Chapter M: CAMPBELL then rose and spoke as follows (47)

“On the 27th of the same month [October last] appeared in the
Richmond Enquirer a certificate given by myself to General
Wilkinson in New Orleans on the 16th of May preceding.
Immediately on my getting sight of this piece, which was the
same or the next day, I addressed a note to his Excellency
General Wilkinson, [No. 3.] Of this I did not keep a copy,
and therefore dare not vouch that it is an exact literal
transcript of the original; but I will be bold to say that
it is nearly (or, to make use of the General’s own language,
_substantially_) the same.

“Between my repeated declarations to many of my friends
and acquaintances (I must say it with a blush) and this
certificate, there is a manifest contradiction. And between
this same certificate and the deductions to be drawn from my
declaration before the Richmond Court, there is an apparent
inconsistency, which it is now my task to clear up and
reconcile.

“During General Wilkinson’s residence in New Orleans, last
winter, I used occasionally to visit him. A few days before he
left New Orleans, I waited upon him one morning, and after
some conversation on certain transactions that had taken place
at a former period in the Western country, and on the delicate
situation in which his conduct during the winter was likely to
place him, he asked me if I had any objection to give him a
certificate that might help him to silence that foul-mouthed
Bradford, and refute the assertions of the editor of the
Western World. I replied without hesitation that I had none,
and would give him one with pleasure, provided he promised me
it should not be published. On this he assured me that the
only use he proposed to make of it was to lay it before the
President, with the view to prove the falsehood of the charges
circulated against him, vindicate his character, and secure
the confidence of the Executive. This, if not exactly, is
_substantially_ what the General said. He then desired me to
sit down and write the certificate. I observed that I might
not make it out entirely to his satisfaction; and that, as he
best knew the points he wished should be embraced in it, he
had better make it out himself, and I would copy it. To this
he agreed. Next morning, I waited on his Excellency, and he
presented me the certificate, which I copied, as it has been
published, with a few alterations. One--a very material one--is
that, after these words: ‘Do most solemnly declare that I have
at no time carried or delivered to Gen. James Wilkinson’--I
erased the words, ‘either directly or indirectly,’ and declared
to the General I could not insert those words. He did not
insist, and contented himself with saying that he wished me to
insert them if my conscience would allow it, but not otherwise.
This is ingenuously exactly what passed between the General and
myself at that time.

“Now let me with the same frankness and ingenuousness, without
referring to any preceding or subsequent event, narrate
the transaction of 1796, alluded to in my certificate, and
concerning which I offered to give testimony in the federal
circuit court in Richmond. It is the same that is the subject
of the affidavits of Messrs. Derbigny and Mercier. That of the
former gentleman is correct as to substance, for I actually
did receive from Captain Don Thomas Portell, commandant of
New Madrid, the sum of $9,640 for General Wilkinson, towards
the latter end of June or beginning of July, 1796, which was
packed up in the manner described by Mr. Derbigny, and when
I was stopped and my boat searched on the Ohio by Lieutenant
Steele, under the orders of General Anthony Wayne, I had other
sums on board, but this was the only one I had received for
General Wilkinson. On my arrival at Louisville, determined not
to expose myself a second time to military insult, and fearful
of being overtaken by Steele on his return, and of being again
overhauled, I landed my cargo, purchased a horse, and proceeded
by land to Cincinnati. As I passed through Lexington, I
published in Stewart’s Kentucky Herald my affidavit concerning
this outrage, supported by those of the spectators of the
transaction, Welsh, White, and Sansom; preceded by a few
strictures on this military piracy, signed Impartial. And I
now take this opportunity of clearing General Wilkinson of the
charge of being the author of it, as is asserted by Bradford,
of New Orleans, and declare it was written by myself, and that
excepting Captain Campbell Smith, no person ever saw it before
it was put into the hands of the printer.

“At Cincinnati I acquainted General W. with the circumstances
that had occurred, and he gave me orders to deliver the money
to Mr. Philip Nolan. These orders I punctually executed. Mr.
Nolan conveyed the barrels of sugar and coffee that contained
the dollars to Frankfort in a wagon. I there saw them opened in
Mr. Montgomery Brown’s store. The sugar and coffee I afterwards
sold to Mr. Abijah Hunt, of Cincinnati.

“I shall take no notice of Mr. McDonough’s affidavit. It does
not refer to any thing alluded to in my certificate. That
part of mine that has reference to my mission to Kentucky and
Detroit in 1797, I shall also pass over in silence, as it has
no connection with the present subject.

“I will now endeavor, in a few words, to reconcile what may
appear contradictory and inconsistent in my certificate, and
the declaration I have just laid before you.

