[Cover: center: James McHenry [Esq^r?]; upper left: [undecipherable]; lower right: [undecipherable] / Dr Hamilton / once for / [undecipherable] rank / [undecipherable] / Apr 26 — 1799] Philadelphia April 26^th 1799 [39] Dr Sir I have reflected, as you have desired, on the most proper principles for regulating the relative rank of the field Officers of the twelve additional Regiments. It is always prudent, when no special reasons dictate a deviation, to adopt for cases of this kind a rule which steers clear of comparisons of personal merit and avoids the danger of wounding the pride of any of the parties concerned. With this view ( Since I am not aware [strikethrough: that] of any Special reasons that recommends a different course ) I am of opinion that as to all such of the Field Officers, who have [strikethrough: [undecipherable]] joined in the army, [strikethrough: [undecipherable] considerations], it will be adviseable, among those now of equal grade, to let their relative rank at the close of the War govern. This, according with military [strikethrough: [undecipherable]], will be most likely to be Satisfactory to all. As to those who may not have served in the army, considerations of personal merit and weight of character can alone decide, [strikethrough: except] that where they may have served in the [Militia], other things being equal, their [strikethrough: [undecipherable]] relative [strikethrough: [undecipherable]] rank may guide. As between those who have served in the army and those who have not it appears to me [undecipherable] to prefer the men who have served in the army, except where very superior qualifications may manifestly claim a superiority [Lt Hen G] [undecipherable] [undecipherable] [with great [undecipherable]] [undecipherable] [undecipherable] a [undecipherable] [signature: [undecipherable]]