1. The commissioners’ book of proceedings for this date records that this document enclosed “Mr Davidsons Memorial & the Commrs Ansr” (DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Proceedings, 1791–1802). The commissioners may have enclosed federal district proprietor Samuel Davidson’s first memorial to them, dated 25 Oct. 1796, which reads: “The Memorial of Samuel Davidson respectfully sheweth That a plan of the president’s square was heretofore executed by Mr L’Enfant, which has been casually lost or mislaid, but which was similar as nearly as may be to one herewith exhibited—That without any authority, or good reason known to your Memorialist, a plan of the same square hath since been executed by mr [Andrew] Ellicott, materially variant from mr L’Enfants and which if adopted would in the Opinion of your memorialist be highly injurious to the City, in as much as it is inelegant, and very inferior in many respects to the original plan.

“Under these circumstances your Memorialist is induced respectfully to solicit that the Commissioners will compare and consider the plan herewith exhibited, together with mr Ellicott’s plan, and finally adopt the former if they should be of opinion that it will most contribute to the advantage of the City, and elegance and Uniformity of the square; or that they will communicate the same to the President of the united states, that such order may be made therein as may seem most expedient” (DNA, RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Letters Received, 1791–1802).

The commissioners must have also enclosed Davidson’s letter to them, dated 31 Jan. 1797, since GW quoted a sentence from it when he wrote them on 20 February. Davidson’s letter, written from Washington, D.C., reads: “On the 25th of October last, I had the honour of laying a Memorial before you, respecting the judicious application of that part of my property in the City of Washington, comprehended in, and adjacent to, the Presidents Square; so as to be more uniform and consonant with the Original elegant Design, laid down by Major L’Enfant and approved of by the President. …” Davidson hoped the commissioners would validate his “fair claim to the required alteration: because … the same will add much to the beauty of the presidents Square, materially benefit my interest, and contribute … to the funds of the City.” The commissioners’ “verbal determination” on 19 Jan. prevented Davidson’s “entertaining that pleasing hope,” and forced him “to seek that measure of justice” owed him “through some other channel.” Davidson added: “It was stated by the Board, that the President is averse to any alterations in the plan, and at the same time admitted, that in the present case, he has left it to the Board of Commissioners to determine. I can venture to assert, that numberless deviations were made by Major Ellicott from the original plan, and I have reason to believe, that many have been made since.” Davidson threatened to seek an opinion on the matter from Attorney General Charles Lee should he and the commissioners fail to reach an agreement. He then wrote: “It has been reported, that you had it in contemplation to fix the Presidents Stables and Offices, North of the Presidents House; I hope … this step will not be adopted; It certainly runs counter to the original plan, and must lessen the value of private property near them: I have therefore thought it proper to intimate to you my objection to such a step … You will therefore consider this as my positive objection to such an alteration. …” Davidson concluded his letter with the following request: “if your late determination upon the subject, should still prevail, I have then to require that you will be pleased to direct your surveyor, … at my expence, to furnish me … with a true and attested Copy, from the original plan of the City of Washington, made by Major L’Enfant, approved of by the president, and now in your office of that Section comprehended by Major Ellicotts spurious plan of said City, within 14 Street West—K Street North—18 Street West, and Mr [David] Burnes line on the South, for my government. And … consider this … as my full protest against the establishment of any other plan … of the City of Washington, wherein the said Section is differently laid down … from the said original plan. …” (DNA, RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Letters Received, 1791–1802).

The letter-book copy of the commissioners’ reply to Davidson, dated 2 Feb., reads: “We have your favor of 31st Ulto. We shall, by next post, forward to the President of the United-States, an Instrument of writing for his execution, if it meets his approbation, by which, the public-appropriations will be finally determined: it is not for us to advise; but we suppose that the President alone, can gratify your wishes on that Subject. We have no objection to your taking a copy of Major L’Enfant’s plan, or of any other plans of the City, in our Office. The engraved plan has been the general rule in our transactions heretofore, agreeably to which, we shall form the Instrument, intended for the President’s Signature—indeed, we had no knowledge of the other till, about two months ago” (DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Letters Sent). For the “Instrument” with the description of the public appropriations, see Commissioners for the District of Columbia to GW, 31 Jan., and n.1.

On 7 March, the commissioners wrote Davidson, requesting his presence at their office the following day, when they promised to reconsider the substance of his memorial (DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Letters Sent).

Davidson, an original proprietor of land that later became part of President’s Square (now Lafayette Square), had first lodged a protest with the commissioners following the publication of the 1792 engraved plan of the Federal City, drawn by Andrew Ellicott. That plan was based on Pierre Charles L’Enfant’s 1791 map of the federal district, but was modified by Ellicott and Thomas jefferson (see Commissioners for the District of Columbia, 1 Oct. [first letter], and n.5). Davidson objected to the modification that Ellicott made to the north front of President’s Square, from a semicircle, as originally designed by L’Enfant, to a square, and likened the change to a confiscation of property. Davidson appears to have believed that the Ellicott alteration of the space from a semi-circle to a square allocated more of his land for public use, for which he was entitled to compensation. Davidson’s complaint can be viewed in the context of the ongoing dispute among the other proprietors, who expected payment for spaces created by the intersection of streets and avenues, which they defined as spaces for public use (see Alexander White to Jefferson, 8 Aug. 1801, in Jefferson Papers description begins Julian P. Boyd et al., eds. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson. 41 vols. to date. Princeton, N.J., 1950–. description ends , 35:47–48). The commissioners, on the other hand, contended that Davidson’s motive behind his complaint entailed a desire to obtain additional property around President’s Square. Despite Davidson’s further appeals on the matter into the early nineteenth century, a satisfactory resolution was never realized (see Agreement of the Proprietors of the Federal District, 30 March 1791, and the source note to that document; Commissioners for the District of Columbia to GW, 30 Nov. 1796; Tindall, History of the City of Washington description begins William Tindall. Standard History of the City of Washington. From a Study of the Original Sources. Knoxville, Tenn., 1914. description ends , 216–18; and Bryan, National Capital description begins Wilhelmus Bogart Bryan. A History of the National Capital: From Its Foundation through the Period of the Adoption of the Organic Act. 2 vols. New York, 1914–16. description ends , 1:296–97).

Samuel Davidson (1747–1810) was a partner in an Annapolis mercantile firm before he moved to Georgetown, where he earned a living as a merchant. Davidson was also a significant landowner and proprietor in the federal district.