“Was I base and dishonorable enough to descend to
tergiversation, captious logic, and sophistical evasion, I
could maintain that this contradiction does not exist, and
that I never did carry or deliver to General Wilkinson any
cash, bills or property of any species. It is true I delivered
a certain sum of money, by his order, to Mr. Nolan; but
Philip Nolan is not James Wilkinson; _ergo_, I may with a
safe conscience swear that I never delivered James Wilkinson
any money, &c., but I scorn to make use of any such pitiful,
contemptible and degrading mode of defence, and will allow for
a moment that I did deliver to General Wilkinson the money in
question. It is generally admitted that in politics morality
is not to be measured by the same narrow scale as that which
ought to regulate the moral conduct of men in their private
concerns. The rigid stoic would, on a long run, make but a
bungling politician; and the most austere moralist, if he has
his country’s interest at heart, and is acting in a public
capacity, would not hesitate to do that which, as a private
man, and in private concerns, he would shrink and recede from
with horror and trembling precipitation.

“Let us now for a while suppose that I was a secret agent
of the Spanish Government, and that General Wilkinson was a
pensioner of said Government, or had received certain sums for
co-operation with and promoting its views, and that those views
and projects were inimical to that of the United States, should
I be worthy of the trust reposed in me by my Government, were I
to refuse to give General W. any document that might contribute
to raise him in the good opinion of the Administration of his
country, blazon his integrity and patriotism, and fortify him
in their confidence, and by their means enlarge his power of
injuring them and serving us? Surely not; or if I did, I should
deserve to be hooted at as an idiot.”

Mr. RANDOLPH then said it would be waste of time to comment on what he had read, but he conceived it his duty to tell the House that he had good cause to believe that there was a member of this body who had it in his power, if the authority of the House were exercised upon him, if he were coerced, to give the House much more full, important, and damning evidence than that which had already appeared. He alluded to the gentleman from the Territory of Orleans, (Mr. CLARK,) whom he had now the pleasure to see in his seat. If the United States were in the critical situation which had been so often represented, and in which all considered them to be placed, in what position was the military force of the United States at this moment? Was it not proper that this business should be inquired into? He had been given to understand, long ago, that an inquiry on this subject was to be courted; it had not taken place. He had no more to say, but moved the following resolution:

_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
requested to cause an inquiry to be instituted into the conduct
of Brigadier-general James Wilkinson, Commander-in-chief of
the Armies of the United States, in relation to his having, at
any time, while in the service of the United States, corruptly
received money from the Government of Spain or its agents.

Mr. CLARK said he unexpectedly heard himself named, and he would observe that it had been long supposed, from his residence in Louisiana, his acquaintance with military officers, and the various means of information which he might have possessed while Consul at New Orleans, that he was acquainted with certain transactions which had taken place in that country. The knowledge which he had possessed he had endeavored to impart to the Administration at different times, both verbally and by a written correspondence, to which a deaf ear had been turned. As this information had not been attended to, he had refused to gratify curiosity on the subject. And, notwithstanding the gentleman’s calling upon him, he felt himself bound to say that he would not be influenced by fear, favor, or affection, to give any information on the subject, except compelled by a resolution of the House.

Mr. THOMAS moved that the resolution offered by Mr. RANDOLPH should lie on the table; but a motion made to consider was agreed to.

Mr. RANDOLPH said, as it appeared by the declaration of the gentleman from New Orleans, that he did possess information, and as the House had a right to it, he wished the Speaker or some other gentleman to inform him of the manner in which it might be obtained.

[No order was taken on this point.]

Mr. TAYLOR moved that the resolution be committed to a Committee of the Whole, not on to-day or to-morrow, but at a distant day, that time might be afforded for consideration.

After debate, Mr. TAYLOR withdrew his motion.

Mr. GARDENIER moved that it be referred to a select committee, with power to send for persons, papers, &c.

Mr. MARION moved to strike out that part of this motion giving power to a select committee to send for persons, papers, &c.

On the foregoing motions a very lengthy and somewhat desultory debate ensued of about five hours. The debate turned on many incidental questions, among which, whether Congress had a constitutional right to request the President to cause the proposed inquiry to be made? To this it was answered that Congress had as much right to make this request as to request the President to lay before them public papers--either of which requests he might refuse. It was also said, that in making this request, the House could not command more attention than was due to a respectable individual.

It was doubted whether a member could be called upon to give information in his seat, or at the bar of the House? In answer, precedents were produced of cases in which members of the House had been interrogated at the bar.

It was also contended, that if delivered in his place, the communication would be liable to commentary or reply, by any gentleman who might think proper to discuss it, in the same manner as any other speech.

It was made a question whether this information could be more properly received by a Committee of the Whole, or a select committee, or by the House? It was said on this, that it had heretofore been the course of procedure to empower chairmen of committees in such cases to administer oaths; that in the House a member could be compelled to give information if the House thought fit, but in Committee of the Whole he could not be compelled; that if information or evidence were to be received in the House, it would perplex their proceedings by loading the table and journals with interrogatories, &c.

