Correspondence between John Holker, Esquire, inspector general of trade and manufactures, and late consul general, of France, and Robert Morris, Esquire, late superintendant of the finances of the United States. To which is annexed a memorial, relative to the transactions between them, and to the principles on which Mr. Morris offered a final settlement thereof, by his letter of the 26th of February, 1784.

Correspondence between John Holker, Esquire, inspector general of trade and manufactures, and late consul general, of France, and Robert Morris, Esquire, late superintendant of the finances of the United States. To which is annexed a memorial, relative to the transactions between them, and to the principles on which Mr. Morris offered a final settlement thereof, by his letter of the 26th of February, 1784.

Table of contents

Title page

A SERIES OF LETTERS, Interchanged by John Holker, Esq and Robert Morris, Esq

Copy of Mr. HOLKER's Letter to the Honorable ROBERT MORRIS, Esq Dated January 4, 1783.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Observations on ROBERT MORRIS's letter of the 26th of February, 1784, to JOHN HOLKER, and extracts from the same.

ERRATA.

§

§

[Page]

[Page]

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN JOHN HOLKER, Esquire, Inspector General of Trade and Manufactures, and late Consul General, of France, AND ROBERT MORRIS, Esquire, Late Superintendant of the Finances of the United States.

TO WHICH IS ANNEXED A MEMORIAL, Relative to the Transactions between them, and to the Principles on which Mr. MORRIS offered a Final Settlement thereof, by his Letter of the 26th of February, 1784.

PHILADELPHIA: Printed by CHARLES CIST, in ARCH-STREET. M,DCC,LXXXVI.

A SERIES OF LETTERS, Interchanged by John Holker, Esq and Robert Morris, Esq

[Page]

Copy of Mr. HOLKER's Letter to the Honorable ROBERT MORRIS, Esq Dated January 4, 1783.

SIR,

THE object of the present is merely to request as the most particular favor you can confer on me, the most speedy settlement of your accounts with the Royal Marine. Mr. Swanwick has repeatedly informed me that they are drawn out ready for your examination, and that nothing is wanting but your inspection of the same and your signature: pray, oblige me so far as to despatch them.

Permit me also to reiterate to you, Sir, my request, respecting my accounts as Agent of the Royal Marine with the United States, and which it is my earnest desire as duty to get settled; my endeavours to attain this point have hitherto been fruitless, and in the mean while, I am daily held up as a public defaulter, a character too odious to be supported by any man of principle or feeling. Let me intreat you to renew your instructions to the public officers, so as every possible despatch may be given.

I remain with every sentiment of respectful attachment, SIR, your most obedient and humble servant, (Signed) HOLKER.

§

Philadelphia, January 14, 1784.

SIR,

I AM informed that, in all probability, his Excellency the Chevalier de la Luzerne will soon return to France: I have therefore to claim your immediate and constant attention to the accounts of the Royal Marine. I must have them, so as the vouchers may be submitted to his Excellency, without delay: the necessity of the case, my reputation, my interest and fortune are too deeply concerned, not to claim every exertion on your part. I request you will honour me with an answer, and inform me when I shall positively receive said accounts and vouchers. You must excuse the earnestness of my application, and I trust you'll raze every possible obstacle in the way. One thing more I must add, that without your accounts, I cannot proceed a single step further: my clerks are at full stop, and we are waiting till such time we are enabled to proceed.

I remain with unfeigned respect and attachment, SIR, Your most obedient and very humble servant, (Signed) HOLKER.

The Hon. ROBERT MORRIS, Esq

§

[Page]

Philadelphia, January 15, 1784.

SIR,

IN consequence of your letter of yesterday, I have this day gone into an examination of the accounts as you desire, but on looking into the papers which you returned, as those you had received from Mr. Swanwick, I find very incorrect copies of my general accounts, instead of the originals which were sent to you; I must therefore request those original accounts may be sent immediately, that I may be enabled to proceed and shew the folly and absurdity of those observations which occasion this unnecessary trouble.

I am, SIR, your most obedient and very humble servant, (Signed) ROBERT MORRIS.

The Hon. JOHN HOLKER, Esq

§

Philadelphia, January 16, 1784.

SIR,

I AM peculiarly happy to find that by your letter of the 15th which I only received yesterday at 10 o'clock in the evening, you have at last found leisure to attend to the settlement of my [...]ounts. I now send you the original papers you claim.

I cannot let slip this opportunity of expressing to you, that I not only want the accounts to be examined, but that it will be necessary that you make them out in a new form, expressing solely the payments, negociations and receipts of money made by yourself. My transactions being blended with yours, I have found it utterly impracticable to know with any precision our reciprocal situation, or rather your situation, with respect to the Royal Marine▪ The copies of the originals which I request you will be so kind as to return me, will enable me to make out separately the accounts of my own transactions so soon as I obtain the vouchers which are to support them, and which you were so obliging as to take charge of, in order that they might be recorded for my safety in the first draughts of my public accounts.

I am sorry, you should deem this an unnecessary trouble; I mean not to give you any, but these accounts are of too high importance to both of us, not to deserve the utmost care and attention in the redaction thereof.

I am, SIR, your most obedient and humble servant, (Signed) HOLKER.

The Hon. ROBERT MORRIS, Esq

§

Philadelphia, January 23, 1784.

SIR,

AFTER what has passed in writing and conversation betwixt us, it is with very great reluctance I sit down, to write you on the subject of my private and public accounts; but as you told me repeatedly yesterday, that you wished I should indicate, in the first place, a mode of rendering the said accounts, and, in the second place, that I should write you on the subject of depreciation, I shall now endeavour to express my ideas on these two points, and, I hope, to your satisfaction and conviction.

[Page]I want not that you should, in any instance, depart from the usual, exact, mercantile mode or manner in rendering my public or private accounts. In abiding by the rules laid down for the same, you will state precisely the day on which you have received or paid any money for me, either on behalf of the Royal Marine, or for my personal account with you. I doubt not that you'll admit this to be necessary in all accounts whatever, both in specie and in continental money; but much more so for the latter, and for the following reasons:

In the first place, without the precise date of the time when each transaction took place is specified in the account, it would not be a true statement or account thereof. Secondly, Without the precise date, no value can be fixed on the apparent sum paid or received.

This being premised, if you will please to proceed to the examination of such of your accounts, as have come to my knowledge, you'll clearly remark the necessity of altering and correcting them.

I have already wrote you, and repeatedly told you of the absolute necessity of separating both the public and private transactions, which are personal to me, from those which regard yourself. This is indispensable, in order that each of us may be responsible for his own operations.

In the public accounts, was I to settle finally with you on them, in the form they were first proposed, I should ultimately become responsible for your operations, and you for mine—this cannot be.

In the private accounts, your transactions being blended with mine, the concerns of various other individuals being also blended with mine and yours, it is impossible to know from the dates that appear on them, what is the right of each individual, or to judge what is just to allow them, to you, or to me. One of the private accounts as proposed, I suppose not rendered, much less settled betwixt us, bears no signature, no date for the balance that is apparent; tho' it is for a sum not less than 551,514 pounds. The credit is composed of twenty-two articles, the debit of thirty-one, and notwithstanding, there are only five dates on the debit, not one on the credit; tho' all the sums are in continental specie. This certainly cannot be an account on which a settlement can have been intended by you. However that may be, it would be folly indeed on my part, to admit it as it now stands, without the vouchers and accounts, on which it is grounded, will justify the present statement of the transactions it relates to.

Respecting the subject of depreciation, I know not why you desired I should write you on it; much less ‘why you should first have offered to me, to certify in writing, that you could not and would not grant any depreciation on your public accounts; nor, why you should have argued yesterday, that because the King had made great savings, by the operations of the Royal Marine under my directions, you are not to account [...] me on his behalf, and make good depreciation, if any loss has ensued: The proposition you made to me, verbally, in answer to my letter of the 16th, and the argument you repeatedly urged to me yesterday.’

This proposition, you well know, is of such a nature, as cannot be accepted of by me; nor can you, on serious reflexion, indulge the thought one moment.

As to the great savings made to the King by my operations in Boston, surely they are not those you seriously alluded to, in order to give them as reasons, for not adjusting your accounts on a proper footing, and making good all depreciation, in every case where it may be justly due. Those operations are personal to me alone, and the King, thro' his secretaries of state, was duly informed thereof. If the savings made thereon are now to be given up, by the mode of adjusting and intermixing accounts, I shall personally lose the merit of my own transactions, and the King be deprived of that share of those advantages to which my attention and industry has given him the fairest title. These reasons, I am confident, are sufficient to ground my earnest request, that my transactions in Boston, [Page] be not any ways, or any longer, blended or connected in account with yours. I have too much reason to fear that the statements thereof, intermixed with your accounts, might occasion some erroneous inductions; which, I am certain, you never meant should take place.

The savings made for the King, by your operations, will best appear from the accounts, when they will stand alone, unconnected with any others; when they will be stated at the precise dates of receipt and payments, and not at the dates when the entries were made in your books. Let the advantages, gained thereon, be placed against the losses, suffered by depreciation; this is fair and just; this is all you certainly can mean or pretend to; and this needs no previous determination.

I shall not now add much on my private affairs, and the statements that have been proposed thereon; but, I must say, that I will not admit them, even for examination, without the transactions, personal to you, are clearly distinct from mine. Let them be joined to the vouchers belonging to them, and also with the accounts on which they are grounded, for my inspection, and then I shall see and know what I may have further to say on them.

Whatever may be the result of your accounts with me, when your transactions for others, and mine with and for others, are separated from your accounts with me, is immaterial at present. But it is of the utmost importance, to your honor and mine, that the settlement of accounts, which has been totally laid aside for much too long a period, should at least now be finally adjusted and settled betwixt us, without any further delay, for any possible reason. Without this, neither you nor I can receive or render that justice due to each of us, nor to those, whose concerns have been entrusted to our good faith, care and management.

As the vouchers, in support of my personal transactions in Boston, can be no longer of any use to you, as they are of the utmost consequence, and necessary to the progress of my public accounts, I request you'll be so kind as to send 'em to me, by a safe hand, so soon as you can conveniently collect them: and at the same time the original accounts of Thomas Russell, Jon. Williams, and John Rowe, of Boston, with me, and all others which may relate to my private or personal accounts and transactions; so as I may proceed to settle them by myself. I will return a regular discharge or receipt for the whole, if you deem it proper or necessary.

You shewed me yesterday in your hand a statement, which you said you had just then been making, in order to value the savings made on my Boston transactions; which you found to amount to a very high sum, indeed. But permit me to ask you, Why all this unnecessary trouble? Is it on my account? Surely you do not mean to claim for yourself those savings? In order to establish your right thereto, I have this morning, for the very first time, examined how your accounts, with me, did stand at that period. I arrived here, from Boston, on the 24th day of December, 1778; I have, therefore, stated your private and public accounts with me, separately, on the 31st day of December of that year. Their inspection will elucidate whether or not the individuals, whose money and property I had at my disposal in Boston, and the King, have or have not a just and indisputable right to the savings I there made. I shall renounce all claims to these great savings, on their behalf, if you'll please to show the smallest shadow or appearance of right to them.

I earnestly entreat you to weigh the above observations in your mind, and that you'll permit me to conclude by renewing to you the assurance of the sincere attachment, with which I shall not cease to remain,

SIR,

Your devoted friend and very humble servant, (Signed) HOLKER.

The Hon. ROBERT MORRIS, Esq

§

[Page]

Philadelphia, January 24, 1784.

SIR,

I RECEIVED your letter of the 23d instant late last evening: I will answer it fully, as soon as may be. B [...] previously I must have your explicit answer to this plain question: Did you not desire me, when I first agreed to assist you, to comprehend all the accounts of the Royal Marine under your direction in my accounts, without regarding whether the business had been performed by you or by me, or by your or my orders? I shall expect your answer to this question immediately.

I am, SIR, your most obedient and humble servant, (Signed) ROBERT MORRIS.

JOHN HOLKER, Esq present.

§

Philadelphia, January 24, 1784.

SIR,

BY your letter of this day, you ask me this plain question: ‘Did you not desire me, when I first agreed to assist you, to comprehend all the accounts of the Royal Marine, under your direction, in my accounts; without regarding whether the business had been performed by you or by me, or by your or my orders?’ I shall make you immediately as plain an answer.

When you first agreed to assist me, I could not possibly have desired you, to comprehend all accounts of the Royal Marine, under my direction, in your accounts; without regarding, whether the business had been performed by you or me, or by your or my orders. I say, it could not possibly be; because, when you first agreed to act as my agent, no one operation had taken place, no one operation or business had been performed, either by you or me.

I might make some further observations on this question; but I will not enter into useless dissertations or discussions.

You must certainly mean to render me substantial justice; you must mean to render it to the King, and to all who have entrusted you with their concerns. My intentions are perfectly similar to yours, and I do not mean any thing else, than to obtain it speedily from you; as well as to render it also to you, in all possible cases. On this ground let your accounts personal be stated separately from those personal to me, in the usual, regular, mercantile mode or manner; so as they may be clearly understood, and our respective interests and concerns as easily established: and we shall undoubtedly part hereafter on the same footing we have hitherto lived.

But, Sir, I must repeat to you, that my Boston transactions shall not be blended with yours. I affirm that I never intended, much less agreed to or consented, that they should be rendered by you at any one period. I never permitted they should be anyways blended with your accounts; but in that very incomplete statement of the then situation of the affairs, committed to my care, during Monsieur Gerard's residence here, which it was proper to let him have, for his information, before his departure for France.

When I carried you the papers and notes I had made and drawn up in Boston, on my return from thence, in December 1778, I pray'd you to oblige me so far, as to draw up an account of my transactions there, separate and distinct from all others; to state them in a separate book or paper, and to keep the vouchers till I should want or call for them: telling you, I should think them safer in your hands than in mine, and that your statement of my transactions, in a regular form, would, on a future day, assist my memory in redacting and rendering my accounts. This, Sir, you complied with; and, in consequence thereof, you drew 'em up in one set of sheets, which you gave me, some time afterwards, to keep for my direction.

[Page]I have since then observed, that this account is thus entitled: ‘Debtor, JOHN HOLKER, Esq in Boston, acct currt. with ROBERT MORRIS, Creditor.’ By this superscription it would almost appear, that I was accomptable to you, and not you to me; but I am convinced you do not think me quite so great a fool, as to have ever established you Agent General over myself: however, I overlooked the superscription and thought it was merely a method or form adopted, in order to establish a regular account, that might serve for my future instruction at a later day.

You'll please to observe, that the transactions therein related are either personal to me, or to the Chev. De Borda, Major of that fleet which the Count D'Estaing commanded. This observation, you must recollect, I made you, and gave it as a special reason for stating them distinctly from your other accounts, and for giving me up the papers, on which they were to be stated and redacted; you still retaining the vouchers and my notes, for their and mine ultimate and additional safety.

At the period, when M. Gerard mentioned his resolution of returning to France, I then told you of the propriety of shewing him an account of the expenditures of the Royal Marine. You observed, in reply, that the business was only in train, and that it was utterly impossible that anything, like an exact account, could be produced: that, among other agents, M. Smith of Baltimore, in particular, had rendered none; tho' very heavy advances had been made him by you. I agreed, therefore, to the proposition you then made, that a statement should be redacted of such transactions only, as could then be supported by vouchers in your possession. You observed, you would also make out a separate account of my Boston transactions, and that you would include the same therein. This last foregoing part of this story, is as near truth as I can remember. This said account was afterwards inserted in your public account; and, by one particular line or article, in conformity to the real and true spirit of my intentions, when you undertook to draw up for me the little book I have before mentioned. When this separate account was drawn up, or about being drawn up, you told me that you had a great deal of trouble in redacting these accounts for me; that you had paid or received my bills drawn from Boston on you, or in your favour; and, that a commission, of two and a half per cent. would not be more than adequate for your time and trouble. You added, that I ought to pretend to as much, in order to defray my travelling expences, &c. &c. I did agree to allow a commission of two and a half per cent. and, in consequence of this imprudent consent, it was so past and introduced in that form (tho' it is a very incomplete statement of my Boston transactions) among your other accounts. But, Sir, rather than this commission should any longer retard the redaction and settlement of my accounts, I agree that you shall pass in your accounts a sum equivalent to 5 per cent. on the amount of that particular account, which you so properly blended with your own, tho' I have repeatedly declared to you, and most seriously, that I will not partake of any copper thereof, nor of any other commission whatever; and tho' I shall certainly credit the Chev. De Borda for two and a half per cent. on the said amount, in favour of the King, because I am sensible of the impropriety of my consent to your proposition; and, because it is just, I should not only refund the King, but also, if necessary and you should insist on it, suffer for the indelicacy of the transaction, so far as it regards me.

All the above circumstances must be present to your mind; you'll likewise recollect that immediately after you had agreed to be my agent in Philadelphia and also to assist me with your good advice, I entreated you three different times, to open a new set of books for all the transactions of the Royal Marine, in order to keep the accounts separate and distinct from all others, and in order that I might have a daily recourse to them, or produce them, to whom it might concern. If ever I thought it proper or necessary. This fact I stated fully to you the last time I saw you, and you told me you remembered it well; and, likewise the answer you made me at the time; which was, that [Page] it would be somewhat inconvenient and unnecessary; because you would hold yourself constantly ready to give me the accounts, when I should want them, or any information I should chuse thereon.

When I last saw you at your office, you shew'd me a number of papers relative, said you, to the accounts of the Royal Marine, which would undoubtedly remove all my groundless and injurious suspicions and prove that you had employed every dollar, or nearly every dollar, (I don't recollect positively the exact expression) which you had received for the King's account. You must remember how forcibly I was struck, on remarking the great number of transactions therein apparently stated; I told you that I had never seen them or heard of them, till you mentioned some such an account in your last visit to me; but, also, that I had forbid Mr. Turnbull repeatedly from blending his accounts with yours. You answered, that Mr. Turnbull, by whose actions I was naturally bound, being my agent, had received them, or copies of them, some time after you had declined my public business; that Mr. Swanwick had delivered them to him, himself, by your order, after your perusal and examination of these said accounts, and that I should still find them in Mr. Turnbull's possession, in whose hands they had certainly remained ever since that time: all this you must well recollect, since it happened betwixt us the day before last. Now, Sir, on enquiry I find, that Mr. Turnbull did receive some such papers; they were delivered to him by Mr. Swanwick, and retaken by him from Mr. Turnbull, one or two days afterwards. It may be essential, in order to remove all difficulties betwixt us, that I should immediately see those papers; I therefore request you'll either entrust me with the original draft, or with the copy presented by Mr. Swanwick, who will be best able to give full information respecting them and this part of the business, since he was the redacter thereof. However this may be, why did not you communicate these accounts to me at that time, and why, after Mr. Swanwick retook them, have not all my accounts been settled for these three years past? Why have you not sent me your accounts with Mr. Smith, in order to assist my operations and the examination of his accounts, when you knew that I had a person employed in Baltimore to settle them with him, &c. &c.? You must see that I can make questions also; but it is unnecessary to answer them, wihout you chuse it; for all I want is my public and personal accounts, and such other papers which are so necessary to me, and which I claimed from you in my letter of yesterday.

