Читать книгу Complete Works - Hamilton Alexander - Страница 10

Table of Contents

Hamilton's choice of a profession was made even before the end of the war, for in his well-known letter to General Schuyler, written February 18, 1781, in which he recounted his quarrel with Washington and his future prospects, he said: "If a handsome command in the campaign in the light infantry should offer itself, I shall balance between this and the artillery. My situation in the latter would be more solid and permanent, but as I hope the war will not last long enough to make it progressive, this consideration has less force. A command for the campaign would leave me the winter to prosecute my studies relative to my future career in life." Although it has been stated that after he went to Albany to prepare himself, in 1782, he was admitted to the bar after less than five months' study, there are those who believe that he had, for many years, been accumulating a knowledge of the law, for he could not have accomplished what he did in so short a space of time. Certainly the early literary work in which he engaged, which was called forth by Seabuty's Tory pamphlets, indicated a trained and logical mind. Estabrook, who has written an exceedingly interesting paper, said that Hamilton not only argued like a lawyer, but displayed the knowledge and habits of a lawyer, even as far back as 1774; and his two papers to which reference has been made, namely, "A Full Vindication," and "The Farmer Refuted," bore intrinsic evidences of a familiarity with the law and the authorities of the time, and a capacity for logical deduction quite beyond his years.

While his genius was everywhere apparent, the trend of his mind was always analytical, and-is systematic habits of thought and argument served him in good stead, not only in his chosen calling, but later in the conduct of public affairs. Certainly the observations of De Tocqueville as to the value of legal training as the requirement of a statesman had, in this case, ample proof and illustration. He entered into his new calling with enthusiasm, and although it did not receive his undivided attention, for he was, at the same time, devoting his energies to the construction of the American Constitution, he no doubt had enough lucrative work to do when he left Albany and opened his office at No. 57 Wall Street.

About this time he wrote to Lafayette:

Albany, November 3, 1782.

I have been employed for the last ten months in rocking the cradle and studying the art of fieecing my neighbors. I am now a grave counsellor-at-law, and shall soon be a grave member of Congress. The Legislature, at their last session, took it into their heads to name me, pretty unanimously, as one of their delegates.

I am going to throw away a few months more in public life, and then retire a simple citizen and good paterfamilias. I set out for Philadelphia in a few days. You see the disposition I am in. You are condemned to run the race of ambition all your life. I am already tired of the career, and dare to leave it.

With his partner, Balthazar De Heart, his services were now everywhere in demand. Naturally, many of his cases were connected with the claims of those people who had suffered by the war, and whose property had been taken from them by order of Governor Tryon and other Tories. Among these were claims for damages arising from the seizure of cattle on Long Island, and actions growing out of the trespass law. Again we find that he appeared as counsel in the will cases of Dr. Peter Middleton, Philip Livingston, and Henry Beekman.

Suits for reprisal and claims for damages engaged his attention, and the papers he left, throw much light upon matters connected with the American Revolution, and the unsettled period at its conclusion. It would appear that in those days petty political officers were not above recourse to extortion and graft, which at times since, has distinguished the municipal affairs of the city of New York. We find that during the early part of the Revolution, when the statue of George III was torn down and demolished, and the types of Printer Rivington distributed and condemned for the purpose of making bullets, there was a general levy upon the citizens of New York for the lead in the window-sashes throughout the city for the same purpose, and that subsequently, when restitution was demanded for this form of contribution, it was the custom for the representative of the auditor to mulct the complainant nine shillings for a certificate showing the validity of the claim. One Peter R. Fell employed Hamilton as his counsel to prepare a memorial to the Assembly of the State of New York, in which he urged his grievances. In this he stated that he was one of those from whose windows leads were taken by order of the Convention at the commencement of the late war; that soon after the last sitting of the legislature it was learned that one Daniel Dunscomb was ordered to render an account to the auditor of the leads so taken; that Fell requested Dunscomb to give a certificate to this effect, but the latter exacted nine shillings therefor from the messenger, although he, Dunscomb, had been allowed twenty pounds by the auditor as full compensation for his services. He naturally complained that "as leads were taken from one thousand houses in the city, the exaction of nine shillings is a species of petty extortion, highly censurable, and unbecoming the publick confidence."

The members of the rich Livingston family, whose holdings of land were enormous, were much in the courts, and when Robert, the first proprietor of the lordship or manor, died, his sons Robert, Philip, and Gilbert indulged in acrimonious litigation which was carried on for a few years. An action brought by Philip against his neighbor Robert, the Chancellor, was one of the most important, and John Morin Scott was the attorney of record, and Hamilton was retained as counsel. This was on April 24, 1783, and concerned the establishment of a grist-mill on the stream known as Roeloff Jansen Kill, which emptied into the Hudson River. Another case was that of Livingston vs. Hoffman, for trespass, in which Hamilton appeared for the defence. These cases in the early days were usually ill-founded, and as a rule advantage was taken of the fact that the party of one side or the other had taken sides with the enemy and forfeited his rights.