It was questioned whether it were proper to decide it now, to refer it, or to postpone it? On these points there appeared to be a great diversity of opinion--some thinking that the evidence which they had received was sufficient to induce them to pass the resolution without further consideration, being a mere request to the President to inquire; others wished further time and more evidence previous to giving their vote on the subject, considering it of great importance; others were in favor of a reference to a committee, to consider all the foregoing points as well as the propriety of the main resolution; some wished this committee to have power to send for persons and papers, to report to the House their opinions on this subject, together with evidence, believing that positive and satisfactory evidence should be produced before they adopted this resolution, and as it was impossible to understand precisely the evidence now produced from the mere reading of it; other gentlemen wished it referred to a committee without power to send for persons, papers, &c., as they conceived the House did not possess power to enforce their orders in such cases, General Wilkinson being a military and not a civil officer, whom the President alone had power to remove.

None of these points were decided either directly or by implication.

In the course of this devious discussion, the succeeding observations on the main subject were made by different gentlemen.

Mr. W. ALSTON had heard nothing in the documents read to-day impeaching the character of General Wilkinson more than what the newspapers throughout the Union had teemed with for two years, except, indeed, a letter from Mr. Power; and who was Mr. Power, or what credibility could be attached to any thing emanating from him? Every person in the United States who could read knew his character. He was opposed to coercing evidence or considering a resolution proposing an inquiry, even if he were in favor of the inquiry.

Mr. SMILIE thought the debate which had already taken place on a reference totally improper. He had heard sufficient evidence on this subject to convince him that such an inquiry was necessary; he did not think that there could be any further doubt on the subject. The House could not try General Wilkinson; he must be tried by another tribunal. They owed it to the country and to General Wilkinson himself to request an inquiry, and he hoped there would not be a dissenting voice on the question of agreement to the resolution. He could not give an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of General Wilkinson, but he thought it absolutely necessary that an inquiry should be had.

Mr. GARDENIER was satisfied of the impropriety of proceeding on the consideration of any question of importance too hastily, more especially in a case so materially affecting an officer of high rank in the United States. He wished to have time to consider fully before he could vote on a subject of as much magnitude as this; they should not act from first impressions. If the subject were referred to a committee with power to send for persons, papers, &c., the testimony on the subject would come before them in a proper shape, and not with the inaccuracy which must always attend information given in this manner, but in a condensed form, in which its force might be fully felt. He did not wish to be precipitated into an inquiry too soon; neither did he wish an inquiry to be made because it was due to General Wilkinson. If this inquiry was courted by, and this motion intended as a favor to General Wilkinson, he was astonished that it had not been brought forward before. There certainly had been before ground enough shown for an inquiry into his conduct; but if General Wilkinson’s conduct had so far evinced his purity as not to excite in the Administration even a suspicion against his character, if no inquiry had been made on the charges which had resounded from every part of the Union, Mr. G. did not wish now, merely for the sake of doing justice to that officer, to press an inquiry which the Executive had not thought proper to make. Neither did he wish rashly to decide on this question, because in doing this they would add the weight of their accusation to the cries of the whole nation; the united force of which no individual could repel.

Mr. CHANDLER said this was a subject which had been long before the nation, and with which they were all acquainted: if that officer was innocent, it was due to himself and his friends that an inquiry should be made; if he were guilty, it was due to the United States. The evidence produced was sufficient on which to ground an inquiry, and he was ready to decide without further time.

Mr. NICHOLAS had no doubt but an inquiry ought to be made; after what had been heard, if General Wilkinson were the lowest officer in the United States, he should be of opinion that an inquiry ought to be made, but he doubted whether this was a question on which they were now prepared to decide. For this reason he had seconded the motion for referring the resolution to a select committee, who could consider whether this subject came under cognizance of the House; he considered the House as a mere legislative body, except in the single case of impeachment. He was not prepared to say what was proper to be done with this resolution, but his first impression was against acting on it. It would open doors for receiving complaints of the misconduct of any officer; he did not think this power was lodged in the House, and he had no wish to assume powers which did not pertain to them. As to the question whether there should be an inquiry or not, no man could doubt. An inquiry must be made. Would it be said that an office of this importance should be suffered to be retained by a man who had received a pension from a foreign Government? He thought it could not; and, therefore, he wished an inquiry to be made into the truth of this charge.

Mr. BURWELL was decidedly opposed to reference to any committee whatever. It seemed to be the universal opinion that an inquiry ought to be had on the conduct of the Commander-in-chief of the Army of the United States; and it was highly important that the subject should be acted on speedily. If the nation was (as appeared probable) to be involved in war, it was necessary that the Commander-in-chief should possess the confidence of the Army, the People, and the Government.

Mr. JOHNSON said the good people of Kentucky were interested in this subject. Many reports to the prejudice of General Wilkinson existed there; nothing certain had appeared against him, but the people entertained doubts on the subject; there were circumstances which they wished to be investigated; if nothing could be found against him, the sooner his innocence was known the better. Knowing this, he should not hesitate to give his vote in such a manner as to dispose of the subject most speedily. The investigation was due to the people, and to the man himself.

