|
GEN. JAMES WILKINSON AND OF HIS CONNEXION WITH AARON BURR. [“Proofs” Pages 81-100] Daniel Clark  1766-1813 |
|
GEN. JAMES WILKINSON AND OF HIS CONNEXION WITH AARON BURR. [“Proofs” Pages 81-100] Daniel Clark 1766-1813 |
Note |
Each section below reflects a true page of this historical publication. Note links refer to the letters and documents that Daniel Clark used as evidence of his former friend's treachery. People and place-name links are to biographical and geographical pages in Encyclopedia Louisiana. Time links are to the Encyclopedia Louisiana Timeline. |
|
Page
***81*** |
port were found to be groundless, I should be at liberty to communicate the information to general Wilkinson. I then went to the Intendant's where I made enquiries, the result of which convinced me that no such sum had been paid. I reported this to Dr. Watkins and to Mr. Evan Jones, requesting Mr. Jones to communicate the circumstance to general Wilkinson. At Washington, in the winter of 1806-7, some conversation took place between Mr. Alston and myself on this subject, occasioned by a letter which had been received from colonel Claiborne, of the Mississippi territory, removing the suspicions on this subject. I then freely expressed my opinion that the report was unfounded. Mr. Alston, however, having mentioned that he understood that this money had been received for tobacco, and that this way of accounting for it had come from gen. Smith, to know whether the receipt of the money was admitted by Wilkinson. He having denied any knowledge of the business, I concluded the report mentioned by Mr. Alston to be groundless, and repeated to general Smith what I have above stated respecting my enquiries at the Spanish treasury, and authorised him to mention it. This he construed into an assurance that Wilkinson had at no time received money from the Spaniards, and published something to that effect. In May 1807 I learned, from a person in whom |
|
Page
***82*** |
I place implicit credit, that the Marquis de Cassa Calvo had informed him that 12,000, not 1000, dollars had been paid by him (the Marquis) to general 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,) Explanation of Samuel White 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 to 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 |
|
Page
***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, 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 |
|
Page
***84*** |
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 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;) |
|
Page
***85*** |
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 carry 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 of 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 |
|
Page
***86*** |
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 ad 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, 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: - |
|
Page
***87*** |
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 if 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 a 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 half rial per barrel. or ten dollars free of duty. at which price captain Gideon Guyer, of Wilmington, in the state of Delaware, did in my presence propose to said Arnold to deliver to him, in New Orleans, the whole, or any part of the same, with in 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 contact. Charleston, 24th January, 1795 DANIEL CLARK. Sworn 24th January, 1795, before me, Thomas Hall, Clerk, &c. |
|
Page
***88*** |
Daniel Clark's answer 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 Mississippi, 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 |
|
Page
***89*** |
had not her name in her stern, and place she belonged to, I cannot account for that 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 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 would induce a man of good character and respectable station in life wantonly to prostitute the one, and forfeit all the 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. Bust as unfortunately there are many, who, too indolent to |
|
Page
***90*** |
examine for themselves, take up their opinions from the biassed representations of others, I have thought it my duty to draw their attentions to the point 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 whatever, to the best of my knowledge, had any title deed or transfer of the vessel from Jonathan Arnold, or the former proprietor of the said vessel,” 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, neither 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 |
|
***91*** |
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 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. 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 he 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 |
|
***92*** |
whom could any have been intended? Not the government; they were fully apprized of the true character of the vessel. The owners? It was done with the consent of their agent, and for their benefit. The enemies of Spain? As little; no Spaniard having any interest, they could not complain either of my conduct or my declaration. Let it be remembered, that the whole value of this vessel was about three thousand dollars, and then determine what sum Mr. Arnold could have given, to induce me to come from New Orleans to Charleston, to perjure myself for his benefit. The very transfer to me, upon which general Wilkinson relies, was before the court; and yet they determine for Arnold, and the decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States. The case is reported by Mr. Dallas; and it is very extraordinary that a crime of this heinous nature should have escaped the attention of these tribunals, and should be discovered, after a period of thirteen years, from the very evidence which was then before these Courts, Is it not evident, from the affirmance of the judgment in favor of Arnold, that there was no contradiction between my testimony and Wooster's deed; for I again repeat that this deed was produced on the trial, forms now a part of the record, and is not a hidden proof, now starting up to convict me of falsehood. The remaining charge is. that I was, an associate of colonel Burr's in the treasonable or other illegal designs he had formed. This has assumed all the |
