Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1808-01-12

n the Hsuse acted on this subject at this
time, could il be said that they acted from
information of the gentleman from New
Orleans who had given none! If overtures
to give Information had been neglected,
what had that to do with the information
which MIR. Il. had in his place laid before
the House? The question was extremely
simple.
Had they power Ito which he was asto-
nished. to hear an objection) to make this
request! Ii they had, had they seen suifici-
ent ground on which the prayer of the re-
quest should be granted! If they had the
right to make the request and he had laid
before the house substantial ground for an
enquiry, there was an end to all other ques-
ions on the subject. In the prosecution of
the present business it would perhaps tie
found peculiarly difficult to adduce proof
and why! Because in taking possession of
New Orleans. the commissioners (and who
were they !! He wished the house tc reflect
upon that)-suffered the archives of the
country to be iransacked; even papers re-
lating to land titles were taken away and
IT must be believed, and il could not be
doubted, that If one of those commissioners
found in the archives of the former govern
ment, in the Spanish bureau, evidences OF
his own guilt, he would not be so far lost to
sense of his own safety, as not to destroy
such evidences as far as in his power. For
tunately, enough had been preserved to es-
tabish that point beyond all possibility of
doubt and 1t remained for the house 10 say
whether it constituted sufficient ground
for enquiry or not. Whatever might be the
decision of the house, said Mr. r. shall re-
spect ully submit; but be the decision what
it may, shall conceive great object which
had in view in bringing this subject for
ward, to be completely answered
MIR. Clark sa d that the information which
he had heretofore attempted to convey, d d
not particularly relate to the subject now
before the house. He then knew that va
rious attempts had been made by the Spa
nish government to detaeh the Western
country from the Union he had thought
IT incumbent on him, holding a commission
under the u. ). to state these facts to the
executive. When first he had the honor
OF being presented to the executive, he had
twice attempted to state these facts to him
who either did not or would not understand
him, and changed the subject; at this he
naturally felt hurt, and had not renewed
personal communication on the subject
Some time subsequent to this, when the
French were preparing to take possession
OF louisiana, believing that they would dis
cover those who were before attached TO
foreign governments and secure them i'm
their interests, he had thought il duty in
cumbent on him TO write TO the secretary of
state as the constitutional organ of commu-
nication, and had stated his grounds of sus-
Jpicion. He had twice attempted TO make
this known, and had officially written to
learn whether he was understood. Ofthese
letters no notice had been taken. He had
then stated that the proofs in his possession
might not be sufficient for conviction, but if
time were allowed proof sufficient might be
procured.
Mr.. Thomas asked, at what time these
communications had been made!
Mr.. Clark. To the President of the u.
,. in 1902 +; to the Secretary of State in
1908
Mr. Sloan said, that altho' he could not
consistently with the rules of order inIpeach
the motives OF the members who brc't for
ward this resolution, he could question the
propr'ety OF passing it; the papers now adj
duced IN evidence in his opinion amounted
TO no more than what had long before APP
reared in newspapers. He said that Gen.
w. had been FORMERLY charged with mall
conduct before this house; Mr.. &. said at
that time he had declared that from what
appeared, he considered Gen w as deserv-
ms well OF his country; that he had not DIS.
covered any cause TO change his opinion
but contrary-wise considered the various
charges and inslnuations as arising from
malice or envy against him for having act.
ed as the saviour of his country. From
what the gentleman from Virginia had last
said, 1t appeared that this resolution was to
rest on the question whether there were suf.
hcient evidence of guilt in that officer before
the house, to require an enquiry to be made
would not the house by passing this reso-
luton, say that this was the case, and would
y nor be throwing the whole weight of the
house OF representatives Of the u. States
against him? 1t undoubtedly would AsI
yet nothing had appeared to induce Mr.. S.
to change his opinion and till there was.
he should oppose every proposition of this
kind
MONDAY, January 4.
Mr.. Porter presented a petition from
sundry merchants Of Philadelphia, stating
that they had obtained cIearances for
number of their vessels, prior to the EN-
BARGO, and paid an advance Of wages
10 the seamen, &c. and praying that the
vessels may be allowed to depart, or that
they may be otherwise relieved.
Mr. Porter moved that the petition be
referred to the committee ofcommerce and
manufactures.
THIS motion gave rise to n short debate !
when the question was taken by ayes and
unpc. and IL ooreod 90 o.