| PREVIOUS | NEXT | ITEM LIST | NEW SEARCH | BEST MATCH |
A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774-1875
Wednesday October 12. 1780
Present Mr McKean, Mr Walker & Mr Matlack.
A letter from C. Pettit DQMG was read & also copies of seven letters which had passed between him & the Board of Treasury.(1)
Mr. Gibson & Mr Forman then offered their minutes to show who was present at the board at the time respectively when those letters were reced & written-by which it appears there generally [was] present only one Commissioner and two Members of Congress.
They (Mr Forman & Mr Gibson) then requested their letter to the Committee dated _______ (2) might be read. Whereupon it was observed, That that letter had been handed to the Delegates of the respective states in Union, (3) and, as it had the appearance of an appeal to the states against the Proceedings of the Committee, rather than that of information to the Committee, it was not proper it should be read, and more especially, as the Commissioners were called to answer before the board viva voce and the proceedings was not to be had in writing.
Whereupon reference being had by Mr Gibson & Mr Forman to other papers in which were contained Several charges against the several members of the Chamber of accounts it was requested the same might be read.(4) But, the compliance therewith leading from
Page 198
OCTOBER 12, 1780
Link to date-related documents.
the business before the Committee and introducing New charges, which however proper for future consideration, was not proper to be now introduced.
Mr. Geddis requested [ . . . ] they (the Chamber of Accots.) might be enabled to make their defence-offering to copy the whole. The charges contained were read And a further consideration of it referred.
Mr Forman. In defence.
Of shutting the door against Mr. Hopkinson.(5)
Mr Hopkinson having had business with the Treasury Mr Forman mentioned to him what he had heard. Mr. Hopkinson charged him with the fact-Forman positively denied it-Hops. affirmed it-And requested he not to make it a charge agt. the board; but make it a personal affair-this was before the charge was made. Mr Denning says this was the [fact? ] and it was at the time of Mr Hopkinsons attendance at the board respecting the order of the 1st June.
Observes, That Mr. Hopkinson had acknowledged that Mr. Gibson had never personally treated him with disrespect and that he should not insist on it &c.
Regarding Bills of exchange, Circumstances &c.
Mr Hopkinson brought in a bundle of bills on France to be sent to Maryland for the paymt. of interest. Mr Lee was about to open the bundle and Mr For. enquired for what purpose and asked an explanation of Mr Hop. which he explained by a reference to a conference with Mr Gibson, from which Hop. was led to expect the Treasy would forward them-that F. knew it was duty as appears by resolve of Congress 15 July 1778-but nothing during the conversation [ . . .] inconsistent with the character of the Treasury. That the business of the Treasury being as important as that of the Loan office, F. expected Mr. Hopkinson would forward them as was his duty. Mr. Hopkinson observed, that the post declined giving him a receipt, and demanded the direction of the Treasury as to the manner. Mr Forman referred to their order of the 22nd of June, directing him to send them without particular direction in what manner and leaving him to find out the best manner as he had theretofore done.
Mr Denning. H[opkinson's] difficulty was how he was to forward the bills safely for himself-and observed that he would not send them by the post even tho the Treasury should order it; unless he, the post, would give him a receipt for them-there was considerable altercation between Mr Forman & Mr Hop. on this subject. And Mr Hop. insisted upon the board sending them, as they had on several times done. Mr Hop was then a stranger. I mentioned it was his duty to send the bills, even tho' the post would not give a receipt. For. that should he send them it would be under the risque of the Treasury who had ordered it done.
Page 199
OCTOBER 12, 1780
Link to date-related documents.
When Mr Hop. had retired Mr F. observed that he thought Mr. H. had taken offence to it said No he thought not-he appeared satisfied.
Mr Hop. upon his having mentioned the obligation on the Treasury to account for the bills on their giving orders, hesitating a moment replied he believed it was right.
Mr. Forman, Asked whether he should send a waiter to carry the bills, to which Mr. H. replied he had brought them and could carry them back again. (To this Mr H. agreed).
