i'innt>iit'iR uihn^

I'w n ;¦.

r-

'Wm^)

'*-0:'lf

m

YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

c
AN

EXPOSITION

PRETENDED CLAIMS OF WILLIAM VANS

ESTATE OF JOHN CODMAN;

APPENDIX

ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS, CORRESPONDENCE AND OTHER
EVIDENCE.

BOSTON:
tiAMUEL N. DICKINSON. ...52 WASHINGTON STREET.
18 37.

-by. >/ ¦>
ERRATA.
Page 26, third line from the bottom, for " January " read " June."
" 99, line 19, for " least " read " lest."
" 117, first line of the note, for " then " read " thus."
" 125, line 12, for " bad " read " had."
" 139, fifth line from the bottom, for " claims " read " claim."
" 164, line 20, for " least " read " lest."
" 195, sixth line from bottom, for " supercede " read " supersede."

DEDICATION.

To the Honorable the Senate, and House of Represen
tatives, in General Court assembled ; and to the People
of Massachusetts ; —
The heirs of John Codman, formerly of Boston,
merchant, deceased, respectfully submit this publication,
designed to exhibit fully the nature and foundation of
the claim asserted by William Vans to property inher
ited by them from their late father ; — the history of its
origin and progress ; — the means by 'which false im
pressions respecting it have been created ; and all the
evidence, on both sides, material for the elucidation of
the truth.
Such a statement was prepared for publication, and
a great part of it had gone through the press, more
than a year and a half ago. A fire in the summer of
1835 destroyed the whole impression, with the manu
script copies of many documents then in the press.
Fortunately no original had been sent to the printer, so
that no loss of evidence arose from this cause. But the
accident made it necessary to begin the work anew,
and has occasioned a long delay.
JOHN CODMAN, ) For themselves and
CHARLES R. CODMAN, } tlie other Imrs of
FRANCIS CODMAN, ) Jolm Codman.
Boston, March 4, 1837.

CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTORY MATTER.
Vans' Claim, a scheme to extort money on false ¦pretences  1
His groundless suits at la-w, and malicious attachments  2
His suits to the Legislature for 25 years, to be continued through life  3
The means by vrhich he has created a paHy  4
Causes and object of this publication  6
Unreasonableness of Vans' Petition  \Q
His own release under seal must be assumed to be void  15
Six Judges of the S. J. C. must be assumed to have misconstrued the
Constitution  16
Former Committees of the Legislature must be assumed to have been
fraudulent, or incompetent  18
History of the Legislative proceedings on Vans' Petition, showing that
every Committee, examining the evidence, has reported unanimously
against him  21
Impropriety of Legislative interference on such subjects  33
Vans' statement of his claim  35
Ho w to be refuted  3g
NARRATIVE OF EVENTS.
Formation and constitution of the house of J. & R. Codman, in 1791  36
Richard Codman's mission to Europe, in 1793  39
Courseof J. & R. C.'s bufiness  jr.
R. C.'s agency and conduct abroad  ,  ^j
Circumstances which led to the dissolution  j.-,

TABLE OF CONTENTS. V
Piigr.
Dissolution published May 1, 1798  44
J. C.'s first introduction to Vans, as connected in business with R. C.
July 24, 1799  4ti
Previous history of Wm. Vans  *.  52
Vans' business connection with R. C. began in Jan. '99  55
His own original draft of tlie Contract with R. C  56
His letters of credit and guarantee /ro-m R. C. alone  59
His progress to America, from his own letters  62
J. C.'s refusal to accept R. C.'s letter of credit  65
Vans draws for £100 in favor of J. C. who endorses the bill  66
The Bill is protested and paid for the honor of the endorser  67
R. C. withheld funds of J. C. and used them in his own^?-jj/-aie speculations.. 68
Letters from J. C. to R. C. showing the course of the business, and the
causes of the dissolution  68
Do. showing that R. C. neglected to remit the funds in his hands, and
continued to draw on J. C  81
Other facts showing the reality of the dissolution, and the origin and
amount of R. C.'s indebtedness to J. C  93
J. C. goes to Europe for the purpose of bringing R. C. to a settlement  104
Grounds of Vans' claim on R. C. and the controversy betv/een them  105
Correspondence between them at Paris on the subject  109
Vans' original account stated against " Richard Codman, Esq."  109
R. C. gives Vans two Obligations to deliver Stocks  114
J. C. arrives at Paris, and settles an account with R. C  115
R. C. mortgages to J. C. certain estates in France to secure him  116
Vans presses R. C. for payment, and R. C. becomes openly insolvent  118
J. C.'s demand on l^ans for the £100 Bill  120
Vans offers to settle with R. C. as an insolvent  121
His letters to J. C. evading his demand for the £100 hill  123
His menacing letters to Pi. C  125
R. C.'s account rendered to JNIr. and Mrs. Vans  125
The account settled between J. C. and R. C  126
Vans proposes to J. C. to mediate between him and R. C  126
J. C.'s proposal in consequence. ,  130
The correspondence which ensues  132
Vans informed that J. C. is about to leave Paris  141
J. C. empowers Babut to act for him, and leaves Paris  142
Correspondence between R. C. and Vans after J. C. had gone  143
Vans publishes a letter from R. C. under & false date  145
His fear of J. C.'s demand on the £100 bill  147
Vans sues R. C. while J. C. is in Paris  148
J. C.'s letters from London  149
Do. from Boston, after his return  153
\ a.ns' firtt menace of setting up a claim against J. C  150
J. C.'s subsequent correspondence  103

VI TABLE OF CONTENTS.
His last letter of instructions to Babut  -  '
His death, May 17, 1803  ^''^
GROUNDS OF TIIE CLAIM EXAMINED.
Vans' pretence ot a. judgment against John Codman  176
Extracts from his publications respecting it  1''
The falsehood of this statement  1°°
What the Record is which he produces  190
The real question in dispute before the French Courts  195
Vans' misrepresentation of this document made icith intent to deccicc  200
His pretended quotations false and fraudulent  201
His fabricated certificates exposed  '202
His evidence of a partnership existing at the time of his transactions with
R. C. examined  •  204
R. C.'s letter to him, speaking ofa connection with his brother, considered. 205
J. C.'s letter to him, enclosing a proposition  210
Vans suppresses his own letter which caused it  210
H'ls fabrication of a letter from himself, in answer to it  210
His attempt to connect this with a genuine letter in reply  214
Mr. Child's defence on this point  219
His misrepresentations of the evidence  220
'V a.ns' fraudulent suppression of several letters.  223
His suppression of the statement enclosed by J. C. while he uses the
letter which enclosed it  224
His substitution of another statement for it  225
Mr. Child's misrepresentation of the statement  220
Vans publishes another of his own letters ¦vi'i\.h. a. fraudulent alteration  227
The effect ofthe French Judgment considered  229
It does not find the fact of a partnership e.xisting at that time, as Mr.
Child pretends  230
The Court expressly rejects that position  237
Circumstances affecting the jiidivinent  239
Evidence ofthe reality of R. C.'s debt to J. G  242
The Account Books of J. &. Pi. C. examined  245
Tlie entries before May ] " '93, prove tlie debt from R. C. to J. C  250
The account settled at Paris examined and proved to be a true account  252
The account stated at Boston two years after, includes the balance ofthe
Paris settlement  263
This evidence destroys the whole effect of the French Judgment  265
The pretence that " Richard Codman'' was a firin  266
Burden on Vans to show that R. C.'s separate name involved J. C  268
Pretence that Pi. C.'s previous assent to the dissolution was needful  270
Pretence that the dissolution was unknown in France  271
Genuineness of R. C.'s letter o! subsequent assent   272

TABLE OF CONTENTS. %'ii
Pai^e.
Its date, though missing, proved to have been in Sept. '98  276
Swan's statement that he had no notice of the dissolution in France  279
Proof that he was in Boston at the time  280
The certificate of P. Dallarde & Co. proves nothing  282
Callender's deposition unauthenticated  283
Putnam's deposition refutes it  284
Cutting's deposition deals in nothing but opinion  285
The grounds of his opinion prove its fallacy  286
Melville's deposition and testimony refuted by his own letters  287
Recamier's certificate is against the partnership  290
And is corroborated by his own accounts  291
Hall's testimony discredited  291
The pretence that Vans should have had notice by letter  292
Hombergs the only French correspondents of J. & R. C  295
They had due notice of the dissolution  296
Church had no title to notice  296
The pretence that the dissolution should have been advertised in the
newspapers of Paris  ,  298
Distinction of dealings with R. C. and J. & R. C. well understood  300
Vans himself well knew of tlie dissolution  302
His business with R. C. based upon that fact  307
He takes R. C.'s separate notes after having been to Boston.  310
'H.eta.]Les judgments against R. C. while J. C. is in France  311
He follows up R. C.'s separate property  312
Falsehood of the reasons assigned to account for this  313
Vans' claim on R. C. was founded on a personal trust  316
J. C. had no interest in R. C.'s French speculations  317
The call for R. C.'s books answered  322
All the books of R. C. which exist are produced  322
The pretence that Vans' property went to the use of J. ^ R. C  324
Falsehood ofthe assertion that R. C. remitted it to Barings  ,  327
R. C. kept no regular account books  328
A call upon Vans for his books  330
The argument from the payment of Skinner's bills answered  331
They were R. C.'s separate debt  335
Proved as such under the Commission of Bankruptcy  ,  335
The debt renewed by R. C. after his discharge  336
Compromised by R. C.'s Adm'r at 50 per cent  336
Funds from which his Adm'r was enabled to pay it  339
Pretence that R. C.'s bankruptcy was fictitious  340
HowR. C. abankrupt, and J. C. a man of property  344
Nothing realized from J. C.'s claim on R. C.'s property  347
The costs recovered by Vans vs.3.C paid 30 years ago  348
Vans' forgery ofthe date of one of R. C.'s obligations  353
Mr. Child's defence upon this point examined  364

Vlll TABLE OF CONTKN'TS. P.i^e.
The letter to Mr. Amory containing the false date  369
The paper copied by Mr. Ritchie /«H of false dales  371
Mr. Child's strictures on Henry Codman's testimony examined  374
His own equivocation respecting a date  379
His mode of accounting for the blots, holes, and erasures  380
Testimony in 1835, resjiecting the forgery  383
Vans' release, and evidence respecting it  385
The false copy published by him  339
Vans not the owner of a claim even against R. C  390
The property was originally his wife's  390
He negotiated the principal note to one Pacaud  393
Pacaud got judgment for it and assigned his interest to others  394
Vans has no laioful possession of the notes he produces  ,  395
All the judgments against R. C. have been fully satisfied  390
The real cash debt due from B. C. greatly overpaid  400
Vans in truth owes the heirs of R. C. and of J. C  402
The Executor and heirs of J. C. did nothing to keep Vans in France  403
Mr. Lowell's supposed agency  407
His letter published by Vans  409
Mr. Child's comments upon it  412
Mr, Lowell's Affidavit  412
His letter from Paris to Stephen Codman  413
Vans' French litigation is a disclaimer stronger than his release  416
Why not go to a jury ?  419
Vans' dissemination of libellous pamphlets  420
His Stock distributed extensively  421
He lives on this claim and the credulity ofthe public. . . i  422
Origin and object of limitation laws  425
The reasons apply with pecuUar force to this claim  427
Summary of propositions established by the evidence  429
Concluding remarks  436

THE CLAIMS OF WILLIAM VANS.

William Vans has now for more than a quarter of
a century, harassed and pursued the heirs of the late
John Codman, with every variety of persecution, upon
a false and groundless claim, for a pretended debt,
amounting at this time, as he represents, to the enor
mous sum of over six hundred and thirty thousand dol
lars, the proceeds, as he alleges, of property fraudu
lently taken from him by the late house of John and
Richard Codman, and still dishonestly retained by the
heirs of John Codman for their own use.
This claim has been urged by repeated suits at law,
frequent petitions to the legislature, numberless ap
peals to the parties themselves in menacing letters, per
sonal interviews forced upon them in their own houses,
rude and provoking language and demeanour towards
them in the streets, and constant appeals to the public
through pamphlets, newspapers, and scurrilous hand
bills, exhibiting a series of the most atrocious libels, and
holding up to common indignation and contempt, not
only the heirs of John Codman, but the memory also of
both their deceased parents, and many other persons of
most respectable character and standing in this commu
nity, as a set of lawless land pirates who had conspired
to defraud him of his just dues. These assaults, so va
rious in form, so uniform in character, so pertinaciously
1

continued, and so utterly unfounded, indicate no other
design than to compel individuals upon whom he has
not the shadow of a claim, to pay him a large sum for
the sake of purchasing peace and tranquillity for the re
mainder of their days. In other words, it is a mere
scheme to extort money upon false pretences — and in
the mean time to live in idleness upon the fruits of his
libellous publications, and the contributions of those,
whose honest sympathies have been excited in his favour
by these long reiterated falsehoods, and also of those,
who have become joint agitators with hira, and part
ners in his fraudulent scheme.
To illustrate this position, it will be seen by the re
cords of the Common Pleas in the county of Middlesex,*
that in the year 1 828, he brought a suit against Stephen
Codman, as executor of the will of John Codman de
ceased, for the recovery of this pretended debt ; and for
the purpose of enforcing it, caused to be covered with
attachments all the real estate which John Codman left
at his decease, and all the real estate which had been
subsequently acquired by any of his heirs, not exempt
ing even a number of pews, and the vestry room of the
meeting house at Dorchester in which one of the heirs
officiates as a settled minister — property which he well
knew never belonged to the late John Codman, and
which could not have been attached from any honest
motive. The executor pleaded to this action the
general issue, and also a release in full of all de
mands, and also that more than twenty years had
elapsed since he was appointed to his trust ; and Mr.
Vans, after keeping the suit continued for several terms
* See the Appendix, Doc. No. 399.

