The Pennsylvania packet, or, The general advertiser — Lancaster, Pa.;Philadelphia, Pa., 1782-11-14 00:00:00, page 1

To THE PUBLIC.
TH E add refs of general Cadwalader, in the Penn
sylvania Packet of the 23d of July, must be
considered as an appeal to you from the
determination of the house of delegates, on his prose
cution of me " for a breach of trust, by revealing a
secret resolve of congrefs;'' it may also be viewed
in the light of an apology, for his having voted, with
his colleague, against thirty-fix of the delegates, " that
the evidence produced on the trial convicted me of the
charge." Refleaions on the integrity of my judges
are liberally interspersed through this performance, but
as it must firike every man of common refleaion, that
they flow from disappointed malice and mortified pride,
they can have no other tendency, than to expose its
author's meanness, and to fubjea him to the contempt
and detestation of every honest and benevolent mind.
That part of his " narrative," which is dedicated to
me, shall be the objeft of my flriCtures, and I doubt
not I shall find it an easy talk to combat falfhood and
slander with argument and fad. lam well convinced,
that no one capable of judging, and who would take
the trouble to examine the general's slate of the charge
and evidence, would require any remarks from me, to
assist him in forming a judgment on the merits of his
accusations. The sentiments of party and faction I
have ever despised ; the approbation of the sensible and
impartial few I have always refpeded and would wish
to preserve: to prevent any imposition on them, I am
induced once more to entreat the public attention. It
is highly disgusting, to engage with pride, vanity and
ignorance ; I with I had to contend with a more respec
table enemy : I cannot fuffer by his malice, but the
confufion of his head, and his want of candour, occa
sion me more trouble, than I could possibly experience
from the ablefl adversary.
From the time the house of delegates pronounced
their judgment on the accusation of the general, fix
months elapsed before his appeal to their con ftituents,
and " his address, though prepared, was delayd for
evidence from colonel Wadsworth. The general is un
fortunate whenever he attempts to assign a reason for
bis conduCt ; as will ever be the case of the man, who
acts without principle, or without judgment. The ex
pected evidence might have been a good cause to delay
the making a new charge, but only the weakest intel
left could fupp>fe any fad not offered on the trial, pro
per to arraign the determ nation of the delegates, or to
juflify his vote. The general has two objects in view
by his publication, ift. To prove that, when I was a
member of congtefs, I revealed a secret resolve of that
body, of the 24th of August 1778. 2d. That I availed
myfelf of the knowledge I acquired as a member of
congress, of tbeir intention to purchase a quantity of
flour, and in consequence thereof made purchases of
that article in August and September 1778, to the pre
judice of the public.
At last November session the general assembly (with
out my soliciting a vote or consenting to serve if elect
ed) appointed me one of the delegates to congress. The
general was not present, and therefore on the 11th of
January, he moved the house of delegates to resolve,
“ that as I was charged by publications in the Mary
land Gazette, with having committed a breach of trust,
as a member of congress in 1778, that upon confedera
tion of the said charges and my defence, I ought not
to have been appointed." Did this motion proceed
from a love of country ? or did it flow from malice,
or ignorance, or both? I give the general Credit for the
malignity of his heart, and the weakness of his head;
the latter is very apparent. An understanding remov
ed one degree from ideocy, would have discovered the
ab'urdity of such a motion. In the publications allud
ed to it was alledged, or insinuated, that I had been guil
ty of a,breach of trust in three particulars. On conside
ration of the charges and my defence, without further
enquiry, without any hearing, the general called on the
house to declare, that I had been guilty of an aft,
which rendered Me unworthy of the public confidence,
to pass judgment of condemnation, and to brand my
reputation with infamy and diferace. The general was
prepared to vote me guilty, and was weak enough to
imagine the other members as ignorant of their duty to
the Public, and to Me, as himfelf: he grounded his
judgment on certain fads alledged, and on my answer.
If capable of judging in such a case, he would have
known, that the faffs charged flood for nothing with
out proof, of admission by Me. On my defence alone
therefore could he have formed his opinion. I require
no other evidence of his malice and folly, and am con
fident even his friends must admit this conduct as fuffi
cient proof of the imbecility of his understanding. As
the general's motion implied his opinion, that I had
been guilty of fame breach of trust, the house ordered
" that any charge intended to be made against Me should
be reduced to writing." No reasoning can be necessary
to evince the propriety of this order. The motion im
plied a charge of some breach of trust, but omitting to
VOL. XI.I Published every TUESDAY, THURSDAY and SATURDAY.—Price Six-Pence.
