B 3 
 
 eC. \'iSl 
 
E 255 
 I.E9 
 Copy 1 
 
 PETITION 
 
 OF 
 
 MRS. ANNA C. DeN. EVANS, 
 
 r¥atchez, jflississippi 
 
 TO THE 
 
 SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UNITED STATES. 
 
 Dec. 1851. 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 
 FRIHTED BY B. A. WATEBf, 
 1851. 
 

 Please observe the followmK 
 
 Page 
 10 
 11 
 13 
 
 IC 
 
 14 
 15 
 20 
 21 
 23 
 24 
 25 
 29 
 
 it 
 
 32 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 line 
 
 10 
 
 5tli from bottom, 
 
 7 
 
 15, 18, 26, 83, 
 
 23 
 
 3d from bottom, 
 
 1 . . 
 
 for 
 
 item... was, 
 
 read. 
 ft. (florins.) 
 
 ft- 
 
 items... were. 
 
 ft. 
 
 ft. 
 
 proper. 
 
 Mrs. 
 
 (D.) 
 
 "paper" 
 
 Mr. 
 3d from bottom, after " one half." insert 
 17 after Leger. • aAi, in connexion with DeNeufville' s acct. 
 
 11 421,460 . . 421,440. 
 
 13 18,063 . . 18,963. 
 
 11 1,182 8 . . 1,182 2. 
 
 23 1781 . . . 1784. 
 
 6th from bottom, for " 1,000 on the Holland loan with commis- 
 sion" — read — -^120, commission on the noU<ind Loan. 
 
THE PETITION OF 
 ANNA C. DeNEUFVILLE EVANS, 
 
 RESIDING AT NATCHEZ, STATE OF MISSISSIPPI. 
 
 To THE Hon. Senate and House of Representatives of thk 
 Congress of the United States : 
 Your Petitioner, who is the sole surviving heir at law 
 and representative of John DeNeufville &l Son, late 
 merchants of Amsterdam, Holland, most respectfully 
 again asks the attention of your honorable body to the 
 just claim of her ancestors against the Government of the 
 United States, and a full settlement of the same. Grate- 
 ful for the allowance made by order of di joint resolution 
 of Congress at its last session, yet she cannot, in justice 
 to herself, regard it but as a partial, and not a full pay- 
 ment of her claim. It can be demonstrated to your hon- 
 orable body, that this claim originated during the CvOn- 
 federation, at the darkest hour of the Revolution, at a 
 time of distracted counsel, when but imperfect statements 
 or records were kept of the accounts of the Confedera- 
 tion : and these, under which your Petitioner claims, 
 originated out of transactions on another continent, 
 through the instrumentality of Government agents or 
 representatives residing abroad, and such as did not fully 
 accord, or whose views were not sufficiently known to 
 €ach other — one of the representatives being then a resi- 
 nent at Paris, and the rest at Amsterdam. Nor is it to 
 be forgotten, that after the glorious achievement of the 
 liberties of the United States, for a series of years the 
 Confederation of these States was wholly unable to make 
 provision for the payment of debts, which, ^indeed, was 
 also the eondition of the Government of the United 
 
States after the adoption of the Federal Constitution. 
 The First Comptroller has, from a careful, but from a 
 hurried examination of the accounts under which your 
 Petitioner claims, thrown more light upon the justice of 
 that claim, than any public officer since the decease of 
 D'Neufville & Son. Still your Petitioner is satisfied, 
 that but a portion of what is justly due her has been re- 
 ported and allowed. And as there w^ould seem to be 
 some hesitancy in a part of the Comptroller's report in 
 regard to a very large item of charge against Messrs. De 
 Neufville & Son, it will not seem impertinent to your 
 honorable body that your Petitioner should say, she be- 
 lieves him mistaken in some important deductions and 
 conclusions, greatly and necessarily to her prejudice. 
 Indeed, this could scarcely be otherwise, as some of the 
 questions involved are novel, and, perhaps, without anal- 
 ogous precedent — while the examination took place 
 during a time remarkable for a greater degree of political 
 excitement in Congress and of official labor in the Trea- 
 sury Department, than any other in the history of our 
 Government. Your Petitioner hereto appends a copy of 
 the Report of the Comptroller, (A,) with other docu- 
 ments, (B, C.) She presents, also, a careful review 
 of that report, in which its errors are pointed out. 
 
 By an examination of these papers it will appear, that 
 the Government of the United States is still indebted to 
 her, as heir aforesaid, in a considerable sum since 1782. 
 Although this claim originated in Holland, where the in- 
 terest for use of money or debt was generally but five 
 per cent., yet, she is advised, the rate of interest is con- 
 trolled by that allowed at the place of payment; and her 
 ancestors and their lepresentatives have, for near seventy 
 years, demanded payment of this claim in the United 
 States. She is further advised, that when interest be- 
 
gins to run upon a debt there is no rule for stopping it, 
 but b}^ tendering payment or satisfaction ; which has not 
 occurred. In regard to certain ^^ Bills" discussed in 
 said report of Comptroller, it is manifest they had been 
 paid by Messrs. DeNeufville & Son for the Confederation; 
 and although it may appear that the Government did pay 
 the same demand to a third party, it equally clear, that the 
 money was not paid or re-imbursed to said DeNeufville 
 & Son, and there cannot be in law, equity or justice, 
 any sufficient pretext from withholding that sum. Your 
 Petitioner asserts that, her grandfather, in his devotion to 
 to the cause ot American liberty, contributed by his 
 personal influence, his credit and his means, largely to- 
 wards its achievement, whereby he reduced himself and 
 family from affluence to poverty. He left his native coun- 
 try with his family, and crossed the Atlantic for this, to ask 
 a remuneration and payment, not for his losses, but for that 
 which the Government or Confederation owed him, upon 
 contracts expressed or implied. In this effort, he first lost 
 his son, from insanity caused by the troubles and disap- 
 pointments connected with efforts to obtain the payments 
 of debts. After this the said John DeNeufville himself 
 died, before he could obtain a settlement or payment of 
 said debts — and with the exception of Petitioner and her 
 children, his family are now extinct. Your Petitioner asks 
 the Representatives of this great Government, standing 
 now among the first of the earth, to restore to the descend- 
 ants, that which their ancestors loaned or advanced in 
 money or goods, when your Government was struggling 
 for freedom, and when she was recognized by only one 
 organized Government among the battling nations of 
 Europe, as an independent people. 
 
 I, therefore, present myself before your honorable body, 
 not in the attitude of a pensioner, or one asking a gratui- 
 
ty for family services rendered in tlie hour of trouble and 
 distress, but as one feeling and believing that the United 
 States owes her a debt — one that the Government will, 
 upon investigation, find, is based on justice and righteous- 
 ness, which will not be classed with doubtful claims, or 
 which can be fairly construed unfavorably to petitioner. 
 Although the United States gratuitously aided the grand- 
 mother of your Petitioner in her exile and poverty, yet 
 surely your government cannot now, in the hour of pros- 
 perity and wealth, change the tenor and import of a grant, 
 into a payment of a debt or any part of a debt — National 
 character forbids the suggestion, and Petitioner will not 
 discuss it. She believes this to have been misunderstood 
 by the honorable Comptroller. It is demonstrable that the 
 basis of the account is correct. It is certain that but a 
 portion has been paid to said DeNeufville or his heirs. 
 Who, under existing circumstances, represented in the 
 Report (imperfectly represented) should sustain the loss ? 
 Surely not the heirs of the creditor-party, who failed to 
 obtain the payment of the debt while living, from the ina- 
 bility of the Govenment to pay, or an unwillingness of 
 the debtor party to examine or settle ; but rather, the 
 Government of the United States, which will not, in her 
 spirit of justice be allowed to reject the claim because of 
 doubts now produced by her own losses or delays. The, 
 ancestors of your Petitioner and of her children, were 
 benefactors of your country — by your paying what is due, 
 they will be enabled to contradict the frequent reproach 
 that ^' Republics are ungrateful " Your Petitioner, there- 
 fore, prays for the passage of a law providing for the 
 payment of the balance due her by her accounts, ac- 
 cording to the principles of justice and equity. 
 
 ANNA C. DeN. EVANS. 
 
 Natchbz, Mississippi, October 15, 1851. 
 
(A) 
 
 (Copy of the Report of the Cowptroller.) 
 
 Treasury Department, 
 
 Comptroller's Office, September 20<A, 1850. 
 
 Ta the Honorable the 
 
 Senate of the United States : 
 
 The Senate having passed a Resolution, directing the Secre- 
 tary of the Treasury to examine and adjust the accounts of John De 
 Neufville &; Son, merchants of Amsterdam, with the United States, 
 and to report the result o( such examination and adjustment to the 
 Senate; and that Resolution having been referred to this office for 
 my action, in pursuance thereof, I respectfully submit the following 
 Report : 
 
 That Messrs John DeNeufville & Son were Bankers and Mer- 
 chants in the city of Amsterdam, aud were zealous and active friends 
 of the United States during their revolutionary contest with Great 
 Britain to establish their independence, and rendered very valuable 
 services to our country. 
 
 That in June A. D. 1781, they were employed by Major William 
 Jackson to purchase a large amount of clothing and supplies for the 
 United States to be shipped on board the frigate South Carolina, 
 under the command of Commodore Gillon. The purchases were 
 made under the authority of Colonel Laurens, then Minister of the 
 United States to Holland, with the concurrence and assent of Dr. 
 Franklin that Major Jackson should make purchase? to the amount 
 of about fifteen thousand pounds sterling, and draw bills on him (Dr. 
 FranklinJ at six months to pay for them. Major Jackson exceeded 
 his instructions and made purchases to the amount of about £50,000 
 sterling to wit: in Dutch Guilders or Florins, ^421,443, and 
 drew 171 Bills of Exchange at six months on Dr. Franklin in favor 
 of John DeNeufville h Son for the sum of fi 440,417 18 in pay- 
 ment ; the nett proceeds, after deducting the discount for the time 
 &C.J amounted to the precise amount of the purchases and the com- 
 missions of Messrs John DeNeufville &£ Son for making the pur- 
 .chases. As the amount of purchases and the Bills, exceeded the in- 
 
8 
 
 structions more than ihree-fold, Dr. Franklin coniplained of the pro- 
 ceeding and refused to acce|)t the Bills. Thereupon, Major Jackson 
 and Mr. Leonard DeNeufville, the son of John De Neufville, and one 
 of the firm, made a journey to Paris to see Dr. Franklin, and on full 
 explanation of the whole transaction, and the representations of Major 
 Jackson of the advantages likely to arise to the United States from 
 the purchase, Dr. Franklin was induced to accept the Bills, and did 
 accept them. 
 
 Considerable purchases were made also by Commodore Gillon on 
 account of the State of South Carolina, amounting to 221,385 
 guilders, and paid for in the same manner, by Bills of Major Jackson, 
 drawn on Dr. Franklin in pursuance of a contract between said Gil- 
 lon and Col. [Henry] Laurens, entered into at Paris, April 28, 17SL* 
 
 On shipping said goods purchased for the State of South Carolina 
 it was found, that the goods purchased for the United States could not 
 be taken by the same frigate and leave sufficient room for the man- 
 agement of the vessel and for the men to fight in case a battle should 
 occur, and it became necessary to provide other means to transport 
 said goods to the LTnited States. Commodore Gillon proposed to 
 charter two small vessels to transport the goods, to be convoyed by 
 his frigate the South Carolina. As there was great hazard in the 
 case, it was difficult to procure vessels for such a purpose, but by 
 the efforts of the Messrs John DeNeufville & Son, some of their friends 
 were induced to purchase and fit up two small vessels, the Liberty 
 and the Aurora, on the condition, as was insisted by them, that the 
 firm of Matthew Van Arp h Co., part owners, should be the ships' 
 husbands, and managing agents of them — that Commodore Gillon 
 should charter them at certain prescribed rates or prices agreed on 
 by parole, and that Messrs. John D'Neufville & Son should take all 
 the shares or stock of the vessels and make the advances for purchase- 
 money, fitting and furnishing, not taken by other persons. The com- 
 pany or companies were formed, the vessels purchased, fitted up and 
 furnished, all the goods put on board and the vessels sent to the Texel 
 with the charter-parties made out and signed by the owners, and 
 
 [* This is a mistake — no Bills were ever given for those goods — the family is not 
 3'et paid for them! An indent for JE14,900 sterling being lost, or paid some one 
 else.] 
 
sent to llie Texel to be signed by said Glllon, and the vessels were 
 all ready to sail under convoy of said frigate, when said Gillon put 
 to sea and left the country without taking them under convoy. 
 Messrs. John DeNeufville &t Son became and were the owners of 
 one half of the ship Liberty and one fourth part of the Aurora. 
 
