Daniel Clark sworn and examined in this cause.

I, Daniel Clark, do hereby solemnly swear that I was not ever, at any period, interested, either in whole nor in part, in the brig Grand Sachem, neither had I, nor any other person whatsoever, to the best of my knowledge, any title deed or transfer of her from Jonathan Arnold, or the former proprietors of said vessel; that I was only agent for her while in the port of New Orleans, where I received a commission for transacting her business from said Jonathan Arnold, whose sole property I know her to be; and I further swear that said Arnold had contracted to deliver in New Orleans in four months, to commence from the fifth day of July, 1794, the quantity of three thousand barrels of flour, at the rate of thirteen dollars one and an half rials per barrel, or twelve dollars free of duty, and if he exceeded the space of four months, he was to receive but eleven dollars and an half rial per barrel, or ten dollars free of duty, at which price captain Gideon Guyer, of Wilmington, in the state of Deleware, did in my presence propose to said Arnold to deliver to him, in New Orleans, the whole, or any part of the same, within the period of four months, which said Arnold would not agree to, from the persuasion, as he informed me, that he could himself import it cheaper; and the said Arnold is, to my particular knowledge, liable to be prosecuted for not complying with his contract. Charleston, 24th January, 1795.

DANIEL CLARK.

Sworn 24th January, 1795, before me,

THOMAS HALL, Clerk, &c.

Daniel Clark's answers to interrogatories, administered to him by Mr. Peace in this cause. Answer. She never was represented as belonging to Spaniards, or naturalized subjects of Spain. 2d Answer.-Nor did Jonathan Arnold or any other person make any sale or transfer of the said brig Grand Sachem to me, or to any other person, to my knowledge and belief, since she was the property of the said Arnold; and I do not believe it was necessary for her to have been made over to any person, for the purpose of obtaining permission to trade to New Orleans as he did. Captain Baldwin cleared her, and entered her, and to my certain knowledge it was known to the governor and officers of government that she was American property, having myself carried and left with him, the governor, for examination, the register and president's sea letter, in order to induce him to let his lady go passenger in her as a neutral vessel.

3d Answer. I do not remember any receipt was shewn to me, in which she is mentioned as my property. If any such receipt should exist, it must have been through mistake.

4th Answer.-With respect to colours, I never knew her to have any other than American; that when she went down the river Missisippi, with the governor and his lady on board, she wore American colours; she had a small Spanish jack on board, which might be for the purpose of making signals for pilots, as they are not obliged by Spanish laws to go on board of Spanish vessels without a Spanish signal, in token of amity. If she

had not her name in her stern, and place she belonged to, I cannot account for what reason, as she ought to have had them, and I suppose she must have had them, as well as any other American vessel that frequents New Orleans.

DANIEL CLARK.

Sworn before me, 24th January, 1795.

THOMAS HALL, Clerk.

Now let this testimony be compared with the facts in the case, as proved by the annexed documents. Let it be scrupulously weighed, and all suspicion of the foul crime, which I blush even in my justification to see coupled with my name, all idea even of the slightest impropriety, will vanish, while the abortive attempt to discredit me will shew the desperate nature of that cause, which can only be supported by calumnies like these. Without any statement of the facts I have exhibited, it would naturally be asked, what motive could have induced a man in my situation to volunteer the commission of so detestable a crime? For even supposing that I had received an interest in 1792, it is clear, even without the proof I offer, that I had none when the vessel was lost. What motive then could induce a man of good character and respectable station in life wantonly to prostitute the one, and forfeit all title to the other. This reflexion would naturally lead to a close examination of the charge, and that must end in the persuasion of my innocence. But as unfortunately there are many, who, too indolent to

examine for themselves, take up their opinions from the biassed representations of others, I have thought it my duty to draw their attention to the points of accusation, and show those on which I rely for defence.

1st. It is stated, that when I alledge in my affidavit that "neither I, nor any other person what16 ever, to the best of my knowledge, had any ti"tle deed or transfer of the vessel from Jonathan "Arnold, or the former proprietor of the said ves"sel," I must have misstated the fact, because Wooster had before conveyed her to me. But by the testimony of Mr. Blagge, (NO. 59,) it appears that Mr. Wooster, the only person from whom it is pretended I had ever received a conveyance, never was a proprietor at all. Consequently, my testimony in this respect is perfectly correct, and I could have made no other, without violating the truth.

2d. That in my answer to the second interrogatory, I declare that "the (Grand Sachem) never was represented as belonging to Spaniards,

or naturalized subjects of Spain," and that this is disproved by the production of the transfer to me. But I was neither a Spaniard, nor a naturalized subject of Spain. For the proof of this fact, I refer to the certificate of Don Andres Armesto, (No. 60.) This gentleman was Secretary of the province, who must have known my relation to the government; and he states explicitly that I would never take the oath of allegiance, altho' it was frequently proposed to me. That the vessel never

was represented as Spanish appears too from the certificate, (NO. 56,) above referred to.

3d. That my answer to the second interrogatory denies that any sale was made by Arnold, or any other person, to me, since the brig was the property of Arnold. This is exactly according to the fact; for it appears, by the declaration of Mr. Blagge, that the vessel was not conveyed to Arnold until long after the date of Wooster's conveyance to me; which also appears by the register of the brig, given when the property was changed, and which bears date the 10th of January, 1793, (No. 61.)

The other circumstance stated in my deposition, relative to the knowledge of the government, is proved by the certificate above referred to, (NO. 56,) and the testimony of Mr. Porter, (NO. 62;) and the assertion, that a transfer was not necessary to obtain the permission to trade, is evident, from her being permitted in the first instance to enter, without any nominal sale to Wooster. What, then, appears, from the whole of this transaction? Testimony given according to the exact and literal statement of facts. But if the letter of the fact has been adhered to, the spirit of the truth has been equally preserved; for I should think as contemptibly of the man who should shelter himself under the literal meaning of his words, while it was evidently his intention to convey an idea different from their strict import, as I would of the bold abandoned perjurer. To constitute this species of guilt, there must be deception. Upon

M