Mr. MACON said if ever there had been a time since the year 1783, in which it was particularly necessary that those persons in office should have the confidence of the Government and of the people, that time had arrived. Could it be expected after hearing the information which had been produced that the people would have confidence in General Wilkinson? It was as important that the Commander-in-chief should be free from suspicion as that the President or the House of Representatives should be unsuspected. The Commander-in-chief during the American Revolution was irreproachable; calumny never assailed him, and he of course enjoyed the full confidence of the people. The evidence which had been this day read, they were told, had neither been before the grand jury nor the court at Richmond, and there was certainly sufficient on which to ground an inquiry.

[An extended discussion took place, and continued, at
intervals, until the 7th of January, when Mr. RANDOLPH withdrew
his motion, to make room for the following from Mr. BURWELL of
Virginia:

_Resolved_, That Mr. John Randolph, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Virginia, and Mr. Daniel Clark,
Delegate from the Territory of Orleans, be requested to lay
upon the Clerk’s table, all papers or other information
in their possession “in relation to the conduct of
Brigadier-general James Wilkinson, while in the service of the
United States, in corruptly receiving money from the Government
or agents of Spain.”

This resolution was adopted by a vote of 90 to 19.

In compliance with this vote, Mr. RANDOLPH immediately laid on
the table the documents he had read on the 31st, and Mr. Clark,
on Monday the 11th, laid on the table the following statement:]

_General Wilkinson._

DANIEL CLARK’S STATEMENT.

In obedience to the direction of the House of Representatives,
expressed in their resolution of Friday last, I submit the
following statement:

I arrived from Europe at New Orleans in December, 1786, having
been invited to the country by an uncle of considerable wealth
and influence, who had been long resident in that city. Shortly
after my arrival, I was employed in the office of the Secretary
of the Government--this office was the depository of all State
papers. In 1787, General Wilkinson made his first visit to New
Orleans, and was introduced by my uncle to the Governor and
other officers of the Spanish Government.

In 1788, much sensation was excited by the report of his having
entered into some arrangements with the Government of Louisiana
to separate the Western country from the United States, and
this report acquired great credit upon his second visit to
New Orleans in 1789. About this time I saw a letter from the
General to a person in New Orleans, giving an account of
Colonel Connolly’s mission to him from the British Government
in Canada, and of proposals made to him on the part of that
Government, and mentioning his determination of adhering to his
connection with the Spaniards.

My intimacy with the officers of the Spanish Government and
my access to official information, disclosed to me shortly
afterwards some of the plans the General had proposed to the
Government for effecting the contemplated separation. The
general project was, the severance of the Western country
from the United States, and the establishment of a separate
Government in the alliance and under the protection of Spain.
In effecting this, Spain was to furnish money and arms, and
the minds of the Western people were to be seduced and brought
over to the project by liberal advantages resulting from it,
to be held out by Spain. The trade of the Mississippi was to be
rendered free, the port of New Orleans to be opened to them,
and a free commerce allowed in the productions of the new
Government with Spain and her West India Islands.

I remember about the same time to have seen a list of names of
citizens of the Western country which was in the handwriting of
the General, who were recommended for pensions, and the sums
were stated proper to be paid to each; and I then distinctly
understood that he and others were actually pensioners of the
Spanish Government.

I had no personal knowledge of money being paid to General
Wilkinson or to any agent for him, on account of his pension,
previously to the year 1793 or 1794. In one of these years, and
in which I cannot be certain, until I can consult my books, a
Mr. La Cassagne, who I understood was Postmaster at the Falls
of Ohio, came to New Orleans, and, as one of the association
with General Wilkinson, in the project of dismemberment,
received a sum of money, four thousand dollars of which, or
thereabout, were embarked by a special permission, free of
duty, on board a vessel which had been consigned to me, and
which sailed for Philadelphia, in which vessel Mr. La Cassagne
went passenger. At and prior to this period I had various
opportunities of seeing the projects submitted to the Spanish
Government, and of learning many of the details from the agents
employed to carry them into execution.

In 1794, two gentlemen of the names of Owens and Collins,
friends and agents of General Wilkinson, came to New Orleans.
To the first was intrusted, as I was particularly informed by
the officers of the Spanish Government, the sum of six thousand
dollars, to be delivered to General Wilkinson on account of his
own pension, and that of others. On his way, in returning to
Kentucky, Owens was murdered by his boat’s crew, and the money
it was understood was made away with by them. This occurrence
occasioned a considerable noise in Kentucky, and contributed,
with Mr. Power’s visits at a subsequent period, to awaken the
suspicion of General Wayne, who took measures to intercept
the correspondence of General Wilkinson with the Spanish
Government, which were not attended with success.

Collins, the co-agent with Owens, first attempted to fit out a
small vessel in the port of New Orleans, in order to proceed to
some port in the Atlantic States; but she was destroyed by the
hurricane of the month of August of 1794. He then fitted out a
small vessel in the Bayou St. John, and shipped in her at least
eleven thousand dollars, which he took round to Charleston.

This shipment was made under such peculiar circumstances
that it became known to many, and the destination of it was
afterwards fully disclosed to me by the officers of the Spanish
Government, by Collins, and by General Wilkinson himself, who
complained that Collins instead of sending him the money on his
arrival had employed it in some wild speculations to the West
Indies, by which he had lost a considerable sum, and that in
consequence of the mismanagement of his agents he had derived
but little advantage from the money paid on his account by the
Government.

Mr. Power was a Spanish subject, resident in Louisiana, till
the object of his visits to the Western country became known
to me in 1796, when he embarked on board the brig Gayoso, at
New Orleans for Philadelphia, in company with Judge Sebastian,
in which vessel, as she had been consigned to myself, I saw
embarked under a special permission four thousand dollars
or thereabout, which, I was informed, were for Sebastian’s
own account, as one of those concerned in the scheme of
dismemberment of the Western country.

Mr. Power, as he afterwards informed me, on his tour through
the Western country, saw General Wilkinson at Greenville,
and was the bearer of a letter to him for the Secretary of
the Government of Louisiana, dated the 7th or 8th March,
1796, advising that a sum of money had been sent to Don
Thomas Portell, commandant of New Madrid, to be delivered to
his order. This money Mr. Power delivered to Mr. Nolan, by
Wilkinson’s directions. What concerned Mr. Nolan’s agency
in this business I learned from himself, when he afterwards
visited New Orleans.

In 1797, Power was intrusted with another mission to Kentucky,
and had directions to propose certain plans to effect the
separation of the Western country from the United States.
These plans were proposed and rejected, as he often solemnly
assured me, through the means of a Mr. George Nicholas, to whom
among others they were communicated, who spurned the idea of
receiving foreign money. Power then proceeded to Detroit to see
General Wilkinson, and was sent back by him under guard to New
Madrid, from whence he returned to New Orleans. Power’s secret
instructions were known to me afterwards, and I am enabled to
state that the plan contemplated entirely failed.

At the period spoken of, and for some time afterwards, I was
resident in the Spanish territory, subject to the Spanish
laws, without an expectation of becoming a citizen of the
United States. My obligations were then to conceal, and not to
communicate to the Government of the United States the projects
and enterprises which I have mentioned of General Wilkinson and
the Spanish Government.

In the month of October, of 1798, I visited General Wilkinson
by his particular request at his camp at Loftus’ Heights,
where he had shortly before arrived. The General had heard
of remarks made by me on the subject of his pension, which
had rendered him uneasy, and he was desirous of making some
arrangements with me on the subject. I passed three days
and nights in the General’s tent. The chief subjects of our
conversation were, the views and enterprises of the Spanish
Government in relation to the United States, and speculations
as to the result of political affairs. In the course of our
conversation, he stated that there was still a balance of ten
thousand dollars due him by the Spanish Government, for which
he would gladly take in exchange Governor Gayoso’s plantation
near the Natchez, who might reimburse himself from the treasury
at New Orleans. I asked the General whether this sum was due
on the old business of the pension. He replied that it was,
and intimated a wish that I should propose to Governor Gayoso
a transfer of his plantation for the money due him from the
Spanish treasury. The whole affair had always been odious to
me, and I declined any agency in it. I acknowledged to him that
I had often spoken freely and publicly of his Spanish pension,
but told him I had communicated nothing to his Government on
the subject. I advised him to drop his Spanish connection.
He justified it heretofore from the peculiar situation of
Kentucky; the disadvantages the country labored under at the
period when he formed his connection with the Spaniards, the
doubtful and distracted state of the Union at that time, which
he represented as bound together by nothing better than a rope
of sand. And he assured me solemnly that he had terminated his
connections with the Spanish Government, and that they never
should be renewed. I gave the General to understand that as
the affair stood, I should not in future say any thing about
it. From that period until the present I have heard one report
only of the former connection being renewed, and that was in
1804, shortly after the General’s departure from New Orleans.
I had been absent for two or three months, and returned to the
city not long after General Wilkinson sailed from it. I was
informed by the late Mayor, that reports had reached the ears
of the Governor, of a sum of ten thousand dollars having been
received by the General of the Spanish Government, while he was
one of the Commissioners for taking possession of Louisiana.
He wished me to inquire into the truth of them, which I agreed
to do, on condition that I might be permitted to communicate
the suspicion to the General, if the fact alleged against him
could not be better verified. This was assented to. I made
this inquiry, and satisfied myself by an inspection of the
treasury-book for 1804, that the ten thousand dollars had not
been paid. I then communicated the circumstance to a friend of
the General, (Mr. Evan Jones,) with a request that he would
inform him of it. The report was revived at the last session
of Congress, by a letter from Colonel Ferdinand Claiborne,
of Natchez, to the Delegate of the Mississippi Territory. A
member of the House informed me that the money in question was
acknowledged by General Smith to have been received at the time
mentioned, but that it was in payment for tobacco. I knew that
no tobacco had been delivered, and waited on General Smith for
information as to the receipt of the money, who disavowed all
knowledge of it; and I took the opportunity of assuring him,
and as many others as mentioned the subject, that I believed it
to be false, and gave them my reasons for the opinion.

