Pierce Butler, of South Carolina, was a descendant of the Duke of Ormond and was very vain of his noble birth.[[146]] William Pierce in his notes on the members of the Convention records that Butler “is a gentleman of fortune and takes rank among the first in South Carolina.”[[147]] He was a large slave-holder, having thirty-one in his possession at the time of the first census. He also possessed some public securities, for he was a stockholder and director of the first United States Bank, and must have purchased his shares on the same basis as other stockholders, that is, by the exchange of securities. He does not appear on the records of South Carolina, however, but his daughter, Sarah, had in 1792 a small amount of the assumed debt.[[148]]
Daniel Carroll, of Maryland, is recorded by his contemporary, Pierce, as “a man of large fortune and influence in his state.”[[149]] His interests were wide and varied. He was a stockholder in the Potomac Company;[[150]] and he favored the adoption of a protective tariff, for he was among the signers of the petition for such a measure laid before the first Congress under the new Constitution.[[151]] He was a holder of public securities, for his name occurs frequently in the Treasury records of the period.[[152]] His chief source of profit out of the new system was however in the location of the capitol at Washington, on land which he owned.[[153]] Incidentally, he was able to facilitate this last transaction, for he was a member of the Congress of 1789–1791 and was one of the commissioners appointed to lay out the District of Columbia.
George Clymer, of Pennsylvania, was the son of “a wellto-do merchant and ship builder of Philadelphia” who had augmented his fortunes by marrying the daughter of a fellow merchant of the same city.[[154]] On the early death of his parents he was placed under the guardianship of William Coleman, one of the first business men of his native city, whose counting house he entered to learn all the arts of mercantile pursuits and “the principal part of whose fortune he inherited.”[[155]] Clymer’s personal fortune was further enhanced by a happy marriage to Elizabeth Meredith, the daughter of Reese Meredith, “one of the principal merchants of Philadelphia.”[[156]] He was thus a brother-in-law of Mr. Meredith the first treasurer of the Union, also a man of “large fortune.”[[157]] For some time Clymer was associated in business with his father- and brother-in-law.[[158]]
Mr. Clymer’s intimate associations were therefore merchantile and financial, and his large fortune and quick understanding of the needs of trade and commerce made him one of the first men of his city in the Revolution and gave him a wide influence during the critical period, the formation of the Constitution, and the establishment of the new government, which he served as a member of Congress and later in several official capacities.
In all financial matters he took a deep interest. He helped to create the temporary Bank of Pennsylvania in 1780, and subscribed £5000 to its capital stock. When the Bank of North America was organized he became one of the directors and later was president of the Philadelphia Bank.[[159]]
Clymer turned his extensive financial experience to some account in handling the securities of the new government which he had been instrumental in framing, for he is recorded in the Pennsylvania books as holding, in August, 1791, over $3000 worth of 3 per cent securities.[[160]] If he held sixes deferred and funded, as may be assumed, although the incomplete records apparently do not permit of a verification or denial of this, he had in all over $10,000 worth of the government paper.
Wm. R. Davie, of North Carolina, was born in England in 1756 and was brought to America in 1763 by his father, who left him in care of his maternal uncle, William Richardson, a Presbyterian clergyman, who took charge of his education and on his death bequeathed to him his estate.[[161]] Davie chose the profession of law, and by a lucrative practice “he quickly accumulated a large estate.”[[162]] He was of counsel in the famous case of Bayard v. Singleton, and he had the satisfaction of securing from the court an opinion declaring an act of the state legislature unconstitutional.[[163]] He held a fine plantation at Tivoli and at his death left a considerable estate which was the subject of litigation as late as 1892 in the Supreme Court of the United States. His personal property certainly was not small for he was able to pay $5000 for a thorough-bred colt.[[164]] His connections with the landed proprietors of his region were intimate and extensive and he is reported to have drawn all the wills made during his time in that part of the state.[[165]]
Jonathan Dayton, of New Jersey, was associated with, and agent for, John Cleves Symmes, in the purchase of an enormous tract of land in Ohio in July and October, 1787, the year of the Convention (formally consummated in 1788), and before the ensealing of the contract Symmes and his associates had paid into the Treasury $82,198 “one seventh in military rights and the residue in the public securities of the United States.” The remainder was to be paid in gold or silver or the securities of the United States, and part (one seventh) in military rights. In 1792 Symmes and Dayton complained that on account of the “advanced price of certificates,” they must have easier terms. It is apparent from this record,[[166]] that they were engaged in buying up military certificates and government securities about the time of the meeting of the Convention.
Afterward, by collusion with Ludlow, the official surveyor, and the inadvertence of Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury, Symmes, Dayton, and associates secured “the advantage of paying almost two-sevenths of their contract and above one-half of their actual payments in military warrants of one acre for an acre and a half of the supposed million, instead of one-seventh part of the actual payments” at a loss to the United States of more than $30,000.[[167]] In March and April, 1800, Dayton purchased about 15,000 acres of public lands with military certificates.[[168]]
If further evidence were needed that Dayton was speculating vigorously in government securities and military certificates, it is to be found in a suit brought by him and his partner, Lawrence, against Childs, a member of their concern in 1800, which was carried before Chancellor Livingston and later withdrawn. In this case Childs exhibited sixteen letters from Dayton, showing that while the latter was Speaker of the House of Representatives he had been engaged in speculations in public land warrants. Dayton was not unaware of the improper character of such transactions, for in a letter of April 17, 1796, he wrote to Childs: “The contents of this letter are of such a nature as to render it improper to be seen by any except yourself; burn it therefore, when you have perused it.”[[169]]