1. In October 1795, William Bayly, a Maryland merchant and land dealer, purchased a 150-acre tract for $37,000. Formerly belonging to the Coombs family, the tract was located just north of the intersection of Massachusetts and New York avenues and 6th Street NW, in the area between 9th and 1st and K and O streets. Bayly sold the property to New York merchants Dominick Lynch and Comfort Sands for $42,000. Joseph Covachiche, also a New York merchant, was Sands’s agent (see Arnebeck, Through a Fiery Trial description begins Bob Arnebeck. Through a Fiery Trial: Building Washington, 1790–1800. Lanham, Md., and London, 1991. description ends , 335, 388; see also Clark, “Origin of the Federal City,” description begins Allen C. Clark. “Origin of the Federal City.” Records of the Columbia Historical Society 35-36 (1935): 1–97. description ends 91).

In a letter to the commissioners of 25 Nov., Covachiche discussed the proposal to relocate the projected site of the national university to Peter’s Hill, bordered by 23d and 25th streets, E Street NW, and the Potomac River: “The interest which I have in the City of Washington, is too considerable to justify me in passing by … a report which I have heard, that the Commrs intended to change the University from the ground belonging to Messrs Lynch & Sands & myself, to the public appropriations near the Poto. River.” Covachiche was “under the impression that this building was to be erected on the ground” he had purchased, and he argued that Bayly “must have known that the University was to be built there, or he must be without an appology for having advertized it as a fact prior to his Sale in New York and as an inducement to purchasers.” Worried that the university’s location “in any other than the place originally intended” would diminish the value of his property, Covachiche warned that such a move might “lessen the confidence of the public in the Stability of the business” under the commissioners’ direction. GW’s “donation of his Poto. Shares to the University” ostensibly “enhanced the value of the property.” Covachiche supported his position by referencing the commissioners’ 1793 contract with Robert Morris and James Greenleaf. He hoped the matter would be settled before his “departure” (DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, Letters Received; the commissioners’ reply to Covachiche on 24 Nov. suggests that his letter may have carried that same date [see n.2 below]). For more on the proposed sites for the national university, see Commissioners for the District of Columbia to GW, 1 Oct. (first letter); William Thornton to GW, 1 Oct. (first letter), and n.2 to that document; and GW to the commissioners, 21 Oct., and n.3 to that document.

Joseph Covachiche of Venice, Italy, operated a mercantile business on Broadway in New York City in 1796. He eventually became a U.S. citizen and unsuccessfully applied for various consulships.

2. The enclosed reply to Covachiche from D.C. commissioners Gustavus Scott and William Thornton, dated 24 Nov., reads: “The board are favored with your Letter of this day. … We presume you have not been informed that the power of fixing the scites for all public appropriations … is entirely with the president … When the plan of the City was laid before Congress, no place was appropriated for a national university, & it is only lately the President has acted on the subject. A new plan of the City … being about to be published, it was thought adviseable to mention the subject to the President, and also, the necessity of fixing a scite for the university—No large Space of public ground … offering itself to view on the plan of the City except those … intended for a marine hospital and a fort, they naturally occurred as the most proper spots for a national university.” The “grounds … intended for a fort appeared … a proper scite for the University,” and “the President did accordingly decide in favor of that Spot.” The commissioners added: “Why it has been held out in the contract with Morris & Greenleaf, that it was expected a university might be built North East of Massachusetts avenue, we know not. … We shall, however, inclose an Extract of that part of the contract, to the President, together with your Letter and our answer, and if any order is taken by him on the Subject, we shall, with pleasure, take the earliest opportunity of communicating it to you” (DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, Letters Sent). For both the 1792 plan of the Federal City and the new map currently being drawn, see Commissioners for the District of Columbia to GW, 1 Oct. (first letter), and notes 5 and 13.

The extract of the commissioners’ contract with Morris and Greenleaf has not been identified, but it was probably taken from their contract of 24 Dec. 1793, a copy of which was entered into the commissioners’ book of proceedings for that date (see DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Proceedings, 1791–1802; see also GW to the commissioners, 20 Aug. 1793, and the commissioners to GW, 23 Dec. 1793). The commissioners failed to enclose the extract with the present document (see GW to the commissioners, 1 Dec.).

3. GW had authorized the commissioners to seek a loan from Maryland (see GW to the commissioners, 21 Nov.; GW to John Hoskins Stone, 7 Dec.; and Stone to GW, 12 Dec.).