H. OF R.]

The Vice President's Appeal.

[FEBRUARY, 1827.

them on his table before him, and said he would | taken copies from the original, it would have been attend to them. That he (Mix) retired, but re- much easier to take a true copy than an incorrect turned, in from five to ten minutes, and wrote a one, and all the objects of copying would be denote to Mr. Calhoun from the audience room, re-feated by not making the copy accurate. Now, it questing either to see him or have his papers returned. That the bundle was presented to him by the messenger, and, on examining it, he perceived that the letter of the 1st of April, 1821, was missing; that he immediately went into Mr. Calhoun's room and stated the fact that a paper was missing, upon which Mr. Calhoun called Major Vandeventer, and asked him if he knew any thing of it. Major Vandeventer answered promptly, no; and Mr. Calhoun, looking sternly, first at Vandeventer, and then at Mix, said he knew nothing of it.

On examining the three copies, they are all found to agree tolerably well in substance, but differ both in the arrangement and construction of the sentences, and in the words used to express the same idea. The composition is evidently that of an illiterate man, who does not understand the rules of grammatical construction.

is found that all the three copies, taken, as he says, from the same original, differ from each other in the construction, composition, and arrangement of the sentences. But the most conclusive badge of forgery stamped upon the papers themselves, is their composition. They are evidently composed by an illiterate man, who does not understand the art of writing good English, and correspond, in this respect, with the general character of Mix's composition. On the contrary, from the letters of Major Vandeventer, it is obvious that he writes correctly and grammatically. Moreover, it is highly improbable, in the nature of things, that Mix should have taken three separate copies, unless we suppose he had a foresight of its loss; and even if that had been the case he would have taken one correct copy, instead of three incorrect ones. The story relative to the loss of the original is equally improbable, and is accompanied by palpable contradictions, He first stated that he lost it previous to the 15th of April, 1821; and, afterwards, that it was five or six months, or a year, before Mr. Calhoun left the Department of War. That he should have left the papers with Mr. Calhoun, to be deliberately examined, and returned, and asked for them in five or six minutes, can only be accounted for upon the supposition that his object, from the beginning, was to

Major Vandeventer denies, unequivocally, that he ever wrote such a letter to Mr. Calhoun, and also states, that on the occasion alluded to by Mix, when he states the loss of the letter in the Department of War, he had nothing further to do with the bundle of papers than to take them from Mr. Calhoun's table, in compliance with his order, and deliver them to the messenger at the door, to be handed by him to Mr. Mix. He also states that the bundle appeared not to have been opened at all; and Cap-give a plausible face to the story he was inventing. tain Smith also says that Mr. Calhoun was engaged in official business with him during the whole time the papers remained there.

The whole of his evidence relative to this letter, is contradictory and suspicious. He stated, in the first instance, that one of the copies was nearly correct, but that the one he then had with him was so inaccurate that he would not present it. The next day, when he produced all three of the copies, he could not tell which was the most accurate, or whether the one which he had refused to give up, as being too inaccurate, was less accurate than the rest. That copy, in fact, contains all that the oth To say nothing of Mix's character, and the posi-ers contain, and is at least equally as full as they are. tive denial of Vandeventer, both as to the fact of writing such a letter, and as to the fact of taking it out of the bundle in the Department of War, the story is, in itself, so improbable, and contains so many internal evidences of fabrication, that the committee feel bound to reject the papers presented as forgeries.

The committee have no hesitation in pronouncing these alleged copies of a confidential letter from Major Vandeventer to Mr. Calhoun, to be gross fabrications, and that the whole story about receiving such a letter from Vandeventer, and losing it in the Department of War, is a tissue of falsehood throughout.

It appears that Major Vandeventer had gone to New York to prevail upon Mix to consent to the transfer to Goldsborough, and had succeeded in that object by personal communication. It is quite likely, therefore, that he used all the arguments he could suggest in the conversations he had with Mix on the subject, previous to obtaining his consent; and it is particularly to be presumed, that, if he had any thing confidential, he would have communicated it verbally, and not in writing.

