P II ILA.DEL PHI J,
FRIDAY EVENING, O'ctObfr tp.
"&ETTER from Mr. PICKERING '
S.rre.'ary .of State, to the ChcHalier DE ■
YRU'fO, En-boy Extraordinary and Mi- .
nijler Pknip 6tentiary of bis Catholic Mu
jefiy to the United States of- America.'
(Conchidtdfront the Pittfburg Gazette.)
DEPARTMENT OF STATE.
Philadelphia, August Btb, 1797.
On thw, as well as on aiother oecafion,
Vou have thought fit to'upbraid mc with
fliewing to the British minister a degree of
fcanc'our, and Confidence \vhich you infinu
ate-he does not deferve,*and which, you
seem to think, I have withheld from you.
Yet, fir, .all the declarations nV.de to me
by that minuter, verbally and in writing,
touching the points iti corrtroverfy between
Von and me, have been verified. As I hai>c
already said, yon declared to 1115 that you
had juti reaf<Jns for fufpe&ing that an ex
pedition was preparing on tfic lakes by the
Engliih, in order to attack Upper Louisi
ana. Th'e British Tninifter, in the firlt in- ■
ftancf, affnred me that he hs'd no know
ledge of it—and his subsequent inquiries
ejiabl -d him further to afiure me, that no
such expedition had been or was intended
by the BritilH go'frermjtent. And I have
in another place offered other reasons which
confirm the truth of these afluranc.es. Yet
you t !1 rnc that the assurance. given me by
the British minister, lut without any figne
lure, did not inspire the fcrvants of his Ca
tholic majeily with the fame blind confidence
which it produced inme. I (hall take no
other notice of this remark, than to put
you right in point of fact. The note of
the Britiih minister containing, th? aflfuranEe
to which you refer, is not " without a sig
nature ." This (like other official notes
from that mini Iter) has his signature—his
name written -with his own band—at the
hesji.of it.
Yon declared to " that you knew to
a certainty that the English had made pro
pofitiona ,to general Clarke, of Georgia,
in or<Je r to avail themselves of his influence
in that state, together with some other per
sons, for making a diversion, or feriou9 at
tack against Florida." The British minis
ter informed me, that although he knew
ncthiag of general Clarke or his expedition
from Georgia, a proposition had been made
to him (the British minister) for an expedi
tion againlt the Florif.as: ,but that he told
the projector that he hacPno power to au
thorize it: »r.d besides," that there were a
mpng other objeflions to the plan, two of
great weight—one that the Indians were to
be employed—the other, that it would vi
olate the neutral rights of the United States.
The Britifti minister has since (hewn me an
original letter from lord Grenyille, dated
the Bth of Inft April, in which he informs
th? minister, that if there were no other
objeftioas to the plan, the two mentioned
him, viz. that it could not be executed |
without employing the Indians—anaVith
out violating the rights of the United
States, would be fufficient to induce the
British government to rejett it. This
proves, fir, that Mr. Lifton's declarations
011 this point tvere not " vague and unau
thentic" as you pronounce them, but in
ftri& conformity with truth.
As to general Clarke of Georgia, the
British minister declared he had never even
heard of. him ; and the extra# of the letter
from ( Mr. Jackfcn, the diftrid attorney of'
Georgia, rtfpefting gen. Clarke and any ]
expedition forming there, in behalf of the
Enghfo against the Floridas, will incline 1
, every candid inquirer at least to doubt whe
ther such a projett has ever been proposed <
to him. We shall afterwards fee that Mr.
Blount's plot does not appear to have any :
connexion with an expedition under gene- 1
ral Clarke. <
Thus you fee, fir, that I have not blindly
placed a confidence in the British minister :
for augkt that has yet appeared, he was 1
entitled to the credit he has received.