It is not my desire to elude any further preparatory questions from you; but, I must observe to you, that a long correspondence will only occasion delays in rendering and settling finally accounts betwixt us, which it is so incumbent on you and me to have done with.

I am, SIR, your most obedient humble servant, (Signed) HOLKER.

The Hon. ROBERT MORRIS Esq

§

Philadelphia, February 26, 1784.

SIR,

YOU will receive with this letter, a state of my accounts with you, both in your public and private capacity; together with such observations as may serve to explain them fully, and if farther explanations should be necessary, I will readily go into them. After a due examination of all these accounts, you will be able to judge, whether you was authorised to suppose that a desire to withold a balance from you has influenced me to delay the settlement. In your letter of the 24th of last month you ask ‘why have not all my accounts been settled for these three years past?’ To this question I am now about to reply, without noticing what is said on the same subject in [Page] your previous letter of the 23d, or your subsequent letters of the 27th of last month, and of the 8th and 13th inst. You will remember, Sir, that you introduced yourself to my acquaintance in the beginning of July, 1778, and pressed me to undertake the transaction of your affairs. The consideration held out to me was, that very great sums of money would naturally come to my hands, and might be occasionally employed in useful speculations on our joint account, and that the commission (also to be divided between us) would be very considerable. You will remember that I declined your proposals (though urged upon me for several days) telling you that my private affairs called for my whole attention, that my public occupations for some time had prevented the settlement of old and important accounts, and that I should not, without injury to myself and others, engage in new pursuits. You may remember, also, that you urged it as a kind of obligation, to take care of the interests of a King, who was in the act of affording such generous assistance to my country, and called on me, if I would not act myself, to point out some person for whom I would be responsible. At length you drew from me my reluctant consent; and whatever else may happen, I have at least the pleasure to reflect that the trust reposed in me, was faithfully executed, until it was delivered over in the spring of the year 1780, to the house of W. Turnbull and Comp.

As you was not only agent for your sovereign, but also for many individuals trading to this country, or speculating in our public funds, the concerns which I engaged in for you, were both numerous and important. On some a commission was charged, and on others it was not; but in every commission you was by agreement to share one half. For the proof of this I will, out of many other materials, select only for the present, what is said in your letter of the twenty-fourth of last month, and your letter of the nineteenth instant, explaining away the groundless assertion it contains as a mistake. I must, however, observe, that the only objection you made to the half commission, when Mr. Swanwick delivered you the account thereof, was, as to its value; and to me you never declared against taking it, until a conversation we had in the office of Finance in November or December last. You repeated the refusal at your own house the 22d of last month, and the next day at my house: and then reminded me, in your letter of the 24th of last month, how frequently you had declared against taking this commission. To me it is immateria whether you take it or not. I agreed to divide all commissions charged on the affairs transacted for you, both on account of the Royal Marine and on account of individuals; and have therefore rendered that account with the others, and credited you for the half which belongs to you. By the list of accounts annexed to this letter it will appear, that before the month of June, 1780, forty-one different accounts were delivered by me to you, and our transactions closed as far as the actual situation of things could well admit of. In the autumn of that year a settlement of your accounts was attempted, but it could not be effected; because neither you nor I could obtain several of the necessary materials. I have many of your notes and other documents on this subject, but what you say in yours of the 25th of January, 1781, is sufficient: ‘I cannot obtain, notwithstanding the most earnest and repeated applications to the treasury, the valuation of the provisions furnished to the Royal Marine, by the Continental Commissaries, in the run of 1779. I intreat you to put on the same the present current value thereof, so as to close and transmit your accounts with all possible convenient speed. I shall hereafter settle the just valuation myself with the commissaries, and will understand with you thereon personally, if any difference should arise.’ I must observe (in this place) that I do not like to render such accounts, and still less to come to a settlement in appearance, when the real settlement remains behind. It was not before the middle of May, 1781, that I obtained the account of Ephraim Blaine, one of the Continental Commissaries, and therefore I could not before that period have settled with you. But why did I not then make the settlement? I had then accepted the office I now hold, and was (in consequence) obliged [Page] to refer all my former affairs to the direction of others. But if you had urged a settlement, even when I was most engaged, with half that solicitude and impetuosity which you now have put en, I would have taken hours from my sleep rather than have exposed myself to the charges and suspicions (which I have only discovered of late were in your mind) although in the event they will appear to be totally unfounded. As to what you say of the Chevalier de la Luzerne's application on the subject of your public accounts in his letter of the 4th October last, I will leave your own heart to make the comment. It is sufficient for me to observe, that if you asked this application with the view of urging me (personally) to▪ settlement, you ought to have asked it, when that gentleman first pressed you on the part of his court. But you knew full well my willingness to settle with you at any moment, if it were possible to spare the time from my public avocations. Mr. Swanwick whom I had empowered to settle these as well as other of my accounts, laboured with you from time to time in the business, my books and papers were always open to you, and at your request, on the sixth of March last, he delivered to Mr. Betheder a number of rough statements of accounts, some formerly made by me, others by himself, together with all the vouchers and also the account settled the 31st August 1779, in presence of Monsr. Gerard. These were detained until some time in November or December last, when you sent a bundle or two of papers containing a part of them to my house.

About that time you mentioned to me in my office, that I was indebted 169,000 Livres to the Royal Marine, and gave me to understand that you collected your information from Mr. Turnbull; you know my surprise on that occasion. I told you, it was impossible; but that as soon as Mr. Governeur Morris returned from New-york, and some immediate business of the office was dispatched, I would attend to the settlement of those accounts. On the 14th of January I received your letter, pressing for a settlement; on the fifteenth I set about it, and (for the first time) opened the bundles of papers you had sent to my house. To my very great surprise, I found that the rough drafts of my accounts were detained, and imperfect copies sent, and that very improper remarks were made on those accounts. In my letter of the 15th I asked the original accounts, and, in answer to it, you mention a desire that they should now be rendered in a new form; which, by the remarks made by the person you had employed on my accounts, was done, I find, at his instigation. This request I shall presently have occasion to take notice of; however on receiving those originals, I was astonished to find various scratches, notes and obliterations had been made in them (even in that which was signed by Monsr. Gerard and yourself). On the 22d day of January ('till which time you could not see me) I called on you and complained of this extraordinary conduct, which you could not defend. You then let me know (for the first time) your claim of depreciation; which you at the same time acknowledged you had never thought of 'till lately. I told you, I would never allow it. And in reply to your question, "what will the King's minister say" I told you, I did not care, and offered to give a certificate under my hand, that I would not pay it. I requested you to come to my house the next day, that you might be convinced from my books how much you had injured me by supposing, I was in debt to the Royal Marine, and entertaining (as I had lately perceived you did) suspicions unworthy both of you and me. You came and I opened my books to you, and begun an examination of those articles of my accounts against which objections had been made by the person you had employed to make observations on them; the first article we took up was Col. Mitchell's account, and finding all the objections to that account were unfounded, you grew tired of this mode of refutation, and seemed desirous to get rid of it. I told you that I could with the same ease shew the folly and absurdity of all the other objections; I then shewed you the rough draft of an account current with Wm. Turnbull & Co. which brought my accounts with the Royal Marine to a close, by transferring the balances to my accounts with that house, which had been done by your order. This seemed to alarm you, and you declated you had never seen that account. We had a good deal of conversation [Page] which closed with my desire that you would send the form in which you chose to have your accounts rendered, and assign in writing the reasons on which you asked for depreciation. The objects of this request were that (if possible) I might reduce the accounts to the required form, and that if you should (on reflection) risque the demand of depreciation, I might have an opportunity once for all to contest it. Before I quit the above mentioned conversation, it is proper to add, that in consequence of what you then said, and of what is contained in your letter of thy twenty fourth of January, I have enquired more particularly into the state of facts, and I find that Mr. Swanwick delivered the account in question to your said agents Wm. Turnbull and Co. that it remained with them some months, that he received it back to correct the omission of one or two trifling charges which were on their books against me, that he did not return it because Mssrs. Turnbull and Co. had entered it on their books, that they have delivered to Mr. Swanwick two statements of accounts conformable to it, that Mr. Swanwick informed you he had delivered this account to Mr. Turnbull, that you applied for it to him, and (Mr. Turnbull tells me) that you certainly was furnished with a copy of it. This state of facts which can be supported by the evidence of Mr. Swanwick and Mr. Turnbull—you may (if you please) contrast with the declarations you have made in writing, and in conversation. On the twenty seventh of January Mr. Cottringer called on my part for some of those vouchers delivered by Mr. Swanwick to Mr. Betbeder, but you not being at home he called again next day, and the vouchers confidentially entrusted were refused. The foregoing true history contains the reasons why your accounts have not yet been finally settled, and prepares the way for another point which of late you have much laboured.

In your letter of the 23d of January last you tell me ‘I will not admit the private accounts even for examination without the transactions personal to you are clearly distinct from mine.’ How does this agree with the assertion contained in your same letter? ‘It is of the utmost importance to your honor and mine, that the settlement of accounts which has been totally laid aside for much too long a period should at least now be finally adjusted and settled betwixt us without any further delay for any possible reason.’ I must leave you, Sir, to reconcile these and other things which do not consist too well together, but I seriously assure you that I will not render my accounts in any other form than that in which they are now sent. My reasons are these: First, these accounts agree with my books which can be supported by proper evidence; 2ly, if I rendered them in any other form, they might be invalidated by contrasting them with those already in your possession; 3ly, although I was very desirous of indulging your wish on this occasion, yet I cannot now do it, for the confidence I reposed in you is gone; 4ly, the accounts, as rendered, contain that substantial justice you speak of, and therefore it is not necessary to change the form on that account. You may from the accounts in their present form make just such statements as you shall think proper, and if on comparing them, I find no essential difference, I will give a proper certificate thereof; but more I will not do.

In your letter of the 23d January you observe, that the King, through his Secretaries of State, was duly informed of your operations in Boston; that, by the mode of adjusting and intermingling accounts, you shall personally lose the merit of your own transactions, and that the savings made for the King, by my operations, will best appear from the accounts when they will stand alone. Whether the informations you gave to the King were well or ill founded, it is not my business to enquire; whether the state of facts will or will not do you honor, I am no longer solicitous; but I hope they may. As to myself, I claim from the King neither thanks, nor honors, nor rewards. I shall never give myself a moment's concern, whether he gained or lost in those transactions, which I performed by your order; I owed him no duty, he had confided to me no trust, nor conferred on me any authority; if he had, I would have executed his trust with fidelity; you are responsible to him and may render such accounts as you think proper; mine with you, I send with this letter. In your same letter of the twenty-third of January, you dwell on the same arguments, [Page] and say: ‘I am convinced you do not think me quite so great a fool, as to have established you Agent General over myself.’ To all this my answer is very simple: you are, I suppose, answerable to the King; but whether you are or not, is none of my affair. As to the business I performed for you, I must answer it to you, and I do this by shewing a compliance to your orders. Robert Morris accounts to the Agent of the Royal Marine; John Holker, Daniel Bell, John Rowe and others, transact business on account of the Royal Marine in Boston; the Agent General makes those Gentlemen accountable to Robert Morris, by placing the accounts of those transactions in his hands, for the express purpose of introducing their accounts into his, so that the Agent General may have the whole in one view in the accounts of Robert Morris, and for the purpose of justifying the charge of a commission thereon, one half of which is to be drawn by the Agent General, by agreement, and the other half by Robert Morris. If the accounts of those Gentlemen do not please you, I care not; for I did not employ them, and inserted their accounts in mine by your order. In my letter of the twenty-fourth of January I asked this question: "Whether you did not desire me to comprehend all the accounts of the Royal Marine in my accounts?" It would have saved time at least if you had answered plainly in the affirmative. The fact was, that the account of your Boston transactions, as well as all other of these accounts, was inserted in mine by your order, that the whole might appear in one point of view, and a commission be charged on the whole. You have stated this matter somewhat differently, in your letter of the sixteenth of January, speaking of the vouchers to that Boston account, you say, ‘which you were so obliging as to take charge of, in order that they might be recorded for my safety, in the first draught of my public accounts.’ In your letter of the twenty-third of January, you say, ‘My Boston transactions shall never be blended with yours; I affirm, that I never intended, much less agreed or consented, that they should be rendered by you.’ And in your letter of the twenty-fourth of January, you say, ‘When I carried you the papers and notes I had made and drawn up in Boston, I prayed you to draw up an account of my transactions there, separate and distinct from all others, to state them in a separate book or paper, and to keep the vouchers till I should want or call for them; telling you, I should think them safer in your hands than in mine.’ In that same letter you mention other things, relative to a commission on those transactions, in which your memory served you so badly, that your letter of the nineteenth instant has been written to correct one error. Your relation of this matter would seem to turn on this point: That you conceived your papers to be safer in my custody than in your own. But how is this possible? You admit, that it was agreed, a commission should be charged by me on this transaction. How could that be, without bringing the whole into my accounts? You say that these transactions were to be recorded in your first public accounts. In the first accounts settled you admit the amount of them was carried out in one line, agreeably to the original intention. Now, Sir, I have in my possession a state of those transactions, as rendered by me for settlement, and joined thereto, is written, not only Mr. Gerard's certificate that he had compared it, &c. &c. but the following words signed by you, "vu, verifié & approuvé par nous à Philadelphie, 9 Sept. 1779." After doing this how can you at this hour pretend, that you never intended much less agreed to or consented that these accounts should be rendered by me? But this is not all: several of your transactions in Boston were included in and produced in support of an account entitled ‘John Holker, Esqr; Agent of the Royal Marine of France in account current with Robert Morris of Philadelphia on account of said Marine’ To make out this account you yourself furnished me with your own minutes with John Rowe's accounts, Daniel Bell's, the Continental Navy Board's, Miller and Tracey's, Nathaniel Rugles's, Jon. Williams's, Thomas Russell's and the Board of War's at Boston: And you yourself was present, not only at the adjustment of this account before Monsr. Gerard, but also when the entries were made by me in my books, and you have signed the account. I do acknowledge that you proposed my opening a set [Page]of books for the business of the Royal Marine, but upon my objecting that a multiplicity of books were apt to create confusion and subjected accountants to a greater chance of error, you acquiesced in the introduction of those as well as the private affairs entrusted to your management, into my books, and after that acquiescence, objections made now to answer your own purposes, can have no weight, especially as the accounts, I render, are just, fair and honorable. To these convincing evidences of your agreement and consent, I can add also your directions. I have in my possession a list of bills drawn by you at Boston for the use of the Royal marine, to which is added by you the following note, "Mr. Holker begs the proper entries may be made". In a letter from you of the 7th of January 1779, you ask, ‘When will Mr. Robert Morris be at liberty to work with Mr. Holker on account of the expenditures of the fleet, his negociations, and at Boston.’ You wrote to me on the first of August 1779, as follows, ‘Mr. Holker presents his compliments to Mr. Morris, reflecting on Mr. Chaumont's protesting the bills, he makes the following requests: That his account may be finally drawn out and sent to him, that a proper list of loan-office certificates, proceeding from the bills drawn on Mr. Le Ray de Chaumont, payable at the house of Mr. Peltier, may be finally drawn up and transmitted, after having been certified by me par quadruplicates, so as he may dispose of part or the whole thereof. That an account of the money paid into Mr. Bell's hands, by Mr. Jonathan Williams, for the account of Mr. Chaumont, may be made out, and the price of exchange, then current, mentioned; so as to authorise me to send notes of the payment to the Minister, to pay the value thereof to Mr. Chaumont on account of the affairs of the Royal Marine, to determine the Minister to honor my bills, to facilitate Chaumont's affairs, to give some satisfaction, to ensure my own credit and consequence, &c. &c. I should want seven half joes, which I shall reimplace here on the first opportunity. I am yours for life and death, HOLKER,’ In your letter of the sixteenth of August, 1779, you say, ‘I beg you'll write in a pressing manner to Mr. Smith for his accounts, so as I may have, as soon as possible, an estimate of our situation with respect to the King.’ On the twenty-fifth of the same month you say, ‘Mr. Holker hopes Mr. Smith has sent his accounts, they are very necessary, as Mr. Holker can only ground his remittance to Mr. Chaumont on the general account.’ On the third of September you say, ‘The above note is a general account of what was furnished by the Continental commissaries in Boston, deducting the article mentioned in Miller and Tracey's account. Remainder, is that part, which, being sent from hence, arrived in Boston, and must be estimated at the price then current in Boston, according to Messrs. Miller and Tracey's account, so as to avoid all difficulties.’ And on the eighth of September, 1779, you say, ‘As soon as you can send me a copy of the general account, I shall be glad to receive it, so as to ground my letter to the Minister, by Mr. Gerard, and my correspondence with Mr. de Chaumont.’ All this was previous to the settlement of those accounts on the 9th of September, 1779.

