New bern January 26 1785 Dear Sir On consideration of the subject contained in your letter of the 24^th Ulto. I should suppose it proper that you make out a list of the names and sums of the persons you have [strikethrough: charged] Issues for hats received in 1782 & 1783 — which you had best send to M. [undecipherable] who indeed is able to mention, whether it is so or not — I think also that when an Officer has received the pay [twice?], will not on any terms refund the money, but it might be well to find if there are a great number in this predicament, because if the sum is considerable, for me to undertake the allowance of it, would be without any authority and oblige me to [receive?] — in which case you ought to point out the persons and return to the Secretary at War, [apart from?] his directions — But if the number is small & the sums trifling, [undecipherable] documents, you had best to settle the accounts and charge the same as an advance, because it will not be worth a notice either way by the public — [undecipherable] any [undecipherable] will tell me what I get — I'm along the [undecipherable] money accounts you know that [undecipherable] have [undecipherable] you stated the wall of every the the Officers as a Voucher — but this ought to be done with great caution — the Signature of the Officer ought to appear as well as some other evidence respecting the loss — and indeed in all cases the best evidence that can be obtained ought to [be produced] and where we have none [undecipherable] smaller degree of proof, it ought to appear, that the legal vouchers are missing from no negligence or fault of the accountant — but the rule of conduct in these cases is committed uniformly to our discretion, and I wish you only to use that necessary caution, which all business not our own, demands and which your own good sense will easily point out — It is [also] [also] necessary that it do be not too rigid so as to [undecipherable: oblige or impede?] [undecipherable] the business of any member [or whites]