I return to your letter. You mention '
your communication? to the baron de Ca- 1
rondelet refpedling the intended expedition 1
from Canada : "from that moment, you fay,
imperious necessity, and the great principle '
of fclf-defence, made his Catholic majesty's i
officers turn their thoughts to objects of a '
more urgent nature than running the boun- i
dary line. And- here you introduce " Mr. '
Blount's letter, and the late detested con- «
fpiraK', as evincing how far their Conduct i
in this rt/peft was ntceflary." It is won-, '
devfut, fir, that you should attempt to make <
it be believed that Mr. Blpunt's letter and
the late detected conspiracy, had any con- ;
neftion with the expedition, which you fug- 1
gefted wa-s preparing 011 the lakes of Cana- 1
da against- Upper Louisiana. All that is 1
yet difcovefred of- Mr. Blount's projeft or <
conspiracy, proves that it was to have been 1
formed in one of the states south of the river <
Ohio ; and that it was deltined against the <
Floridas, and perhaps Lower Louisiana. ;
I therefore, feel fiiyfelf, for this and the ]
other reasons before exhibited, still warrant- '
ed in conf.dering the fufpeCtad Canada ex- I
ptdition amting the pretexts.for delaying to t
evacuate the polls, and to run the boundary 1
line : and confequ'ently that your charge, J
that I have in this inftanee" palpably at
tempted to make groundkfs ar.d unfair im- }
preffions on the public mind," is alike un- "c
founded and unbecoming your public cha- c
rafter to suggest. «
In your next paragraph you thus address t
me. " Nor do your ill-founded infinuati- f
ons flop hei;e : fentimcnts and expreflions c
still mora violent, flow from that fame hasty 2
pen." This yaflagc is in perfeft corref- .1
pondence with the general llrain of, your 5
letter. Whether your charge is corre&ly t
made, is now to be examined. n
I am ready to conlefs that my report f
fbtts lligrr.atizcd was, from the pseflure of 1;
» I ,
, huftiVefj, written in hade : but a revision ot
j it latisfies mc, neverthdefi, that it is ngt
I inaccurate in its flat/merits,
j You quote the pa'frag: in my report
j which has called forth this reproach ;it is
1 in these words: "That thtSre is but too
[ much reason to believe Mr. Ellicott's fuf
pgrions well founded, that an undue" influ
ence has been txercifed over the; Indians by
the officers of 1113 Catholic majesty, to pre
pare them for a rupture with the United
' States.'.' Arid then you fay that I mention
j the f'nirce of these " dreadful conjectures"
to be, a private lett-r from Mr. Sargent,
Secretary of the North Western Territory.
Here you are extremely incorreft ; as usual
when you undertake to recite my concluli
ons, and the fails and cifcumftances upon
which they are formed. _ It is from " a
view of the whole eorrtfpondence" referred
to in yny reports of the 10th of June and
.I'V'f July—On the intelligence received
by the Secretary of War—ind the private
letter from colpuel that I drew
the conclufiori you have quoted.
Mr. Ellicott formed his suspicions on the
spot, from what was passing before him ;
and he is not a careless or undifcerning ob
server.
Genefal Wilkinfon fays—" Letters from
all quarters announce the discontents and
menaring *fpe<sl of the Savages ; two white
men have beeri l'ecently murdered on the
Ohio belptff the Cumberland ; and the Sa
vages beyoofl the Mifiiffippi, aud those who
pass Maflac, make no hesitation to avow
their jjurpofr for war." he re
{?rs to a letter from colonel Hamtramck,
who commands the Uuited States troops
at Detroit, in which the colonel'fays—l
am pretty sure" that both the French and
Spaniards have emiflaries among the Indi
ans. 1 have it from indubitable authority,
that a large belt [by which is meant a
Speech] from the Spaniards is now travel
ling through the different nations mean
ing the nations within the territories of the
United States.
Colonel Sargent writes, it is true,"a pri
vate letter ; but it is to a publicofficer ; and
his situation as Secretary and Governor for
the time, of the North Western Territory,
would render it his duty to be vigilant for
its'fafety ; and his charafter vouches for
the accuracy of his information ; and you
do not cjueftion the truth of any* part of his
statement.
