To George Washington from the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, 6 February 1797
From the Commissioners for the District of Columbia
Washington, 6th Febry 1797
Sir,
In the course of business, a circumstance has occurred, which appears to us of sufficient importance to justify a reference to the executive—Messrs Morris & Nicholson having made payments to an amount sufficient to entitle them to a conveyance of the property sold by them to Mr Law, requested the Commissrs to convey the same to him1—Upon a view of the Several Instruments of writing executed by our predecessors, & Morris, Greenleaf and Nicholson; we were of opinion, that Mr Law was not entitled to a Deed, but on condition of building one house for every three Lots, agreeably to a stipulation in the Contract of the Commissioners with Morris & Greenleaf (Enclosure A)2 and to a similar stipulation in the agreements of Mr Law with Morris, Greenleaf & Nicholson (B)3—Mr Law would not accept of such a Deed, and has obtained opinions of Counsel to justify his refusal.4 Could we have conceded to those opinions, we certainly should not add to that pressure of business which you are obliged to sustain; but after viewing the subject in every point of light, and giving it the most mature consideration, we cannot think otherwise than that we have a right to insist on making the erection of those buildings a condition in the Deed; in fact, we see no other means left, to secure that desireable event—We transmit to you all the writings in the case, and expect, that with the advice of counsel, you will determine, as well the legality of our opinion, as the expediency or inexpediency of carrying it strictly, into effect; should it be thought well founded in point of Law.5
By an article of agreement, dated 24th Decr 1793, Robt Morris and James Greenleaf purchased of the Commissioners Six thousand Lots in the city of Washington, for which, they agreed to pay £30 Maryland currency, per Lot, at seven equal annual payments, without Interest:6 the first payment to be made on the first day of May next ensuing the date of the said article; and to build and erect yearly on some part of the said Lots, twenty brick houses, of the dimensions in the said article described, and that neither the said Robert Morris and James Greenleaf or their heirs, would sell or contract for the Sale of any of the said Lots, before the first day of January 1796, but upon the express condition, that One such house as above described should be built and erected on every third Lot, at the least, within four years after such Sale or contract for Sale—Among various other clauses and provisions, in the said article contained, it is declared, that the Covenants and agreements on the part of the said Robert Morris and James Greenleaf, and the true and full performance of them, are the terms and conditions of the sale of the said 6000 Lots—Upon the 24th April 1794, the Commissrs executed the agreement C, and 4th May thereafter, Morris, Greenleaf and Nicholson executed the Bond D.7 Had the original agreement remained without alteration, it is evident that Morris & Greenleaf could not have obtained a title to any one of the Six thousand Lots, till the price of the whole should be paid, One hundred and forty houses built, and obligations taken for the erection of one house for every three Lots, which they might sell, previous to 1796. Equally clear we take it to be, that a purchaser under them, previous to 1796, could never be entitled to an unconditional conveyance, without first building, agreeably to Morris & Greenleaf’s Contract, unless some particular circumstance should relieve such purchaser from the obligation to build; if he has given an obligation to build, it became an express Contract on his part, though nominally with Morris & Greenleaf, yet, in effect, for the use of the public, he consequently could not demand a compliance on the part of the public, while he failed to fulfil his own part: if, on the other hand, Morris & Greenleaf sold, without taking an obligation to build, the covenants and agreements on their part, would be broken; they would not, themselves be entitled to a conveyance, and of course, could not confer that right on another—We have then to consider, how far the case is altered by the agreement of April and the Bond of May 1794, above alluded to: We conceive this transaction amounts to no more than this; that instead of vesting the Titles of the whole number of Lots sold, on the full completion of the agreement on the part of Morris & Greenleaf, by the payment of the whole money the erection of 140 houses, and the stipulating with purchasers for the erection of one house for every three Lots, purchased, or contracted for prior to January 1796, partial conveyances should be made, in consequence of partial payments, and that the Bond of Morris, Greenleaf and Nicholson should be considered as a payment for One thousand Lots, and accepted, as a security for the erection of One hundred and forty houses, in lieu of their actual erection; but it provides no security for the erection of houses, by purchasers, except that of inserting it as a condition in the Deed: The responsibility of