ROBERT MORRIS, being accused with delaying the settlement of his accounts with JOHN HOLKER, appears determined to acquit himself of that charge. With this view, he sends, with the letter above men­tioned (of February 26, 1784,) his accounts, for a final settlement, which, according to his statement, nearly balance by credit and debit. He then, in his turn, accuses the agent general, J. H. of having unjustly charged him with such delays, and of attributing them to a wish of withholding a balance due to J. H. This point is to be cleared up by the accounts of the auditors, which, however, cannot materially differ, at least in nominal sums of continental money, from those established by J. H. against R. M. upon the vouchers produced by the latter.

Speaking of the nature of the trust reposed in him, during his agency, R. M. says, ‘You may remember also, that you urged it as a kind of obligation, to take care of the interests of a King, who was in the act of af­fording such generous assistance to my country, and called on me, if I would not act myself, to point out some other person.’ And ^* further says, ‘At length you drew from me my reluctant consent. And whatever else may happen, I have, at least, the pleasure to reflect, that the trust reposed in me was faithfully executed.’

[Page 19]By this paragraph, he says, he reflects with pleasure, that he has faithfully executed the trust reposed in him, tho' he did undertake the King's business with reluctance; he was solicited thereto by the King's agent, who urged him to act for the interest of a good and generous King, and stipulated with him, as a previous obligation, that he should take care of his interest; because he was in the act of giving and affording assistance to his country in the hour of it's distress; he engaged in the King's concerns, and to act in those of Holker's friends on this footing. But, RES MIRABILIS? he afterwards maintains he was not agent, not bailiff in law,—but merely a banker, all the time of his agency.

And further, ‘As you was not only agent for your sovereign, but also for many individuals trading to this coun­try, or speculating in our public funds, the concerns, which I engaged in for you, were both numerous and important.’

In another part of this letter he says, page 9, ‘Remember, Sir, that my transactions with you were merely of the nature of a trust, you put ^* monies into my hands for your own purposes, I held them at your disposition; if I per­formed that trust, and the monies perished in my hands, how am I answerable. Did I ever ask you to place monies into my hands, except when you indicated purchases, or services to be performed? Did I ever refuse to honor your drafts, or obey your orders on me for money? To what purpose then is it that you speak to me of depreciation of monies which I did you the favor to keep for you? I say favor, because the loss in receiving and paying such large nominal sums of paper money, by errors ^† in counting, amount to more than you have an idea of, and the trouble and time consumed therein, none can know, but those who went through the painful experience.’

John Holker entrusted to Robert Morris almost the whole of the business of the Royal Marine, deeming him alone competent thereto; J. H. being a foreigner, unacquainted with accounts and with the characters to be chosen and employed—with the prices of articles,—with the countries where these articles or provisions were to be procured,—with the nature of the money then current,—and the valuations of specie through the continent: he had no clerk, no accountant with him, no credit established to transact or give satisfaction in transacting business, to secure engagements, &c. &c. For all these purposes R. M. was chosen and employed, and at the time J. H. had not another choice to make.

For these purposes, he gave bills of exchange, he put bills on France into the hands of R. M. and also some monies arising from the sales of prize goods and others, salt, &c. &c. However, all this, R. M. says, was reduced to a mere trust of monies deposited with him, which he did J. H. the favor to keep; this favor, however, was to cost an immense sum to the King; for, laying aside all considerations respecting the heavy loss sustained on such of the bills, as it was necessary to sell for the real purpose of services actually performed for the Royal Marine, it appears by the account, that a sum exceeding £.39,000 of real specie value, of which £.30,000 at least were paid in bills on France, are said to have been employed by R. M. in order to make purchases of articles or payments, which together amount to no more than £.11,950 - 8 - 11½ specie value, thus sinking £.39,000 real, in order to pay about £.12,000. A pretty favor indeed!

"Suppose," continues the author of this extraordinary letter, ‘you had entrusted me with any other perishable ^§ [Page 20] article, should I, could I, be made answerable for the waste and loss; while it lay in my store; especially if I re­ceived no consideration for the care and custody?’

This passage of the letter admits of the depreciation of the paper, it being also a perishable article; moreover it im­plies, that if this perishable article did not remain in his store, or in his chest, he is answerable for the waste and loss; and the more so, because he was actually not only a depositary, but a true agent, a bailiff in law, receiving the full consideration he had previously stipulated for (which is also expressed in this same letter) three times the con­sideration or commissions usually allowed for recovering ^* and paying money: if answerable for the waste and loss of the money when not in chest, he is also answerable for the total loss of the bills, either by the untimely sale thereof, or of their proceeds by depreciation, because if he did not keep those public monies in chest, till wanted for the public service, he must have employed them in the interim for his own purposes, to his own emolument, to throw the waste in his hands; and if answerable for the waste, by his own avowal when the money was out of his chest, shall he not produce his books, the only certain evidence in his favor, to prove, that he did keep them in his chest, that he did not employ the proceeds of the bills for his own purposes, that he did not sell the bills in order to get at the proceeds, that he did not take the bills to himself, under the idea of fictitious sales; especially when fictitious sales can be proved against him by this same letter? Is he not also bound; by this avowal, to give full, undoubted and lawful reasons for his conduct, in order to convince us that he had sufficient cause for the sale of all the bills given to Him?

Further says R. M. (page 4) ‘As to myself I claim from the King neither thanks, nor honors, nor rewards. ^† I shall never give myself a moment's concern, whether he gained or lost, on those transactions which I performed by your order: I owed him no duty, he had confided to me no trust, nor conferred on me any authority, if he had, I should have executed his trust with fidelity: you are responsible to him, and may render such accounts as you think proper, mine with you, I send with this letter.’

If the King had conferred on R. M. authority, he then would have acted with fidelity; but when the King's agent confers on him all his authority, then he is not bound to any duty; he may act without integrity in this case, and even charge therewith his employer, and traduce the agent general, because he reposed confidence in his good faith, honesty, reputation and fidelity; he was not then responsible for the trust reposed in him, because no commis­sion in his name had issued under the King's authority, except merely for the accounts of the nominal value of these perishable articles, which he had purchased with unperishable bills; and these he had procured from the King's agent, under the pretence of fallacious accounts, of real expenditures, actual advances of money, and further wants for further expenditures. Suppose he had received from the agent general 100 hogsheads full of molasses, that he was to keep them in his store, and attend carefully to the waste; he accounts for the hogsheads but not for the contents; and when called upon to open the store, and to prove by his cooper, and servants, and books, that the hogsheads were attended to, that they have been constantly in store, and that he has neither sold nor bartered the contents; he then maintains, that the King had conferred on him no authority; therefore that he would neither open his store, thereby [Page 21] to prove the natural leakage and waste of the hogsheads; nor would produce his books, not being bound to act with fidelity or integrity, because he was only employed by the King's agent, and not by the King—because he was not agent for the latter, but only a store keeper, a banker for J. H.

R. M. however adds— ‘As to the business ^§ I performed for you, I must answer it to you, and I do this by shewing a compliance with your orders.’

The following passage will shew that he received more, or pretended to receive more, than the full consideration for his services as bailiff and agent; and therefore much more than he could have claimed, had he been, as he says, a mere depositary, a mere banker.

Page 11,— ‘The fact ^† was that the account of your Boston transactions, as well as all others of these accounts, was inserted in mine by your order, that the whole might appear in one point of view, and a commission be charged on the whole.’

In this business, J. H. did not even benefit of the advice of R. M. during all the time of his residence in Boston: in October, November and December 1778. But as he pray'd R. M. to redact those accounts on his return to Philadelphia, he at the time consented to allow a commission of 2½ per cent. on the whole, on a sum of more than £.305,000, when it ought only to have extended to the sum of £.51,503, paid by him for J. Rowe's drafts from Boston, and J. H's bills on him for £.54,981 - 11- 3, continental currency: one half of this commission was, however, to have been credited to the Royal Marine, and this reduces the claim of R. M. on the whole to one and one quarter per cent. or one half of the above commission, if the claim is admissible on the improper consent of the agent general given at the time, to the proposal of R. M. for his trouble in redacting the accounts.

R. M. has said above, (page 10) ‘that if the King had conferred on him any authority, he would have executed his trust with fidelity:’ afterwards, he adds, (page 15) to his immortal honor ‘I did not ask ^‡ you to put monies into my hands; now go further; if I had been in your place, I would not have drawn for the King's money, until it was wanted for the King's service.’

Does not this accusation made against J. H.—does not this charge preferred by R. M. against his employer—indi­cate, and amount to an acknowledgement, that R. M. knew at the time, that the bills were improperly sold?— This sale he well knew, the accounts when properly stated would disclose: therefore to prevent the charge against himself, and to avoid the consequences, he becomes accuser of the agent general, and lays the blame at his door, though no such charge had yet been made against R. M.—J. H. could not have even suspected that R. M. had ever concealed from his knowledge the management and appropriation of such a large sum as appears by the accounts, nor would he ever have believed it, but from the conviction, that the accounts carry with them, to all who can read and understand them.