 The said Gillon had put to sea without signing the charter-party, 
 or taking the vessels in convoy ; Messrs. Matthew Van Arp &. Co., 
 the agents of the vessels, took the vessels with the goods back to 
 Amsterdam— claimed a lien on the goods in behalf of the owners for 
 the freights and damages, and refused to deliver the goods until they 
 should be fully indenmified, or good security given to them forsuch 
 indemnity, and full satisfaction for their claims. Dr. Franklin and 
 the Messrs. D'Neufville proposed an arbitration to settle the amount 
 of the damages and the just claims; but the agents of the vessels re- 
 fused to arbitrate, and insisted on being re-paid all their advances and 
 8,000 guilders or florins for freight and profits. Dr. Franklin sup- 
 posed, that as the Messrs. D'Neufville were wealthy and influential 
 men and part owners of the vessels, they could control the matter 
 and arrange it by arbitration or some other mode which might seem 
 to him just and proper, and threatened to dishonor the bills given in 
 payment for the goods unless the goods were given up to Mr. Adams, 
 then our Minister at Amsterdam. 
 
 It was insisted by Messrs. John D'Neufville &, Son, that they en- 
 deavored to prevail on the agents and other owners to deliver up the 
 goods and submit their claims to be settled by arbitration or some 
 other method that might be agreed upon, but did not succeed in their 
 efforts. In this condition, as the bills had been negotiated and trans- 
 ferred by them and would become due on the 3lst December, 1781, 
 and as the protest of so large a sum might have greatly embarrassed 
 them and ruined their credit, they say they were forced, from mo- 
 tives of self-preservation, to settle with the owners of the vessels on 
 the besi terms they could, and to procure the release of the goods, that 
 the bills might be paid and their credit secured. They, accordingly^ 
 entered into a Notarial agreement on the 28th December, 1781, with 
 the agents, M. Van Arp&iCo., as one of [owners] of said vessels 
 and in behalf of the other owners, by which it was stipulated as 
 follows : 
 
10 
 
 1st. That ilie goods should be delivered lo said John D'Neufville 
 &. Son. 
 
 2d. That the said vessels and ship stores should be soW at public 
 auction on the 14ih January, 1782, and a true, full, and accurate ac- 
 count rendered by the agents of said vessels of all expenditures 
 concerning said ships, their purchase, repairs, equipments, sale, &;c. 
 
 3d. That the said John D'JXeufville h Son, should pay all damages, 
 without exception, which by the said accounts should appear to 
 have been sustained by the o^vners of said ships, and also the fur- 
 ther sum of 1*8,000, Dutch guilders, current money, to indemnify 
 them for insurance effected and the loss of said voyage of the two 
 ships, and the profits they mi^'ht Have made thereby. [N.] 
 
 4th. That the said John D'Neufville should give security. 
 
 The goods were give up in pursuance of the agreement, and 
 surrendered to Mr. Adams, and the accounts were made out, and a 
 notarial copy of the agreement and of the accounts made out in pur- 
 suance thereof, accompanying the same, are in the State Department, 
 in a volume of Revolutionary papers and letters numbered 145, by 
 which it appears that the whole cost for purchase money, equipments, 
 supplies, ^c, of the "Aurora," amounted to/ 37,248 03 
 Claimed as due to the proprietors by the 
 
 JNotarialAgreementofDec. 28, 1781, - 4,000 00 
 
 Total, - - , -41,248 03 
 Proceeds of sale, - - - -20,69216 
 
 Balance claimed, j^20,565 07 
 
 Expenditures on account of the ship " Li- 
 berty," - - - - j?28,627 10 
 
 Claimed as due to the proprietors by the No- 
 tarial agreement, - - . . 4,000 00 
 
 Total, - - - - 32,627 10 
 Proceeds of sale, 16,457 07 
 
 Balance claimad, -fl 16,170 03 
 
 Total balance claimed on account of both vessels, in 
 
 florins, ^36,735 10 
 
11 
 
 !n addition to the above, Messrs. DeNeufviile made a claim as 
 
 follows : 
 
 " To charges of journey to Paris of Major Jackson and 
 
 L. D. Neijfville to procure acceptance of Bills, -fi- 587 17 
 
 *' To charges of stay days, lighter hire, travelling to and 
 from the Texel, as per account, two thirds of which 
 are charged to Congress ; one third being to State of 
 South Carolina, . ~ . . - .fl i,309 14 
 
 I find no legal evidence to sustain the last charge for lighter hire, 
 
 4^0., and see no propriety of the charge for journey to Paris, under 
 
 the circumstances. 
 
 The Treasury accounts of the United States, Leger B, folio 701, 
 
 have a credit to Messrs. DeNeufville &; Son, August 22d, 1786, by 
 
 Francis Dana, of ^418 26, equal to^l,045 13_[0.] 
 
 In the public accounts of the United States kept in Europe by 
 
 Thomas Barclay, Esq., Consul and Consular agent of the United 
 
 States, the firm of John DeNeufville & Son is credited with said 
 
 large purchase of goods, and charged as follows : 
 
 1781. D€C. 31. To— paid Mr. Jackson 171 Bills on 
 
 Dr. Franklin, - - - ^440,407 18 
 To Cabarras &i Co. of Madrid, for the following 
 Bills drawn by the Treasurer of Loans in 
 America in favor of Capt. Pickles, on Mr. 
 Jay, negotiated by said John DeNeufville Si 
 Son, and paid a second time by mistake — the 
 others having been discharged to Hope &iCo., 
 viz : 
 Nine Bills, No. 223 to 231 inclusive, 
 
 ^333 each, ... - f 2,997 
 
 Fourteen Bills, No. 824 to 837 inclu- 
 sive, $225 each, [P.] - - 3,150 
 
 ^12,846 15 
 
 1782, July 11. To W. and J. Willink, N. and J. 
 
 Van Staphorst and DeLa Lande 
 find Fynje, in Amsterdam, paid them ^'2,373 07 
 Before Messrs. DeNeufville &; Son entered into the Notarial agree- 
 ment with the agents of said vessels in December 1781, they offered 
 to assign and transfer all their interest in the same to the United 
 States for the amount of their advances, and relinquish all the profits 
 
12 
 
 from ihe transaction, and offered to arbitrate, and after the making 
 of said notarial agreement they offered to throw off the 3,000 florins 
 profits awarded to their shares of the vessels. Dr. Franklin still re- 
 quired them to arbitrate the matter, but they insisted that they had 
 been forced into the notarial agreement, and to pay the whole claim 
 of the other owners of the vessels, and they then refused to arl)i- 
 trate, and preferred to submit their claim to Congress, and did so 
 submit it soon after; and the result has been, that the claim has never 
 been settled. 
 
 After a full examination of the accounts and correspondence to be 
 found relating to these unfortunate transactions, I see no reason to 
 doubt the good faith, fairness and fidelity to the best interests of the 
 United States, of Messrs. D'Neufville h Son — but the management 
 was bad and unfortunate — they knew or should have known, that Ma- 
 jor Jackson was not only exceeding his authority, but that the quan- 
 tity of goods they were purchasing for him was greater than could be 
 transported in the frigate Carolina, and on this account, it seems to 
 me reasonable, that they should not make any profit out of the pur- 
 chase and fitting out of said vessels, Aurora and Liberty, and that 
 the ^3,000 profits, &lc., awarded to their share by the Notarial agree- 
 ment, should be deducted, as they offered to do. 
 
 They disputed the justice of the charge made against them on the 
 books of our public accounts kept in Europe by Mr. Barclay ot 
 12,886 15 florins paid by mistake on the drafts in favor of Captain 
 Pickle, but in one of their letters they agreed to allow it as a matter 
 of compromise, in case the government would settle their account. 
 
 I find in said volume. No. 145, in the State Department, a letter 
 from said D'Neufville &, Son, (not signed,) but in the same hand 
 writing as many of their^other letters, addressed to the Hon. R. R. 
 Livingston, Esq., then Secretary of Slate, and dated Amsterdam, 
 5th August, 1782, (the year is somewhat uncertain) from which 1 
 quote the following paragraphs, contained after a recital of the 
 transactions and settlement of the same with the other owners, to 
 wit: " Tliat no self-interest should belaid against us ; we have 
 given Congress credit for our share in the j/Z8,000 allowed to the 
 owners for damage and disappointments — some of them who had 
 made insurance will still be losers. Needless, we think it is, to add 
 any thing more, but our solicitations for a speedy reimbursement of 
 
13 
 
 lhej^21,719, \vl)ich appear to be due on balance, if it is thought 
 right." 
 
 As the details of their accounts, except so far as relates lo the 
 vessels Aurora and Liberty cannot be found either in the State or 
 Treasury Departments, it is impossible to determine with entire pre- 
 cision, how the above balance of 21,719 florins was obtained ; I 
 think, however, the main item of debt and credit was as follows : 
 Balance claimed under the Notarial agree- 
 ment on account of those two ves- 
 sels 36,735 10 
 
 Less profit assigned to their share - - 3,000 00 
 
 /33,735 00 
 
 Expenses of a journey to Paris to procure acceptance of 
 
 Bills 587 17 
 
 ^34,323 07 
 
 Deduct the amount of the draft? in favor of Captain 
 
 Pickles paid by mistake, [P.] .... 12,845 15 
 
 Balance due by calculation $21,476 12 
 
 As the accounts in relation to these vessels appear to have 
 been settled in May 1781, and the amount due the 
 owners was then due and payable and likely paid by 
 D'Neufville &. Son, and the letter in question was writ- 
 ten in August following, the probability is, that some 
 interest was charged, perhaps for about three months, 
 about 1 J per cent. -_...- 24208 
 
 Balance as then claimed by them ... $21,719 00 
 
 This view of the matter seems the more probable, when we take 
 into consideration, the mode in which they kept their accounts — their 
 system of charging interest, and two charges on their journal made in 
 July 1784, of which the following is a translation : 
 " The United States of America to profit and loss for 
 fourteen months interest on j^23,517 11, being from 
 31st July, 1783, to 30th September, 1784" - $1,360 04 
 Profit and loss on the United States for indemnifying of 
 four years'interest upon the remittance from W. Pickles 
 the sum of j^l2,994 9, at five per cent per annum - ^2,599 00 
 They thus assent to the charge against them of the amount of 
 
14 
 
 the Pickles' Bills, and place the interest of the amount to profit and 
 and loss, and charge the United Slates with interest on the balance of 
 the claim on account of the vesels, &;c., after deducting the amount 
 of the bills. 
 
 I can find no other evidence on the subject of these bills, in favor 
 of VV. Pickles, except what appears on the face of the accounts. It 
 is now insisted, that the charge on the face of it is not legal and fair, 
 and should not be clainied by tlie United States. I can see no rea- 
 son in questioning the correctness of the charge without fiiriher evi- 
 dence — the probability to my mind is, that duplicate bills were 
 drawn as was usual — that the first were negotiated and paid by Hope 
 h. Co., and the second should have gone with the first — that the sec- 
 ond were sold to D'Neufville &t Son, and by them endorsed to Ca- 
 barras & Co., of Madrid, and paid to them by the Government. If 
 these were the facts, D'Neufville &£ Son were guilty of gross negli- 
 gence in taking and paying for the second or duplicate set of bills 
 without evidence that the first set had been lost, and for this reason, 
 they were responsible to repay the money, and the charge against them 
 is correct: at all events, in the absence of proof to the contrary, I 
 cannot assume that the charge is not legal and fair. (See Chitty on 
 Bills, 8 Am. ed. of 1836, 175 and 176.) 
 
 As to the charge against them for Mr. Barclay's leger of July 
 11th, 1782, to Willink &t VanStaphorst, and paid them $'2,373 7, 
 it is insisted, &.C., that it was a bill drawn in their favor on the payers, by 
 John Adams, to satisfy the balance of an account of DeNeufville h 
 Son against him, and the evidence satisfies me that such is the fact. 
 
 June, 1782, DeNeufville &, Son charged John Adams in 
 
 their books, - - - - ^3,772 17 8 
 
 July 1, 1782— They charged him - - - 12 15 
 
 They charge him for postage,^ 4 10 
 
 j/? 3.785 12 8 
 
 1782, July 11 — They credit him for sundries up to, 2,373 07 
 «« " For his bill on W. and J. Willink and 
 
 N. and J. VanStaphorst and D'La 
 Lande h Fynje, - - - - 1,412 05 8 
 
 Total credits, - - J« 3,785 12 8 
 
 which just balances the account exclusive of the postage. 
 
15 
 
 Under ihe belief tbat the papers of John Adams would throw 
 some light on these items, I wrote to Charles F. Adams on the 9th 
 and 10th September last. Mr. Adams in a letter to me, bearing 
 date, Quincy, September 18, 1850, says, "Mr. Barclay's accounts 
 are in my hands. 1 find there the payment by Willink h Co., en- 
 tered II July, 1782, as the settlement of the balance of J. DeNeuf- 
 ville, ^1,412 5 8, and that is all." 
 
 The house of John DeNeufville &, Son soon became embarrassed, 
 and failed. In 1783 or 1784 Mr. Leonard DelXeulville the son, came 
 over to settle their claim on the United States, and to collect their 
 numerous debts in this country — his health soon failed and he was 
 unable to attend to his business — he became insane some years after- 
 wards, and died in an insane liospiial about the year 1812. The 
 father (John DeNeufville) came to this country with his family 
 ('consisting of his wife and daughter,) some years after his son came, 
 with a view of settling and collecting his claim on the United States 
 and other debts in this country. His health failed soon after he came, 
 so that he was unable to attend to business, and he died some years 
 afterwards ('December 1796) at Cambridge in Massachusetts, very 
 poor indeed. 
 