But, Sir, it will not be difficult to shew, not only what you ordered and agreed to, but even what you intended at that time; altho' your intentions may now have changed. Be pleased to recollect, that your operations at Boston were twofold, part for the King, and part for private account; that the business of both kinds passed in some instances thro' the same hands, and that the money was applied partly by funds, which you received there, and partly by bills drawn on me. John Rowe's accounts amount, in the whole, to the sum (in Pennsylvania currency)

of |  | £. 61040 - 15 - 5 ½
of this there was for account of the King | £. 51503 - 17 - 8 ½ |
and for your and my joint account | 9536 - 17 - 9 |
| is | 61040 - 15 - 5 ½
He drew bills on me to the amount of |  | £. 55275 - 15 - 0
and you paid him in Boston |  | 8250 - 0 - 0
|  | £. 63525 - 15 - 0
which placed a balance in his hands of |  | 2484 - 19 - 6 ½
and this balance being charged to him in a new account, run |  | £. 61040 - 15 - 5 ½

into other transactions: the £.8250 which you paid him, arose from a sale of bills you drew on Messrs. Lecouteulx, on the credit of 200,000 Livres, remitted to them in part of 400,000 Livres the King had given to the owners of certain privateers, which transaction I shall, by and bye, have occasion to mention again. Now, Sir, I ask how this part of your Boston transactions is to be separated from my account. But, further, you will recollect, also, that I have at your request introduced into my accounts all your transactions for others (except some of your remittances to Mr. Chaumont, which you did not impart to me) and I have certified, by you, accounts of sales of bills of exchange you sold in Boston, for those who had directed you to procure for them loan-office certificates, which accounts were delivered to enable me to frame mine.

| (Penns. currency.)
For bills drawn on Mr. Chaumont, payable at the house of Mr. Peltier, you received | £. 38615 - 0 - 0
For bills drawn on Messrs. Buffault and Co. payable do. | 38467 - 5 - 6
| £. 77082 - 5 - 6

These were part of the funds applied to the King's service, also about £.2000, of what you received for goods of Mr. Chaumont, and a very considerable sum belonging to the same gentleman, which was received by Jonathan Williams in Boston. This last, paid to the use of the Royal marine £.187,525 - 5 - 10, and he received the money from sales of bills on Mr. Chaumont, Mr. Grand, Messrs. Lecouteulx & Co. and from sales of goods, the property of Mr. Chaumont, Chaumont Cavillon freres & Co. Sabatier fils & Despres, and Marquis de St. Aignan. The accounts of all these things are, at your desire, in my books and in my name. How are they to be separated? Where are your instructions for the purpose at the time? Could you have had any such thing then in idea? But you have endeavoured to obviate these clear conclusions, by holding up the idea, that the settlement before Mr. Gerard was a very incomplete statement, which it was necessary for him to have before his departure for France. Is there any thing in your notes or letters, written at the time, which will countenance such construction? You know that there is not; you know that they prove the direct contrary. And, I'll go one step farther, which is to show, that very long after Mr. Gerard's departure you viewed that settlement in a very different point of light. For, I have a note, in which you say, ‘Mr. Holker wants a copy of Mr. Robert Morris's old account current of the Royal Marine signed by Mr. Gerard, which he will return immediately, and then will demand a meeting with Mr. Morris, for his kind advice, how to proceed in a settlement with Roger Sherman.’ It is clear, therefore, that before your Boston operations, at the time of [...], when the account of them was rendered, and long after, you agreed, consented, ordered, and intended that they should be involved in my accounts. The effort now made to separate them is with a view to establish your demand of depreciation. But, altho' it is in that respect immaterial to me, I will not consent to it.

I have already mentioned that I desired you to write on this subject, that I might have an opportunity, once for all, to contest it. I will add, that I did not imagine you would seriously advance such a claim. Remember, Sir, [Page] that my transactious with you, were merely of the nature of a trust; you put monies into my hands for your own purposes; I held them at your disposition; if I performed that trust, and the monies perished in my hands, how am I answerable? Did I ever ask you to place monies in my hands (except when you indicated purchases to be made or services to be performed that required it? You know that I did not. Did I ever refuse to honor your drafts, or obey your orders on me for money? You know that I did not. To what purpose, then, is it, that you speak to me of the depreciation of monies which I did you the favor to keep for you? I say favor, because the loss in receiving and paying such large nominal sums in paper money, by errors in counting▪ &c. amount to more than you can have any idea of, and the trouble and time consumed therein, none can know, but those who went through the painful experience. Suppose you had entrusted to me any other perishable article, should I, or could I be made answerable for the waste and loss while it lay in my store, especially if I received no consideration for the care and custody? Altho', to oblige you, these accounts were rendered in a variegated form, they might all be comprized under one general account, between you and me, of monies received and paid by me. Whether, during the whole of this time, there was, or was not, a balance in my hands, is totally immaterial to me; it was always ready at your order to draw it out when you pleased. I repeatedly, at your desire, made estimates for your government in this respect, and my books and papers were always open to you. Thus much, Sir, I have thought it might be proper to say on the general principle.

For what you say, in your letter of the 23d of January, on the subject of dates to the articles of my accounts, I can only refer you to the subordinate accounts, which contain dates as precisely as I can render them (except that the articles of my cash account being only entered from the cash-book into the waste-book weekly, probably the dates may sometimes bear the date of the day of entry, instead of the precise day on which the money was paid or received; but this, I conceive, is not of any importance.) But, in your same letter, you say further, ‘In the private accounts your transactions being blended with mine, the accounts of various other individuals being also blended with mine and yours, it is impossible to know, from the dates that appear on them, what is the right of each individual.’ Believe me, Sir, I have no desire to preclude you from any calculations you may think proper, on this occasion; but, I will neither ask of others, nor allow myself any depreciation in the monies which were held for your use and at your disposition. For instance, when, by your desire, I remitted upwards of thirty thousand pounds to Mr. Slough, to purchase flour for the Royal Marine and money of the recalled emissions for your private friends, can you believe I would expose my reputation, by asking him for the depreciation of that money, or waste my fortune, by allowing it to you? But, you ask me, in your letter of the twenty-third of January, Why offer a certificate that you would not allow depreciation? Recollect, I pray you, that this was in answer to your question, what you should say to the King's Minister for not allowing it to him. You say further, ‘Let the advantages gained by your operations, be placed against the losses suffered by depreciation; this is fair and just; this is all you certainly can mean or pretend to.’ But, I neither mean nor pretend to any such a thing, I have already said, and again repeat, I ask no credit of the King for any savings, I am not accountable to him for any loosings, nor will I compensate to him or to you for any depreciation during my agency in your affairs. At the same time it is not clear to me that you would not have to pay, rather than receive on the King's account; for, at the time when the settlement was made before Mr. Gerard I was actually in advance, altho', from the face of the account, the balance is considerably against me. The notes made on that very account shew this, and, altho' those notes were then made upon estimates only, yet the facts support them; except, that the sum in the hands of Mr. Smith was not quite so large as we expected, a considerable part thereof being applied to purchase and fitting a ship for your and my account, [Page] came from our own funds, and of course lessened the sum Mr. Smith had for the service of the Royal Marine. In like manner, the remittance of £.10,000 had not been effectually made to Mr. Langdon, but he had, by your desire, received my orders long before to purchase the masts which were estimated at that sum, and I was liable to pay his drafts whenever they should appear. But, in your letter of the twenty-third of January, you ask me, ‘Why argue, that because the King had made great savings by the operations of the Royal Marine under my direction, you are not to account to me on his behalf and make good depreciation if any loss ensued.’ Indeed, Sir, I made use of no such argument, but told you the King had not suffered by depreciation, and therefore had no right to ask it. You certainly can not have forgotten the arguments which you have used for paying the United States for provisions furnished at the nominal value, viz. that the King's money lay in the hands of your agents, at your order, ready to pay into the treasury, and as you could not ask them to make good depreciation, so it ought not to be asked of you. I have said that I did not ask you to place money in my hands; I now go further, if I had been in your place, I would not have drawn for the King's money until it was wanted for the King's service. Doubtless you had good reasons for writing to me on the twenty-sixth of February 1779, ‘Mr. Holker presents his compliments to Mr. Robert Morris, and begs he will do his utmost to push on his accounts as fast as possible, as also the negociation of bills, so as to make money.’ And shall Mr. Holker now ask this same Mr. Morris for depreciation, for money thus brought into his hands? Nay, money that lay ready for his disposal, and which Mr. Morris could not have parted with without immiment hazard? On the twenty-eighth day of April, 1779, you say, ‘I shall want, for the use of the Royal Navy of France, from fourteen to fifteen thousand barrels of flour. I beg, also, that you'll lay in here, five hundred barrels of the best beef, and as much pork.’ On the twentieth of August, 1779, you say, ‘What money can you command in Boston, shall I offer it to the treasury, or shall I have it employed in the purchase of beef, pork, codfish, &c. &c.’ On the third of September, 1779, ‘Mr. Gerard wants 10,000 dollars for a few days. Mr. Holker has taken the liberty of drawing this day on Mr. Morris for that sum.’ On the eighteenth of the same month, ‘I request you'll be so kind as to write to Mr. Mumford in Connecticut, to secure the salt provisions, flour, bread, &c. but especially the oil, and butter, and salt-fish, that might come in any prize vessels, to be sold at Providence or New-London.’ Can you seriously imagine, that the depositary of monies, held liable to sudden calls, of any and every kind, and who was always ready to answer those calls, would be so weak as to allow for the perishing of it in his hands? Can you suppose any tribunal, or any impartial person, would hold him bound to make it good? But let us return for a moment to your Boston transactions, on which so great a stress is laid. Your most favorable statement of them can only be, a profit made by the King on the depreciation of money belonging to individuals, applied to his use. But this is not all: you, as I have already observed, derived the means of making those expenditures, principally from funds credited to individuals in accounts kept by you, in my name, at your request; comprise the whole together, and you must see, that it forms neither addition to, nor deduction from, what I possessed. But, according to the mode in which you seem to desire a statement, I should first account to those individuals for depreciation on monies you received and applied to the King's use; secondly, to the King, for monies which you put into my hands; and, thirdly, you would ask the United States to accept of the money at the original value, because it had been in my hands; this attempt requires no comment. Such, then, is your claim for depreciation on general principles, and on the particular nature of our accounts. Before I quit the subject I will select two or three instances from those accounts, which will bring the reasoning more home to your perceptions. The King paid 400,000 Livres for two prizes, taken by the privateers Hancock and Boston, you agreed with the owners for £.70,000 lawful money; you paid in part your bills for 45,000 Livres, (£.7875) and drew on me for [Page] the remainder £.62,125, which sums together, make £.70,000 lawful. These drafts on me, equal to £.77,656 - 5 Pennsylvania currency, were paid by me, when your public bills were selling at 900 per cent. on sterling, reckoning livres 10½ d. sterling. Consequently, those bills were paid with somewhat less than 200,000 Livres, the difference on the whole transaction was a gain of 155,000 Livres Tournois.

The account sales of bills of exchange, dated the eleventh of March, 1779, contains a sale to Peter Whiteside of 91,428 Livres 5 sols, of which one bill for 4571 Livres 7 sols, was on his account. The remainder (equal to £.3800 sterling) was, on your and my joint account, taken at the current rate, towards reducing the advances which had been made for the Royal Marine, and afterwards I agreed to give you the sum of £.5700 advance on your half, for which you are credited the 12th of May in your account current, being a profit you gained thereon. The fifteenth of February, 1780, I received by your orders, bills to the amount of 54,722 Livres 18 sols, which were, according to that order, received of Messrs. Wm. Turnbull and Co. whom I have credited for the same, at the then current price of six dollars per livre; afterwards 36752 Livres 6 sols of these bills were paid for a brigantine, in which you and I were concerned, and 5500 Livres were sold at one dollar advance, is Dollrs. 5500 and 12651 Livres at three dollars advance, is 37953 Dollrs. 43453

For one half of this gain you are credited by me in account current on the seventh of April, 1780, and yet you can ask me for depreciation on these accounts. You have asked me for Livres—which you suppose to be due, and by examining the last of these transactions, being one of those on which this demand is made, you will find I should in that case pay £. 4104 - 3 - 7 for what sold at the time for £. 2600—and in a transaction where you had already derived the benefit of the actual depreciation.

You wish to know what measures I allude to which may prove disadvantageous or even ruinous to you, and what are the false conclusions drawn by you. I believe, Sir, you will be convinced that the conclusions you had formed of me and my conduct are not just; if you still think otherwise, go on in the measures necessary to compel me to render such accounts as you like. Whether some of the facts contained in this letter would be to your advantage or disadvantage and whether they would promote your grandeur or effect your ruin, you best can determine. Having thus discussed the points so much laboured and insisted upon in your late letters, I come now to speak of the accounts sent you herewith.

In your letter of the 24th January you say "I told you that Mr. Swanwick had delivered to Mr. Turnbull the accounts of the Royal Marine after my perusal and examination of said accounts: in this you are mistaken; I might have looked at them cursorily, but as to examining them I never did until since the twenty third day of January, the day on which you and I had our last interview. I am sorry to say that, upon my examination of those accounts, I find Mr. Swanwick had made considerable errors and omissions, all which I have now corrected: and as you did forbid Mr. Turnbull to admit the balances of my accounts to be introduced into his, (although I could prove your contrary orders at the time if I thought it necessary) I have continued the account of the Royal Marine in your name as agent until the end thereof. By this account you will find there was a balance of upwards of £. 340,000 continental currency in my favor when I ceased to be your agent: this consists with estimates which you and I made at that time and with the letters you told me you then wrote, excepting as to £. 100,000 which I shall presently mention. This balance was nearly discharged by bills of exchange which by your order I received of Mssrs. William Turnbull & Co. in March, April and June 1780, and which I sold or paid at the same price I was charged for them, to John Donaldson, [Page] Isaac Moses and others, to all which you was privy at the time. It is true that I had charged Wm. Turnbull and Co. with the effects from which their capital was to be drawn, and that I had omitted in due time to give them credit for the sum of £.200,000 continental currency, being the amount of that capital, which you and I agreed to advance to Mr. Turnbull, when we took him into partnership, in order to transfer your agency into his hands, neither had I charged your account for £.100,000 continental, being the half of that capital, so that these omissions not being attended to in our estimates, generally occasioned an error in them of £. 100,000 continental currency, as is above mentioned. Notwithstanding this I find, that on stating properly the accounts between Mssrs. Wm. Turnbull & Co. and me, they were paid for all the bills of exchange which I purchased of them, so that you will find your claim of 169,000 Livres Tournois falls to the ground. From the time I ceased to be your agent our accounts are no longer to be considered as of the nature of a trust, neither are the accounts between Wm. Turnbull & Co. and me of that nature. I am willing therefore to settle my accounts with them and those with you for subsequent transactions upon principles of depreciation. I find, that at the time when the Royal Marine owed me upwards of three hundred and forty thousand pounds continental currency, I had in my hands, of your private funds, and those of your friends, nearly to the amount of three hundred thousand pounds continental, and as I continued to receive more after that period, I readily agree to set aside Mr. Swanwick's proposition, of valuing the balance of continental money on your private account current at one hundred for one; he meant to do justice between us, but it did not occur to him that I received on account of the balance in my favor, on your account, as agent of the Royal Marine, the sum of £. 342,775 - 2 - 6 continental money, when it was worth sixty-one and a half for one; and, that having at the same time near £. 300,000 of yours and your friends in my hands, you ought to have the like value for at least the latter amount. And therefore to save all trouble of investigation, as to the exact sum which was in my hands, I agree to compute the same sum which I received £. 342,775 - 2 - 6 continental, at sixty-one and a half, and bring the amount thereof to your credit in the hard money account; this I think is just, and therefore, Sir, I offer it. There will then remain a balance of £. 114,561 - 18 - 0 ½ continental money arising from receipts of later date, the value of which must be settled by you and me. You will observe, I suppose, several articles in the accounts now rendered, which Mr. Swanwick had omitted some for, and some against you. In the course of examining my books and papers I have discovered also, that I lent you a cargo of tobacco, which was shipped for your account in May, 1780, per the brig Hawke, Captain Taylor, from Baltimore, consisting of 79 hogsheads. This tobacco I borrowed and paid in November last, without recollecting its being lent to you; therefore, you must either return me seventy-nine hogsheads of tobacco, or pay me as much money as will purchase it. I am ready to meet you at any time and place, in order to fix the value of the continental balance above mentioned, as also the price of the tobacco; unless you chuse to save that trouble, by delivering the like quantity of tobacco equally good in quality, which will be most agreeable to me; when these two points are adjusted, there can be no difficulty in completing the settlement of our accounts. I will then render you an account of those articles depending between us, which consists of hard money debits and credits. I have formerly rendered you a number of those subordinate accounts, whose amount or balance form articles in the accounts currt. now sent, I did intend to have had the whole copied again and sent with these, but as this would detain you much longer from the investigation of your real situation with me, I have omitted it for the present; but I will cheerfully have copied and sent to you any of them that you may desire. I am also not only ready but desirous to explain any thing in these accounts that you do not comprehend; for, altho' I will not comply with unjust and unreasonable demands, yet I am, and ever shall be, ready to shew all those with whom I have any dealings, that the accounts, which I render, are just, fair and honorable.

[Page]You will probably think it necessary that I should have sent my vouchers in support of these accounts; but, since you have detained from me some of those which were confidentially entrusted to you, I will not part with those which now remain, until we shall have made a settlement. It is possible, situated as I am, subject to perpetual interruptions, that there may still be errors or omissions in these accounts, altho' I have examined them with all the care and attention that I could; if any such, they cannot be important nor long undiscovered, as I shall still bestow time on the subordinate accounts more than I have yet done. If either errors or omissions are discovered, whether they make for or against me, I shall announce them to you, in order that right may be done.

I am, SIR, Your humble servant, (Signed) ROBERT MORRIS.

JOHN HOLKER, Esq

Observations on ROBERT MORRIS's letter of the 26th of February, 1784, to JOHN HOLKER, and extracts from the same.

ROBERT MORRIS, being accused with delaying the settlement of his accounts with JOHN HOLKER, appears determined to acquit himself of that charge. With this view, he sends, with the letter above mentioned (of February 26, 1784,) his accounts, for a final settlement, which, according to his statement, nearly balance by credit and debit. He then, in his turn, accuses the agent general, J. H. of having unjustly charged him with such delays, and of attributing them to a wish of withholding a balance due to J. H. This point is to be cleared up by the accounts of the auditors, which, however, cannot materially differ, at least in nominal sums of continental money, from those established by J. H. against R. M. upon the vouchers produced by the latter.

Speaking of the nature of the trust reposed in him, during his agency, R. M. says, ‘You may remember also, that you urged it as a kind of obligation, to take care of the interests of a King, who was in the act of affording such generous assistance to my country, and called on me, if I would not act myself, to point out some other person.’ And * further says, ‘At length you drew from me my reluctant consent. And whatever else may happen, I have, at least, the pleasure to reflect, that the trust reposed in me was faithfully executed.’

