MESSAGE 
 
 FROM THE 
 
 PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ' 
 
 ACCOMPANYING A REPORT TO HIM 
 FROM 
 
 THE SECRETARY OF STATE, 
 
 AND SUNDRY DOCUMENTS 
 
 RELATIVE TO THE AFFAIRS OF THE UNITED STATES 
 
 ON THE 
 
 MISSISIPPI; 
 
 THE INTERCOURSE WITH THE 
 
 INDIAN NATIONS, 
 
 AND 
 
 THE INEXECUTIOJtf OF THE TREATY 
 
 BETWEEN THE f 
 
 UNITED STATES AND SPAIN. 
 
 230! January, 1798, 
 
 Ordered to lie on the Table. 
 Publifhed by order of the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES, 
 
 PHILADELPHIA : 
 PRINTED BY W, ROSS, 
 
F373 
 
MESSAGE. 
 
 Gentlemen of the Senate, and 
 
 Gentlemen of the Houfe of Reprefentatives, 
 
 A T the commencement of this fejjion of Congrefs, 
 I propofed in the courfe of it, to communicate to both 
 Houfes, further information concerning thejituation of our 
 affairs in the territories of the United States Jituated on 
 the MiJJifippi river, and its neighbourhood, our inter- 
 courfe with the Indian nations, our relations with the 
 Spamjh government, and tht conduct of their officers and 
 agents: This information will be found in a report of the 
 Secretary of State, and the documents attending it, which 
 I now prefent to the Senate and Houfe of Reprefentativ>es. 
 
 JOHN ADAMS. 
 
 UNITED STATES, 
 Jan. 23d, 
 
 xxxxx><xxxxxxxx>&e<>o^ 
 
REPORT. 
 
 To the PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES. 
 
 IN 
 
 obfervance of your directions I have revifed the commu- 
 nications from Mr. Ellicott, the Commiffioner of the United 
 States at the Natchez, fmce my Report of the 3d of July laft, 
 which, with the documents therein referred to, you, on the 
 fame day, laid before Congrefs ; and now refpectfully fubmit 
 to you a ftatement of whatever appears therein to be material. 
 The laft letter from Mr. Ellicott, of which a communication 
 was made to Congrefs, bore date the loth of May laft. His 
 next, dated the 2yth of that month, I received the 24th of Au- 
 guft. In this he mentions that reinforcements were fent from 
 New-Orleans to the Poft at Walnut Hills, and rh?t repairs 
 were made on the Fort at the Natchez : That h^ h.:d received 
 very fatisfactory accounts from both the Chickafaws and Chac- 
 taws, that for more than eight months paft, they had been 
 tampered with by the Spanifh Agents and Traders, to prevent 
 the late Treaty between his Catholic Majefty and the United 
 States from being carried into effecl ; though Mr. Ellicott 
 thinks, without fuccefs. On the nth of May, he wrote to 
 Governor Gayofo defiring a definitive anfwer, as to the time 
 he would be ready to proceed to the determination of the boun- 
 daries between the two Nations, as fpecified in the Treaty ; 
 to which he received an unfatisfactory anfwer. On the i6th, 
 he addrefled to Governor Gayofo a retroipe&ive view of their 
 correfpondence, and of that with Lieutenant Pope, exhibiting 
 the repeated promifes and demonftrations of running the boun- 
 dary Line and evacuating the Pofts the non-performance of 
 thofe promifes and the varied pretences for the delay. To 
 this detail of unfulfilled engagements and contradictory mea- 
 fures, the Governor anfwered Mr. Ellicott on the lyth, " That 
 he mould not trouble him with juftifying the motives which 
 had caukdfome dijagreement in his (the Governor's) communi- 
 cations;" adding however, that "they were far from being 
 infmcere." 
 
6. 
 
 In his next letter dated the 4th of June, Mr. Ellicott men- 
 tions that " The Citizens of the United States who are trad- 
 ing on the Miffifippi are frequently treated with great info- 
 lence, at the Spanilh Pofts, and their property taken for the 
 ufe of his Catholic Majefty, when wanted, and always at a 
 reduced price." He inftances the cafe of a Mr. M'Cluny, 
 from whom a large quantity of flour was thus taken at the 
 Walnut Hills and of Francis Baily, who was compelled to 
 receive as Cafh, in payment for goods fold, a fpeciesof paper, 
 which was. palling at a difcount of twelve per cent. 
 
 With this letteVMr. Ellicott tranfmitted the copy of a Pro- 
 clamation by the Baron de Carondelet, Governor General of 
 JLouifiana, bearing date at New-Orleans the 24th of May ; 
 and ordered to be publimed. In order to difiipate reports, 
 which had alarmed the inhabitants of the Natchez, the Baron 
 therein declares " That the fufpenfion of the demarcation of 
 the limits, and the evacuation of the Forts, which will be 
 comprehended on the other fide of the line, is at prefent only 
 occafioned by the imperious neceffity of fecuring Lower Loui- 
 fiana from the Hoftilities of the Englith, who (he fays) without 
 regard to the inviolability of the Territory of the United States, 
 have fet on foot an expedition againft Upper Louifiana, which 
 they cannot, however, attack without traverfmg the aforefaid 
 Territory." But he fuggefts, that if they made them/elves 
 mailers of the Illinois Country, they would then attack Lower 
 JLouifiani. This fabulous expedition of the Englifh from Ca- 
 nada is thus made the pretence for the non-execution of the 
 Treaty on the part of Spain. " We have thought proper (fays 
 the Baron) to put the Poft of Walnut Hills in a refpe&able 
 but provisional (late of defence, until the United States, in- 
 formed of thefe motives, by the Minifter Plenipotentiary of 
 his Majefty to whom we have communicated them, provide 
 againft thefe inconveniences ; and by taking the proper fteps to 
 caufe the Territory to be refpe&ed, mall put in our power to 
 fulfil, without danger, the articles of the Treaty concerning 
 limits." 
 
 In this Proclamation, the information of the Englifh expe- 
 dition is reprefented as having been communicated by the Ba- 
 ron de Carondelet to theSpanifti Minifter in the United States ; 
 but in his next Proclamation, one week afterwards (May 31 ft) 
 he fets forth that he had received from that Minifter informa- 
 tion of the expedition from Canada, and, therefore, " had 
 judged it necelfary for the furety and tranquility of Lower 
 JLouifiana, to fufpend the evacuation of the Ports of Natchez 
 and the Walnut Hills." And as early as the firft of May, Go- 
 vernor Gayofo, in a. letter to Mr. Ellicott, publifhed with the 
 
other documents laid before Congrefs, at the laft feflion, affigns 
 the information before that day received by the Baron from the 
 Spanifli Minifter, of the above pretended expedition, as the 
 reafon for holding the Ports, and putting them in a ftate of de- 
 fence ; particularly the Walnut Hills. In the fame Procla- 
 mation (of which a copy No. I. is annexed) the Baron affedts 
 to confider the march of a detachment of American troops from 
 the Ohio to the ftate of TennefTee, while it has been intimated, 
 as he fays, to the Militia of Cumberland to hold themfelves 
 ready to march at the firft notice, as an evidence of a hoftile 
 attack intended, even by the United States, on Louifiana. 
 
 The pretences for holding the Pofts in queftion, and delay- 
 ing to run the boundary line, having varied from time to time, 
 it may be proper to prefent them in one view. 
 
 In the month of March 
 
 i ft. That it was uncertain whether the Forts, when eva- 
 cuated were to be demolifhed or left (landing. 
 
 2d. That it was necefiary to fecure the real property to the 
 Inhabitants. And both thefe points, it was faid, muft be ad- 
 juftedby a negociation between the two Governments of Spain 
 and the United States, prior to the evacuation of the Pofts. 
 
 3d. That they muft be retained until the Spaniih officers 
 were fure the Indians would be pacific. 
 
 On the 24th of May- 
 
 4lh. The Fnglifh Expedition from Canada, which could 
 not proceed without violating the Territory of the United 
 States. 
 
 But in the Proclamation of this date, the putting of the 
 principal Poft, that of the Walnut Hills, in a ftate of defence 
 wa ; - declared to be only proVifioflal, arid until the United States 
 fhould canfe their Territory to be refpeoted. 
 
 ' 5th. On the -?i(r of May, the Baron's fccond Proclamation 
 repeats the fame pretence, f he Enjglifh expedition, and adds a 
 new one, That the Uinred States were marching troops, and 
 prepa ing the militia to take the Spaniih dominions by furprize. 
 Further motives 'are alfo affigned anterior menaces by the 
 Commifiioner Mr. Ellicott and of Lieutenant Pope and the 
 expected rupture between the United States Ind France. And 
 new conditions are now mentioned to be performed by the 
 United States, viz: That they fhould, as a neceflary evidence 
 that they have no hoftile intentions ae;ainft the Spanifh Pro- 
 vinces, either leave the Poft of the Natchez, or the Walnut 
 Hills, in poffeflion of Spain as The only bulwarks of Lower 
 
8. 
 
 Louifiana to Hop the courfe of the Britim" ; or give to the Spa- 
 niards " Security againft the article of the Treaty with Great- 
 Britain which expofes Lower Louiiiana to be pillaged and de- 
 ftroyed down to the Capital. Then (fays the Baron) we will 
 deliver up the faid Pofts, and lay down our arms, which they 
 (the United States) have forced us to take up, by arming their 
 militia in time of peace, and fending a considerable body of 
 troops by round-about ways to furprize us." 
 
 Pretences more frivolous, or more unfounded and unwar- 
 rantable, were perhaps never urged as reafons to excufe a viola- 
 tion of the faith of Treaties. Never, perhaps, was conceived 
 a more abfurd idea, than that of marching troops from the 
 Ohio to the State of TenneiTee, and thence to the Natchez, 
 in the whole a tedious, difficult, and expenfive route of many 
 hundred miles, chiefly through a wildernefs ; when, if the 
 United States had any hoflile views, they had only to collecl: 
 their troops to the Ohio, and fufFer them to be floated down 
 that River, and the Mifliflppi, almoft without labour, with 
 great expedition and at fmall expence, to the country to be 
 attacked. But the fuggeftion is as falfe as it is abfurd. 
 
 Neither does any article of the Treaty between the United 
 States and Great-Britain (the Baron doubtlefs means the Treaty 
 of 1 794) nor the explanatory article of 1 796, give to Great- 
 Britain any new right reflecting the navigation of the Miffi- 
 fippi, and confequently do not expofe, more than it was 
 before expofed, Lower Louifiana to be pillaged and deftroyed 
 by the BritiOi. But this queftion having being fully difcuifed 
 in my letter of the i yth of May laft to the Spanifh minifter, and 
 his reafoning demonftrated (as I conceive) to be utterly un- 
 founded, it would be a wafte of time to add any further obfer- 
 vations upon it. 
 
 If the pods of the Natchez and Walnut-Hills " are the only 
 bulwarks of Lower Louifiana, to ftop the courfe of the Britifh," 
 as the Baron aflerts, and if, therefore, Spain is juftifiable in 
 holding them fhe may retain them without any limitation of 
 time for her fecurity in any future war, as well as in that 
 which now exifts. But this, like all the other reafons which 
 have been before advanced, is merely oftenfible. The true 
 reufon is doubtlefs developed by the Baron in his proclama- 
 tion of the 31ft of May. The expectation of an " immediate rup- 
 ture between France , the intimate ally of Spain, and the United 
 States." 
 
 The Spanifh minifter having refumed this fubjecl: in his let- 
 ter to me of the I ith of July, his own printed tranflation of it, 
 and my anfwer of the 8th of Auguft, are hereto annexed ; toge- 
 ther with his letter of the I9th of Auguft, acknowledging the 
 
receipt of that anfwer, and his two fubfequent letters of the 
 9th of October ancl 21 ft of November. With the lad it feems 
 proper to lay before you a paper figned VERUS, which ap- 
 peared in the Aurora, printed by Benjamin Franklin Bache, 
 on the morning of the 23d, containing in fubftance his letter 
 of the 22d, which I received the preceding evening, and fome 
 additional expreftions which the Minifter himfelf deemed too 
 grofs to be addreffed to the government under his proper fig- 
 nature ; but which, under the circumftances here mentioned, 
 mult neceffarily be afcribed to him. 
 
 In his next letter, Mr. Ellicott gives an account of an infur- 
 rection of the inhabitants of the Natchez. A minute detail of 
 the circumftanes which gradually tended to produce this event, 
 he fays, would fill a volume. The following relation is ex- 
 tracted from his letter of June 2yth. " The delay (fays he) 
 on the part of the Spaniards, to carry the late Treaty between 
 his Catholic Majefty and the United States into effet, gave 
 great uneafmefs, which was daily increafed by the Spaniards 
 reinforcing and repairing the Fort at this place and the Walnut 
 Hills. The people confidered thofe preparations as a determi- 
 nation on the part of Spain to retain the country, notwith- 
 ftanding the late Treaty. A difpofition was frequently mani- 
 fefted to refift the laws of Spain ; but they were, neverthelefs, 
 fubmitted to without a direct, oppofition, until Friday the Qth 
 inftant, when a Mr. Hannan, a preacher among the Baptifts, 
 was taken on fome trivial pretence, and confined by his legs 
 in a fmall building within the fort. This was confidered as 
 an attack upon the privileges of the citizens of the v United 
 States (Mr. Hannan being one) and a determination, at all 
 events, to enforce the laws, civil and religious, of Spain, 
 with rigour. Under this impreffion the inhabitants flew to 
 arms, and the Governor and principal officers of government 
 took refuge in the Fort. Thus in lefs than ten hours, by an 
 unrieceflhry exertion of power, the authority of the Governor 
 was confined to the fmall compafs of the Fort." 
 
 " Saturday the loth, the oppofition to the Spanifh Govern- 
 ment had extended almoft over the diiirict. Sunday the nth, 
 a number of enterprifmg oppofers of the Spaniili Government 
 called upon Lieutenant Pope and myfelf, and declared their 
 determination of commencing hoftilities, in confequcnce of 
 the irriprifonment of Mr. Hannan, and a proclamation of the 
 Baron de Carcndeiet (that cfthe 31 ft of May before men- 
 tioned) which they confidered as a declaration of war againft the 
 United States : To oppofe them direlly would have put an end 
 to our influence in the Country ; and to encourage them, in 
 
10. 
 
 my opinion, would have been improper, as the United States 
 had not extended their jurifdiclion to this diflricl:. I, there- 
 fore, on my part, refolved to do neither ; but, to divert their 
 attention from immediate acts of hoiliiity, propofed to them, 
 to make a formal declaration of their being, by the late Treaty, 
 Citizens of the United States, that they might have fome claim 
 to protection ; but at the fame time not to lofe light of their 
 perfonal fafety, and act on the defenlive only. This had the 
 effecl I expected. On the Evening of Monday the I2th, Mr. 
 Pope and myfelf received a verbal melfage from Governor 
 Gayofo, by his Adjutant Major Minor, to the following pur- 
 port, " Gentlemen, Governor Gayofo requefts the favour of 
 an interview with you, all as private Gentlemen : the inter- 
 view to be without the Fort, to fee if fome plan cannot be 
 devifed to quiet the prefent duhirbance in the Country." To 
 this meflage I replied, that " I had no objection to the pro- 
 pofed interview, that I approved of peace, and would join in 
 any meafures for that purpofe, confident with the honour and 
 fafety of the people, who generally considered themfelves Ci- 
 tizens of the United States. 1 ' Mr. Pope's anfvver was very 
 different, and to the following effe&. " You will pleafe to in- 
 form Governor Gayofo that I will not agree to the interview, 
 nor have any correfpondence with him, but what mail be offi- 
 cial ; and I will repel by force, any attempts that are made to 
 imprifon thofe who claim the privileges of being Citizens of 
 the United States.' 5 As the meflage was jointly to Mr. Pope 
 and myfelf, and Mr. Pope would not attend, I informed Ma- 
 jor Minor that I mould not attend alone. All my addrefs was 
 now exerted to avert the ftorm, and bring it to a favourable 
 iflue ; and I could fee no mode fo likely to anfvver the purpofe, 
 as meafures apparently decided. Under this imprelTion, about 
 10 o'Clock in the Evening, after Major Minor had been with 
 us, I entered my approbation to a letter written by Mr. Pope 
 to a large number of the Inhabitants of this diflricl:, aiTcmbled 
 at a Mr. Belt's, about nine miles from this place*. On the 
 morning of the I3th, I received a letter (No. 2.) from Governor 
 
 * This letter from Lieutenant Pope has fince been tranfmitted by 
 Colonel Anthony Hutchins of the Natchez, to the Department of 
 Slate, and is as follows. 
 
 " Natchez Camp nth June 1797. 
 " Fellow Citizens of the Diftrift of Natchez. 
 
 Having received information that a number of you will be collected 
 at my friend Belt's, in conformity to an indirect invitation fent to 
 you for that purpofe, I have now pofitively to make the declaration 
 to you that I have made this evening to Governor Gayofo, that I will 
 at all hazards protect the Citizens, of the United States from every aft 
 
11. 
 
 Gayofo, to which I immediately returned an anfwer [No. 3.) 
 The enfulng evening about it o'clock, I received a verbal 
 mefTage, by Mr. George Cochran, contra&oi* for the United 
 States at this poft, from Governor Gayofo, requeuing a private 
 interview with me at the Hovife of Mr. Gochran (which is in 
 the neighbourhood of the fort) at 9 o'Clock the next morning: 
 to this I had no objection, as I fuppofed the objecl of the 
 internet v/a*> to fall upon foine plan of an accommodation. 
 The next morning, being the I4th, I met Governor Gayofo', 
 according to his requft. He appeared much agitated at iir;.l, 
 but foon became calm, and we entered upon the fubjecl: of 
 the tumult in the Country: He was defirous to know upon 
 what terms the people would be willing to difperfe. I pro- 
 pofed the outlines of an accommodation, to which he acceded. 
 In order to prevail on Mr. Pope to confcnt to an interview 
 with Governor Gayofo, I fpoke to Mr. Cochran and feveral 
 other of his friends, whofe influence prevailed, and the inter- 
 view took place at the Government Houfe, about 5 o'Clock 
 in the afternoon ; when, after fome difcuflion, the Governor 
 propofed the terms (No. 4) on which he was willing to ac- 
 commodate with the people : Mr. Pope had fome objections, 
 but at length withdrew them. On Wednefday morning the 
 Governor publifhed the Proclamation (No. 5.) founded in part 
 upon the terms which were agreed upon at our interview. But 
 this Proclamation had not the defirecl effe ; in fome places 
 it was torn to pieces. The words " Candid repentance," ren- 
 dered the whole obnoxious. The people confidered themfelves 
 not only Citizens of the United States, but fupportino- a virtu- 
 ous and honourable caufe ; and, therefore, in no need of c( re- 
 pentance". As foon as I difcovered that the Proclamation had 
 
 of hoftility I mean all fuch as refide North of the 31 ft Degree of North 
 Latitude, or within thirty nine miles due South of the Natchez. I now 
 therefore, call on you in the moft folemn manner, to come forward, 
 aflfert your Rights, and you may rely on my linccre corroboration to 
 accomplifh that defirable object. 
 
 I mall expect your affiftance to repel any troops or hoftile parties 
 that make an attempt to land for the purpofe of reinforcing this Garrifon 
 or other purpofes detrimental to the Inhabitants of this Country. 
 
 PIERCY S. POPE 
 Commanding U. S. Troops, Natchez. 
 
 From the prefent alarming fituation of this Country I fully approve 
 of Captain Pope's letter of this date to his Fellow-Citizens a'ifenibled 
 at Mr. Belt's. 
 
 ANDREW ELLICOTT. 
 Commiffioner U. S. nth June, 1797. 
 A true Copy, Examined per 
 
 THOMAS M. GREEN. 
 
12. 
 
 no effeft, I gave the information to the Governor's Adjutant, 
 Major Minor. The bufmefs now put on a very ferious afpe&, 
 and hoftilities appeared inevitable. By this time the opposition 
 to the Spanifh Government had aflumed fome form ; a number 
 of refpeclable militia companies had elected their officers, and 
 were ready to take the field. Friday the i6th, it was agreed 
 that a meeting of the principal Inhabitants of the diftricl: mould 
 be held at Mr. Belt's on Tuefday the 2oth. In the mean time 
 both fides continued their preparation. Companies of militia 
 were forming and organizing in the Country ; and the Gover- 
 nor exerting himfelf by ftrengthening and reinforcing the Fort. 
 He called to his aid every perfon who would join him, either 
 through attachment or fear : he was, neverthelefs too weak 
 to attempt any offenfive operations. On Saturday, the iyth, 
 about 10 o'Clock at night, a Spanifh patrole fell in with a 
 patrole from our Camp, and fired upon it, the fire was returned ; 
 but I believe that there was no damage done. On Sunday 
 Evening, the i8th, I received a verbal meffage from the Go- 
 vernor, by his Adjutant, Major Minor, requeuing a private 
 interview with me the next morning, at the Houfe of his 
 Adjutant ; to which I confented without any hefitation. The 
 next morning h left the fort and rode by a circuitous route to 
 the Adjutant's place, where I joined him. Our converfalion 
 immediately turned upon the State of the Country ; he allured 
 me that he was very defirous of coming upon fome terms of 
 accommodation ; and as he underftood that I intended to attend 
 the meeting the next day at Mr. Belt's, he requefted that I 
 would be fo good to ufe my influence to bring about a com- 
 prornife. I told him that was my object ; and that a plan had 
 already been agreed upon by Colonel Hutch ins and myfelf, t 
 check, and finally put an end to the prefent difturbance ; but 
 no terms could now be expected that were not honourable for 
 the people : they had felt their ftrength, and would only agree 
 to return home by being admitted to enjoy a ftate of neutrality, 
 fo far as it reipeded military operations, till the late treaty be- 
 tween his Catholic Majefty and the United States mould be 
 carried into effecT:. To this privilege I thought them entitled ; 
 but to go farther would be impolitic, and probably attended 
 with ruin to individuals, if not to the Diftricl:. As the Go- 
 vernor did not appear diflatisfied with my obfervations, I took 
 it for granted he would agree to a qualified neutrality. On 
 Tuefday the 2oth, I attended the meeting at Mr. Belt's, which 
 was large and refpe&able. 
 
 Here it was concluded that a Committee fhould be appointed 
 to take the fituation of the Country into confideration, and 
 make arrangements with the Governor for reftoring peace and 
 
tranquility ; which arrangements mould, as a'greater fecufity 
 to the people, be ratified by the Governor General, the Baron 
 de Carondelet. Seven Gentlemen were accordingly elected as 
 the Committee, and Mr. Pope and myfelf were requefted by 
 the fame meeting, unanimoufly, to attend with them. The 
 Committee immediately wrote a note to the Governor, inform- 
 ing him of their election ; to which the Governor returned a 
 polite reply;" exprefling his happinefs that this falutary mea- 
 fure was adopted. " On Wednefday the 21 ft, the Committee 
 met and proceeded to bufinefs ; and after much deliberation and 
 feveral interviews with the Governor, the propofitions (No. 6.) 
 on the 22d, were agreed to, and confirmed by the parties. 
 On the fame day, Mr. Pope and myfelf prefented the Governor 
 our engagement (No. 7.) to co-operate with the Committee, 
 in preferving peace and good order in the Country. On the 
 230!, the Governor's Proclamation (No. 8) embracing the four 
 propofitions was published, which gave general fatisfadtion, 
 and once more reftored tranquility to the Di(tri6t: thus ended 
 this tumult, without a fingle act of violence having been com- 
 mitted during the fufpenfion of the Government and Laws, for 
 the fpace of two weeks. From the Baron de Carondelet's 
 Proclamation of the 3ift of May, it would appear that I had 
 menaced the Spanifh Government of Louifiana. This is 
 wholly a mifreprefentation, and calculated to anfwer the worfl 
 of purpofes. Ever fince I came into this Country I have been 
 a cultivator of peace and harmony between the Spanifh and 
 American Governments, for which I have been frequently 
 cenfured by many Citizens of the United States, who have 
 come on to this place fince the ratification of the late Treaty 
 between the United States and the King of Spain. But when 
 the late tumult began, I could not hefitate as to the part I mould 
 take; and in taking the part I did, peace was my main object. 
 If my endeavours have had the leaft fhare in bringing about the 
 honourable compromife between the Governor and the people, 
 I mail think myfelf amply rewarded for the trouble and 
 anxiety I have experienced on that occafion." 
 
 The agreement between the Committee and Governor Gay- 
 ofo, was in due time ratified by the Governor General, the 
 Baron de Carondelet. 
 
 Mr. Ellicott, in his letter of September i2th (which was 
 received the i6th of November) mentions that Governor Gay- 
 ofo had fucceeded the Baron de Carondelet as Governor and 
 General in Chief of Louifiana, and gone to New-Orleans, 
 and had committed the government of the Natchez diftrict to 
 major Stephen Minor. 
 
His communications relative to the Choclaw nations, fhcw 
 their friendly difpofition towards the United States, and deter- 
 mination to remain at peace. 
 
 It appears that there is an unhappy di (Tendon among the in- 
 habitants of the Natchez ; one party blaming, and. the other 
 decidedly juftifying the conducl of Mr. Ellicott, as uniformly 
 calculated to maintain the tranquility and happinefs of the 
 fettlement. At the head of the former is Colonel Anthony 
 Hutchins. 
 
 Mr. Ellicott pointedly denies the charge of the Spanifh Mi- 
 nifler That he intended to get pofTeflion of the Natchez fort 
 by furprize ; of which the miniver faid Governor Gayofo 
 jpofTerTed the proofs ; and far from evading an inquiry, defires 
 Governor Gayofo to furnifh the minifter with all the evidences 
 he potteries to fubftantiate the charge. 
 
 In his next letter, dated the 24th of September, Mr. Elli- 
 cott inclofes a refolution (No. 9.) of the permanent Commit- 
 tee manifesting their confidence in him, and requeuing him 
 to reprefent the prefent fituation of the Diftricl to the Prefident 
 of the United States, and alfo all the meafures which from his 
 knowledge of the circumftances of the country, acquired by 
 his reiidence there, he mall deem to be conducive to its future 
 welfare ; "In the event of the late Treaty between his Catholic 
 Majefty and the United States, being carried fully into effecV 
 
 Mr. Ellicott has accordingly exprefTed his opinion, founded 
 on very cogent reafons, that the form of government eftablifhed 
 for the Northweftern Territory, will be the moft proper for 
 the Natchez Diftricl: ; with the exception refpecling Slaves, 
 which was admitted when the fame form of Government was 
 given to the Territory fouth of the river Ohio, now the State of 
 TennefTee. His information in this letter refpe6Ung the titles 
 to-the Lands held in that Country by the Inhabitants, will be 
 ufeful when the introduction of a Government there, under 
 the authority of the United States, mall be contemplated. 
 
