of§ A A'ACJOhAL PAPER, PUBLISHED WEDNESDAYS AN L) SATURDAYS BY JOJIN F£NNO, No. 34. NORTH F IF)' H-STREET, HHII. A Dt.LPH! A [No. 78 of Vol. IV.] Wednesday, February 27, 1793. she foHowing Report wits laid before tin Honfe of Representatives of the United Suites, oil the 15 tli inll. The Committee to whom was recommitted the Report of the Committee appointed U enquire into the Causes of the Failure oj the Expedition under Major General St. Clair, together with the Documents relat ing thereto, including the Letter from the Secretary at IVar, and the Memorial ej Samuel Hodgdott, have proceeded in re examine the Documents formerly before them, as far as femed nectjfary—to hear and examine other teflimony, produced to them—to hear and cnnfider the written communications, made by the Secretary at IVur, Samuel Hodgdon, and the Cum tnander in Chief of the Expedition } and, as the refill of their farther enquiries, mole the following Supplementary Report: T X H E original Report commences in the following words— " The contract for the supplies of the army on the route from Fort Pitt, was made by Theodoiius Fowler, with the Secretary of the Treasury, and bears date the twenty-eighth day of Qftober, one thousand seven hundred and ninety ; that at the fame time a bond in the penalty of one hundred thousand dollars, with Walter Livingfton and John Cochran, securities thereto, was entered into, for the due execution of the contract : That on the third day of January, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-one, the con trad was wholly transferred from the said Fowler, to William Duer, a copy of which transfer was lodged in the office of the Secretary of the Treasury ; that by letter from the Secretary at War, bearing diie the t'-vcrvty-fiftii. us February, oaa thousand seven hundred and ninety-one, aSdrcffed to William Duer, it appears that he was considered as contractor ; tkat no correspondence appears to have taken place fubfeqtiently to that time be tween Theodoiius Fowler and either the Treasury or War Departments." From documents received by the com mittee, since their lad appointment, it appears, that the copy of the beforc-men tibned transfer was not lodged in the of fice of the Secretary of the Treasury, un til the seventh of April, one thousand se ven hundred and ninety-one ; at which time it was received by the Secretary of the Treasury, under cover of a letter from William Duer, informing him of the cir cumftanoe of the said transfer, and mak ing requifrtions for certain advances of money. That the Secretary of the Trea sury, by letter in reply, of the fame date, agrees to make the advances required, to WilliamTDiier, as the agent of 7'heodo/ius It appears, that all the warrants, issued r rom the Treasury, for the purposes of vhis contrast, were issued to William Du er, as the agent of Theodoiius Fowler. I'he Secretary of the Treasury has fur nifhsd the committee with the written opinions of the Attorney General of the U-nited States, and several other lawyers of eminence, all of whom concur in opi nion, that the securities to the bond, ori ginally given by Theodoiius Fowler, for the execution of this contract, are now lefponfible for all damages, consequent «ipon any breach of that contract. The Secretary of War, who alone ap pears to have been the agent, on the part of the UnitcdStates, in all things relating to the execution of the com raft, has al ways coricfponded with William Duer, as the contra&or, and his conefpoadence commences at a date prior to that of the copy of the contract lodged at the Trea ury. i he original Report pioceeda : " That on the sixth of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-one, a f'»ntra£t was entered into by Wiiliam ~" er » w 'th the Secretary at War, for 'Upplying the troops with provisions, un til their arrival at Fort Pitt, and at Fort ntt. A bond wa» at the fame time en terevi iiUfl.by llye said William for i the due execution of the said contract, in the penalty of four thousand dollars, without any security whatsoever." It appeals, by are-examination of the documents formerly before the committee that the date and terms of the last men tioned contrast, were misrepresented ; thtf date being the twenty-sixth, instead of the fuih of April, and the terms of the contract, being to furnilh provisions for the.troops until their arrival at Fort Pitt, bat not during their continuance at that: place. The fidl of these miflakts appear to have been merely casual, the second appears to have avifen from paying great er attention to the manner in which the contradt was realiy executed, than to the terms of the contract itfelf, it Jaa^ n g been conceived by the committee, that Colonel Neville, che agent for supplying the tt'oqps during their continuance at Foit ' Pitt, afi under the Jafi Mentioned con-. trail. This circumftaricc is rendered'the leis material, from the consideration, that according to the plan of the campaign, no delay of the troops at Fort Pitt was counted upon. The ilatement is other wise correct. The