To George Washington from Timothy Pickering, 27 June 1796
From Timothy Pickering
Department of State June 27. 1796.
Sir,
In my last I mentioned the arrival of Mr DeWitt.1 On saturday afternoon he delivered me the inclosed letter, expressing his reason for not accepting the office of surveyor general.2 The same day, in the forenoon, I received the inclosed letter from Colo. Thomas Tinsley of Virginia, desiring the appointment of Register of the Continental Land-Office; by which he doubtless means the office of surveyor general. The recommendations which accompanied his letter are also inclosed.3 No other applications have been made.4 I have the honor to be with the highest respect sir, your obt servant
Timothy Pickering
ALS, DNA: RG 59, Miscellaneous Letters; LB, DNA: RG 59, Domestic Letters; LB, DNA: RG 59, GW’s Correspondence with His Secretaries of State.
1. No letter from Pickering to GW mentioning the arrival of Simeon DeWitt has been found. When Pickering wrote GW on 22 June, he mentioned only that DeWitt planned to travel to Philadelphia.
2. DeWitt delivered to Pickering a letter written at Philadelphia on Saturday, 25 June: “Since I received the appointment to the Office of Surveyor General of the United States, I have, after weighing all circumstances compared the prospects which that Office affords with those I have from my present establishment in the State of New York, and conclude they are not such as will Justify me in making a change. …
“I pray You, Sir, to express to the President how much I am impressed with a Sense of the Honor of being favored with this mark of his Confidence and to assure him that nothing but an Apprehension of making too great a sacrafice could have prevailed on me not to accept the office” (DNA: RG 59, Miscellaneous Letters).
3. Thomas Tinsley (d. 1822), a Revolutionary War veteran and militia colonel, represented Hanover County in the Virginia House of Delegates.
Tinsley wrote Pickering from Hanover, Va., on 11 June: “The Inclosed Letters, in support of the application, made in my behalf, by Mr Charles Lee, I have thought proper to forward to you; lest the appointments should come on, before I can personally attend. I meant to have delivered them myself, but my indisposition, for some short time past, has deprived me, of that pleasure” (DNA: RG 59, Miscellaneous Letters). Tinsley enclosed a recommendation from Henry Lee dated 28 May and recommendations from Robert Brooke, James Innes, and James Wood dated 10 June (all DNA: RG 59, Miscellaneous Letters). Henry Lee wrote from Richmond that Tinsley “has ever merited the best respects of his acquaintances from the undeviating propriety of his Conduct.” Wood, who also wrote from Richmond, noted that Tinsley had “represented his County in the General Assembly for Several years, to the perfect Satisfaction of his Constituents” and demonstrated “in a very high Degree, Integrity, Industry, and Sobriety.” Charles Lee’s application, which could have been verbal, has not been identified.