The feeling against the Tories who had taken possession of the houses of the patriots who were obliged to flee during the occupation of New York by the British, was so intense as to lead to the passage of the celebrated trespass law, which was framed in the interests of the patriots, but was in direct conflict with the provisions of the treaty made with Great Britain, which expressly provided for the rights of Tories after the declaration of peace. Although a wave of intolerance swept over the State, and the persecution of those who had not taken active sides with the rebellious colonists was general, Hamilton, in 1783, appeared in behalf of a Tory tenant named Waddington, who had been sued by a Mrs. Elizabeth Rutgers, thereby making himself exceedingly unpopular. Considerable sympathy was felt for the plaintiff in this case, who was supposed to be a poor and helpless widow, but an inspection of the papers would go to show that she could drive a sharp bargain, and the sympathy extended to her was certainly misplaced.

In 1778 the premises, which consisted of a brewery and malt-house in Maiden Lane, were rented to Benjamin Waddington & Co., who found them in very bad order, "and stripped of everything of any value except an old Copper, two old Pumps and a leaden Cistern full of holes. Before the new tenant could begin to brew; £700 were spent in repairs. From the 1st of May, 1780, to the 1st of May, 1783, the Waddingtons had paid a rent of £150 per annum for the same to John Smyth, Esq., a Tory, in consequence of an order from General Robertson, the British commander.

On the 20th of June, 1783, after the return of the American forces they received an order from General Birch, the commandant of the city, to pay the rent from the 1st of May preceding to the son of Mrs. Rutgers. After this the troubles of the Waddingtons began. They were quite ready to pay her, but her representative demanded back rent, and would not adjust matters in any other way, or take into account the improvements made by the tenants. The demands of Mrs. Rutgers finally became so exorbitant that Waddington & Co. refused to pay at all, and to add to their difficulties the brew-house was, about this time, burned to the ground, entailing upon them a loss of £4,ooo. At the time of the fire they were not in possession of the premises, having surrendered the key to the owner. It was then that the Widow Rutgers found many friends and sympathizers who urged her to avail herself of the new law, and she brought a suit, engaging John Laurance as her lawyer, and an action was brought in the mayor's court.

I am in possession of Hamilton's original argument in this proceeding, which comprises nineteen pages of closely written foolscap, and in which we find everywhere evidenced much labor and thought. Although this brief has been elsewhere quoted, reference may be made to his contention that this was a national and not a local issue, and that the recent law then passed by the State of New York could have no force against the law of the nation, which was common law; in other words, the State of New York had no common law of nations. In fact, it was the strongest plea for Federalism that came from him in the whole course of his career, for he insisted that the law of each State must adopt the laws of Congress, and that though in relation to its own citizens local laws might govern, yet in relation to foreigners those of the United States must prevail. "It must be conceded that the legislature of one State cannot repeal the law of the United States—all must be construed to stand together."

It was only after a vigorous fight, in the face of general opposition and disorderly expressions of public sympathy, that Hamilton convinced the judges by his incontrovertible demonstration of the law itself, that he was in the right, when they rendered a judgment in his favor.

Not only after this was he besieged by many clients with similar cases, but he appeared in behalf of patriot house-holders who had been imposed upon by tenants who had improperly taken advantage of the trespass law.

One of these cases was that of Alexander McDougall vs. Catharine Leonard, the husband of the latter being a notorious Tory who had taken up arms with the British and had gone to Newburg, where he stayed until the end of the war. McDougall, it will be remembered, was, with Isaac Sears, John Morin Scott, and others, one of the original "Sons of Liberty," who precipitated the Revolution in New York City by the destruction of British property and resistance to the tax law. McDougall afterward became a brigadier-general in the American forces.

Mrs. Leonard appears to have been remiss in the payment of her rent for the premises 75 Beekman Street, even after the conclusion of the Revolution, and in a letter to her McDougall says: "I do not wish to have any dispute with a woman, or I should not have had the Forbearance to you which I have exercised, nor taken the trouble of writing this.—I now expect to have the Ballance from you by Thursday, two o'Clocke, or I shall be under the disagreeable Necessity of Sending for it by Another."

