To George Washington from George Walker, 24 January 1797
From George Walker
Philada1 Jany 24th 1797
Most Respected Sir,
Permit me, for the last time I shall ever trouble You on the subject, to lay before you the cause of the late small altercation which took place between Commissioner Scott and myself; for although Mr Scott drew Mr White into a concurrence; yet, he was not the moving cause. And as for Dr Thornton he was in the negative through the whole.
Sometime previous to my leaving the City last Spring, I had divided all the Squares upon my place, in which I was wholly proprietor, except Square No. 1065; Although, I have been able to procure plots of but a very few only.2 Upon the calculations being made and the accot summed up by the Surveyor, it was found that, the public had got 126,000 Square feet, or upwards of 25 standard Lots, more than their half.3 Upon representing this case to the Board, then composed by Mr Scott and Dr Thornton,4 and shewing them a certificate from their Surveyor to that effect, Mr Scott, promised, with the consent of Dr Thornton, that the balance due me should be paid in Square 1065; being the only one entirely mine, remaining to be divided. Confiding in that promise, I requested nothing in writing to confirm it; and accordingly in October last, I divided the Squares act by the lines of our Lands, when upon calculation, a further balance arose in favour of the public, which gave me no concern, as I still depended upon the undivided Square to make up the difference. Before I proceed farther permit me, to lay before You, Mr Scott’s Schemes respecting the City, of which I am in full possession, having since his residence in Geo. Town been very intimate with him, besides being the confidential friend of the man who is his confidential friend. You will therefore be pleased to pardon me, when I assure you that, Mr Scott would sacrifice everything to promote his own interest, and having large property above Geo. Town,5 besides, having purchased considerably in and about that place, he has laid a deep Scheme to keep back the Capitol, in order that Congress may be forced to hold their Sessions in the Presidents House, and to lodge in and about Geo. Town.6 He accordingly has been speculating in lots at that end of the City, and has used every exertion to prevent strangers from purchasing Lots or Settling at the East end. Summer before last, he strove hard to have the plan of the Capitol altered, by which all that had been done, would have been lost, and excuses would have been found for the preventing the commencement of it anew.7 Last fall, he attempted to have the area appropriated for the Marine Hospital abolished,8 which he intended as a precedent for altering the place intended for the meeting of Congress. My opposition to that measure drew upon me the resentment of Mr Scott, and accordingly, when I asked for payment for the two large public Areas on my place, Mr Scott with the concurrence of Mr White, wrote me a positive refusal.9 This surprised and incensed me much, as it is a right so fully secured by the Deed of trust, and knowing that they had paid most of the other proprietors three Years ago;10 while I have not received one Shilling for mine. Thus matters stood, when one day being in the Commissioners Office, Mr Scott told me, that my last Square was now plotted and ready for division; to which I answered, that as soon as they should return the balance they owed me, that I would divide that Square. Mr Scott, haughtily replied, that he knew of no balance due me, and that, if I would not divide it, they would divide it without me by alternate lots. I requested him to consult their Surveyor and observed that I hoped they would not take more from me than one half of my property in the City. Upon this we parted, and next morning I understood that they had divided the Square in question, not by alternate lots, but by alternate quarters, a power they not possess by Law, and which division I will endeavour to set aside.11 Finding that they had proceeded in this Arbitrary manner, without even consulting their Surveyor, I requested Mr Nicholson to remonstrate with them upon the subject, which he readily did, and at the same time assured them that he and Mr Morris relinquished all claim to any part of the Square in dispute.12 They refused however, to hear any reasoning upon the matter; upon which, in the moment of resentment, I put the Advertisement in the City Paper which you may have seen, and the juggling business that had been carried on in city lots, between Mr Scott and Genl Forrest, then making a great noise in the city and Geo. Town, was in the impulse of the moment, made a preamble to it.13 That I was wrong in troubling the public with what I have right to by Law, I readily admit. But, having before, lost a very advantageous Sale in Holland, by not having my ground laid out and plotted, while at the Geo. Town end was all finished;14 it is difficult to bear such a complication of injuries quietly. Besides, at the time I engaged in that object, I expected that the operations at the two ends of the city would be carried on as nearly alike as possible. And, I could not have believed, that so great and important a national object, would be made subservient to any neighbouring Village. The influence that Geo. Town has hitherto had upon the operations in the city, has been the cause of its moving on so heavily, and of the general want of confidence throughout the Union in that object. If the same system is pursued, Mr Law, the greatest acquisition the city has, will leave it in disgust, as well as some others who have settled at that end. As to the scheme of forcing Geo. Town into a place of consequence enough to accommodate Congress, it