[Page]By this paragraph, he says, he reflects with pleasure, that he has faithfully executed the trust reposed in him, tho' he did undertake the King's business with reluctance; he was solicited thereto by the King's agent, who urged him to act for the interest of a good and generous King, and stipulated with him, as a previous obligation, that he should take care of his interest; because he was in the act of giving and affording assistance to his country in the hour of it's distress; he engaged in the King's concerns, and to act in those of Holker's friends on this footing. But, RES MIRABILIS? he afterwards maintains he was not agent, not bailiff in law,—but merely a banker, all the time of his agency.

And further, ‘As you was not only agent for your sovereign, but also for many individuals trading to this country, or speculating in our public funds, the concerns, which I engaged in for you, were both numerous and important.’

In another part of this letter he says, page 9, ‘Remember, Sir, that my transactions with you were merely of the nature of a trust, you put * monies into my hands for your own purposes, I held them at your disposition; if I performed that trust, and the monies perished in my hands, how am I answerable. Did I ever ask you to place monies into my hands, except when you indicated purchases, or services to be performed? Did I ever refuse to honor your drafts, or obey your orders on me for money? To what purpose then is it that you speak to me of depreciation of monies which I did you the favor to keep for you? I say favor, because the loss in receiving and paying such large nominal sums of paper money, by errors † in counting, amount to more than you have an idea of, and the trouble and time consumed therein, none can know, but those who went through the painful experience.’

John Holker entrusted to Robert Morris almost the whole of the business of the Royal Marine, deeming him alone competent thereto; J. H. being a foreigner, unacquainted with accounts and with the characters to be chosen and employed—with the prices of articles,—with the countries where these articles or provisions were to be procured,—with the nature of the money then current,—and the valuations of specie through the continent: he had no clerk, no accountant with him, no credit established to transact or give satisfaction in transacting business, to secure engagements, &c. &c. For all these purposes R. M. was chosen and employed, and at the time J. H. had not another choice to make.

For these purposes, he gave bills of exchange, he put bills on France into the hands of R. M. and also some monies arising from the sales of prize goods and others, salt, &c. &c. However, all this, R. M. says, was reduced to a mere trust of monies deposited with him, which he did J. H. the favor to keep; this favor, however, was to cost an immense sum to the King; for, laying aside all considerations respecting the heavy loss sustained on such of the bills, as it was necessary to sell for the real purpose of services actually performed for the Royal Marine, it appears by the account, that a sum exceeding £.39,000 of real specie value, of which £.30,000 at least were paid in bills on France, are said to have been employed by R. M. in order to make purchases of articles or payments, which together amount to no more than £.11,950 - 8 - 11½ specie value, thus sinking £.39,000 real, in order to pay about £.12,000. A pretty favor indeed!

"Suppose," continues the author of this extraordinary letter, ‘you had entrusted me with any other perishable § [Page] article, should I, could I, be made answerable for the waste and loss; while it lay in my store; especially if I received no consideration for the care and custody?’

This passage of the letter admits of the depreciation of the paper, it being also a perishable article; moreover it implies, that if this perishable article did not remain in his store, or in his chest, he is answerable for the waste and loss; and the more so, because he was actually not only a depositary, but a true agent, a bailiff in law, receiving the full consideration he had previously stipulated for (which is also expressed in this same letter) three times the consideration or commissions usually allowed for recovering * and paying money: if answerable for the waste and loss of the money when not in chest, he is also answerable for the total loss of the bills, either by the untimely sale thereof, or of their proceeds by depreciation, because if he did not keep those public monies in chest, till wanted for the public service, he must have employed them in the interim for his own purposes, to his own emolument, to throw the waste in his hands; and if answerable for the waste, by his own avowal when the money was out of his chest, shall he not produce his books, the only certain evidence in his favor, to prove, that he did keep them in his chest, that he did not employ the proceeds of the bills for his own purposes, that he did not sell the bills in order to get at the proceeds, that he did not take the bills to himself, under the idea of fictitious sales; especially when fictitious sales can be proved against him by this same letter? Is he not also bound; by this avowal, to give full, undoubted and lawful reasons for his conduct, in order to convince us that he had sufficient cause for the sale of all the bills given to Him?

Further says R. M. (page 4) ‘As to myself I claim from the King neither thanks, nor honors, nor rewards.† I shall never give myself a moment's concern, whether he gained or lost, on those transactions which I performed by your order: I owed him no duty, he had confided to me no trust, nor conferred on me any authority, if he had, I should have executed his trust with fidelity: you are responsible to him, and may render such accounts as you think proper, mine with you, I send with this letter.’

If the King had conferred on R. M. authority, he then would have acted with fidelity; but when the King's agent confers on him all his authority, then he is not bound to any duty; he may act without integrity in this case, and even charge therewith his employer, and traduce the agent general, because he reposed confidence in his good faith, honesty, reputation and fidelity; he was not then responsible for the trust reposed in him, because no commission in his name had issued under the King's authority, except merely for the accounts of the nominal value of these perishable articles, which he had purchased with unperishable bills; and these he had procured from the King's agent, under the pretence of fallacious accounts, of real expenditures, actual advances of money, and further wants for further expenditures. Suppose he had received from the agent general 100 hogsheads full of molasses, that he was to keep them in his store, and attend carefully to the waste; he accounts for the hogsheads but not for the contents; and when called upon to open the store, and to prove by his cooper, and servants, and books, that the hogsheads were attended to, that they have been constantly in store, and that he has neither sold nor bartered the contents; he then maintains, that the King had conferred on him no authority; therefore that he would neither open his store, thereby [Page] to prove the natural leakage and waste of the hogsheads; nor would produce his books, not being bound to act with fidelity or integrity, because he was only employed by the King's agent, and not by the King—because he was not agent for the latter, but only a store keeper, a banker for J. H.

R. M. however adds— ‘As to the business § I performed for you, I must answer it to you, and I do this by shewing a compliance with your orders.’

The following passage will shew that he received more, or pretended to receive more, than the full consideration for his services as bailiff and agent; and therefore much more than he could have claimed, had he been, as he says, a mere depositary, a mere banker.

Page 11,— ‘The fact † was that the account of your Boston transactions, as well as all others of these accounts, was inserted in mine by your order, that the whole might appear in one point of view, and a commission be charged on the whole.’

In this business, J. H. did not even benefit of the advice of R. M. during all the time of his residence in Boston: in October, November and December 1778. But as he pray'd R. M. to redact those accounts on his return to Philadelphia, he at the time consented to allow a commission of 2½ per cent. on the whole, on a sum of more than £.305,000, when it ought only to have extended to the sum of £.51,503, paid by him for J. Rowe's drafts from Boston, and J. H's bills on him for £.54,981 - 11- 3, continental currency: one half of this commission was, however, to have been credited to the Royal Marine, and this reduces the claim of R. M. on the whole to one and one quarter per cent. or one half of the above commission, if the claim is admissible on the improper consent of the agent general given at the time, to the proposal of R. M. for his trouble in redacting the accounts.

R. M. has said above, (page 10) ‘that if the King had conferred on him any authority, he would have executed his trust with fidelity:’ afterwards, he adds, (page 15) to his immortal honor ‘I did not ask ‡ you to put monies into my hands; now go further; if I had been in your place, I would not have drawn for the King's money, until it was wanted for the King's service.’

Does not this accusation made against J. H.—does not this charge preferred by R. M. against his employer—indicate, and amount to an acknowledgement, that R. M. knew at the time, that the bills were improperly sold?— This sale he well knew, the accounts when properly stated would disclose: therefore to prevent the charge against himself, and to avoid the consequences, he becomes accuser of the agent general, and lays the blame at his door, though no such charge had yet been made against R. M.—J. H. could not have even suspected that R. M. had ever concealed from his knowledge the management and appropriation of such a large sum as appears by the accounts, nor would he ever have believed it, but from the conviction, that the accounts carry with them, to all who can read and understand them.

However, the following questions arise on this astonishing passage of his letter: If it was, in his eyes, a want of [Page] fidelity; if it was not honest in the King's agent general, to have (as he here asserts) prematurely drawn the bills; why does his confidential subordinate agent prematurely sell these bills? Was it, because J. H. had entrusted to him the management of the whole of his business, the transaction of all his affairs, the negociation of those bills, the choice of agents and correspondents for all purchases on account of the royal service, the settlement of the accounts? Was it necessary for R. M. to sell those same bills, before the expenditures in many cases could have been foreseen, much less have taken place? Were the perishable proceeds of the bills, so prematurely sold, to be considered as vested in J. H. or in R. M. to whom the management of this business was wholly confided?—Why were those unperishable bills, sold for a perishable article: or rather why pretend a sale to P. Whiteside, of £.3,800 sterling of bills, as he acknowledges to have done, by this very letter, and then keep the whole bills for his own purposes, in order to account for the perishable value of their proceeds?—Was this the execution of that trust reposed in him, which he says "It gives me so much pleasure, to have faithfully† executed!" And is it thus he was to act for the interest of a King, whose service he had been urged by his agent to undertake, because he was in the act of affording such generous assistance to his country, and of aiding to save him from the wrath of an incensed nation, and a relentless enemy?

In another part of this letter, R. M. describes the nature of the trust reposed in him in concise terms.—Page 15. ‘Can you seriously imagine, (says he) that the depositary * of monies, held liable to sudden calls of any and every kind, and who was always ready to answer those calls, would be so weak, as to allow for the perishing ‡ of it in his hands?’

To this it is replied, that among those articles best calculated to raise money on sudden emergencies, and for sudden calls of the service, bills held the first rank among merchants, for the purpose of an unfailing remittance to Europe: these would have answered the purpose completely at all times, and were not a perishable article.—But it is also to be added, that there never was one sudden call made on him for a large sum of money during his agency: that all the calls made upon him were the consequence of his own measures in almost every instance, of the purchases he had directed to be made, of the expenditures he had authorised, as subordinate agent, and not as depositary or banker.

Indeed it would be rather hard if the monies had come into the hands of R. M. and were to lay with him, till employed, if he sold the bills for real purchases ordered, then actually making, or really practicable, it would be rather hard I say, to make him account for the untimely sale of bills, and the consequent loss by depreciation, provided he always had, as he asserts, the money ready in his chest, to answer sudden calls; and that such money was actually and bona fide perishing in his hands;—in such a case, it might be dealing too hard with a banker, or even an agent, to throw on him the whole burthen of the loss. But if the loss should have proved unreasonably great in proportion to the service he had rendered, if there should be reasons to doubt of the purchases having been ordered by the agent general to him, when he took the bills, or when he sold them to his correspondents or brokers; then and in this case, will it not be incumbent on him to clear up the matter, to shew his books, in order to prove, that, as he says, the money was actually perishing in his hands? Shall we take his word, or the declaration of his [Page] friends or partners, or clerks, in his justification, when a positive written evidence, kept on purpose to establish it, and to ground the opinion of the world on or respecting his conduct, can be produced by him in his defence?— Shall not this evidence be produced, since he acknowledges by this paragraph, "That it would be weak in him to allow for the perishing of the money in his hands." Which implies a very different consequence, if he employed the money to his own purposes on the above supposition, and reaped not only the waste of the money, but also the profits of the speculations he made with the proceeds of the public bills; especially when it is evident that he took some to himself, under the appearance of fictitious sales; nay, are we not to suppose that he probably sold others so as to employ the proceeds thereof when in his chest, with and without any distinction from his own monies, as fast as opportunities offered? This he confessed in as many words (on the arbitration) to have done, as constantly as J. H's monies came to his hands, and as any calls whatever were made on him for his own concerns.

Can such conduct and such arguments be applauded? Was it thus that R. M. intended to act for the interest of a generous King in his concerns? Had he forgot that the paper of Congress was but a nominal perishable thing (to make use of his own words)? Had he forgot that he alone kept the books; that he had refused to open a separate set of books; that he had insisted upon blending the accounts of the concerns of J. H. as agent and as a private individual in his own books, with those of his own affairs and concerns? He alone was able to know whether the surplus monies were employed for the service, or perishing in his chest; it was, therefore, incumbent on him, either to vest the money, or to have proposed to his employer to vest it in some thing not perishable, not subject to depreciation, rather than to let it perish, as he says, in his hands, if really it was in his hands. Can any one believe, that such immense sums, 2, 3, or £.400,000, should have lain for long periods of time, for 6, 8, or 10 months, perishing in his hands? Was he not to have apprized the King's agent of so very unfortunate a circumstance, so as to have provided against future waste or depreciation, if these had been the unavoidable consequences of the times and circumstances? Had he (R. M.) not foreseen, and previously intended to apply those monies to his own purposes, and was not this the consideration he had in view when he reluctantly consented to transact J. H's affairs?

R. M. being challenged by the letter of the 23d of January, 1784, of the agent general, with having refused to keep separate books for the public concerns, he answers:

‘I do acknowledge that you proposed my opening a set of books for the business of the Royal Marine; but, upon my objecting that a multiplicity of books * were apt to create confusion and subjected accountants to a greater chance of error, you acquiesced to the introduction of those, as well as the private affairs entrusted to your management, § into my books, and after that acquiescence, objections made now, to answer your own purposes, can have no weight, especially as the accounts I render are just, fair, and honorable.’

By refusing to enter the accounts of the public transactions in separate books, in opposition to J. H's repeated request, R. M. thus put it out of the power of the King's agent to look into, or to know the situation of the public affairs, as to the matter of monies on hand: he could not have made out on the books of R. M. the cash account of the Royal Marine, his own, and that of his friends, without knowing also the situation of R. M. as to money in chest; and without being more or less acquainted with his speculations and affairs, and those of his agents and intimates. But this could not have been permitted, and thus the agent general was to be kept in the dark. By these [Page] means did R. M. alone become responsible for the consequences of his refusal to accede, at the time, to J. H's proposal; which was a proper and necessary one, and such as being afterwards made to Messrs. Turnbull ‡ and Co. was most cheerfully complied with. R. M. would not grant this request; yet, as J. H. placed the utmost confidence in his honor and justice, as he conceived that his services would be highly useful to the King, and as the choice of him, for rendering such services, had been made by his Excellency Mr. Gerard, as well as by J. H. he (J. H.) would not change his agent for this sole reason; especially as he knew, that this agent's refusal of opening separate books, would render him still more and more responsible for all the consequences thereof—a refusal grounded on so weak and frivolous a pretence, so void of truth and reason. In fact, J. H. objected at the time to the entering of the public accounts on R. M's private books; he objects now to the impropriety of the measure, and always thought the refusal, to keep them separate and distinct, very improper. J. H. never did freely acquiesce in, but submitted to the refusal, because R. M. would not do otherwise; and therefore R. M. is now charged with the consequences thereof, by his employer.

Shall not R. M. be responsible, when he alone did know, or could know the amount of the expenditures making, or to be made, and the amount of the bills on France necessary for defraying those expenditures? He alone did and could know the amount of the public monies, or private monies on hand; the management whereof, to save them from perishing, to save the King from loss, himself and his friends from ruin, J. H. had entrusted to R. M. to his good faith and attention, to his agency, upon the most confidential reliance on his fidelity and abilities, on the same footing and principles, as the public business.

How much more strong will this reasoning appear; how weak and flimsy the excuse offered by R. M. and how glaring his criminal intentions, at the time to keep J. H. his employer, and all others in the dark; when it shall be rendered evident that the estimates made, the accounts given to J. H. as settled accounts, (though only settled by R. M. in his own behalf) are not exact; that the balances are untrue and fallacious, and all in his favor, all contrived to establish the grounds of obtaining further sums of money, and bills on France, in order to secure the whole to himself, to work the plan of depreciation in his defence, and to maintain at a future day, that an immense property was wasted thereby in his hands, and had vanished like snow before the sun: all this will appear by the accounts to which we refer the reader, and to the observations thereon. Nay, when large nominal sums of the public paper, then said to be perishing in his hands, were still to be accounted for, when heavy sums of the same money, belonging to J. H. or his friends, were supposed to be in his chest, and were also to be accounted for; if it should appear that he was still claiming * balances in his favor, claiming bills for advances, which he said, he had made on the public account; will it not be as clear as day light, that even as banker, or depositary, R. M. was untrue, was inaccurate and unjust? Will it not therefore be believed, that when he refused to keep separate books, he meant to keep the agent general in the dark, to abuse his trust, and to profit by the confidence reposed in him? Was not this refusal necessary, to conceal the consequences of the premature and untimely sale of the bills, and of depreciation of money, which, he says, did perish in his hands; lest a redress of grievances might have been sued for at a more early [Page] period, or rather, that he might have time to accomplish a settlement, and obtain a full † discharge, before the consequences of his conduct could be perceived and fully ascertained?

Was it not on account of these terrible consequences, that R. M. would not send on the 26th of February, 1784, (vide page 18) the vouchers in support of those accounts, he then forwarded to J. H. with his famous letter of that date? Was it not for fear of these consequences, that he writes on the 2d and 3d of March, that he will not even give communication of these vouchers, without all claim of depreciation is formally and for ever given up, previous to all communication thereof? Was it not through the fear of these consequences, that he intimates (page 14) that he conceived it was of no importance to ascertain the precise dates of receipt and payment of paper money. Was it not through fear of these consequences that he writes a letter in 16 long and full pages, to prove that J. H. had no claim whatever for depreciation on him, during the whole of his agency; forgetting that he himself urged and got passed a law, declaring that every one shall receive and allow depreciation on all unsettled accounts.

Besides the accounts and the balances of the estimates, which R. M. says he made at the time, we shall find other proofs of the claims he made for his advances on behalf of the Royal Marine, as early as the 11th of March, 1779. Vide his letter, page 16.

‘The account sales of bills of exchange, dated the 11th of March, 1779, contains a sale to Peter Whiteside of 91,428 Livres 5 sols, of which one bill for 4571 Livres 7 sols was on his account; the remainder (equal to £.3800 sterling) was on your and my joint account taken at the current rate, towards reducing the advances which had been made for the Royal Marine: and afterwards I agreed to give you the sum of £.5700 (continental Money) advance on your half, for which you are credited the 12th of May, in your account current, being a profit you gained thereon.’ —A little further he says, "And yet you ask me for depreciation on those * accounts."—Further, "And in a transaction where you have already derived the benefit of the actual depreciation."