In the early part of Hamilton's career his associates at the bar were his intimate friends, and these included Brockholst Livingston, the son of the Governor of New Jersey and an early schoolmate at the academy at Elizabeth town, Richard Harrison, Robert Troup, Colonel Varick, Burr, and Laurance. An inspection of the many musty law papers that have come into the writer's possession suggests the great variety of the forms of action in which he was engaged, as in those days there was no specialization, and Hamilton appeared as often in the mayor's court as in the higher ones of the State, and did both civil and criminal work. He even tried a rape case, as well as others for assault and murder, but his fondness was, evidently, for civil proceedings.

FAC-SIMILE OF HAMILTON'S BRIEF IN THE TRESPASS CASE

His clients were not always reasonable or patient, although the unreasonable ones were in the minority. One of the latter appears to have been Stephen Delancey, the son of James, who, in the language of the day, was a Tory and so "attainted" that his property was seized by the Americans. Stephen owned a large tract of land in Westchester County, and had many tenants who gave him a great deal of trouble, among them the "Delivans," and "Baileys," for whom he engaged Hamilton to issue writs. Impatient at the latter's alleged neglect of his affairs and supposed inaction he wrote from Scarsdale, New York, September 12, 1785: "I could wait no longer in New York at an expense to see you as you was gone to Court on Thursday morning and when to see you I knew not, if I had stayed I have to lay out about 30 on this Journey and I find money so scarce to be had, that I must insist on y^e moneys being Refunded to me. I beg you to Inform me what method I am to pursue with my wicked tenants in Distraining for Rent of them. "

Another gentleman, who had repeatedly urged Hamilton to collect a certain indebtedness for him, remarked that "Mr. W -has certainly received money, but what sum, is in the womb of Time to Discover."

Others were more considerate and appreciative of Hamilton's busy life, and the limited amount of time at his disposal.

J. Campbell wrote (1786): "May I hope forgiveness for encroaching on your goodness. It is that Goodness which is the Source of all the trouble I have given you, and extended to me the flatering hopes of Acess to your future Advice and Assistance, uppon that I plead for the honour of seeing you in the Course of this day.

A consideration of the various appeals to him shows how greatly his opinion was respected. Some of them are very naive and simple, but all attest the confidence of the writers who desired his professional help at the time.

Nathaniel Ruggles wrote, in 1795: "I would Inform you that I have Business of Consequence Likely to Commence & Wish you to engage for Me as my Attorney in A Case of Fraud which is much Approbated in my Favour by the Principle gentlemen of this Place. I Have not Any Fee at Present to Advance Though I have Property. Sir, I Humbly Request You would not take A Fee Against me. "George Pollock sought to retain him in January, 1795, in another case. Hamilton's endorsement on the paper is as follows: "I am not sure that I could with propriety. Will decide in June. Will not be concerned against him." Richard Piatt, in April 26, 1796, wrote to him about an impending case and said: "The amount of the Debt is too triffling to ask any interposition of you as Counsel on the Defendant's side, but the Consequences of its posible result may involve a Question of the first magnitude to all persons in future subject to prosecution for Debt when and where the hearts of Creditors (as is well known to be too frequently the case) are instigated by the Devil. Thus situated and well knowing there is a susceptibility for the Verdict of Renown, it is, that I wish your Union with Troup & Brock-hoist to-morrow. They will possess you with the necessary documents on application and I have no doubt but Judgement of the Bench will be of that sort which Lord Mansfield would not blush to own."

Some of his clients languished in the debtors' prison. One, Henry A. Williams, wrote from there, March 31, 1798, to Hamilton: "I am again necessitated to write you from this gloomy place (viz.—the gaol) where a trifling sum compared to the amount of Schenck's mortgage holds me." When it was possible quickly to apprehend a delinquent debtor, many important people found their way to the Bridewell prison. William Duer, whose financial irregular-ides were of a gigantic nature, was there held for some time; and Earle, the artist, who was also imprisoned for debt, painted Mrs. Hamilton's portrait, and in this way earned enough to obtain his freedom.

Arrest and imprisonment for debt were general, and some of his clients kept him fully informed of their debtors who were at large, in more or less pressing and vindictive communications. One gentleman, whose chance presence here was awaited with interest and anxiety, was Pierpont Edwards of New Haven, who studiously kept out of the State.

The delicacy of Hamilton's professional relations must have been, at times, great indeed, for upon one occasion he appeared for Mrs. Phoebe Ward, who, in petitioning Governor Qinton and the General Assembly, sought to gain her point by calling attention to the shortcomings of her husband, who was evidently a Tory. She presented her case in the following language: "Whereas I, Phoebe Ward, wife of Edward Ward, do Humbly beg Leave to Address your Honours with this my Petition, Humbly beging Leave to Acquaint your Honours with the true Situation of Matters. My Husband, Edward Ward, it was not supos'd he Altogether Condescended into Political Sentiments with the Country in General, therefore I hope your Honours will now Consider that a Wife cannot alter Principles or Dictate a Husband so far as to change his present conduct in Matters of so great Moment and of so great Importance as this present or past Revolution."

