L'Enfant's 1804 Accounting of his Financial Affairs with Soderstrom
In the microfilmed edition of L'Enfant's papers in the Library of Congress, the first folder contains a curious testament. It begins as an effort to explain the financial arrangements L'Enfant had with Richard Soderstrom but soon the personal relations between the two men intrude. Working from a photocopy of the microfilm, I am unable to transcribe the document completely or accurately. When I put a question mark after a word, it means I am not sure that I am transcribing it accurately; a question mark standing alone means I can not read the word. The figures batted about by both parties are of little interest, and I inadvertently failed to copy some, and some uninteresting portions of the document were not copied to save time and expense. I invite anyone able to peruse the original document or microfilm of it to e-mail me any corrections or additions which I will promptly add. Indeed, to me, it seems that two documents are mixed in the folder and below I will divide and edit what is there into two sections. The first is L'Enfant's explanation of how Soderstrom actually received more money from L'Enfant in the form of services, stock and credit than L'Enfant could have possibly received from Soderstrom. The second section is L'Enfant's effort to show that the house and living expenses for which Soderstrom wishes to be compensated are inflated.
That said, I will add that the financial predicaments of L'Enfant and Soderstrom are not uninteresting but I will not expound on them here except for a brief comment based on the little knowledge I have of the difficult financial circumstances many men of business faced in the late 1790s. Suffice it to say that L'Enfant's bank stock, meaning shares in the debt of the US government, were indeed valuable. His claims on the corporation of New York City and the federal government less so, though he did receive funds from both. His notes from Robert Morris, for whom he was designing and building a house, soon became worthless. Morris was one of the spectacular bankrupts of the era and spent years in debtor's prison, roughly $4 million in debt.
As will soon become apparent, the document as transcribed and edited by me is difficult to follow in some places. (I do not,as some editors have done, re-write what L'Enfant wrote). All of L'Enfant's writings, even when written in another person's hand, have this quality. I have highlighted those portions of the letter that throw light on L'Enfant's personal and emotional relationship with Soderstrom.
Soderstrom's Indebtedness to L'Enfant
Money lent by me to R Soderstrom and otherwise due by him to me - in the first place summing up the several receipts by himself acknowledged & in order of years & dates by his own statement
1794 20 Novemeber ......... my dft on New York................
1795 10 July.......................cash..........................................
1796 18 August..................my order on Robert Morris.........
1798 26 May.....................my draft for Robert Morris's acceptances....
Rec'd 24 September Mr. Soderstrom handed to me an acknowledgement of the above sums received from me & added thereto that he would credit me $980 more of a profit which he had promised me on certain lands; but this I do not here take into account for reasons hereafter to be shown & I only sum up the amount of money lent him as by his own acknowledgement in order for comparing with the opposite account, for better illustration that, that alone exceeded what charges he could rightly bring against me....
Here Mr. Soderstrom closed; had this account delivered to me on the 24 September 1800 but with this difference, however, that he? made it up rather on a principle rather deceptive against me 3399.82 the mistake of which subtracted have: $2331.85 the total of his charge for money paid to or for use and this to remain susceptible of deductions, according as may be proved for the 2 charges above mentioned, beside which I could justly object to considerable part of each of the several yearly sums ? as including charges either mistaken or extensive.
The case being & I belive Mr. Soderstrom will not absolutely deny it, that it has been his constant practice whilst I staid at his house to borrow from me out of the new money which he made me..... in bringing the matter of the Sale of Land to his wish he would retain the whole of that & credit me therefore. Here it is to be observed that I fulfilled the whole of my commission moreover that I procured purchasers in the first instance who offered nay who insisted in counting down 10000$ & that if Mr. Soderstrom did not receive the whole of that in cash it is because he himself kept the titles to the land back contrary to his word to those people & be the reason what it may whether he received that in cash or that from choice on other courses he desired the transfer of the Land and accepted promissory paper in lieu of cash - of all this? I know nothing nor cared any wise about -- my commission was done. the money was at his option to receive & ? the land was sold therefore the promise as aforsaid is my right any loss or gain that may have resulted from this management notwithstanding & this cannot be contested; but if Mr. Soderstrom had at the time of the transacation conceived the argument with me different He surely must then at least informed if not consulted me on how he settled for the payment of the Land & the fact is to the Contrary. That since he had bought the bargain to a close as explained in the paper above referred to, he would speak no more on the subject and whenever I occasionally asked he waved from the ? question ? ? boasted of his great skill of management of business, telling me I need not concern myself about what he had done, that he remembered what his promise to me was & that was all I had to care....
