More questions than answers at the Philadelphia Mint - 1796
RogerB
Posts: 8,852 ✭✭✭✭✭
I leave it to members to figure this one out.
"Director’s orders to Mr. Voigt, Chief Coiner
April 1, 1796
The Director of the Mint has attended to the Chief Coiner’s representation of this day, and can only say, that nothing can or will be required of him, that is inconsistent with the duty of the office. The Director is totally unacquainted with the original cause, that has created the confusion I the delivery of the 1st October last, but whatever the Chief Coiner received of bullion, ought to be receipted for, as on the day of delivery. On an inspection into the books of the Mint, it appears that when the Chief Coiner shall receive 1,269 oz 19 hundredweight of silver from the litharge of Mr. Vaughn’s 60 bars at the furnace, he ought to give a receipt on the warrant of 1st October for 12,407 oz 12 hundredweight he having received so much of Mr. Vaughn’s silver. As to the note of 3,537 oz 7 hundredweight the Director can know nothing of it in his official capacity, this being a private transaction in Mr. Voigt’s individual capacity, which he must settle as any other dealings of his own. The Director trusts that in future, the Chief Coiner will be careful to give receipts for all bullion received immediately on receipt, and never to receipt for any not actually received."
Comments
Who's on First?
Obviously Voigt was mixing public and private business with Mr. Vaughn. This also relates to the Mint's agreement with John Vaughn to refine his silver to extract the gold, and to allow Vaughn's workmen to use the Mint for that purpose. (See: NARA E-3 Journals to 1837\Journal 1796–1804. March 20, 1796, pages 2-4.)
Denga will be able to shed more light on this subject.
Vaughn was one of the largest depositors in the early days of the Mint, and no doubt knew Voigt well.
It looks as if this was a document to clear up what may have appeared to be questionable dealings and to ascertain the confusion will not occur in the future. Cheers, RickO