Papers of John Adams, volume 19
Upon the Receipt of the first of the inclosed Letters from Dr Wren and Mr Mawbrey, by Express, I made Application to Government.—1 Lord Sidney was absent and Lord Carmarthen Sick: but Mr Fraser the Under Secretary of State, took up the subject with Integrity and Politeness. He discovered a real desire to do every Thing that the Laws would permit, to crush in the Beginning this villainous Attempt to counterfeit American Paper Currencies. He told me that a
56
parrallel complaint had been lately made by the Danish Ambassador, of an Attempt to counterfeit, the Bank Notes of Denmark: and that upon consulting their most experienced Magistrates and Law Officers, they were all of Opinion that untill the Counterfeit was compleated and the Names Signed, it could not be a Capital Crime tho an Attempt might be a misdemeanor. He advised me to advise with Sir Sampson Wright the most considerable Magistrate in Westminster. Sir Sampson engaged in the Business with particular Attention and agreed to write to Sir John Carver2 at Portsmouth. Upon the whole it Seemed to be necessary, that, Some one, Should go to Portsmouth and as Col. Smith set out on the twenty fourth of this Month for Lisbon, I took asked Mr Cutting to accompany me to Portsmouth.— We had the Man brought out of the Prison, to our Lodgings. His Name he says is Robert Muir, born in Scotland, but lately arrived from North Carolina.— He is an Artful, Shrewd Fellow but with a mean, hungry desperate Appearance, Suitable to any kind of Attrocious Villainy. We wished to discover his Accomplices, but he would not answer.— The Grand Jury found a Bill, and at my desire, the Man is continued in Prison, till next Term in July. His Types and Stamps and Implements are all Secured.— In July however he will be set at Liberty, for the Crime could not be compleat, without the signature, if it could without passing the Bill.
It is with a very high Pleasure, that I am able to Say, that the Government, And the Magistrates both here and at Portsmouth, have upon this Occasion conducted with perfect Propriety, and Politeness.— The Crime is Said to be an offence against the Law of Nations, against Commerce, against private & public Property, against the whole World &c and all this is true. but still the Laws are so vague in this Case, and every Punishment short of Death in Such a Crime in this Country, would be treated with Ridicule, it may be most prudent to dismiss the fellow in July, destroying or at least detaining his implements
Congress will determine, what Measures Should be taken to advertise the People of America that they may be upon their Guard.— I suppose this is the same Scot, who a few Weeks ago Applied to Mr Carpenter an Ingraver in London, to engrave a Plate for him, of which Carpenter had the Honesty to inform me, and as you have been told in a former Letter.
With great Regard, I have the Honour to be / dear sir, your most obedient and most / humble servant
RC and enclosures (PCC, No. 84, VI, f. 447–459); internal address: “His Excellency John Jay / Secretary of State for foreign / Affairs.” LbC (Adams Papers); APM Reel 112.
JA enclosed Walter Mowbray’s [ca. 20 April] letter and Thomas Wren’s 22 April letter, both above. JA had sent copies of the same letters to South Carolina governor Thomas Pinckney on 22 April, informing him that “I am taking measures with the ministers and magestrates such as the law of this Country will admit to check the progress of this Villany— But it is of much importance, that the People in America should be put upon their Guard” (LbC, APM Reel 113).
Along with a summary of
JA’s 30 April letter to Jay, above, Mowbray’s and Wren’s letters were printed in several American newspapers. See, for example, the Charleston Morning Post and Daily Advertiser, 11 July; the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, 26 July; and the Massachusetts Centinel, 1 August.
That is, Sir John Carter.
I have received the elegant volume you did me the honor to address to me, and shall take the first favorable opportunity to transmit it to Congress at New York, in conformity to your desire. Improvements in Naval Architecture are interesting to all men, and to none more than to the United States of America; where your inventions Sir, in this kind, will meet with both Scientific and experienced Judges, and therefore I doubt not with approbation and gratitude. While we must wait for more authentic testimonials of the esteem of America, permit me to beg your acceptance of the thanks and respect of Sir your most obedt: and most humble / servant
LbC in WSS’s hand (Adams Papers); internal address: “Patrick Miller Esqr. / Edinburgh—”; APM Reel 112.
th.1787
I am much oblidged to you for the esteemed present of your Book, “in defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America.”1 It came to hand on the 27th. instant, and I have read it through with great pleasure. The balance of the one, the few & the many, is not well poised in this State; the legislature is too powerful for the executive and judicial branches of government; besides it can too easily make laws and too readily alter or repeal them.