Qu. by Mr. Forman to Mr. Denning. Did you hear any expression of mine to Mr. Hop.? unbecoming the address of one Gent. to another?
An. No. They both appeared warm, as was evident from their voices .
Mr. Hopkinson. Insisted that the manner was insolent and haughty, and such he had never before received and hopes he never deserved. That his bringing the bills was in consequence of information given by Mr Gibson, that the post had refused to give him a receipt for the bills and Mr Gibson had desired him to bring the bills to the board and they would give a receipt for them & forward them. That upon Mr Lee's opening the bundle and offering [to account the?] bills, Mr. Forman, in haughty expressions and insolent [voice?] demanded-"What [ . . . ] is all this? What does that mean? Is this the way of doing business in this board? Mr. Hop. then explained what had passed between him & Mr Gibson, upon which, Mr. Forman, demanded, Have you any written order from the board? To which he answered No. Mr. Forman then said, we will have no business done in this manner-and his expression implied in terms haughtily expressed-that unless there was a written order, He might go. That this was the manner of treatment from Mr. Forman in general and altho the particular [ . . . ] instances, taken singly, it is difficult to describe yet taken together they have been intolerable. To all which Mr. Forman replies, that as often as those charges are made he absolutely denies them.
Mr. Denning. Observed, That he had said to Mr. Hopkinson might safely send, or ought to send, the bills by the Post without taking his receipt, if a written order of the Treasury should be given "to send them by post without a receipt."
Agreed to adjourn to Monday morning 10 o'clock.(6)
MS (DNA: PCC, item 62). In the hand of Timothy Matlack. A continuation of the committee minutes of October 11, 1780.
(1) These letters of assistant quartermaster general Charles Pettit are in PCC, item 62, fols. 351-71.
(2) This letter was dated September 27, 1780, and is in PCC, item 62, fols. 609-10.
(3) Actually the letter of September 30 "to the Delegates of the respective states"
Page 200
OCTOBER 12, 1780
Link to date-related documents.
was different from that of September 27 sent to the committee. Cf. ibid., fols. 605, 607, and 609-10.
(4) At this point Forman and Gibson attempted to inject a new element into the inquiry, charging in their defense that many of the complaints against them were actually attributable to abuses and shortcomings of the commissioners of the chambers of accounts-William Geddes, William Govett, John D. Mercier, and Resolve Smith. The principal charges specified: 1. "Neglect of Duty"; 2. "Indolence"; 3. "Inattention to the public Interest"; 4. "Incapacity"; and 5. "Partiality." See ibid., fols. 474-77.
(5) Matlack's notes on the committee's proceedings also include the following loosely related observations, which obviously bear in some manner on this day's testimony, but are otherwise unidentified.
"Mr. Furman-shut the door in Mr. Hopkinson's face.
"Mr. Hopkinson, took bills to the Treasury and was treated with great incivility by Mr Furman.
"Mr. Hillegas, Mr Millegan & Mr Palfry are acquainted with the treatment of the Treasury to persons who have business to do with them.
"Mr. Govett. Has Had no opportunity, of late, to confer with them on any business, but have been obliged in all cases to do their business in writing. And the orders given by the Treasury are frequently contradictory.
"Mr. Observes that the Treasury never condescend to converse with the Chambers of accounts. And he believes that even the Clerk of the Treasury has been taught to treat them with disrespect.
"F. H., repeated orders impossible to be executed which however has been returned, until the instance now exhibitted (1 June)-but pledges his honour that they have been repeated and as often returned.
"Govett-Order, forbiding any correspondence with any accomptant of theirs for any explanation of any account.
"F.H. Forbid paymt. of small orders to Clerks-And 30,000 dlrs. at the same time pd to Mr Furman-& suppression of Accots which has been 3 mos. before the Treasurer. Challenge of Mr Lee." PCC, item 62, fol. 440.
(6) For the continuation of these proceedings, see the Committee' s minutes, October 16, 1780.
PREVIOUS SECTION .. NEXT SECTION .. NAVIGATOR
| PREVIOUS | NEXT | ITEM LIST | NEW SEARCH | BEST MATCH |