 By the communications in this difpatch, it appears that 
 the permanent Committee, which are confidered as an im- 
 portant part in the prefent adminiftration of the affairs of the 
 Natchez Diftricl, were chofen freely by the inhabitants, af- 
 fembled with the confcntof the Governor, and that they have 
 his approbation for their fteaay zeal in promoting the peace of 
 the Country. 
 
 On the 28th of November, I received Mr. Ellicott 's letter 
 of the yth of October, at which time no change h ; ad taken 
 place in affairs at Natchez. 
 
 He inclofes the copy of a letter from Governor Gayofo, dated 
 at New-Orleans the I4th of September, in anfwer to one from 
 
Mr. Ellicott of the 6th, in which he referred to the reprefen- 
 tations of the Spanifh Minifter in his letter to me of the 24th 
 of June laft (which, with other documents, was laid before 
 Congrefs on the 3d of July) criminating Mr. Ellicott 's conduct 
 at the Natchez ; particularly that he intended to poflefs him- 
 felf of the Natchez fort by furprize ; and defired the Governor 
 to furnifh the Minifter with thofe proofs which the Minifter 
 had aiferted to be in his pofTefTion. In the Governor's anfwer 
 of September I4th, he fays to Mr. Ellicott " I am fure the 
 proofs in my poffeftion, that the Chevalier de Yrujo refers to, 
 are the remainder of the copies of your letters to me, which 
 be then had not, but long before this muft have received. You 
 may be aflured I never made any other conftruction upon your 
 expreftions than that which may be conceived by every perfon 
 in the United States." 
 
 In the fame letter of September 6th, Mr. Ellicott fays, " So 
 far x as I can judge at prefent, all the obftacles which occafion- 
 ed the delay on your part, in afcertainingthe boundary lines be- 
 tween his Catholic Majefty's provinces of Eaft and Weft Flo- 
 rida and the Territory of the United States are now removed : 
 I, therefore, wifh to be informed when you can with conve- 
 nience proceed to the running of the lines above mentioned." 
 
 The Governor in his anfwer of the I4th, fays, " Thofe diffi- 
 culties which alternatively have caufed a fufpenfion in the 
 execution of that pajt of the Treaty between his Majefty and 
 the United States, in which we have the honor to be concerned, 
 JLibfift yet : and the conduct of the Spanifh officers is completely 
 juflified to the world, by the publication of Mr. Blount's letter 
 and the correfpondence between the Secretary of State and Mr., 
 Lifton. Until the King, my mafter, has thofe aflurances 
 which are neceffary from the United States, to fecure the lafe- 
 ty of this Province, you cannot reafcnably expect that I mould 
 be authorized to ?.ct in a different manner than hitherto. As, 
 foon as I receive orders, removing the prefent obftacles, I 
 fhall cheerfully proceed to the running of the boundary lines." 
 
 To this Mr. Ellicott replied, and recited the obftacles to the 
 execution of the Treaty which -at different times had been pre- 
 fented by the Spanifh Governors, and which he conceived to. 
 be completely removed by the declaration of the Prefidcnt in 
 his meiTage to Congrefs, on the i2th of June, the uniform coa- 
 duct of the United States in refpect to the Indian nations, and- 
 the exhibition of facts refpecting the pretended expedition of 
 the Englifh from Canada, and the navigation of the Miffifippi. 
 
 Mr. Ellicott's next letter is dated at the Natchez the 27th of 
 October, and was received the 5th inilant. lie fays that coun- 
 try " Is in great confufion ;" owing to the intrigues which have 
 
produced two parties among the people, tic adds " Congrefs' 
 at their laft feffion, by not coming to any decifion relative to 
 this Territory, has weakened the intereft of the United States 
 among the Inhabitants more than you can conceive. It has 
 been artfully propagated, from that circumftance, that the 
 Treaty in all probability will not be carried into effecl, and 
 the country remain as heretofore under the jurifdiction of his 
 Catholic Majefty:" which belief is producing its natural con- 
 fequences. 
 
 He reprefents the permanent Committee as unwearied in 
 their endeavours to promote peace and good order, and the cha- 
 racters of its members as among the firil in that Country for 
 refpeclability ; which is confirmed by the Certificate (No. 10} 
 of the temporary Governor, Major Minor ; which alfo (hows 
 that they are acknowledged, as an authorized Body, by the 
 Spaniili Government. 
 
 His next letter is dated at the Natchez the I4th of Novem- 
 ber, and was received the 4th inftant. He details the different 
 fadts and circumftances which have led him to think that de- 
 figns are carrying on in the diftricl: unfavorable to the Interefts 
 gf the United States. 
 
 Colonel Anthony Hutchins prefented to the temporary Go- 
 vernor an application dated the 9th of Auguft, fetting forth, 
 that altho' the Inhabitants in general in their prefent ftate of 
 Neutrality, are well difpofed, and fubmit " To the prefiding 
 authority and the prevailing laws that are now executed with 
 mildnefs ;" yet conceiving and firmly believing that the Treaty 
 between the United States and Spain will be carried into effecl:, 
 " and that there is more than a probility that the United States will 
 avail tbemf elves of the claim of dominion to the ^ift degree of north 
 latitude: under which confideration they conceive it expedient 
 to appoint a man of fome abilities, with the appellation of 
 agent to addrefs Congrefs on important occafions, and that there 
 may be alfo a Committee of Safety who may correfpond with 
 fuch Agent, and from time to time communicate to him the 
 fenfe and will of the people:" He therefore, " In behalf of 
 a very refpeclable number of the Inhabitants of the Natchez, 
 and at their requeft, folicits for permiflion that elections may 
 be held in the fevcral diftri6ts within that Province and in the 
 town of Natchez, to elect fuch Agent and fuch Committee of 
 fafety and Correfpondence on the fecond of September" in the 
 manner defcribed by Colonel Hutchins in his application. 
 This required that the Alcaldes (or Juftices) fhould hold the 
 ele&ions, or in their default certain afliftants, whom he names ; 
 and that the Alcaldes 'and afiiftants mould not be eligible : it 
 alfo propofed to admit as voters all the inhabitants fettled and 
 
refiding in the diftrict who were " not lefs than eighteen years 
 of age.'" 
 
 To this requeft of Colonel Hutchms, the temporary Go- 
 vernor acceded ; as appears by his act (No. u.) dated the i6th 
 of Auguft. 
 
 " Immediately upon this being made public (fays Mr, Elli- 
 cott) it excited confiderable alarm, and was generally confidered 
 by the well difpofed inhabitants as an artful mcafure, calcu- 
 lated to divide the people between the two Committees, which 
 if effected, would in all probability end in a breach of the neu- 
 trality by one or other of the parties, and thereby produce the 
 re-eftablifhment of the Spanifh Government." Under this im- 
 preflion, fix of the ten fub-divilions, of which this diitrict is 
 compofed, protefted againft the election, of courfe there were 
 but four elections held agreeably to the permiflion" Among 
 the reafons affigned in the protefts againft this propofed elec- 
 tion, were thefe ; " Becaufe (fay the protefters) we dread the 
 effect of fuch a precedent, which appears to us to involve the 
 feeds of anarchy, and an open contempt of the authority in- 
 vefted in the Committee, our only legal reprefentatives." 
 " Becaufe by the mode of election not lefs than thirty of our 
 moft intelligent and refpectable citizens are rendered incompe- 
 tent to ferve either as the faid Agent or in the Committee." 
 " Becaufe it is calculated to introduce a direct innovation in 
 the principles of election, by admitting to the privilege of vot- 
 ing perfons of the age of eighteen" And " becaufe neither the 
 powers of the Agent nor Committee are properly defined." 
 
 Mr. Ellicott flares that the four perfons elected in the other 
 four fub-divifions, " with Colonel Hutchins at their head," 
 proceeded to bufinefs. Afterwards another member was added 
 by the nomination of ten voices in one fub-divifion ; and a fixth 
 was appointed by the fubfcription of fewer than thirty perfons. 
 The committee thus conftituted, produced a very long " Petition 
 and memorial" addrefled to the " Houfe of Reprefentatives 
 of the United States in Congrefs afTembled," of which Mr. 
 Ellicott has tranfmitted a copy ; but of which it does not feerri 
 neceflary to anticipate the presentation to Congrefs by the agent 
 to whom it may for that purpofe be committed. One object 
 of the memorial feems to be to criminate the conduct of the 
 American CommiMioner, Mr. Ellicott, and the commander of 
 the troops^ Captain Pope. But proofs accompany Mr. Ellicott's 
 communications that this part of the long memorial was con- 
 cealed from many who fubfcribed it, and other teftimonies in 
 vindication of thofe officers. The exhibition of thefe docu- 
 ments, I have thought might alfo be fufpended, until the 
 
 \^ 
 
' Petition and memorial" were prefented to Congrefs. It 
 may, however, be proper to remark, that the memorial, as well 
 as the proceedings of the regularly appointed permanent com- 
 mittee, view the aclual eftablifhment of a government at the 
 Natchez, under the authority of the United States, as to take 
 place only when its prefent ftate of neutrality (hall ceafe ; that 
 is, when the Spaniih jurifdiclion fliall be withdrawn. But as 
 this may happen when Congrefs is not in feflion, and, if in 
 feffion, much time muft elapfe in the ordinary courfe of doing 
 bufmefs, before the form of government proper to be introduced 
 at the Natchez may be agreed on ; confidering alfo the further 
 lapfe of |ime before it can be organized, and put in operation, 
 in a country fo remote from the feat of the general government : 
 it appears highly expedient that the fubjecl; fhould now be taken 
 up, and the neceftary arrangements made, to prevent the incon- 
 veniences and mifchiefs which may refult from leaving a popu- 
 lation of five thoufand perfons, for any length of time, without 
 the powers of government. 
 
 It remains for me to make a few remarks on the letters of 
 the Spaniih minifter of the 9th of October and 2ift of No- 
 vember. 
 
 The principal object of the former, appears to be, to intro- 
 duce fome evidence to fhow that Mr. Ellicott and Lieutenant 
 Pope had conducted towards the Spanifh government in a 
 manner irregular, provoking, infulting, and in fome degree 
 hoftile. He adduces, as proofs, the documents inclofed in his 
 letter, and numbered from i to 6. 
 
 The declaration that Governor Gayofo had pofitive advice 
 that in the camp of Lieutenant Pope, fcaling ladders and arms 
 were preparing, having for their object an aflault on the Natchez, 
 fort, is perfectly new. I have never received an intimation of 
 it from any other quarter. Befides, this charge refts only on 
 " pofitive advice " not pofitive proof- and is doubtlefs without 
 any proof. 
 
 Governor Gayofo, in his letter of the 1 3th of June to Lieu- 
 tenant Pope, fays he is informed that fome of the inhabitants 
 intended to attack the fort ; and at his inftigation ; and aflcs 
 whether he had ftirred up the people to take the fort ? or incited 
 them to other hoftile acts ? To each of which queftions Lieu- 
 tenant Pope pofitively anfwers, no. To fimilar queftions put to 
 Mr. Ellicott he alfo peremptorily anfwers in the negative. 
 The documents which the minifter himfelf has furnifhed con- 
 tain thefe queftions and anfwers ; and mould have prevented 
 the infmuation here noticed. 
 
 The other charge in the fame paragraph, that Mr. Ellicott 
 and Lieutenant Pope, difcouraged by the firmnefs and vigilance 
 
of Governor Gayofo, from attempting to take the forts at the 
 Natchez and Nogales( Walnut Hills) by force or furprize, they 
 availed themfelves of fome profligate people to excite an infur- 
 rection, is alike void of foundation. The rife, progrefs, and 
 iffue of the infurreclion is fatisfaclorily exhibited in Mr. El- 
 licott's letter of June ayth, from which copious cxtracls have 
 been herein before given. And with refpedl: to the fort at 
 Walnut Hills, they could never have entertained the remoteft 
 idea of taking it in one way or the other : its fituation being 
 about one hundred miles from the Natchez, up the Miffifippi, 
 and its garrifon compofed of a force probably two or three times 
 fupcrior to that under the command of Lieutenant Pope. 
 
 The minifler confiders as an infult towards the Spanifh go- 
 vernment, the following expreflion of Mr. Ellicott in his letter 
 of the 1 3th of June to Governor Gayofo : " The people can- 
 not with propriety be ccnfured for recurring to that conduct 
 which will ultimately fecure their felicity." " This (fays he) 
 is clearly an indirect attack upon the Spanifh government, as 
 unjuft as improper on the part of an agent of a friendly nation." 
 It may be pertinent here to remark, That when Mr. Ellicott 
 was commifHoned as the agent of the United States, nothing 
 was lefs expected than that he would be obliged to enter upon 
 a tedious controverfy with the Spaniih officers on fubj eels really 
 foreign to the bufmefs of his million that of running the boun- 
 dary line between the territories of the two nations. If, after 
 waiting feveral months to begin that operation ; if, after being 
 repeatedly promifed that it ihould very foon be commenced ; 
 if, after repeated violations of thefe promifes, and others relative 
 to the evacuation of the forts, and p roc rafti nations reding on a 
 fucceflion of pretences, frivolous, unreafonable, and unfounded, 
 Mr. Ellicott Ihould have felt fome irritation, and been provoked 
 to fome indifcreet acts, it would not be furprifmg. Whether, 
 however, any part of his conduct merits the charader of 'inclif- 
 cretion, may be determined by the documents now and formerly 
 exhibited ; for he has not fought concealment. 
 
 But if the inhabitants thought, what Mr. Ellicott exprefTed, 
 that a change from the jurifdidion of Spain to that of the 
 United States " would ultimately fecure their felicity," it may 
 be accounted for by a few fa&s, which will juftify both one 
 and the other. 
 
 It is well known that the inhabitants of the Natchez dif- 
 tricl: confift chiefly of perfons who were formerly Britiih fubje&s 
 and their defcendants, and of emigrants from the United States. 
 All thefe, born and educated under forms of government fo 
 efTentially different from that of an abfolute monarchy ; and, 
 efpecially, in all criminal and civil caufes, accuftomed to a 
 
,2O. 
 
 mode of trial peculiarly dear to the inhabitants of England 
 and of the United States, and which the conftitutions of the 
 latter have fo formally and fcrupuloufly guarantied, the trial by 
 jury : the inhabitants alfo being nearly all Proteftants ; and in 
 the United States, perfons of all perfuafions enjoying the mod 
 perfect religious as well as civil liberty, they could not be in- 
 different to, it is impoilible that they fhould not prefer a jurif- 
 diction, which would perfectly fecure to them both their civil 
 and religious rights. I need not remark, that, under the 
 Spanifh government, trial by jury is unknown ; and at the 
 Natchez the Governor was the Legiflator and the Judge ; and 
 regulated and retrained their civil and religious rights. As an 
 inftance, might be cited Governor Gayofo's proclamation of 
 the 29th of March 1797, numbered XV in the documents which 
 were laid before Congrefs on the I2th of June laft. By that 
 act he fufpends the collection of debts, and reflrains to private 
 meetings the exercife of any other than the Catholic religion. 
 Thefe are his w r ords " This being the feafon in which the 
 planters are employed in preparing for an enfuing crop, none 
 ihall be difturbed from that important object on account of 
 their depending debts." " Liberty of conference is hereby 
 pofitively explained to be, that no individual of this government 
 ihall be molefted on account of religious principles ; and that 
 they mall not be hindered in their private meetings; but no 
 other public worjbip will be allowed but that generally eftablifhed 
 in all his majeily's dominions, which is the Catholic religion" 
 
 The minifler alfo complains that Mr. Ellicott and Mr. Pope 
 interfered in political matters ; becaufe they engaged thein- 
 lelves to co-operate with the committee appointed to preferve 
 the peace and to obtain the due execution of juftice, and ap- 
 proved of the proportions prefented to Governor Gayofo. But 
 a recurrence to the foregoing narrative extracted from Mr, 
 Ellicott's letter of the 27th of June, and the documents he refers 
 to, will mow that both were requefted to interfere, and that 
 they were called on by the Governor to be confulted on the 
 means of putting an end to the infurrection and that the refult 
 of that confultation was a plan of accommodation, a propofal 
 of meafures which (as afTerted in another document not before 
 quoted*) " through the influence of Mr. Ellicott and Captain 
 Pope were adopted. :> 
 
 A few words on the Spanifh minister's letter of the 21 ft of 
 November, will conclude this report.. 
 
 * Letter from George Cochran to the permanent committee, in Oc- 
 tober. 
 
21. 
 
 Referring to his letter of the 6th of May, and to my anfwer 
 of the 1 7th (which are among the documents laid before Con- 
 grefs on the ryth of May) he fays " His Catholic Majefty 
 has not obferved in the faid anfwer from you, any reafon to 
 induce him to change his opinion concerning the injuries refult- 
 ing to his fubjects from the ftipulations of the Englifh Treaty, 
 compared with thofe of the Treaty with Spain, as well on the 
 fubject of the articles of contraband, as on the principle adop- 
 ted in ours, " That free (hips mail make free goods, &c." 
 
 " But what has mod aftonifhed his Majefty, and confirmed 
 him in the juftice of his pretenfions, is what you have faid in 
 your anfwer with regard to the navigation of the Miflifippi." 
 
 It is much to be regretted that difficulties mould be raifed 
 and perfevered in, on qucftions fo plain and eafy to decide. 
 Without entering again into a particular difcuffion of this fub- 
 ject, a fmgle fact, which on the lyth of May, I fuppofed 
 probable, and which I am now authorized to affert, is fuffi- 
 cient to obviate all the objections and arguments which have 
 been adduced by the Spanifh Minifter. It is this That when 
 the 'Treaty between the United States and Spain was negocia- 
 ted by Mr. Pinckney with the Prince of Peace, the latter was 
 furnimed with an entire copy of the Treaty of Amity, Com- 
 merce and Navigation, between the United States and Great 
 Britain : confequently it is to the laft degree prepofterous for 
 the Spanifh Government now to complain that the Treaty 
 with Great Britain rejected the principle that " Free (hips made 
 free goods," or that it extended the lift of Contraband. With 
 a perfect knowledge of the articles of the Britifh Treaty on 
 thefe points, if the Spanifh Government had any objections to 
 make, that was the time ; and to have refufed to enter into 
 different ftipulations with the United States ; but having, not- 
 withftanding;, voluntarily entered into them, it cannot now 
 offer and infift on fuch objections, without a manifeft depar- 
 ture from the principles of candour and good faith. 
 
 The fame obfervations will apply to the queftion concerning 
 the navigation of the Miflifippi. 
 
 In the firft place, the Spanifh Government, when its Trea- 
 ty of Peace with Great Britain was concluded at Paris on the 
 3d of September 1783, by which Weft Florida was ceded to 
 "Spain, well knew that by the Provifional Treaty between 
 Great Britain and the United States, concluded at Paris the 
 3oth of November 1782, the articles of which conftituted the 
 definitive Treaty of Peace between thefe two powers, it was 
 ftipulated that " The navigation of the river Miflifippi, from 
 its fource to the Ocean, (hall forever remain free and open to 
 
22. 
 
 the fubje&s of Great Britain and the citizens of the United 
 States.' 5 And yet even this ftipulation, which was inviolably 
 binding on the United States, by the Provifional Articles be- 
 fore mentioned, nine months before Weft Florida was ceded 
 to Spain, is now ftrangely objected to by the Spanifh Minifter, 
 and as a reproach to the United States ! 
 
 In the next place, when our Treaty with Spain was con- 
 cluded on the twenty feventh of October 1795, the Spanifh 
 Government poflefled the like perfect knowledge, that eleven 
 months preceding, viz. on the I9th of November 1794, in 
 the Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation, between 
 the United States and Great Britain, the above ftipulation of 
 1782 and 1783 was recognized in thefe words " The river 
 Miffifippi lhall, however, according to the Treaty of Peace, 
 be entirely open to both parties." And on this occafion the 
 Spaniih Government did object ; it wifhed the United States 
 to enter into a mutual ftipulation with Spain for the purpofe of 
 excluding Great Britain from the Navigation of the Miftifippi: 
 but the Minifter of the United States explicitly refufed to do 
 it; and in writing afligned the reafon That it would violate 
 the good Faith of the United States previouily pledged to 
 Great Britain : and the Spanifh Government gave up this ob- 
 jection, or the Minifter of the United States would not have 
 concluded the Treaty. How truly aftonifhing is it, after all 
 this, that the United States mould be reproached for the ftipu- 
 lation with Great Britain refpecting the Navigation of the 
 Miffifippi ! And as having thereby offended zn&infulted Spain ! 
 And how long is our patience to be abufed by fuch unfounded 
 charges ? 
 
 But although the Chevalier de Yrujo, in his argument upon 
 this point, refers alike to our treaty of peace with Great Bri- 
 tain in 1783, to our treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navi- 
 gation in 1794* and to the explanatory Article of the latter 
 concluded on the 4th of May 1796, yet in the end, as if con- 
 fcious that his obfervations, as applied to the two former, 
 were impertinent, he confines his charge to the latter, and 
 fays that " His Catholic Majefty has juft motives for being 
 offended with the Explanatory^ Article figned on the 4th of May 
 1796." But neither does this explanatory Article contain any- 
 new ftipulation. It recognifes the principle, that a fubfe- 
 quent treaty cannot annul any ftipulation of a prior treaty, and 
 declares, that the fubjects of His- Britannic Majefty and the 
 Citizens of the United States, and the Indians dwelling on 
 either fide of the boundary line between the two powers, 
 " Shall remain at full liberty freely to pafs and repafs, by 
 land or inland navigation, into the refpective territories and 
 
2 3- 
 
 countries of the contracting parties, on either fide of the faid 
 boundary line, and freely to carry on trade and commerce with 
 each other, according to the Jtipulations of the faid third article of 
 the Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation :" Thus recurring 
 to, and refting upon the Treaty of November iQth, 1794, 
 \vhich, as above obferved, the Chevalier himfelf finally aban- 
 doned, as affording no caufe of complaint, and without which 
 the Explanatory Article itfelf would be a nullity. 
 
 TIMOTHY PICKERING. 
 
 Department of State y January 22, 1798. 
 
DOCUMENTS. 
 
 (No. i.) 
 
 Proclamation of the Baron de Cartmdelet of the 31/2 cf 
 May, 1797. 
 
 THE Government being informed by his Majefty's AmbafTa- 
 dor to the United States of America, that an expedition allein- 
 bled on the lakes was intended to attack the Illinois, has judged 
 neceflary, for the furety and tranquility of lower Louifiana, to 
 fufpend the evacuation of the polls of Natchez and the Wal- 
 nut Hills, being the only Pods that cover it ; the poiTeffion of 
 which will put the Englifh in a fituation to difturb and ravage 
 the Country, in cafe they render themfelves mailers of upper 
 Louifiana, with fo much more facility, as by an article ot the 
 Treaty concluded pofteriorly with Great Britain, the United 
 States acknowledge that the Englifh may freely navigate and 
 frequent the pods belonging to the faid States, fituated on the 
 rivers in general, lakes, &c. being a man ifeft contradiction to 
 the Treaty concluded with Spain, which it appears to annul, 
 becaufe by this the United States acknowledge that no other 
 nation can navigate upon the Miflifippi without the confent of 
 Spain. 
 
 Notwithstanding the legitimacy of thefe motives, the fuf- 
 penfion has been reprefented to the Congrefs of the United 
 States with all the neceifary veracity, and intimated by our 
 orders to the Commiflary of limits, as well as to the Com- 
 mandant of the detachment of American troops now at Natchez. 
 We are now informed that a detachment of the Army of the 
 United States cantoned on the Ohio, are on their way by Hol- 
 ftein towards Natchez, while the militia of Cumberland are in- 
 timated to hold themfelves ready to march at the rirft notice. 
 
 Thefe hoftile difpofitions can naturally only concern thefe 
 provinces, becaufe the United States are in peace with all the 
 Savages. The anterior menaces of the Commiffary of limits 
 and the Commandant of the detachment of Americans now at 
 Natchez ; the immediate rupture (and if the American gazettes 
 are to be believed) already effected between France our inti- 
 mate Ally and the United States ; engage us to be on our guard 
 to defend our property with that valour and energy which the 
 
 D 
 
26. 
 
 Inhabitants of thefe provinces have manifeftcd on all occafions ; 
 with the advantage and fuperiority which a knowledge of our 
 local fituation will procure and with that confidence which 
 right and juftice infpires. If the Congrefsof the United States 
 had no hoftile intention againft thefe Provinces, they will either 
 leave the Pod of Natchez, or the Walnut Hills, the only Bul- 
 warks of lower Louifiana to flop the courfe of the Britifh, or if 
 that they give us fecurtiy againft the article of the treaty with 
 Great Britain which jexpofes lower Louifiana to be pillaged 
 and deliroyed down to the Capital, we will then deliver up the 
 faid pofts, and lay down our arms which they have forced us- 
 to take up, by arming their Militia in time of peace, and fend- 
 ing a confiderable body of troops by round-about ways to fur- 
 prize us. 
 
 New-Orleans, yjl May, 1797. 
 
 (No. 2.) 
 
 Governor Gayofo dc Lemos, to Andrew Elllcott, Ef quire. 
 
 Natchez, yum I3th, 1797. 
 S I R, 
 
 BY repeated informations and by every appearance it feems 
 paft a doubt that a number of the inhabitants of this govern- 
 ment fubjedts of his Majefty are at prefent in a ftate of rebellion 
 with the hoftile defign of attacking this fort. 
 
 I am informed that yefterday feveral of the faid infurgents 
 were riding through the country foliciting fubfcribers to a lift 
 that already contained the names of feveral perfons who de- 
 clared themfelves citizens of the United States of America, 
 though they are actually under oath of allegiance to His Ma- 
 jefty, and under whofe dominion and protection they have lived 
 and enjoyed the benefits thereof, and the bearers of this lift 
 declare themfelves commiflioned by you for that purpofe. 
 
 I cannot prevail upon myfelf to believe that you have either 
 authorized or encouraged fuch proceedings, as a conduct of that 
 nature would unavoidably produce the moft difagreeable and 
 fatal mifunderftanding between our nations, and the total de- 
 ftruction of this diftrict. 
 
