Portland gazette and Maine advertiser., 1811-08-12

FROM THE EALT. AMERICAS.
TO TIE PEOPLE or THE UNITE .


FROM THE BAIT. AMERIcAE.
TO TIE PEOPLE or THE UNITEL
ST1TES
Although your view of my late Address
may have been somewhat obscured by the
profusTon Of collateral matter and common
place ribaIdry, thfow we upon it By The Re
viewer at Washingteh, md other writers
YET, have reason u believe, that not one
Of the articles" easertpS tie eleventh,
does At this SINE, 4n.re sny further eluci
dalon. Of this eleventh article, il is now
my iutentlon 20 present to the view Of TIE
pubic an explanation that wiz render the
subject familiar 20 every understanding.
Ia the out set, il IS proper to premise,
that no reprsach has in the Address been
ailedged against Mar. Erving. as to the
correctness Of his accounts, or as to the ex-
hibition in Nore8lb9. 1910, Of his claim for
the 90, 500 dollars, founded, as il then was,
on MIR. Madison's letter of No7ein6er 5,
1904. Of such an imputa,ion there is not
an any part of the pamphlet the slightest
in;IInatIon. On the Costrary, IL appears in
page 50, that upon Mr.. Ervine's return
from Cadiz, in the Autumn Of 1910, and
upon his then producing The private letter
OF November, 1894, did distinctly and ex.
pressly admit and state this letter as /" fukly
and explicitly authoyissg hiB 10 retain the
SUM- q money in question" 1t IS true, that
before the production Of this letter, vhen
there was not in the Office any vesiige Of il.
or Of any other document, authorizing Mr.
Erying 20 retain this money, when no in
formation upon the subject CO be extrac-
ted from ny predecessor in ciiIcc, I did OH
the l9th Of December 1909. write the Off
elal letter, published in tie pamphlet, re
guessing Mr.. Ervlng TO remit the money,
lntImating, at the same time, that lie could
not be allowed tue commission, he bad clai
med. To this litter AR Erving sent no an
swer OF cr,ofanafior no copy Of The private
letter; but merely re2iied that ugon his
return to The United States, be would give
the necessary information. THIS lie, accor-
diEgty, dEd IS exhibiting q me IA the All.
tnnsa Ct 1910, Mir Madls0a's private letter
a the 81 OF November 1894. ia dis AL
thorizStiUn, as appears IN ny sdit,ss, Al
once saw and admitted The n,uEcat,Un Of
MT Erving for hsvihg ,et4n,s! ne money
And having, upon tie Usual application ~
the pFesld<Df, received lis ins tucttons 81
sanction the ciEiH, i. oaiy Feln4ltf4d for me
10 transmit a. the 1fea.uty Department
the direction Of lie president in Tie form Of
The uo,e set IN in The 1csiew. viz
The ABOVE balance, lieres0f.re suspen-
ded, 10 10 bs admitted 10 Air. EryIng's Gre
dn.'
The Reviewer has stated that I had
throughout considered lie ci.im OF Mr.
Arslng 10 ;hls money as most improper
charge Had bis ardent feelings allowed
him To have read the article wnh becom-
ing calnness and candolr, he would not
have failed 90 perceive the distinctly mar
ket line between my Impressions prior TO
and posterior 10 the production Of The let
ter Of November 1904. Ii is manifest, that
before sou that letter, l did consider the
retaining Of the money as improper. and &C.
cordngly, DAD require i's remittance but
that al or the letter had been slit wn to me,
thought, and 50 have declared IN my pam
hiet, that IL fully and explicitly authorized
Air Ewing To 'e'air the money Impress
al ihen, IS | was with the opinion that Mr.
Eryiag was authorized 10 retain this mon
ey, how could have had any scruples, and
especially as tie organ OF the president, in
stating 70 tie Treasury Department, that it
was 20 be admitted 10 MIR. Erving's cre-
dit"
But al! this defamation Of the Reviewer
as to MIR Erving's capacity in business. in
accounts, &c. &c. aud as 10 my elimination
ot han, was calculated only 10 divert the at
tention OF tie reader from the real object Of
inquiry.
Whatever may have been the ground Of
Mr. Ersiag's claim iothis money, original
ly, or as created by the private letter Of
November 1904, il j. another, and indeed,
quite distinct question, whether Mr. Mad
isUn was warranted in Attending to him such
a ground BY any letter, and especially by
such letter AID with such conceal
meni.
u rever could have occurred 10 any mem
Der OF Congress, that the extract OF this let
ter, IS recned ia tie document accompany
inE the presidents message, was not an
oH.Ial one. Had the entre letter hecR sent
20 Congress, Al, IN CANTOR, il ought 10 have
been, lhen would they have seen the novel
spectacle OF grant Of publick money by
virtue ofa private letter then would they
ne csssalIly have called for MIR. Ewing >
letter Of The first Of September, to which
the letter OF November is an answer then
woald hey IN seeing this September letter
have perceived the real Character Of this
Transaction then would they have ascer-
tanned the reason Of the charge Of the 2
per cent the Award account )" and not to
The {" Expense account" aud then would
they have discovered for the exercise II
their delihcra,lon, something beyond the
mere Tofaa OF " adjusting this error by an
appropriation authorizing this sum Of
- 1872 dollars TO be taken from the award
B" account, and placed to the expense &C
"cOunt"
Lei it be here remarked, that the money
received into the Treasury on this = Ex.
pense account" was the property Ut the u
STATES IL he disposed of uulv a...t,r,l,,r u,