’s making these communications prior to the commencement of the negociations.
          The last references of Mr Livingston were to the President’s messages of the 5th & 16th of December 1793. The latter was accompanied by confidential communications relative to our affairs with Spain. This confidential message not being in the public journals, I take Mr Livingston’s own quotation from it. The former part of the message must have stated our situation as comprehending demands refused or disputes to be adjusted. “And therefore (says the President) by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, I appointed commissioners plenipotentiary for negociating and concluding a treaty with that country, on the several subjects of boundary, navigation & commerce, and gave them the instructions now communicated.” Now “why (asks Mr Livingston) communicate the instructions to the ministers? because (he answers himself) they related to commerce, to navigation, to boundary, on all of which subjects the president must have thought the legislature had a right of decision.” But the instructions bear date in February or March 1792, nearly two years before they were laid before the House of Representatives; and the entry in their public journal of Decr 16. 1793, mentions the confidential communications, as “respecting the transactions of the government of the U. States with Spain.” And the fact was, that without consulting that House, the Executive had been acting near two years on the Spanish business; and it was only because the long protracted negociations presented little prospect of success, and because the people west of the Allegany, particularly the Kentuckians, were so restless as to indicate signs of taking by force (& thus involving the U. States in war) what could not be obtained by negociation, that the subject was laid before Congress. It is also remarkable, that the instructions

for the Spanish negociation, tho’ withheld near two years from the House of Representatives, were laid before the Senate, as a branch of the treaty-making power, for their approbation, before they were sent to our ministers; the senate being in session, and the subject of great importance.
          Thus it appears that the cases cited by Mr Livingston do not yield a shadow of support to his resolution: and indeed his speech is made up of contemptible sophistry & florid declamation. I am most respectfully sir your obt servant

            Timothy Pickering.


Title: From George Washington to the U.S. Senate, 29 March 1796
From: Washington, George
To: Senate

            Gentlemen of the Senate.
            United States March 29. 1796.

          I send herewith a copy of the Treaty of Friendship, Limits and Navigation, between the United States and his Catholic Majesty, which has been ratified by me with your Advice and Consent. A copy of the Treaty will be immediately communicated to the House of Representatives: it being necessary to make provision, in the present Session, for carrying into execution the Third and Twenty first Articles, particularly the former; seeing that execution must commence before the next meeting of Congress.
          Estimates of the monies necessary to be provided for the purposes of this and several other Treaties with foreign Nations

and the Indian Tribes will be laid before you by the proper Department.

            Go: Washington


Title: From George Washington to Elizabeth Parke Custis Law, 30 March 1796
From: Washington, George
To: Law, Elizabeth Parke Custis

            My dear Betsey
            Philadelphia 30th Mar. 1796

          Melancholy as the event is, on which you wrote the 25th instant; and unwelcome as you knew the information must be, yet

it was the part of prudence to communicate it as early as you did: and the precaution you took of writing to me, was well judged; and wd have been necessary, had we not been previously prepared for the shock, by letters from Mr Lear; giving an account of her situation, which left no hope, in me of a different result.
          Mrs Lear was good & amiable, and your Society will feel the loss of her. But the Dispensations of Providence are as inscrutable, as they are wise & uncontroulable. It is the duty therfore of religeon & Philosophy, to submit to its decrees, with as little repining as the sensibility of our natures, will permit.
          My compliments to Mr Law. In a joint letter, written a few days ago to him, by your Grandmamma and myself, we offered you both our congratulations on your union. & I repeat them again, with sincerity—being Your Affectionate

            Go: Washington


Title: From George Washington to Tobias Lear, 30 March 1796
From: Washington, George
To: Lear, Tobias

            My dear Sir,
            Philadelphia 30th Mar: 1796

          Your former letters prepared us for the stroke, which that of the 25th instant announced; but it has fallen heavily notwithstanding.
          It is the nature of humanity to mourn for the loss of our friends; and the more we loved them, the more poignant is our grief. It is part of the precepts of religion and Philosophy, to consider the Dispensations of Providence as wise, immutable, uncontroulable; of course, that it is our duty to submit with as little repining, as the sensiblity of our natures is capable of, to all its decrees. But nature will, notwithstanding, indulge, for a while, its sorrows.
          To say how much we loved, and esteemed our departed friend, is unnecessary—She is now no more! but she must be happy, because her virtue has a claim to it.
          As you talked of coming to this place on business, let us press you to do so. The same room that serves Mr Dandridge &

Washington is large enough to receive a Bed also for you; and it is needless to add, we shall be glad of your company. The change may be serviceable to you; and if our wishes were of any avail, they would induce you to make your stay here as long as your convenience would permit.
          At all times, and under all circumstances, we are, and ever shall remain, Your sincere and Affectionate friends.

            Go: WashingtonM. Washington


Title: To George Washington from Tobias Lear, 30 March 1796
From: Lear, Tobias
To: Washington, George

            My dear Sir,
            Washington [D.C.] March 30th 1796.

          I have this moment received your kind & acceptable favor of the 27th instant; and at the same time a letter from the Secretary of War on the subject of the Arsenal. It contains but a few lines, informing me that he shall put the papers, which I transmitted last month, into the hands of the Attorney General, to enable him to draw the deeds, and that he will write me more particularly in a short time. No serious evil, I think, can arise from the thing’s not being executed on the first of April; for altho’ it is said in the papers, that the U.S. shall have possession on that day; yet it is expressed that the proprietors shall make deeds whenever the U.S. acquire it.
          I am happy to inform you that Maria is much better, and in a fair way to recover her usual state of health in a few days, when I shall take the liberty of carrying her to Mount Vernon to receive the benefit of the air, and change of place for a short time. She will be, with her brothers, there in the care of Mrs Skinner, who I am sure will pay every possible attention to her.
          Altho’, under present circumstances, I do not feel disposed to move about or mix much in society; yet I think it probable that I may, next week, go on to Phila. I have some business there which can be better done by me in person than by writing; and ’tho I have had sufficient firmness to bear up, with a considerable degree of composure, against my late afflicting calamity; yet, ’till

now, I was hardly sensible of the effect it has had upon me, and a change of place for a short time, together with a succession of active scenes, may be necessary to my health: I shall therefore, my dear Sir, postpone writing to you on the subject of business at present, expecting shortly to have the happiness of paying my respects to you in person.
          I feel for others more than for myself, and it would give me unspeakable satisfaction to be able to say anything that could give consolation to your dear & good Mrs Washington. But it is out of my power; and I know that her mind looks to that source from which alone we can draw comfort in times of affliction like these. I beg to be presented to her in terms of dutiful & affectionate remembrance, in which my dear little Maria joins me and sends the same for your acceptance. I am, and always shall be, with a heart too full to express my gratitude & affection, Your invariable & respectful friend

            Tobias Lear.