However, the following questions arise on this astonishing passage of his letter: If it was, in his eyes, a want of [Page 22] fidelity; if it was not honest in the King's agent general, to have (as he here asserts) prematurely drawn the bills; why does his confidential subordinate agent prematurely sell these bills? Was it, because J. H. had entrusted to him the management of the whole of his business, the transaction of all his affairs, the negociation of those bills, the choice of agents and correspondents for all purchases on account of the royal service, the settlement of the accounts? Was it necessary for R. M. to sell those same bills, before the expenditures in many cases could have been foreseen, much less have taken place? Were the perishable proceeds of the bills, so prematurely sold, to be considered as vested in J. H. or in R. M. to whom the management of this business was wholly confided?—Why were those unperish­able bills, sold for a perishable article: or rather why pretend a sale to P. Whiteside, of £.3,800 sterling of bills, as he acknowledges to have done, by this very letter, and then keep the whole bills for his own purposes, in order to account for the perishable value of their proceeds?—Was this the execution of that trust reposed in him, which he says "It gives me so much pleasure, to have faithfully ^† executed!" And is it thus he was to act for the interest of a King, whose service he had been urged by his agent to undertake, because he was in the act of affording such generous assistance to his country, and of aiding to save him from the wrath of an incensed nation, and a relentless enemy?

In another part of this letter, R. M. describes the nature of the trust reposed in him in concise terms.—Page 15. ‘Can you seriously imagine, (says he) that the depositary ^* of monies, held liable to sudden calls of any and every kind, and who was always ready to answer those calls, would be so weak, as to allow for the perishing ^‡ of it in his hands?’

To this it is replied, that among those articles best calculated to raise money on sudden emergencies, and for sudden calls of the service, bills held the first rank among merchants, for the purpose of an unfailing remittance to Europe: these would have answered the purpose completely at all times, and were not a perishable article.—But it is also to be added, that there never was one sudden call made on him for a large sum of money during his agency: that all the calls made upon him were the consequence of his own measures in almost every instance, of the purchases he had directed to be made, of the expenditures he had authorised, as subordinate agent, and not as depositary or banker.

Indeed it would be rather hard if the monies had come into the hands of R. M. and were to lay with him, till employed, if he sold the bills for real purchases ordered, then actually making, or really practicable, it would be rather hard I say, to make him account for the untimely sale of bills, and the consequent loss by depreciation, pro­vided he always had, as he asserts, the money ready in his chest, to answer sudden calls; and that such money was actually and bona fide perishing in his hands;—in such a case, it might be dealing too hard with a banker, or even an agent, to throw on him the whole burthen of the loss. But if the loss should have proved unreasonably great in proportion to the service he had rendered, if there should be reasons to doubt of the purchases having been ordered by the agent general to him, when he took the bills, or when he sold them to his correspondents or brokers; then and in this case, will it not be incumbent on him to clear up the matter, to shew his books, in order to prove, that, as he says, the money was actually perishing in his hands? Shall we take his word, or the declaration of his [Page 23] friends or partners, or clerks, in his justification, when a positive written evidence, kept on purpose to establish it, and to ground the opinion of the world on or respecting his conduct, can be produced by him in his defence?— Shall not this evidence be produced, since he acknowledges by this paragraph, "That it would be weak in him to allow for the perishing of the money in his hands." Which implies a very different consequence, if he employed the money to his own purposes on the above supposition, and reaped not only the waste of the money, but also the profits of the speculations he made with the proceeds of the public bills; especially when it is evident that he took some to himself, under the appearance of fictitious sales; nay, are we not to suppose that he probably sold others so as to employ the proceeds thereof when in his chest, with and without any distinction from his own monies, as fast as opportunities offered? This he confessed in as many words (on the arbitration) to have done, as constantly as J. H's monies came to his hands, and as any calls whatever were made on him for his own concerns.

Can such conduct and such arguments be applauded? Was it thus that R. M. intended to act for the interest of a generous King in his concerns? Had he forgot that the paper of Congress was but a nominal perishable thing (to make use of his own words)? Had he forgot that he alone kept the books; that he had refused to open a separate set of books; that he had insisted upon blending the accounts of the concerns of J. H. as agent and as a private in­dividual in his own books, with those of his own affairs and concerns? He alone was able to know whether the sur­plus monies were employed for the service, or perishing in his chest; it was, therefore, incumbent on him, either to vest the money, or to have proposed to his employer to vest it in some thing not perishable, not subject to depre­ciation, rather than to let it perish, as he says, in his hands, if really it was in his hands. Can any one believe, that such immense sums, 2, 3, or £.400,000, should have lain for long periods of time, for 6, 8, or 10 months, perishing in his hands? Was he not to have apprized the King's agent of so very unfortunate a circumstance, so as to have provided against future waste or depreciation, if these had been the unavoidable consequences of the times and cir­cumstances? Had he (R. M.) not foreseen, and previously intended to apply those monies to his own purposes, and was not this the consideration he had in view when he reluctantly consented to transact J. H's affairs?

R. M. being challenged by the letter of the 23d of January, 1784, of the agent general, with having refused to keep separate books for the public concerns, he answers:

‘I do acknowledge that you proposed my opening a set of books for the business of the Royal Marine; but, upon my objecting that a multiplicity of books ^* were apt to create confusion and subjected accountants to a greater chance of error, you acquiesced to the introduction of those, as well as the private affairs entrusted to your ma­nagement, ^§ into my books, and after that acquiescence, objections made now, to answer your own purposes, can have no weight, especially as the accounts I render are just, fair, and honorable.’

By refusing to enter the accounts of the public transactions in separate books, in opposition to J. H's repeated re­quest, R. M. thus put it out of the power of the King's agent to look into, or to know the situation of the public affairs, as to the matter of monies on hand: he could not have made out on the books of R. M. the cash account of the Royal Marine, his own, and that of his friends, without knowing also the situation of R. M. as to money in chest; and without being more or less acquainted with his speculations and affairs, and those of his agents and inti­mates. But this could not have been permitted, and thus the agent general was to be kept in the dark. By these [Page 24] means did R. M. alone become responsible for the consequences of his refusal to accede, at the time, to J. H's pro­posal; which was a proper and necessary one, and such as being afterwards made to Messrs. Turnbull ^‡ and Co. was most cheerfully complied with. R. M. would not grant this request; yet, as J. H. placed the utmost confidence in his honor and justice, as he conceived that his services would be highly useful to the King, and as the choice of him, for rendering such services, had been made by his Excellency Mr. Gerard, as well as by J. H. he (J. H.) would not change his agent for this sole reason; especially as he knew, that this agent's refusal of opening separate books, would render him still more and more responsible for all the consequences thereof—a refusal grounded on so weak and frivolous a pretence, so void of truth and reason. In fact, J. H. objected at the time to the entering of the public accounts on R. M's private books; he objects now to the impropriety of the measure, and always thought the refusal, to keep them separate and distinct, very improper. J. H. never did freely acquiesce in, but submitted to the refusal, because R. M. would not do otherwise; and therefore R. M. is now charged with the consequences thereof, by his employer.

Shall not R. M. be responsible, when he alone did know, or could know the amount of the expenditures making, or to be made, and the amount of the bills on France necessary for defraying those expenditures? He alone did and could know the amount of the public monies, or private monies on hand; the management whereof, to save them from perishing, to save the King from loss, himself and his friends from ruin, J. H. had entrusted to R. M. to his good faith and attention, to his agency, upon the most confidential reliance on his fidelity and abilities, on the same footing and principles, as the public business.

How much more strong will this reasoning appear; how weak and flimsy the excuse offered by R. M. and how glaring his criminal intentions, at the time to keep J. H. his employer, and all others in the dark; when it shall be rendered evident that the estimates made, the accounts given to J. H. as settled accounts, (though only settled by R. M. in his own behalf) are not exact; that the balances are untrue and fallacious, and all in his favor, all contrived to establish the grounds of obtaining further sums of money, and bills on France, in order to secure the whole to himself, to work the plan of depreciation in his defence, and to maintain at a future day, that an immense property was wasted thereby in his hands, and had vanished like snow before the sun: all this will appear by the accounts to which we refer the reader, and to the observations thereon. Nay, when large nominal sums of the public paper, then said to be perishing in his hands, were still to be accounted for, when heavy sums of the same money, belong­ing to J. H. or his friends, were supposed to be in his chest, and were also to be accounted for; if it should appear that he was still claiming ^* balances in his favor, claiming bills for advances, which he said, he had made on the public account; will it not be as clear as day light, that even as banker, or depositary, R. M. was untrue, was in­accurate and unjust? Will it not therefore be believed, that when he refused to keep separate books, he meant to keep the agent general in the dark, to abuse his trust, and to profit by the confidence reposed in him? Was not this refusal necessary, to conceal the consequences of the premature and untimely sale of the bills, and of depreciation of money, which, he says, did perish in his hands; lest a redress of grievances might have been sued for at a more early [Page 25] period, or rather, that he might have time to accomplish a settlement, and obtain a full ^† discharge, before the con­sequences of his conduct could be perceived and fully ascertained?

Was it not on account of these terrible consequences, that R. M. would not send on the 26th of February, 1784, (vide page 18) the vouchers in support of those accounts, he then forwarded to J. H. with his famous letter of that date? Was it not for fear of these consequences, that he writes on the 2d and 3d of March, that he will not even give communication of these vouchers, without all claim of depreciation is formally and for ever given up, previous to all communication thereof? Was it not through the fear of these consequences, that he intimates (page 14) that he conceived it was of no importance to ascertain the precise dates of receipt and payment of paper money. Was it not through fear of these consequences that he writes a letter in 16 long and full pages, to prove that J. H. had no claim whatever for depreciation on him, during the whole of his agency; forgetting that he himself urged and got passed a law, declaring that every one shall receive and allow depreciation on all unsettled accounts.

Besides the accounts and the balances of the estimates, which R. M. says he made at the time, we shall find other proofs of the claims he made for his advances on behalf of the Royal Marine, as early as the 11th of March, 1779. Vide his letter, page 16.

