AN air of profound solemnity, “better conceived” (in the words of one spectator) “than described,” surrounded the events of a summer morning in Morristown in 1773. Three score and seven years later, as he pictured the throng that filled the old county courthouse (“a thousand persons were thought to be within its walls”), William A. Whitehead could feel certain that the “affecting silence” of the crowd was “long remembered.”1
An eyewitness watched as four “remarkably handsome fine looking men,” all married with children and all descended from the “first families in the province,” came before the bar of the court to face sentences of death. As they awaited the fearful judgment, “scarce a dry eye” could be found among the multitude.
The root of their offense, commented Whitehead, was “the bane of so many and of all times”: namely, “over-anxiety to be rich.” But what curse of covetousness could have brought men from four respectable families to this fateful juncture? To many, it seemed, “they had been drawn into it by the art, cunning and perswasion” of a practiced deceiver by the name of Samuel Ford. He’d turned his talents to profit through the production of counterfeit currency, which he ably pursued “as a regular business for many years in different places, without suspicion….”2
Ford was once apprehended in New York for issuing false New Jersey notes, but somehow eluded justice. He revived the practice in a secluded Morris County location, then set off with fellow forger Joseph Richardson, “as great a scamp, but much less artful than himself,” to hone his skills in Ireland and England. He returned to Morris County in 1772 “a perfect master of the business….” For the emission of false Pennsylvania and New Jersey bills, from headquarters near Hanover “in the midst of an almost impenetrable swamp,” Ford made all his own types, and “executed his work so well as to elude the best judges”; it was even said that he submitted his notes to the scrutiny of the provincial treasuries before putting them in circulation. His associates dubbed him “Treasurer for the three provinces”–plates for New York, Pennsylvania and Maryland currency, as well as New Jersey’s, were eventually found in his hiding place–and it was alleged “he signed his own bills.”3
The quality and reliability of New Jersey’s paper currency made it attractive to other forgers, both foreign and domestic. But a flood of fake bills in 1773 led to detection of a ring in the counties of Middlesex and Monmouth (“a gang of Counterfeiters and Coiners,” Whitehead said, had “invaded the Province from New England”), and this precipitated the fateful discovery of Samuel Ford’s operation further north. Arrested and confined to Morristown jail on 16 July, Ford escaped within a day, helped by confederate John King, the only other man besides Richardson privy to the workshop’s location. Ford’s flight was abetted as well by either the negligence or the connivance of the local sheriff.4
Four others involved or invested in Ford’s villainy–probably there were many more–pleaded guilty: three of passing counterfeits and one, David Reynolds, of furnishing types. Reynolds, seemingly the least guilty of the lot, was the only one whose sentence was carried out; a crowd of 15,000 was said to be present at his hanging on the Morristown Green. The rest were remanded and, partly through “influential connections,” ultimately pardoned by Governor William Franklin.5
Ford, Richardson and King had fled, in the meantime, with prices on their heads, including £300 each from the governors of New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Various reports of the fugitives being spotted along a branch of the Susquehanna, heading for the Ohio and New Orleans, or sailing into exile in the Caribbean, failed to result in their capture. By the end of September 1773 there remained, it was said, “very little hopes of their being secured.”6
As thrilling as the crimes of Samuel Ford and their discovery may have been, and however affecting the plight of the condemned men, their memory might soon have receded completely from public attention. “Like similar exhibitions of guilt with the corresponding inflictions of the law at the present day,” the names and fates of the principals could well have passed into an oblivion from which even Whitehead would not have considered them worth recovering.7
But a crime perpetrated five years earlier, and a day’s journey away, would compel Whitehead to scour old legislative minutes, proclamations, newspaper accounts and letters, and to commit the doleful proceedings of 1773 to writing: first, in one of his more dramatic newspaper columns for the Newark Daily; then, ten years later, in a much expanded version of the events delivered to the New Jersey Historical Society when it met, not coincidentally, in the courthouse that replaced the one standing in 1773.8
That crime centered on Stephen Skinner, the treasurer of the Eastern Division of New Jersey, a former merchant and a brother of the provincial Attorney General. (He was a brother as well of Gertrude Parker, the paternal grandmother of Whitehead’s wife.) On a July morning in his fifth year as East Jersey treasurer, Skinner awoke to find that an iron strongbox in his Perth Amboy office had been opened during the night and robbed of more than £6000 of the province’s funds. It was “a sum which few treasuries even in our days can spare without an equivalent,” Whitehead noted, “and which then was sufficient for the support of the province an entire year.”9
