RC (DLC); at foot of text: “The President of the United States”; endorsed by TJ as received from the Treasury Department on 20 Feb. and “Banning Collector at Oxfd. Maryld. to be removd Willis to be appointed” and so recorded in SJL. Enclosures: (1) Joseph Telford and Philemon Willis to Gallatin, Easton, Maryland, 7 Mch. 1803, stating again their complaints against the collector Robert Banning, who refused to give a second bond unless the first was paid or to provide certificates to allow reshipment; Telford and William Meluy’s shipment of cotton was detained at Baltimore when the officer there informed them certificates were “absolutely necessary” and nothing could be done “with the Cotton untill it was taken back to Mr. Banning” to procure the certificates; Banning showed a letter, reportedly from the Treasury secretary, indicating that Gallatin “approved of his conduct” with the bonds; a few days later Banning confronted Willis and observed that the Treasury secretary had written him “that what we stated in our first Letter to you were lies”; the writers continue: “we do assure you we did not believe him in this, more than we did the paragraph he shewed us, which stated, you approved of his conduct in compelling us to pay off our first Bonds (tho’ not due) before he wou’d suffer us to Bond for the second Cargo” (RC in DNA: RG 59, LAR). (2) Samuel Dickinson, William Harrison, and Joseph Newcome to Gallatin, Easton, 9 Mch. 1803, recommending John Willis in place of the officer at Oxford; recommendations have already been sent to Robert Wright, Joseph H. Nicholson, and Gabriel Duvall, and others will be sent in a few days; Willis’s appointment would “oblige a Generous Public” (RC in same; endorsed by TJ: “Willis John. v. Banning Collector of Oxford”). (3) Samuel Smith to Gallatin, 11 Mch. 1803, endorsing a petition in favor of John Willis as collector in place of Banning, whose “Removal Can do no Injury,” but “the Obliging of the respectable Gentlemen who subscribe the memorial may and will do much good” (same). (4) Caleb Stanfield, Thomas Pamphilon, and Richard Barnaby to Gallatin, Oxford, 22 Mch. 1803; thinking that a new appointment will soon be made to replace the naval officer at Oxford, they recommend John Willis, an established citizen of the port, who “is a man of business real merit &c.” and “the only friend that we had to mr. Jefferson’s Election” (same; for TJ’s note on address sheet, see below). (5) Statement by William Meluy, Easton, 19 Apr. 1803, recalling the August 1802 encounter between Telford and Philemon Willis and Banning over bonds; Meluy states that Banning later produced a letter which he said was from Gallatin approving of his conduct; Telford later informed Meluy that he did not think the letter was from the Treasury secretary, and Meluy observed that “if it was, it must have been in answer to an improper statement of his Business, and if Mr. Banning had let him read the whole of the letter, he might have soon determined what it alluded to”; Meluy then recounts a case in which cotton from Anguilla was delayed at Baltimore because Banning had not issued the necessary papers; enclosed in Wright and Nicholson to Gallatin, Easton, 19 Apr., endorsing Meluy, Telford, and Philemon Willis as persons in whom “full faith may be given to any facts stated by them”; after making full inquiry into Banning’s conduct, Wright and Nicholson believe “that he ought to be removed from office” and that “his Removal will give general Satisfaction” (same). (6) Nicholson to Gallatin, Easton, 21 Apr. 1803, noting that, as promised, he has made “enquiry into the Pretensions of John Willis as successor to Banning”; as Willis’s letters indicate, he is “excessively ignorant and conceited, and totally unfit for the place”; Nicholson recommends Edward Markland for the office, describing him as “a sober, steady judicious man, with an unexceptionable Character” who will “prove an excellent Officer” and “give general Satisfaction”; Nicholson reports “a universal Disgust prevailing against Banning” and believes “Willis has been recommended more with a View of getting Banning out, than from any Opinion of his own fitness”; he recommends that no time should be lost in removing Banning, as he “is really odious to our Friends and disliked generally by Federalists” (same; endorsed by TJ: “Markland Edwd. v. Banning Collectr. Oxford”). (7) Memorial by Robert Orvill, William Rose, Edward Lloyd, John Hardcastle, all members of the Maryland legislature, William Whitely, a state senator, and four others to Gallatin, 10 May 1803; believing that the present naval officer at Oxford is to be removed, they recommend John Willis as a resident of the port who is well qualified for the office and “bears the Character of an honest, Steady, sober Man” with commercial experience; he is “an excellent Scholar, writes an excellent hand, and we think he is a Man of firmness and Integrity, and know him to be a Zealous Supporter of the Present Administration” (same). (8) Thomas Coward and 14 others to Gallatin, undated; as captains and owners of vessels trading at Oxford, they recommend John Willis, a resident of the port, as fully qualified to fill the office of naval officer when the long expected removal of the present officer takes place; they note the “great disadvantage of the present officers not residing at the place where the office is kept, and the delay occasioned frequently, by his deputy not having a Sufficient Knowledge of the business”; they believe Willis to be a man of integrity and ability and a strong friend and supporter of the present administration (same; endorsed by Gallatin). (9) Lloyd, Rose, Coward, and four others to Gallatin, Talbot County, 30 Jan. 1804, apologizing for once again writing about the collector’s office at Oxford, but they understand that Gallatin has received new information about transactions at the port; although John Willis and Markland are both qualified and good Republicans, they support Willis because the collector’s office remains at Oxford, the place of his residence; “two-thirds of the friends in the district” think that Willis is entitled to a preference and “that he is in every respect fully quallifed to perform the several duties attached to the office” (same). (10) Nicholson to Gallatin, [ca. 20 Feb. 1804], enclosing “a Letter last night recd. in Relation to the Collector’s office at the Port of Oxford” (perhaps Enclosure No. 9); Nicholson states “You had probably better give the place to Willis” (same).