The inclosed paper marked N 9 is a printed Copy of the Report of the Board of Treasury alluded to in the letter from their Secretary of which I had the honor to lay a copy before the honorable the Council inclosed in my letter to your Excellency of the 15th. Inst. Their observation in this report, That full provisions hath been made for the requisition of 27 September last by the Act of General Assembly “for complying with the Requisition of the United States in Congress assembled for the services of the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty five and for paying one years Interest on the foreign and domestick debt,” is Just and the controversy is placed upon the requisition of April 1784 where it exists.

In their reasoning upon the Requisition of April 1784 they have mistaken the balances due by the several States for the Quotas required from them respectively. Congress may urge and ought to pursue measures to compel a payment of balances, but in their Requisitions they are bound by certain principles which operate equitably upon all the States and from which they cannot depart in affixing the quotas in such requisitions, whatsoever medium may be required in payment of such quotas will also operate equitably upon the States respectively, whether the old Continental Money, the principal and Interest of Loan Office Certificates, facilities, Specie or any thing else, whatever is unjust and dishonest is impolitick, in this case it is highly impolitick as well as dishonest and unjest to make the degree of forwardness in the states the measure of their punishment, And to favor them in proportion to their delinquency and backwardness in paryment. Such would be the consequence of the construction the Board of Treasury hath put upon the Resolution of Congress of 28th. April 1794, by which one fourth of the sums then called for is allowed to be paid in facilities. Instead of making it apply to a moiety of the 8 Million Requisition which was the amount thereof then called for. The " confine it to a fourth part of the balance which was due on said moiety on the 27 April 1784, thus the greater the previous payments had been, the less were the balances, and the smaller the balances were the less sum was payable in facilities. The Call or Requisition then made they say was for the balance due on 27th. of April 1784. If now related to the time then present and related to the sums then due, I cannot see why they did not make it refer to the balances due on the 28 April 1784, even that day would make a difference, against of this State who were constantly paying money, and it was on the 28 April it was resolved “that one fourth of the sums now called for &c.” But when we examine their calculation we find they have made their “now” have retrospect to the 31 decem. foregoing, and have taken their imformation from a Schedule which is erroneous and no part of the Requisition. I have the honor to be &c.