|
GEN. JAMES WILKINSON AND OF HIS CONNEXION WITH AARON BURR. [“Proofs” Pages 141-150] Daniel Clark  1766-1813 |
|
GEN. JAMES WILKINSON AND OF HIS CONNEXION WITH AARON BURR. [“Proofs” Pages 141-150] 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
***141*** |
the forgery, and the prevarication, are only the means which he employed to effect concealment. I have now completed my design, which was, principally, to show that the testimony I gave could be supported by the strongest evidence, independent of my own—and to answer the calumnies which have been used to destroy my reputation. I dare hope that I have done this satisfactorily. I believe, that after reading these observations, and the proof that supports them, no one can entertain a doubt, either of the treasonable and corrupt connexion of Wilkinson with the Spaniards, or with the unprincipled, if not traiterous, designs of Burr. Let it be remembered, that the evidence I now produce is brought forward only by individual exertion. Let the high station, the actual means of oppression, and the great favour shewn to the accused, be considered, and it will, I believe, be acknowledged that many witnesses have been deterred by fear, or biassed by interest, to conceal their knowledge of facts important in this enquiry. As soon as one shall be instituted by the executive, these causes will cease to operate, and the dullest evidence may be obtained to corroborate that which I have given. Before I conclude this address, I cannot but complain that I have been rather hardly dealt with by the President; first in the message to Congress of the 20th January, 1808, (Note No. 84.) In this he says. “A paper on the commerce of Louisiana, bearing date the 18th of April, 1798, is found in the office, supposed to have been |
|
Page
***142*** |
communicated by Mr. Daniel Clark, of New Orleans, then a subject of Spain,” &c. The paper alluded to in this message is the same that is published by Wilkinson, in his “Plain Tale,” (Note No. 1,) and was sent to Congress by the President, for the same reason, I suppose, that it was published by the general. I have shewn how little this purpose is answered. But in making this communication, I think justice, as well as duty, would have required that all the evidence, as well to corroborate, as that which it was supposed would impeach my testimony, should have been sent, and above all, that nothing should be asserted as fact, which was not incontrovertibly proved. A slight recurrence to the message will shew how little attention has been paid to either of these requisites. It is asserted that I was, at the time I wrote that memoir on the trade of the Ohio, a subject of Spain. I have shewn that this was not the fact; but as it is important to me to leave no doubt on this subject, I join the proofs (Notes No. 85 and 86.) It remains to shew that my situation, in that respect, was not unknown to Mr. Jefferson. In 1802, when my nomination as consul of the United States at New Orleans was confirmed by the Senate, a commission was mad out in which I was styled a subject of Spain. On the receipt of it I waited on the President, and explained to him my situation there. I had never been a Spanish subject, but had been naturalized, as an American citizen, in the latter part of the year 1798, at Natchez. In consequence |
|
Page
***143*** |
of this explanation, the commission was changed, and I received one, in which I was described as a citizen of the U, S, resident at New Orleans. A reference to the document (Note No. 87) will prove this fact. Again, the President says, “that about a twelvemonth after he (Mr. J) had come to the administration of the government, I gave some verbal information, and the letter of governor Gayoso, addressed to myself.” Now the letter from Gayoso was not addressed to me, but to my uncle. The President too says, that I “forwarded to the secretary of state other papers, with a request that, after perusal, they might be burnt.” A reference to documents will prove how incorrect this statement is. The papers were communicated to Mr. Madison by letter, dated 8th March, 1803, an extract of which was sent to Congress on the 4th February, 1808. By this it appears that the package had been left with Mr. Morton, of New-York, on my departure from Europe, and that on my return I sent an order to Mr. Madison to receive them. In the letter inclosing this order, (Note No. 88,) it will be seen that I refer to a former conversation with the President, in which I had informed him, that in 1795, or 1796, negotiations had been carried on with Spain by the inhabitants of the western country—that I put the government in a track to discover it—and that I offer to come on myself, if necessary, to elucidate them. I have kept no copy of this letter, but I have to complain, that the part of it has been sup- |
|
Page
