To George Washington from Budd & Pryor, 31 October 1796
From Budd & Pryor
Philada 31 October 1796
Sir
It is with much reluctance we address ourselves to you on the present occasion, but as we think our interest as well as that of the City of Washington materially concerned, we have thought it necessary to make you acquainted with the subject on which this application is founded, in order to see how far the Comms. of the City have acted with Propriety towards us.
We, together with Mr Robt S. Bickley & Mr Danl William jr are the proprietors of the Ticket which drew the Hotel1—Immediately after the Lotty had finished drawing, we found that the Buildings were not Progressing, in consequence of which we wrote to the Comms., requesting them to acquint us with the situation of the Building & to furnish us with Copies of the engagements entered into between Mr Blodget & them, they accordingly sent us forward a Copy of a Mortgage given by Mr Blodget to Mr Johnston & Mr Peter, to indemnify the Comms. against all damages Costs &c. which they might sustain on Accot of said Lotty and wrote us at the same time that they would do all in their Power to have the Buildings compleated2—Finding in a short time after, that the Buildings were wholly neglected, our Geo. Budd, waited on the Comms. at the City of Washington & made a regular complaint to them against Mr Blodget’s conduct (who we conceived their agent) for not furnishing funds to proceed with the Buildings, in consequence of this application, the Comms. wrote to Mr Blodget, & told him, they had no alternative left, unless he did in a given time furnish funds, they would be obliged to institute a suit to forclose the Mortgage, and sell as much of the Property Mortgaged as would enable them to finish the Hotel & out Buildings3—Mr Blodget then came forward & we understood from the Comms. had lodged with them a certain Sum to proceed with the Work—these funds we have been informed since are exhausted, and the work at a stand4—The Comms. now Sir decline that inteference in the exercise of their power over Mr Blodgets property which we think they ought in justice to proceed against in order to compleat the work, they now tell us that the former Commissioners had no right to bind them, and that they consider this bussiness as having no connection with the City, or with them as Public Officers & that they are not authorized to interfere in the bussiness—Those Gentlemen have already interfered & told Mr Blodget that they were compell’d to proceed against his property, and now they disclaim any interference5—All we ask Sir is justice, we thought at one time the Comms. disposed to see it done, we have no controul over Mr Blodget, but they certainly have & we think the Buildings ought to be compleated by Somebody—We beg the favor of you Sir to investigate the truth of our assertions and if it is necessary we will lay before you Copies of all our letters as well as theirs on the Subject.6 We are with every Sentiment of esteem & respect Sir Your Mo. Obedt Servts
Budd & Pryor
LS, DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Letters Received.
George Budd (c.1764–1817) and Norton Pryor, Jr. (c.1769–1817) were partners in the Philadelphia mercantile firm of Budd & Pryor, whose store was located at 44 North Water Street. The firm sold a variety of items, including “JAMAICA SPIRITS,” French brandy, tea, coffee, “English Soap in boxes,” and rice (Philadelphia Gazette and Universal Daily Advertiser, 3 Jan. 1794). The partnership dissolved in March 1797.
1. Budd, Pryor, Robert Shewell Bickley, and Daniel Williams, Jr., had won ownership of a planned Federal City hotel as the grand prize of a lottery organized in 1793 by Samuel Blodget, Jr., the former superintendent of the Federal City. Lottery drawings took place in 1793 and 1794. The Independent Gazetteer (Philadelphia) for 15 Feb. 1794 printed the following announcement: “The grand prize in the Washington city lottery, viz. the HOTEL (equal to 50,000 dollars) was drawn on the 4th inst. being the 58th day of drawing.—The fortunate No. is 37,531, and is the property of Messrs. Daniel Williams, Norton Pryor, John George Budd, and Robert Beekly, of the city of Philadelphia, said to be (independent of this propitious turn of the wheel of fortune) persons of considerable property.” For more on Blodget’s lottery, see “A.B.” to GW, 19 June 1795, and n.1; and GW to Tobias Lear, 25 Sept. 1793, and n.1.
Robert Shewell Bickley (d. 1842) lived on South Second Street in Philadelphia and had property adjoining Pen Rhyn, the Bickley family estate on the Delaware River, in Bucks County, Pennsylvania.
