Spanish government. Their minister was intriguing in the U. S.-their cabinet was at work in Europe, and while every engine was set at work to block up the navigation of the Mississippi, can it be supposed that a few thousand dollars paid to a governor of New-Orleans would have counteracted these important projects, or that he would have dared to hazard his office and his life for any pecuniary consideration an individual had to offer? The idea is absurd; but if the governor was open to corruption, what was the bribe which Wilkinson had to offer? By his own story he came poor to Kentucky in the latter part of the year 1783, in the beginning of 1787 he went to New-Orleans. Three years of the most favourable commerce on a very small capital, in a country professedly poor, and having no outlet for its produce, could not have put Mr. Wilkinson in a situation to offer an equivalent in money to a Spanish governor for the risk of his place, his fortune and his fame. But his commerce was not favourable, his "hopes" were, by his own confession, "jeopardized, and he determined to look abroad for what he had not found at home," which I suppose in English means that he was a bankrupt, and that being afraid of his creditors in Kentucky, he went down the Mississippi to seek his fortune and avoid their suits.

It is clear, then, from these circumstances, that Wilkinson could not offer, nor would the Spanish officers have received money; what then were the respective considerations of this bargain, this grant of the whole trade of the Ohio to New-Orleans? plainly then, that the trade of the country should be libera

.

ted at the expense of the allegiance of the inhabitants and as Wilkinson was represented as a man of great influence, the monopoly was put in his hands; and probably the pension was then given and paid in advance as a capital to commence trade. No other explanation can reconcile the caution of the Spanish character, especially in affairs of state, with the deci sive step taken by Miro and persevered in by his successors, of yielding the object of national contention without orders and without a struggle. At this period too the cypher was formed. We have it from the general himself; and by a fatality of expression he calls this "his first engagement." (b) It must be confessed, that whether he intended to express a connection in contraband or treason, this was the kind of engagement with which the general was most familiar. The manner in which this cypher is spoken of shows that it was for some purpose of corruption. It was formed, says Wilkinson, at the time of "his first engagement," that is, in 1787, with a Spanish governor, and is transmitted four years afterwards among the arcana of the office, to his successor. It is used by him and again delivered with the archives. For what purpose was this cypher formed? "More for the security of the communications of my friend than my own," says gen. Wilkinson. But why did those communications require secrecy? If the only connection was that which arose out of the permission to trade, it would have required no subsequent communication

(b) Kentuckian, page 9.

whatever. The permission once given, the monopoly once settled, the bribe as is insinuated once paid, the thing was at an end; no further correspondence was necessary, at least, none in cypher. It would have been a superfluous trouble for the Baron de Carondelet to pore over a pocket dictionary for three hours in order to decypher the important intelligence, that on such a day a scow filled with hogs or a boat load of tobacco might be expected in town. If the object were mere friendly correspondence, there might be some reasons for the precaution, and it might not be improper to hide the delicate effusions of these congenial souls from the indiscreet eye of the public. But why then was the little dictionary handed over to the successor, when the "general's friend left the country?" This friendship, however, was probably an appendage to the office, and the little dictionary a talisman that kept the general's affections always fixed upon its possessor.

The connection thus formed, and the means of continuing it thus secured, Mr. Wilkinson returned through the Atlantic States to the Ohio. He probably laboured zealously in his new mission, for in spite of the monopoly his own affairs went to wreck, and those of his newly adopted country flourished. The seeds of disaffection were sown by a skilful hand, and men who then stood high in the estimation of their country, are now discovered to have been the hirelings of Spain.

Hitherto my proofs have been presumptive, and such only as might be expected from the secret na

ture of the crime. I come now to tread on surer ground, and will clearly prove the payment of five different sums of money to gen. Wilkinson by the Spanish government, amounting to 34,563 dollars. I will prove negatively, that no part of this was on account of the tobacco or any other commercial speculation, and then affirmatively, that they were the wages of his treason.

In 1789, he visited New-Orleans a second time, and returned by land, carrying with him a sum of about 6000 dollars in silver, loaded on two mules, and accompanied by Mr. Philip Nolan, and preceded, I believe, as far as Natchez, by Mr. Joseph Ballinger, both of them his confidential agents, as will appear by a number of documents referred to in the course of this inquiry. Before their arrival in the American settlements, the general thought it prudent no longer to accompany his treasure. It was therefore confided to Ballinger, who carried it to his own house, while the general and his faithful Nolan rode on to Frankfort. Joseph Ballinger having fallen sick was obliged to transfer his trust to his brother John, who after some days of anxious expectation on the part of the general, arrived at Frankfort, delivered the money to Wilkinson and took his receipt, which is still in existence, and will probably be printed in an appendix to this work. The arrival of Joseph Ballinger at his own house with the money, and the subsequent delivery of it to Wilkinson, are proved by the testimony of John Ballinger, (Note No. 5.) His being accompanied by Nolan is added, and the other circumstances corroborated by the letter of Evan Jones, Esq. (No. 6.)

From 1789 to 1794, if any remittances were made they have eluded detection. But in that year, we have the clearest evidence that a sum of 6000 dollars was sent to be delivered to him, and though it was lost on the route, yet from a complaint in one of his letters we should judge that the shipment was on his account and risk.

Finding the means of transmitting the money difficult, or the agents unfaithful, or the suspicions of Wayne awakened, or from some other cause, the general found it necessary to dispatch a special messenger to receive the subsidy. He pitched upon, Mr. Owens, a gentleman who had been driven by disappointment from society, and who was pursued by poverty in his retreat. His wants induced him

to undertake the mission, and from his character Wilkinson knew hat he might rely on his fidelity. He deserved a better employment and a better fate : for having received the sum of 6000 dollars, he was sent up the river in a public galley to the mouth of the Ohio, he there embarked in a perogue with six Spanish sailors, furnished by the commandant of the galley to go up the Ohio, and was a few days afterwards robbed and murdered by his crew. The whole of this transaction is circumstantially related by Mons. François Langlois, now an inhabitant of this territory, then the commander of the galley in which Owens was conveyed. (No. 7.) To corroborate his testimony are added extracts of two letters from the Baron de Carondelet to Mr. Langlois, relative to this transaction and to the capture of the murderers. One or more of them were tried for this crime, and