salt springs on wabash: at TJ’s urging, on 3 Mch. Congress appropriated $3,000 for the establishment of salt works at the Wabash site (see TJ to the Senate and the House of Representatives, 18 Jan., second letter).

In July 1802, Israel Whelen informed Gallatin of his plans to resign the purveyorship in the coming year. At that time, both the Treasury secretary and the president agreed that Tench Coxe should be offered the position. After some hesitation, Coxe accepted the appointment and took office as purveyor of public supplies in August 1803 (Jacob E. Cooke, Tench Coxe and the Early Republic [Chapel Hill, 1978], 404–5, 415; Vol. 38:122, 123n, 156; Gallatin to TJ, 21 June, first letter).

official report: see Gallatin to TJ, 22 June.

For livingston’s defalcation, see Vol. 38:122, 123n. In July 1802, Gallatin wrote TJ that he had evidence that Edward Livingston was recovering monies from bonds put in suit “& not paying the same to the Collector” (same).

or shall i do it: Gallatin wrote DeWitt Clinton a confidential letter on 17 June, explaining that Livingston, the district attorney, had “on various occasions neglected to pay over, the proceeds of impost bonds which he had recovered.” As a consequence, credit had been refused at the custom house to persons who had actually paid their bonds. Livingston had not provided David Gelston, the collector, with “a precise account of the situation of bonds put in suit,” although he had been “repeatedly pressed to state it.” Livingston’s conduct, Gallatin asserted, was due either to “extreme carelessness or to a misapplication of the public monies.” In either case, he could not continue in office. Even if an investigation indicated that what had taken place “was owing to want of arrangement & to neglect; yet, as all bonds remaining unpaid must, by law, be placed in his hands, and as dist. attornies give no security, the same danger would be perpetually incurred & might lead to an ultimate loss of money.” Gallatin invited Clinton to provide the names of two or three lawyers qualified for the office, in whom “a perfect reliance” could be placed as to their “integrity & correctness in money affairs.” Although the office was worth only $1,000 to $1,500, it required “no inconsiderable share of talents” and “a great portion of the attorney’s attention.” Gallatin also proposed that Clinton, if his relationship with Livingston allowed, go to him and explain the situation. The administration wanted to avoid an “explosion,” but public duty demanded that Livingston give “an immediate statement of his accounts & a prompt payment of any balance” in his hands. A “regard to his own character & to his future prospects,” Gallatin observed, “may induce him to do this quietly and without exposing himself to public animadversion; and, provided that the same effect shall be produced, that mode will be the most pleasing to me.” Finally, Gallatin asked Clinton to consult with Gelston, share parts of the letter with him, and advise him on the steps he should take “to bring Mr L. to an account.” Gallatin had already written to the collector “confidentially but very peremptorily, to act immediately” on the subject (Gallatin, Papers description begins Carl E. Prince and Helene E. Fineman, eds., The Papers of Albert Gallatin, microfilm edition in 46 reels, Philadelphia, 1969, and Supplement, Barbara B. Oberg, ed., reels 47–51, Wilmington, Del., 1985 description ends , 8:446).