1790-1792
There are twenty-four (24) correspondences written by or that mention Delozier in this section of the online papers. This section has the more correspondence by Delozier than any other section. For the benefit of those of you who have never read these papers in full, I have given a brief narrative (when possible) just before the actual text of the letter. I have also included, as part of this site, significant historical and political events that were happening around the time these letters were written. COMING SOON! List of all names mentioned in Part IV. |
Section IV of the Otho Holland Williams papers begin with a letter dated February 9, 1790. The first we see correspondence between Williams and Daniel Delozier is in the following letter dated July 2, 1790. The letter was sent to Williams, who was in Sweet Springs, VA. In it, Delozier reports, “ nothing important has occurred in the office since Williams left.”
NOTE: Just an aside note about why Williams was in Sweet Springs Va... In a letter to Dr. Philip Thomas, dated February 12, Williams explains he will be "going off through Anne Arundel, Montgomery, Frederick, Washington counties, to the Sweet Springs [Va.] for six weeks" (beginning May) with his wife and children on the recommendation of his physician who advised, "a temporary change of climate". In that February 12 letter, Williams also divulged he, " will not keep his office [Collector of the port of Baltimore] unless there is a change in the impost laws"
1790 July 2
Dan[ie]l DELOZIER, Balt[imor]e. To [Otho Holland] WILLIAMS, Sweet Springs, Va.
[593]
The suit in the General Court [of Maryland] about the duties secured during the inter[r]egnum is decided in favor of the State, though the merchants affected have taken an appeal; thinks the merchants should at once take up their bonds, and the Attorney General agrees with him; has received more than [UNK]2600, and has promises of more in the next week or so; presumes he will be able to forward the quarterly accounts by the middle of the month; nothing important has occurred in the office since Williams left.
A.L.S. 2 pp. 23 cm. × 19 cm.
Endorsed by Williams: 2d. July 1790 Mr. Danl. Delozier.
Happened in 1791
|
This letter from Delozier to Williams references a separate letter which was sent by the Secretary of the Treasury (Alexander Hamilton) in which it was mentioned the new use of a thermometer and a hydrometer for the purposes of discerning the “degree of proof of distilled spirits.” I found a rather simplified explanation for the use of a thermometer and hydrometer at whiskeyweb.com: “ In the 1740s, the Customs and Excise and the London distillers began to use Clarks hydrometer, an instrument devised to measure spirit strength. A more accurate version by Bartholomew Sikes was universally adopted under the Hydrometer Act, 1818, and remained in standard use until 1980.” In an article printed in the newsletter Alpha Bits, The Monthly Newsletter of the Tennessee Valley Homebrewers’ Association, it explains brewing techniques in the 1700s: “ Brewing techniques of the early 1700s suffered from the lack of the two primary instruments we use today; the thermometer and hydrometer were not in common use until the late 1700s.”
1791 Jan. 11
D[aniel] DELOZIER, Baltimore. To [Otho Holland WILLIAMS].
[624]
Has just opened a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, saying that he [the Secretary] was sending Williams a Thermometer and a Hydrometer for the purpose of ascertaining the degree of proof of distilled spirits; there was a tin case accompanied the letter very carefully seal up, but it was empty; sends Williams the tin by Major [Christopher] Richmond, so that Williams can have the mistake corrected.
A.L.S. 1 p. 30 cm. × 19 cm.
Endorsed by Williams: 11 January 1791 D. Delozier Thermr. and Hydrometer.
Mention of Delozier’s desire to be on the board of directors for the National Bank is in this next letter from William Smith to Williams. Smith indicates he is “ glad to help Mr. [Daniel] Delozier partly on Williams' account, and partly because he is a very deserving man”.
1791 Feb. 5
W[illiam] SMITH, Philad[elphi]a. To Otho Holland WILLIAMS, Baltimore.
[634]
Is glad to help Mr. [Daniel] Delozier partly on Williams' account, and partly because he is a very deserving man; does not, however, expect to be in Baltimore before the choice of the directors for the bank takes place, and thinks that is to be March first; wants Williams to vote his [Smith's] five shares for him; many applications already received for the office Delozier wants; moreover, the law to incorporate the National Bank will probably pass the House today, and that National Bank will probably swallow up all the State Banks; Smith saw yesterday a letter from S[amuel] Sterett to some member of Congress, recommending A. W. Davey to some appointment, probably that of inspector of the revenue; Davey is not so deserving as [William] Mathews, and Williams must help Mathews in drawing up his memorial; sent S[amuel] Smith's money by Andrew Ellicott.