 The son being insane and the fan)ily in great want, Congress pass- 
 ed an act which was approved March 2, 1797 appropriating .|)'300O 
 for their relief, to wit: ^1,000 for the mother, ^'1,000 for the son, 
 $'1,000 for the daughter, zhis is expressed to be " in consideration of 
 particular services rendered the United States during the war of 
 their Revolution, by the late John DeJNeufville." — The report of the 
 committee shows, that they were not acquainted with the claim of John 
 DeNeufville h Son on the Government, but had some general know- 
 ledge of their meritorious services rendered to our country. 
 
 The age of the claim should not prejudice it, except as lar as re- 
 gards interest since sometime in 1832, when the Government was fully- 
 prepared to pay all the first claims then existing. It seems to have 
 been pressed upon the Government very frequently from 1782 to 
 1790, and nothing but the condition of the family prevented it from 
 being presented in paper form since that time. 
 
 In case the Senate should be of opinion, that the amount of the bills 
 in favor of Captain Pickles charged to John DeNeufville &t Son, is a 
 
16 
 
 proj)er charge, then the account, independent of interest, would stand 
 
 as follows — 
 
 1781, June— John DeNeufville &: Son to 171 Bills, at 
 
 6 months, due December 81, - -ji 440,407 18 
 
 Cr. *• By purchases for clothing, 421,443 19 
 Comn)ission for making pur- 
 chases, discount on Bills, 
 journey to Paris &ic., - 18,963 19 
 
 440,407 18 
 
 Cr. 1782 — By amount of expenses and damages paid 
 on account of the contract of freight on 
 the ships Liberty and Aurora, less the 
 jl 3,000 profits assigned to their share of 
 the vessels, /33,735 10 
 
 1786 Aug. 22— By Francis Dana, [O.] - - - 1,030 05 
 
 Total credits, - - - 34,765 15 
 Dr. To amount paid by mistake, on Bills in 
 
 favor of Captain Pickles, - - - 12,846 15 
 
 Balance due, - - -/21,919 00 
 Equal at 40 cents to the florin, - ^'8,767 60 
 
 It is said that interest should be allowed on this claim from 1782 
 to the present time. 
 
 On the 3d June 1784, the Continental Congress passed a series of 
 Resolutions in relation to debts and finances, of which the following is 
 one of them : " That an interest of six per cent per annum shall be 
 allowed to all creditors of the United States for supplies furnished or 
 services done, from the time that the payment became due." 
 
 This claim being for uncertain and unsettled damases, growinc: out 
 of the parol contract of Commodore Gillon to freight the ships Aurora 
 and Liberty, the case does not seem to come within the letter of the 
 resolution, and yet it seems to come within the spirit of it. If it is re- 
 garded as a debt within the meaning of the Resolution — contracted 
 in Holland, it would draw but five per cent interest per annum, the 
 legal interest of that country. If the Senate should be of opinion, 
 ihat the claim should draw interest from May 1782, then I submit 
 
17 
 
 that the $3,000 appropriated for the benefit of the family in March 
 1797 should be applied towards such interest, and that the interest 
 should cease in 1832 when the Government was prepared to pay all 
 just claims upon it. While the condition and misfortunes of the 
 family should not prejudice the claim on account of its age on the one 
 hand — they should not on the other hand be regarded as prejudicing 
 the Government by subjecting it to the payment of interest after the 
 time had arrived when it was prepared to pay, both principal and in- 
 terest, of all just claims against it. 
 
 All of which is respectfully submitted, Sic, 
 
 (B) — The Auditor's Report, ^c. 
 No. 105, 113. 
 
 Treasttry Department, 
 
 First Auditor's Office, April 12, 1851. 
 I hereby certify, that I have examined and adjusted an account between 
 the United States and John De Neufville & Son, deceased, late Mer- 
 chants and Bankers of Amsterdam, Holland, and find that there is due 
 from the United States to their legal representatn s, viz: 
 For balance due to said firm as limited and fixed by a Reso- 
 lution of Congress in relation to the accounts of John De 
 Neufville & Son, approved March 3d, 1851, - - - $8,767 60 
 For interest on said balance, from 31 May, 1782 to 1st July 
 1832, being fifty years, one month and one day, at 5 per 
 cent per annum, ...---- 21,956 75 
 
 From which $30,724 35 
 
 Deducting all payments heretofore made, being payments 
 under " an Act granting a certain sura of money to the 
 widow and children of John DeNeufville, deceased, ap- 
 proved March 2, 1797, viz: 
 
 On the 18th March, 1797, to Anna DeNeufville, 
 
 widow of John DeNeufville, ... - 1,000 
 
 On the 25th May, 1797, to Samuel Breck, attorney 
 of Anna Margaret DeNeufville, infant daughter 
 of John DeNeufville, deceased, - . - 1,000 
 
 On the 18th April, 1798, to Theophile Cazonove, 
 guardian of Leonard DeNeufville, son of the said 
 
 John DeNeufville, 1,000 
 
 3,000 00 
 
 Leaves the sum of - - - - $27,724 35 
 
18 
 
 Which ninount of twenty-seven thousand, seven hundred and twenty-four 
 dollars and thirty-five cents, is payable to David Bone, Esq., of Natchez, 
 Mississippi, attorney of Mrs. Anna C. DeNeufville Evans, only survi- 
 ving grand-child and heir of the said John DeNeufville, deceased^ 
 in pursuance of a rosolution in relation to the accounts of John DeNeuf- 
 ville & Son. 
 Approved, MarchZd,lS5l. 
 
 As appears from the statement and vouchers herewith transmitted for 
 the decision of the Comptroller of the Treasury thereon. 
 
 T. L. SMITH, 
 
 $27,724 35 ■f'i^s^ Auditor. 
 
 To the First Comptroller i 
 of the Treasury. ^ 
 
 (STATEMENT.) 
 
 The United States, 
 
 To John DeNeufville & Son, deceased, late Merchants 
 and Bankers of Amsterdam, Hollaftd, 
 
 [Dr. 
 For Balance due to said firm, as limited and fixed by a Reso- 
 lution of Congress in relation to the accounts of John De 
 Neufville & Son, approved March 3d, 1851 - - $,8,767 60 
 Interest on said Balance from 31st, May, 1782 to 1st, July 
 1 832, being fifty years, one month and one day. at 5 per 
 cent per annum, -------- 21,956 75 
 
 $30,724 35 
 From which is to be deducted amount of ail payments here- 
 tofore made, being payments under an act, granting a cer- 
 tain sum of money to the widow and children of John De 
 Neufville, deceased— approved March 2d, 1797 - - 3,000,00 
 
 27, 724, 35 
 Which amount is payable under and in pursuance of a " Res- 
 olution in relation to the accounts of John DeNuefville & 
 Son" approved March 3d, 1831, to David Bone, Esq.. of 
 Natchez Mississippi, attorney of Mrs. Anna C. DeNeuf- 
 ville Evans, only surviving grand-child and heir of the 
 said John DeNeufville, deceased. 
 
 Treasury Department, 
 
 First Auditor'' s Office, April 11, 1851, 
 
 M. H. MILLER, 
 
 Comptroller'' s Office, April 12, 1851, 
 Wm. Anderso 
 
 4 
 
19 
 
 {Note on the Auditor's Statement.) 
 Note, 
 
 The Agent for the claim of John DeNuefville & Son, deceased, con- 
 tends per letter herewith, dated April 10, 1831, that the sum bf $ 3,000 
 paid under the act of March 2d, 1797, " was given as a grant (gratuity) 
 a gift, no account was presented and of course no payment was made. " 
 
 In answer, however, it must be said, that while the title of the Act of 
 March 2d, 1797" an act granting a certain sum of money to the widow 
 and children of John DeNuefville, deceased," would appear to give some 
 countenance to this construction, — the act itself specifically provides, that 
 there shall be paid out of any money in the Treasury, not otherwise 
 appropriated, specific sums amounting to $ 3,000, " in consideration of 
 particular services rendered the Urdted States, during the War of their 
 Revolution, by the late John DeNuefville." The particular services, 
 while valuable, appear to be wholly of a pecuniary character, set forth in 
 the accounts. 
 
 It therefore appears, that the proviso in the resolution of March 3d, 
 1831, for "deducting all payments heretofore made" refers to and em- 
 braces the sums paid under the act of March 2d, 1797, and they are ac- 
 cordingly deducted. To decide otherwise, would be to say, that the pro- 
 viso in the act of March 3d, 1851, has no meaning whatever. 
 
 M. H. MILLER. 
 April 11, 1851. 
 
 (C.) — The Register^! Certificate. 
 
 Treasury Department, 
 
 Register's Office, April 10, 18S1, 
 
 I hereby certify, that there is no charge on the books of this Office for 
 payments made to John DeNeufville & Son, late of Amsterdam, Mer- 
 chants. 
 
 That under the act of the 2d, March, 1797, entitled "an act granting 
 a certain sum of money to the widow and children of John DeNeufville, 
 deceased," the following grants were made, viz — 
 On the 18, March 1797 ''To Ann DeNeufville, widow of 
 John DeNeufville, for the amount of a grant made to her 
 by an act of Congress, passed 2d March, 1797 - - 1,000 00 
 On the 25 May, 1797, " To Samuel Breek, attorney of Anna 
 Margaret DeNeufville, guardian of Anna DeNeufville, 
 infant daughter of John DeNeufville, deceased, for the 
 amount of a grant made her by the act, &c." - - 1,000 00 
 
 On the 18, April, 1798, "To Theophile Cazenove, guar- 
 dian of Leonard DeNeufville, being the amout of a grant 
 made said DeNeufville, per act 2d March, 1797" - - 1,000.00 
 
 },000, 00 
 
 TOWNSEND HAINES, Regisia 
 
20 
 
 (LelUr to Mr. Eva?is^ Attorney, referred to in the Auditor's Statement.) 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 April 10, 1851. 
 M. H. Miller, Esq., 
 
 Dear Sir: The Act of Congress passed at the last Session, makes 
 provision for the settlement of the account of Mrs. Evans, but if I under- 
 stand it, does not require the subtracting from the admitted amount of the 
 claim, the sum of $3,000, which was given as a grant, (gratuity) a gift — 
 no account was presented, and of course no payment was made by Con- 
 gress on a special act to Mrs. DeNeufville, and her children in 1797, for 
 " services and sacrifices. " 
 
 In proof of this, I beg your attention to the "Documents'' accompanying 
 this note — Letters O and P. Neither Mrs. DeNeufville's petition, nor 
 the act of Congress, nor the debates, nor the letter of the Secretary of the 
 Treasury, say one word about the present claim — but admit another 
 claim, arising from sacrifices, services and losses sustained while aiding, 
 or in consequence of aiding the United States, diplomatically. 
 
 Please have a great care of the " Documents," which are to be re- 
 turned to me. 
 
 Yours, very respectfully. 
 
 JAMES NOURSE. 
 
 P. S. — It will be unnecessary to read all the " Documents," but be- 
 sides those marked "0" and " P," you will find, by looking at the in- 
 dex at the end, a letter of Mr. Lee, and also a second letter of his con- 
 tained in a letter of Marshall Sprigg, a member of Congress. 
 
 J. N. 
 
 Treasury Department, 
 
 Register's Office, July 18, 1851. 
 
 I certify the foregoing four pages are true copies of the original report 
 and statement on the account of John DeNeufville & Son, on file in 
 this office. 
 
 TOWNSEND HAINES, 
 
 Register. 
 
REVIEW OF THE 
 
 COMPTROLLER'S REPORT 
 
 To the honorable the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
 United States of America in Congress assembled : 
 
 According to a Resolution of the honorable Senate of the United 
 States, addressed to the Secretary of the Treasury, the First Comp- 
 troller examined the account presented by your Petitioner, as the 
 heir of Messrs DeNeufville &t Son, late merchants of Amsterdam, 
 and reported thereon to the Senate, September 20, 1850. By a joint 
 resolution of both Houses of Congress, adopted and approved March 
 3,1851, the Secretary of the Treasury was authorized to pay to the 
 heir of said firm, the sum of ^8,767 60, with interest, for a certain 
 limited time, which was, accordingly paid on the 15 April succeeding. 
 
 The Report of the Comptroller exhibits a patient and judicious 
 search for evidence, which is candidly examined and honorably esti- 
 mated. It is altogether an able document, and, considering the intri- 
 cacies of the case, is deserving of the highest praise. 
 
 To important portions of that report, your petitioner, the heir of 
 Messrs DeNeufville, feels constrained to take exception ; and hence, 
 from a just regard to her own interests, to solicit a re-examination by 
 Congress, believing that such examination will procure, in equity, a 
 more generous decision in her favor. 
 
