Papers of John Adams, volume 20

William Smith to John Adams, 21 January 1791 Smith, William Adams, John

From William Smith

Dear Sr. Boston. 21st. Jany. 1791

I take the freedom to introduce to your notice Major Kent. a Grandson of the late Cap Kent of Charlestown. he goes to Philadelphia, to procure from Congress the same compensation for his services as the other Officers of the late Army receiv’d.—1 He enter’d the Army as a private in Col. Henry Jackson’s Regt. by his good conduct was soon promoted as an Officer and continued in the service ’till the Fall of the Year 1782. when his Health was so impair’d from continued attention to his Duty, that by advice of his Physician & consent of the Commander in Chief he resign’d his Commission. unfortunately abt. two Months before the Resolve of Congress was passd. allowing five Years pay.— as he faithfully perform’d his duty & retir’d with honor to recover his Health impair’d in the service of his Country. his Friends have recommended his applying, as his case is singular no other Officer being in the same situation. some Officers recd. this Allowance who had been in the service but a few Months—

I observe by the Papers that the Report of the Secy. for an additional Duty on Rum & the Excise wou’d probably be adopted.2 the present Duty is now exceeding high & principally falls on the Importer I think it wou’d be just to pospone the commencement of the New Duty on Imported Rum to the 1st. July to give those who have sent their Vessells on Rum Vo. an oppertunity to return. as it was expected when their Vessells sail’d to pay only the present Duty & had calculated their Vo. on that duty. this delay can be of no detriment to the publick, as the Interest does not commence for a Year for which these dutys are said [. . . .] of payment of the Duty on Rum shou[. . . .] extended to 6 or 9 Ms.—

Mrs. S. joins me in our best regards to you & Mrs. Adams—

I am with great Respect / Yr Most H Sert

Wm. Smith 465

RC (Adams Papers); addressed: “The Vice-President / of the / United States.”; internal address: “His Exy. John Adams Esqr:”; endorsed: “Mr Smith”; notation: “Major Kent.” Some loss of text where the seal was removed.

Former Continental Army major Ebenezer Kent Jr. (1759–1812) was the grandson of Capt. Ebenezer (1700?–1776) and therefore a distant relation of AA’s by marriage. Major Kent, who served in Col. Henry Jackson’s artillery regiment from Feb. 1777 to Jan. 1781, appealed to Congress for a pension because he had “injured his constitution by great exertions” at the Battle of Monmouth on 28 June 1778. Kent’s claim and those of many more veterans were laid before Congress on 15 Oct. 1792. Progress on their requests was hindered by a lack of muster rolls and a dearth of clear record-keeping during the Revolutionary War (Heitman, Register Continental Army ; AFC , 1:220, 10:360; Amer. State Papers, Claims, p. 57, 63, 111).

Congress was still working to enact legislation based on the terms and duties proposed in Alexander Hamilton’s 14 Jan. 1790 report on the public credit, for which see Stephen Higginson’s letter of 1 March, and note 2, above. Six days after Smith wrote this letter, the House of Representatives passed, by a vote of 35 to 21, the Whiskey Act, a controversial piece of legislation that laid an excise on domestic and imported liquors. Farmers in western Pennsylvania, who reaped extra revenue by distilling surplus grain into liquor, were incensed that the heavy federal tax fell on small producers. Their outrage gave rise to the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794 (U.S. House, Jour. , 1st Cong., 3d sess., p. 364–365; AFC , 9:320, 10:index).

James Lovell to John Adams, 22 January 1791 Lovell, James Adams, John

From James Lovell

Sir Boston Jany. 22d. 1791

From the Borders of the Grave, revived, and even established in Health, I once more present my Respects with my accustomed Fervency to You and Yours.

But, with my Respects I must also send my Complaints and Supplications.

In a Transaction where you was only, according to your own chosen Expression, Teste di Legno, I was fretted disgraced & beslaved; and have taken some Measures for Emancipation. You will know why I was not Collector of this Port; but I have never told you how perfectly you reconciled me at first to my present Office, or how I ceased afterwards even to wish for any Change during the Remainder of my Days. But, Sir, what tended heretofore to give me Tranquillity serves at present to heighten my Chagrin. Possessing the good Will of the President and yourself I am martyred by one or more Committee-Men who have carried private Friendship and Relationships into their public official Doings. I know but two of the Committee one of whom can give no better Rationale of the inimical Transaction than because the other “perhaps was more a Friend to the Collector than to the Naval officer,” while in fact he was himself brother in Law to a Surveyor, and the Naval Officer is sacrificed to both.

466

This will appear œnigmatical till you have read my Letter to mr Gerry.1 I intreat you to do that; and to quiet me by a Condemnation of my Discontent, or by promoting Redress—according to the Verdict of that sound Judgement to which I now submit myself.

Be so good as to allow me to present my respectful Love to your Lady, and to think me continuing devotedly / Sir / Your obedient / Friend & Humble / Servant

James Lovell

RC (Adams Papers); addressed: “The Vice President / of the United States / His Excellency / John Adams Esqr / Philadelphia”; endorsed: “Mr Lovel”; notation by Lovell: “favd by / Majr Genl. Lincoln”; and by CFA: “Jany 22d 1791.”

Lovell also wrote to Elbridge Gerry on 22 Jan., complaining that personal connections between members of Congress and those applying for jobs in the revenue service meant that Gerry and his colleagues were biased enforcers of the Collection Act. He wrote: “As there are 67 Collectors 54 Surveyors and but 13 Naval Officers it is evident how the Proportion of Relations Friends and Patrons will naturally stand in the Great Assembly.” Lovell trained his criticism on appointments made for the ports of Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newburyport, and Salem, Mass., where, he observed, “Rivalry & Heart-burnings” for federal posts dominated local politics. Equally troubling, in Lovell’s view, was the hazy status of officers’ duties, their annual salaries, and their treatment of emoluments ( First Fed. Cong. , 21:494–497).