The Rev. Jacob F. Hardenbergh was one of the striking figures of the Revolution and known as an energetic patriot, and by many was called the "fighting parson." At a time when so much unsettlement existed regarding the boundary lines of property, actions for trespass, as has been said, were much more common than they have ever been since. The son of Mr. Hardenbergh wrote to "Col. Hamilton, Col. Troup, and Col. Harison," from Raritan, July 14, 1785

By order of my Father I wrote to you a few Days ago, beging of you, and the other Gentlemen imployed for him, not to be detained against him in any Suit, at least until he may have had an opportunity of Consulting upon the Subject with them. Since that he has wanted me to write to his Attorney on the Subject of the late Verdict against him. That Verdict Creates him uneasiness. He suspects undue Influence upon, at least, one or another of the leading Persons among the Jury. Also some abominable fraud in that Marked Stone in a certain line, &c. The night before I came away, he was informed that a certain man should have said, If he had not been Subpoenaed on the other side, he could have evidenced when the letters were put on that Stone, and who did it, &c. He also heard that Mr. Gale should have been Invited and dined with one of the Principle Inhabitants of the Town, That he was to take a ride out of Town. He had not yet had an opportunity to examin into the ground of these Reports when I left home. This carresing of the Jury by the plaintifes should have been after the commencement of the court. The old gentleman seemed Determined, to try further, if there is any Prospect of obtaining what he believes to be his just right. I therefore wish the Gentlemen who have faithfully served him in this cause would let him know their candid opinion about that Matter, they are now acquainted with the Matters pro & con. If they judge his cause not supportable by proper evidence, to dissuade him from any farther prosecution. If the contrary, to send him their opinion about the matter of farther prosecution. He seems inclined to attempt setting aside this Verdict, and risk a new tryal.

When Hamilton came to New York he was immediately the recipient of many offers of help; and there were as well, although he had just entered upon the practice of his profession, many applications from fathers and others who wished him to receive their sons into his office as pupils. On June 29, 1784, William Hull wrote from Newton, Mass., proposing that he should take Charles Jackson for instruction, and give him employment. Charles was the son of General Michael Jackson, and was "himself an Official at the Close of the War, and as soon as Peace took place, applied himself to study. Last year he graduated at Harvard College, since which as I before observed he has read law with me."

In Hamilton's books it is stated that Pierre V. Van Cortlandt became a clerk in February, 1784, and $150 was paid for his tuition. In May of the same year, Jacob A. LeRoy commenced his clerkship, and his father paid $150. The following note Is appended in Hamilton's handwriting: "Mr. LeRoy did not continue his Clerkship, so the money was refunded." In February Dirk Ten Broeck also commenced his "clerkship" and Hamilton received $150 from him.

1786 Oct. I (Samuel Broome) To this sum due for fee with your son a clerk $150.

" Oct I This day Mr. S. Broome, Junior entered the office as Clerk and this 1st of May absented himself to return 1789.

On July 20,1789, John Adams paid $20 for his son, who became a clerk. This was "remitted." Many men were recommended as partners, among them a Mr. Griffiths who was suggested by Elisha Boudinot, but it would seem that his only real associate was Balthazar De Heart, who appears to have been what is now known as a managing clerk.

Hamilton tried many cases with his attached friend Troup, and others with Aaron Burr, although, later in his career, these occasions became more and more infrequent. Again, they were on opposite sides. Burr's temptations to indulge in discreditable operations were not always resisted. He was a notorious speculator, and not overscrupulous in money affairs, as appears from his relation with the Holland Company and the affairs of the Pulteney Estate. Lord Ashburton, who was Baring, the celebrated English banker, was especially incensed because of Burr's trickery, and wrote a scathing letter to Hamilton who represented him, alluding to the duplicity of the former. A case in which he appeared illustrating Burr's methods, and his desire to escape, if possible, the responsibility of his actions, was that of Lewis vs. Burr, in which Hamilton appeared for the plaintiff, and which has unusual interest for other reasons. It was an action to hold Burr liable as an endorser on a note for $3,500.

On June the first, one Roger Enos made his promissory note payable to the order of Aaron Burr, thirty days after date. Burr endorsed the note to Francis Lewis, the plaintiff in the action, and the note was not paid. By its terms it fell due on the 4th of July, days of grace included. The 4th of July was a national holiday, being the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, and on that day business, according to the custom then obtaining in the city of New York, was suspended. It was claimed that the three days of grace, which would have expired on the 4th of July, were, by reason of that day being a holiday, abridged, and that the note fell due on the 3d of July. Efforts were made to demand payment of the maker on the 3d, but he could not be found and, therefore, an excuse for making a demand was presented. The jurors being in doubt as to the law of the case returned a special verdict as to the facts, and submitted for the determination of the court this question of law, as to whether the note fell due on the 3d or 4th of July.

If the effort to make the demand on the 3d was sufficient to put the maker of the note in default and was not premature, then Burr was liable to the plaintiff upon his promise to pay as endorser; but if the demand was not properly sought to be made on the 3d, then Burr was not liable. The whole question was one of law as to whether the note was due on the 3d or 4th of July, and the special verdict was for the purpose of presenting all the facts to the court so that it might determine this simple question. That was in accordance with the practice which prevailed at the time the action was pending, and the court would direct judgment on the verdict in accordance with its decision. The case was carried up to the Supreme Court in bank» and was argued there in 1796, and the court held that the 4th of July was a public holiday, and that the note fell due July 3d, and judgment was rendered against Burr. I was informed by the late Justice Edward Patterson that this decision was the precedent for all subsequent rulings of the Courts.

When Hamilton came to New York the second time his friends, without exception, welcomed him most hospitably, and none more kindly than his former associates in the directorate of the Bank of New York. One of them, Comfort Sands, provided an office for him and wrote: "As soon as your furniture arrives, I will take care of it and put it in my store. If it is possible I will engage a room for you for an office. It will be difficult to get one. I hope to be able to get my house done so that I may remove at the time I promised. I hardly doubt that I shall." After a time numerous young men again made application to enter his office as students or clerks, and William Laight addressed to him the following letter regarding his own son who was an applicant:

Had there not been frequent Instances in many respectable offices in this City where Events of a similar kind have been effected, which I am now solicitous of obtaining, I should deem it presumptuous to address you on the subject: Let this, in addition to the solicitude of a Parent for the Establishment of a Son in the line of his Profession, be my Apology:—

Edward W. Laight, after his matriculation at Columbia College, was instructed in the Rudiments and Principles of Law by Cole: Burr, & finished the usual Course of his Studies with Mr. Munroe—He has been admitted to the Bar as an Attorney.—Of his qualifications Professional Men are better Judges than myself.—The Object I aim at is, to have him patronized by a Person of Merit & Celebrity, more for the purpose of improvement than for present Emolument.—To obtain this End, there is no pecuniary Compensation, within my reach, which I would not readily advance, & as my Aim is to his future, not immediate. Interest, He would be advised to accept such a proportion of Income as his Principal might hereafter deem adequate to his exertions of usefulness.—

The wish of my heart is, that Cole: Hamilton should be such a Patron.—If, therefore, it is not incompatible with Cole: Hamilton's Views to receive as an Attorney in his office a Young Man, of, at least decent Manners & educated as above mentioned, I should be made happy by his giving me an opportunity of acceding to such Terms as he himself would prescribe.

Respectfully &c

Wm. Laight.

Cole: Hamilton—14 March 1797.

It was with great regret that Hamilton resigned from the Treasury, but the demands of a growing family were such that he could not live upon a salary of but $3,000 per annum. Of course, many of his bitter enemies, those who had never ceased to accuse him of overweening ambition, or even of actual dishonesty, were not slow to make many fresh insinuations, but these were all unjust, and his return to work was a necessity. A paper making Robert Troup his executor, found after his death, disclosed his comparative poverty on leaving office. In commenting upon this Lodge says: "It furnished a striking commentary on the charges of corruption made against Hamilton by Jefferson and his tools, and on Madison's cold sneer that Hamilton retired from office alleging poverty as a cause." No one under-Genet was everywhere appreciated and applauded by the owners of American ships. Hamilton appeared in no less than thirty or forty cases, either for the United Insurance Company or for various aggrieved shipowners. Nearly all of these were of the greatest interest, and the depositions and briefs that he left among his papers read more like extracts from Cooper, Marryat, or Stevenson, than dry legal papers. Many of them are quaint accounts of captures at sea, hand-to-hand fights, and hair-breadth escapes, the case of the Fair American being one in point, and the deposition of her owner is before me as I write:

The Brig fair American Robert Forest Master of Philadelphia and bound there, was Captured and taken possession of on the 16th November by the French Privateer Jealous, Ruff Master, who took out the Mate and three men, put in a Prize master & eight men and ordered her for Gaudaloup on the 19th Inst. (1 believe) at about eleven or twelve o'clock at night was recaptured by the American armed Ships, Montezuma, Norfolk and Retaliation who took out the Frenchmen (Prizemaster excepted) and put in an Officer and 3 men and directed us to follow them. On the next morning we were again Captured by the French Frigates, the Insurgent & Volante and a French lugger who sent on board a Prize-master & 5 men and ordered us for Gaudaloup without taking any person out of the Brig.