The facts as Skinner reported them were believed at the time. In the weeks following, sundry persons were arrested and interrogated. Proclamations were placed in Philadelphia and New York papers (there being no newspapers then published in New Jersey), which promised rewards for the capture of the culprits (including £100 of Skinner’s own money) and pardons for any accomplices who turned king’s evidence. Nonetheless, all efforts at discovery were unavailing. After more than a year had passed, Governor Franklin confessed to the legislature, “It is not in my power tho’ so long a time has since Elapsed to inform you who were the perpetrators of that atrocious Villainy, or what has become of the Moneys….”10
The provincial Assembly was understandably anxious over the loss, and in November 1769 Stephen Skinner submitted to its members “a State of the Treasury at the Time the Robbery was committed”; he prayed that the body would “be indulgent to his Errors, yet he desired no Mercy for any Guilt.” But doubts began to arise about the treasurer’s conduct and character, and a year later the lower house decided he was to blame: the robbery of the treasury had resulted from a “want of that Security and Care that was necessary to keep it in Safety,” and for that reason Skinner should be held accountable for the missing funds.11
Over the next two years, as Skinner sought to avoid paying restitution, even raising the amount of his personal reward to a thousand Spanish dollars, the house grew increasingly dissatisfied at his continuance in office. After elections in March 1772, the mood became more confrontational, fostering suspicions that Skinner had invented the story of the robbery to conceal his own misconduct. Led by James Kinsey, a newly elected representative from Burlington, the Assembly in September affirmed its earlier resolution and intimated to Governor Franklin that, “as the House cannot without his Assistance bring this unhappy Affair to a Determination,” he should act to dismiss the treasurer.12
The governor took umbrage at the implication that he’d been in any way negligent: “If you really, Gentlemen, think the Eastern Treasurer ought to be removed from his Office, you ought to tell me so in plain Terms, and give me your Reasons.” The Assembly obliged with an explicit request for removal, but also asked authorization for Skinner’s successor to bring suit against him for recovery of the lost money. Franklin replied that, while amenable to calling the treasurer to account, he was barred from removing any officer without sufficient cause. He also made pointed observations about the Assembly’s proceedings, and criticized the insincerity of its attempt to shift the blame to him.13
The lower house cut off all hope of an amicable resolution, concluding it was best to “close the present Controversy, lest … they might be induced to forget that Decency which is due to the Commission of a King, under whose Government they think it an Honour and Happiness to live.”14 At the same time, they raised a question that threatened to overturn the royal prerogative to name a treasurer in the first place:
a peculiar Attention ought to be paid to the Inclinations of the People, as well with Respect to his Nomination, as the Continuance of him in Office; and how his Excellency can suppose this House will in future raise Money and put it in the Care of the Eastern Treasurer, who hath been found so negligent in his Duty, they cannot possibly imagine.15
The following summer was dominated by news of Samuel Ford’s arrest, his escape from the Morristown jail, and the trial and sentencing of the four accomplices. Considering all the aspersions cast upon him over recent years, and the likelihood he would be ruined if compelled to make up the deficiency in the treasury, “it was natural,” said Whitehead, that Stephen Skinner “should be led to fasten upon Ford as the person most likely to have committed the robbery.” The governor’s Council, of which Skinner was a member, drew up a list of queries to be put to the four condemned men, about both the counterfeiting operations and the robbery of the treasury.16
Some of the confessions linked the robbery to Ford, and while no conclusive proof of a connection was found Governor Franklin exulted in revelations that, “corroborated by many striking Circumstances,” had brought an affair to light “so long enveloped in Darkness….” He commuted the sentences of the three still awaiting execution, and pledged to bring the fugitives to justice.17
Not all in the governor’s own party could quite discern his “striking Circumstances,” so there was little hope of convincing James Kinsey and his fellow legislators of either Ford’s guilt or Skinner’s innocence. In a 75-page report to the house, Kinsey declared that the confessions of men hoping to escape execution couldn’t be trusted, and that Ford had had nothing to do with the robbery. The truth could be arrived at only by Skinner’s immediate removal, and a suit to recover the deficit from him. Kinsey’s summary was understood to insinuate that the treasurer had been “the robber of his own strong box.”18