After mentioning that theSpaniardl wene
rc-inforcing their upper posts on the Mifli
lippi, that upwards of three. hundred men
had arrived at St. Louis and wereercfting
formidable works; he adds—" It likewise
appears, through various channels, that they
are inviting a great number of Indians of
the territory (meaning of the United-States,
North Weft of the Ohio) to cross th 4 Miffi
fippi : And for this express purpose, Mr.
an officer in the pay of the crown,
made a tour through all this country la ft
fall ; since which time "several Indians have
been sent on the fani« errand, and generally
furnifhed with plenty of cash to defray their
expenses"—A large party of Dela wares pas
sed down White River about the 6th of
May, on their way to the Spanish fide bear
ing the national fag of Spain, sent them from
St. Louis."
Lieutenant Pope, in his letter of May
9th, to the Secretary of War, fays, "There
have been several attempts made to draw on
the Indians upon my troops : I have fully
ascertained this fa<S, and demanded of the
Governor to have a principal aftor imme
diately brought to punishment, or sent out
of the country. He has been sent for, and
is now on board one of the Gallics, which
is now about descending the riveA"—And,
| hr, if you enquire, you will find that this
" principal aftor" (Rapelje byname) was
one of Governor Gayofo's agents. 1
These, Sir, are the grounds on which I
expressed the opinion, That there was but
too much reason to believe Mr. Ellicott's
suspicions well founded, that the officers
of Spain had exercised an undue influense
over she Indians to prepare them for
ture with the United States.
This detail, fir, strikingly shews how
little you have understood, and how entirely
you have misrepresented my reasoning on
this fubjeA. I leave you to reconcile your
refledtions on the British Minister and his
nation for their inhumanity inemployingthe
Indians in the American war, with yourjuf
tification of the Spanish officers at this time,
in securing the aid of the Indians in your
war with the British. " The Spaniards (you
fay) have fortified St. Louis and availed
themselves ef every'means o-f defence
which the country afforded meaning by the
ingenious exprefiion every means of defence
•which tit country afforded, the employing
of the Indians.
You are pleased next to charge me, in
yoijr customary stile, with " falling into, the
molt glaring inconfiflency," because I remark
that although, " it may be difficult to fay
whether this plan of exciting' the Indians to
direst hoflilities against the United States,
has been and promoted by any
of our own citizens ; yet it is certain that
one or more of those citizens have proposed
and taken measures to detach the Southern
Indians frohi the interests of the United
States, an 4 to destroy the influence of , the
public agents over those nations, and thus
to defeat the great objedts of their appoint
ment f, the chief of which is to preserve
peace.,'
Having quoted this fjaflage from my re
port, you ask is it possible to recon
"cile such evident contradictions ? On the
one hand the Spanish qfficers are those who
excite the foythgTn Indians against the Uni
ted States, and on the other you quickly 1
follow presuming, with fuffiient foundati
on in my opinion, that it may be some citi
zens of the United States." Allow me,
lir, to ask in my turn, how it was possible for
you net to fee thatherethereis no contradic
tion ? Is it not very possible that the Spa
nish officers might be courting the Chicka
faws, who V.ve above the Natchez, with
Ja-ge prefentt, aud be preparing the Choc-;
tavv9j who dwell along tile Natchez dictrift,
, aad the X)elawares, Shawanefe, Minmis,
jandtolher tri'oei dwelling in the territory
north-weft of the Ohio, for war against the
United while Mr. Blount and his a
gents were detaching the southern tribes of
CheroliteS and Creeks From the interefls of
the United States, and eventually to aid the
British in an enterprise against the Floridas ?
The * Cherokees and Creeks, yon might
have seen, were the only Indian nations
mentioned in Governor Blount'sletter. And
is it not very poffihle, if these two nations'
(hould thus he led to war against the Span'ifh
possessions, that they might not be excited
to tinea hoflilities agaipft the United States ?