 The account presented by the heir of Messrs. DeNeufville & Son, 
 claims a large balance existing against the Government of the United 
 States, in 1782-84. The account, however, when presented to the 
 Comptroller was left open, that every item thereof might be examin- 
 ed by the accounting officers of the Treasury. These have seen fit to 
 allow only 21,919florins,beingsomewhat less thanone half. Besides 
 this serious difference, the rate of interest allowed was only 5 per cent, 
 and the time of the accruing of that interest was limited. Your pe- 
 
•22 
 
 tilioner is Bensible, that while the honorable Comptroller has, as he 
 says elswhere, rejected " all doubtful items, and all items not sustain- 
 ed by the evidence," he has, unfortunately for her, rejected some 
 items which ought to have been allowed — this she desires to show. 
 
 It is certainly, for her, a favorable circumstance, (when the distant 
 time in which the accounts of the Confederation of the United States 
 relating to transactions on the Continent of Europe were made out, 
 and the admitted perplexities of the agents employed, are considered,) 
 nay, a very material circumstance, that, by the Report of the Comp- 
 troller, the sum of ^2,373 7 stivers, charged to Messrs DeNeufville, 
 in Mr. Barclay' leger (E,) is admitted to have been, what it was 
 represented by the heir of DeNeufville to be, viz.: a payment by 
 Mr. Adams of a bill against him, on his private account. The proof 
 of this allegation ^was furnished chiefly by the Mercantile Jour- 
 nal of Messrs. DeNeufville, and corroborated by Mr. Charles F. 
 Adams. (See Comptroller's Report page 14 above.) Thus it is ad- 
 mitted that, in one particular, the Leger of Mr. Barclay is incor- 
 rect, or imperfect. The charge should never have been entered 
 on the Government Book, or else the bill, of which the sum charged 
 was a payment, should have been entered also, as a credit. 
 
 By refering to Mr. Barclay's Leger, page 266, it will also 
 be seen, now that the charge is understood, that Mr. Barclay 
 himself confirms Messrs. DeNeufville's Journal. 
 
 The foregoing, with some other items, which are admitted by the 
 Comptroller, are referred to by your petitioner, in proof of the general 
 accuracy of the accounts kept by her Grandfather, and to furnish evi- 
 dence, that, as confessedly each book of the Government, where the 
 account is kept with Messrs. DeNeufville is imperfect in itself, (com- 
 pare F. the Register's Rev. acct. with D.) so, each may be inaccurate 
 in itself, and therefore they should be considered open for correction. 
 And this the more readily should be admitted, when it is not to be 
 concealed, that Mr. Barclay's Leger was corrected by the Govern- 
 ment itself (in several items where errors occurred) at the final settle- 
 ment of the accounts of Silas Deane ; (see the act passed for relief of 
 his heirs, August 11, 1842, — account No. 6037,) and that there 
 exists in the Treasury Department an old volume, rescued, though 
 half burnt, from one of the fires to which the Treasury Department 
 
 1 
 
23 
 
 has been subject, which shows an account with Messrs. DeNeufville 
 made out for Mr. Barclay and signed by himself, widely differing 
 from that contained in his Leger. There is a manifest error also 
 in Mr. Barclay's Leger, wherein it is stated, that Messrs. DeNeuf- 
 ville charged 2 per cent commission on certain bills in 1780, whereas 
 Mr. B's. own account, which corresponds with DeNeufville's Jour- 
 nal, shows it to have been but J per cent. Besides, Mr. Barclay 
 has omitted to credit Messrs DeNeufville with any commission on 
 the Holland Loan. 
 
 It follows, therefore, that the Government cannot now insist on Mr. 
 Barclay's Leger as infallibly exhibiting a perfect account, for it accords 
 with neither of the other Books of theGovernment, and Mr. Barclay's 
 leger has been found, in other places, confessedly imperfect. DeNeuf- 
 ville &i Son's Books, so far as they go, are accurately and beautifully 
 perfect. 
 
 First. — Let us cprefully examine the important items of charge 
 contained in said Leger. — (1st.) The first is that of ^440,407 18 
 stivers, entered as the amount of 171 Bills of Exchange drawn by 
 Mr. Jackson on Dr. Franklin at 6 months, in payment of purchases 
 made for the Government of United States, by order of Colonel John 
 Laurens' Secretary, Major Jackson, then in Amsterdam. The amount 
 of those 171 bills, however, is entered on the Register's Book as 
 only ^421,443, (see F.) Here is an important discrepancy — and 
 this statement of the amount of these bills, not only accords with the 
 account rendered by Messrs DeNeufville, but, in addition to the 
 entry made by the Register, that officer states parole information 
 given him personally by Major Jackson — recorded at the time. (F. 
 note 1.) That the Register is correct, cannot admit of a doubt, where 
 he charges against Messrs DeNeufville the 171 Bills, as only^421,440 
 — for he says " for their receipt, dated August, 1781 — for four 
 hundred and twenty-one thousand, four hundred and forty bank-guil- 
 ders, equal to 333,816 crowns, 15 livers, being for an invoice of 
 goods purchased &,c." — (F. note 2.) This corresponds with Messrs 
 DeNeufville's statement of the number of crowns. (Letter in Vol. 
 146, Washington papers. State Dept.) In a copy of another letter 
 written by the firm (probably to the President of Congress — compare 
 Dip. Cor. XI. page 302, and evidently written before the accounts 
 
24 
 
 were fully adjusted) these Gentlemen say, " we have the honor 
 «' to lay it, [the Invoice] before your Excellency, as it now amounts 
 
 " to currency j^ for which Congress is charged, and credited 
 
 " on the contrary for currency jl amount of the bills on 
 
 **■ Paris, as we find upon the Exchange of that day, calculating the dis- 
 " count at 6 per cent perannum, on account of inconveniency of the 
 *' bills." ('This letter is in MS. among Messrs DeNeufville's papers.) 
 As the discount here spoken of would be 3 per cent for 6 months, the 
 brokerage would be 1^ per cent for the same time, which are charged 
 by Messrs DeNeufville, (probably together making what was termed 
 " the agio")— or jZ 1 8,964 IS. This sum added to ^42 1,460— will 
 make up Mr. Barclay's charge of j^440,407 18, which, indeed, was 
 the amount of the bills when they became due at 6 months sight in 
 Paris, and was the amount paid by Ferdinand Grand, Banker for 
 United States, as his account shows. But it is clear, that the 
 original amount of the 171 bills was but j^ 421, 440, and whatever 
 more was paid, should have been charged against the Government of 
 the United States, to account of profit and loss — not to Messrs De 
 Neufville ; this were entirely to deprive them of every advantao-e 
 from negociating bills and furnishing goods at 6 months. 
 
 Moreover, it is deducible from the forgoing demonstration of the 
 amount of the 171 bills, (they being only for 421,440 florins,) that 
 as Messrs DeNeufville furnished goods to the amount of ji 422,443 
 19, — for so their account states the sum, and so does Mr. Barclay in 
 his Ledger, not only in the account headed " Messrs. DeNeufville St 
 Son," but also under the different heads o( " Clothing department '' 
 SiC, Sec, wherein every item, even of the smallest kind, is enumerat- 
 ed : — that not only is the difference of the original amount of the bills 
 and the sum paid by F. Grand not to be charged to them — but they 
 are to be credited with the sum of 1000 florins, as the additional 
 value of the goods furnished according to the invoice. If this ex- 
 hibit is not correct, its inaccuracy can be shown ; but no one will assert 
 that it is sufficient to conjecture as the report does — that these ^18,- 
 963 19 stivers were for "commission for making purchases, discount 
 of bills, journey to Paris, &.c," — and thus, in a lump, charge them to 
 Messrs. DeNeufville : which is very singular ; the sum being so charg- 
 ed without any proof. (A. page 7, 16.) Nor is the statement which 
 
26 
 
 occurs near the begining of said Report, (A. page 7.^ that Messrs. 
 DeNeufville " made purchases to the amount of j^421,443, and drew 
 ♦' 171 bills he, for ^440,417 18, the nett proceeds, after deducting 
 " the discount for the lime &lc., amounted to the precise amount of 
 " the purchases and the commissions for making the purchases" — 
 borne out by the fact. Let us suppose it were — 1 ask, (1.) why 
 charge them with the discount? and (2,) Mr. Barclay's Book 
 shows that their commission of 2 per cent was included in the sum ol 
 ^422,443 19 stivers. In fine, it may be observed, that if the 
 j^I8,963 19 are to be charged to Messrs DeNeufville, it could only 
 have been by special contract (which would seem almost impossible, 
 for then, the amount paid by F. Grand would have been 421,440 
 less 18,063 not plus that sum.) But in the failure of the United 
 States to exhibit such contract, it will not be just to charge the same 
 to Messrs DeNeufville — and that too, contrary to every precedent. 
 Your petitioner, therefore, feels herself authorized to refuse an ac- 
 knowledgment of the charge of ^18,963 19 stivers, and insists upon 
 it, that the Register's account is correct, as it corresponds with the 
 " Receipt " of Messrs DeNeufville, and with their accoun t and their 
 repeated statement. 
 
 2. If the 171 Bills were for the exact sum of j^.421, 443 only, 
 and if Messrs. DeNeufville furnished goods above that amount, why 
 should their charges /or lighters and staydays at the Texel, and the 
 expenses of a journey to Paris, be supposed by the Comptroller to 
 be included in the amount of the Bills, as originally drawn or as paid 
 by F. Grand, when the causes of these charges occurred subsequently 
 to the drawing and acceptance of the Bills. The difficulties which 
 arose about the Bills and their payment were such, that Major Jackson 
 (accompanied by L. DeNeufville) went to Paris to obtain their ac- 
 ceptance. (Diplomatic correspondence, vol. Ill, p. 221-233, and 
 vol. Vl, p. 75.) Messrs. DeNeufville received the Bills as accept- 
 ed, and gave their receipt for them, viz., for /.421,443. Sub- 
 sequently to this, Messrs. DeNeufville, charge the items thus : — • 
 
26 
 
 The United States, Dr^ 
 
 1781, June 18 — To amount of sundries bought by order 
 
 of the honorable Col. J. Laurens, /Z422,443 19 
 
 " •• To charges of a journey to Paris of 
 
 Major Jackson and Ld. DeN. to pro- 
 cure acceptance of bills. - - 587 17 
 
 « " To charges for stay-days ; of lighter- 
 
 hire ; travelling to and from the 
 Texel, as per account — two thirds 
 of which are charged to Congress — 
 one third being to the State of South 
 Carolina, ----- 1,309 15 
 
 Now it should be observed, that the journey made by Major Jack- 
 son from Amsterdam to Paris in June 1781 — (see Diplomatic Cor- 
 respodence vol. VI, p. 75, IX, 229, 231, 233,) was as a public 
 functional y, and it was by consent and with the advice of Mr. Adams. 
 (D. C. VI, 75, and p. 38, comp. IX, 245, 246.) And, by their acc- 
 ount, Messrs. DeNeufville furnished the means. Your public officers 
 were so poor when abroad in those times of trial, that they could 
 scarcely command any means. The mercantile Journal of Messrs, 
 DeNeufville shows, that they frequently advanced money to Mr. 
 Adams, and on Mr Adams' request, to others. Major Jackson was 
 Col. Laurens' secretary, authorized by him (see Dip. Cor. Vol. IX, 
 above and Col. Laurens' MS. letters in the State Department) to 
 transact the business of the purchases in his stead. The Govern- 
 ment of the United States was bound to pay such expenses as 
 were necessary to the accomplishment of his misson. Messrs. De 
 Neufville advanced the money to him as to an accredited agent of 
 the Government of the United States. The journey was accom- 
 panied with expenses of course. Messrs. DeNeufville, by no rule of 
 equity, ought to pay them : they advanced the means to a moneyless 
 agent of the Government — and charged them to the Government. No 
 procedure could be fairer than this. As regards the allegation of the 
 Honorable Comptroller, that the amount of the goods being so much 
 larger than Dr. Franklin expected was the cause of the difficulty, and 
 that Messrs. DeNeufville, ♦' knew or should have known that Major 
 Jackson was exceeding his authority, &c.," the truth is. Major Jack- 
 ?on did not exceed his authority : he acted and he avowed he acted, 
 