Thus Mr. Soderstrom maintained me full confident that I had a credit with him to amount over blancing the sum of his supply to me; this as above remarked he often urged as reason inviting me not to be sparing of what I was necessitated to ask of him. And as explained by paper No1 on the Land business I merely expected some trifling deduction from the promised? such as the expense of Surveys but nothing absolutely nothing else but only what he may have to shew of what he paid, if he paid any thing himself for the surveys can anyway be clearly reduced from the aforesaid 3750$
In other part & all prior to any of the above Mr. Soderstrom was to have credited me more - To a balance .............216.00 Which he declared remained due to me by him on a compromise of different accounts, of what sums we had helped? one another whilst in the same boarding house during part of the years 93 & 94 & till about 3 or 4 weeks after I came to take rooms in his house, but not seeing this sum set down among others acknowledged him in the first instance ? & he having never answered to question on the subject but by muttering such expressions as these that he well knew he owed me something more than what was credited me by him....
That Mr. Soderstrom had all in a great hurry, usual with him to affect whenever money accounts are called in question shewed or rather read over to me a Statement he had made up how matters stood between us & by assurance of the credit with him for the balance mentioned 216$ he got my signature to such paper as he wished - at same time he would not give back the bills or notes of mine which it had been customary for his clerk or himself to settle for me and for which they had my money but laughed at the ? that his ? ? would be any Injury to me. In his ? upon the whole there was no occasion to keep ? ? ? of papers, at the same instant he hastily destroyed even the Statement had shown of our affairs saying it was enough that I had seen it & that the ascertained balance would stand to my credit in a new acct Currt., Further I would ask Mr. Soderstrom whether I did not generously aid him with the credit of my Bank Stock for a considerable time before I lost the whole of said Stock by lending it to Rt Morris, did he Mr. Soderstrom not frequently ask me to lend him my notes for to discount, to answer the amount of some of his & otherwise settled with money got by my checks also, by which I was at the expense & looser of at least heavy discounts - whereas of for such services I had speculated upon his wants, as he shows to have done upon mine he surely might be brought to my debt something more & in a different way also
Did he not as I remarked under the opposite account borrow from me out of the very money when he handed? any to me & had got my receipt therefor & did he ever & if he did when & in what place or manner did he return those loans-
Did he not besides and particularly in the years 95,97, 98 & c differently made up some of the money which he at times undertook to bring for me from Rt Morris whose in the current of those 3 years supplied me to amount above 3000$ exclusive of other matters, and did he not Mr. Soderstrom keep a good part of that in a similar way as he did other loans mentioned before, making me at times accept small sums as return of part which he in the mean time charged in account against me, as additional offers of his own
Add to this I would ask him whether he did not borrow money also from me as far back as the year 1786 or 7 on the very first day, that is the very next morning of the day when I was made acquainted with him at NYork beside for other assistance after that which has been afforded partly by me & partly by the Dutch Minister while he was confined in the Jail of that place - Sorry am I to recall such circumsances - I do it because those services done him when he was an absolute stranger to me & for which I never until now claimed merit, will contrast the impertinance of the tale which he affects to tell every one - that all he has done for me was not charity & it wil added to the foregoing, shew what real advances I made him for what I received from him & being in evidence the reasons which I had to have expected a more Gentleman regard of circumstances than he has manifested with respect to the actual ?