• j And, therefore, that although Mr. Blount
i might contemplate the formeif, he might ab
j stain from the latter ? And is it not then
[ my cautions manner of speaking of this lat
ter, perfect ly corredt ?
I am happy to arrive at /durlaft observa
tion. And I wish it was not, lifce the reft,
exseptionable and iacorreft. These are your
words—" Refpedling the last article of your
■ ; report, I have only to observe, that altho'
you have confla'ntly assured me that govern
■ ■ ment,had not the lead information refpedl-
I ing the fubjeft of my representations, and
although the letter of Mr. 'Jackson, as
Georgia, appears to coincide with your ideas,
neveithelefa tiine has (hewn that 1 have com
plied with my duty by not rcpoGng on such
assurances. The plot is discovered, and no
body any longer doubts the expedition was
to have taken place."
] * The expression that " you complied with
; your duty in not reposing on such affuran
' ces" may mean that you thoi», ht the affu
; ranees deceitful, and, therefore, not meriting
\ belief. Perhaps you did not intend this.
! Perhaps you meant no more than that the
! government had been " remiss" in its duty,
in not pursuing with eagerness the trains of
your various fufpiciona. But I mail (hew
you that here (as in all other instances) your
criminations are void of foundation, in either
point of view.
The last article of the report refpe&s ge
neral Clarke, of Georgia, to whom you laid
you knew of a certainty that the English bad
made propositions in order to avail themfejves
of his influence in that state, with feme other
persons, for making a diversion or serious at
tack against Floridaand you add that '?yOu
do not doubt that in of your
information, the executive government will
take the proper steps Georgia also '(hould
not infringe the of neutrality." Here
you confine your requests to Georgia, that
(he might not infringe the laws of neutrality:
and my letter to Charles Jackson, esquire,
the diftrift attorney of that state, (hews that
the government took prompt tneafure6 to
defeat the projefl of general Clarke and his
affoeiates, if such a proieft exjfted. I sup
pose none did exist : You acknowledge that
the letter from Mr. Jackson coincides with
my ideas. Your " certain knowledge" of
an intended expedition in favor of the Eng
li/h from Georgia agaiyft Florida, under
geperal Clarke, you have never supported
by a (hadow of evidence. If you possessed
any evidence of the fa£l, it would be easy
to produce it. What you call your " cer
tain knowledge" could reft only on informa
tion, or the testimony of others, which
might be as falfe or as vague and inconclu
sive, as the information about the Canada
expedition ; which I hope I have proved,
to your never to have existed,
even in idea. Yet you declared to me that
you had " jujl reasons for fufpedting that
expedition was preparing on the lakes and
hence how can I avoid concluding, that
your " certain knowledge" in one cafe,
like your " just reasons" in the other, were
without a fufficient foundation.
But you fay " The plot is discovered,
and nobody any longer doubts that the ex
pedition was to have taken place." Strange
remark ! Just the reverse of it (hould have
beeu made. For although there is a dis
covery of Mr. Blount's plot, its extent is
by no means afccrtained ; and far from no
body doubting, probably every body doubts
whether the projefted expedition was to
have taken place. It was'not to be undfcr-'
taken but in conjunction with a Britiih force
—ai\d on the proposal of the expedition to
the Britiih government it was totally rejeft
ed. Even Mr. Blount, who, if the pro
je£t was adopted, expeStd to be at the bead
of it, ventures no farther than to fay he be
lieved that the plan would be attempted, but
if attempted, that it would uot be till the
" fall :" and consequently your in
March and April, for which, at the expence
of decency towards the American govern
ment, you take to yourfclf so much credit,
had then no just objttl. This zeal of yours
is displayed in the information you gave to
the baron de Carondelet, in March or A
pril, of the expedition supposed to be pre
paring in Canada against Upper JLciifiaria.:
yet you would now attempt'to juftify this
zeal by the plot of Mr. Blount ; although
this plot and the Canada expedition were
wholly distinct and unconnefted.