THURSDAY,
•
^aiffi®!!^^^
GENERAL ADVERTISE R.
fpecify in what particular, no evidence could be point
edly adduced to any fact, nor could I be prepared to
make any defence. The general, in his paper laid before
the house, expressly asserted, “ that 1 had been guilty
of a breach of trust, by revealing a secret resolve of con
gress, whilfl a member thereof, in 1778 , but with his
former unparalleled ignorance, he grounded his opi
nion on the publications in the Gazette, and my answer.
He- is pleased, in his address, to aver, " that the object
of his motion was to induce the house to go into a full
invefligation of all the charges in the publications."
If he speaks the truth, why did he not recite in hispa
per, which he intended as the foundation of an enqui
ry, all the facts which he believed to be true? and
why did be confine the breach of trust to my divulg
ing a secret resolve of congress? He has with a shame
less front asserted, " that,the house of delegates was
partial, and unwilling to gefinjo a general enquiry,
and wished to confine it to my betraying a secret resolve
of congress."
Whether the house v^repartial to Me, or not, can only
be determined by their proceedings, and condua during
the course of the trial. Hisword and honour cannot
be received as fufficient evidence of the truth of this
charge of partiality. T e following faffs, of public
notoriety, would alone overbalance his testimony. A
clamour had been raised against Me ; several members
of the house of delegates were greatly prejudiced ; and
with others differences had 'qbfided refpediug public
measures; and I had never courted, but on federal oc
casions flood in opposition to, the popular opinion. If
the house discovered an unwillingness to go into a full
enquiry, why did not my accuser, asit was in his pow
er, force them into it, by charging Me with a breach of
trust in as many particulars as he thought proper or
by alleging any matter of mifeomdud which could ren
der me unworthy of the public trust ? The house deter
mined " to hear evidence of any purchases made by me
or my partners, of grain or flour, between the 24th of
August and November 1778,as circumflantial evidence of
my having been guilty of the charge of betraying a se
cret resolve of congref." I readily agreed to the ad
Ifeiffion of this evidence. The witnesses were examined
without eny opposition by Me, of every purchase in
which I was co c nrd, as wd| before a; alter that time,
though it mutt be apparent to the mane,l capacity,
that purchases made before the resolve could not be e
vidence of my divulging it. Can there be better proof,
that tte house were not dis posed to prevent a full en
quiry into my conduct ? For their temper and patience
during an examination of two days, and as many
evenings, I appeal to the bye danders.
My accuser voted, and flill contends, " that I re
vealed a secret resolve of congress," and he has submit
ted the proof of the fad and his reasons in support of
his vote, to the judgment of the public. To maintain
this accusation, two tilings are neceffary,frf, to prove
that the resolve was a secret and nrt to be divulged;
and secondly, that I made it known, from improper, or
interefled motives. If the refoluti^n was not a secret,
there could be no offence io publishing it. Ev^n my
adversary, frequently in the course of rhe trial, admit
ted that if the resolve was not a secret, his charge of
divulging it could not be maintained. I assert, that
when any resolve is passed in congress, which that bo
dy intend to be kept secret, a motion is made for in
jundion to secrecy ; if no objection, the president in
forms the members, that the refolutirn is not to be di
vulged. If he motion is opposed, it is debated and
determined (as in other cases) by a majority of the
fates; and if in favour of tee motion, the president
gives directions agreeable to the determination of con
gress; and the secretary marks theiniunCtionto secre
cy in the margin of the journal, opposite the resolve.
If a member moves a matter, which he conceives ought
to be secret, he premises his opinion to that purpose,
and in such case every mmber is bound to secrecy,
until the matter receives the determination of congress.
