1. Conradt Burghduff. See Troup to H, March 31, 1795.

2. Charles Williamson. See Troup to H, March 31, 1795, note 3.

3. See H to Benjamin Walker, March 8, 1795.

4. Richard Harison, United States attorney for the District of New York.

5. On May 13, 1795, Troup wrote to Williamson: “Before Mr. Hamilton left public life I wrote him a letter in your behalf and begged him to consider himself as one of your counsel—and assured him that upon his coming here he should receive the same fee Mr. Harison charged—which was 250 dollars. The moment he came to this City I waited upon him & begged his answer. His reply was that he would serve you with the greatest pleasure. After this I considered the fee as honorably due & expected Col Walker would have made arrangements to pay it. This he has not done though he has paid Mr. Harison’s. As soon therefore as I received your bill for 50 guineas I informed Mr Hamilton that I was in cash for his fee from you & that he might draw upon me for it immediately …” (ALS, Rochester Public Library, Rochester, New York). Troup’s letter to H has not been found.

On the basis of Troup’s letter to Williamson, Helen I. Cowan is mistaken in stating that H declined to serve as Williamson’s counsel (Cowan, Charles Williamson, Genesee Promoter: Friend of Anglo-American Rapprochement [Rochester, 1941], 184).

Troup first offered H the retainer on January 6, 1795 (“Memoranda of Retainers,” H’s Law Register, 1795–1804 [D, partially in H’s handwriting, New York Law Institute, New York City; also in Goebel, Law Practice description begins Julius Goebel, Jr., ed., The Law Practice of Alexander Hamilton: Documents and Commentary (New York and London, 1964– ) description ends , forthcoming volumes]).

For an example of H’s activities as Williamson’s counsel, see H and Troup’s opinion on deeds and mortgages in Troup to Williamson, August 23, 27, 1796 (ALS, Rochester Public Library, Rochester, New York). An entry in H’s Cash Book, 1795–1804, under the date of August 22, 1796, reads: “Williamson for joint opinion with Col Troupe & in answer to —— questions arising on the mortgage act” (AD, Hamilton Papers, Library of Congress; also in Goebel, Law Practice description begins Julius Goebel, Jr., ed., The Law Practice of Alexander Hamilton: Documents and Commentary (New York and London, 1964– ) description ends , forthcoming volumes).

6. This is a reference to a complicated land dispute between John Livingston of Livingston Manor and Williamson, who was acting as agent for the Pulteney Association (see Troup to H, March 31, 1795, note 6). The land in dispute was the eighty-four thousand acre gore between the Massachusetts-New York boundary line. The survey line drawn in 1788 by Colonel Hugh Maxwell, the surveyor for Oliver Phelps and Nathaniel Gorham, substantiated Livingston’s claim. A second line drawn in 1792 by Benjamin Ellicott, the surveyor for Robert Morris, supported Williamson’s claim. In 1794, Livingston began a suit in the Court of Chancery over the land in question, and Williamson retained Troup as his counsel. Livingston hoped to discredit Morris’s survey or to prove alien ownership. In 1795, Williamson bought the lands in the gore between the two survey lines.

On April 6, 1796, the New York legislature passed “An Act supplementary to the act entitled ‘An act authorizing the Surveyor General to ascertain the Eastern Boundary line of the lands ceded by this state to the commonwealth of Massachusetts,’ and for other purposes herein mentioned.” This act reads in part: “Whereas the Surveyor General of this state hath certified unto the commissioners of the Land Office that he judges the line run by Benjamin Ellicot … hath been truly run and hath obtained from the said Benjamin Ellicot a description and map of the said line with a certificate attested by his oath that the said line run by him is to the best of his knowledge and belief truly performed” (New York Laws, 19th Sess., Ch. XLVII). For Ellicott’s survey of April 28, 1795, see Mix, Catalogue: Maps and Surveys description begins David E. E. Mix, ed., Catalogue: Maps and Surveys, in the Offices of the Secretary of State, State Engineer and Surveyor, and Comptroller, and the New York State Library (Albany, 1859). description ends , 11.

7. H to Troup, April 13, 1795.

8. Troup to H, March 31, 1795.

9. On May 8, 1795, the New York American Minerva; An Evening Advertiser reported the arrival of the Ellice from London. On March 13, 1795, John Jay had written to his wife: “Captain Hervey of the Ellice went away last Saturday—he … has a letter for you” (ALS, Columbia University Libraries). The letter in question is dated March 6, 1795, and reads in part: “In the course of this month, towards the latter part of it I expect to receive advices respecting the Treaty, together with Instructions relative to the Conclusion of my Business here” (ALS, Columbia University Libraries).

