USA > Washington > Standard history of the city of Washington from a study of the original sources > Part 18
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50
It may with much reason be said that upon the success or failure of Mr. White's efforts, at the time he accepted this responsibility, rested the fate of the new city. Unless help could be obtained from Congress it was not perceived then, nor is it apparent in the light of present available sources of information, whence the funds necessary for completing the public buildings were to be obtained. A suspension of the work meant the procla- mation of the entire enterprise as a failure; and such an event
200
History of the City of Washington.
would have been a strong inducement to Congress to declare an abandonment of the entire project.
Mr. White left for Philadelphia about the first of December, 1795. Two alternative lines of action appear to have been decided on : one, an application for an appropriation of money, either outright or by way of a loan; the other an application for an act guaranteeing a loan to be obtained elsewhere. From the time of his arrival at Philadelphia early in December, 1795, until the final passage of the so-called Guarantee Law on May 6, 1796, five months later, Mr. White was engaged unceasingly in urging upon the members of Congress the propriety of grant- ing the aid he sought. Throughout this time he was in constant communication with his colleagues at Washington, advising them by nearly every post of the progress of affairs, and fre- quently calling on them for information regarding matters upon which he was mercilessly interrogated by the members of both houses of Congress. It is doubtful whether any other period or incident in connection with the establishment of the City of Washington is of more intensely dramatic interest than the experience of Mr. White and his colleagues as set forth in this correspondence, every letter of which breathes the alternating hopes and discouragements of the former and the suspense and anxiety of the latter. A month was spent in interviewing mem- bers of Congress, consulting the President and obtaining infor- mation upon matters as to which Mr. White wrote that he had foreseen he was "to be sifted like wheat." Finally, at the suggestion of President Washington, a memorial was signed by the Commissioners and forwarded to Congress on January 8, 1796, with a short message from the President, in which he said among other things :
"I have no doubt, if the remaining resources are properly cherished, so as to prevent the loss of property by hasty and numerous sales, that all the buildings required for the accommodation of the government of the United States may be completed in season without aid from the Federal Treas- ury."
The result of this application was the appointment of a Committee by the House of Representatives which on January
201
History of the City of Washington.
18, reported in favor of guaranteeing a loan of $500,000; but many other matters of importance were claiming the attention of Congress and delayed its action. On February 19, Mr. White wrote: "Monday is the President's birthday when it is expected there will be a greater display of attachment than was ever yet exhibited on a similar occasion. Report says that the British Treaty is arrived at Charleston on the General Pinckney -if so the course of the Post is expected to bring it to this city tomorrow-whether that circumstance will have any effect on the business, as some predict, time alone must determine."
Many members of Congress were disposed to criticise the buildings; particularly the President's House, the extent and grandeur of which it was claimed were more in keeping with the idea of royalty than with that of American Republicanism; and one of the duties imposed upon the House Committee was to determine whether or not any change should be made in the buildings. The fact that Mr. Jefferson, whose democratic prin- ciples and taste in architecture were even then famous, had approved the plan of the public buildings, was largely influential in reconciling Congress to what had been done. Many charges of extravagance and poor administration were made.
On February 25, Mr. White wrote that the House of Repre- sentatives had recommitted the bill, adding :
"But what shall I say when I am asked for an estimate of the expenses of the Capitol. What a Field for cavil and declamation when it can be said that the plan of such a Building was accepted without any knowledge of the costs ? If an estimate tolerably accurate could be sent on, it might possibly answer some good purpose. Do not Jefferson's letters show that both Plans were examined and approved by him? That circumstance would shut the mouths of some."