without bringing to trial any of the questions which
it involved, became nonsuit. But no sooner was the
suit thus ignominiously terminated than he commenced
a second, under which he again covered with attach
ments all the real estate owned by heirs of John Cod
man, and that which had formerly belonged to their
father, though long since sold and warranted to strang
ers ; and in this suit also, after several continuances, he
became nonsuit, with the poor satisfaction of having
kept all these estates for nearly two years under the em
barrassment of his attachments. Why was this ? The
inevitable result of the second suit was known, when
he brought it, from the fate of the first ; and the result
of that also was equally known when he brought it, to
be inevitable, because he had for years previously, as he
has for years since, been petitioning the legislature with
out success, to deprive the executor by a special act, of
a legal defence, acknowledged to be insuperable — a
defence arising from lapse of time, which it was the right
and duty of the executor to plead, on pain of rendering
himself personally liable for the omission to do so, had
any damage ensued — and the benefit of which defence
is extended to the executor and heirs of John Codman,
only in common with every other executor and heir
in this Commonwealth. In farther illustration of the
motive of these proceedings, it may be noted, that for
more than five and twenty years these petitions have been
presented almost periodically to successive legislatures,
constantly dismissed, yet constantly renewed, while the
petitioner openly avows his intention to continue them
through life, and enjoins upon his children to continue

4
them after his decease,* as if he really expected to ex
tort from the Commonwealth by pertinacious importu
nity, what has uniformly been denied to the merits of
his claim ;— just as he seems to hope that unremitting
persecution may finally extort from those whom it an
noys, some valuable compromise for a groundless claim,
in relation to which they have uniformly insisted, and
still insist, that nothing is due to the claimant, upon any
principle of law, equity, morality, or honour.
The heirs of John Codman have always been ex
tremely reluctant to obtrude their private grievances
upon the public. They have therefore wholly refrain
ed, until recently, from answering the many false and
libellous publications which Mr, Vans has been indus
triously circulating against them for years. They acted
under the belief, perhaps erroneous, that a cause re
quiring the aid of such weapons as Mr. Vans employ
ed, would find neither favor nor credit with the in
telligent and respectable. They have been accustomed
to consider, that appeals to the public were not the le
gitimate mode pointed out by our constitution and laws
for the adjudication of private rights ; and while they
have at all times held themselves ready to confront the
petitioner before any tribunal, lawfully constituted with
power to inquire into the merits of his demand, they
have believed, too confidently perhaps, that they might
rely for the protection of character, as well as property,
upon the repeated decisions of impartial judges, which
have been uniform and unanimous against the preten
sions of William Vans, whenever an investigation has
" " Until my prayer is granted, I shall petition the General Court dur
ing my life, and order my children to do the same after my death and
aontinue it until a trial by jury is granted."— 14/e of Wm. Vans, p 11

been had. Yet the constant promulgation of slanders
uncontradicted, the industrious circulation of pamphlets
and hand bills reiterating for years the same extraordi
nary tissue of falsehood, the ceaseless cry of fraud and
oppression, suffered to go abroad without answer, or re
proof, seem to have satisfied superficial readers, that
justice has been denied to the petitioner, not only by
the executor and heirs of John Codman — but even by
judges appointed to administer the laws, and by the
representatives of the people who frame them.
By these means and others which may hereafter be
spoken of, this disturber of public as well as private
peace, who clamours against the judiciary and the
legislature, and its committees, and many of our
most eminent fellow citizens, as well as against the
executor and heirs of John Codman, has at times ob
tained in aid of his prayer, a large body of signatures to
what he and his associates are pleased to denominate
the Petition of the People ; as if the parade of a long
list of unknown names might overawe the legislature,
with the belief that the great body of their constituents
had examined the merits of his individual cause, and
adopted it as their own. By similar means he has
even succeeded on several occasions in obtaining re
ports from committees, and votes from one branch of
the legislature, favorable to his claim, much to the sur
prize of the executor and heirs of John Codman,
when they had neither been heard on the question,
nor had even received notice that such an inquiry
was pending ; and consequently in these instances
had no opportunity to answer his misrepresentations,
or expose the fallacy of his pretended proofs. The
natural effect of these numerous signatures and occa-

6
sional votes, seeming to express an opinion entitled
to respect, though in fact founded upon partial views
and false representations, was to extend the popularity
of Mr. Vans' pretensions, and gain new advocates to his
cause. Among them a counsellor of the Suffolk Bar
of acknowledged ability, was at last found willing to
depart so far from the line of professional duty, as to
identify himself with his client's cause, lending the
weight of his own name and standing to a most extra
ordinary publication, purporting to be a review of the
report made by the legislative committee of 1833
against the petition of William Vans — a publication cal
culated still farther to induce the belief among all who
rely upon its statements, or respect the source from
M'hich they flow, that this unfortunate petitioner has
been shamefully aggrieved by the appointed judges of
his claim, no less than by the heirs of John Codman;
and that in all truth and honesty he is equitably entitled
to receive from us more property than we all jointly
possess. Under these circumstances we have found ourselves
compelled to break silence. Not because we deem it
necessary to the protection of our property from a pirat
ical assault — since for that object we repose with secu
rity on the constitution and laws of our country. We re
pose in the first place on the statutes of limitation, which
extend an equal protection to all against antiquated pre
tensions, whether well or ill founded. We rely, in the
next place, on the wisdom and justice of the legislature,
that particular individuals will not be specially exempt
ed from the wholesome operation of these general
laws. But we rely, further, upon the intrinsic equity
of our case to satisfy impartial committees at all times

hereafter, as it has at all times heretofore, when an
investigation has been had, that the claim set up
against us is totally unfounded. We rely, also,
upon the judicial interpretations of the constitution,
which declare that the legislature has not the power,
if it had the will, to deprive us of this defence.
And even if these barriers were all successively broken
down, we should still repose in confident security
on other grounds of legal and equitable defence,
sufficient to satisfy any court or jury in Chris
tendom, as the sequel will unfold. But we find
ourselves compelled to break our long silence, be
cause we find that silence has been construed into
admission. We perceive that even respectable and
well disposed persons have heretofore become impress
ed with the truth of Mr. Vans' uncontradicted calum
nies ; and we have been made sensible of the growth
of an opinion among many, that there is at least some
natural equity on the side of Wm. Vans, and that the
heirs of John Codman rest under some sort of moral, if
not legal obligation, to satisfy his demand. Thus it
has become in our judgment a matter of character —
and a duty not only to ourselves, but to the memory
of the respected dead, to endeavor to disabuse the pub
lic mind of the manifold errors, into which it has been
led by a long series of falsehoods and forgeries. We
are aware that this is strong language. We mean to
justify it by adequate proof.
In discussing the questions upon which we are at
issue with Mr. Vans, we ask no other indulgence than
a candid hearing of the opposite statements, and a
patient examination of the evidence by which they are
respectively supported. We do not even ask that our

own statements should be received without proof; nor
indeed have we in general any statements to make,
excepting such as are derived by ourselves from ihe
proofs which we propose to exhibit ; for the transac
tions of which we speak, many of them at least, hap
pened during the minority of all and before the birth of
some of these heirs — and are matters of which we do not
pretend to have personal knowledge. On the other
hand we hope, that the mere assertions of William Vans
will in no case be taken as evidence of any thing which he
states, unless corroborated by other and more substan
tial proof; because, in the first place, it is a general
rule that no man shall be admitted as a witness in his
own cause ; and because, in the second place, we ex
pect to satisfy every candid mind, that this particular
claimant has never scrupled to avail himself of any spe
cies or degree of misrepresentation, dishonesty and
fraud, which could be made subservient to his scheme
of plunder.
The constant petition of William Vans is for a dis
pensation in his favor from the laws, which limit the
time for the bringing of suits against executors and
administrators, so that he may be enabled, notwith
standing these general statutes, to maintain an action
at law against the executor of the will of John Cod
man, for a debt which he alleges to have been due from
John and Richard Codman jointly, by reason ofa large
amount of property, which he represents as having
been entrusted to their keeping in the year 1798, and
by them fraudulently converted to their own use. He
sometimes also includes in his petition a prayer to be
permitted to sue the administrator of the estate of
Richard Codman.

Those who now address the legislature and the
public are all children and heirs of John Codman, who
left a considerable property which they inherit. Mr.
Vans' claim is for an amount much larger than the
whole property which John Codlnan left. We should
have therefore the deepest pecuniary mlQxe&X in the
question, so far as it regards the estate of John Cod
man, if that by any possibility might now be reached.
The question in respect to Richard Codman's estate is
on the other hand of little importance. Richard Cod
man, it will be seen by the Records of the Conmiis-
sioners under the old United States Bankrupt Law,
preserved in the clerk's office of the United States
Court in the Massachusetts District, was in December
1803, a declared and certificated bankrupt ;* and he died
intestate in January 1806, as appears by the records of
the Probate Court in the county of Suffolk. He left no
other property than that which he had earned after his
discharge under the bankrupt law, during a voyage to
South America, in the capacity of a supercargo, and
with a capital of ^2500, advanced for him by his friends
to put into the adventure. Mr. Vans and his counsel,
who stop at nothing, represent that the bankruptcy of
Richard Codman was a mere pretence, and that a large
property acquired in trade before that event, must have
come to the hands of his administrator — a statement as
well founded as most of those which come from the
same quarter — but which at present we do not propose
to discuss. Our remarks will rather be directed to those
questions, which more immediately affect the memory
and reputation of our late lamented father, and w hich
* See the Appendix of Doc. No. 351.
2

10
seem in some measure to implicate ourselves as his
children and heirs. The point which we propose to
establish on a sure foundation is, that John Codman,
whose property we inherit, and whose memory we cher
ish with the most affectionate respect, was never a
debtor to Mr. Vans, and consequently that Mr. Vans,
has no claim in law or justice, morality or honor, upon
John Codman's heirs or estate. His claims upon Rich
ard Codman, less interesting to us on all accounts, will
only be incidentally noticed, so far as a passing view of
them may be important, for a perfect understanding of
the vanity and falsehood of Mr. Vans' pretensions. But
before going into this inquiry, we invite the reader to
consider, for a moment, the nature of the extraordinary
request which Mr. Vans urges upon the legislature year
after year.
Mr. John Codman died at Boston, May 17th, 1803,
having through life enjoyed a spotless reputation for
honor, integrity and fair dealing, and having accumu
lated nearly all the property which he left, by a long
course of honest industry and commercial enterprize.*
Many of his contemporaries are yet living — and all who
knew him, would bear cheerful testimony to his up
right character and exemplary conduct, as a man and a
merchant. Among these witnesses, though better might
be found, is William Vans himself. In one of his numer
ous publications on this subject, puTilications in which
fact and falsehood are always curiously mingled, is the
following sentence. " It is with great reluctance that
he [Vans] brings himself before the public to make this
statement, as the Hon. John Codman was a particular
* One of Mr. Vans' arguments in favor of his claim is, " that thtse Cod-
mans never earned a cent." "We should be curious to kno-w what Mr
Vans has earned for the last thirty years by any honest calling.'

11
friend of his, with whom he had done business to a large
amount, and always found him to be a man of honor,
and would have taken his word for one hundred thous
and dollars, and been as well satisfied with it as with
a note signed by any man in Boston ; and he has no
doubt, that had the Hon. John Codman been living,
when these final judgments were rendered in France,
that he would have paid him his whole demand." It
will readily be conjectured how much of this we set
down as falsehood, and how much as fact. The heirs
of John Codman want better evidence than Mr. Vans'
naked assertion, to satisfy them, either that any particu
lar intimacy subsisted between John Codman and Wil
liam Vans, or that any extensive dealings in business had
been transacted between them. But they entirely co
incide with Mr. Vans in the belief, that if any such
judgments had existed against John Codman, they
would have been speedily discharged to the uttermost
farthing ; and perhaps it is fair to infer, that a man
admitted to be of highly honorable character, whose
bare word might be taken for a hundred thousand dol
lars as readily as the best note in Boston, would have
rather anticipated than lagged behind the tardy pace of
the law, in satisfying a just and legal demand, instead
of driving his particular friend through all the courts of
France to a fnal judgment.
It is now upwards of thirty years since John Cod
man died, leaving a will which, after providing for
the payment of his just debts and sundry small lega
cies, distributed his property among his widow and
children. The latter were at that time all minors,
with the exception of the eldest son, then recently
of age, and engaged in professional studies. The

12
estate was regularly disposed of according to the
usual forms of law. Due notice was given of its
settlement. All claims which had been duly pre
sented against it were duly discharged. The execu
tor's final account was settled with the Judge of Pro
bate more' than twenty-five years ago ; and the balance
of the property was paid over to the heirs and' their le
gal guardians, who received it in the full faith that no
claim existed against them, by which this legal settle
ment could thereafter be disturbed. These facts ap
pear on the records of the Probate Court. It also ap
pears that most ofthe property so left lay in real estate ;;
and of this, much has since been sold and conveyed, as
appears by the recorded deeds, to fair purchasers, who
have bought in the full confidence of sound titles^
not liable to be ripped up by the dormant claims of any
unsatisfied creditor, to whom a door might be opened
by special dispensation from the general laws of the
Commonwealth. Yet Mr. Vans' petitions are in effect
that all these legal settlements, and all the rights and
interests acquired and vested under them, should be an
nulled, and that the property formerly of John Codman,
in whosesoever hands it may now be traced, should be
subjected to the hazard of answering a claim nearly
forty years old, never admitted by John Codman, nor
prosecuted against him in his life time, nor sued against
his executor until five and twenty years after his de
cease. If such petitions are favorably entertained by
the legislature of Massachusetts, and the peremptory
bar of a statute of limitations is thus to be set at
nought — if such stale and antiquated demands, after
twenty, thirty, or forty years of slumber, may be re
vived and made effective rights capable of being sued

13
and recovered, it follows that no man in this Common
wealth, who has inherited a dollar's worth of property
from his ancestor, or purchased a foot of land from
another man's heir within the present century, sleeps
safe under the shelter of his own homestead. That
great common assurance, esteemed the best foundation
of' title, long and uninterrupted possession, ceases to be
a security ; and the citizens of this Commonwealth
must take other means than they have been heretofore
accustomed to take, for the preservation of evidence to
rebut false and fraudulent claims, which at some distant
period, after witnesses have died and vouchers perished,
may be suddenly raised up against them or their suc
cessors. So little did John Codman himself dream ofthe pos
sibility of a claim of such magnitude being seriously
urged against him, that his will, made upon his death
bed, gives to some of his children specific devises and
bequests, while others are left only residuary legatees,
of the estate which would remain, after these specific
appropriations and the payment of his just debts. If
such a debt as Mr. Vans pretends had really existed,
(and if it did the testator well knew it,) the payment
of that would have swept off the whole of this residuary
estate, which the law would have first called upon to
answer the demand ; and thus the will of an affection
ate father would, in effect, have cut off most of his
children, from any share of the inheritance, without
even providing for their decent maintenance and educa
tion. This is plainly repugnant to the intent of the
will, and yet, if Vans had a legal claim, the consequence
was .inevitable. And since the claim was not sued
against the executor within the time limited by law.

14
nor while any goods or efifects of the testator remained
in the executor's hands, it follows, that if a suit could
now be permitted, and a judgment could by any possi
bility be recovered, the execution, which would issue,
could only be levied upon the lands of the testator,
most of which have long since become by alienation
the property of strangers, or else it must be satisfied
by the executor himself out of his own goods and estate,
instead of the testator's, which have passed out of his
control. In other words, persons having no interest
whatever in the estate of John Codman, must be com
pelled to satisfy Mr. Vans' demands. This suggestion
is not merely hypothetical. The real estate left by
John Codman has not only passed, chiefly, into the
possession of strangers entirely ignorant of such a claim
hanging over it, but edifices, private and public, of im
mense value — the Boston Athenseum — the City Mar
ket — erected at a cost of half a million of dollars — stand
on this very land, and in case of eviction by a latent,
but paramount title, the estate of John Codman, now
remaining in the hands of his heirs, would be wholly
incompetent to respond in a warranty to the innocent
sufferers. These very estates are among the parcels
of property, which Mr. Vans has actually caused to be
attached in the vexatious suits, vvhich he has hereto
fore commenced. A striking illustration of the danger
and absurdity of granting Mr. Vans' petition, were his
claims ever so well founded !
The case, vvhich, after this lapse of time, and with
all these circumstances, would justify a legislature, if
indeed any such case can be imagined to exist, in open
ing the way for the tardy prosecution of an antiquated
claim by a special dispensation, in favor of one individ-

15
ual and against others, depriving the latter of the com
mon protection of equal and general limitation laws,
must be a case of extraordinary merit indeed. It must
carry with it an overruling equity of the strongest and
clearest kind. The reality and justice of the original
debt must be apparent beyond all possibility of doubt.
It must be equally apparent that the petitioner by
fraud, or duress, or some physical obstruction utterly
beyond his control, was absolutely incapacitated from
commencing his suit within the time limited by law,
and that nothing but the statute bar exists to deprive
him of his remedy. Above all there must be a total
absence of all fraud, deceit, unfairness, negligence, mis
conduct, and fault whatsoever on his part. He must
have done nothing to prejudice, and must have omitted
nothing which in him lay to preserve his rights. He
must come before the representatives of the people with
clean hands and a pure heart, in a strong case well sup
ported by clear proof.
With these remarks it ,may be well to consider in
the outset, what the petitioner requires to have assumed,
or found in his favor, before the original merits, of his
claim, and the pretended cause of his delay in prose
cuting it, can be fairly brought under consideration.
In the first place he requires to have it assumed, or
found in his favor, that a full release of all demands
and causes of action whatsoever, written at large in his
own hand and under his oivn seal and signature, pur
porting to have been given for a valuable consideration,
and to discharge forever the estates both of John Cod
man and of Richard Codman, is utterly null and void.
For unless this be so, he has no existing claim against
either of these estates, capable of being enforced, even
if all the statutes of limitation were repealed. A

16
copy of this release, and of the deposition of the late
Rufus G. Amory, Esq. taken in the presence of Mr.
Vans and his counsel, in respect to the circumstances
under which it was given, are among the documents
annexed.* And is it not a novelty in jurisprudence
and in legislation, for a legislature to decide upon the
validity of a release — a question purely of judicial cog
nizance, and which a jury alone are by our laws com
petent to settle ? Yet the invalidity of this release
must be found, before the legislature can see cause
to grant the prayer of Mr. Vans' petition. They must
try, and try upon fair and legal principles this question,
before they can subvert for the particular case the gen
eral laws which they have themselves enacted.
Hereafter we shall have occasion to return to this
subject — the release. For the present we dismiss it
with the single remark, that the burden rests on Mr.
Vans to impeach it, and prove it to be a nullity, before
the inquiry can properly arise, as to the merits of his
claim, as they existed before that release was given.
The next point which must be assumed, or found in
his favor, before this inquiry can be instituted, is a sin
gular one indeed. It is that all the learned judges of
the Supreme Judicial Court, at two several periods at
least, namely, the late Chief Justice Parker, and the
late Judge Dewey, the Hon. Charles Jackson, and
the Hon. Judge Putnam, who composed the Court in
1814, when their unanimous opinion was given in the
case of Holden vs. James, Administrator, (11 Mass.
Rep. 396.) and the Hon. Judges Wilde and Morton,
who, together with the late Chief Justice Parker and
the Hon. Charles Jackson, composed the Court in 1827,
* See Appendix, Documents No's 394 and 396.

17
when the former opinion was reviewed and unani
mously confirmed in the case of Piquet, Appellant, (5
Pick. Rep. 65,) have all, through ignorance, or corrup
tion, misinterpreted the law, and published a false con
struction of the constitution, when they decided, after
able arguments and with great deliberation, that the leg
islature had no power under the constitution to dispense,
in any particular case, with the general law limiting
the time for the bringing of suits against executors and
administrators ; and that any special act or resolve of
such purport was unconstitutional and void. And it
must farther be assumed, (supposing the court to have
erred in this opinion,) that it is competent for th^ legisla
ture to revise and nullify that decision, and to exercise
themselves, by a declaratory act, that judicial power
which is expressly prohibited to them by the constitu
tion, in terms which admit of no mistake and are sus
ceptible of no other construction. Upon these positions
a late petition of William Vans was expressly founded ;
and an elaborate argument was gone into to support
them. That argument we do not propose to answer.
Our present object is only to point out the fact,
that as a preliminary to the investigation of Wm. Vans'
claim, it must be assumed that Mr. Vans and his coun
sel are better judges of the law and the constitution,
than all the six judges of the Supreme Judicial Court,
who are above named, and that these six distinguished
jurists have, in violation of their judicial oaths, conspir
ed to defraud the people of their rights. For Mr. Vans'
counsel, in the pamphlet before alluded to, will not even
let their judgment pass for honest error ; but has the
indecency to speak of it as a " thing done in a corner,"
a " sheer usurpation," a " decree that had gone forth

18
from some mysterious quarter,'''' and the folly as well as
wickedness to suggest, if we rightly understand his in-
uendos, that the court were corrupted to give that
opinion in the case of Holden, by those who were
interested to use it in the case of Vans. With a view
of leading to the same inference we presume it was
alleged in the late petition, that "during twenty-five
years in which Mr. Vans had been praying simply for
permission to have a judicial trial of his rights, great
pains had been taken [by whom and for what end ?'] to
propagate and establish the heresy, that the legislature
have not power under the constitution to suspend a
law in favor of an individual."
A third point which the late petition asked to have
assumed was scarcely less extraordinary than the last ;
it was that the very elaborate report of a committee of
the House of Representatives in 1833, covering four
and twenty printed pages, going at large into
the discussion of the whole claim, and succinctly stat
ing the evidence which had been brought for and
against it, was full of error and misstatement, sins of
omission and of commission, and that the House of
Representatives of that year suffered themselves to be
duped and deceivedhy their o'wn fraudulent, or incompe
tent committee. This committee consisted of Messrs.
Lucas of Plymouth, Barrett of Concord, Metcalf of
Dedham, Houghton of Barre, and Loring of Hingham,
all of whom set their names to the report, and some of
whom were put on the committee, because they were
understood to be friendly to Mr. Vans ; indeed Mr. Lu
cas, the chairman, was selected by Mr. Vans to present
his petition for that year.

19
The next petition specified and prayed permission to
prove no less ihaa thirty-three alleged misrepresentations,
or omissions of evidence, and mistakes either of law or
fact, in points set forth as most material to the petition
er's case. And the pamphlet of a hundred pages before
referred to, purporting to be a review of this report, and
published with the view, apparently, of preparing the way
for a new petition, charges one member of the commit
tee in no ambiguous terms, with fraud and corruption,
in wilfully framing the report so as to falsify the truth,
for the purpose of injuring the cause and the character
of Wm. Vans, and all the other members of the com
mittee with having been incompetent to understand the
effect of the evidence before them, or else so negligent
of their duty, as to sign their names to an elaborate re
port, which they either had not read, or could not com
prehend. Yet after this, the whole subject was care
fully revised by the committee of 1 835, and this latter
committee, composed wholly of persons supposed in the
outset to have friendly dispositions towards the petition,
not only sustain the report of their predecessors in all
points, but even go beyond it in some. This report
again has been the subject of attack by Mr. Vans and
his counsel.
Some of the errors imputed to each of these com
mittees, may be proper subjects of future remark.
At present our object is merely to state the po
sition, that if those reports, purporting to have been
drawn up after a very long and laborious examination
of the evidence, and attentive hearing of the parties,
(the committees were many weeks in session on this
subject) resulting in the unanimous conclusion, that Mr.
Vans neither has nor ever had any claim in law, or jus-

20
tice, against John Codman or his estate, are not shown to
contain palpable misrepresentations of the facts, in some
essential point, or to state results which the evidence
does not warrant, or in other words, if a succeeding
legislature be not satisfied of the fraud, or incompeten
cy of these two legislative committees, neither they
nor the public can have any just occasion to go into a
new inquiry, concerning the merits of Wm. Vans' claim.
Mr. Vans has pretended that all he wants is a fair
trial, and he has always held out in his publications,
that if upon a fair hearing he should fail to satisfy im
partial men of the justice of his claim, he would there
upon renounce and abandon it forever. The commit
tees of 1 833 and 1 836, unless the imputations of Mr.
Vans and his counsel are believed, afforded him precisely
such a hearing, Mr, Vans then had the opportunity
which he pretended to seek, of exhibiting the merits of
his claim before disinterested judges, and he not only
failed to satisfy them of the justice of his demand,
but succeeded in satisfying them upon every point
against it, as well as of gross frauds committed by him
self for the purpose of making out a plausible case.
Does he then renounce and abandon this rejected claim ?
By no means. On the contrary, he seems to gather
fresh strength from every downfall, and forthwith issues
by himself or his counsel, some new publication to prove
the justice of his claim, and the injustice of the last
committee which reported against it ; — and this is fol
lowed up by another petition, challenging these heirs of
John Codman, and the late legislative committees,
and the judges of the Supreme Judicial Court, to de
fend themselves anew against another Quixotic assault.

21
By the zeal and vehemence with which Mr. Vans
and his counsel, for they seem to stand indissolubly con
nected in the contest, assailed the committee of 1833,
those who were unacquainted with the legislative his
tory of Vans' petition, were naturally led to infer, that
this was the^rs^ time a full examination had been had
of its merits. Or at least, the first time that a report had
been made against him on that score. Several new
generations of legislators have grown up while Mr. Vans
has been prosecuting this claim. It may be useful,
therefore, to call the attention of the present race to the
course, which Vans' petition has taken in former ages,
and to point out the fact, that the evidence in support of
it has again and again undergone full examinations by
different committees, at different times, and that they
have all uniformly and unanimously reported, in all
cases where the opposite party had been notified and
heard, that the claim was utterly unfounded. The facts
here stated, appear from the journals and files of the
Senate and House of Representatives, to which we will
now refer.*
The first petition of Wm. Vans to the legislature,
was presented, as it appears, in June, 1811, more than
five and twenty years ago ; and it prayed that the stat
ute of limitations, regarding suits against executors and
administrators, might be so far suspended in his favour,
as to enable him to bring an action against the executor
of the will of the late John Codman. This petition was
referred to a standing committee, then in force, called the
committee on new trials, whose especial duty it was to
examine into the merits of particular cases brought before
* See in the Appendix, the Documents respecting the Legislative
Proceedings, No. 400. el. seq.

22
the legislature, where the party, in consideration of his
equitable grounds of claim, and of some accident, or mis
take which had prevented its successful prosecution in
the ordinary course, prayed to be relieved from the ope
ration of some legal impediment. Such a committee
must have been peculiarly competent to the investiga
tion of Mr. Vans' claim, for it fell within their ordinary
routine of duty. The committee at that time consist
ed of the Hon. Messrs. Walker and Leavitt, of the Sen
ate, Messrs. Bangs, Whitman and Nevers, of the House
of Representatives. An order of notice to the execu
tor was thereupon passed, returnable at the next session
of the same legislature, that is, Jan. 1812, when both
parties were heard by their respective counsel, and the
evidence was fully examined. This Committee on the
23d Jan. reported unanimously, that the petitioner had no
just cause of action against John Codman, or his execu
tor, and that he should have leave to withdraw his pe
tition : — which report was accepted by both branches of
the legislature.
The second petition of William Vans, of the same
tenor with the preceding, was presented at the June
session of 1812, and was again referred to the commit
tee on new trials, which then consisted of his late
excellency governor Lincoln, chairman, and Solomon
Strong, now one of the judges of the Court of Common
Pleas, from the Senate, and Messrs. Bannister, Hall,
Ware, and Whitman, from the House. An order of
notice was again issued, returnable at the January ses
sion of 1813, when a full hearing was again had, and
this committee also reported unanimously that the peti
tioner had no cause of action at law, or in equity,
against the estate of John Codman. This report was

23
also accepted in both branches. It is a remarkable
fact that both these reports, so fatal to Mr. Vans' future
prospects of legislative relief, are missing from the
public files ; — but fortunately an attested copy has been
preserved of the report of 1813, which is annexed,
and this report, it will be seen, refers to and states the
final result which had been reported by the previous
committee.* Notwithstanding these defeats, Mr. Vans presented a
third petition, similar to the foregoing, to the House of
Representatives of the next legislature at the June ses
sion of 1813. This petition was again committed to
the committee on new trials, who reported an order of
notice which was passed by the House ; but the Senate,
considering that the subject had been sufficiently ex
amined, refused its concurrence, and the petitioner had
leave to withdraw his petition without a new hearing.
At the following session of the same legislature, in
January 1814, his fourth petition was presented, pray
ing to be heard upon the floor of the Senate. This
was committed to the Hon. Josiah Quincy, the Hon.
John Holmes, and the Hon. Daniel A. White, who
unanimously reported that the petitioner have leave to
withdraw his petition, and the report was accepted.
Immediately upon this, Mr. Vans presented in the
House of Representatives his fifth petition, praying for
a hearing before a special committee of both houses, in
preference to the standing committee on new trials,
which consisted wholly of lawyers. This request was
granted, and a joint committee was appointed, consist
ing ofthe late Hon. Wendall Davis of Plymouth, Hon.
* See Appendix, Doc. No. 401 .

