In consequence of Col. Sheives letter to me of Dec^r 9^th I laid him before a review of the accounts of the recruiting of [the?] [Ohio?] [regiments?] Officers and that there was no [account?] ascertained [?] in my letter to M^r [Davis?] of the [accounts?] of any Officer [not?] to be correct. And the Officers have received the whole substitutions due to the recruits in the whole made up to Sep^t 1797, and then [errors?], from the time they drew rations in the [War?] Pay to the time they had done recruiting and drew rations in the new. They is therefore no allowance, & while the money paid by Colo. Sheives could be appropriated converting the bounty to the Men and the provisions to the Officers. It is easy to find the whole amounts of recruits joined and not joined that the whole year; but it is impossible to know whether they received any goods of their bounty, or whether the Officer entitled in all cases such cases as would entitle him to the provisions. [on their principles has?] the following account is [therefore?] made out in the greatest [accuracy?] that [undecipherable] the expense could possibly [ascertain?]; and therefore on the part of the late [?] Officers must necessarily be [four?]. The [question?] that in any recruits to whom [some?] [has been?] [united?] I [previously?] cannot be made to this calculation, because the whole amounts I find amounting to 665 Men, and the [actual?] [officers?] of the [agreement?] made on the 14 of May 1797 would [be?] the whole amounting to no more than 274 Men, including 73 [absentees?] or [undecipherable] "the greatest part of which either were [then?] [undecipherable]" before this and joined the Army or were included in conditions of having over to those to be added as Men who joined afterwards, which amounted only 285 in the whole, and [from?] it appears by the Muster which [never?] [later?] January 1797? which informed every [amounts?] [annually?] of the different periods of [?] time, that there was then 2017 [recruits?] afterwards, which all were [examined?] as having 266 [undecipherable] by [documentary?] [& the?] [actually?] could not be [counted?], both of which [retained?] [were some?] both of the recruits which I found [could?] [were?] [less?] informed, they could be brought to the field, which is a proportion much beyond [that?] any other regiment in the service. The calculation is as follows: made from the Muster returns proving this position in columns is as follows. Col. Sheives says [honestly?] in his letter to Col. [Patton?] of Sep^t 7, [1799?] that it was as the new reason there were paying the money with full [toll?] with the bounds of the recruiting Officers again. I am therefore fully persuaded that the actual cases which the Officers could [partly?] claim for recruiting were not to the amount of the money which was paid to [Collectors?] by the [War?] & that therefore the superior which [his?] [the?] Officers have [bonds?] could not justly be appropriated [about?] [the?] [?] paid [the?] [say?] was refunded & the whole number of recruits joined was a very few. On the [?] that [in the end?] the whole result of their recruits was paid to the Officers on the 13 of July the Officers were paid their balances which [caused?] by [?] [Sheives?] who [so?] helped the payments were authenticated by Col. Sheives who helped the the accounts, without receiving any papers [a demand?] [his?] [indebted?] to the Officers. this was the time to have called on them to refund the money which his leaving [?] pay would never [rested?] in their bounds in the payments for both on account of the public safety, but also as the same principles were about commencing the time [for something?] [was?] over. the Officers had then of these very [?] called out [?] classes and the opportunity was much clearly [?] [made?] what [undecipherable] making of [appointments?] to [?] reduce [July?] 14, 1796. On the 26^th of January [?] it seems matters of [?] essence, and there was more than sufficient at that time to have been to renew the balances which the Col. [number?] appears to his accounts being clear — but another Officer who was hinted this is so late from. the Officer who resigned was [?] [Marquis?] who resigned Dec^r 1, [1799?] and [good?] who was omitted July 1, 1799 and those who were omitted July 22, 1799 [Halley?] the month of March 1800 had and joined his offer after [?] his wounds; but it is honestly [profitable?] for those Officers to deprive even without his [acknowledgment?]. And had he complied with the resolution of April 29, 1800 his absence would have been of no difference, as the knowledge of his payments would have never rested with his [pay master?] where officials as well as his own was required at [?] [Department?] before an Officer was permitted to resign the last mentioned Officer resigned before the expiration when the Col. had no plan to obtain, and the other Officer, M^r. [Hollingshead?] [Cummings?] to [Building?] remained in the service to the end of the [War?], & received all their arrears before the Col. published his [accounts?]. My opinion therefore is that the Officers were [rightly?] [have?] claims for [accounting?] to the accounts of of the [?] [accordingly?] presented the [account?]. 2^d That the Col. is accountable to the Public for the amount of his Officers, for the following reasons 1^st Because he did not stop their arrears, when in his power at the different payments made to the regiment for pay & subsistence in advance. 2^d Because he never rendered to any Officers of the United States any account of his advances in time, by which means their arrears might be recovered or otherwise refunded. [Endorsement: Observations on accounts / [undecipherable] / December 30, 1799?]