The first object that strikes, in this passage of the letter, is the sale made to Peter Whiteside (Peter Whiteside and Co. was the house of R. M. in which he held 3 shares in 4) of bills which belonged to him, as he says, on account of his actual advances for the Royal Marine, and were taken afterwards for his and J. H's joint account. It will be necessary that the books of P. Whiteside be examined, to see whether any mention is made of this sale, and whether he did not gratuitously endorse these bills to the order of R. M. which must have been done to cover the sale, and give room for a charge of a commission, &c. This is the more necessary, in order to ground further minute investigations of R. M's books, in this and other respects; and to establish, whethe he was or was not, under the date of the 11th of March, 1779, in advance for the public account, as he now says, and as he told J. H. at the time. If he was not in advance for the Royal Marine at that period,—if, on the contrary, he then owed the Royal Marine, or had on hand, more than £.100,000 continental, belonging to the King, did he not deceive J. H. then, and in his letter of the 26th of February, 1784? What shall we believe from him? Does he not owe these bills, which he confesses having taken, under the cover of a fictitious sale? Has he not taken any more, and how could he say, that J. H. was in advance for half the sum? Was not this also imposing on his understanding? Was it not further for the purpose of loading J. H. with depreciation afterwards, on that part of the bills (says R. M.) taken on his account, that R. M. pressed J. H. to let him have those bills in order to offer the £.5700 continental of advance, as expressed in the accounts under the date of the 12th of May, 1770; and afterwards offered them to J. H. by [Page] Swanwick, at the exchange of 100 for 1, at a later period—say in 1781—that advance being worth, and to be valued in May, 1779, at 24 for 1? This is what R. M. calls a clear profit, gained by J. H. on the sum of £.1900 sterl. in bills of exchange, the whole of which he took to himself; and afterwards adds— ‘How can you ask for me depreciation † on this business, on a transaction wherein you have actually received the benefit of the actual depreciation?’ Is not this an astonishing question, made in a letter wrote to that very man to whom R. M. refuses all depreciation during his agency, and wherein, also, he reprobates J. H's claiming depreciation on a transaction where it has been granted by himself as early as the month of May, 1779? When sitting as his own judge, betwixt J. H. and himself, R. M. grants the principle of depreciation in May, 1779, by an impulse of his own conscience, of his own knowledge of right and wrong,—depreciation for two months, from the 11th of March, 1779, to the 12th of May following,—and refuses it in 1784 on this very sum, and others received by him during the following months and years! He reproaches the agent general for claiming it in his own affairs, but much more in the public account; forgetting, we suppose, that he had got unjustly and without any cause, the whole sum of £.3800 sterling, as now appears evident from the vouchers. A great part of these vouchers were obtained from R. M. when sitting on an arbitration, in the month of June, 1784, and not before.

Can we not here say, and with some ground, Quem Deus vult perdere, prius dementat? If it is proved, as it will be, that, he was not in advance on the 11th of March, 1779, is it not clear that R. M. misapplied those bills (for £.3800 sterling) induced thereto by the agent general's confidence in him?—If at other various periods, under the pretences of his advances, ‡ of balances in his favor, &c. R. M. did claim more bills at the very time he owed nominal sums to the Royal Marine, and immense sums, nominal and real, to J. H. and his friends, on their private account (—which sums he was also in duty bound to appropriate for the public service, before he could, without injustice to them and J. H. have sold any one bill—) and if, under those circumstances, he did actually take up more bills from the Royal Marine—does he not owe them to the King, being taken without cause, or to Holker's absent friends? Especially if he had then in hand their money to purchase the bills therewith; and this must have been the case, since he exclaims—Can I be so weak as to make good depreciation, since J. H's money was perishing in my hands, was wasting in chest?—Perhaps, however, it was employed for his own purposes.

Whatever may be the result of the reflections and opinions of the readers hereof on the foregoing observations, it is now proper to transcribe another passage of R. M's letter, which fixes the time during which his first principles of accounting are to take effect; for we must observe, that these are only of short duration, not general, not permanent.— ‘From the time I ceased (says R. M. page 17) to be your agent, our accounts are no longer to be considered [Page] as of the nature of a trust, neither are the accounts between Wm. Turnbull and Co. and me of that nature; I am, therefore, willing to settle my accounts with them, and those with you for subsequent transactions upon principles of depreciation.’

From this we are to conclude, that while any confidence, dependence, or trust is reposed in him, for so long all monies entrusted to him are to be permitted to perish in his hands; all concerns confided to his integrity, judgment, and knowledge, are to be forgot or unnoticed as unworthy of attention; no depreciation whatever is to be allowed: but when no dependence, as he says, is placed on his talents and fidelity, he will, of his own motion and accord, allow that the principle of depreciation shall take place between him and J. H. in all cases, where he was no longer to act as agent for the King's interest, the interest of J. H. and that of his friends! Is it R. M. who reasons thus? What are then his ideas of fidelity, trust, &c. &c.

Let it however be admitted, for a while, that these principles are grounded on the solid basis of honesty, and that they will lead to substantial justice, from the accountant R. M. to his employer J. H.—Then put the question— Do the accounts of his agency, those sent with his letter of the 26th of February, 1784, agree with these principles? The answer may be collected from what follows:

William Turnbull and Co. his successors in the agency, began their operations in the first days of January, 1780; they credit in § account R. M. under the date of the 1st of January of that year, for 120,000 dollars, paid by him to Blair M'Clenachan, for the lease of the house they have occupied since that date; and, R. M. says, he credited them in account for ‖ 54,722 Livres 18 sols Tournois, in bills he received from them, order of J. H. as their employer; they delivered these bills as agents for J. H. therefore he acknowledges, by his said letter, that they were actually his agents under the date of the 15th of February, 1780.*

Now let us weigh the words that follow the above transcribed paragraph— ‘I find that at the time (No. 1.) when the Royal Marine owed me upwards of three hundred and forty thousand pounds continental currency, I had in my (No. 3.) hands of your private funds, and those of your friends, nearly to the amount of three hundred thousand pounds continental; and, as I continued to receive more after that period, I readily agree (No. 6.) to set aside Mr. Swanwick's proposition of valuing the balance in continental money, on your private account, at one hundred for one; he meant to do justice between us; but it did not occur to him (No. 2.) that I had received on account of the balance in my favor, on your account, as agent of the Royal Marine, the sum of £.342,775 - 2 - 6 continental money, when it was worth sixty-one and a half for one, and that having at the same time near [Page] £.300,000 of yours and your friends in my hands, you ought to have the like value for at least the latter amount; and, therefore, to save all trouble of investigation (No. 5.) as to the exact sum, I agree (No. 4.) to compute the same sum which I received £.342,775 - 2 - 6—at sixty-one and a half, and bring the amount thereof to your credit in the hard money account,—this (No. 7.) I think is just, and therefore, Sir, I offer it.’

No. 1. Here he says, that the Royal Marine owed him more than £.340,000—

No. 2. He says, ‘it did not occur to Swanwick that I had received on account of the balance in my favor, on your account, as agent of the Royal Marine, the sum of £.342,775 - 2 - 6.’

How are we to reconcile these two sentences? Did the Royal Marine owe this sum to R. M. or to J. H.? What does the writer mean? Could such ideas occur to Swanwick or any other? However, it had occurred to R. M. to receive £.342,775 - 2 - 6, instead of £.340,000, which he says were due to him at the very time that not one farthing was due to him! On the contrary, he then owed more than £.30,000 specie to the Royal Marine alone, if justice is done to him and the King.

No. 3. Here R. M. acknowledges, that three hundred thousand pounds, of Holker's friends money, were then in his hands, at the very time that he took £.342,775 - 2 - 6 from the Royal Marine, which he says were due to him! If he took this sum at the time, why did he not pay J. H's friends? If he took the amount of £.342,775 - 2 - 6 in bills from Holker's agents, why did he not give those bills to J. H's friends? If he kept the bills for his own account, is he not to pay them to his friends, with interest from their date? If he took them on account of a supposed balance, said to be due to him by the Royal Marine, is he not to return them with interest, to the Royal Marine? It is his business to extricate himself from this embarrassment; it is his part to get out of the dilemma, into which his own avowal has plunged him, if he can; for, really, we cannot, on this occasion, come to his assistance.

No. 4. Here he offers the balance, which he says he had received, namely £.342,775 - 2 - 6, (and which he supposes to be due, when he ceased to be agent for J. H.) at the exchange of sixty-one and a half for one,—the rate of depreciation in April 1780—But why does he not offer it at the exchange of December, 1779, when the balance was due, and he had ceased to act as public agent—or of January, 1780, when Wm. Turnbull and Co. had commenced agents; was it because the exchange then being at sixty-one and a half, instead of forty in January, he thereby would only pay two thirds of the sum he owed in January? The auditors will establish this point, nor shall we hereafter forget the proposal.

No. 5. R. M. seems very desirous of avoiding all investigation, as to the exact sum due to J. H. or to his friends, at this as well as any other period, and therefore No. 6, he readily agrees to lay aside Swanwick's proposal of one hundred for one; he adds No. 7, this I think is just, and therefore I offer it.

But to return to the object of depreciation, let us take up the accounts, which were transmitted by R. M. with his letter of the 26th of February, 1784. There we shall find a sum of £.150,000 continental, and 2½ per cent. commission * thereon, charged to the debit of the Royal Marine,—for so much he paid to J. H. with his consent, by his order dated the 30th of May, 1780, to William Smith Esq. of Baltimore, when he directed him to credit in account, Messrs. Wm. Turnbull & Co. as agents for J. H. for the above sum of £.150,000, and for which he says, he was to understand with J. H. How, therefore, could R. M. presume to bring this charge against the Royal Marine, for a payment made on the thirtieth of May, 1780, and to the credit of J. H's. agents, when his public [Page] agency had ceased in December, 1779?—He acknowledges that he is willing to allow the principle of depreciation, at the close of his agency, and to extend it to all sums he received at a later period:—and yet he does not think proper to avail himself of the advantage of his own proposal, when he pays money on account: certainly, this man must be moved by some extraordinary principle of action, on this occasion: and this may be readily conceived of one so strenuous in exertions in his own favour. Here he refuses the exchange of sixty for one on the foregoing £. 150,000, * which would entitle him to a sum of £. 2500, hard money.

However, upon a closer examination, the true motive will be discovered, and the original leading principles of this man be established:—Without this charge of £. 150,000, nominal, R. M. would have fallen considerably in debt to the Royal Marine, at that very period, at which he declares, that £. 342,000 and more were due to him, and this would not look well. Upon further investigation, it will be also acknowledged, that this charge and commission are to act nominally, though not virtually and in fact, against a sum of 450,000 Livres Tournois given him in bills in March, 1779, † and which he then claimed on account of his actual advances, the whole of which large sum, equal to more than £. 20,000 sterling, has melted wasted away, and perished totally and wholly through a premature unnecessary sale which occasioned consequent depreciation, as he says, in his hands: therefore we must own that, though R. M's mode of reasoning is not always clear, just and consistent, still his actions, his principles and manner of presenting and redacting estimates and accounts to his advantage, are perfectly consistent; all calculated to acquire an overgrown fortune, at the expence of truth, of justice, of the King and his employer, of him whom he termed his bosom friend, of him who wishing to throw equitable advantages in the hands of R. M. had confidentially entrusted him with the means, and generously seconded his oftensible views. But, can this be allowed? Shall R. M. involve this sum in his accounts, in order to make these nominal £. 150,000, § paid in Baltimore, (when he knew not probably what to do with the money) be brought in the public account of his agency, at the very time that he actually owed J. H. in his private account, near three times this sum, and probably twenty times the sum in real specie, if the law, equity, usage and a scale of depreciation are to govern and take place throughout his transactions? This scale it would be necessary to establish, in order to explain his operations and mode of action, even if justice did not require it.

I will here remind the reader of these observations, that the principles he lays down in his letter, he does not even follow in those very accounts, which he sends to his employer on the very same day; or rather he chooses in his letter to express one idea, and as an accountant to follow another, much better calculated to cover his mode of operation: nor is he more consistent in his argument on this occasion than in his proposals or principles of account render.

On the argument, we have seen that he maintains, he was only a banker and depositary for J. H. during the whole of his agency. The transactions between J. H. and R. M. were merely of the nature of a trust, says the [Page] latter: and therefore he will not allow any depreciation, nor account on the principles of depreciation for any concerns, during the whole period of his agency. His agency on the public business ceased in die first days of January, 1780, and because he allows the principle of depreciation to take place on all occasions subsequent thereto, either between Wm. Turnbull and Co. or him, or J. H. and R. M.—therefore, says our logician, I will fix the rate of value of the monies due to J. H. in December, by the scale in April; but I will fix no value on the monies I paid to Wm. Turnbull and Co. on the 30th of May, 1780, in Baltimore. Let us now ask him, why he allows any depreciation whatever, to J. H. without working the good deed throughout? Is he aware of the consequences of this his concession? Does he know, that by the same principle on which this concession is grounded, he grants all that is claimed from him? For he must either be absurd in the extreme, and erroneous in every one of his arguments, or he is guilty of injustice;—he must either be deprived of the use of reason, and be destitute of common sense or common honesty, or he must give up the bills, unless he can procure a better title to them than appears in his letter.— And now for the proof of what is here advanced.

R. M. maintains, that during his agency he was not answerable for depreciation of monies, put (he says) into his hands. Why? Because he was only banker; he was not agent-responsible, not a bailiff in law; but only an agent-depositary, accountable only for nominal sums of a perishable currency:—in other words, he was accountable for the number of hogsheads of molasses put into his store—for the mere hogsheads, and not for the contents.

He afterwards argues, that when he was no longer agent, he can no longer be considered to have acted on trust; and, therefore, he will grant the principle of depreciation.

Now let it be observed, that according to these ideas, if he ceased to be agent he ceased also to be a banker or depositary. The question, therefore, in this view, is—what became of R. M? Quis invenit? I know not of a description by which we can afterwards legally define his subsequent character or functions. He denied in his first position, that he was responsible for J. H's concerns; he was not bailiff, because he was only agent upon trust, id est, says he, banker and depositary. Afterwards, when come to nothing, when he has no known legal or avowed mercantile character and denomination, then he says—after I ceased to be your agent, then I will allow the principle of depreciation; but as it is difficult for him to change his character, we must reason thus: he allows of depreciation when he ceased to be agent, because he was no longer employed upon trust; and, therefore, we say, because he was banker and depositary only. It is unlucky for him in this case, that he must also allow depreciation on the preceding accounts; because he maintains that he was then also banker and depositary.—For one and the same principle must be followed throughout; unless principles respecting his accounts are to change with the new year, and that the principle of depreciation is not to be attended to in 1779, but only in 1780. If he denies this reasoning to be fair and just, then he must fall into the following absurdity and argue thus: While I was agent (id est banker) I will not allow the principle when I ceased to be agent then I will allow the principle, because I received the subsequent monies not as agent, but only as banker.

However, to put an end to all such puerile jargon, it is necessary to remind him, that he never ceased to be agent of J. H. in those concerns entrusted to his management, from the moment they came under his notice and care to this hour: he only ceased in December, 1779, to act as agent in new concerns on the public account: he is yet accountable for the previous transactions; though he discontinued and closed his operations early in 1780, and might then have rendered his accounts thereof, if he had thought proper not to delay the settlement, having been constantly pressed on this score. In 1780, he engaged for and with J. H. on his private account, in some new concerns, after that same period, at which, he says, we are to consider his agency as terminated.—Of the whole [Page] concerns and balances, in his hands, he owes accounts; and we are obliged to bring suits at law, to obtain such as justice and equity prescribe.

If R. M. never ceased to be J. H's agent and bailiff and banker, as he contends in some instances, why should he allow the principle of depreciation in 1780 and 1781? Was it because in these last years he only received pence, and because he received pounds, in 1777, 1778 and 1779? The reason is then most admirable, though it would aggravate the injustice. Whether banker, or broker, or agent and bailiff, he owes depreciation, according to his own conviction and principle, from the time, when he first commenced to act on the concerns of J. H. in his private and public capacity: especially, as he previously engaged to act for his interest and that of the King, and consequently to save them and guard them and J. H's friends, from damage, loss and ruin: —he was agent or banker responsible on a scale of depreciation in the end of the business and, of course, in the beginning and progress thereof: nor can any distinction be made between those interests and concerns, which relate to the public service from those of a private nature; nor can any difference of principle or of value be made, between the King's bills and dollars of Congress's money, or J. H's dollars and his friends' dollars and bills.

Thus far, we believe the argument against R. M. to be just, candid and true; and if granted, then it will follow, that if R. M. owes depreciation on the proceeds of those bills he sold, because the sales were unnecessary, because there was no employment for their proceeds, or because he had other public or private monies, given to him for the service, perishing in his hands—he also must make good the loss on the sale of those bills; for he sold them without cause. Having proved that he took the very bills in kind, under the cover of false and fictitious sales, made to his partner Whiteside, we have a right to presume he sold the other bills, which he afterwards claimed in that same month at least, say March 1779, in order to apply the proceeds to his private speculations and purposes, when money would command any thing on the most advantageous terms; or to presume that he also got other persons to endorse other bills for him; and this is but just to suppose and believe, unless he will produce freely and fully his books, cashbook, &c. in order to convince us that he was only guilty of taking improperly one sum of £.3,800 sterling, without paying one farthing at the time on account thereof. This argument and the consequences are fair; for the money could not have perished in his hands, if he had not * sold the bills before the expenditures took place; nor would the bills have been sold at all, for much the greater part were never necessary for the supplies or expenditures of the navy and its service; therefore the unjustifiable sale of these bills did occasion the loss on the sale, with the loss by depreciation on the proceeds thereof, if any did happen. Thus R. M. is in duty and in conscience bound to make good these bills and their interest † in the Royal Treasury in France, through the King's agent; because this loss has occasioned additional loans to the King's minister, which loans have incurred the burthen of heavy interest in the time of war: and this consideration is the more to be § attended to, especially as this war was waged to save R. M. from ruin, and his country from the ravages of an implacable herd of foes.—Nor can any of his fellow citizens scruple to admit these principles, when they will consider the nature of the trust reposed in R. M. and of those arguments set up by him in his defence, and when they will recollect that he knew all these consequences, since he says, (page 15) in order to criminate the agent, or to terrify him from his duty—that had he been in the place of J. H. he would not have drawn for the King's money until it was wanted for the King's service—they will readily perceive, [Page] that tho' R. M. reasons like a child in this letter, he knew enough of depreciation, at least in 1779, to have kept the bills on hand, rather than to have sold them without cause or necessity, if he had not had some excellent investment to make of the proceeds, some great speculation to enter upon, sufficient to make good all possible claims against him; otherwise he would not have sold them to possess himself of a perishable article, in order to let it waste in chest, much less have reproached his employer J. H. with the folly and injustice of his conduct in drawing the bills on France, in order to screen himself from the consequences of selling them. No one can suppose R. M. ignorant of his duty, nor of the nature of paper money. Why, therefore, did he thus sacrifice the King's * interest in the first instance, and afterwards attempt to sacrifice the King's agent, as an atonement for his own want of fidelity to both King and agent?