As the opposing parties within New Jersey’s government maneuvered for advantage, their battle also raged in the New York newspapers, where “Mr. Kinsey and his report were criticised and defended with much ability and no small admixture,” says Whitehead, “of that party violence which now too commonly prevails on like occasions.” One newspaper descended to printing “an ironical letter” of thanks to Kinsey for defending Samuel Ford, purporting to come from the fugitive’s wife. The ruse compelled Kinsey’s allies to go to “the trouble and expense” of bringing Mrs. Ford to New York, to testify to the publisher that the letter was a fiction.19
The bitterness of the contest over the East Jersey treasury diminished the standing of both sides, but Kinsey’s party were the clear victors. Skinner resigned in February 1774, saying that he no longer wished to risk a greater injury to the people of the province “than the Loss of the Money of which I have been robbed.”20
Whitehead, in the first version of his narrative, faulted both governor and Assembly for displaying “the greatest perverseness–the Governor pursuing a violent, undignified course, and his opponents one unreasonable and disrespectful–so that it is difficult to decide which is most to blame.” But it afterwards became his opinion “that the course of the Assembly was much the most censurable,” as all the governor’s attempts to reach a settlement were rejected out of hand. The Assembly’s victory in this case only lent “more strength and vigor” to a determination to assert their power at every opportunity, and at the executive’s expense.21
William A. Whitehead pioneered an approach to New Jersey history founded on textual evidence rather than anecdote. In order to disentangle the protracted and complicated controversy of the treasury, he gathered, preserved and employed much of the documentation that remains available to historians today. But the puzzle was incomplete, as such puzzles must ever be, and his inferences weren’t altogether free of error.
The decision to name Stephen Skinner to a vacancy on the governor’s Council, which Whitehead placed “shortly after his resignation” as treasurer, was in fact made more than three years before. Skinner occupied the seat even through the most virulent attacks on his competency and allegations of his malfeasance. And while his appointment to the Council may have been “most ill-judged,” it was evidently not William Franklin’s to make.22
Still, while regarding Franklin as the most able of New Jersey’s colonial governors, Whitehead’s estimation of his persistence in refusing to remove or suspend the beleaguered treasurer was in every way correct. The governor did serious damage to his own popularity and authority, although, as Whitehead says with perhaps a little too much charity, such a stubborn position “was characteristic of Franklin, who was generous, and regarded not the consequences to himself when anxious to serve his friends.”23
The treasurer’s slow fall from grace was, of course, part prelude to the collapse of British authority in the colony. That the governor himself would, before long, be deposed and imprisoned shows that small deeds, and “otherwise trifling circumstances” such as those just narrated, can so operate on the public mind as to clear the way for momentous change.24
Whitehead reserved his concluding thoughts, however, for Samuel Ford, the “artful rogue” of the story whose jail cell couldn’t hold him for even a day. In a copy of a letter (appearing to be duly authenticated) sent to one of those Morristown prisoners who perhaps had escaped the gallows by implicating him in the robbery of the treasury, Ford protested that he had nothing whatever to do with the crime. It was his earnest wish to be exonerated, however, because “his friends … thought much the worse of him for it–not minding the money making charge, which they looked upon only as a piece of ingenuity.”25 A singular admonition, it seems, against having too much faith in the rectitude of the popular mind.
Copyright © 2026 Gregory J. Guderian
Last revised 2026.06.20
[1] Rivington’s New-York (N.Y.) gazetteer; or the Connecticut, New-Jersey, Hudson’s-River, and Quebec weekly advertiser (hereafter “Rivington’s New-York gazetteer”) 9 September 1773 2:4-3:1, reprinted in William Nelson and A. Van Doren Honeyman, edd. Documents relating to the colonial history of the State of New Jersey, ser. 1, 29. Tenth volume of extracts from American newspapers relating to New Jersey 1773–1774 (Archives of the State of New Jersey, ser. 1, 29. Paterson 1917. Hereafter “NJA ser. 1, 29”) (15-19) 18. William A. Whitehead first published on the case as G. P., “The counterfeiters. An episode in the history of New Jersey,” Newark (N.J.) daily advertiser 7 October 1840 (hereafter “G. P., ‘The counterfeiters’”) 2:4-6; he expanded his treatment, ten years later, in W. A. Whitehead, “The robbery of the treasury of East Jersey in 1768, and contemporaneous events. A paper read before the New-Jersey Historical Society, September 12th, 1850,” Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society [ser. 1] 5:2 (1850) (49-65; hereafter “Whitehead, ‘The robbery of the treasury’”) 51. The reader will find far more detailed and possibly more accurate accounts of the events I’ve narrated here in Kenneth Scott, Counterfeiting in colonial Pennsylvania (Numismatic notes and monographs, 132. New York 1955) 111-132, and Larry R. Gerlach, “Politics and prerogatives. The aftermath of the robbery of the East Jersey treasury in 1768,” New Jersey history 90:3 (Autumn 1972; hereafter “Gerlach, ‘Politics and prerogatives’”) 133-168.
