A copy.
MAN. GAYOSO DE LEMOS.
N. B.--Don Gayoso was then Governor of Natchez, and the same
year was made Governor of Louisiana.
Mr. RANDOLPH stated the following to be an extract of a letter signed “T.
Power,” whose handwriting, he said, could be identified:
“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it should not be published.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._