58
We have but one branch in our legislature, and are divided into two parties, called by the names of Republicans & Constitutionalists, in reality Aristocratics and Democratics; and they are as yet nearly equal in numbers & merit. We must have another branch, and a negative in the Executive, stability in our laws and permanency in our Magestracy, before we shall be respectable, safe & happy. Your Book, I flatter myself, will contribute greatly to effect these desireable ends, in all the States.
This letter will be handed to you by Mr: Peter Whiteside, a merchant of this city, who has requested the honor of an introduction to you; he has been concerned in trade here with Mr: Robert Morris, and has the reputation of a skilful merchant and a good citizen.2 He is impowered to recover a legacy for Mr: William Geddes and wife from the Exõrs of a certain Edward Price Esquire—3 Should he have occasion for your advice or countenance in this business, I must beg the favor of your Excellency to give it to him, as Mr: Geddes was several years a Commissioner of the Chamber of Accounts under Congress, is a worthy native of Maryland, and a friend of mine.—
A convention of the several States will be held here next week, for the purpose of revising the confederation, and giving greater powers to Congress. I have heard of Appointments from each State, except Rhode-Island;4 and from the characters delegated to this service, most of them having been old members of Congress and our acquaintances in 1775, 1776 & 1777, I have some hopes that public utility may be derived from it; tho’ the present popular opinion is, that we ought to be very jealous of conferring power on any man or body of men. Indeed we seem afraid to enable any one to do good, lest he should do evil.—
The triennial Convention of Delegates of the Society of Cincinnati is also to be held here at the same time; and also a Meeting of Commissioners from Maryland, Delaware and this State, respecting the cutting a cannal between Chesepeak and Delaware.5 It is expected, that Congress will return shortly to this city.6
Please to present my compliments to Mr: Cutting when you next see him. I shall write to him soon. Judge Atlee will send the powers, proofs &c. necessary to recover his estate in and near London, in a few weeks.
Permit me to subscribe myself, what with great truth & sincerity I am, / Sir, / Your Excellency’s / most obedient humble servant
sM:Kean
RC (Adams Papers); internal address: “His Excellency John Adams Esquire.”; endorsed: “CT. Mc. Kean” and by AA2: “april 30th. 1787.”
JA last wrote to McKean on 28 Feb. (DLC:Tufts Papers), enclosing a copy of his
Defence of the Const.
and instructing the chief justice of Pennsylvania to reimburse Cotton Tufts in the amount of 35 guineas. This sum covered Dr. John Brown Cutting’s research queries, made in London, regarding William Augustus Atlee’s estate, for which see vol. 18:370–371.
Philadelphia merchant Peter Whiteside (ca. 1753–1829) acted as a business partner of and private secretary to Robert Morris during the Revolutionary War (Morris, Papers
, 1:16; Salem Gazette, 18 Dec. 1829).
William Geddes (d. 1801), formerly a collector of customs at Chestertown, Md., was the husband of Mary Wilmer Geddes (1738–1803). Her uncle, Edward Price (d. 1774), who owned estates near Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire Co., England, had named her three brothers as heirs. But Geddes’ brother Edward Price Wilmer also died in 1774, and his share was to be divided between his immediate family and that of Geddes. The estate was not yet settled in 1792, and it is unclear whether Geddes received her legacy (James Wilmer, “Memoirs of the Rev. James Jones Wilmer,” Maryland Historical Magazine, 19:222, 223, 230, 242 [Sept. 1924]; Baltimore Federal Gazette, 6 Feb. 1801; Philadelphia Gazette of the United States, 4 June 1803). JA apparently did not reply to the request, and his next letter to McKean was of 2 June 1812 (JA, Works
, 10:12–13).
This letter marks JA’s first news of the selection of delegates to the Constitutional Convention, and of Rhode Island’s refusal to participate.
Delegates of the Society of the Cincinnati met in Philadelphia for their second general meeting from 7 to 19 May 1787 (Proceedings of the General Society of the Cincinnati, 1784–1884, Phila., 1887, p. 23–37).
No record of a meeting of the canal commissioners in Philadelphia in 1787 has been found. Surveys for a canal connecting the Delaware River with Chesapeake Bay were completed by 1770, but construction did not begin until 1804. The canal opened in 1829 (Ralph D. Gray, The National Waterway: A History of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, 1769–1985, Urbana, Ill., 1989, p. 1, 6, 15).
On 10 April 1787, Dyre Kearney of Delaware and William Blount of North Carolina proposed that Congress adjourn at the end of the month and reconvene in Philadelphia in June, but the motion did not pass. Two days later, the New-York Journal reported that Congress’ possible move to Philadelphia triggered “a general anxiety” in New York City. Congress reconvened on 2 May. On 10 May, Kearney and Samuel Meredith of Pennsylvania repeated the proposal, but the motion was ruled “out of order” (
JCC
, 32:167, 244, 279–280;
Biog. Dir. Cong.
).