27 
 
 by commission from Col. Laurens, (D. C. IX, 245, assisted by Messrs. 
 DeNeufville, whom also Mr. Laurens employed, IX, p. 228,) inde- 
 pendently of any authority from Dr. Franklin. Dr. Franklin chides 
 him (D. C. Vol. Ill, p. 231, 232,) for acting so as to bring Col- 
 Laurens and himself almost into collision. Moreover, the whole cor- 
 respondence, and especially the letters of Colonel Laurens to Con- 
 gress (Vol. IX.) expressly repudiate the idea of any authority being 
 derived from Dr. Franklin. We have the important and positive tes- 
 timony of Mr. Adams, that the cause of the difficulty was, the want 
 of an '^ understanding " " sufficientlxj precise and explicit " between 
 Dr. Franklin and Colonel Laurens, (Dip. Cor. Vol. VI, p. 75.) 
 and this is proved by their correspondence of Dr. Franklin and Major 
 Jackson. The allegation of the Comptroller, therefore, cannot set 
 aside the propriety and justice of the charge made by Messrs. DeNeuf- 
 ville, for the expenL,esof the journey. If liquidation of this charge be 
 refused, it will be to make innocent men suffer for the public poverty, 
 and for the want of concert among the United States' functionaries in 
 Holland and France who were "all new in these matters" sa}s 
 Dr. Franklin ; and who therefore might make mistakes. (D. C. Ill, 
 p. 218.) Nor can it be said with propriety, that " the quantity of 
 goods" purchased by Messrs. DeNeufville was greater than could be 
 transported " by the frigate Carolina" — for it was not. The proba- 
 bility is, she might have taken them all; and they were actually stored, 
 either in whole or in part, on board, but were all removed, as well as 
 the goods of the State of South Carolina — while large parcels of goods 
 purchased by Col. Jas. Searle of Philadelphia and by others, were re- 
 tained on board — goods likewise purchased of Messrs. DeNeufville. 
 (All these statements can be proved by public documents, by orignal 
 letters of Commodore Gillon, and by copies of letters to and from Maj. 
 Jackson and Messrs. DeNeufville, still extant.) Dr. Franklin did 
 not blame Messrs. DeNeufville, but chided Major Jackson, and par- 
 ticularly condemns Commodore Gillon, whom he charges witli great 
 delinquency, and expreses a hope, that if" that man " should return 
 to America he would be severely punished, (see MS, letters. Fi- 
 ance papers I, No. 137, p. 483, State Department.) Nor does Mr. 
 Barclay blame them in 1782, (see " Finance Letters," ibid.j And 
 in regard to to the lighters, it should not be forgotten, that Commo- 
 
28 
 
 dore Gillon's course exhibited a vacillation, which created pew diffi- 
 culties and unnecessary and increased expenses at every turn. The 
 charge for a single lighter at the Texel, it appears, from Messrs. De 
 Neufville's Journal (Vol. I. p. SO,) was Jl. 83 6. Many lighters 
 were, probably, necessary in reshipping the goods ; and charges for the 
 use of them, and for unnecessary detention of Messrs. John and Leon- 
 ard DeNeufville at the Texel, and journeys thither, (see their 
 letters,) would be made, altogether proper, and according to the 
 ordinary course of business. Their charge, therefore, will not 
 seem inadmissible, when it is known, that for the space " of 
 three weeks" (DelNeufville's letter in Washington Letters State 
 Department, Vol. 145, p. 71, 72,) they were occupied in loading the 
 South Carolina, and in unloading her and loading the other vessels. 
 Nothing is more reasonable than that the United States should now 
 pay these charges. Thus far, we have a balance o(Jl2,891 12 over 
 and above the amount of the Bills. 
 
 3. While it is a painful history which is given of the " disappoint- 
 ments" connected with the goods and with the vessels containing 
 them, all the events speak nothing against the integrity of Messrs. 
 DeNeufville. The goods were, according to contract, shipped on 
 board the " South Carolina" — thence they were removed to two ves- 
 sels, the " Aurora " and the " Liberty" — and even a third vessel was 
 employed. But who should defray the expense of this] labor? 
 Surely the owner of the goods and the authorized agents of that 
 owner, by whom they were purchased and by whose orders they 
 were shipped on board the South Carolina, according to contract, and 
 by their orders unshipped and reshipped, and by whose bad manage- 
 ment they were, eventually, left behind in charge of the Merchants. 
 After the departure of Commodore Gillon and Major Jackson, they 
 were necessarily removed from those vessels in which they had been 
 stored, (and in which they remained from July to November,^ and 
 removed back to the warehouses and there they continued several 
 months ; until Mr. Barclay took charge of them, and by other ves- 
 sels, forwarded them to the United States. 
 
 But, to perform this work of re-unloading them and placing them 
 in safety for the winter season, until Mr. Barclay 'should arrive, light- 
 ers were again necessary. And does it become an honorable Govern- 
 
29 
 
 menl to leave tlie payment of their expense to Messrs DeNeufville ? 
 Your memorialist admits, that her grandfather does not enter in his 
 account any second charge for lighters, &c., but the charge is found 
 in his Journal. Moreover, it was the custom of the house, to ren- 
 der particular accounts for particular transactions, (this is the fact in 
 regard to the vessels ; — see the account in the State Department,) 
 and this is, most probably, the reason why the second charge is not in- 
 serted in the account relating to the purchase of the goods and their 
 delivery to Commodore Gillon ; which the account above transcribed 
 appears to have been. Now, in the " American Facteur Book, No. 3" 
 ('an invoice book kept by Messrs DeNenfville,) there is a charge 
 against the State of South Carolina, (see G,) which charge was ad- 
 mitted and audited by said State. The goods for the State of South 
 Carolina were marked " L. B. I. N," and in that bill, the charge is 
 stated to be for oiie third of the expenses of transhipping and re-storing 
 and warehouse hire — the other two thirds being to the United States. 
 The 07ie third chBrged to the State is, j^l,182 8. The State of South 
 Carolina acknowledged at the settlement of Messrs DeNeufville's ac- 
 counts, that this charge was correct. Why should not the United 
 States repay the other two thirds, viz., the sum of ^2,364 4. 
 
 4. Another charge is made for certain expenses connected with 
 the sale and transfer of goods in 1782. This item is found in Messrs 
 DeNeufville's Journal, May 1. 1781, transcribed from the Day Book^ 
 page 143, 247. This entry in the Journal is, indeed, four years after 
 the transactions about the goods of the two ships, and three years after 
 the delivery oi the goods to Mr Barclay. The amount is ^957 8 : 
 and in the Journal, the reason of the charges are specified. Will the 
 United States deny the evidence of the Journal, because it may not 
 be accompanied by special vouchers? Considering the intricacies of 
 the case, this would be impossible. Moreover, the books of accounts, 
 which would be evidence in Holland are, by special treaty, admitted 
 to be evidence in the United States. The accuracy of the accounts 
 of Messrs DeNeufville in general, should here plead in their favor. 
 
 5. There are several other charges entered in Messrs DeNeufville's 
 Journal ; and the honorable Comptroller has attempted, (in an ex- 
 cellent spirit, it must be admitted,) to give a clue to those charges. 
 But the Comptroller does not seem to have remembered, that Mr. 
 
30 
 
 Barclay passed the spring and summer of 1782 in Amsterdam, and 
 was there busily employed in shipping the goods, both of the United 
 States and of the State of South Carolina, to the different ports of this 
 country, as fast as he could obtain freight — and that his invoice 
 book (the old semi-burnt book above referred to) shows that he kept, 
 (luring that time, an account with Messrs DeNeufville &. Son, of 
 which there is no transcript in his Leger. Now, as these entries are 
 so late as 1784 and 5, it is more reasonable to suppose they have 
 originated in transactions between Mr. Barclay and Messrs DeNeuf- 
 ville at that liine, and that some particular settlement was made about 
 them. Otherwise, they may lawfully be considered, at least, a part 
 of them, as yet unpaid — and the Government should pay them. 
 These charges are (I) ofj/ZlO,670 16 stivers, and (2) of ^1,360 4, 
 interest for 14 months on ^23,517 11, (recorded. Journal I, p. 189— 
 194. The first entry being of a particular debt, said to be recorded 
 also in the "European Note Book, fol. 168.") The most that can be 
 said against these charges is, notwithstanding the ingenuity exercised 
 in the Report, that they are inexplicable now. And, for this reason, 
 your memoralist does not insist upon them ; but surely, for this same 
 reason the Government should not, after summarily setting them aside, 
 make use of them as if they were charges against Messrs DeNeufville > 
 as the ingenuous author of the report attempts to do 
 
 6. There is another item which your memorialist has charged 
 which the Report has altogether omitted to notice — it is the commis- 
 sion of 2J per cent on disbursements for Congress of j^83,340 5 8. 
 Messrs DeNeufville state, that this commission was due them. They 
 say to GiLLON, to whom they wrote in 1785, entreating bis in- 
 fluence (as he was then a member of Congress) to obtain a speedy 
 settlement — that if a settlement could be immediately made, he micht 
 omit this'charge. But they had entered it in their full account, then 
 transmitted. This account is indeed lost. But a settlement was not 
 then made — and has never yet been made. (H.) 
 
 Is it not just that this commission should be paid ? if, indeed, they 
 made disbursements for Mr. Adams, as your Representative, and for 
 Congress? The amount they say was ;^1,666 f6 on/83,340 5 8, 
 i. e. 46,604 16 8 disbursed; and 36,735 10 for the ships. 
 
 Your honorable Body will find, by referring to Mr. Barclay's 
 
31 
 
 Leger, that other firms charged, and were allowed large sums as 
 commission for transacting the very same kind of business, /or which 
 no commission was ever paid Messrs. DeNeufville, (see the accounts 
 of Van Staphorst and W. &i J. Willink and others.) 
 
 Your petitioner would now present, in brief, the facts thus far reach- 
 ed, with such in part as are admitted by the Report, viz : Dr. 
 
 (1) The particular account relating to the goods, and 
 
 their being loaded, &ic., in 1781, as presented 
 by Messrs. DeNeufville, including the charges 
 for the two ships, / 36,735 10, - - -39,633 02 
 
 (2) Add the second bill for lighters, warehouse hire, 
 
 &c, 2,364 04 
 
 (3) Bill of charges, (a balance probably) for 1782, - 957 08 
 
 (4) The entries in Journal, page 189-194, - - 12,031 00 
 
 (5) The commission asserted to be due — two per cent. 
 
 on j^ 83,340 5 8, 1,666 16 
 
 (6) And we have the total of their charges, - *^56,653 10 
 
 This sum was, probably, due them in 1784, besides interest on a 
 part of it from 1781. 
 
 That they claimed only the balance of ^21,719 on all their trans- 
 actions with the Government is impossible — and no greater error has 
 been committed in the Report, than to interpret a letter in relation 
 to the ships, (which, also, because \t\s unsigned, seems to have been 
 considered by the writter as unfinished, and needing correction and 
 is of uncertain date) probably (the report intimates) August 5 1782 
 in which a balance is mentioned of ^21,719 due them — (see report 
 page 13) as a statement of the bahnce, in full, due them on the whole 
 of their accounts, from 1781 to 1784. The account which was sent 
 to Congress, was that of certain transactions only — others, as these 
 books show, were settled or awaiting settlement in Europe. Or, ii 
 that abraded, unsigned, and obscurely dated letter is to be considered 
 evidence, or is thought to contain a statement of the whole balance 
 due, it is quite as reasonable a conjecture, as that of the author of the 
 Report, that the writers having made some deductions from the above 
 sum of ^56,653 10, intended to say the whole balance was ^41,719, 
 not 21,719 as the figures appear to read. The truth is, that in con- 
 
32 
 
 sequence of the similarity of the figures 2 and 4 as used in their 
 accounts, it requires caution not to mistake the one for the other, of- 
 tentimes. Whatever view be taken of that letter, the explanation of 
 the Report is unquestionably inadmissable for (1) If that letter was 
 written in 1782, a deduction could not have been made of the amount 
 of the bills of Mr. Pickles — for the Government did not charge them 
 with those bills till 1184, nor is there any notice in their books of 
 these Bills from 1780 to 1784. Moreover, (2) the sum of ^1,030 15 
 for which Messrs DeNeufville received credit on the Register's Book 
 and with which the Comptroller credits them in order, (after deduct- 
 ino- the bills of Mr. Pickles,) to approximate to the full balance which he 
 supposes they claimed in 1782, was not credited to them, till 1786 — 
 four vears after. The Comptroller's conclusion must, therefore, be 
 wrong, for it is impossible, that Messrs DeNeufville could, in 1782, 
 have charged themselves with bills which were not charged to 
 them till 1784, or credited themselves in 1782 with a sum which was 
 not paid for them till 1786. Your petitioner, therefore, insists that 
 there was due her grandfather the following sums, viz : — 
 
 (1) The balance of the invoice over and above the 171 
 
 Bills, ^1,000 00 
 
 (2) The expenses of the journey of Major Jackson, - 587 17 
 
 (3) The charges for lighters, he, to first delivery of 
 
 goods, 1,309 15 
 
 (4) The charges for lighters, &,c., to second delivery 
 
 of goods to Mr. Barclay, ... - 2,364 04 
 
 (5) Cash advanced to settle with owners of the ships, - 36,735 10 
 
 (6) The commission of 2 J per cent on money disbursed, 1.666 16 
 
 (7) The bill of charges connected with last shipments, 957 08 
 
 (8) The payment made by Francis Dana, - - 1,050 05 
 
 Making, in full, the sum (in 1782) of - -j^46,651 15 
 And beside this sum, there would seem to be due him j^ 1,000 on the 
 Holland Loan, with commission. And this is exclusive of import- 
 ant charges which are made upon Messrs. DeNeufville's Journal, 
 but which cannot now be explained, (see above 5.) 
 
 Now, if from this sum, the amount of Pickles' bills be deducted, 
 and again the jZ 3,000, which, in 1782, Messrs. DeNeufville ex- 
 
33 
 
 pressed a willingness to relinquish, (i.e. 12,846 15 -|- 3,000 equal to 
 15,846 15) there will still be due your petitioner, since 1782, a 
 very considerable sum ; even on a settlement chosen, in a great 
 degree, by the Government. 
 