|
***93*** |
shapes which the ingenuity of its author could give. Editorial paragraphs, extracts of letters, communications from correspondents, have all been resorted to, in order to deceive the world into an opinion that there was a single person who could believe. and more than one that could assert, the charge. And If I should be content to sit down under the charge, what then/ If it should be proved that I had been fool enough, to expose a large fortune and respectable standing to certain destruction on an impractical scheme, would that exonerate general Wilkinson from the charge of a treason totally unconnected with this plan? It might, indeed gratify his vengeance, by reducing me to his own level of guilt, but it would by no means wipe off a single suspicion that must attach to his character. This was an imprudent as well as a groundless charge. Knowing my innocence, and his own guilt, the general should have reflected, that the demonstration of the one would naturally lead to the exposure of the other; and he ought to have trembles, lest the knowledge of his double treason should cap the climax of infamy. rendered more glaring from the AVOWED PERJURY by which he has attempted to conceal it. Such will be the result. and it will be made out to the satisfaction of the most incredulous. As the accusation against me is totally unsupported by proof, I have the difficult task imposed on me of proving a negative; for if there be any, the slightest, proof of my being connected with col. Burr in his schemes, or even being acquainted |
|
***94*** |
with them, such proof has totally escaped me. I shall presently adduce, as an evidence in my favour, certain documents, which were published, I suppose with the intention to injure me on this point. My first acquaintance with col. Burr dates only as far back as June 1805, and that acquaintance was formed by a letter of introduction which he brought to me at New Orleans from general Wilkinson. He staid ten days or a fortnight at that place, and, as well to do the honour to the recommendation he brought, as because I was pleased with his society, I shewed him the civilities usual on such occasions. In this I was not singular. He dined, I believe, with governor Claiborne, and I know received the greatest attentions from several of the principal inhabitants, and, on his departure I lent him my horses to go as far as Natchez, with a servant to bring them back. About the end of June, in the same year, I concluded a contract with Mr. B. Bosch, for the delivery of a large cargo of goods, at my risk and expense, at La Vera Cruz. For this purpose I purchased a ship, called the Caroline, and prepared her for the voyage. On the 11th of September following I embarked in her, with a cargo amounting to 105,000 dollars, and sailed for La Vera Cruz. I remained there about two months, and then returned to New Orleans, leaving behind me about 56,000. In February, 1806, I made a second voyage to La Vera Cruz, with the double view of bringing back the funds before left there. and of disposing of the cargo of the ship Patty, |
|
***95*** |
Which was to follow me in a few days with a cargo amounting to 55,000. I effected both these objects, but returned, leaving at La Vera Cruz about 40,000 dollars, which I did not receive until the next year/ In these mercantile transactions, alone, I think may be found a full refutation of the charge of being concerned in any hostile designs against Mexico. A man conscious of such designs, and knowing that they were suspected, and perhaps known to the Spanish government, and that his name had been mentioned as connected in the scheme, would never, without a madness that has not been imputed to me, have placed so large a property. still less his life, within the power of the nation he was about to attack. To prove that I was apprized apprised of this design being suspected by the Spaniards, I cite the letter written by me to general Wilkinson, and relied on by him as a proof of my understanding with Burr. I must remark of this, and the other letters addressed to W. that I kept no copy, and therefore must trust to the fidelity of those he has furnished or published. In the month of August, 1805, a short time previous to my first embarkation for La Vera Cruz, Mr. Thomas Power informed me that the Spanish government were much alarmed by the rumour of a projected invasion of their provinces, under col. Burr, and that I was mentioned as connected with him and general W. in the scheme. Knowing the falsity of this report, as respected myself, I hoped that it was equally unfounded as to the other persons mentioned. It did not therefore deter me from prosecut- |
|
***96*** |
ing my voyage; but before I went, I thought it necessary to write to gen. Wilkinson, apprising him of the report; which I did in the letter, (No. 63 .) Let this letter be examined, and if any inference of guilt van be drawn from it, I am ignorance of the force of language. It treats indeed to ludicrously the idea of general Wilkinson's being concerned in the project—but surely contains not the slightest indication of my being so myself. Besides, with whom does the general say I was connected/ Not with himself surely. Yet the letter speaks in the same jocular style of the general's concern in the business as in that of Burr. The truth is, that the reports, though I could not credit them fully, had made some impression on me. I could not, with offending the gentlemen whose names had been mentioned, demand a serious explanation, and I then adopted the light familiar manner of treating the subject, that will be marked in the letter. The manner in which the general treats this letter in his answer, (No. 64,) where all he says on this subject is, “Not knowing whether you have returned from Mexico or not, I have forborne to address you since the receipt of your land claims, and the tale of the tub of Burr, &c. &c.” If I swell my publication with the whole of this and several other letters, though short passages only bear upon the case, it is to avoid the suspicion of any concealment, and to let the public judge, from the correspondence, the whole nature of my connexion with general Wilkinson. |