Title: To George Washington from George Minor, 30 March 1796
From: Minor, George
To: Washington, George

            Sir
            Chesnut Hill [Va.] March 30th 1796

          I recd your Letter dated 13th april 1794 Wherein you requested me to watch over your land on four mile run—this I have done with all possible care; and find it morally impossible

to prevent depredations, oughing chiefly to the distance I live from the premises, and the caution in windy weather, and halling the wood away in the night.
          Mr William pearce your Maneger was at My house yesterday and I went over the land with him and find a vast deal of injury done to the growth, both in firewood and valuable timber; and I think that it is highly expedient that some person who may be depended on should live on the land in Order to detect those villians who depend intirely for a support on your and others property—Mr John Darne has offered his service for this purpose and I think from his character and my personal Knowledge of him I can recommend him to you as a person fully qualified for the business. however in this you will do as you think proper; but be assured I shall ever think my self happy in serveing you, in enforceing the laws against every person who shall be found trespasing on your land. I am Sir with the greatest respect your Most Obt humble Servt

            Geo: Minor


Title: To George Washington from Timothy Pickering, 30 March 1796
From: Pickering, Timothy
To: Washington, George

            Wednesday Morning 6 o’clock [30 March 1796]

          The Secretary of State has the honor to lay before the President of the U. States the result of his examination of Mr Livingston’s speech.
          He also returns the draught of the proposed answer to the House, in the 3d page of which he has restored the idea of the Senate being composed of few members, as a reason why they participated in the power of making treaties: for taking the thing at large, when thirty men are made the depositaries of State Secrets, they might not be deemed very safe.
          Before nine this morning, the Secy expects an answer from Mr FitzSimons, when the Secy will wait on the President.

            T. Pickering


Title: From George Washington to the U.S. House of Representatives, 30 March 1796
From: Washington, George
To: U.S. House of Representatives, the

            United States March 30th 1796.
            Gentlemen of the House of Representatives.

          With the utmost attention, I have considered your resolution of the twenty fourth instant, requesting me to lay before your House, a copy of the instructions to the Minister of the United States, who negociated the treaty with the king of Great Britain, together with the correspondence and other documents relative to that treaty, excepting such of the said papers, as any existing negociation may render improper to be disclosed.
          In deliberating upon this subject, it was impossible for me to lose sight of the principle, which some have avowed in its discussion, or to avoid extending my views to the consequences, which must flow from the admission of that principle.
          I trust, that no part of my conduct has ever indicated a disposition to withhold any information, which the constitution has enjoined upon the President, as a duty, to give, or which could be required of him by either House of Congress, as a right; and with truth, I affirm, that it has been, as it will continue to be, while I have the honor to preside in the government, my constant endeavor to harmonize with the other branches thereof; so far as the trust, delegated to me by the people of the United States, and my sense of the obligation it imposes “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,” will permit.
          The nature of foreign negociations requires caution; and their success must often depend on secrecy: and even when brought to a conclusion, a full disclosure of all the measures, demands, or eventual concessions, which may have been proposed or contemplated, would be deemed impolitic; for this might have a

pernicious influence on future negociations, or produce immediate inconveniences, perhaps danger and mischief, in relation to the other powers. The necessity of such caution and secrecy was one cogent reason for vesting the power of making treaties, in the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate; the principle, on which that body was formed, confining it to a small number of members. To admit, then, a right in the House of Representatives, to demand, and to have, as a matter of course, all the papers respecting a negociation with a foreign power, would be, to establish a dangerous precedent.
          It does not occur, that the inspection of the papers asked for can be relative to any purpose under the cognizance of the House of Representatives, except that of an impeachment; which the resolution has not expressed. I repeat, that I have no disposition to withhold any information, which the duty of my station will permit, or the public good will require to be disclosed; and, in fact, all the papers affecting the negociation with Great Britain were laid before the Senate, when the treaty itself was communicated for their consideration and advice.
          The course, which the debate has taken, on the resolution of the House, leads to some observations on the mode of making treaties under the constitution of the United States.
          Having been a member of the general convention, and knowing the principles, on which, the constitution was formed, I have ever entertained but one opinion on this subject; and from the first establishment of the government, to this moment, my conduct has exemplified that opinion, that the power of making treaties is exclusively vested in the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate; provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and that every treaty so made, and promulgated, thenceforward became the law of the land. It is thus, that the treaty-making power has been understood by foreign nations; and in all the treaties made with them, we have declared, and they have believed, that, when ratified by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, they became obligatory. In this construction of the constitution, every House of Representatives has heretofore acquiesced, and, until the present time, not a doubt or suspicion has appeared to my knowledge, that this construction was not the true one. Nay, they have more than acquiesced; for, till now, without controverting the obligation of

such treaties, they have made all the requisite provisions for carrying them into effect.
          There is also reason to believe, that this construction agrees with the opinion entertained by the State conventions, when they were deliberating on the constitution, especially by those who objected to it; because there was not required, in commercial treaties, the consent of two thirds of the whole number of the members of the Senate, instead of two thirds of the Senators present; and because, in treaties respecting territorial and certain other rights and claims, the concurrence of three fourths of the whole number of the members of both Houses, respectively, was not made necessary.
          It is a fact declared by the General Convention, and universally understood, that the constitution of the United States was the result of a spirit of amity and mutual concession. And it is well known, that under this influence, the smaller States were admitted to an equal representation in the Senate, with the larger States; and that this branch of the government was invested with great powers: for, on the equal participation of those powers, the sovereignty and political safety of the smaller States were deemed essentially to depend.
          If other proofs than these, and the plain letter of the constitution itself, be necessary to ascertain the point under consideration, they may be found in the journals of the General Convention, which I have deposited in the office of the department of State. In these journals, it will appear, that a proposition was made, “that no treaty should be binding on the United States, which was not ratified by a law”: and that the proposition was explicitly rejected.
          As, therefore, it is perfectly clear to my understanding, that the assent of the House of Representatives is not n[e]cessary to the validity of a treaty: as the treaty with Great Britain exhibits, in itself, all the objects requiring legislative provision, and on these, the papers called for can throw no light; and as it is essential to the due administration of the government, that the boundaries, fixed by the constitution between the different departments, should be preserved: a just regard to the constitution, and to the duty of my office, under all the circumstances of this case, forbid a compliance with your request.

