This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1833 edition. Excerpt: . Codman. No other evidence was given to the Committee of any claim made on John C, or on the partnership, by the Petitioner, while John C.

was in France. It was admitted, however, by the Respondent, that some time after John C.s return to the United States, the Petitioner made a claim on him by a letter to a Mr. Derby." In respect to this charge as well as in respect to the foregoing, it does not appear from the Report that the petitioner made any reply, or attempted to make any. From the fairness and impartiality which are expected to characterize a Committee of the Legislature, it will generally be understood and believed that as but but one side of these questions is presented by the Report, therefore there was but one side. Mr. Vans, however, did make replies to both, and we shall now repeat that in relation to the alleged forgery of a letter, as we have already repeated that in relation to forged alterations of the notes.

Having done this, we shall cheerfully leave the public to decide whether Mr. Vans is guilty or not; and whether the Committee were not bound as just men, as well as by the Constitution and their oaths, to have permitted the two Houses to read Mr. Vans answer, along with these atrocious accusations. 1. The copy appears by paper, ink and color to be a cotemporary of all the other papers in the case; they were nearly every one written in France, on French paper, and therefore if it be a fabrication, it must have been fabricated about the same time and place that it should have been written, if genuine; and would prove (and this was all that could be proved by it in any view, ) that Mr. Vans did regard John Codman as partner in February, 1801. 2. The whole spirit of the correspondence shows that Mr.

Vans always.