Nothing can be more unnatural and improbable upon the face of it, than that he would have formally reduced to writing, and sent to a man who was in the same city with him, confidential matter, which he must have previously stated in conversation, if the whole be not a fabrication. In addition to the improbability of the story itself, the papers presented as copies of the confidential letter have internal evidences of their having been fabricated by Mix. He swears that they were all taken from the original, whilst in his possession. If he had merely

The next portion of the testimony of Mix, which the committee think proper to notice separately, is the letter of Major Vandeventer, of the 17th of October, 1820, which he produced on his second examination, with the accompanying testimony, given by him, as to the execution of the second bond. Major Vandeventer had stated that the second bond was executed a short time after the first, to-wit, some time in the early part of the Fall of 1818.

Mix produced this letter of the 17th of October, 1820, written by Vandeventer to him, at New York, in which Mix is requested to "attend to the bond." Seizing upon this expression in Vandeventer's let ter, to give color to his story, he swears that the bond was executed in New York about the date of the letter, and that the reference in that letter was to the executing of the bond. After repeatedly swearing to this fact, in answer to several ques tions, he was asked if he distinctly recollected to have signed the bond, and to have seen the sureties sign it in the latter part of 1820. To this he answered, that he distinctly recollected signing the bond, but not in the fall of 1820. He then adrit ted, that the second bond was executed a short time after the first. Major Vandeventer states, that the request in the letter of the 17th October, 180, about the bond, referred to the procurement of the certificate of the Recorder, as to the sufficiency of

the securities; and General Swift swears, that the second bond was lodged in the Engineer Department in the Fall of 1818, before he left the office of Chief Engineer.

It is evident, therefore, that the whole of Mix's testimony, relative to the execution of the second bond, in 1820, is wantonly and maliciously false, and intended to discredit Vandeventer.

[H. OF R. The commitknow what were the words cut out. tee, therefore, cannot entertain a doubt that the mutilations in the letter were made by Mix.

The only explanation on this part of the subject, which it is in the power of the committee to give, is that they believed the erasures and excisions in the letters of the 3d of August, 1818, and the 17th of October, 1820, contained the words of "the General" or "General Swift," as, at the time of writing them, Major Vandeventer believed General Swift was concerned in the contract; which impression he now swears was made by the representations of Mix, and was retained, until pending the investigation in 1822, when the General made oath that he never had been interested in that contract. Jennings also swears, that he was informed by Mix that Gen. Swift was interested in his contract. Mix also admits that he might have told Vandeven

Mr.

This contract, though formed on the 25th of July, 1818, between General J. G. Swift, Chief Engineer, on the part of the United States, and Elijah Mix, for himself, for the delivery of one hundred and fifty thousand perches of stone, at the Rip Raps, in The last piece of the testimony of Elijah Mix, Hampton Roads, was soon afterwards divided into upon which the committee deem it necessary to four parts, as will be shown by the letters of Major pronounce a separate and specific opinion, is the Vandeventer, bearing date the 3d and 7th of Auletter of Major Vandeventer, of the third of August, 1818, in the manner following: One-fourth part gust, 1818, with the accompanying explanations. to Mix, one-fourth part to Vandeventer, one-fourth This letter was produced at the close of his second part to Jennings, and one-fourth part to a person examination, after he had repeatedly stated that he whose name was to be kept secret. had no other letters of Vandeventer in his possession. The letter was mutilated in several places by cutting out words; and as these mutilations render the letter unintelligible to a certain extent, the committee feel it their duty to express their opinion, both as to the person who made them, and as to the object for which they were made. They have no hesitation in saying they were made by Mix, for the purpose of exciting suspicion against Mr. Calhoun, and that he is not to be credited when he says that it was done by Vandeventer. That the House may have the means of estimating the character of this witness, the committee have thought it expedient to state, briefly and distinctly, the circumstances connected with this part of his testimony. Near the close of his last examination, he voluntarily stated to the committee, that, since his first examination, Major Vandeventer had come to him, and requested to know whether he could find the letter of the 3d of August, stating that he desired permission to cut out or erase certain words that were in it; that he (Mix) found the letter the next day, and carried it to Vandeventer, at the Department of War, who requested him not to speak about it there, for that they were watched, and would be overheard, and proposed to go to the house of Mix that night, to converse with him on the subject; that Vandeventer came to his house, accordingly, and prevailed upon him, by importunity, to permit the letter to be mutilated, and that it was mutilated accordingly, by Vandeventer. In answer to repeated questions, seeking to ascertain the words cut out, he always answered that he did not know any thing of them; yet stated that the words cut out, in two separate places, were, he be lieved, the same.