Morris, Greenleaf & Nicholson is indeed mentioned as an alternative, and it is contended by Mr Law, that the option lies with them—It appears to us a very extraordinary construction, that in a case of such magnitude, men should be the judges of their own responsibility; indeed the impropriety of such construction cannot be more clearly exposed, than by considering the circumstances which occur in the present case, the situation in which those gentlemen were, at the time of the Contract, and that in which they now are. But, to do away all doubt, if doubts could arise, Morris, Greenleaf & Nicholson never rendered themselves responsible for the buidings to be erected by purchasers: their Bond relates, only, to the 140 houses to be erected under their own Contract; why their responsibility, with respect to buildings by purchasers is mentioned, we know not; the inaccuracy of the writing best accounts for it. We are now called upon to grant an unconditional Deed, in a case, where we have above shown, a purchaser could not be entitled to it, under the original Contract, and without the security contemplated by the second Contract—It was not the President’s intention (enclosure E) that the hold, which retaining the legal title to the property afforded, should be abandoned, without unquestionable security for the completion of the Contract,8 neither is it to be presumed that the Commissioners acted on different principles—Shall, then, the right of the public, to enforce the executio⟨n⟩ of the building contracts of purchasers (a principal consideration in the Sale to Morris & Greenleaf) to be done away by a forced construction? It is also contended, that Morris & Greenleaf, being permitted to dispose of any of their Lots, at their will, gives a right to dispose of them, in what manner they please; of course, to transfer them, in fee-simple, free from all conditions9—If that is a just construction, what need was there of further provisions in the agreement? this was all that could be granted, all they could ask; but we understand this clause differently, we consider it merely as a general declaration, that their right to sell should extend to all their City Lots, without restriction—But the terms on which the Commissioners are to convey to purchasers, are explained in the subsequent part of that agreement.
Mr Law states, that he has Morris, Greenleaf & Nicholson’s Bond for making to him an indefeasible estate, in fee-simple, in the property purchased of them and thence infers, that he is not bound to accept a title on any other terms10—It does not belong to us to pass opinions with respect to the transactions of those gentlemen, so far as they only are concerned, but we consider it as a very clear point, that Morris & Greenleaf having sold or contracted for the Sale of Lots, prior to January 1796, on the express condition that the purchaser should erect the buildings required by their contract with the Commissioners, of December 1793, although they may have inserted in their contract with the purchaser, covenants with which they cann⟨ot⟩ comply, and thereby subjected themselves to damages, at his instance, yet, the right of the public to the erection of the buildings, remains umimpaired—Mr Law alledges, that the four Years within which he is to erect the stipulated buildings, ought to be computed from the time he may receive an unconditional fee-Simple estate, in the property—and not from the date of his Contract—On this point, it is observable, that by the Bond of Morris, Greenleaf & Nicholson to Mr Law, the conveyance was to be made within ninety days from the date, vizt 3rd Decr 1794, and that Mr Law, after the expiration, of ninety days—vizt 10th March 1795, agreed to take a mortgage (which he yet holds) for securing the Title to him, at some future period;11 that title he may have whenever those buildings are erected: what ground, then, does this transaction afford for procrastination? We are sensible that a strict adherence to the agreement of April 1794 with respect to buildings, would be attended with inconveniencies similar to those early foreseen with respect to the original Contract, with Morris & Greenleaf, the whole property depending on the erection of the whole number of buildings; we therefore intimated to Mr Law, that we would agree to convey three Lots for every house which he should erect; we also consented to compute the four Years, in which, the buildings were to be erected, from the present tim⟨e.⟩ Indeed, we would chearfully agree to any arangements for the ease and accommodation of Mr Law, consistent with that security for the accomplishment of the main object, which the present State of things affords—those above stated, alone, have occurred to us, Mr Law does not approve of them, neither has he proposed any other—We consider private buildings of equal importance with the public; we therefore cannot consent to a measure, which, we conceive, will do away every obligation on purchasers to erect them—The papers enclosed, contain all the evidence in the case, and we submit the result to your determination.12 We are, Sir &c.
G. Scott
W. Thornton
A. White
LB, DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Letters Sent.