‘The account sales of bills of exchange, dated the 11th of March, 1779, contains a sale to Peter Whiteside of 91,428 Livres 5 sols, of which one bill for 4571 Livres 7 sols was on his account; the remainder (equal to £.3800 sterling) was on your and my joint account taken at the current rate, towards reducing the advances which had been made for the Royal Marine: and afterwards I agreed to give you the sum of £.5700 (continental Money) ad­vance on your half, for which you are credited the 12th of May, in your account current, being a profit you gained thereon.’ —A little further he says, "And yet you ask me for depreciation on those ^* accounts."—Further, "And in a transaction where you have already derived the benefit of the actual depreciation."

The first object that strikes, in this passage of the letter, is the sale made to Peter Whiteside (Peter Whiteside and Co. was the house of R. M. in which he held 3 shares in 4) of bills which belonged to him, as he says, on account of his actual advances for the Royal Marine, and were taken afterwards for his and J. H's joint account. It will be necessary that the books of P. Whiteside be examined, to see whether any mention is made of this sale, and whether he did not gratuitously endorse these bills to the order of R. M. which must have been done to cover the sale, and give room for a charge of a commission, &c. This is the more necessary, in order to ground further minute investi­gations of R. M's books, in this and other respects; and to establish, whethe he was or was not, under the date of the 11th of March, 1779, in advance for the public account, as he now says, and as he told J. H. at the time. If he was not in advance for the Royal Marine at that period,—if, on the contrary, he then owed the Royal Marine, or had on hand, more than £.100,000 continental, belonging to the King, did he not deceive J. H. then, and in his letter of the 26th of February, 1784? What shall we believe from him? Does he not owe these bills, which he confesses having taken, under the cover of a fictitious sale? Has he not taken any more, and how could he say, that J. H. was in advance for half the sum? Was not this also imposing on his understanding? Was it not fur­ther for the purpose of loading J. H. with depreciation afterwards, on that part of the bills (says R. M.) taken on his account, that R. M. pressed J. H. to let him have those bills in order to offer the £.5700 continental of advance, as expressed in the accounts under the date of the 12th of May, 1770; and afterwards offered them to J. H. by [Page 26] Swanwick, at the exchange of 100 for 1, at a later period—say in 1781—that advance being worth, and to be valued in May, 1779, at 24 for 1? This is what R. M. calls a clear profit, gained by J. H. on the sum of £.1900 sterl. in bills of exchange, the whole of which he took to himself; and afterwards adds— ‘How can you ask for me de­preciation ^† on this business, on a transaction wherein you have actually received the benefit of the actual depre­ciation?’ Is not this an astonishing question, made in a letter wrote to that very man to whom R. M. refuses all depreciation during his agency, and wherein, also, he reprobates J. H's claiming depreciation on a transaction where it has been granted by himself as early as the month of May, 1779? When sitting as his own judge, be­twixt J. H. and himself, R. M. grants the principle of depreciation in May, 1779, by an impulse of his own con­science, of his own knowledge of right and wrong,—depreciation for two months, from the 11th of March, 1779, to the 12th of May following,—and refuses it in 1784 on this very sum, and others received by him during the fol­lowing months and years! He reproaches the agent general for claiming it in his own affairs, but much more in the public account; forgetting, we suppose, that he had got unjustly and without any cause, the whole sum of £.3800 sterling, as now appears evident from the vouchers. A great part of these vouchers were obtained from R. M. when sitting on an arbitration, in the month of June, 1784, and not before.

Can we not here say, and with some ground, Quem Deus vult perdere, prius dementat? If it is proved, as it will be, that, he was not in advance on the 11th of March, 1779, is it not clear that R. M. misapplied those bills (for £.3800 sterling) induced thereto by the agent general's confidence in him?—If at other various periods, under the pretences of his advances, ^‡ of balances in his favor, &c. R. M. did claim more bills at the very time he owed nominal sums to the Royal Marine, and immense sums, nominal and real, to J. H. and his friends, on their private account (—which sums he was also in duty bound to appropriate for the public service, before he could, without injustice to them and J. H. have sold any one bill—) and if, under those circumstances, he did actually take up more bills from the Royal Marine—does he not owe them to the King, being taken without cause, or to Holker's absent friends? Especially if he had then in hand their money to purchase the bills therewith; and this must have been the case, since he exclaims—Can I be so weak as to make good depreciation, since J. H's money was perishing in my hands, was wasting in chest?—Perhaps, however, it was employed for his own purposes.

Whatever may be the result of the reflections and opinions of the readers hereof on the foregoing observations, it is now proper to transcribe another passage of R. M's letter, which fixes the time during which his first principles of accounting are to take effect; for we must observe, that these are only of short duration, not general, not perma­nent.— ‘From the time I ceased (says R. M. page 17) to be your agent, our accounts are no longer to be con­sidered [Page 27] as of the nature of a trust, neither are the accounts between Wm. Turnbull and Co. and me of that nature; I am, therefore, willing to settle my accounts with them, and those with you for subsequent transactions upon prin­ciples of depreciation.’

From this we are to conclude, that while any confidence, dependence, or trust is reposed in him, for so long all monies entrusted to him are to be permitted to perish in his hands; all concerns confided to his integrity, judgment, and knowledge, are to be forgot or unnoticed as unworthy of attention; no depreciation whatever is to be allowed: but when no dependence, as he says, is placed on his talents and fidelity, he will, of his own motion and accord, allow that the principle of depreciation shall take place between him and J. H. in all cases, where he was no longer to act as agent for the King's interest, the interest of J. H. and that of his friends! Is it R. M. who reasons thus? What are then his ideas of fidelity, trust, &c. &c.

Let it however be admitted, for a while, that these principles are grounded on the solid basis of honesty, and that they will lead to substantial justice, from the accountant R. M. to his employer J. H.—Then put the question— Do the accounts of his agency, those sent with his letter of the 26th of February, 1784, agree with these principles? The answer may be collected from what follows:

William Turnbull and Co. his successors in the agency, began their operations in the first days of January, 1780; they credit in ^§ account R. M. under the date of the 1st of January of that year, for 120,000 dollars, paid by him to Blair M'Clenachan, for the lease of the house they have occupied since that date; and, R. M. says, he credited them in account for ^‖ 54,722 Livres 18 sols Tournois, in bills he received from them, order of J. H. as their em­ployer; they delivered these bills as agents for J. H. therefore he acknowledges, by his said letter, that they were actually his agents under the date of the 15th of February, 1780. ^*

Now let us weigh the words that follow the above transcribed paragraph— ‘I find that at the time (No. 1.) when the Royal Marine owed me upwards of three hundred and forty thousand pounds continental currency, I had in my (No. 3.) hands of your private funds, and those of your friends, nearly to the amount of three hundred thousand pounds continental; and, as I continued to receive more after that period, I readily agree (No. 6.) to set aside Mr. Swanwick's proposition of valuing the balance in continental money, on your private account, at one hundred for one; he meant to do justice between us; but it did not occur to him (No. 2.) that I had received on account of the balance in my favor, on your account, as agent of the Royal Marine, the sum of £.342,775 - 2 - 6 continental money, when it was worth sixty-one and a half for one, and that having at the same time near [Page 28] £.300,000 of yours and your friends in my hands, you ought to have the like value for at least the latter amount; and, therefore, to save all trouble of investigation (No. 5.) as to the exact sum, I agree (No. 4.) to compute the same sum which I received £.342,775 - 2 - 6—at sixty-one and a half, and bring the amount thereof to your credit in the hard money account,—this (No. 7.) I think is just, and therefore, Sir, I offer it.’

No. 1. Here he says, that the Royal Marine owed him more than £.340,000—

No. 2. He says, ‘it did not occur to Swanwick that I had received on account of the balance in my favor, on your account, as agent of the Royal Marine, the sum of £.342,775 - 2 - 6.’

How are we to reconcile these two sentences? Did the Royal Marine owe this sum to R. M. or to J. H.? What does the writer mean? Could such ideas occur to Swanwick or any other? However, it had occurred to R. M. to receive £.342,775 - 2 - 6, instead of £.340,000, which he says were due to him at the very time that not one farthing was due to him! On the contrary, he then owed more than £.30,000 specie to the Royal Marine alone, if justice is done to him and the King.

No. 3. Here R. M. acknowledges, that three hundred thousand pounds, of Holker's friends money, were then in his hands, at the very time that he took £.342,775 - 2 - 6 from the Royal Marine, which he says were due to him! If he took this sum at the time, why did he not pay J. H's friends? If he took the amount of £.342,775 - 2 - 6 in bills from Holker's agents, why did he not give those bills to J. H's friends? If he kept the bills for his own ac­count, is he not to pay them to his friends, with interest from their date? If he took them on account of a supposed balance, said to be due to him by the Royal Marine, is he not to return them with interest, to the Royal Marine? It is his business to extricate himself from this embarrassment; it is his part to get out of the dilemma, into which his own avowal has plunged him, if he can; for, really, we cannot, on this occasion, come to his assistance.

No. 4. Here he offers the balance, which he says he had received, namely £.342,775 - 2 - 6, (and which he supposes to be due, when he ceased to be agent for J. H.) at the exchange of sixty-one and a half for one,—the rate of depreciation in April 1780—But why does he not offer it at the exchange of December, 1779, when the balance was due, and he had ceased to act as public agent—or of January, 1780, when Wm. Turnbull and Co. had commenced agents; was it because the exchange then being at sixty-one and a half, instead of forty in January, he thereby would only pay two thirds of the sum he owed in January? The auditors will establish this point, nor shall we hereafter forget the proposal.

No. 5. R. M. seems very desirous of avoiding all investigation, as to the exact sum due to J. H. or to his friends, at this as well as any other period, and therefore No. 6, he readily agrees to lay aside Swanwick's proposal of one hundred for one; he adds No. 7, this I think is just, and therefore I offer it.

