To George Washington from Oliver Wolcott, Jr., 20 June 1796
From Oliver Wolcott, Jr.
Philadelphia June 20th 1796.
Sir,
The enclosed Letters have been received by me & the Secretary of State in consequence of the death of Mr Gorham, supervisor of Massachusetts.1 The Inspectors of Surveys are John Frothingham of the province of Maine, Jonathan Jackson of Newburyport & Leonard Jarvis of Boston. The two last with Mr Davis the present Comptroller are mentioned as Candidates.
Mr Jarvis’s application does not appear to be supported; he is said to be much engaged in land speculations; his political principles are opposed to the administration of the Government, & the manner in which he has executed the office of Inspector, though not censurable so far as has come to my knowledge, has not indicated extraordinary zeal or ability. Mr Davis or Mr Jackson would I have no doubt, either of them, do justice to the appointment, & either of the persons would be free from any public objection—The appointment would suit Mr Davis who proposes to remove to Boston: Mr Jackson’s claims are however of a peculiar nature. he has served long in the same department, & much of the time for a moderate compensation. the degree of order which has existed in the Revenue Department in the District of Massachusetts is much owing to his exertions. the office now vacant seems therefore to be a just object of expectation by him, and a proper reward of his merit. The force of Mr Jackson’s claims are fairly admitted by Mr Davis, and though, as before mentioned the office in itself would be desirable, yet he feels a delicacy in being the Competition of Mr Jackson.
In case the President should appoint Mr Jackson to be supervisor—Genl John Brooks & Leonard Vassal Berland are offered as candidates for the office of Inspector.2 I am not personally acquainted with the qualifications of these gentlemen; but from the enclosed recommendations it would appear that either of them would discharge the office with diligence & ability.
If Genl Brooks shall be appointed Inspector, Colo. Saml Bradford is warmly recommended as a proper character to fill the office of Marshal.3
In consequence of the recommendation of Colo. Carrington, concurring with those laid before the President in support of Mr Kirby, a commission has issued in his favor as Collector for the District of Hampton.4
Mr Steele has signified his acceptance of the office of Comptroller & will be here about the first of the ensuing month; he desires me to express to The President assurances of his gratitude, & of faithful exertions to merit the confidence reposed in him.
Since the President’s absence I have carefully enquired into the circumstances of the capture of the Mount Vernon by a French privateer, & I have reason to believe this to be a true state of the case, which I communicate for the President’s information.5 The ship was built by Mr Murgatroyd a respectable merchant of this City—it was reported about the wharves some time since, that she was sold to Mr Duncanson. Mr Duncanson actually applied for a quantity of Rum to be shipped on board this vessel. On finding however that the vessel could not be registerred in his own name, as he had not been naturalized, some new arrangement took place with Mr Murgatroyd, in consequence of which the ship was to remain Mr M.’s property, until her arrival in England.6 The Cargo, though shipped in the names of Messrs Willings & Francis,7 I strongly suspect to be Mr Duncanson’s property, & that of other Englishmen not naturalized. It is suspected, tho’ this is but suspicion, that even the ship is not at Mr Murgatroyd’s risque. It is certain that he has underwritten two thousand Dollars in this same vessell. This however is a delicate point, because if the Ship is in whole or in part owned by british subjects, Mr Murgatroyd must have violated the Law, if not been guilty of perjury.8 His general character would strongly repel suspicions of this nature, yet I find he is suspected, even by candid men, of disingenuous conduct. I must therefore consider it as doubtful, to say no more, whether the Mount Vernon was not lawfully captured. In a public point of view, it would be happy if this were to appear to be the case, as it would obviate some suspicions of an unfriendly disposition on the part of France. The complexion of Bache’s paper is calculated however to keep up alarm; it seems to be an object to be preparing the public mind for some new line of conduct, contrary to our Treaty & distressing to our Commerce. If Bache’s paper is considered as indicating the designs of the French Government, we are to expect that british property on board our vessells will be captured, & that no englishmen will be considered as American citizens who have been naturalized since the commencement of the present war; perhaps they may proceed so far as to take all vessels bound to or from English ports.9 Of this however I perceive no indications except what are founded on reports which I cannot trace to any authentic source.
The Democrats, or at least some of them, have been predicting that the French would soon manifest their resentment against the Government. they say as we permit the british to take our vessels, the French have a right to adopt the same line of conduct. If the French Minister has powers for the purpose & can be influenced by our people, there are enough here who would rejoice in any misfortunes which wou’d produce discontents, & thus render the Government odious. If another capture under circumstances less justifiable than those attending the Mount Vernon, were to happen, the case would in my opinion be serious—even at present there are good reasons for apprehension.10 I have the honor to be &c.
Oliv: Wolcott Jr
Note. I am just informed that Mr Otis declines the appointment of District Attorney. On a former occasion I mentioned Mr Davis as a suitable character.11 I have no doubt but he would execute the office with ability & that the appointment wou’d give satisfaction. I have however heard nothing from Boston, & I do not write in consequence of any intimation from Mr Davis at this time.12
LB, DLC:GW.
