the limited amount of time at his disposal.
J. Campbell wrote (1786): "May I hope forgiveness for encroaching on your goodness. It is that Goodness which is the Source of all the trouble I have given you, and extended to me the flatering hopes of Acess to your future Advice and Assistance, uppon that I plead for the honour of seeing you in the Course of this day.
A consideration of the various appeals to him shows how greatly his opinion was respected. Some of them are very naive and simple, but all attest the confidence of the writers who desired his professional help at the time.
Nathaniel Ruggles wrote, in 1795: "I would Inform you that I have Business of Consequence Likely to Commence & Wish you to engage for Me as my Attorney in A Case of Fraud which is much Approbated in my Favour by the Principle gentlemen of this Place. I Have not Any Fee at Present to Advance Though I have Property. Sir, I Humbly Request You would not take A Fee Against me. "George Pollock sought to retain him in January, 1795, in another case. Hamilton's endorsement on the paper is as follows: "I am not sure that I could with propriety. Will decide in June. Will not be concerned against him." Richard Piatt, in April 26, 1796, wrote to him about an impending case and said: "The amount of the Debt is too triffling to ask any interposition of you as Counsel on the Defendant's side, but the Consequences of its posible result may involve a Question of the first magnitude to all persons in future subject to prosecution for Debt when and where the hearts of Creditors (as is well known to be too frequently the case) are instigated by the Devil. Thus situated and well knowing there is a susceptibility for the Verdict of Renown, it is, that I wish your Union with Troup & Brock-hoist to-morrow. They will possess you with the necessary documents on application and I have no doubt but Judgement of the Bench will be of that sort which Lord Mansfield would not blush to own."
Some of his clients languished in the debtors' prison. One, Henry A. Williams, wrote from there, March 31, 1798, to Hamilton: "I am again necessitated to write you from this gloomy place (viz.—the gaol) where a trifling sum compared to the amount of Schenck's mortgage holds me." When it was possible quickly to apprehend a delinquent debtor, many important people found their way to the Bridewell prison. William Duer, whose financial irregular-ides were of a gigantic nature, was there held for some time; and Earle, the artist, who was also imprisoned for debt, painted Mrs. Hamilton's portrait, and in this way earned enough to obtain his freedom.
Arrest and imprisonment for debt were general, and some of his clients kept him fully informed of their debtors who were at large, in more or less pressing and vindictive communications. One gentleman, whose chance presence here was awaited with interest and anxiety, was Pierpont Edwards of New Haven, who studiously kept out of the State.
The delicacy of Hamilton's professional relations must have been, at times, great indeed, for upon one occasion he appeared for Mrs. Phoebe Ward, who, in petitioning Governor Qinton and the General Assembly, sought to gain her point by calling attention to the shortcomings of her husband, who was evidently a Tory. She presented her case in the following language: "Whereas I, Phoebe Ward, wife of Edward Ward, do Humbly beg Leave to Address your Honours with this my Petition, Humbly beging Leave to Acquaint your Honours with the true Situation of Matters. My Husband, Edward Ward, it was not supos'd he Altogether Condescended into Political Sentiments with the Country in General, therefore I hope your Honours will now Consider that a Wife cannot alter Principles or Dictate a Husband so far as to change his present conduct in Matters of so great Moment and of so great Importance as this present or past Revolution."
