Revision: 1784/yzx06_2.jpg

HTML

Wilmington the 1st of June 1784

I delayed acknowledging the receipt of your letter dated from West Point, until I though it probably the answer might reach you in Philadelphia, where you might compare the pay abstract I formerly sent you, with the rolls [or] abstracts on which col [Pa-py] paid Yeats, for August, September and October, which will probably enable you to decide whether he drew pay for the whole [regt] after August: if he did I presume the partial payments made by Col. Hastet, however well authenticated otherways, cannot be admitted to debit the United States, and must be lost by his hiers, or by the State unless it should be possible for you to bring Yeates to account, who resides in this State near Newcastle, but I am told alledges that he lost his papers, by pulling them on board the same [shallop] that the public papers of the state were, which lying in Christiana when the British took possession of this town, was captured...If evans ever settled a final account, or if the terms of his contract can be found, either of them might probably facilitate a decision whether the charge [] subsistence from the 18th of May, the time the contract is said to have taken place, to the time the regiment drew rations, ought to debit the United States or not. Col [Hastets] executor hath credited all the sums charged him in your account accept the 2000 dollars advanced him by col Palfry for recruiting, which never came to his knowledge until I showed him your account, I shall endeavor to secure it either either [sic] from him or the State.

The advances to Stuart, and Charney, are not connected with any accounts I have to settle, unless a sum given them by the State is admitted to debit the United States, in deciding which you may probably assist me, the case stands thus. While these officers were prisoners the new regiment was commissioned to its full complement of officers exclusive of them and when they were released from captivity the could not resume their rank in the regiment for this [] neglect by the commissioners appointed to grant commissions the state allowed them a sum of money and charge it to the United States, which I object to. because the neglect was in their own commissioners, but they replay that altho the commissioners were their

own