I (hall conclude this long letter with your
eleven positions, which you state with as
much .serious formality as if they were all of
them important, and all of.them supported
by fadls or just reasoning. But the details
I have given demoriftrate that these positions
are either unfounded, or firaple proportions
of not the fmallefl consequence.
These are your poiitious addressed to me
in your oii'n lipids.
" i ft. That on the 27th of Fehruary I '
gave you fufficient particulars refpefling the '
intended expedition, to have attraffced the
attention of this government."
Aftfwer. I have offered reasons to prove
that you gave me no particular t, but only
mentioned your suspicions, and that youpro
ir.ifed to give me your representations in
writing for which, of course, it was pro
per for me to wait.
" 2. That altho' to this verbal commu
nication, I added another in writing on the
2d of March, the PreGdent had not the least
knowledge of it on the 9th of the fame.
month ; and that without doubt y o u anuft
have had very powerful motives to prevent
you from communicating it to him."
Answer. I have accounted for the delay
•in a fatisfaftory manner. I have Ihewn that
1 had abundant reason to conclude your
fufpicionsti to be wholly unfounded, and for
attaching no fort of consequence to them.
The event demonstrates that I was right;
and that inflead of very powerful motives,
none were needed for a delay of only four or '
five days, or for a mueh longer period ; and
that to notice your naked suspicions at all,
was not an act of necessity, but of complai
sance. ,1 might with justice complain of your
delay to answer my letter of the 16th of
March, on a fubjeil of very high impor
tance to the United States, I mean the eva
cu. .ion of the polls. I will not fay, that
you were negligent—or " remiss"—but I
Will fay that for a whole month you omitted
to give trie your (hort and unfatisfadlory
anfweri The indifpofuion which' you aflign
as the cause of the delay, did not prevent
you from writing on othgr fubjetls—nor
long from going abroad.
" 3. That it does not appeat by the doc
uments presented by"the Secretary of War,
that government had given orders to the
military commandrrs to cause the territory
and neutrality of the United States to be
refpedted."
Answer. I have shown that none were
necessary to be given.
" 4. That you made to the English min
ister a communication which in my opinion
you ought not ; and that even if you tho't
it necessary, yon delayed doing it for two
months, that is from the 27th of February
to the 28th of April, although it refpedled
a mod urgent and important objeft."
Answer. On the 28th of' April, I in
formed you by letter that I had communi
cated to the Britiih minifler your suspicions
of an expedition preparing by the Engli(h
agcinft Upper Louiliaaa ; and as for up
wards of two months you expressed no dif
atisfaftion 011 account of this communica
tion, I might well conclude you did uot
think it improper. Nay in your letter of
July 11 tli, which I am- now answering, you
refer with apparent approbation to this ve
ry communication, connected with the de
claration which accompanied it to the Brit
i(h roinifter, that the President could not
consent to the march of any troops, either
British or Spanilh, through the territory of
the United ; and you ccnfider it as a " deter
minate difpofitioa" of the AmeVican go
vernment oa this point. I have also (hewn,
that admitting this communication to Mr.
Lifton to be proper, I did not delay doing
it for two months nor two weeks ; altho'it
refpe&ed at befl but an imaginary projeft.
" 5. That the Baron de Carpndelet
could very "well have received my letters,
without its necessarily following that his
had come to hand."
Aijfwer. I have (hewn that you did not
underftaad my > reasoning an this point ;
which went to prove that your answer of
the 17th of April to my letter of the 16th
of March, about the evacuation of the pods,
was wanting in candour.
" 6. That the Baron did n6t represent
Mr. Ellicott's not writing to him officially
as a complaint, but as an observation, and that
in fa£l he never liss done it in those terms."
Answer. I have (hewn that whether the
Baron's afTertion (hould have been called a
complaint or an observation was perfaftly im
material ; I meant to (hew it was unfound
ed ; and this you yourfclf adrriit.
" 7. That the proofs you allege to ex
culpate Mr. Ellicott refpe£ling his intentions
of taking the fort of Natchez by surprise
are purely negntive."
