Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1811-08-01
FROM THE AMERICAN.
TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED
STATES.

fusion oicosiatSf;h matter * commoi-placeri-
baldry, thrown upon tidy the Reviewer at
Washington, & other writer's; vet, Iha,e rea-
son tobelieve, that rot one of the articles %
excepting the eleventh, does, at this time,
require any further calculation. OF this G.
leventh article. it is now my intention to pre-
sent to the view of the public an cxplana-
ton that will render the subject familiar to
every understanding.
IN the outset, it is proper to premise, that
no reproach has in the Addressbeen alledgcd
against Mr. Erving, as to the correctness Of
has accounts, or as TO the exhibition in .Ndvem
Der, 1910, of his claim for the %, S92 dollars,
founded, as it then was, on Mr.. Madson's
letter OF November 8, 1904. OF such an i'm
putation there is not in any part of the pam
pniet the slightest intimaticn. On the con-
trary, it appears in page 50, that upon Mr.
Erving's return from Cadiz, in the Autumn
at 1910, and upon his then producing the pri-
vatc letter of November, 1904, did distinct
~ and expressly admit and state this letter
as 'fnHy and explicitly autho,isiag lin 10
rctG!n me sum If money i's question" 1t is
true, that before the production of this let
ter, when there was not in the Office any ves-
tige ct 1t, or IF any other document, author
lsing Mr.. Elving to retain this money, when
no Information upon the subject could he ex-
on the 10Th of December 1909, write the Off
ciai letter, published in the pamphlet, re-
guessing Mr.. Erving to remit the money,
intimating, at the same time, that he could
not be allowed the commission, ne had
Claimed. To this letter Mr.. Erving sent no
answer OF ct1fandtion no copy of the pri-
vate letter; but merely replied that, upon
ms return to the United States, he would
give the necessary information. This he,
accordingly, did by exhibiting to me in the
autumn of 1910 Mr.. Madiscns private let
ter of the Sd Of. November 1905. In this
authorization, as appears in my address,
at once saw and admitted the justification Of
Mr.. Erving for having retained the money
Andhaving, upon the usual application to
the president, received his instructions to
sanction the claim, it only remained for me
to transmit to the Treasury Department the
direction OF the president in the form of the
note set forth in the Review, viz
The above balance, heretofore suspen-
ded, isto be admitted to Mr.. Erving's credit
The Reviewer has stated that | had
throughout considered the claim Of Mr. En-
wing to this money as a most improper
Charge. Had his ardent feelings allowed
him to have read the article with a becom-
ing calmness and candour, he would not
have failed to perceive the distinctly mark
ell line between my impressions prior to and
poSterior to the production of the letter of
November 1904. 1t is manifest, that be-
tore saw that letter, / did consider the re-
tanning OF the money as improper, and, ac-
cordmsly, did require its remittance but
that alter the letter had been shewn to me.
thought and SO Ihave declared In nv pam
Phiet, that it fully and explicitly authorised
Mr. Ervmg to retain the money. Impressed.
then, as was with the opinion that Mr. En-
wing was authorised to ratain this money.
how could Ihave had any scruples, and es-
Pecially as the organ of the president, in sta
ting to the Treasury Department, that it
was "tobe admitted to Mr. Erving's credit
But all this defamation of the Reviewer
as to Mr.. Erving's capacity in business, in ac-
Counts, &c. and as to my elimination of him,
was calculated only to divert the attention
OF the reader from the real object of inquiry.
Whatever may have been the ground Of
Mr. Erving's claim to this money, originally,
or as created by the private letter of Noyem-
Der 1904, tits another, and indeed, quite a
distinct question, whether Mr.. Madison was
warranted in affording to him such a ground
by any letter, and especially by such a letter
and with such concealment. i
1t never could have occurred to any mem
Der OF Congress, that the extract of this let
ter, asrecited in the document accompany
ing the presidents message, was not an Off
clal one. Had the entire letter been sent
to Congress, as, in candor, it ought to have
been, then would they have seen the novel
spectacle of grant of public money by vir-
tue OF a private letter; then would they
necessarily have called for Mr.. Erving's let
ter OF the first OF September, to which the
Ietterof November is an answer; then would
they in seeing this September letter have
perceived the real character of this TRANSACT
ton then would they have ascertained the
reason OF the charge of the 2 1-2 per cent.
20 the " Award account" and not tothe "Ex-
Pense aecount;" and then would they have
discovered forthe exercise of their delibera-
ton, something beyond the mere form of sad
" Justlng this error by an appropriation
:. authorising this sum Of e 500 dollars to be
= taken from the award account and placed
= 70 the expense account"
Lett BE here remarked, that the money
received into the Treasury on this Expense
account" was the property of the United
States, TO be disposed Of only according 70
by law, as any other public |
money! that the Interest of the United States
was equally affected. whether Mr. Erving
had been paid cut of that particular descrip1
ton OF money on out of money Of any other
denomination---tha 1t matters not, what.be
iupd may be called out of which the paw |
rent may have been made, and that there |
lore this affair Il rc4 .to ID /