In the Afternoon Captain Forest, the SuperCargo, and Mr. Griswold began to form a plan for recapturing the Vessel (which originated with Captain Forest) and was immediately agreed to, about eight o'clock in the Evening the Frenchmen being on the Quarter Deck Capt. F. seized the Cutlass from the French officer on Deck, took possession of the Helm and Mr. Griswold & Shoemaker run up out of the Cabin, one armed with a Brace of Pistols and one with a Sword both belonging to Mr. G. which with the Cutlass of the French officer was all the Arms on board, all the men assisted to drive the Frenchmen below who made but little resistance. Mr. G. & S. then took Charge of them and watched all night, Capt. F. navigating the brig and bore away for Antigua were we arrived next evening.

When we recaptured the Brig there were two Frigates abot 4 miles ahead which we believe were the French ones that Captured her.

This Statement is made by me at the request of Capt. Murray at the same time I reserve to myself the priviledge of making any further Statement or Explanation respecting the Business which I may conceive requisite or proper.

I further observe that I do not believe the Brig would have been recaptured had not Mr. Griswold his Sword & Pistols & 3 men from the Montezuma been on board.—

(Signed) Jos. Shoemaker, Jr.

Beside the cases of the Diana, Harlequin, La Belle Créole, Reindeer, Neptune, Happy Return, and many others when intricate legal questions arose by reason of capture or loss or insurance, we find that upon one occasion Hamilton appeared for the United Insurance Company in the case of the brig Nancy. This vessel, which was owned in Baltimore, subsequently met with a strange adventure on a voyage to Curaçoa, via Hayti, which began in July, 1799. When at sea her course was changed so that she brought up at the Dutch island of Aruba, where she disposed of her mixed cargo of dry goods and provisions, and took on another of arms and ammunition, which she intended to trade with the French at Hayti for coffee. On August 28 she was overhauled by the British war cutter Sparrow, belonging to the English flag-ship, and sent to Jamaica. Two days later a Lieutenant Fitton of H. M. S. Ferret caught a large shark near the coast of Hayti, and upon opening its belly a package of papers, which undoubtedly belonged to the Nancy, was found therein, and was delivered later to Lieutenant Wylie of the cutter that had captured the Nancy. Subsequently the vessel was condemned by the advocate-general as a lawful prize. Almost at the same time other papers were found concealed in the cabin of the Nancy which were a complement of the original, and together proved the unlawful conduct of the captain of the brig. Not a little of his work was connected with the land companies that were formed in various parts of the United States. He was counsel for Théophile Cazenove, the president of the Holland Company, and acted for those who sought to put upon its feet the celebrated Georgia Company, which later went to pieces when the Assembly of that State repudiated its action in giving a charter. One of his most painful experiences was in connection with the extraordinary operations and speculations of Robert Morris. Not only did Hamilton himself lose heavily by Morris's conduct, but his brother-in-law, John B. Church, for whom he appeared, and who held a mortgage from Morris, was mulcted, previous to Morris's apprehension and imprisonment. This was undoubtedly a sad blow to Hamilton who, in the early part of his career, was helped by the great financier, who really suggested his name for the treasuryship, and to whom he owed so much. Morris's letters to him are pathetic, and in one, after speaking of his difficulty in raising money and referring to his intention of suing Greenleaf, who had deserted him in his land speculation, he said: "I will immediately turn my attention to another source of reimbursement for you. My promise to you on this point is sacred and shall be fulfilled. You will speedily hear from me in regard to it. I hope Mr. Church has too much spirit and too high a sense of honor to entertain a desire of posessing himself of my property at less than its value, and at its value I am willing to sell it to him. I trust to your assurance of serving me in this business."

As has been said, the most important commercial case with which Hamilton was connected was that of Le Guen vs. Gouverneur and Kemble—both parties being shipping merchants, and the issue being alleged misrepresentation and substitution of a cargo of indigo, cotton, and other substances. Numerous side issues arose in which various Jewish merchants named Lopez, Gomez, and Lepine were also concerned. This great case, which was ultimately decided in the Court of Errors, led to much litigation. Le Guen, a Frenchman, was represented by Hamilton, Burr, and others, and the defendants by Gouverneur Morris and associates. The counsel were permitted by the court to speak repeatedly out of the ordinary course, so great was the interest and desire to get at all the facts. Morris was most offensive to Hamilton in court, and there was an interchange of retorts between the two, and the "commanding" figure, melodious voice, and authoritative manner of the former made a great impression. James A. Hamilton refers to this incident.' Morris, during his argument and after speaking in praise of what Hamilton had said, used these words: "Before I have done I am confident I shall make my learned friend cry out, 'Help me, Cassius' (pointing to Burr) 'or I sink.'" When Hamilton's turn came to reply, he treated Morris with great courtesy, reviewed his arguments without mercy, exposing all their weakness, and then alluded to the boast of his friend in a strain of irony that turned the laughter of the court and audience against him.