            Go. Washington.


Title: To George Washington from Andrew Ellicott, 31 March 1796
From: Ellicott, Andrew
To: Washington, George

            Sir.
            Philadelphia March 31st 1796

          With this you will receive an essay designed to introduce accuracy in the execution of new surveys, and permanency to the work when executed; which from the present improved state of the Sciences, may be done with ease, and expedition, by any person properly qualified for a surveyor. The method which I have proposed, will neither require more time, nor be attended with more expense, than the one commonly practised. I have the honour to be, with the most perfect esteem, your Hbe Sert

            Andw Ellicott.


Title: From George Washington to Alexander Hamilton, 31 March 1796
From: Washington, George
To: Hamilton, Alexander

            (Private)
            My dear Sir,
            Philadelphia 31st Mar. 1796

          I do not know how to thank you sufficiently, for the trouble you have taken to dilate on the request of the House of Representatives for the Papers relative to the British Treaty; or how

to apologize for the trouble (much greater than I had any idea of giving) which you have taken to shew the impropriety of that request.
          From the first moment, and from the fullest conviction in my own mind, I had resolved to resist the principle wch was evidently intended to be established by the call of the House of Representatives; and only deliberated on the manner, in which this could be done, with the least bad consequences.
          To effect this, three modes presented themselves to me—1. a denial of the Papers in toto, assigning concise, but cogent reasons for the denial; 2. to grant them in whole; or 3. in part; accompanied with a pointed protest against the right of the House to controul Treaties, or to call for Papers without specifying their object; and against the compliance being drawn into precedent.
          I had as little hesitation in deciding that the first was the most tenable ground, but from the peculiar circumstances of this case It merited consideration, if the principle could be saved, whether facility in the provisions might not result from a compliance. An attentive examination however of the Papers and the subject, soon convinced me that to furnish all the Papers would be highly improper; and that a partial delivery of them would leave the door open for as much calumny as the entire refusal—perhaps more so—as it might, and I have no doubt would be said, that all such as were essential to the purposes of the House, were withheld.
          Under these impressions, I proceeded, with the heads of Departments and the Attorney General, to collect materials; & to prepare an answer, subject however to revision—& alteration, according to circumstances. This answer was ready on Monday —and proposed to be sent in on Tuesday but it was delayed until I should receive what was expected; not doing it definitively on that day, the delivery of my answer was further postponed till the next; notwithstanding the anxious solicitude which was visible in all quarters, to learn the result of Executive decision.
          Finding that the draft I had prepared, embraced most, if not all the principles which were detailed in the Paper I received yesterday; though not the reason⟨in⟩gs. That it would take considerable ⟨t⟩ime to copy the latter—and above all, having understood that if the Papers were refused a fresh demand, with

strictures might be expected; I sent in the answer wch was ready; reserving the other as a source for reasoning if my information proves true.
          I could not be satisfied without giving you this concise acct of the business. To express again my sincere thanks for the pains you have been at to investigate the subject, ⟨and to assure you, over & over, of the warmth of my friendship and of the affectionate regard with which I am—Your Affectionate

            G. Washington⟩


Title: From George Washington to John Jay, 31 March 1796
From: Washington, George
To: Jay, John

            Philadelphia 31st Mar. 1796

          Accept, my dear Sir, my thanks for your note of the 25th Instant—enclosing a copy of Mr Bayards letter to you. The purport of it is pleasing; but the conduct of the British armed Vessels in the West Indies, is intolerable beyond all forbearance.
          My answer, given yesterday, to the House of Representatives’ request of Papers, will, I expect, set a host of Scribblers to work: but I shall proceed steadily on, in all the measures which depend on the Executive, to carry the British Treaty into effect.
          This reminds me of the name of Pickman, who, sometime ago you mentioned as a Commissioner; but upon enquiry of his countrymen, it was found he was unfit—& Mr Benson declines.
          Let me pray you to send the enclosed to Colo. Hamilton—& be assured of the Affecte Regard of

            Go: Washington


Title: From George Washington to George Washington Motier Lafayette, 31 March 1796
From: Washington, George
To: Lafayette, George Washington Motier

            My dear Sir,
            Philadelphia 31st Mar. 1796

          Your letter of the 28th instt was received yesterday. The enclosures which accompanied it, evidence much discretion; and your conduct therein meets my entire approbation.
          In the early part of this month, I put a letter into the hands of Colo. Hamilton, inviting you to this place; and expected, until your letter of the above date was received, to have embraced you, under my own roof, tomorrow or next day.
          As the period for this, seems to be more distant, from the purport of your enquiries; I again repeat my former request; and wish that without delay, you and Mr Festal, with your baggage &ca would proceed immediately to this City, and to my house; where a room is prepared for you & him.
          Under expectation of your doing this, it is as unnecessary, as it might be improper, to go more into detail until I have the pleasure to see you; and to render every service in my power to the Son of my friend, for whom I have always entertained the purest Affections. These are too strong not to extend themselves to you. Therefore believe me to be, as I really am—Sincerely & Affectionately Yours

            Go: Washington


Title: To George Washington from Thomas Law, 31 March 1796
From: Law, Thomas
To: Washington, George

            Dear Sir
            Washington City 31st March 1796

          The obliging Lre of congratulation in which Mrs Washington & you united, could not fail to render the happiness of Eliza & me compleat.
          Mr & Mrs Peters have been kind enough to spend a day or two with us, as the sudden shock which Mrs Lear’s melancholy fate occasion’d, has somewhat affected Eliza’s health—We had just cross’d the Ferry when Eliza receiv’d the sad account of Mrs Lear’s desperate situation & It were superfluous to explain how she attended her much lov’d friend & relation from her bed to her coffin & from her coffin to the Vault at Mount Vernon.
          I hope Mrs Washington & You will honor us with your Company when you visit the City & be witnesses of our happiness—Eliza joins with me in most affectionate regards, & I have only to add that my sense of your very flattering & kind attentions will be best evinc’d by my conduct to Eliza & her indulgent Relations.
          She would have written long e’er this, but has been prevented by painful duties & by sickness. I remain With unfeigned respect & esteem & sincere regard Yr most obliged & most affy

            Thomas Law


Title: From George Washington to the U.S. Senate, 31 March 1796
From: Washington, George
To: Senate

            Gentlemen of the Senate
            United States March 31st 1796

          The Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation between the United States and Great Britain, requiring that Commissioners should be appointed to fix certain boundaries between the Territories of the contracting parties, and to ascertain the losses and damages represented to have been sustained by their respective Citizens and Subjects, as set forth in the fifth, Sixth and Seventh Articles of the Treaty; In order to carry those Articles into execution, I nominate as Commissioners on the part of the United States,

          For the purpose mentioned in the fifth Article, Henry Knox of Massachusetts:
          For the purpose mentioned in the Sixth Article, Thomas Fitzsimons of Pennsylvania, and James Innes of Virginia: and
          For the purpose mentioned in the Seventh Article, Christopher Gore of Massachusetts and William Pinckney of Maryland.