will be impossible. For exclusive of its natural rugged situation, and the devastation of the Ice in Winter and the Spring, the channel is now filling up so fast, that there is not now more than 10 feet Water at low tide, can be drawn to it, or indeed to any part of the city itself, the Eastern Branch excepted.15 If therefore the Capitol is not hurried on, and every encouragement given to build and improve about it, there will not be accommodations for Congress by the time fixed. If therefore, you should go out of Office, without establishing, by some means, the plan of the City, and the public appropriations unalterable except by a Law of Congress;16 Mr Scott will reign an absolute Bashaw in the City.17 The Capitol will be kept back, and the public appropriations at the East end abolished, or changed. For your Successor, will naturally pay such respect to the opinions of the Men you may leave in Office, that he will allow them to do as they please. The Circumstance of the Commissioners residing in George Town, is matter of surprise to all strangers who visit the City; and if any new object is to be introduced, it ought in my opinion, to be placed convenient to the purpose for which it is intended. A National University would be more convenient nearly central in the city, than at either end.18
The freedom, with which I have treated this important subject, may have given you temporary displeasure; but the time will soon come, when you will be satisfied of the truth of all I have asserted; although, it may then be too late for You to interfere. Mr Richd Brent, and Mr Geo. Graham,19 inform me that, since I left the City, the proprietors at the East end proposed a meeting, in order to address you, respecting the discharge of Mr Scott, before You go out of Office; but that they declined it, from a conviction of want of success, and from an apprehension of giving You umbrage. Thus Sir, whatever may be the event, I have finally discharged my duty, in regard to an object, in which I have so much at stake; and wishing you health, and Heavens choicest Blessings in your intended retirement, I have the honour to be, with the greatest admiration; and the most profound veneration and esteem Sir Your most devoted and very Humble Servant
(signed) Geo. Walker
Copy, in George Washington Craik’s writing, DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Letters Received. GW replied to Walker on 26 January. GW forwarded a copy of this document with his letter to the commissioners for the District of Columbia of 29 January.
1. For Walker’s temporary residence in Philadelphia, see GW to the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, 27 Nov. 1796, and n.6 to that document.
2. The commissioners’ book of proceedings for 22 June 1795 recorded that the “board proceeded to divide with Mr George Walker” twelve squares. The land “given to Mr Walker” included square 893, a square south of it, and squares 916, 962, 936, and 966 (DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Proceedings, 1791–1802). On 11 July 1795, another division of land between the commissioners and Walker gave Walker squares 861, 890, 891, and 913. Squares 860, 892, and 912 went to the commissioners (DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Proceedings, 1791–1802).
For more on Walker’s dispute with the commissioners over the division of his square 1065, located near the Eastern Branch at the intersection of Pennsylvania and Georgia avenues, see Commissioners for the District of Columbia to GW, 21 Nov. 1796, and n.6 to that document.
3. In his letter to the commissioners of 16 Nov. 1796, Walker had noted that when they “had divided all my Squares of consequence, except No. 1065,” he “discovered that the public had got 125.974¾ Square foot more than they were entitled to—and of the best part” of his property (DNA, RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Letters Received, 1791–1802). Walker’s 16 Nov. letter raised many of the same points stated in the present document (see Commissioners for the District of Columbia to GW, 21 Nov. 1796, and n.6 to that document).
The commissioners had been dividing the remaining Federal City lots not designated for public buildings. The public (the commissioners) were to receive half of those leftover lots, and the other half were to go to the proprietors of the federal district (see Commissioners for the District of Columbia to GW, 1 Oct. 1796 [first letter], source note).
4. Walker may have appealed to the board either before Alexander White took his seat among the commissioners on 17 July 1795, or more likely, during White’s absence from the board between early December 1796 and around 9 Jan. 1797. During that period, White had been at his Winchester, Va., estate (see White to GW, 15 Dec. 1796; see also White to GW, 11 and 18 Jan. 1797; and Commissioners for the District ofColumbia to GW, 24 July 1795 [first letter], and n.3 to that document).
5. Scott’s home at Rock Hill was located just outside the limits of the Federal City, between Florida Avenue and Rock Creek, near Georgetown (see Thomas Law to GW, 6 Oct. 1796, and n.7 to that document; see also GW to the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, 27 Feb.). Scott also had invested a great deal in the area of Rock Creek and bought numerous other lots in the vicinity of Georgetown (see , 405, 469).
6. Scott and Uriah Forrest long promoted the development of Georgetown. Forrest sought to persuade congressmen that the President’s House had been designed to accommodate their meetings. A shortage of housing near the Capitol further convinced some individuals that the area near the President’s House would be required to house members of Congress (, 469, 484, 531, and 599).