After what has been said, we may now transcribe some further passages of this letter, in order to throw some additional light on the subject. When called upon to separate from his accounts those relative to the transactions personal only to J. H. in order to shew the advantages gained by R. M's operations, so as to oppose them to the losses sustained by depreciation—our ingenious writer answers, (page 14) ‘But I neither mean nor pretend to any such thing; I have already said, and again repeat, I ask no credit for any savings; I am not accountable† for any loosings; nor will I compensate to the King or to you for any depreciation during my agency in your affairs. At the same time it is not clear to me, that you would not have to pay rather than receive on the King's account; for at the time § when the settlement was made before Mr. Gerard, I was actually in advance, though from the accounts the balance is considerably against me.’

He also says, (page 14) ‘Whether during the whole time there was or was not a balance in my hands, is totally immaterial ‡ to me: it was always ready at your order to draw it out when you pleased: I repeatedly, at your desire, made estimates for your government in this respect, and my books and papers were always open to you: thus much Sir, I have thought proper to say on the general principle.’

He, however, in the remaining part of his letter, says much more on the same subject. But to the point—Who can believe that his books and papers were always open to J. H. when he had such strong reasons to conceal the true situation of the affairs of the Navy from his employer: when he pretends that an estimate ** was an account settled; when he refuses all communication of all vouchers, §§ relative to his agency, during the year 1779,—in support of accounts sent only in 1784, unless all claim of depreciation, whatever, is previously and fully renounced against him: when be accuses the agent general for having drawn those bills, which he sold afterwards to receive the proceeds: when he refuses the use of his cash-book†† which would prove what he did with the proceeds of the bills, or with such of the bills which he took in kind, under the pretence of his advances: when he refused to open [Page] one separate set of books for the agent's business, because it would create confusion, and give rise to a greater chance of error: when he refused to give all and every information in his power, on the arbitration, though he had promised to lay the truth and the whole truth before his judges, and every document necessary to establish the facts, which promise he previously made to his Excellency Mr. Van Berkel, before the bonds were agreed to be signed by J. H. &c.—After such conduct, who will believe that R. M's books and papers were always open to J. H? What are these abovementioned estimates? Are they conformable to the books? Are they conformable to the accounts rendered, and to those to be settled by the auditors? Are they accurate, correct, full and true? Does not R. M. claim balances, by the estimates and accounts? Did he ever produce one account before April, 1780, by which a balance appeared to be due to J. H? How, therefore, can he say or pretend, that it was not his fault, if the balances due were not drawn out of his hands, or that these sums of money, due by balance, were ready in his chest to J. H's order? Is not this assertion of R. M. untrue and erroneous, if it is proved by all the accounts, and by this same letter of the 26th of February, that he was always craving for more bills, because, as he said, he was in advance? How could he possibly be in advance for J. H. and at the same time maintain, that the balances due to J. H. (balances utterly unknown to J. H. on the public account, until the year 1784) were constantly kept on hand, to the order of the agent general, to draw them out when he pleased? And if this assertion is untrue, (and the accounts, as rendered originally and now profered, prove it to be untrue, and demonstrate that he always concealed the balances due by him) will not this sort of argument operate against himself, and prove that he owes depreciation, and the loss of sale upon the bills? His assertions, excuses, and apologies, are not grounded on fact, on the solid basis of truth. By attempting to prove his innocence, by defending with vehemence, and with unjust insinuations against his employer, those principles by which he insists, that he is not to be made accountable for his transactions, is it not apparent that he knows, there are great loosings on his mode of establishing the accounts, and that he fears the consequences of his conduct will affect himself, and not the King, his employer, or his employers friends? It would have been much more to his honor and reputation, if he had said less on the general principle.

But why should he be so much afraid of the consequences? He is possessed of an immense fortune, acquired by the means above described, and by others, more or less laudable; but principally during 1778 and 1779,* through the very heavy sums entrusted to him by J. H. independent of the public account, and this will be proved by his books, if necessary. He has put the waste and depreciation in his own scale, or pocket: besides the use of the money of J. H. he has moreover enjoyed the advantage of obtaining the most useful and early intelligence, from the general confidence reposed in him by his employer, and other superior characters; advantages, with which alone any reasonable speculator, situated as he was, might have been satisfied. Is he not, under these circumstances, not only liable, according to all principles of equity and justice, but also able to make good all losses arising from the misapplication of the public bills to his own purposes? And because these bills, on the public and private account, amount to a large sum, is he therefore not to pay the same? Is he to be excused from paying interest, when on the one hand it can be proved, that it was a breach of trust in him to have sold the bills, if there was no occasion for making sale thereof; and when on the other hand, he has brought ruin all around him, through such a breach of trust, and [Page] dishonor † on the head of his employer, both by his delays and the errors that his fallacious estimates and accounts have made him innocently commit, and unregardedly plunge into? Shall he not shew his books in such business, to obviate all the suspicions he has so justly given rise to, on his account, and that of J. H?

It cannot be supposed that these and other arguments will be neglected on such an important occasion, where every thing dear, and precious, and valuable, is at stake between R. M. and J. H. the latter of whom will necessarily be charged with infidelity to his trust, unless justice be obtained from the former.

J. H. certainly wishes he could terminate the present investigation of R. M's letter and conduct; but his duty to his King and country, whom R. M. neither fears, nor values, urges him to every exertion on this important occasion, as well as that which he owes to himself and family.

Therefore, to proceed—page 13. we read, ‘The 15th of February, 1780, I received by your order bills to the amount of 54,722 Livres 18 sols, which were, according to that order, received of Messrs. Turnbull and Co. whom I have credited for the same, at the then current price of 6 dollars per livre; afterwards 36,752 Livres 6 sols Tournois of these bills were paid for a brigantine, in which you and I were concerned, and 5500 Livres were sold at one dollar advance, is Dollrs. 5500 and 12651 Livres at three dollars advance, is 37953 Dollars. 43453 for one half of this gain you are credited by me in account current on the 7th April, 1780; and on this sum § also you claim depreciation, when you have actually received it.’

In addition to what has been said on a similar subject, respecting a sum of £. 3800 sterling, in bills sold to Whiteside, in May, 1779, (vide page 22.25) we must express our surprize that he should mention this sum of 54,722 Livres 18 sols, when speaking of depreciation, since the remaining bills, not employed on joint account, in the purchase of a vessel, being sold in April, J. H. needs claim no depreciation on the 43,453 dollars (which he says, were a gain,) for this good reason, because he actually offers it at the exchange or rate of scale in that month, but in 1781, R. M. (through Swanwick) had offered the advance dollars at the rate of 100 for one, and therefore J. H. had then at least a right to claim another valuation from the principal R. M. and this is hereby confessed.

Let us now ask, For what reason does R. M. interest J. H. in these bills? Did he take them from William Turnbull & Co. on their joint account, or on his account solely? What do Mr. Turnbull's books say on this occasion, and those of R. M? That House debits him for these bills to the credit of the Royal Marine, on account of the balance claimed by him as due to him from the Royal Marine, because he paid nothing on account thereof. In his accounts R. M. credits them for these bills, as bought from them, though by the foregoing entries, it would seem he did not buy them, but assumed them on account of the balance he then claimed, and on account whereof, he afterwards took many more, to the amount of 169,000 Livres.

It is true, he may pretend to have a right to charge J. H with the value of one half the bills paid for the brigantine Hawke, at the time, ‡ but then he ought to have paid the value to the agents of J. H. Messrs. Turnbull & Co. [Page] because no balance was due to him from the navy; but, on the contrary, he actually owed a balance at this very period, and he ought especially to have paid for J. Holker's share thereof, because he owed a great deal more than his share to him on his private account, or to that of his friends; but R. M. chose here to assume the public bills on credit, and keep J. H's private monies employed otherwise for his own advantage. Shall he not pay interest on monies and bills thus obtained and thus detained?—

The questions, therefore, on this subject are—Was a balance due to him or not? And how much, if any? Did he owe monies at the time to J. H? When 36,000 Livres were only necessary for this transaction, or rather, when he had only 18,000 Livres to claim from J. H. on account of his half of the brigantine, why then take 54,000 Livres from the subordinate agents of the Royal Marine, leaving J. H. to account to the King as he can, for the whole sum, and which will not be very easy, since the sale thereof was not necessary for the service? Why take bills from J. H's agents without paying for them, when he had monies enough of his on hand to purchase J. H's share of the bills? Would J. H. have consented to this arrangement at all, if R. M. had not led him to believe in December, 1779, that he was in his debt by the accounts he produced and gave to J. H. for his government? Would he not have insisted that if R. M. wanted the bills he should have paid for them, since thereby it would have prevented a sale of a similar sum, on account of, and for the subsequent expenditures of the Royal Marine by the agents at the time? And is not R. M. answerable for these bills to the Royal Marine, since he did not pay for them, though, he says, he bought them; he charging J. H. for the value of 18,000 Livres paid on his account, taking to himself the gain on the remaining bills? This would be fair and just. Otherwise, would not J. H. be the dupe of the snares into which R. Morris's accounts and misrepresentations at the time led him unawares? We say snares, for R. M. could not be ignorant of their reciprocal situation, but this was not the case with J. H.

If, notwithstanding the foregoing reasons, he should persist in refusing to refund these bills thus unjustly taken, as we have proved, how can he insist upon a quantity of tobacco (about 79 * hogsheads, for the cargo of this brigantine Hawke) furnished in May, 1780, being replaced in kind by J. H. or accounted for at the present value? Why should not J. H. be permitted to account for this tobacco at the value thereof in May, 1780, § since R. M. owed him ten times more money at that time, when the tobacco was agreed to be taken as a payment on account? If R. M. says that he borrowed the tobacco and paid it only at a later period—whose fault is that? Had he not the use of the value of the tobacco during the whole interval? And could he not therewith have purchased 79 other hogsheads, to replace the tobacco at the time if it had been convenient? Had he not employed all J. H's money in speculations as well as his own, lest both might have perished in his hands? Or shall it be just, that R. M. should not refund bills when he had no right to them, from the Royal Marine, without paying for them, and at the same time be permitted to claim tobacco, said to be lent to J. Holker, when he had his money to purchase an equal quantity, or that same tobacco? Shall R. M's mode of statement † be admitted, because the bills to be repaid by him, and the tobacco he [Page] claims from J. H. are both of a higher value, than when it was his duty to have paid for both, to have purchased both, with J. H's monies? In other words, shall R. M. because he has to account for his transactions, dictate in 1784, the form and principles of accounts at his own will and pleasure, to vary them in every operation according to his interest, and explain away the fortune of all his employers, or shall justice, law and equity take place in this case? We claim nothing more.

When speaking of the improper claim of R. M. for bills on France, as early as the 11th of March, 1779, for his pretended advances on account of the Royal Marine, we delayed mentioning a transaction which took place about the 7th of that same month, and under which date R. M. credits the Royal Marine for £.24,666 continental, proceeds of £.2740 - 13 - 4 sterling, by him received in bills on France.

When in Boston, J. H. drew on R. M. at ten days sight, various bills to the amount of near £77,656 - 5 - 0, which were afterwards reduced by J. H. while in Boston, to £.54,981 - 11 - 3—they bore date of the 16th of October, 1778.

On account thereof, J. H. remitted a bill of £.61,196 - 1 - 3, drawn by a continental agent on the commissary general of Congress, and passed by J. H. to the order of R. M. advising him at the same time—not to receive this money, but in case of need for the King's service; as he wished it to remain with Congress, on account of provisions supplied by their agent in Boston. R. M. however got this bill paid in Philadelphia, at the treasury, on the 10th of November following, through the hands of Benjamin Hogeland his clerk; but whether with or without any necessity for the King's service, the accounts of the auditors will more precisely ascertain. A few of these bills drawn in Boston by J. H. on R. M. were paid in December, 1778, the rest in January, February and March, 1779. However, on the 7th of March of that year, of these Boston bills a sum of 63,338 dollars 4s6, or thereabouts, was profered to R. M. for payment, being part of those drawn by J. H. to the order of Adam Babcock of Boston, and was given by Adam Babcock's correspondent as part payment of the £24,666 continental, necessary for the purchase of the abovementioned bills on France for £.2740 - 13 - 4 sterling, which were also drawn at the request of R. M. to the order of said Adam Babcock.

Here we must first observe, that in order, we suppose, to conceal this transaction and the dates of acceptances or payment, no bills drawn on R. M. have been produced as vouchers in support of his accounts, though all vouchers were claimed from him and ordered to be given up by the arbitrators.

2dly. All the bills of J. H. on R. M. from Boston, not charged as paid in 1778, are charged in his monthly account, redacted for the arbitrators, as paid in January, 1779, though few were even accepted for payment in the run of that month.

3dly. This money proceeding from the bill drawn on the commissary general of Congress, was not necessary in 1778 to R. M. Nota bene. *

4thly. The bills on account thereof, unpaid in 1778, were taken up by J. H's public bills selling in January, [Page] February and March, 1778, as appears by R. M's confession in his letter, which, circumstance he mentions in order to criminate bis employer, though he knew that the suspicions he throws out were unjust.—Of this we shall speak more at large hereafter.

5thly. This confession proves, that the money from Congress not being wanted for the King's service, the whole or greatest part thereof might have been better employed for the use of the continent, than in the hands of R. M.

6thly. If the bills upon France were employed for the purpose of taking up in 1779, the bills drawn upon R. M. on the 16 of October 1778, is it not a strong presumptive proof, that in November, 1779, R. M. had employed for his own purposes the whole £.61,196 - 1 - 3, which he carefully had got paid, without necessity, from the public treasury? Is it not apparent, that when he paid those drafts in 1779, he had no money on hand but what arose from the daily sale of the bills on France, supplied him by J. H. for his pretended wants?

7thly. On the 7th of March he had not any money in chest, or a small sum, for he took and claimed from J. H. £2740 sterling in bills, to discharge Holker's drafts on him from Boston; these drafts and J. H's bills on France being in both cases drawn to the order of Adam Babcock of Boston, the bills being negociated and the drafts taken up at one and the same instant.

8thly. This poverty of R. M's chest, in March 1779, will appear established to perfect conviction, since he acknowledges on the 11th day following, to have sold to Whiteside & Co. and afterwards taken £.3800 sterling to himself, on account of his advances for the Royal Marine, and for which advances he claimed the bills from the King's agent.—The pretended advances he would not not have felt or dreamt of if he had been rich in chest; wherefore we may conclude, that when he agreed upon the arbitration, that he employed all Holker's money in his hands, without distinction whatever, as opportunities offered, he did not say too much; since his claim of bills on the 11th of March, on account of his advances, is supported by his claim of bills on the 7th; because he could not take up the Boston drafts so conveniently, without either diverting the funds on hand from some lucrative employment or vestment in view, or without selling some object or investment, or merchandize on hand or in store, at a lesser profit than it would have commanded at a later period.

9thly. We must further remark, that on the payment of these drafts from Boston, and on the negociation of the bills, R. M. claims and is entitled to the commission of an agent by previous stipulation, tho' he scarcely received a dollar of continental money in either case, nor did he even indorse Holker's bills, since he got them drawn to the order of Adam Babcock. Yet he maintains,—he was not agent responsible, or bailiff, but agent upon trust, a banker; especially since he received no consideration for the care and custody of the goods in store, for attending to the King's money in his chest, which, elsewhere he says, was perishing in his hands—Did the money of Congress in this case, or the money arising from the bills on France of the King's agent, perish in his hands, in his chest, in his store?

10thly. From the above we may form an idea of the manner in which he carried on his operations, when under cover of the confidence reposed in him by J. H. with what zeal he held forth his aid and assistance to his country, then struggling for independence, and working against the tide of depreciation of their currency. Thus he attended to the interest of a generous King and nation every where fighting for his safety, and the future happiness of himself and his posterity! Whatever may be the case in this respect, every one will be convinced, that depreciation at least never reached R. M. in this instance; that no money in this instance perished in his hands; that the public bills were not employed for public purposes, but to take up his own engagements (having himself employed those monies transmitted to him, to answer all demands made upon him). Then, shall he not return the bills with interest, since the [Page] bills employed on this occasion turned out a most advantageous speculation in themselves? This advantageous employment we shall, for the sake of investigation, also here explain.

£.20,000, which he received in November, were equal, according to the scale of depreciation at 6 for one, to

(specie) £.3,333 - 13 - 4

£.20,000, which he received in March from the bills of J. H. were then at 10½ for one, and are equal to

£.1,904 - 15 - 3

which deducted, leave a balance of

£.1,428 - 18 - 1

in favor of R. M.—Thus supposing the vestment of the continental money in specie in November, and the sale thereof in March following, R. M. would have cleared £.1428 - 18 - 1, by depreciation alone, on the money of Congress, on one sum of £.20,000* only; and this may explain why he took up the money from the treasury on the 10th of November, without any other possible reason. But in bills the profit is much greater—he was only to account nominally for the proceeds of the bills drawn at his request to the order of Adam Babcock, in March, 1780, at a later period; and this cannot have taken place by his accounts, but in the fall of that same year, when money was at 30 or 40 for one, and then the profit is in proportion greater. Suppose the nominal employment on the King's account was made when money was at forty, then the profit is £.2,833 - 13 - 4, on a sum of £.3,333 - 13 - 4. Can such profits be allowed in equity? Can the loss on the sale of bills be allowed in order to give R. M. such extortionate advantages? And shall the King's agent be condemned to make good these bills in the King's treasury in France, for the sake of such a subordinate agent, in whose honor he had confided, because he was also confided in by his countrymen, fellow-citizens and Congress?—For a subordinate agent, who declared on the arbitration, that he knew nothing of depreciation in all 1778 and 1779, and who accuses his employer of want of fidelity to his sovereign, because he drew the bills which he (R. M.) employed, to fulfil his own engagements? By way of apology to him, for this severe scrutiny and investigation, we must here transcribe what he says on the subject of those bills drawn on R. M. from Boston, and which subject we have entered upon more fully in our first letter of self-justification, wrote in reply to R. M's wicked insinuations in his favorite letter of the 26th of February, 1784. (Vide page 15.)