A.L.S. 1 p. 37 cm. × 23 cm.
Endorsed by Williams: 5 February 91 Mr. Wm. Smith.
In this next letter, Delozier states he is forwarding a letter and papers from the Secretary of the Treasury (Alexander Hamilton). Hamilton was appointed by President Washington to serve this capacity and did so from September 11, 1789-January 31, 1795. It was Hamilton who made several proposals including a plan for import duties and excise taxes as a way for raising revenue, funding of the revolutionary debt, and suggestions on naval laws. He also developed plans for a Congressional charter for the first Bank of the United States, and for placing the revenues on firm ground. -U.S. Department of the Treasury Learning Vault
1791 June 8
D[aniel] DELOZIER, Deputy Collector, Baltimore. To Otho H[olland] WILLIAMS [Frederick].
[650]
Forwards a letter and papers which came yesterday from the Secretary of the Treasury; asks Williams what he [Delozier] is to do about the examination of Mr. Fraser; the Secretary has given orders that the money received for duty is to be deposited in the Bank of Maryland, and that the collectors are to get duplicate receipts for it; one receipt is to be forwarded to the Treasury department; and those receipts are to exonerate the Collectors.
A.L.S. 1 p. 25 cm. × 21 cm.
Enclosures missing.
Below is an sworn affidavit by Delozier dated June 15, 1791. The affidavit was sworn before Justice of the Peace, George Salmon. The information I was able to find on George Salmon is that he was a Lieutenant in the South Caronlina line during the American Revolution. "Other offices held by George Salmon were: tax inquirer, assessor, and collector for the Upper District between Broad and Saluda Rivers (1786), Justice of Peace (1790-as reflected in the letter below), Justice of the Quorum (1800-1823) for Greenville District, and commissioner for free school (1811)." Source: The Salmon Family
[1791 Before June 15]
John WOODWARD.
[654]
Affidavit, sworn before Geo[rge] Salmon, J. P. for Baltimore County, Md., that he had heard Mrs. Kitty Dixon of Fells Point say repeatedly that Clement Skerrett had offered her a hundred dollars to testify against Capt. John Wardrobe, charged with smuggling.
Contemporary copy, certified as true by Daniel Delozier. 1 p. 34.5 cm. × 21 cm.
Enclosed with entry 655.
Another paper, this time a letter by Delozier regarding the Clement/Skerett incident.
1791 June 15
D[aniel] DELOZIER, Balt[im]o[re]. To Otho H[olland] WILLIAMS, Frederick.
[655]
Encloses a copy of an affidavit, now in the possession of Mr. Robert Smith, which will be brought before the court to refute the testimony of Mrs. Kitty Dixon; Mr. [Capt. Clement] Skerot was hardly so imprudent as to offer her abuse in direct terms, and it is remarkable that a man of respectability, as Woodard [John Woodward] is represented to be, should frequently have opportunities of conversing with a woman of Mrs. Dickson's character; testimony in court will reflect on the integrity of the Inspectors, so Delozier has asked Mr. Skerett to collect all the testimony he can on the matter; has received Williams' letter and the papers about the goods sent to Virginia by Mr. Fraser, whose shipment was undoubtedly legal.
A.L.S. 2 pp. 25.5 cm. × 21 cm.
Endorsed by Williams; 15 June 1791 D. Delozier.
For enclosure see entry 654.
This letter from Delozier to Williams shows early organization efforts and the worth of foreign gold and monies. In this letter, Delozier mentions Marbury [William], who will soon be involved in one of the most famous and significant Supreme Court cases. [1803 Marbury vs. Madison]
1791 June 29
D[aniel] DELOZIER [Deputy Collector], Baltimore. To Otho H[olland] WILLIAMS.