Although Jay and Lord Grenville had signed the treaty on November 19, 1794, it was not until March 7, 1795, that Secretary of State Edmund Randolph received the first copy of the treaty to reach the United States. See Jay to H, November 19, 1794, note 1. On March 3, 1795, the day Congress adjourned, George Washington informed John Adams and the Senate “that the Senate shall be convened on Monday the 8th of June next … to receive and deliberate on such communications as shall be made to you on my part” (LC, George Washington Papers, Library of Congress). Until the Senate convened on June 8 and Washington submitted the treaty to it for its consideration, Washington and Randolph revealed the treaty’s contents to no other individual (Randolph, Vindication description begins [Edmund Randolph], A Vindication of Mr. Randolph’s Resignation (Philadelphia: Printed by Samuel H. Smith, No. 118, Chesnut Street, 1795). description ends , 28).

10. Lenox, a native of Scotland, was a New York City merchant and land speculator. An article, dated May 11, 1796, in Dunlap and Claypoole’s [Philadelphia] American Daily Advertiser on May 13, 1796, reads: “Capt. Kennedy informs, that, Mr. Jay was in Liverpool, and that he had been on board the Port Mary, two or three days before he sailed, and expressed a strong desire that Capt. Kennedy would wait ten days, in which time he would be ready to take passage with him; but the vessel being loaded and ready for sea, it was out of his power to comply with his request. Capt. Kennedy, says, he believes Mr. Jay will come out in a new ship that was to sail in ten or twelve days after him.”

11. Jay sailed from Bristol on the Severn on April 12, 1795, and arrived at New York on May 28, 1795.

12. Jay was elected governor of New York in May, 1795. See Edward Jones to H, March 30, 1795, note 10.

13. An item in The [New York] Daily Advertiser, April 22, 1795, reads: “To the Electors of the State of New-York. Friends and Fellow Citizens, We are informed that a report has been circulated in the state, that Mr. Jay cannot return to America, this spring, because he must wait in England, till the ratification of the treaty shall arrive there, before he can finish his mission. As this unfounded report may have an improper influence, upon many well-meaning citizens, who may believe it, we have been requested by a large meeting of Mr. Jay’s friends to collect and publish the evidence necessary to repel this suggestion. This evidence is taken from Mr. Jays own letters to his family and friends, and we pledge ourselves for the truth of the extracts.

“In a letter to his brother, an extract of which has been published by the Newspapers, Mr. Jay says, ‘he had finished the business he was sent to negociate.’ A similar declaration is made in another letter, to a friend in this city, dated Nov. 22.

“In another letter to his family, he says, ‘that the treaty being signed, his further stay was not necessary; that he exceedingly regretted, that he could not immediately return to his friends, but the season was too far advanced, as he had not health enough for a winter’s passage.’

“In a letter of Dec. 5, he says, ‘My former letters will inform you that to avoid the severities of a winter’s passage, I think it adviseable to remain here till spring. After the first of March, I think you may suspend writing to me.’

“From these extracts, which are corroborated by other letters to private friends, we may conclude, that Mr. Jay had not an idea of waiting for the ratification of the treaty. A gentleman of veracity who left London about the 12th of Feb. and arrived here a few days ago, informs that Mr. Jay was to sail in the spring. Nor can he be detained by an embargo or other contingencies which might embarrass trade; as men in public characters have a right to passports at any time and from any nation; and the rights of ministers or other public agents are always respected.

“Possibly Mr. Jay’s arrival here may be delayed longer than was expected; for all accounts from Europe agree that the winter has been uncommonly severe; and the merchants here expect their ships will be delayed, as their letters from Liverpool advise about the 20th of Feb. the London ships were confined by the ice in the Thames.

“But should Mr. Jay not arrive by the day of Election, we conceive it not mateirial, as the governor elect, does not enter on his office till the first of July; and we have the utmost certainty, that Mr. Jay is on his passage and may be speedily expected in America. We will only add that his friends here are united and firm in supporting his election. Nicholas Cruger, Robert Troup, Josiah Ogden Hoffman.”

14. For example, on May 27, 1795, Baron de Kutzleben wrote to Lord Grenville: “… [Mr. George Aust] did not mention anything about the negotiation with the French; but I have seen a letter from Germany in town, which absolutely states that the Landgrave of Cassell, Darmstadt, and the Duke of Würtemburg, had taken the same measures with the King of Prussia” (The Manuscripts of J. B. Fortescue, Esq., Preserved at Dropmore [Historical Manuscripts Commission, Vol. 30], III [London, 1899], 72).

15. On May 11, 1795, Lord Grenville wrote to Jay: “… The dispositions of the people in France are evidently turning very fast towards the establishment of some settled state of order, which may relieve them from the miseries of their present anarchy” (Dropmore Papers, III, 69).

16. Bertrand Barère de Vieuzac became a member of the French National Convention for the Hautes-Pyrenées in 1792. One of the more enthusiastic Terrorists, he joined successively in the condemnation of Louis XVI, Danton, and Robespierre. On March 2, 1795, a committee of twenty-one, which had been set up to investigate Barère and others, recommended that he be sent before the Revolutionary Tribunal. He was condemned to deportation but escaped, and after Napoleon’s coup d’état on November 9, 1799, he was granted amnesty.