[2] Rivington’s New-York gazetteer 9 September 1773 3:1; NJA ser. 1, 29:18; Whitehead, “The robbery of the treasury” 51-52.
[3] Rivington’s New-York gazetteer 29 July 1773 1:4, 9 September 1773 3:1; NJA ser. 1, 29:17; G. P., “The counterfeiters” 2:4; Whitehead, “The robbery of the treasury” 53. From an inspection of several authentic New Jersey bills in his possession, Whitehead concluded: “The Treasurers were certainly excusable, if unable to detect the false from the genuine upon a cursory examination for, printed with common types on coarse paper, the most indifferent workman could scarcely fail of producing a successful imitation. … The greatest security seems to have been afforded by a difference in the color of the ink in different parts of the bills, and the awful annunciation on the back, ‘Tis Death to counterfeit.’” Whitehead, “The robbery of the treasury” 53-54.
[4] “Fifty pounds reward,” Rivington’s New-York gazetteer 22 July 1773 3:1; The New-York (N.Y.) journal; or, the general advertiser (hereafter “The New-York journal”) 22 July 1773 3:1; The New-York (N.Y.) gazette; and the weekly Mercury (hereafter “The New-York gazette”) 26 July 1773 1:1. Cf. Rivington’s New-York gazetteer 29 July 1773 1:4; G. P., “The counterfeiters” 2:4; Whitehead, “The robbery of the treasury” 53. For the ring in Middlesex County, see Kenneth Scott, “The Middlesex counterfeiters,” Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society n.s. 70:4 (October 1952) 246-249. In February 1774, charges were brought against sheriff Thomas Kinney for his role in Ford’s escape, but no prosecution seems to have ensued: Frederick W. Ricord and Wm. Nelson, edd. Documents relating to the colonial history of the State of New Jersey. 10. Administration of Governor William Franklin. 1767–1776 (Archives of the State of New Jersey, ser. 1, 10. Newark 1886. Hereafter “NJA ser. 1, 10”) 419-420; Frederick W. Ricord, ed. Documents relating to the colonial history of the State of New Jersey, 18. Journal of the Governor and Council. 6. 1769–1775 (Archives of the State of New Jersey, ser. 1, 18. Trenton 1893. Hereafter “NJA ser. 1, 18”) 379-380 and cf. 369, 525. Immediately after Ford’s escape, Kinney was reportedly told, “I know where Ford is and will take you to the spot, but you know you dare not, for your own sake, arrest him!” Joseph F. Tuttle, “The early history of Morris County, New Jersey, … read before the Society, May 20th, 1869,” Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society, ser. 2, 2:1 (1870) (15-53) 42.
[5] The Pennsylvania journal; and the weekly advertiser (Philadelphia, Pa.; hereafter “The Pennsylvania journal”) 22 September 1773 2:2-3; Rivington’s New-York gazetteer 23 September 1773 3:1; The New-York gazette 27 September 1773 3:2, 13 December 1773 3:2; The New-York journal 16 December 1773 3:3; NJA ser. 1, 18:357-358; 29:28, 32-35, 128; G. P., “The counterfeiters” 2:4; Whitehead, “The robbery of the treasury” 55.
[6] Rivington’s New-York gazetteer 16 September 1773 3:2, 23 September 1773 3:1, 30 September 1773 2:4-3:1, 14 October 1773 2:4, 16 December 1773 1:3-4; The New-York gazette 4 October 1773 3:2; The Pennsylvania journal 1 December 1773 1:1; The Pennsylvania gazette (Philadelphia, Pa.) 1 December 1773 1:1; NJA ser. 1, 18:361-362; 29:23, 28-29, 40, 42, 62-63, 124-127; G. P., “The counterfeiters” 2:4-5; Whitehead, “The robbery of the treasury” 56.