Secretary at War, in his commit nicarion, states, that it was not the cus tom of the office, to require other lecuri ty than that of the contractor, for the dueeKccutionof contracts of small amount; and it appears by a letter of the Secreta ry of the Treasury written since the for mer report, that the Secretary at War consulted with him upon the occasion alluded to, and that he agreed in opini on, that farther fecuiity was not necef fai y. It is stated in the original report, after speaking of one of the contraftor'g agents, that " It appears by letters from John Kean, another of the contra&ors agents, that no monies had been received by him on the eighth of May, and it appears that on the twenty-third of March there was advanced to William Duer on the last mentioned contract, ti<e sum of fif teen thousand dollars." Upon re-examining the letters of John Kean, it appears that he nad received the sum of foDr hundred and fifty dollars, and no more, before the aforefaid eighth day of May, which was before overlooked by the committee. And it appears from documents received by the committee since their report, that the sum of fifteen thousand dollars was not advanced to William Duer on account of the last men tioned contract, on the twenty-third of March. The committee were led into this mistake, by a document leceived from the Tteafurer, repiefenting the fad as Hated in the original report, which docu ment is (till befoie the committee.—The true llate of this tranfaftion as recently dated, appears to be as follows : A wartaut issued in favor of Joseph Howell, on the twenty-third of March, for the sum of fifteen thousand dollars, for the use of the war department generally, and not for William Duer, as Hated in the aceount rendered by the Treasurer: Of which sum, were advanced to William Duer, on the twenty-sixth of March, four thousand dollars; on the eighth day of May following, were paid to James Smith, comra&ing agent for William Duer, one thousand dollars ; and between the twen ty-firlt 6f May and the twenty-third of July, were paid to John Kean, another agent for William Duer, four hundred and thirty«feven dollars and ninety-one cents ; making the whole sum advanced on the last mentioned contrafl, fivt thou sand fourliiNidred and thirty seven dollars, and ninety-one cents. —The residue of the fifteen thousand dollars is suggested to have been applied to the use of the war department generally- The original report dates, that— " It appears from the correspondence of General Butler, from the ninth of May to the ninth of June, repeated complaints 309 were raarl? v.* fatal inifmanagcir.ents and ncgle£ts, in the quartet Waiter's zmi milf tary stores departments, particular ly as to tents, kriapfacks, camp kettles, car tridge boxes, pack-saddles, &c. all, of which articles were deficient in quantity and bad in quality. The pack-iaddlfs particularly were made in Philadelphia, which with the tranfportution, amounted to more than,double the price at which they might lisve been procured at Fart Pitt, and wete found upon examination to be unfit fop use." Mr. Hodjdon has produced to the committee, a number of ex-parte affida vits and certificates, to prove, that these several were furnifhed, in 1 effici ent quantities, and of good quality.— Molt of these affidavits however, were made by the manufacturers of the respec tive articles, or persons in the employ ment of Mr. Hodgdon, and generally written in adiffeient hand-writing, from that of the- lubfcribirtg' cltponeiun ; ami* molt of the certificates, by p:ilons un known to the committee- But the testi mony formerly taken by the committee, and the corroboration of it by the evi dence of refpeftable and difintereited per sons, lately taken by the committee, in presence of Mr. Hodgdon, appears abun dantly fufficient to juilify the statement of fadts, contained in the original report. With refpeft to the pack-saddles howe ver, it is necelTary to remark, that foine qualification of the expression used in the original report, would be proper. They appear to have been made of different sizes : those of the largell size arc proved to have been wholly unfit for use, the horses used for pack-horses being general ly small. Some of the smaller pack-sad dles, however, appear to have been used in the iampaigr., and to have answered the intended purpose better than was at fir ft expedted. It is stated in the 01 iginal report that— " The arms sent forward appear not to have been duly examined, and arrived at Foit Pitt extremely out of order, and mauy totally unfit for use, which circum stance rendered repairs ablolutely necessa ry, and added to the delay of the troops, at Fort Pitt." The committee arc led to conclude, from authentic information recently re ceived, that the complaint of the arms in tended for the regular troops and levies, is unfounded ; some of the arms appear to have been damaged, after they were put into the hands of the troops, from their inexperience or carelessness, tho' deliver ed to them in good order. The committee were induced