24
James Richardson of Dedham, and Messrs. Benjamin
Weld of Boston, Ezekiel Savage of Salem, and Isaac
Stone of Newburyport. A third thorough investiga
tion then took place, and this committee, like the two
former, reported unanimously that the petitioner have
leave to withdraw his petition, which report was ac
cepted in both branches.
Up to this period it is worthy of remark, that the
several investigations were wholly untramtpeled by
either of the three preliminary impediments above nam
ed, which are now to be overcome, before the way is
opened for an inquiry into the original merits of the
claim. None of these petitions were grounded upon
the fraud or incompetency of the former committees ;
but the petitioner proceeded ostensibly upon the forlorn
hope, that a new hearing and new evidence might better
his case. None of them were met by the constitutional
objection, that the legislature had not power to grant
his prayer, if they found a meritorious cause, since the
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Holden vs.
James, was not promulgated until September 1814; and
until that decision, the constitutional difficulty does not
seem to have suggested itself to the legislature, who
were in the habit of granting such petitions in all cases,
where equity seemed to require such special interposi
tion. In none of these applications did any legal im
pediment arise from a release of the petitioner's orig
inal cause of action ; for that release was not executed
until April 1818. The whole question, therefore, before
these three several committees, was, whether William
Vans had any just and equitable claim against the es
tate of John Codman. And the same committee which
reported in favor of the petition of Holden, because

25
they found equity in his claim> repotted against the
petition of Vans, because in his they found none. This
was the committee of Which that distinguished legisla
tor and jurist, gov. Lincoln^ was chairman. It mry
be added ^ too, that an investigation into the real and
substantial merits of the case, could be had musL more
advantageously then than now; because the trans^jg-
tions inquired of were comparatively of recent date ;
the very beginning of the connexion between Vans and
Richard Codman being at that time not more than
twenty years old, instead of fortyj a&, it now is ; toany
witnesses being then alive, who have' since died, and
much documentary evidence being then probably at
command, which is not now to be found. Yet, under
these circumstances^, two able committees on new trials,
and one able special committee, selected at large from
both houses, all assisted by eminent counsel on each
side, after a patient examination and hearing of the
evidence and the arguments, unanimously reported that
there were no equitable merits in the claim.
One would have naturally expected that this result,
followed up by the promulgation of the opinion of the
court in the latter part of 1814, on the unconstitution
ality of such special dispensations as Mr. Vans prayed
for, would have put an ehd forever to his petitions.
On the contrary, in June, 1814, he presented his sixth
petition, which was committed in the House of Rep
resentatives to the standing committee on new trials,
and came up to the Senate for concurrence — which that
body refused — and in lieu of it, ordered that the peti
tioner have leave to withdraw— which order was im
mediately concurred in by the House.
4

26
In January, 1816, however, Mr. Vans presented his
seventh petition, which was then referred to the com
mittee on new trials, (one of the last, if not the very
last, of those committees,) consisting then of the Hon.
Samuel Lothrop and Hon. John Holmes of the Senate,
and Messrs. Greene of South Berwick, Pynchon of
Brimfield, and Davis of Plymouth, of the House. This
committee speedily reported leave to withdraw, which
was accepted.
In November of the same year was presented the
eighth petition, which met with more summary justice
than the preceding. The endorsement upon it is —
"Read, and thereupon, Ordered, that the petitioner
have leave to withdraw his petition."
On the 14th April, 1818, the release was executed ;
another event which would seem to have been fatal to
the continuance of petitions for relief. It had in truth
the effect of silencing Mr. Vans for a few years.
But in January, 1828, Mr. Vans' ninth petition ap
peared in the House of Representatives, where it was
committed to a special committee, who proceeded with
out any notice to the executor of John Codman, (as
appears by the clerk's certificate,*) and reported the
evidence and statements exhibited by Mr. Vans alone,
and asked the further direction of the House — and the
House immediately directed, that the report should be
amended by striking out all after the word report, and
inserting that the petitioner have leave to withdraw his
petition. In January, 1828, his tenth petition was presented in
the Senate, and on the report of a committee against it
he had leave to withdraw.
* See the Appendix, Doc. No. 406.

27
In February, 1831, came his eleventh petition, pre
sented to the House of Representatives, and committed
to a select committee, of which Mr. Perkins of Becket
was chairman. No order of notice was issued in this
case to the representatives of John Codman, nor was
there any appearance in their behalf. The committee
proceeded upon the ex parte statements of Mr. Vans,
and the inspection of certain French documents exhib
ited by him, which they did not profess to understand,
and thereupon reported Mr. Vans' own statement of
facts, and asked the further direction of the House.
The House directed simply that the committee be dis
charged, and the petition was dismissed.
With the June session of the same legislature came
Mr. Vans' twelfth petition. It was referred to a
select committee, of which Mr. Emmons, of Hinsdale,
was chairman. This committee also omitted to give
any notice, or afford any hearing, to the heirs or repre
sentatives of John Codman ; and having had a full
hearing of Mr. Vans, besides the benefit of his printed
statements, with which the members of the legislature
were by this time pretty well acquainted, they re
ported briefly, that they were entirely satisfied of the
validity of the petitioner's claims, "the details of which
are too familiar to the House to require to be here
stated," and that the statute of limitations ought to
be suspended for his benefit. This report was at first
accepted by the House ; but afterwards, on reconsid
eration, the whole subject was indefinitely postponed.
This was the first instance of any thing like a public
expression of popular opinion favorable to Mr. Vans'
pretensions.

28
It was followed up by his thirteenth petition, pre
sented in the House of Representatives of 1832, by
whom it was referred to a select committee, Mr. Rob
inson, of Marblehead, chairman. This committee gave
no notice, and afforded no hearing to the adverse party ;
but having heard Mr. Vans to their satisfaction, forth
with reported a bill, conforming to the prayer of the
petition ; and the House of Representatives, without
passing any order of notice, accepted the report, and
passed the bill, against the solemn protest, entered on
the journals, of a large and respectable portion of its
members. Such was the hold which Mr. Vans had at last got
upon the public mind, by the circulation of his scanda
lous pamphlets without contradiction or answer !
Being sent to the Senate for concurrence — the bill
was there committed to the judiciary committee, of
which the Hon. Leverett Saltonstall was then chair
man. This committee, without hearing the parties, re
ported against the bill, on the ground that it was uncon
stitutional, as decided by the supreme court in the case
of Holden vs. James ; and they added that " they were
the less inclined to hear the parties, and inquire into
the evidence of the case, as requested by the represen
tative of John Codman, because they found that such
an examination and hearing had been had in 1813 by
a joint committee of both houses, who had unanimous
ly reported that there was no claim, legal, or equita
ble, on John Codman's estate, and because it could not
be supposed, that after a lapse of nineteen years a com
mittee could inquire into the truth of the facts, under
circumstances so favorable to a correct result." This
report was accepted in the Senate by a vote of 22 to 8,

29
as will appear by the record ; though Mr. Vans'
representation of it is, that only 22 men out of 40 were
found in the Senate against him.*
Mr. Vans' case appearing, nevertheless, to have
gathered strength in popular estimation, by reason of
the favorable reports and votes abovementioned in
the House of Representatives — few persons taking the
trouble to inquire into the circumstances under which
they were given — in January 1833, he presented to
the House of Representatives his fourteenth petition,
which was committed to the special committee before
mentioned, consisting of Messrs.Lucas, Barrett, Metcalf,
Houghton and Loring. This committee, after notice
to the heirs of John Codman, waiving at their request
all previous constitutfonal scruples, went into a full ex
amination of the equitable merits of the case. All the
account books of John and Richard Codman, and all the
papers in our possession were produced ; and this com
mittee, like all the other committees, who had made
such an examination and heard both sides, reported
unanimously, that there was no claira against the estate
of John Codraan, and accompanied this report with a
statement of the evidence on which that opinion was
founded. And the report was accepted.
This report was followed by the review abovemen
tioned, published under the name of David L. Child,
Esq. ; — and, in February 1834, Mr. Vans presented his
fifteenth petition, containing the substance of the review.
This petition was committed to a special joint commit
tee, consisting of the Hon. Messrs. Newton and Joy
of the Senate, and Messrs. Leonard, Rockwell and
Meekin of the House. Before this committee, the
* See pamphlet called "Life of William Vans," p. 3.

30
executor of John Codman did not appear. Counsel
attended for one of the heirs, for the purpose of taking
notes of the proceedings merely, as was stated to the
committee, but reserving the right to appear and be
heard, if the committee should think proper to go into
an examination of evidence. The committee decided
however, that they wished first to be satisfied, that the
legislature had authority, under the constitution, to
grant the prayer of the petition. That point was ar
gued by the counsel for Mr. Vans at great length,
without answer on the part of the heirs of John
Codman. A majority of the committee, namely,
Messrs. Newton, Rockwell, and Meekin, were of opin
ion that the legislature had no constitutional power
over the subject, and therefore declined any examina
tion of evidence, and reported accordingly. Messrs.
Joy and Leonard dissented on the constitutional ques
tion, and reported their reasons. After several recom
mitments and other proceedings in the Senate and
House, no final action was had upon the subject,
but the whole matter was referred to the next legisla
ture, to be disposed of in such manner as its wisdom
should adjudge to be proper and expedient.
In the mean time, great industry was employed in
spreading among the community Mr. Vans' publications,
and the review by Mr. Child, and printed copies of the
petition, which was in fact an argument of the case,
based upon a total misrepresentation of facts. Printed
petitions, in aid of the petition of Wm. Vans, and pray
ing that it might be granted, were then circulated by^
his friends in various parts of the country, and a large
number of signatures were obtained, from persons who
knew absolutely nothing of the merits of the case, ex-

31
cept what they had been told by Mr. Vans and his col
leagues. The petition from the city of Boston alone,
was said to have contained twelve hundred signatures.
Early in the session of 1835, the subject was called
up in the House of Representatives, and referred to a
special committee, consisting wholly of persons under
stood to be agreeable to the petitioner, and favorably
disposed to his cause. This committee reported an or
der of notice to the parties interested, which was passed
by the House, and executed by publishing the petition
at large, in the public newspapers, together with a notice
of the time and place of hearing thereon. As this was
a publication of Mr. Vans' falsehoods by authority, un
precedented in mere private causes, most unnecessary
for the purpose of notice to the parties, and calculated
to spread and increase the popular excitement which
Mr. Vans had already contrived to raise, the heirs of
John Codman thought it incumbent upon them to pub
lish a protest against this extraordinary measure, with a
denial of the facts stated in the petition. Mr. Vans,
who had hitherto had the ear of the public wholly to
himself on this subject, followed it with some other
newspaper publications, which were answered in behalf
of the heirs of John Codman, and led to a public con
troversy, in which some of his manifold falsehoods and
fabrications were for the first time publicly exposed.
In the mean time the inquiry before the committee
proceeded. The counsel for the heirs of John Codman
declined arguing any question of constitutional right, or
any other point of mere technical defence, and request
ed merely an examination of the facts. A most minute
and laborious examination of all the evidence in the
case took place. Nothing offered by Mr. Vans was

32
objected to, by reason of informality or insufficiency of
proof, although scarcely a document which he pos
sesses, unsupported by farther evidence, would be
even admissible in a court of law. All account books
and documents called for by him, which were in the
possession of the respondent, were promptly produced.
The account books especially, were subjected to a
rigorous examination by a sub-committee, familiar with
mercantile accounts, and appointed for that purpose,
who took the books into their own possession, and ex
amined them at their own leisure, and to their own sat
isfaction, without the presence of the respondent, or his
counsel. The committee did not discharge themselves
of their laborious duty until near the close of the ses
sion, when they reported unanimously, that the report
of the committee of 1 833, which had been so vehement
ly assailed, contained a substantially correct and fair
view of the petitioner's case ; that he never had any just
demand upon John Codman, or his estate ; and that so
far from John Codman's being indebted to him in his
life time, he himself was indebted to John Codman.
After such a report, from such a committee, and upon
such an investigation, it appears almost a work of super
erogation on our part, to exhibit now the evidence at
large in the case of William Vans. If he were not per
tinaciously bent upon pursuing, at all hazards, his dis
honest scheme of getting a livelihood out of public com
motion, on the subject of his private claim, he vvould
long since have been silenced forever, by these legisla
tive reports. But we have seen him, and his principal
colleague, renewing the same efforts which have been
heretofore successful in creating a popular ferment in
his favour. The report of the committee of 1835 was

33
the subject of a series of articles in the newspapers,
from the pen of Mr. Child ; new pamphlets have been
circulated by Mr. Vans ; a new petition was presented
to the legislature of 1836, and that petition was again
committed !
Believing that enough had been done to satisfy any
honest purpose of legislative inquiry, we remonstrated,
in this instance, against a new hearing of the evidence,
burdensome and expensive as it is to the parties and to
the Coraraon wealth ; and the committee to whom the
subject was referred, finding no new evidence offered
on the part of Mr. Vans, and that the facts stated in the
remonstrance were true, reported accordingly, and the
petitioner had leave to withdraw his sixteenth petition.
Such is a true history of all the legislative proceed
ings on this subject, as appears by the journals and
files of the two legislative houses. The first reflection
which it presents to the mind, is the utter irapropriety
of legislative interference, in questions of mere private
right. The second thought it presents, is the wisdom
of separating the judicial power frora the legislative.
If the legislative body, acting upon such a question,
has any authority, it must be in its nature judicial —
it substitutes for general laws a peculiar and extraordi
nary chancery power, not provided by our written con
stitution. It can be upon no other principle, that
jurisdiction in this case is founded. There may
be cases in which the operation of general laws is
unjust. Let it be admitted, for arguments' sake,
that such necessity exists, and what follows ? That
the legislature, in assuming this high judicial and
equity function, should conforra itself to those estab
lished principles of action, which regulate all other high