Speaking of the claim of depreciation on general principles, and on the nature of the accounts betwixt him and J. H. he writes:

‘Before I quit the subject I will select two or three instances from those accounts, which will bring the reasoning more home to your perceptions. The King paid 400,000 Livres for two prizes, taken by the privateers Hancock and Boston; you agreed with the owners for £.70,000 lawful money; you paid in part your bills for 45,000 Livres, (£.7875.) and drew on me for the remainder £62,125—which sums together make £.70,000 lawful. These drafts on me, equal to £.77,656 - 5 - 0, Pennsylvania currency, were paid by me when your public bills were selling at 900 per cent. on sterling, reckoning Livres at 10½ sterling: consequently these bills were paid with somewhat less than 200,000 Livers; the remainder on the whole transaction was a gain to you of 155,000 Livres Tournois.’

This paragraph and business we have elsewhere explained, but we did not then choose to observe to R. M. the consequences of the confession he so liberally makes, that J. H's drafts on him drawn in October, were paid by R. M. from the proceeds of the public bills sold in March, 1779, or with those very bills in kind: a confession which R. M. made for the purpose only of drawing from thence the inference, that the agent general was pocketing [Page] 155,000 Livres Tournois their representative value; when in fact and reality R. M. was himself contriving to pocket the greater part of this same difference, and 500,000 Livres more, under his ingenious mode of redacting and presenting accounts, and by refusing all depreciation thereon. But how could J. H. pocket any such difference? For when R. M. says, under the date of February, 1784, that he paid £.77,656 - 5 - 0, Pennsylvania currency, of Holker's drafts on him, he asserts that as a fact which he knows to be untrue; because he credits J. H. in his accounts of Holker's Boston transactions, under the date of January the 14th, 1779, * for £.24,962 - 2 - 6—for as much of those same drafts which J. H. himself took up while in Boston, at the request of the parties concerned; and be would have done the same for all, if they had applied to him there.—Therefore R. M's calculation is false, his relation of the fact, wrote when the accounts were under his eyes, is untrue.—What shall we believe from such a man?

But to shew that malice, and the fear of accounting on honest and just principles, possessed his soul, and deprived him of all reason, when he wrote this infidious letter, it is sufficient to remind the reader of his saying that J. H. when he paid his own drafts on R. M. did it with the proceeds of his public bills on France. He forgot that J. H's money and that of his friends paid in July and August, 1778, to R. M. and his remittance on the commissary general, are credited in account to J. H. and were to be employed by R. M. to take up those same drafts on Philadelphia in 1778, for which (he says) the proceeds of the public bills were employed by J. H. in March 1779.— tho' these proceeds were received by R. M. by him employed in his own speculations or to take up his own engagements, and have entirely disappeared through depreciation, if his statement of accounts is allowed, and have occasioned the total loss of the bills drawn, as he says, to take up Holker's drafts from Boston. Let us now grant to R. M. for a moment the full force of his allegation against his employer, and with him pretend to believe—that the difference on this whole transaction, on these 400,000 Livres, was a gain to him (J. H.) of 155,000 Livres Tournois—(Vide page 16.) What can we conclude from thence? Let it be supposed, that J. H. did attempt to gain 300,000 Livres on 400,000 Livres, still he would not have attempted to gain as much as R. M.—£.2800 out of £.3300—and sacrifice one third of the original value of the bills on the sale thereof, in order to raise the £.500 necessary to make up the difference of payment. And if J. H. is supposed to have actually made the gain, according to R. M's words, then we shall fall into an absurdity; for all Holker's accounts are grounded on those of R. M. which form near one third of the value to be accounted for, and are the first to be accounted for; therefore he has not made the gain of 155,000 Livres, since he has not ever yet been able to redact, much less propose his accounts, in order to make any gain whatever.

From hence it is also to be concluded that J. H. has not even attempted to make this gain; but it may still be supposed that he had that intention, and that R. M. knew his intention: this being granted, his argument will run as follows:

J. H. working the nefarious plan of depreciation against the King, or in other words, making great gain himself through a nominal set of accounts, insists with R. M. that he shall account to J. H. on a scale [...] depreciation, for his transactions on behalf of the Royal Marine, at the very time that R. M. can prove, that he (J. H.) had intended at least to gain 155,000 Livres by depreciation, from one single payment of 400,000 Livres, made on behalf of the King: [Page] and as so gross an injury to the King's interest must not take place in favor of J. H. therefore he inserts in his letter of February, 1784, that J. H. has actually made the gain of so large a sum. Unluckily R. M. forgot that the assertion deserved a reply.

Is it because J. H. (to speak plain) has cheated the King, that R. M. is to cheat J. H? Is it because J. H. had intended and attempted to cheat his King, that R. M. is to cheat actually and effectually J. H. and also the King and J. H's friends, through the fallacious medium of depreciation? But if J. H has gained 155,000 Livres, and R. M. gains them upon J. H. where is the profit to J. H? Can he in this situation be termed a cheat, with any truth? Without having derived any advantage from his fraud, especially by R. M? At most it can only be said that he did attempt it, but was weak enough to be outwitted in the attempt by that confidential agent, whom he employed and paid to redact the accounts of his own transactions—his Boston transactions. But if this gain is gone from J. H. how will he be able to refund the King, should his ministers one day or other discover the attempt, and the knavery of the agent general? How will he be able to account to the officers and crews of Count D'Estaing's Fleet for the real value of the monies which the commander thereof entrusted to his good faith? And if this game is to be played upon J. H. throughout, by R. M. how then will J. Holker's friends be redeemed from ruin, when their fortunes will have been dissipated under the cloak of depreciation, and the loss be explained away by R. M. in a set of accounts?

Is R. M. to attempt thus to cheat J. H. and then call out cheat first, turn informer, and threaten J. H.† that if he should squeak, or shake even through fear, he will go and tell the King his master? This is too much. And is this language to be held by R. M. when he knew that as early as January, February and March, 1779, in all Holker's letters to the King's secretaries of state, he informs them of the savings he has made on the Boston transactions, of the advantageous rate of exchange of bills, then selling in Philadelphia for the payment of the debts contracted in Boston by the King's fleet, and due to individuals, to himself, and to Congress? This R. M. knew at the time, he knew that J. H. made his pride thereof, and that he vaunted and gloried in his successful endeavours for the King's interest, to R. M. himself, to Mr. Gerard, and all others to whom he could confidentially speak on the subject. This R. M. has heard J. H. speak of repeatedly: but, res miranda! at that very time, R. M was meditating the plan of accusing him, some day or other, of these very exertions on the King's behalf; and to maintain at a later period, that the whole was a cheat, because there was a gain of 150,000 Livres to J. H. on 400,000 Livres, in order to cover his own plan of working depreciation against J. H.

It may be supposed by some, that this was not really intended by R. M. that it was only a hint, by way of observation, made from R. M. in a letter to J. H. so artfully written, that tho' it conveyed the idea of a gain that could be made by J. H. if his accounts were properly stated, still J. H. could never be imprudent enough to shew the letter, or make any use of it against R. M. because the insinuation would be against J. H. and the secret of his gain of 155,000 Livres suffered to transpire. But here again R. M. is foiled in his object; for the King's ministers were fully informed of this whole business, in a series of letters, which explain the whole; therefore, if they are one [Page] day imposed upon by J. H. it will be with their eyes open and in noonday; and if, as R. M. pretends, there is any gain whatever to J. H. it will be the free gift, the free concession of the King through his ministers: if such a profit could exist, even then it would be but a just reward of his fidelity to the King's service and interest: but this cannot be, since it would only enable him to do justice to the King, to the officers and seamen of the King's navy, and to J. H's friends in Europe, whose money was to be employed for the King's service by J. H. and of which the greater part was afterwards put into the hands of R. M. for this very purpose.

Notwithstanding the extreme length of this memorial, we must now further remark, that R. M. seems to lay great stress on the circumstance of the accounts, respecting J. H's transactions in Boston in 1778, being entered in R. M's books in 1779, at J. H's request: He asks, (Page 13) "How are they to be separated? (i. e. from his accounts.) Where are your instructions for the purpose at the time? He adds, in the same Page, ‘The effort now made to separate them, is with a view to establish your demand of depreciation: but, although it is in that respect immaterial to me, I will not consent to it.’

This refusal of R. M. is extraordinary. J. H's transactions in Boston are perfectly distinct from those of R. M. in Philadelphia: he never would have consented to, or could be obliged to make good any losses to the King or to J. H. on J. H's operations and transactions in Boston, in which he had no concern; which he neither advised, directed or concerted. On this occasion R. M. was really a mere book-keeper to J. H. recording in the run of 1779, one part of J. H's transactions in Boston, which took place in October and November, 1778, and which only came to R. M's knowledge in the year following, thro' the confidential communication of J. H. He was neither a banker or agent in this business: he was not to loose by being merely a recorder of accounts; he could not reasonably have any profit in view; he could not claim or disclaim any depreciation thereon. Nay, page 11, he reasons on this subject in the following words: ‘Robert Morris, (sub-agent to J. H.) accounts to the agent general of the Royal Marine. (i. e. to J. H.) John Holker, Daniel Bell, John Rowe and others, transact business on account of the Royal Marine in Boston; the agent general makes those gentlemen accountable to Robert Morris, (J. H. makes J. H. accountable to R. M.) by placing the accounts of those transactions in his hands, for the express purpose of introducing their accounts into his.’ And further, in the same page: ‘If the accounts of those gentlemen do not please you, I care not; for I did not employ them, and inserted their accounts into mine by your order.’

Here R. M. acknowledges that he did not transact the business; he is not responsible for the same, for he did not employ John Holker, the agent general, nor any other of the Gentlemen; and because he recorded their transactions in his Books, he therefore introduces their operations into the statement of his own operations, into the accounts of his own transactions: he is desired to state his own accounts separately and distinctly, to specify merely what he did actually receive and pay on the public account. And tho' he says, that with respect to depreciation, it is immaterial to him, he will not consent to do it, because ‘the effort now made to separate them, is with a view to establish your demand of depreciation.’ As if the mere separation of such accounts, the substraction of accounts where he neither received or paid one penny, could establish or annul any claim of depreciation against him or for him.

Page 15, R. M. says, ‘But let us return for a moment to your Boston transactions, on which so great a stress is laid; your most favorable statement of them can only be, a profit made by the King on the depreciation of money belonging to individuals, applied to his use; but this is not all; you, as I have already observed, derived the means of making those expenditures, principally from funds credited to individuals in accounts kept by you, in my name, at [Page] your request; (i. e. in R. M's books) comprise the whole together and you must see, that it forms neither addition to, nor deduction from what I possessed.’

Without observing on the obscurity of the first part of this paragraph, or on the supposed injustice of an attempt made by the agent general to make a profit for the King, or on the propriety of doing now ultimate justice to the King or J. H's friends, let us only attend to the latter part: —comprise together the whole of J. H's Boston transactions, they neither make addition to, nor deduction from what R. M. possessed.— Why therefore not separate such unnecessary accounts, which can only create confusion and error, especially in dealings with continental money; and which, when entered into R. M's accounts under different dates of receipt and payment, give rise to the most erroneous inductions.

Why, therefore, is the separation of these Boston accounts so strenuously opposed by R. M? The truth in this respect we must suppose to be, that there is existing a very heavy loss to the King on R. M's operations in 1779; in the beginning of that year he actually received more than £.20,000 sterling, in bills payable at the Royal treasury of France, and more than £7000 sterling in similar bills from Messrs. Turnbull and Co. in the year 1780, besides very large sums in continental currency, the whole for the King's account, for his service alone; still it appears from R. M's own accounts, from his own statement, made out by himself, from his books and from the vouchers he produced in support of his accounts, that he never did pay for the King's account, £.12,000 Pennsylvania currency, of real specie value, according to the scale of depreciation fixed by law; from whence there results a loss of near £.40,000 to the King, tho' he sold almost all the public bills himself,—made his own engagements through agents of his own choice,—made his own contracts and purchases, &c. Does not such an extraordinary loss and deficiency need an investigation? Does it not afford a sufficient reason why auditors should state R. M's transactions separately and distinctly from those personal to J. H. where J. H. alone received and paid the monies, so as to examine and report on this mysterious business; especially as R. M. did receive monies applicable only to special particular purposes, such as, for the public service, for the purchase of loan office certificates, for speculations in South-Carolina, &c.

It must be with a view of avoiding the consequences of this great deficiency, that R. M. says, page 11 and 13, that the part of the statement of the public transactions, signed by his Excellency Monsieur Gerard, in Sept. 1779, was an account settled. This is a circumstance so remarkable, and so much stress is also laid thereon, that it is proper to relate what appears on record upon this subject.

The statement referred to is entitled: ‘Debtor, The Hon. John Holker, Esq agent to the Royal Marine of France, in account current with Robert Morris, Esq of Philadelphia,— on account of said Royal Marine, Creditor—’

The first charge in this statement, that appears under the date of the 19th of Sept. 1778, is a sum of £.2520, for £.2400, paid by R. M. to Edward Evans, on behalf of the owners and Captain of the sloop Supply, for services performed to his Excellency Connt D'Estaing's fleet, which, with a commission of 5 per ct. for paying this money, make £.2520 - 0 - 0

It balances by a sum of 1000 Livres Tournois £.163,355 - 8 - 6 continental currency, in these words, ‘To balance carried to the credit of John Holker Esq, agent of the Royal Marine of France, in a new account current.’—say £.163,355 - 8 - 6

The gross ammount is for a sum of £.584,158 - 13 - 5 ½

[Page] At the foot thereof is wrote the following note:

That more money than the above balance is actually paid by me for the service of the Royal Marine for sundry articles and services that cannot yet be brought into the account, as the persons who received the monies have not yet rendered their accounts, altho' frequently requested; these articles will therefore appear in the next account, viz.

Matthias Slough, Esq in payment of flour, about | £. 30,000 - 0 - 0
Hewes, Smith and Allen, for naval stores, | 4,000 - 0 - 0
Ben Harrison jun. for flour, | 20,000 - 0 - 0
John Michel, Esq due for prize goods, | 1,438 - 0 - 0
John Langdon, Esq on account of masts, &c. about | 10,000 - 0 - 0
Navy Board at Boston, balance due, | 3,348 - 0 - 0
Flour on hand, | 27,262 - 0 - 0
Bread on hand, | 10,000 - 0 - 0
Daniel Bell of Boston, for purchase of provisions, about | 150,000 - 0 - 0
William Smith of Baltimore, per ditto | 100,000 - 0 - 0
| £.356,048 - 0 - 0

Errors excepted.

Philadelphia, August 31, 1779. ROBERT MORRIS."

Thus stands the account, said to be settled, between J. H. and R. M. in presence of his Excellency Monsieur Gerard.—Notwithstanding that a very considerable part of J. H's transactions in Boston are herein comprehended, for which R. M. was never made, nor ever did become accountable, nor for which J. H. never could settle with R. M. even if he had any such intention at the time.

This first statement was followed by a second,—in which under a similar superscription, the first article on the credit side is thus worded:

"1779. August 31,—By balance of account settled and signed this day,—Livres 1000 £.163,355 - 8 - 6"

On the debit side, the first, second and third charges against the Royal Marine appear under the date of Dec. 1778.

The fourth charge bears date of January 1779.

The fifth of February 1779.

The sixth, seventh and eighth under the date of March 1779.

The ninth and tenth are of April following.

The eleventh article deserves to be related at full length:

"1779, August 20,—To my order on Messrs. Lory & Plombard,—(of Charleston,) dated the 22d December last, in favor of his Excellency Monsieur Gerard, for 88,000 dollars, to be applied to his Majesty's service, in such way as Mons. Gerard may direct, omitted to be charged at that time, (at 7 shillings and 6 pence,) is £.33,000 - 0 - 0"

[Page] 1780.—Under the date of 1780, without any specification of month or day whatever, R. M. gives credit for the following sums:

By the United States for balance due on supplies furnished by their commissaries 1778, 1779, and 1780, charged in my accounts; but being unpaid, you are to pay the same, viz. |
Miller and Tracey—(Boston transactions)—balance | £.150,444 - 0 - 6 ¾
Nathaniel Ruggles—(Boston do.) | 10,832 - 10 - 0
Ephraim Blaine, and others—(Philadelphia transactions)— | 503,916 - 2 - 8
By state of Pennsylvania, for supplies furnished, charged in my accounts, but being unpaid, you are to pay the same | 40,154 - 14 - 0
| £.705,347 - 7 - 2 ¾

Among the sums above specified, as Boston transactions, monies to the amount of £.86,919 - 13 - 9, were actually charged in the first statement, as if actually paid; they form part of the two sums above specified, which he says are not paid; and still he maintains that the first statement of the public accounts, in which J. H's operations in Boston are blended and intermixed with R. M's transactions in Philadelphia, is an account settled and signed, under the date of the 31st of August, 1779.

The last article in this second statement reads as follows:

"1780. June 26,—By John Holker, Esq for the balance charged to his account current— Livres 4800 £.298 - 2 - 6 ½

Errors excepted.

ROBERT MORRIS."

The gross amount of this second statement is £.1,528,119 - 14 - 2—Pennsylvania currency—of continental paper: It was sent to J. H. on the 26th or 27 of February, 1784, with R. M's letter of the 26th day of that month. But previous thereto, another second statement of accounts for the Royal Marine, had been handed to J. H. by which a balance in favor of R. M. of £.450,000 was claimed from the Royal Marine: this last was made out in 1781, and R. M. says, page 8—the accounts of the continental commissaries (from whence it was stated) were only delivered to me about the middle of May, 1781.

From what has now been related, will it not be easy for any one to answer, whether R. M's first statement of the public matters is an account settled between the parties? Other documents will prove, that it never could be, nor ever was intended by the parties as a settlement. What then does R. M. mean by maintaining that it was an account settled? Surely he cannot intend thereby to prove that his accounts cannot be separated from those of J. H. for he, of his own accord, separates the public from the private concerns.

This riddle will be best explained thus: He wishes to make J. H. believe that the principles of the account may be deemed settled, though not one word is said thereon; he wishes this first statement had been really settled as to all claim of depreciation; and as this may be maintained before auditors, it would appear to be incumbent on them to [Page] state all R. M's accounts distinctly and separately, under their real dates in the first instance, before they condescend to hear the parties on their disputes, differences, or contentions, in order thereby to understand well what may be said, and to ascertain clearly the truth and the whole truth of this unfortunate business.