to make the unqualified statement contained iri the original report, from the unqualified man ner in which this fubje£t is spoken of by some of the witnesses, formerly examined by the committee ; they not having ftaied with Sufficient prtcilion, the caufea of the arms being out of repair, nor fpecifying the probable number requiring repairs. '1 he original report proceeds with the following txpreffion : " It appears, that a great proportion of the powder, supplied for the use of the aimy, was not of good quality, tho' an experiment made by major Fergufon, at Fort Pitt, with a howitzer, who report ed in favor of the quality of the powder." The committer are fatislied, from ex periments made since the original report by captain Ford, at Fort Washington, upon reque ft of the Secretary at War, and by samples of the powder from thence, actually furniflied the committe, that the powder was oiiginally of good quality ; but that a certain quantity of it was da maged by exposure to the air and moisture afur being issued to the troops- And it appears to have been powder of this de feription, upon which experiments were made by some of the officers in the expe dition, which produced unfavorable im pieflions as to the quality of the powder in general ; for it i* certain, a belief was currently entertained among ft the officers, [Whole No. 400.J , tfaa? tta pow<let jn genera* of 'good quality. 'iie- ii/uifitient yN/i nt> e powder,suffer the army took the field, is accounted for from the bad qu&litj off the tents. It is in U llimony to tlie (#m mittee, that tfteat quantities of tl»e fated ammunition were a&ually 1 endwed uteleft from that cause. It is ftatecl in tlis original report, that-*- " Mr. Hodgdon was appointed qiiar er malter-general in the month of-Mawh, ind continued at Philadelphia until the 4th of June, he'then proceeded to jFort Pitt, where he ariived on the the fame month—no fnfiicicnt caufovliive appeared to rh*i' committee to juflify thi( delay, and his preftnee with ' peared to have been, efP ntially pre.vioufly to that time." > In this ftatemei.t, the duration of Mr. flodgdon's stay at Foit Pitt v as casual ly omitteii, which appears to have been from tiw tctith of June, till the V*«n,Y fixth of Ai»grtift. -The insertion of this fa& will fufficiently explain the sense of the committee, in the inference tefpeft ing the time, in which the presence of the quarter-roaster-general was neccfTdvjr at the army. It is dated in the original report, that— " There were fix hundred and leventy five (land of a-ms, at Fort Washington, on the firfl: of June, and moll of tfiofi totally out of repair." These arms* the precise number of which appears not to be accurately afecr tained, are admitted by the Secretary at War, to have been at Fort Washington, in the situation described, but he fnggefts, that they were old and ufelefsarms, which had been oolkfled at that place, and were not counted upon, as any part of the supply of arms for the expedition.— It appears, that the regular troops and levies were completely supplied with ?rms, without recurrence to this (lock: but a number of them was repaired, by orders of the commander in chief, of the ex pedition, with a view, as he suggests, to arm the militia from Kentucky, who, it was expected, would arrive, either in efficiently armed, or not armed at all : and he did not conceive the arrangements, made by the war department, competent to arming the militia, together with the other troops. The original repoit dates, that " The privates of the levies received but three dollars pay each, fiom the time of thei'i refpeftive inliflments to the time of their refpedive difiharges, and were adtially discharged without farther pay or Settlement ; notes ftf discharge were piven them, Specifying the time of their Service, and bearing - indorsations, that some advances had been made to them on account, without dating the amcunt, the objed of which is fuggelted to have been to prevent transfers ; the intended effi.d was not produced by the meafurt ; the notes were fold for trifling considera tions, the real sums due on the note* were various, from ten to twenty-five dollars, and they weie frequently fold for one dollar, or one gallon of whiflcy ; the monies foi the pay of the levies did not leave Philadelphia, till the fourth of December, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-one, nor arrive at Eort- Waihington, till the third of January, one thousand seven hundred and ninety two, some time after the last inlilled levies are known to have been entitled to their difchaiges." In addition to the reasons contained in the original report, refpe£ting the diCr charging of the levies, without their (li pulattd pay, which arc admitted by the Secretary at War, to have heen justly dated, he has, Sahls late lommunicatioD,, suggested to the committee, that, at the time of the discharge of the levie«, there was a&ually, in the hands of the<juarter nufter-gcueral, t!ie sum v.f fixtcee ,'*« UJI
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers