Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

 Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow TO ALEXANDER HAMILTON, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. [PRIVATE.] - The Writings of George Washington, vol. XII (1790-1794)

Return to Title Page for The Writings of George Washington, vol. XII (1790-1794)

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

Subject Area: Political Theory
Topic: The American Revolution and Constitution

TO ALEXANDER HAMILTON, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. [PRIVATE.] - George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, vol. XII (1790-1794) [1891]

Edition used:

The Writings of George Washington, collected and edited by Worthington Chauncey Ford (New York and London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1890). Vol. XII (1790-1794).

Part of: The Writings of George Washington, 14 vols.

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


TO ALEXANDER HAMILTON, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.

[PRIVATE.]

Mount Vernon, 2 July, 1794.

Dear Sir:

Your private letter of the 22d of June came duly to hand, and for the opinion contained in it I thank you. I always feel sincere gratification from the frank and unreserved advice of my friends, whether it coincides with my own sentiments or not.1

As Congress, to whom the matter was referred, did not (from causes unknown to me) think proper to take up the subject of compensation for British vessels captured by the proscribed privateers of France, and as this [is] one of the subjects committed to Mr. Jay’s negotiation, or at least within his powers, I do not feel disposed to make any further or more pointed declaration to Mr. Hammond on this head at this time.1

My understanding of the original communication of this business differs very widely from your interpretation of it. It is well known to the late Secretary of State, that more than once I pointedly desired, that the expression be so guarded, as to convey nothing more than an opinion of the executive. This, (it may be said and I think,) ought to have been confirmed by the legislature; but the fact is otherwise. And, although the usage of other nations may be opposed to this practice, this difference may result from the difference between their constitutions and ours, and from the prerogatives of their executives.

The powers of the executive of this country are more definite, and better understood, perhaps, than those of any other country; and my aim has been, and will continue to be, neither to stretch nor relax from them in any instance whatever, unless compelled to it by imperious circumstances.

Under this view of the subject, unless the case was more pressing than I think the matter is as it respects Mr. Hammond, it had better, I conceive, remain on the footing it now stands on; although I have no objection, as I had written to the Secretary of State before I received your letter, that he might be informed, informally and verbally, that the negotiation of this as well as other matters was transmitted to his own court.1 I am, with sincere esteem and regard, your affectionate, &c.

[1 ]“The Secretary of State in referring to you the question of the answer to be given to Mr. Hammond, concerning compensation for certain captured vessels, will, I presume, transmit to you the opinions of the other gentlemen as well as his own. Besides the reasons hastily sketched in the memorandums given to the Secretary of State, there is one of a delicate nature, which I did not think fit to put on a paper which might become a public document, but which I think ought to be submitted to your consideration.

“Though the form of only giving the opinion of the President, that it was incumbent upon the United States to make compensation in the case, has been used, yet between nation and nation this is equivalent to a virtual engagement that compensation will be made; and we were all sensible, in advising the President to give that opinion (which advice was unanimous), that a non-compliance with it would be a serious commitment of the character of the nation, the government, and the President. Indeed, if the legislature should not do its part under such circumstances, it would necessarily give birth to considerations very embarrassing to the delicacy of the President.

“In such a posture of things, is it not advisable to narrow the obstacles to a right issue of the business? If Mr. Jay is instructed to insert a formal stipulation in a general arrangement, the Senate only will have to concur. If provision is to be made by law, both Houses must concur. The difference is easily seen. And it is a case where the point of honor is too materially concerned not to dictate the expediency of leaving as little hazard as possible upon the issue. It is impossible that any questions can arise about the propriety of giving this course to the business. When we are demanding compensation for our captured vessels and goods, it is the simplest thing in the world to stipulate compensation for those of Great Britain, which we acknowledge to have been unlawfully made within our territory, or by the use of our means. It is also with me a material consideration, that the coupling this with the other objects of Mr. Jay’s negotiation may tend to disembarrass in future. If the compensation we seek fails, it may be a good answer to the claim on the other side, that they were endeavored, without success, to be made a subject of reciprocal stipulation. I speak with reference to the individuals concerned.

“I may be perhaps too nice. But this is one of those questions, in which ideas of sincerity, good faith, and honor, in a relation which must always engage my particular solicitude, press my judgment to a course of proceeding which is calculated to dispel all doubts.”—From Mr. Hamilton’s Letter, June 22d.

[1 ]“You know how Mr. Jay is restricted. And I must acknowledge to you that notwithstanding all the pompous expectations announced in the gazettes of compensation to the merchants, the prospect of it is, in my judgment, illusory; and I do not entertain the most distant hope of the surrender of the western posts. Thus the old exasperations continue, and new ones are daily added. Judge then how indispensable it is that you should keep the French republic in good humor with us.”—Randolph to Monroe, 25 September, 1794.

[1 ]“I am not disposed, under my present view of the case, to inform Mr. Hammond, that our envoy at the court of London shall be specially instructed on the point of compensation for British vessels, captured by French privateers, contrary to the rules which have been established by this government; as the general powers of the said envoy extend to and embrace this object. But would it be amiss to let him know informally and verbally, that Mr. Jay’s powers go to this as well as to other cases?

“I well remember the precaution I used to prevent any further commitment of the executive on this head, than a mere expression of his opinion as to the expediency of the measure. This having been complied with in the communication to Congress, of the 5th of December, the matter had better remain, in my opinion, upon the ground it now stands, until things are a little more developed. In the mean time some such written official answer as you have suggested (softened as it can well bear), might be given to Mr. Hammond.”—Washington to Randolph, 27 June, 1794.

A second letter of the same date, now lost, appears to have been sent. For Randolph replied, 2 July, 1794: “The expression in the opinion of the Secretary of the Treasury, to which you refer in your favor of the 27 ulto. appears to me to amount to this: that we have lost ground in not being able to give as strong proofs of our neutrality now, as we were some time ago. No doubt he alluded principally to the rejection of the clause sent from the Senate to the House of Representatives, for prohibiting the sale of prizes; and the general predilection discovered by that House in favor of the French nation.”