Complete Works. Hamilton Alexander
Читать онлайн книгу.
of his most painful experiences was in connection with the extraordinary operations and speculations of Robert Morris. Not only did Hamilton himself lose heavily by Morris's conduct, but his brother-in-law, John B. Church, for whom he appeared, and who held a mortgage from Morris, was mulcted, previous to Morris's apprehension and imprisonment. This was undoubtedly a sad blow to Hamilton who, in the early part of his career, was helped by the great financier, who really suggested his name for the treasuryship, and to whom he owed so much. Morris's letters to him are pathetic, and in one, after speaking of his difficulty in raising money and referring to his intention of suing Greenleaf, who had deserted him in his land speculation, he said: "I will immediately turn my attention to another source of reimbursement for you. My promise to you on this point is sacred and shall be fulfilled. You will speedily hear from me in regard to it. I hope Mr. Church has too much spirit and too high a sense of honor to entertain a desire of posessing himself of my property at less than its value, and at its value I am willing to sell it to him. I trust to your assurance of serving me in this business."
As has been said, the most important commercial case with which Hamilton was connected was that of Le Guen vs. Gouverneur and Kemble—both parties being shipping merchants, and the issue being alleged misrepresentation and substitution of a cargo of indigo, cotton, and other substances. Numerous side issues arose in which various Jewish merchants named Lopez, Gomez, and Lepine were also concerned. This great case, which was ultimately decided in the Court of Errors, led to much litigation. Le Guen, a Frenchman, was represented by Hamilton, Burr, and others, and the defendants by Gouverneur Morris and associates. The counsel were permitted by the court to speak repeatedly out of the ordinary course, so great was the interest and desire to get at all the facts. Morris was most offensive to Hamilton in court, and there was an interchange of retorts between the two, and the "commanding" figure, melodious voice, and authoritative manner of the former made a great impression. James A. Hamilton refers to this incident.' Morris, during his argument and after speaking in praise of what Hamilton had said, used these words: "Before I have done I am confident I shall make my learned friend cry out, 'Help me, Cassius' (pointing to Burr) 'or I sink.'" When Hamilton's turn came to reply, he treated Morris with great courtesy, reviewed his arguments without mercy, exposing all their weakness, and then alluded to the boast of his friend in a strain of irony that turned the laughter of the court and audience against him.
On the same day, after the court had closed, there was a dinner given to the counsel, judges, and others, by Stephen Van Rensselaer of Albany, the patroon. Hamilton went to his father-in-law's General Schuyler's, to dress for dinner. Morris and the rest to the Patroon's. When Hamilton arrived, Van Rensselaer met him at the door, and to put him on his guard informed him that Morris was in a very bad humor.
Hamilton went into the room, approached Morris most amiably, and said: "My friend, you will rejoice, I hope, that by Cassius's help I meet you here with our friends at dinner!"
The case, like many others at the time, attracted great attention and the court-room was crowded. General Schuyler wrote to his daughter, February 13, 1800: "So much has my dear General's time been engrossed by his law business that we have had but a small portion of that Company which is always so pleasing and so instructive. Mr. Morris of Counsel for Mr. Gouverneur, showed much indiscretion by observations injurious to my Dear General, but such a reply was given as afforded General pleasure to the Court and Audience, and which Mr. Morris felt so sensibly, that I hope he will profit by It for I very sincerely wish him well."
My dear Eliza: We arrived here last evening well and shall proceed immediately on our journey.
I forgot my brief in the cause of Le Guen against Gouverneur which is in a bundle of papers in my armed Chair in the office. Request one of the Gentlemen to look for it and send it up to me by the post of Tuesday. Beg them not to fail—Adieu my beloved. Kiss all the Children for me.
yrs. A. H.
Peeks Kill April
16th 1797
When it was finally won by Hamilton it is said that he refused a generous fee proffered him by his grateful client, alleging that it was too much. Rufus King, in his memoirs, refers to this incident, and compares Hamilton's modesty to Burr's exaction of a disproportionate sum for his services. Luckily I have found Le Guen's letter which states the fact.
Louis Le Guen to Alexander Hamilton
General Hamilton
New York, 1st May, 1800.
Dear General: Still deeply moved by your generous proceedings, and full of gratitude, I find myself obliged to do what you yesterday forbade me to, confining myself to remitting you herewith the moderate sum of fifteen hundred dollars. Kindly accept it and at the same time the assurance that nobody in the world is more respectfully attached to you, or more disposed than I am to seize every opportunity to shew you all my gratitude. Therefore, dear General, be so kind as to make use of them, and also be well assured of the sincerity of my feelings, which will last as long as I live. . . .
I also enclose a little account of what I have paid to Mr. Burr, including interest at seven per cent, upon divers sums that I have advanced him amounting altogether to $4,636.66.
I beg you to kindly settle this bill with him, so that he will be satisfied; he has promised to settle up with me tomorrow for the sum of 13,200 dollars that he owes me, fallen due the 15th of last month, the only business that keeps me here.
April 1800.
| To account of Mr. Burr for onorarium up-to-date | .... | $2900. |
| Several accounts upon his order to Mr. Green | .... | 290. |
BILL OF INTERESTS
| Upon $11200 ---- that I advanced in three separate sums at different times. From the month of July to August 1798—to the 19th April 1799—For 8 months at the rate of 7% | .... | 522.66 |
| Interest for one year—upon a bill of $13200 | .... | 924.00 |
| ________ | ||
| $4636.66 |
The affairs of the new or Park Theatre, which was commenced in 1794y engaged Hamilton's attention, for, owing to the vicissitudes incident to insufficient capitalization and bad management, the prospect of building this important place of amusement languished, but was finally carried out after many people had lost a great deal of money. The land upon which it was erected was owned by a Mrs. Ann White, and the various subscribers to the building fund included the names of pretty nearly every person of note in New York at the time. Some of them were: Stephen Van Rensselaer, James Watson, William Constable, Nicholas Cruger, William Bayard, Isaac Gouvemeur, Elias Hicks, Gerret Ketdetas, Robert S. Kemble, Nicholas Low, Dominick Lynch, Julian Ludlow, Stephen Tillinghast, Pascal N. Smith, George Scriba, Julian Verplanck, Joshua Waddington, Nathaniel Prime, Rufus King, Charles Wilkes, DeWitt Clinton, Brockholst Livingston, Josiah Ogden Hoffman, John Watts, Nathaniel Fish, Thomas Lispenard, and about seventy others.
Finally, after much disappointment and trouble, the matter was referred to Chancellor Livingston, and Hamilton was employed. Even later, when the theatre was actually opened, it had trouble in paying its taxes. It appears that a forcible attempt was made to attach ready money, or, in other words, what are now known as "the box-office receipts." This led to a suit in which William Henderson, Jacob Waltham, Morton Carlyle, and Pollock brought action against William Brown for trespass and for breaking and entering the plaintiffs' close, called the New Theatre, and taking and carrying away three hundred and twenty-five pieces of silver coin of the value of one dollar each. Hamilton defended Brown who, it appears, was duly appointed collector of direct taxes for the district in which the theatre was situated. "He had been also duly furnished with a list in which the locus in quo was designated as the dwelling