[Jany 31. 1790 To Doctor Wm Eustis — My Tr[undecipherable]] [753 a] [ZZC-119] New York 31 Jany 1790 My dear Sir I have received your two favors of the 17^th and 23^d instant I [strikethrough: believe it will be unnecessary] to [undecipherable] the members [undecipherable] find it would be impossible to obtain a new inspection of the invalids — & myself am of opinion that the [pensions?] have better remain on the [present?] [footing?] for the following reasons. 1^st. That [Congress?] by the act of the 7^th of June 1785 the right of [judges?] who were [then?] invalids, on the [basis?] that [their?] states [should?] receive [undecipherable] to the respective states, where local [circumstances?] and local influence might have been [undecipherable] in the greatest degree, and therefore [undecipherable] [better?] [undecipherable]. [undecipherable] as the [undecipherable] unsuccessful in their first applications, they generally [applied?] to the State legislatures — Hence the double [undecipherable] of the operations of [justice?], [influence?] and [humanity?] 2^dly. That in most [of?] the [States?] the [judges?] the invalids have been the most respectable and independent members of the community. If there [were?] a new inspection, [undecipherable] it is reasonable to conclude that the [undecipherable] would not only [make?] the [favors?] [having?] in [numbers?] — [There?] a [greater?] number [now?] would be [disappointed?], [than?] [satisfied?] — [That?] [their?] complaints would be [unduly?] — [That?] the States as [such?] would be [disgraced?] as well as the [judges?/persons?] who have [unduly?] [inspected?] the invalids ( But [I consider?] [the?] [inconvenience?] [undecipherable] above what you have [mentioned?] as having [undecipherable] [step?] from the [ground?] of the [left?] [because?] [inconvenience?] for them [to be?] dragged from their families and [stationed?] at [little?] [undecipherable] [again?] [?] [excuse?] on [pensioners?] [undecipherable] [Justice?] [undecipherable] [certainly?] to be [addressed?] — But [I?] [concern?] it [now?] be [to execute?] for [him?] in [better?] [satisfaction?] [unless?] [through?] the [construction?] of the [legislation?] of [undecipherable] [instruments?] — [Here?] a [statute?] of [undecipherable] care and [names?] of the [undecipherable] [invalids?] for [them?] it be [to?] be made by the [legislation?] [undecipherable] [compete?] with [the?] [opinion?] [undecipherable] the [legislation?] of the [misery?] and hardships of the [measure?], and [recommendation?] that they be [undecipherable] declared [undecipherable] the [list?] again, I am of the opinion it would be [effectual?] — [undecipherable] it does not appear [then?] [undecipherable] [legislation?] would be [convinced?] [more?] [undecipherable] by [some?] a [measure?], as the [undecipherable] has repelled from the [speculators?] of the [resolves?] of Congress — The State [undecipherable] [magistrates?] have [acquiesced?], [where?] [for?] [only?] they [from?] [undecipherable] [acquiesced?] [undecipherable] only one in any [undecipherable] the [undecipherable] [duty?] [undecipherable] the [undecipherable] in [undecipherable] 3. [The pension?] petitions [undecipherable] [to?] be made [more?] individual [appointments?] it is probable they will [have?] — [Time?] [undecipherable] gives you my opinion on the [nature?] [undecipherable] [must?] [undecipherable] the [undecipherable] [office?] a [redress?] — [but?] [undecipherable] I am [undecipherable] I am particularly [certain?] [undecipherable] [should?] depend on your [not?] [undecipherable] — [to be?] upon the [occasion?] — Thank you for the [kind?] [undecipherable] Thomas — [If?] he [should?] attempt [any?] [undecipherable] our [undecipherable] I [suppose?] he will [undecipherable] [doubt?] [that?] — [undecipherable] passing [again?] — [N York 31 Jany 1790 to [undecipherable] ZZC-119 2[undecipherable]] [Having?] [Jackson?] [or?] [undecipherable] [are?] able to inform you of the whole of the circumstances [undecipherable] [individually?] [undecipherable] [unnecessarily?] [still?] [particularly?] [appears?] [undecipherable] [undecipherable] motives — I [sincerely?] [may?] [that?] nothing may be decided against [us?] [undecipherable] on a [further?] [hearing?] of the case, and a [sufficiency?] of time — they [allowed?] [undecipherable] to the [undecipherable] — [undecipherable] [any?] [undecipherable] If the legislature could [possibly?] interfere [undecipherable] the [undecipherable] [process?] where [undecipherable] one [undecipherable] they cannot — it would be more convenient — [undecipherable] the [undecipherable] Session [undecipherable] at [undecipherable] — [undecipherable] [Enclose?] you my [proposed?] [undecipherable] a [national?] [undecipherable] — I think [it?] [would?] operate well after a while [undecipherable: A. Hamilton?] [undecipherable] [boarding?] and [undecipherable] Know your [undecipherable] — [undecipherable] the [undecipherable] [undecipherable] [presented?] [undecipherable] has not [yet?] been [undecipherable] [acted upon?] in the house — but [undecipherable] [referred?] in a committee [undecipherable] — I cannot conjecture [undecipherable] [Should be?] happy [undecipherable] [information?] [undecipherable] to let me know [undecipherable] — [undecipherable] convince you [undecipherable] much [power?] [undecipherable] I am yours [undecipherable] [undecipherable: J. Francis? / A. Hamilton?] Doctor Wm Eustis