Major Vandeventer, on being recalled, stated that he had never seen the letter in question since he wrote it; that Mix never had been to see him at the Department of War since his first examination. Independently of the established infamy of Mix's character, and the positive denial of Major Vandeventer, this story has all the characteristics of a fabrication. Nothing is more improbable, than that Major Vandeventer should have placed himself completely in the power of an enemy, who was using every effort to destroy his character; and, if he had ever done so, he would rather have obtained possession of the letter, and destroyed it, than have left it in the hands of his enemy, just so far mutilated as to excite suspicion, and no farther. For it is to be remarked, that the word "the" is artfully left immediately preceding two or three of the excisions, with the view, no doubt, of making the impression that the word "Secretary" existed in the space cut out; though Mix repeatedly said that he did not

ter so.

Immediately after this contract was closed, a bond was given for the fulfilment of its conditions, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, dated the 5th of August, 1818, and signed by Elijah Mix, George Cooper, Samuel Cooper, and James Oakley. Sealed and delivered in presence of John Martin and Simon Hillyer.

To which is attached the following certificate of the Recorder of New York:

"The sureties having been by me duly sworn, I do hereby approve of them as good and sufficient. R. RIKER." "NEW YORK, 5th Aug. 1818.

Upon this bond's being received at the Engineer Department, an advance of $10,000 upon the contract was made to Mix, by a draft upon the branch After this Bank of the U. States at New York. period, it was discovered that there were two errors in the bond; first, that it was for the delivery of one hundred thousand perch of stone, instead of one hundred and fifty thousand, which the contract called for; next, that the name of George Cooper was placed in the bond as one of the contractors, when Mix alone was the contractor.

Some time after the date of this bond, it was cancelled, and one formed to suit the provisions of the contract, in all particulars, and was forwarded to the Engineer Department, which second bond was dated the 5th of August, 1818, the same day on which the first was dated. At what precise period this bond was received at the Engineer Department, is not known, but, if the testimony of General Swift and Major Vandeventer is correct, it must have been early in the Fall of 1818.

The sum of $10,000 was drawn from the treasury, it is supposed, upon a verbal requisition, as there is nothing written upon the subject. This, however, previous to the date of this transaction, was sometimes the case, as appears from the testimony of General Swift, and from the communica

Commercial Intercourse with Sweden.

its Chargé des Affaires here, had informed this Government that Sweden would continue to observe all the provisions of the former treaty till a new treaty could be formed. The act of 1824 was prospective; but this case did not fall strictly within its terms. Hence, the subject had been referred by the President of the United States to the consideration of Congress,

[H. OF R.

the House, he would then offer another, for the execution of the other treaty.

The question was now taken on Mr. FORSYTH's amendment, and it was negatived by a large majority.

The bill was then ordered to a third reading.

WEDNESDAY, February 14.

sion.

under the belief, it is presumed, that legislation General Appropriation Bill-Tacubaya Miswas necessary. The stipulations of the treaty extended to the colony of St. Bartholomews, and provided that there should be a reciprocity and equality of duties between vessels owned not only by citizens of the mother country, but also by the naturalized inhabitants of that colony of Sweden. It was doubted whether the act of 1824 embraced this case. In our existing relations with another Government, in respect to the colonial trade, it was important that this point should be put beyond doubt, and that Swedish vessels from the island of St. Barts should be admitted into the United States free from discriminating duties, in order to secure to our vessels a like privilege in that island. As Congress was in session, it was, by the committee, deemed expedient that the suspending of the law should be the act of Congress, rather than the act of the Executive.

On motion of Mr. Cook, the House went into Committee of the Whole, Mr. LATHROP in the chair, on the bill making appropriations for the support of Government for the year 1827.

