but lament, that the strong presumptions, if not the positive proof long since in the hands of the executive power, were not deemed sufficient to have precluded the necessity of this task being performed by an individual. Let it be remembered that the man whom I accuse is commander in chief of the armies of the United States-that he is supported by the strongest marks of presidential favour-that after he was openly accused, and after my testimony and that of others was heard, he was continued in command, and that more forcibly to express contempt for the accusation and confidence in the accused, he is sent to the very scene of his alleged corruption-is placed with the fullest powers in that very country which it is alleged he wished to sever from the union, and where the freest intercourse is afforded with his former corrupters: a private individual carries on a very unequal warfare against a man thus supported, thus invested with the power to screen himself and assail his accusers. Witnesses are with difficulty persuaded to appear; documents are withheld; and in this country particularly, where the laws have been so grossly violated by this very man with impunity, the fear of military execution has, I know, prevented my obtaining much evidence which would have supported a prosecution, carried on under the sanction of government. If therefore under these disadvantages I should do no more than raise such violent presumptions of guilt as to throw the burden on the accused, it would be enough in so serious a charge to justify the active researches of government. More has been done

and yet all is quiet; no investigation is made by the proper officers: corruption rides triumphant in the car of office-treason rears its head adorned with the trappings of command. But the pageant is nearly past. Unaided as I have been, abandoned as I am by those whose duty it was to take the lead in the inquiry, I have fortunately for my country succeed. ed; and when this evidence is published, not a doubt will remain-conviction will flash on every mind. But the arrogant offender will not engross the public indignation. A strict account will be demanded of those who have thus trifled with the dignity of the nation and endangered its existence.

Previous to the year 1787, the port of New-Orleans was shut against the settlers on the Ohio; their crops were more than sufficient for their own supply, but agriculture could not long flourish without a vent for its productions. The greatest discontent began to prevail, and little relief was then expected from a government then too feeble to effect it. Gen. Wilkinson had migrated, as he says, to that country some years before, being then, as we learn from the same source, in moderate if not indigent circumstances; in the year 1787 he planned and executed the project of opening a trade between the western country and New-Orleans, seconded by some merchants in that city. He impressed the government with a high idea of his influence in Kentucky, and used means (which in his own language it would not be necessary nor obligatory nor honourable to detail) in order to procure for himself the exclusive trade between Kentucky and New-Orleans. On this mono

treach

poly the general does not scruple to found the assertion, "that at his own risk and expense he had procured for his fellow citizens in the west the invaluable privileges of a free trade with New-Orleans." I prove these facts by a publication called a PLAIN TALE, and signed A KENTUCKIAN, which is found in Note No. I. This pamphlet is acknowledged to be the general's by a letter in which he enclosed it to me (Note No. 2). But it wanted no acknowledgment, the general's style is inimitable and sets forgery at defiance. My account of his first expedition, which is annexed to his justification, is referred to by him as a true statement, and that account expressly states the privilege he obtained to have been an exclusive one.

This transaction was in 1787. For some time previous to this period general Wilkinson had been trading in partnership with Isaac B. Dunn, in Kentucky. He continued unconnected as is believed with any other person until the 8th of August 1788, when a partnership was formed between Wilkinson and Dunn of the one part, and Daniel Clark the elder of the other part. These articles will be found at length, (No. 3,) and they establish a community of interest between the parties in a trade to be carried on between Kentucky and New-Orleans. Mr. Clark was my near relation and residing at New Orleans, and of course had the disposal of all the produce that was sent down by his partners in Kentucky. I was then his clerk, and had an intimate knowledge of the affairs of the concern the books are now in my possession,

and important extracts from them will be hereafter referred to.

This partnership was dissolved by mutual consent on the 18th of September, 1789, as appears by gen. Wilkinson's declaration of that date (Note 4). The connexion between Wilkinson and Dunn was also dissolved about the same time by the death of the latter. Wilkinson then connected himself with Mr. Peyton Short, and their enterprises having proved unfortunate, Wilkinson in 1791 resumed his military career. Unable to brook a superior, or more probably afraid that the nature of his Spanish connexions would be discovered by his vigilance-the whole period of general Wayne's command was marked by conduct on the part of Wilkinson which was in the language of gen. Knox considered as

tarnishing the military reputation of our country.' (Vide extracts annexed to the Plain Tale). In 1797 he attained the object of his intrigues and was placed at the head of the army. Here he has continued ever since, and in 1803 had the office of commissioner for receiving the transfer of the province added to his former trust. In this character he visited NewOrleans and resided some months among his old acquaintances and friends. His subsequent appointment to the government of Upper Louisiana, his Sabine campaign, his meritorious services at NewOrleans, and his later movements, are too notorious to need repetition. It was necessary, however, to give this short sketch of his commercial and military life during the last twenty years, in order to take a distinct view of the testimony as applicable to the different periods of his history.

The precise period at which gen. Wilkinson was enrolled among the pensioners of Spain I cannot designate by any positive testimony-a strong presumption, however, may be drawn from the confession contained in the pamphlet before quoted. He tells us that the monopoly of the trade was acquired by means which it would not be honourable to detail. The general seems to think, however, that dishonour would be attached to the disclosure, but none to the act: The world will be of a different opinion, and stamp corruption with the mark of infamy by whatever means it may be discovered. It cannot be imagined that he meant by this phrase to say he had sold himself to obtain the monopoly; he only wishes the world to understand that the privilege was gained by bribing the governor of Louisiana, and that his delicacy was too great to betray him. The general stands much in need of this kind of indulgence, and wishes to set an example of discretion to the Spanish officers—a want of it on their part he knows would ruin him forever. But let any one consider the circumstances of the transaction, and then ask himself what kind of bribe was offered-what equivalent was paid for this treaty of commerce and navigation?

The Spanish government at that time refused to acknowledge the slightest pretext of right in the U. S. to the navigation of the Mississippi. Our government considered their own pretensions, or their means of enforcing them, so weak that it was proposed in their counsels to abandon the exercise of the right for 25 years, in order to have it acknowledged after that period. This was a favourite point with the

B