For all, however great the conviction of my own mind that I have a much larger due to me by Mr. Soderstrom than the sum figured in the margin of this account & by far exceeding any charge, that he can with propriety maintain ag me, my negligence of particular documents to prove legally the amount of such excess advance as I made to him, compell me to rest on him for an avowal or denial - Nevertheless I will bring to his remembrance, is that he ? and sufficient evidence of that may be found in several of his letters declared that he well knew that he owed me something more than what he for reasons would let it be seen by his account & that he himself also persuaded me to negligence of particularly of money matters, by repeated assurances that he kept a minute record of all between us which account on which he now presumes to sue me does not in the least shew
Now taking simply those sums of money with which I asisted him
3387.80 acknowledged by him
216.00 do do blance due me on settlement of a prior account
3750.00 the right due by him conformable to a Sale of Land as particularly states in a seperate paper
[total] 7353.80
for me half so much as the Account of the years? charged shew & that he was not near at half the expenses for me in his own house as I am willing to allow [see below] - therefore I wish it to be considered that what the total hereinafter? will shew is left susceptible of reduction according as articles of his account first questioned may be substantiated & that I besides insist upon casting out of his account the whole of those multiplied charges of Ditto Ditto the circumstances of which are explained under the first part of this account - This being observed, now suppose Mr. Soderstrom should prove so much of his charge against me as this 4168.51 & that on the other part of the opposite account he should not owe me more on the Land businessthan what he is pleased to tell... 980. And that he should deny having obtained more advance money from me, but what stand by him acknowledged 3387.80 together with a balance due me on a former settled account as I believe he will not contend that 216.00/ 4583.80 which after deducting the above 4168.51 leaves a balance in my favour 415.29. That is as far as my possibly be right charges by his account agt me of 24 September 1800 whereas by the manner of that accot charging me for part of his private expences of house keeping with which I had no sort of concern & adding principal.....
it is in ? here to remark that in refusing to subscribe to the balance as Mr. Soderstrom wanted me as ? - I told him my reasons for refusing & according to my own calculations of the money advanced & lent him & what he was obligated to credit me besides, I was far from being his Debtor - but unwilling to quarrell on the right charges in his account as money suppled me I proposed to refer all our respective accounts to some persons of character & men of business. Mr. Soderstrom cannot veritably deny this as I not only told him of Mr. Fitzsimons letter offering his services in the business but moreover I gave him my own letters on the subject to the above named Gentleman & Mr. Rt Morris likewise by which he Mr. Soderstrom could not but be convinced of the earnestness? of my wish & effors to have terminated all the business with him - The reference thus to Gentlemen for adjustment however did not meet Mr. Soderstroms object. He then said this was not necessary and it was then that as mentioned in the foregoing he wished me to rest assured but he well knew that he owed me something more than he had acknowledged, but would have persuaded me nevertheless to subscribe to what his accoutn shewed, observing it ? that for reasons that could not operate to my detriment in the end. ? I was determined not, he proposed to continue giving me what I ? from him -? I gave him assurances but whenever he would prove.....
accounts to the errorinous? sum principle & interest to 9294$ of ? ? charges, makes the balance in his favour 5808.62 - when by the most liberal admission of his charges of all the above sums should be admitted, I was in advance to him several hundred Dollars more than what he supplies to me really have been ? if doing Justice to his own engagement? my just claim on him was to the full & the opposite shewn to be a Balance in my favour of 3285.29
The ? in the above being in order to shew that Mr. Soderstrom being obliged by the advance of money he received from me to make me returns as I wanted from him, could have no right to the charge of interest for any money or ? suppled me added to which the claim on him respecting the Land if it were only to amount as he is pleased to maintain; adding? ? the possibility that I should have conceived myself his Debtor when he presented the aforesaid account to me ? 24 September 1800 which as in all the foregoing explained being the reason why I at the time objected altogether to his manner of those accounts- By Mr. Soderstrom next account No3 of money paid to or for me from 18 Jan to 10 Decem 1801 ..719.00 in this ? is two objectionable articles, viz, 100$ the 6th August the amount of which is not acknowledged by the person to whom it is said to have been paid & on the 10th.....
It is to be observed here that it was at the close of this account & from what is shown on the opposite side I had reason to consider myself to be a creditor to larger amound than what Mr. Soderstrom could bring of right charges against me - that as expedient to facilitate him in getting what money I wanted, he proposed & prevailed on me to sign two notes to his order for the 7000$ as he had obtained - respecting which I do not think any more particulars necessary to convince that the sum was not due to him. This I believe he will not contest - but that the promise upon which he obtained the same & the object that it was to ? to me being not compled with- He was warned against making use of the said notes & as he has retained the same in his hands he has no plea to sue or any right to the amount....
