The Columbian informer, or, Cheshire journal — Keene, N.H., 1794-07-08 00:00:00, page 1

[/„ our ^fl the public lucre presented with
Mr. Randolph's Letter, in answer to
'Mr. Hammond : The ft/irwing u the
Britfo Minder's re,l, ; together <witb a
founder y^c Secretary of State.]
J am perfe&ly willing to reserve for a
future period any general discussion that you
may institute with regard to the decafions
upon, a.,d the degrees to, which " an ex
planation may be required by the govern
ment of the United States, from a foreign
minister :" But I mull be permitted, fir, to
repeat that “I never can acknowledge the
right of this government to require from
me so categorically as you have requiredit,
any explanation of measures pursued by ei
ther servants of the crown in other depart
ments, over whole actions, I have no con
troul, for whose conduct 1 am not respon
sible, and with whom 1 have nd other pub
lic connection than that which refhlts from
the circumstance of our being employed
in the service of the fame matter.
Your extract from Lord Dorchester's
Speech appeared to be a partial mutilated
citation, in as much as it was not a detach
ed Separate position; but a member of a
Sentence immediately connected with & flow
ing from parts which preceded it, I cf
tcemed it proper to quote the whole pas
sage; From this it was manifeft that Lord
Dorcherter founded his expression, that he
Should not be surprised if Great Britain was
at war with the United States in the course
of the prefect year, on his knowledge of
th€ ebnduft of inhabitants of the United
Stated as Well on the fide of Canada; as to
wards the sea. 1 therefore, fir, cannot but
/imagine that .the sense of" the governor
general" is materially offered by the pre
liminary words : For certainly there is an
evident distinction between the expression
of an opinion that the conduct ofthe Uni
ted States might eventually lead to ablate
ofhoftility between them and'Great-Bri
tain, and the detached, uneqpnetted asser
tion that it would not be a matter of sur
prise to him, if Great-Britain mould be at
!%ar with the United States, in the course
yWhe prefect year. With refpefl.tQ your
dec%,™p n that I have not contradicted
-your '' '(ertion U.at Lord Dorchester fof
<erc^ ana^wQuraged in the Indians hof
£% ^U,fcionswards the United Rates."
Xlave no diffi^%;. in confeffing that, as
ihofc few word&rtain the whole of your
afferuon upon & matter, they really cf
p taped mv notice. Hadl attended to them,
'lfould cemtfhot have omitted ream-
PHILADELPHIA, JUNE?, 17%.
SIR,
HAVING, in conformity to the afu
rance expressed in my letter of the
220 ultimo, immediately transmitted cop
ies ofthat luterandofyour'sof the xeth ul
timo, to the governor-general of his Ma
jesty's pofleflions in North. America, to the
governor of Upper Canada, and to his Ma
jelly's Mmiftcrs in England, 1 concluded'
that any farther communication between us
on the Subject of thole letters would for the
present have been fafpended : But as you
have resumed the difcoflion at some length
in your letter of the ad current, (which 1
had the honor of receiving in the afternoon
of the fhQ it is incumbent upon me to re
ply in detail to the several points you have
feted,& which you have been pleased tore
prefent as " a train of recrimination against
the United States ;" although, one alone
excepted, I had merely collaterally adver
ted to them, as referring to the allusion of
Lord Dorchester,, " to the conduct of this
government towards the Sea,"and had ex
pre'Gly asserted that 1 was not difp^fed
to urge them as general topics of recrimi
nation.
[No. Iff, of Vol. ll.] '
<&^rt)%^3t^^^^'v^ln^^^
Mr. HAMMOND'S LETTER.
STATE PAPER.
, THE
Columbian Informer;
Or, CHESHIRE JO URN A L;
_ _ .—i ; i.tateiit mi m HI iMfety Mtgfety&tyty„«Qt — «fr^^ : —•—
PRINTED a^d PUBLISHED ay EL NRK BL 4 *IN lIL ^'^ Niw-Hampshiri.
king, that I deduced from the whole teabr
of the speech an inference different from
your assertion, which can apply to thole
pailages only gs the speech, wherein.jjord
Dorchester demonAfttea his regret at the
continuance of the war, and, his concern
that his hope of a pacification being effec
ted had been disappointed ; or to those in
which he alludes to the infringements by
American citizens on the territory occupi
ed by his Majesty's arms. In none of those
pagages however has his lordship txpteffed
any personal fentiments,relative to the ori
gin of the Indian war, or [0 the causes
that have hitherto retarded the reiloiaxion of
peace, which can be construed into a difpo
faion to impute* more of blame in either
case to one party than to the other. But
even if 1 had admitted your affection to the
fulleft extent, 1 could not have been deter
red by that confederation from meeting the
disquisition, when 1 reflected that I could
contrail with that assertion, a precedent in
the annals of the United States of no very
ancient date. For it cannot be unknown
royou,fir,that on the 6thofJanuary 1789,
at a period of profound peace between
Greateßritain and the United States, Go
vernor Sinclair assured, the Indians, whom
he had convened at Mufkingum, that Great
Britain, at the conclusion Qf the war had
ceded (he Indian land as the price of pe^ce
for herfelf.—His words (after an endeavour
to explain the nature of 'the claims of the
United States to the l^nds of the Indians by
a comparison adapted to the local relations
of the letter) are just so. " Brothers, it
was the British and you. Contrary to your
foltan engagements,you joined them in the
whr against us, and^id us much hurra.—
'After a long Hr%Xf we got the - better.