 Therefore I requeft you to give me fuch a pofitive anfwer 
 as will enable me to inform the Commander General of this 
 province for the intelligence of His Majefty, of the part you 
 take in thefe tranfactions ; and mould you take 'fuch an active 
 part as it is reprefented you do, from this moment I proteft 
 
in the name of the faid Commander General againft fuch 
 conduct, and, make you anfvverable for the fatal confeqtiences 
 that may enfue. I repeat the requefl of a pofitive anfvver on 
 this fubje6t. 
 
 I have the honor to be with the greateft regard, 
 Sir, your moll obedient humble fervant, 
 
 MANUEL GAYOSO de LEMOS. 
 Hon. Andrew Ellicott. 
 
 Andrew Ellicott, Ef quire > to Governor Gaysfo de Lemos. 
 
 Natchez, June I3th, 179". 
 S I R, 
 
 IN order to anfweryour letter of this day that (from the fpirh 
 of it) denies the exigence of that principle which has been the 
 object of a long train of difcufTion between us, I mud refer to 
 your letter dated the I2th of March lad. In that letter you 
 admit not only that Daniel Clarke's will be about the point 
 of demarcation, but that the Cdmmiflioner of His Catholic 
 Majefty would in all probability meet me at that place. As 
 the treaty itfelf was a fa& notorious, fo likewife ought to be 
 all the transactions attending it either in direct performance or 
 open violation. The people therefore became acquainted with 
 thofe circumftances that were the refult either of my obfer- 
 vations, or the acquiefcence of the Spanifh governmemV^They 
 were matters that involved their felicity, and could not from 
 duty or decency be withheld. If on the prefent oocafion, the 
 people have thought proper to adt in conformity to the intel- 
 ligence received, which intelligence had the combined fanclions 
 of the agents of both governments for its fupport is my 
 agency to be afcribed, or my condudt to be called to account 
 with regard to the effects ? A little enquiry into the human 
 heart, would have enabled you, Sir, to have difcovered a more 
 powerful caufe than any operation of mine on the prefent oc- 
 cafion. The people confidered themfelves citizens of the 
 United States^-they had a right to confider themfelves fo 
 and they have lately come forward individually to exprefs their 
 willies and mentions. 
 
 After this fhort detail of what is the real caufe of the prefent 
 didurbance, I might flatter myfelf with a complete acquittal 
 on your part, did not the firit paragraph of your laft letter 
 compel me to form a different conclufion. On what principle 
 do you ftill retain the idea, that the citizens of this country are 
 
28. 
 
 iubje&s of His Catholic Majefty ? Is there not a compact 
 deliberately entered into by the two nations to the contrary of 
 your opinion ? Have not you acknowlcged me to be the agent 
 of the United States to carry that compact into effect ? And 
 have you not repeatedly pledged your word to co-operate with 
 me in that defirable object ? Here I might with propriety afk 
 what human alfurances could have gone further than thofe 
 that have been made on your part ? Do all folemn obligations 
 between nations depend upon chance, or caprice, or is there 
 fuch a principle univerfally acknowleged among different na- 
 tions as the law of nature and nations ? If your Excellency 
 admits that there is fuch a principle as national law, I alTert 
 that the inhabitants of this country cannot be ccnfidered as 
 any wife fubje6ts of the Spanifh monarchy. If you deny the 
 exiftence of the principle, I have only to obferve that the people 
 cannot with propriety be cenfured for recurring to that conduct, 
 which will ultimately fecure their felicity. 
 
 I have thus far proceeded by way of argument in anfwer 
 to your communication, from the whole of which you will 
 readily infer a very natural conclufion, that the delay op your 
 part, in carrying the late treaty into effect, added to the inva- 
 riable nature of the human heart, have produced the evils of 
 which you complain. 
 
 But fincc you demand a pofitive reply to the general queflion, 
 whether I am concerned in meafures deftructive of His Ca- 
 tholic Majefty 's intereft, or in an attempt to attack the fort 
 I give you my honor that I am not : you have affifted me in 
 confirming the fentiment that this territory belongs to the Uni- 
 ted States and I do now therefore on the part of the faid 
 United States, as their agent, mod folemnly and pointedly, 
 proteft againft the landing of any troops, or the reparation of 
 any fortifications, in this territory above the 31 ft degree of 
 north latitude, as I /hall confider all fuch conduct as a violation 
 of the treaty, and an immediate attack, upon the honor and 
 dignity of my country. 
 
 I fhall now finally obferve, that from your verbal meffage 
 by your Adjutant, Major Minor, I expected that your Ex- 
 cellency would have propofed fome fcheme of accommodation 
 that would have been confident with the juftice, and fenti- 
 ment, of the countries we have the honor to ferve. 
 
 Should you have any propofals to make for an accommo- 
 dation, I allure you that I feel every wifh to enter into a dif- 
 cuflion for that purpofe. 
 
 I am, &c. 
 
 A. ELLICOTT. 
 
(No. 4.) 
 
 STATEMENT of the principles on which I find myfelf dif- 
 pofed, according to my duty, to put in practice for the tran- 
 quilityofthe Country. 
 
 ift. That all the people in general now collected or are 
 collecting in bodies, fhall dilpcrfe and return to their farms and 
 continue peaceably their domeftic bufmefs. 
 
 2d. That by fo doing it is warranted to them that they fhall 
 not be profecuted for the prefent difturbance. 
 
 3d. That as an explanation, to banilh fome doubtful appre- 
 henfions that perhaps has given rife to the prefent difturbance, 
 I aiVure the public there are no preparations againft them ; 
 that the detachment of troops coming up the river is not in- 
 tended for this place, and are to proceed to their deftination ; 
 nor have I ordered any troops from Nogales to reinforce me. 
 
 4th. That no Indians have been called, that no roads have 
 been or mall be flopped. 
 
 5th. That there is no war declared between His Catholic 
 Majefty and the United States ; on the contrary it is the in- 
 tention of his Majefty to continue the beft harmony between 
 the two Nations, in confequence thereof I have not the leaft 
 idea of acling in a hoflile manner againft any force or perfons 
 belonging to the United States, and whilft this good intelli- 
 gence fubfifts between the two nations, no alteration fhall be 
 made on thefe principles ; on the contrary, I fhall employ my 
 greateft exertions to make every refident of this Government 
 as happy as poiFible, further I declare that they fhall not be 
 embodied as Militia, but againft an invalion of this Country ; 
 and if Military bodies fhall be wanted out of this Diftricl:, they 
 fhall only be formed by volunteers. 
 
 MANUEL GAYOSO de LEMOS. 
 
 Natchez l^th June 1797. 
 
 (No. 5 .) 
 
 Don Manuel Gayofo de Lemos, Brigadier in the Royal Armies, 
 Governor Military and Political of Natchez and its dependencies, 
 &c. &f. &c. 
 
 WHEREAS the confufion in which the Country is at pre- 
 fent involved threatens the entire deft ru 61: ion of its Inhabitants ; 
 jt is our duty to employ every means to fave them from certain 
 
.30- 
 
 ruin, which will be inevitable if they do not liften to the fa- 
 lutary advice which the Voice of humanity dictates to our con- 
 ftant attention to the welfare of every individual of this Go- 
 vernment lenity in its greateft extent accompanies the obedience 
 that is required, and general forgivenefs will be the fruit of a 
 candid repentance , and theexa6t compliance with the follow- 
 ing conditions. 
 
 From the day after the publication of the prefent Procla- 
 mation, ail perfons collected in bodies, or are colle&ing for 
 any purpofe not fanctioned by us, will immediately difperfe, 
 and every individual retire to the place of his refidence, attend 
 to his farm, or other occupation, in a peaceable manner, and 
 confider himfelf in the fame light as before the prefent diftur- 
 bance, never to aifemble again upon the fame principles as the 
 prefent, nor conftder themfelves as bound to do it, when called 
 upon fimilar purpofes, whilft under the Government and laws 
 ot his Majefty. 
 
 Any perfon who from attachment to the Government and 
 Laws of his Majefty, and with a view to prevent the impend- 
 ing calamity, ihould have aftembled in bodies aje likewife to 
 difperfe. 
 
 No perfcn fhall ever be upbraided on account of his differing 
 in opinion with any other, which, when net carried to excefs 
 is allowed to every man ; when it is not injurious to the Go- 
 vernment, and consequently to the community in general, 
 
 By fo complying a general forgivenefs is warranted to every 
 perfon who has been concerned in tjie prefent diflurbance, and 
 no enquiry (hall be made for their names. 
 
 It has been reprefen.ted to us that the prefent commotion has 
 partly arifen from the following apprehcnfiens. 
 
 That a war might be actually declared between his Majefty 
 and the United States of America. 
 
 That forces were accumulating here to treat with rigor thofe 
 Inhabitants who have manifeftecl a partiality for the Govern- 
 ment of the United States, and that Indians had been called 
 upon for their aftiftance. 
 
 That the roads and water communications were flopped ; 
 and that the Inhabitants were to be compelled to embody into 
 Military Corps. 
 
 To banifh thefe unfounded apprehenfions and finally tran- 
 quillife the minds of the people, we do hereby allure them that 
 no war ex ids between his Majefty and the United States ; but 
 en the contrary the moft friendly intercourfe is recommended 
 to both Nations. No forces are accumulating here, and thofe 
 for Nogales* are for the fole purpofe' of oppofmg an alu,al 
 
 -* The Walnut Hills. 
 
3 1 - 
 
 enemy. No Indians have been called. No interruptions have 
 or dial 1 be put to land or water communications ; and under 
 the prefent lituation of this Country, no corps of MiUth ihali 
 be formed ; but if any mould be wanted, out of the Diftri&, 
 volunteers only ihall be called for, except in cafe of an inva- 
 fion, either by water or by land within the extent of this Go- 
 vernment ; in which cafe natural defence and general fafety 
 admits of no exceptions. 
 
 The Alcaldes in each DiftricT:, or perfons commiifioned for 
 the purpofeofpromulgingthis Proclamation are hereby ordered 
 to make it public with all poflible expedition, that it may pro- 
 duce the defirable good effeft. 
 
 Given under my hand and the feal of my arms, and coun- 
 terfigned by the Secretary of this Government. 
 
 MANUEL GAYOSO de LEMOS. 
 
 Natchez I4*h June 1797. 
 
 J. VI DAL. 
 
 (No. 6.) 
 
 Don Manuel Gayofo de Lemos, Brigadier General in the Ryyal Ar- 
 mies ', Governor Military and Political cf Natchez and its depen^ 
 dencies, &c. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 THE following proportions being unanimoufly agreed to by 
 us the underwritten (being a Committee appointed by a very 
 numerous and refpedlable meeting of the Inhabitants of this 
 Diftrift) and A. Ellicott, Citizen and Commiffioner of the 
 United States, and P. S. Pope, commanding the United 
 States troops on the Miflifippi, are fubmitted to your Excel- 
 lency with a requeft that you may accede to and tranfniit a 
 copy of the fame to the Baron de Carondelet, and obtain his 
 concurrence in order to reftore tranquility to this Diftri6t. 
 
 I ft. The Inhabitants of the diilricl of Natchez, who under 
 the belief and perfuafion that they were citizens of the United 
 States, agreeably to the late Treaty, have afTembled and embo- 
 died themfelves, are not to be profecuted or injured for their 
 conducT; on that account, but to ftand exonerated and acquitted. 
 
 2d. The Inhabitants of the Government aforefaid above the 
 31 ft degree of North Latitude, are not to be embodied as Mi- 
 litia, or called upon to aid in any military operation except in 
 cafe of an Indian invafion, or for the fuppreffion of riots during 
 
the prefent ftate of uncertainty, owing to the late treaty be- 
 tween the United States and His Catholic Majefty not being 
 fully carried into effect:. 
 
 3d. The laws of Spain in the above Di(t.rict lhall be conti- 
 nued, and on all occafions be executed with mildnefs and mo- 
 deration, norfhall any of the Inhabitants be tranfported as pri- 
 foners out of this Government on any pretext whatever, and 
 notwithstanding the operation of the law aforelaid is hereby 
 admitted, yet the Inhabitants mail be confidered to be in an 
 actual (late of neutrality during the continuance of their un- 
 certainty, as mentioned in the fecond proportion. 
 
 4th. The Committee afore faid do engage to recommend it to 
 our Constituents, and to the utmofi of ou-r power endeavour to 
 preferve the peace and promote the due execution of jultice. 
 
 We are your moil Obedient and 
 
 Humble Servants, 
 
 A. HUTCHINS, 
 BERNARD LINTOT, 
 ISAAC GUILLARD, 
 CATO WEST, 
 WILLIAM RATLIFF, 
 GABRIEL BONOIST, 
 JOSEPH BERNARD. 
 Natchez, June 22</, 1797. 
 
 Don Manuel Gayofo de Lemos, Brigadier General in the Royal Ar- 
 mies of Spain, Governor Military and Political of Natchez and 
 its dependencies, &c. 
 
 I DO hereby accede to the four foregoing propofitions efta- 
 blifhed and agreed upon for the purpofe of re-eftablifhing the 
 peace and tranquility of this Country ; and that it may be con- 
 jftant and notorious I fign the prefent under the Seal of my 
 Arms and counterfigned by the Secretary of this Government. 
 
 At Government Houfe, Natchez, 
 12d June, 1797. 
 
 MANUEL GAYOSO de LEMOS. 
 
 By His Excellency's command, 
 
 JH. VIDAL. 
 A true Copy from 
 the Original. 
 
 D. GILLESPY, Sec'ry. 
 
33' 
 
 (No. 7.) 
 
 'WE' the underwritten do engage to co-operate with the 
 Committee appointed by a numerous and refpeclable meeting 
 of the Inhabitants of the Diltrid of Natchez, to preferve the 
 peace and to obtain the due execution of jr.itice, and do here- 
 by approve of the proportions prefented Governor Gayofo by 
 the (aid Committee and acceded to by. him. 
 
 A ITT T T/^rrrT / Citizen and Commiflioner 
 **\ of the United State. 
 
 ( Commanding the United 
 P. S. POPE, < States troops on the Mif- 
 (^ iiiippi. 
 
 June 22d y 1797. 
 
 (No. 8.) 
 
 Don Manuel Gay if o de Lemos, General In the Royal Armies, Gover- 
 Kir Military and Political of Natchez and its dependencies, &c. 
 fcff . &f. 
 
 WHEREAS the threatening calamities to which the Inha- 
 bitants of this DiftricT: have been lately expofed, did awake the 
 zeal of every individual and roufe them to feek the molt effica- 
 cious means of re-eftablifhinj good order, and that tranquility 
 which for many days was loft ; the good fenfe of a number of 
 the Inhabitants dictated to them the neceffity of a Convention, 
 in which they chofe perfons of the inoft notorious probity and 
 intelligence as a Committee to co-operate with us towards the 
 re-eftablifhing of the public peace and tranquility ; and the 
 members of the faid Committee having met at Natchez, after 
 due deliberations and confultations, ftated and prefented us the 
 following propofitions, in the terms and form here expreiTed, 
 to wit. [Then follow the propofitions No. 6.] 
 
 Being always defirous of promoting the public good, we do 
 join in the fame fentiment with the Committee, by acceding to 
 their propofitions in a manner following [fee the propofitions 
 No. 6.] 
 
 (Signed) MANUEL GAYOSO d- LEMOS. 
 
 JOSEPH VI DAL, Secretary, 
 Natchez, June 22^, 1797. 
 
 E . 
 
34- 
 
 (No. 9.) 
 
 S I R, 
 
 THE many proofs that the Committee has of your defire t 
 contribute to the welfare of this Country, encourage it to 
 requeft of you the fervice mentioned in our firft refolve of yef* 
 terday, of which it inclofes you a copy. 
 I have the honor to be, Sir, 
 
 Your moft humble and obedient Servant, 
 
 JOSEPH BERNARD, 
 
 Chairman. 
 Committee Room, Sept. i^th, 1797. 
 
 The Honorable Andrew Ellicott, Efquire,"^ 
 Commifiioner of the United States for > 
 running the boundary line, &c. J 
 
 Refolved, i. That the 5th refolve of the 29th ult. be refcinded, 
 and that Mr. Ellicott whofe inclination for the intereft and hap- 
 pinefs of this country we have a convincing proof of in his 
 former communications to the general Government, publifhed 
 fmce and now in our hands, and who, from his refidence for 
 feveral months amongft us is well acquainted with the circum- 
 ftances of this Country, be requefted to reprefent our prefent 
 fituation to his Excellency the Prefident of the United States, 
 and likewife all the meafures which he mail deem to be condu- 
 cive to the future welfare of this Country in the event of the 
 late treaty between His Catholic Majefty and the United States 
 being carried fully into effecl:. 
 
 True Copy. 
 
 G. BENOIST, Secretary. 
 
 (No. 10.) 
 
 Don Stephen Minor 9 Captain in the Royal Armies, Aid, Major and 
 Governor, pro tern, of the Natchez and its dependencies, &c. 
 
 I DO certify that Colonel Peter Bryan Bruin, Daniel Clark, 
 Jofeph Barnard, Frederick Kimball, Gabriel Benoift, Ifaac 
 Gaillard, Philander Smith, Roger Dixon and William Ratliff, 
 Efquires, members of the Permanent Committee, duly elected 
 by the people at large, under the fandion of Government, are 
 the true and ible reprefentatives of the Inhabitants of this G- 
 
35- 
 
 vernment, and that faith is due to their proceedings as fuch, as 
 alfo to the reprefentations they may make in behalf of the pub- 
 lic in all cafes. 
 
 In Teftimony whereof I have hereunto fet my 
 hand and affixed my feal, at Government Houfc, 
 (L. S.) Natchez, this 'fixteenth day of September, one thou- 
 fand feven hundred and ninety feven. 
 
 STEPHEN MINOR. 
 
 I do certify that the above is a true copy of a Certificate 
 obtained from Governor Minor, by the Committee, and lodged 
 among their files. 
 
 D. GILLESPIE, 
 
 Secretary to the American Commif- \ 
 fioner and permanent Committee. / 
 
 (No. 11.) 
 
 Stephen Minor, Efquire, Captain in the Royal Armies, and Go- 
 vernor of the Natchez for the time being. 
 
 IT being the undeniable and unalienable right of Free- 
 men, to aflemble in an orderly and peaceable manner for the 
 purpofe of confulting and deliberating on their mutual intereft, 
 no oppofition {hall be made by the officers of his Catholic Ma- 
 jefty to any affembly, whether partial or general, of the inha- 
 bitants refiding in this diftrift, if conducted upon the princi- 
 ples of good order and decorum. 
 
 I do therefore hereby grant permiflion for the aflemblies or 
 meetings, required in this addrefs, to take place on the day 
 appointed and in manner recommended. 
 
 STEPHEN MINOR. 
 
 Augujl 16, 1797. 
 
 (No. 12.) 
 
 'The Chevalier de Trujo, Minlfter Plenipotentiary of his Catholic 
 Majejiy, &c. &c. to Timothy Pickering, Efquire, Secretary 
 of State. 
 
 S I R, 
 
 YOUR additional report to the Prefident of the United 
 
 States of the proceedings of the Officers of the King of Spain, 
 
 in relation to the poft and the running of the boundary line, 
 
 I which I find pub limed in all the newfpapers, obliges me to 
 
36- 
 
 trouble you with this letter. If your difcufiion of facts had 
 been as correct and impartial as there was reafon to expect, I 
 mould not have been under the neceffity of undertaking this talk ; 
 but the conftruction which you are plcafed to put upon every 
 act of the Spanifh Officers in general, and efpecially upon thofe 
 in which I am perfonally concerned, compels me toobferve up- 
 on feveral expreffions, which I have noticed in your laid Report, 
 
 You begin, Sir, with faying, " that altho' I had declared 
 I had juft reafons for fufpecting an expedition from Canada 
 \vas preparing by the Britifh againft the upper parts of 
 Louifiana, yet I never had mentioned a fmgle fact or reafon 
 on which my fufpicion was founded." In my letter of the 2d 
 of March, I pointed out to you the probable route which the 
 expedition would take, and in our conference of the 2yth of 
 February, I gave you information that a corps of 350 men had 
 been railed at Montreal, and marched towards the Lakes, 
 where, after the evacuation of the American fort?, there was 
 no often flble object for them. I alfo told you that I knew that 
 the Briiith Agents had treated with fome of the Indian Nations 
 in that country, concerning the intended expedition, and I 
 added, that I had received thofe advices from a perfon who 
 might be depended on, who had feen thofe new levies paffing 
 thro' Johnftown, on their way to the weftward. But, even 
 fuppoimg that I had not entered into any particalars, even 
 ftippoing that my information at that period was not com- 
 plete, yet did not the intereft and dignity of this Government 
 did not its friendly connection with Spain, require that it 
 mould have taken every proper means to prevent the attempt 
 we were threatened with, by giving fuitable orders to Gene- 
 ral Wilkinfon, or to the Commanding Officers of the Mili- 
 tary Force on thofe frontiers ? The abfolute filence in this 
 particular of the documents which accompany the Report of 
 the Secretary of \V ar, your never having communicated to me 
 any determinate difpofition on this point, as you do in your an- 
 fwer to my letter, which in the publication is marked No. 7. 
 afford me fufficient grounds to fear that thefe precautions were 
 omitted. ^ You add, Sir, with a degree of candour difficult to 
 be conceived, that from my not having given to you detailed 
 information refpecting the expedition, and from the anfwer 
 which you received on the io,th ultimo, from the Britifh Mini- 
 jler, you believed my fufpicions to be groundlefs. Is it poffi- 
 ble, that any one will candidly imagine, that if the Engliih 
 intended to violate the territory of the United States, in order 
 to effect a coup de mam, they would be as ingenious in anfwer- 
 ing, as you were in afking their Minifter the queftion ? 
 
 I mail riot enter into all the obfervations which iuggeft 
 
37- 
 
 themfelves to my mind from your having communicated to 
 Mr. Lifton the contents of my letters. I expected that the 
 American Government would have watched his motions, and 
 taken the means which I have already mentioned to prevent the 
 fuccefs of a fimilar enterprize ; but I never could have imagin- 
 ed that you would have given to the Britifh Minifler a piece of 
 advice, which might enable him to alter his plan, by .letting 
 him know that the former one was discovered. By the line of 
 conduct which you have perfued in this bufmefs, I am con- 
 vinced, that had I communicated to you more particular de- 
 tails refpecting this tranfaction, you would, with the fame 
 good-natured franknefs, have given information of them to 
 Mr. Lifton. 
 
 But, if you did believe that afking this queftion of the Britifh 
 Envoy was the mod efficacious means to prevent the violation 
 of the neutrality of the United States, and the invafion of the 
 Spanifh territory, let me afk why you was lo rcmiis in this 
 meafure, that although I had communicated this project to you 
 verbally, on the 27th of February, and on the 2d of March, 
 in writing;;, yet, in a matter obvioully fo urgent, you only wrote 
 to the Britifh. Envoy on the 28th of April, that ij, t-iw* ninths 
 afterwards r 
 
 I ihall not quit this fubje^, without taking the liberty of 
 making to you one obfervatinn which is intimately count 
 with it. By the date of the letter I have juil mentioned, it 
 evidently appears that I gave you advice of this intended expe- 
 dition on the fecond of March, and that three days before y I had 
 given you the fame information, verbally. I imagined from 
 your known attention to bufinefs, and the importance of the 
 fubject, that you would have fubmitted it immediately to the 
 confederation of the Prelident of the United States. On the qth 
 of March, I had the honor of (peaking to Mr. Adams, at his 
 lodgings at Francis's Hotel, and mentioned this fubjecl; as a 
 matter that I {uppofed him already fully informed of; arid, it 
 was with no fmall furprize I heard him fay, that he knew 
 nothing about it. I produced the map, which I had in my 
 pccket-book, and he liftened with great attention to all that 
 I had to fay to him. It was no doubt to this conference with 
 Mr. Adams, that I was indebted to your anfwer of the nth 
 of the fame month. I mail entirely abftain from putting any 
 construction upon the reafons which induced you to omit mak- 
 ing this communication to the Preiident ; but they mud have 
 been very powerful motives which could oblige you to remain fl> 
 long filent on a matter of fuch importance. 
 
 You fay, in the third paragraph of your Report, that on your 
 afking me what meafures Spain had taken in order to carry into 
 
execution that part of the Treaty which relates to the with- 
 drawing the garrifons, I anfwered you on the I ^th of April, 
 that I had been for fome months without receiving letters from 
 the Baron, and confequently " was entirely ignorant of the 
 fteps which had been taken for the execution of the Treaty." 
 From this expreflion, which, in order to draw attention, you 
 place between inverted commas, you infmuate an inference 
 which in my opinion is very far from being true, when you 
 add, immediately afterwards : " Nevertheless, he had previouJJy 
 Informed the Baron of his fufpicions of a projected expedition." 
 What is tliis to prove, Sir ? That the Baron indeed had re- 
 ceived my letters, but not that I had received his. The irre- 
 gularity and uncertainty of navigation eafily ihows that your 
 logic on this point is extremely falfe. 
 
 In the lifth paragraph, after giving an account of my letter 
 of the 24th ultimo, and of its object, you obferve that I have 
 omitted to mention, among the other complaints of the Baron 
 that of Mr. Eliicott's not having given him notice of his arrival 
 at Natchez. Permit me, Sir, to reprefent to you, that you 
 have entirely miftaken what I had the honor of telling you on 
 that occafion, for I fimply mentioned, not as a complaint, but 
 as a mere obfervation, that the Baron, in the rigour, might not 
 have coniidered Mr. Ellicott as an American Corn mifti oner, 
 for not having given him on his arrival official notice of his ap- 
 pointment, having merely informed him of it in the way of a 
 confidential communication. You cannot be ignorant, Sir, 
 that there are certain requifite formalities when Nations treat 
 with one another of their mutual concerns, which are not re- 
 quired between individuals. The Baron, when he fpeaks in 
 this manner, clearly points out his meaning, that, befides the 
 confidential letter, the communication of which you conjider as 
 Jo important, no doubt he expected another official one, includ- 
 ing his Commiflion, Authority, or fome other document, to 
 afcertain the identity of the perfon, and the object of his mif- 
 fion. When, on my arrival in this country, I had not yet 
 prefented my credentials to the Prefident, although I had de- 
 livered to you a copy of them, you might, in the rigour, not 
 have recognized me as the Envoy Extraordinary of the King 
 my Mailer, for want of having complied with that necefTary 
 requifite of the eftabifhed etiquette. I do not mean to fay that 
 in the prefent cafe it was absolutely neceflary to go through a 
 fimilar formality ; nor did the Baron mention this but as a mere 
 matter of obfervaticn, which was not to affect: the object in quef- 
 tion, although you, thinking that it affords you a victorious 
 argument, are pleafed to give to this circumftance an impor- 
 tance which it does not deferve. Befides, Sir, I might ob- 
 
39- 
 
 ferve to you, that when, after a mixed and defultory conver- 
 fation upon various fubjects, I had collected and methodized 
 my ideas, and committed them to writing, your anfwer and 
 obfervations ought to have been confined to the written com- 
 munication, clothed with all the neceffary formalities; but 
 neither do I wiih to make of this an object of difcuflion. 
 
