The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-01-02
:, pn.1aen, on aiscoun. agah.. the debt of Beau.


marchais. 500
Admitting, then, the million of livres specified
in the receipt of Beau,narchais to be the identi-
cal sum which de Vergcnnes asserts in the con-
tract with DIR. Franklin, granted among the
" AIDS and subsidies furnished to the congress of
the United States, under the title of gratuitOus
assistance J" and combining these facts, let
qmre into their legal operation and effect. We
eiii hrst consider them separate and apart from
the other testimony in the case, and then view
them in connection with the rest of the evidence
DE Vergenacs was privy to the receipt, and WAS
party to the contract Bcaumarchais was par
ty to the first, but was not privy to the last. In
strictly legal sense, an instrument between third
persons, made without Beaumarchais knowledge
participation consent, and single line of which
he could not alter, ought not to affect his rights
For the language of this instrument he cannot be
responsible in any shape. The receipt to de Yer
gcnnes, declares, and it may be considered as his
own declaration, that the money to be ac-
counted for to him, and not to the Uaited States
In the contract, the same minister declares this
sum to be among the aids and subsidies granted
the United States Are these different deelarati-
| ons from the same lips, reconcileable with each
other They are not, if we compel Rcaurnar-
chais to account with the United States; for, his
stipulation is clear and express to account to de
Vergennes On the other hand, if de Vergenues
considered the application of this million to the
secret service of America, rs one of the most
| Der 1T in that class That this construction was
legally politically correct, will not undertake
to say Suffice it to observe, that, from view
of the various facts, it seems to have been the
| construction put upon the voluntary grants of the
king, by the French government at that period
construction acquesced in by our government,
in the contract of 1885, when we knew neither
the date nor the person to whom the money had
been paid. /. -'
1t is general principle, that YOU should recon
Gle testimony apparently contradictory. This ex-
position of The facs, as far we have progressed
with them, is calculated to produce such effect
1t renders the various documents consistent with
each other, and relieves us from the eInbarrass-
ment that would otherwise ensue.
When we advert to the official declarations of
general Turreau, we find they verify the position
that this million of livres appropriated solely
and exclusively to secret service. The source
| from whence this testimony is derived is that A.
lone to which resort could be had for information
on the subject In every court of Justice the best
evidence, of which the nature of the case admits,
is always required. The United States. alledge
| that the French government paid this debt for
them. That government through their minister,
declares officially that they did not La the case
of individuals there could not be room for dis
pute. The just principles of outlaws require not
| impossibties, ies rsSit intbossibilia seu
| pona. The French minister officially declares
that for this million of livres Beauharnois accoun-
ted with de Vergennes agreeably to the tenor of
his receipt, and that it is their uniform rule to des
troy all the vouchers and accounts relative to Sc
cret transactions as soon as they have been duly
sanctioned.
Upon the whole, cannot think the plea of pay
ment or discount can be supported, unless coliusi
on with Beaumarchais be attributed to the French
government; an idea inadmissible, and which can
not enter into my view of the case.
Such are the remarks have to submit in obe-
dience to your request. If they are of anv ser
vice in performing the task assigned to you by the
House of Representatives., 1 shall feel amply
compensated for the time and labor employed in
examining the documents.
have the honor to be, &c.
(Signcd)
C. A. RODNEY
Honorable JAMES MADISON