USA > Washington > Standard history of the city of Washington from a study of the original sources > Part 19
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
Strictly speaking, Morris and Greenleaf were also completely remiss in the matter of compliance with their agreement with the Commissioners to build twenty houses each year. They did in fact erect thirty buildings under a contract with Daniel Carroll of Duddington, which were completed to the roofing in the year 1796, and the Commissioners accepted this as a partial compliance with their building engagement; but this was the
211
History of the City of Washington.
extent of their operations in that direction. These buildings were generally referred to at the time as the "Twenty Build- ings." Their location is described by Mr. Allen C. Clark, in his volume "Greenleaf and Law in the Federal City," as follows :
"On South Capitol street beginning at M, southward, were five houses each twenty-nine feet five inches front; then an alley twenty-five feet wide; then twelve houses each twenty feet wide; then an alley twenty feet wide, then five houses each twenty-nine feet five inches front, the most southern on the corner with N street. On N, were four houses each eighteen feet one inch front; then a vacant space; then four houses each eighteen feet nine inches front, the most western on the corner with Half street. The houses on South Capitol Street had 'breast summer fronts' and were 'capable of making a handsome row of fronts.' "
Following the unsatisfactory results of Mr. White's efforts, the Commissioners were compelled to place with a lawyer for suit, the bills of exchange aggregating in the neighborhood of $35,000, on which they had made their conveyance to Morris and Greenleaf; but the bills were finally paid before suit was entered.
It had early become apparent that the only means of recov- ery open to the Commissioners was a resale of the lots which had been contracted for but not actually conveyed. The question arose as to whether it would be necessary to go into Chancery and obtain a decree of court authorizing such a sale or whether it would be competent for the Commissioners to proceed by the summary method of resale upon advertisement provided for by the Maryland act of December 28, 1794. This act had been passed four days after the execution of the contract with Morris and Greenleaf and it was contended by the latter that it could not operate retroactively so as to affect their contract. Mr. White while in Philadelphia in connection with the Guarantee Bill, obtained the opinion of Attorney General Charles Lee upon this point. Mr. Lee's opinion was that a sale under the Mary- land act was proper and that the act could not be regarded as ex post facto since it did not alter the contract but merely pro-
212
History of the City of Washington.
vided a speedy mode of preventing injuries which might arise from a breach thereof.
In the summer and fall of 1797 the Commissioners held several sales of lots, but the scarcity of money and the efforts of Morris and Greenleaf to create a belief among prospective buyers that the sales were unlawful, prevented the realization of any considerable amount of money.
In June, 1798, the Commissioners advertised a sale to be held in the following September, of a long list of Morris and Greenleaf's lots to raise the sum of $120,000 then due from the latter, and fortified themselves against the assaults of Morris and Greenleaf by a second opinion of the Attorney General, confirmatory of his first opinion, which they published before the sale. The sales on this occasion were more extensive than formerly, but still very disappointing.
In 1799 the Commissioners again advertised a sale but this time were stopped by an injunction brought by Mr. Greenleaf, after selling $41,000 worth of lots. In 1800 the sales amounted to nearly $60,000. In a letter written in November, 1799, to Colonel Stoddert, then Secretary of the Navy, the Commissioners say that $103,500 was then due from Morris and Nicholson. As five installments of $68,571 or $342,855 in all would have been then due under the terms of the contract, it would seem that the Commissioners had up to that time received in the neighbor- hood of $239,355 from the transaction. The funds derived from sales of lots were not confined to those received from the Morris and Greenleaf transaction, but the other sales were of compara- tive unimportance.
Morris, Greenleaf and Nicholson sold many of their lots to various purchasers, chief among whom was Thomas Law, an Englishman who had amassed a fortune in India and who settled in Washington and became one of its prominent citizens. An account of the ramifications of the transactions of this remark- able group of men in the City of Washington; their quarrels among themselves; their disputes with the Commissioners, and the varied, extensive and protracted litigation which arose out of their affairs, would be of great interest, but impossible in the
213
History of the City of Washington.
limits of a volume devoted to the history of the City of Wash- ington. It has been made the subject of the intensely interesting volume by Mr. Allen C. Clark, heretofore mentioned, "Greenleaf and Law in the Federal City."