 But, your Petitioner would do herself injustice were she satisfied 
 with this result — for it may greatly be questioned whether the Gov- 
 ernment is doing justice, to insist upon the deduction ofeither of those 
 sums. — Therefore, 
 
 Secondly. — She would ask, (1.) on what grounds, after the lapse 
 of more than sixty years, the ^.3,000, allowed Messrs. DeNeufville 
 as joint-owners of the Dutch vessels, " Aurora" and " Liberty," 
 are denied her at a settlement? Because, that in 1782 while Messrs De 
 Neufville were rich and prosperous — a prosperity, only ruined by 
 their advances of money and goods for the use of the United States — 
 and when they corld afford to be generous to a struggling Republic — 
 because they then offered for the sake of, and with the iinplied pro- 
 viso of a speedy settlement, to relinquish that sum — is their heir now to 
 lose it? Your Petitioner expresses her astonishment at this conclu- 
 sion, and remonstrates against such deduction at the present time. 
 She desires to say, that she has yet to learn tliat every offer of sac- 
 rifice made in good faith to take effect provisionally within a limited 
 time, is to be considered perpetually binding. She therefore insists, 
 that it does not comport with the honor of the United States to re- 
 quire or even to ask, that the sum allowed by the Burgomasters of 
 Amsterdam to Messrs. DeNeufville, should be relinquished by her. 
 The ground assumed in the Report is, that in addition to the expressed 
 willingness of Messrs. DeNeufville to relinquish it, they deserved to 
 lose it because they purchased so enormously, &;c. But this allega- 
 tion has already been disproved — and the printed records of your 
 Diplomacy disprove it fully. Major Jackson did not exceed the com- 
 mission given him by Colonel Laurens, the commercial plenipoten- 
 tiary at that time of the United States — and Messrs. DeNeufville 
 were employed by Major Jackson, and with the sanction of Colonel 
 Laurens himselt. Not a shadow of a reason exists why, these Gen- 
 tlemen should deserve to lose their quota of the award. Did the 
 Government chastise Colonel Laurens? or even chide him ? Did it, 
 especially, repudiate the acts of Major Jackson? Will it chastise 
 
 E 
 
34 
 
 Messrs. DeNeufville ? Besides; if in 1782 Messrs. DeNeufville may 
 have expressed, and that m a letter, confessedly, wanting a signature 
 and of doubtful date — if then they may have expressed a willingness 
 to donate that much to the United States: — in 1784, when they made 
 out their account they charged the whole sum of j^.36,735 10. 
 Thus they recalled their offer, because it had not been accepted. 
 Their right to do so, no one will question. The whole amount should 
 be paid. (And see below H. note.) 
 
 (2.) She would now say a few words in regard to tha Bills of Mr. 
 Pickles. The amount of these Bills, _^.12,846 15, is deducted 
 from the account, in order to obtain the balance which was allowed, 
 viz. _;^.21,919. The language used in the Report shows that there 
 might be some uncertainty about making this deduction : though the 
 Bills were thought to be correctly charged. There is, unquestionably, 
 some mystery connected with the whole affair; and Messrs. DeNeuf- 
 ville's heir should have the benefit of that mystery. Mr. Pickles was 
 Captain of the American packet-ship, Mercury, which, with Henry 
 Laurens and other Americans on board, was captured by the British 
 frigate Vestal, 23 August, 1780, (Dip. Cor. II, 461.) Pickles was 
 taken to Portsmouth, England, and there confined. In October fol- 
 lowing, the Bills were received and negociated by Messrs. DeNeuf- 
 ville, and as their Journal shows, (Vol. I, p. 71,) transferred to Augus- 
 tin Quenau h Co., Madrid. There they were paid by Mr. Jay, the 
 American ambassador. But by some Mistake, Bills of Mr. Pickles, 
 (two sets for the same amount) were paid twice. The mistake ap- 
 pears not to have been discovered until December 1783, when the 
 United States Commissioners from different quarters settled their ac- 
 counts in Paris. (Dip. Cor. Vol. IV, 186). One set had been paid 
 Messrs. Hope ^ Co. of Amsterdam : so says Mr. Barclay's Leger, 
 which charges the Bills in 1784 to Messrs. DeNeufville. Now it is 
 not known who had the first set — the probability is, that Messrs. De 
 Neufville had that set — for they were in correspondence with Pickles j 
 and they wrote about him to their London correspondents, Manning &t 
 Co. (gentlemen in London who were so attentive to H. Laurens and his 
 son, and through whom Messrs DeNeufville loaned H. Laurens £1000 
 while in the Tower ; of which proof can be furnished.) Now, it is evi- 
 dent from Messrs. DeNeufville's accounts, they did not discover the 
 
35 
 
 mistake till 1783. Neither did the United States Commissioners till 
 that time. Should Messrs. DeNeuJville then be charged with the 
 Bills? This is a grave question: one which involves nice points of 
 law, commercial and international. Chitty, who might be considered 
 authoritative on such points, by no means, in the places referred to in 
 the Comptroller's Report, undertakes to settle this question — indeed 
 he hardly can be considered as referring to such a case at all, either 
 in those places or in his great work on Bills. If Messrs. DeNeufville 
 knew not of the double-payment for four years, it is more than doubt- 
 ful, whether they ought to pay the amount. Yet, while they were 
 still in the enjoyment of competence, and when about to emigrate to 
 this country to collect debts which were due them amounting to more 
 than $ 150, 000, they seem to have " consented" (so says the Report) 
 to pay them as a matter of "compromise,^' and from regard to the in- 
 terests of the United States. They then charge Pickles with the 
 amount. But Mr. Pickles, who was commander afterwards (on one 
 of the Lakes) of a Government vessel, appears by their books never 
 to have repaid them. Moreover, it is certain that Merssrs DeNeuf- 
 ville, left with Messrs RoUand &£ Co., their successors in Amsterdam, 
 when the former removed to the United States in 1785, funds to pay 
 these bills if demanded. Those funds were never returned to them. 
 This is unquestionably a hard case : and your Petitioner appeals to the 
 generosity and equity of the Government, therefore, not to insist on a 
 charge, by which, at least twice, the estate becomes the payor of the 
 amount of those Bills. 
 
 Thidly. Your Petitioner would now animadvert on two or three 
 particulars of the honorable Comptroller's Report, in which she thinks 
 she has been dealt with in a spirit not to be commended. (1.) On, 
 that portion o/ the claim which has been passed % the Com.ptroller, 
 there is allowed only an interest of 5 per cent. The reason assigned 
 for this is, that " the debt was contracted in Holland.^' Now it is a 
 little remarkable, that all the circumstances under which the debt was 
 contracted, and the time and place, present the creditor in a very fa- 
 vorable light. Risks were run: and a benefit conferred, as well as a 
 debt allowed to be contracted. If all things be carefully estimated, 
 your petitioner is convinced, that they will at once be seen to lay a 
 foundation for payment of interest rather above than under that 
 
36 
 
 which is conimonly allowed. Thus, vviih becoming gratitude, (even 
 though she was much disappointed in the delay of her goods,) the State 
 of South Carolina seems to have judged. Her debt to Messrs DeNeuf- 
 ville, with the concurrence of the United States in 1789, was allowed 
 7 per cent, on the " principles of the Funded Debt." This debt was 
 contracted at the same time, under similar circumstances, and for sim- 
 ilar reasons. Your Petitoner is convinced, that there is no law in ex- 
 istence, either statute or commercial, by which 5 per cent only should 
 be allowed on her claim. Beside, it is apparent that 6, and not merely 
 5 per cent was sometimes chargeable even in Holland. (See DeNeuf- 
 ville's Letter above p. 24.) One important consideration should surely 
 be brought prominently into view here. This debt due Messrs, De 
 Neufville is the last of your Foreign Private debts. It is placed 
 by your great financier, Robert Morris, (I) in the same class as those 
 of Caron DeBeaumarchais, Silas Deane, Oliver Pollock, and the Far- 
 mers General. These, at your several settlements with them, were 
 allowed six per cent. Part of the debt due to Silas Deane was 
 contracted in Holland; no difference was made. And your Pe- 
 titioner knows not of a single precedent for refusing 6 per cent on her 
 claim. That interest has, so far as she knows, been uniformly allowed 
 on domestic and foreign debts: on debts contracted in England, France 
 Germany, Spain, Canada, &ic. And when it is recalled to mind, that 
 the act of June 3, 1784, allowing 6 per cent was passed about the 
 time when those five debts referred to by Robert Morris were much 
 talked of, it would seem probable that the said act had a special refer- 
 ence to this case, with those of Silas Deane and Caron DeBeaumair- 
 chais and others. Your petitioner feels constrained to PROTEST 
 against this narrowness of a Government blessed with a full purse, 
 in making her case an exception to a general rule. 
 
 (2.) Another subject of complaint to your Petitioner is, that even 
 the meagre interest of 5 per cent was not allowed subsequently to the 
 year 1832. She has known no instance of such a claim as this being 
 treated in the same manner. She desires it to be remembered, that 
 this claim has frequently been presented to the Government: it is, 
 therefore, no fault of hers that it has not long since been settled. It 
 was presented in 1782, 1783, 1784, in 1786, 1789, 1798, (K.) 
 1799, and then laid by, only because of the inability oi her family to 
 
37 
 
 prosecute it. She entreats therefore, that since delay in the case has 
 been by no improper neglect, on the part of the claimant, only the 
 same generosity may become apparent in adjusting her claim, which 
 has been apparent in adjusting those of others. 
 
 (3.) Your Petitioner also perceives, that in settling her account the 
 Dutch florin is reckoned only at 40 cents — wher-^as, at the time the 
 debt due her ancestors was contracted, the florin was worth 46^26 + 
 cents. 
 
 (4.) One thing more, and your Petitioner will close what she has 
 to say concerning the Report and the accounts. 
 
 She cannot but express her astonishment, that any deduction should 
 be made from a claim so justly founded and so meritorious, as 
 that of her grandfather, John DeNeufville, because of a gratuity 
 made by Congress to her grandmother, uncle, and mother in 1797„ 
 The Auditor's Report, a copy of which is hereto appended (B. supra,) 
 will show, that at the time of the late payment, an objection was raised 
 by one of her attorneys, to said deduction. Against this, of all acts 
 she considers injurious to her on the part of the Government, she 
 has most to protest. There never was a payment since June 1781, 
 (when the 171 Bills for ^421, 440 were received J of any debt or of 
 any portion of an account between Messrs DeNeufville and the United 
 States. At the time the sum of ^3,000 was bestowed, it was not 
 considered a payment of any pecuniary claim either by the donor or 
 by the receivers. First, It was not so considered by the donor, the 
 United States. (1) It was granted upon a petition for relief, from a 
 family whose head recently deceased, was confessedly a great bene- 
 factor to America, while he had lived in Holland, by his political secret 
 services. Proof of these secret "'services" can this day be furnished 
 in hundreds of letters from the secret agents of the United States in 
 Paris and at the Hague and elsewhere — yet in MS. This same in- 
 dividual had endured great losses, and made great "sacrifices" to 
 accomplish ends and objects, ardently desired by the United States, 
 and greatly tending to her benefit. (2.) The terms of the act of 
 1797, granting the relief, says nothing about an account — though it was 
 known that account existed and had frequently been presented, (3.^ 
 The report of the Commissioner says, " impossible to ascertain and 
 liquidate the compensation due to the services rendered" — (see re- 
 
38 
 
 port.) (4.) In the language used in the debate — (see the papers of 
 the day, in Colonel Force's office,) no speaker made reference to any 
 account. Some of the members of Congress even proposed a larger 
 sum than ^3,000, because they considered the sacrifices ol John De 
 Neufville very great ; and all seem to have restained their desire to 
 benefit the family only by the remembrance ofthelownessof the public 
 purse. (5.) The terms employed by the Secretary of the Treasury 
 in forwarding the sum to Mrs. DeNeufville, imply nothing of a 
 payment. (L.) Neither Secondly, was the sum of ^3,000 con- 
 sidered by the receivers as a settlement of a claim, or any payment 
 whatever, towards the present or any other pecuniary claim. Hence 
 Mrs. DeNeufville, after the passing of the act for the relief of the 
 family, who were reduced to poverty by the failure or neglect of 
 their creditors — renewed her application for a settlement of the 
 present claim both in 1798, and in 1799, and forwarded her account 
 to the Treasury in hope of a settlement. Thisis suffiicient to show 
 that the family — the receivers— did not admit the ^3,000 as a pay- 
 ment of a pecuniary claim, in whole or in part. In proof of these 
 statements, your Petitioner would also call your attention to the peti- 
 tion of her grandmother, to the report of the Committee who report- 
 ed the bill for her relief — to a copy of the letter of the Secretary of 
 the Treasury, and to the letters (still extant) of Mrs. DeNeufville's 
 attorney in Boston to members of Congress. Beside, there is no 
 charge in the Register's office against the estate of DeNeufville — 
 (see Mr. Haines' statement C.) With these remarks she leaves the 
 subject, relying upon the honor of a prosperous Government, now 
 rich and powerful, not to revolce a gratuity bestowed more than a 
 half century since, for "sacrifices and services" rendered to your 
 country, by one who was once able to help her when she was poor 
 and feeble. 
 