34
judicial functionaries under every free governraent, and
indeed in every nation not barbarous. And what are
these.? First, that they should respect theraselves.
That their decisions once pronounced should be deem
ed sacred. There is a maxim of the common law,
founded in excellent sense. Interest Reipublicte ut
sit Finis litium. The public good requires that law
suits should have some end. In other words, when
private rights are submitted to eternal question there is
no liberty — there is no security. Legislation is of
course changeable, but not such should be the state of
private rights. The legislature, by repealing and revers
ing its own acts, shows that it has no respect for its
own judgments — thus affording the best proof of the
practical wisdom, which forbade its exercise of judi
cial action. Can there be a greater proof of the unfit
ness of such a tribunal for such a question, than the
permitting in this very case the circulation for years of
printed ex parte statements upon the benches of the
house, and the reading of them by the very men who
are to act as judges in the cause — a measure which
would call down the severest censure of a court of law,
and totally vitiate and destroy the verdict of a jury ?
Yet here the legislature, by entertaining de novo year
after year a cause fifteen times adjudged, shows no
respect to its own solemn opinions, and feels no indig
nation at the scandalous ex parte publications, which Mr.
Vans has been putting into their hands for five and
twenty years, designed solely to affect the integrity
and impartiality of their opinions. Is there any other
course left then for the individuals thus assailed, if
they would relieve themselves from an annual legisla
tive inquiry for the residue of their lives, than to pub-

35
lish, once for all, in an authentic form, a full view of
this extraordinary case, and of the evidence relating
to it, to be referred to now, and in future ages, when the
descendants of William Vans shall, agreeably to his in
junction, have taken up his novel scheme for a liveli
hood ?
We do not propose, however, to enlarge on these
general topics of constitutionality, or expediency. We
do not propose either to attack or defend the proceed
ings of former legislatures. Neither is it our intention
to vindicate the judges of the Supreme Judicial Court
frora any of their imputed heresies, nor the merabers of
the legislative committees of 1833 and 1835, from any
of the misdemeanors charged against them, further than
belongs to our own particular case. Our sole object is to
vindicate ourselves and our father's raeraory against libel
lous charges, extensively circulated, and by many be
lieved ; and to avoid, if it be possible, the labor and
expense of new investigations. In pursuing this object
we shall not stand for defence against the claims of
Wm. Vans, upon any nice and technical points, which
might answer our purpose abundantly, if it were now a
mere question of property in a court of law ; but meet
ing the inquiry upon broader principles of substantial
justice, we propose to show conclusively, by unquestion
able evidence, that William Vans has no legal, or equi
table, or honorary claim upon us, as heirs of John Cod
man, because he never had any cause of action, or just
claim whatsoever against John Codman himself.
The general proposition on which Mr. Vans rests his
claim against the estate of John Codman, as set forth
in his petitions, is, that in 1798, almost forty years ago,
he loaned to and deposited with the house of John and

36 I
Richard Codman, described as merchants, bankers, and
partners at Paris, French government stocks, to the
amount, as he says, of ^182,060, with other securities,
all which, with interest, and other incidental causes of
accumulation, being now upwards of ^600,000, he pre
tends remains due and unpaid.
We propose to refute this statement, by showing that
there never was any such house as John and Richard
Codman, at Paris; that the house of that name in Boston,
had been publicly dissolved long before the transactions
referred to as happening in 1798 ; that at the period of
those transactions, there was no partnership whatever
existing between John and Richard Codman ; that
whatever these transactions were, they were separate
and private concerns between Vans and Richard Cod
man alone ; that John Codman had neither any knowl
edge of them at the time, nor interest in them after ;
and that all this was as well known, we may truly say,
better known to Wm. Vans, then, and ever since, than
it is to us, who have derived our knowledge only from
a careful examination of the evidence which we now
propose to exhibit.
Before going into a particular statement and discus
sion of the evidence, on which Mr. Vans relies to estab
lish his claim, it will be needful to present a general out
line of facts. About some of them there is no dispute ;
and those which are disputed, will be established, as we
proceed, by documents annexed.
At the beginning ofthe yeaf 1791, John Codman was
an extensive and well established merchant in Boston,
possessed of a considerable property in real estate, as
well as a handsome stock in trade, and an unbounded
credit. Richard Codman, on the other hand, was a young

37
man of promise, who had been brought up in his broth
er's counting room, but without a farthing of property,
and not established in any regular business. This be
ing their relative position, John Codman, desirous both
to divide the labor of his business and to advance the
interests of his younger brother, to whom he was much
attached, took Richard into partnership. This connec
tion commenced on the 1st May 1791, and was pub
licly announced on that day under the firm of John and
Richard Codraan.* No written articles of copartner
ship were ever drawn up between thera ; but the objects
of their partnership, as held out to the world, will best
appear by the circular letter of John Codman, which
published the formation of the house to his old corres
pondents, and the circular letter of the new firm ten
dering its services to the commercial world. These
are annexed.f
Two facts may be noticed as inferable from these
documents. First, that the business proposed to be
done by the new house, as announced to the public,
was that of ^^ commission and navigation ;^^ by which
we understand the ordinary business of a commission
merchant, and the ordinary business of a general mer
chant trading abroad and importing on his own account.
Secondlj', that the commission business, or business of
others done for a compensation, was to be transacted
wholly at Boston, since the members of the firm make
to their correspondents a tender of their " best services
* Mr. V's counsel contends that the connection began a few weeks
earlier, in proof of which he produces au account settled with J. and R.
Codman containing some items dated in April 1791. The fact was that
the new house took up the outstanding business of John Codman. But
whether it began in April or May is very immaterial.
f See Appendix, Document No. l.

38
in this place" — and in this place only. There is nothing
in these notices which indicates, that the partnership
association was intended to embrace any other objects.
From an examination of the books of the house, it ap
pears, that no capital, or stock, was ever put into the
house by Richard Codman ; nor indeed was any definite
amount of capital, or stock in trade, furnished by John
Codman. In fact the house itself may be truly said to
have had no capital, nor any such thing as a stock ac
count, according to the understanding of merchants, in
its hands ;— but its operations were based wholly upon
the private capital of John Codman and the credit of
the house, John Codman sometimes advancing to the
house, from his own private property, by way of loan,
for which he is credited in its books, and being of
course always bound in his private capacity, for all
engagements raade in the name of John and Richard
Codman. The books moreover show, in corroboration
of the circular letters abovementioned, that the business
of the house was confined to ordinary mercantile adven
tures, and the transaction of commission business at
Boston, with the single exception that the house also
carried on at Boston the business of a Ropewalk there
established. The books farther show, that by the
terms of the agreeraent between the partners, all profits
and losses on the joint business were to be divided in
the proportion of two thirds to John, and one third to
Richard ; and the profit and loss account is accordingly
settled annually, or oftener, by distributing its balance
in these proportions between John and Richard, one
third going into the private or personal account of Rich
ard, and two thirds into that of John. This corresponds
with an origuial memorandum in the handwriting of

39
Richard Codman stating the proposed terras of partner
ship — a copy of which we annex.*
About the year 1793, the house being engaged in ex
tensive commercial operations in Eqrope, it was found
convenient that one of the partners should go abroad, for
the purpose of establishing a permanent credit in Lon
don, and should remain there for a short time, for the
purpose of getting information as to the state of mar
kets, making or directing certain sales and shipraents,
collecting or remitting funds to the proposed points of
operation, and opening a valuable correspondence for
the commission business at home. Richard Codman was
accordingly sent for this purpose, and after visiting sever
al places finally fixed himself at Paris, as a convenient
centre. These facts appear from the early letters
which are annexed. There is nothing In the books or
correspondence of the House, including the most pri
vate and confidential comraunications between the two
brothers, indicating any consequent change, or intention
of change, in the character of the business to be trans
acted for the joint account, nor was any notice of this
new and temporary arrangement given to correspon
dents abroad, as would have been done if there were
any important change in the constitution of the house,
or its mode of doing business. It was treated by the
parties as the coraraon case of a raercantile house estab
lished in one country, and there doing its business under
the name of the firm, while one of its members was
abroad, for the purpose of facilitating its foreign opera
tions. The course of business in fact pursued was
such as the new arrangeraent, accompanied with a
* See Document, No. 2.

40
knowledge of what the house originally proposed to en
gage in, would naturally lead us to anticipate.
The main business of the house was annual importa
tion frora Russia. To facilitate this, a large perraanent
credit was established with the Barings in London, on
whom the Russian merchants, who furnished the car
goes, might draw. The articles imported went in part
to supply the rope manufactory in Boston ; and by way
of replacing in London, with profit, the funds which
had there been advanced by the Barings, ships and car
goes were from time to time sent by John Codman, re
siding at Boston, and there acting in the narae, as well
as for the account of the house, to France and other
parts of Europe. These were disposed of by Richard
Codraan, acting in Europe under his own narae, though
in these cases for account of his house. Occasionally
a return shipment was made by him to America for the
account and risk of J. and R. Codman ; but generally
the ships were employed by him on intermediate voy
ages, between the seasons of Russian importation, and
all funds realized by him in Europe, whether from
freights, or sales of cargoes, were intended to be remit
ted by him, for the account of his house, to the Barings in
London, while consignments from foreign houses were
to be directed by hira, as far as his influence extended,
to the house of John and Richard Codman at Boston.
Here the whole business originated and terminated ; —
the funds proceeded hence ; — and whithersoever sent, or
whatsoever changes of form the property underwent, in
the course of commercial exchange, hither it returned at
last, if it returned at all, and the whole business wound
itself up in the profit and loss account of John and
Richard Codman at Boston. The truth of this general

41
outline will be gathered from consulting the corres
pondence appended.*
The contracts in writing which Richard Codman made
abroad, for account of the house, were usually subscribed
with his individual signature, and not with that of the
firm. A single exception indeed, is the only instance
which has come to our knowledge of his using the part
nership signature abroad. This will be hereafter spoken
of. The idea seems to have been, that the house, or firm,
being located in Boston, could not with propriety sign
its own name, if we may so speak, elsewhere ; but that
whatever was done abroad, for account of this imaginary
creature of commerce, the house at Boston, even if it
were done by one of the partners in that house, should
be under the private signature of the immediate agent,
notwithstanding the language of the contract might ex
press, that it was entered into for account of the house
of J. & R. Codman, which would of course be answer
able upon it when so expressed, if the subject of the
contract fell within the scope of ordinary commercial
dealing. This is the usual mode of proceeding among
merchants. A partner abroad, is the mere agent
and attorney of his house. Richard Codman acted in
that capacity ; and probably held sorae letter, or power
of attorney perhaps, frora John Codman, to assure
others, if required, that his acts, when they purported
to be for account of J. & R. Codman, were duly author
ized by that house, and vvould be sanctioned and rati
fied by the partner at home.
This course of business, though intended to have been
of short duration, continued in fact for several years —
¦* See Document No. 3, &c.
6

42
John Codman residing at Boston — and Richard Codman
prolonging his stay at Paris, far beyond his original design,
and much against John'swishes. But Richard grewmore
and more inattentive, apparently, to the counsels of his
brother, as well as to the business and concerns of the
house : he wrote seldom and meagerly ; rendered but few
and imperfect accounts, and made very unsatisfactory
statements ofthe business confided to him ; he collected
large amounts ofthe funds ofthe house into his own hands,
and failed to remit them according to his brother's orders
and expectations, thus becoming largely indebted to the
firm; while in the mean time, he was living in his town
and country houses, though a young man without family,
in a style of great luxury and expense, and at last began
to engage largely in speculations in the French funds,
and in real estate situated in France ; all which specu
lations were in his own name, and expressed to be, as
they in fact were, for his own sole account — being wholly
foreign to the business of the partnership, and without
the sanction or consent of his brother John, who latterly
was kept in profound ignorance of all details, not only
of Richard's, but even of his own affairs, so far as they
fell under Richard's administration.
In addition to this discouraging and tantalizing
conduct of the partner abroad, public affairs be
gan to assume an alarming posture. In the pro
gress of the hostilities between Great Britain and
France, the former had adopted and promulgated the
belligerent policy, that neutral property, found in the
hands or under the flag of an eneray, was entitled to no
respect, but was liable to be condemned as lawful prize ;
while France had retaliated, by declaring her intention
to seize and confiscate neutral ships, covering the manu-

43
factures or produce of Great Britain and her dependen
cies. It began to be held too in the Admiralty Court
of Great Britain, that when one of two partners resided
in an enemy's country, that circumstance alone, was
sufficient to warrant the condemnation of property other
wise neutral. Depredations upon American commerce,
consequently, were committed to a great extent ;
and finally open rupture between France and America
seemed to be fast approaching. The American envoys
at Paris, specially deputed for the purpose of endeavour
ing to make some conciliatory arrangement, were refus
ed even to be accredited by the revolutionary govern
ment of France : warlike addresses were pouring in
upon Congress and the President from all parts of the
United States, and Congress was engaged in debating
bills for authorizing the President to raise and equip
military and naval forces, to be employed, if needful,
against the public enemy.
In this state of things, it was no longer prudent for
John Codman to hazard the property he had accumu
lated, by continuing a connexion with a brother whose
services were not valuable to him, to say the least, and
whose fixed residence in Paris, as a citizen of the French
republic, seemed to give to the house of John & Richard
Codman in Boston, somewhat of a French complexion,
and affixed to its property and business, according to
British admiralty law, some of the peculiar hazards
which belonged to the commerce of that nation. Be
sides this, the course of the business, under Richard's
mismanagement, had been such, as to create an increas
ing balance against the house in the hands of the Bar
ings of London, by constant drafts, answered on the
credit of John & Richard Codman, and an almost total

44
failure ofthe expected remittances from Richard Codman
to meet them, until at last, the debt had accumulated to
the enormous sum of near £50,000 sterling ; and the
Barings began to exhibit marked symptoms of distrust,
and to be diffident of farther advances. From the combin
ed operation of these causes, John Codraan became just
ly alarmed, and with the advice of his friends, particular
ly the Hon. John Lowell, now living and testifying to the
fact, and of his father, the late Judge Lowell, deceas
ed, prudently determined to dissolve the partnership
without delay. Accordingly, on the 1st May, 1798,
precisely seven years frora the coraraencement of
the partnership, he declared it to be dissolved at that
date, and immediately caused public notice of the dis
solution to be advertised in the newspapers, and gave
particular notice by letter, to the foreign correspondents
of the late house. He also gave the earliest possible
notice of the fact to Richard Codman, whom he had pre
viously warned of the probability of the measure. A
copy of the advertisement is annexed,* by which it will
be seen, that John Codman assumed to settle the con
cerns of the late house himself; calling upon all its
debtors to make payment to him, and all its creditors to
present their demands for settlement.
It may here be remarked in passing, that up to this
period, none of those transactions between Vans and
Richard Codman, out of which the claim of Vans is
supposed to have originated, had taken place. The
earliest of these transactions, although Vans in his pe
tition dates them all with convenient generality in
1798, was not until the latter part of December of than
* See Doc. No. 77.