The commissioners’ book of proceedings for this date records a total of six enclosures to the present document: “Contract with Morris and [James] Greenleaf of 24 Decr 1793. Extract of Letter from Secretary of State to the Commissioners 19th Jany 1794. Copy of Entry on Commrs Minutes 24 April 1794. Copy Bond Morris Greenleaf and Nicholson 4 May 1794 to the late Commrs. Article of Agreemt 4 Decr 1794. Between Thos Law & Morris, Nicholson and Greenleaf. D[itt]o same parties dated 10 March 1795” (DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Proceedings, 1791–1802). For a description of the enclosures, see the notes below.
1. In December 1794, Thomas Law bought approximately 500 Federal City lots from partners James Greenleaf, Robert Morris, and John Nicholson. The 500 lots were among the more than 7,000 lots that the partners had purchased from the commissioners and several federal district proprietors. The partners’ debt to proprietors, coupled with their arrears in scheduled payments to the commissioners for the 6,000 lots they had purchased according to Morris and Greenleaf’s contract of 24 Dec. 1793, became obstacles to the conveyance of title to the lots that Law had purchased. After Morris and Nicholson assumed the commissioners’ bank debt in the fall of 1796, they promised Law the conveyances, with the condition that within four years, he erect a house on every third lot (see n.2 below; see also Commissioners for the District of Columbia to GW, 31 Oct. 1796 [first letter]). From late fall 1796 into February 1797, much of the correspondence between the commissioners and Morris, Nicholson, and Law centered on the complex issues raised in this document, namely the conveyance of titles to Law and the inclusion of a building clause in the deeds to the 500 lots.
In a letter to the commissioners of 12 Jan., Morris and Nicholson had mentioned both their “Contract with mr Law … for the sale to him of a number of lots in the City of washington,” and their “request to you [commissioners] to convey to him certain of our lots selected by us in part fulfilment of our contract with him” (DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Letters Received). The commissioners already had been requested in 1795 to “convey to Mr Law 500 Lots in fee to be accounted for by Morris and Greenleaf and to be secured by a Mortgage of an equal number of their Lots” (Daniel Carroll to GW, 10 May 1795, n.2). In March 1795, then-commissioners Daniel Carroll, Gustavus Scott, and William Thornton had refused to grant “Certificates in fee for” unpaid lots, and agreed to “convey to Mr Law or any other purchaser under Morris & Greenleaf on receiving payment for such Lots and good security for a compliance with their Contract [of 24 Dec. 1793]” (Commissioners to William Cranch, 5 March 1795, in DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Letters Sent).
For more on the contracts involving Morris, Greenleaf, Nicholson, and the commissioners, and for more on Law’s lot purchase, see the notes below. See also the correspondence between the commissioners, Morris, Nicholson, and Law from December 1796 through February 1797, in DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Letters Sent and DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Letters Received; Commissioners for the District of Columbia to GW, 23 Dec. 1793; GW to Daniel Carroll, 7 Jan. 1795, and n.2 to that document; , 117–22; , 252; , 460–501; and , 91–121.
2. “Enclosure A” has not been found. However, it undoubtedly refers to the D.C. commissioners’ (Thomas Johnson, David Stuart, and Daniel Carroll) contract with Greenleaf and Morris of 24 Dec. 1793, by which the partners purchased 6,000 Federal City lots. That contract required Morris to build seventy houses in seven years, starting from the date of the agreement. It further stipulated that “they [Morris and Greenleaf] will build and erect yearly … Twenty Brick Houses of two Stories each … until the number of” 140 houses “shall be built and erected. … and that neither the said Robert Morris and James Greenleaf or their Heirs will sell or contract for sale of any of the said Lots before” 1 Jan. 1796 “but upon the express condition that one such House … shall be built and erected on every third Lot at the least within four years after such sale or contract for sale” (DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Proceedings, 1791–1802; see also Daniel Carroll to GW, 15 Aug. 1795, and n.3 to that document, printed as an enclosure to Carroll to GW, 13 Sept. 1795). For a later 1794 agreement between the commissioners and the partners, see n.7 below.