***144*** |
pressed, which stated my reasons for referring to the old Spanish conspiracy. These reasons were, that as the French were about to take possession of the country, I was extremely apprehensive they might find the clue of the old conspiracy, employ the same agents, revive the same intrigues, and, by their superior management, succeed better than the Spaniards had done. If this had been communicated, I think, instead of the officious interference to revive suspicions, which the President thinks ought to be forgotten, my letter would have appeared at least worthy of some notice. The French were then hourly expected—their genius for intrigue was known—and they had fixed their eyes on the mountains, as the natural boundary between the two countries, (See Note No. 89 ) and openly spoke of the impossibility of remaining at peace with the U. S. Under these circumstances, I thought it necessary, by my letter before referred to, (Note No. 88,) to put the government on its guard against the renewal of the old intrigues. This letter, however, has been only partially communicated. The part containing those cogent reasons was suppressed, and no other notice was taken of it than by the note, (No. 90,) dated near a year after, and written on another occasion, this subject being only mentioned in a cursory manner, and closing with an enquiry, what was to be done with the papers. It was then, that my answer, (Note No. 91,) in which I apologize for having pressed a subject, which it was not thought proper to investigate, and which subsequent events had rendered of less |
|
Page
***145*** |
importance; and the request that the whole may be burned, in order that they might be no further trouble to the government, There may be discovered in this request some little resentment for what I thought a neglect, but surely no desire to conceal any thing I had before communicated; and this statement of facts gives a very different idea from that conveyed by the message, that I had communicated these papers, “with a request that they might be burned, after perusal.” The President also says, that “no other information, within the purview of the request of the house, is known to have been received by any department of the government, from the establishment of the present federal government, that which has been recently communicated to the house of representatives, and by them to me, is the first direct testimony ever made known to me, charging general Wilkinson with a corrupt receipt of money.” With Mr. Jefferson's motives for asserting to the house of representatives that mine was the first accusation, I have personally , nothing to do. That account must be settled between him and the nation.—But it is due to my own character, to shew that the information given by me was not unsupported by prior accusation, and that, contrary to the language of the message, mine WAS NOT the first direct testimony made known to Mr. Jefferson, charging general Wilkinson with the corrupt receipt of money. The proof shall not be light. On the 10th day of January, 1806, better than |
|
Page
***146*** |
two years before the date of the message, Joseph H. Daveiss, district attorney of the United States for Kentucky, wrote an official letter to the President, which deserves serious attention. It is contained in (Note No. 92.) It puts the President on his guard against a renewal of the old Spanish plot, and contains the following passage: “I am told that Mr. Ellicott, in his journal, communicated to the officers of the state the names of the Americans concerned. If this be true, you are long since guarded; but I suspect either that it is not, or that it has escaped you, or you consider the business as dead - BECAUSE YOU HAVE APPOINTED GENERAL WILKINSON AS GOVERNOR OF ST. LOUIS, WHO, I AM CONVINCED, HAS BEEN FOR YEARS, AND NOW IS, A PENSIONER OF SPAIN. Should you ask me to prove it, I must resort to an extensive chain of circumstances, which ,separately, seem small and inconclusive, &c.” Here I think, is a direct charge, and made in pretty explicit terms, and offered to be substantiated, and by a man in office, whose duty is to prefer the accusation—and this direct charge did not miscarry, it came safely to the President's hands; for on the 15th of Feb. 1806, he wrote to Mr. Daveiss a letter, acknowledging its receipt, (Note No. 93.) In this letter he requests the names of parties and witnesses, and Mr. Daveiss, on the 28th March. and 29th March, and on the 21st April, replied, giving the names of the persons concerned, and the witnesses to prove the several charges. Among |
|
Page
***147*** |
these, the payments by Owens and Collins are particularly noticed. (See the extracts of these letters, Notes No. 94, 95 9, and 97.) And these letters are acknowledged by Mr. Jefferson to have been received on the 12th September, 1806, Note No. 98.) This correspondence is taken from a publication made by Mr. Daveiss, which is extremely interesting, and of which I regret that I cannot give more copious extracts. But this is not all. From the President's message itself it appears, that there was a letter and a reference from Mr. Ellicott, that was not sent to Congress, because Mr. Ellicott had desired that it might be kept secret. Now, if in this letter, and in a verbal communication, Mr. Ellicott had expressly charged gen. W. with the corrupt receipt of money, how will it agree with the assertion before quoted, that my testimony was the first direct charge, and the one preceding it, that one letter only (and that anonymous) specified any particular fact? yet such is the case. In the testimony of Mr. Coxe, (Note No. 55,) we find the following passage—“Jan. 30 Andrew Ellicott informed me this evening, that in the month of June 1801, as well as I recollect, he communicated personally to Mr. Jefferson the exact sum of money that had been sent by Don Thomas Portel to gen. Wilkinson; that this sum was not an account of any mercantile transactions, but of the pension allowed the general by the Spanish government; that general W. was not a man to be trusted; and, if continued in employ, would one day or other disgrace and involve the government in his schemes.” In the letters |