 The proof which you give in the fixth paragraph of your 
 Report, to mew that it is not certain that Mr. Ellicott intended 
 to get poffeflion of Natchez by furprize, and that for that pur- 
 pofe he had endeavoured to gain over the inhabitants, is merely 
 negative. From your examination of the two perfons you 
 mention, you had very little to expect : the circumftance alone 
 of their being the bearers of Mr. Ellicott's difpatches, points 
 out that they were both in his confidence; and it may be pre- 
 fumed without temerity, that being his friends, or employed 
 under his orders, they would hardly make a denunciation that 
 might be prejudicial to him. Governor Gayofo declares that 
 he has proofs of the fact in his power. I ihallnot fail to apply 
 to him for them, and perhaps I may one day fpeak to you 
 more pofitively on this bufmeis. 
 
 After having difcuffed the hiftory of thefe tranfactions with 
 all the force and accuracy which refult from thefe obfervations, 
 you allure with a very ill-grounded confidence, that upon a 
 view of the whole it appears that His Majefty's Governors on 
 the Miflifippi, have, on various pretences, poftponed the run- 
 ning of the boundary line and the evacuation of the pofts. But 
 I appeal to that candour which you have fo generoufly fhewn 
 to the Britifh Minifler, that you may tell me, whether it can 
 be called a pretence, that the Baron de Carondelet, who was 
 entrufted with the fafety of Louifiana, refufed to carry into 
 execution a pretention that ^uas not ftipulated for by the treaty ? 
 By the fecond article it is only agreed that the garrlfons (hall be 
 withdrawn ; and as I had the honor of reprefenting to you in 
 my letter of the 24th ultimo, it is not to be prefumed that 
 it could ever have been the intention of his Catholic Majefty to 
 deliver up fortifications, which, befides that they have coft him 
 confiderable fums of money, may by the effect of political vi- 
 ciflitudes, be one day prejudicial to his fubjects. If not to do 
 what was not ftipulated for, and the execution of which would 
 be contrary to the interefts of Spain, is a pretence, we mult 
 confefs that it is a very plaufible one. 
 
 With refpect to the line of demarcation, it appears by the 
 cofrefpondence and letters of the Baron de Carondelet, which 
 are in my pofleflion, that although he entertained the fame 
 doubts which were fuggefted by Governor Gayofo refpecting 
 the pofts, yet he was confenting, that the aftronomical obfer- 
 
40. 
 
 vations fhouldbe begun upon, for which purpofe the Engineer 
 Mr. de Guillemand had already arrived at the Natchez, with 
 all the inftruments and apparatus. Such was the fituation of 
 things when my communications refpe&ing the intended expe- 
 dition got to hand ; from that moment imperious neceflity, 
 and the great principle of felf-defence, made His Catholic 
 Majefty's Officers turn their thoughts to objects of a more ur- 
 gent nature. Mr. Blount's letter, and the late detected con- 
 fpiracy, evince how far their conduct in this refpecl: was ne- 
 ceffary ; and you, Sir, pofleft as you were, of all the facts, 
 when you laid the facts before the Prefident, ought to have 
 been one of the laft to have ftigmatized the motives with the 
 epithet of pretexts. So palpable an attempt to make ground- 
 lefsand unfair impreffions on the public mind, is well calcu- 
 lated to defeat its own ends, and appear (till more extraordi- 
 nary when we confider that the American Government is in 
 every way anxious, by its own confeffion, to maintain peace 
 and harmony with Spain. 
 
 Nor do your ill-founded infinuations ftop here : fentiments 
 and expreflions ftill more violent, flow from that fame hafty 
 pen. You fay in another part, that there is but too much reafon 
 to believe Mr. Ellicott's fufpicions well-founded, that an undue 
 influence has been exercifed over the Indians by the Officers of his 
 Catholic Majefty, to prepare them for a rupture with the United 
 States. Fortunately, Sir, you have told us the fource whence 
 you derived all thofe dreadful conjectures of your's; other- 
 wife, perhaps, the weight and authority which your high 
 official character ftamps upon whatever you write or fay, 
 might make an undue impreffion on the public. You acknow- 
 ledge, Sir, 'twas a private letter of Mr. Sargent's (Secretary 
 of the North-weftern Territory) that gave rife to your furmi- 
 fes : we ihall now fee what the letter lays. 
 
 [ No. 14. ] 
 
 Extract of a letter from Winthrop Sargent, Ef quire. Secretary of 
 the North-weftern Territory, to the Secretary of State, dated 
 Cincinnati, June ^d, 1797. 
 
 GENERAL WILKINSON fending off an exprefs, I feize 
 the occafion to tranfcribe for you fome paragraphs from a 
 weftern letter. 
 
 " The Spaniards are reinforcing their upper pofts on the 
 Miflifippi considerably. General Howard, an Irifhman, in 
 quality of Commander in Chief, with upwards of three hun- 
 dred men, is arrived at St. Louis, and employed in erecting 
 very formidable works. It Hkewife appears through various 
 
channels, that they are inviting a great number of Indians 
 of the territory to crofs the Milfifippi ; and for this exprefs 
 purpofe, Mr. Lorromie, an officer in the pay of the Crown, 
 made a tour through all this country laft fall, iince which time 
 feveral Indians have been font on the fame errand, and gene- 
 rally furnifhed with plenty of caih to defray their expeiices. 
 
 " A large party of Delaware* patted down on White River 
 about the 6th of May, on their way to the Spanilh fide, bear- 
 ing the national flag of Spain, fome of them from Saint Louis. 
 
 " They (the Spaniards) have above the mouth of the Ohio, 
 on the Miillfippi, feveral row-gallies with cannon." 
 
 Now, Sir, what inference can be drawn from that letter ? 
 Why, that the Spaniards have fortified San Luis, and availed 
 themfelves of every means of defence that the country afforded! 
 But let me afk you, Sir, againft whom it is that they were 
 thus preparing to defend themfelves ? Surelv the documents 
 which you have laid before the Prefident, and the momentous 
 bufmefs which now engages the attention of Congrefs, and 
 agitates the public at large, afford a complete and fatisfa&ory 
 anfwer. 
 
 I mention to you, in my letter of 2d March, that the object 
 of the Britifh was to attack Upper Louifiana, and take San 
 Luis and New Madrid by furprize. It will not be queflioned 
 but that prudence required of us, at that juncture, to fortify 
 the threatened points. This, Sir, was all we did; and this, 
 Sir, you knew many months paft ; yet Mr. Sargent's letter, 
 which in fubftance fays no more, fills you all at once with 
 fears and feif-created apprehenfions, and makes you declare in 
 the face of the American people, " that the Spanifh Officers 
 are exciting the Indians to a rupture with us." No one will 
 fay, that preparations for our felf-defence were not necelThry 
 on our part. The aifurance given you by the Britifh Minifter, 
 with all the appearance of a confidential commuuication, but 
 without any fignature, did not infpire the feryants of his Catho- 
 lic Majeity with the fame blind confidence which it produced 
 in you. We know from daily experience how religioufly the 
 Britifh nation obferves the rights of neutrality. Witnefs the 
 American failors ! Witnefs the Republic of Genoa, in whofe 
 port they attacked and made prize of the French frigate La 
 Mod-ode, as me lay at anchor there. Witnefs the inhabitants 
 of Trinidad, when the Britifh, though then in amity with 
 them, entered their capital, with drums beating and colours 
 Hying, in purfuit of a few French, who had taken refuge 
 there. Thefe and other inftances of the fort, too numerous to 
 be recapitulated, make us lefs credulous on the fcore of Great- 
 Britain's refpect for the rights of neutrality than you appear to 
 -have been, 
 
 F 
 
42. 
 
 As to thofc tender confiderations which actuated the Britiilr 
 Minifter to reject the plan on account of the inhumanity of 
 calling in the aid of the Indians, I did expect that fuch vague, 
 unauthenticated declarations, would have been appreciated as 
 they deferved by you, Sir, who fought in the glorious caufe of 
 American Independence, who witneiTed the humanity of their 
 conduct in the courfe of that war, and who cannot be ignorant 
 of what has happened lince. 
 
 Your afcribing hoftile views to the preparations for our felf- 
 defence, .cannot, Sir, have been matter of much furprize to 
 me, after having heard a certain Member of Congrefs, who is 
 known to be the organ of the will of adminiftration, declare 
 in that Houfe that he afcribed to the fame motives the prepa- 
 rations we were making for the defence of Florida, though 
 probably he was not ignorant, at the very time, of their real 
 objecl:. Thus then, Sir, according to your mode of reafoning, 
 and that of the Gentleman I have juft alluded to, though we 
 were certain of being attacked, and though we were not cer- 
 tain that the American Government had taken the proper mea- 
 fures for protecting its neutrality, yet we were to adopt no 
 meafures for our defence, but tamely fuffer his Majefty's forts 
 and pofFeffions to be taken, and all this for fear of creating ill- 
 founded fufpicions in your minds ! 
 
 If you have not been very fuccefsful, Sir, in the folidity of 
 your reafonings, you appear not to be more fo in the method 
 of following them. After having denounced us to the whole 
 American nation as ftirring up the Indians againft the United 
 States, and preparing them for a rupture, you fall into the moft 
 glaring inconfiftency in the following paragraph : Whether 
 this plan of exciting the Indians to direfl hoftilities againji the United 
 States, has been contemplated and promoted by any of our own Citi- 
 zens, it may be difficult to fay ; but that one or more of thofe Citizens 
 have propped and taken meafures to detach the Southern Indians from 
 the inter ejh of the United States, and to deftroy the influence of the pub- 
 lic Agents over thofe nations, and thus to defeat the great objects of their 
 appointment, the chief of which is to preferve peace, is certain. 
 
 I again appeal here, Sir, to your generous candor. How 
 is it pofTible to reconcile fuch evident contradictions ? On the 
 one hand the Spanim Officers are thofe who excite the Southern 
 Indians againft the United States, and on the other you quickly 
 follow prefuming, with fufficient foundation in my opinion, 
 that it may be fome Citizens of the United States. But al- 
 though you might entertain any doubts yourfelf on the fubjecT:, 
 which I am fure no perfon in America will after reading Mr. 
 Blount's letter, did not this very fame doubtful cafe and uncer- 
 tainty, require in your fituation more circumfpeft language ? 
 
43- 
 
 And if even in this cafe you appear to have gone beyond what 
 found policy, the tranquility and intereft of the United States 
 required, how much more unjuit are your infmuations againft 
 Spain, when the public poffefs, in Mr. Bloimt's letter, a do- 
 cument by which they can fee, that if the manoeuvres with the 
 Indians were not favourable to the United States, they were 
 precifely combined to attack the Spaniards? From this me- 
 thod of reafoning of yours, it appears as if the Spaniards were, 
 jointly with Mr. Blount, ftirring up the Indians to attack 
 them! elves. 
 
 Refpecting the laft article of your Report, I have only to ob- 
 ferve, that although you have constantly allured me that Go- 
 vernment had not the leaft information refpecling the fubjecl: 
 of my reprefentations, and although the letter of Mr. Jackfon, 
 of Georgia, appears to coincide with your ideas, neverthelcfs 
 time has fhewn that I have complied with my duty by not re- 
 pofing on fuch aflurances. The plot is discovered, and no- 
 body any longer doubts that the expedition was to have taken 
 place. 
 
 After having followed you ftep by ftep through the various 
 points of your Report to the Prefident, I iTiall make a fhort com- 
 pendium of fuch as arife from this letter ; from which it re- 
 fults, 
 
 1. That on the 27th of February, I gave you fufficient par- 
 ticulars refpeding the intended expedition, to have attracted 
 the attention of this Government. 
 
 2. That although to this verbal communication, I added 
 another in writing on the ad of March, the Prefident had not 
 the leaft knowledge of it on the Qth of the fame month, and 
 that without doubt you muft have had very powerful motives to 
 prevent you from communicating it to him. 
 
 3. That it does not appear by the documents prefented by 
 the Secretary of War, that Government had given orders to 
 the military Commanders to caufe the territory and neutrality 
 of the United States to be refpe&ed. 
 
 4. That you made to the Englifh Minifter, a communica- 
 tion, which in my opinion you ought not, and that even if you 
 thought it neceffary^ you delayed doing it for two months, that 
 is, from the 2yth of February to the 28th of April, although it 
 refpecled a mod urgent and important object. 
 
 5. That the Baron de Carondelet could very well have re- 
 ceived my letter, without its neceffarily following that his had 
 come to hand. 
 
 6. That the Baron did not reprefent Mr. Ellicott's not writ- 
 ing to him officially as a complaint, but as an obj'ervatlon y and 
 that in facl he never has done it in thofe terms. 
 
44- 
 
 7- That the proofs you allege to exculpate Mr. Ellicott, 
 refpecting his intentions of taking the Fort of Natchez by fur- 
 prize, are purely negative. 
 
 8. That it is not merely pretences, but very powerful rea- 
 fons, which have impeded the evacuation of the Polls, and the 
 running of the Boundary Line. 
 
 9. That the infmuations with which you are willing to per- 
 fuade the American People that our arming is directed againfl 
 them, are unjufl as well as unfounded, as by Mr. Blount's 
 letter it is clearly demonftrated to be a precaution for the mere 
 purpofe of defence. 
 
 10. That 'you evidently contradict yourfelf, when on one 
 hand you are pleafed to attribute to us the movements of the 
 Indians, and in the very next paragraph you fhew it might 
 proceed from American citizens, as it actually does according 
 to Mr. Blount's letter ; and that he acted with the knowledge 
 and intelligence of the very fame Britifh Minifler, in whofe 
 Private Notes, without Jignature, and perhaps not of his own hand 
 writing, you place fuch implicit confidence. 
 
 11. That although in all your official communications, you 
 have always manifefled to me that the American Government 
 knew of nothing which indicated any foundation for my fuf- 
 picions, Mr. Blount's letter clearly proves that I was perfectly 
 in the right. 
 
 I have thus fulfilled a very difagreeable duty. Always de- 
 firous to contribute to ftrengthen the bauds of friendfhip which 
 unite Spain and America, and to which their fituation, their 
 wants and refources, invite them, I have fecn with the mofl pro- 
 found grief, that the language and tenor of your communication 
 to the Preftdcnt, is not, in my opinion, calculated to promote 
 fo defirable an object to us all. For my part, although I (hall 
 leave nothing undone, to cement the union and harmony with 
 a Nation which I refpect ; neither mail I ever fuffer the in- 
 terefls of the King, my Mailer, in any cafe whatever, to be 
 facrificed to an unjufl partiality. 
 
 I pray God to preferve you many years. 
 
 Tour moft obedient humble fervant, 
 CARLOS MARTINEZ DE YRUJO. 
 Philadelphia, July n, 1797. 
 
45' 
 
 (No. 13.) 
 
 Mr. Pickering, Secretary of State, to the Chevalier de ?>///*, En- 
 voy Extraordinary and Minifter Plenipotentiary of His Catholic 
 Majefty, to the United States of America. 
 
 DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 
 
 Philadelphia, Auguji %tb, 1797. 
 S I R, 
 
 I DULY received your letter of the nth of the laft month, 
 to which my other engagements have till this time prevented 
 an anfwer. 
 
 My additional Report to the Prefklent of the United States, 
 on the 3d of July, in relation to Spanifh affairs has offended, 
 you, and is mentioned as the caufe of your .writing to me on 
 the nth. If, Sir, I were now to make the juft remarks and 
 recriminations which your letter obvioufly fuggefts, I am 
 afraid you would be ftill more offended. I am not fure, indeed, 
 that I can poflibly frame an anfwer that will efcape your dif- 
 pleafure : but I fhall endeavour that it be exprerTed not in a 
 Kyle indecorous, unufual, and unbecoming a diplomatic corre- 
 fpondence, while it contains a fair expofition of facts and ar- 
 guments, in oppofition to errors and actual mifreprefentations. 
 
 In refpedt to your fufpicions of an expedition preparing on 
 the lakes by the Britifh, for an attack upon upper Louifiana, 
 I have faid that you never mentioned a fingle tact or reafon 
 on which your fufpicions were founded. In contradiction to 
 this aiTertion, you fay that " In our conference, on the 2"th 
 of February, you gave me information that a corps of 3^0 
 men had been raifed at Montreal and marched towards the 
 lakes, where, after the evacuation of the American ports, 
 there was no oftenfible object for them :" " That you knew 
 that the Britifh agents had treated with fome of the Indian na- 
 tions in that country, concerning the intended expedition ; 
 and that you added, that you had received thofe advices from 
 a perfon who might be depended on, who had feen thefe new 
 levies palling through Johnftown, on their way to the weft- 
 ward." To this, Sir, I anfwer, That I have not the flighted 
 recollection that you mentioned either of thefe circumstances ; 
 that the Secretary of War happened to come into my office 
 while we were converfing, at which you expreiTed your fatis- 
 faction, and repeated your fufpicions, and he fays you then 
 mentioned no fact or reafon as the ground thereof ; and that 
 when I mentioned the fubject to the Prefident, certainly within 
 fcn or twelve days after this conference, I perfectly remember 
 
making to him this remark That in your letter of March ad, 
 you faid you had three days bfore declared to me the^'w/? reafons 
 you had for fupe&ing that the Englifh were preparing the expe- 
 dition in queftion ; whereas you had offered me no reafon at all. 
 Hence I am obliged to conclude that you might have held fuch 
 'a convcrfation with fome other perfon, and by miftake have 
 applied it to me. The Englifh raifmg 350 men marching 
 them through Johnftown and tampering with the Indians to 
 promote the expedition were circumftances which appeared 
 perfectly new to me when I received your letter of the nth 
 inftant. I remember alfo, that the conference ended by your 
 faying you would write to me on the fubjefl ; which evidently im- 
 plied that your written reprefentation was to be the bafis of 
 any act of mine, or of the government. In that letter, Sir, if 
 you poffeffed any grounds for your fufpicions, you ought to 
 have ftated them. For, contrary to the opinion you have now 
 exprelTed, I have no hefitation in faying that the government 
 of the United States was not bound to talte notice of the vague 
 and unfupported fufpicions of any minifter ; at leaft not to in- 
 cur expenie, by its military arrangements, to prevent an ima- 
 ginary expedition, fuch as was the object of yours. When 
 you made a formal ftatement of your fufpicions, but without 
 any fact to mew that they were founded ; when the govern- 
 ment of the United States pofTeired no other information nor the 
 knowledge of any circumftances indicative of the expedition ;' 
 and when in itfelf it appeared deftitute of even the fhadow of 
 probability ; it was an act of complaifance to aflure you that it 
 u would be anxious to maintain the rights of their neutral fitu- 
 ation, and on all occafions adopt and purfue thofe meafures 
 which fliould appear proper and expedient for that end." 
 What thefe meafures fliould be, and when to be .taken, thd 
 government itfelf would judge. 
 
 It was an act of ftill greater complaifance, when on the 2ift 
 of April you renewed the declaration of your fufpicions, but 
 Jl'tll without aligning any reafons, for the government to refolve 
 on, and to communicate to you, what you are pleafed to allow 
 to be a " determinate difpofition on this point." 
 
 In the next fentence (as in many others) you mifreprefent 
 my expreflions and mifunderftand my meaning. I do not fay, 
 that " from your not having given me detailed information re-l 
 fpectingthe expedition, and from the anfwer which I received! 
 from the Britifh minifter on the i9th of June, I believed the] 
 expedition to be groundlefs :" But after remarking that yoi^ 
 never mentioned a fingle fact or reafon to fupport your fufpi-; 
 cions I fay, " From all the exijlmg circumjtances I ever believ- 
 ed the fufpicion to be groundlefs." If proofs hadexifted, ycvf 
 
47- 
 
 would have produced them : For although intrigues and confpl- 
 racies for the purpofe of a military expedition may long be 
 concealed ; yet the preparations for an expedition (and fuch you 
 fuggefted were making) mufl be vifible to many ; efpecially 
 '* on the lakes," where every movement for fuch a defign would 
 be unufual, and therefore attract the more attention ; and fa- 
 tisfactory proofs of fuch preparations would have been attaina- 
 ble : but you produced none. 
 
 Another material circmnftance I muft notice That troops 
 of the United 'States were ftationed at Niagara, on the Miami, 
 at Detroit, and Michilimackinack ; and confequently in fitu- 
 ations well calculated to protect our territory, as well as to 
 difcover or get information of, any warlike preparations fo 
 coniiderable as fuch an expedition would require ; and the of- 
 ficers commanding on thofe ftations could not have failed to 
 communicate fuch difcoveries or information tq the Depart- 
 ment of War : Yet no fuch communications were made. 
 
 But it was alfo well known that they had not on the lakes a 
 force adequate to the interprize in queftion. I confidered alfo 
 the great difficulties that would attend the tranfportation of 
 troops, equipage, provifions, cannon, and ftores, by either of 
 the routes fuggefted if either could have been taken with- 
 out violating the territory of the United States. 
 
 Thefe were circumftances abundantly fufficient to difcredit 
 naked fufpicions ; and the declaration of Mr. Lifton, in his note 
 of the 1 9th of June, was mentioned only as confirming the 
 juftnefs of the opinion which I had at firft formed in March, 
 and which I continued to entertain of your fufpicions. I might 
 add, that at that early period, Mr. Liiton airured me that he 
 had no knowledge of fuch an expedition ; and his inquiries of 
 the Governor-general of Canada and the Britilh Secretary of 
 State, have enabled him pofitively to allert, in the above note, 
 that no fuch expedition was ever intended. And this fact re- 
 pels your fuggeftions that I had been " remifs" in not doing 
 for two months, what, on my own principles, was proper to 
 hav ( been done. But you think I ought not to have communi- 
 cated your fufpicions of this expedition to the Britiih minifter, 
 although " his motions were to be watched." You think, on 
 the contrary, that the Prefident fhould " have given fuitaWc 
 orders to General Wilkinfon, or to the commanding officer -of 
 the military force on thofe frontiers;" but have kept a perfect 
 filence towards the Britilh have let them complete their pre- 
 parations (if any had been making) and collect their army on 
 the lakes have let them move forward, until they mould enter 
 upon the territory of the United States : snd feeing the Prefi- 
 ^ent could not know beforehand, whether they would profe- 
 
4 8. 
 
 cute their march by " Fox River and Ouifconfin, or the .Illinois,'* 
 we may fuppofe your ideas of the " fiiitable orders'' to the mi- 
 litary to be that at a great expenfe the troops of the United 
 States mould be drawn into that country and divided into corps, 
 to be polled on thofe rivers, to have fought the Britifh army, 
 and thus have defeated the enterprize. Sir, this is not the only 
 inftance in which, after having defired the American govern- 
 ment to do fome aft interetting to your own, you have then 
 prefumed to dictate how it fhould be done. 
 
 " But (you fay) you never could have imagined, that I would 
 have given to the Britifh minifter a piece of advice, which 
 might enable him to alter his plan, by letting him know that 
 the former one was difcovered." And what, Sir, was the plan 
 of the Britifh to defeat which you defired the American go- 
 vernment to interfere ? Why, according to your fufpic ions, it 
 was to march an army through the territory of the United States 
 again ft ' Upper Loui/iana. If then the communication of your 
 fufpicions to Mr. Litton would induce him to " alter his 
 plan" it would by a word or a letter, inftead of an army, defeat 
 the expedition ; for it was not poilible it mould go forward 
 except through the territory of the United States ; and confequently 
 the communication, inftead of disappointing, would have per- 
 fectly accompli/lied what you requeued. 
 
 In your 5th paragraph, you are pleafed to mention what you 
 confider as another omifTion of duty, That although on the sd 
 of March you wrote your fufpicions, and three days before you 
 mentioned them verbally, yet on the gth, I had not laid the 
 matter before the Prefident. I will take the trouble to mow 
 with how little reafon you have made this remark. The fe- 
 cond of March was the day next preceding the diflblution of 
 Congrcfs ; and at the clofe of a fefilqri the Prefident is over- 
 whelmed with bufmefs that cannot be poftponed. On the third 
 the then Prefident's term of office expired. On the 4th the 
 inauguration of the fucceeding Prefident was celebrated. The 
 5th of March was Sunday. The five following days were not 
 unoccupied ; and on the eleventh of March the anfwer to your 
 letter of the 2d was given. And although you attach much 
 importance to your fufpicions, the details I have given prove 
 that they were then dettitute of probability, that they were 
 in fa6t unfounded ; and confequently of no importance ; that 
 as fuch I then juftly confidered them ; and therefore needed 
 no " very powerful" motives to remain filent fve days. 
 
 I cannot but regret that my reafoning is fo often not under- 
 flood. When reciting my inquiry whether the potts occupied 
 by the troops of Spain within the territory of the United States, 
 had been evacuated ; and your anfwer, that not having for fomc . 
 
49- 
 
 months heard from die Baron de Carondelet, you " were deprived 
 of any information touching the fteps taken for the execution 
 of the treaty." I put thefe lafl words between inverted commas,, 
 not as you fay, " in order to draw attention" but becaufe they 
 were an exadl quotation from the tranflation of your letter. And 
 when I added, in my report, " nevcrthelefs he (the minifter 
 of his Catholic Majefty) had previoufly informed the Baron de 
 Carondelet of his fufpicions of a projected expedition from 
 Canada ;" it was not to prove either that the Baron had received 
 your letters, or that you had received his : but as that very in- 
 formation was afligned by the Baron as a reafon for ftill retain- 
 ing and reinforcing the pods, the obvious conclufion was that 
 you wrote and transmitted to him the information with that 
 view : and hence, that inftead of difclaiming all knowledge on 
 the fubjecl, candour ihould have induced you to anfwer me, That 
 although you had not received any late letters from the Baron, 
 and therefore you could not fay what fteps had actually been 
 taken for the evacuation of the ports, yet that on account of the 
 fufpected expedition from the Lakes, of which you had informed 
 the Baron, you prefumed for you advifed, and probably you did 
 advife) that he would ftill hold pollefTion of them "to cover 
 Louifiana." This " logic," Sir, I hope is intelligible ; and at 
 any rate, not " extremely falfe." 
 
