To John Jay from Tench Coxe, 9 June 1794
From Tench Coxe
Philadelphia June 9th. 1794
Sir
I have had the honor to write you twice since your departure from the United States.1
Congress have risen this day, and no act has been passed to interfere with the maintenance of peace at this Juncture. The new penal law, which was sincerely intended to restrain our citizens from conduct injurious to foreign nations, will no doubt be considered by them as a new proof of the reasonable and pacific dispositions of this Government.
We have not recurred to a land tax, nor are any of the interior revenues imposed during this Session of an inconvenient nature. Licences on the Sales of foreign spirits & wines—carriages for pleasure—snuff & manufactured Tobacco, Sales at auction, and loaf sugar are the Objects from which they are to be drawn— Some further import duty has been laid, which is a fresh exemplification of the fact, that whenever foreign circumstances force us into expences a large share of them take such a course as to encourage domestic manufactures. It is important to good Government, that our unexceptionable mode of excising spirits and stills has produced a revenue equal to the Estimates, & has been confirmed by a wise amendatory law instead of that repeal which two or three prejudiced Counties had vainly expected—2
It is worthy of remark that ^the^ existing belief on the continuance of peace has produced very little rise in our funds; from which it is obvious that the fall which occured sometime since, did not arise from the prospect of war so much as from other Causes. These I take to have been the diversion of foreign Capital from our funds by the tempting opportunities offered in Europe to the Money holders—and the sales of stock by many of the great holders to purchase our unimproved lands— The fall was about 12PCt, the rise has been about 10 PCent— Our funds and Bank Stocks have been much diffused by the Sales of the great holders, which more and more strengthens the solid basis of that description of property. It was however not in the least danger before. The discontent that is alledged by some of our gazettes on this Subject does not exist; tho there may be some liveliness of feeling from the unlucky circumstance that a part of the debt of the U.S. was sold before its appreciation by holders in one quarter to holders in another— But this will be a shortlived Sensation, & will produce no danger of any kind, much less will it induce any real injury. I mention this because our news paper paragraphists say much upon the Subject. The freedom of the press in this Country is often more fully evinced by such publications, than the judgment of any influential or even numerous body of men.
The fatigue duly incidental to the last week of the Session will be received as an Apology for concluding myself with perfect respect, Sir your most obedient & most humble servant
Tench Coxe
My two letters were pr Mr Wm Penn, and Geo. Barclay.—
John Jay, Esquire
ALS, NNC (EJ: 09822).
1. Tench Coxe, author of reports and articles on economic subjects, assistant secretary of the treasury from 1789 to 1792, and currently commissioner of revenue, wrote letters to JJ on 3, 4, 7 and 8 (2 letters), and 25 May 1794. Presumably he is referring to his letters of 8 May and/or 25 May. See Coxe Papers, PHi.
2. On 5 June 1794, Congress passed “An Act making further provision for securing and collecting the Duties on foreign and domestic Spirits, Wines and Teas,” , 1: 378–81. Despite opposition from the affected manufacturers, on 5 June, Congress adopted “An Act laying certain duties upon Snuff and refined Sugar,” , 1: 384–90. On 9 June Congress passed “An Act laying duties on property sold at Auction,” , 1: 397–400. See , 16: 397–99; , 16: 478–508. For background on the earlier response to excise taxes on whiskey and spirits, see the editorial note “John Jay’s Moderate Response to the Whiskey Rebellion,” , 5: 447–49. For the suppression of violent opposition to the excise taxes later in the year, see the notes in Coxe to JJ, 8 Nov. 1794, below, and, for JJ’s response, JJ to Coxe, 18 Dec. 1794, ALS, PHi: Coxe; Dft, NNC (EJ: 09819).