Start Vol. 7
[660]
How shall he answer a letter from the Commissioner of Loans; the gold was received from the Bank of Maryland in consequence of a check which he gave Captain Marbury after Marbury had signed duplicate receipts to the Collector; since January first the Collector has had in charge from 15 to 20 thousand dollars cash belonging to the United States, much of it gold; Collection law authorized the Collector to accept foreign gold coins at 89 conts the penny weight; previous to the operation of the Bank of Maryland the custom of the merchants in Baltimore fixed the value of gold indiscriminately to be worth 6/8 the penny weight; residents of Baltimore who presented Treasury warrants for payment usually preferred silver or bank notes to gold on account of the loss they would sustain by receiving gold at 89 cents the penny weight, so the gold remained on hand; before he got the letter from the Commissioner of Loans, he had settled the Collector's Cash account at the Bank and taken duplicate receipts from the Cashier; hopes Williams has benefited by the change of air and that the intended visit to the Springs [Va.] will produce the wished for relief; duties in April and May amount to one hundred and ten thousand dollars; encloses a copy of a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury respecting the revenue cutter.
A.L.S. 4 pp. 25 cm. × 21 cm.
Endorsed: 29 June 1791 From D. Delozier.
Enclosure missing.
NOTE: on January 30, 1792, Otho Holland Williams sends a letter to Henry (Light horse Harry) Lee to give him the news that Williams has named his newborn son after him (Henry Lee Williams). The baby was born on December 31, 1791. The actual letter reads, “Henry Lee Williams was born on the 23d. day of December 1791, in the first hour of the morning, and is named, not for the governor of Virginia, but for the man whose merit hath exalted him to that high office; The retreat of the Southern army from Guilford Court House [N.C.] to Dan River [Va.], although now forgotten was,... one of the most masterly, and fortunate manouvres of our beloved [Nathanael] Greene; Lee's leadership of the [Lee's] Legion, attached to the light infantry commanded by him [Williams], and his co-operation with him [Williams], the responsible officer, left on my mind indelible impressions of gratitude and affection."
(to read more on rum: Rum Trade )
Note: According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the measurement of a “Hogshead” was first standardized by Parliament in 1423. is a large cask of liquid It was used to meaus The American Heritage Dictionary claims that a hogshead can consist of anything from 62.5 to 140 (presumably U.S.) gallons. Eventually, a hogshead of wine came to be 63 gallons, while a hogshead of beer or ale is 54 gallons. (see picture of a hogshead barrel above) A tobacco hogshead was used in colonial times to transport and store tobacco. It was a very large wooden barrel. A standardized hogshead measured 48 inches long and 30 inches in diameter at the head. Fully packed with tobacco, it weighed about 1000 pounds. –Wikipedia
A hogshead was also used as unit of measurement for sugar in Louisiana for most of the 19th century. Plantations were listed in sugar schedules as having produced x number of hogsheads of sugar or molasses.
The letter below speaks of an issue with home distilled rum from Rhode Island that was seized from a ship at Port Baltimore. Delozier discusses with Williams how the case will be handled. According to accounts, this wasn’t the first offense for good old Clark and Nightengale! According to Providence County Superior Court, Record Book Number 2, pages 160 to 166 court record book, John Clark and Joseph Nightingale v. Charles Dudley, Collector of Revenue, the English Navy Ship (Beaver) became frustrated on attempts for customs seizure of this same Clark and Nightengale. The story goes that on June 27, 1772, the "Beaver had stopped the ship of Clark and Nightingale, prominent merchants of Providence, after it had reported its cargo to Newport and was proceeding to Providence. The captain of the Beaver found 55 hogsheads of molasses and 26 hogsheads of sugar which had not been reported and on which no import tax had been paid. The Beaver seized the illegal goods and the ship and took them to Newport for legal action. On July 2nd, Clark and Nightengale appeared in the Newport office of Dudley and demanded that he as Collector of Revenue accept their declaration of importation of 55 hogsheads of molasses and 26 hogsheads of sugar and take the tax money they offered him. Dudley refused to accept the declaration or tax money on the reasonable ground that it was too late because the goods and ship had already been seized for illegal smuggling.” -Joseph Bucklin Society
Samuel Nightingale, a prominent Rhode Island Merchant, happened to also be the uncle of Florence Nightingale, nursing pioneer. To read the genealogy of Florence Nightingale 
Samuel's son, also named Samuel II (nicknamed "Jr") followed his father into the merchentile trade, carrying cargo to and from the West Indies and China on a ship called Hazard (owned by his uncle William F. Melee and John Corlis).
1792 June 13
D[aniel] DELOZIER, Baltimore. To [Otho Holland WILLIAMS].
