Contracts with Banks
Document 1792Discussed newspaper article that cited a contract falsely closed and was not left open for competition.
No human transcription currently available for this document.
This transcription was generated by machine using Anthropic's Claude Code (a mix of sonnet and opus models). It may contain errors or inaccuracies. Please verify against the document image. Learn more about our generative AI methodology.
[So1]
Richmond February 27. 1793
I yesterday for the first time got a sight in Browns Federal Gazette of the 24th of January of a Speech of General Sampten upon the subject of Mrs Greens Petition wherein is contained this paragraph, viz "herein he (Genl Sampten) called the attention of the committee to such parts of the documents as State, that in order to induce competition with Banks, the contract was kept open until the 18th February, which he proved by other documents to be an impossibility, as it appears by Genl Greens letters of the 2d. of February to the Secretary of War, and another of the same date to the Financier, that the contract was already closed, between Banks & Carrington, for he therein had explicitly declared that the contracts are already made, & the terms & conditions are specifically mentioned concluding from these facts, that the contract was already made, why should the Quarter Master apply, subsequent to this period, to the Legislature to appoint contractors, or endeavour to promote a competition, which can no longer exist, Mr Banks having already undertaken the business; having stated these circumstances to the committee, he did not know how Gentlemen could reconcile, such palpable incorrectness; for his part, from the facts stated in the letters of the 2d. of February, it appears beyond a doubt, that the contract was closed previous to any application to the Legislature of the State of North Carolina".
Besides, I consider this paragraph, as well as some other parts of Genl Sumpters Observations as amounting to [strikethrough: a want of propriety competitive] [strikethrough: excellence] in this transaction as well as striking at my veracity as a W:tness, and feel the necessity of exposing both to the most publick investigation [strikethrough: of this] leading — Note to this Subject I now call on you as an Official Character, to furnish me from the [undecipherable] office [undecipherable] [strikethrough: the contract is] [undecipherable] and the letters written by General Greene to [undecipherable] upon the [undecipherable] on this Subject that they may [undecipherable] the contract alluded to & the letters written by [undecipherable] "the [undecipherable], to furnish me with Copies of those letters & the dates that they may also the dates of the Contracts then will I expect to [undecipherable]
[undecipherable] from [undecipherable] on [undecipherable] stated [undecipherable] 1792 the [undecipherable] stated in [undecipherable] January [undecipherable] the different modes under which they had been led [undecipherable] these things; we will no doubt help to give [undecipherable] to the closing of the contract [undecipherable] in [undecipherable] subsequent to [undecipherable] the [undecipherable] in order [undecipherable] the general [undecipherable] a connection of all in [undecipherable] transactions, it will upon perfect [undecipherable] these conflicting or [undecipherable] may be delivered [undecipherable] one of these in a letter of [undecipherable] Greene [undecipherable] — [undecipherable] to submit to the Legislature [undecipherable] [undecipherable] to say that the contract was already closed, it must [undecipherable] to be necessary [undecipherable] in the [undecipherable], as in his [undecipherable] expression, for [undecipherable] [undecipherable] has not replied, and in [undecipherable] fully [undecipherable] that it should [undecipherable] before the terms were [undecipherable] to the Legislature and [undecipherable] if not the [undecipherable], it is very [undecipherable] that the [undecipherable] the 2d of February [undecipherable] not [undecipherable] written in a manner to carry in [undecipherable] that [undecipherable] not in the [undecipherable] as all [undecipherable] will [undecipherable] Banks [undecipherable] Terms had been [undecipherable] days before [undecipherable]
[undecipherable] elements [undecipherable] in [undecipherable] of those and [undecipherable] [undecipherable] to forward the [undecipherable] as I [undecipherable] [undecipherable] to [undecipherable] and I [undecipherable] [undecipherable] [undecipherable] [undecipherable] that [undecipherable] must be accepted of [undecipherable] terms and [undecipherable] out [undecipherable] to be [undecipherable] upon the necessity of doing — [undecipherable] the [undecipherable] shall [undecipherable] — [undecipherable] all [undecipherable] [undecipherable] [undecipherable] [undecipherable] or [undecipherable] may be [undecipherable]
[undecipherable] [undecipherable] [undecipherable] proving — it [undecipherable] that [undecipherable] the contracts was [undecipherable] in the [undecipherable] [undecipherable] must be [undecipherable] to be [undecipherable] [undecipherable] as [undecipherable] [undecipherable] for [undecipherable] [undecipherable] had [undecipherable] replied, and in [undecipherable] fully [undecipherable] [undecipherable] it should not [undecipherable] before the terms were [undecipherable] to the Legislature and [undecipherable] if not the [undecipherable] it is very [undecipherable] that the [undecipherable] the 2d of February is not [undecipherable] written in a manner to carry in [undecipherable] that [undecipherable] not in the [undecipherable] as all [undecipherable] will [undecipherable] Banks [undecipherable] Terms had been [undecipherable] days before [undecipherable]
[undecipherable] [undecipherable] in [undecipherable] of those and [undecipherable] [undecipherable] to forward the [undecipherable] as I [undecipherable] [undecipherable] [undecipherable] to the [undecipherable] and I [undecipherable] [undecipherable] [undecipherable] [undecipherable] that [undecipherable] must be accepted [undecipherable] [undecipherable] [undecipherable] upon the necessity of doing [undecipherable] [undecipherable] [undecipherable] [undecipherable] [undecipherable] [undecipherable] [undecipherable] [undecipherable]
[undecipherable] [undecipherable] [undecipherable] [undecipherable] being, [undecipherable] and [undecipherable] they give no reason to expect a more eligible [undecipherable] we should certainly have refused [undecipherable] the [undecipherable] them then if open by Banks.
[undecipherable] [undecipherable] is founded [undecipherable] [undecipherable] [undecipherable] [undecipherable]. In that you will not for the open I request [undecipherable], a liberty to
so as [undecipherable] you much trouble — the [undecipherable] need not be [undecipherable] because the date is all that will be useful. My application comes to you in your personal Character, and upon [undecipherable] I am confident you will take pleasure in complying with it as you consider the nature of the subject which leads me to make it.
I have the Honor to be
with the greatest respec[t]
yr H[undecipherable]
Type
Autograph Letter Signed
Description
Discussed newspaper article that cited a contract falsely closed and was not left open for competition.
Date
02/27/1792
Author
Recipient
Sent from
Richmond
Repository
Collection
Document number
1792022740001
Page start
1
Notable persons
Edward Carrington
General Sumpter
Mr. Greene
committee
General Greene
Banks and Carrington
quartermaster
legislature
witness
Notable locations
Richmond
Virginia
South Carolina
Notable items
Brown's Federal Gazette
speech
petition
document
competition
contract