Answer. I offered only as negative
proofs. Yet when one complant or afTer
tion against Mr. Ellicott was kuown .and
acknowledged not to be true,' the negative
testimony of gentlemen likely to be well in
formed, would be deemed fufficient to bring
another, and in its nature very improbable,
complaint or affertian of the fame perfou, in
to discredit.
' " 8. That it is not merely pretences, but
very powerful reasons which have impeded
(the evacuation of the'Pofts, and the ruaning
of the boundary line."
Answer. The point of view in which I
have now exhibited the conduft of the Span
ifli governors relative to the evacuation of
the posts and <he running of the boundary
line IVffiould suppose rjiight convince you
that thecaufes which they have offered for.
the delay, are mere pretences : the Ameri
can citizens, to whom you have appealed,
have heen convinced only by reading the
printed documents, without any comments.
" 9. That the insinuations with which
you are willing to persuade the American
people that our arming is direfted against
them, are unjust as well as unfounded, a3
by Mr'. Blount's letter it is clearly demon
strated to be a precaution for the mere pur
pose of defence."
Answer. The grounds of my suggest
ions, which you call " insinuations" are de
tailed in this letter, and embrace £OO many
fa£ls and circumstances to be abridged :
permit rse to deGre you to review them. I
(hall only repeat, that nothing is more cer
tain than that Mr. Blount's letter has not
the remotefl reference to the fufpe£ted Ca
nada expedition ; which is ' your only pre
tence for reinforcing the polls in Upper
Louifiana—for calling the Indians to your
aid—for holding the poll's at the Natchez,
and Walnut Hilb—and for delaying to run
the boundary line.
" 10. That you evidently contradict
yotrrfelf, when on one hand you are pleaftd
to attribute to us the movements of the In
dians, and_in the very next paragraph you
fhewik might proceed from American citi
zens, as it a&ually does, according to Mr.
Blount's letter j and that he a&ed with the
knowledge and intelligence of the very fame
British minifler, in whose private notes,
ivifhcutfignature, and perhaps not of his cum
hand writing, you place such implicit confi
dence;"^
Answer. I have (hewn that there i.ivot
a Oiadcw gf coatr.fliclianin roy ■
on this fuEjca ) and par afferfYv; to the
contrary mil ft proceed only from \c.ur not
tindcrftanding them. You fay il at Mr.
Blount adted in this matter with the
knowledge asd intelligence of the Brit,
lfh mimfter. Ihts is not likely to he true.
It is in proof, hy other evidence than the
British miniller's notes, that he did not and
could not authorize the projefted expedi
tion againfl: the Floridas—and particularly
that one of his strong obje£tions againfl; it
was, that :t contemplated the employing of
the Indians ; although he thought it proper
to submit the project to the confi deration*
and declfion of liis government. Nobody
therefore will believe tha.t he authorized Mr.
Blount, or was even privy to his measures,
for preparing the Indians for war, 'Besides,
Dodtor Romayne, who may be presumed
to be well Acquainted with Mr. Blount's
plot, suggests that it is not the projedt of
fered to Mr. Lifton by Chifholm. Theft
are his words : " Mr. Blount is totally un
known to Mr. Lifton, % and so arc alt his
mews." And there is a passage in Mr.
letter which countenances the doc
tor's assertion, andindicates, that although
Chifholm and Blount had some communica
tions with each other, yet that their views
were not precisely.the fame. Mr. Blount,
in his letter to Carey, fays, " Where
Captain Chifholm is, I do not know
I left him in Philadelphia, in March,
aiid he frequently visited the minister and
spoke upon the fubje& ; but I believe he
will go into the Creek nation by way of
South-Carolina or Georgia. He gave out
he was going to England ; but I did not be
lieve him." These last words afford a pret
ty strong proof that they were not aftiivg
wholly in concert. Probably Mr. Blount
endeavoured to perfur.de Chifholm that he
would co-operate in the prosecution of his
feberae ; while at the fame time he might
have anothor of his own or in concert with
dodtor Romayne, and it and ready in the
event of things, to make" his advantage of
either ; whichever should c&r the best prof-,
pedt of fuccefß : Dodtor Romayne, you fee,
fays that Mr. Blount is totally unknown to
Mr. Lifton : But it is well known that Mr.
