"Let then this undeniable fact be admitted, which though plainly set forth in my former publication, has been most uncandidly perverted, and then let any man whose mind is not darkened by malignity reply to the questions proposed yesterday by the "Calm Observer." "October 28, 1795." "OLIV. WOLCOTT." "To Oliver Wolcott, Esq. late Comptroller, now Secretary of the Treasury of the United States. "SIR, “I am a man, who is thoroughly persuaded," that, let an accusation against a public officer be what it may, he ought not to be condemned, until he is fully heard. The remarks, therefore, of a Calm Observer, in Mr. Bache's paper of the 23₫ of this month, although they were so forcibly and plainly stated, did not seduce me from my determination to keep my mind perfectly open. I confess, however, I was surprised, that on a question of simple account, one of the evening papers of the next day, did not bring forth a copy from the Treasury books, which, without any equivocation, must at once pronounce the truth in all its extent. But I imputed this omission to some accident. "Your publication in Mr. Bache's paper of Monday, although it has increased my astonishment, cannot be fully credited by me, if the meaning of your defence shall be, as I understand it; and unless upon a compleat view of the President's accounts up to the day, when the alarm was given to you, which you are bound to produce, the Calm Observer shall stand justified. "My astonishment has arisen from the following causes: "You represent the serious charges against you to be, a violation of the Constitution, the law establishing the Treasury Department, and your oath. Your outset is too ambiguous, and your enemies may well think that you have quitted the precision, which the Calm Observer uses, to go in quest of general expressions, which allow a greater latitude for loose play. He speaks in pointed terms thus -Between the 30th April 1790 and 30th April 1791, the President drew from the Treasury 30,150 dollars, instead of 25,000 dollars; that is, 5,150 dollars more than the compensation allowed by law; that the next year ending on the 30th April 1792, did not replace this excess of drawing in the treasury, but left the President still in debt 4,150 dollars;—that on the 4th March 1793, being the last day of General Washington being President under his original election, he was in arrears 1037 dollars, over the stipend which he was to receive by law that by the 30th April 1793, he had come back to his old excess of 5,150 dollars; -and that in one single quarter, including the time between the 4th March and 30th April 1793, he drew 4750 dollars over his quarter's salary, while he had in hand the additional sum of 1037;making in the whole 5,787 dollars. "Now every candid man must think, that those insinuations ought to be answered by figures, and authenticated copies from your books, and not by general assertions. "I doubt, whether I understand you, when you speak of the monies appropriated for the President's compensation, being applied solely to defray the expenses of his household. It is not presumable, that that by this it is intended, that he may spend as much as he pleases over his salary, provided he spends it on his household. This would be too absurd; although an idea, something like it, can be traced up to the Treasury Department. But the object is manifestly to pave the way for imputing an impropriety to the President's private Secretaries. I have full as good an opinion of the President, as you can have; and, from all accounts, his private Secretaries have been, and are as virtuous as any men. I have one strong reason for not believing that the President approves of your throwing the blame upon them. It is said, that there is no person, who watches over the expenditure of his money, and examines accounts more strictly than he does: and, consequently, it will be supposed, that he has always known, that he had overdrawn, until you shall be authorized to say the contrary from him, or his Secretaries. Supposing, that the President has been as negligent as you say; how are you to be excused for letting him have sums of money over his salary? There are other public officers, as able to pay, perhaps, as he is; but they could not obtain a farthing over their quarter's salary. You are aware, that this mode of reasoning will not hold you out, and betake yourself to affirm, "that not one dollar has been advanced, at any time, for which there was not an existing appropriation by law; and it is your belief, that nothing in the least degree contrary to law has been practised, in respect to the time and manner of making the advances. Now, Sir, I cannot, as a citizen, satisfy myself with this kind of answer to such precise accusations, before you inform the public plainly and distinctly upon these points: Has no money been ever paid out of the Treasury to the President, his private Secretaries, or for his benefit, on any given day, over and above what was actually due to him, on that day? For example; if he had died or resigned on the 30th April 1791, or on the 30th April 1792; or had ceased to be President, on the 4th March 1793, by refusing to accept his re-election; or had died or resigned on the 30th April, or 4th June 1793; can you put your hand on your heart and declare, that General Washington or his estate would have had nothing to refund to the United States? "I should have been glad if you had been more particular in telling us, what you mean by there being an existing appropriation by law for every dollar which has been advanced. Do you mean, that the President has never overdrawn quarterly or yearly, more than at the rate of 25,000 dollars per annum? Or do you mean, that the appropriation of 25,000 dollars per annum, to be paid quarterly, permitted you to advance the whole, or any part of that sum, on the first day, or any other day of the quarter, before it was earned? Or what did you mean? "The public will not rest contented with the reply of a public officer, when he is accused of malpractices, who shall hope for an apology in only saying, that it is his belief, that nothing in the least degree contrary to law has been practised. The reason which you give why your belief is to be believed, is, that the Treasury accounts have been published by the Treasury. The Constitution commands the publication; The law commands the publication: The Treasurer would be answerable for the money out of his own pocket, if he did not insert it in his accounts; and it could not be suppressed without a combination of four or five public officers. "I do not determine on the degree of impropriety or criminality of this affair; and I hardly suppose that you will venture upon a suit at law against Mr. Bache. But as your threat of a prosecution is worded, it has the appearance of being a government government act. I would fain hope that the President never saw your piece before its publication; but I cannot believe, without knowing the contrary, that he would sally forth, without taking advice from his privy counsellors. If your letter be a joint production, I shall exclaim, "Lord have mercy upon you!!!" "October 26, 1795." "ONE OF THE PEOPLE." "To Oliver Wolcott, Esq. late Comptroller, now Secretary of the Treasury of the United States. " SIR, "A very short statement will be sufficient to expose the new evasion you are guilty of in a second attempt to justify against the charges of the CALM OBSERVER. "On the 3d day of March 1793, the day on which the first term of four years for which the President was elected into office expired, he had received. 1037 dollars on account of compensation more than the law allows, estimating from the day he entered on the duties of his office, to wit, the 30th of April 1789. Now, Sir, let me ask whether the acts of appropriation by Congress justified the payment of this excess; and if they did not, whether the appropriation has not been violated, and what becomes of your repeated declarations, " that not one "dollar has been at any time advanced for the use "of the President for which there was not an existing appropriation." "You surely, Sir, do not mean to insinuate, that if Congress at any time make an appropriation for any given object, for a greater amount than that object can tegally demand or claim, the officers of the Treasury are justified in paying the whole sum, |