7. Walker may be referring to architect George Hadfield’s proposed changes to William Thornton’s designs of the U.S. Capitol. These changes, which Hadfield made in the fall of 1795, included the addition of an attic, the omission of a basement, and a plan to have principal rooms or chambers on the ground floor. Scott’s frequent opposition to Thornton contributed to the latter’s suspicion of Scott’s involvement in Hadfield’s proposed alterations. In spring 1795, for instance, Scott had questioned Thornton’s views on raising the foundation of the Capitol (see , 280–81, 325–27; see also , 60–70; and Commissioners for the District of Columbia to GW, 31 Oct. 1795, and n.1 to that document).
8. For the eighty-acre tract on the Eastern Branch designated for a marine hospital, and for the efforts by Scott and White to convert that square into building and house lots, see Commissioners for the District of Columbia to GW, 1 Oct. (first letter), and notes 8 and 12. Thornton disagreed with his colleagues and sought to preserve the use of that tract for a hospital. Walker also had written the commissioners on the matter (see Thornton to GW, 1 Oct. 1796 [first letter]; see also Commissioners for the District of Columbia to GW, 7 Oct. 1796, and n.2 to that document).
9. In a letter of 5 Oct. 1796, Walker had written the commissioners in part: “In conformity to the Deed of Trust, I now request you will put to my credit, the content of the two public Areas upon my place; the one at the upper end of Kentucky Avenue, and the other at the lower end of it; and order me payment as Soon as convenient, at the rate of £25 per Acre.” Walker contended that an “Historical Column” was intended for the “upper Area” one mile east of the Capitol, while a space for a bridge over the Anacostia River had been designated for the “lower” end. Walker continued: “… purchases of lots have been made upon both these Areas, and the purchasers now Object to their being Abolished.” Alluding to the 1791 agreement that barred proprietors from receiving compensation for land taken from them for the laying out of Federal City streets, Walker argued that “when a Street enters a public Area, formed by throwing Away certain portions of building ground, it ceases to be a Street” (DNA, RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Letters Received, 1791–1802; see also Agreement of the Proprietors of the Federal District, 30 March 1791, and the source note to that document).
Commissioners Scott and White replied to Walker on 5 Nov. 1796: “We have had your favor of the 5th Ulto under consideration, and are sorry we cannot join you in opinion respecting your claims on Kentuckey Avenue—For those segments of Squares which a continuation of the several Streets would leave, we have no objection to pay you the accustomed price, but do not think ourselves authorised to pay for more” (DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Letters Sent). For the recent dispute between the proprietors and commissioners over the open spaces created by street intersections, see Commissioners for the District of Columbia to GW, 30 Nov. 1796, and n.7 to that document.
10. The deed of trust has not been identified, but for its probable contents, see Commissioners for the District of Columbia to GW, 1 Oct. (first letter), and the source note and n.9 to that document.
In a letter to the commissioners of 7 Nov. 1796, Walker had written in part: “the Commissioners … have three years Ago, paid the proprietors at the Geo. Town and of the City, for the full content of their public Areas; and your not endeavouring to recover back these payments to the funds of the City, is an acknowledgment that you conceive them to be just, which is at once establishing my Claim.” Walker threatened a lawsuit if he did not receive “full payment this week for the two public Areas upon my place” (DNA, RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Letters Received, 1791–1802).
For the commissioners’ efforts to pay the proprietors for lands conveyed in trust for the erection of public buildings in the Federal City, see Daniel Carroll to GW, 10 May 1795, and n.2 to that document; see also , 264.
11. The commissioners’ book of proceedings for 18 Nov. 1796 records the division of Walker’s square number 1065: “Notice having been personally given, yesterday, by William Brent, to George Walker, the proprietor of” square 1065, “to attend” the division of that square “this morning at nine OClock.” Walker’s absence from the division prompted the commissioners to divide the square by “alternate Lots.” At “the time of said notice, declaring he would not attend … and the said George Walker not having attended, the Commissioners proceeded to divide the said Square by alternate Lots, it having first been determined, by Ballot, that the said George Walker should begin with the number two, and thereupon, Lots numbered two and four were assigned to” Walker, “and Lots … One and three were assigned to the public, & are subject to be sold, agreeably to the Deeds of Trust concerning Lands in the said City” (DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Proceedings, 1791–1802).
12. John Nicholson had also made transactions with Walker for lots near square 1065. The commissioners’ book of proceedings for 29 Nov. indicates that Nicholson had purchased squares 1079 and 1080 from Walker. Those squares were nearly adjacent to square 1065 (DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Proceedings, 1791–1802).
