Mint response to John Vaughan's petition to Congress - 1798
RogerB
Posts: 8,852 ✭✭✭✭✭
This little letter is the response to Congress by Mint Director Boudinot. In it he attempts to justify "short changing" Vaughan by making several largely insubstantial claims. The Committee of Claims found in Vaughan's favor - eventually. (Hopefully, there are no embarrassing typos this time.)
"Mint of the United States
April 14, 1798
Hon. Representative Dwight Foster, Esq.
Chairman of the Committee of Claims
Dear Sir,
Agreeably to your request I have caused the books and files of the Mint to be carefully searched, and have compared them with the Petition of Mr. John Vaughan referred to me by you. This was necessary before I could with propriety give a just statement of fact, as his petition relates to transactions previous to my appointment.
There is no evidence missing from the books or files or the Mint by which it can appear than any coins have ever been issued from the Mint, but of the standard appointed by law. The report of the Chief Coiner, who has been in the Mint from its first commencement, is that the then Director ordered all the coin to be made agreeably to the standard, but that the then Assayer insisted that so great an alloy would prevent the rolling of the silver, and that the pure silver should be increased to 10 oz, 16 hundredweights instead of 10 oz, 14 hundredweights 4-5/13 grains which was the legal standard. When the present Director came into office, he understood this had been done, which led him to issue an order strictly to adhere to the legal standard, leaving the consequences with the Legislature.
The Assayer who it was said had made the alteration died very suddenly immediately on the present Director coming into office, so that he had no opportunity of examining into the reasons or principles of not adhering to the legal standard.
But to judge properly of the justice of Mr. Vaughan’s Petition, it will be necessary to analyze his complaint. It is not that he did not receive his whole quantity of silver deposited in the Mint; but that the officers had not mixed so great a quantity of alloy with it, as was directed by law, by which the coin was purer than necessary, and of course the quantity lessened.
The Act of Congress of April 2, 1792 does certainly direct the standard of the United States to contain 1485 parts of pure silver to 179 parts of alloy to be formed of copper. It also appoints five commissioners consisting of the Chief Justice of the United Sates, Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Comptroller of the Currency, and the Attorney General, to attend at the Mint on the Second Monday in February every year to try the coin previously issued during the year. If they find it agreeably to the standard appointed by law, or within 144 parts of it (which is termed the Remedy) the officers were to be discharged; but if not, they are the report to the President, and the officers guilty of the offence are to be removed from office. The Commissioners did meet on the day appointed by law, and on assaying the reserved pieces of all the coins issued previously from the Mint, they found it all within the Remedy appointed bgy law, and of course discharged the officers concerned in the coinage. These Commissioners being the proper jurisdiction appointed by law, are the sole judges of the business, and they having on actual experiment determined the coinage to have been legal, it must be conclusive in this business.
If the former Assayer did really decrease the quantity of alloy (which seems to be probable) I cannot conceive any principle on which he could have acted consistent with common prudence, but that of its being within the Remedy provided by law, as a lattitude [sic] given to his discretion. This ideas is strengthened by the addition to the fine silver contended to have been added so as to raise the standard of 10 oz, 14 hundredweights 4-5/13 grains equal to 10 oz, 16 hundredweights is within the smallest fraction equal to the 144th part given by law as the Remedy.
However this conduct may discover a want of prudence, yet it was strictly legal, altho’ it is pretty evident that the original design of the law was to guard against accidental errors and not willful ones. But even if the Petitioner’s complaints were ever so well founded, he could in justice only require permission to prosecute the Assayer’s Bond for his own use, as it would be very unreasonable to make the Government liable for every officer’s violation of this trust. On the same principle that the Petitioner is entitled to redress from Government, every depositor to the amount of upwards of 300,000 dollars, is entitled to equal justice. The extent of his claim must therefore appear rather extravagant. I ought not to omit the fact, that the deposit of 31,014 oz made by Mr. Cox, was made by him, not as a public officer, but as the private agent of Mr. Vaughan who employed him for that purpose and indemnified the Mint by an express agreement against all losses occasioned by such agency, and therefore if he deposited that sum under a false standard, Mr. Vaughan must abide by the consequences of this misconduct.
With regard to the claim of the Petitioner for the delay attending then coinage of his deposit of January 7, 1795, with those following, I conceive it is not well founded. The Mint began its operation [on silver–ed.] under great disadvantages on October 1794 – these were increased by the first deposit being that of the Bank of Maryland of upwards of 90,000 oz of very base silver, yet by law was entitled to the first payment. Mr. Vaughan made his deposit the 7th in order and therefore was necessarily postponed according to law; yet from his urgent necessity for the money, and his silver being of purer quality, both the Bank of Maryland & that of North America who were entitled to the priority, consented to his taking their place in part, and accordingly he received on the 4,5, & 7 March following 20,000 dollars; April 2, 7, 21, 28 & 30, 34,000 dollars; 1, 9, 13, & 16 May 45,000 dollars; 8, 12, 17 & 20 June 24,000 dollars, and so on ‘till the several deposits were paid, altho’ these different payments were comprised in single warrants, which from the dates being at the time the warrant was signed, makes it appear as if the Petitioner had laid out of [i.e., ‘not received’ – ed.] his deposit ‘till the date of the warrant. On the whole the payments were made to the Petitioner with less delay than could have been expected under the disadvantage of the Petitioner being the 7th depositor.
On the whole therefore, I cannot discover that the Petitioner has any solid foundation for the support of his complaint.
I am honored Sir, Your most obedient and humble servant.
/signed/ Elias Boudinot."
[NARA Entry 3 Journals to 1837\Journal Letters Sent 1796-1804]
Comments
To accompany the Director's comments, here is the recommendation of the Committee of Claims.
The following will be found of interest in the Vaughan matter.
Indeed!
If you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, baffel them with BS.
This is the original Report published at the time:
Nice. The originals add a special "flavor" to the subject - kind of like coins with original surfaces.
John Vaughan was the largest depositor of silver at the US Mint in 1795, and he received the largest payment in half dimes, half dollars, and dollars.
Vaughan's deposit of 230,888 ounces of silver represents an enormous amount of money. Does anyone question the source of this bullion?
Most of his deposits seem to have been made as agent for others.
I find this issue interesting and the handling and settlement demonstrates the plodding bureaucracy of the time...Cheers, RickO
To me the response seems fairly prompt for such a complicated problem, especially when Congress was involved. The larger concern to me it the confusion between deposits made by Mint employees - Cox for example - and Vaughan, and others, plus the very long delay to return coins from the deposits.