On the same day, after the court had closed, there was a dinner given to the counsel, judges, and others, by Stephen Van Rensselaer of Albany, the patroon. Hamilton went to his father-in-law's General Schuyler's, to dress for dinner. Morris and the rest to the Patroon's. When Hamilton arrived, Van Rensselaer met him at the door, and to put him on his guard informed him that Morris was in a very bad humor.

Hamilton went into the room, approached Morris most amiably, and said: "My friend, you will rejoice, I hope, that by Cassius's help I meet you here with our friends at dinner!"

The case, like many others at the time, attracted great attention and the court-room was crowded. General Schuyler wrote to his daughter, February 13, 1800: "So much has my dear General's time been engrossed by his law business that we have had but a small portion of that Company which is always so pleasing and so instructive. Mr. Morris of Counsel for Mr. Gouverneur, showed much indiscretion by observations injurious to my Dear General, but such a reply was given as afforded General pleasure to the Court and Audience, and which Mr. Morris felt so sensibly, that I hope he will profit by It for I very sincerely wish him well."

My dear Eliza: We arrived here last evening well and shall proceed immediately on our journey.

I forgot my brief in the cause of Le Guen against Gouverneur which is in a bundle of papers in my armed Chair in the office. Request one of the Gentlemen to look for it and send it up to me by the post of Tuesday. Beg them not to fail—Adieu my beloved. Kiss all the Children for me.

yrs. A. H.

Peeks Kill April

16th 1797

When it was finally won by Hamilton it is said that he refused a generous fee proffered him by his grateful client, alleging that it was too much. Rufus King, in his memoirs, refers to this incident, and compares Hamilton's modesty to Burr's exaction of a disproportionate sum for his services. Luckily I have found Le Guen's letter which states the fact.

Louis Le Guen to Alexander Hamilton

General Hamilton

New York, 1st May, 1800.

Dear General: Still deeply moved by your generous proceedings, and full of gratitude, I find myself obliged to do what you yesterday forbade me to, confining myself to remitting you herewith the moderate sum of fifteen hundred dollars. Kindly accept it and at the same time the assurance that nobody in the world is more respectfully attached to you, or more disposed than I am to seize every opportunity to shew you all my gratitude. Therefore, dear General, be so kind as to make use of them, and also be well assured of the sincerity of my feelings, which will last as long as I live. . . .

I also enclose a little account of what I have paid to Mr. Burr, including interest at seven per cent, upon divers sums that I have advanced him amounting altogether to $4,636.66.

I beg you to kindly settle this bill with him, so that he will be satisfied; he has promised to settle up with me tomorrow for the sum of 13,200 dollars that he owes me, fallen due the 15th of last month, the only business that keeps me here.

April 1800.

To account of Mr. Burr for onorarium up-to-date	....	$2900.
Several accounts upon his order to Mr. Green	....	290.

BILL OF INTERESTS

Upon $11200 ---- that I advanced in three separate sums at different times. From the month of July to August 1798—to the 19th April 1799—For 8 months at the rate of 7%	....	522.66
Interest for one year—upon a bill of $13200	....	924.00
		________
		$4636.66

The affairs of the new or Park Theatre, which was commenced in 1794y engaged Hamilton's attention, for, owing to the vicissitudes incident to insufficient capitalization and bad management, the prospect of building this important place of amusement languished, but was finally carried out after many people had lost a great deal of money. The land upon which it was erected was owned by a Mrs. Ann White, and the various subscribers to the building fund included the names of pretty nearly every person of note in New York at the time. Some of them were: Stephen Van Rensselaer, James Watson, William Constable, Nicholas Cruger, William Bayard, Isaac Gouvemeur, Elias Hicks, Gerret Ketdetas, Robert S. Kemble, Nicholas Low, Dominick Lynch, Julian Ludlow, Stephen Tillinghast, Pascal N. Smith, George Scriba, Julian Verplanck, Joshua Waddington, Nathaniel Prime, Rufus King, Charles Wilkes, DeWitt Clinton, Brockholst Livingston, Josiah Ogden Hoffman, John Watts, Nathaniel Fish, Thomas Lispenard, and about seventy others.