[724]
Encloses a copy of a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury; has settled with the officers of the cutter for their pay and subsistence, and, if anything more is to be done, must have instructions; Mr. Bowen has come to Baltimore in behalf of Clark and Nightingale, proprietors of the rum seized before Williams left the city; Bowen acknowledged to the Secretary of the Treasury that the rum was distilled in Rhode Island, that the duties had been secured, and the original casks correctly branded; Bowen, however, said that they wished to do away [with] the prejudice that has heretofore opperated to the disadvantage of home distilled spirits, and that they thought it advisable to start it into West India Hogsheads in order to promote the sale of it; the court has ordered the rum returned to them, with bond for the value subject to reappraisoment, and has set the trial for next court; the fraud is evident, if not on the revenue, on the public, and ought to be prevented; encloses a letter franked by the Secretary of the Treasury, and apparently private.
A.L.S. 4 pp. 25.5 cm. × 21 cm.
Endorsed by Williams: D. Delozier 13 June 1792.
For enclosures see entries 721 and 722.
This next letter from Robert Purviance to Alexander Hamilton recounts the rum incident stated in the letter above. In this letter, Delozier is mentioned as well as all the other men involved in the incident as well as the course of action taken.
1792 June 14
Robert PURVIANCE. To [Alexander HAMILTON] Secretary of the Treasury.
[726]
[May] 21, he was informed by three [Baltimore] merchants that there had been landed from the Ceres, John T. Child, from Newport [Rhode Island], a quantity of rum, said to be West Indian, but suspected by them of having been made within the United States; in the absence of the collector [Otho Holland Williams] he [Purviance] consulted the deputy collector [Delozier], and those two consulted the inspector [Robert Ballard]; the three men went to Mr. Elkin Solomon, the consignee of C[lark] and Nightingale, the shippers of the rum, and demanded to see the rum and the papers; Solomon appeared to have more certificates than he did hogsheads, and the inspector found that the certificates nearly agreed, as to marks and numbers, with the hogsheads that were there; he [Purviance] caused the bungs to be started, and examined the rum; being satisfied, from his long experience, that the rum did not correspond with the certificates, he was convinced that deception had been practiced, and directed the inspector to seize the rum, and, without loss of time, to seize the sloop, as well as several hogsheads said to have been already delivered.
Extract in hand of Daniel Delozier. 4 pp. 25.5 cm. × 21 cm.
Enclosed with entry 745.
According to this next letter from Alexander Hamilton to Otho Williams, there is a discrepency about the duty of the Inspector of Customs versus duties of the Inspector of Revenue when it comes to the special handling and authenticating distilled spirits. You will see this issue unfold in the next several correspondences. Hamilton, in this letter, holds that it is the Inspectors' duty to inspect distilled spirits. He goes on to say that temporary Inspectors of Customs should be assigned if the regular Inspectors are too busy. And he also re-iterates the chain of command in Customs. That being, Inspectors being under the command of Surveyors, Surveyor under the command of the Collector. (Collector-->Surveyor-->Inspector) Hamilton does not stop there in his statements. He boldly continues, "failure on the part of the Inspectors to perform the duties laid on them would be good reason for substituting others, who are better disposed." (note: Recall that Williams, at this time, is Collector. Delozier is Deputy Collector and Robert Ballard is Inspector.)
1792 June 18
[Alexander HAMILTON] Treasury Department. To [Otho Holland WILLIAMS].
[727]
The Commissioner of the Revenue informs Hamilton that Williams thinks Inspectors of Customs are not bound to perform the duty which has been assigned to them in relation to distilled spirits; Hamilton has re-examined the question, and now reiterates that the instructions must be carried out; the ordinary inspectors of customs can usually perform the service, and when they are too busy, temporary inspectors may be appointed; inspectors are to do what the Surveyor orders, and the Surveyor, in turn, is under the direction of the Collector; failure on the part of the Inspectors to perform the duties laid on them would be good reason for substituting others, who are better disposed; Hamilton has the fullest reliance that Williams will cause the Inspectors of the Customs to perform the services, which have been required of them, in aid of the Inspectors of the revenue.
Copy in hand of Daniel Delozier. 7 pp. 26 cm. × 21 cm.
Endorsed by Williams: From the Secretary of Treasury 18 June 1792.
