1. The commissioners enclosed their memorial to Congress of this date on the subject of a national university. The memorial reads: “That the institution of a national university within the United States has been the subject of much conversation; that all men seem to agree in the utility of the measure, but that no effectual means have hitherto been proposed to accomplish it.” The commissioners added that “the President has appropriated nineteen acres one rood and twenty-one perches, part of the land so ceded, for the site of a national university. That he has … declared to them his intention to grant, in perpetuity, fifty shares in the navigation of the Potomac river … that the money actually paid on those fifty shares is five thousand pounds sterling.” The commissioners identified key benefits to be gained from a national university. Such an institution would help preserve American political principles among its students, eliminate the expense of studying abroad, and diminish “local prejudices.” The memorial concludes: “Whether the flames of war shall long continue to rage … or whether they shall be extinguished by a speedy peace, the learned and the wealthy in those unfortunate regions will seek an asylum from future oppressions in our more happy country; many of whom will, no doubt, be among the foremost to promote those useful arts” (ASP description begins Walter Lowrie et al., eds. American State Papers. Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States. 38 vols. Washington, D.C., Gales and Seaton, 1832–61. description ends , Miscellaneous, 1:153–54). GW had requested documents on the subject of a national university for his annual message to Congress, in which he advocated for the establishment of such an institution (see GW to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, 7 Dec.). GW had first addressed Congress about a national university and its relation to the patronage of science and literature in his annual message of 8 Jan. 1790. On 18 Nov. 1796, D.C. commissioner William Thornton had written a draft of the memorial and addressed it to the “President of the United States,” though it likely was never sent to GW. The draft, containing the initials of the three commissioners, is in DLC: William Thornton Papers. A printed version is in Harris, William Thornton Papers description begins C. M. Harris, ed. Papers of William Thornton: Volume One, 1781-1802. Charlottesville, Va., 1995. description ends , 402–4.

On 2 Dec., D.C. commissioner Alexander White wrote Virginia congressman James Madison from Washington, D.C.: “The proposed measures for the establishment of a National University which I took the liberty of mentioning as you passed through this City … have assumed a form differrent from what they bore at either of those periods. … The Commissioners have forwarded to the President a Memorial addressed to Congress for him to use as he may judge expedient. The utility of a National University seems generally admitted; and that it ought to be established at the Seat of the General Goverment will hardly be contested” (Madison Papers, Congressional Series description begins William T. Hutchinson et al., eds. The Papers of James Madison, Congressional Series. 17 vols. Chicago and Charlottesville, Va., 1962–91. description ends , 16:421–22). On 12 Dec., Madison laid the commissioners’ 21 Nov. memorial before the U.S. House of Representatives. On 26 and 27 Dec., a congressional committee considered both the memorial and GW’s annual message recommending the university. Party differences postponed further debate, and the national university as proposed by GW was never realized (see Journal of the House description begins The Journal of the House of Representatives: George Washington Administration 1789–1797. Edited by Martin P. Claussen. 9 vols. Wilmington, Del., 1977. description ends , 9:21, 54, 56–57; and Madison Papers, Congressional Series description begins William T. Hutchinson et al., eds. The Papers of James Madison, Congressional Series. 17 vols. Chicago and Charlottesville, Va., 1962–91. description ends , 16:425–26).

2. In their memorial to Congress of 21 Nov., the D.C. commissioners proposed that Congress enact a “law authorizing proper persons to receive pecuniary donations and to hold estates, real and personal, which may be granted by deed, or devised by last will and testament, for the use of the intended establishment [national university], with proper regulations for securing the due application of the moneys paid” (ASP description begins Walter Lowrie et al., eds. American State Papers. Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States. 38 vols. Washington, D.C., Gales and Seaton, 1832–61. description ends , Miscellaneous, 1:153). No such law was passed.

3. The following Thursday was 24 November.

Robert Morris and John Nicholson had formulated a plan to assume the commissioners’ debt in the Bank of Columbia (see Gustavus Scott to GW, 14 Oct., and n.2 to that document; see also Commissioners for the District of Columbia to GW, 31 Oct. [first letter], and n.3).