The attitude of the Committee towards the legislation of the State of Maryland, so far as it affected the titles to property conveyed under the deeds in trust and the security it would afford on a loan, proved a formidable obstacle. Alluding to this, Mr. White wrote :
"I attended the Committee at 7 o'clock last night the Attorney General was present. After much conversation
202
History of the City of Washington.
they agreed to report a Bill, a rough copy of which is enclosed. I gave no information with respect to the title of the lots, but that the Trustees had never conveyed. Had I introduced the maze of Maryland Laws, we never should have got through them. They would certainly have been considered as void, and of no effect by a Committee who think that Congress cannot even direct the mode of execut- ing a Trust created by individuals for the use of the United States. How then could the Legislature of Maryland take the lots out of the hands of the President and Trustees and give the sole power over them to another body of men, viz, the Commissioners ?"
On March 31, 1796, the House of Representatives by a vote of 72 to 21 passed the bill guaranteeing a loan of $300,000, and the task of getting it through the Senate was begun. Here an unlooked for obstacle was met in the fact that the question of ratifying or rejecting the treaty with Great Britain, the arrival of which had previously been mentioned by Mr. White, was pending in the Senate. From Mr. White's account it is probable that upon the fate of this treaty depended not only the fate of the City, but the continuance of the Union of the States. The actuality of this crisis can most effectively be gathered from Mr. White's own words. Writing under date of April 18, 1796, he says :
"After writing you on Friday I waited on Mr. Henry to know what policy the Senate meant to pursue with respect to the Bill before them. He said he had proposed to Mr. King to report the Bill, but could not prevail on him to do it, and to report it against his will would occasion a quarrel which he wished to avoid, that he was of opinion that all the Members east of Maryland who were in favor of the Treaty would vote for postponing the Bill if it were reported till the event of the Treaty business was known, and if provision is not made for carrying it into effect, they would finally reject the Bill. On Saturday morning I waited on the President, he seemed rather disinclined to my leaving the City but said that it would be well to ascertain the real sentiments of Mr. King and other members of the Senate with respect to the Bill. * * I waited on Mr. King, he avowed the Policy mentioned by Mr. Henry, he said he had no aversion to the measure, no objection to a City rising on the Potowmack, and the General Governments
203
History of the City of Washington.
removing thither, that he never would do anything to obstruct it, and that if harmony prevailed in the United States he should have no objection to promoting and encour- aging it, but that in his opinion, in the present state of things the bill ought not to be acted upon. That he did not expect this would influence the vote of any man or mean to use it in that way, but if the British Treaty should be rejected no matter by whom brought about, it would place us in such a state that he should think it improper to engage in any enterprise either of a public or private nature, or to pass any Laws except such as were necessary to keep up the form of the Government. In the evening I had a long conversation with Cabot of Massachusetts and Trumbull of Connecticut, they avowed the same sentiments with Mr. King. I consider them as really friendly to the measure as promotive of the interest of their States, but they declared they would not pass a Law which had the continuance of the Union for its sole basis during a Crisis which so seri- ously threatened its dissolution. Yesterday morning I mentioned the opinions of those gentlemen to Mr. Bradford of Rhode Island; he expressed his disapprobation in strong terms and said it was the first he had heard of it, and did not believe the sentiment prevailed in the Senate, that he would enquire and inform me. I then called on Mr. Fowler, his Colleague-he said he always approved of the Seat of Government being on the Potowmack, and thought it ought to be promoted by Government, but that the inevitable con- sequence of rejecting the Treaty with Great Britain would be a War with that nation; that the Eastern States would not join in the War and to avoid it would separate from the Southern States, that he would acquaint himself with the sentiments of other members respecting the postpone- ment and inform me, but on looking over the list he con- cluded there was a majority for postponing the Bill."
The treaty in question grew out of a treaty between the United States and certain Indian tribes which prohibited traders and hunters to reside with the Indians in this country without a license. This measure had grown out of the pernicious activi- ties of the Canadians and English in inciting the Indians to violence against the Americans. England considered it to be in violation of the provision contained in the treaty of peace of 1784 securing free passage across the border to the citizens of
204
History of the City of Washington.
both nations. The new treaty bound the United States not to impede this right of free access by any further treaties with the Indians. The matter will hardly seem at this date to have justified so close an approach to war, but its seriousness at the time was manifested by a hostile attitude in the House of Rep- resentatives which passed a resolution requesting President Washington to submit to that body the correspondence relating to the treaty, and threatened to prevent its passage. President Washington in his reply, refusing compliance with this resolu- tion, laid down the principle which has never since been questioned that since the treaty making power is by the Constitu- tion confided to the President by and with the advice of the Senate, the House of Representatives is without authority to interfere.