45
year, or the early part of January following — at least
seven or eight months after the dissolution ; and the
notes of Richard Codraan, which he sets forth in some
of his publications, and the judgments founded upon
those notes which he sets forth in others, as his true
causes of action, were not given or recovered until the
years 1800 or 1801.
For some months after the dissolution, Richard's
drafts upon the late house, dated before he had receiv
ed notice of it, continued to arrive in great num
bers to John Codman, at Boston, unaccompanied (as
usual) by any accounts or letters to explain why they
were drawn, and still less by any remittances to meet
them. John Codman, unable to determine, from want
of advices, whether these drafts were really for ac
count of business of the late house or not, at first
accepted and paid without demur — though not without
many remonstrances and bitter complaints to his brother,
at this extraordinary conduct, and threats of returning
his bills protested, if he should continue todraw. He then
began to refuse acceptance of the bills drawn by Rich-
- ard, though he finally paid them when they became due.
And at last, in November, '98, having received frora Rich
ard his written acknowledgment, dated in the previous
September, of the notice of dissolution, (and this ac
knowledgment of notice, it raay be reraarked again in
passing, was received in Boston sorae time before the
commencement of Richard's engagements with Vans, at
Paris,) he at last joyfully arrived at a period when it was
no longer questionable whether he should accept and pay
Richard's drafts or not, except so far as he might be
disposed to sustain his brother's separate credit, from
friendly and fraternal regard. An opportunity soon oc-

46
curred, when even these motives called upon him to re
fuse the extension of credit which his brother continued
to ask. This was upon the occasion of the^rs^ intro
duction of William Vans, in connexion with Richard
Codman, to the notice of his brother John.
We cannot give a more graphic picture of the circum
stances under which this introduction took place, nor
exhibit in stronger light the fixed determination of
John Codman to have nothing to do with Vans' affairs,
nor even to aid Richard in such a connexion, nor bet
ter exhibit the relation in which the two brothers
then stood to each other, than by quoting at large
John Codman's private letter to his brother on this
subject, dated at Boston, the 24th July, 1799. It
runs as follows.
Letter from John Codman to Richard. Codman.
Boston, July 24, 1799.
My dear Brother : Yesterday a gentleman, (say
James Prince) very secretly informed me Mr. Vans was
in town, and that he had some important business to
communicate to me from you ; which I would learn by
calling on him, at a certain place to which he had retir
ed in town, to avoid such creditors, or their agents, as
might cause him trouble. I instantly went, in hopes
either of a letter frora you, or some remittances from you,
or at least some information, consoling to me in the anx
ious state of mind I have been in concerning you and
YOUR affairs. To my astonishment, through the locks
and retreats by which I was admitted, I found Mr. Vans
possessed of letters of unbounded confidence and guar-
antee/rom you for four thousand pounds sterling;
with a letter to me, desiring me to furnish him the money
on his bills. I could not easily veil my mortification;
and seeing the risk you run, to trust a man of his em-
harra.ssments with such papers, 1 was astonished, and
freely told Mr. Vans my concern, lest, being arrested by

47
his creditors, which was to be expected, he might be
tempted to draw, to extricate himself, and make use of
YOVR guarantee. Although I have every reason to think
Mr. V. would scorn an unworthy act or improper use
of those papers,* yet necessity has no restraints,t and the
facility with which we reconcile ourselves to such things,
was not out of my raind ; particularly as already he as
serted YOU oived him £2,000 sterling, for inscriptions
lent, and raortgages, and other securities of his, sufficient
to cover all this credit, even if he should make use of it.
Alarmed at this appearance, I requested he would give
me up the papers ; which he did on my promising to
negotiate his bill on VoghtJ _/or your account, for £100
sterling, to pay his expenses, if he had occasion ; and I
think you are very fortunate that these papers are now
in my hands.
I have no doubt a cargo of tobacco^ would an
swer, (notwithstanding bills on Voght would not
bring over 15 per cent, under par,) provided you
could get it into France ; but times are too precarious.
I am loading the Abigail in Virginia, for Bremen, with
tobacco on my own account, from James river. I have
sold her after she arrives there, for £5,250 sterling, and
ordered the proceeds of her and her cargo remitted to
Barings. This will finish her. The Commerce has
been sold a long time. I have now only the Minerva
and Thetis, which I expect from Russia, and intend to
sell one or both of thera ; for I cannot do any more busi
ness ivhile YOU keep the funds in France.]] The bills
you drew on me last year, to Prince and others, have
distressed me beyond measure, as I owe for them now,
and heavy sums besides at the different banks. Indeed
I have been distressed for funds, ever since you went
from here, in hopes from time to time to be relieved by
* Men's characters are developed by time and circumstances.
f Admirably exemplified in the later life and conversation of Wm. Vans.
i A merchant of Hamburgh.
§ This was the subject ofthe joint speculation entered into by Richard
Codman and Vans.
II Funds of the late house, belonging in equity to John Codman, because
he was a large creditor, and Richard Codman a large debtor to the joint
concern.

48
you, instead of which you have filled me with new de
mands and drafts ; and by what I can learn from
Messrs. Barings, to whom you promised £16,000 a long
time ago, they get nothing of it, and, on the contrary,
that you have already taken up ,^12,000 of Cremer*
out of my shipment per Tudor, which I had promised
them without deduction. How is it possible I can go
on so.? — No, I cannot. I will sell all I have, and pay
ivhat I owe, and quit business and town altogether, until
these inexplicable things are unriddled. I am daily ex
pecting to see Tudor. He must tell ine some particu
lars. I beg for Heaven's sake, that you would send me
your account with brother Stephen, that I may settle
with him for £1,500 sterling. Barings charge us,t and
for £2,900 and odd somebody paid Fletcher's bills with
— our money. t How many times I have asked this,
and you promised rae under your own hand writing that
you would send it, and never noticed it afterwards ? I
have sent to Hamburg, and got Voght's, and Rucker &
Wortmann's accounts, but they are in a great measure
inexplicable to me, and will remain so until you come
home.^ I hope it will not be long before a general peace
will tranquillize the world, for I see it will be next to
impossible for you to return until then. — Indeed I think
since you have staid so long, and have got so much de
pendent on the event,]] it will be as well for you to stay,
at least until some favorable opportunity occurs to ena
ble you to sell. All I ask is, — and that 1 must dwell
upon, — that you would not engage in any new business
whatever, by no manner of means; but be selling, and col
lecting, and winding off, and of course remitting to Bar
ings. It was therefore with extreme regret that I saw you
engaging in a new speculation with Vans. You will never
return if you do not stop. And if you engage with him,
'^ A merchant of Rotterdam.
t Thsu]is,'^the late house.
t Referring still to charges in accounts rendered against the late house.
§ Unsettled accounts of the late house^for negotiations conducted by
Richard, before the dissolution — and respecting which he had neglected
to advise his brother.
II Alluding to Richard's own extensive purchases on private speculation.

49
you will with others, and so on ad infinitum. I could do
more business, here, but! will not, and be in debt. I
will not owe. I have owed so long, and been so dis
tressed, and paid so much interest money, that / am fix
ed and determined to pay what I owe,* if it takes all I
have, if I sell the house over ray head, and live upon the
farm ; and if you will assist me,, well ;t if not, you must
do as you please ; for I will see no company, and spend
as little as I can help, until I can accomplish this desi
rable end.J We^ have gone too much into credit. You
will be astonished, when you corae home, to see the
interest money we have paid ; but if we are prudent,
we shall yet do well, and, notwithstanding all I have
said, I don't doubt your prudence and consideration in
general. — Your personal aid I wish, when it can be had;||
this is natural ; for no calculation can reach the mis
chiefs we have experienced by being so long separated.
Adieu. John, who is at college, and Charles, who is prepar
ing for it, stand near me, and desire their love to their
uncle Richard, of whom they have so often heard, and
so well remember, that they anticipate the joy of some
time seeing you again. Again, adieu.
I believe that I have mentioned to you that I com
menced an amicable suit with Swan for the balance due
me on his bill on Murdock protested, he gave Higgin-
son as bail, of whom I shall finally recover. This
balance is now at ^1,500, and so much better is it for
me to receive this money here than in Europe, that I
can buy bills on London with it at twelve and a half
per cent, under par. Higginson's counsel has put it off
in court from time to tirae, by asserting by his direc
tion, that Swan has raade an arrangement with you,
or paid you, and thus got it continued. What I wish
is, — and Rufus Amory recommends it, — your attesta
tion before a magistrate, that no payment whatever has
* Which was wholly on account ofthe late house.
f In paying off the debts ofthe late house.
% A hint to Richard respecting his very different style of living.
§ That is, the late house.
II In closing the concerns of our late house, and adjusting our mutual
accounts. 7

50
been made you by Swan, or any one else, on said bill.
Be so kind to me, as to send me this document without
delay. I will write to Frederick Delius of Breraen, to
whora the Abigail goes consigned, and tell hira that
nothing must interrupt the proceeds of vessel and cargo
going to Barings ;* yet as this vessel will immediately
become Bremen property, she might perhaps be em
ployed by him, as he buys her, in conveying tobacco to
France ; when if you wish to purchase any of the car
go,! and can pay him for it to his satisfaction, so that
the remittance may still go on to Barings, I have no ob
jection ; but I rather wish you to decline all business
whatever, and in no event to interrupt the funds' appro
priate destination.X J- CODMAN.
This letter, which we have inserted entire, may be
the subject of remark hereafter in connexion with other
documents. But even at present we are not disposed
to pass it without pointing out a few leading facts
which it discovers, and inferences to which it naturally
leads. 1 . It is the earliest notice to John Codman of any
business connexion between Richard Codraan and Vans.
2. This notice was not received by John Codman
until jif^een months (wanting one week only) after the
dissolution of the partnership had been publicly an
nounced, and more than nine months after Richard
had acknowledged the notice of it at Paris, and more
than seven months after John had received that ac
knowledgment here.
3. This business, between Richard Codman and
Vans, appears, upon the face of it, to have been of re-
* The fear was that Delius might send the vessel to France and suffer
J. C's property to get into R. C's hands.
t Alluding again to R. C's desire to speculate in tobacco on his own
account, as indicated by his engagement with Vans.
I As he had once before done with J. C's private funds in the hands of
Cremer.

51
cent origin^ being a new undertaking, dependent upon
John Codraan's willingness to advance the requisite
funds, on the security of bills on Voght and Richard's
guarantee. 4. The proposed credit is on John Codman sepa
rately, who is to he guaranteed by Richard Codman sepa
rately, and is not a credit on the house of John and
Richard Codman, nor are the bills to be guaranteed by
them. 5. This credit, requested from John Codman, is
treated as matter of accommodation, and not as a
right which Richard Codman claimed to exercise by
the authority of a partner who controls, according to his
own discretion, the joint funds and credit of his house.
6. John Codman peremptorily refuses the credit
asked on Vans' bills, with Richard's guarantee.
7. Vans was willing to surrender all claims under
the credit, provided he could have £100, to pay his ex
penses, upon a bill drawn on Voght, in favor of John
Codman and /or account of Richard Codman. Where
as, if Vans had supposed John Codman a copart
ner, he never would have given up the credit ; since a
draft by one partner, is an acceptance beforehand, and
binding on the other.
8. Vans himself stated his claim for property en
trusted to Richard Codraan, (the same which he speaks
of in his petitions as the foundation of his present
claim,) to be on Richard alone, and did not pretend at
this time to have any claira for it upon John, while
John receives his stateraent that he had a claim even
upon Richard, for property in his hands, with marked
incredulity. 9. In this private and confidential communication
between the brothers, John Codman never intimates an

52
apprehension even that he was in any way liable for,
or implicated in this transaction.
10. The whole tenor of the letter indicates that the
brothers were then acting each on his separate account,
except so far as regarded the winding up of the old
business, and especially the payment of their joint debt
to the Barings, of which John Codman was extremely
solicitous that Richard should do his share, having
been already greatly distressed, and being still embarrass
ed and crippled, by Richard's withholding the funds which
ought long ago to have been applied to that object.
Being now fairly introduced to William Vans, in an
interview with John Codman, at Boston, in July 1799,
it may be convenient to go back a little, for the purpose
of exhibiting in detail so much of the past history of Mr.
Vans as seeras material ; in doing which, we raust be
somewhat indebted to Mr. Vans' own published state
ments — although we desire, most explicitly, to be under
stood, now and at all times, as not vouching for the
truth of any thing which comes from that quarter, with
out corroboration.
William Vans it seems was a native of Salem. His
father had been a trader there, and as he informs us had
done considerable business. The son, after making
some voyages as supercargo, established himself in the
dry goods business, at Boston, about the year 1786, in
company with one Jonathan Freeman, under the firm of
Freeman and Vans. Mr. Vans seems to have been the
travelling partner of the concern, and made voyages,
as he relates, to several parts of Europe, and finally,
about the year 1794, arrived in France; soon after which,
his partner, Mr. Freeman, going to France for the ex
press purpose of seeking Vans and recovering property
out of his hands, was drowned at sea, and thus by death

53
dissolved the copartnership, leaving its treasuryinsolvent,
and Mr. Vans to settle the accounts. This insolvency
Mr. Vans denies ; but we infer it nevertheless frora the
docuraents. Vans finally married and established himself at
Paris ; and held, according to his own account,
during his whole stay in France, a consul's commission
there. Richard Codman coming to Paris also about
the year 1794-5, a particular intimacy grew up be
tween them, the circumstances of which it would be
needless to detail. We refer however to a fe'W annex
ed notes from Vans to Richard Codman, written at Paris,
through the years '95, '96, '97 and '98,* as serving to
show the familiar footing on which they lived, and also
to show that Richard Codman was in the habit of lending
money, and granting other little accommodations, to
Vans. Mr.Vans pretends that these were reciprocated, by
other equivalent or greater accommodations on his part ;
which we raean neither to adrait nor deny, having no
other means of knowledge upon the subject than Mr.
Vans' own statements and these notes. The transac
tions therein referred to seem, at any rate, to be alto
gether of a personal character, and not to have any ap
parent connexion with the mercantile operations of J.
and R. Codman, and they come down to the time of
the dissolution, and after.
Vans, by means of these borrowed funds, or otherwise,
though still embarrassed with a load of debts, became
a speculator in French stocks and real estate ; and
Richard Codman also dipped deeply, and fatally as
the event proved, into this species of gambling — induced
perhaps partly by the unlucky influence of his friend
* See Docs. Nos. ]36, &c.

