over vice in the end if tolerable prudence support the former. The [Doctor] is [old] and must soon be [called] to [account] for his [misdeeds]; therefore [bear] with him, if possible. In order to provide for [Deane] I suppose, it has been proposed to have a [consul general] in France, but this I think will never prevail. [One] in each [port] of consequence, and appointed by [Congress] the public good demands, and this will probably be done." But [Deane's] pride nor avarice will let him in here. . . . . 525. JOHN WITHERSPOON TO WILLIAM CHURCHILL HOUSTON.1 PHILADELPHIA, Septr 16, 1778 D Sir Receive inclosed an Extract of the Minutes of Congress relating to the Representation from New Jersey. We have not copied the Representation itself as you must have it. I believe there is not another State which has its sense in its own words on the Records of Congress, the rest having generally had only Instructions to their members. I have no news.3 8 Cf. no. 561, post. Although Gérard was consul general as well as minister plenipotentiary to the United States, and from time to time appointed consuls and viceconsuls of France for several of the states and ports, it was not until Oct. 25, 1780, that Congress came to a decision to send a consul to reside in France. Nov. 4 following William Palfrey was elected to this office and shortly afterward sailed for France, but was lost at sea. [525]1 Haverford College, Roberts Coll., 722. 2 The reference is doubtless to the representation of New Jersey relative to the Confederation, which is found recorded in extenso in the Journals under June 25. 3 The Journals of Sept. 16 record the appointment of a committee (Duer, Witherspoon, and Richard Henry Lee) on letters from the Massachusetts council relative to the monument to General Warren. The letter of Sept. 3 was, in fact, the presentation to Congress of an account for the education of General Warren's eldest son, the expenses of which Congress had given pledge (Apr. 8, 1777) to defray. An undated report of this committee, inserted at this point in the Journals, proposes that Congress also undertake the education of General Warren's younger children. When, if ever, this particular report was presented to Congress is uncertain, for it was not until July 1, 1780, that Congress took action on the matter. Light is thrown, however, on the report and its history by a letter from Benedict Arnold to Miss Mercy Scollay, Feb. 19, 1779 (Sparks MSS., no. 49, vol. I., f. 265). Arnold had written to Miss Scollay July 15, 1778, that he would use his interest with Congress in behalf of the Warren children and that if he were unsuccessful he would then take a private subscription for the purpose. Again, Aug. 5, he wrote to her that he would apply to Congress soon, and if they should decline, he made no doubt of a handsome subscription. In the letter of Feb. 19 referred to he wrote: "In my last letter I mentioned applying to Congress in their behalf. on my application a committee was appointed to consider of the matter and report to Congress. one of the members going out of town soon after, prevented the reports being made, which was agreed to by two of them, 'that the three youngest children of the late General Warren should be provided for and educated agreeable to his rank in life at the public expense, and that when of age, the sum of one thousand pounds should be given as a portion to each.' "This report has never been made to Congress, by reason of some one of the Committees being out of town. I hope soon to have it done. If I am disappointed in my expectation, I intend making a collection for them by private subscription, which I have no doubt will be very considerable. In the meantime I shall esteem and provide for them as my own." Of the members of the committee, Lee had left Congress at the beginning of November, Duer about the middle of the month, and at the time Arnold was writing Wither It begins to be believed that the Enemy are to leave New York and it is thought to be with a view of going to the Westindies-The Arrival of the August Packet alone will make that definitively certain. My Compliments to Mrs Houston. 526. SAMUEL HOLTEN, DIARY.1 [September 16, 1778.] 16. I met a number of Gentlemen of Congress at evening at the City Tavern on business.2 527. THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS (HENRY Laurens) Dear Sir, PHILADELPHIA 17th September 1778. .. The Commander in Chief having returned to Congress the report of the Committee on the Inspectorate with His Excellency's remarks and observations the whole is recommitted and will probably be soon reported on, but the House is so overcharged with business as renders it impossible even to guess at a time when it will be taken under consideration and concluded.2 spoon alone of the three was in Congress, and he had but just returned after an absence of some six weeks. Miss Scollay had written to Samuel Adams as well as to Arnold on the subject, and Adams had replied, Feb. 27 (Sparks MSS., no. 49, vol. I., f. 164), that he had called upon General Arnold and learned what he had written, adding, "He mentioned them with so much tenderness that I am led to think they will reap still further benefit from his generosity". Whatever the obstacles encountered in persuading Congress