The Portland gazette. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1818-1824, 1822-06-04

ui''' pl' :. ''D urdhsht W. question had g.
presented for payment before lie rot IN IN
ont OF the treasury, il must have been ra''..acI
And i not tias, therefore. new adn;.rr.1'--
his part, that he had received the none, .ou M
bill IN Europe; and, of course, that IL w LINZ
charged himself with it too hastily''9 ~
Again" If Mr.. Y. had ii realitv. er-o.
or TOO hastily" charged himself with tII
mount Of this bill lie had not actualIv WI =
ed the money for II i'd Europe al the tina ss.ei'
drawn--why let it I" remain awhile N il IN
whether II might still bc presented VI tbek
ers' for payment Why wait rnonnnr VI
ing himselfjustice Why not apply ~ M IN
ceive the money al once Nav, more-ifhatir
not actually negotiated this bill IN Fnrona ill.,
received the money for il there ; II. ~ NJ MI
mates, and attempts 70 make the pubic 49, -'F
the bill was parted from BY him without 60
Grafton, and in that situation lost, ,vhr mi
not Immediately GdUertise A. and forer,-a WI
drawers from paying il, if presented Hn
not pretend 70 have done this; but was vv;i,;'
to = let it remain awhile before he tool .-s
amount Of il from the public treasury. n
whether IL might not still be presented w Vi
bankers" And yet in the face Of all thu n"
J. now says, he charged himself with the anon.
Of this bill ! too hastily" and that ls DOM I.
was an error"
But il IS alleged, that this bill was brnurb4 \.
the debit Of Mr. J. on the settlement Of MI j.
count at the treasury, PROFESSIONALLY Na-
| deny that it was any more charged "a MI
professionally, than the numerous other mi.
which he drew on the same bankers, and inclaI
ed in the same account. 1t stood on precisnIr.
the same footing with the rest. 1t was. like M
others to be " confronted" with the bankers.r.
counts, when rendered for the purpose Of Wa
and fair examination and comparison. LEI u
now, for example, suppose, that one haIf o. evan
three fourtbs OF tie bills drawn by Mr. Jcfer.o,
on our bankers al Amsterdam, and which u
negotiated, received tie money and charras
himself with, had been lost OF DESTROYED. % th.-
they never reached their place Of destination.
and suppose that these las was actually tie casel
amounted to great many thousand dollars
who, ask, Is exclusively to profit by this loss "
destruction Shall the drawer, alter hayinr
acknowledged that he received the moaey fDr
these bills, and after getting an = lntnnation'
that they had not come to hand, and that they
probably never woUld--shall he, therefore Ne
permitted to draw from tie public treasury
sum equal to the aggregate amount OF these
lost bills, setting up no better right to the rnon-
ey, than that be had charged himself with Il
:" too hastily"a The principle 10 the case Of q
single bill of this kind is precisely the same q
10 that, Of the many. And it j. about principle
and right, that we are contendfng-not about
the paltry sum which was wrongfuly taken from
the public treasury
Again-Mr- Jefferson next speaks Of Lis
pocket diary on turning to which he Is, lie
says, enabled !" to state clearly'' the enigma
about this lost bill, and then adds, rnmedi-
ately credited it THE bill in my account with the
v. States in the following words: 1899 Oct
Fl, BY my ball on WiIink, Van Staphorst and
Hubbard, in favor Of Grand and Co. for $500
forms, equal to 1850 livres l3 sols.' There il
plain difference in the phrascology Of the ac-
count from which an extract i given BY Mr. j.
as above, and that which he rendered to the
Treasury In the former tie gives the credit
thus :--'' By mig bills on Willink,7 &C. In the
latter he states, "By Cash received Of Grand
for bill on Willink," &c.--It i not for me to re-
concile this discrepancy. viii leave that task
to others.
lie then gives one more extract from Mr.
Jeferson's explanatory letter.
The sum Of the whole then is, that drew
bill on the United States Bankers, charged nv
self with il on the presumption that it would Be
paid T; that Il never was paid BY the Ut. States
Bankers or any body else. Ut ras surely jlE.
then to return me he money Ihad paid forHn 1t
Is hardly necessary for me to make single re-
mark on the sentence which have underscored
That Mr.. Jefferson should in the very teeth Of
the facts. OF the evidence before Us, and in bid
own breast, grayeiy say that be had paid the
money for this bill--and that therefore it #as
butlust to return him the amount Of it--When
he had, by his own acknowledgment sent u
to Grand and Go. and received the money for \.
What the Native Of Virginia" considers
conclusive is that this bill had been negotiated
by Mr.. Jefferson in Europe, and that he had
received cash for II there, and that such was
the understanding of the matter at the treasury
in l809,when he last received the money. VIII
here state another fact, not hitherto made Puc'
lie. On the statement Of Mr.. Us. last accom-,
on which he received the l43 dollars, one n
the accounting officers Of the treasury did sugt
gest, 40 writing, the propriety Of taxing DOM
and security from Mr.. J. to indemnity Tie Unll-
ed States against any claim which mTsht %
made on the government for payment 81 III
bill. If the bill had not been negotiated; II "
had not been sold; and if Mr.. Jefferson had no1
before received the avails Of it--th:s Precanuou
surely could not have been necessary"
Having given the substance of the NanFe
OF NlrgiDia's " remarks in answer 10 Mr. lel-
terson, we dismiss the subject without any CON-
ment; Tor comment Is unnecessary. Our feau-
ers will form their own opinions
We cannot however Withhold our nnqualihta
censure Of the language Of the Argus, WhicA
speaking Of this man, saws. tie
(" Has been 10 the counfrv rinud nv dav, am