 I cannot omit noticing your obfervations on the 5th para- 
 graph of my report. If, as you were obliging enough to pro- 
 ruife, you had favoured me with copies of the Baron dc Caron- 
 delet's two letters (of which you undertook to give me an oral 
 but literal tranflation) inftead of their " fubftance," I might 
 have been more corre6t in reciting his affertion That Mr. 
 Ellicott had not given him notice of his arrival at the Natchez 
 as the Commiffioner of the United States for running the boun- 
 dary line. Whether this was a complaint , or an " okfervation" 
 as you choofe to call it, every reader of your letter will fee to 
 be of no confequence. But whether the aflertion was founded 
 or unfounded, was material ; feeing, in the fame letter, Mr. 
 Ellicott is charged with having " carried his zeal fo far as to 
 attempt to get poiretfion of the fort of the Natchez by fur- 
 prize ;" and an affertion fallows, that " Governor Gayofo fays 
 he has in his power documents which prove evidently the inten- 
 tion of this attempt." This accufation againft Mr. Eljicott I 
 confidered as injurious, not to him only but to the government ; 
 for which in the character of commiffioner he was appointed to 
 acl:. If other circumftances induced me to doubt its correcT:- 
 nefs, the other complaint or tf obfcrvation," which I knew to 
 be unfounded, could not but increafe my doubts. It was jm- 
 
 G 
 
5 o. 
 
 portant, therefore,' and my duy, to prefent them together to 
 the Present's notice. I have not " entirely miftaken" this 
 matter. In my report to the Prefident, I did not undertake to 
 recite what you "mentioned," but what you tranjlated from 
 the Baron de Carondelet's letters : you repeated the charge in 
 qucftion ; and it was not till then that I handed ycu the copies 
 of the Baron's and Mr. Ellicott's correfpondence fhewing the re- 
 pugnance of fact to affertion ; and it was then that you blufhed ; 
 as I had before been aftonifhed. And your remark, afterwards, 
 was what I have itated in my report, " That you fuppofed the 
 Baron did not confider Mr. Ellicott's letter as official." You 
 then made no diftinction between a complaint and an t( obferva- 
 fion," nor ufed the phrafe " in the rigour," nor any other 
 qualifying words ; except thofe which are flated in my report. 
 
 Eefides, the Baron had no right to expect any other evidence 
 of Mr. Ellicott's appointment than his letter, until they mould 
 meet for the purpofe of commencing the bufmefs of their ap- 
 pointments ; when of coui fe they would mutually exhibit their 
 commiffions. And from the Baron's anfwer of the ift of 
 March, it is plain that he expected no other notice : for he 
 therein recognizes Mr. Ellicott as the commiflioner of the 
 United States. 
 
 In the laft fentence.of your paragraph on this fubject you 
 fay, " That when after a mixed and defultory converfation up- 
 on various fubjects, you had collected and methodized your 
 Ideas, and committed them to writing, my anfwer and obferva- 
 tions ought to have been confined to the written communica- 
 tion." This obfervation, Sir, is inaccurate. 
 
 It may, however, be applied to a former part of your letter. 
 You fay that in our conference on the 2yth of February, you 
 mentioned to me the raifing of 350 men at Montreal that your 
 informer faw them pafs through Johnftown and that you 
 knew the Britiih agents had treated with fome of the Indian 
 nations concerning an expedition preparing on the lakes. But 
 in your letter of the 2d of March, in which you were " to col- 
 lect and methodize your ideas" oh the fubject of your fufpi- 
 cions, you do not introduce one of thofe fufpicions : of courfe, 
 on your own principles, I ought, if they ever had been men- 
 tioned, to have considered them as nullities. 
 
 In the 8th paragraph of your letter, you obferve that my 
 proof obtained from Mr. Ellicott's mefiengers, that he did not 
 attempt to get pofTeirion of the Natchez fort by furprize, is 
 merely negative. I offered it only as fuch. But the negative 
 teftimony of two men of good characters againft a fact which 
 they were likely to be acquainted with, if it exifted, and 
 jwhofe existence other circumftarices rendered improbable, and 
 
fi 1 - 
 
 the afieriion of which is mingled wtih aflcrtion.?, by the fame 
 perfon, of other fa6ts, of which fome, or even one, is known* 
 to be unfounded, merits confideration. There is, however, 
 further evidence applicable to this cafe. In the letter dated at 
 the Natchez the 5th of May, from Lieutenant Pope to Gover- 
 nor Gayofo, you will fee that the governor had made the like 
 accufation againft the lieutenant. " A gentleman had inform- 
 ed him (the governor) that the lieutenant intended to attack 
 the garrifon at that place.' 5 Lieutenant Pope, juitly hurt by 
 the groundlefs affertion, dcfircs the informer may be named, 
 and required to acquit himfelf of his alfertion, or be punifhcd 
 as a falfe accufer. ' The governor anfvvers the next day,- fpeaks 
 of the information as communicated to Lieutenant Pope in 
 familiar cwverfation ; and adds, that the informer was to be 
 dejpljed. Yet from the pointed- manner in which Lieutenant 
 Pope made the demand, it is evident that the information was 
 prefented to him as a ferious accufation. After 'this detail, 
 will it not be conjectured, that the governor's " documents" 
 refpedling Mr. Ellicott's " attempt" are of a piece with his 
 " famijiar converfation" with Lieutenant Pope concerning his 
 " intended attack ?" 
 
 In the Qth paragraph of your letter, you fay that " after 
 having difcufied the hiftory of thefe tranfadlions, with all tiic 
 force and accuracy which refult from thefe obfervations, I af- 
 fure, with a very ill-grounded confidence, that upon a view of 
 the whole it appears, that his majefty's governors on the 
 Miflifippi have on various pretences, psftponed the running of 
 the boundary line and the evacuation of the pofts." I mull 
 here alfo complain of mifreprefentation. I did not' in my re- 
 port draw my conclulions from the hiflory of tbcfe tranuicli- 
 ons that is, of the tranfa&ions which you have previoujly^ men- 
 tioned in your letter, and which I have already noticed in this 
 anfwer: but " Upon a view of the whole corrcfpondence then 
 and before fubmitted to the Prefident." This correfpondence 
 I will now examine, to fee whether the caufes afligned by the 
 Spanifh governors, for poftponing the running of the boundary 
 line and evacuating the pofts, merit the name of reaf<ms y or of 
 pretences. 
 
 Governor Gayofo being informed of Mr. Ellicott's defcend- 
 ing the Miflifippi, wrote to him on the I yth of February, de- 
 firing him to leave his efcort at Bay on Pierre, 60 miles above 
 the Natchez. Yet the treaty prefcribed a military efcort on 
 each fide to attend the commiffioners in running the boundary 
 line ; and the Natchez as the place of their firft meeting. The 
 chief reafon offered for this requeft was, that if the troops of 
 the two Cations were brought together " mifunderfbndings'' 
 
might arife between them. ' Yet the treaty required their 
 tmr together to attend the commillioners when they-' were jointly 
 running the boundary line. And the only reafon the governor 
 ailigned for not evacuating the ports, Was " The want of vef- 
 fels," but which he expected would foon arrive. 
 
 On the 25th of February, governor Gayofo and Mr. Elli- 
 cott fixed <?n the iQth of March to proceed down the river to 
 Clarkefville, near which it was fuppofed the boundary line 
 would commence. 
 
 On the gth of March, governor Gayofo informed Mr. Elli- 
 cott that the Baron de Carondelet could not attend the running 
 of the line, in perfon, and that the whole bufmefs had devolv- 
 ed on him, the governor ; but he feared he mould not be ready 
 by the I9th. And then he endeavoured to draw Mr. Ellicott 
 from his proper ftation at the Natchez, by propofmg a vifit to 
 the Baron at New-Orleans. 
 
 March 1 2th, the governor again endeavoured to draw Mr. 
 Ellicottt from the Natchez, and recommended Loftus' Cliffs 
 near Clarkefville as the point of re-uniting: and by way of 
 inducement, faid the Geometer and other officers to be em- 
 ployed on the boundary line would flop at Clarkefville. 
 
 On the 1 5th of March, the principal part of the artillery 
 was taken out of the fort, and every appearance made of a 
 fpeedy evacuation : but on the 22d they were carried back to 
 the fort, and immediately remounted. A fimilar movement 
 took place at the latter end of April, after the arrival of lieu- 
 tenant Pope and his troops at the Natchez. " The evacuation 
 (fays he) appeared to be going on with great life ; when all at 
 once the military ftores were ordered back, their troops bufily 
 engaged all night taking back and remounting the cannon." 
 Here he very naturally expreiTes his furprize " This kind of 
 conduct (fays he) appeared and (till appears ftrange." 
 
 March 23d, the governor mentions that orders had been 
 given by the general in chief of the province to demolifh the 
 poft at the Walnut Hills -becaufe their treaty with the Indians 
 required it: but as he (Gayofo) had fince been informed of their 
 unfettled difpofitions, he had fent counter-orders, to prevent 
 the fortifications being injured ; fuggefting at the fame time 
 that the moving of the ftores, &c. was fufpended only until the 
 arrival of the American troops to take pofifeflion of the poft. 
 
 In this letter the governor informs Mr. Ellicott that lieute- 
 nant colonel Guillemard was far on his way up ; and, on his 
 arrival, the running of the boundary line fhould begin. The 
 governor adds this aflurance " That there is nothing that can 
 prevent the religious compliance with the Treaty." 
 
53- 
 
 On the 28th and 29th of March, governor Gayofo iiTucd 
 two proclamations, both bearing date the 29th, taking new 
 ground for retaining the poft, viz. until the right of the 
 inhabitants to the real property is afcertained. The governor 
 is pleafed to fay that a negocia-tion was then carrying on be- 
 tween the king > of Spain and the United States, to iecure to 
 the inhabitants of the Natchez the right to their real property: 
 that that right could not be fecured but by an additional article 
 to the late treaty ; and that he ihould keep poifeiTion of the 
 country until that article ihould be officially communicated to 
 him ; and until they were fure that the Indians would be pacific. 
 This laft reafon particularly warrants niy aflertion That the 
 governors meant for an indefinite period to avoid an evacuation 
 of the ports for while a tribe of Indians exifted in that quar- 
 ter, the governors could not be Jure that they would be pacific. 
 And as to their real property, feeing the great body of the in- 
 habitants appear not to defire the patronage of the Spanifh go- 
 vernment to fecure it : As the government of the United States 
 mr.il be at lead as an,x'ious as that of Spain to protect the inha- 
 bitants in their rights, when become ciiizens of the United 
 States : I believe there can be no difficulty in deciding whe- 
 ther this is a reafon or a pretence. Eefides, the negociation 
 mentioned by the governor about the real property of the inhabi- 
 tants^ has never exifted; nor even been -propofed or hinted, 
 either to or by the government of the United States. I hope, 
 therefore, it will not be deemed harih, or unbecoming in a 
 letter of this kind, to fay, that this motive for fufpending 
 the evacuation of the pofts that a negociation was then on 
 foot to fecure the real property of the inhabitants does not 
 merit the title even of a pretence. 
 
 So foon as the governor discovered that his proclamations, 
 inftead of quieting the minds of the inhabitants, produced a 
 contrary erFecl:, he fent tw r o gentlemen of the fettlement to 
 inform Mr. Ellicott that he, the governor, had received di- 
 rections from the Baron de Carondelet to have the artillery 
 and military ftores expeditioufly removed from the forts, which 
 Were to be given up to the troops of the United States imme- 
 diately on their arrival. As this information did not remove 
 fufpicions, Mr. EHicott wrote the governor on the 3ift of 
 March, dating divers circumftances which (till kept thofe fuf- 
 picions alive. The governor anfwered on the fame day in di- 
 rect contradiction to the information given by the gentlemen, 
 his agents, to Mr. EHicott, and confirming the declarations 
 made in his proclamations. He added alfo a new motive for 
 retaining the pofts, viz. That the treaty left it doubtful 
 'whether, when the pofts (hould be evacuated, the works were 
 
51- 
 
 to be left Handing, or. to be demoiiflied , concerning which 
 the governor general found himfelf obliged to confult his Ca- 
 tholic Majefty ; and had given the governor pofitive orders to 
 fufpend trie evacuations of the ports until the matter ihould be 
 amicably fettled between the two governments. 
 
 On the id of May, another motive is affigned for retaining 
 the pods The envoy of his Catholic Majefty in the United 
 States, had informed the governor general cf an attack pro- 
 pofed againft the Spanifli part of Illinois (the upper part of 
 Louisiana) by the British from Canada, and, therefore, the 
 pofts at the Walnut Hills and the Natchez muft be kept for 
 the defence of lower Louifiana. 
 
 This laft motive is alio offered as a reafon why the running 
 of the boundary line is poftporied ; as ail their attention was 
 drawn towards the defence of the province-, againft an iuva- 
 iion which, a$ I have already mown, was never contemplated. 
 
 To all thefe facts, I.lsave to add the declaration of Ge- 
 neral Wilkinfon, in his letter of June 2d, to the Secretary of 
 War " I have (fays he) information through a confidential 
 channel, that it was determined as early as September loft, not 
 to give up the pofts on the MiHifippi." If this information 
 be correct, no other proof is neceifary to mew that all the rea^ 
 fons from time to. time fuggefted for not evacuating the pofts 
 were mere pretences.. 
 
 I have here brought into one view the moft material facts 
 relating to the queftion between us, * which are fcattered 
 throughout the reports made by me to the Prefident of the 
 United States on the loth of Jiine and 3d of July, and by the 
 Secretary of War on the 3oth of June, and the documents ac- 
 companying them, as they have been published. And from 
 this brief recital it evidently appears, as I have faid in my re- 
 port " That the governors of his Catholic Majefty, on the 
 Miflifippi, have, on various pretences, poftponed the running 
 of the boundary line, and the withdrawing of his troops from 
 the pofts they occupied within the territory of the United 
 States : And that after repeated overtures, promifes, and 
 appearances of commencing the execution of the treaty be- 
 tween the two nations, in both thefe refpects, their conduct 
 demonftrates, that for an indefinite period they meant to avoid 
 doing either/' 
 
 You controvert this conclufion only on one ground. You 
 fay that the Treaty ftipulated merely that the Spanifh garnfons 
 mould be withdrawn, not that fortifications which might one day 
 be prejudicial to the king's fubjects, mould be delivered up : and 
 hence you infer that the neceiiity urged by the two governors 
 of delaying to withdraw the gar-rifons until this queftion' is de- 
 
55- 
 
 cided between the two governments, is not a pretence , but a 
 fubftantial reafon. Here I mufl pbferve that the governors, 
 had already demoliilied the poft at the Chickafaw bluff: And 
 it appears in the foregoing recital that they were going to de- 
 molilli the port at the Walnut Hills : and the reafon afligned is 
 that the treaties with the Indians required the demolition : and 
 governor Gayofo ailigns but one motive for fufpending that 
 Operation that he had been informed of the unfettled difpofl- 
 tion of the Indians ; yet afterwards this reafon (that their trea- 
 ties with the Indians required the demolition of the ports) is 
 forgotten, and their destruction, or their delivery with all the 
 fortifications and other works Handing, is by the governors made 
 to depend entirely on the ilfue of a negociation between the 
 governments of Spain and the United States! Can any farther 
 proof be wanting to juftify me in calling this a pretence? But 
 you feem to rely on this your conftru&ion of the Treaty rela- 
 tive to the pofts : You have urged it in your letter to me of the 
 24th of June ; and therefore I will confider it. 
 
 The 2d article of the Treaty having defcribed the boundaries 
 between the territories of the United States and Spain, thus 
 proceeds " And it is agreed that if there mould be any troops 
 garrifons or fettlements of either party, in the territory of the 
 other, according to the above mentioned boundaries, they ihall 
 be withdrawn from the faid territories within the term of fix 
 months after the ratification of this treaty, or fooner if it be 
 poilible : And that they (hall be permitted to take with them 
 all the goods and effecls which they poiTefs." But to juftify 
 your retention of the pofts, you fay that the demarcation of the 
 boundary line fhould precede the withdrawing of the Camions : 
 Yet you fuppofe it probable and his Catholic Majefty's gover- 
 nors well knew, that the Chickafaw bluff the Walnut Hills* 
 and the Natchez are within the territory of the United States. 
 
 Governor Gayofo fpeaks of the boundary line as being near 
 Clarkefville, a place many miles below the Natchez ; and he 
 alfo knew the refult of Mr. Ellicott's aftronomical obfervations 
 on the fpot, which afcertained the Natchez to be about thirty 
 nine miles north of the fouth boundary of the United States. 
 
 There being then not a fhadow of doubt with refpecl to the 
 pofition of thele pofts that they are all within the territory of 
 the United States, there was no neceffity previoufly to run and 
 mark the boundary line : which befides, if fet about in good 
 earneft, it would take at leaft a year to accomplifh, through a 
 wildernefsof many hundred miles in extent; and therefore it 
 never could have been contemplated as neceiTary to precede the 
 ^evacuation of the pofts which was to be effected injtx mcntbs, 
 

 
 orfoonerifpoftwk. Yet fifteen months have elapfed, and yon 
 itill keep pofleffion. 
 
 But you fuggeft that it is at lead doubtful whether by the 
 Treaty it was intended to leave the fortifications ftanding, 
 when the garrifon fhould be withdrawn. You fay " It is not 
 to be prefumed that it could ever have been the intention of his 
 Catholic Majefty to deliver up fortifications, which, befides 
 that they had cofl him confiderable fums of money, may, by 
 the effe<Sl of political vicillitudes, be one day prejudicial to his' 
 fubjecls." I feel much reluctance to attempt the refutation 
 of a conftruclion fo obviouHy erroneous. It is probably the firft 
 time that to " withdraw" or retire from a place has been 
 imagined to intend its dejlrutlijm. If at the formation of the 
 treaty the demolition of the pofts had been intended ; it would 
 afluredly have been exprefled. But doubtlefs the idea never oc- 
 curred, until it was found convenient to make it a pretence for 
 holding the pofts. The phrafes " to withdraw a garrifon," 
 to'evacuate a poft.or country , have as determinate a meaning as 
 ally in the Englilh language ; and their meaning is afcertained 
 by frequent ufe in treaties ; and tvdeftroy a country or a fortified 
 place> from which it was itipulated to " withdraw" an army 
 or a garrifon, would be fuch an aclt of barbarifm as ought ne- 
 Ver to take place among civilized nations. One of the lateft 
 treaties made by the United States (that with Great-Britain) 
 has the fame phrafe " His Majefty will withdrew all his troops 
 and garrifons from all ports and places within the boundary 
 lines afligned by the treaty of peace to the United States. 
 This evacuation mall take place on or before the firft day of June 
 1796." Andthefeexpreflionsareufedin the fame treaty as equi- 
 valent to " the delivery of the faid pofts." The Britifh treaty 
 was in this manner accordingly carried into efFect the Britifh 
 troops were withdrawn, and the works left jlanding. The Britifh 
 officers were even careful not to expofe the works to accidental 
 deft rut ion : for as the American troops did not reach the pofts 
 by the firft of June, fmali Britifh guards were left to preferve 
 the works from injury until the American troops arrived. 
 
 By the treaty concluded at Versailles the 3^ of September 
 1783, between Great-Britain and Spain, it was agreed, "That 
 the King of Great-Britain fhould caufe Eaft Florida to be eva- 
 cuated three months after the ratification of that treaty, or foon- 
 er, if it could be done." The evacuation took place, but no 
 demolition of fortifications. 
 
 In the preliminary articles of peace between England, France 
 and Spain, figned the ^d of November 1762, it was ftipulated 
 " That as foon as poffible after the ratification of thefe preli- 
 minaries, France fhould evacuate Cleves, Wefel and Guelders, s 
 
57- 
 
 and generally all the countries belonging to the King of Pruf- 
 fia :" were tbofe places demolifhcdy or the country laid wafte, when 
 the troops withdrew r Or were there any fubfequent negocia- 
 ations to remove any doubts on the fubjecl ? 
 
 But I have dwelt too long on a point that really required no 
 elucidation. 
 
 On this, as well as on another occafion, you have thought 
 fit to upbraid me with (hewing to the Britifh Minifter a degree 
 of candour and confidence which you infmuate he does not de- 
 ferve, and which, you feem to think, I have withheld from 
 you. Yet, Sir, all the declarations made to me by that Mini- 
 fter, verbally and in writing, touching the points in contro- 
 verfy between you and me, have been verified. As I have alrea- 
 dy fa id, you declared to me that you had jult reafons for fufpe cl- 
 ing that an expedition was preparing on the lakes by the Fng- 
 lifh, in order to attack Upper Louifiana. The Britiih Mini- 
 fter, in the firft inftance, affured me that he had no knowledge 
 .of it and his fubfequent enquiries enabled him further to af- 
 fure me that no fuch expedition had been or was intended by 
 the Britifh government. And I have in another place offered 
 other reafons which confirm the truth of thefe aiTurances. Yet 
 you tell me, that the allurance given me by the Britifh Mini- 
 fter, but without anyfignature did not infpire the fervantsof h is 
 Catholic Majefty with the fame blind confidence, which it produ- 
 ced in me. I lhall take no other notice of this remark, thau 
 to put you right in point of facl. The note of the Britiih Mi- 
 nifter containing the affiurance to which you refer, is not 
 " without a fignature:" This (like other official notes from 
 that Minifter) has his fignature his name written with his own 
 hand at the head of it. 
 
 You declared to me " that you knew to a certainty that the 
 Englifh had made propofitions to General Clarke, of Georgia, 
 in order to avail themfelves of his influence in that State, to- 
 gether with fome other perfons, for making a diverfion, or fe- 
 rious attack againft Florida." The Britiih Minifter informed 
 me that although he knew nothing of General Clarke or his 
 expedition from Georgia, a proportion had been made to him 
 (the Britiih Minifter) for an expedition againft the Floridas : 
 but that he told the proje&or, that he had no' power to autho- 
 rize it : and befides, that there were among other objections 
 to the plan, two of great weight one that the Indians were 
 to be employed the other, that it would violate the neutral 
 rights of the United States. The Britifti Minifter has fince 
 (hewn me an original letter from Lord Grenville, dated the 
 8th of laft April, in which he informs tjie Minifter, that if 
 
 H 
 
58- 
 
 there were no other objections to the plan, the two mentioned 
 by him, viz. that it could not be executed without employing 
 the Indians arid without violating the rights of the United 
 States, would be fufficient to induce the Britifh government to 
 reject it. This proves, Sir, that Mr Lifton's declarations on 
 this point were not " vague and unauthentic" as you pronounce 
 them, but in ftricr. conformity with truth. 
 
 As to General Clarke of Georgia, the Britifh Minifter decla- 
 red he had never even heard of him ; and the extra6t of the let- 
 ter from Mr. Jackfon, the diftridl attorney of Georgia, refpect- 
 ing General Clarke and any expedition forming there, in 
 behalf of the Erigti/h againft the Floridas, will incline every 
 candid enquirer at leaft to doubt whether fuch a project has 
 ever been propofed to him. We fhall afterwards fee that Mr. 
 Blount's plot does not appear to have any connection with an 
 expedition under General Clarke. 
 
 Thus you fee, Sir, that I have not blindly placed a confidence 
 in the Britilh Minifter : for aught that has yet appeared, he 
 was entitled to the credit he has received. 
 
 I return to your letter. You mention your communications 
 to the Baron de Carondelet refpecting the intended expedition 
 from Canada : from that moment, you fay, imperious neceiTity, 
 and the great principle of felf defence, made his Catholic Ma- 
 jefty's officers turn their thoughts to objects of a more urgent 
 nature than running the boundary line. And here you intro- 
 duce " Mr. Blount's letter, and the late detected confpiracy, 
 as evincing how far their conduct in this refpect was necef- 
 fary.'"' It is wonderful, Sir, that you mould attempt to make 
 it be believed that Mr. Blount's letter and the late detected con- 
 fpiracy had any connection with the expedition which you fug- 
 gefted was preparing on the lakes of Canada againft Upper 
 Louifiana. All that is yet difcovered of Mr. Blount's project 
 or confpiracy, proves that it was to have been formed in one 
 of the States South of the River Ohio ; and that it was deftined 
 againft the Floridas, and perhaps Lower Louiiiana, I, there- 
 fore, feel myfelf, for this and the other reafons before exhibit- 
 ed, ftill warranted in confidering the fufpeded Canada expedi- 
 tion among the pretexts for delaying to evacuate the pofts, and 
 to run the boundary line : and consequently that your charge, 
 that I have in this inftance "palpably attempted to make 
 groundlefs and unfair impreffions on the public mind," is alike 
 unfounded and unbecoming your public character to fuggeft. 
 
 In your next paragraph you thus addrefs me. " Nor do 
 your ill founded iniinuations ftop here : fentiments and expref- 
 fions ftill more violent, flow from that fame hafty pen." This 
 paifage is in perfect correfpondence with the general drain of 
 
59- 
 
 your letter. Whether your charge is correctly made is now to 
 be examined. 
 
 I am ready to confefs that my report thus ftigmatifed was, 
 from the preiiure ofbufmefs, written in hafte : but a revificm 
 of it fatisfies me, nevertheless, that it is not inaccurate in its 
 ftatements. 
 
 You quote the pafTage in my report which has called forth 
 this reproach ; it is in thefe words " That there is but too 
 much reafon to believe Mr. Ellicott's fufpicions well founded, 
 that an undue influence has been exercifed over the Indians by 
 the officers of his Catholic Majefty, to prepare them for a rup- 
 ture with the United States." And then you lay that I men-' 
 tion the fource of thefe " dreadful conjectures" to be, a private 
 letter from Mr. Sargent, Secretary of the North-weftern Ter- 
 ritory. Here you are extremely incorrect ; as ufual when you 
 undertake to recite my conclufions and the facts and circum- 
 ftances jupon which they are formed. It is from " a view of 
 the whole correfpondence" referred to in my reports of the roth 
 of June and ^d of July. On the intelligence received by the 
 Secretary of War and the private letter from Colonel Sargent, 
 that I drew the conclufion you have quoted. 
 
 Mr. Eilicott formed his fufpicions on the fpot, from what 
 was pairing before him ; and he is not a carelefs or undifcern- 
 ing obfervcr. 
 