54
Vans ; — at least we are inclined to infer so frora Vans*
letters of May '97, inviting Richard to purchase from
him an estate called Ablong, to be paid for in inscrip
tions, of the public stocks of France.*
Between the house of J. & R. Codman and the
house of Freeman & Vans, both established and doing
business at Boston, we are not aware that there was
ever any particular connexion. It is true that J. & R.
Codraan, about the year 1792, supplied the ship Fame,
said to have been owned by Freeman & Vans, with a
quantity of cordage, from the rope-walk which they
managed ; and two or three instances occurred of
accommodation in business, to Freeman & Vans, of sraall
amount, and such as are not unusual between raercan
tile neighbors. But it is certain that the books of J,
& R. Codman exhibit no accounts, or other evidence, of
the large transactions and extensive dealings with Free
man & Vans, which Mr. Vans has sometimes pretend
ed, nor is there, in truth, any evidence of the fact which
has come to our knowledge, except Mr. Vans' unsup
ported assertion, which we do not greatly regard. At
any rate, from the time that Vans went to France, in
1794-6, the Boston house of Freeman & Vans being
dissolved by Freeman's death, there was no intercourse
by accounts, correspondence, or otherwise, between
Vans at Paris and the house of J. & R. Codraan at
Boston, during the continuance of that firra, nor, after
its dissolution, between Vans and John Codman, until
the interview described in John Codman's letter above
quoted. If there had been any such intercourse, the
account-books and letter-books of the Boston house
would, of course, indicate it.
' See Documents, Nos. 138 & 139.

55
We will now pass to a detail of the transactions at
Paris, out of which Wm. Vans builds his chimerical
claim upon the heirs and estate of John Codman; tran
sactions which will be found to have been between
Vans and Richard Codman alone, long after the disso
lution of J. & R. Codman, and having no connexion
tvhatsoever with the affairs of the late Boston house,
nor with the affairs of John Codman.
It will be reraerabered that the house of J. & R.
Codman was publicly dissolved at Boston, May 1,
1798; and this, in the ordinary course of events, must
have been known to the commercial world in Paris, or
at least that part of it which had any concern with
American commerce and affairs, within sixty days at
farthest from that date. The well established mercan
tile character of the house of J. & R. Codman in Bos
ton, second to none in that city, and the effect which
a voluntary separation of J. Codman from R. Codman,
would have in Paris upon R. Codman's credit, must
have raade it certain that the news would be disserai-
nated in Paris as early as possible. The first fact then,
which we wish to have clearly irapressed upon the
reader in this connexion, is, that the business transac
tions between Vans and Richard Codraan, out of which
his claira is built, originated at Paris about the 1st Jan.
1799, or at earliest, in the latter part of Dec. 1798,
that is, six or seven months after the dissolution was
announced. In his petitions, Mr. Vans usually repre
sents, that he raade the loans and deposits, from which
he finally deduces his claira, in the year 1798. But in
all his publications, where he has fixed a more precise date
to this transaction, it is in December '98, or January '99.
We annex some extracts from several of his pamphlets

66
in proof;* but we rely chiefly for the fact upon the
original documents now to be referred to.
The first is a paper in the hand-writing of William
Vans, found in the possession of Richard Codman's
administrator. It is without date, but we are enabled
to fix its true date, nearly, by the other documents
which follow, and show that it was probably written
between the 1st and 15th of January 1799. This
paper is important as containing the original proposi
tion from Vans to Richard Codman for a joint under
taking in business ; or if not the original proposition, it
is the substance of some previous conversation between
them, reduced to writing by Vans, and exhibiting his
idea of what was agreed or proposed ; it may be con
sidered in fact, the basis of the contract upon which
they subsequently acted.
Original Paper in the handwriting of Wm. Vans,
without date, containing the outline of his contract
with R. Codman, as proposed by himself at the time.
— Supposed to have been loritten at Paris between the
\st and I5th of January, 1799.
Mr. Codman will please write Mr. Vans a letter,
and say to him that he may draw bills of exchange on
Caspar Voght of Hamburg, for his account, to amount
of £4,000 sterling, which he will guarantee to meet
due honor.
Mr. Codman will also write to one or two of his
friends in Georgia, South-Carolina and Virginia, and
say to them, he has given Mr. Vans a credit on him to
amount £4,000 sterling, agreeable to his letter to Mr.
Vans of such a date. * See Document No. 102.

57
Mr. Codman will also say, that if any honds are
necessary to be given by Mr. Yans that the cargo he
ships will not go to France, Rjlr. p. gyarantees the
bonds Mr. Vans may sign.
If Mr. Vans should not be able to negotiate his hUls
on Europe, will Mr. Codman give Mr. Vans liberty to
draw on Mr. J. Codman of ^Qston for £4,000 sterling,
ordering him to redraw on ^amburg, to pay himself,
and a letter to Mr. J. Cod,man to this effect ?
Mr. Vans understands that the business he now goes
to America on, is to be for the joi^t account of II.
Codman one half, and the other half for account
OF Wm. Vans, meaning Mr. Codman has an interest of
£2,000 sterling, and Wm. Vans £2,000 sterling, the
whole capital not to exceed for their joint account
£4,000 sterling.
To secure to Mr. Codraan, in case of accident, the
payraent ofthe £2,000 sterling, which Mr. Codman is
to accept the bills Mr. Vans may draw on him, Mr.
Vans has given to Mr. Codman a bill of sale of his two
houses in the Rue Universite, No. 905 and 906 at
Paris, which houses are worth 200,000 livres, although
sold to Mr. Codman for 25,000 livres, as raentioned in
the act.*
It being well understood that whenever Mr. Vans
should repay the moneys Mr. Codraan raay pay for ac
count of Mr. Vans, then Mr. Codraan is to give a bill
of sale to Mr. Vans of his two houses in Rue Univer
site, No. 905 and 906, and to put Mr. Vans in full pos
session of thera.
Mr. Codman will give Mr. Vans a receipt in full of
all demands Mr. Deblois may have against Mr. Vans,
and also say, in a letter to Mr. Vans, he will guarantee
all claims made on Mr. Vans by Mr. Swan and others
for account of Deblois.
Mr. Codraan will also write to Deblois to deliver me
the public paper he has in his hands belonging to Mr.
* These houses belonged in fact to Mrs. Vans, and were sold by her
order, after Mr. V. had gone to America. R. C. acted as her agent in the
business, and received the proceeds. 8

58
Vans, which Mr. Codman also guarantees the delivery
of to Vans from Deblois.
Mr. Vans will thank Mr. Codman to write Bourne
and Montflorence the state of his affair with Nott, on
account of Mr. Vans going to see Murray Vans the
minister, and also give Wra. Vans a credit on Bourne
for his expenses while there.
Settle ray account and get a receipt from Mr. Cod
man, and a promise in writing to give back the land, if
Deblois refuses to take it. If Deblois takes the land,
to give Mr. Vans the amount of the goods made over
to Deblois at Lisbon.
Nothing can be more explicit than the language of
this paper, to show that the business to which it relates,
was to be for the joint and equal account of Richard
Codman alone and WiUiara Vans. There is not the
slightest intiraation that John Codraan was to have any
interest in it. Vans even inquires, doubtingly, whether
in case he should be unable to negotiate the bills on
Hamburg, guaranteed by Richard alone, he might in
that event be authorised to draw, not on the house of
J. ^ R. Codman at Boston, which had long since
ceased to exist, as he well knew, but on "Mr. John
Codman at Boston," in his private and individual ca
pacity ; and this authority he expects to derive, if at
all, not from the circumstance of his being connected
with Richard Codraan in a speculation, and Richard's
being supposed to be connected with John Codraan in
such raanner as to give him an interest also in that
speculation, but frora a private and particular letter of
credit, to be written by Richard, and to be available in
virtue only of Richard's supposed private credit with
John, who, if he chose to furnish the funds, on that
credit, was to redraw on Voght of Hamburg, for Rich
ard Codman's account, to reimburse his advance. From

59
this document it also appears, that certain property of
Mr, Vans, or property at least, over which Vans had
some control, was to be lodged with Richard Codraan
as security for the liabilities which he was to incur in
the business on Vans' account, and for other guarantees
to be given by hira, relative to the settleraent of an arbi
tration, as appears by other documents, between Mr,
Vans and Mr. Deblois — Richard Codman, as an arbi
trator in this dispute, having sorae evidences of prop
erty deposited with hira to await the award. It seeras
also, that an account was to be settled with Richard
Codraan, and a receipt got by Vans.
That the contract indicated in this paper, or sorae
sirailar one, was thereupon entered into between Rich
ard Codman and Vans, appears from the following orig
inal letters in our possession, being the same which
were delivered up by Vans to John Codman at Boston,
as described in John Codman's letter before quoted, of
July 24, 1799.
The first is a letter from Richard Codman to Vans,
dated at Paris, 15th January 1799, guaranteeing Vans'
drafts in the following terms :
Mr. William Vans.
My Dear Sir, — As you are bound to America on
business in which / am interested, and may there be in
want of funds, / hereby engage and bind myself to
guarantee the acceptance of four bills on Mr. Caspar
Voght of Hamburg, to the amount of four thousand
pounds sterling, payable in London.
My friends in America are Robert Hazelhurst & Co.,
Charleston, South Carolina, Hooe & Harrison, Alexan
dria, Virginia, Joseph Anthony & Son, Philadelphia,
and William Codman, New York. These gentlemen
ijaay be assured that your bills drawn as above men
tioned, will meet due honor from Mr. Caspar Voght

60
for MY account, and this letter, left with either of theiii,
may be considered as a complete guarantee on my part
tp the amount of the above mentioned sum of four
thousand pounds sterling. 1 am very sincerely, your
friend and obedient servant, R. CODMAN.
The second, third and fourth letters, all of the same
date as the preceding, are from Richard Codman to
Messrs. Hazelhurst & Co., Hooe & Harrison, and An
thony & Son, and are merely letters of introduction
and high recommendation, with notice that R. C. is
interested in the business for which Vans visits Ameri
ca, and guarantees his drafts on Europe to the amount
of £4,000. One of them, and they are all alike, is
annexed.* The fifth, of same date, is from Richard Codman to
Vans, in the following terms :
Mr. William Vans.
Dear Sir, — In my letter to you of this date, I have
authorised you to draw on Europe for four thousand
pounds sterling. And as it may so happen that you
cannot negotiate your bills on Europe readily, in such
case, you are hereby authorised to draw on Mr. J. Cod
man of Boston for my account, who will have orders
from me to accept your bills to the amount of ^20,000,
upon your forwarding to him (at the same time you
forward your letter of advice,) the letter above alluded
to, which guarantees your draft on Europe. I am, with
respect, sir, your obedient servant, R. CODMAN.
Here, again, nothing can be clearer than that the
drafts on John Codman were to be accepted by him for
Richard Codman's sole and separate account.
The sixth, of same date, is from Richard Codman to
* See Document No. 150.

61
William Codman of New York, another brother, to
whom he mentions Vans' contingent authority to draw
on John Codman, and also that Vans is about to set out
for Amsterdam in a few days. This letter is annexed.*
The seventh, and last, of same date, is from Richard
Codman to John Codraan hiraself, as follows :
My Dear Brother, — / have undertaken a concern
with Mr. Wm. Vans, whora you know very well. The
plan is for him to go to Charleston, South Carolina,
and there purchase a load of tobacco, and ship without
delay for Hamburg, or Amsterdam, provided the price
may be so low as not to occasion much risk for the pay
ment. / have authorised him to draw on Caspar Voght
of Hamburg to the amount of £4,000 sterling, and
guaranteed his drafts to this araount, in a letter I have
written him under this date. It is possible that he will
not be able to pass his draft in South Carolina, owing
to the convulsed state of public affairs. In that case /
have authorised him to draw on you to the amount of
20,000 dollars, which it is understood that you should
accept upon his forwarding to you, with his letter of
advice, the letter of guarantee for the £4,000. On re
ception of the said letter of guarantee, you will please
to accept his drafts to the aforesaid amount of twenty
thousand dollars, and for your reimbursement, draw on
Caspar Voght of Hamburg, payable in London, and I
will take care that the bills are accepted and paid. I
am, dear brother, yours, af 'ly, R. CODMAN.
Now what is the language of R. Codman in this let
ter. It is that if John Codman will accept Vans'
drafts, that he personally will secure his brother for the
drafts which he may raake for his own reimbursement
on Caspar Voght and Co. ! ! Is this the language of
one copartner to another.'' That one copartner will un-
* See Document No. 152.

