Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1812-03-12

able nature. This statement, likewise, APP
pears in some measure repugnant TO the SELL
t.ments of the same witness, as expressed
nearly 10years before, in memoir on the
trade of Louisiana, and deposite din the Office
Of state.
If. in 1895 and 1896, the said emissary, as
isalledged by him, visited said Wilkinson,
with aview of promoting separation of the |
Union-and IL, as he intimates, said Will |
knson disclosed to him the whole scheme |
or project of ACKNOWLEDGMENT, it does not APP
pear to the court that said Wilkinson took
any measures to aid such separation; on the
contrary, strong presumption exists, that if
lie apparently listened to propositions ofths
nature, it was to advance his pecuniary inter
est, and not to injure that of his country.
The court cannot perceive any thing in
the mission of said emissary in 1877, to i'm
plcate General Wilkinson. This mission
appears tn have becnundertaken with view
to two objects: First, the ACKNOWLEDGMENT
OF the western country from the Atlantic
States--and second, the delivery to General
Wilkinson OF the dispatch from the Baron
de Carondelet, relative to the detention of
the posts to the north of the Slst degree,
Contrary TO the treaty previously concluded
between the United States and Spain. If
said emissarv disclosed to Gen. Wilkinson
the first object of his mission, il does not ap
pear. even by his own testimony, that lie ia
vored it: on the contrary, said emissary was
received cody, and confined in the quarters
or the officers: the delivery of the posts &C
cording to treaty, was urged by said Wilkn-
son in conversation with him; and it like
wise appears that he sent said emissary un
der guard to Louisiana, and at the same time
instructed the officer commanding at Fort
Massac not TO permit said emissary toreturn
al l,,tt l. hoe
case he made the attempt. On the second
object, Gen. Wilkinson. in his reply to the
letter of the Baron de Carondeiet, urged the
fniflment OF the treaty, and endeayored to
remove all apprehension of an invasioa of
Louisiana by the English Of Canada.
1t appears sufficiently evident to the court,
that Gen. Wilkinson, during the time that
he had property in New Orleans, held the
language of Cancellation, if not that of tenn
porizirg policy, with the officers and agents
OF the Spanish government; and his views
appear to have been directed To the seCuri-
,ty of that property, and byno means against
the tranquility of these States. But suisse
iuent to 1896, at which time it is believed
he had drawn most of his property from
New Orleans, and provision was made for
the free navigation of the Mississippi, he
seems To have changed his language. If
said emissary is to be credited, Gen. Wilkin-
son declared to him in Sept. 1872, that he
had relinquished all intercourse with the
Spanish Government; and at the same time
intimated his determination to oppose its
projects. 1t must aforementioned that Gen
Wilkinson was at that time at the head of
the army-and that, while that station OPEN
ed new and safe channels of communication
with the officers and agents of Spain, and
multiplied the means of ACKNOWLEDGMENT, he
tO rflp nf
the moment too when he had it in his power
to favor their design with effect. 1t is per-
tinent to remark, that ifattempts were made
TO corrupt the patriotism and integrity of
Gen. Wilkinson, the records of this court
exhibit no one act of his military life, which
can. by the most constrained construction, be
considered the effect of such corruption. If
General Wilkinson actually formed cor
rupt connection. with the Spanish Govern
ment, the repeated applications made by
him many years ago for an inquiry into his
conduct, appear rather inexplicable-espe
cially as manv of the witnesses of his quilt,
if he was guilty, then lived to testify on the
subject.
After full hearing of the evidence both
for and against the accused, on the third,
fourth and fifth charges-and after the most
mature deliberation thereon, the court is of
opinion that they are not supported-and,
therefore, acquits Brigadier General James
Wilkinson of the said charges and their res
pective specifications
The Impressions naturally made on the
minds of the citizens of these United States
by the events which gave rise to the Sd, 4th
and 5th charges, Justify few explanatory re-
marks.
General Wilkinson is said 20 have conspi-
red with kno4vn traitors, and on this notor-
ETY. all the legal force of these charges de-
pend. In the eye of the law, as we'll as of
reason and humanity, every man is presum-
cd TO be innocent till proved to be guilty
consequently there can be no known traitor,
unless proof be established by the record of
his conviction and it is not within the knowl-
edge of this court that any k1logvD traitor did
exist in thespace oftime designated by these
charges-no man, it appears, having been
convicted oftreason.
As the accused has taken no exception to
Defects of matter or form, and as full inves-
LEGATION is desirable on all sides. difficulty
which thus appears at the threshold of the
inquiry, will be past over.
The period Of time embraced by these
three charges, is between the commencement
of March, 1908, and the end of October,
1906
Among the last acts of that session which
terminated the Vice-PresidencY of Aaron
Burr, will be found an act erecting the ter
ritory of Upper Louisiana into govern1nent /;
and soon after the close Of that session, Gen
erai Wilkinson was appointed its chief Ma
gistrate.
Ii is in evidence before this court that the