To George Washington from Alexander Hamilton, 26 October 1795
From Alexander Hamilton
New York October 26 1795
Sir
I have noticed a piece in the Aurora under the signature of the Calm Observer which I think requires explanation and I mean to give one with my name. I have written to Mr Wolcott for materials from the Books of the Treasury.1
Should you think it proper to meet the vile insinuation in the close of it by furnishing for one year the account of expenditure of the salary, I will with pleasure add what may be proper on that point. If there be any such account signed by Mr Lear it may be useful.
I wrote to you some days since directed to you at Philadelphia chiefly on the subject of Young La Fayette—I mention it merely that you may have knowlege that there is such a letter in case it has not yet come to hand.2
I touched in it upon a certain intercepted Letter. The more I have reflected, the more I am of opinion that it is adviseable the whole should speedily appear. With affection & respect I have the honor to be Sir Yr Obed. s⟨ervant⟩
A. Hamilton
ALS, DLC:GW.
1. The letter from “A Calm Observer” appeared in the Aurora General Advertiser (Philadelphia) of 23 October. It was addressed to Oliver Wolcott, Jr., as the former comptroller and now treasury secretary. After citing the provisions of the Constitution and various laws about the compensation of the president, Observer alleged that during GW’s first term “he had drawn from the public Treasury by warrants from the late Secretary of the Treasury, countersigned by the Comptroller the sum of 1037 dollars beyond the compensation allowed.” Moreover, in the first quarter of GW’s second term he had been paid “an excess of 4750 dollars in one quarter beyond the compensation allowed by law.” Wolcott, Hamilton, and GW were responsible for “these extraordinary outrages upon the laws and constitution of our country; since it remains to be seen how far the independent & impartial justice of the National Legislature will be exercised in punishment of the offence already committed as well as to prevent the repetition of it hereafter.”
Observer continued by asking: “If the precedent which this donation from the treasury furnishes, were to be followed in favour of other public officers, how many hundred thousand dollars per annum would thus be lawlessly taken from the public treasury and saddled upon the people? Was it or was it not the duty of the late Secretary of the Treasury and of yourself as comptroller to have checked and restrained the abuse of power that has been stated, and why, instead of doing so, did you become, obedient like, the servile and submissive instruments of it?
“Can the people feel respect for the constituted authorities of their country, when those very constituted authorities are the first to trample upon the laws and constitution of their country?”
Quoting from the passage in GW’s First Inaugural Address where he asked that his compensation as president “be limited to such actual expenditures as the public good may be thought to require,” Observer concluded with a question: “Will not the world be led to conclude that the mask of political hypocricy has been alike worn by a Cesar, a Cromwell and a Washington?”
When the letter was reprinted in the Columbian Centinel (Boston) of 7 Nov., the paper speculated: “This Calm Observer, is said to be the late Secretary of State—If so it may be an expedient of his to endeavour to involve other characters in a similar dilemna, to that in which he is now situated.” Wolcott himself wrote to his father, “I am well satisfied that the ‘Calm Observer’ &ca is a joint work of certain ‘patriots’—Randolph was doubtless an adviser—& Beckley Clerk of the House of Reps. the writer” (Wolcott to Oliver Wolcott, Sr., 19 Nov., CtHi: Oliver Wolcott, Jr., Papers). Edmund Randolph subsequently denied authorship in a letter of 19 Nov. to John Beckley that was printed in The Independent Chronicle: and the Universal Advertiser (Boston), 7 December.
For Hamilton’s letter to Wolcott of 26 Oct., see 19: 352–53.