13. For this advertisement, see Commissioners for the District of Columbia to GW, 21 Nov. 1796, and n.6 to that document.
Walker referenced the advertisement in his letter of 23 Nov. 1796 to the printer of The Washington Gazette. In that letter, which appeared in The Washington Gazette for 23–26 Nov. 1796, Walker wrote: “The Commissioners having attempted, contrary to the Deed of Trust, forcibly to wrest from me, and convey to others, about twenty-five of my best lots, more than the public are entitled to, and, finding them deaf to all reasoning … I was … compelled to caution the public, and the late fact, of a similar nature, became, of course, a preamble to it.” Walker mentioned the 1795 sale of a lot on Rock Creek, to which the commissioners allegedly had no title. That transaction, Walker claimed, was related to “a large speculation in property on Rock Creek” made by one of the commissioners.
In early 1795, the commissioners had sold to Uriah Forrest a lot along Rock Creek, in a square evidently owned by former D.C. commissioner Thomas Johnson. During Johnson’s dispute with the commissioners over his right to purchase lots along Rock Creek, Scott particularly opposed Johnson’s claims (see Commissioners for the District of Columbia to GW, 20 April 1795; see also , 273, 297–98).
The commissioners’ book of proceedings for 7 Feb. 1797 mentioned the transaction involving Forrest, and commented on the present document: “On the application of General Forrest made by Mr Scott Mr Monroe [Thomas Munroe] is directed to forward to General Forrest that Paragraph of Mr Walkers Letter to the President of the 24th Ulto which respects him” (DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Proceedings, 1791–1802). On 17 Jan., Forrest also had written the commissioners to advise them that they were “answerable to” him for the “conveyance” of several lots by certificates to Robert Morris and John Nicholson (DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Letters Received).
For an example of the commissioners’ rebuttal to Walker’s arguments, see the minutes of their proceedings for 29 Nov. 1796, in DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Proceedings, 1791–1802.
14. In 1792, Walker had complained that Georgetown was “platted and divided with the proprietors,” while the area along the Anacostia River appeared to have been ignored (, 245; see also Walker to GW, 8 Oct. 1792).
That same year, Walker sought to travel to Europe to sell Federal City lots. His decision came on the heels of lagging lot sales and delays in survey work near the Eastern Branch (see , 139, 143).
15. In January, ice forced the closure of the Eastern Branch and Georgetown’s harbor (see Thomas Law to GW, 4 Feb.).
16. For GW’s directives to the D.C. commissioners to prioritize work on the U.S. Capitol, see GW to Commissioners for the District of Columbia, 15 and 17 February.
In March, GW executed a deed describing the public reservations in the Federal City. No congressional law on the public appropriations in the Federal City was passed, and GW’s executive order concerning the reservations dealt with the issue.
James Reed Dermott’s nearly completed map, which delineated the public appropriations and reservations in the Federal City, soon replaced Andrew Ellicott’s 1792 engraved plan as the city’s official map (see Commissioners for the District of Columbia to GW, 1 Oct. 1796 [first letter], and n.5 to that document, and 31 Jan. 1797, and n.1 to that document).
17. A bashaw usually alludes to a Turkish provincial governor or officer of high rank, but in this context, it refers to a “haughty, imperious man” ().
In early February, presumably after receiving the copy of this letter that GW had forwarded to the commissioners on 29 Jan., Scott wrote Robert Morris about the accusations against him of “‘Haughtiness in Office’ & ‘residing out of the City.’” Morris replied to Scott on 16 Feb. that he intended to speak with GW regarding these charges. Morris promised to “tell the President” that he had never witnessed Scott’s alleged arrogant behavior (, 162–63).
18. For the proposed locations for a national university, see Commissioners for the District of Columbia to GW, 1 Oct. 1796 (first letter), and n.2 to that document; see also GW to the commissioners, 21 Oct. 1796.
For other appeals that the commissioners reside within the Federal City, see GW to the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, 22 May 1796; and Thomas Law to GW, 6 Oct. 1796, and notes 6 and 7 to that document.
19. This may refer to George Graham (1772–1830), a graduate of what is now Columbia University and a practitioner of law in Dumfries, Virginia. During the War of 1812, Graham served as a captain in the U.S. army and was chief clerk of the War Department from 1813 to 1815. The commissioner of the general land office from 1823 to 1830, Graham died “at the residence of Mr. Robert Y Brent, near Washington city” (Baltimore Patriot & Mercantile Advertiser, 9 Aug. 1830).