But to return to the object of depreciation, let us take up the accounts, which were transmitted by R. M. with his letter of the 26th of February, 1784. There we shall find a sum of £.150,000 continental, and 2½ per cent. commission ^* thereon, charged to the debit of the Royal Marine,—for so much he paid to J. H. with his consent, by his order dated the 30th of May, 1780, to William Smith Esq. of Baltimore, when he directed him to credit in account, Messrs. Wm. Turnbull & Co. as agents for J. H. for the above sum of £.150,000, and for which he says, he was to understand with J. H. How, therefore, could R. M. presume to bring this charge against the Royal Marine, for a payment made on the thirtieth of May, 1780, and to the credit of J. H's. agents, when his public [Page 29] agency had ceased in December, 1779?—He acknowledges that he is willing to allow the principle of depreciation, at the close of his agency, and to extend it to all sums he received at a later period:—and yet he does not think pro­per to avail himself of the advantage of his own proposal, when he pays money on account: certainly, this man must be moved by some extraordinary principle of action, on this occasion: and this may be readily conceived of one so strenuous in exertions in his own favour. Here he refuses the exchange of sixty for one on the foregoing £. 150,000, ^* which would entitle him to a sum of £. 2500, hard money.

However, upon a closer examination, the true motive will be discovered, and the original leading principles of this man be established:—Without this charge of £. 150,000, nominal, R. M. would have fallen considerably in debt to the Royal Marine, at that very period, at which he declares, that £. 342,000 and more were due to him, and this would not look well. Upon further investigation, it will be also acknowledged, that this charge and commission are to act nominally, though not virtually and in fact, against a sum of 450,000 Livres Tournois given him in bills in March, 1779, ^† and which he then claimed on account of his actual advances, the whole of which large sum, equal to more than £. 20,000 sterling, has melted wasted away, and perished totally and wholly through a premature unnecessary sale which occasioned consequent depreciation, as he says, in his hands: therefore we must own that, though R. M's mode of reasoning is not always clear, just and consistent, still his actions, his principles and manner of presenting and redacting estimates and accounts to his advantage, are perfectly consistent; all calculated to acquire an overgrown fortune, at the expence of truth, of justice, of the King and his employer, of him whom he termed his bosom friend, of him who wishing to throw equitable advantages in the hands of R. M. had confidentially entrusted him with the means, and generously seconded his oftensible views. But, can this be allowed? Shall R. M. involve this sum in his accounts, in order to make these nominal £. 150,000, ^§ paid in Baltimore, (when he knew not probably what to do with the money) be brought in the public account of his agency, at the very time that he actually owed J. H. in his private account, near three times this sum, and probably twenty times the sum in real specie, if the law, equity, usage and a scale of depreciation are to govern and take place throughout his transactions? This scale it would be necessary to establish, in order to explain his operations and mode of action, even if justice did not require it.

I will here remind the reader of these observations, that the principles he lays down in his letter, he does not even follow in those very accounts, which he sends to his employer on the very same day; or rather he chooses in his letter to express one idea, and as an accountant to follow another, much better calculated to cover his mode of operation: nor is he more consistent in his argument on this occasion than in his proposals or principles of account render.

On the argument, we have seen that he maintains, he was only a banker and depositary for J. H. during the whole of his agency. The transactions between J. H. and R. M. were merely of the nature of a trust, says the [Page 30] latter: and therefore he will not allow any depreciation, nor account on the principles of depreciation for any con­cerns, during the whole period of his agency. His agency on the public business ceased in die first days of January, 1780, and because he allows the principle of depreciation to take place on all occasions subsequent thereto, either between Wm. Turnbull and Co. or him, or J. H. and R. M.—therefore, says our logician, I will fix the rate of value of the monies due to J. H. in December, by the scale in April; but I will fix no value on the monies I paid to Wm. Turnbull and Co. on the 30th of May, 1780, in Baltimore. Let us now ask him, why he allows any depreciation whatever, to J. H. without working the good deed throughout? Is he aware of the consequences of this his con­cession? Does he know, that by the same principle on which this concession is grounded, he grants all that is claimed from him? For he must either be absurd in the extreme, and erroneous in every one of his arguments, or he is guilty of injustice;—he must either be deprived of the use of reason, and be destitute of common sense or com­mon honesty, or he must give up the bills, unless he can procure a better title to them than appears in his letter.— And now for the proof of what is here advanced.

R. M. maintains, that during his agency he was not answerable for depreciation of monies, put (he says) into his hands. Why? Because he was only banker; he was not agent-responsible, not a bailiff in law; but only an agent-depositary, accountable only for nominal sums of a perishable currency:—in other words, he was accountable for the number of hogsheads of molasses put into his store—for the mere hogsheads, and not for the contents.

He afterwards argues, that when he was no longer agent, he can no longer be considered to have acted on trust; and, therefore, he will grant the principle of depreciation.

Now let it be observed, that according to these ideas, if he ceased to be agent he ceased also to be a banker or de­positary. The question, therefore, in this view, is—what became of R. M? Quis invenit? I know not of a description by which we can afterwards legally define his subsequent character or functions. He denied in his first position, that he was responsible for J. H's concerns; he was not bailiff, because he was only agent upon trust, id est, says he, banker and depositary. Afterwards, when come to nothing, when he has no known legal or avowed mercantile character and denomination, then he says—after I ceased to be your agent, then I will allow the principle of depreciation; but as it is difficult for him to change his character, we must reason thus: he allows of depreciation when he ceased to be agent, because he was no longer employed upon trust; and, therefore, we say, because he was banker and depositary only. It is unlucky for him in this case, that he must also allow depreciation on the preceding accounts; because he maintains that he was then also banker and depositary.—For one and the same principle must be followed throughout; unless principles respecting his accounts are to change with the new year, and that the principle of depreciation is not to be attended to in 1779, but only in 1780. If he denies this rea­soning to be fair and just, then he must fall into the following absurdity and argue thus: While I was agent (id est banker) I will not allow the principle when I ceased to be agent then I will allow the principle, because I received the subsequent monies not as agent, but only as banker.

However, to put an end to all such puerile jargon, it is necessary to remind him, that he never ceased to be agent of J. H. in those concerns entrusted to his management, from the moment they came under his notice and care to this hour: he only ceased in December, 1779, to act as agent in new concerns on the public account: he is yet accountable for the previous transactions; though he discontinued and closed his operations early in 1780, and might then have rendered his accounts thereof, if he had thought proper not to delay the settlement, having been constantly pressed on this score. In 1780, he engaged for and with J. H. on his private account, in some new concerns, after that same period, at which, he says, we are to consider his agency as terminated.—Of the whole [Page 31] concerns and balances, in his hands, he owes accounts; and we are obliged to bring suits at law, to obtain such as justice and equity prescribe.

If R. M. never ceased to be J. H's agent and bailiff and banker, as he contends in some instances, why should he allow the principle of depreciation in 1780 and 1781? Was it because in these last years he only received pence, and because he received pounds, in 1777, 1778 and 1779? The reason is then most admirable, though it would aggravate the injustice. Whether banker, or broker, or agent and bailiff, he owes depreciation, according to his own conviction and principle, from the time, when he first commenced to act on the concerns of J. H. in his private and public capacity: especially, as he previously engaged to act for his interest and that of the King, and conse­quently to save them and guard them and J. H's friends, from damage, loss and ruin: —he was agent or banker responsible on a scale of depreciation in the end of the business and, of course, in the beginning and progress thereof: nor can any distinction be made between those interests and concerns, which relate to the public service from those of a private nature; nor can any difference of principle or of value be made, between the King's bills and dollars of Congress's money, or J. H's dollars and his friends' dollars and bills.

Thus far, we believe the argument against R. M. to be just, candid and true; and if granted, then it will fol­low, that if R. M. owes depreciation on the proceeds of those bills he sold, because the sales were unnecessary, be­cause there was no employment for their proceeds, or because he had other public or private monies, given to him for the service, perishing in his hands—he also must make good the loss on the sale of those bills; for he sold them without cause. Having proved that he took the very bills in kind, under the cover of false and fictitious sales, made to his partner Whiteside, we have a right to presume he sold the other bills, which he afterwards claimed in that same month at least, say March 1779, in order to apply the proceeds to his private speculations and purposes, when money would command any thing on the most advantageous terms; or to presume that he also got other persons to endorse other bills for him; and this is but just to suppose and believe, unless he will produce freely and fully his books, cash­book, &c. in order to convince us that he was only guilty of taking improperly one sum of £.3,800 sterling, with­out paying one farthing at the time on account thereof. This argument and the consequences are fair; for the money could not have perished in his hands, if he had not ^* sold the bills before the expenditures took place; nor would the bills have been sold at all, for much the greater part were never necessary for the supplies or expenditures of the navy and its service; therefore the unjustifiable sale of these bills did occasion the loss on the sale, with the loss by depreciation on the proceeds thereof, if any did happen. Thus R. M. is in duty and in conscience bound to make good these bills and their interest ^† in the Royal Treasury in France, through the King's agent; because this loss has occasioned additional loans to the King's minister, which loans have incurred the burthen of heavy interest in the time of war: and this consideration is the more to be ^§ attended to, especially as this war was waged to save R. M. from ruin, and his country from the ravages of an implacable herd of foes.—Nor can any of his fellow citizens scruple to admit these principles, when they will consider the nature of the trust reposed in R. M. and of those argu­ments set up by him in his defence, and when they will recollect that he knew all these consequences, since he says, (page 15) in order to criminate the agent, or to terrify him from his duty—that had he been in the place of J. H. he would not have drawn for the King's money until it was wanted for the King's service—they will readily per­ceive, [Page 32] that tho' R. M. reasons like a child in this letter, he knew enough of depreciation, at least in 1779, to have kept the bills on hand, rather than to have sold them without cause or necessity, if he had not had some excellent in­vestment to make of the proceeds, some great speculation to enter upon, sufficient to make good all possible claims against him; otherwise he would not have sold them to possess himself of a perishable article, in order to let it waste in chest, much less have reproached his employer J. H. with the folly and injustice of his conduct in drawing the bills on France, in order to screen himself from the consequences of selling them. No one can suppose R. M. igno­rant of his duty, nor of the nature of paper money. Why, therefore, did he thus sacrifice the King's ^* interest in the first instance, and afterwards attempt to sacrifice the King's agent, as an atonement for his own want of fidelity to both King and agent?