It may be readily gathered from the review which has been given of the financial activities of the Commissioners that their operations involving the expenditure of the funds acquired by them must have been extensive. These were mainly confined to the completion of the Capitol and President's House upon the plans adopted by their predecessors, and the erection of the buildings for the executive offices. Enough has been said in the preceding chapter to give some idea of the difficulties attending the erection of the Capitol and President's House. Disputes with the workmen and with the superintendents in charge of the work were frequent and resulted eventually in the commit- ting of the superintendence of all the public buildings to Mr. Hoban. An interesting letter is found from Samuel Small- wood, an employee, who complains of both the small pay, $15 per month, and the diet, which, he says, "are nothing more than salt meat for Brexfast, Dinner and Supper, which is neither palitable nor Constitutinal."
The work upon the Capitol was confined, after the con- struction of the foundations, to the completion of the north wing. On June 20, 1801, following the removal of the Govern- ment to Washington, a contract was entered into with William Lovering and William Dyer to erect a temporary building on the elliptical foundation of the south wing for the accommodation of the House of Representatives.
After the roofing of the President's House the work upon that building was subordinated to that on the Capitol, but on November 15, 1800, a contract was entered into to finish it in one month.
On June 23, 1798, the Commissioners contracted with Leon- ard Harbaugh for the erection of a building for the Treasury Department, east of the President's House, for $39,511. The
*The United States Capitol in 1800, by Glenn Brown. Vol. 4, Records Col. Hist. Soc.
214
History of the City of Washington.
building was to be of brick exterior, 148 feet by 57 feet six inches in area. On August 6, 1799, the Commissioners con- tracted with Harbaugh for the erection of a similar building west of the President's House, for the accommodation of the other executive departments.
The matter of the location of these buildings was the occa- sion of some concern to the Commissioners. When President Washington induced the original proprietors to agree to the plan for ceding their lands to the Trustees he stated that the executive departments would be located near the President's House, and this was the location intended for them by the Commissioners. President Adams, however, expressed to Mr. White when the latter was in Philadelphia urging the federal loan, the opinion that these buildings should be near the Capitol in order to make them accessible to the members of Congress.
On hearing of this, Robert Peter and Samuel Davidson addressed a protest to the Commissioners on the ground that the arrangement proposed by President Adams was in violation of President Washington's representations. The Commissioners promptly took the matter up with President Adams, urging not only the grounds advanced by Peter and Davidson but also the fact that President Washington had personally indicated to them on the ground, the spots where he desired the buildings to be placed, and had given in support of the location near the Presi- dent's House the experience of the Executive Chiefs in Phila- delphia who had been so hampered in their work by the visits of the members of Congress that they had been compelled to go to their homes and deny themselves to all visitors.
So important was the question regarded that the Commis- sioners invoked the opinion of General Washington, then in retirement at Mount Vernon, who replied with some warmth in support of the location of the buildings near the President's House. As a result of these representations President Adams acquiesced in that arrangement.
In November, 1795, the Maryland Legislature authorized Notley Young, Daniel Carroll of Duddington, Lewis Deblois, George Walker, William Mayne Duncanson, Thomas Law, and
215
History of the City of Washington.
James Barry to hold two annual lotteries for raising the sum of $52,500 for the purpose of rendering navigable the Tiber Creek Canal which the first Board had begun. The persons named were required by the Act to give bond to the Commis- sioners in the sum of $200,000 for the payment of the prizes and faithful application of the moneys raised. The work of completing the canal was to be subject to the direction and superintendence of the Commissioners. The lottery was held and the tickets sold, but apparently entirely on credit. The Com- missioners made repeated demands upon the managers of the lottery for an accounting, but the latter replied that despite their greatest exertions nothing could be collected.