            Go. Washington


Title: List of Proposed Candidates for Sundry Offices, c. March 1796
From: Washington, George
To:

            [Philadelphia, c.March 1796]

              New Hampshire
              Pensylvania

              [  ] Sheafe
              William Rawle

              William Tighlman

              Massachusetts
              Thomas Fitzsimmons

              Theop. Parsons
              Presley Nevil

              Chrs. Gore
              Geo. Clymer

              [  ] Dexter
              Jonathan Williams

              Timo. Edwards

              Connecticut
              Delaware

              James Davenport
              George Reade

              Amasa Learned

              Jera. Wadsworth
              Maryland

              John Trumbull
              Wm V. Murray—if constitutional

              Jedh Huntington
              U. Forrest

              [  ] Stoddard

              New York
              Charles Carrol

              James Watson
              George Gale

              Wm Constable
              Wm Winder

              Benja. Walker

              [  ] Kent

              New Jersey
              Virginia

              [  ] Stockton
              [  ] Innis

              [  ] Ogden
              B. Washington

              W. Short

              Charles Lee if compatible with the Office of Atty General

              Georgia

              Abraham Baldwin
              North Carolina

              Genl [  ] Smith

              Rhode Island
              John Steele

              [  ] Dexter

              South Carolina

              Vermont
              William Smith—if Constitutional

              [  ] Tichenor
              H. W. Desausure

              Kentucky

          Note
          Quere. Will it be consistent with the Constitution to appoint Members of Congress?
          Is the Office of Commissioner compatible with that of Attorney General?


Title: To George Washington from Justus Erick Bollmann, 1 April 1796
From: Bollmann, Justus Erick
To: Washington, George

          Sir,
          [Philadelphia] April the 1t 1796.

        When I had the honor to wait on Your Excellency shortly after my arrival in Philadelphia, I took the liberty to mention that I had a friend in Olmütz, who interested himself for Gen. Lafayette; that I had arranged with him a safe correspondence; that he had communicated to me, before I left London, a plan according to which the liberty of Gen. Lafayette might have been procured on the expence of about 3000£ Stg; but, that his friends in London rejected it, partly, on account of the absence of Mr Pinckney, not choosing to take upon themselves the responsability for this money, partly, because they entertained great hopes that the applications of Madame Lafayette would prove successful! And I added at the same time that, my first proposals being thus rejected, I had endeavoured to make Madame Lafayette acquainted with my friend, writing a letter to both of them, in order that he might assist her with his advice!
        The day before yesterday I have received of this same friend 3 letters, dated from Olmütz the 17th of October, the 26th of November, and the 10th of December 95., out of which I think it my duty to communicate to Your Excellency the following particulars!
        Madame Lafayette went to Vienna so precipitately that she had seen the Emperor before my friend received my last letters, and this prevented his concerting with her any measures that might have supported her application. She was allowed by the Emperor to join the Marquis with her two daughters, but, respecting her request to set him free, he answerd “that this was a complicated affair and that his hands were tied” (que l’affaire etait compliquée et qu’il avait les mains liées lû dessus).
        She then left Vienna and arrived in Olmütz the 16th of October, where she was immediately introduced to the marquis, and imprisoned with him, the same as her two daughters, who accompanied her. They are kept very closely and not allowed any communication with their friends, neither personally nor by way of Correspondence!
        My friend, however, has succeded in establishing a secret

Correspondence; he gives me hope that soon he will be able to send me some original letters of the Marquis and meanwhile communicates to me an extract of the Marquis’s letters to himself, out of which, suppressing what regards Mr Huger and myself personally, I think the following passage will be to Your Excelency particularly interesting.
        “We flatter ourselves, write Gen. L.F. and his family, that our two friends will be well received in America; and we likewise think that Mr Bollmann will find in each of the different States, in Congress and in the Executif Government favorable dispositions towards the poor prisonners, whom it is the great point to reclaim. He will convince himself that, if Gen. Washington has not yet done every thing that might be useful to us, it is because the manner in which he may serve us never has been well explained to him yet. And, at all events, Mr Bollmann will not forget that, since 20 years, General Lafayette has been attached to General Washington by all the ties of tenderness, gratitude and respect, which can attach an adopted child to his father. We imagine that his stay in America may be of great utility; he will find there George, our son and brother &c. &c.”
        Some other accounts of my Olmütz-Correspondent mention, that it is the Influence of the Brittish ministry, and almost that alone what keeps the Marquis in Prison. “He suffers, much less because he was the Hero of the French, than because he took a part in the American Revolution!”
        I am ready Sir, if You require it, to lay before Your Excellency the original german letters, which contain the informations and extracts above stated; but, as now the way of correspondence is open, I should particularly be glad were I enabled to make to Gen. Lafayette some communications, calculated to sooth his misfortune by the certainty of friendly compassion, or to fortify his Courage by the prospect of relief! I have the honor to be with the highest respect Sir Your Excellency’s most obedient and humble servant