The Rev. Jacob F. Hardenbergh was one of the striking figures of the Revolution and known as an energetic patriot, and by many was called the "fighting parson." At a time when so much unsettlement existed regarding the boundary lines of property, actions for trespass, as has been said, were much more common than they have ever been since. The son of Mr. Hardenbergh wrote to "Col. Hamilton, Col. Troup, and Col. Harison," from Raritan, July 14, 1785
By order of my Father I wrote to you a few Days ago, beging of you, and the other Gentlemen imployed for him, not to be detained against him in any Suit, at least until he may have had an opportunity of Consulting upon the Subject with them. Since that he has wanted me to write to his Attorney on the Subject of the late Verdict against him. That Verdict Creates him uneasiness. He suspects undue Influence upon, at least, one or another of the leading Persons among the Jury. Also some abominable fraud in that Marked Stone in a certain line, &c. The night before I came away, he was informed that a certain man should have said, If he had not been Subpoenaed on the other side, he could have evidenced when the letters were put on that Stone, and who did it, &c. He also heard that Mr. Gale should have been Invited and dined with one of the Principle Inhabitants of the Town, That he was to take a ride out of Town. He had not yet had an opportunity to examin into the ground of these Reports when I left home. This carresing of the Jury by the plaintifes should have been after the commencement of the court. The old gentleman seemed Determined, to try further, if there is any Prospect of obtaining what he believes to be his just right. I therefore wish the Gentlemen who have faithfully served him in this cause would let him know their candid opinion about that Matter, they are now acquainted with the Matters pro & con. If they judge his cause not supportable by proper evidence, to dissuade him from any farther prosecution. If the contrary, to send him their opinion about the matter of farther prosecution. He seems inclined to attempt setting aside this Verdict, and risk a new tryal.
When Hamilton came to New York he was immediately the recipient of many offers of help; and there were as well, although he had just entered upon the practice of his profession, many applications from fathers and others who wished him to receive their sons into his office as pupils. On June 29, 1784, William Hull wrote from Newton, Mass., proposing that he should take Charles Jackson for instruction, and give him employment. Charles was the son of General Michael Jackson, and was "himself an Official at the Close of the War, and as soon as Peace took place, applied himself to study. Last year he graduated at Harvard College, since which as I before observed he has read law with me."
In Hamilton's books it is stated that Pierre V. Van Cortlandt became a clerk in February, 1784, and $150 was paid for his tuition. In May of the same year, Jacob A. LeRoy commenced his clerkship, and his father paid $150. The following note Is appended in Hamilton's handwriting: "Mr. LeRoy did not continue his Clerkship, so the money was refunded." In February Dirk Ten Broeck also commenced his "clerkship" and Hamilton received $150 from him.
1786 Oct. I (Samuel Broome) To this sum due for fee with your son a clerk $150.
" Oct I This day Mr. S. Broome, Junior entered the office as Clerk and this 1st of May absented himself to return 1789.
On July 20,1789, John Adams paid $20 for his son, who became a clerk. This was "remitted." Many men were recommended as partners, among them a Mr. Griffiths who was suggested by Elisha Boudinot, but it would seem that his only real associate was Balthazar De Heart, who appears to have been what is now known as a managing clerk.
Hamilton tried many cases with his attached friend Troup, and others with Aaron Burr, although, later in his career, these occasions became more and more infrequent. Again, they were on opposite sides. Burr's temptations to indulge in discreditable operations were not always resisted. He was a notorious speculator, and not overscrupulous in money affairs, as appears from his relation with the Holland Company and the affairs of the Pulteney Estate. Lord Ashburton, who was Baring, the celebrated English banker, was especially incensed because of Burr's trickery, and wrote a scathing letter to Hamilton who represented him, alluding to the duplicity of the former. A case in which he appeared illustrating Burr's methods, and his desire to escape, if possible, the responsibility of his actions, was that of Lewis vs. Burr, in which Hamilton appeared for the plaintiff, and which has unusual interest for other reasons. It was an action to hold Burr liable as an endorser on a note for $3,500.
On June the first, one Roger Enos made his promissory note payable to the order of Aaron Burr, thirty days after date. Burr endorsed the note to Francis Lewis, the plaintiff in the action, and the note was not paid. By its terms it fell due on the 4th of July, days of grace included. The 4th of July was a national holiday, being the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, and on that day business, according to the custom then obtaining in the city of New York, was suspended. It was claimed that the three days of grace, which would have expired on