They asked for fl&ceand your lands were
given as part of the price." Surely,fir,lan
guage cannot be devised more capable of
inspiring implacable hostilities in the]ndiaps,
than this which assumes as afaft ofnotorie
ty,that at the peace,the British government
abandoned the intcrefts of those whom it
had deluded into a co-operation with it du
ring the war, and whose lands it formally
ceded as the price of pacification furitfelf.
Indeed this government Seemed afterward,
sensible of the impropriety of this language,
since on the gift day of July 1793, Messrs.
Lincoln, Randolph and Pickering, in
formed the Indians that this conftruftion of
the part df the treaty of peace, which fet
tled the boundary between the poffeflions of
Great-Britain & those ofth< :United States;
was erroneous ; " for as the king had
not purchased the country of the Indians,hc
of course could not give it away."
, 1 Ihall now, fir, proceed to offer some
obfervatibns on those parts of your fetter
which are intended for answers to what you
.have denominated my" charges."
Ift. 1 have never for a moment denied
that the territory on which 1 represented
encroachments to have been committed
by the state and individuals of Vermont
was within the boundary of the United
States ; but I presumed that, Until the
points in difeuffion between our refpedive
countries Should be amicably arranged,
no part of the territory occupied by per,
fans residing under the protection of his
Majesty's garrisons, should be forcibly
wrested from that protection, either by the
enterprises of the state of Vermont, or by
the unauthorized aggressions of individu
als. Under this presumption; I addressed
my letter of the §<bof July 1792, to your
predecessor, and on the fame principle I
stated-in my letter to you on the loth of
March 1794, that the grievances of which
I then complained had never been redres
sed. It is true that nineteen months elap
sed between, the dates of those different let
ters ; but if from this circumstance it be
inferred as a matter deferring of attention
that during this Space " this government
never underflood from myfelf er any au
thority of his Britannic Majesty that the
original d&nsfaftiQn continued," it is no
TU£SD ^t J u:l%:%
fa^ffavgh^^c#%&^ntfot,
teftfmzrktWe that! fhcu!d never have 1
received any thing but aJurafo that that
source of dihtisladion should be removed,,
and that in this, interval and to this mo
meat, nofa& of iu having been removed
have ever been communicated to me by
yjur predecessor or yourfelf, to oppole
hose which I formerly advanced, and
toe since repeated. Through cifual
channeh^f communication, I hat collec
ted that lie intejpohuon of the govern
ment had np^proauced the ciett, which
from iu aflatanecs I had expected, but
the evidence did not appear to me of im
portance Efficient to found any complaint
upon it. 4 The firft authentic intimation
& these circuo&ncca was indeed comma
seated to me by Lord Dorchester in a let
ter which I received three or four days
antecedently' 10 the date of mine to you
of the loth of March, and. in which his
Lordfhp, who had not long before re
turned from England, acquainted me that
those encroachments, the ard ads of which
had occurred during his absence, still con
tinued unreprefTed. Here it is ncccffary
for me to observe, with refped to your
repetition of the assertion you advanced
in your Iciter on the acih ultimo, of the
Indians to whom his.fpeech was addressed,
having been ^cmbltd by Lord Dorchef
^'4 airetyms, that unlcfs your means of
intelligence arc more accurate than mine,
I entertain a firm conviction, that the in
formation on which you have founded your
^cruon, is totally erroneous. For I can
allure you, dr, that I havereafon to be
hevc that thole Indians were not afimbled
0) Lord Dorchester, but that the speech
in gaegion was an anfw&r to a menage
brought by a deputation of Indians, who
ifoo proceeded tpQgenec, spontaneous, and
unfoLcitca by bis Lord,b?,. This belief is
farther confirmed by the Second paragraph
of the speech itfelf,„ “ Children, you have
informed me that y.od are deputed by the
seven villages of Lower Canada &c."