[7] G. P., “The counterfeiters” 2:5; cf. Whitehead, “The robbery of the treasury” 56.
[8] The two pieces are cited in full in note 1 above. Whitehead read his second version at the Society’s September 1850 meeting, held in Morristown in the 1827 courthouse, which still stands. See Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society [ser. 1] 5:2 (1850) 43.
[9] Whitehead, “The robbery of the treasury” 56. For early notices of the robbery, see The New-York gazette 25 July 1768 3:1, The New-York journal 28 July 1768 3:1, 3:2; William Nelson, ed. Documents relating to the colonial history of the State of New Jersey. 26. Extracts from American newspapers, relating to New Jersey. 7. 1768–1769 (Archives of the State of New Jersey, ser. 1, 26. Paterson 1904. Hereafter “NJA ser. 1, 26”) 230, 233; cf. Frederick W. Ricord, ed. Documents relating to the colonial history of the State of New Jersey. 17. Journal of the Governor and Council. 5. 1756–1768 (Archives of the State of New Jersey, ser. 1, 17. Trenton 1892. Hereafter “NJA ser. 1, 17”) 519-520. Skinner’s affidavit relative to the robbery is printed in NJA ser. 1, 10:37-39 and 17:520-522.
[10] NJA ser. 1, 18:39 and 26:539. Efforts in New Jersey and the neighboring provinces to capture the robbers are documented in NJA ser. 1, 10:39-40; 17:524-525; 18:6-8, 43, 47; 26:230, 240-241, 253, 255, 541-542; 29:47-48, 63, 76-77, 124-127. For Governor Franklin’s report of the investigation, see Votes and proceedings of the General Assembly of the Colony of New-Jersey. At a session began at Burlington, Wednesday, November 10, 1773, and continued until the 11th day of March following. Being the second session of the Twenty-second Assembly of New-Jersey (Burlington 1774; hereafter “Votes and proceedings … 1773–1774”) 32-58.
[11] Votes and proceedings of the General Assembly of the Province of New-Jersey. At a session of general assembly, began at Burlington, October 10, 1769, and continued till the 6th day of December following. Being the first session of the Twenty-first Assembly of New-Jersey (Woodbridge 1759 [i.e. 1769]) 74; Votes and proceedings of the General Assembly of the Province of New-Jersey. At a session, began at Perth-Amboy, September 26, 1770, and continued till the 27th of October following. Being the third session of the 21st Assembly of New-Jersey (Burlington 1770) 30; Votes and proceedings of the General Assembly of the Colony of New-Jersey. At a session began at Perth-Amboy, Wednesday, August 19th 1772, and continued until the 26th day of September following. Being the first session of the Twenty-second Assembly of New Jersey (Burlington 1772; hereafter “Votes and proceedings … 1772”) 56, 64. Extracts from the minutes and proceedings of the Assembly of New-Jersey, relative to the robbery of the Eastern treasury, at the session held at Perth-Amboy in September 1772 (Burlington [1772]; hereafter “Extracts from the minutes and proceedings”) 4-6.
[12] William Nelson, ed. Documents relating to the colonial history of the State of New Jersey. 28. Extracts from American newspapers, relating to New Jersey. 9. 1772–1773 (Archives of the State of New Jersey, ser. 1, 28. Paterson 1916) 77-78; Votes and proceedings … 1772 56; Extracts from the minutes and proceedings 4.
[13] Votes and proceedings … 1772 65; Extracts from the minutes and proceedings 7; Votes and proceedings … 1773–1774 115-116; NJA ser. 1, 18:375-376.
[14] Votes and proceedings … 1772 95; Extracts from the minutes and proceedings 26.
[15] Votes and proceedings … 1772 95; Extracts from the minutes and proceedings 26-27. In one of three private letters in Whitehead’s possession, the attorney general and brother of Stephen Skinner wrote that the Assembly’s arrogation of the right to nominate and remove treasurers was “the darling object to which every other Consideration would be sacrificed.” Cortlandt Skinner, [December 1773], to Philip Kearny, in NJA ser. 1, 10:412-413. The governor addressed the lower house more openly on this issue: “The grand Desideratum, which has been the secret Spring and Mover of all your Actions, is at length suffered to make its Appearance. The Removal of the Treasurer was not so warmly contended for, it seems, for the Sake of bringing him to an Account, as that your House might have the Appointment of another to that Office.” Votes and proceedings … 1772 101; Extracts from the minutes and proceedings 30.