The question arising on agreeing to the item appropriating 9,000 dollars for an outfit for a Minister to succeed Mr. Anderson, at the Congress of Tacubaya—

Mr. FORSYTH said he was entirely satisfied by the explanation of the gentleman from Connecticut, and he would now offer an amendment, in the form of a new section, to the bill.

"Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That so much of the act concerning navigation, and of the acts imposing duties of tonnage or impost on vessels, and articles imported in vessels into the United States, as are contrary to the provisions of the treaty between the United States and the kingdom of Denmark, the ratifications whereof were exchanged on the 10th day of August, 1826, shall be, from and after the date of the ratification of the said convention, and during the continuance thereof, deemed and taken to be of no force or effect."

Mr. FORSYTH asked the chairman to put the question on filling the blank in the clause just read, with $9,000. By a document lying on the tables, it appeared that there was an unexpended balance of 31,000 dollars of the appropriation of the last year of 50,000 dollars. Mr. F. supposed an outfit had been paid to Mr. Sergeant, and one to Mr. Anderson. The proposed outfit is for Mr. Poinsett, our Minister at Mexico. The fact that this gentleman had been selected for this mission, had been stated in the public papers. We have just appropriated the sum for his salary as Minister to Mexico, where he is to remain Minister. If this allowance of a full outfit is to be made, there is

a sufficient sum at the discretion of the Presi

If

dent for its payment. The unexpended balance is chargeable with 9,000 dollars, the salary of Mr. Sergeant, 2,000 dollars salary of Secretary of Legation, add 9,000 for an outfit to Mr. Poinsett, and there is still a balance of 11,000 dollars of the sum originally appropriated. It being apparent that a further appropriation of money was unnecessary, Mr. F. was at a loss to understand the reason of the insertion of this The President of the United States had sent item in the appropriation bill. It might be to the House two other treaties, one with Den- intended to procure an expression of the opinmark, and the other with the Republic of Cen-ion of Congress on the amount of the outfit to tral America. These treaties stipulate for an be allowed, or on the policy of the transfer of alteration in the Navigation Laws of the United our Ministers from Panama to Tacubaya. States, the Laws of Tonnage and Imposts. He either object was contemplated, Mr. F. was undid not see that the Committee of Commerce willing to legislate to afford pretext for a conpresented to the House any proposition for clusion, however erroneous, that the Representan act of legislation on this subject, and yet atives of the people were satisfied with the both of these treaties were now in a course of course pursued. execution. The Navigation Law of the country was openly disregarded, as well as the laws imposing discriminating duties. Now, according to a solemn decision by the House of Representatives, the power to suspend these laws does not belong to the President of the United States. He cannot alter the commercial laws of the country, imposing duties and imposts, without the consent of this House. This matter had long since been solemnly argued, and definitively settled. If the amendment which had now been offered should be adopted by

Of the amount of outfit, the President, by the act of 1810, was authorized to determine. He would leave him to exercise this power on his own responsibility. That act permits a year's salary to be given as an outfit-does not require it to be given; the President may give as much less as he chooses he cannot give more. In the present case, Mr. F. did not think that a full allowance was justifiable. Tacubaya is within two leagues (six miles) of Mexico, where the Minister resides. The travelling thither, and temporary short residences,

as circumstances might require, could not be attended with serious inconveniences or great expense. He would be unwilling, therefore, to do any thing by which the public should be led to believe that we thought the appropriation proper. Yet, if the President, on his responsibility, allowed a full outfit, Mr. F. certainly would not make it hereafter a subject of complaint.

Mr. WICKLIFFE said that the explanation furnished by the chairman of the committee, (Mr. Cook,) had not satisfied his mind that it was necessary or expedient to make this appropriation of 9,000 dollars, for an outfit to Mr. Poinsett, who is associated with Mr. Sergeant in this new mission at Tacubaya.

First, it is not necessary to appropriate the money, because there is yet left unexpended enough of the 40,000 dollars appropriated at the last session of Congress, to defray the expenses of the Panama mission. If you will alÎow to Mr. Sergeant his whole year's salary of $9,000 and outfit $9,000, equal to $18,000; to Mr. Anderson his outfit, $9,000; to the Secretary of Legation, $2,000—in all, $29,000; there yet remains the sum of 11,000 dollars, subject to the disposition of the President of the United States. Surely this sum ought to be sufficient to pay the contingent expenses of our Ministers, and Mr. Poinsett's extraordinary expenses for the temporary change which he may find it necessary to make during the session of this congress of nations.