          J. Erick Bollmann


Title: To George Washington from George Walton, 1 April 1796
From: Walton, George
To: Washington, George

          sir,
          philadelphia, 1 April, 1796

        The letter enclosed, came under cover to me from General Mathews by yesterday’s mail. In opening the latter, the seal of the former was a little injured.
        With every consideration of delicacy on my part, and of respect to the Executive of the Union on the other, I make this the occasion to mention, that, by the same mail, as well as by other conveyances, I am advised of such a general derangement of

public affairs, and of appointments, in Georgia, I would willingly undertake some federal Employment.
        Having long served in the Judiciary of that State, my habits and predilections are in that line; and I should have been content to have been continued on the ground I had left: but I have been excluded from the appointments, and even the Commission, for treating with the Creeks for the Oakmulgie lands, has been filled up anew.
        Under this unpleasant prospect, I am induced to offer my services to attend the Running of the Southern Boundary of the United-States, under the spanish Treaty. It is in truth, sir, not my wish to embarrass by this application, as I make it with doubts; and shall be content with the reasons which shall pass it by. Advancing to a declining period of my life, my principal aim in this address is, to place myself in view for service, when a fit occasion shall offer. With sincere attachment & respect, I am, Sir, Yr Obt Sert

          Geo. Walton


Title: To George Washington from Alexander Hamilton, 2 April 1796
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Washington, George

          Sir
          New York April 2d 1796

        The express is this morning gone off with your letter to Young La Fayette. I foresaw when in Philadelphia certain machinations on this subject.
        I rejoice in the decision you have come to, in regard to the papers. Whatever may happen, it is right in itself—will elevate the character of the President—and inspire confidence abroad. The contrary would have encouraged a spirit of usurpation the bounds of which could not be foreseen.
        If there is time, I should like to have back the paper lately sent

to correct prune guard & strengthen—I have no copy. But of the expediency of this the circumstances on the Spot will decide. There is great fitness in the message to the House. I see only one point the least vulnerable, the too direct notice of the debate in the house—which may be attacked as contrary to parliamentary usage. I hear the criticism here among the L——s. But this cannot be very material. Most respectfully & Affectny I have the honor to be Sir Yr very obed. ser.

          A. Hamilton


Title: From George Washington to William Pearce, 3 April 1796
From: Washington, George
To: Pearce, William

          Mr Pearce,
          Philadelphia 3d April 1796.

        Your letter of the 27th Ulto, with a Post[s]cript of the 29th, came duly to hand yesterday.
        As I have expectation that by the time this letter will have reached you, a Vessel from Liverpool called the Commerce will

have arrived at George Town with eight bushels of the field Pea; as much of the Chiccory as will sow four Acres of land; and eight bushels of the Winter Vetch—for, and on my account, I request you to have the two first sowed as soon as you are able. By looking into some of the farming books I lent you; you will discover what quantity of the Pease to allow to the Acre. If these shd be silent, allow two bushels sowed broadcast: at any rate do not give as much as the English husbandry directs, for the quantity allowed in that country (formerly at least) greatly exceeds ours. I sent for as much Chiccory as would sow four Acres of ground, but not mentioning whether in drils or broadcast, I am unable to give you any particular direction on this head; and therefore must leave it to yourself to judge from the quantity of seed, whether it is designed for four acres broadcast, or four acres in drills that the seed is adequate to. The Vetches must be secured in the Seed loft for fall sowing.
        If the Chiccory is as valuable for Soiling horses (that is giving it to them green) as I am told it is; I think it would be desirable to allow a proportional quantity of it to each of the four farms; to be sown as convenient as may be to the stables. As you did not, in enumerating the different places in which Oats were to be sowed, mention any for the ground that was in Potatoes, near the quarter, at Mansion house; I think, if it is yet unsown, it would be a good spot (or as much thereof as is necessary) to sow the Pease in: and I see no reason why clover may not be sown with them, as well as with Oats. If this ground should have been seeded already—sow them wherever you please; and with as little delay as possible. Do the same with the chiccory, as the Season is getting late—& if it continues dry they will come to nothing withou⟨t⟩.
        In one of my letters, I mentioned plantg the vacant ground in the Cornfield, at Mansion Ho., with Corn, along with the New ground; but in my next letter, I suggested the idea of putting it in Oats, to avoid letting the other part lying waste, or the expence of a fence. But I leave it to you to do what you think best, or rather what you are able to accomplish. My plan always was, and always will be, to attempt no more than can be executed well. and this made me desirous of cultivating all the New ground; being well convinced that it will soon be as bad as ever, if the roots & sprouts are not destroyed by this means.
        In one of your late letters, speaking of the damage done by

the Wind, you mentioned its having blown down many Trees: it did not occur to me at that time, that this might have happened to the Trees in the yards, gardens, or Lawns. If this was the case, I hope they were set up again.
        If the locust Posts for the circle, are ready, let them be put up. and if you should sell the flour on the terms I have mentioned, take care that the payment is well secured.
        Mr Minor has recommended a Mr Darnes, as a Tenant, whom he thinks would preserve my land near Alexandria from the Tresspasses it undergoes; and I have, in the enclosed letter (left open for your perusal) requested him to put the said Darnes on. Let the letter be sent to him that he may certainly get it and let Mr Darnes have the field you speak of, & more ground if necessary, to put a house on. But make your agreement with him in writing; that there may be no mistakes. I should not incline to give him a surety of the place for more than 5, 6, or 7 yrs—for the rest I care not.
        Unless I rent my Farms, and I have very little expectation of doing it, for the next year, I shall be indifferent about renting my Mill; unless tempted by a good price: but without letting this be known you may learn from Mr Gill what his friend, or any other, would give for her, for the term of years I have offered her.
        Let me know the exact size of the Chimney in the New room, at Mansion house; that is, how wide at the front, and at the back, & how deep at the sides; & whether the sides are of Marble. Let me know also how far the chimney piece projects from the plaistering above it; whether there is a middle part that projects more than the rest; how much, & the width of it, &ca; & what the whole length of the chimney piece at top is, from side to side or end to end. I am your friend and well wisher

          Go: Washington


Title: To George Washington from William Pearce, 3 April 1796 [letter not found]
From: Pearce, William
To: Washington, George

        Letter not found: from William Pearce, 3 April 1796. GW wrote Pearce on 10 April: “Your letter of the 3d instant … was received yesterday.”


Title: From George Washington to James Innes, 4 April 1796
From: Washington, George
To: Innes, James

          Dear sir,
          Philada 4th april 1796.

        Before this can have reached your hands, the gazettes will have announced to you that I have taken the liberty (without a previous consultation) to nominate you, conjointly with Thos Fitzsimons esqe an intelligent merchant of this City, one of the Commissioners for carrying the Sixth article of the treaty lately entered into with G. Britain, into effect. As the nomination is confirmed by the Senate, I hope it will be convenient & agreeable to you to accept the trust; for the duties whereof, & other matters relative thereto the article itself will be sufficiently explanatory.
        The compensation will not be less, I conceive, than £1000. sterlg per annum; but as it is not absolutely fixed yet, I cannot speak with more decision on the subject; and request that this letter may not be considered as an official one; but meant only

to intimate what has been done, & to know your sentiments thereon; the rest you will receive in due time from the Secy of State. With esteem & regard, &c.