This summary necessarily omits many details tending to
corroborate and illustrate the facts and opinions I have
stated. No allusion has been had to the public explanations
of the transaction referred to, made by General Wilkinson
and his friends. So far as they are resolved into commercial
enterprises and speculations, I had the best opportunity of
being acquainted with them, as I was, during the time referred
to, the agent of the house who were consignees of the General
at New Orleans, and who had an interest in his shipments, and
whoso books are in my possession.

DANIEL CLARK.

WASHINGTON CITY, Jan. 11, 1808.

* * * * *

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, _to wit_: January 11, 1808.

Personally appeared before me, William Cranch, chief judge of
the circuit court of the District of Columbia, Daniel Clark,
Esq., who being solemnly sworn on the Holy Evangelists of
Almighty God, doth depose and say, that the foregoing statement
made by him, under the order of the House of Representatives,
so far as regards matters of his own knowledge, is true, and so
far as regards the matters whereof he was informed by others,
he believes to be true.

W. CRANCH.

Mr. ROWAN moved to amend the resolution under consideration by striking out all that part after the word “Resolved,” and inserting the following:

_Resolved_, That a special committee be appointed to inquire
into the conduct of Brigadier General James Wilkinson, in
relation to his having, at any time whilst in the service of
the United States, corruptly received money from the Government
of Spain or its agents, and that the said committee have
the power to send for persons and papers, and compel their
attendance and production--and that they report the result of
their inquiry to this House.

The SPEAKER declared the amendment to be a substitute, and of course not in order.

Mr. RANDOLPH said he was decidedly of opinion that the gentleman from Kentucky ought to have an opportunity of taking the sense of the House on his motion: he therefore withdrew the resolution under consideration: when

Mr. ROWAN moved the resolution as above stated.

Mr. BACON said, notwithstanding the evidence which had just been read, he would give the reasons why he could not yet vote for this House to act in any manner on this subject, more especially as proposed by this resolution. It was not to be concealed that the impressions made upon his mind by the statement of the gentleman from New Orleans were very considerable; but the impressions which that or any other statement were calculated to make, were very different from the question of what it was their duty to do in relation to it. He hoped that they would not be so much impressed by it (for it contained a great deal he must confess) as to suffer it to impel them into a path wide of their constitutional limits. He did not mean to express a definite sentiment as to the guilt or innocence of the officer involved.

He would not, under the privilege of his seat, on the one hand blazon the merits of General Wilkinson to the world, nor on the other, declare that he had sufficient evidence of his guilt. He would leave it to the unbiased decision of the proper tribunal.

Mr. B. observed the other day, and would now repeat it, that it was not within their power to adopt the resolution then under consideration, or that now offered by the gentleman from Kentucky. He then and now conceived that the offence with which General Wilkinson was charged, might be cognizable by more than one department--certainly by the Executive, from his being a military officer. He could say nothing about the inquiry now instituted one way or the other; for if the constitution did not authorize them to complete an inquiry, they had no right to interfere with it, being the exclusive province of the Executive. It struck him further, that if the facts in this statement should be proven on a full examination to be true, (and he did not call its correctness in question, for he had heard the same things from other people,) he could not see why it was not a case cognizable by a judicial tribunal. The constitution expressly forbade any person holding an office under the United States to take a pension or donation from a foreign power. The act of receiving money from a foreign power, therefore--the charge made against General Wilkinson--was a crime against the supreme law of the land, and cognizable by the judicial authority. If, therefore, we could, as proposed, instruct, request, or in any manner interfere with the Executive with respect to that portion of the inquiry which appertains peculiarly to the Executive, as the only power competent to remove this officer, why may we not in the same manner interfere with the jurisdiction or cognizance of the Supreme Court? He could see no difference; with equal justice they could interfere with one as with the other.

Gentlemen who were in favor of an inquiry in this form, could not have considered the subject so maturely as they ought. This was a Government of distributive powers. One class had been delegated to the Representative body, one to the Executive, and another to the Judiciary. If they once began each to invade the other’s jurisdiction, the distributive system was destroyed. It has been said that we are the Representatives of the people; that it is our duty to see that the Republic take no harm. This expression was calculated perhaps to captivate the public ear, and acquire popularity, as well as to captivate the House. But whatever they might think of what ought to have been provided, they ought to consider what was. I do not think, because we may on this, or any other occasion, suppose that we could do a great deal of good, we ought to take any steps towards effecting an object until we contemplate our particular powers in relation to that object. It has been said that this House is the grand inquest of the nation. I do not know what is meant by this expression; but if I understand the meaning of the term, it conveys the same meaning as grand jury. Now, Mr. B. said, he could not agree to any position that this House was legitimately, on general subjects, the grand inquest of the nation. With respect to impeachments, and in that case alone, were they the grand jury, for then the two Houses acted in a judicial capacity--this House being the grand inquest to inquire, and the Senate being the petit jury to judge of their presentment. Now, if this House were the grand inquest to inquire into this, or a similar case, in which an inquiry might seem to be conducive to the interest of the nation, and were to present a result, where was the jury to judge of the truth of their verdict? Was it to be tried by the Senate? That was not pretended to be the course.

