Richmond Enquirer

To the Editors of the Enquirer.

SUPPLEMENTAL—No. III.

GENTLEMEN: A few weeks since, I received through an unexpected, but highly respectable channel, "a copy of Mr. Monroe's account, as it was settled at the Treasury in December 1810," so far as it relates to the allowances made by the then President of the United States, (Mr. Madison.)

Upon the first impression, I had determined, as you know, not to give publicity to this interesting document. Upon further reflection, I have changed this determination, for the following reasons, amongst others:

1st. Having heretofore considered these accounts, in connection with the uses attempted to be made of them by Mr. M., in his Presidential character, as a subject of sufficient importance to justify an appeal to the people; and having acted in obedience to a sense of duty, arising from this conviction, I now consider the performance of that duty incomplete, whilst I am in possession of any paper, without presenting it to the view of the people, which if disclosed, would enable them to form a better judgement upon the true character of these transactions. This, the paper in question, will essentially contribute to do.

2d. It must be presumed that the removal of the injunction of secrecy from the proceedings of the Senate, in relation to the nomination of Mr M. to be Secretary of State in 1811, was effected through his agency; because, it never can be presumed, that the Senate of the U. States could have been so far moved, by the mere appearance of an anonymous publication in a newspaper, as to do an important official act of its own voluntary accord, and without the requirement of any person implicated therein. Presuming Mr. M. to be the mover of that proceeding, and of the publication of the journals of the Senate, which followed it, as well as of the prefatory remarks to that publication, he must, in my estimation, have exhibited such manifest disingenuousness, as to call loudly for public exposure, and consequent merited reprobation.—

The following are the prefatory remarks particularly alluded to:

"It is supposed by some, that Mr. Giles is the author of a late publication in the Richmond Enquirer, impeaching the correctness of the accounts passed to Mr. M's credit previous to the date of the extract from the Journal of the Senate. It is on that account, probably, that the injunction of secrecy has been removed from the Proceedings of the Senate, which go directly to refute the essential part of the allegations contained in that publication."

Here is an express assertion, that the proceedings of the Senate "go directly to refute the essential part of the allegations contained in that publication." Now, if Mr. M. either wrote, or sanctioned the writing of, this assertion, he must be presumed to have done so, knowing it to be untrue; and he must also be presumed to have known, that if he had published the accounts, to which these proceedings relate, instead of the journal thereof, they would prove every part of the allegations contained in that publication to be true. Nay, more; that there are other items in the same accounts, not contained in that publication, of the same character, with those contained therein. This will be abundantly proved by the copy of a part of the same accounts when explained, and which are now presented to the public consideration. Suppose this to be the real state of the case; what can be more disingenuous, and reprehensible, than referring to documents with a view of falsifying a true statement of facts, which the author knew to be true; and which could be proved to be true, by other documents within his control; and which were withheld from the public view for the only conceivable purpose of leaving a false impression upon the public mind? Yet this is precisely what is attempted to be done, as I conceive, by publishing the journals of the Senate, and withholding the accounts from publication.

3d. Notwithstanding every statement in my original publication, remains uncontradicted; none of them denied, and most of them confirmed by Mr. M's own expose; yet many little false, stupid, malicious intimations continue to make their appearance in the public prints, in relation to this subject, which, I conceive, must be intended, and may have the effect, to produce erroneous impressions upon the public mind in that respect. The little minded, buzzing fabricators of these insinuations, are constantly brandishing their political sabres, and aiming their most deadly blows at me in the dark; whilst they are as constantly missing their aim, and giving the most cruel thrusts directly into the short ribs of their Lord paramount; whom their fealty makes it their duty to defend, and protect right or wrong upon all occasions whatever. Thus, the facts stated in my publication, were at first plumply denied, and the publication ascribed to the worst of motives, &c. They declared the acts ascribed to Mr. M., amounted to fraud, swindling, &c. of which, it was not possible, that he could have been guilty, &c. &c. That the plain old Republican always kept clean hands. That plain, honest James Monroe, never dipped his hands too deep into the Treasury, &c. &c. &c.

Now, the account here published, with some explanations, will prove every statement in my original publication to be substantially true, and that the publication does not contain the whole truth. Let, then, these blind defenders of Mr. M. stick to their declarations; and when they are compelled to admit. that my original statement is substantially true. let them not forget that they themselves have declared the acts therein ascribed to Mr. M., to amount to fraud, swindling, &c. After the publication of this account, however, I should not be surprised to see these supple Court Sawneys, clapping their political spectacles upon their mental noses, and declaring, that they were quite in the dark, before they thus brightened their mental visions; and that they now find these contrivances for getting money from the public Treasury, are quite pleasant, sweet smelling, sound, Presidential ethics. They remind me of Peter Pindar's tale of the King's mutton, and the clerk of the market.—

Be good, enough Messrs. Editors, to give this ode, a copy of which is herewith furnished, a place in your poet's corner. It will serve as a mirror, to reflect the images of these supple Sawneys upon their own opties.