After what has been said, we may now transcribe some further passages of this letter, in order to throw some additional light on the subject. When called upon to separate from his accounts those relative to the transactions personal only to J. H. in order to shew the advantages gained by R. M's operations, so as to oppose them to the losses sustained by depreciation—our ingenious writer answers, (page 14) ‘But I neither mean nor pretend to any such thing; I have already said, and again repeat, I ask no credit for any savings; I am not accountable ^† for any loosings; nor will I compensate to the King or to you for any depreciation during my agency in your affairs. At the same time it is not clear to me, that you would not have to pay rather than receive on the King's account; for at the time ^§ when the settlement was made before Mr. Gerard, I was actually in advance, though from the accounts the balance is considerably against me.’

He also says, (page 14) ‘Whether during the whole time there was or was not a balance in my hands, is totally immaterial ^‡ to me: it was always ready at your order to draw it out when you pleased: I repeatedly, at your de­sire, made estimates for your government in this respect, and my books and papers were always open to you: thus much Sir, I have thought proper to say on the general principle.’

He, however, in the remaining part of his letter, says much more on the same subject. But to the point—Who can believe that his books and papers were always open to J. H. when he had such strong reasons to conceal the true situation of the affairs of the Navy from his employer: when he pretends that an estimate ^** was an account settled; when he refuses all communication of all vouchers, ^§§ relative to his agency, during the year 1779,—in support of accounts sent only in 1784, unless all claim of depreciation, whatever, is previously and fully renounced against him: when be accuses the agent general for having drawn those bills, which he sold afterwards to receive the proceeds: when he refuses the use of his cash-book ^†† which would prove what he did with the proceeds of the bills, or with such of the bills which he took in kind, under the pretence of his advances: when he refused to open [Page 33] one separate set of books for the agent's business, because it would create confusion, and give rise to a greater chance of error: when he refused to give all and every information in his power, on the arbitration, though he had pro­mised to lay the truth and the whole truth before his judges, and every document necessary to establish the facts, which promise he previously made to his Excellency Mr. Van Berkel, before the bonds were agreed to be signed by J. H. &c.—After such conduct, who will believe that R. M's books and papers were always open to J. H? What are these abovementioned estimates? Are they conformable to the books? Are they conformable to the accounts rendered, and to those to be settled by the auditors? Are they accurate, correct, full and true? Does not R. M. claim balances, by the estimates and accounts? Did he ever produce one account before April, 1780, by which a balance appeared to be due to J. H? How, therefore, can he say or pretend, that it was not his fault, if the ba­lances due were not drawn out of his hands, or that these sums of money, due by balance, were ready in his chest to J. H's order? Is not this assertion of R. M. untrue and erroneous, if it is proved by all the accounts, and by this same letter of the 26th of February, that he was always craving for more bills, because, as he said, he was in ad­vance? How could he possibly be in advance for J. H. and at the same time maintain, that the balances due to J. H. (balances utterly unknown to J. H. on the public account, until the year 1784) were constantly kept on hand, to the order of the agent general, to draw them out when he pleased? And if this assertion is untrue, (and the ac­counts, as rendered originally and now profered, prove it to be untrue, and demonstrate that he always concealed the balances due by him) will not this sort of argument operate against himself, and prove that he owes depreciation, and the loss of sale upon the bills? His assertions, excuses, and apologies, are not grounded on fact, on the solid basis of truth. By attempting to prove his innocence, by defending with vehemence, and with unjust insinuations against his employer, those principles by which he insists, that he is not to be made accountable for his transactions, is it not apparent that he knows, there are great loosings on his mode of establishing the accounts, and that he fears the consequences of his conduct will affect himself, and not the King, his employer, or his employers friends? It would have been much more to his honor and reputation, if he had said less on the general principle.

But why should he be so much afraid of the consequences? He is possessed of an immense fortune, acquired by the means above described, and by others, more or less laudable; but principally during 1778 and 1779, ^* through the very heavy sums entrusted to him by J. H. independent of the public account, and this will be proved by his books, if necessary. He has put the waste and depreciation in his own scale, or pocket: besides the use of the mo­ney of J. H. he has moreover enjoyed the advantage of obtaining the most useful and early intelligence, from the ge­neral confidence reposed in him by his employer, and other superior characters; advantages, with which alone any reasonable speculator, situated as he was, might have been satisfied. Is he not, under these circumstances, not only liable, according to all principles of equity and justice, but also able to make good all losses arising from the misap­plication of the public bills to his own purposes? And because these bills, on the public and private account, amount to a large sum, is he therefore not to pay the same? Is he to be excused from paying interest, when on the one hand it can be proved, that it was a breach of trust in him to have sold the bills, if there was no occasion for making sale thereof; and when on the other hand, he has brought ruin all around him, through such a breach of trust, and [Page 34] dishonor ^† on the head of his employer, both by his delays and the errors that his fallacious estimates and accounts have made him innocently commit, and unregardedly plunge into? Shall he not shew his books in such business, to obviate all the suspicions he has so justly given rise to, on his account, and that of J. H?

It cannot be supposed that these and other arguments will be neglected on such an important occasion, where every thing dear, and precious, and valuable, is at stake between R. M. and J. H. the latter of whom will necessa­rily be charged with infidelity to his trust, unless justice be obtained from the former.

J. H. certainly wishes he could terminate the present investigation of R. M's letter and conduct; but his duty to his King and country, whom R. M. neither fears, nor values, urges him to every exertion on this important occa­sion, as well as that which he owes to himself and family.

Therefore, to proceed—page 13. we read, ‘The 15th of February, 1780, I received by your order bills to the amount of 54,722 Livres 18 sols, which were, according to that order, received of Messrs. Turnbull and Co. whom I have credited for the same, at the then current price of 6 dollars per livre; afterwards 36,752 Livres 6 sols Tour­nois of these bills were paid for a brigantine, in which you and I were concerned, and 5500 Livres were sold at one dollar advance, is Dollrs. 5500 and 12651 Livres at three dollars advance, is 37953 Dollars. 43453 for one half of this gain you are credited by me in account current on the 7th April, 1780; and on this sum ^§ also you claim depreciation, when you have actually received it.’

In addition to what has been said on a similar subject, respecting a sum of £. 3800 sterling, in bills sold to Whiteside, in May, 1779, (vide page 22.25) we must express our surprize that he should mention this sum of 54,722 Livres 18 sols, when speaking of depreciation, since the remaining bills, not employed on joint account, in the purchase of a vessel, being sold in April, J. H. needs claim no depreciation on the 43,453 dollars (which he says, were a gain,) for this good reason, because he actually offers it at the exchange or rate of scale in that month, but in 1781, R. M. (through Swanwick) had offered the advance dollars at the rate of 100 for one, and therefore J. H. had then at least a right to claim another valuation from the principal R. M. and this is hereby confessed.

Let us now ask, For what reason does R. M. interest J. H. in these bills? Did he take them from William Turnbull & Co. on their joint account, or on his account solely? What do Mr. Turnbull's books say on this occasion, and those of R. M? That House debits him for these bills to the credit of the Royal Marine, on account of the balance claimed by him as due to him from the Royal Marine, because he paid nothing on account thereof. In his accounts R. M. credits them for these bills, as bought from them, though by the foregoing entries, it would seem he did not buy them, but assumed them on account of the balance he then claimed, and on account whereof, he afterwards took many more, to the amount of 169,000 Livres.

It is true, he may pretend to have a right to charge J. H with the value of one half the bills paid for the brigan­tine Hawke, at the time, ^‡ but then he ought to have paid the value to the agents of J. H. Messrs. Turnbull & Co. [Page 35] because no balance was due to him from the navy; but, on the contrary, he actually owed a balance at this very period, and he ought especially to have paid for J. Holker's share thereof, because he owed a great deal more than his share to him on his private account, or to that of his friends; but R. M. chose here to assume the public bills on credit, and keep J. H's private monies employed otherwise for his own advantage. Shall he not pay interest on monies and bills thus obtained and thus detained?—

The questions, therefore, on this subject are—Was a balance due to him or not? And how much, if any? Did he owe monies at the time to J. H? When 36,000 Livres were only necessary for this transaction, or rather, when he had only 18,000 Livres to claim from J. H. on account of his half of the brigantine, why then take 54,000 Livres from the subordinate agents of the Royal Marine, leaving J. H. to account to the King as he can, for the whole sum, and which will not be very easy, since the sale thereof was not necessary for the service? Why take bills from J. H's agents without paying for them, when he had monies enough of his on hand to purchase J. H's share of the bills? Would J. H. have consented to this arrangement at all, if R. M. had not led him to believe in December, 1779, that he was in his debt by the accounts he produced and gave to J. H. for his government? Would he not have insisted that if R. M. wanted the bills he should have paid for them, since thereby it would have prevented a sale of a similar sum, on account of, and for the subsequent expenditures of the Royal Marine by the agents at the time? And is not R. M. answerable for these bills to the Royal Marine, since he did not pay for them, though, he says, he bought them; he charging J. H. for the value of 18,000 Livres paid on his account, taking to himself the gain on the remaining bills? This would be fair and just. Otherwise, would not J. H. be the dupe of the snares into which R. Morris's accounts and misrepresentations at the time led him unawares? We say snares, for R. M. could not be ignorant of their reciprocal situation, but this was not the case with J. H.