|
***97*** |
The slight manner in which my information is mentioned by general Wilkinson, in his answer, is a complete refutation to any charge, of which he now endeavours to make the proof. If my letter is any evidence of guilt, why is the whole treated so lightly? The answer is plain; the general saw in it complete evidence that I was not engaged in HIS and Burr's plans and he treats it thus lightly, that I might no longer pursue the enquiry, and perhaps develope his participation therein. Soon after my return from my second voyage to La Vera Cruz, I found the rumours of col. Burr's project much more prevalent and alarming. A variety of circumstances induced me to give credit to them, and to col. Bellechasse, then commanding the militia of the territory, had informed me of having been solicited to join an association to undertake some enterprize against Mexico. I was then a Delegate to represent the territory in Congress. I was the owner of a very large real estate, and connected, very extensively, in commerce. A great proportion of my capital was, as I have shewn, and for a long time had been, in the Spanish dominions. Is there the slightest reason to believe that a man thus circumstanced would have risked an acknowledged fortune, an extensive commerce, have sacrificed friends, character and office, for a scheme, of which we scarcely comprehend the madness and absurdity. Fortunately, however, I am not left probabilities for support. My conduct was open, was known to numbers, and is proved by the depositions, (No.65 , 66, 67, |
|
***98*** |
68 ,and 69.) I was then about to depart the territory. I had reason to fear that several of my friends would suffer their ill opinion of the governor, and the idea we had all formed of his want of capacity, to prevent their giving their support to the government which the times might demand. I therefore assembled several of the most influential among them—the commandant of the militia, several members of the legislature, the clerk of the legislative council, and the captain of the port.—I entreated them to forget their prejudices, and sacrifice their personal feelings toward the governor, and to render government every support in their power for its defence. All these gentlemen have attested these facts, with others of a like nature, and I beg the reader to refer to their depositions. It seems to have been a part of col. Burr's policy, now universally acknowledged, to mention or insinuate that persons, who were supposed to have influence, were concerned in his plans, for the purpose of impressing his hearers with an high idea of his resources. With this view, it appears that he spoke in Kentucky of drawing upon me for large sums of money. My credit there, he knew, stood high, and that nothing would impress the public with a better idea of his financial operations, than a persuasion that I was his banker. This report reached the ears of Mr. Graham, who was employed to collect all the information on this subject, and transmit it to the executive, and he faithfully detailed it, with the suspicions it excited. Finding, however, that they were without the |
|
***99*** |
least foundation, he readily and without the slightest intimation on my part, voluntarily retracted them, and endeavoured to counteract the effect his former communication was calculated to produce. This appears by the following letter, addressed to me, when Mr. Graham was about to leave the territory. New Orleans, 13th May, 1807. DEAR SIR, I REGRET exceedingly that I have not had an opportunity of explaining to you in person what I am now about to put on paper. You will no doubt have heard that I was directed by government to transmit them from the western country any information I might be able to collect there, relative to the plans, resources, &c. of col. Burr. When in Lexington I was told by Mr. Alexander Parker and others of that place, that col. Burr had stated that he was authorised to draw to the amount of $200,000. In consequence I wrote to Mr. Madison, from Lexington, as follows: - “It is stated with what truth I know not, that col. Burr was authorised to draw on Mr. Daniel Clark, of New Orleans, for $200,000. I believe it is certain that he proposed to draw on that gentleman, and finding that bills on Orleans could not be negotiated, said he would order his funds round to New York, and wrote accordingly to the house of Chew & Relf, who are the agents and partners of Mr. Clark.” I took the earliest occasion after my arrival here to mention this subject to Mr. |
|
***100*** |
Relf, and in consequence of the conversation I had with him, I wrote to Mr. Madison as follows:—“Since my arrival here Mr. Relf (my friend Mr. Chew being absent) gives me the most positive and satisfactory assurances, that they never had any funds in their hands liable to the order of col. Burr. He urged me to look at Mr. Clark's account on their books, which I did, and I now take the earliest occasion to say that I saw no item in that account, which induced me to believe that Mr. Clark has advanced any money to col. Burr. Mr. Alexander Parker, of Lexington, told me that Burr had offered to draw on Mr. Clark; and col. Lynch mentioned, as I was told by Mr. Jordan and Mr. Hunt, that he had forwarded the letter to Chew & Relf from. col. Burr, ordering his funds round to New York. The probability I think is, that this supposed letter was nothing more than a cover for Burr's communications for Bollman, which were directed to the house of Chew & Relf, and delivered by them to gen. Wilkinson.” I trust you will see, sir, from these extracts of my letters to Mr. Madison, that I have endeavoured faithfully to perform my duty, both to the government and to yourself. Should you consider any farther explanation necessary or desirable, a letter addressed to me, at the city of Washington, to the care of Daniel Brent, will probably reach me. I shall probably have the pleasure of seeing you next winter at the city; if not, I know not where we shall |
|
|