Papers of John Adams, volume 16
van Staphorst, and De la Lande & Fynje
I have just received your Favour of Yesterday and thank you for the Promptitude with which you answered mine of the 29. Ult.
I have been informed particularly by the two worthy Pensionaries, Vanberckel and Vischer, as well as by your Letter, of the Difficulties of Succeeding with your venerable Regency, and therefore See no hopes of Saving the Bills but in the Plan of a new Loan, or in that which you propose, which I fully agree with you is much better for many Reasons.
Your Judgment in these Things, is much better than mine, and therefore, if We cannot do better, in your opinion, I will agree with you to the Sacrifice of 4 to 5 Per Cent, for all the Extraordinary Gratifications and Allowances1
I have not received from any Quarter, before I received your Letter, the least Intimation, that the Bank of Philadelphia had Stopped Payment, on Account of false Notes in Circulation.2 And I cannot credit Such a Report because, if it were true, it would have been most industriously Spread in Europe, with all its Details and Evidence, by the many Ennemies We have among the Stock jobbers in England and Elsewhere.
With &c
LbC (Adams Papers); internal address: “Messrs Wilhem and Jan Willink / Nicholas and Jacob Van staphorst / and De la Lande & Fynje.”; APM Reel 107.
JA arrived at Amsterdam from London in mid-January to deal with the financial crisis threatening to destroy American credit in Europe. At issue were the bills of exchange issued by Robert Morris, superintendent of finance, in amounts far in excess of the funds available from the 1782 Dutch-American loan. Lacking funds, the loan consortium faced the prospect of the bills’ being protested for nonpayment. Since July 1783 2 virtually no new money had been subscribed to the 1782 loan because investors lacked confidence in the ability or willingness of the United States to pay its foreign debt. Much of this wariness arose from the controversy over the continental impost that would have provided Congress with an independent source of revenue to meet its obligations. But it was furthered by the June 1783 army mutiny that forced Congress to flee Philadelphia and raised fears about the stability and even the survival of the U.S. government.
One way to have inspired and, perhaps, restored confidence in the 1782 loan would have been for the Amsterdam Regency to invest its funds. The consortium, previous to JA’s arrival, and JA, after he reached the city, pursued this option despite the traditional reluctance of Dutch governmental entities to invest in foreign loans. As JA indicates in this letter, two of Amsterdam’s pensionaries, Engelbert François van Berckel and Carel Wouter Visscher, had informed him directly that there was no possibility of investment by the regency.
The only viable alternative, first suggested by the consortium in a letter of 23 Dec. 1783, was a new loan at a substantially higher interest rate to offset the perceived risk of investing in American securities. JA wrote the consortium on 29 Jan. 1784, authorizing it to explore the possibility of a new loan if that was the only means to prevent the protest of Morris’ bills. The consortium replied on the 31st that it would do so, but that in addition to a higher interest rate there would also have to be substantial additional gratuities to the lenders (vol. 15:432–434, 470, 475–476). For the initial proposals for a new loan, see the plans submitted to JA on 4 Feb. by the consortium and the firm of Wilhem & Jan Willink, respectively, both below.
For the query regarding the Bank of North America and counterfeiting, see the consortium’s letter of 31 Jan., vol. 15:475–476.
Mr C. W. Schubert, de Rawitz, in Poland, proposes to embark in march for New York, and there to establish himself, in Trade, chiefly in German Linnens He proposes to remove with him his Wife & Child. I have been desired to give him a Letter of Introduction, a favour which is very often asked and I dont know how to refuse.1 Upon these occasions however I only mean to request ordinary Civilities to Strangers, Advice upon Occasion and the Protection of the Laws.
I beg Leave, now I am writing, to mention to your Excellency a Report, which has given me some Concern vizt that Sir James Jay was So much Suspected in the State of New York as to have Occasioned the Confiscation of his Land there.— I Sincerely hope the Report is not true, and I interest myself in it, the more because I am under a Personal Obligation to him for his masterly skill and faithful Attendence, as a Physician, in a dangerous Sickness I had last Fall at Paris and Auteuil. No Feelings of my own, however, of Personal Gratitude, ought to influence me to write a Word in his favour, if I thought him, unfaithfull to the Publick, but from all the Knowledge I have had of him, and from all his Conversation with the People in France and in Holland, he has invariably maintained
3
the Character of a zealous American. It is true, there is not a perfect Understanding between him and his Brother, who is one of the best of Men as well as one of the best Americans. The Grounds of this Coolness, I never understood from either Side but I am perswaded, nevertheless that his Brother thinks him an honest American.2 You will pardon the Liberty I take, sir / and believe me to be with great Respect & Esteem, your / Excellencies most obedient sert
LbC (Adams Papers); internal address: “His Excellency George Clinton Esq / Governor of New York.”; APM Reel 107.
Nothing further is known of C. W. Schubert, and no other letters of introduction for him, other than this letter to Clinton, have been found.
Sir James Jay had been knighted for his efforts to raise money in England for King’s College, later Columbia College. As an ardent New York patriot he supported harsh measures against the loyalists in the state’s senate, but by 1782 his thoughts had turned to Anglo-American reconciliation. Then, by prearrangement, he was captured by the British and, to advance his plan, sailed for England. His undertaking came to nothing, and in July 1782 he wrote to JA from London to explain his situation and deflect criticism stemming from London newspaper reports that he had “arrived express from Congress with proposals of preliminaries for an accommodation.” It was largely Sir James’ oscillation between political extremes that alienated him from his brother John. In a letter dated April 1785, Clinton, governor of New York, replied that “I am happy to have it in my Power to refute the unfavourable accounts you had received respecting Sir James Jay. It is true there were some unlucky Circumstances attending his Capture which were so represented as to have excited Jealousies and Suspicions in the minds of some rather Injurious to him; but they never made such Impression as to become matter of Public discus̃ion” (Adams Papers; vol. 13:187–188;
DAB
; Morris, Peacemakers
, p. 298–299).