In order to prove the necessity of admitting the principles of depreciation on his accounts, we must here relate some further facts.

A gentleman of high trust, and of honorable memory, employed R. M. as his confidential agent in various concerns, during the years 1779 and 1780—to him he accounted for the outfits of vessels, and the proceeds of return cargoes on a footing of depreciation.

Swanwick, the clerk, attorney, agent and at present the partner of R. M. was employed during two successive years with full powers of attorney from R. M. in settling, claiming settlements, and offering them to all concerned, on a valuation, or scale of depreciation, on behalf of his employer. R. M. when employed as a banker, as a depositary of money merely, when he has paid continental money on account of deposits made with him in hard money, he has valued these payments according to the scale at the time of payment. When employed as banker he admits of depreciation to every one but to J. H.—when employed by J. H. as agent, to transact upon trust immense purchases of provisions and stores, to sell prizes, &c. &c. he admits no principle of depreciation, because, he says, he was only banker and depositary. When J. H. is interested in some unfortunate expedition to sea by his agent, and the ship and cargo fall into the possession of the enemy, then the expenditures and outfits are all reduced, by some scale or other to a specie value, and the amount in specie is charged against J. H. * in a special particular specie account. But when adventures are somewhat more prosperous, then the proceeds of the return cargoes, sold by R. M. or his correspondents, are only to be accounted for nominally in a large, grand, nominal account, where sums appear magnificent in number or in found, but whence the reality is to be substracted for the benefit of the accomptant;—for the proceeds of these cargoes are, collectively with the monies of Holker's friends, to form one general balance, which alone is to be accounted for on that rate of depreciation which it pleases R. M. to fix upon, according to his ideas of what is just, right and honorable. And therefore he offers the balance due in April, 1780, at the exchange of that month; though it results from a long course of transactions, from July 1777, to April 1780, during the course of his agency for J. H. and J. H's absent friends.

We will now put a period to these observations, and leave the rest to the decision of law and equity—Relying on our own integrity, the fairness and importance of our claims, and the efficacy and uprightness of the laws, we can entertain no doubt of obtaining ample and substantial justice.

Notes

*

In this said letter R. M. first says, ‘You will remember, Sir, that you introduced yourself to my acquaintance in the beginning of July, 1778, and pressed me to undertake the transaction of your affairs. The consideration, held out to me, was, that very great sums of money would naturally come to my hands, and might be occasionally employed in useful speculations on our joint account.’ J. H. says he never pressed R. M. to undertake his affairs; he offered to R. M. the preference of his affairs; he stipulated a fixed commission; but denies that ever he held out as a consideration, that they were jointly to speculate with the funds of any one; much less to speculate and attempt the ruin of the service and of his absent friends, by working depreciation against them. No one at least will believe that the consideration held out to R. M. was, that R. M. should speculate with J. H's money for his own account, and afterwards that J. H. should gladly put up with a nominal account, when it pleased R. M. to render any, or to offer a settlement of them. But every one will see why and wherefore he accepted of the preference given him to manage J. H's affairs; and others will best judge, whether it is true that R. M's consent was reluctantly drawn from him, on this occasion, by a man who had introduced himself to his acquaintance.

↵

*

R. M. is pleased to call bills of exchange by the denomination of monies, in order thereby to draw a consequence, favorable to his purposes.

↵

†

Is the mistake in counting money always on one side?

↵

§

R. M. has attempted to account for near one million of livres, drawn in public bills upon France, whereof the greatest part he sold, or pretended to sell: were they of a perishable nature? 1,000,000 of livres is equal to £.71,428 - 11 - 5, P [...]ns. currency.

↵

*

A mere banker charges no commission whatever.

↵

†

But he claimed from the King's agent five per cent. for his commissions on all purchases on the King's account, two and a half per cent. on the sales of all bills, &c. &c. It is true, he was, per agreement, to allow one half of these commissions to the King's agent, and this half has been prudently saved for the King; therefore, the auditors can only credit R. M. in account, for two and a half per cent. on all purchases, and one and a quarter on the sales of bills, since R. M. on account of the extensive business he had to manage, agreed originally, to be satisfied with one half of the commissions usually charged in America, which are more than double of what is usually charged by European merchants on commission business.

↵

§

Was he a depositary of business? Does a mere banker incur the obligation of answering for business? Does a mere banker perform any business for others?

↵

†

This is in reply to J. H's letters of the 23d and 24th of January, 1784 who said, that the accounts relative to Boston transactions, respecting the fleet of Count D'Estaing, ought not and should not be blended with R M's accounts of his agency; because improper consequences would and did appear from their introduction into R. M's accounts. For J. H. had then discovered, that it was by their means that R. M. contrived to conceal the real situation of his accounts and operations from him, and to make a claim of bills on France to an immense amount, on account of balances erroncously brought by R. M. to his own credit, and which he says, ‘were due to me’ say, to R. M.

↵

‡

His words are (page 14) ‘Did I ever ask you to place monies in my hands, except when you indicated purchases or services to be performed?’ This is very different,— and he must reconcile the interrogation and the assertion to each other.

↵

†

Vide the second page of the letter.

↵

*

In the beginning of this letter he says, ‘The concerns I engaged in for you, were both numerous and important.’ He engaged for J. H. in the concerns of the King, and of J. H's friends—Was he depositary of their concerns as well as of their monies, or agent for their concerns and depositary for their monies, arising from, or necessary for their concerns?

↵

‡

Page 14. R. M. says, ‘But I will neither ask of others, nor allow myself any depreciation on the monies which were held for your use, and at your disposition.’ If held for J. H's use in his hands he will not allow depreciation; consequently, if he did not hold it for his use, he must pay depreciation, according to his own principle.

↵

*

According to this writer, to open a set of books for all public concerns, separate from all others, would have created confusion, and given rise to errors; to separate, according to him, is to confound matters, to subject an accountant to a greater chance of error; and this was his motive for refusing to open one more separate set of books distinct from his own.

↵

§

The management of his friends affairs and concerns was entrusted by J. H. to R. M. and by this means R. M. became their agent, and has accounted for his agency to them.

↵

‡

Their evidence on the trial is to be taken, and to be contrasted with the conduct of R. M. and a pretty contrast it will be indeed; for every eulogium, as to truth and candor, is deserved by them, and their accounts give something of a profit to the King, instead of the enormous loss we have to complain of; they were employed for the same business, public and private, of J. H. they were requested to keep separate books and a separate chest, and it was done; they never sold a bill but for an expenditure actually made or making; they were confidentially employed, and every trust was reposed in them, and they know that they were responsible for that trust, though the King had conferred on them no authority.

↵

*

A sum of 169,000 Livres Tournois, was claimed by R. M. on account of his advances for the Royal Marine, and were delivered to him in bills on France in 1780, for that very purpose by Messis. Wm. Turnbull & Co.

↵

†

We must here refer the reader to some observations made on R. M's attempt of grafting the accounts of Messrs. Win. Turnbull & Co. his successors in the public agency, on those of his own operations and transactions.

↵

*

Referring to another sum of 54,722 Livres, 18 sols, paid to him by J. H's then agents, Wm. Turnbull & Co. on the 15th of February, 1780,—and of which we shall hereafter speak more fully.

↵

†

Page 13, his words run thus ‘I have already mentioned, that I desired you to write me on this subject of depreciation, that I might have an opportunity, once for all, to contest it; I will add, that I did not imagine, you would seriously advance such a claim.’

He certainly has wonderfully availed himself of the opportunity; but it will not be, I suppose, once for all, as he says. He adds in the very same page, ‘Remember, Sir, that my transactions with you were merely of the nature of a trust.’

↵

‡

By the estimate of R. M. said by him, to have been settled by J. H. in presence of his Excellency Mr. Gerard, under the date of August, 1779, he brings the Royal Marine in debt for £.192,692-11-6 continental, by his mode of stating the account, and therein says, as well as in his letter of February, 1784, "That he was then actually in advance for the Royal Marine, although by the face thereof, a balance of £.163,355-8-6, appear against him. In December, 1779, he gives an account to J. H. of his situation in money, with R. M. and brings J. H. in debt to him £.91,073-18-8, at the very time that he owed J. H. near £.500,000. These are the nominal accounts, furnished by him as banker and depositor.

In 1781, he furnishes the account of the Royal Marine, and brings the King in debt for £.450,000,—when he actually did owe a very heavy sum of more than £.100,000, nominal, besides 169,000 Livres, taken in bills on France, on account of the above balance, in the year, 1780.

↵

§

The deed of copartnership between R. M. and Wm. Turnbull under the ratio of Wm. Turnbull & Co. is dated and was signed by them, on the 27th day of December, 1779.

↵

‖

These form a part of the 169,000 Livres, given to R. M. on account of the advances he pretended to have made on the public account.

↵

*

A circumstance which happened to Mr. Wm. Turnbull, about that period, deserves to be noticed here: He waited upon the widow lady, owner of the house which he afterwards occupied, to inform her in his own name and that of R. M. that he had purchased the remaining lease thereof, from the gentleman who had lately occupied it, and for which R. M. had paid by agreement, a sum of £.45,000, which were therefore a clear profit to that gentleman: he was desired to relate this circumstance to the lady, and to inform her in the name of the company, that the annual rent would be regularly paid her in specie, let the currency be what it would: and that they not only looked upon it, as their duty, but abhorred the idea of availing themselves of depreciation. This was said to make the lady easy in her mind, and also for giving her a plea, for claiming the actual full value of the sum of £.300, specie, due for the rent 1779, by the late occupier who, it was said, offered her only the £.300, in paper money, or a sum inadequate to the real value of the rent: did R. M. here act upon trust, or upon honour? If such were his principles, in December, 1779, why should they vary so extremely in 1784, why should he now say, that he never thought he was to account for the bills, but merely for their nominal proceeds?—Wm. Turnbull's testimony to be taken on this fact.

↵

*

This is a singular commission, claimed only in 1784, on a sum never before charged in the public account, and on a sum paid in the first days of June, 1780, by a credit to be given by Wm. Smith, (R. M's. correspondent) to Messrs. Wm. Turnbull & Co. agents for J. H.

↵

*

£.150,000 valued in January, 1780, at 40 for one, are equal to the sum of (specie)

£.3750

In May, 1780, the exchange was at Baltimore at 60 for one, which makes

£.2500

to be charged against J. H. deducted from above leaves a profit of

£.1250

on this single payment to R. M. at the expence of J. H.— and this R. M. and his counsel offer, in Febr. 1784, as substantial justice.

↵

†

Vide J. H's obversations on the public account, and his statement thereof.

↵

§

Let the reader here remark, that in January, 1779, R. M. had forgot to charge a sum of £.99,080-10-0 against the Royal Marine, for which J. H. was to account to the King in his own statement of his Boston operations; therefore it is probable that these £. 150,000 are introduced in the year 1784, into the accounts of R. M's agency for the year 1779, in order to counterbalance this heavy omission of a charge of such consequence, in January, 1779. But thereby he makes another nominal mistake of more than £.50,000 in his own favor. Such is the extreme regularity of R. M's nominal mode of accounting, under his favorite supposition of his being a banker—a mere depositary of continental currency.

↵

*

In his letter of February, 1784, he makes it, or insinuates it as, a charge against J. H. that he drew the bills on France, before the expenditures took place.

↵

†

At least the public service is not to suffer, either thro' the misconduct of R. M. or J. H. and to its interest, therefore, the court, auditors and jury are particularly to attend.

↵

§

Because this interest may be claimed from J. H. merely because he relled and depended upon the good faith and honor of R. M. though he should not have received any from him.

↵

*

This must appear horrid indeed, and it is but too true; unless R. M. can explain all his conduct, and justify it on better ground by his books, &c.

↵

†

This he has some right to maintain, because he never made one saving, either for the King or his employer; but he sacrificed by depreciation more than £.39,000 specie, to pay twelve; or, rather, he sacrificed £.20,000 sterling in bills, and lost the whole sum (as he says) while he was paying £.12,000 Pennsylvania currency, with other bills and monies given him also, and sufficient for the whole service. Well may he wish to pay no loosings!

↵

§

With what grace will not this supposition appear, when it is known, that by the investigation of the accounts it appears, that more than £.100,000 continental currency was due by him at that very time, and that at that period the above total loss of the bills had taken place. Well may he insist that this account was settled in August, 1779.

↵

‡

But not quite so immaterial to him in the time of speculations, practicable on many of those faithful whigs, who were willing to devote their fortunes to the safety and independence of their country.

↵

**

Alias the public account, signed by his Excellency Mr. Gerard and J. H. in September, 1779.

↵

§§

Vide the letters of R. M. to J. H. dated the 2d and 3d of March, 1784.

↵

††

Vide the questions and answers on the arbitration.

↵

*

In 1778 and 1779 R. M. accounts to J. H. for 614,000 Livres given him in J. H's bills on France, all of which were duly honored; these were for the purchase of loan-office certificates, bearing interest, payable in bills of Congress upon France. R. M. maintained on the arbitration that the whole money was necessary for the King's service: however that may be, there is not a value of 500 dollars of certificates, bearing interest upon France, purchased by R. M.—Whether he did purchase any, could purchase any, or took any to himself, he will hereafter explain. Possibly he may now maintain on the public trial, that the public monies were necessary for the purchase of certificates bearing interest upon France.

↵

†

If interest was not due to the King for the use, for the improper use of the public monies, or others, it would be due for damages done to J. H. by way of indemnity for delaying him in America, and withholding accounts so necessary, involving him in every possible distress and difficulty.

↵

§

Here he paid depreciation till April, 1780; by his letter of the 26th of February, 1784, he offers to value the monies due then, by the scale of that month; but, forgetting this proposal, by which he allows depreciation whatever, he here reproaches J. H. with improperly claiming depreciation. Is it R. M. who reasons thus, or the then superintendent of finance?

↵

‡

N. B. This concern was entered into the accounts in the run of February, 1780—when R. M. was no longer J. H's public agent.

↵

*

Vide the letter page 17—In this letter he refuses to pay the bills he owes, but offers their nominal value in continental money. At the same time 79 hogsheads of tobacco were lent, he says, to J. H.—these 79 hogsheads he claims, but will not permit that J. H. should claim his bills!

↵

§

In May, 1780, R. M. had in hand of J. H's money, more than £.500,000 continental, representing £.64,000 specie.

↵

†

Among the six actions brought by J. H. against him, I must here beg leave to mention one worthy of notice—In an account between Mr. Le Ray De Chaumont and R. M. the latter is yet to settle for near 200 hogsheads of tobacco, remaining due to the former, on account of some powder which his house received in July, 1777, the proceeds whereof Messrs. Willing, Morris and Co. were to vest in tobacco; for these 200 hogsheads R. M. offered £.31 - 14 - 0, thro' his clerk Swanwick, and something more than £.50 by his letter of February, 1784, and on the arbitration. On this occasion he wishes to pay a balance due in tobacco to Chaumont, at the exchange of 100 for one, or 61 and a half for 1: but as he had lent 79 hogsheads of tobacco in 1780 to J. H. he claims the tobacco in kind. Is this fair and honorable? Or, rather, the tobacco lent to J. H. was it not the tobacco borrowed by R. M. from Chaumont? Would not this be a good speculation of R. M. upon two friends, for whom he acted upon trust?

↵

*

N. B. He then had a considerable balance of Holker's private monies, or those belonging to his friends, to account for; besides all the proceeds of 350,000 Livres of bills on France, sold by him for the purpose of purchasing certificates bearing interest payable in France, which he at first said were necessary for the King's service, and which he afterwards was obliged to say, he had kept on hand also perishing, but subject to Holker's orders, till his return from Boston; or, rather, he had employed every farthing of the money in lands, or ships, or, still better speculations.

↵

*

He received £.61,196 - 1 - 3 public money.

↵

*

J. H's drafts from Boston amount to

£.77,656 - 5 - 0

he took up in Boston

£.24,362 - 0 - 0

therefore

£.52,694 - 5 - 0

only were paid by R. M. and not

£.77,656 - 5 - 0

↵

†

Will it not surprise all impartial men, that though J. H. may be supposed to have intended to secure to himself the advantages of depreciation, R. M. should have imagined that he could terrify J. H. from his claims on him, by insinuating the attempt, and reproaching him with having selfish views to answer, when in fact there is but one principle, one single equitable mode of settling accounts between J. H. and R. M. between J. H. and the King, between J. H. and his friends? And has not R. M. seen J. H. settle with Congress on these same principles, while he superintended their finances, during the run of the year 1783? And shall R. M. make an exception to the general rule, because he acted upon trust; because he was entrusted with the redaction of J. H's accounts for his personal transactions in Boston?

↵

*

Vide the accounts of the ship Defence, fitted out by Wm. Smith, of Baltimore, Maryland—in the run of 1779, and for which a balance of £.2400 specie, is charged against J. H.

↵

ERRATA.

Page 19, line 11, for page 9, read page 13, 14, 20, 18, for page 4, read page 10.

Information about this book

Title statement

Correspondence between John Holker, Esquire, inspector general of trade and manufactures, and late consul general, of France, and Robert Morris, Esquire, late superintendant of the finances of the United States. To which is annexed a memorial, relative to the transactions between them, and to the principles on which Mr. Morris offered a final settlement thereof, by his letter of the 26th of February, 1784.

Holker, John, 1719-1786.

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI :

Date

2008-09.

ID [DLPS]

N34290

ID [TCP]

N34290

ID [STC]

Shipton 44903

ID [NOTIS]

APV5656

ID [IMAGE-SET]

44903

ID [EVANS-CITATION]

99001063

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early American Imprints, 1639-1800 ; no. 44903.

Notes

(Evans-TCP ; no. N34290)

Transcribed from: (Readex Archive of Americana ; Early American Imprints, series I ; image set 44903)

Images scanned from Readex microprint and microform: (Early American imprints. First series ; no. 44903)

Source

— Correspondence between John Holker, Esquire, inspector general of trade and manufactures, and late consul general, of France, and Robert Morris, Esquire, late superintendant of the finances of the United States. To which is annexed a memorial, relative to the transactions between them, and to the principles on which Mr. Morris offered a final settlement thereof, by his letter of the 26th of February, 1784., Holker, John, 1719-1786., Morris, Robert, 1734-1806..

Extent

[2], 45, [1] p.

Printed by Charles Cist, in Arch-Street.,. Philadelphia: :: M,DCC,LXXXVI. [1786]. ("Errata."--p. 45.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.