Enclosed with entry 728
The second section of the following letter will explain the letter above and the seriousness of the charges for if “spirits” are imported in “ships not of U.S. registry”. In the letter, Delozier re-iterates to General Williams the information from Hamilton that there will be an additional 10% charge added on imported distilled spirits. In the third and last section of this letter, Delozier mentions that Robert Purvience, "sends good wishes." I was able to find a bit more information on Robert Purvience by researching his online manuscripts and papers. In them, we read that he [Purvience] was of Huguenot descent. Also mentioned, is that Purvience eventually took the place of General Williams (after his death in 1794) as Collector at Port Baltimore and that Purvience continued in this position until his own death in 1806. The Purvience family was a highly distinguished merchant family who fully supported the efforts of the colonists during the Revolutionary War.
1792 June 20
D[aniel] DELOZIER, Baltimore. To [Otho Holland] WILLIAMS.
[728]
Received Williams' letter of [June] 18, with the accompanying papers about the revenue cutter; has heard unofficially that Capt. Gross intends to resign about the end of this month, that the officers of the cutter are displeased with his conduct, and that he fears they will send in a report on him to the Secretary of the Treasury; the Secretary of the Treasury has replied to Williams' letter of [June] 4 about the additional ten per cent to be collected on distilled spirits imported in ships not of U. S. registry, but since the Secretary is not explicit enough, he [Delozier] is enclosing to Williams, a copy of Williams' letter and of the Secretary's reply; Mr. [Robert] Purviance sends good wishes.
A.L.S. 3 pp. 25.5 cm. × 21 cm.
Endorsed by Williams: From Mr. D. Delozier 20 June 1792 10 p Cent on Spirit andc.
For enclosures see entries 720 and 727.
The next letter from Delozier to Williams is dated June 28. In it, Delozier mentions another letter that he sent on June 23. That letter is not included in this section because it is not part of the Williams’ manuscripts. Not sure if the letter still exists or was lost, but either way, it is not a part of Section IV of the transcribed papers.
[1792 June 28]
D[aniel] DELOZIER. To Otho H[olland] WILLIAMS, Frederick.
[731]
Received Williams' letter of [June] 23 and delivered the letter [in it] according to directions; encloses a copy of a letter of the Secretary of the Treasury about the revenue department.
A.L.S. 1 p. 34 cm. × 21 cm.
Endorsed by Williams: Mr. Delozier andc Inspectors andc.
Enclosure missing.
Otho Holland Williams sends this very frank letter to Daniel Delozier on June 28. Note the date on this letter is the same date Delozier mailed Williams. These two letters must have crossed each other in the mail. They both contain information referencing the rum seizure incident. Mention of the ongoing disagreement between Hamilton and Williams over who should be responsible for handling this duty of distilled spirits.
1792 June 28
O[tho] H[olland] WILLIAMS, Ceresville [Frederick County]. To D[aniel] DELOZIER.
[733]
His answer to Secretary [Hamilton]'s letter of [June] 18, which he leaves open for Delozier to read and copy, will tell what he thinks of it; Delozier is to see Jamison, Hamilton, and any others who had objected, and tell them that the Secretary insists that they obey the orders of the Inspector of the Revenue; if they do not acquiesce, they are to remonstrate in respectful and decent, but... sensible and decided terms; Delozier is to say nothing to Mr. Inspector of the Revenue, and is not to discuss the matter with anyone not concerned in it.
A.L.S. 2 pp. 34.5 cm. × 21 cm.
On same sheet as entry 734.
This next letter seems to be a letter of clarification from Williams to Delozier. In it, he re-states the intent of his previous letter to make certain Delozier understands the course of action to be taken.
1792 July 3
[Otho Holland WILLIAMS] Ceresville. To [Daniel DELOZIER].
[734]
Wrote on [June] 28 about the inspectors, and enclosed the answer he had drafted to Hamilton's letter about their obedience to the Inspector of the Revenue, but is not sure he made himself clear; the inspectors are to obey the orders of the Inspector of Revenue, if they are called on to act in the Excise [bureau], but he does not wish them to qualify [take any oath of office] until the fate of their remonstrance is known; Delozier is to have nothing to do with Col. [Robert] Ballard but as Surveyor.
A.L.S. 1 p. 34.5 cm. × 21 cm.
On same sheet as entry 733.
Delozier, in this next letter to Williams, updates him [Williams] on the outcome of Delozier's mediation. It seems the issue is becomming resolved with good outcome.
1792 July 11
D[aniel] DELOZIER, Balt[imor]e. To Otho H[olland] WILLIAMS, Frederick.