4. On 30 Nov., the commissioners wrote Treasury Secretary Oliver Wolcott, Jr., that they were transmitting “a particular account of the receipts and expenditures of all monies intrusted to us since the 17th of May, last,” the day they received the 6 May 1796 congressional “act authorising a Loan for the use of the City of Washington.” The commissioners also sent Wolcott the present state of public buildings, which “exhibit … the progress made in carrying on those buildings,” as well as “a statement of the funds under our administration, and an account of the Sales of Lots” (DNA: RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Letters Sent; for the congressional act, see 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 461). On 29 Dec., a copy of the commissioners’ letter to Wolcott was laid before the U.S. House of Representatives, along with the “state of the business” in the Federal City and “sundry documents … exhibiting a view of the receipts and expenditures” and of the funds “under their administration” from 17 May to 18 Nov. 1796 (Journal of the House description begins The Journal of the House of Representatives: George Washington Administration 1789–1797. Edited by Martin P. Claussen. 9 vols. Wilmington, Del., 1977. description ends , 9:63). The commissioners’ account of receipts and expenditures and the other documents have not been identified.

5. For GW’s order authorizing the commissioners to secure a loan from the state of Maryland, see GW to the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, this date; see also the commissioners’ second letter to GW of 31 Oct., and n.2 to that document.

6. The letter to the commissioners from George Walker, merchant and landholder in the federal district, dated 16 Nov., reads: “This forenoon I reced notice … that you would divide Square No. 1065 tomorrow morning by alternate lots.

“Previous to Such a rash undertaking, you will please to attend to the following facts—When last fall we divided the Squares in which I am alone interested as original proprietor, I observed in you an uncommon avidity to grasp at the largest and best part of my property. When we had divided all my Squares of consequence, except No. 1065, I discovered that the public had got 125.974¾ Square foot more than they were entitled to—and of the best part of my property.” After showing a certificate of survey to the commissioners, Walker claimed that commissioner Gustavus Scott had promised “with the consent of Mr Thornton, that the balance” due him “Should be allowed in Square No. 1065.” Walker said he would swear to that in “any Court of Law or Equity in the United States.” Walker added: “Considering in the faithful performance of this promise, I proceeded to divide and to Sub-divide, all the Squares in which I was partly interested lying along the Southwest Side of my property in the City, which is by far the most valuable I possess.” He warned that any further unauthorized division of his property would prompt him to bring a lawsuit “in Chancery” against the commissioners in order to force them to have his property divided equally “both in regard to quantity and quality,” and to lay out “the whole” of his ground “into building Lots.” Walker criticized the commissioners’ use of public funds before he gave one final warning: “As Soon as you attempt a Division of Square No. 1065 without my consent, the inclosed Advertisemen[t] Shall appear in the Baltimore and Philada Newspapers.” A postscript to Walker’s letter reads: “Mr [John] Nicholson Says he told you that he would not claim any of Square 1065 your conduct therefore … must proceed from Malice Rancour and Mischief” (DNA, RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Letters Received, 1791–1802).

A copy of the advertisement that Walker threatened to publish in newspapers, headed “A Caution to the Public,” reads: “Whereas the Commissioners of the Federal Buildings in Washington City, have for private purposes, been in the practice of conveying property in that City, to which they or the public had no title—thereby producing an immense waste of the funds for the public buildings and great emolument to those concerned—And being informed from good Authority, that they intend to convey Some of my property, to which they have no title; This is therefore to forewarn all those concerned, that the public have no title to any part of Square No. 1065 in Washington City, and that any conveyance the Commissioners may pretend to give, to any part of that Square, will be rendered null and void by the real proprietor” (DNA, RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Letters Received, 1791–1802). This advertisement appeared in The Washington Gazette for 16–19 Nov. 1796. In a statement dated 21 Nov., the commissioners labeled Walker’s charges against them as “false” and “unfounded.” They considered suing Walker for libel (DNA, RG 42, Records of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Letters Received, 1791–1802). Walker’s accusations initiated a spirited correspondence between him and the commissioners, which appeared in the Washington Gazette for 19, 23, and 26–30 Nov. 1796 (see 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 , 1:297; see also Arnebeck, Through a Fiery Trial description begins Bob Arnebeck. Through a Fiery Trial: Building Washington, 1790–1800. Lanham, Md., and London, 1991. description ends , 404–5; and Clark, Greenleaf and Law description begins Allen C. Clark. Greenleaf and Law in the Federal City. Washington, D.C., 1901. description ends , 156–62). Walker later wrote GW on the matter (see his letter to GW, 24 Jan. 1797).

Square 1065 was located near the Eastern Branch, at the intersection of Georgia and Pennsylvania avenues and close to Kentucky Avenue. For more on the division of Walker’s lot in November 1796, see Walker to GW, 24 Jan. 1797, and n.12. For the agreement that called for the division of lots (not appropriated for public buildings) between the proprietors and the commissioners, see Commissioners for the District of Columbia to GW, 1 Oct. (first letter), and the source note to that document.