The Pennsylvania packet, or, The general advertiser — Lancaster, Pa.;Philadelphia, Pa., 1782-07-23 00:00:00, page 1

IT may appear somewhat extraordinary to those
who are not acquainted with all circumstances,
that an enquiry should be made by the prefers
house of delegates, into Mr. Chase's conduct, when
he was a member of congress in the year 1778.
Reports *, injurious to his character, were circu
lated on his return from congress, in the fall, 1778;
and it appears, by the evidence of several members,
that he expressed a desire, before the house of dele
gates, that an enquiry should then be made into his
conduct. —When we confider how unwilling men are
to enter into personal quarrels (particularly with a
man of Mr. Chase's character) we may easily account
why the house did not enquire into those reports. —
The reasons I have assigned may be construed into a
reflexion. I cannot help it ! they appear to me so
precisely just, that I think no others more probable
can be assigned.
From the conduct, however, of the assembly, at the
election for new members of congress, in November
session, 1778, it clearly appears, that they thought
the reports relating to Mr. Chase's condud in con
gress, were not without foundation; for they left
him out of the delegation, and paffeda law to pre
vent persons engaged in commerce from fitting in con
gress ; and frequent attempts, for three years past,
have been made by Mr. Chase's friends, without suc
cess, to obtain a repeal of it.
This law, however, has lately expired; and, at an
election for delegates to congress, during the Novem
ber feffon, Mr. Chafe was appointed a member of
congress for this state, for the ensuing year.
On the 23d and 30th of August last, certain pub
lications, signed by Charles Carroll, efouire, of Car
rollton, made their appearance in the Marylan 1 Ga
zette, containing charges against Mr. Chafe, of hav
ing committed a breach of trust, as a member cf con
gress in the year 1778 ; and some time after Mr.
Chase's defence was published in the said Gazette.
As this paper circulates but partially through this
state, I thought it more than probable that the mem
bers of she house of delegates had not generally read
the said publications, (some I know bad not even
seen them) or they muff have thought it highly pro
per to encuire fully into the publications made by
Mr. Carroll, before they went into the election of a
person accused of having committed a breach of trust
in that very office for which he was then a candidate.
An enquiry would certainly have been more proper
when Mr Chafe was nominated, and if I had been
present, I should have made the motion' but does it
follow, because it was not then done, it was (after the
election) improper ? Agreeable to the conflitution, a
member of congress may be at any time removed.
Having read with attention, Mr. Carroll's publica
tions, and M r , Chase's defence, (upon which he 2-
greed to be tried by his country,) I was clearly of o
pinion, that Mr. Chafe had been guilty of a breach
cf trust in congress, in the year 1778 ; and therefore
I could not, consistent with the duty I owed to my
country, consent that a person of bis cbara^er should
retain his feat in congress, particularly at this impor
tant crisis.
" When you resolved to avail yourfelf of the ex
*' traordinary demand for flour,.which the wants of
" the French fleet must produce, and which your of
“ ficial situation early impressed on your attention,
" to form connedions for monopolizing that article,
" and railing the price upon the public more than
" one hundred per cent.—when by your intrigues
" and fludied delays, you protraded the determinati
'f on of the committee of congress, on the proposals
" made by Mr. Wadsworth, commissary general, for
" procuring the necessary supplies for the public use—
" to give your agents time to compleat their purcha
" fes.—l fay, when you were doing all this, and en
" gaging in a traffic, infamous in itfelf, repugnant
" to your flation and ruinous to your country,
" did you pause and allow yourfelf a moment's ro
" fledion on the consequences ? Were you infatuated
'' enough to imagine you would be able to conceal
0< the part you wereading ? Or had you conceived a
" thorough contempt of reputation, and a total in
" difference to the opinion of the world ??
To the Printer of the PENNSYLVANIA. PACKET.
SIR,
I Ihall be much obliged if you will publish the in
dofed Address to the Public in your next Tuesday's
Paper. Your most obedient humble fervan^,
, JOHN CADWALADER.
Philadelphia, 17th July, 1782.
It appears that the house did not confider my motion
(as published, by messieurs Green, of Annapolis, from
* Extrad from a letter signed Publius, published
in the New-York Gazette, to S. C. esquire.
VOL. xi.i
TUESDAY J ULY 2
THE
^WIIW^
To the P ÜBLI C.
GENERAL ADVERTISER.