I shall now mention the practice & mistake in which Mr. Soderstrom made up a long account of - so much for play tickets & of others ditto ditto all alike seemingly trifling, but which gradually swelled the principle several hundred dollars above what is correct- with respect to what has already been observed, comparing the particulars of Mr. S's own account with what is here submitted it will be seeen that he charged me July 2, 1795 $200 and Jule 21 1798 830.69 and also for interest and other expences from said July 95 to May 1798, compounded this interest & in his calculation of the whole principal at the close of the account, thereby swelling the latter against me to 3399.82$ and the reason of the subtraction of those two charges & of interest so compounded by which produce the amount to $2331.85 are for that these 2 charges. Mr. Soderstrom states to be due on certain dfts I had given him on Rob Morris & he had no just claim for the charge in the first place because those were no longer due & at the time he made up, I had the account presented to him, & in the next place because he had not advanced me any thing on the said dfts, and it is remarkable one was a simple order giving him a credit on R Morris for 2000$, the other was a dft on him ? for acceptance 200$ & both those two sums equally with others, he received from me at different times as may be seen by his account amounting together to 3387.80$ had been given to him before I owed him so much, the whole of which being merely a help afforded him & what I generally allowed him to retain at his ease by occasionally supplying me with money, consequently in as much as he received in part & the whole since the entire of said drafts were paid, was so much to have balanced his supplies to me in the mean time....
and the inaccuracy of sweling the sum of those supplies by charges of temporaries due on those dfts given him in advance must be manifest - as must also the error of charging interest on the principal of his charges, be they all correct or not - since by ballancing the two opposite accounts it will be seen he had received more advances from me than the amount he supplied me with - added to this it is remarkable that Robert Morris himself among other matters charges the 2000 amt of my order in favour of R Soderstrom as early as 18 Aug 1796 likewise the dft in favour of the same 200$ was acquitted with interest and expenses for delay by his son R Morris Jr. 28 May 1798 - How then could Mr. Soderstrom pretend to charge me for dues all that time (as is seen by the afore 2 articles, the 24 Aug 1800? Was not this making his account appear greater then he had any right to charge me another part and in the same account his last article ? 1500 partly made up of Interest at 3% per month, said to have been paid by him to prevent certain of his own notes protested given by himself to persons on my account, so that it will be seen the charge indemnifies the expence & I do not contest the Justice but merely refer thereto as a ? that if ever such a case occurred he did not forget it when he drew up the account - & I would ask one question whether as long as Mr. Soderstrom stood obliged by the advance he received from me, to make the payments which he made for me Was he entitled to indemnification from me, in a case like this or any other case of expences in procuring what money I called upon him for Mr. Soderstrom affects to tell ever every where, that he ruined himself by exertions to save me, to this I must reply, by referring to what is stated by the aforgoing compared accounts but the assistance from him was only refunding ? what he received in large sums from me, moreover, the smallness of the sums and the different intervals even by the dates of his own accounts cannot but prove the fallacy of this tale, but even admitting he ruined himseld by expenses in procuring money, so long as he was indebted o me he surely cannot reasonably charge me with the cause; besides I never drew upon him, only at such times & in such manner as he desired me - indeed I did not even draw half as frequent as he invite me to do, & except only one or two instances & that only last year - I never made use of any of his promissory notes which he commonly gave me in lieu of money, which notes were all with the exception as above either were returned or destroyed at his own fire some in Philadelphia & others here when at Steeles & Barneys Tavern, & in so doing I acted so incautiously as to rely upon his own words that he would in like manner destory my receipts of the same, which he happened always to be in difficulty to find & under too great a pressure of business to look for at those opportunate moments when he wished the return or destruction of said notes-
Thus observed Mr. Soderstrom can have been at no expence for his supplies to me as he affects to say - at the same time tis not improbable he may have been made a number of my letters of demand the pretext for what money he himself wanted to raise, those who lent him may have been deceived by an idea that I was under obligation to him, by being kep ignorant what his were to me - and the fact is, that so very far is MMr. Soderstrom from having put himself under any inconvenience to relieve my necessities, that never, not even at the time, when he most exulted at the prosperity of his affairs, would afford timely what I requested, in short he calculated the amount & manner of the relief given me, as would seem with speculative views & my reasons for this surmise is, That he Mr. Soderstrom pledged the amount of my debt to him, to his own creditors before I was any way under any obligation to him, & which was plainly pledging himself, to so manage matters as to make me his debtor - to effect that he therefore would merely afford to prolong my difficulties & never would do any thing as I wished, when he knw my intention by the demand was to have removed myself to other lodgings & it has not been wanting of his endeavours that I am not more involved in debt with others persons than I am
but as before observed I never would borrow on any of his promissorry notes, nor ever availed of the power he gave me to call on different other persons for what money I wanted of him, & happy am I that I did not, the only one or two instances as I have said before when I made use of his note, involved me in difficulties such as I never before experience; Witness repeated petty suit & Judgement & execution out against me, in this District court for sum arrested in my house, which I in fact did not owe, all which owing to his management, trebled the original sum of what I was called upon to pay & respecting which I have till this day remained unable to satisfy the charges cost & c - Here I could truly add but the scheme of Mr. Soderstrom from the very first moment I was so unfortunate as to look upon him as a gentleman endeavoured by squeeking every thing out of me which he could get to render me dependent upon the assistance which he afterward afforded - for a long time I gave him all the facility for his affairs as the little credit of my bank stock gave me with the Bank - at his instigation it was that R Morris asked & that I liberally lent the entire of my stock to him & at the time Mr. Soderstrom would have had no objection but rather endeavoured repeatedly to have brought my title to the debt of Robt Morris to me.