The treaty was ratified by the Senate on May 9, 1796. The removal of the opposition to the treaty in the House of Repre- sentatives by President Washington's reply had made it possible to pass the Guarantee Bill through the Senate on May 6, by a vote of 16 to 7.
This law authorized the Commissioners to borrow from time to time such sums as the President should direct, not exceed- ing three hundred thousand dollars in the whole, nor two hundred thousand in any one year, at not exceeding six per cent interest, reimbursable at any time after the year 1803 in install- ments not greater than one-fifth of the whole sum borrowed in any one year. All the unsold public lots in the city, except those appropriated for public use, were pledged as security for the money to be borrowed; the deficiency, if any, after the sale of the lots, to be paid by the United States.
The passage of this law, however, was only one step towards the solution of the difficulties of the Commissioners. The prob- lem now confronting them was where to obtain the money. Almost immediately following the passage of the law a power of attorney to procure a loan of five hundred and twelve thousand guilders in Holland was forwarded to the firm of Wilhelm and Jan Willink of Amsterdam, and in October brought the informa- tion that the French invasion of that country had resulted in the
205
History of the City of Washington.
levying upon all persons of a tax of one-sixth of their estates, both in that and in the preceding year, with the result that the loan sought would be impossible of negotiation at that time. Following the receipt of this information on October 31, 1796, an application for a loan of $100,000 was made to the Bank of the United States at Philadelphia, but that institution was averse to making long time loans and, moreover, was much taxed to accommodate its local patrons, and declined to make the loan.
That the Commissioners were enabled to carry on their operations during that season was due to the accommodations granted by the Bank of Columbia. On July 22, an agreement was entered into between that bank and the Commissioners, reciting that the bank had already advanced $42,000 and that it undertook to advance $40,000 more in installments of $10,000 per month, beginning August 1st. For the total sum of $82,000 the Commissioners gave their personal short time notes endorsed by Robert Peter, Notley Young, Thomas Law, Uriah Forrest and Francis Loundes.
Upon the refusal of their application to the Bank of the United States, the Commissioners again turned to the Legisla- ture of Maryland, and on November 21, 1796, they authorized Mr. Scott, whose acquaintance among the members of that body was large, to seek a loan from that State. President Washington at the same time wrote to Governor Stone in support of the Commissioners' application. Mr. Scott's efforts resulted in a resolution passed on December 14, 1796, authorizing the nominal loan of $100,000 of United States six per cent stock. By the act authorizing this loan, the Commissioners were required to give bond in their official capacity in the sum of $100,000, and in their individual capacities in twice that amount.
Referring to the passage of this act President Washington on December 26, 1796, wrote to the Commissioners: "The voice of Maryland as expressed by its Legislature, is flattering indeed, as it respects myself personally ; and highly pleasing as it relates to their federal sentiments." But, referring to the provision requiring the Commissioners to render themselves personally liable, he added : "At the same time I must confess that the
206
History of the City of Washington.
request has a very singular appearance and will not I should suppose be very gratifying to the feelings of Congress."
Immediately on receiving the transfer of this stock the Commissioners sold $20,000 of it back to the State of Maryland for $16,583.33. Shortly after this they accepted a proposition from the Bank of Columbia to deposit the stock with that insti- tution and receive credit on its books against which on notice they might draw in amounts of between ten and twenty thousand dollars, the bank undertaking to dispose of the stock at the Philadelphia prices. About $84,000 was realized from this stock.