 Fourthly. In her former memorial to Congress, (in 1850,) 
 your Petitioner considered herself entitled to request, in addition to 
 a full settlement of her accounts, a further indemnity for the losses 
 of her grandfather and family in the service of the United States. 
 In the petition preferred at present, she expresses her intention not 
 now to offer such request ; yet, she may here, in conclusion, be in- 
 dulged in presenting some considerations which may have a tendency 
 
39 
 
 to conBrm the truth of her claim, and which might, perhaps, have 
 opened the way, had they before been heard, for such a request as 
 she originally proposed : — certainly they will serve to place in a 
 dark shadow the apparent narrowmindedness by which the ^3,000 
 gratuity in 1797, has lately been converted into a payment upon 
 an account. 
 
 Your petitioner states her conviction and the conviction of every 
 person who has taken pains to examine the documents and letters by 
 which her claim is illustrated and sustained, and to compare them with 
 the Diplomatic history of the United States in France and Holland 
 during the memorable struggle of the Revolution, that her grand- 
 father and his family became the victims of their ardent love for the 
 interests of this country, and of the mistakes, disputes, and jealousies 
 of those agents who transacted your Foreign affairs in 1780-84. 
 
 Your honorable Body is aware of the difficulties encountered by 
 those who sought the aid of bankers and eminent merchants on the 
 continent during that trying period. 
 
 From the very beginning of the contest with England, John 
 DeNeufville appears to have engaged his heart and to have opened 
 his purse, in various ways to help the cause of Freedom. In the 
 Diplomatic letters of DeNeufville, and in his letters to those of 
 his commercial correspondents who resided in America, in a thous- 
 and instances, he breathes strong prayers for success, gives thanks 
 for victories obtained, and encouragements when adverse events 
 occurred, indicating altogether an amount of sincere interest with- 
 out a parallel in a foreigner. Acts of generosity were performed 
 by him, which are acknowledged by Dr. Franklin, Mr. Adams, 
 Mr. Jay and others, who assured him, that should America ever 
 become prosperous she would generously repay the obligation, (Dip. 
 Cor. 371, VII, 287, 298, 471,* 302.) This acknowledged obliga- 
 tion, was in part repaid by a gratuity of ^3,000, in 1797. His 
 
 *"Your plan for paying the Bills drawn on Mr. Laurens is noble and generous." 
 "The kind concern you take in the credit and prosperity of the United States 
 "merits their acknowledgements, &c. As a man, I admire and esteem your con- 
 " duct, and as an American, I thank you." — John Jay, VII, p. 290-292. " I ad- 
 " mire the generous principles, which lead you to take so decided and friendly a 
 " part in favor of America. I have too great confidence in the honor, justice, and 
 
40 
 
 zealj therefore, did not confine itself to prayers and congratulations, but 
 was exhibited in substantial labors at the hazard of life and prop- 
 erty. Of all the citizens of Holland, he first endeavored to bind his 
 own country and yours together by commercial treaty : and in this 
 effort he presented himself as your advocate when the storm was ra- 
 ging around your country in its highest fury. His name is recorded 
 therefore, with "services and sacrifices," in the early documentary 
 history of your country. A copy of a treaty signed by John DeNeuf- 
 ville as the Representative of the City of Amsterdam being found 
 among the papers of Henry Laurens at the time of his unfortunate 
 capture in 1780, gave birth in a very remarkable degree to the sub- 
 sequent rupture between Great Britain and Holland. In addition to 
 the testimony of such men as Lee, Adams, Franklin and Jay, numer- 
 ous unpublished papers, still extant, prove the fact that his house was 
 the focus of American influence and intelligence in Holland, and that 
 there, and through him, and at his expense, secret correspondence be- 
 tween emmissaries and secret and public agents of your Government, 
 residing in Holland, France, England and Germany, was successfully 
 carried on. More than one journey did John DeNeufville perform 
 with the purpose of benefit to the United States (see W. Le&'s un- 
 published Letters.) And the temporary secrecy, which policy and 
 prudence imposed on his connexion with our public affairs, while 
 it has removed, in a measure, the outward and available evidence of his 
 disinterested efforts in our ccuntrys' cause, lays a deeper claim for grate- 
 ful and substantial remembrance. Not only had he to bear the odium 
 heaped upon him by the " Anglo-mane Party" (as Mr. Adams 
 terms it) in Holland, — for it was no secret that he was laboring in 
 the American cause — {Dip. Cor. Vol. VI, p. 165, 166,) but he had 
 also to endure severe losses which befel him in the war which soon 
 ensued between England and Holland. By the capture of St. Eusta- 
 
 " gratitude of Congress, to suspect they -will permit you to be sufferers by your 
 " exertions in tlieir favor, &c. — id. p. 296. " Such disinterested acts of friendship 
 " are not common, and ought never to be forgotten." — id. p. 298. The generous 
 " and critical services rendered these United States by Messrs. DeNeufville, have 
 " recommended them to the esteem and confidence of Congress. You will signify 
 " so much to them, and that their services will not be forgotten, &c." — President 
 " of Congress to John Jay, VII, p. 417, 391. The same sentiments are reiterated 
 in Dr. Franklin's luipublished letters to Messrs. DeNeufville. 
 
41 
 
 tia in 1781, his commercial ability was crippled; and being singled 
 out by the British Government as a mark for its revenge, he was 
 forced to sell his funds in English stocks at a sacrifice. When you 
 had no consul at Amsterdam, he nobly undertook in the face of dan- 
 ger and obloquy, to refit the storm-beaten and cannon-battered squad- 
 ron of Commodore John Paul Jones, in that harbor. Numerous un- 
 published letters of that Commander, as well as those which are found 
 among your published documents, attest not only this fact, but ex- 
 hibit the sense of deep and lasting favor entertained by him and by 
 his co-efficient officers. On this occasion, as well as in regard to the 
 transactions about the Bills on Henry Laurens, your Minister at Paris, 
 Dr. Franklin made honorable acknowledgement. " I hope" says he, 
 " it" (the squadron) " will not through the influence of the English, 
 " meet with any unfriendly treatment from your Government. Ameri- 
 " ca will one day be in a condition to return ivith gratitude the 
 " kindnesses she receives from other nations.^' But this kindness 
 was rendered by John DeNeufville against the expressed wishes of 
 the Stadtholder and the people at large — the gratitude is due to him 
 therefore, and the return also. Among other acts of service, be- 
 sides the loan of a £1,000 to the captive Laurens, may be enumera- 
 ted, providing with money and clothes, poor American seamen (lib- 
 erated captives) and aiding them to return to their homes. It is 
 affirmed by one of his correspondents, that he " tried to oblige every 
 American," and some of those obliged Americans admitted it, with 
 praises for his generosity. Money was also loaned to private individ- 
 uals, who were in need, while far from home, much of which was 
 never repaid: (see Dip. Cor. Ill, 160, and DeNeufville's Journal,) 
 and in one glaring instance to a government agent ; payment of which, 
 after long waiting, was demanded of that individual (whose accounts 
 Congress settled, see Register's Blotter, p. 525,) but was refused. 
 His correspondenGe also proves that the hospitalities of his mansion 
 were ever free to Americans: The American festivities of the 4th 
 July, 1781, were openly celebrated at his house, (see Gillon s Let- 
 ters.) 
 
 This brings your Petitioner to observe also, that her grandfather 
 became the " victim," unintentionally, of the mistakes, errors, jea- 
 louses and disputes of the agents of your Government in Holland and 
 in France. Evidence of this is in part furnished in the Report. To 
 
42 
 
 Commodore Gillon especially, but in still greater measure, to the 
 want of concert, so fully revealed in their published letters, between 
 Dr. Franklin, Col. Laurens, Major Jackson and Mr. Adams, may the 
 downfall of Messrs. DeNeufville be attributed. Whatever disputes 
 arose,— and that disputes did arise is undeniable— one thing is evi- 
 dent, that without his own fault John DeNeufville became thetufFerer. 
 It is not necessary now to prove, (for it will not be denied by any one) 
 that the delay of payment for such large supplies of goods, as were iur- 
 nished the State of South Carolina, together with the non-payment 
 of the money advanced for the United States to settle with the own- 
 ers of the Dutch vessels, was, as they themselves declare, the cause 
 of the ruin of Messrs. DeNeufville. " We became the victims of our 
 " exertions in favor of the glorious cause; but we rely upon the justice 
 " and honor of America not to neglect or abandon their most faithful 
 "servants"— (1783:) "Our unbounded forwardness, when the country 
 " labored under the greatest difficulties, brought us, to the unfortu. 
 " nate dilemma, to become the victims by want of proper support." 
 (Messrs. DeNeufville's Letter to Congress, transmitting their account, 
 24 November, 1784, Letter Book, p. 407.) 
 
 Your Petitioner would not be insensible to the kindness of the 
 Government of the United States in rendering aid, in 1797, to her 
 afflicted grandmother and mother, when her grandfather borne down 
 by losses, ingratitude and misfortunes, had descended in poverty to the 
 grave ; his last years embittered by the lunacy of his only and beloved 
 son from similar causes :— but, while the sum then afforded them was 
 considered but a mere moi^y, in return for numerous, and important 
 benefactions, she would respectfully say, that the manner in which that 
 gratuity has been withdrawn in the recent settlement, has, in a great 
 measure, undermined the reasons of her thankfulness. 
 
 But your Petitioner would not be tedious. The sum of the matter 
 is this: a wealthy and generous Benefactor of your country periled 
 and lost his all in serving you ; that which was denied him by a Na- 
 tion harassed and struggling with difficulties, or which was confessed 
 to be an imperfect recompense, will surely not be denied to his grand- 
 daughter by a people now rich, prosperous, and happy. Your riches 
 prosperity and happiness were procured, in no inconsiderable degree, by 
 the " losses, services and sacrifices^' of John DeNeufville, when clouds 
 and dcrkness brooded over your skies. Has not the time come for 
 
43 
 
 the fulfilment of promises and of recompense to self-sacrificing friends ? 
 Your Petitioner therefore prays that a Bill, authorizing the payment 
 of the balance which she claims, may be passed for her relief. 
 For, to use the language of your great Financier, " the reputation 
 
 OF THE COUNTRY WILL BE COMPROMISED UNTIL THIS DEBT BE DIS- 
 CHARGED." {R. 31orris, 1784.) All which is respectfully submitted, 
 By your humble servant, 
 
 ANNAC. DeNEUFVILLE EVANS. 
 Natchez, Mississippi, Dec. 1851. 
 
 D. pp. 20, 22 above. — Mrs, Evans' Account. 
 
 THE UNITED STATES, 
 
 IN AccT. WITH Messrs. DeNEUFVILLE & SON. Dr. 
 
 1781, June 18. — To clothing shipped on board the South 
 
 Carolina, by order of Col. Laurens, /422,443 19 
 " " To boat-nire, charges of stay-days, &c., - 1,309 15 
 
 " " To expenses of a journey to Paris, by 
 
 Major Jackson, &c., - - - - 587 17 
 
 1782, •• To charges for redelivery of the goods on 
 
 board the two vessels, warehouse hire, &c, 2,364 04 
 
 1782, July 11.— Amount of bill against Mr. Adams, - - 2,373 07 
 
 To cash advanced to settle with other 
 
 owners of the ship "Auiora," - - 20,565 07 
 
 •• <' To cash advanced for ship " Liberty," - 16,170 03 
 
 " . «• To charges connected with transfer of 
 
 goods in 1782, 957 08 
 
 «• " To commission on money advanced, &c., 1,666 16 
 
 1786, July, 11.— To cash paid by Francis Dana, - - 1.030 05 
 
 469.469 01 
 (Contra below) 4 23.817 06 
 
 Balance in favor of Messrs. DeNeufviile, ft 45,651 15 
 To which should be added the commission of 
 
 3 per cent onj^4000, "Holland Loan,"* 120 00 
 
 y?45,77l 15 
 
 * Extract from a private letter of John Adams to John DeNeufviile, when he 
 negociated the first Holland Loan, Amsterdam, February 2, 1781. " I have had 
 "much conversation upon this subject with several gentlemen of character and 
 " experience, and am advised, that one per cent to the House for receiving the 
 " money and paying it to the orders of Congress — one per cent for paying off the 
 " interest; and one per cent for paying the principal finally to the lenders, is a 
 " just and reasonable allowance. This commission I am willing to allow." (Comp. 
 Dip. Cor. V. 327, 337 : VI. 4, 268, and Mr. Barclay's Leger, p. 260, 268.) 
 
44 
 
 Contra. (^^^ 
 
 1781, Dec— By 171 Bills of Major Jackson on Dr. Frank- 
 
 „ '^"' „ 421,443 19 
 
 By W. & J. Willink, .... 2,373 07 
 
 ^423,817 06 
 
 (Ep. 22 above.— Copy of Mr. Barclay' s Leger.) 
 