He Mr. Soderstrom was at all times obliging that he would spare me the trouble of calling for money where I had any due - He officiously ? & to what amount those debts were & in lieu of making efficient returns of what he was indebted to me when I wanted either to go to New York or elsewhere, he rather in anticipation of the time when I intended contrived to keep me distressed for money & prevented the Journey, then officiously proposed to me to give him power to recover for me - & in a late instance of the like nature I may justly charge to him the loss of above 4630$ of a claim on the Corporation of New York, the principal of my dependance as witness & attorney J.A. Hamilton Esq is now us more - & remark but the object for me to reover & the means I wanted to go to New York as invited by the latter Gentleman were made the reason of Mr. Soderstrom in asking my signature to the two notes for 7000$ his promise repecting which he after wards disregarded & he kept those notes notwithstanding
House and Living Expences
With respect to the next amount by Mr. Soderstrom for House Expences & different other matters as he therein includes No1: I protest postively against the whole & I do in the most unequivocal manner affirm that there never has been any such agreement between us as the manner of his charges by the same account would imply - preceding this I here refer to explanation of the circumsances how I came to take rooms in his House as may be seen by referring to Seperate paper No.2 further maintaing that his knowledge of the distress of my affairs at the time & since absolutely precluded the possibility that he should have imagined me willing at any time of my residence with him to have shared with him half of all his expences -.. the absolute denial to myself of every ? ? & privation too of many the most necessary comforts of life with which he profusely indulged himself with - altogether forbid such an expectation? and the absurdity of the ? could only be equalled by the villany of the speculations of the charges. - At the same time, this far I will allow that I was agreed to go for half of the rent of the House: conformibly? & admitting the time as per? his account for 4 June 94 to 27 September 1800. I will moreover add 4 months & some days more for the longer stay I made in the House, making the time altogether 6 years & 8 months - but for substantial reasons & have by the paper above referred to, I object the rent which by his charge included that of Stable & coach house with which latters I had nothing to do and on a liberal average of the rent of House singly at 200$ a year for the whole time aforesaid - the just half of that is....666.67
Add to this that I took my breakfast with him for that also I will allow the common rate of Breakfast at private boarding of say $8 month which allowance must be fully compensation for 6 years....
considering that I allow more than the right proportion of house rent for two rooms and besides that allowing the half of house rent for the whole time I kept the rooms as to breakfast I only deduct 8 odd months out of the time; whereas three times that much ought to be dedcuted, I having gone from home once 9 whole months & every winter except one three of four months at times to NYork as vouchers of my expenditures while at the latter place may witness, added to consideration of which half of the time while at home I used to breakfast out & with Robt Morris whose business of building called me to him almost every morning at that hour - thus what I allow for the breakfast with Mr. Soderstrom, is to him more the ration at ordinary. In fact I had not expected any charge at all for consistant to principle of the Invitation - agreement for half the rent of the house as above.