If, notwithstanding the foregoing reasons, he should persist in refusing to refund these bills thus unjustly taken, as we have proved, how can he insist upon a quantity of tobacco (about 79 ^* hogsheads, for the cargo of this brigantine Hawke) furnished in May, 1780, being replaced in kind by J. H. or accounted for at the present value? Why should not J. H. be permitted to account for this tobacco at the value thereof in May, 1780, ^§ since R. M. owed him ten times more money at that time, when the tobacco was agreed to be taken as a payment on account? If R. M. says that he borrowed the tobacco and paid it only at a later period—whose fault is that? Had he not the use of the value of the tobacco during the whole interval? And could he not therewith have purchased 79 other hogsheads, to replace the tobacco at the time if it had been convenient? Had he not employed all J. H's money in speculations as well as his own, lest both might have perished in his hands? Or shall it be just, that R. M. should not refund bills when he had no right to them, from the Royal Marine, without paying for them, and at the same time be permitted to claim tobacco, said to be lent to J. Holker, when he had his money to purchase an equal quantity, or that same tobacco? Shall R. M's mode of statement ^† be admitted, because the bills to be repaid by him, and the tobacco he [Page 36] claims from J. H. are both of a higher value, than when it was his duty to have paid for both, to have purchased both, with J. H's monies? In other words, shall R. M. because he has to account for his transactions, dictate in 1784, the form and principles of accounts at his own will and pleasure, to vary them in every operation according to his interest, and explain away the fortune of all his employers, or shall justice, law and equity take place in this case? We claim nothing more.

When speaking of the improper claim of R. M. for bills on France, as early as the 11th of March, 1779, for his pretended advances on account of the Royal Marine, we delayed mentioning a transaction which took place about the 7th of that same month, and under which date R. M. credits the Royal Marine for £.24,666 continental, pro­ceeds of £.2740 - 13 - 4 sterling, by him received in bills on France.

When in Boston, J. H. drew on R. M. at ten days sight, various bills to the amount of near £77,656 - 5 - 0, which were afterwards reduced by J. H. while in Boston, to £.54,981 - 11 - 3—they bore date of the 16th of October, 1778.

On account thereof, J. H. remitted a bill of £.61,196 - 1 - 3, drawn by a continental agent on the commissary general of Congress, and passed by J. H. to the order of R. M. advising him at the same time—not to receive this money, but in case of need for the King's service; as he wished it to remain with Congress, on account of provi­sions supplied by their agent in Boston. R. M. however got this bill paid in Philadelphia, at the treasury, on the 10th of November following, through the hands of Benjamin Hogeland his clerk; but whether with or without any necessity for the King's service, the accounts of the auditors will more precisely ascertain. A few of these bills drawn in Boston by J. H. on R. M. were paid in December, 1778, the rest in January, February and March, 1779. However, on the 7th of March of that year, of these Boston bills a sum of 63,338 dollars 4 s6, or there­abouts, was profered to R. M. for payment, being part of those drawn by J. H. to the order of Adam Babcock of Boston, and was given by Adam Babcock's correspondent as part payment of the £24,666 continental, necessary for the purchase of the abovementioned bills on France for £.2740 - 13 - 4 sterling, which were also drawn at the re­quest of R. M. to the order of said Adam Babcock.

Here we must first observe, that in order, we suppose, to conceal this transaction and the dates of acceptances or payment, no bills drawn on R. M. have been produced as vouchers in support of his accounts, though all vouchers were claimed from him and ordered to be given up by the arbitrators.

2 dly. All the bills of J. H. on R. M. from Boston, not charged as paid in 1778, are charged in his monthly account, redacted for the arbitrators, as paid in January, 1779, though few were even accepted for payment in the run of that month.

3 dly. This money proceeding from the bill drawn on the commissary general of Congress, was not necessary in 1778 to R. M. Nota bene. ^*

4 thly. The bills on account thereof, unpaid in 1778, were taken up by J. H's public bills selling in January, [Page 37] February and March, 1778, as appears by R. M's confession in his letter, which, circumstance he mentions in or­der to criminate bis employer, though he knew that the suspicions he throws out were unjust.—Of this we shall speak more at large hereafter.

5 thly. This confession proves, that the money from Congress not being wanted for the King's service, the whole or greatest part thereof might have been better employed for the use of the continent, than in the hands of R. M.

6 thly. If the bills upon France were employed for the purpose of taking up in 1779, the bills drawn upon R. M. on the 16 of October 1778, is it not a strong presumptive proof, that in November, 1779, R. M. had employed for his own purposes the whole £.61,196 - 1 - 3, which he carefully had got paid, without necessity, from the public treasury? Is it not apparent, that when he paid those drafts in 1779, he had no money on hand but what arose from the daily sale of the bills on France, supplied him by J. H. for his pretended wants?

7 thly. On the 7th of March he had not any money in chest, or a small sum, for he took and claimed from J. H. £2740 sterling in bills, to discharge Holker's drafts on him from Boston; these drafts and J. H's bills on France being in both cases drawn to the order of Adam Babcock of Boston, the bills being negociated and the drafts taken up at one and the same instant.

8 thly. This poverty of R. M's chest, in March 1779, will appear established to perfect conviction, since he acknowledges on the 11th day following, to have sold to Whiteside & Co. and afterwards taken £.3800 sterling to himself, on account of his advances for the Royal Marine, and for which advances he claimed the bills from the King's agent.—The pretended advances he would not not have felt or dreamt of if he had been rich in chest; where­fore we may conclude, that when he agreed upon the arbitration, that he employed all Holker's money in his hands, without distinction whatever, as opportunities offered, he did not say too much; since his claim of bills on the 11th of March, on account of his advances, is supported by his claim of bills on the 7th; because he could not take up the Boston drafts so conveniently, without either diverting the funds on hand from some lucrative employment or vestment in view, or without selling some object or investment, or merchandize on hand or in store, at a lesser profit than it would have commanded at a later period.

9 thly. We must further remark, that on the payment of these drafts from Boston, and on the negociation of the bills, R. M. claims and is entitled to the commission of an agent by previous stipulation, tho' he scarcely received a dollar of continental money in either case, nor did he even indorse Holker's bills, since he got them drawn to the order of Adam Babcock. Yet he maintains,—he was not agent responsible, or bailiff, but agent upon trust, a banker; especially since he received no consideration for the care and custody of the goods in store, for attending to the King's money in his chest, which, elsewhere he says, was perishing in his hands—Did the money of Congress in this case, or the money arising from the bills on France of the King's agent, perish in his hands, in his chest, in his store?

10 thly. From the above we may form an idea of the manner in which he carried on his operations, when under cover of the confidence reposed in him by J. H. with what zeal he held forth his aid and assistance to his country, then struggling for independence, and working against the tide of depreciation of their currency. Thus he attended to the interest of a generous King and nation every where fighting for his safety, and the future happiness of himself and his posterity! Whatever may be the case in this respect, every one will be convinced, that depreciation at least never reached R. M. in this instance; that no money in this instance perished in his hands; that the public bills were not employed for public purposes, but to take up his own engagements (having himself employed those monies trans­mitted to him, to answer all demands made upon him). Then, shall he not return the bills with interest, since the [Page 38] bills employed on this occasion turned out a most advantageous speculation in themselves? This advantageous em­ployment we shall, for the sake of investigation, also here explain.

£.20,000, which he received in November, were equal, according to the scale of depreciation at 6 for one, to

(specie) £.3,333 - 13 - 4

£.20,000, which he received in March from the bills of J. H. were then at 10½ for one, and are equal to

£.1,904 - 15 - 3

which deducted, leave a balance of

£.1,428 - 18 - 1

in favor of R. M.—Thus supposing the vestment of the continental money in specie in November, and the sale thereof in March following, R. M. would have cleared £.1428 - 18 - 1, by depreciation alone, on the money of Congress, on one sum of £.20,000 ^* only; and this may explain why he took up the money from the treasury on the 10th of November, without any other possible reason. But in bills the profit is much greater—he was only to ac­count nominally for the proceeds of the bills drawn at his request to the order of Adam Babcock, in March, 1780, at a later period; and this cannot have taken place by his accounts, but in the fall of that same year, when money was at 30 or 40 for one, and then the profit is in proportion greater. Suppose the nominal employment on the King's account was made when money was at forty, then the profit is £.2,833 - 13 - 4, on a sum of £.3,333 - 13 - 4. Can such profits be allowed in equity? Can the loss on the sale of bills be allowed in order to give R. M. such ex­tortionate advantages? And shall the King's agent be condemned to make good these bills in the King's treasury in France, for the sake of such a subordinate agent, in whose honor he had confided, because he was also confided in by his countrymen, fellow-citizens and Congress?—For a subordinate agent, who declared on the arbitration, that he knew nothing of depreciation in all 1778 and 1779, and who accuses his employer of want of fidelity to his sovereign, because he drew the bills which he (R. M.) employed, to fulfil his own engagements? By way of apology to him, for this severe scrutiny and investigation, we must here transcribe what he says on the subject of those bills drawn on R. M. from Boston, and which subject we have entered upon more fully in our first letter of self-justification, wrote in reply to R. M's wicked insinuations in his favorite letter of the 26th of February, 1784. (Vide page 15.)

