1. The copyist evidently meant to write “County.”

2. George Dunnington was GW’s tenant in Charles County, Md., on land that GW acquired as settlement in a dispute with Daniel Jenifer Adams (b. 1751). In the 1790 census Dunnington is listed as head of a household of 10 whites and 15 slaves (Heads of Families, Md., 49). In 1772 young Adams was taken into a trading partnership with GW, Samuel Brodie, and John Carlyle in which Brodie as captain of the brig Fairfax would carry flour refined at GW’s and Carlyle’s mills to the West Indies while Adams would sail with the brig as supercargo and handle the trading transactions. It was soon evident to GW that Adams’s incompetence doomed the venture, and by June 1773 he had attached Adams’s property in Charles County for the sum, now exceeding £500, that Adams owed him. For GW’s problems with “that worthless young Fellow” Adams, see his letter of 10 May 1774 to Robert McMickan, the Jamaica merchant who handled the partnership’s business in the West Indies. GW’s account with Adams, including a description of the tract of land in Charles County of 552⅓ acres—“all I am likely to get for my debt”—is in Ledger B description begins General Ledger B, 1772–1793. Library of Congress, George Washington Papers, Series 5, Financial Papers. description ends , 99. The deed for the property, dated 4 Dec. 1775 and recorded 5 Jan. 1776, is in the Charles County Land Records, vol. 3 (1775–82), ff. 60–61, Maryland Hall of Records, Annapolis.

3. This is probably Capt. John Stromatt of Charles County, who is listed in the 1790 census as head of a household of 8 whites and 8 slaves (Heads of Families, Md., 54).

4. On 25 Jan. 1790 Craik wrote GW from Port Tobacco: “I informed you some time ago that I had immediately upon the receit of your letter, obtained a Proclamation warrant to secure to you the Land which had been surveyed by one Stromatt and which I considered as subject to Proclamation, he not having complied with the terms of his warrant—Having no doubt, from the Information of Mr Dunnington and the register of the Land Office, that the Land was thus Circumstanced, I a few weeks ago offered to put your warrant into the hands of the County Surveyor to be executed, when he informed me he had some time before received a special warrant of resurvey from Stromatt to survey the same Lands included in his former survey—As the force and validity of a warrant ⟨ta⟩kes place from its date, I found upon examination that Stromatts warrant was dated about fifteen days prior to yours—The only question then was whether a special warrant of resurvey could affect Land which had been previously surveyed under a former warrant and a Certificate of survey thereof returned to the Land Office; or whether a Proclamation warrant was not the only means of securing it—I am of Opinion that your Proclamation warrant is effectual to secure the Land tho’ of a subsequent date to the special warrant of resurvey, as I conceive in that situation it was liable to no other warrant but a Proclamation warrant—Stromatt however alleges that there are some Circumstances attending this Case to disting⟨uish⟩ it from the common one—The reason which prevented his complying with the terms of his first warrant was, that the surveyor had committed an Error in the survey, which Error he intended to have had corrected on the Execution of his second Warr⟨ant.⟩ As the surveyor finds some difficulty in deciding upon the question, and Stromatt is disposed to dispute the Point, I have thought it proper, before I engage you in a Controversey which at any rate you consider as disagreeable, to write you upon the subject and state the propositions made by Stromatt—He says he never intended to deprive you of any Land that might injure your Tract or which lay contiguous thereto—The truth of this I very much question—He now speaks the Language of a man alarmed—He is willing to give you up all the Land which affects your tract and which is situate contiguous thereto; to be at the expence of the survey, on Condition that he be allowed to hold such part of the Land as is immediately connected with his original Tracts—I have had some Conversation with Mr Dunnington as to the situation of the Land proposed to be given up by Stromatt who seems satisfied with the proposition I could probably be a better Judge of the terms upon seeing the Land surveyed, which if you please, I will attend—As the warrant must be executed before the 20th of March I shall be happy to have your directions upon the subject as soon as possible—In the several Conversations with Stromatt I have never expressed a doubt of your right, on the contrary have allways asserted it to be clear and indisputable and that any relinquishment on your part must be considered as matter of favor—I was in hopes I should not have been obliged to have troubled you again upon this subject but my reluctance in involving you in a dispute must apologize for this Communication—I have obtained a Judgment on the Ejectment against Perry and ha⟨ve⟩ directed a writ of Possession thereon—Whatever may be your ⟨de⟩termination or directions with respect to the other subject I will with pleasure take the most immediate steps to ca⟨rry⟩ them into effect and shall be tryly happy on this as well as on every other occasion to render you any service in ⟨my⟩ Power” (DLC:GW).

5. In MS this word reads “that.”

6. GW’s difficulties with his Charles County tenants continued until the late 1790s (see GW to Daniel Jenifer, Jr., 7 June 1797).