The account now laid before the public, was received under the envelope of a letter from a gentleman of the first standing in the country, which commences as follows: "I have the pleasure to enclose you a copy of Mr. Monroe's account, as it was settled at the Treasury in December 1810," &c. and again, in another part of the letter—"If it should tend to throw any light upon the subject, in which you are engaged for the good of your country, to prevent the squandering of the public money, it will afford me much pleasure," &c.

The following account was charged by James Monroe, late Minister to France, Great Britain, &c. and allowed by the President of the U. States.

The U. States to James Monroe, Dr.

To outfits as Minister to France, $9,000 00

To sundry contingent expenses in said mission, 546 66

To expenses incurred in a special mission to Spain, from 6th Oct., 1804 to 17th July, 1805, including compensation to a private secretary, 10,598 88

To extraordinary expenses at Madrid, and at Paris, going and returning, not included in the preceding item 1,146 55

To outfits as Minister to England, 9,000 00

To contingent expenses at England, 5,539 00

To Salary as Minister, while employed in France, England. and Spain, from January 12, 1803, to November 15, 1807, 4 years, 10 months and 4 days, at $9000 per annum 43,598 63

To a quarter's salary allowed for returning home, 2,250 00

$81,679 12

Allowed and settled, Dec. 4, 1810.

This account is certified Nov. 9th, 1811, as a true copy of the account registered in this office.

By JOSEPH NOURSE, Register.

I propose to give some explanations of the foregoing items of this account, both in reference to Mr. M's own expose, and my publication. The subject will then be at large before the people; and I think it is a subject worth their most serious attention. Before entering into the particular items mentioned in my publication, I deem it proper to examine an item in Mr. M's expose, not adverted to by me, as an item of account; but as involving a great constitutional principle introduced into my original publication; calling, as I think, for the most profound consideration of the whole American People.

The subject is introduced in the following words:

"But suppose, that this difference, is mere matter of form. not of substance; and that, according to the new national lexicography : invitation, is a polite and improved change of phraseology for 'recommendation'; and that the message is in fact, a 'recommendation' by the President to Congress, to take incipient measures for the 'emolument' of James Monroe, after his retirement from his 'high trust'; is it not a substantial violation, or evasion of another important provision of the constitution, involving, perhaps, more delicate considerations, in relation to the intercourse, between the President and Congress than any other, in that neglected and much abused instrument?

The 1st section of the 2d article of the Constitution, is in the following words: The President shall at stated times, receive for his services a compensation, which shall neither be increased or diminished, during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive, within that period, any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.

'Emolument' is the broadest term the English language affords for the object of the constitution; and ', therefore. most properly interposed, to effect that object. This evidently was to protect Congress against all possible presidential influence which might be exerted for his individual emolument. Emolument includes, as well compensation for services, real or pretended, as gratuitous donations. It never could have been anticipated, by the wise framers of the constitution, that the apprehended influence of the President upon Congress, would be attempted, without any pretext whatever; they, therefore, chose the term, 'Emolument.' to exclude it from Congress in every form, and under every pretext whatever. Is not the message of the President, 'inviting the attention' of Congress to a subject very interesting to him;' which subject, is to obtain from Congress some 'emolument' after his retirement from his 'high trust', a substantial violation of this important and delicate provision? Is not any incipient proceeding for obtaining such 'emolument,' as much a violation of this provision of the constitution, as the maturation of such proceeding? Or, is it intended to evade this provision of the constitution by postponing the actual receipt of the emolument, till after the President's 'high trust' shall cease? This would be a mere quibble upon the term 'receive' in its application to time only. Such an attempt at evasion, never can be sanctioned by the H. of R."

At the time of making these remarks, little did I think that President M. had actually received any emolument from the U. S. during the period for which he was elected; but in a note appended to his own expose he acknowledges, that he had, during, and amongst the first acts of his administration, requested the re-settlement of an old account; and I presume actually received money from the U. S. and, as I think, under the most extraordinary circumstances I am resolved, that however Mr. M. may feel justified to himself in charging his country with injustice towards him in many instances, he shall, have no just cause, as I am conscious he never had heretofore, for complaining of injustice from me in any. I shall therefore insert *Forgotten. †Costume. ‡Christmas Box, 'Forgotten.