TO MR. SHORT.
Philadelphia, January 28, 1792.
Dear Sir,—My last private letter to you was of November 25th, your last received was of September 29th. Though the present will be very confidential, and will go, I do not know how, I cannot take time to cypher it all. What has lately occurred here will convince you I have been right in not raising your expectations as to an appointment. The President proposed at first the nomination of Mr. T. Pinckney to the court of London, but would not name him till we could have an assurance from him that he would accept, nor did he indicate what the other appointments would be till Mr. Pinckney's answer came. Then he nominated to the Senate Mr. Morris, M. P. for France, Pinckney, M. P. for London, and yourself M. R. for the Hague. The first of these appointments was extremely unpopular, and so little relished by several of the Senate, that every effort was used to negative it. Those whose personal objections to Mr. Morris overruled their deference to the President, finding themselves a minority, joined with another small party who are against all foreign appointments, and endeavored with them to put down the whole system rather than let this article pass. This plan was defeated, and Mr. Morris passed by a vote of 16 against 11. When your nomination came on, it was consented to, by 15 against 11, every man of the latter, however, rising and declaring, that as to yourself they had no personal objection, but only meant by their vote to declare their opinion against keeping any person at the Hague. Those who voted in the negative were not exactly the same in both cases. When the biennial bill furnishing money for the support of the foreign establishment shall come up at the next session, to be continued, the same contest will arise again, and I think it very possible that if the opponents of Mr. Morris cannot remove him otherwise, they will join again with those who are against the whole establishment, and try to discontinue the whole. If they fail in this, I still see no security in their continuing the mission to the Hague; because to do this they must enlarge the fund from forty to fifty thousand dollars. The President afterwards proceeded to join you to Carmichael on a special mission to Spain, to which there was no opposition, except from three gentlemen who were against opening the Mississippi.
I am, with sincere attachment, dear Sir, your affectionate friend and servant.
TO COLONEL HAMILTON.
February —, 1792.
Dear Sir,—I return you the report on the mint, which I have read over with a great deal of satisfaction. I concur with you in thinking that the unit must stand on both metals, that the alloy should be the same in both, also in the proportion you establish between the value of the two metals. As to the question on whom the expense of coinage is to fall, I have been so little able to make up an opinion satisfactory to myself, as to be ready to concur in either decision. With respect to the dollar, it must be admitted by all the world, that there is great incertainty in the meaning of the term, and therefore all the world will have justified Congress for their first act of removing the incertainty by declaring what they understand by the term, but the incertainty once removed, exists no longer, and I very much doubt a right now to change the value, and especially to lessen it. It would lead to so easy a mode of paying off their debts. Besides, the parties injured by this reduction of the value would have so much matter to urge in support of the first point of fixation. Should it be thought, however, that Congress may reduce the value of the dollar, I should be for adopting for our unit, instead of the dollar, either one ounce of pure silver, or one ounce of standard silver, so as to keep the unit of money a part of the system of measures, weights and coins. I hazard these thoughts to you extempore and am, dear Sir, respectfully and affectionately.