|
Page
***148*** |
of Mr. Ellicott to the general himself, (ant. page 69,) he expressly states that the copy of Gayoso's letter, in which the general and others were mentioned as being in the interest and pay of Spain, were, as well as the information received from captain Portell of the 9640 dollars, reduced to cypher, and communicated to the President. Now even if it be allowed that Mr. Ellicott's desire should excuse the President from communicating his letters, yet surely no desire of any individual could impose on the President the necessity of asserting that no such communication had been made. On the 14th of January, 1808, Mr. Ellicott wrote me, as follows.— Lancaster, January 14th, 1808 DEAR SIR, THE letter mentioned in the 183d page of my journal, from governor Gayoso to a confidential Spanish officer, is, I presume, in the hands of Mr. Thomas Power. A copy of the interesting part will be found in the office of the Secretary of State. This letter places the improper conduct of general Wilkinson, and some others of our citizens, in a point of vies not to be mistaken. If corruption is criminal, this letter establishes the criminality. Whenever I think of our army, and the state of our country, the following lines from Anacharsis never fail presenting themselves in my mind;— "Les peuples de la Grece sont affoiblis & corrompus. Plus de lois, plus de citoyens, nulle idee de la gloire, nul attachement au bien public. Par tout, de vils mercenaires pour soldats, et des brigands pour generaux."— |
|
Page
***149*** |
To my knowledge, the present administration has been minutely informed of the conduct of general Wilkinson, and why he has been supported, and patronized, after this information, is to me an inexplicable paradox. All the information that I was able to obtain on the subject of those intrigues was faithfully detailed both to the former and present administrations; and beyond those documents (which are deposited in the office of the Secretary of State) I have no knowledge of these transactions. I now begin to wish that I had kept copies of those papers - but I have none. I am, with great esteem, Your sincere friend, and humble servant, (Signed) ANDREW ELLICOTT. Hon. DANIEL CLARK Esq. It is true that the President, in the Message, suggests that the testimony of Mr. Ellicott might be procured from himself, and for that purpose he had directed him to be summoned before the court of enquiry. But he refused to attend - there was no force to compel him - and I think, that, after his refusal to attend was known, I , as well as the country, have some reason to complain that evidence so important to support my declarations - so essential to the convictions of guilt - should have been withheld from the court (a) (a)Mr. Ellicott refused to attend the court of enquiry - Mr. Jefferson was in possession of his letter, containing the intercepted dispatch from Gayoso, of which Mr. Ellicott, in his impressive language, says, "if corruption be criminal, |
|
Page
***150*** |
and from the public. Nay more, that by the language of the communication to Congress it should have been asserted, that no such evidence had been given to the executive. I have now completed a work which was forced upon me, in justification of my own character. I regret deeply, that the nature of this justification has obliged me to appear as an accuser, and that a task, that I cannot help repeating was the duty of a public officer, has thus devolved upon an individual. My regret on this occasion is not produced by my apprehension that my proofs are deficient, or my defence incomplete. My own understanding is satisfied with their force, and my conscience has always been at rest. Of the effect this address may have on my countrymen I cannot doubt/ In common with the great mass of them, I anticipate much good from the approaching change in the administration; and if I shall have furnished the new Cabinet with the means of throwing off this dishonour from the nation, I shall not regret the trouble of my research. New Orleans, March 1st, 1809. “this letter establishes the criminality”—and yet this letter was not submitted either to congress, or the court, or the public. In what manner is this to be accounted for? Mr. Ellicott's request of secrecy seems to have been more rigidly attended to, than the express promise given to Bollman. In his letter to W. Mr. E. declares, that he thinks the reasons for secrecy no longer exist, and would have declared the same thing to the President, had he been applied to—(See his letter, Note No. 99.) addressed to me—and mark his astonishment that only the nugatory parts of his correspondence were communicated. |
|
|