1. The enclosed letters have not been identified. Nathaniel Gorham, supervisor of revenue for Massachusetts, had died on 11 June.
2. Leonard Vassall Borland (1759–1801) was a Boston merchant.
3. Samuel Bradford (c.1759–1818), then deputy marshal, previously had been recommended for marshal (see GW to Benjamin Lincoln, 14 Aug. 1791, n.1). Bradford later served as sheriff of Suffolk County, Massachusetts.
4. Following this recess appointment, GW nominated William Kirby for collector and inspector of the revenue at Hampton, Va., on 21 Dec., and the Senate confirmed the nomination the next day (see 216–17; see also Wolcott to GW, 10 June, source note). President Thomas Jefferson removed Kirby “for delinquency in accounts” (List of Appointments and Removals, circa May 1802, in 33:668–70). None of Kirby’s recommendations have been identified.
5. The Flying Fish had captured the Mount Vernon (see Timothy Pickering to GW, 12 June, and n.2 to that document).
6. Philadelphia merchant Thomas Murgatroyd (c.1747–1817) previously had been a partner in the firm Rundle and Murgatroyd.
William Mayne Duncanson (d. 1812) came to the United States from India with Thomas Law in 1794 and settled at the Federal City. As a partner in the firm Duncanson and Ray, merchants at Philadelphia and the Federal City, he bought the Delaware and renamed the ship Mount Vernon. Upon the firm’s dissolution in 1797, Duncanson pursued other mercantile and real estate ventures in the Federal City. For correspondence and biographical details, see Allen C. Clark, “William Mayne Duncanson,” Records of the Columbia Historical Society 14 (1911): 1–24.
7. Thomas Willing, his son Thomas Mayne Willing, and his nephew Thomas Willing Francis conducted the Philadelphia merchant firm Willings & Francis.
8. See “An Act concerning the registering and recording of ships or vessels,” 31 Dec. 1792 ( 287–99).
9. Such arguments appeared in a letter from “A CITIZEN” to Benjamin Franklin Bache printed in the Aurora General Advertiser (Philadelphia) for 14 June 1796. “The late capture of the ship Mount Vernon by the French privateer Flying-Fish, has excited just alarms, and apprehensions, and given much room for speculation—It does not appear as yet upon what grounds this capture was made, nor whether it was authorized by the constituted authorities of the French Republic. The dispositions of France towards us are sufficiently known to convince us that it is neither their wish nor their interest to engage in hostilities with this country, but from the dissatisfaction and evident disgust which they have manifested at our late treaty with Great Britain and other acts of our government, we ought to be on our guard against such measures (short of actual hostility) as their resentment might induce them to pursue.—By merely enforcing their existing laws respecting the navigation of neutral vessels, they have it in their power greatly to distress the navigation and commerce of the United States.” A CITIZEN submitted “for publication with a few explanatory notes and observations, a translation of the Regulation of the 21st July 1778, concerning the navigation of neutral vessels, which, having never been repealed I understand is still considered as a part of the laws of France and has only been suspended in practice during the present war out of respect to neutral nations and particularly to the United States.” In his commentary, A CITIZEN highlighted the clause that allowed France to abandon “the principle free ships make free goods, if the same was not recognized within a limited time by the other Belligerent powers” and the clause that refused to recognize “the naturalization of their enemies in a neutral country in time of war.”
The Aurora General Advertiser for 17 June printed under the heading “COMMUNICATION” a commentary on citizenship: “A British subject cannot renounce his allegiance. This is the law of Great Britain and this is the practice. If an Englishman cannot dispense with his allegiance … he ought to be considered as a subject of that monarchy, let his residence be where it might, and let his pretended citizenship be here or elsewhere. … If this view of the subject is a just one, the name of American citizen ought not to be a protection to the property of a British subject; for certainly if Great Britain claims him as her own, the French Republic have no right to dispute the point. Principles of common justice (retribution out of the question) would then justify the French Republic in considering as British property, every thing held by any man who emigrated to this country from Great Britain since the peace.”
The Aurora General Advertiser for 20 June also reprinted “From the (N.Y.) ARGUS” an item on the Jay Treaty: “We have made it lawful for the captains of British cruisers to carry in our vessels on bare suspicion of having enemy’s property on board. This authorizes the French to do the same; although no[t]hing in our treaty with that nation gives them this privilege, yet giving it to Britain gives it equally to them.” Referencing “the most favoured nation” clause in Article II of the 1778 Treaty of Amity and Commerce with France, that nation enjoyed “every favour we have granted the British in our late treaty … and it appears they mean to avail themselves of it.” Moreover, since a British court “lately” ruled “that all British subjects, who came to this country since the declaration of independence, as well as those who were here before, but who remained in their lines, are bona fide British subjects. This, no doubt, the French will readily agree to, and seize our vessels and property where-ever they find them” (see also 5).
10. Wolcott developed his views on the capture of the Mount Vernon in correspondence with Alexander Hamilton, whom he had written on 14 June: “If more seizures shall be made, or if Mr Adet shall not give a satisfactory explanation, I do not see but that Mr. M[onroe] must be recalled & a special confidential Minister sent. A short time will enable us to judge. I shall be glad to know your opinion of what is to be done—if a Minister is sent, who should it be?” ( 20:220–22). Hamilton replied to Wolcott from New York on 15 June: “From some recent information which I have obtained here, I have scarcely a doubt that the plan of the French is—1 to take all enemy property in our Ships contrary to the Treaty between the two Countries 2 to seize and carry in all our vessels laden with provisions for any English Port. Among this all that they choose to think enemy property will be seized & for the residue they will promise to pay.”
“The state of things is extremely serious. The Government must play a skilful card or all is lost. …
“Moreover the Government must immediately set in earnest about averting the storm. To this end a person must be sent in place of Monroe.” Hamilton suggested Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, John Marshall, Henry William DeSaussure, Bushrod Washington, James McHenry, and Richard Peters, deemed “eligible in different degrees—either of them far preferable to Monroe. … PS After turning the thing over and Over in my mind I know of nothing better that you have in your power than to send McHenry. He is not yet obnoxious to the French and has been understood formerly to have had some kindness towards their Revolution. … He is at hand & might depart immediately & I believe he would explain very well & do no foolish thing. Though unusual, perhaps it might be expedient for the President to write himself a letter to the Executive directory explaining the policy by which he has been governed and assuring of the friendship. But this would merit great consideration. Our measures however should be prompt” ( 20:223–24). In his reply to Hamilton, written at Philadelphia on 17 June, Wolcott explained matters regarding the Mount Vernon in a manner similar to the letter he wrote GW on this date. Wolcott then continued: “Mr. Adet I understand has written to Colo. Pickering that the Privateer was Commissioned by the French Government of Sn. Domingo, but that he is ignorant what the orders of the Privateer are, or what orders the French directory in the West Indies are authorised to give in respect to Neutral Vessells. This answer is neither satisfactory nor the contrary—it is nothing—except that it leaves ground to suspect that the West India Directory possess some discretionary authority, which may be used to distress us, if circumstances should render it expedient. What now gives me more concern than the capture, is the compliance of Baches paper, which is I think calculated to prepare the public mind, to expect a new course of conduct by the French, contrary to our Treaty, & distressing to our Commerce.
“I have for some time been inclined to think that Mr. Munroe ought to be recalled, but as others have doubted, & as the thing was not demonstrable I have not urged it, every event shews however new reasons for believing, that we must stop the channells by which foreign poison is introduced into our Country or suffer the government to be overturned—at all hazards the attempt must be made” ( 20:230–33; see also Pickering to GW, 22 June, and n.1 to that document). Wolcott again wrote Hamilton on 28 June: “Though the capture of the Mt. Vernon is not a decided evidence that the French mean to contravene their Treaty with the U.S., yet other circumstances render it possible—a confidential character in France is therefore necessary. I do not think any of the persons mentioned by you would undertake the mission, some I know will not.” Wolcott asked Hamilton for his opinions on William Loughton Smith, U.S. senator from South Carolina, and John Quincy Adams, recently nominated as minister to Portugal ( 20:242–44; see also GW to the U.S. Senate, 28 May).
11. For the nomination of Harrison Gray Otis as district attorney for Massachusetts, see Pickering to GW, 24 May, n.2. Wolcott’s prior recommendation of John Davis has not been identified. For consideration of Davis, see GW to Wolcott, 4 July, found at GW to Wolcott, 6 July, n.1; and Pickering to GW, 26 July. GW nominated Davis on 21 Dec. (see GW to the U.S. Senate, that date, DNA: RG 46, entry 42).
12. GW replied to Wolcott from Mount Vernon on Friday, 24 June: “Your Letter of the 20th Instant with its enclosures was brought to Alexandria by the Post of Wednesday.
“I have no difficulty in deciding on the following appointments, & commissions may issue accordingly.
“Jonathan Jackson, to be Supervisor of Massachusetts; vice Nathal Gorham, deceased.
“John Brooks to take the place rendered vacant by the removal of Jona. Jackson—and
“Samuel Bradford, to be Marshal of that District, if Brooks accepts the Inspectorship, now held by Jackson.
“I am equally disposed to appoint Mr Jno. Davis, District Attorney of that State, in case of the non-acceptance of it by Mr Otis—& provided his professional knowledge (of which I am no judge & never heard much) is supposed to be competent to the duties, & his residence such as will enable him to discharge them with convenience to the call upon the Office.
“Of this date I have written to the Secy of State on an interesting subject, requesting him to deliberate with you & the Secretary of War on the purport of the Communication, & to transmit me the result. To this letter & its enclosure I shall refer you” (LB, DLC:GW; see also Pickering to GW, 22 June, and GW to Pickering, 24 and 27 June).