I place implicit credit, that the Marquis de Cassa Calvo had informed him that 12,000, not 10,000, dollars had been paid by him (the Marquis) to ge. neral Wilkinson, at New Orleans, in the year 1804, while W. was commissioner for receiving the transfer of the province.

Being at Baltimore, on my way to Philadelphia, in October 1807, gen. Smith met me at the Coffee-house, and requested that I would give him a certificate of the conversation between us. I then particularly explained the error into which he had fallen, and refused the certificate. Hearing afterwards that the business had been represented in a manner I did not think correct, I called on general Smith, in company with Mr. White, of the Senate, to whose statement, (No. 53,) I refer, for, the elucidation of this branch of the enquiry.

As the proceedings before the court of enquiry have never been fully published, I know not whether any other attempts were made to disprove any part of my testimony. These only have come to my knowledge. I hope they are properly repelled; and I shall meet, in like manner, any future disclosure of this nature that may be made.

My account of this transaction is moreover fully confirmed by the examinations of Mr. Harper and Mr. D. W. Coxe; the first taken at the request of the Judge Advocate, the other by the desire of Wilkinson himself. Both show the most perfect consistency in my declaration on this subject. Both these gentlemen being on terms of intimacy with me, and the latter my partner and

OF THE

UNIVERSITY
OF

CALIFORNIA

83

most confidential friend, they were the most proper persons to resort to for testimony of my most unguarded conversation. It is now before the public, (NO. 54 and 55) and shews that my solemn official declaration is in perfect conformity to those made in the confidence of friendship. I call the attention of the reader particularly to the evidence of Mr. Coxe, as showing the progress of my opinion with respect to Wilkinson, and the nature of that intimacy with which I have been reproached. At any rate, if I could have been so lost to truth, as to assert the general innocence of Wilkinson, though it might weaken my evidence, it would not have destroyed the force of that proof which I now produce.

The boldest and most unprincipled attack upon my reputation is a charge, that in the year 1795 I had given a deposition, which the general now undertakes to assert was false. The proof, however, on which he relies to support this assertion so completely contradicts it, that I did not think it necessary to make any thing more than a denial of the charge, hoping that no one would give credit to so foul an aspersion, without weighing the proofs produced in its support, and knowing that such an examination must result in the conviction of my innocence. Further reflection, however, has taught me to believe that some more serious investigation on this point might be expected. I therefore intreat the attention of my fellow-citizens to the following statement, which will enable them to

L

judge correctly on this point, so important to my reputation.

By the letter of the Spanish commercial laws, all trade is prohibited to her colonies, except it be carried on by natives, or naturalized residents. The extreme rigour of this rule defeated its execution, and the very existence of several of its colonies depended on its relaxation. This accordingly took place at New Orleans, particularly during the administration of the Baron de Carondelet. The first indulgence was granted, by extending the privilege to residents, altho' not naturalized. The second, by the officers of government contenting themselves with the simple declaration of any individual, commonly the consignee, that he was the owner of the vessel. This declaration was not made under oath, nor was it in most cases supported by any documents. Sometimes it was even accepted from a person, who, though not actually resident, had declared his intention of making a settlement in the country, or who had obtained a licence to introduce goods. It deceived nobody, but it furnished the officers of government with a very flimsy pretext for registering the vessel on their books as Spanish property, and thus preserving an apparent compliance with the law; but so little attention was paid to this formality, that the Governor and Intendant gave certificates that the vessel was American property, even while she stood on their Custom-house books as being owned by a resident. This is proved beyond contradiction by the certificates, (NO. 56, 57, and 58;)

the first granted in the very case now in question; the two last in that of the brig Charleston.

This being the state of things, a Mr. Wooster, an American, alledging that he intended to settle in New Orleans, obtained a permission to introduce a cargo of merchandize. This licence he transferred to John Blagge, John Jackson, and Leffert Lefferts, of New-York, in consideration, among other things, that he should have a passage for himself and family in the vessel that was to car. ry out the cargo. These gentlemen accordingly sent out the brig Grand Sachem, belonging to them, with a cargo, which arrived at New Orleans. early in the year 1792, with Mr. Wooster and his family on board. The permit being in his name, the vessel and cargo were of course introduced as his; but the real owners had their supercargo, Mr. Matthias Nichols, on board, who had the sole charge of the adventure, Mr. Wooster having no manner of interest whatever, or having ever received any transfer, either real or covered, for the

same.

Soon after his arrival Mr. Nichols became suspicious of the conduct of Wooster, apprehending that he might use the circumstance of the vessel's being reported at the Custom-house as his to some fraudulent purpose. In order to avoid this, Wooster was with some difficulty induced to pass a nominal sale to a resident merchant, which was accordingly effected to me. I knew that he had no title. I never paid any consideration, or received any interest; my only object in lending my name

to the transaction being to defeat any fraudulent attempt that Wooster might, by the pressure of his circumstances, have been induced to make. The whole of this transaction was communicated to the Baron de Carondelet, and received his sanction. The vessel then returned to New-York, where she was purchased from Mes. Blagge, Jackson & Lefferts, by Mr. Jonathan Arnold. While she was his property, she made several voyages between New-York and New Orleans, and in 1794 sailed for the Havanna, with the Governor's lady and his suite on board, he prefering an American vessel (Spain being then at war with France) to a Spanish armed brig of 20 guns, then lying at his orders. On her return from the Havanna, the Grand Sachem sailed for Philadelphia, but was captured by a French privateer, called the Mountain, owned in part by a Monseur Lavergne, residing in Charleston. She was ordered to Charleston, but off the bar was re-captured by a British frigate. Arnold came to Charleston, and commenced a suit against the owners of the privateer, who pretended that the Grand Sachem was not the property of Arnold, but of some Spanish subject residing at New Orleans. While this suit was pending, I accidentally arrived at Charleston, and was called on as a witness. I then gave the testimony which has been made the foundation of this odious charge. It fortunately was reduced to writing, so that every word may be compared with the facts. The following is an exact copy: