The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-01-02

ed III the transaction, solicited Mr.. lie Grand, the
banker of the United States, to make the cnqui.
~ OF the count dc Vergennes. Several letters
We're accordingly addressed to the proper officer,
and laid before the minister, earnestly demanding
information on the subject. The answers gave
The date on which the money was pail, but in Inc
last the count dc Vcrgenncs persisted in his i'sn-
sal to give up the name of the individual vino
ceived 1t, declaring it would be useless and incon-
vement. These circumstances prove the trans
action secret one, and would seem to impress
the belief that the application of the money was
to remain profound secret Why this should be
done, unless it had been expended in secret SER
vices, it would be difficult to say The natural in
ference is, that it applied in this manner
Whether the undertaking to pay with one hand
IN this secret way, the money they had given with
the other, instead of permitting the United States
to lay it out according to their own discretion, can
be fairly considered withnth terms oftheir grant
was originally question of importance between
the two governments. That in this particular in
stance the French government assumed the pow
err, presume, appears from the facts adduccd.
That we acquiesced in it is equally plain. BY the
contract we there had acknowledged the grant,
though We knew neither the date, nor the person
| to whom the money was paid.
When the name of the individual was refused,
1t could not have been intended that our govern
ment should have from him any account Of its ap
plication, for without Knowing the person who re-
ceived the money we could not possibly have an
account rendered. 1t would be difficult at this ne
Rod (1786) to assign any other motive for con.
oeahng the name of the individual who received
| the money, than the one already suggested 1t
IS true that France attempted in ustying her con-
duct towards England, to impose the belief that
she gave MS no assistance prior to her treaty with
us. But as far back as 1888 by the contract with
Dr. Franklin, she avowed the fact of having vo-
unfairly granted us large sums before the date of
the treaty. Nor did she hesitate to declare that
arms, ammunition and warlike stores had been
furnished from the kings stores
The concealment of his name is in absolute
hostility with every idea that the individual was
| accountable to the United States, because it effec
! tuaily defeated that object These facts and cir.
cunstances speak for themselves and in nv hum
bic opinion, prove that the original destination of
money was directed to n secret purpose
AS tar as we have progressed with the facts
and documents, there is, l believe, no evidence
from which 1T could be presumed that this million
| of livres had been received by Beaumarcbas an
account of the United States We might as Ia.
| gsliy Charge 1t TO the account of any other per-
son as Beaumarchais.
seems, however, on proceeding further, that
DE- Franklin suspected, as this sum had been paid
neinfe me arrival OF the American commission
ers at Paris, that it was probable it had been re-
ceived by Beaumarchais. In what capacity does
not appear
After the death of de VergcnHes, and when
France had become republic, in the year 1894.
on the application of or minister, G. Morris. n
diilgent search was made among the public pa
pers, & at length receipt was found which lake
the trouble to transcribe.
nave received from Monsieur Du Vergier
agreeabiyto the order transmitted to him bv Mon
sieur the count of Vergennes, dated the 5th cur
rent, the sum OF one million, for which will ac-
count tohmy said seur count de Vergennes,
&C At Paris this 10th June, 1776.
Signed, CARON DE BEAUN1aRCRALS.
:" Good for one million of Iivres Tu1nos''
This is the important piece of testimony in the
case II is on the foundation ofths receipt. CON
nected with the declarations contained in the con-
tract OF 1888, that the fabric of defence rests
LetGs proceed to examine this recent awreeo-
byto the general principles of evidence and law
On the face of the instrument itself it appears
that beaumarchais was to account to de Vereen
mes and not to the U. States for the expendfu.e
OIL the money. This contradicts the idea that he
was to be accountable to us for its application :
When written instrument is produced IN court
ofJustice, generally speaking, YOU cannot travel
out oft 1t cannot be varied by parole evidence.
where there is no doubt as to the inport of ito
terms In this case there is neither the aa,bieu;.
tdS patens nor the a1n6iguitas Iatens The en-
gagement OF Beaumarchais is positive, express
and unqualified, to account to de Vcrgennes and
to him only Tor the money received The u s
are no parties in the instrument ; there is no s>i
pulatIon to render them any account of the eSpen-
diture. Taking this insulated paper, could we
legally charge, in account against Beaumarchais,
this sum as debit, in order to compel him to
shew its application, when the instrument itself
shews that for the application of the money he
was solely responsible to de Vcrgennes? From
de VerSennes the money was received, and to
hum alone had Beaumarchais engaged to account
1t IS hot easy to conceive upon what principle.
he ought to be obliged to account twice for the
same sum. If in compliance with the language of
his receipt, he satisfied de Vergennes, is it rea.
sonable that he should be compelled to settle his
accounts second time with us, This would
make him doubly responsible. For one million
received he must account for two.
believe the millon specified in the receipt to
be the same with that which de Vergennes decla-
red was paid on the 10th June, 1776. AL the cir
cnmstances combined seem fairly to establish their
identity.
An idea had been once entertained that the
arms and ammunition, or part of them furnished
the United States by Beaumarchais, in conse-
quence of their having been taken from the kings
stores, were furnished on account of his most
christian majesty. To remove every doubt on
tins point, our commissioners in 1879, applied to
dc Vergennes for information on the subject His
reply, and the letters Of Mr.. Girard TO Congress
IN the same yeap, are full and explicit on this
point. They state that all the articles were fur.
nished by Beaumarchais on his private account,
IN bo1 H.,r;NJ Al =