On all these accounts, therefore, whatever was the impression which the paper this morning laid on the table might be calculated to produce on their minds, he thought they ought sedulously to attend to the constitutional limits of their duty, and not conclude, merely because they might in any case act beneficially, that they had the power to act in such case.

He had before observed, that he would not express an opinion; but he would say that an inquiry ought to be had; it will, it must be had, and it should be a full and impartial inquiry. If the inquiry which had been instituted were but the semblance of an inquiry, for one it would not satisfy him, or the people, or the nation; it ought not to satisfy them. Gentlemen had said that a military court of inquiry would not be competent. Mr. B. did not know what might be their particular power as to sending for persons; but if that court had not sufficient power, it was in the power of the House to clothe them with it. He thought they might, though he would not say that they ought to do this. As a court of inquiry might have been, or could be, clothed with this power; and, adverting to what he had before said, that it was a case cognizable by a judicial tribunal; and if so, that a judicial tribunal had all the power that this House could exercise in any criminal case, and more than they had in this, he should vote against every resolution going to express a conviction that this House had any power or right whatever to act on a subject solely within the constitutional right of the Executive or Judiciary.

Mr. RANDOLPH said, if the gentleman who had just sat down had not given his hasty impressions, but left his good understanding free to operate, his objections to the resolution would have vanished. The great mistake made by every gentleman who opposed this measure on constitutional grounds, was this: that they looked upon an inquiry made by this House, through the organ of one of its committees, as leading to the punishment of the individual implicated, and that where this House was not competent to inflict punishment, it was incompetent to make inquiry; this was the great stumbling-block, which had impeded their apprehension. But he would ask the gentleman from Massachusetts whether this House was not competent to make an inquiry for its own legislative guidance? Was it not competent, as well in its capacity of supervisor of the public peace, as to obtain a guide for its own actions, to inquire into this matter? Was not the House clothed with the power of disbanding the army? Now, suppose a committee of the House, upon inquiry, were to report, perhaps, that not only the Commander-in-chief, but the whole mass of the army, were tainted with foreign corruption, or were abettors of domestic treason, could any man assign to himself a stronger reason than this for breaking an army on the spot? Did not the gentleman know, or rather did he not feel, that this House had the right of refusing the supplies necessary for the army? And could a stronger reason be given for a refusal to pass the military appropriation bill than that they were nourishing an institution which threatened our existence as a free and happy people? Let me, if it is in order, ask the gentleman from Massachusetts to turn his attention to the proceeding of which we have official notice in another branch of the National Legislature, an inquiry into the conduct of one of its own members. Did they not all know that that man’s offence was punishable by a civil tribunal? But the inquiry was not there made with a view to a trial, not to usurp the powers of the judiciary, but to direct that body in the exercise of its acknowledged legislative functions. Inasmuch as they possessed the power to expel one of their own members, to amputate the diseased limb, they possessed the power, and exercised it, to make an inquiry. Now, the gentleman from Kentucky had just as much right to institute an inquiry which might lead to the exercise of the legislative powers of this House, which might cause the disbanding of the present army, the erection of another, or the refusal of supplies, as to institute an inquiry into the conduct of a member with a view to his expulsion, or of an Executive officer, with a view to impeach him before the Senate.

Mr. R. therefore presumed that any inquiry which this House might choose to make into the conduct of any officer, civil or military, was not an interference with the powers of any of the co-ordinate branches of Government; they were left free to move in their own orbits. If a crime had been committed against the statute law of the United States by such officer, the judiciary were as free to punish it as it was free to punish a member of this House, into whose conduct, upon suspicion of treason or misdemeanor, inquiry had been made, with a view to his expulsion. The Executive likewise was left free to exercise his discretion; he was left free to dismiss this officer, to inquire into his conduct himself, either with his own eyes or ears, or by a military court; to applaud, or censure.

Did they take possession of the body of this officer by an inquiry into his conduct? Did they interfere with the court of inquiry now on foot, but totally incompetent to the object? Gentlemen, indeed, had said, that if that court did not possess the power of compelling the attendance of witnesses, we might clothe it with that power. In expressing this opinion, the gentleman from Massachusetts had not been more considerate than in expressing his first opinion. Could any one conceive a more dreadful or terrible instrument of persecution than a military court, clothed with the power to coerce the evidence, and the production of papers of private citizens? Clothe them with this power, and there is not a man in the United States who may not be compelled to go, at whatsoever season, to the remotest garrison, on whatsoever trifling occasion, at the will of a court martial, or a court of inquiry, leading to the establishment of a court martial.