The commissioners expected the building clause to apply to the approximately 500 lots that Law had purchased from Morris and Nicholson. On 5 Dec. 1796, the commissioners granted Law a “Certificate in fee” for specific lots and squares selected by Morris and Nicholson under the date of 19 Nov. 1796. The certificate evidently stated that the lots and squares were “subject also to the express Condition of erecting One brick house, two stories to cover” 1,200 square feet “for every three Lots of 5265” square feet (DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Proceedings, 1791–1802, under 19 Nov. and 5 Dec. 1796). The stipulations surrounding the building clause became controversial and caused a dispute. The requirement to build one house on every third lot had been included in Law’s 1794 contract with Greenleaf and the other partners (see n.1 above). Not having read that contract, Law incorrectly assumed that the building requirement did not apply to him. He demanded both a conveyance of title to his lots and an exemption from the building restriction, and threatened to refuse the release of the mortgage on Morris’s and Nicholson’s houses until his demand was met (see , 409–17). Law eventually demanded a fee simple title to the lots and insisted that the title be free from the provisions involving the building clause. The commissioners, however, conditioned the conveyance of title on both their receipt of arrears owed them by Morris and Nicholson, and compliance of their 1793 contract with the partners “as to the improvements on every third Lot” (Commissioners to William Cranch, 5 March 1795, in DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Letters Sent). For the background of this dispute and the eventual ruling of Attorney General Charles Lee on the matter, see GW to Commissioners for the District of Columbia, 3 March, and n.5 to that document.
3. The enclosed articles of agreement between Law, Morris, Nicholson, and Greenleaf, dated 4 Dec. 1794, have not been identified. However, on 3 Dec. 1794, Morris, Nicholson, and Greenleaf gave Law “their bond with the condition to convey to him” 2,400,000 square feet (the partners’ interest in sixteen squares) “in fee simple within 90 days from that date,” in return for £50,000. If Law became displeased with his purchase within a period of eighteen months, the agreement of 4 Dec. ordered a refund of his £50,000 payment, with interest. Law agreed “that if, within the same term he should finally determine to keep the land, he would, within 4 years from the time of such determination, cause to be built on every third lot, or in that proportion, one brick dwelling house, or other brick building, at least two stories high” (, 458; see also , 252). For a subsequent 1795 agreement between Law and Morris, Nicholson, and Greenleaf, see n.11 below.
4. In a letter of 24 Dec. 1796, Nicholson wrote the commissioners, enclosing “a letter … from Thomas Law Esqr. covering a law opinion of James Cooke Esqr. on the subject of the title to certain of the lots purchased by Mr Law as it reflects the condition for building inserted in the deed of conveyance from you to him” (DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Letters Received). Neither the enclosed letter from Law nor Cooke’s opinion has been identified, but the various legal opinions relayed to Law suggested that the deeds did not need to reflect the building clause (see , 417).
In order to convince the commissioners that he did “not decline receiving the Conditional Deed hastily or groundlessly,” Law wrote them on 27 Jan. 1797, enclosing the legal opinions of Philip Barton Key, John Mackall Gantt, John Thompson Mason, and Cooke. Key’s opinion reads: “Independant of the circumstance that there is no general warranty contained in it [the deed], it does not fulfill their [Morris, Nicholson, and Greenleaf’s] Contract, because the condition of improvement is contained within the … deed, where as you were by the Contract entitled to a conveyance in Fee … without Condition. If you failed in making the stipulated improvements, you become answerable in damages. …” Key added that Law’s “contract to build is a collateral undertaking with M[orris] N[icholson] & G[reenleaf] & does not warrant their departing from their Contract to convey you a fee Simple Estate with a Genl Warranty.” Gantt opined that the option of including the building clause in the deeds “rests with Morris and Greenleaf, and … not … with the Commissioners.” Mason shared the same opinion. An extract of Mason’s opinion, addressed to Nicholson, indicates that Law was owed “a clear & unconditional Conveyance & Titles.” Cooke’s opinion has not been identified (all in DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Letters Received). For Key’s other legal opinion on this matter, which Nicholson sent the commissioners with a letter of 16 Jan., see DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Letters Received.
