The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1811-08-06
REMARKS
On Mr.. Sn,ith's lc,i a,

S1futn mOtlvcS, MS erroneous views OF
things. his open abandonment of the cloak
of self defence assumed in his first address;
waving indeed the introduction ofall " COLA
teral matter" SO obnoxious to MIR. Smith !;
since he perseveres in his attack against the
allowance to Mr.. Ewing, and in arraigning
MIR. Madison's conduct in that transaction
as having been actuated by improper mo-.
tives. we proceed to make few remarks
on Mr.. Smiths second appearance before
the Tribunal Of the People.
The crime charged to Mr.. Madison con-
slsts in his having written. in Nov. 1904, the
following letter to Mr. Erving.
Is Private.
WAsnINcr TON. Nov. 8, 1904.
+" Dear Sir-Your several Communications re.
Eating to the awards, seamen, &c have been Just
eceived, and with them your, private letter Of
Sept LIST. AS the subject of this last may rem
der an early answer interesting to you, hasten
n give it. 1czr observations on the reasonable
J ess of some remuneration for your services haze
= You wished, been submitted to the Presderf.-
lhe result Of his reflections for the present is
that should suggest that you retain out Of the
!ext instslment in its passage through your
an3s to the Earrings per centage 9 1-2 on the
awards actually received and to be received by
you, and that you state it as an item in your &C.
tanrs Uith the public. This will bring the equity
sf your claim regxiariy before he government, &
will leave the way open for the choice ofmodes
Anu ,unoS as may nnally appear most proper.
With great esteem and regard,
am, dear sir, your obt. servt.
JAS MADISON.
g George Eroing, ESQ London"
Either Mr.. Smith must acknowledge that
the President (Mr Jefferson) did decide tina,
Mr.. Ervipg should be permitted to retain
q per cen,age of 2l 2on the awards received
by him and, If he does so acknowledge
then, with the single exception of the letter
being marked private" and no copy being
found in the Office. the whole of the charge
Is against Mr. Jefferson as we'll as against.
Mr. Madison
Or, Mr.. Smith must mean that the then
Presiden. had not thus decided, aud that
Mr.. M did. without any possible motive,
write deliberate and positive falsehood to
Mr.. Erving.
We perceive no other alternative and
yet we believe that neither position Was in
tended or will be supported by MIR. Smith
Bot it is alleged as criminal that the let
ter was marked private" Why it was SO.
may perhaps be inferred from its contents.
II was an answer to private letter il pur-
ported to convey the result of the reflections
of the President for The fresent: it sugges
ted that the sums retained should be stated
as an item in Mr.. Erving's accounts in or
der to bring the equity of the claim regularly
before the government. But this probably
,dCCluentdl COutQ pTOuuCe no
injury to the Public. nor indeed ia any shape
alter the effect of the letter; above all il
cannot be imputed to any criminal motive.
The object of the letter W as to authorize Mr..
Erving to retain certain sum of money, &
he could not be justified in so doing without
producing the letter as his authority. He
was at the same time advised to state the
sum as an item in his public accounts. No
concealment was therefore in'ended the
whole transaction must necessarily become
public & what personal motive could MIR
Madison have in making "Private" a let
ter in which there is not single express
sion personally committing him, in which
he speaks altogether in the name and as the
organ Of the President Mr.. E. did accor
dinghy charge the item in his accounts of
awards. At what time they were rendered
does not appear, but the Treasury statement
shews that they were settled in Sept 1908,
and chat ne remained charged with the sum
retained until it should be REGULARLY al
lowed by the proper authority. The " dis
covery" as it is called, was not made by Mr..
Smith in 1909 /; it was matter ofrecord at
least one year before, as may be I" discov-
ered'' from the date of the settlement.
Great pains are taken in Mr.. Smiths
sc coHd address to prove, what has never
b, Ell denied, that in whatever shape the
allowance was paid to Mr. Ervng. the pay
ment must have been made out of the pub
lie monies. And his assertion. that the SUBJ
jeCt for the deliberation ofcoogress was not
mere matter of form. is acknowledged in
its fullest extent. What has beeh hereto
fore stated by as in that respect is. that
when the letter Of 1904 was written, there
was large fund arising from the deductions
from the aw ards directed by the commission
ers to be paid to MFR. Ewing, which fund
was legally applicable by the President to
every expence incident TO the prosecution
of claims before the board. A portion was
applied 70 the payment Of proctors, and the
President might have directed Mr.. Erving
to have retained his intended allow ance out
ofthe residue, which exceeded 100000 dllars,
aud was paid without deduction by Mr..
Ewing intotbe Treasury.
Had that course been pursued, no objec-
ton would have been made and no appro-
priatioD would have been necessary. But
the subject was not perhaps thoroughly
investigated Mr.. ErviRg was directed to
retain the money out of the award fund
and it appears on the face of the letter that
it was intended to" leave the way open far
the choice of modes and funds as might
finally appear most proper" The power
Of the President to apply part of the fund
If 100000 dollars TO the payment of Mr.
Erving's allowance not having been exer
cised within the time prescribed by law,
and the balance having according to law
been carried to the surplus fund, the allow