Not the least important of the acts of the Commissioners during the period under discussion was the fixing of the desig- nations of the streets and appropriations. As early as June 15, 1795, this work was put on foot by an order to Mr. Dermott to prepare a plat of the city "with every public appropriation plainly and distinctly delineated." It was intended that upon the completion of this plat the Trustees, Beall and Gantt, who held under the deeds in trust from the original proprietors, should execute a conveyance to the Commissioners of all the streets and public appropriations, as designated upon the plat. This conveyance, together with the map, were to constitute the evidence of the title of the United States to the streets and public grounds. For this purpose the Commissioners advanced the proposition that in their official capacity they should be incorporated to avoid the complications incident to their taking title as individuals, but this measure was not put into effect.
In the preparation of the Ellicott Map, all the designations of appropriations appearing on L'Enfant's Map, except those for the Capitol and President's House, were struck out, and after the publication of Ellicott's Map many changes were made in the open spaces indicated but not referred to as appropriated to any particular object. These changes consisted mainly in reducing the sizes of these open spaces by the laying out of blocks which encroached upon them, as at the Arsenal Point on
216
History of the City of Washington.
Notley Young's land, and at the site intended for a fort on Robert Peter's land, the present site of the Naval Hospital.
In the course of the preparation of Dermott's Map a con- troversy arose between the Commissioners and the proprietors relative to the question whether the open spaces created by the intersections of streets and avenues, together with the points of the adjacent squares which were taken off and included in the open spaces, were to be considered as streets or as public appropriations. The Commissioners contended they should be regarded as streets and therefore were to be donated free by the proprietors to the public under the terms of the deeds in trust. The proprietors contended that the entire areas, both streets and points of squares, were to be considered as appro- priations and to be paid for at twenty-five pounds per acre under the terms of the deeds of trusts, or that the points of squares should be laid off into building lots and divided between the public and themselves.
The Commissioners wrote to President Washington on November 30, 1796, stating the issue in controversy and sug- gesting the plan of making the street area as large as possible relatively to the park area by laying out a street 160 feet wide around each of these reservations and enclosing the center as a park. President Washington recognized the justice of the claim made by the proprietors for pay for the points of land though not for the streets. He stated the case with his usual perspicacity in a letter to the Commissioners of December 26, 1796, wherein he said :
"With respect to the claim of individual proprietors, to be compensated for the spaces occasioned by the intersection of streets and avenues, I should conceive that they might, with equal propriety, ask payment for the streets them- selves ; but the terms of the original contract, or cession, if a dispute on this point should arise, must be recurred to, for I presume the opinion of the President, in such a case, would avail nothing. But if angles are to be taken off, at these spaces, the case is materially altered; and, without designing it, you make a square where none was contem- plated, and thereby not only lay the foundation of claim
217
History of the City of Washington.
for those angles but for the space also which is made a square by that act."
The settlement of this dispute failed to reconcile many of the proprietors to the adoption of Dermott's plan. Chief among the objectors was Samuel Davidson, who from the time of the appearance of Ellicott's map had protested that the alteration made by Ellicott in the north front of the President's Square, changing it from a semi-circle, as planned by L'Enfant, to a square, was an unlawful confiscation of property thus included in the appropriation to which as the proprietor he would have been entitled under the plan laid out by L'Enfant. He con- tended that the President's act in laying L'Enfant's plan before Congress in December, 1791, made that the official plan of the city. This contention being called to the attention of President Washington, he on February 20, 1797, wrote to the Commission- ers in refutation of Mr. Davidson's position, saying :
"That many alterations have been made from Major L'Enfant's plan by Major Ellicott, (with the approbation of the Executive) is not denied; that some were deemed essential is avowed; and had it not been for the materials which he happened to possess 'tis probable no engraving from Major L'Enfant's draught would ever have been exhibited to the public; for after the disagreement which took place between him and the late Commissioners, his obstinacy threw every difficulty it could in the way of its accomplishment.