[735]
Told Hamilton, Jameson and Smith what Williams had ordered them to do, and they acquiesced; they said they did not mind doing what the Inspector of the Revenue [Robert Ballard] asked them to do, except that it was demanded of them; they are not going to tell the Inspector that they are to obey his orders, but will simply obey without ado what orders he gives; Captain Gross has resigned and Lieutenant Porter is at present in command of the cutter; Delozier is sure the cutter will be more useful than heretofore; Mr. Richard Curson has delivered two shares of stock to him [Delozier] for Williams for 14,000 dollars, for he was not able to sell them at the price Williams had set.
A.L.S. 2 pp. 25.5 cm. × 21 cm.
This letter from Hamilton to Williams not only updates him of Congress' initiation of a new branch of the revenue, but in it he also acknowledges their differences of opinion. Hamilton continues about the new laws regarding distilled spirits and their handling. Further, he mentions that,"Williams had drawn a much more personal application from some of Hamilton's words than was intended" but that he "hopes to prevent a final difference of opinion between us..."
1792 July 19
[Alexander HAMILTON] Treasury Department. To [Otho Holland WILLIAMS].
[736]
Was reluctantly constrained to use a stile of expostulation in his letter of [June] 28 [i.e., 18]; Congress set up a new branch of the revenue, and said the officers of the customs service might, if necessary, be called on to help execute it; the President decided to appoint collectors of the customs, surveyors and inspectors of revenue; the inspectors of the revenue are to execute the new law, which is intimately connected with the customs; Williams had differed with him about the possibility of an interference of duties, or an incompatibility; Hamilton reviews the situation as he sees it, and reiterates his belief that there is neither interference nor incompatibility; says that the surveyor [Robert Ballard] is under Williams' orders, and that therefore there can be no clash of power; Williams could keep his good subordinates, and hire other temporary ones for the work of the surveyor; Williams had drawn a much more personal application from some of Hamilton's words than was intended; hopes to prevent a final difference of opinion between us, but will persevere in the execution of the plan he has laid down.
Contemporary copy. 14 pp. 25.5 cm. × 20.5 cm.
Enclosed with entry 745.
It appears that this is the last letter on the subject of handling of distilled spirits with regard to the chain of command and assigned duties. In this letter from Williams to Hamilton, we receive insight into the disposition of Delozier and others.
1792 July 27
O[tho] H[olland] WILLIAMS, Ceresville [Frederick County]. To A[lexander] HAMILTON.
[737]
Received today Hamilton's letter of [July] 19; his [Williams'] letter of May third to the Surveyor [Robert Ballard] was perverted, as to its interpretation, for his only intent was to intimate to Ballard the propriety of using with discretion the power undeniably lodged in the executive and necessarily put into effect through subordinates; some of the inspectors complained of harsh treatment at Ballard's hands, so that he [Williams] wrote to him, asking that he avoid, as far as possible, demanding of the customs inspectors services that might interfere with their proper duties; When an unconciliatory temper... aggravated the reluctance of some of the inspectors into a refusal to act, was I to... remove them from offices which they had before filled with satisfaction to the public?; doubts very much the Surveyor's charge that the deputy collector [Delozier] took pains to induce the inspectors not to obey his [Ballard's] orders, for Delozier just is not that sort of person; Ballard has never put into writing his complaints against Williams' subordinates, and he [Williams] would not tolerate in them any neglect of duty; Delozier knew what he [Williams] thought, and perhaps said something to the inspectors, but he [Williams] never wrote or said a word to any of them, until after Hamilton's letter of June 18; upon receipt of that letter, he wrote at once to Delozier, and was told by him that he had informed Hamilton, Jamison, and Smith what the Secretary said, and that the three acquiesced; several of the merchants had asked him about the right of the Surveyor [Ballard] to the perquisite of a proof bottle of spirits out of each Inspected Cask, against which they protested in strong terms; asks whether the Surveyor is the only person who has the power to put inspectors on board of vessels.
A.Df.S. 10 pp. 32 cm. × 19.5 cm.
Endorsed by Williams: To Sec. Hamilton 27 July 1792.
This letter from Delozier to Williams discusses the proof of a shipment of rum. This shipment has been inaccurately certified at a higher proof than was actual, due to inaccurate instrumentation. This seems to be deemed an offense serious enough for it to go to court! Delozier continues the letter reporting costs for the many clearance fees and permits.