 JOHN DeNEUFVILLE & SON, AMSTERDAM. Dt 
 
 1781, Dec. 31,— To Mr. Jackson 171 Bills, - - -440,407 18 
 " " To Cabarras & Co., Madrid, for Bills of 
 
 Mr. Pickles on Mr. Jay, negotiated by 
 said DeNeufville & Son, and paid a sec- 
 ond time by mistake, the same havmg 
 been discharged to Hope & Co., - . 12 846 15 
 
 1782, July 11.— To W. & J. Willink, N. & J. VanStap- 
 
 horst and Dr. Lande & Fynje of Amster- 
 dam, paid them 2,373 07 
 
 / 455,628 00 
 
 Contra. (Jj. 
 
 1781— By clothing shipped on board the South Carolina 
 frigate, &c., by order of Colonel J. Laurens for ac- 
 count of United States, - - - . . 422 443 19 
 " By new account for balance, .... 33*18401 
 
 Paris, 20 July, 1787. .... ^ 455,628 00 
 
 (F. p. 22, 23 above— Revolutionary Leger in the Register's Office.) 
 JOHN DeNEUFVILLE & SON. Dr. 
 
 1785, May 18.— To Willink & Co., - . / 7,050 $2,722 08* 
 1786,Aug.25.— To Mr. Jackson. - . 421,443 $185,451 47 
 
 $188,175 55 
 
 Ct. 
 
 CONTEA. 
 
 1782 — By clothing shipped per " Herr 
 
 ,7eA o^i"""'"- r^■ " ■ •>^237,105 13 14 95,983 76 
 I7cb. — by t rancis Dana, 4jg qq 
 
 1789. — By interest account, - - 50 00 00 
 
 By transfers, - - - 7,000 00 00 
 
 ',402 14 
 
 [* Figures scratched in the record. They are wrong— yet added into the ac- 
 count.] 
 
45 
 
 F. note 1, page 23 above. Extract from the Register's Blotter, 81 Dec, 1782, 
 Clothing, &o. bought, as Major Jackson says, " with part of a sum of money 
 charged in the account of Mons. Grand, Banker in Paris, charged to Major Jackson 
 for Bills drawn by virtue of his authority from Col. Laurens." 
 
 F. note 2. page 23 above. Extract from Register's Blotter, No. 3, Messrs. 
 DeNeufville & Son, " For their Receipt dated August 1781, for four hundred and 
 twenty-one thousand, four huntlred and forty-three Bank guilders, equal to 
 333,816 crowns, 15 livres, being for an invoice of goods purchased, &,c." 
 
 (G. p. 29 above. — Copy from American Facieur Book, p. 544, 545.) 
 
 " Account of charges incurred on the goods marked " L B I N" since 
 the unloading and storing of the same in the warehouses, March and No- 
 vember, to their being stored in that named "Stocliholm." 
 To different stay-days of lighters since 16 August (where- 
 
 from I) for account of the State of South Carolina, - ^652 00 
 " To expenses of journeys, lodgings, boat-hire during the lay- 
 ing of the ships, the Aurora and Liberty at the Texel and 
 
 the Helder, 185 07 
 
 "To the Haarlm. Vum laborers by the delivery, stor- 
 ing, &c., i 
 
 " To Maas Smit & Co., Waterman's bill, ^ part, 
 
 " To warehouse rent from 1 October, 1781 to 18 January, 
 
 at 17 perM. \ part, 
 
 " To warehouse rent from 18 October 1781 to 18 January, 
 
 at/17per. M. 
 
 " To different small charges by delivery of the goods, 
 " To insurance against fire upon the goods, ^ 58,000 at ^ per 
 cent. -----.-- 
 
 The one third ofthe charges being 1,182 02, as admitted by the South 
 Carolina account — the remaining two-thirds are due from the United 
 States, ^2,364 04. 
 
 (H. p. 30 dhove.— Extract from Messrs, DeNeufville^ s Letter to Gil- 
 Ion.— Copy- Book, p. 408, Nov. 28, 1784.) 
 
 •* On which we never charged any commission, - 46,604 16 8 
 
 •' Nor for the disbursed money on account of Congress,* < i «' ^yn nq n 
 
 83,340 05 8 
 '• On which a commission of two per cent should remain 
 
 our due, 1^666 16 
 
 * This letter is dated November 21, 1784 — and it will not fail to be perceived 
 that then he claimed the full 36,735 10 he had advanced — not deducting the 3 000— 
 and also claims commission on the whole. 
 
 
 20 
 
 13 
 
 
 15 
 
 02 
 
 1 
 
 8 
 
 15 
 
 1 
 
 76 
 
 10 
 
 
 5 
 
 06 
 
 
 217 
 
 10 
 
 fll 
 
 ,182 
 
 02 
 
43 
 
 " This Sir, we observe to you only (that if you choose we should not 
 "pretend to have it paid) you could make a merit thereof in our behalf, as 
 " we never charged any commission for Congress to his excellency, John 
 "Adams." 
 
 (I. p. 36 above. — R. Morris' letter to John DeNeufviUe\ and his 
 
 statement.) 
 
 " Office of Finance, 30 Sept., 1784. 
 
 "Sir, I am to acknowledge the receipt of your favor of the 15th of 
 "June last. It gives me much pain Sir, that the affairs of your house 
 " with the United States are still unsettled. — Your son's state of health 
 " would certainly have prevented the adjustment of them in this country, 
 "had there been no other obstacle.— I can only express my hope, that you 
 " will have full reason hereafter to be satisfied with the justice and grati- 
 " tude of the United States. 
 
 "I am sir, your most obedient servant, 
 
 " ROBERT MORRIS." 
 
 Upon his departure from office in 1784, Mr. Morris evinced the sinceri- 
 ty of his wishes so kindly expressed, by directing the attention of Con- 
 gress to this business : thus, 
 
 " Of all our foreign debts none remain unpaid, (those particular loans 
 " bearing interest and payable at a future period excepted^ but the sum of 
 "eight hundred and forty six thousand seven hundred and seventy livres, 
 "fourteen sols and five deniers due the Farmers General; the sum of 
 "seventy four thousand eighty seven dollars due with interest to Oliver 
 " Pollock, and the balances, which on a final adjustment of accounts, may 
 " appear to be due to Caron DeBeaumarchais, Silas Deane, and Messrs. 
 " DeNeufville & Sons : at least none others now appear, and if any exist 
 "they cannot be considerable. Of the affairs of Mr. DeBeumarchais 
 "nothing can be said with precision until they be liquidated, and if any 
 "thing should appear to be due, the reputation of the country 
 "will be compromised until it be discharged. And the same re- 
 -mark applies to the case of Messrs. DeNeufville and Sons, &c." 
 
 ROBERT MORRIS. 
 
 (K. p. 36 above, — General Washington^ s Letter to Leonard DeNeuf- 
 ville.) 
 
 New York, June 29, 1789, 
 
 "Sir, Your letter of the present month and the papers accompanying 
 "it, have been handed to me since my late indispositon. As all pub- 
 " lie accounts and matters of pecuniary nature will come properly under 
 "the inspection of the Treasury Department of the United States, I shall, 
 •' when the Department is organized and established, have those papers 
 
47 
 
 " laid before the Secretary thereof, and so far as my official agency may 
 "be necessary in the business, it will meet with no delay. 
 " I am, sir, your most obedient servant, 
 
 "GEORGE WASHINGTON." 
 
 (L. p. 38 above.) 
 
 Extract from a, copy of the letter of the Secretary of State to 
 Mrs. DeNcufville in 1797. — "The Secretary of State, with com> 
 'pliments to Messrs- DeNeufville, encloses a copy of the act passed at 
 'the late session of Congress for her relief, &c.," 13 March, 1797. 
 Extract from copy of the act. — '' Be it enacted by the Senate and 
 ' House of Representatives of the United States &c., That in con- 
 ' sideraiion of particular services rendered the United States during 
 ' the war of their Revolution^ by the late John DeNcufville of the 
 ' United Netherla7ids, (^-c. t^c." Extracts from the debate «^'C. — " The 
 ' Petition" of Mrs. DeNeufville and daughter was read — " and a 
 ' letter from John Jay, one from George Washington, two from Mr. Lee, 
 ' one from Hope i.nd Co. of Amsterdam, &c.'' (These letters related to 
 'the services" not to the present claim of John DeNeufville.) "Mr. 
 ' Thatcher moved to strike out 3,000 and insert 5,000. Mr. Ruth- 
 'erford supported the amendments because after this generous re- 
 ' publican had sacrificed his all, we should do something for his unfortu- 
 ' nate family: — he had never heard a single dissent or dissatisfaction at 
 ' the grant made to Count DeGrasse's family,* — he therefore concurred 
 'in the present. Mr. Harper said, the justice of the House and the 
 ' character of the country was implicated in the decision : on such an oc- 
 'casion he would obey the sentiments of his heart, and leave it to his 
 •judgment to justify the impulse of benevolence and generosity ; the 
 'husband and father of the petitioners stood forward almost alone, at an 
 ' hour when the fate of the United Stales was yet suspended in the balance : 
 'he had entered into the spirit of our Revolution and procured a Treaty, 
 ' when scarcely another man could be found in Holland to treat with our 
 
 ministers: he embarked his private fortune in loans for our service, and 
 ' he put those arms in our hands with which we discomfited our enemies ; 
 'he was not even satisfied then, for his house was the asylum and home 
 'of every American that resorted to Amsterdam; add to all this, he em- 
 ' barked the bulk of his fortune in supplies for our support, when our suc- 
 'cess was problematical — not with the cold calculating spirit of a mer- 
 ' chant, but with the ardor of a freeman, &c., &c." [See paper sin Col, 
 Force's office.) 
 
 (N. — Note to Comptroller^ s Report, p. 10 above.) 
 
 This sum, ^8,000, may seem large as a charge in such a casa, but it 
 should be remembered that the ships were furnished with arms and ammu- 
 nition, with letters of marque, with 80 and 60 men severally ; and of 
 
 * Payments were made to the four daugliters of the Count DeGraspe, by act of 
 February 27, 1797, $4,000 in four instalments — by act of 15 January, 1795, in 
 six instalments, $5,153 56 — the last portion was paid in 1803. 
 
LiBRftRV OF CONGRESS 
 
 48 
 
 "{i"'''07i "800 528 4 ♦ 
 
 cpurse the wages of the seamen, their consumption c *" .. *, -.^.i.agc lu- — ,^^ 
 
 the vessels &c., would be considerable during four months or more while 
 they lay in the Helder previous to their discharge. 
 
 (0. — Note to Comptroller' s Report, pp. 11, 16, above.) 
 
 The credit on the Register's Revolutionary Book, for the sum paid by 
 Francis Dana is ^418, 26, which by the Comptroller is on p. 11, said to 
 be;?. 1,045 13 stivers, but in the final account on p. 16, is reckoned as 
 only "/. 1,030 05, August 22, 1786." In Messrs. DeNeufville's Jour- 
 nal there is a credit given Francis Dana for certain bills on B. Franklin, 
 for $425. 
 
 Now it will be perceived that the Revolutionary Book (F. ) does 
 not give the number of florins, and therefore if the florin be reckoned 
 at 40 cents, and if by this value of the florin, (its present value) the 
 account is to be settled, the sum credited should have been j^. 1,045 13. 
 But if the $418,26, be equal to /1, 030 5, that the florin was worth cents 
 40,59+. But in settling Messrs. DeNeufville's account, it is beyond a 
 question, that the florin should be reckoned at its commercial value in 
 1781 — for its value was then considerably greater ; and it gradually 
 diminished, in consequence of the rising consequence of the United States ; 
 less risks in trade with America after the Revolutionary War; and the 
 improved currency of the country. That the value of the florin fluctuated, 
 in exchanges between America, England, Holland, France and Spain, 
 is evident from the accounts then kept. 
 
 e.g. DeN. Jl., p. 71— $6, 147 00==/? 12,435 07 i. e. aM9, 43+ cents. 
 p. 72— 210 00= 463 15 i. e. ftM5,52+ " 
 «. p. 72— 72 00= 156 15 i. e. at 45,93+ " 
 
 .« p. 98— 486 00= 1,068 04 i. e. at 45,51+ " 
 
 " p. 152—210 (May 1781)=/M53 18 i. e. at 46^26+ cents. 
 
 Thus, at the time of the transactions referred to in this claim, the florin 
 was reckoned at least at 46^ cents. At what value ought it to be reck- 
 oned in settling this claim ? 
 
 (P.) — Amount of Pickles' Bills. — Note to Comptroller' s Report, pp. II, 
 
 13, 16, above.) 
 
 These 23 Bills were for $6,147, as DeNeufville states them j and the 
 
 -itroller also. They were reckoned in 1780-81, at/.12,435 7st. : 
 
 butin 1784, they were reckoned at /.12,846 15. But by neither of 
 
 these reckonings is the florin represented by 40 cents. By the 1st it 
 
 was=49,43+, by the 2d= 47,84+. 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 011 800 528 4 # 
 
 HoUinger Corp. 
 pH8.5