to adopt the measure, Arnold started the private subscription, as intimated in his letter to Miss Scollay. It is this paper doubtless that is found in Samuel Adams's Writings (ed. Cushing), IV. 171, which appears to have been sent in November, 1779, to Adams and Hancock in Boston by the Massachusetts delegates, Gerry and Lovell. Two letters of Adams to Gerry and Lovell, in December, 1779 (ibid., pp. 167, 169), throw much light on the subject (see also Adams's letter to John Scollay, Dec. 30, 1780, ibid., p. 236). In a letter to Miss Scollay Aug. 3, 1780 (replying to her letter of July 7, transmitting an account of expenses), Arnold relates the subsequent history of the matter, particularly of the resolution of July 1, 1780 (see the next volume of these Letters), with further comment Aug. 19. (The Scollay letter and drafts of the Arnold letters are in the Washington Manuscripts.) An account of the matter may be found in Frothingham, Life of Joseph Warren, pp. 542-546; I. N. Arnold, Life of Arnold, pp. 216-221; and Sparks, Life of Arnold, pp. 127-129. [526]1 Essex Inst. Hist. Colls., LV. 172. 2 Probably the committee on enemy property in Philadelphia. See no. 454, ante. [527]1 N. Y. Hist. Soc., Steuben Papers, I. 2 See Washington's letters to the President of Congress July 24 and 26, in Writings (ed. Ford), VII. 119, 124, (ed. Sparks), VI. 16, 20. The latter (mentioned in the Journals as of July 25), brought to Congress by Steuben, was read in Congress Aug. 1, and referred to a committee. This committee reported Aug. 20 a plan for the inspectorship, and its report was referred to the commander-in-chief for his opinion. With Washington's observations upon it, the report was again taken into consideration Sept. 15 and was referred to the committee on arrangement of the army. The matter was finally taken up Jan. 23, 1779, and on Feb. 18 a plan for the department of inspectorgeneral was adopted. Meanwhile Steuben had been sent to assist General Sullivan. See the Journals, Aug. 28, 29. Cf. nos. 443, 445, ante. Nothing, I am extremely sorry to say it, is yet reported respecting Mr. Ternant. I am grieved to see this meritorious Officer kept in suspense.3 528. HENRY LAURENS, MEMORANDUM.1 18 Sept. [1778.] Mr. G. Morris's amendmt. (Mr. Duer's withdrawn 18 Sept) on Dr. Witherspoon's Motion respecting Mr. D's accounts. debated A M 18th adjrd. P. M. Called for interrupt'd by report on Carmichl and Mr. Lee's informa. Ent'd Jour❜l. Amendment Congress being informed by a Letter of Arthur Lee Esqr. Commissioner of the United States at the Court of Madrid and one of the Comm'rs of the said States at the Court of Versailles dated Paris the 4 Day of April last that the Papers left in France by the Hon'le Silas Deane Esqr. late one of said Comm'rs at the Court of Versailles were not sufficient for the Purpose of setling the Amounts of public Monies received and expended in Europe. And being further informed by the said Silas Deane that the time between the Receipt of the Letters to recall him and his Embarkation was so short as to render it impossible to adjust the said Accounts which were from their nature both various and extensive wherefore he had left his Papers and Vouchers in the Hands of a Friend in France lest by Accidents of the Sea or Enemy they might have been destroyed. Resolved that the sd. Silas Deane be directed to lay before Congress the most accurate Accounts which the Materials now in his Possession will admit of and all monies by him received or expended on acct. of the united States of America 2 529. HENRY LAURENS, PROPOSED RESOLVE.1 [September 18? 1778.] A Paper was delivered from the honorable Richard Henry Lee Esqr. in the words following viz. (insert it) thereupon Resolved that William Carmichael Esqr. be directed to attend at the Bar of the House on Monday next to be examined on Oath touching the charges exhibited against the honorable Silas Deane Esqr. for Misapplication of the Public Money, for Misconduct in his public and private character and for pursuing a repre 3 Steuben's letter concerning Ternant, dated Sept. 5, was read in Congress Sept. 11. See, further, the Journals, Sept. 25, 29, Oct. 2, and no. 556, post. 1528] S. C. Hist. Soc., Laurens Papers, vol. I., no. 29. 2 This motion respecting Silas Deane, which Laurens sets down as an amendment offered by Gouverneur Morris, is no doubt that mentioned in the erased entry in the Journals Sept. 18 (p. 927). Laurens's memorandum further indicates that the motion of Sept. 16 was made by Witherspoon, and that a motion by Duer had been withdrawn. See no. 524, ante, and no. 529, post; also the Journals, Sept. 14, 16, 18, 22, 25, 26, 28-30, Oct. 5, 14. [529] S. C. Hist. Soc., Laurens Papers, XXVII. hensible System and Measures in his public character-contained in the said Paper 2 530. JAMES LOVELL TO HORATIO GATES.1 Sepr. 18th 1778 Dear Sir, Your Favor of the 11th brought by Col. Hazen was a Confirmation of my former good Opinion of our late Alliance. As I always make the best of every Mishap, I think we ought to conclude that the Events at Newport will prevent too much of our Independence being attributed to the Arrival of the allied-Fleet on our Coasts. It is reported here that War is declared in the West Indies by the French. The Print of Tomorrow will