          G: Washington


Title: To George Washington from George Lux, c.4 April 1796
From: Lux, George
To: Washington, George

          George Washington
          [Baltimore, c.4 April 1796]

        I want words to preface a letter more respectfully to you—It is my pride & boast, that you & my dear Father were intimate, & you have occasionally honoured me with your notice.
        I have been ill, am still an Invalid, but have strength to wield a pen to assert, I am proud of you, & the stand you have made against a dangerous precedent alarming to future generations of United Columbia—Why should we have a popular Oligarchy? In an humble station, as only a Clerk to a Committee of Congress, I have, in early youth, found secrecy necessary in foreign negotiations—Domestic Matters ought to be open & explicit.
        Our Government has it’s Checks & balances, to ensure liberty & prevent an undue preponderancy of either the Judicial, Executive or Legislative Departments—Sick as I have been, I have not seen many, but the few who have conversed with me unite in approbation of George Washington with

          George Lux


Title: To George Washington from James McHenry, 5 April 1796
From: McHenry, James
To: Washington, George

          Sir
          War office 5th April 1796.

        I beg leave to request your Excellency attention to the inclosed draught of a letter to the Governor of Georgia. If it can be returned today it may go by to-morrows mail. With the greatest respect I have the honour to be Sir Your most obt st

          James McHenry


Title: To George Washington from Hampden-Sydney College Committee, 6 April 1796
From: Hampden-Sydney College Committee
To: Washington, George

          Sir
          Virginia, Prince Edward County, April 6th 1796.

        Your benevolent intention, as to the appropriation of your interest in the James River Canal Company, being known by a resolution of the last General Assembly of this State; a Board of the Trustees for the College of Hamden Sidney, in this County, have appointed us, in their name, to address you, Sir, in behalf of that seminary.
        Hamden Sidney lays claim to considerable local advantages; to enumerate them may be unnecessary—it may be unbecoming in us. How far its pretensions to claim the public patronage, or how far, its central situation, and its being adjacent to an extensive back country, may merit your attention, we cannot say. We beg leave to Mr Madison, Mr Coles, Mr Giles and Mr Venable, who are acquainted with its situation and circumstances; and also to such other gentlemen of your acquaintance, as shall think proper to interest themselves in its behalf.

        Hamden Sidney was founded, about twenty years ago, by the liberality of private individuals, and with various success; under many and great difficulties, arising from the want of permanent funds, it has struggled hard to rise into real public usefulness and importance; and still, in this condition it maintains the conflict—In its behalf, we beg leave to solicit your attention and patronage. Should you think this seminary worthy of such attention, your liberality towards it will be gratefully acknowledged: and what, we are sure, will interest you much more, we trust, it will be employed in such a manner, as to answer the end of your benevolent intentions. On behalf of the Board, we beg leave to subscribe ourselves, very respectfully, Sir, Your obedient, Humble Servants,

          William Cowan,Samuel W. Venable,Richard N. Venable.


Title: To George Washington from Robert Lewis, 6 April 1796
From: Lewis, Robert
To: Washington, George

          Spring Hill Fauqr County [Va.]April 6th 1796
          Hond Uncle,

        I am duly favored with the receipt of your letter of the 10th of March (in reply to mine of the 17th of February[)] with its several inclosures—Why so long ⟨on⟩ the road and getting to your hands, I am unable to say, unless it proceeded from the neglect of a Gentleman who took charge of it and promissed to leave it at the Post Office. We have no regular Post Rider in this part of the Country, altho’ there are several who pretend to it—The conveyance is at any rate uncertain—You desire to know “to whose care letters are to be directed since my Mother has left Fredericksburg[”]—I know of no person that I wou’d so soon confide them to as Mr James Lewis—Attorney at Law Fredericksburg—If directed to his care, particular attention will be paid to them and a speedy conveyance given.
        I can offer but few other reasons for not paying what money I have in my hands of yours to Mr Pearce, or into the Bank of Alexandria, than what before urged in my last letter, Vizt The Replevy Bonds becoming due Apl Court when they will either be paid or Judgments must go against the tenants—The expectation of getting something out of the late Sheriff who collected in Muse’s time, and a certainty of my going to Alexandria, as soon as I finish planting my corn—I can assure you the money which I have collected is now in my desk—I have never made any use of it at all, unless it was by your order, or for your use—It was a ridiculous Idea I had adopted, that you would be better pleased to receive your money in a lump annually, than to draw it from me in small parcels—However, as it is your wish I should pay the money to Mr Pearce, or deposit it as soon as collected in

the Bank of Alexandria, it shall be done—I shall start at fartherest for one or the other place by the 12th To Mount Vernon I expect—It will give me an opportunity of conversing with Mr Pearce whose advice I have found extremely beneficial to me as a Young Farmer.
        Your Advertisement [I] have fixed up at the Court House; it being the most publick place in this part of the Country—I have also seen the Papers which were sent to you by Mr Ariss—The business has not wanted attention—The dispute is for about one eighth of an acre which Mr McCormick holds—There is also an old grudge—As to McCormicks getting a road thro’ his yard it is a chimera of the brain—No Court of Justice to gratify an ill natured Man would direct a publick road thro’ a gentlemans yard to gain a hundred and fifty yards; as it is not more than that distance around, as the road now runs, and has run for eight or ten years—Mr Ariss wishes to involve me in a Law suit with McCormick, which can derive you no advantage or credit to Mr Ariss; as he has suffered McCormick to have quiet possession many years—The Man has thro’ ignorance placed his fence on your land and I believe there may be ten or twelve feet of his Barn over your line.
        I received a letter about three days ago from Mr Pearce, wherein he mentions that you were willing, I should take the Jack Compound upon certain conditions—I am extremely obliged to you for the offer, and wou’d most willingly have accepted it, was the season not so far advanced—Most people hereabouts wou’d be glad to get into the breed of Mules, but they have either sent their Mares to some Horse or other, or engaged them—If Agreeable and convenient, I should be glad to take him the next Spring—If I could get him here by February Court I am sure some profit might be derived from him.
        A Servant going to Fredericksburg, and who carries this, hurries me to conclude—You will therefore excuse incorrectness and haste.
        Mrs Lewis offers her Affectionate and respectfull regards to you & my aunt—I remain your much obliged and affectionate nephew

          Robt Lewis

          P.S. Mrs Haney appears to be in the last stage of a consumption.