Speaking of the claim of depreciation on general principles, and on the nature of the accounts betwixt him and J. H. he writes:

‘Before I quit the subject I will select two or three instances from those accounts, which will bring the reasoning more home to your perceptions. The King paid 400,000 Livres for two prizes, taken by the privateers Hancock and Boston; you agreed with the owners for £.70,000 lawful money; you paid in part your bills for 45,000 Livres, (£.7875.) and drew on me for the remainder £62,125—which sums together make £.70,000 lawful. These drafts on me, equal to £.77,656 - 5 - 0, Pennsylvania currency, were paid by me when your public bills were selling at 900 per cent. on sterling, reckoning Livres at 10½ sterling: consequently these bills were paid with somewhat less than 200,000 Livers; the remainder on the whole transaction was a gain to you of 155,000 Livres Tournois.’

This paragraph and business we have elsewhere explained, but we did not then choose to observe to R. M. the consequences of the confession he so liberally makes, that J. H's drafts on him drawn in October, were paid by R. M. from the proceeds of the public bills sold in March, 1779, or with those very bills in kind: a confession which R. M. made for the purpose only of drawing from thence the inference, that the agent general was pocket­ing [Page 39] 155,000 Livres Tournois their representative value; when in fact and reality R. M. was himself contriving to pocket the greater part of this same difference, and 500,000 Livres more, under his ingenious mode of redacting and presenting accounts, and by refusing all depreciation thereon. But how could J. H. pocket any such difference? For when R. M. says, under the date of February, 1784, that he paid £.77,656 - 5 - 0, Pennsylvania currency, of Holker's drafts on him, he asserts that as a fact which he knows to be untrue; because he credits J. H. in his ac­counts of Holker's Boston transactions, under the date of January the 14th, 1779, ^* for £.24,962 - 2 - 6—for as much of those same drafts which J. H. himself took up while in Boston, at the request of the parties concerned; and be would have done the same for all, if they had applied to him there.—Therefore R. M's calculation is false, his relation of the fact, wrote when the accounts were under his eyes, is untrue.—What shall we believe from such a man?

But to shew that malice, and the fear of accounting on honest and just principles, possessed his soul, and de­prived him of all reason, when he wrote this infidious letter, it is sufficient to remind the reader of his saying that J. H. when he paid his own drafts on R. M. did it with the proceeds of his public bills on France. He forgot that J. H's money and that of his friends paid in July and August, 1778, to R. M. and his remittance on the com­missary general, are credited in account to J. H. and were to be employed by R. M. to take up those same drafts on Philadelphia in 1778, for which (he says) the proceeds of the public bills were employed by J. H. in March 1779.— tho' these proceeds were received by R. M. by him employed in his own speculations or to take up his own en­gagements, and have entirely disappeared through depreciation, if his statement of accounts is allowed, and have occasioned the total loss of the bills drawn, as he says, to take up Holker's drafts from Boston. Let us now grant to R. M. for a moment the full force of his allegation against his employer, and with him pretend to believe—that the difference on this whole transaction, on these 400,000 Livres, was a gain to him (J. H.) of 155,000 Livres Tournois—(Vide page 16.) What can we conclude from thence? Let it be supposed, that J. H. did attempt to gain 300,000 Livres on 400,000 Livres, still he would not have attempted to gain as much as R. M.—£.2800 out of £.3300—and sacrifice one third of the original value of the bills on the sale thereof, in order to raise the £.500 necessary to make up the difference of payment. And if J. H. is supposed to have actually made the gain, accord­ing to R. M's words, then we shall fall into an absurdity; for all Holker's accounts are grounded on those of R. M. which form near one third of the value to be accounted for, and are the first to be accounted for; therefore he has not made the gain of 155,000 Livres, since he has not ever yet been able to redact, much less propose his accounts, in order to make any gain whatever.

From hence it is also to be concluded that J. H. has not even attempted to make this gain; but it may still be sup­posed that he had that intention, and that R. M. knew his intention: this being granted, his argument will run as follows:

J. H. working the nefarious plan of depreciation against the King, or in other words, making great gain himself through a nominal set of accounts, insists with R. M. that he shall account to J. H. on a scale [...] depreciation, for his transactions on behalf of the Royal Marine, at the very time that R. M. can prove, that he (J. H.) had intended at least to gain 155,000 Livres by depreciation, from one single payment of 400,000 Livres, made on behalf of the King: [Page 40] and as so gross an injury to the King's interest must not take place in favor of J. H. therefore he inserts in his letter of February, 1784, that J. H. has actually made the gain of so large a sum. Unluckily R. M. forgot that the assertion deserved a reply.

Is it because J. H. (to speak plain) has cheated the King, that R. M. is to cheat J. H? Is it because J. H. had intended and attempted to cheat his King, that R. M. is to cheat actually and effectually J. H. and also the King and J. H's friends, through the fallacious medium of depreciation? But if J. H has gained 155,000 Livres, and R. M. gains them upon J. H. where is the profit to J. H? Can he in this situation be termed a cheat, with any truth? Without having derived any advantage from his fraud, especially by R. M? At most it can only be said that he did attempt it, but was weak enough to be outwitted in the attempt by that confidential agent, whom he employed and paid to redact the accounts of his own transactions—his Boston transactions. But if this gain is gone from J. H. how will he be able to refund the King, should his ministers one day or other discover the attempt, and the knavery of the agent general? How will he be able to account to the officers and crews of Count D'Estaing's Fleet for the real value of the monies which the commander thereof entrusted to his good faith? And if this game is to be played upon J. H. throughout, by R. M. how then will J. Holker's friends be redeemed from ruin, when their for­tunes will have been dissipated under the cloak of depreciation, and the loss be explained away by R. M. in a set of accounts?

Is R. M. to attempt thus to cheat J. H. and then call out cheat first, turn informer, and threaten J. H. ^† that if he should squeak, or shake even through fear, he will go and tell the King his master? This is too much. And is this language to be held by R. M. when he knew that as early as January, February and March, 1779, in all Holker's letters to the King's secretaries of state, he informs them of the savings he has made on the Boston trans­actions, of the advantageous rate of exchange of bills, then selling in Philadelphia for the payment of the debts con­tracted in Boston by the King's fleet, and due to individuals, to himself, and to Congress? This R. M. knew at the time, he knew that J. H. made his pride thereof, and that he vaunted and gloried in his successful endeavours for the King's interest, to R. M. himself, to Mr. Gerard, and all others to whom he could confidentially speak on the sub­ject. This R. M. has heard J. H. speak of repeatedly: but, res miranda! at that very time, R. M was medi­tating the plan of accusing him, some day or other, of these very exertions on the King's behalf; and to maintain at a later period, that the whole was a cheat, because there was a gain of 150,000 Livres to J. H. on 400,000 Livres, in order to cover his own plan of working depreciation against J. H.

It may be supposed by some, that this was not really intended by R. M. that it was only a hint, by way of obser­vation, made from R. M. in a letter to J. H. so artfully written, that tho' it conveyed the idea of a gain that could be made by J. H. if his accounts were properly stated, still J. H. could never be imprudent enough to shew the letter, or make any use of it against R. M. because the insinuation would be against J. H. and the secret of his gain of 155,000 Livres suffered to transpire. But here again R. M. is foiled in his object; for the King's ministers were fully informed of this whole business, in a series of letters, which explain the whole; therefore, if they are one [Page 41] day imposed upon by J. H. it will be with their eyes open and in noonday; and if, as R. M. pretends, there is any gain whatever to J. H. it will be the free gift, the free concession of the King through his ministers: if such a profit could exist, even then it would be but a just reward of his fidelity to the King's service and interest: but this cannot be, since it would only enable him to do justice to the King, to the officers and seamen of the King's navy, and to J. H's friends in Europe, whose money was to be employed for the King's service by J. H. and of which the greater part was afterwards put into the hands of R. M. for this very purpose.

Notwithstanding the extreme length of this memorial, we must now further remark, that R. M. seems to lay great stress on the circumstance of the accounts, respecting J. H's transactions in Boston in 1778, being entered in R. M's books in 1779, at J. H's request: He asks, (Page 13) " How are they to be separated? (i. e. from his ac­counts.) Where are your instructions for the purpose at the time? He adds, in the same Page, ‘The effort now made to separate them, is with a view to establish your demand of depreciation: but, although it is in that respect immaterial to me, I will not consent to it.’

This refusal of R. M. is extraordinary. J. H's transactions in Boston are perfectly distinct from those of R. M. in Philadelphia: he never would have consented to, or could be obliged to make good any losses to the King or to J. H. on J. H's operations and transactions in Boston, in which he had no concern; which he neither advised, di­rected or concerted. On this occasion R. M. was really a mere book-keeper to J. H. recording in the run of 1779, one part of J. H's transactions in Boston, which took place in October and November, 1778, and which only came to R. M's knowledge in the year following, thro' the confidential communication of J. H. He was neither a banker or agent in this business: he was not to loose by being merely a recorder of accounts; he could not reasonably have any profit in view; he could not claim or disclaim any depreciation thereon. Nay, page 11, he reasons on this subject in the following words: ‘Robert Morris, (sub-agent to J. H.) accounts to the agent general of the Royal Marine. (i. e. to J. H.) John Holker, Daniel Bell, John Rowe and others, transact business on account of the Royal Marine in Boston; the agent general makes those gentlemen accountable to Robert Morris, (J. H. makes J. H. accountable to R. M.) by placing the accounts of those transactions in his hands, for the express purpose of introducing their accounts into his.’ And further, in the same page: ‘If the accounts of those gentlemen do not please you, I care not; for I did not employ them, and inserted their accounts into mine by your order.’