I Ihall not however dwell on this part of
your letter, as the parage of it to which 1
have fall referred, connected with the suc
ceeding femenee. “ Although it cannot
be by any means believed that this was
written in order to u!her In the intelli
gence, which soon after arrived of hit
ipcech, yet it is difficult to account for so
long an interval under the circumstances
fuppofed"—Stem to convey an insinuation
10 unmeritted, that Ifeel too much the ref
ped that I owe to the court which I have
the honor of Serving,and to my own charac
ter, to urge farther any argument which
might be construed into a solicitude to re
fufe it, Though your letter of the 29th of
April after a delay of fifty days may not
be regarded as an sfifent to any charge I
had made, I nevertheless do not esteem
myfelf guilty of any impropriety in hav
ing imagined that that Space of time might
have enabled yea to return she an answer
more conclutive than a renewal of the as
surances which J bad received dearly two
years before. You will, lam persuaded,
fir, recoiled that in almost every conver
fetion which I had with you during this in
terval, 1 requeued you to acquaint me
when I might exped a reply to my let
ter, and that you imputed the delay to the
pressure of other business and to a desire
ofobtaining some information from Mr.
Wiiliamfon of the Genefee country who
was then in town. To this last circum
ftaace you have alluded in your answer of
the igth of April; but however accurate
might be the knowledge of Mr. William,
son, or of any other private gentleman,
of the places to which I had referred, I
cannot avoid remarking that in the course
of fift, days such evidence might have
been obtained from he higheft,u6fr au
thorit, of Vermont (the Governor) as
would have either confirmed or contradic
ted the fadsl had Specified.
zd. In adverting to the privateers ille
[gally fitted out at Charlestons and allow-
ed to depart from that port under the ex
press permission of the Governor of Soutfi-
Carolina, 1 sorely cannot have been con
sidered as imputing that apgreffion to the
General Government. Bat when Lord
Dorchester had alluded to the cohdud of
American '' citizens towards the sea,"
this tranfa&ion naturally occurred to me,
as indicative of the exigence of an hostile
disposition to the powers combined against
France in the chief magistrate and in indi
viduals of the state of South-Carolina ;
and I trust you are yourfelf convinced
from evidence which I have recently Sub
mitted to you that that disposition contin
ue# to exist unimpaired. Mow far Mr.
Jefferton'a letter of the sth of June ap
peared fatisfadory to me, you will dolled
from my memorial of the ,h of the fame
month in answer to it, which (in confor
mity to your example) I Subjoin to thia
letter. From that memorial it is evident,
that though I rendered justice to the as
surances of the General Government 1
recited as matters of notoriety the differ
ent fads of the illegal equipment of the
privateers in feeftion; and exprefsiy and
unequivocally averted, as a circumdance
equally notorious, that " they were Suffer
ed to pass the fort near Charleston, under a
•written perroiffiou from the Governor of
South-Carolina." I hare never yet learnt
however that any injury has been militat
ed into the condud of that officer from an,
quarter whatsoever.
3d. From the fame paper it is also erb
ident that I have never acquiesced in the
propriety of the determination of thia
Government not to restore vcfrcli captur
ed previously to the ph of June —as well
for the reaforii which I have there flared
as bc,Cfe I have never pc/frai, compre
hended the principles which could legalize
the prizes antecedently to that period,and
invalidate those which were made Subse
quently to it; The lift of those prizes
annexed to the memorial will evince that
(whatever may have been " Conceived by
feme") their value was not in con lidetable.
But even if their amount had been left
considerable; the question in a national
point of view could not have been affected
by that circumstance.
,h. I derive great fatisfa&ion front
your affarance that «' The secretary of
war has undertaken to afeertain the precise
Bate of the privateers.Le Petit Democrat,
and La Carmagnole," since from the lat
est accounts I have received from New
-York; I am inclined to apprehend that
they both continue there completely arm,
ed, have Numerous crews on board; and
are in every refpc& in a condition imme
diately to proceed to sea. It is indeed a
matter of tonne surprise that they should
have so long remained in that port but it
is not lefj lingular that you Should regard
my letter of the zxd tilt, as " Bringing
the firft notice of the omission of their hav
ing been dismantled ;" for if you refer to
a letter from me to your predecessor oftbe
„tb of December 1793, you will find the
following expressions.
" The danger to be apprehended from
these left mentioned vessels" (privateers
illegally fitted out in the ports of the Uni
ted States,) “ fill continues to exist to a
very alarming degree, ^ince notwith
standing the repeated a/Turancea I have
received from the Federal government of
its determination to exclude those priva
teers from any-future asylum in its ports
and the sincerity of its desire to enforce
this determination, I have reason to infer
that, in other quarter: means have been
faccefsfully deviled cither to allude its
vigilance or to render nugatory its injunc
tions. This ioferzence arises from the
information 1 have received—that the pri
vateer Le Citoyen Genet fitted out at
Charleston, was on the zift of Aaguft lift
permitted to return to the port of Philadel
phia, for tbtfaend time ; to remain there
feme days, and then to proceed to sea fog
[Whole No. 67.]
fr-t<#% ,l^hi^fra