            R.L.


Title: From George Washington to George Lewis, 7 April 1796
From: Washington, George
To: Lewis, George

            Dear Sir
            Philadelphia 7th April 1796

          Tuesday’s Post brought me a letter from a Mr Andrew Parks of Fredericksburgh, covering one from your mother; both on the subject of overtures of marriage made by the former to your cousin Harriot Washington: which, it seems, depend upon my consent for consummatn.
          My sister speaks of Mr Parks as a sober, discreet man; and one who is attentive to business. Mr Parks says of himself, that his “fortune at present, does not much exceed £3000, but with industry & œconomy, he has every expectation of rapidly improving his condition” being concerned with his brother in law Mr McElderry of Baltimore, in Mercantil⟨e⟩ business.
          As I am an entire stranger to Mr Parks; to his family connexions, or his connexions in trade; to his mode of living; his habits—and to his prospects in trade; I should be glad if you wd ascertain them with as much precision as you can, and write me with as little delay as you can well avoid.
          Harriot having little or no fortune of her own, has no right to expect a great one in the man she marrys: but it is desirable that she should marry a gentleman; one who is well connected, and can support her decently, in the line she has always moved, otherwise she would not find matrimony with a large family &

little means, so eligable as she may have conceived it to be. I am your sincere friend and Affectionate Uncle

            Go: Washington

          This letter will be accompanied by one to my Sister which I pray you to receive from the Post Office and send to her.


Title: To George Washington from Timothy Pickering, 7 April 1796
From: Pickering, Timothy
To: Washington, George

          Department of State April 7. 1796.

        The Secretary of State has the honour to lay before the President of the U. States, copies of the estimates relative to the treaties with Great Britain, Spain, Algiers & the Indian Tribes northwest of the river Ohio, and a copy of the letter from the Secretary to the President of the Senate & to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, which accompanied those estimates, when he laid the same before Congress, agreeably to the Message of the President of the United States with which he communicated to each House the Treaty with his Catholic Majesty.

          Timothy Pickering.


Title: To George Washington from James Innes, 8 April 1796
From: Innes, James
To: Washington, George

          Dear Sir
          Richmond Virginia April 8th 1796

        I have the honor, this moment, to receive yr letter of the 4th of this month.
        The government of the united States, which I voted for at its adoption, on principles of theory, has been progressively endeared to me by its administration, and practice—From this Consideration, I have been ever anxious to give to it Energy, and Efficacy, by every aid in my power—But at the present Crisis—I feel myself actuated by more than ordinary motives, to manifest my Zeal, that it may forever be executed with Independence, and firmness, on the true basis of its Constitution.
        After a request, that you would accept my acknowledgement of the honor you have done me—by recommending me to the trust you mention, I do not hesitate to express my willingness to undertake it. That I may, as soon as possible disentangle myself from every Engagement either official, or professional, I take leave to request, that the Secretary of State will have the goodness to give me the most early Information of the period of time, at which I should hold myself in preparation to enter upon the functions of my new office. with Sentiments, of the most perfect respect, Esteem, and regard, I have the honor to be—yr most obt sert

          Jas Innes


Title: From George Washington to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, 8 April 1796
From: Washington, George
To: United States Senate and House of Representatives

          United States April 8th 1796
          Gentlemen of the Senate and of the House of Representatives

        By an Act of Congress passed in the 26th of May 1790 it was declared that the Inhabitants of the territory of the United States south of the river Ohio, should enjoy all the privileges, benefits and advantages set forth in the ordinance of Congress for the government of the territory of the United States north-West of the river Ohio; and that the government of the said territory south of the Ohio should be similar to that which was then exercised in the territory north-West of the Ohio; exept so far as was otherwise provided in the conditions expressed in an Act of Congress passed the 2d of April 1790, entitled “An Act to accept a cession of the claims of the State of North Carolina to a certain district of Western territory.[”]
        Among the privileges, benefits and advantages thus secured to the Inhabitants of the territory south of the Ohio, appear to be the right of forming a permanent Constitution and State

Government and of admission as a State, by its delagates, into the Congress of the United States on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever, when it should have therein Sixty thousand free inhabitants: provided the Constitution and Government so to be formed should be Republican, and in conformity to the principles contained in the Articles of the said Ordinance.
        As proofs of the several requisites to entitle this territory south of the River Ohio to be admitted, as a State into the Union, Governor Blount has transmitted a return of the enumeration of its Inhabitants, and a printed copy of the Constitution and form of Government on which they have agreed which with his Letters accompanying the same, are herewith laid before Congress.

          Go. Washington.


Title: To George Washington from Alexander Hamilton, 9 April 1796
From: Hamilton, Alexander
To: Washington, George

          Sir
          New York April 9, 1796

        It gives me great pleasure to have the opportunity of announcing to you one whom I know to be so interesting to You as the bearer of this Mr Motier La Fayette. I allow myself to share by anticipation the satisfaction which the Meeting will afford to all the parties—the more, as I am persuased, that time will confirm the favourable representation I have made of the person & justify the interest you take in him.
        I have pleasure also in presenting to You Mr Frestal who accompanies him & who more and more convinces me that he is intirely worthy of the charge reposed in him and every way intitled to esteem. With the most respectful & Affectionate Attachment I have the honor to be Sir Your very obed. servt

          A. Hamilton


Title: To George Washington from George Lewis, 9 April 1796
From: Lewis, George
To: Washington, George

          Dr Sir
          Fredericksburg [Va.] 9th April 1796

        Your letter of the 28th of last month, acknowledging the receipt of my two last letters, I receiv’d, no information since then has transpired respecting the value of western lands that can be depended upon—It has been asked me by some persons whether you would exchange any of those lands for improved estates (good farms) in this part of the country that might be immediately rented to an advantage, as your terms speak nothing of bartar. I supposed it would not be your wish, should an exchange of this kind be agreable—you can advise me. I shall continue my exertions to purchase Wodrowes land, and have not a doubt could I have gone to Kentucky this month as intended, but I should have secured it—Mrs Lewis’s indisposition for sometime past, and no prospect of her mending