"To this summary may be added, that Mr. Davidson is mistaken if he supposes that the transmission of Major L'Enfant's Plan of the City to Congress, was the comple- tion thereof. So far from it, it will appear by the Message which accompanied the same that it was given as a matter of information, to show in what state the business was in, and the return of it requested. That neither house of Congress passed any act consequent thereupon. That it remained as before, under the control of the Executive. That afterwards, several errors were discovered and cor- rected, many alterations made, and the appropriations (except as to the Capitol and President's House) struck out under that authority, before it was sent to the engraver, intending that his work and the promulgation thereof, were to give it the final, and regulating stamp."
218
History of the City of Washington.
On June 22, 1797, the Commissioners wrote the Trustees, Beall and Gantt, requesting them to execute a conveyance of the streets and public reservations. Mr. Gantt in conversation stated that he deemed it advisable to await the completion of Dermott's plan and to then include in the conveyance a desig- nation of the appropriations after having the President specifically certify them as such. Accordingly on January 31, 1797, the Commissioners forwarded to President Washington a draught of a proclamation designating the public appropriations and referring to them as being indicated on Dermott's map, which was recited as being attached. This proclamation was signed by President Washington on March 2, 1797, two days before the close of his administration, and in the press of business the affixing of the map was omitted.
For more than a year after this the Commissioners con- tinued their efforts to obtain a deed from Beall and Gantt, who were alarmed by the contention of the proprietors that a convey- ance according to the designations on Dermott's map would con- stitute a violation of their trust for which they would be person- ally responsible to the proprietors. Among other objections they raised the point that the map had not been attached to Presi- dent Washington's proclamation. Accordingly the Commission- ers on June 21, 1798, forwarded the Dermott map to President Adams with President Washington's original proclamation and the draft of another for execution by President Adams. The map was inclosed in a tin case from which circumstance it has come to be commonly referred to as the "tin case map." In their letter to President Adams, the Commissioners say : "As These acts are the authentic documents of the title of the public to the lands appropriated, we shall write to Mr. Craik or some other gentleman, to take charge of their return, rather than trust them to the mail."
Writing to Mr. William Craik on June 25, 1798, the Commissioners said :
"Some days ago, we sent the plan of the City of Wash- ington to the President, in order to procure his direction to the Trustees to convey the streets and public property in the City to the Commissioners, the plan is enclosed in a tin
219
History of the City of Washington.
case too large to go by the ordinary conveyance of the mail. Mr. Joseph Nourse was so obliging as to take charge of it to Philadelphia, and we request the favour of you to bring it with you when you return, as the enclosure is of great importance, being the evidence of the public property in the City."
On the receipt of President Adams' proclamation with the map attached, the Commissioners again requested the Trustees to execute the conveyance, whereupon a letter was sent to the Trustees signed by David Burnes, William Prout, Robert Peter by Nicholas King his attorney, Samuel Davidson, for himself and the heirs of John Davidson, John Oakley for Ruth Ann Young and the minor children of William Young, deceased, Daniel Carroll of Duddington and James M. Lingan. This letter stated that it was the understanding of the signers that there was no duly authenticated plan of the city exhibiting the streets and appropriations "as heretofore acted upon and be- lieved to exist;" and cautioned the Trustees at their peril not to convey the said streets and appropriations until there should be such a duly authenticated plan. The letter concluded by saying that if compulsory measures should be adopted to compel the Trustees to convey before such plan should be established, the signers engaged to defend the Trustees in a legal resistance thereto.