 General Wilkinfon fays " Letters from all quarters an- 
 nounce the di (contents and menacing afpect of the Savages ; , 
 two white men have been recently murdered on the Ohio below 
 the Cumberland ; and the Savages beyond the Miffifippi, and 
 thofe who pafs Maifac, make no hefitation to avow their pur- 
 pofe for war." And then he refers to a letter from Colonel 
 Hamtramck, who commands the United S.tates troops at De- 
 troit, in which the Colonel fays " I am pretty fure that both 
 the French and Spaniards have Emiiraries among the Indians. 
 I have it from indubitable authority, that a large belt [by which 
 he meant a Speech] from the Spaniards is now travelling 
 through the different nations ;" meaning the nations within the 
 territories of the United States. 
 
 Colonel Sargent writes, it is x true, a private letter ; but it is to 
 a public Officer ; and his fituation as Secretary, and Governor 
 for the time, of the North-weftern Territory, would render it 
 his duty to be vigilent for its fafety ; and his character vouches 
 for the accuracy of his information ; and you do not queftion 
 the truth of any part of his ftatement. 
 
 After mentioning that the Spaniards were reinforcing their 
 
 v upper pofts on the Miffifippi, that upwards of three hundred 
 
 men had arrived at St. Louis and were electing formidable 
 
6. 
 
 works ; he adds " It likewife appears, through various chan- 
 nels, that they are inviting a great number of Indians of the 
 territory (meaning of the United States north-well of the Ohio) 
 to crofs the Miffifippi : And for this exprefs purpofe Mr. Lor- 
 amie, an officer in the pay of the crown, made a tour through 
 all this country lafl fall ; fmce which time feveral Indians have 
 been fent on the fame errand, and generally furnifhed with 
 plenty of cafh to defray their expenfes" " A large party of 
 the Delawares parted down White River about the 6th of May, 
 on their way to the Spanifh fide, bearing the national flag of Spam 
 fent them from St. Louis. 
 
 Lieutenant Pope, in his letter of May gth to the Secretary 
 of War, fays" There have been feveral attempts made to 
 draw on the Indians upon my troops : I have fully afcertained 
 this fal, and demanded of the Governor to have a principal 
 a6lor immediately brought to punifhment, or fent out of the 
 country. He has been fent for, and is now on board of one of 
 the gallies which is 'now about defcending the river." And, 
 Sir, if you enquire, you will find that this " principal a6lor" 
 (Rapelje by name) was one of Governor Gayofo's agents. 
 
 Thefe, Sir, are the grounds on which I exprefTed the opi- 
 nion, That there was but too much reafon to believe Mr. 
 Ellicott's fufpicions well founded, that the officers of Spain had 
 exercifed an undue influence over the Indians to prepare them- 
 for a rupture with the United States. 
 
 This detail, Sir, ftrikingly (hews how little you have under- 
 flood, and how entirely you have mifreprefented my reafoning 
 on this fubjecl:. I leave you to reconcile your reflections on the 
 Britifh Minifler and his nation for their inhumanity in employ- 
 ing the Indians in the American war, with your j unification of 
 the Spanifh officers at this time, in fecuring the' aid of the In- 
 dians in your war with the Britifh. " The Spaniards (you fay) 
 have fortified St. Louis and availed themf elves of EVERY MEANS 
 OF DEFENCE which the country afforded ;" meaning by the in- 
 genious expreffion every means of defence which the country afford- 
 ed, the employing of the Indians. 
 
 You are pleafed next to charge me, in your cuflomary flile, 
 with " falling into the mod glaring mconfiftency" becaufe I re- 
 mark that although, " it may be difficult to fay whether this 
 plan of exciting the Indians to direc~l hoflilities againft the 
 United States, has been contemplated and promoted by any of 
 our own citizens ; yet it is certain that one or more of thofe 
 citizens have propofed and taken meafures to detach the fouth- 
 ern Indians from the interefts of the United States, and to de- 
 {Iroy the influence of the public agents over thofe nations, and 
 
thus to defeat the great objects of their appointment ; the chief 
 of which is to preferve peace." 
 
 Having quoted this paflage from my report, you a(k " How 
 is it poffible to reconcile ftich evident contradictions' 1 On the 
 one hand the Spanifh officers are thofe who excite the fouthern 
 Indians againft the United States, and on the other you quickly 
 follow prefuming, with fufficient foundation in my opinion, 
 that it may be fome citizens of the United States." Allow 
 me, Sir, to afk in my turn, How it was poffible for you not 
 to fee that here there is no contradiction? Is it not very poffi- 
 ble that the Spanifh officers might be courting the Chickafaws, 
 who live above the. Natchez, with large prefents, and be pre- 
 paring the Choctaws, who dwell along the Natchez diftrict, 
 and the Delawares, Shawanefe, Miamis, and other tribes 
 dwelling in the territory north-wed of the Ohio, for waragainfl 
 the United States, while Mr. Blount and his agents were detach- 
 ing the fouthern tribes of Chcrokees and Creeks from the in- 
 terefls of the United States, and eventually to aid the Britifli 
 in an enterprize againft the Floridas ? The Cherokees and 
 Creeks, you might have feen, were the only Indian nations 
 mentioned in governor Blount's letter. And is it not very 
 poffible, if thefe two nations ihould thus be led to war againft 
 the Spanifh pofleiiions, that they might not be excited to direEt 
 hoftilities againft the United States ? And, therefore, that 
 although Mr. Blount might contemplate the former, he might 
 abftain from the latter ? And is not then my cautious manner 
 of fpeaking of this latter, perfectly correct ? 
 
 I am happy to arrive at your laft obfervation. And I wifli 
 it was not, like the reft, exceptionable and incorrect. Thefe- 
 are your words " Reflecting the laft article of your report, 
 I have only to obferve, that although you have conftantly 
 allured me that government had not the leaft information re- 
 fpecting the fubject of my reprefentations, and although the 
 letter of Mr. Jackfon, of Georgia, appears to coincide with 
 your ideas, nevertheless time has fhewn that I have complied 
 with my duty by not repofing on fuch afiurances. The plot 
 is difcovered, and nobody any longer doubts the expedition was 
 to have taken place." 
 
 The expreffion that " you complied with your duty in not 
 repofing on fuch a durances" may mean that you thought the 
 aiTurances deceitful^ and, therefore, not meriting belief. Per- 
 haps you did not intend this. Perhaps you meant no more 
 than that the government had been " remifs" in its duty, in 
 not purfuing with eagernefs the trains of your various fufpici- 
 xons. But I muft fhow you that here (as in all other inftances, 
 your criminations are void of foundation, in either point of view. 
 
62. 
 
 The laft article of the report refpects general Clarke of 
 Georgia, to -whom you faid " you knew of a certainty that the 
 Engliih had made proportions,, in order to avail themfelves of 
 his influence in that iiate, with fome other perfons, for mak- 
 ing a diverfion or ferious attack againll Florida:" and you add 
 that " you do not doubt that in confeqtience of your informa- 
 tion, the executive government will take the proper fteps that 
 Georgia alfo mould not infringe the laws of neutrality." Here 
 you confine your requefts to Georgia, that me might not in- 
 fringe the laws of neutrality : and my letter to Charles Jack- 
 fon, efquire, the diflrict attorney of that (late, mows that the 
 government took prompt meafures to defeat the project of 
 general Clarke and his aflbciates, if fuch a project exifted. _ I 
 fuppofe none did exift : You acknowledge that the letter from 
 Mr. Jack fon coincides with my ideas. Your " certain know- 
 ledge" of an intended expedition in favour of the Englifh from 
 Georgia againft Florida, under general Clarke, you have ne- 
 ver fupported by a madow of evidence. If you pofleifed any 
 evidence of the fact, it would be eafy to produce it. What 
 you call your " certain knowledge" could reft only on infor- 
 mation, or the teftimony of others, which might be as falfe 
 or as vague and inconclufive, as the information about the 
 Canada expedition ; which I hope I have proved, to your con- 
 viction, never to have exilted, even in idea. Yet you declared 
 tome that you had " jitft reafzns for fufpecting that expedition 
 was preparing on the lakes:" and hence how can I avoid con- 
 cluding, that your " certain knowledge" in one cafe, like your 
 " juft reafons" in the other, were without a fufficient foun- 
 dation. 
 
 But you fay " The plot is difcovered, and nobody any lon- 
 ger doubts that the expedition was to have taken place." 
 Strange remark ! Juft the reverfe of it mould have been made. 
 For although there is a difcovery of Mr. Blount's plot, its ex- 
 tent is by no means afcertained ; and far from nobody doubting, 
 probably every body doubts whether the projected expedition 
 was to have. taken place. It was not to be undertaken but in 
 conjunction with a Britim force and on the propofal of the 
 expedition to the Britim government it was totally rejected. 
 Even Mr. Blount, who, if the project was adopted, expefted 
 io be\at the head of it, ventures no farther than to fay he believed 
 that the plan would be attempted, but if attempted, that it 
 would not be till the " fall :" and confequently your zeal in 
 March and April, for which at the expence of decency towards 
 the American government, you take to yourfelf fo much cre- 
 dit, had then no juft object. This zeal of yours is difplayed 
 in the information you gave to the Baron de Carondelet, in 
 
63- 
 
 March or April, of the expedition fuppofed to be preparing 
 in Canada againft Upper Louifiana: yet you would now at- 
 tempt to juftify this zeal by the plot of Mr. Blount ; although 
 this plot and the Canada expedition were wholly diftincl and 
 unconnected. 
 
 I fhall conclude this long letter with your eleven pofitions, 
 which you ftate with as much ferious formality as if they 
 were all of them important, and all of them fupported by fa6ts 
 or juft reafoning : But the details I have given demonftrate 
 that thefe pofitions are either unfounded, or fimple propofiti- 
 ons of not the fmalleft confequence. 
 
 Thefe are your pofitions addrefled to me in your own words. 
 
 " i ft. That on the ayth of February I gave you fufficient 
 particulars refpecling the intended expedition, to have at- 
 tracted the attention of this government." 
 
 Anfwer. I have offered reafons to prove that you gave me 
 no particulars, but only mentioned your fufp>cions y and that you 
 promifed to give me your reprefentations in writing; for 
 which, of courfe, it was proper for me to wait. 
 
 " 2. That altho' to this verbal communication, I added 
 another in writing on the 2d of March, the Prefident had not 
 the leaft knowledge of it on the 9th of the fame month ; and 
 that without doubt you muft have had very powerful motives 
 to prevent you from communicating it to him." 
 
 Anfwer. I have accounted for the delay in a fatisfaftory 
 manner. I have fhewn that I had abundant reafon to conclude 
 your fufpicions to be wholly unfounded, and for attaching no 
 fort of confequence to them. The event demonftrates that I 
 was right ; and that inftead of very powerful motives-, none 
 were needed for a delay of only four or five days, or for a 
 much longer period ; and that to notice your naked fufpicions 
 at all, was not an acl: of necedity, but of complaifance. I 
 might with juftice complain of your delay to anfwer my letter 
 of the 1 6th of March, on a fubjecl: of very high importance to 
 the United States, I mean the evacuation of the ports. I will 
 not fay that you were negligent or " remifs" but I will fay 
 that for a whole month you omitted to give me your (hort and 
 unfatisfaclory anfwer. The indifpofition which you aflign as 
 the caufe of the delay, did not prevent you from writing on 
 other fubje&s nor long from going abroad. 
 
 " 3. That it does not appear by the documents prefented by 
 the Secretary of War, that government had given orders to the 
 military commanders to caufe the territory and neutrality of 
 the United States to be refpecled." 
 
 N Anfwer. I have ihewn that none were neceffary to be 
 given. 
 
6 4 - 
 
 " 4. That you made to the Englifh Miniiter a communi- 
 cation which in my opinion you ought not, and that even if 
 you thought it necefTary, you delayed doing it for two months, 
 that is from the 27th of February to the 2$th of April, altho' 
 it reflected a mod urgent and important object." 
 
 Anfwer. On the 28th of April, I informed you by letter 
 that I had communicated to the Britilh Minifter your fufpici- 
 ons of an expedition preparing by the Englifh againft Upper 
 Louifiana ; and as for upwards of two months you expretfed 
 no diflTatisfaction on account of this communication, I might 
 well conclude you did not think it improper. Nay in your let- 
 ter of July nth, which I am now anfwering, you refer with 
 apparent approbation to this very communication, connected 
 with the declaration which accompanied it to the Britilh Mi- 
 nifter, that the Prefident could not confent to the march of 
 any troops, either Britifh or Spanifh, through the territory of 
 the United States ; and you confider it as a " determinate dif- 
 pofition" of the American government on this point. I have 
 alfo ihewn, that admitting this communication to Mr. Lifton 
 to be proper, I did not delay doing it for two months nor two 
 weeks; altho' it refpected at beft but an imaginary project. 
 
 " 5. That the Baron de Carondelet could very well have 
 received my letters, without its neceiTarily following that his 
 had come to hand." 
 
 Anfwer. I have ihewn that you did not underftand my rea- 
 foning on this point ; which went to prove that your anfwer 
 of the 1 7th of April to my letter of the i6th of March, about 
 the evacuation of the pofts, was wanting in candour. 
 
 (< 6. That the Baron did not reprefent Mr. Ellieott's not 
 writing to him officially as a complaint, but as an obfervation, 
 aud that in fact he never has done it in thofe terms." 
 
 Anfwer. I have fhewn that whether the Baron's afTertion 
 fhould have been called a complaint or an obfervation was per- 
 fectly immaterial ; I meant to fhew it was unfounded, and this 
 you yourfelf admit. 
 
 " 7. That the proofs you alledge to exculpate Mr. Ellicott 
 refpecting his intentions of taking the fort of Natchez by 
 furprize are purely negative." 
 
 Anfwer. I offered them only as negative proofs. Yet when 
 one complaint or aflertion a^ainfl Mr. Ellicott was known and 
 acknowledged not to be true, the negative teftimony of gentle- 
 men likely to be well informed, would be deemed fufficient to 
 bring another, and in its nature very improbable, complaint 
 or a'Hertion of the fame perfon, into difcredit. 
 
 " 8. That it is not merely pretences, but very powerful re?- 
 fons which have impeded the evacuation of the Pofts, and the 
 running of the boundary line.'* 
 
65- 
 
 Anfwer. The point of view in which I have now exhibited 
 the conduit of the Spanifh governors relative to the evacuation 
 of the pofts, and the running of the boundary line, I fhould fup- 
 pofe might convince you that the caufes which they have offered 
 for the delay, are mere pretences: the American citizens, to 
 whom you have appealed, have been convinced only by read- 
 ing the printed documents, without any comments. 
 
 " 9. That the infmuations with which you are willing to 
 
 perfuade the American people that our arming is directed 
 
 it them, are unjult as well as unfounded, as by Mr. 
 
 Blount's letter it is clearly demonftrated to be a precaution for 
 
 the mere purpofe of defence." 
 
 Anfwer. The grounds of my fuggeftions, which you call 
 " infmuai ions" are detailed in this letter, and embrace too ma- 
 ny facts and circumitances to be abridged : permit me to defirc 
 you to review them. I (hall only repeat, that nothing is more 
 certain than that Mr. Blount's letter has not the remotelt refe- 
 rence to the fufpected Canada expedition ; which is your only 
 pretence for reinforcing the ports in Upper Louiliana for 
 calling the Indians to your aid for holding the poits at the 
 Natchez, and Walnut Hills and for delaying to run the 
 boundary line. 
 
 " ro. That you evidently contradict yourfelf, when on one 
 hand you are pleafed to attribute to us the movements of the 
 Indians, and in the very next paragraph you mew it might 
 proceed from American Citizens, as it actually does, accord- 
 ing to Mr. Blount's letter; and that he acted with the know- 
 ledge and intelligence of the very fame Britifh Minifter, in 
 whofe private notes, without fignafure, and perhaps not of his 
 own hand writing, you place fuch implicit confidence. 
 
 Anfwer. I have ("hewn that there is not a ihadow of contra- 
 dict! ->n. in my obfervations on this fubject ; and your aflertions 
 to the contrary muft proceed only from your not understanding 
 them. You fay that Mr. Blount acted in this matter with 
 the knowledge and intelligence of the Britifh Minifter. This 
 is not likely lo be true. It is in proof, by other evidence than 
 the Britifh Minifter's notes, that he did not and could not au- 
 thorize the projected expedition againft the Floridas and par- 
 ticularly that one of his itrong objections againit it was, that it 
 contemplated the employing of the Indians \ although he thought 
 it proper to fubmit the projed to the confideration and decifion 
 of his government. Nobody therefore will believe that he au- 
 thorized Mr. Blount, or was even privy to his meafures, for 
 preparing the Indians for war. Befides, doclor Romayne, 
 who may be prefumed to be well acquainted with Mr. Blount 's 
 
66. 
 
 plot, fuggefts thaj it is not the project oi'Fered to Mr. Lifton 
 by Chilholm. Thefe are his words : " Mr. Blount is totally 
 unknown to Mr. Liflon, and Jo are all hi 's viczvs." And there 
 5s a paffage in Mr. Blount's letter which countenances the doc- 
 tor's affertion, and indicates, that although Chifholm and 
 Blount had fome communications with each other, yet that 
 their. views were not precifely the fame. Mr. Blount, in his 
 letter to Carey, fays, " Where captain Chifholm is, I do not 
 know. I left him in Philadelphia, in March, and he fre- 
 quently vifited the Miniiler and fpoke upon the fubjecl: ; but 
 I believe he will go into the Creek nation by way of South- 
 Carolina or Georgia. He gave out he was going to England ; 
 but I did not believe him." Thefe lait words afford a pretty 
 ftrong proof that they were nota&ing wholly in concert. Pro- 
 bably Mr. Blount endeavoured to perfuade Chiiholm that he 
 would co-operate in the profecution of his fcheme ; while at 
 the fame time he might have another of his own or in concert 
 with doctor Rornayne, and ftand ready in the event of things, 
 to make his advantage of either ; whichever mould offer the bed 
 profp'e& of fuccefs: Do6tor Romayne, you fee, fays that Mr. 
 Blount is totally unknown to Mr. Lifton : But it is well 
 known that Mr. Blount was your frequent gueft, and intimate 
 companion ; and that he was on this intimate footing with 
 you during the whole time -that you were reprefenting to the 
 government, your fufpicions of Britiih expeditions. Yet after 
 the difcovery of the confpiracy was made public, you formally 
 requefted the American government to puniih him for fo fcan- 
 dalous a crime. -But feeing that Mr. Blount was a citizen of 
 the United States, and not a fubjecl of Spain, it would have 
 been decent in you to have left him with his own government 
 \vithout iiiterpofmg your advice. But efpecially w r hen you 
 knew that the Prelldent had laid his letter before Congrefs ; 
 and the two Houfes were deliberating on the modes of pu-nifhing 
 him ; when the mveftigation had proceeded fo far that a com- 
 mittee of the Senate had reported a refolution to expel Mr. 
 Blount from the Senate ; and a committee of the Houfe had 
 reported a refolution that he mould be impeached for high crimes 
 and mifdemeanors : For you then to interfere was fingularly 
 improper ; and it was fuch an oftentatious difplay of zeal, as 
 under all the known eircumftances, fuggefts more than one 
 interpretation. 
 
 "n. That although in all your official communications, 
 you have always manifested to me that the American govern- 
 ment knew of nothing which indicated any foundation for my 
 fufpicions, Mr. Blount's letter clearly proves that I was per- 
 fectly in the right." 
 
Anfwer. This remark is perfectly in-confequential ; for your 
 communications exhibited your fufpicions of projected expedi- 
 tions only from Canada and Georgia : and I have mown that 
 Mr. Blount's letter has no relation to either. 
 
 I thought I had reached the end of your criminations : but 
 in your concluding paragraph you accufe me of an " unjufi: 
 partiality," meaning, no doubt, towards the Britjfh minifter 
 and his nation. The details I have given in this letter, I fruit 
 vvHl abundantly prove that this charge is as unfounded as it is 
 indecent. Thofe details verify the representations of the con- 
 duel of certain Spanifh officers which are given in my report 
 of the 3d of July to the. Prefident. If the truth has excited 
 any unpleafant fenfationts, thofe only are to blame whofe inju- 
 rious acl:s obliged me plainly to declare it. Inftead of this talk, 
 I mould have been happy to execute the grateful of nee of dat- 
 ing to the Prefident the good faith and amicable manner in 
 which the officers of his Catholic Majefty- had executed i ](, 
 treaty of friendfliip, limits and navigation between our n\ 4 . 
 nations. 
 
 You thiirk alfo that my report to the Prefident is not caJcu-ii- 
 ted to ftrengthen the bonds of ffieridjhip which un:te Spurn and Ame- 
 rica. Friendship, Sir, cannot fublift without mi'.: '^nce : 
 and confidence fprings from Jincerity. But the proceedings ot 
 the Spanifh officers, which are the fubjecl ot this corjefpcn- 
 dence, have fhaken the confidence of the government and of 
 the citizens of rhe United States ; and my report to ilvj Preli - 
 dent only exhibits a fummary of thofe proceedings ; or rather 
 the plain and obvious conclufions from the authentic i 
 and cira.'inftances detailed in the documents, then and hefoir 
 prefented to his view. And I dare venture to fay, that every 
 independent American has from the fame premrfes drawn the 
 fame conclufions. 
 
 Nothing, Sir, will give truer fatisfaSicn to the government 
 and citizens of the United States than to fee fucli a change in 
 the proceedings of the Spanifh officers as will reftore confi- 
 dence. The change would be eafy, and the effect certain. 
 Let them withdraw their troops and garrifms from the territories of 
 the United States. Let them commence and projecute the running of 
 the boundary line. Let them ceafe to fiop, contrml or regulate the 
 pajjage of our citizens on the Mijfftfippi, feeing f.hefs have a right to 
 navigate it with perfect freedom And let them ceafe to fend Agents cr 
 F.miffaries among the Indians refiding within the territories of the 
 United States. When they mall do thefe things (and the good 
 faith of his Catholic Majefty pledged in the treaty renders their 
 doing them an indifpenfable duty) then we ih all forget what 
 is pall ; our confidence will return ; and with it that beneficial 
 
68. 
 
 intercourfe and thofe friendly a6ls by which neighbours may 
 promote each others interefts, welfare and happinefs. And 
 for fuch a ftate of things, whatever you may have imagined to 
 the contrary, no one more ardently wifhes, and on its arrival, 
 no one will more fmcerely rejoice, than 
 
 Your obedient fervant, 
 
 TIMOTHY PICKERING. 
 
 (No. 14.) 
 
 (TRANSLATION.) 
 
 S I R. 
 
 THE day before yefterday, the I7th, your letter of the 8th 
 inftant was received at my houfe at Philadelphia, and yefter- 
 day, the iSth, it came to my hands at this city. I avail my- 
 felf of the firft opportunity to acknowledge the receipt of this 
 your anfwer to my letter of the nth of July laft, and as the ex- 
 amination of its contents would lead us to an endlefs difcufTion, 
 I confine myfelf to mention to you that v> hen I had the honor 
 of giving you the firft notice relative to the projected expedition 
 againft Louifiana, with all the particulars referred to in my faid 
 letter, you were alone in your Cabinet : That two days after I 
 went to fpeak to you on another fubjecl:, and having there met 
 the Secretary of War, Mr. M'Henry, I embraced the oppor- 
 tunity of fpeaking anew concerning it ; and if then I fpoke 
 in general terms, it was doubtlefs to avoid the repetition of 
 what I had communicated fo fhortly before. As it appears that 
 you have forgotten thiscircumftance, it is not extraordinary that 
 it mould have efcaped your memory in like manner with all the 
 particulars of my firft conference, mentioned in my above cited 
 letter. 
 
 J offer myfelf to your difpofition, and hope that God will 
 preferve you many years. 
 
 Your moft obedient fervant, 
 CARLOS MARTINEZ de YRUJO. 
 
 New-York > igth Auguft, 1797. 
 
 Timothy Pickering, Efquire, \ 
 Secretary of State. f 
 
69- 
 
 (No. 15.) 
 
 (TRANSLATION.) 
 S I R, 
 
 -. 
 
 WHEN the Kincr my mafler appointed me his Envoy Ex- 
 traordinary to th'/ United States of America, immediately after 
 having made with them a treaty the moft liberal and generous,* 
 I flattered myfelf, that the principal exercife of my functions 
 would be to give and receive repeated proofs of the union and 
 friendlnip fo intimate by the bands ot that Treaty. Inftead 
 of thofe flattering expectations judge of m.y feelings on fee- 
 ing them entirely vanilTied, and rinding in that convention, 
 which I trufted would forever have united us, the origin of 
 difagreement and contention unfortunately too well founded on 
 our part. 
 
 I have before made known to you the juft motives which had 
 determined the Spanilh Commandants of Louisiana, to fufpend 
 in part the entire execution of the treaty, as no injury to the 
 United States would flow from a Ibort delay ; and it might 
 occafion great injury to the fecurity of the pofTefiions of the 
 King to abandon certain ports, which under prefent circum- 
 ftances would leave Louisiana open to the attacks of the Eng- 
 lifli, and expofed to the effects of the evil intention of fome 
 Citizens of the United States. I have alfo heretofore (hewn 
 to you, that the American Agents at the Natchez, far from 
 contributing to preferve that union and harmony which is fp 
 [uitable to the two nations, conducted themfelves in a manner 
 highly imprudent ; and even that I had rcafon to believe that 
 they intended to obtain pofTeflion of the fort by furprize. The 
 lad advices which I have received from thoie parts, and the 
 documents I herewith tranfmit to you, appear to me to prove 
 it in fuch manner that I cannot but confider thofe fufpicions 
 as being very well founded. 
 
 For fome time paft the conduct in this refpect of the Com- 
 mandant of the American troops, Mr. Piercy Smith Pope, arid 
 at firlt of Mr. Andrew Ellicott, has been irregular, provoking, 
 and in fome degree hoftile. The Commandant Don Manuel 
 Gayofo had pofitive advice that in the camp of faid Pope a 
 great number of ladders were making, and that arms (armas 
 
 * Altho' you only characterize as jufl, the ftipulations of the treaty 
 with Spain, I will take the liberty of obferving, that, abftraftedly 
 from all the points which I touched in my letter of the 6th May, the 
 Spanifh fovereignty over the Natchez being in right of conqueft at the 
 period of the peace of 1783, if the United States obtained this pcffef- 
 <fion by a voluntary convention, they owe it only to the generoftty of 
 Spain. 
 
