be issued, a supply of which will be transmitted to you by the Register of the Treasury.

You will make out duplicate abstracts of the certificates of supplemental stock issued by you agreeably to the enclosed form, marked C; one of which abstracts you will forward to this office quarteryearly, and file the other in your office.

The separation which is to be made of the original and supplemental stock is done for the accommodation of the holders, to enable them, if they choose, to establish hereafter the identity of the latter, and its connexion with the ten-million loan.

Although it is intended that different accounts of the ten-million loan are to be opened, yet the whole amount on your books may be included in one dividend.

For such scrip certificates of the loan of ten millions of dollars as may remain to be funded, you will, on application being made to fund them, issue a certificate of "funded six per cent. stock of 1814, loan of ten millions of dollars of 2d May, 1814, on which the supplemental stock has issued," at the rate of between eighty and eighty-eight, or ten per cent. on the amount of the original certificate.

It is proper to apprize you that the Attorney General has given an opinion to the Secretary of the Treasury, setting forth, among other things, that the condition in the letter of the Secretary of the Treasury, of the 2d May, 1814, to the subscribers for the ten-million loan, "attached as soon as the second loan was made, (the loan of August 1814;) that, on the happening of that event, it (the contract) no longer remained open and executory, subject to all the variations in price which might mark subsequent loans, until the whole twentyfive millions should be exhausted." This opinion has been adopted at the treasury, and the supplemental stock, now authorized to be issued, is deemed to be in full of all demands upon the government for further issues of stocks in the ten-million loan, under the contract above mentioned. It is not thought necessary, however, to take any release to this effect from the stockholders, on delivering them the supplemental stock. I am, very respectfully, &c.

NATHAN LUFFBOROUGH.

TO WILLIAM GARDNER, BENJAMIN AUSTIN, CHS. ELLERY, JONA. BALL, WM. FEW, EDWARD HALL, THOS. NELSON, THOS. LEH'RE, SHERWOOD HAYWOOD, WM. WHITE.

NOTE. The words "scrip certificate or" in the second paragraph, and the whole of the paragraph commencing with the words "for such scrip certificates," were omitted in the letters to the commissioners of loans in Virginia and North Carolina.

[Extract.]

NEW YORK, February 27, 1820. RESPECTED FRIENDS: I am this day in receipt of the report of the Secretary of the Treasury on my petition, which Mr. Sanford was so kind as to forward me. On looking over the report I discover nothing

bearing in the least on the claim I have set forth for an erroneous construction of the loan contract, except the following sentence: "Without determining that the construction given by the Attorney General to the terms of the loan of the 2d May, 1814, was correct, it was an act of justice to the community to make it known as soon as it was formed. So long as the expectation should be entertained that a loan might be negotiated more unfavorable to the government than those which had been previously obtained, the price of the stock, to which the contingency was attached, would be affected by the possibility of its occurring.' The effect complained of, in stripping the stock of the further benefit of the condition, is here fully admitted, which simplifies the question on that branch of my petition down to this single point-had the government a right to deprive the stock of the benefit of the condition? If not, it follows, of course, that the parties injured are entitled to indemnity. This claim is clearly founded in reason and justice, yet it was the only point contended for that I doubted my capacity to explain to the entire conviction and satisfaction of Congress; because the fact that no portion of the loan was taken on more favorable terms, left the matter without any precise standard to measure the damages; therefore, persons unacquainted with loan transactions might dispute the fact of there having been damages sustained, which, I think, will not now be the case, since the secretary states that the bare possibility of more favorable terms being allowed would affect the value of the stock to which the contingency was attached; therefore, as an act of justice to the community, that they might not pay me too much for my stock, it became the duty of government, after they had determined to strip it of the condition, to promulgate such determination.