Blount was your frequent guest, and intimate
companion ; and that he was on this inti
mite footing with you the whole
time »hat you were reprefeiitirig to the gov
ernment, your fufpicicms of British expidi
tions. \et after the discovery of the con
fpira«y was made public, vou formally re
queftcd the American government to punish
him for so feandalous a crime. But feeing
that Mr. Blount was a citizen of Unit
ed States, and not a fubjeft of Spain, it
would have been decent in you to have left
him with his own government without in
terposing your advice. But e npecially whert
you knew that the President had laid hi*
letter before Corfgrefs ; and the twehoufe*
were deliberating on the mode' of punifhiog
him ; when the investigation had proceeded
So far that a ccu\irv>.tee of tSi§wvt£Ma
ported a resolution to exjjpl Mr. Bioun®
from ( the Senate ; and a committee of th«
Hcnfe had reported a resolution that he
should be in ptached for high crimes and
misdemeanors : For you then to interfere
was Angularly impoper j and it was such up
ofteDtatious. display o-f zeal, as under all the
known uretimflanees, fuggefU mpre than
one interpretation.
"11. That although in all.your official
communications, you have always manifest
ed to me that the American j'overnmerit
lenew of nothing which iadicated any foun
dation for my SuSpicions, Mr. Blount's let
ter clearly proves that I was perfectly
in the right."
Answer. This remark i« pcrfeftly inconse
quential ; fpr your communications exhibi
ted your suspicions. of projedted expeditions
only from Canada and -Georgia; and I have
(how*i that Mr. Blount's letter ha 3 no rela
tion to either.
I thought I had reached the end of your
criminations; but ia your concluding para
graph you accuse of ao " unj-jft partiality,"
meaniug, no doubt, towards the British min*
ifter and his nation. The details I have gi
en in this letter, I trust will abundantly
prove that this charge is as unfounded as it.
is indecent. Those details verify the repre
sentations of the conduit of certain Spanish
officers which are given in tny renort ps the
3d of July to the Prcirdent. If the truth
has excited any uapleafiint sensations, t'hofdf
only are ta blame whose injuroira adts obliged
me plainly to declare. Instead of this task,
I should have been happy to execute the
grateful uffiee of dating to the President the
goodfaith and amicable manner in which the
officers of his Catholic majesty had executed
the treaty of Fricndfhip, limits' and naviga
tion between our two-nations.
You think also that my report to the Pre
sident is not calculated toJlring then the bonds of
friendfbip unite Spain and America.—
Triendfhip, Sir, cannot fubiift without mu
tual confidence; and' confidence springs from
fmcerity. But the proceedings of the Spanish
officers, which are the fubjedt of this corres
pondence, have shaken the confidence of
the government and of the citizens of the
United States; and my report to the Pre
sident only exhibits a Summary of thoTe pro
ceedings; pr rather the plain and obviou*
conclusions from the authentic fadts and cir
cumitances detailed in the documents, then
and before presented to his view. And I
dare ve&ture to fay, that ayery independent
American.has from the Same premises drawn
the fame corclufions, t
Nothing, Sir, will give truer Satisfaction
to the government, and citizens of the Uni
ted States than to See such a change in .the
proceedings of the Spaoifh officers as will
restore confidence. The change would be
easy, and the effect certain. Let them "with*
draw their troops and garrisons from the terr.' T
lories of the United States. Let them commence
lindprofecute the ruuning of the boundary line.
Let them cease to flop, covtroul or regulate the
passage cf our citizens on the Mississippi, feeing
these have a right to navigate it with perfek
freedom —And lit them cease to fend Agents or
Emijfari.i amifig the Indium residing within