If congress do not enjoin secrecy, it remains in the
defcrerion of the members. I aver this to be the rule
and uniform practice of congress, and that it was ne
ver esteemed a violation of honour to mention any mat
ter, which a majority of the fates did not order to be se
cret. Some questions may be determined by congress,
which the interest or fafety of the Hates may require
to be secret, and many which every member of the
union is entitled to know. The majority of congress
alone can, and ought to determine what fubjeds should
not be disclosed to the public, and congress ought not
to leave the propriety of ferrecy to the private opini
on of the members, which should e<er submit to the
decision of the body. The members may (and it not
unfrequently happens) differ in sentiment what mat
ters ought to be kept fecret*. The opinion of the bo-
* On the 15th of August 1778, several questions were
agitated in congress, how far, and for what time,con
grefs Should enjoin the members to secrecy, concern-
O R, THE
THE
- On a supposition, for arguments fake, that the re
solve was a secret, it still remains for my accuser to
dy can only be known by its express declaration. No
man of fenle would submit to any other restraint, than
that which the majority should prescribe. His obliga
tion can only be to the body, and not to the indivi
duals who compose it. If it remained with the mem
bets to determine whether any particular matter was
to be kept secret, no man's honour or character woujd
be fafe, because they would depend not on the integri
ty, but the judgment of the members; and there can
he no security, when men so often differ on the very
question, whether the fubjea requires secrecy. It is
evident that some mode must be adopted to diflinguifh
the resolutions intended to be secret, or members tak
ing their feats afterguards, could not know how to con
dudthemfelves. In the present case, the manuscript
journal of congress (which contains the resolve of the
24'11 of August 1778) has been searched, and there is
no injunaion to secrecy noted in the journal ; though
in other cases, both before and after the said resolve,
an injunaion to secrecy is marked in the margin. My
accuser admits this to be the general mode of proceedings
in congress, but adds, " it is certain from an enquiry
lately made of the members of congress, that in cases
(like the resolve in question) no formal injunaion is
made, as it is generally underflood by the house, that the
members have honour enough to prevent their divulg
ing any proceedings, t that would prove injurious to the
United States." Can the general be credited in this as
sertion? What does he mean by the " members of
congress ?" Does he mean 4// the members or thegrea
ter part, or lome few, or some two of them? I can
scarce believe any one of that body could deliver an
opinion so weak and absurd. I would venture my re
putation and life, that it cannot be the sentiment of a
majority of congress. Common sense, the feelings of
every man of understanding and honour, would repro
bate such an opinion, and the journals and universal
pradice of congress prove the contrary- I cannot
think that any man possessed of a moderate fha^
of difeernment can suppose, that congress weu,
leave matters of secrecy to depend on the private
opinion and judgment of its members. My ad
versary relies on rhe opinion of four members of
congress, that the resolve was a secret; and that
one of them, in congress, charged the delegates of Mary
land with having revealed it. It may be that ail, or
some of the gentlemen alluded to might have consi
dered the resolve as intended to be fecret•, but, admitted
as their opinion, it cannot weigh an atom against the
evidence I have adduced to prove, that it was not a
secret. Ido not believe any charge was ever mßde in
congress, as asserted ; because it implies the strongest
imputation against the honour and integrity of con
gress, if they neglected to notice it. I wish to avoid
all controversy with any member of congress, refpe&-
ing his opinion, whether the resolve was a secret ; such
a disquisition would be very disagreeable to me, nor
will Ibe involved in it by my adversary, I conceive
that neither myfelf, or any other member, is to be
tried and judged by the opinion of any individual.
Whether the resolve was a secret or not muftdepend
on the proof. It was incumbent on my accuser to
maintain the affirmative, and failing, even he must
admit it never could have been criminal in me to have
made it public ; but I flatter myfelf it is fully evident,
that there was not any injunction to secrecy, by con
gress; and if there was no injunction, I contend that
there was no obligation of honour on any member to
have concealed it,.
ing information received refpefting the slate of foreign
affairs ; and at length it wa^ determined, that the in
junction should continue " until the enquiry into the
state of their foreign affairs, and the condu— of their
commissioners, should be finifhed."
, Since writing the above, I procured the follow
ing resolve of congress, dated November 9, 1775 :
“ Resolved, That every member of this congress con
fiders himfelf, under the ties of virtue, honour, and
love of country, not to divulge, directly or indirectly,
any matter or thing, agitated or debated in congress,
b fore the fame shall have been determined, without
the leave of the congress; nor any matter or thing
determined in corgref, which a majority of the con
gress shall order to be kept secret, and that if any mem
ber shall violate this agreement, he shall be expelled this
congrefs,' and deemed an en my to. the liberties of A
merica, and liable to be treated as such; and that
every member lignify his consent to this agreement by
signing the fame." This resolve is fubferibed by „
members of congress. This contract I entered into,
and this rue was pbferved during the time I was at
member. If this contract, with the proof that there
was no injunction to keep secret the resolve of the
24th of August 1778, does not filtnee my accuser, he
is incorrigible.
NOVEMBER 14, 1782;
[NUMB. §63.