            Map 1: GW’s western lands occupied an important place in his personal wealth and financial management. He enlisted the help of his nephew George Lewis in trying to sell land he owned on Rough Creek in western Kentucky. (Illustrated by Rick Britton. Copyright Rick Britton 2014)

shortly, prevents my goeing this summer, for some dayes past she has been with her Mother in the country, in hopes that a change of air and exercise may be of service. I return’d to town this day, where I received your letter, otherwise it should have been acknowledg’d ere this. I left my Mother and family well yesterday—My love to my Aunt, and accept the sincere respect and esteem of Yr Affectionate Nephew

          Go: Lewis


Title: To George Washington from David Campbell, 10 April 1796
From: Campbell, David
To: Washington, George

          Territory of the United States South of the River OhioApril 10th 1796
          Sir

        It is already known to you that the people of this Territory are taking measures to become a member of the Federal Government by the name of the State of Tennessee. If their wishes are acceded to by Congress, my appointment as one of the Judges for the Territorial Government will cease.
        In that event, if you think me a proper person to fill the Office of District Judge for the State of Tennessee I will gratefully accept of the same. I am with verry great Respect Your Obt Servt

          David Campbell


Title: To George Washington from William Vans Murray, 11 April 1796
From: Murray, William Vans
To: Washington, George

          Sir,
          112. Spruce St. [Philadelphia] 11. Apl 1796.

        I find from the atto[r]ney of this district that Randal is in a course of being judicially try’d this time in the Circuit Court—& that I am to be a witness. You will I am sure Sir pardon the solicitude that leads me to request of you that the Proceeding may be stopped—After having done what I conceived my duty demanded of me, & after having encountered many little circumstances extremely painful to my feelings in the doing my duty as a member, I should feel myself in a Situation infinitely painful to me in again appearing in this affair—& appearing if at all, as I must in the world’s eye, as a Prosecutor. If I might be permitted to make a remark, I would observe that what the house has done amounts to every thing desireable in an example that was at once to assert the dignity of the House, and yet avoid the appearances of rigour—That example can not be repeated on a Scale equally great in a Jury Trial—nor can greater publicity be given to it—The appearance too, Sir, of a Second punishment will not perhaps add any thing to the score of government. As I have been so personally concerned in brin[g]ing Randal to one punishment I should feel very grateful if any further proceeding could be arrested before the grand Jury present him. I am with the Sincerest respect Sir Your most obedient Sert

          W. V. Murray.


Title: From George Washington to Gilbert Stuart, 11 April 1796
From: Washington, George
To: Stuart, Gilbert

          Sir,

            Monday Evening 11th Apl 1796.

        I am under promis⟨e to⟩ Mrs Bingham, to set for you tom⟨or⟩row at nine oclock; and wishing ⟨to⟩ know if it be convenient to you that I should do so, and whether it shall be at your own house, (as she talked of the State House) I send this note to you, to ask information—I am Sir Your Obedient Servt

          Go: Washington


Title: To George Washington from Richard Graham, 12 April 1796
From: Graham, Richard
To: Washington, George

          Sir
          Arch Street No. 129 [Philadelphia] April 12 1796.

        At the request of a very worthy Young Gentleman, Lieutenant Charles Lewis, I take the liberty to enquire of you if the Land late the property of Col. George Mercer was included in the Mortgage that Col. Mercer made to Mr Paine of London—or in any other Mortgage that might have come to your knowledge—Lieut. Lewis is now in Fredericksburgh on a bargain for that Land with the Executors of Mr James Mercer—if he makes the purchase the Land will be immediately settled which will be a

great benefit to that part of the Country; as it runs I think about twelve or fourteen miles on the River.
        Your Excellency will I hope excuse this freedom—With due respect I am Sir Your most obedt Servt

          Richd Graham


Title: To George Washington from Bartholomew von Heer, 12 April 1796
From: Heer, Bartholomew von
To: Washington, George

          Philada 12th April 1796.in Eighth street near Vine street

        The petition of Bartholomew Von Heer Humbly sheweth
        That your petitioner having contributed his part to the funds of the Society and that from his deranged and unfortunate circumstances in business and his reduced situation as well as from a long and tedious bodily indisposition he is without the means of acquiring the Common Necessaries of life and is therefore constrained to apply for a part of the bounty of the Institution and he would humbly hope that he may be considered as entitled to a participation of the bounty of the Society and which he never would claim but from necessity he doth therefore humbly pray that you may be pleased to consider his situation and that relief may be afforded to him in his present condition and your petitioner will pray &ca.

          Bartholomew Von Heer


Title: To George Washington from James McHenry, 12 April 1796
From: McHenry, James
To: Washington, George

          Sir
          War office 12 April 1796

        I beg leave to lay before you a letter from Mr Seagrove which I received this morning, and one from Mr Price, the factor or agent for the trading house at Colerain with a draught of answers thereto. If you can spare time to look over them, I can receive your instructions at Any hour as the vessel is to sail to-day. I have the honour to be with the most perfect respect Sir Your most ob. & hble st

          James McHenry


Title: To George Washington from Thomas Freeman, 13 April 1796
From: Freeman, Thomas
To: Washington, George

          Sir
          Surveyor’s Office City of Washington apl 13th 1796

        The active and interesting operations in my department in this City, being now verging to a close, & the salary annexed thereto

being but a bare support, I feel it a duty incumbent on me to seek the most early opportunity of judiciously changing my present situation—to this end, my first object would be that business wherein my services would be most useful & best rewarded.
        The ascertaining & adjusting the Western limits, and bounds of the United States as contemplated in the late Treaties, will require, industry, perseverence, & much Mathematical knowledge—my services in that department would, I flatter myself be acceptable—Permit me therefore to offer my self to your consideration in the arrangement of that business, and should I be so fortunate as to succeed to an appointment therein I shall gratefully endeavour to deserve your confidence—By the inclosed letters you will perceive that I make this application under the sanction of the Commissioners of the City of Washington. I have the Honor to be, with great respect Sir, your most obedient humble Servant

          Thos Freeman


Title: To George Washington from Timothy Pickering, 13 April 1796
From: Pickering, Timothy
To: Washington, George

          Department of State April 13. 1796. 6 o’clock p.m.

        The Secretary of State respectfully lays before the President of the United States letters from Colo. Humphreys from No. 24. to No. 29th—the numbers 27. 28 & 29 with inclosures, the

Secretary has not been able to examine and arrange till now—they were received yesterday.

          T. Pickering