Nicholson also had sought legal opinions. In a letter of 20 Dec. 1796, Nicholson wrote Gantt, sending him the commissioners’ “deed to Thos Law [probably that of 5 Dec. 1796],” and inquiring “whether his [Law’s] failure to build All or any of the houses therein required … would work a forfeiture of his right in the lots … or whether he would in the case of his failure to build be liable only for such damages as a Jury might Award he ought to pay.” Gantt informed Nicholson “that a failure to build will not work a forfeiture of the estate vested in Thos Law … by the Certificate” (DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Letters Received).
In a letter of 12 Jan. 1797 to the commissioners, Morris and Nicholson mentioned the “Certificate” of 5 Dec. 1796, which the commissioners had granted to Law “to convey to him certain of our lots selected by us.” Law declined “receiving it” due to the building clause and claimed that his agreement with Morris and Nicholson did “not warrant any such condition to be attatched to the titles he is to receive” (DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Letters Received).
Morris and Nicholson enclosed a document signed by Gantt, dated 31 Dec. 1796, which reads: “I am of opinion that a failure to improve according to the Terms … declared by the President of the United States will not work a forfeiture of the Estate vested in Mr Law by the Certificate. As to the remaining part of this Quere—respecting the building on every third Lot … The Deed in Trust from the proprietors is the foundation of the Commrs right under the order of the President to sell—And the Authority of the Trustees to convey to purchasers—The Certificate of the Commrs … operates as a conveyance from the Trustees … If then the Commrs have annexed conditions or limitations to their sales not authorised by the Presidents order to sell, or if the President has ordered sales upon conditions not sanctioned by the deeds in trust in either case such conditions & limitations are not obligatory.” Gantt added: “the condition to improve within 4 years as mentioned in the certificate to mr Law cannot if the buildings are not erected in time, defeat the estate because there was no power to create such condition and because The Trustees legal estate in the lots is destroyed by the conveyance in fee to Mr Law & there is no persons who can enter upon the Lots to divest the estate.” Gantt concluded the document with the following opinion: “… the agreement with Mr Law & Nicholson & Morris could be decreed to be specifically executed in a Court of Equity—or that damages for the breach of it might be recovered in a Court of common law at the option of Messrs M. & N.—But I do not think that the Commrs could be considered as parties to that agreement” (Gantt’s opinion given under 31 Dec. 1796, in DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Letters Received).
5. GW later solicited the opinion of Attorney General Charles Lee on the subject of Law’s lot titles and the building clause (see GW to the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, 3 March, and n.5).
6. In an agreement with Greenleaf of 23 Sept. 1793, the commissioners had sold him 3,000 lots at £25 Maryland currency per lot. In their revised contract with Morris and Greenleaf of 24 Dec. 1793, the commissioners sold them 6,000 lots and charged £35 per lot. Greenleaf made an arrangement with Morris that required both to pay £30 per lot (DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Proceedings, 1791–1802; see also , 193).
7. Agreement “C” refers to the minutes of the commissioners’ proceedings for 24 April 1794. The enclosed copy has not been identified, but the minutes show that the commissioners outlined the means to settle their “contract” of 24 Dec. 1793 with Morris and Greenleaf. According to the minutes, the commissioners directed the creation of an account between them and Morris and Greenleaf, “charging the Lots which may … be conveyed to them … and giving credit for the payments as made.” The commissioners also agreed to “grant a Certificate or Deed in Fee, for the public Lots contracted for” by Morris and Greenleaf, and give “Certificates or Deeds in Fee, to such persons as they may … require, acknowledging the payment … and subjoining thereto the Condition of improvement … according to the Contract” of Morris and Greenleaf. The commissioners agreed to the “Condition” being “inserted in the Certificate; or in the responsibility of Morris, Greenleaf and Nicholson … for the improvement of every third Lot sold by them before” 1 Jan. 1796 (DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Proceedings, 1791–1802).
“Bond D” refers to an enclosed copy of a bond dated 4 May 1794, executed by Greenleaf, Morris, and Nicholson. That bond has not been identified. However, a bond dated 3 May 1794 states that the partners “are firmly bound to Thomas Johnson, David Stuart and Daniel Carroll Commissioners” in $900,000 “to be paid to the said Commissioners or their Successors to which payment well and truly to be made and done we bind ourselves and each of us. …” This “Obligation” would become “void” upon Morris and Greenleaf’s payment to the commissioners of “the Sum of eighty thousand Spanish Dollars,” and their erection of 140 houses in a period of seven years (commissioners’ book of proceedings under 5 Dec. 1794, in DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Proceedings, 1791–1802).
8. Enclosure “E” is an extract of a letter that then-Secretary of State Edmund Randolph wrote the commissioners on 19 Jan. 1794. That letter was a reply to their letter to GW of 23 Dec. 1793, in which the commissioners had solicited GW’s opinion about giving Greenleaf and Morris legal title to the 6,000 lots that they had purchased. Randolph’s letter, written from Philadelphia, reads in part: “He [GW] cannot suffer himself to doubt for a moment the ability of Messrs Morris and Greenleaf, ⟨su⟩pported by such securities, as you could req⟨uire⟩ to fulfil the contract, into which they have entered with you. But in so important a trust, as the amount of the purchase, he does not conceive himself authorized, to approve a departure from the common mode of retaining the legal title, until payment. No contingency can effect the lots, as long as that title is retained. At the same time it is his wish, that every facility, short of abandoning your hold, should be afforded to the objects, which those gentlemen have in view” (DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Letters Received).
9. For the definition of a fee-simple estate, see GW to John Sinclair, 11 Dec. 1796, and n.17.
10. In a letter to the commissioners of 24 Jan. 1797, written from Washington, D.C., Law wrote: “Altho’ you were pleased to grant me a Fee Simple for” over 700,000 “Square feet with[ou]t any Condition yet I am now tendered a Deed with an Express Condition. … I trust Gentlemen that you do not mean to cancel the former Deed in Fee Simple as I have acted upon it. I will obliged by your informing me whether you have not always hitherto granted fee Simples witht Condition to purchasers from Messrs Morris & Nicholson & Greenleaf… I will be obliged by your informing me whether” the partners “have not engaged to give me a fee Simple … without a Condition (else I should not have purchased).” Law ended the letter by requesting a deed without the “Conditions of building” (DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Letters Received). On 2 Feb., Law again wrote the commissioners from Washington, D.C.: “… I trust that my confidence in all parties has been uniformly evinced by me first by my paying before I received Conveyances & next by my building before I received a Title.” Law alluded to a “refusal of that unconditional Title which hitherto you have been invariably accustomed to Grant … & which all the Learned in the law … aver that you are justified in granting & which alone I should be justified in receiving.” Law complained about “a detention of” his titles to his lots and asked for action on the matter (DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Letters Received).
11. The commissioners enclosed an agreement between Law and the partners (Morris, Nicholson, and Greenleaf), dated 10 March 1795, which has not been found. The agreement evidently allowed Law “to have his selection under his contract of the 4th of December last, in all squares in which the said Morris and Greenleaf have a right of selection [according to their contract with the commissioners of 24 Dec. 1793], excepting water property, and excepting such squares as are now appropriated, or respecting which the said Morris, Nicholson and Greenleaf have made arrangements.” In the same agreement, the partners consented “to mortgage to Law other squares and lots which were then in their possession, until they could give him a good title to such property as he might select.” Law agreed to make selections by squares instead of by lots, “and stipulated that the houses which he was to build, should be such houses as Morris and Greenleaf were obliged to build by contract with the commissioners.” Law later claimed that he never received the land conveyances “with a condition to build,” and that the “building contract” was independent “of the contract to convey the land” (, 458–60). For the 4 Sept. 1795 mortgage by which Law received almost 2,000,000 square feet of land, see , 21–22.
12. The commissioners wrote Law on 7 Feb. that they would convey “an unconditional fee, if directed by the Executive.” In another letter of the same date, the commissioners informed Law: “The Subject of buildings by purchasers under Morris & Greenleaf’s contract, prior to 1st January 1796, we consider as one of the utmost importance to the City; we have transmitted our opinion to the President, and shall no doubt, soon receive his directions. … If the President should be of opinion with you, your whole property will instantly be conveyed; if he should think with us, we should be willing to come to any arrangements consistent with the Interest of the City, to enable you to obtain either partial or total conveyances” (both DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Letters Sent).
GW sought to resolve the dispute involving Law when he wrote the commissioners on 3 March.