1792 Aug. 1
D[aniel] DELOZIER, Balt[imor]e. To [Otho Holland WILLIAMS].
[738]
Has enclosed a copy of a letter to the Collector of Philadelphia about the proofs of seven hogsheads of rum sent to Mr. VanWyck in Baltimore; upon examination of the rum and the certificates, Mr. VanWyck thought the rum had been certified to be of a higher proof than it really was; Delozier investigated and found that, due to the use of inaccurate instruments, this was true; since then, the Surveyor [Ballard] has used other and more accurate instruments; this is the day appointed for the trial of the rum, but the judge did not arrive, and the court is adjourned till tomorrow; Delozier hopes those gentlemen will loose their property, as well as `their reputation' ; the Secretary of the Treasury has sent the opinion of the Attorney General [Edmund Randolph] about the fees for services performed according to the coasting law, 60 cents for qualifying to a manifest, 25 cents for a permit to depart; this will increase the fees collected at this office, on account of the many clearances.
A.L.S. 3 pp. 37.5 cm. × 23 cm.
Endorsed by Williams: 1. August 1792 From D. Delozier.
This letter from Williams to Hamilton clarifies the above letter. Williams mentions Delozier's findings of inaccurate certification of proof on distilled spirits. The jist of the issue is that there becomes a problem when the Port at Philadelphia and the Port at Baltimore use different instrumentation when determining the proof of distilled spirits. The spirits coming from Philly certify at a higher proof with their "defective instruments".
1792 Aug. 4
O[tho] H[olland] WILLIAMS, Elizabeth Town [Hagerstown, Washington County]. To A[lexander] HAMILTON, Secretary of the Treasury.
[739]
Encloses papers to show that a considerable difference has been discovered between the instruments used at Philadelphia and at Baltimore for ascertaining the quality of distilled spirits; the importers of spirits will very probably demand a revision in the amounts of the duties they paid, possibly for the entire time the defective instruments are known to have been in use; this adjustment will be most difficult to make, and cannot be done without explanations at the Treasury; he [Williams] awaits instructions.
A.Df.S. 1 p. 32.5 cm. × 20.5 cm.
Endorsed by Williams: To the Secy of the Treasy 4 August 1792.
Hamilton and Williams are discussing in this next letter, the inaccuracy of the instrumentation at Port Philadelphia. Hamilton concludes that past errors should not be persued, rather all should "provide remedies for the future."
1792 Aug. 11
A[lexander] HAMILTON, Treasury Department. To [Otho Holland WILLIAMS].
[740]
Received Williams' letter about the discovery of the inaccuracy of the instruments used for finding out the proof of distilled spirits; regrets the circumstances, but does not see how any remedy can be made as to the past; is not certain he has the power to make restitution, even if he knew how much to make; had the difference favored the importer, it would never have been demanded or paid; best to leave the past untouched and to provide remedies for the future.
Copy in hand of Delozier. 2 pp. 25.5 cm. × 21 cm.
Mention of Delozier is made by Alexander Hamilton to General Williams in this next letter. Hamilton seems to be pleased with the way Inspector of Revenue and Inspector of Customs have begun to work together in the process of their duties.
1792 Aug. 14
[Alexander HAMILTON] Treasury Department. To [Otho Holland WILLIAMS].
[741]
Is glad to learn from Delozier's letter of July 25, enclosed in Williams' letter of July 27, that the differences between the Inspector of the Revenue and the Inspectors of the Customs House had subsided; instructions have been sent down, about the duties of inspectors of the customs when they are serving as deputy inspectors of the revenue, and they will receive regular pay for so acting; when he [Hamilton] spoke of the customs inspectors as aids to the Surveyor, he did not at all intend to question or lessen the authority of the Collector [Williams] over the Surveyor [Ballard], and he will support him in maintaining that authority.
Copy in hand of Delozier. 3 pp. 25.5 cm. × 21 cm.
Enclosed with entry 745.
Daniel Delozier write Williams (who is in Bath, VA at this time) about rising and falling of stocks.
Note: " Shortly after the Constitution went into effect, Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton proposed that Congress redeem at face value securities that had been issued by the states and the federal government. At the time, these securities were selling for much less than face value because people were uncertain whether they would ever be redeemed. After Hamilton's proposal was made public but before it was adopted, however, congressmen and others who knew of the redemption plan made large profits by sending their agents into the countryside to buy the securities at depressed prices before most security holders heard of the plan. " -Source: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics
1792 Aug. 15
D[aniel] DELOZIER, Balt[imor]e. To [Otho Holland] WILLIAMS, Bath [Va.].