Finally, after much disappointment and trouble, the matter was referred to Chancellor Livingston, and Hamilton was employed. Even later, when the theatre was actually opened, it had trouble in paying its taxes. It appears that a forcible attempt was made to attach ready money, or, in other words, what are now known as "the box-office receipts." This led to a suit in which William Henderson, Jacob Waltham, Morton Carlyle, and Pollock brought action against William Brown for trespass and for breaking and entering the plaintiffs' close, called the New Theatre, and taking and carrying away three hundred and twenty-five pieces of silver coin of the value of one dollar each. Hamilton defended Brown who, it appears, was duly appointed collector of direct taxes for the district in which the theatre was situated. "He had been also duly furnished with a list in which the locus in quo was designated as the dwelling house of one John Hoffman, and as such was taxed at three hundred and twenty-five dollars, and the tax being unpaid he entered and took the silver coin in question in the nature of a distress for the same. The Theatre and appurtenances upon which the tax was laid and levied was, in fact, not the dwelling house for any person whatever, but a Theatre for the exhibition of dramatic performances, but by mistake it was inserted in the list of dwelling houses by the assessor."

Hamilton was employed on the 12th of May, 1789, by Dr. P. J. More, of Charleston, to collect a bill against a Mr. John Tayleur, who formerly kept a jeweller's shop in Queen Street, near the Coffee House, New York. Hamilton's name had been suggested to the plaintiff by Mr. Pringle, and he was urged to make the absconding patient pay his bill, "and to have no indulgence for a Man so faithless."

Certainly the doctor was most liberal with his patient, for he had agreed to furnish all medicine, and that he should not be paid anything at all if he failed to cure Mr. Tayleur, and even if he did cure him he was to be paid only ten guineas at once, and ten guineas more six months after.

One of the doctor's chief grievances was that the patient owed "hard specie" and he had paid him a part of it. His fear was that he might take advantage of the circulation of paper money and discharge the rest of his obligation in depreciated currency.

The doctor informed Hamilton that Tayleur "had acknowledged himself that his disorder had already costed him about £200 sterling; I thought I had," he said, "to deal with an honest Man. I did not hurry him for the payment. It was only Eight days after his departure but I was informed that it was not the first French leave he had been guilty of. If I had known it sooner I would have dealt with him quite in another manner, but I took him to be an honest man and would never have mentioned the nature of his disorder if he had acted as such. After you received the payment, you'll be so Kind as to take your due; and send me the ballance. You will be so good as to Observe that in New York it is hard Specie and here paper medium."

One of Hamilton's official acts when Secretary of the Treasury was, in 1794, to propose a tax on carriages, which afterward became a law, and its enforcement was opposed on the ground that it was a direct tax and, therefore, unconstitutional. Madison, who was then in the House, bitterly fought the proposed measure. Later Hylton, a Virginian, brought suit in the Supreme Court to determine its legality. Hamilton, who appeared with the Attorney-General and Charles Lee, warmly defended the constitutionally of the law, and after an eloquent speech was upheld by the Court, who decided that the carriage duty was an excise and not a direct tax. There seems to have been some friction in the Supreme Court, for the Chief Justice and Justice Gushing did not sit in the case, and Justice Wilson gave no reasons for the opinion of the Court. William Bradford, the Attorney-General, subsequently wrote to his friend Hamilton as follows:

William Bradford to Alexander Hamilton

Philadelphia, Aug. 4, 1795.

My dear Sir: The record of the proceedings in the case relating to the Carriage Tax is not yet returned—but I expect it this week. I learn, however, that Taylor, who has published his speech, has advised the defendant to make no further argument and to let the Supreme Court do as they please,—and that in consequence of this advice no counsel will appear in support of the writ of Error. I have desired that the District Attorney would take measures to counteract this manœuvre—which is of a piece with the rest of Taylor's conduct. Having succeeded in dividing the opinions of the Circuit Court, he wishes to prevent the effect which a decision of the Supreme Court on full argument would have and perhaps by the circulation of his pamphlet in the mean time to indispose the people of Virginia to paying the next annual Duty on their carriages.—If the Defendant persists in pursuing this advice, I presume your attendance will not be necessary; for in such case I would think it most advisable to submit the cause to the court upon the two arguments that have been already made. That of Mr. Wickham's has arrived in manuscript; that of Taylor we expect by the next post.—I will take care however to apprise you as soon as the record arrives what is to be expected.

In consequence of the situation of things and some new occurrences, it has been thought advisable to request the President to return to Philadel.—He is expected to be here next week.—

The crazy speech of Mr. Rutledge joined to certain information that he is daily sinking into debility of mind and body, will probably prevent him to receiving the appointment I mentioned to you. But should he come to Philad for that purpose, as he has been invited to do—especially if he should resign his present office—the embarrassment of the President will be extreme—but if he is disordered in mind in the manner that I am informed he is,—there can be but one course of procedure.—I write in great haste & can only add that I am with great regard

Your friend, &c

Wm. B.