70. 
 
 blancas) were preparing, evincing by thefe preparations their 
 determination to affault the fort. The firmnefs and vigilence 
 of the Governor Don Manuel Gayofo appears to have induced 
 them to alter their intentions, and being well perfuaded, that 
 the forts of Negates and the Natchez could not be taken either 
 by force or furprize, they availed themfelves of fome profligate 
 people to foment an infurreclion, which it appears was to have 
 taken effect on the I2th June, and which the prudence and 
 preponderance of the wealthy inhabitants were alone capable 
 effectually to ftop. 
 
 The official letters of Mr. Piercy Smith Pope and Mr. An- 
 drew Ellicott, numbered 3 and 4, and the documents 5 and 6, 
 evidently mow the part which both of them took in that popu- 
 lar commotion, however they may pretend to deny it : fince 
 afluredly nothing of this kind would have happened, if they 
 had not aifumed without any authority whatever to treat of and 
 determine fome points and difcuilions of a political nature 
 foreign to their CommiiTion, with a publicity and arrogance 
 calculated to compromit the two powers, explaining them- 
 felves without candour and with intent to lead affray the popu- 
 lace on the principal point of the difficulty which had occa- 
 fioned a wifh on both fides for an explanation of the doubts 
 which arofe refpecHng the treaty. 
 
 If their conduct has been provoking and infuhing, their lan- 
 guage towards the Spanifh Government has not been lefs fo. 
 Mr. Andrew Ellicott in his letter of the I3th of June, to Don 
 Manuel Gayofo, fays, to embrace the means which will finally 
 tiffure to them their happincfs cannot be cenfured, (alluding to the 
 change of the people of the Natchez from the dominion of the 
 King my mafter to that of the United States) this is clearly an 
 indirect attack upon the Spanifh Government, as unjuft as im- 
 proper on the part of an Agent of a friendly nation. 
 
 The document number 5, figned by Mr. Ellicott and Piercy 
 Smith Pope, dated the I3th June, evidences, by the manner in 
 which it is written, their intentions to deceive the public. At 
 that time and even fince they neither had nor could have juft 
 ground for officially fpeaking of an approaching rupture be- 
 tween the United States and Spain ; yet you will fee, that they 
 fpeak of it as a thing at hand and almoft inevitable, relying 
 only on the preparations for felf-defence made in fome forts on 
 the banks of the Miflifippi, and which they knew to be incon- 
 fequence of the intended expedition of the Englifh. 
 
 The whole tenor of their correfpondence and particularly 
 the document number 6 leaves no doubt that thefe Agents have 
 interfered in political matters utterly foreign to their commif-t. 
 fion, engaging themfelves to 'co-operate wfih the Committee ap- 
 
7 1 - 
 
 printed to obtain the due execution ofjuftice,' and APPROVING of the 
 propofitions prefented to Governor Gayofo. 
 
 The repeated declarations you have made to me, that the in- 
 tention and defire of the United States are to preferve peace and 
 a good understanding with Spain, leave me no room to doubt, 
 thai the fcandalous and infulting conducl: of Mr. Ellicott, at firfl, 
 and finally of Captain Piercy Smith Pope, is purely arbitrary, 
 without any other guide than their pailions and individual in 
 terefts ; and at the fame time I can do no lefs than apply to you 
 in the name of the King my mafter, in order that for fuch 
 repeated infults there may be given to us due fatisfadlion as 
 neceiTary to Spain as becoming for the United States. 
 
 God preferve you many years. 
 
 Your moft obedient and humble fcrvant, 
 CARLOS MARTINEZ de YRUJO. 
 
 Philadelphia , gtb Oflober, 1797. 
 
 Timothy Pickering, Efquire, ") 
 Secretary of State. / 
 
 "The Documents referred to in the preceding letter, are 
 
 (No. i.) Governor Gayofo's letter of June 13, to Mr. Ellicott, 
 This is the fame with the document No. 2. before inferted. 
 
 (No. 2. A.) Governor Gayofo's letter to Lieut. P. Pope, of 
 June 13. 
 
 (No. 3. A.) Lieutenant Pope's anfwer of the fame date. 
 
 (No. 4.) Mr. Ellicott's anfwer to Governor Gayofo, of June 
 13. This is the fame as the document No. 3. before 
 inferted. 
 
 (No. 5. A.) Advice from Mr. Ellicott and Lieutenant Pope, to 
 the people, to remain quiet. 
 
 (No. 6.) Their approbation of the articles of pacification be- 
 ,. tween Governor Gayofo and the inhabitants. This is the 
 * fame as the preceding document No. 8. 
 
[ No. 2. A. ] 
 
 Governor Gaycfo, to Captain Pope. 
 S I R, 
 
 FROM repeated information of which I am poiTeiTed, it ap- 
 pears certain (and the conduct of fome of the inhabitants of 
 this government equally manifeft it) that a number of the fub- 
 je&s of his Majefty meditate and intend to rife and hoftily at- 
 tack the fort, unmindful of the oath of fidelity, which they 
 have taken, and of the benign prote6tion which the govern- 
 ment has, dilpenfed to them for many years, and declaring 
 themfelves, as it is faid, Citizens of the United States of Ame- 
 rica. It is alfo further afferted, that they do it by your in- 
 ftigation, and that they have in their pofleiTion a paper in which 
 you give authority to them in their rebellious defigns, and by 
 which you promife them your proteclion and to furnifh them 
 the means of putting them into execution. 
 
 I cannot perfuade my fe If that you would act in fo unlawful 
 a manner as to be the promoter and an active party in an in- 
 furre6lion which will inevitably terminate i?i ?. n:pture between 
 the two nations and the total ruin of this diilril and its inha- 
 bitants : Wherefore I pray you to inform me pofitively whe- 
 ther fuch is, or is not, your intention, in order that I may no- 
 tify it to the Commandant General of this Province, that it 
 may be communicated to his Majefty. And if you perlift in 
 the fame opinion, from this moment I proteft folemnly in the 
 name of my faid Commandant General, againft a conducl fo 
 irregular, making you reiponfible for the fatal confequences, 
 which rnay flow from it. 
 
 I repeat the requeft to you to give me a catagorical anfwer 
 on this fubject., and I have the honor to be with consideration, 
 
 Sir, your molt obedient fervant, 
 
 MANUEL GAYOSO de LEMOS. 
 Natchez^ i^th June 1797. 
 
 [ No. 3. A. ] 
 Lieutenant Pope, to Governor Gayofo. 
 
 Camp at the Natchez, i^th June, 1797. 
 S I R, 
 
 I HAVE received your letter of this date, in anfwer to which 
 I muft avail myfelf of anterior occurrences. Shortly after my 
 arrival here, did you not pofitively give it to be underflood^T 
 
that you intended to evacuate this poft, as being within the 
 territory of the United States ? In attending to your firft cor- 
 refpondence, I p re fume you cannot impute to me the charge 
 of inconHftency and impropriety. If your governmeat feels 
 the necefiity of breaking its engagements, and if on this very 
 account the people become irritated a^ainft it, as I have not 
 been the firfl promoter of the deceit, fo 1 am as little refponfi- 
 ble for the event. I confider myfelf as the perfon appointed 
 by my government to take pofletfion of the poit of the Natchez : 
 you admitted it in the beginning, and I confequently have a 
 right to fuftairi it. It is not furprizing that the citizens of the 
 United States have chofen me to defend their right. After 
 reflecting maturely upon every part of the queftion, it is fur- 
 prizing, that you Ihould yet confider the people of the Natchez 
 as fubje&s of his Catholic Majefty. But you appear to me to 
 requdt that I mould give you pofitive anfwers to general 
 queftions. 
 
 Have you endeavoured to inftigate the people of this country 
 to act hoftily againft the interefts'of his Catholic Majefty ? 
 
 Have you ftirred up the people to take the fort ? Or have 
 you moved or incited them to other hoftile objects? 
 
 To each of thefe queftions I anfwer pofitively, no: but as 
 commandant of the troops of the United States at, the lower 
 pofts, I muft allure you, that the landing of any troops or the 
 repairing of the fortifications of the territory in queftion, will 
 be confidered as an attack upon the dignity and the honor of 
 my country, and I mall conceive myfelf bound by duty to a6l 
 conformably to my prefent fentiments. I cannot neverthe- 
 lefs, as far as refpedts myfelf, omit informing you, that any 
 agreement upon juit principles will meet my approbation. 
 
 ") Commandant of the troops 
 
 PIERCY SMITH POPE, I of the United States on 
 
 J the Millifippi. 
 
 Senor Don Manuel Gayofo de Lemos. 
 
 [ No. 5. A. ] 
 Copy of a paper which was circulated. 
 
 WE the fubfcribers have no knowledge of our Country be- 
 ing now at war ; but from the hoftile preparations, which the 
 Officers of H. C. M. are making in thefe parts we are in- 
 duced to believe, that war is not very cliflant, and until the 
 Commencement of hoftiliiies againit the United States, thofe 
 
74- 
 
 ivho confider themfelves Citizens thereof will re fpecl all def- 
 criptions of perfons and things. 
 
 ANDREW ELLICOTT,} C "S r , f the 
 
 > Commandant of the troops 
 PIERCY SMITH POPE, I of the United States on. 
 
 J the Miflifippi. 
 Natchez, i^th June, 1/97. 
 
 (No. 16.) 
 
 (TRANSLATION.) 
 
 From the Chevalier de Trujo, to the Secretary of Stale. 
 
 S I R, 
 
 ALTHO' the anfwer which you gave to the letter I had 
 the honor of writing to you on the 6th of May lad, excited in 
 me all the obfervations which I fhall now prefent to you in 
 this, wiming upon the whole, that the interefts of America 
 would induce its Adminiftration to adopt the conciliatory mode 
 which I propofed to you, that of giving to the American Ple- 
 nipotentiaries going to Paris, the neceflary inftru&ions for ad- 
 jufting the differences with Spain, I at that time abftained from 
 entering into a reply ; which although well founded, might 
 not perhaps contribute fo much to the good intelligence be- 
 tween Spain and the United States, as the idea which I then 
 fuggefted to you, and have juft now mentioned. The lively 
 jdefire which I have had and ftill have, not to fee interrupted 
 the harmony between thefe two nations, has caufed me to view 
 with regret after feveral weeks filence your difappointment in 
 fuppofing that the reafons upon which your anfwer is founded 
 were fufficient to convince his Catholic Majefty of the impar- 
 tiality and good faith of the United States on this point. My 
 fufpicions have been verified, and your expectations are en- 
 tirely fruftrated by the late orders which I have juft received 
 from the King my Mafter. 
 
 His Catholic Majefty has not obferved in the faid anfwer 
 from you, any reafon to induce him to change his opinion 
 concerning the injuries refulting to his fubje6t.s from the fti- 
 pulatipns of the Englifh Treaty, compared with thofe of the 
 Treaty with Spain, as well on the fubjecT: of the Articles of 
 contraband, as on the principle adopted in ours " That frre 
 mips ihould make free goods, &c." 
 
75- 
 
 But what has moil aftoniihcd his Majefly and confirmed 
 him in the juftice of his pretenfions, is what you have faid in 
 your anfwer with regard to the navigation of the Miflifippi. 
 I am ordered, therefore, on a review of the whole, to make 
 to this government, thro' you, the following obfervations. 
 
 When the Secretary of State, Mr. Jefferfon, on the I ^th 
 of May 1793, wrote to Mr. Ternant, then the Minifter Ple- 
 nipotentiary of France, reclaiming the Englifh fhip Grange, 
 captured at the mouth of the River Delaware, by the Frigate 
 L' Ambufcade, belonging to the Republic, he accompanied 
 his letter with the opinion of Mr. Randolph, Attorney Gene- 
 ral of the United States, in which the right of reclamation v, as 
 among other reafons founded on the following. 
 
 " That the whole of its defcent to the Atlantic Ocean is 
 covered on each fide by the territory of the United States : 
 That from tide-water to the diftance of about fixty miles from 
 the Atlantic Ocean, it is called the river Delaware. 
 
 " That its mouth is formed by the Capes Henlopen and 
 May ; the former belonging to the State of Delaware in proper- 
 ty and jurifdicHbn ; the latter to the State of New-Jerfcy. 
 
 " That the Delaware does not lead from the fea to the domi- 
 nions of any foreign nation. 
 
 " The corner-ftone of our claim h, that the United States are 
 proprietors of the lands on both fides of the Delaware, from 
 its head to its entrance into the fea. 
 
 " A River confide red merely as fuch, is ike property of the peopl 
 through whofe lands it flows, or of him under luboje jurljditiim that 
 people is" Grot. b. 2. c. 2. . 12. 
 
 " Rivers might be held in property, though ;/. ;//vr whtft they rift; 
 nor where they dif charge themfehes be within our territory, but they 
 join both, or the fea.. It isfufficient for us that the larger part of 
 zvater, that is, the fides, isflmt up In our banks, and that the river 
 in refpecJ of our land, is iff elf f mall and infignifcant. Grot. b. 2. 
 c. 3. . 7. And Barbegroe* in his note fubjoins that neither 
 of thofe is necefiary. 
 
 " Rivers may be the property of whole States. Puff. b. 2. c. 3. . 
 4. To render a thing capable of being appropriated, it is not JlriElly 
 neceffary that we fhould enclofe, or be able to enckfe it within artificial 
 bounds, or fuch as are different from its own jubjlance ; itisfuffi- 
 cient if the compafs and extent of it can be any way determined. And 
 therefore Grotius bath given hlmfelf a needlefs trouble, when, to 
 prove rivers capable of property, he ufeth this argument , that although 
 they are bounded by the land at neither end, but united to the other 
 rivers or the fea, yet it is enough, that the greater part of them, that 
 /V, their fides, are enclofed. Puff. b. 4. c. 5. . 3. 
 [* Meaning Barbeyrac. 3 
 
<{ When a nation takes pffiffion <fa country, in crd:r i~ fettle there, 
 it pcjj'ifjes every thing included in it, as lands , lakes, rivers. Vat- 
 tel, b. i. c. 22. . 266. 
 
 " Congrcfs too have afied on thefe ideas, when, in their collec- 
 tion of laws, they afcribe to a ilate the rivers wholly within 
 that State. 
 
 " The gulphs and channels, cr arms cfthefea, are, according to 
 the regular courfe, fupp-fed to belong to the people zvith whofe lands 
 they are cncompoffed. PufF. b. 4. c. 5. . 8. 
 
 " Thefe remarks may be enforced by afking what nation 
 can be injured in its rights, by the Delaware being appropriated 
 to the United States? And to what degree may not the United 
 States be injured, on the contrary ground? It communicates 
 with no foreign dominion." 
 
 What a multitude of confequences may be drawn from the 
 application of thefe principles, eftablifhed by the American ad- 
 minirtration four years ago, with regard to the navigation of 
 the Miflifipi ! The powerful arms held therein by Spain for 
 obitrufting this navigation, her not having made ufe of them, 
 and her having infifted in a manner fo explicit and pofitive 
 that the citizens of the United States alone fhould have a rigjht to 
 the advantages of this river, are a convincing and incontestable 
 proof of the good faith and upright intentions of Spain. But 
 the privilege of the Citizens of the United States to navigate 
 the faid river to the ocean, not being now doubted let us quit 
 this point in order to treat alone of that which regards the right 
 acknowledged to England by the American Administration, for 
 the enjoyment of its advantages. 
 
 What does Spain wifh or defire r That the American Citizens 
 al-int, of all the foreign nations, fhould enjoy the privilege of 
 this navigation. What does the American Adminiftration wifh 
 or de fire? That it Jhould not le the American Citizens alone, who 
 fhould reap the advantages of it. From this difference of pre- 
 tenfions, it would appear that Spain defends the interefts of 
 America more than the adminiftration itfelf. 
 
 You fay in your arifwer to me of the lyth of May, " But 
 I might deny that the United States ever granted the right of 
 navigating the MiiFifippi, to Great-Britain. A recurrence to 
 the treaties to which you refer, will prove that ihe pofTerTed 
 that right b^ the peace of 1763; and that fhe has never for- 
 mally relinquished it." In another paragraph of the fame let- 
 ter you add, " By the defini'ive treaty of peace concluded the 
 3d of September 1783, the latter ceded to Spain Eafr-Florida ; 
 as alfo Weft-Florida : But the river Miffifippi, as you cbferve, 
 is not even mentioned in the treaty. What is the juft infer- 
 ence from this circumflance the United States need not decide. 
 
77- 
 
 Doubtlefs Great-Britain conceived it important to hold a 
 right to the navigation of it, and all parties at that time certain- 
 ly fuppofed that parts of her territories joined its eaflern fide, 
 and probably no one can now fay they do not." 
 
 If it be certain that the United States never have granted 
 to England the right of navigating the Miflifippi, to the Ocean, 
 it is notwithftanding very evident that they have acknowledged it 
 with every fdemnity, as appears by the treaty of 1783, by that 
 of Commerce, and laftly by the explanatory article iigned on 
 the 4th of May 1796. How then could you fay to me " What 
 is the juft inference from this circumftance, the United States 
 need not decide ?" Have they not decided as pofitively as fa- 
 vorably for England by acknowledging the claim to an unjuft 
 right ? Which of the principles eftablifhed by the officers of 
 the administration, in relation to the Delaware, in the cafe of 
 the (hip Grange, will apply to England in relation to the 
 Miflifippi r For inftance, is its fource in the Britifh domini- 
 ons? Does it run through their provinces or difcharge itfelf in 
 their poffeflions r But you fay that when by the Treaty of 
 1783, England ceded to Spain Eall and Weft Elcrida, (he did 
 not make mention of the Miffifippi, but the Attorney General 
 of the United States eftablifhed in the cafe of the Grange the 
 principle of Vattel. That " when a nation takes pvffeffiw of a 
 country, in order to fettle there, it poffeffes every thing included ,' 
 as lands, lakes, rivers," of courfe when Great-Britain cc;L-d 
 Eaft and Weft Florida, (he likewife ceded the lands, lakes and 
 rivers, the right of which Hie might have held in the faid pof- 
 feflions. By the principle cilablimed by you that [he had not 
 exprefsiy renounced it, having made no mention of the rivers 
 Apalachicola, Mobile or Alabama, and others, the United 
 States might believe themfelves in like manner authorized to 
 recognize the navigation in favor of England, becaufe they are 
 not mentioned in the Treaty. France alfo might claim the 
 navigation of the Miffilippi, fince in the a& of ceilion to Spain 
 of New-Orleans, me did not exprefjy renounce the navigation 
 of this River. By this fame principle the United States might 
 fuppofe themfelves authorized to recognize to France the right 
 of navigating the river St. Laurence. The cafe is abfolutely 
 fimilar. France does not hold an inch of land on its borders, 
 England does not po fiefs a thumb's breadth on thofe of the 
 Miliifippi. The river St. Laurence neither has its fource,: 
 runs through, nor empties in the polleflions of France. The 
 Miflifippi neither has its origin, runs through, nor empties in 
 the dominions of England. France once had the right of . na- 
 ,JSrigating the river St. Laurence, becaufe flic had poifeflions on' 
 its borders. England alfo once enjoyed the right to the navi- 
 
Cation of tlie Miilifippi, becaufe me had poflefTions on its mar- 
 gins. In the ceffion of Canada no mention is made of the 
 river St. Laurence, altho' it fpeaks of lilands. Nor is the 
 Miffifippi named in the ceffion of the Floridas: the cafe then 
 is abfolutely iimilar. If the United States, although they did 
 not grant, Should acknowledge to France the right of navigating 
 the river of St. Laurence, would not England with infinite 
 reafon confider herfelf as juftly offended ? Why therefore, 
 when the United States acknowledge to England a right as 
 unjuft, with regard to Spain, as prejudicial to the American 
 Citizens, fhould not Spain look upon herfelf as offended and 
 infulted? I repeat the text of Vattel " When a nation takes 
 pcffcffion of a country, in order to fettie there, it pffiffes every thing 
 included in it, as lands, lakes, rivers." 
 
 Afterwards touching the fubjeft whether the poiTeiTions bor- 
 der on the Miififippi or not, you add (f and probably no one can 
 now fav ib.y do not" I can allure you they do not. The late 
 difcoveries of M'Kenzie, and the beft Map that has hitherto 
 been publillied of North America, in London, about eighteen 
 months ago, by A. Arrowfmith, evidence that the true origin 
 of the Miififippi is in White Bear Lake, and that from that 
 point its waters do not touch any Englifh territory. If other 
 teftimony were neceiiary I ihould not feek it abroad : at Mil- 
 ford in Connecticut, there now lives Mr. Peter Pond, who has 
 been employed 17 years in the fervice of the Hudfon Company, 
 has parTed over and examined all thofe regions ; has been at the 
 fame origin of the Miilifippi, that is at IVhite Bear Lake, and 
 has formed a valuable Map, which he now preferves in ma- 
 nufcript, and which confirms that the Englifh have not a foot of 
 land on the borders of the Miflifippi. 
 
 Having therefore, in my opinion, completely confuted the 
 moil effential part of the anfwer which you gave to my faid 
 letter of the 6th May, and having proved to demonftration the 
 juft motives which his Catholic Majefty has for being offended 
 with the explanatory article iigned by you and Mr. Bond, on the 
 4th of May 1 796, it only remains for me to afk you in the name 
 of the King my Matter, whether the United States contemplate, 
 or not, the performance of the above mentioned Treaty, in this 
 particular. 
 
 I tender you my fervices, and hope that the Lord may pre- 
 ferve you many years. 
 
 Your moft obedient fervant, 
 CARLOS MARTINEZ de YRUJO. 
 
 Philadelphia, 2T/? Nov. 1797. 
 Timothy Pickering, Efquirel 
 Secretary of State. f. 
 
79- 
 
 (No. 17.) 
 
 For the AURORA. 
 
 To the NATIVE AMERICAN. 
 
 THE punctuality with which I have anfwered the letters 
 you adclrefled to the Chevalier deYrujo, and the defence you 
 have taken on ycurfclf as well of Mr. Pickering as of the inte- 
 refts of Great-Britain, authorize me in dire6ting this letter to 
 you, and impofes on you the obligation of anfwering it. Pre- 
 vious to my entering on the principal object of it, permit me, 
 Sir, to make a few obfervations. 
 
 Since our correfpondence has ceafed, the King of Great- 
 Britain and his Council have declared, that they Jhould not corji- 
 der in England, as American Citizens, thofe, -who have been natu- 
 ralized fmce the acknowledgment of our Independence. This tyrani- 
 cal declaration, contrary to all the principles of natural right, 
 acknowledged by the firft publicists, which, as it injures a 
 great number of individuals in this- country and wounds at the 
 fame time the facred right of its Sovereignty, I expected would 
 have excited in you, Sir, that fervent zeal with which you have 
 appeared to defend the intereit of the United States in the dif- 
 pute refpe6ting the delivery of the pofts and the line of demarca- 
 tion with the Spaniards. From whence then arifesthis filence^ 
 Are you ignorant of the effects of this determination which ex- 
 tends the oppreflion of Great-Britain to the very wilds of Ame- 
 rica ? Can you be ignorant that the three-fifths of that active and 
 valuable clafs of citizens which export the products of the coun- 
 try, equip the mips which carry the American flag to the ex- 
 tremeties of the earth, and which fupports our nmeries, in the 
 perfect confidence and fecurhy of being protected by that go- 
 vernment to whom they have fworn allegiance, are thereby 
 entirely thrown on the mercy of England ? And do you not 
 forefee that its immediate confequence Is authorizing the Britilh 
 fhips of war hereafter to feize the crews of our vefTeis under the 
 appearance of a right ? Where then is this zeal of yours which 
 reibunded in every Gazette, when the fubject in queftion 
 was merely a momentary fufpenfion of apart of the treaty with 
 Spain, although this nation had the mod powerful motives for 
 fo doing ? What is become of the phalanx of fcribblers, at 
 whofe head you appeared, with FEN NO and the mighty POR- 
 CUPINE to defend vigouroufly the rights of America? Surely 
 neither you nor any other perfon whatever will pretend to deny 
 
8o. 
 
 or even exprefs a doubt, that the above mentioned declaration 
 of the Briiifh, monarch does not violate them in a moft unjuft 
 and hoftile manner ? From whence then fo much noife and cla- 
 mour when treating of the affairs in difpute with Spain ? And 
 from whence arifes *hat fervile filence, in a Native American 
 when the queftion is to defend his country againft the tyranny 
 of England ? This difference of conduct confirms my fufpicions 
 of your being a mere Britiih hireling, who has alfumed a re- 
 fpeclable title in order the more eafily to deceive the good faith 
 and candor of your readers \ but fortunately you have completely 
 unmafkcd yourfelf, and the public may now judge the decree 
 of faith and confidence to be placed in your productions. But 
 to return to the affairs of Spain. 
 
 In my former letters I think I evidently proved the injuftice 
 of your attacks againft Spain and its minifters: I think I have 
 fufficiently fhewn that the projects of Bloimt, and the intended 
 expedition of the Englifh againft the poflTeiiions of his Catholic 
 Majefty, have juftified the retention of the ports, as the moft 
 imminent danger might have arifen by their delivery. I ihali 
 now endeavor to give frefn proots of our adminiftration's not 
 acting towards Spain with that equity, juftice and honour 
 which a found policy requires, and which certainly appertains 
 to a nation that calls itfelf neutral, and affecls to be ftricllv 
 fo. 
 
 Ever fince exterior commerce and navigation, which is its 
 confequence, have influenced in politics, mercantile connexi- 
 ons have been confidered the links which unite moft one nation 
 with another. Thefe mercantile relations confift in mutual 
 wants and reciprocal means of Satisfying them. From fuch 
 evident principles it refults that there exifts few nations which 
 would and ought to eftablifh a more intimate connexion than 
 the United States and Spain. Our flour, plank, 1 timber, pitch 
 and the articles of fait provifions, can always find a fure and 
 advantageous market in his Catholic Majefty 's dominions both 
 in Europe and America; on the other hand, the wines, bran- 
 dies, oil, and fruits of Spain, the coffee and fugar of her colo- 
 nies are articles we are in want of. Behold here the bafis 
 of a perfe6t union and friendfhip which \vould open an exten- 
 five field for fpeculation with mutual advantage. His Catholic 
 Majefty made the firft ftep towards this union, by concluding 
 with the United States a very liberal treaty eftablifhed on the 
 principles of found policy, and when we ought to have expect- 
 ed that our admin if I: ration would endeavour to tighten the bands 
 of friendfhip with a nation from whom fo many advantages 
 would have accrued, itfignedon the 4th of -May, 1796, only a 
 few months after concluding a treaty with Spain, an explanatory ' 
 
article to that part of the Englim treaty which regards the na- 
 vigation of the Miilifippi, acknowledging to the Englifh aright 
 to the faid navigation. In order to convince every impartial 
 American of the injuftice of this proceeding-, I {hall not feek in 
 any foreign text for arguments on which to ground mine. 
 The principles eftablifhed by the officers of the United States, 
 three or four years ago will be the bafis of my obfervations. 
 