[742]
Has attended to Williams' request about the disposal of the stock, but has not yet sold any; consensus is that the stock will not fall in price and is likely to rise; asks further instructions; the bank is a certain source of accommodation in emergency.
A.L.S. 2 pp. 25.5 cm. × 21 cm.
Delozier seems to have a different perspective on the "tension that arose" over the distilled rum from Philly. He states in this next letter that he considers it "fraud". You will also recall that in the letter dated August 1, 1792, that Delozier says in reaction to this situation that he, "hopes those gentlemen will loose their property, as well as `their reputation". With this letter, Delozier encloses two other letters from the Secretary of the Treasury so that Williams can draw his own conclusions on the matter.
1792 Aug. 22
D[aniel] DELOZIER, Balt[imor]e. To Otho H[olland] WILLIAMS.
[745]
Encloses copies of two letters from the Secretary [of the Treasury]; supposes Williams has been told of the condemnation of the rum, and of the contention that arose about the half accruing to the person who first discovered the fraud; encloses a copy of an official report from the inspector of the revenue to the Supervisor [Ballard] which will show the foundation of the inspector's claim; encloses also an extract from a letter of Mr. [Robert] Purviance to the Secretary of the Treasury; Williams may compare the two and draw his own conclusions; a public dispute arose at the court house between Mr. Purviance and the inspector of the revenue about their respective claims; at the intercession of the Judge and of Mr. [Samuel] Chase the parties agreed to submit the decision to Mr. [George] Gale who was present; Mr. Jo[hn] Williams told him [Delozier] that Purviance had misunderstood Col. Smith, Mr. McKim and himself [John Williams], and that the three had never intended to convey away any rights that might accrue to them as informers; Delozier, surprised, told him that they had certainly got their information through the three gentlemen; he [Delozier] had not liked the idea of being considered as one of the informers, and would not have done so, but for his [O.H.W.'s] opinion; as soon as Williams suggested their claim, I, immediately, determined to relinquish mine; Gale, who was to review the claims, had to have all the information, so he [Delozier] arranged a meeting of all the interested parties and told his story; his surrender of any rights he might have had, changed the question and Mr. Gale declined to settle it; next morning Delozier and Mr. Gale went to the Judge and Gale told him all the circumstances; in view of the attitude of the three gentlemen, Delozier has given up his claim, but Mr. Purviance declines to do so; Hamilton, Smith, Sanderson and Irwine have been appointed deputy inspectors in the revenue by Mr. Gale.
A.L.S. 8 pp. 25.5 cm. × 21 cm.
For enclosures see entries 726, 736 and 741.
It seems there is more than just the instrumentation used on alcohol that must be improved at Port Philadelphia. This letter is the last correspondence or mention we see of Daniel Delozier in this section of transcribed papers. However, after reading further correspondence by Williams, we see his [Williams] health is deteriorating and by November 11, 1792, he [Williams] leaves for travel to Barbados (West Indies) in hopes of improving his health. General Williams does make it back to the United States and for two more years he serves his country until his death in July, 1794. (Additional Note: In letters that are a part of Section V, we read mention of John Lynch who leaves for Barbados soon after the Wiliams' family in order to surprise them and spend time with them there. John Lynch was a Quaker and founded Lynchburg, Virginia.)
1792 Sep. 5
D[aniel] DELOZIER, Balt[imor]e. To [Otho Holland] WILLIAMS, Frederick.
[746]
The enclosed letter was given to him by Col. [Will] Heth on his [Heth's] return from Philadelphia; the law allows forty cents for the measurement of 100 bushels of salt; another section says that a bushel of salt shall weigh 56 pounds and that when an actual bushel weighs more than that, the import duty shall be collected at the rate of 56 pounds per bushel; the measurer claims that he is to have 40 cents for each 100 times 56 pounds of salt, and not 40 cents for each 100 bushels; Delozier asks instructions; wrote to Williams on [August] 22d about a dispute that now subsists over the award for the [detection of the fraudulently entered] thirty nine hogsheads of rum.
A.L.S. 3 pp. 25.5 cm. × 21 cm.
Endorsed by Williams: From Mr. Delozier 5 De[cem]ber 1792.
Enclosure missing.