American watchman and Delaware advertiser. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1822-1828, 1822-06-25

trust, be believed that could not have consented
to the repayment" Considering the intimac,
which the Native Virginian shews with the treasu-
ry affairs, we might be justified in suspecting tina
he knew this fact of the destruction of the orgina
by fire, when he yentured to misquote !; but GER
tainy we may call on him to say and to shew from
what original he copied these words, Cash receiv
ed OF GrandP / say most assuredly from none
for none such ever existed. Although the original
be lost, which would have conviced him officially il
happens that when made from my rough draught
fair copy of my account for the treasury, took
also, with copying machine, press-copy Of every
page, which kept for my own use. 1t is known
that copies by this well known machine are taken
by impression, on damp paper, laid on the face OF
the written page while fresh, and passed between
rollers, as copper plates are. They must therefore
be true fac SMILES. This press.copy now lies be-
lore me, has been shewn to several persons and will
be shewn to as many as wish, or willing to ex-
anime it and this article of my account is entered
in it, in these words 1889, Dec. 1. by my bill on
Willinks, Van Staphorsts & Hubbard, for $500 flo
rims, equal to $3.50 lvres, Is SOUS An inspection
OF the account too. shews that whenever received
cash for bill, it is uniformly entered by cash re-
'ceved of such one, &c. but where bill was
drawn to constitute an item Of account only, the
entry is, my bill on &c. Now to these very words
( cash received of Grand not in my original but
Iinterpolated by HIMSELF he constantly appeals as
proofs OF an acknowledgement. under mv hand,
that received The cash. In proof of this must re-
quest patience, to read the following quotations from
his denunciations, as standing in the Federal Re-
publican of May "a.
Page Q, column Q, line 48 to go from the bottom,
l." he Mr.. ] admits in his account rendered in
1890 and settled in 1884, that he had received The
cash placing the word cash between inverted COM
mas, to have il marked particularly as quotation
that he had received the cash for the bill in ques-
ton, and he does not deny 1t directly now. Will
he, can he in the face Of his declaration in vri.
ing to the contrary publicly say that he did not
ceive the money for this bill in Europe? This is the
point on which the whole matter rests the pivot on
which the argument turns. If he did receive the
money in Europe (no matter whether at Cowes or
at Paris) he certainly had right to receive it
second time from the public treasury of the u States
This is admitted believe. on all sides; now that
he did receive tie money in Europe on this bill, is
proved by the acknowledgment Of the receiver him
SeG who credits the amount in his account, as set
tied at the treasury, thus-' cash received Of Grand
for bill on Willinks and Van Staphorss, 1876 gild
ers-1148 dollars"
Col s, !. 9S to 81 from bottom" there is plain
difference in the phraseoogy of the account from
which an extract is given by Mr.. j., as above
and that zDhich he rendered to the treasury. In the
former, he gives the credit thus :' BY my bill OH
Willinks, &C. In the latter he states "By cash re.
ceioed Of Grand for bill on Willinks SC" There
is difference indeed, he states it, but it is made
solely by his own interpolation.
Col. 8, |. s from bottom,-" That Mr. Jefferson
should nlthe very teeth of the facts of the evidence
before and in his breast, gravely say that he
had paid the money for this bill, and that therefore
it but Just to return him the amount of it, when
he had by his Acknowledgement sent it to Grand
& Co. and received tie money for il, is confess, not
only matter OF establishment, but of regret"
spare myself the qualifications which these para
graphs may merit, leaving them to be applied by
every reader, according to the feelings they may
excite in his own breast.
He proceeds-"and now to place this case beyond
the reach of cav or doubt and to show most con.
clsivey that he had negotiated this bill in Europe
and received the cash for it there's and that such was
the understanding of the matter at the treasury in
1909, when he received the money" (these are his
own words j Col a, he brings forward the over
whelming fact "not hitherto made public, but stat.
ed from the most creditable and authentic source
that one of the accounting officers of the treasury
suggested in writing, the propriety of taking bond
and security from MIR ]. for ndemni6caton of the
United States against any future claim this BILL
But it seems the bond was not taken, and the gov
eminent is now liable in ia7v and in good faith for
the payment of this bill to the rightfu owner"-
How this suggestion of taking bond at the treas.
ury, so soemnly paraded, is more conclusive hroof
than his own Interpolation that he cash receiv-
ed, am so dull as not to perceive. But say that
had the suggestion been made TO me, it should have
been instantly complied with. But deny his lazv
Were this bill now to be presented to the treasury,
the answer would and should be the same as mer-
chant would give: you have held up this bill three
and thirty years, without notices we have settled in
lof his left in hands Apply to him for payment"
On his application to me, should first enquire in.
to the history Of the bill, where it has been lurking
for three and thirty years? How came he by it !?
BY interrogation iBy troyerf By assignment from
Grand BY purchase From whom, when and