have the account, if it is authentic. I own I wish we could have settled our Quarrel with Britain without a general War. Our Ally seems to see an Advantage in the Declaration, and therefore, for the present, I repose myself on the old Skill of France in such matters. There must be a great Change of Men in a certain assembly before you can fail of many Friends there, or, a much less probable Circumstance, you yourself must be reversed in Character. Sir: 531. CORNELIUS HARNETT TO THOMAS BURKE,1 PHILADELPHIA, 19 Sep. 1778. Your agreeable favour of the 22nd only came to my hands last night. Believe me when I assure you that I have heartfelt Satisfaction in finding Our General Assembly have shewn a proper resentment at the unprecedented treatment you met with at York Town. They could not have given you a more convincing proof of their approbation of your Conduct in Congress, than by appointing you again in the very face of their ridiculous resolves, to represent them in that Body.2 I have Consulted my Associates in regard to the time of returning home; Mr. Penn seems content to remain and Mr. Williams and myself have concluded to stay until the 1st of December and to return immediately on your or Mr. Hill's arrival. The appointment of Mr. Hill with yourself has given me great pleasure. Our Assembly have been wise in determining that three of their Delegates shall always be present in Congress. I only 2 The wording of this resolution indicates that it was offered or intended to be offered immediately after the reading of Richard Henry Lee's statement Sept. 18. At the beginning of the memorandum the words "That Mr. Carmichael be, etc.", and at the end, the words "Information exhibited by the Honble R. H. Lee to Congress", are erased. Cf. the Journals, Sept. 22, 26. See also nos. 524, 528, ante. [530]1 Ñ. Y. Hist. Soc., Gates Papers, XIII. 2 See nos. 518, 519, ante, 532, post. [531]1 N. C. State Recs., XIII. 483. 2 See nos. 220, 225, 226, 233, 235, 236, ante. The action of the North Carolina assembly, Aug. 12, 14, 15, relative to the controversy between Burke and Congress is found in N. C. State Recs., XII. 769, 792, 825, 843-845, XIII. 208. 3 The assembly's action relative to the delegation in Congress, Aug 12, is ibid., XIII. 467. Cf. no. 523, ante. wish they had appointed six, which would have made it more convenient for the Gentlemen to attend. I send News papers. As to the business of Congress, it goes on in the old way, doing more in three hours, at one time than they do at another in three days. My dear sir,2 532. SAMUEL ADAMS TO [JOHN BRADFORD ?].1 PHILADE. Sept 21, 1778 I beg you not to impute my omitting hitherto to acknowledge your Favor of the 4th of July to Negligence. I have frequently thought of its Contents; and although I was not able to obtain what you wishd for, I think you will not doubt my Sincerity when I assure you that whenever it shall be in my Power to render you substantial Service I shall do it with the utmost Cheerfulness. It is the Opinion of Gentlemen here that the Appointments of Auctioneers to make Sale of such Prize goods as fall to the Share of the Continent should be made by the Authority of the particular States where such Goods may be forfeited. Your Letter was deliverd to me by Capt. Manly. I am informd by some of my Boston Friends that he speaks of me with a Degree of Bitterness, supposing that I prevented his having another Ship. This gives me not the least Disquietude. He may have been taught to believe it, by Persons who care but little for him and less for the Honor of our Navy or the great Cause we are contending for. Neither he nor his Friends could be at a loss for the true Cause of his Disappointment, if they would advert to the Judgment of the Court Martial which acquitted him with Honor. What a strange Inconsistency was there in that Court, in recommending Cap Manly for another Ship, and at the same Time holding up so great a Deficiency in his Conduct as the neglecting to prepare Signals for a Fleet under his Direction, and in general his Want of Experience. This was said by many; and it ought to be satisfactory to Cap Manly, that though I clearly saw the Justice of the Remark, I was silent. In this, it is possible, I was not altogether blameless. I have never felt my self disposd to take a Side in the Disputes which I understand have run high between Partizans of Manly and McNiel. I think Neither of them can derive much Honor from the Decisions of their respective Courts Martial. I wish for the Credit of our Country that both had behavd more to the Satisfaction of the Publick. One of them is still here. I suppose he is preparing to meet the Committee to whom his Petition is referrd. When it may be proper for me to speak my Mind his Friends and his Enemies may be assured I shall do it with Candor and Freedom. In doing this I expect to be justified, by sensible and honest Men. If I stand fair with them, you well know, how unsolicitous I am whether others are pleasd or not.3 [532]1 Writings (ed. Cushing), IV. 63; N. Y. Pub. Lib., Samuel Adams Papers. 2 From a comparison of this letter with that of Sept. 8 to John Bradford, Continental agent at Boston (Adams's Writings, IV. 57), it is inferred that this letter is to Bradford. 3 See nos. 440, 496, 518, ante, 614, post. |