At the close of the ensuing season (1797) the Commissioners found themselves nearly as badly off as before. An application to the Bank of Columbia for temporary help resulted in the reply that the bank would lend them $3,000 "at a time when we are not accommodating any individual and the Banks of Balti- more are continually calling on us for specie." An application to the Bank of Alexandria resulted in a refusal.
It was finally decided to lay the matter before President Adams, and on November 25, 1797, the Commissioners addressed a memorial to him reciting the disappointments which had grown out of the Greenleaf and Morris contract, the difficulties which had been met in attempting to sell the public lots, and the failure of the attempted Holland loan, and stated that the only sugges- tion they had to make was the impracticable expedient of exposing the public lots at auction until the whole should be sold. Action upon this memorial was suspended upon receipt of a communication from Colonel Forrest to the effect that he believed that a decent majority of both houses of the Maryland Legislature, then in session, would favor a second loan of $100,- 000. Accordingly a memorial was drawn by the Commissioners and presented to the Maryland Assembly by Mr. Scott on December 13, 1797, with the result that on the 22d of the same month a second loan similar to and upon the same conditions as the first was authorized by that body. The casting vote of the Speaker was required for its passage in the House of Delegates, owing to the activities of the friends of the Potowmack Com- pany who were seeking aid for that enterprise.
207
History of the City of Washington.
This second loan from the State of Maryland was far from adequate to meet the requirements of the Commissioners for the ensuing season. With this prospect confronting them the Com- missioners decided to make an appeal to Congress for direct financial assistance. Accordingly the memorial to President Adams was revived and Mr. White commissioned to proceed to Philadelphia to lay the facts before the members of Congress.
Mr. White arrived in Philadelphia early in February, 1798. He found President Adams unwilling to assume the responsi- bility of transmitting to Congress the memorial which had been addressed to him, with a message from himself asking the aid of that body; but agreeable to the idea of transmitting a memo- rial to be addressed to Congress by the Commissioners. This plan was adopted. The labors of Mr. White were arduous, but after two months and a half his persistence was rewarded by the passage on April 18, 1798, of a law authorizing the loan to the Commissioners of one hundred thousand dollars in two yearly installments, bearing interest at six per cent. All the unsold public lots in the city were declared to be subject to sale for the repayment of the loan.
Until the passage of this act the Commissioners had kept in communication with Messrs. Willink and Willink of Holland in the hope that conditions in Europe would so improve as to make it possible to place a loan there; but the continuation of the wars on the continent had prevented the consummation of this meas- ure. Upon the granting of the loan by Congress, negotiations with that firm were closed.
This federal loan, together with such funds as were obtained from sales of lots, carried the operations, through the seasons of 1798 and 1799. Towards the close of the season of 1799 it became apparent that still further advances would be required in order to make it possible to have the public buildings ready for the accommodation of the government at the date set for its removal. The borrowing power of the public property had been exhausted by the three loans already obtained. It was necessary to obtain a loan upon other security, and for this purpose it was decided to ask the opinion of President Adams upon the question
208
History of the City of Washington.
of pledging the public equity in the lots which had been con- tracted for but not fully paid for-principally those involved in the Morris and Greenleaf contract. Two letters were written to President Adams upon this point, but no reply being received it was on December 9, 1799, decided by a majority of the Board, in view of the urgency of the case and the rapidly approaching close of the session of the Maryland Legislature, to make the application without waiting for the President's approval. As on previous occasions the efforts of Colonel Forrest proved effica- cious. The application was promptly answered by a resolution passed on December 23, 1799, authorizing a loan of $50,000 in United States stock to be bottomed upon such real and personal security as the Governor and Council of the State should approve. The terms of security required by the Maryland authorities were met by the execution on February 28, 1800, of a bond signed by Commissioners Scott and Thornton and joined in by Colonel Uriah Forrest and General James M. Lingan. In addition Col- onel Forrest gave a mortgage upon a farm of four hundred and twenty acres of land in Montgomery County.
