George Washington Papers
Documents filtered by: Author="Commissioners for the District of Columbia" AND Recipient="Washington, George"
sorted by: date (descending)
Permanent link for this document:
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-21-02-0118

To George Washington from the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, 30 November 1796

From the Commissioners for the District of Columbia

Washington, 30th Novr 1796

Sir,

Your Instructions to Messrs Beall & Gantt to convey to us all the Lands in the City of Washington, vested in them, in trust, by the original proprietors, have been duly considered, with a reference to carrying the same into effect;1 in which some difficulties occur—That part of the Land which is held for the use of the United States, we consider, as in a very different predicament from those parts which are to be reconveyed to the original proprietors, or sold, in order to raise money for the purpose of erecting the Federal buildings2—The first ought to be conveyed to the Commissioners for the use of the United States, by virtue of the 3rd Section of the Act of Congress, intituled, “An act for establishing the temporary and permanent Seat of the Government of the United-States”3—The others may be conveyed to any person or persons whom the president shall appoint; and although he has, in this instance, appointed the Commissioners; yet we conceive the last description of Land must be conveyed to us in our individual, and not in our official capacity, because, not being a corporation, we cannot take an estate to hold to us and our successors—If we are right in this opinion, there ought to be different conveyances for the different descriptions of Land—the public property to be conveyed, no doubt, consists of the Streets and Squares delienated on the plan, but we should hestitate to advise a conveyance from the Trustees to ourselves, agreeably to the Act of Congress, above-mentioned, without a more explicit and particular declaration from the President, respecting the Lands to be appropriated; than has hitherto been made—We presume the plan of the City will enable you to point out the appropriations, with sufficient accuracy, for the purpose of making such declaration4—When this is done, we will call on the Trustees, for a conveyance agreeably thereto; but as we intimated, in our Letter of October 1st, that this, being a great national object, we did not wish the completion of it to rest, solely on our opinions,5 it would still be agreeable to us to have the direction, or approbation of the executive, who, we presume, will advise with the attorney General with regard to the mode to be pursued, and that the attorney may be enabled to form an opinion, we have sent a copy of one of the Deeds of trust.6

The vacant spaces which appear on the plan of the City at the intersection of the Streets and avenues and which are composed of the Streets themselves, and by striking off the points which those intersections necessarily form, so as to give a degree of regularity to the adjacent buildings, we have not considered as Squares or parcels appropriated to public use, but some of the proprietors now insist that they ought to be paid, not only for the points thus struck off, but for the Streets themselves, so far as they pass through these vacant spaces; or that those points should be laid off in building Lots—This suggested the propriety of running a Street of 150 feet width round each of those spaces and appropriating the center to public use; which may be enclosed by handsome palisades, be sown with grass, and ornamented with fountains, Statues &c., to the great embellishment of the City, when it becomes populous: this, however, we only suggest, but we believe some decision of the Executive on the subject, is absolutely necessary to silence clamour, and perhaps, to prevent litigation7—We are extremely sorry, at this momentous crisis to take up any part of your time on the affairs of the City;8 but hope that the importance of the objects of our correspondence may be our apology—With Sentiments of perfect respect, &c.

G. Scott
W. Thornton
A. White

P.S. A Deed is sent, for want of time to make a Copy; it may be returned, when perused by the Attorney-General.9

LB, DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Letters Sent.

1For GW’s orders of 3 Oct. and 10 Nov. to trustees Thomas Beall and John Mackall Gantt, see GW to the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, 5 Oct., and n.2 to that document; see also Executive Order to Beall and Gantt, 10 Nov., printed as an enclosure to GW to the commissioners, 11 November.

The commissioners’ book of proceedings for this date records: “Deed from J. M. Gantt & Thos Beall of Geo[rge] executed & acknowledged to the Commissioners for all the Squares & Lots subject to be sold agreeably to the Trust, and belonging to original Proprietors” (DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Proceedings, 1791–1802).

2A 1791 agreement had stipulated that the commissioners would receive half of the Federal City land not reserved for public use. The commissioners then would market those lots to finance construction of federal buildings. By the same agreement, the remaining half of the land would be divided among the proprietors (see the commissioners’ first letter to GW of 1 Oct., and the source note and n.9 to that document).

3Section 3 of this act, passed 16 July 1790, reads: “That the said commissioners … shall have power to purchase or accept such quantity of land on the eastern side of the said river, within the said district, as the President shall deem proper for the use of the United States.” The law directed the commissioners to provide buildings to house Congress, the president, and other government offices “prior to the first Monday in December” 1800 (1 Stat. description begins Richard Peters, ed. The Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America, from the Organization of the Government in 1789, to March 3, 1845 . . .. 8 vols. Boston, 1845-67. description ends 130).

4The 1792 engraved plan of the Federal City had been the city’s official map until the completion in 1797 of James Reed Dermott’s Appropriation Map, which depicted seventeen reservations (see the commissioners’ first letter to GW of 1 Oct., and notes 5 and 13).

5The commissioners are referring to their first letter to GW of 1 October.

6The copy of the deed of trust has not been found, but for the deed that described the public reservations in the Federal City, see Commissioners for the District of Columbia to GW, 31 Jan. 1797, and n.1 to that document.

7During Dermott’s creation of the Appropriation Map, a dispute arose between the proprietors and the commissioners concerning the large spaces created by the intersections of streets and avenues. The proprietors defined those intersections as public squares and therefore expected payment for them in accordance with a 1791 agreement. That agreement required the government to pay the proprietors £25 per acre for their land that was designated for public buildings and squares in the Federal City. Conversely, the commissioners equated intersections with streets, for which the 1791 agreement allowed no compensation (see Agreement of the Proprietors of the Federal District, 30 March 1791, and the source note to that document; see also 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; and Arnebeck, Through a Fiery Trial description begins Bob Arnebeck. Through a Fiery Trial: Building Washington, 1790–1800. Lanham, Md., and London, 1991. description ends , 424).

8The “momentous crisis” may refer to the tense relations between France and the United States, which stemmed from the French Directory’s orders to capture neutral vessels bound for British ports and from accusations against the United States of treaty violations (see GW to Alexander Hamilton, 2 Nov. 1796, and n.2 to that document; and Hamilton to GW, 19 Nov., and n.5 to that document).

9GW returned the deed, which has not been identified, when he replied to the commissioners on 26 December.

Index Entries