preventing it, and without admitting the inspection of the American commissioners; and 4. Of other species of property carried away, the commanding officer permitted no examination at all. In support of these facts I have the honor to enclose you documents,' the list of which will be subjoined; and in addition to them, I beg leave to refer to a roll, signed by the joint commissioners and delivered to your commanding officer for transmission to his court, containing a description of the negroes publicly carried away by his order as before mentioned, with a copy of which you have doubtless been furnished. A difference of opinion, too, having arisen as to the river intended by the plenipotentiaries, to be the boundary between us and the dominion of Great Britain, and by them called the St. Croix, which name, it seems, is given to two different rivers, the ascertaining of this point becomes a matter of present urgency. It has therefore been 1 Documents referred to and enclosed: Extract of a letter of May 12, 1783, from Sir Guy Carleton to General Washington. Letter of May 29, 1783, from Mr. Morgan. From Sir G. Carleton to the American Commissioners. Remonstrance of June 9, 1783, from the American Commissioners to Sir Guy Carleton. Letter of June 14, 1783, from the American Commissioners to General Washington. Extract of a remonstrance of June 17, 1783, from the American Commissioners to Sir Guy Carleton. Letter of Jan. 18, 1784, from the American Commissioners to General Washington. the subject of applications from us to the government of Great Britain. There are other smaller matters between the two nations which remain to be adjusted. But I think it would be better to refer these for settlement through the ordinary channels of our ministers than to embargo the present important discussions with them. They can never be obstacles to friendship and harmony. Permit me now, Sir, to ask from you a specification of the particular acts, which, being considered by his British Majesty as a non-compliance on our part with engagements contained in the iv, v, and vi articles of the treaty, induced him to suspend the execution of the vii and render a separate discussion of them inadmissible. And accept assurances of the high respect and esteem with which I have the honor to be, Sir, your most obedient and most humble servant. TO GEORGE WASHINGTON. PHILADELPHIA, January 10, 1792. The Secretary of State having received information that the merchants and merchandize of the United States were subject in Copenhagen and other points in Denmark to considerable extra duties from which they might be released by the presence of a consul there, Reports to the President of the United States: that it would be expedient to have a consul to be a resident in the port of Copenhagen. That he has not been able to find that there is any citizen of the United States residing there. That there is a certain Hans Rudolph Saabye, a Danish subject and merchant of that place, of good character, of wealth and distinction and well qualified and disposed to act for the United States, who would probably accept the commission of consul, but that that of vice-consul hitherto given by the President to foreigners in ports where there was no proper American citizen, would probably not be accepted, because in this, as in some other ports of Europe, usage has established it as a subordinate grade. And that he is therefore of opinion that the said Hans Rudolph Saabye should be nominated consul of the United States of America for the port of Copenhagen and such other places within the allegiance of his Danish Majesty as shall be nearer to the said port than to the residence of any other consul or vice-consul of the United States withi the same allegiance. TO PETER CHARLES L'ENFANT. PHILADELPHIA, February 27, 1792. SIR, From your letter received yesterday in answer to my last and your declaration in conversation with Mr. Lear, it is understood that you abso lutely decline acting under the authority of the present commissioners. If this understanding of your meaning be right, I am instructed by the President to inform you that, notwithstanding the desire he has entertained to preserve your agency in the business, the condition upon which it is to be done is inadmissible and your services must be at an end. I have the honor to be, Sir, your most obedient humble servant. TO THOMAS JOHNSON, DAVID STUART AND PHILADELPHIA, March 8, 1792. DEAR SIRS, I received your favor of February 29 the day after I had written a public letter to the commissioners which touched on some of the subjects of yours. I may say in this private letter what could not be so well said in a public one that there never was a moment's doubt about the parting with Major L'Enfant rather than with a single commissioner. I must correct I must correct an error in my public letter. I said there that the engraving would be done in three or four weeks; this idea had been given, but on further enquiry I find we cannot have it these two months. You formerly hinted the expectancy of bringing the navigable canal from the little falls down to Washington. The President thinks the practicability of this should be properly examined into, as it would undoubtedly be useful. In my public letter I sent you the outlines of a proposed loan. I now enclose you a calculation somewhat on the plan of yours. I think there is no doubt but that the lots will sell better after the employment of the money than before it. Consequently that it is better to raise money by a loan and to sell for repayment after that money shall have been employed to raise the value of what is to be sold. The mortgages on this plan are put on the best footing possible. No doubt it will be well to be making sales for repayment as fast as they may be advantageously made, even before the lapse of the eight years. years. We have questioned Mr. Ellicot very particularly whether the plan now in hand is exact. He says the original one mixed conjecture with fact; but that the conjectural parts are since ascertained by exact survey and that this plan is corrected from the survey and may be relied on to the utmost minuteness. We see in fact that some whole squares of lots in the original plan are occupied by the channel of the creek in the corrected one. I fear your other apprehension is better founded, to wit: that the avenues are made to converge to the ends of a building of supposed extent, that the building may very possibly be of less extent, and consequently not reach the points of view created for its use. I believe the only remedy is acquiescence for the |