On July 1, 1802, the office of the three Commissioners was abolished by section 1 of "An act to abolish the Board of Com- missioners in the City of Washington, and for other purposes," approved May 1, 1802, which directed the Commissioners to deliver all their official records and property relating to said city to an officer created by said act and styled "Superintend- ent," to be appointed by the President, and to succeed to all the powers and duties of said Commissioners. By that act the Superintendent was directed to sell sufficient of the public lots, which had been pledged under the Guarantee Act, to satisfy the two one hundred thousand dollar Maryland loans as fast as the interest and installments should come due under the terms of the Guarantee Act. The proviso was attached that if in the opinion of the President the sale of a sufficient number of lots could not be made without an unwarrantable sacrifice, so much money as might be necessary to provide for the deficiency should be paid out of the Treasury.
For the repayment of the last Maryland loan of $50,000
209
History of the City of Washington.
the same Act directed the Superintendent to sell all of those lots held by the Commissioners for default in the payment of the purchase price, which had been sold by them subsequent to the passage of the Guarantee Law, and provided for the payment of any deficiency out of the Treasury.
An account of the financial affairs of the Commissioners would be incomplete without some reference to their dealings with Morris and Greenleaf, and with Morris and Nicholson who suc- ceeded to the interest of Morris and Greenleaf in the contract with the Commissioners.
The outcome of that contract, which had promised so much for the city, was a great disappointment to every one concerned. Morris, Greenleaf and Nicholson fell far short of living up to their undertaking, and a large part of the energies of the Com- missioners was devoted to efforts to obtain from those gentlemen a fair degree of compliance with the terms of their contract. Nevertheless the funds obtained as a result of that transaction, tardy and hard wrung though they were, aided materially in making it possible to complete the public buildings in time for the reception of the Government at the date set for its removal to the new seat.
Not long after the execution of the contract with Morris and Greenleaf, the Commissioners received a remittance of $16,000 from those gentlemen. On July 9, 1794, the Commissioners entered into an arrangement with Mr. Greenleaf separately, whereby they executed certificates to him for three thousand lots in the city, to be used as security for a loan of £300,000, one-third of which was to be for the benefit of the city. Many difficulties were met in obtaining the money, and finally the idea was given up and the 1000 lots intended to secure the city's share of the loan were reconveyed. Mr. Greenleaf succeeded in obtaining a portion of the loan sought in Holland on his own account. However, the matter of an advance was taken up with Morris and Greenleaf jointly, and on October 18, 1794, the Commissioners conveyed to the latter eight hundred and fifty- seven lots in return for their acceptance of bills of exchange
210
History of the City of Washington.
sufficient to furnish the Commissioners an advance of $12,000, and other sums to be paid thereafter.
The expected funds were not realized, and after numerous futile applications to Morris and Greenleaf, the Commissioners stated the case to President Washington, who referred their communication to Mr. Morris. The reply of the latter stated that he had been making every possible effort to obtain the money, but that the financial stringency then prevalent in this country and the wars then engaging Europe, had made it impossible for him to do so.
When Mr. White went to Philadelphia to urge upon Con- gress the passage of the Guarantee Law, he was directed to endeavor to obtain funds from Morris, Greenleaf and Nicholson, and his letters to his colleagues show that much of his time and efforts were devoted to that end, although he was only able to obtain remittances amounting altogether to about $10,000. Mr. White's letters also show that the financial ruin which later sent Mr. Greenleaf into bankruptcy and Morris and Nicholson to the debtor's prison, was already fastening upon those gentle- men. The fact is that these bold adventurers had engaged upon a campaign of land speculation throughout the United States, of an almost incredible extent. From New York to Georgia they had bought up vast areas of wilderness. In the City of Wash- ington they had not confined themselves to their contract with the Commissioners, but had dealt extensively with the proprie- tors. The wars then raging in Europe and the depredations upon American commerce had created a shortage of money which made impossible any approach to compliance with their enormous obligations. Mr. Morris at the time of his eventual failure, was indebted to upwards of three million dollars.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.