Beyond that and except wood for one Single fire place during part of Winter when I happened to stay at home I partook of nothing absolutely of nothing of his House Expences. And with respect to firewood computing the whole of the several months when I burnt any (as ? ? be vouched from bills of my board when absent to New York during that Season may amount to 3 whole winters consumption at the? of 1 cord per month, tho on the other hand I might object even to that valuation by reason of the way Mr. Soderstrom contrived during the only whole winter I passed in the House; by substituting stone logs in lieu of wood in my firepace as keep me warming myself at the sunshine through all the cold weather, I merely notice this to show that I had reason for the expectancy of being charged the less on that account and his expectation....
alone could have made me consent to such an experiment; passing over this however I grant as aforesaid for the computation of 3 winters firewood....140.00 & this is more than what I have ever been charged for the like period of time at any private Lodgings I never have been in the habit of fire until late in the Season of the after the cold weather has fairly set in- I never kept in the house more than 3 or 4 hours in the morning & regularly went out to dinner, never returned home but late at night for bed - so that I not only spared the consumption of wood but never burned any candels - nevertheless it may be said that going to be the Servants usually left some burning the ? wait for me & 3 or 4$ per year may have thus been consumed on my account - for this I consequently allow ...........30.00 & really for all my recollection of the things I find nothing else coming under the determination of House Expenses which could be justly charged to me-
One thing more however I will also admit is that I had some washing of Linen at times done in the House - but taking Mr. Soderstroms own words as he has genteely told many that he never knew me having more than three changes of Shirts, therefore I could never have had more that two at washing at a time - the charge of him for half his expenses for washing for himself, for his clerk & his crew of Servants when in truth to 6 pieces belonging to me there was at each time more than 20 doz belonging to him and his own people, is a charge too great an imposition to be admitted beside it was only in the latter part of my residence with him that he wished me to let my linen be washed with his own & until then I employed a woman and in his account he charges Decembr 96 some little money he paid for me to the said woman - upon a liberal calculation of the time he may have been at the expense of my washing I am will to allow for such.......40.00
Among other extraordinary charges brought against me are those of House Servants as above observed in the account; there is also a charge by which I am asked to pay expences of the Dinners which he Mr. Soderstrom gave to a set of People such as Masters of trading vessels who had business with him as their Coneul & to others, Gentlemen, both of which were all strangers to me and in whose company he invited me -& be it admitted that those dinners were given at the same Tavern & table where I usually took my own Dinner during the particular period of time which this charge includes, it was but seldom that I was not invited elsewhere I came there & the agreement conformable to which is stated in No2 of the Economy proposed when I took a room in Mr. Soderstroms house - we were to be seperately charged for such days only as we dined there ? for all that the Bills of the Tavern were made out every month may shew in number as he represents it, 1 year old month & days - the particular Bills if they be examined will shew that during that time the number of Dining days were but few, comparatively to the Expense charged - & as repects me, I never invited any one person to dine, my just share of the expense at the ordinary rate for csuch number of days as I came there could not possibly be more than 300$ or about 1/5th part of what Mr. Soderstrom represents the whole of the expence in which he brings me in for 1/2 with him - because his guests were often very numerous & his way of entertaining ? is very well ? by all his acquaintances; he prides himself at the number of bottles or gallons of wine or other liquors drank more than any other mode of making his company cheerful - moreover many of the Tavern bills on wwhich Mr. Soderstrom built the charge on me, - money had been paid in account by myself before Mr. Soderstrom undertook the settlement of what he calls Richardets whole account but I am willing to suppose that he may have paid in those bills for me..300.00; I extend this sum here but leave it still susceptible of being deducted therefrom.
If ? what I allow as above on seperate articles be added together and divided by the time of my actual continuance with Mr. Soderstrom, it will be found that I grant more than customary demands for half board at any place & considerable more too than reasonable to charge me, who besides allow the expence of half rent of the whole house as also explained & only for the use of two rooms & those unfurnished.
it is besides to be observed what has been remarked of the invitation Mr. Soderstrom gave me to take rooms in his house that it was as explained in paper No2 on the principle of economy - because at the time I already experienced difficulties to continue at the expense of the House we were in tho the rate of full board with room & fire as I occasionally kept did not exceed 7$ per week - therefore that I had at least for the calculation of not being charged by him beyond what I was agreed to pay for half of the rent of House as in fact what other matters I allow for as above were not expences to him as he may pretend. Upon the whole in the foregoing I am respectfully benefited Mr. Soderstrom did not really say....