 When the Secretary of State, Mr. JefFerfon, wrote on the 
 1 5th of May, 1793, to M. de Ternant, then miniiter plenipo- 
 tentiary of France, claiming the British fhip Grange, taken 
 at the entrance of the Delaware, by the French frigate 1'Am- 
 bufcade, he communicated to him the opinion of the Attorney- 
 General of the United States, in which, among others, he 
 founded his claim on the following reafons : 
 
 " That the whole of its defcent (the river Delaware) to the 
 Atlantic Ocean, is covered on each fide by territory of the Uni- 
 ted States : 
 
 " That from tide-water to the diftance of about fixty miles 
 from the Atlantic Ocean, it is called the river Delaware : 
 
 " That its mouth is formed by the Capes Henlopen and May ; 
 the former belonging to the State of Delaware in property 
 and jurifdi&ion, the latter to the State of New-Jerfey. 
 
 * * That the Delaware does not lead from the fea to the domi- 
 nions of any foreign nation. 
 
 " The corner ftone of our claim is, that the United States 
 are proprietors of the land on both fides of the Delaware, from 
 its head to its entrance into the fea. 
 
 t{ A river conftdered merely as fuch, is the property of the people 
 through whofe lands It flows, or of him under whofe jurifdlcllon that 
 people is. Grot. b. 2. c. 2. . 12. 
 
 " Rivers might be held in property ; though neither where they rife 
 nor where they dif charge themf elves be within our territory, but they 
 join to both, or the fea. It Is fufficient for us that the larger part of 
 zvater, that is thejides, is Jhut up in our banks, and that the river, 
 In refpeff of our land, is iff elf f mall and Injlgnlficant. Grot. b. 2. 
 c. 3. 7. and Barobegre in his note fubjoins that neither of thofe 
 is neceflTary. 
 
 " Rivers may be the property of whole States. Puff. b. 3. c. 3. 
 
 4- 
 
 " To render a thing capable cf being appropriated, it is notftrlttly 
 neceffary that we Jhould enchfe it, or be able to er.clofe within artificial 
 bounds, or fuch as are different from its civnfubftance, It Is fufficient 
 If the compajs and extent of it can be any way determined. And there- 
 fore Grotius has given hlmfelf a needlefs trouble, when to prove rl- 
 jvet s capable of property, he ujeth this argument, that although the\ 
 'are bounded by the land at neither end } but united to the other rivers 
 
 L 
 
or thefea, yet it is enough, that the greater part of them, that is their- 
 Jides, are enckfed. Puff, b. 4. c. 5. 3. 
 
 " When a nation takes pofj'tffion of a country, in order to fettle there y 
 it poffeffes every thing included in if, as lands, lakes, rivers. Vattel, 
 b. i. c. 22. 266. 
 
 ft Congrefs too have a&edon thefe ideas, when, in their col- 
 lection of laws, they afcribe to a ftate the rivers wholly within 
 that State. 
 
 " The guJphs and channels, or arms of thefca, are, according to 
 the regular courfe, fuppojcd to belong to the people with whcfe lands 
 they are encompajjed. Puff. b. 4. 0.5. 8. 
 
 " Thefe remarks may be enforced by aflung, what nation 
 can be injured in its rights, by the Delaware being appro- 
 priated to the United States ? And to what degree may not the 
 United States be injured, on the contrary ground ? It commu- 
 nicates w r ith no foreign dominion." 
 
 Now, Mr. Native American, what a multitude of confe- 
 quenees could we not draw by an application of thefe princi- 
 ples (eftablifhed by our adrniniftration four years ago,) to the 
 Subject refpeding the navigation of the Miliifippi ! What 
 powerful arms was it not in the hands of Spain to have refufed 
 us this navigation ! Not to have made ufe of them and her 
 infifting, in an explicit and pofitive manner, that the citizens 
 alone cf the United States fhould have a right to the advantages 
 of this river, evidently proves her good taith and found inten- 
 f ions. But as the right which the Americans have to navigate 
 t'his river, to the very ocean, is no longer doubtful, let us quit 
 this topic and treat only of that with refpect to the right ac- 
 knowledged, by our adminiftration, in favour of England to 
 thefe advantages. 
 
 What does Spain wifh for, or defire ? that, of all foreign na- 
 tions, the Americans alone mould enjoy the privilege of this na- 
 vigation. And what is the wifh and delire of our adminiftra- 
 tion ? That the citizens of America Jhouldnot be the only people 
 to enjoy its advantages. From this it evidently refults, that 
 the King of Spain is the defender of the interefts of America, 
 and that our adminiftration inftead of promoting it, has meanly 
 facrificed it to England. Impartial Americans, who love your 
 country, with more fincerity than the Native American to whom 
 I addrefs this letter, let your attention reft a while on the pre- 
 fent fubjecl, and you will evidently fee I do not exaggerate, 
 when I tell you, that in this refpecl: our adminiftration has 
 bafely facrificed our advantages by their unjuft partiality to 
 Great-Britain. In order to make this more evident, examine 
 the anfwer given by Mr. Pickering on the ryth of May to the 
 Chevalier de Yrujo's letter of the 6th of the fame month ; in 
 
it you will fee, thai the Secretary of State of a neutral nation, 
 precifely in a moment when hi* administration is taxed of being 
 unjuftly partial to England, inftead of effacing this impreffion 
 by a line of conduct ftriclly neutral, takes upon himfelf to de- 
 fend the caufe and interefts of Great-Britain. Mr. Pickering, 
 attacked by the ftrength of the Chevalier de Yrujo's argu- 
 ments, fays, " But I might deny that the United States ever 
 granted the right of navigating the Mifiifippi to Great-Britain, 
 a recurrence to the treaties to which you refer, will prove that 
 fhe poffeiTed that right by the peace of 1763; and that fhe has 
 never formally relinquijhed it." In another paragraph of the 
 fame letter he fays " By the definitive treaty of peace betv/ecii 
 Spain and Great-Britain in 1783, the latter ceded to Spain Eaft 
 Florida, as alfo Weft Florida ; but the river Miffifippi, as you 
 obferve, is not even mentioned in the treaty. What is the juft 
 inference from this circumftance the United States need not 
 decide. Doubtlefs Great-Britain conceives it important to hold 
 a right to the navigation of it, and all parties at that time cer- 
 tainly fuppofed that parts of her territories joined its eaflern 
 fide; and probably no one can now fay they do not." Mr. 
 Native American, if it be true that the United States never 
 granted the right of navigating the Miflifippi as far as the ocean, 
 to Great Britain, can you or any other perfon who knows how 
 to read, pretend to deny that if they did not grant it, they fe- 
 hmnly acknowledged it, as appears by the treaty of 1783, the 
 unfortunate treaty of Commerce, and laftly by the explana- 
 tory article, figned the 4th of May, 1796? How then can 
 Mr. Pickering p re fume to fay, " what is the juft inference 
 from this circumftance the United States need not decide," 
 has it not been pofitively decided in favor of Great-Britain by 
 acknowledging and confirming an unjuft right thereto ? Which 
 of the principles eftabliihed by the officers of Government re- 
 fpecling the Delaware in the affair of the Grange, can be ap- 
 plied to England, with refpecl to the MiiTifippir Does if. 
 take its rife in her dominions ; does it run through the territo- 
 ries, or does it empty itlelf in her poffeflions? However, Mr. 
 Pickering fays that, when by the definitive treaty of peace of 
 1783, England ceded Eaft and Weft Florida, no mention was 
 made of the Miflifippi ; Mr. Native American, the Attorney 
 General of the United States has eftablifhed the principle of 
 Vattel, that, when a nation takes pojjefjion of a country, in order to 
 fettle there, it polff'ejffes every thing included in it, as lands, lakes, and 
 rivers ; of courfe when Great-Britain ceded Eaft and Weft 
 Florida, it equally ceded the lands, Jakes, and rivers to which 
 it had a right in the faid provinces. By this fame principle of 
 . Mr. Pickering, as no mention was made of the rivers Apala- 
 
84. 
 
 chicola, Mobile or Alabama, and others, the United States 
 might with as much propriety fuppofe themfelves authorized 
 to recognize a right to their navigation in favour of Great- 
 Britain. France might equally claim a right to the navigation 
 of the Miflifippi, as in the acl: of ceding New-Orleans to Spain, 
 fhe does not exprefrly renounce the navigation of faid river. 
 On the very fame princip^ the United States might fuppofe 
 themfelves authorized to recognize a right to France to the na- 
 vigation of the river St. Laurence : the cafe is identically the 
 fame, France has not an inch of land on its banks, England 
 ha c not a fpot on thofe of Miflifippi. The river St. Laurence 
 neither takes its rife, nor runs, or empties itfelf in the poflef- 
 ilons of France ; the Miflifippi neither rifes, nor runs, or 
 empties rfclf in the dominions of Great-Britain. France had 
 once a right to the navigation of the river St. Laurence, be- 
 caufe fhe had pofleflion? on its banks: England likewife/^ 
 once a right to the navigation of the Miflifippi,. becaufe fhe had 
 poflefilons on its borders. In the ceflion of Canada no men- 
 tion is made of the river St. Laurence, although mention is 
 made of its iflands : in the ceflion of the Floridas no mention 
 is likewife made of the Miflifippi ; thus then, I repeat, the 
 cafe is identically the fame. Now, Mr. Native American, if 
 the United States were to require or acknowledge, although they 
 did not grant, to France a right to navigate the river St. Lau- 
 rence, would not England, with great reafon be highly offend- 
 ed ? Would fhe not look upon this act of the United States as 
 an outrage? If fo, why mould not Spain look upon herfelf as 
 grofsly injured by the acknowledgement of a right as injuri- 
 ous to i he fubje&s of Spain as it is to the citizens of America r 
 I again repeat the quotation of Vattel, " when a nation takes 
 poiTeflion of a country, in order to fettle there, it pofles every 
 thing included in it, as lands, lakes, rivers." Mr. Pickering 
 continuing in the language and ftile of an advocate for Great- 
 Britain, inftead of ufing that which becomes the Secretary of 
 State of a nation which calls itfelf neutral, fpeaking whether 
 the Englifh poflefllons touch on the Miflifippi or not, adds, 
 *' and probably no one can now fay they do not." I, Mr. 
 
 Native American, can a flu re you they do net, and if Mr. P 
 
 had been attentive to the progrefs of Geography, and was even 
 acquainted, as it is his duty, at leaft with that of his own 
 country, he would know, as well as me, that they do not. The 
 laft difcoveries of M'Kenzie, and the Map piiblifhedin London 
 1 8 months ago, by Mr. A. Arrowfmith, fully prove the origin 
 of the Miflifippi to be in the White Bear Lake, and that from 
 this point itscourfe does not run through any Britifh pofleflion. 
 If it were neceflary to produce any new teftimony in addition ' 
 
to the foregoing, I would not feek it among .foreigners : At 
 Milford, in Connecticut, there actually lives a Mr. Peter Pond, 
 who was employed 17 years in the fervice of the Hudfon Bay 
 company ; he has gone over and examined particularly all thoie 
 regions ; he has been at the very fource of the Mifiifippi, name- 
 ly, the White Bear Lake, and has made out a valuable Map, 
 which he yet preferves in manufcript, and which confirms that 
 the Engliih have not a foot of land on the MifTifippi. With 
 thefe proofs, Mr. Native American, (notwithstanding Mr. Pic- 
 kering's doubts, which are perhaps voluntary) I think I can 
 fafely allure you, they do not. 
 
 Mr. Native American, the profperity of the United States de- 
 pends on peace, and peace on a ftrict neutrality ; let us be juft 
 and we (hall be refpected. Honefty is the left policy, and furely 
 the contents of my former letter, as well as thofe of the prefent 
 one, evidently prove that our adminiftration has neither acted 
 with juftice or honefty towards Spain. The clamours refpect- 
 ing the momentary fufpenfion of the leaft erTential part of the 
 treaty, have been incelfant, when in reality, at the very mo- 
 ment Spain held out a friendly and liberal hand to us, we have 
 repaid this act of generofity with ingratitude, recognizing to her 
 enemy a claim to a pretended and unjujl right. The friendfhip of 
 Spain ought to be dear to us, as from a good underftandins; 
 with her may refult a. commercial treaty, which would at the 
 fame time vivify and fupply her colonies and open an extend ve 
 field for the profperity of our navigation and commerce. The 
 unjuft proceeding of the adminiftration is not furely the method 
 of obtaining an object: we ought all anxioufly to wifh for. If 
 the adminiftration acts with juftice and equity it is the duty of 
 every good American to fupport it ; but I obfervc with much 
 regret that many of my fellow-citizens, daily confound the 
 minifters, or the admin ijlration with government, and think they 
 fupport the latter, when in fact they fupport the adminiftration. 
 If minifters, animated either by the fpirit of party or by other 
 views, proceed in their meafures with injuftice, it is necefiary to 
 attack the adminiftration in order to fupport the government ; for the 
 adminiftration can in many inftances be as much the enemy of 
 the government as merchants are often the greateft enemies of 
 commerce. 
 
 I hope, Mr. Native American, you will be plea fed to favor 
 me with an anfwer on the different points Contained in this 
 letter, as I (hall look on your filence to be an implicit con- 
 feflion of the impoftibility you find therein. Although the 
 various fubjedts contained herein are fufceptible of greater elu- 
 cidation, I have adhered folely to the moft prominent points in 
 
86. 
 
 order to focilitpte your anfwer, and that the public may tho- 
 roughly invefiigate the fubjecl:. 
 
 V E R U S. 
 
 (No. 18.) 
 
 The Secretary of State, to the Chevalier de Trujo. 
 
 Department of State, Philadelphia, Jan. 2oth, 1798. 
 S I R, 
 
 AS your letters of the 9th of October and 2Tft of Novem- 
 ber lad, contained no new matter of any confequence, and a 
 frefh difcuflion of the points in difpute would require, on my 
 part, only a recurrence to arguments formerly and conclufively 
 urged, the general impreflion on my mind was, that it would 
 not be neceifary to give them a formal reply , whatever notice 
 it might be proper to take of them in a report to the Prefideni 
 of the United States. Neverthelefs, I will now trouble you 
 with a few observations. 
 
 A confederation of the papers heretofore laid before Congrefr, 
 relative to the affairs on the MifTIfippi, of others fmce received 
 from thence, in conjunction vvith your letter of the 9th of Oc- 
 tober and its inclofures, convinces me that the conduct, of Mr. 
 Ellicott and Lieutenant Pope has been neither " fcandalcus" 
 nor " infulting" towards the Spanifh officers in that country ; 
 and that if any undue zeal or intemperance has been manifefted 
 by either in maintaining the juft Rights of the United States, 
 the meafures adopted by thofe officers to evade the execution of 
 the Treaty between the United States and Spain, have been 
 the caufe. It is by this courfe of conduct in the Spanifh officers 
 that the King, their mafler, has been dishonoured, and not by 
 the actions of the officers of the United States. I may, doubt- 
 lefs, be juflified in faying, that their detention of the Polls and 
 delays to run the boundary line, have been unauthorized by 
 the King. It is certain that neither of thofe Spanifh officers 
 has ever intimated an order from their government as a war- 
 rant or an apology for their proceedings. 
 
 In your letter of the 2ift of November, you recur to the fe- 
 veral topics of your letter of the 6th of May, 1797 ; but exhibit 
 no new argument on the points really in difpute. You barely 
 mention the fubject of the articles contraband of war, and the 
 principle that free Blips make free goods. The ftipulations- 
 
of the United States on thefe points, in their Treaty of 1794, 
 with Great-Britain, were fully jufHfied in my anfwer of the 
 1 7th of May to vour letter of the 6th. If any thing further 
 were necefTary, I would fay (what I then mentioned as not to 
 be doubted) that the Spanifh government voluntarily entered in- 
 to the different flipulations with the United States, when it 
 pofTeflfed full knowledge of our flipulations in the Commercial 
 Treaty with Great-Britain ; having in its hands the Treaty it- 
 felf ; and having alfo ratified its Treaty with the United States 
 fix months afterwards ; which the Spanifh government would 
 have been juflifled in refufmg, had there been any deception, 
 any want of good faith on thefe points, on the part of the United 
 States ; but of which not a fliadow of proof can be adduced. 
 
 The fame obfervations apply to the other fubjecl of your let- 
 ter, the navigation of the river Miflifippi ; but with greater 
 force; for, as I fhowed in my letter of the i^th of May, when 
 the Prince of Peace propofed a mutual ftipulation to exclude 
 the Britifh from the navigation of the Miilifippi, Mr. Pinck- 
 ney rejected it, and explicitly, becaufe it would violate the 
 Faith of the United States previoufly pledged to Great-Britain ; 
 and the projected Article of "the Prince of Peace was altered 
 accordingly. Yet you now introduce thofe previous ftipulati- 
 ons as fubje&s of complaint againft the United States! It is 
 true, you alfo mention the fubfequent explanatory article of 
 the 4th of May 1796, which is added to the Treaty of amity 
 commerce and navigation of 1 794, with Great-Britain : but 
 it is equally true that this contains no new ftipulation, that it 
 recognizes the principle that no fubfequent Treaty can make 
 void prior engagements (and, therefore, that this explanatory 
 Article of 1796, cannot in the fmalleft degree affecl: the prior 
 Treaty of 1795 with Spain) and that Brititli fubjecls, the Ci- 
 tizens of the United States, and the native Indians, mall en- 
 joy full liberty of paflage, intercourfe and commerce with each 
 other, " according to the Stipulations of the third article of the Trea- 
 ty of amity -, commerce and navigation.'" So that this explanatory 
 article goes not beyond, but is pofitively confined within the 
 limits of the third Article of the Treaty of 179+; which; 
 preceding, in order of time, the Treaty with Spain, by more 
 than eleven months, and being alfo at the conclufion of the 
 Spanifh Treaty perfectly well known to its Government ; it 
 cannot, confequently, afford to Spain the flighted ground of 
 complaint. 
 
 I pafs unnoticed your lengthy quotation from the Opinion of 
 Mr. Randolph, Attorney General of tlie United States in 1793, 
 and your obfervations upon it; becaufe neither one nor the 
 Bother touch the effential point in difpute between us. 
 
88. 
 
 As to the queftion in the laft paragraph of your letter, I am 
 authorized to fay, That the United States are not concerned 
 to vindicate the claim of Great-Britain to the navigation of the 
 river MifTifippi. What was faid on this fubjedl: in my letter 
 of the 1 7th of May, was in confequence of your having en- 
 tered into an examination of the Britiih title to this navigation ; 
 and I faid exprefsly, that I did not conceive it eflfential to the 
 fubjecl: we were then difcufling: I merely followed you. 
 Our ftipulation amounts only to this, that the United States 
 fhall not obftrudl the navigation of the River by Britifh fub- 
 jedls. If Great-Britain demands and obtains it ; or if Spain 
 admits her claim, as (he has referved the right to do, in the 
 4th Article of her treaty with the United States, the latter can- 
 not oppofe it ; and if the Britifh veffels and Boats do navigate 
 the MHfifippi, we are bound to admit them into our ports on 
 the eaftern bank of that river. Whether this admillion would 
 be advantageous or injurious to the United States, it belonged 
 to them only to judge : they have not afked, nor will they have 
 occafion to afk Spain to be the guardian of their Rights and 
 Interefts on the Miflifippi : they only defire, in this refpecl:, 
 that fhe would faithfully perform her own engagments fanc- 
 tioned by a folemn Treaty. 
 
 I am, Sir, 
 
 Your obedient fervant, 
 
 TIMOTHY PICKERING. 
 
 (No. 19.) 
 
 Extracl of a letter from Mr. Pickering, Secretary of State , to 
 Mr. Ellicott, dated Department of State, July i4//;, 1797. 
 
 " ON the 8th of June I received by Mr. Knox your difpatches 
 dated the I4th of April, which were laid before Congrefs on 
 the 12th of June, and on the 2Qth of June, I received by cap- 
 tain Hunter, your difpatches dated the loth of May, which on 
 the 3d of July, were alfo laid before Congrefs, together with 
 the difpatches from Captain Pope to the Secretary of War. 
 Thefe communications to Congrefs appear in the inclofed pam- 
 phlets. 
 
 With refpecl to the important bufinefs with which you are 
 charged, the repeated prom ifes, followed by as often repeated 
 failures to enter upon it, by the Spanifh governors, with other 
 
circumflances, afford too much reafon to believe that there is 
 an intention to poftpone it. Neverthelefs, the Prefident is of 
 opinion, and directs that you fhould remain at the Natchez., 
 and always hold yourfelf in readinefs to commence the running 
 of the boundary line between the territories of the United States 
 and of his Catholic Majelty. You will endeavour, in concert 
 with Governor Gayofo, or other proper officer of his Catholic 
 Majefty, to fix a time when this work of afcertaining the boun- 
 dary line (hall commence. This endeavour may be renewed 
 as often as you mall think fit. Great care mould be ufed to 
 give no juft caufe of offence to the Spanifh Government. What 
 will be the final refult of its meafures is uncertain ; but if war 
 mould follow, it will be of the laft importance that the United 
 States fhould net be the aggreiTors. The Prefident, therefore, 
 defires that your conduct ihould be perfectly guarded, moderate, 
 and prudent." 
 
 (No. 20.) 
 
 Ext raft of a letter f run Mr. Pickering, Secretary of State, to Mr. 
 Ellicott, dated Department of State, Philadelphia, AugvftTp, 
 1797. 
 
 " YOUR exprcfles, Mr. Bean and Mr. Robins, arrived here 
 on the 24th inftant, and delivered me your two letters of June 
 27th. The fame day I received your letters of May 27th and 
 June 4th and 5th. 
 
 The Baron de Carondelet's proclamation of the 24th of May, 
 
 nclofed in your letter of June 4th, abandons almoft all the for- 
 
 ner pretences for retaining the pofts, which he fays " isocca- 
 
 ioned only by the imperious neceflity of fecuring Lower Loui- 
 
 fiana from the hoftilities of the Englim, who have fet on foot 
 
 without regard to the inviolability of the territory of the Uni- 
 
 ed States)' an expedition againft Upper Louifiana." By my 
 
 bnner difpatches covering the printed reports and documents, 
 
 rou will have feen that this expedition had never any exiftence. 
 
 This is more fully (hown in my letter of the 8th inftant, to the 
 
 Chevalier de Yrujo, now inclofed. And my anfwer to him 
 
 about the navigation of the Miilifippi, and the articles of our 
 
 reaties with with Great-Britain concerning it, alfo among the 
 
 printed documents, demonftrates that in thofe flipulations we 
 
 lave not departed from the ftriaeft line of good faith towards 
 
 M 
 
9 o. 
 
 Spain ; that we have granted nothing in refpeft to the naviga- 
 tion of the Miflifippi, to Great-Britain ; and that the ideas the 
 United States entertained on that fubjeft, were perfectly known 
 and underflood by the government of Spain, when our treaty 
 with Spain was concluded ; and that there is nothing contra- 
 dictory between the two treaties, the Britifh and Spanifh. 
 
 As therefore the Baron de Carondelet has not a fhadow of 
 foundation to fufpe6Lsn expedition by the Britifh againft Up- 
 per Louifiana, as the American government has formally de- 
 clared to the Britifh Minifter, for the information of his govern- 
 ment, that we will fufferthe march of neither Britifh nor Spa- 
 nifh troops through our territory, for the purpofe of hoftility 
 of one againft the other; as, finally, the Britifh themfelves (as 
 you will fee in Mr. Lifton's letter among the printed documents) 
 declare they never had formed fuch a plan of an expedition, and 
 acknowledged that its execution would violate our territorial 
 rights for thefe reafons, on the principles of his proclamation 
 the Baron ought immediately to evacuate the pofts and territory 
 cf the United States. 
 
 Thefe obfervations w r ill alfo apply to the Baron's proclama- 
 tion of the 31 ft of May, in which, however, he takes fome- 
 what new ground. What " fecurity" can the United States 
 give, or rather what will the Baron deem a " fecurity" againft 
 a defcent of the Englifh by the MiiTifippi ? 
 
 If the fa els and aflurances already ftated and given on the 
 part of the United States do not fatisfy, nothing can. 
 
 With refpecl to any hoftile intentions of the United States 
 towards Spain, as intimated by the Baron in this laft proclama- 
 tion, nothing is more unfounded. The march of the troops to 
 TenefTee from the Ohio, is for the fole purpofe of eftabliihing 
 a force in thai country to reftrain the inhabitants or other citi- 
 zens from aggreffions againft the Cherokees, and efpecially to 
 prevent a forced fettlement, which was threatened, on the In- 
 dian lands, and any orders to the Cumberland militia to hold 
 themfelves in readinefs, can be only for the object of prevent- 
 ing encroachments on the Indian lands, and to preferve peace. 
 If we meditated an attack againft the Spaniards on the Miffi- 
 fippi we ihould certainly contemplate an eafier route than by 
 a wildernefs of many hundred miles in extent, through which 
 the tranfportation of ftores and provifions would be impractica- 
 ble ; or of fuch extreme difficulty and boundlefs expence, as 
 folly alone would attempt. 
 
 I have now only to notice the general commotion at the 
 Natchez, among the inhabitants, againft the Spanifh govern- , 
 ment, which feems to have been quieted very much by your J 
 prudent management. This line of conduct, caution, prudence, 
 
9 1 - 
 
 moderation fo as by all means to avoid the poflibility of a 
 charge of aggrefiion againft the United States you will fee in 
 my letter of the I4th of July, was fpecially enjoined by the 
 Prefident. And a perfeverance in the fame courfe I truft will 
 eventually iflue in a peaceable adjuftment of the difputes now 
 fubfifting, refpecling the ports, the country where they are fitu- 
 ated, and the navigation of the Miflifippi. The pacific views of 
 the United States and their good faith are not to be doubted, and 
 it is clear as demonstration can make it, that ,the Baron has 
 nothing to apprehend from the Britifh from Canada : and con- 
 fequently that he has now no caufe or pretence for retaining 
 the pofts, or for delaying to run the boundary line." 
 
Y