Published every TUESDAY, THURSDAY and SATURDAY.—Price Six-Pence.
the proceedings) as a charge. Several members
rose, and with great solemnity, declared they were at
a loss to know how to proceed ; that it was no charge;
that it was not consistent with the proceedings usu
al in courts of justice ; that a direst and pointed charge
ought to be made, to enable the person charged, to
know how to make his defence. The house, there
fore, ordered—" That any charge intended to be'
made against Mr. Chafe, be reduced to writing and
delivered in at the table."—The next morning I laid
before the house, she paper containing the following
words, viz.—" That from all the fads mentioned by
" Charles Carroll, esquire, of Carrollton, in certain
'' publications of the 23d and 30th August last ; and
" from the circ mftances contained therein, and
from the fads granted by Mr. Chafe, in his defence
" of the 27th of September, it fully appears to me,
" that Mr. Chafe was guilty of a breach of trust, by
" revealing a secret refol;e of congress, whilst he was
'' a member thereof, in the year 1.778." This, how
ever, was not fatisfadory ; it did not come up to the
idea of some gentlemen, who could not proceed but
with that order observed in courts of justice ;—"it was
no change !"—they did not know " what it was ;" —
'' mere scraps from news-papers !"
The inextricable difficulties in which they were in
volved, could not induce me to make the charge they
wanted — Tbrir design was evident, and I was deter
mined to disappoint them. The object of my motion
was, to induce the house to go into a full investigati
on of the whole of Mr. Carroll's publications. Their
design evidently was, to fubjed me to Mr. Chase's re
sentment, and a torrent of abuse (which they dread
ed) by prosecuting pointed charges instead of going in
to a general enquiry. After I had read Mr. Carroll's
publications, and Mr, Chase's defence to the h-use,
and had made my motion, it was undoubtedly as
much the duty of every individual member to prose
cute the enquiry, as it was mine. If the members,
on future occasions, should individually endeavour to
avoid the odium which culprits ever attempt to cast
on those who move for an enquiry into frauds and a
buses, or any other breach of duty, the most notori
ous offenders will be encouraged, and the most fatal
effects to the'flate may be the consequence.
Much hath been said by Mr. Chafe and his parti
zans, to endeavour to injure my character upon this
occasion. It is sometimes difficult to determine what
the true motives are which regulate th° condu& of
men in public ftaticns, I should be perfectly content,
that boneft men should judge of my motives, in moving
for Mr. Chase's removal from congress, by my gene
ral or particular charader. The man who fuffers his
private or personal resentments to regulate his con
duH, in matters that relate to the public, ought to
be held in contempt by every hone? man.
Much too hath been said about news paper evidence.
In my opinion, even anonimous publications may
often deserve the notice of the public : at least, it may
convey such information as to iuftify an enquiry.
But the publications against Mr. Chafe are not ano
nimous; they are signed-by M r . Carroll, a gentleman
of known honour and integrity.
The mode of proceeding, with refpeft to Mr.
Chafe, after Mr. Carroll had been called upon to fay,
whether he was the author of those publications, was
plain and easy.
By publications, in news-papers, we were inform
ed of the dangerous attempts made by Creat-Britain
against the liberties of America : by them we were
convinced that refinance was necessary ; by them we
were taught to believe, that our exiftenre, as a free
pepple, depended on the declaration of independence:
and through this channel must be conveyed that infor
mation relating to the conduft of the executive, ju
dicial and legislative bodies, and every officer of gov
ernment, which may defeat the attempts rs dangerous
and designing men.
Having explained the reasons which induced me to
move for the enquiry into Mr. Chase's condu:°, I
now beg leave to lay before the public, that evidnee,
and those reasons from which I conclude that Mr.
Chafe was guilty.-
It appears, by the Journals of congress, that a let
ter from colonel Wadsworth, commissary general', to
his deputy, Ephraim Blaine, dated the 23d July,
177/1, was received and read in congress, the 31st of
the fame month, and referred to a committeeto re
port thereon. On the 24th of August, congress took
into consideration the report on said letter—wherein
the committee report, as their opinion, " that the
transportation of flour to the eastern states, is wife
and necessary " whereupon it was resolved, that the
commissary general be directed to purchase 20,000 bls.
of flour in the states of Pennsylvania, Delaware, Ma
ryland and Virginia, to be trahfported by water, and
to be laid up in magazines in the dates of Maffachu
fcits-Bay and Conn^aicur —This is the jefoNe of
O R, THE
That Mr. Forbes (then a member of congress for
this state) on his return from congress, told him that
Mr. Chafe was the gentleman who charged him with 0-
pening his letter to- the governor and council, con
pini,^ a /" et of tongrtfs ; that he asked Mr. Forbes
if this had operated to hit prejudice : and that he an -
fwered, no! that he told* Mr. Forbes, if there was
one man in congress who fufpeded him, he would
have the letter read in congress? and dded, if any
private gentleman fufpeßed him, he desired the let
ter might be read to him; and that Mr. Forbes answer
ed, there was net the least occasion ; that be bad not
frmfion from Mr. Chafe to open his Etters f, nor
ever saw a letter of his opened, but 7^/ to colonel
Lloyd ; that he does recoiled one instance (there
might have been more) of a letter being ir.dorfed to
be opened by him.