The Secretary is entirely silent on the subject of depreciated paper and the giving supplemental stock to those not entitled to it; therefore it only remains to inquire whether the conclusions drawn by me are warranted by the facts I have stated. Since writing the preceding, I discover that, in the copy of the Secretary's report sent me by Mr. Sanford, the treasury advertisement of April 4, 1814, has been substituted for the loan contract, or as the document containing the conditions on which the ten-million loan was made, omitting the treasury letter of the 2d of May, 1814, which alone contains the conditions on which that loan was made. I have, therefore, to solicit of you the favor to introduce a resolution into the Senate, calling on the Secretary of the Treasury for a copy of the treasury letter of the 2d of May, 1814, to the persons who contracted for the ten-million loan, and, when the same be received, that it be referred to the committee having the care of my petition. This letter, as I have before stated, contains the conditions on which that loan was made. Everything prior to that was mere proposition, and no further binding than was recognised by that letter, except equitable obligations growing out of verbal assurances; by casting your eyes on the documents annexed to the report, you will perceive that reference has often been made to a contract of 2d of May, 1814. Mr. Secretary Dallas, in stating the case of the Attorney General, declares that the terms of the contract were contained in Mr. Campbell's letter of that date. The Attorney Rep. 140-2

General states, in the first sentence of his answer, that he had formed. his opinion on that letter. The Comptroller's letter has constant reference to it, yet no copy of a document bearing that date was furnished by the Secretary; without it, it appears to me impossible for the committee to understand the merits of my claim, the reasoning of the Attorney General or Comptroller, or even the Secretary's own remarks; I therefore think you have abundant reasons, growing out of the Secretary's report, to call for that letter, without letting it be known that I have requested it. If, however, you think that propriety requires you to state that I have requested this interference, I, of course, cannot for a moment object.

Soliciting the favor of your continued attention to this subject, and that you will furnish me with a copy of the report of the Committee of Claims, when they shall make one,

I am, with esteem, your assured friend,
JACOB BARKER.

Hon. RUFUS KING,
Hon. NATHAN SANFORD.

In compliance with the request of Mr. Barker, the honorable Senate, at the instance of the Honorable Mr. King, passed a resolution, calling for a copy of the letter in question; on which the following report was made:

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, March 4, 1820.

SIR: In obedience to a resolution of the Senate of the 1st instant, I have the honor to transmit a copy of the letter of the 2d of May, 1814, from the Secretary of the Treasury to Jacob Barker. The same letter was addressed to each of the subscribers to the loan of that date.

I remain, with respect, your most obedient servant,

Hon. JOHN GAILLARD,

WM. H. CRAWFORD.

President pro tem. of the Senate.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT,
May 2, 1814.

SIR: The terms upon which the loan has been this day concluded are as follows, viz:

Eighty-eight dollars in money for each hundred dollars in stock; and the United States engage, if any part of the sum of twenty-five millions of dollars, authorized to be borrowed by the act of the 24th of March, 1814, is borrowed upon terms more favorable to the lenders, the benefit of the same terms shall be extended to the persons who may then hold the stock, or any part of it, issued for the present loan of ten millions.

Your proposal, of the 30th April, for five millions of dollars of the

loan, having been at the above rate, or at a rate more favorable than the above to the United States, has been accepted; and you will please to pay, or cause to be paid, on the 25th day of the present month, into the bank or banks you have named, or into such as you shall name to the Secretary of the Treasury, on the receipt of this letter, twenty-five per cent., or one-fourth part of the sum above stated, pursuant to the notification from this department of the 4th of April last, and the remaining instalments on the days fixed in the said notification. You will be pleased, also, on or before the 25th of May, to furnish the cashier or cashiers of the bank or banks, where the payments under your proposal are to be made, with the names of persons in whose behalf the proposal has been made, and the sums payable by each.

The commission of one-fourth of one per cent. will be paid from the Treasury, after the payment of the first instalment, on the 25th day of the present month.

I am, very respectfully, sir, your obedient servant,

JACOB BARKER, Esq., New York.

G. W. CAMPBELL.

The following opinion was obtained from the Hon. Mr. Pinkney, then a counsellor of law at Baltimore, in the hope that his clear and unanswerable arguments would induce Mr. Dallas to change his opinion.

"1. I suppose that the person who held stock in the ten-million loan on the day when a part of the sum of $25,000,000, authorized to be borrowed by the act of the 4th of March, 1814, was borrowed on terms more favorable to the lenders, was entitled, the moment such new borrowing was effected, to the benefit of those terms; his right to that benefit was perfected by the coincidence of the two facts-the borrowing by the government and the holding of the stock by him. The word "then," in the letter of the 2d of May, 1814, can refer only to the epoch of the borrowing on terms more favorable to the lenders.. It is impossible to make it refer to any other epoch, without direct violence to the whole sentence.

"2. If the right to the benefit in question was completely vested in the holder of the stock in the ten-million loan, as soon as borrowing on terms more favorable to the lender took place, I do not think that he is to be considered as having transferred it by a mere subsequent assignment of the stock itself.

The right to the benefit is collateral to the stock, and rests upon an engagement distinct from that which is the evidence or certificate of the stock. It is not made assignable by the certificate, as the stock itself is; for the certificate of stock takes no notice of it, and consequently does not even recognise it. An assignment of the stock, before the borrowing on the new terms, would doubtless have the effect of entitling the assignee to the benefit of the new terms; but it would have that effect for no other reason than that it would bring the assignee within the collateral contract, by making him holder of the stock at the time of the borrowing on the new terms. Such an as

signment of the stock as would not make the assignee holder of the stock at that time, (or, in other words, an assignment after that time,) would not so bring the assignee within the collateral contract, and would not, therefore, give him the benefit of that contract, unless it can be shown that this benefit was by the certificate of stock made assignable as a constituent part of the stock, and under the name of the stock; which cannot be pretended.

"The engagement of the Secretary of the Treasury relates exclusively to the person who should happen to hold the stock when the new borrowing should take place; and the certificate leaves that engagement exactly as it found it. That person, whoever he might be, had, of course, upon the instant of the borrowing, a right to receive the difference between the price of the two loans, which would be so complete that nothing could make it better. This right, arising out of the first contract, existed in him from that time; that is, from the time of the new borrowing, independently of the stock, with which it never was incorporated, although the holding of the stock on the day of the new borrowing was made the condition of its existence, and no subsequent act, amounting to a transfer of the stock itself, while the government delayed to comply with its engagement, could vary the right (already perfect) to have that engagement fulfilled, or could pass it to another.

"As far as analogy can be brought to influence this question, it is in favor of the claim of the holder of the stock, when the new borrowing took place, and against that of a subsequent holder. Interest and dividends of stock, already due, are never understood, as I believe, to pass by the sale of the stock which has produced them, and yet interest and dividends are the direct offspring of the stock, and the sole objects of it. The reason is, that interest, or a dividend already due, has acquired an existence separate from the stock from which it sprung, is no longer dependent upon it, and has given birth to a new right, to which the continuance of the title to the stock itself is not in any degree necessary. The reason is conclusive here, although, if the rule had been otherwise, in the case of interest or a dividend, it would not have been conclusive the other way; because a rule is here given by an express engagement, which one of the parties is not at liberty to modify by notions deduced from supposed analogies. I am not aware of any inconvenience (which could found the argument ab inconvenienti) likely to result from an admission of the claim of the holder of the stock at the era of the new borrowing, since the public books will show who was that holder; nor can I perceive that the probable intent of the parties, or the propriety of the thing, favors the claim of a subsequent holder. On the contrary, I think that every consideration which belongs to the subject recommends the admission of the claim of him who held the stock at the time when the claim became complete under the terms of the contract to which it owes its being. WM. PINKNEY.

NOVEMBER 25, 1814.