On the receipt of this communication the Trustees refused to execute any deed specifically designating the streets and appropriations but offered to convey in general terms, but with- out specific designation, all the streets, squares and parcels which had been laid off by the President pursuant to the deeds in trust. This form of conveyance not being acceptable to the Commissioners the question of instituting coercive measures was submitted to the President. In view of the opinion of the Attorney General, Charles Lee, however, to the effect that it was not material to the United States whether the Trustees con- veyed public appropriations to the Commissioners or not as the title of the United States would be equally valid in either case, no further attempt was made to compel a conveyance.
It should be remarked that by reason of the proceedings
220
History of the City of Washington.
here recited the Dermott map was accepted by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Potomac Flats cases, as the official and authentic map of the streets and reservations of the city.
A matter of interest connected with the disposition of the public appropriations was the attempt of the Commissioners to donate a tract of land to the Queen of Portugal as a site for the residence of her minister. The idea of making such a donation had been previously discussed with the Spanish Minister, but the first definite step after obtaining the consent of President Adams, was the addressing of an identical letter on May 3, 1797, to the British, Batavian and Portuguese Ministers offering each such quantity and location of ground as they should select, and expressing the hope that the transaction would tend to strengthen the ties of friendship with this country. The offer was taken up by the Portuguese Minister, Chevalier Cypriano R. Freire, and resulted in his coming to Washington and selecting a site for which the Commissioners, on May 25, 1798, executed a deed to the Queen of Portugal, describing the tract as the Square on the President's Square east of Square 171, 319 feet by 281 feet five inches. The deed was forwarded to President Adams for an endorsement of his approval and was brought to the attention of the Attorney General in connection with a memorial from a number of the proprietors protesting against various of the acts of the Commissioners. Charles Lee, the Attorney General, gave it as his opinion that since the Constitution gives Congress the power "to dispose of and make all needful rules and regu- lations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States," and since the lot in question, which was situated on one of the public reservations, was the property of the United States, it could not be lawfully conveyed without an Act of Congress. The Commissioners sought to procure an act sanctioning the conveyance but Congress failed to act in the matter and nothing further was done.
The date of the transfer of the seat of government to the District of Columbia was fixed by the first paragraph of section 6 of the act of July 16, 1790, as follows :
221
History of the City of Washington.
"And be lit enacted, That on the said first Monday in December, in the year one thousand eight hundred, the seat of the Government of the United States shall, by virtue of this act, be transferred to the District and place aforesaid;" the place referred to being the portion of the District selected for the Federal City.
An act of Congress approved April 24, 1800, authorized the President of the United States to direct the removal of the various Executive Departments to the City of Washington at any time after the adjournment of the first session of the Sixth Congress and before the time fixed by the act of July 16, 1790, for the transfer of the seat of government to that place.
The date of the first meeting of Congress in the District was fixed by an act passed May 13, 1800, for the 17th day, or the third Monday, in November, 1800; but it actually met for the first time in the District on November 21, which was the first day of the session when a quorum of both Houses was present. The meeting was in the north wing of the Capitol, then the only completed part of the building. A quorum of the House of Representatives was present on the 18th of that month.
The personnel and records of the several Departments were transferred from Philadelphia to Washington about the same time, at an expense of $32,872.34, and those Departments were fully removed to the latter city by June 16, 1801. (Senate Doc. No. 238, second session, Fifty-fifth Congress.)
The Supreme Court held its first session in Washington on the 2d of the ensuing February; but the first session at which a quorum of that court was present was held on the 4th of that month.
In a message to Congress on December 3, 1799, President Adams said :
"The act of Congress, relative to the seat of government of the United States, requiring that on the first Monday of December next, it should be transferred from Philadelphia to the district chosen for its permanent seat, it is proper for me to inform you, that the Commissioners appointed to provide suitable buildings for the accommodation of Con- gress, and of the President, and of the publick offices of the
222
History of the City of Washington.
government, have made a report of the state of the buildings designed for those purposes in the city of Washington; from which they conclude that the removal of the seat of government to that place, at the time required, will be practicable, and the accommodation satisfactory."
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.