[16] Whitehead, “The robbery of the treasury” 58; cf. G. P., “The counterfeiters” 2:5. See NJA ser. 1, 18:359.
[17] Votes and proceedings … 1773–1774 5; Rivington’s New-York gazetteer 16 December 1773 1:2; The New-York journal 16 December 1773 3:3; NJA ser. 1, 18:396-397; 29:120.
[18] James Kinsey’s report is printed in Votes and proceedings … 1773–1774 85-112. See G. P., “The counterfeiters” 2:5; Whitehead, “The robbery of the treasury” 59-60.
[19] Whitehead, “The robbery of the treasury” 63; cf. G. P., “The counterfeiters” 2:5. For Grace Ford’s purported letter, see Rivington’s New-York gazetteer 27 January 1774 2:4; NJA ser. 1, 29:222-224. (A copy is found in Manuscript Group 2, East Jersey Manuscript Collection, 1667–1873, no. 19, New Jersey Historical Society.) A “reply” from Kinsey and Mrs. Ford’s repudiation of the first letter followed: Rivington’s New-York gazetteer 10 February 1774 2:4, 24 February 1774 1:3.
[20] Votes and proceedings … 1773–1774 176-177; NJA ser. 1, 10:(421-424) 424, 18:(381-383) 383. Franklin’s message to the Assembly transmitting Skinner’s letter of resignation exists in “a very unfaithful copy” (as Whitehead noted on the manuscript itself) in Manuscript Group 2, East Jersey Manuscript Collection, 1667–1873, no. 20, New Jersey Historical Society.
[21] G. P., “The counterfeiters” 2:5; Whitehead, “The robbery of the treasury” 62-63. A half-century ago, Larry Gerlach concluded similarly, that “primary responsibility for the stalemate which paralyzed the legislative process belongs to the Assembly and its bold grab for prerogative power.” Gerlach, “Politics and prerogatives” 146-147.
[22] Whitehead, “The robbery of the treasury” 63; cf. G. P., “The counterfeiters” 2:5. Whitehead later repeated his mistake regarding the timing of the nomination: “After his resignation, Governor Franklin, very unwisely for his own popularity, appointed Mr. Skinner one of his Council.” William A. Whitehead, Contributions to the early history of Perth Amboy and adjoining country, with sketches of men and events in New Jersey during the provincial era (New York 1856) 111. Skinner was admitted to the Council in September 1770, having been recommended by the Board of Trade as one who “has long been upon their list as a person to whom they stood engaged for the first vacancy.” He was not one of Franklin’s nominees. (The Board was misreported as recommending Cortlandt Skinner, his brother.) See William Franklin, Burlington 5 October 1769, to the Earl of Hillsborough; Earl of Hillsborough, Whitehall 9 December 1769, to Governor Franklin; Order in Council, St. James’s 14 December 1769; Earl of Hillsborough, Whitehall 18 January 1770, to Governor Franklin, NJA ser. 1, 10:131-132, 139-140, 143-144, 147-148; 18:185-186.
[23] Whitehead, “The robbery of the treasury” 63. With the worsening of the controversy, the Chief Justice worried “this extraordinary attachment which the Governor has shewn to the Treasurer, will occasion much discontent, if not worse consequences.” Frederick Smyth, Perth Amboy 5 October 1772, to the Earl of Hillsborough, NJA ser. 1, 10:(379-382) 380.
[24] Whitehead, “The robbery of the treasury” 65.
[25] This letter was addressed to Benjamin Cooper, one of the men whose testimony had linked Ford to the robbery; Whitehead cites a copy “among the manuscripts in the New York Historical Library” in G. P., “The counterfeiters” 2:6; cf. Whitehead, “The robbery of the treasury” 65. The bearer of the same or a similar letter informed Cooper that Ford “could not remain quietly unless I would give from under my hand that he was thus wrongfully accused.” Affidavit of B. Cooper, 8 September 1774, Manuscript Group 409, Stevens Family Papers, 1663–1959, Box 10/8, New Jersey Historical Society.