The gentleman from Illinois tells us, that the balance of the appropriation of 40,000 dollars, made at the last session, will be required to pay Mr. Poinsett's salary as Minister associated with Mr. Sergeant in this new mission. This certainly is not correct. By the previous section in this bill, we have appropriated 9,000 dollars for the salary of a Minister at Mexico, who is Mr. Poinsett. Does the gentleman contemplate the payment of a double salary and an outfit to Mr. Poinsett, equal to 27,000 dollars per annum? or does he intend the House to understand that the President will send a new Minister to Mexico? When Mr. Anderson was appointed to the Congress at Panama, he was still regarded as the Minister to Colombia.

[FEBRUARY, 1827.

Mr. FORSYTH admitted that he had erred in stating the amount of last year's appropriation; it was $40,000, and not $50,000, as has been supposed. This did not, however, affect his argument, which was founded, not on the sum appropriated, but on the unexpended balance of $31,000. According to his first estimate there was a balance of $11,000, after allowing full outfit to Mr. Poinsett; as Mr. Sergeant's outfit, and Mr. Anderson's, were yet to be paid, the surplus would be $2,000, instead of $11,000. The exact balance could be ascertained, without an examination of the details of the estimate from the Department of State, or the calculations of the Committee of Ways and Means. Mr. F. would be glad to see them. By way of retort on the gentleman from Illnois who had set him right about the $40,000, he would correct an error of that gentleman, affecting the result of his own calculation. He had charged the appropriation of the last year with an outfit for a Secretary of LegationSecretaries of Legations receive no outfits.

Mr. F. said he had been asked, if it could be intended to question the right of the heirs of Mr. Anderson to the amount of an outfit. Cer tainly not. His representatives are entitled to it. If not paid, it must be paid. That estimable man performed a long and dangerous journey: painful, toilsome, and expensive. He fell a victim to the common disease of the climate into which he was sent to perform public service. Surely these circumstances give a claim to pecuniary rewards, as great as any which could be argued in favor of his nominal associate in the mission-who had remained amasing himself in Philadelphia in attending to his private concerns-who remained at home while the Congress of Panama was in session, and was gone to look for it when it is at an end.

Mr. Cook repeated the statement he had made when last up. The appropriation granted at the last Congress, was $40,000. Of this sum, 36,000 dollars was required for outfit and salary for one year; 2,000 dollars for Seeretary, and 2,000 for contingencies, absorbed that sum. The Minister appointed had now gone to his post. He was entitled to $9,000 outfit, and to his salary; at the end of the year $9,000 more. The Minister at Colombia was But, Mr. Speaker, (said Mr. W.,) I am, in the to receive $9,000, and his Secretary $2,000; second place, against the expediency of allow-this made 29,000 dollars. The heirs of Mr. Aning this outfit of $9,000. Mr. Poinsett has been derson were entitled to receive his salary up required to represent, together with Mr. Ser- to the time of his death. Another Minister ap geant, this nation, in the Congress of Tacubaya, pointed to succeed him was entitled to his sala distance from his present residence of nine ary of $9,000. This absorbed the whole sum miles, and you propose to give him, by this already appropriated. The question now was, bill, 9,000 dollars besides his salary of 9,000 whether our Minister at Mexico should have dollars, for the trouble, expense, and inconven- an outfit on going to a new mission at Tacuience he may be subjected to, by a travel of baya. The gentleman from Kentucky, and the nine miles; and this is done under the name of gentleman from Georgia, seemed to proceed on an outfit. So far as the Minister of Mexico the supposition that an outfit was to be al shall be subject to any extraordinary expense, lowed much in the same manner with mileage. I am willing that a sufficient sum be appropri- So many miles travel, so much outfit; but the ated to meet that expense, if the 11,000 dollars Government did not proceed on this principle be not thought equal to that object. -they wished the diplomatic services should