Daniel Williams, Jr. (c.1770–1797), a Quaker of Philadelphia, died during that city’s 1797 yellow fever epidemic.
2. The letter from the firm of Budd & Pryor to the D.C. commissioners has not been identified, but Gustavus Scott, William Thornton, and former D.C. commissioner Daniel Carroll had written Pryor on 9 April 1795 to acknowledge his unfound letter to them of 30 March 1795 and to enclose “the information required.” The commissioners assured Pryor that they would assist in “taking the most effectual measures to compel the finishing the Hotel.” On 29 Aug. 1795, the commissioners wrote Budd with an update that the work on the hotel was “progressing” (both DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Letters Sent). Budd & Pryor wrote the commissioners on 17 March 1796 to request action against Blodget in case of further delays. In a letter of 30 June 1796, Budd & Pryor advised the board that they had met with D.C. commissioner Alexander White and were hopeful that “some decisive steps would have been taken by him [White] on the part of the Commissioners, to compel Mr Blodget to proceed in finishing the Hotel.” Having heard nothing since from White, Budd & Pryor claimed that the commissioners had “ample security in their hands, given by Mr B[lodget] for a faithful performance of his engagements” (both DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Letters Received).
The copy of the mortgage that Blodget gave to Thomas Johnson, Jr., and Thomas Peter has not been identified.
3. Budd had visited the Federal City on 14 May 1795 but was unable to meet with commissioners Carroll, Scott, and Thornton (see the commissioners to Budd, 15 May, in DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Letters Sent). Budd, however, wrote the commissioners that day to complain about Blodget’s neglect to carry on the hotel construction “according to the true intent & meaning of the scheme exhibited to the public” (DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Letters Received). The commissioners replied to Budd on 15 May 1795, enclosing their letter of the same date to Blodget, and reassuring him “that no Effort in our power shall be wanting to compel Mr Blodget to finish the Hotel” (DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Letters Sent).
The letter of 15 May 1795 to Blodget from D.C. commissioners Gustavus Scott and William Thornton reads in part: “The enclosed letter from Mr George Budd one of the proprietors of the Hotel makes it necessary we should address you on a subject, which we conceive to be of Consequence to the City. However painful to us we have no alternative left after this application, but must immediately take the necessary steps to dispose of your property in the City, mortgaged for that purpose, to carry on the Hotel. And unless within 20 days from the Date of this letter such Sums are advanced as will insure to the proprietors and the public the completion of that building, a Bill of Chancery will be filed to foreclose the Mortgage, that so much of the property may be sold, as will raise Sufficient funds to finish the Hotel.” The commissioners concluded by requesting payment from Blodget for materials that they had provided him (DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Letters Sent).
4. Scott and Thornton wrote Budd & Pryor on 7 March 1796 that Blodget’s advance of $16,000 had been spent on hotel construction, but that “the building is now at a stand for want of money.” The commissioners proposed White to act as a possible intermediary between the lottery winners and Blodget in order to raise additional funds (DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Letters Sent).
5. On 12 Aug. 1796, Budd & Pryor had written the commissioners: “We will just ask for what purpose the Commissioners receiv’d the security ⟨from⟩ Mr Blodget on acct of the Hotel Lottery—was it not to secure them, their Heirs, Executors &c. from & against all costs damages &c. on acct of said lottery—Will not the words of the Indenture warrant us in saying that they are liable. … We have complained to you as the proper authority that a wilful neglect has taken place on the part of your Agent, almost from the commencement of the Hotel, in Instructing the completion of the work—If the Commissioners do not oblige Mr B. to proceed in the work, who can do it—the power is with them and we trust they will exercise it” (DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Letters Received). In their reply of 18 Aug., the commissioners assured Budd & Pryor of their willingness “to furnish … Copies of the paper [security],” and added: “The Lottery having no connection with the City … we do not consider ourselves as Authorised to Interfere in the business” (DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Letters Sent). The hotel was never completed, and legal proceedings were held in the early nineteenth century to validate Bickley’s title to the property (see , 1:205–7, 228–30).
6. No reply from GW to the firm of Budd & Pryor has been found. For the commissioners’ reply to the firm’s letter, see Commissioners for the District of Columbia to GW, 17 Nov., and n.3 to that document.