Mr. Alien Thomas (a member ofthe house ®f dele
gates) on oath declared, that he saw colonel Wadf
woith at York, (in Vxrginia)at general Washington's
quarters, in OTober la ft ; that the col nel told him he
taught Mr. Chafe guilty • that he would be at Anna
polis, arid would refn^hhis memory by looking at his
Mr. William Smith, of Baltimore-town, on oath
declared, that in consequence of a letter from the
president of congress, informing him that he had been
charged with having opened a letter, which betray,
ed a jecret ofcongr/s, he wrote a letter to the pr so
dent in answer, which he intended Ihould be read in
congress.
* The (peculations in whiclrMr. Chafe and others
were concerned., were the catife of those obnoxious
ads for seizing grain, Cc. so much complained of by
the good people of this Rate.
, Mr. Chafe asserts in his defence, that Mr. Smith
had general permission to open his letters.
Mr M'Lure being summoned to give evidence,
declared on oath, that he went to Philadelphia some
time between theist and loth of August, 1778 ; that
he saw Mr. Chafe there, who aiked him if he would
be concerned in the purchase of flour, that money
might be made by it; that their intention was to
purchase prizes of count de Eftaing, or if that should
fail, they had it in contemplation to fend their dour
to Bolton for a market, as there was a Scarcity to the
eastward ; that he engaged ^4 M r Chafe fy'
g nhis purchase after her ot -\-' ^m- (Balthr^a
town) between the 18th ar, lap of An ul ; 2nd :
he bought up between 500 nd 1000 bls. of flour
some time in September he heard great n wn r>.;-
mong the people, in cons . a resolve df
grefs fcr the purchase off % and therefore hd off
purchasing; that he met ?/Vr r>,rf y, (^L.Ch^^s
partner) on the road, going to Philadelphia, about the
12th of August, as he waa returning to Baltimore
town ; that Mr. Dorsey re f urned from Philadelphia to
Baltimore-town, between the 18th and „th August,
and that Mr. Dorsey began to purchase immediately
on his return to Baltimore-town. Mr. M'Lure be
lieves he did receive a letter from Mr. Chafe, afterth:
24th of August, relating to the purchase before en
gaged in, but does not remember that Mr. Chafe ad
vised him to extend his purchase, nor does he remem
ber whether he was advised to continue the purchase,
but remembers he was not advised to difrontinue it ;
that he saw a letter from Mr. Chafe to Mr. Dorsey,
pressing him to make his purchase “ as soon as/ofible,9
and believes the letter was dated after the 2.-th Au
gust; that the letter pressed Mr. Dorsey" to go on"
and f loje no time that Mr. Dorsey told him, that
Mr. Chafe had defire^ him (Mr. Dorsey) to . shew the
letter to him (Mr. M'Lure) that he might go on
with bis purchase.
A letter, dated at Baltimore-town, the 6th Sep
tember, was received and read, on the 14th of the
fame month, in congress; in which letter colonel
Wadsworth complained, that the mills in the neigh
bourhood of Baltimore-town were engaged, and that
his orders to purchase the 20,000 bls. of flour (agree
able to the resolve of congress, the 2, th August)
" were known before be got down." This letter was
referred to a committee to report therer: fa on u.e
2d of Oflober, congress took into confederation the
report on said letter, whereupon they came to th'fo!
lowing resolution — That, whereas there we r ar
city of grain in the states of New-York, N?wj c rfcb
Pennsylvania, Delaware, "Marylat ' and Virginia,
owing to short crops, and the wic d^^;^ of /pecu
lators, who have, by the great putch. .. ;h~y c?v^
made, occasioned the preateft alarm, and endangered
the procuring the necessary supplies for the army and na
vy —therefore, congress recommended to the legifla~
tores of the several states, from New-York to Virginia,
inclusive, to pass laws for the * seizure of grain and
flour, &c. &c.
congress which Mr. Chafe has been accused of having
revealed.
[NUMB. 914.