Treasury Department, Philadelphia, September 1796. Reports in detail about the “strict enquiry” directed by GW into charges laid by William Jackson, surveyor and revenue inspector for the port of Philadelphia, against Sharp Delany, the Philadelphia customs collector. It was charged that Delany had taken Robert Hopkins, one of the inspectors of the port,1 from his duties “on an excursion into the Country” on several occasions, especially when business was pressing; that when Jackson suspended Hopkins for being absent, Delany reinstated him without any hearing; and that Delany had paid Hopkins out of U.S. accounts for the times during which Hopkins and Delany were absent from Pennsylvania.

Wolcott encloses various unidentified documents gathered during the investigation that he had assigned to the comptroller of the treasury.2 After summarizing the duties of the various customs officials, Wolcott notes: “Though doubts may be entertained whether the strict Letter of the Law, wd in any case warrant a payment to an Inspector for any day on which some service was not actually performed; Yet a different practice consistent as it is believed with equity, with the spirit of the Law, and the good of the service; has governed.”3 In regard to large ports, Wolcott noted: “for the purpose of securing the services of faithful and competent characters … it has been a practice to employ such a number as during the busy seasons of the year may be able, with their best … exertions to transact the business and this number is considered as constantly retained while they devote their attention exclusively to their duties.” He added that “extra exertions in one Season” would compensate “for relaxations in another.” The proportion of expenses to the duties collected for the district of Pennsylvania compares favorably with that for New London, Conn., where no complaint is made.

In regard to the specific charges, Wolcott concludes that no injury resulted from Hopkins’s absence; that the surveyor had no power to suspend him; that “there does not appear ground to declare that the public interest has suffered” from the other absences of Delany and Hopkins; and that, in regard to pay, “it has been the usual practice, when an Inspector was sick or wished to be absent for a short time to engage some other Inspector, to exert himself to have the duty of the sick or absent person performed, and that in such case pay has been allowed.”

Thus, Wolcott notes, “there is no sufficient ground whereon to establish a charge of fraud or wilful neglect of duty against either the Collector or Inspector Hopkins.” However, Wolcott suggests the collector be subject to some “admonition.” First, Delany failed to consult with the surveyor before granting leave to Hopkins and was “less circumspect in his demeanour towards the former and present Surveyor than was proper” and “has really given just cause for discontent.” Second, Delany’s “repeated excursions” with Hopkins have given “indications of intimacy and partiality, which have generated discontents among the Officers in some degree injurious to the public service.” This “as been certainly indiscreet, and such ought not to have been publickly manifested.” Finally, Wolcott recommends that Delany “ought to be informed that great care is necessary to prevent abuses; and that compensation ought not therefore to be made except when sickness is apparent, or for such short and occasional absences as urgent business may require and during which the public business can and shall be faithfully and effectually performed by a substitute.”