The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1811-08-02
FROM rnE pALr,moRr Aarn,cAs.
TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED
STATES

Although your view of my late Address"
may have been somewhat obscured BY the pro.
fusion OF collateral matter and common p,ace ri.
baliry, thrown upon it by the Reviewer at
Washington, and other writer's yet, have
reason 10 believe, that not OF the articles %
excepting the eleventh, does at this time re-
quirc any further calculation. OF this eleventh
article, 1t is now my Intention TO present TO the
riew Of the public an explanation that will rem.
der the subject familiar to every understand.
ing.
In the outset, It is proper to premise. thar
no rcproach has in the Address been nllcdred
against Mr.. Erving, as to the correctncss of
his accounts. or as TO the exhibition in Nops,u
Ter, 1910. OF his claim for the 22.S92 doll,rs.
founded. AS ii then was. on Me-. NLdiso,'s let.
ter OF NoVr's1er ), 1904 Or such an impu,a,i-
on ts'ere rs not IN any part of the pamphlet The
slightest int'mrtion. On the contrary, /, ap.
pearsin page 50, that upon Mr.. Eryug's return
from Cadz, IN the Autumn of 1910. and unon
his then producing the private letter of Noyem.
Der, 1904, did distinctly and expressly admit
ana elate tins letter as '.}vHy and cs4i.citiy az
rhoris;n2 hinito rcia;r the sum of money in outs.
zion II is true, that bcsare the productions of
this letter, when there was not in the otice A.
ny vestige of 1T, or ofany other 7documcnI an .
thorising Mr. Ewing to retain this money. when
no Information upon the subject could he ex-,
tractsa from my predecessor m Office, did ON
the loth of December 1909, write the ofl;c;,l
letters published in the pamphlet, rcopest;n,,
Mr.. rlrY,ng to remit the money int;mst;ay .,
the same time, that he could not be allo wed the
commission, he had claimed To this letter
Mr.. Erving sent no answer ct ese!drafioa M
copy OF the private letter; hut merely replied
that, upon his return TO the II. S. he would give
the necessary information. This he. accord;no.
iy, did by exhibiting to me in the aul,,mn nf
1910, Mr.. Madison's private letter Of the I'd NJ
November 1894. In this authors alton. no az,
pears in my address, at once saw and admin.
.sfkl In. -, l,-.t
'aaeG the money. And having, upon the nsusl
application 10 the president, received his instrnc
tons TO sanction the claim, it onv renamed c,r
me to transmit to the Treasury Department the
direction ofthe president IN the term of the nore
set forth in the Review, viz
"The above balance, heretofore sr.,e,aaa
to be admitted TO Mr.. Ervmg's credit - .
The Reviewer has stated that had tbro,h
oi considered the claim of Mr. Eryin, IN hi.
mon y as most improper charge. Had his -.
dent feelings allowed him TO have ear, The sr,;
Gle with a becoming calnacss and candour. h..
wou'n NOT nave failed to perceive the distinctly
Marked line between nay, impressions nrior ~
and Posierior to the production of the letter ot
November 1904. 1t is manifest, that 'beCnre :
saw that letter, did consider The retain;na of ~
money rs improper, &, accordingly, did reou,rs
ITS remittance; but that after the letter u, heen
snewn TO me- thought, and so have I declar.
Ell III my pamphlet, tnst 1t fully and exnic,Iv am,
thorised Mr. Ervng TO retain the money IN.
TO-.
pressed, then, as l was with the opir;on the,
Mr.. Erving was authorised to retain The rnona,,'
how could have had any scrupIes, and esDec;'
any as the organ ofthc president, in stating to
uie. Ireasury department, that it was {" 10 be
admitted 10 Mr. Ervngs credit %
But all tois defamation OF the Reviewer s 80
tsr- ErFins's capacity IN business, IN acco,n,.
&C. Se ana as 20 my elimination of him was
calculated only to divert the attention of the req
der from the FIRST object OF inquiry
hot
Whatever nay nave been the ground of Mr.
trvinG's claim To this money, originally or 90
created by the private letter of NoV.mber TO-
AZ Is another, and indeed, quite distinct o,,es
ton, whether Mr.. Madison was warranted IN 81
fording TO him such ground by any letter. and
espec'aiiy by such a letter and vita such con
ce&iment. W"
1t never could have occurred 10 anv n,.mh.-
OF Congress, that the extract of this lrt,er .s
rerited IN the document accompanying the n,1-
sioeh' message, was not official one u,d
.lpe entpe letter been sent TO Congress, AS. IN
candoF, thought to have been, then would the,
nave seen the novel spectacle of grant of pub
Nc ii,gify by virtue of private letter then
you'd they necessarily have called for Mr. Err
rang $ letter ofthe first of September, 10 which
the letter OF November is an ans ver ,ben
would they in seeing this September letter have
perceived the real character Of this transaction .
then would they have ascertainet the reason 81,
Inc charge OF lie q per cent. to the Award
'-'N - " thO %S%pcN5c Account :"
and then would they have discovered for the ex.
ercise OF their delberation, something beyond
'he mere form of adjusting This error by an
appropriation au,Lorising tii ssum OF 9 % 500 co
be taken from the av'srd account a:ld placed IN
the expense account
!4et IT be here remarked, that the money re-
cc1eG into the Treasury on this sExDense pc
count was the property Of the IT, S to be dis
posed OF only according 10 approximations h.,
law, as any other public money (; that ;le inter
estcithe u S. was equapy Affected, whether
Mr. Ervlng bad been paid out ofthat particular
description OF money or o,;t Of money OF any O.
ther denornlnaton--thst it matters not ,ybo,
the iund may be called, out Of which the roi,
mer may have been made, and that, therefore
this 'ftair is not, as the Reviewer would ins;n
uate, a mere matter offors;s
10, substantially, appears that Mr.. Eryinp.
Tlose term OF service was about four wears.
did, q the expiration ofsbout three years, there
o., conceive that he was entitled 10 22, 500 dol.
lars IN addition To the salary of 1000 dollars per
year; that this additional compensation has in
fscl been allowed him that he was authors.
ca ny Mr.. Msdisor's private letter of Novem.
Der 70 retsin IN payment thereof money IN his
hsrds belonging 10 certain American citizens
having claims under the British Trea,v +. tbs,
upo1 .he application ofthese claimants Tor nav
msnt there was no money under the confront If
Tie State Department, that could be at,,,iicd 90
their claims and that thus the discoyery was
made OF the misapp!ication of the money be-
longing to these individuals and of the conse.
qUeDt necessity Of the Intervention Of The I eo;o
Ia.ure TO eXtricate the Fxecut;vaf c,o-. ~. %