From Alexander Hamilton
Treasury Departt Jany 21. 1795.
In my Letter presenting a plan of additional compensations to Supervisors and other officers of Inspection &c. I omitted to mention a material circumstance in the Law, which claims the attention of the President. The section of the act which authorises further allowances, refers them to services rendered, “subsequent to the 30th day of June next.” These are the words. The act passed the President the 5th of June 1794. Now tho’ it is certain that the Legislature meant the 30th of June 1794, there is a question whether the legal construction of the words of the act do not carry the term of commencement to June 1795.1
The point is now under the consideration of the Attorney General, whose opinion when received, will be communicated;2 but in the mean time it is desirable to have the plan in a course of consideration. I have the honor to be &c.
1. Hamilton was referring to his first letter to GW of this date and to the act mentioned therein. For the quoted text, see 1 Stat. description begins Richard Peters, ed. The Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America, from the Organization of the Government in 1789, to March 3, 1845 . . .. 8 vols. Boston, 1845-67. description ends 380. Tench Coxe had raised this issue in a letter to Hamilton of 26 Dec. 1794 (Hamilton Papers description begins Harold C. Syrett et al., eds. The Papers of Alexander Hamilton. 27 vols. New York, 1961–87. description ends , 17:482; see also Hamilton to Coxe, 29 Dec., Hamilton Papers description begins Harold C. Syrett et al., eds. The Papers of Alexander Hamilton. 27 vols. New York, 1961–87. description ends , 17:572).
2. On 27 Jan., Hamilton wrote to GW: “I have the honor to transmit to you herewith a copy of the opinion of the Attorney General, with respect to the time to which the expression, ‘subsequent to the thirtieth day of June next,’ used in the 13 section of an Act making further provision &c. &c. and passed the 5 of June 1794 must be understood to refer.
“I shall just observe, that my ideas on this subject correspond with the opinion of the Attorney General” (LB, DLC:GW).
William Bradford’s opinion, however, has not been identified.