There is still to be deducted 800$ contained in the account No2 as money paid me or for me & which has? already been questioned unless Mr. Soderstrom can satisfy me of their correctness, and as I have other caused till then unecessary to be mentioned here, not only for objecting to the whole charge of Richardets account for dinner, but likewise to believe the whole to have been included in the said account of money paid for me and more than I am willing to admit as my just share-
Wishing nevertheless to give Mr. Soderstrom every latitude for proving his charges - with regard to the Tavern bill I want him only to select what was his from what was mine & the extraordinary charges that were occasioned by his way of entertaining company.
With respect to his charges for the wages & victuals of his servants with as much propriety I think he could have charged me with his horse food & for the expences of the number of Harlots of his Friends who he had in case to provide for
I would ask him of what use his servants were to me? the least I could have expected in any lodging house, merely would be for making a bed & sweeping a room & except that they never did any thing for me - I cleaned my own boots & shoes every day I light my own fire when I had any & he Mr. Soderstrom repeatedly remarked thereon why I did not hire a servant to do those things which I objected to saying I could not afford the expence & certainly this was very different from being agreed as he speculatively would make it believe, that I was agreed to share expences of wages maintanance of such a number of women & men as he choose to keep
Next to this he would also make it believed that I was to bear half the expence of the furniture for the House; - whereas to the contrary he did not ever furnish my own rooms - what furniture I had I partly paid for myself & the residue he paid to the Upholsterer & charged me in another amount 7th april 1795 to that the inconsistency for the charge to me for 1/2 the expece of that for his own apartments when I paid & am charged seperately for that of my own room must be obvious - another consideration the entire of my furniture did not cast above 30$ & consisted only of the following articles - a bed stead of pine roughly made a single matress, coarse cotton sheets, a small blanket & a small pine table in one room - in the next that was my study room two old chairs & an old broken table, which last only the table belonged to Mr. Soderstrom - all the rest was mine and surely the moiety of such furniture in my own apartment could not authorise any idea that I was to defray him the more costly of that of his own - in short I was merely a lodgerr, one who Mr. Soderstrom had the audacity to tell every body he had taken in charitably, when at the same time for two unfurnished rooms I agree to share half the rent of the whole house with him as already explained - & the imposition as well as the indecency of the story as he effects to tell every where of his having him put to great expence by generously aiding me is not only refuted by the opposite account of the advances I made him of great sums of money, but in order to illustrate still more the impertinance of his pretence, I wish it to be considred that- Independant the he received more than the 3387.80$ acknowledged ? that he owed me as much more besides- and also so long as I had credit either with the Bank or Individuals I advantaged him of that credit without compensation therefore - He had the largest part of the House a bed room, a parlour for company which I never entered into but for breakfast - He had the kitchen, cellars, lodging for all his servants he had spare bed room with which he occasionally accomodated strangers
& he also kept in the house his office for his lerk of the business of Consul for their Majesties the Kings of Sweden & Denmark, all that at half the expence of rent - & now comparing his way of living to that habitual with me - Kitchen fire burning all the year long for the servants working during the winter when I had but one poor fire; he had four fires lighted at once ? in his bed chamber, kept buring through the whole night & this was his customary economy, add to this his usual refreshment of Limonade, fruits of the Season ? & which he called for almost every hour during the day for his visitors & besides in the evening or at night, never going to bed without a little cup or dish of something, will not all this have caused consumption of the articles? & I who never partook, nor never would have partaken of those things, If I had been invited those luxurious habits I never indulged - upon what principle but that of the most villainous speculation can he presume to charge me for those expences-
There is also another as curious a charge for the expences of his collection of newspapers which he regularly sent whole reams of by every British Packet to his two Governments Denmark & Sweden. What charges are these? such surely as no person in good senses could ever have any thought of, yet it is by such charges & such alone that he has brought me his debtor in account- Now if adding to what is shown of the state of our account when he got the notes 7000$ from me, what he still wanted from me was an assignment over to him of the claims I have upon Government - his endeavour to force such from me he threatened me of prosecution & put the threat in operation - the Integrity of his whole management by which has brought it to his power to produce any account against me may be questioned & with respect to all I ?.
Bob Arnebeck
return to: swamp1800.html