In the course of the present year, Mr. R. said it had been his lot to receive, from no dubious or suspicious source, information touching, not, to be sure, the immediate subject on which an inquiry had been moved by the gentleman from Kentucky, but one intimately and closely connected with it. He meant the project, through the instrumentality of the Army of the United States, to dismember the Union; and he had no hesitation in saying--and it had been the opinion of a large majority, if not of every one of those of whom he had been a colleague--that the Army of the United States was tainted with that disease; and that, so far from the Army of the United States having the credit of suppressing that project, the moment it was found that the courage of that Army had failed, the project was abandoned by those who had undertaken it, because the agency of the army was the whole pivot on which that plot had turned! This was in evidence before the grand jury, who had the subject in cognizance last spring. He said that these conspirators were caressed at the different posts of the United States, in their way down the river, and by officers of no small rank, that they received arms from them, and the principal part of the arms these men had with them was taken from the public stores; and under a knowledge of these circumstances, was he not justified in the belief that the whole Army of the United States was connected in the project? He did not mean every individual, for there were some who could not be trusted, and some who were at posts too far distant to be reached. That those who were confidants of the Commander-in-chief were interested in the conspiracy, no man who knew any thing of the circumstances could doubt. He, therefore, thought that the resolution moved by the gentleman from Kentucky was every way reasonable. Indeed, he did not know whether the resolution should not be so varied as to embrace not only a charge of that nature, but all whatsoever.

Before he sat down, he should have it in his power to give to the House something certainly very much resembling evidence in support of the justice of his suspicions on this subject. On the 26th of January last, the House would perceive by the Journals, a Message was received from the President of the United States, “transmitting further information touching an illegal combination,” &c., printed by order of the House, and which he now held in his hand. In this Message is contained the following affidavit:

“I, James Wilkinson, Brigadier General and Commander-in-chief
of the Army of the United States, to warrant the arrest of
Samuel Swartwout, James Alexander, Esq., and Peter V. Ogden,
on a charge of treason, misprision of treason, or such other
offence against the Government and laws of the United States,
as the following facts may legally charge them with, on the
honor of a soldier, and on the Holy Evangelists of Almighty
God, do declare and swear, that in the beginning of the month
of October last, when in command at Natchitoches, a stranger
was introduced to me by Colonel Cushing, by the name of
Swartwout, who, a few minutes after the Colonel retired from
the room, slipped into my hand a letter of formal introduction
from Colonel Burr, of which the following is a correct copy:

“‘PHILADELPHIA, 25th July, 1806.

“‘DEAR SIR: Mr. Swartwout, the brother of Colonel S., of New
York, being on his way down the Mississippi, and presuming
that he may pass you at some post on the river, has requested
of me a letter of introduction, which I give with pleasure, as
he is a most amiable young man, and highly respectable from
his character and connections. I pray you to afford him any
friendly offices which his situation may require, and beg you
to pardon the trouble which this may give you.

“‘With entire respect, your friend and obedient servant,

A. BURR.

“‘His Exc’y GEN. WILKINSON.’

“Together with a packet, which he informed me he was charged
by the same person to deliver me in private. This packet
contained a letter in cipher from Colonel Burr, of which the
following is, substantially, as fair an interpretation as I
have heretofore been able to make, the original of which I hold
in my possession.”

Mr. RANDOLPH said he should certainly have abstained from noticing the circumstance he was about to mention, and which he had believed to be of general notoriety, had it not been that within a very few days past, a gentleman, (with whom Mr. R. was in habits of intimacy, and whose means of information were as good as those of any member of the House,) to his utter surprise, informed Mr. R. that he was totally ignorant of the fact.

Mr. R. said he held in his hand an actual interpretation of this ciphered letter, which was made in the grand-jury room at Richmond, by three members of that body, for their use, and in their presence; and it was necessary here to state, that so extremely delicate was General Wilkinson, that he refused to leave the papers in possession of the grand jury: whenever the jury met, they were put into their hands, and whenever they rose, the witness was called up, and received them back again. Here was a copy--rather a different one from that which, “On the honor of a soldier, and on the Holy Evangelists of Almighty God,” was as fair an interpretation as General Wilkinson was able to make. A comparison of the two would throw a little light on the subject. In the printed copy of the last session might be read, “I (Aaron Burr) have actually commenced the enterprise--detachments from different points,” &c. In the original the words had been scratched out with a knife, so as to cut the paper--“I have actually commenced”--not the enterprise, but “the Eastern detachments.” Now mark; by changing the word _Eastern_ into _enterprise_, and moving the full stop so as to separate _Eastern_ from its substantive _detachments_, the important fact was lost, that, as there were Eastern detachments under Colonel Burr, there must have been _Western_ detachments under somebody else! Now, with a dictionary in his hand, could any man change “Eastern” into “enterprise,” and move the full stop, under an exertion of the best of his ability? Again: the printed copy says, “every thing internal and external favors views;” the original has it “favors _our_ views.” The word “our” perhaps could not be found in any English dictionary! The printed version says again, “The project [this is the best interpretation upon his oath which a party who had never suffered the papers to go out of his hand could make] is brought to the point so long desired.” The real interpretation is, “the project, my _dear friend_, is brought to the point so long desired.”