Here R. M. acknowledges that he did not transact the business; he is not responsible for the same, for he did not employ John Holker, the agent general, nor any other of the Gentlemen; and because he recorded their transactions in his Books, he therefore introduces their operations into the statement of his own operations, into the accounts of his own transactions: he is desired to state his own accounts separately and distinctly, to specify merely what he did actually receive and pay on the public account. And tho' he says, that with respect to depreciation, it is immaterial to him, he will not consent to do it, because ‘ the effort now made to separate them, is with a view to establish your demand of depreciation.’ As if the mere separation of such accounts, the substraction of accounts where he neither received or paid one penny, could establish or annul any claim of depreciation against him or for him.

Page 15, R. M. says, ‘But let us return for a moment to your Boston transactions, on which so great a stress is laid; your most favorable statement of them can only be, a profit made by the King on the depreciation of money be­longing to individuals, applied to his use; but this is not all; you, as I have already observed, derived the means of making those expenditures, principally from funds credited to individuals in accounts kept by you, in my name, at [Page 42] your request; (i. e. in R. M's books) comprise the whole together and you must see, that it forms neither ad­dition to, nor deduction from what I possessed.’

Without observing on the obscurity of the first part of this paragraph, or on the supposed injustice of an attempt made by the agent general to make a profit for the King, or on the propriety of doing now ultimate justice to the King or J. H's friends, let us only attend to the latter part: —comprise together the whole of J. H's Boston trans­actions, they neither make addition to, nor deduction from what R. M. possessed.— Why therefore not separate such unnecessary accounts, which can only create confusion and error, especially in dealings with continental money; and which, when entered into R. M's accounts under different dates of receipt and payment, give rise to the most erroneous inductions.

Why, therefore, is the separation of these Boston accounts so strenuously opposed by R. M? The truth in this respect we must suppose to be, that there is existing a very heavy loss to the King on R. M's operations in 1779; in the beginning of that year he actually received more than £.20,000 sterling, in bills payable at the Royal treasury of France, and more than £7000 sterling in similar bills from Messrs. Turnbull and Co. in the year 1780, besides very large sums in continental currency, the whole for the King's account, for his service alone; still it appears from R. M's own accounts, from his own statement, made out by himself, from his books and from the vouchers he produced in support of his accounts, that he never did pay for the King's account, £.12,000 Pennsylvania cur­rency, of real specie value, according to the scale of depreciation fixed by law; from whence there results a loss of near £.40,000 to the King, tho' he sold almost all the public bills himself,—made his own engagements through agents of his own choice,—made his own contracts and purchases, &c. Does not such an extraordinary loss and deficiency need an investigation? Does it not afford a sufficient reason why auditors should state R. M's trans­actions separately and distinctly from those personal to J. H. where J. H. alone received and paid the monies, so as to examine and report on this mysterious business; especially as R. M. did receive monies applicable only to special particular purposes, such as, for the public service, for the purchase of loan office certificates, for speculations in South-Carolina, &c.

It must be with a view of avoiding the consequences of this great deficiency, that R. M. says, page 11 and 13, that the part of the statement of the public transactions, signed by his Excellency Monsieur Gerard, in Sept. 1779, was an account settled. This is a circumstance so remarkable, and so much stress is also laid thereon, that it is proper to relate what appears on record upon this subject.

The statement referred to is entitled: ‘ Debtor, The Hon. John Holker, Esq agent to the Royal Marine of France, in account current with Robert Morris, Esq of Philadelphia,— on account of said Royal Marine, Creditor—’

The first charge in this statement, that appears under the date of the 19th of Sept. 1778, is a sum of £.2520, for £.2400, paid by R. M. to Edward Evans, on behalf of the owners and Captain of the sloop Supply, for services performed to his Excellency Connt D'Estaing's fleet, which, with a commission of 5 per ct. for paying this money, make £.2520 - 0 - 0

It balances by a sum of 1000 Livres Tournois £.163,355 - 8 - 6 continental currency, in these words, ‘To balance carried to the credit of John Holker Esq, agent of the Royal Marine of France, in a new account current.’—say £.163,355 - 8 - 6

The gross ammount is for a sum of £.584,158 - 13 - 5 ½

[Page 43] At the foot thereof is wrote the following note:

Errors excepted.

Philadelphia, August 31, 1779. ROBERT MORRIS."

Thus stands the account, said to be settled, between J. H. and R. M. in presence of his Excellency Monsieur Gerard.—Notwithstanding that a very considerable part of J. H's transactions in Boston are herein comprehended, for which R. M. was never made, nor ever did become accountable, nor for which J. H. never could settle with R. M. even if he had any such intention at the time.

This first statement was followed by a second,—in which under a similar superscription, the first article on the credit side is thus worded:

"1779. August 31,—By balance of account settled and signed this day,— Livres 1000 £.163,355 - 8 - 6"

On the debit side, the first, second and third charges against the Royal Marine appear under the date of Dec. 1778.

The fourth charge bears date of January 1779.

The fifth of February 1779.

The sixth, seventh and eighth under the date of March 1779.

The ninth and tenth are of April following.

The eleventh article deserves to be related at full length:

"1779, August 20,—To my order on Messrs. Lory & Plombard,—(of Charleston,) dated the 22d December last, in favor of his Excellency Monsieur Gerard, for 88,000 dollars, to be applied to his Majesty's service, in such way as Mons. Gerard may direct, omitted to be charged at that time, (at 7 shillings and 6 pence,) is £.33,000 - 0 - 0"

[Page 44] 1780.—Under the date of 1780, without any specification of month or day whatever, R. M. gives credit for the following sums:

Among the sums above specified, as Boston transactions, monies to the amount of £.86,919 - 13 - 9, were actually charged in the first statement, as if actually paid; they form part of the two sums above specified, which he says are not paid; and still he maintains that the first statement of the public accounts, in which J. H's operations in Boston are blended and intermixed with R. M's transactions in Philadelphia, is an account settled and signed, under the date of the 31st of August, 1779.

The last article in this second statement reads as follows:

"1780. June 26,—By John Holker, Esq for the balance charged to his account current— Livres 4800 £.298 - 2 - 6 ½

Errors excepted.

ROBERT MORRIS."

The gross amount of this second statement is £.1,528,119 - 14 - 2—Pennsylvania currency—of continental paper: It was sent to J. H. on the 26th or 27 of February, 1784, with R. M's letter of the 26th day of that month. But previous thereto, another second statement of accounts for the Royal Marine, had been handed to J. H. by which a balance in favor of R. M. of £.450,000 was claimed from the Royal Marine: this last was made out in 1781, and R. M. says, page 8— the accounts of the continental commissaries (from whence it was stated) were only de­livered to me about the middle of May, 1781.

From what has now been related, will it not be easy for any one to answer, whether R. M's first statement of the public matters is an account settled between the parties? Other documents will prove, that it never could be, nor ever was intended by the parties as a settlement. What then does R. M. mean by maintaining that it was an account settled? Surely he cannot intend thereby to prove that his accounts cannot be separated from those of J. H. for he, of his own accord, separates the public from the private concerns.

This riddle will be best explained thus: He wishes to make J. H. believe that the principles of the account may be deemed settled, though not one word is said thereon; he wishes this first statement had been really settled as to all claim of depreciation; and as this may be maintained before auditors, it would appear to be incumbent on them to [Page 45] state all R. M's accounts distinctly and separately, under their real dates in the first instance, before they condescend to hear the parties on their disputes, differences, or contentions, in order thereby to understand well what may be said, and to ascertain clearly the truth and the whole truth of this unfortunate business.

In order to prove the necessity of admitting the principles of depreciation on his accounts, we must here relate some further facts.

A gentleman of high trust, and of honorable memory, employed R. M. as his confidential agent in various con­cerns, during the years 1779 and 1780—to him he accounted for the outfits of vessels, and the proceeds of return cargoes on a footing of depreciation.

Swanwick, the clerk, attorney, agent and at present the partner of R. M. was employed during two successive years with full powers of attorney from R. M. in settling, claiming settlements, and offering them to all concerned, on a valuation, or scale of depreciation, on behalf of his employer. R. M. when employed as a banker, as a depositary of money merely, when he has paid continental money on account of deposits made with him in hard money, he has valued these payments according to the scale at the time of payment. When employed as banker he admits of de­preciation to every one but to J. H.—when employed by J. H. as agent, to transact upon trust immense purchases of provisions and stores, to sell prizes, &c. &c. he admits no principle of depreciation, because, he says, he was only banker and depositary. When J. H. is interested in some unfortunate expedition to sea by his agent, and the ship and cargo fall into the possession of the enemy, then the expenditures and outfits are all reduced, by some scale or other to a specie value, and the amount in specie is charged against J. H. ^* in a special particular specie account. But when adventures are somewhat more prosperous, then the proceeds of the return cargoes, sold by R. M. or his correspondents, are only to be accounted for nominally in a large, grand, nominal account, where sums appear mag­nificent in number or in found, but whence the reality is to be substracted for the benefit of the accomptant;—for the proceeds of these cargoes are, collectively with the monies of Holker's friends, to form one general balance, which alone is to be accounted for on that rate of depreciation which it pleases R. M. to fix upon, according to his ideas of what is just, right and honorable. And therefore he offers the balance due in April, 1780, at the exchange of that month; though it results from a long course of transactions, from July 1777, to April 1780, during the course of his agency for J. H. and J. H's absent friends.

We will now put a period to these observations, and leave the rest to the decision of law and equity—Relying on our own integrity, the fairness and importance of our claims, and the efficacy and uprightness of the laws, we can entertain no doubt of obtaining ample and substantial justice.