The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-01-02
Dcce,nbst 7th, 1907.
SIR,


SIR,
Ihave examined with great care and attenti-
or, the papers you submitted to my consideration,
concerning the claim of the representative of the
late Caron de Beaumarchais. The subject is, in
e5erv view, important. though Icommcnced the
investigation with prepossessions uniavorable to
the claim from the first perusal of the docu-
ments, the inclination of my mind against the
respectable opinions which have been given on
the principal, if not the sole question material to
be decided. This circumstance led me to distru.t
my first impressions. j suspected they must be
erroneous, and that they would yield to more
diligent enquiry, and more mature delberation.
With this view, have reconsidered the case, and
the result of my reflections, confirms me in nv
original opinion. / shall give it with great defer
ence, because the sentiments entertain are OPP
posed to those OF gentlemen every way well qua
lifted to Judge correctly on the subject.
My remarks will he confined TO that part of the
case which embraces the question relative to the
million of ivres received on the 10th June, A. D.
1776.
Before can form correct Judgment of the
law applicable to the case, 1t is necessary first to
ascertain the facts. Elk facto oritur jus. Very
fortunately, in this instance there is little dispute
about the mere facts, though the differences TO be
drawn from particular circumstances that exist in
the case, afford room for great diversity of opin-
1t appears satisfactorily, from the documents,
ard seems, indeed, to be admitted that the Unit
ed States, lid actually receive, to the full value of
the million of lIvres In question, in arms, ;mmlni-
ton and warlke stores from the late Mr.. Beau.
marchais, according to contract. The account be-
tween tbs United States and Bealunarchais, as
settled BIZ Mr.. Harrison, the auditor, on the gath
MAY, 1898, and revised and corrected by Mr.
Duyall, the comptroller, on the 10th December.
1905, fully confirms this fact. That Beaumarchais
originally had legal claim for the value of these
articles, must be evident from perusal of the ra-
nj clntrr,
tisticd or eNtingushed, is equally clear. On the
part of the United States, il is commended, that
this claim bias been paid When the allegation
of payment is opposed to demand acknowledge
ell 10 be otherwise Just, the pisa should be sup
ported by proof equally strong with the evidence
that would have beenrequiredt to verify the claim
The plea of payment is affirmative, and the bur-
then rests with the party who relies on this de-
fence, to make out his by sufficient testimo-
ny. Natural justice would seem to require that
degree of proof which would be necessary to es-
tablish the right in an original suit, to recover
of equal amount.
The United States, however, do not alledgc
that they paid the money themselves They 10
not say that Beaumarchais received this sum from
their hands, but that it paid for them at
particular period, by the French government to
speak more correctly, that tire government of
France advanced to Deaumarclais, on account Of
the American government, million OF livres as
part OF larger sum gratuitousiy given by tire
king to the United States. For ths sum the Uni
tod States claim discount against the represent
t:,tive of Beaumarchas. Whether it be consider
ed in the light Of payment, or of discount, can
not vary the question the degree Of proof re-
qIiircd.
Let us, to make the case more familiar, sun
pose n suit to be instituted against the United
States to the value Of the articles furnish
ed, amounting to one million of hvrcs the de
f.nce relied upon, would be either the plea of DIV
me- or discount Lot ,Iup aeI to
the testimony that would be adduccd to make out
the defence
If the United States should fail in maintaining
by legal proof, the grounds of defence assumed
the clam OF Beaumarchais must be established
against them, for there is other objection to it.
Unless !, las been satisfied in the manner contend
ed, it is legal apd existing Claim for a debt con-
tracted during the revolution.
The contract enteredinto by DR.. Franklin with
the count de Vergenncs, on the 25th February,
1888 is relied ON, to prove that the kingo France
had, previously to the date Of our treaty of the
9th February, 1878, granted to The United States
three millions of hvres, aids and subsidies, I'M
der the title OF gratuitous Assistance from the
pure generosity of Lhe king. This paper ascer-
tains the fact, and imports the receipt by the Uni
ted States. The minister Of the French govern.
Incnt declares, and that Of the American govern
mcnt admits, the grant Of three millions al liyres
had actually taken place before the 9th Fcbr1Iary
1710 So far as the two governments are con
ccTlcd, this instrument would seem conclusive up
on them Eut is very que 5tiOnabe. how fara con
tTICt 60 which BeaumarChlis neither party ,
PRIV, ought to affect his rights or interests
1t Is, strictly speaking, IN relation to him. res inter
Cztios actd The effect OF this contract is TO shcy
that the French government declared they grant
ed 60 as previous TO the 9th February, I7Io three
millions Of h,rcs, and that we acqu.e seed in their
statement, without calling on tiIcm 90 explain in
what way, either IN the shape Of aids Or subgi
dies al the money had been applied We were
then satisfied with their simple assertion, repos.
ing f;iH faith and confidence, / presume, in their
declarations, and believing that the whole SUN
had been regularly discussed for our benefit and
adsncgc.
Il was subsequently asccJtaincd that the bank
~ Of ti,u United Stdcs 81 Paris mad received but
f,y2 Of these ttree millions Of Iiyrcs IN tie wear
1IG5 5,lic.dion Wa made 10 he count de Vcr-
teni,.s, 10 ssccft IN at what date. and to whom,
The isnstnrg wilton was pad. AZ is a remeika-