62
dertake to guarantee and to pay the other's drafts ?
Pay thera how ? Out of the copartnership funds ? Is
that a boon ? Is that a security to the solvent partner ?
No. So Richard Codraan understood it. So Vans
coraprehended it. It was that Richard Codraan would
personally secure, out of his oion funds, John Codman,
who had cut him adrift, and left him to his oWn re
sources, for any advances John Codman might make
for his brother's new and private speculations on his
own separate account.
Who can doubt for a moment, from the language of
this letter alone, that the business was Richard Cod
man's own, in which John Codraan had no concern.''
If any do, because it was an open letter in Vans' pos
session, and suppose therefore that some secret interest
of John Codman raight not be disclosed, we invite them
to turn back to the private and confidential letter from
John to Richard of 24th July 1799, giving an account
of his own reception of Mr. Vans, with Richard's guar
antee and credit in his pocket.
We now refer to several annexed letters from Vans
to Richard Codman, written after Vans had left Paris on
his way to America, aud before his embarkation. They
serve to fix some little points in the evidence. The
first is from Amsterdam, under date of 6th February
1799, containing nothing material, except a proposition
to purchase a shipment of gin for America on Richard
Codman's credit for their jomt account. (See Doc. No.
164.) The second, from the Hague, 10th February, (No.
155,) fixes the date of Vans' departure frora Paris at
about the 24th January, and thus throws new light
upon the question of the time when the trartsac-

63
tion originated ; it indicates also that Richard Codman
was at that time engaged ia other commercial business,
known to Vans, on his own separate account, since
Vans inquires respecting a passage in his brig. The
vessels owned by the late house of J. and R. Codraan,
or rather owned by John Codman, and employed by
the house, were, as appears from the orders to the
captains, the account books, &c. at the tirae of the
dissolution, all ships, naraely, the Abigail, the Com
merce, the Minerva and the Thetis. And this brig
which is spoken of, was a French vessel, called the
Elizabeth, owned by Richard Codman, jointly with
some other person or persons in France.
The third, from the Hague, 14th February, (No.
156,) shows the secrecy with which Vans judged
it necessary to move, for fear of his creditors, with much
about a pending lawsuit with a Mr. Nott,* left on Rich
ard's hands, and other private affairs of Vans, including
his intercourse with sorae great raan whom he clairas
as his relation, or rather, as he states it, who clairaed
relationship with him. It renews also his proposition
about a shipment of gin, with the important variation,
that instead of purchasing on the strength of Richard's
credit, he should be allowed to draw " on your brother
at Boston, ordering him to redraw on Hamburg to re
imburse himself," indicating anew Vans' clear under
standing of the separate interests of the two brothers.
The fourth, from the Hague, (No. 157,) relates almost
wholly to his affair with Nott. The fifth, dated from
the Hague 24th February, (No. 158,) not only shows
the secrecy with which he was compelled to move, but
* The same gentleman who was afterwards a respectable merchant of
New Orleans, ofthe firm of Nott, Ainory & Co.

64
corroborates some of the facts stated, and views taken
by John Codman in his letter of July 24, 1799.
The sixth is from Amsterdara, Feb. 26th, (No. 159,)
and shows that he had already drawn on Richard
Codman even for his travelling expenses.
The seventh, (No. 160,) dated the following day, ur
ges the transmission of the promised credit on Voght of
Hamburg. The eighth, (No. 161,) from Hamburg,
March 1 1 , shows that he was desirous of embarking
Richard Codman with him in some India voyage, more
particularly described in some former letter, which is
missing, provided he could have liberty to draw on
John Codman.
The ninth and tenth are from Hamburg, dated March
15th, and April 5th. (See Nos. 162 and 163.) By
the latter it seems, that Vans was already greatly dis
couraged about his American voyage, and half inclined
to give it up ; also that he had already drawn on Rich
ard Codman in favor of Caspar Voght, the merchant at
Hamburg, to a sraall amount.
This is the last letter in our possession from Vans
previous to his arrival in America; but by his own state
raent, in one of his printed paraphlets, it appears, that
he did not sail frora Haraburg till May. The extract
frora this paraphlet, published without date, but believed
to have been in 1812, is at page seven, as follows.
" In May, 1799, Vans left Hamburg to go to the United
States of America, where he arrived in July." This is
no otherwise important than in connection with the fact
that Vans' business in Hamburg lay, as it appears, with
Caspar Voght, who had before that time received/or-
mal notice ofthe dissolution of the partnership between
John and Richard Codman, together with a request

66
from John Codman to furnish all his afccounts with tbe
late house, in respfecit tO which Richat-d had left him
entirely in the dark. This appears by an original letter
from Voght to John Codraan, dated Hamburg 27th April
*99. (See Doc. ^o. 94.)
The next letter which we refer to is ftotii Vans at
Boston, 23d July 1799, to John Codman, i'equesting a
receipt for the papers he had given up to hifti, and re-
fninding him of fhe £100 for which he was tO draw
"in case he should want it." (See No. 131.)
The answer of John Codman (No. 132,) dated 24th
July 1799, (the sarae day oh which he Wtote to Rich
ard describing the interview with Vans) is as follows.
Boston, July 24, 1799,
Mr. Williaitl Vans,
Dear Sir, I have received from your hands my
brother Richard's letter to me, and also his two letters
to you, oneof which is a letter of guarantee to yourself,
also his letters to William Codman, Jaraes Anthony &
Son, Hooe & Harrison, and Robert Hazelhurst & Co.,
concerning a purchase of tobacco, and your drawing
upon Haraburg for its cost, which speculation I have
advised you to desist frora ; and as to the credit up
on ME, I have also totally DECLINED UNDERTAKING
this business.* His letters are dated 15th January
1799. Sir, your hurable servant, J, CODMAN.
In consequence of my brother^ letter of guarantee in,
your favor, I have agreed to endorse your bill for £100
sterling, on Caspar Voght of Hamburg, for account of
Richard Codman, payable in London, or to give you
the money for the sarae, at the current exchange. But
as times are, and my brother situated where he is, I
'* If Richard Codman had been a copartner with John Codman at the
time he wrote the letter, John Codman could not have refused the credit.
9

66
think it would be the extreme of imprudence to en
gage in any thing of magnitude on his or your account.
Yours, J. CODMAN.
This we esteera a pretty flat refusal on the part of
John Codman to be concerned in the affairs between
Vans and Richard.
On the 29th of August following Mr. Vans found he
did want the £100, and accordingly drew the following
bill. Boston, Mass., August 29, 1799.
Exchange for £100 sterling.
At thirty days sight of this first of exchange, second
of the same tenor and date not paid, pay to John Cod
man, Esquire,* or order, one hundred pounds sterling,
value received, and charge the sarae, with or without
further advice, to account of Richard Codman.
Your hurable servant, WILLIAM VANS.
To Caspar VoghT; Merchant, Haraburg, payable in
London. This bill was endorsed as follows ; —
" Value received pay the within to Nathaniel Balch
& Co. or order. JOHN CODMAN."
And then follow two other endorsements ; — to which
is added on the back of the bill the following remarka
ble note from John Codman.
" Messrs. John & Francis Baring & Co. of London,
are requested in case of need to honor this bill for my
account, and to forward one of the bills with protest to
Richard Codman. JOHN CODMAN."
* Is that the name of a firm ?

67
The fate of this bill was, as John Codman seeras to
have anticipated, viz, — a protest for non-acceptance at
Hamburg, (25th January 1 800,) a protest for non-pay
ment at London (27th February 1800,) and a payment
there by the Barings supra protest for the honor of the
indorser. This appears by the original protests and
account from the Barings, of which copies are annex
ed.* The next we hear from William Vans is in a letter
to Richard Codman dated at Salem, 16th November
1799, by which it appears that he had got into a law
suit there about a claira on sorae Insurance Office, out
of which he says he expected to get £10,000; never
theless he advizes Richard of the little £100 draft,
hopes it will raeet due honor, and assures Richard that
the araount will be repaid by him on his return.f
In the latter part of August 1800, as will presently
appear, Mr. Vans had returned to Paris ; but before we
enter upon the transactions there, we propose to look
back again at the affairs of J. and R. Codman, and to
trace the movements of John Codraan in relation to
thera. We have already stated, that araong the leading
causes ofthe dissolution was Richard's withholding funds
furnished for the use of the house out of John Codman's
capital and credit ; his diversion of those funds to his
own use ; his neglect to render any accounts of the
vessels and cargoes he had disposed of, and generally
of the business he was transacting for the house ; his
engaging largely with John Codman's means, but for his
own benefit, in speculations of the raost hazardous de-
* See Doc. 134, 135.
f See Doc. 416.

68
scription ; his drawing from the Barings as much, or more
than he remitted, in order to meet the numerous de
mands upon hira, which grew out of his speculations ;
and the alarming balance of debt which had accumu
lated against the house, justly due and payable to the
Barings ; the equally alarming balance of debt due from
Richard to the house, or rather to John, who had ad
vanced the funds of the house ; and Richard's long pro
tracted stay in France, under these circumstances,
against the wishes of his brother. In proof of these
facts, we now refer to the following letters from John
Codman to Richard Codman, written previous to the
date of the dissolution. Short extracts only are given,
because complete copies would be extremely voluminr
ous, and add little to the elucidation of the case. The
letters, however, will generally be found entire in the
Appendix of Documents under their respective dates.
[Extracts from Letters of John Codman to Richard
Codman.]
Boston, August 6th, 1794,
/ think it is almost time you were at home, and
indeed I do not see what will keep you abroad, but ex
pecting the three ships, and if they detain you, you will
always find the same cause, as our ships will be con
stantly pursuing a European track ; / believe it will be
found best to be together, and depend on our friends
abroad to assist the captains in a proper direction.

Boston, December 17th, 1794.
As I shall expect you home in the Spring, when you
will have arranged what is proper for our Russian im
portation next year, and provided for all the ships
abroad, we can consider of these matters together, and
place our business accordingly.

69 Boston, 13th Feb. 1795.
I think it is best now, as aU our vessels are in
Europe, to lay on our oars and return them all here,
with hemp, iron, &c. (tallow if the war lasts) from
Russia, but lit-tJie duck, perhaps, 2 or 300 pieces in
each — to send one to New York, and the rest here,
without yoii choose to adventure on a shorter voyage
ia their way.
I wish the Minerva had done this last voyage,— ^one
or two niight do this to advantage. You will undoubt
edly think of all these things, and if you engage spirit
edly in them, m^y cofielude to stay one year more. 1
must in this ease acquiesce. You will know better
than I do, how we stand with Messrs. Barings.
Boston, 2d July, 1795.
I expect the Catherine at New York from London ;
if she will sell for ^10,000 I shall sell her ; if not, em
ploy her in the best manner I can on freight. My
present plan is to halt where we are ; those of our ships
that return before the fall, to sell, or freight ; and when
they are all returned, we shall have the property at
command, so that after you have provided for what are
in Europe, no new expedition from this side may detain
you in Europe, as I think your business there will very
soon draw to a point, as the ships ivill be coming this
wciy. Boston, 18th July, 1795.
We shall always want to stand strong and confiden
tially with our friends in London, let our business be
that of navigation or commission ; and while you are on
the spot, which perhaps will never happen again, is the
time to effect it. Boston, 28th Dec. 1795.
I registered the Commerce in my own narae, and
wrote in ray individual capacity to Porter, Brown, Wil
son & Co. who, during all our disappointments last sea
son, have never written me a line.
You never wrote me whether Mr. Swan paid you
^1000 on my account. I allowed it to him.

70
I desired you to try to get of D. Parker, who owed
Shaw and Randall, payment for our deraand on them,
which is about ^4,000. You have never answered this
letter. Boston, April 4th, 1796.
Richard Codman, Esq.
Dear Brother, — Yesterday, Mr. Joshua Blake ar
rived here frora France. Having received but one letter
from you for these twelve months past, I expected by him
an epistle ; instead of which I have only a line, advis
ing your drafts, favor of Davis, about ^19,000, which
had previously appeared and been accepted. He how
ever, tells me, you had written me a long letter, and
that the vessel, by which it was sent, was lost ; and
what distresses rae most of all is, he says after he left
you, you was taken sick, and lay very unwell. I know
not what to say, my dear brother, or whether express
ing my feelings will not wound your sensibilities, which
God forbid. I can only say, the absence of friends
and connexions is of itself bad enough, but when a con
nexion is so near as ours, and where we have little use
of the privilege of letters, it is painful in the extreme;
and as to benefit being a recompense under such cir
cumstances, the suspense and uncertainty attending
destroys the object, if the same thing is not accomplish
ed by other raeans. Had you been here, or had I
knoivn the exact state of our European concerns, we
might have raade any sura we pleased, and with much
more satisfaction : instead of which, Messrs. Barings
write me, ive are very much in arrears with them, and
mention acceptances and payments, us also receipts and
expenditures that I knotv nothing about. I have lately
remitted thera about £8,000 sterling, and have drawn
only in favor of Araory, £1,870, (the last payment due
L. S. & F.) for these twelve months past. Be per
suaded this summer, before the fall approaches, to leave
Europe, and come home. Surely you can find some
trusty person to leave your depending concerns with.
Perhaps I am too pressing under existing circumstan
ces, but not knowing them, how can I judge ? How I
long to jump on board a vessel, and come to your assis-

71
tance myself! My fears, my anxieties, ray affections,
are all alive to hear from you. When you was abroad
before, when opportunities were much less frequent, I
used to hear from you oftener ; and now it is much
more important. I do not know if you ever received
the patterns of lutestrings and ribbons I enclosed you ;
if you have, and will send me out French goods well
chosen, there is more money raade by thera, than by
any trade I know of. The goods invoiced by Mr.
Brorafield, I received without letter or observation. I
presume they were for our account. I wish all your
property in France was wound up and sent me home in
these articles. She will go on to Russia, and I hope the
Thetis will go there too and be raore successful ; but
that cannot be expected while you appear concerned
and remain in France. J. CODMAN.
Lincoln, Sunday Evening, July 31, 1796.
My last letter from you was dated April 9th, advising
sundry drafts, all of which have been presented, accept
ed, and paid ; which has occupied rae, as you raay sup
pose, very ranch, as I have drawn little or nothing on
London to raeet them. I have also paid Homberg's
bills, and what of yours in their favor has appeared.
You observe to me you had remitted largely to Lon
don. I hope, then, Messrs. Barings'* next letters will
acknowledge it ; for their last, dated in April, advised
they had received no remittances from you, and this has
prevented my drawing on them, and obliged me to sell off
our Union Bank Stock. You write me you long to wind
up your affairs in France, which I can ivell conceive
you do ; but I suppose your prospiects of doing it after
peace to greater advantage, induces you to hold on. I
hardly know how to advise you, and sometimes think I
may, and perhaps have, done raore hurt than good, by
doing so. You raust therefore be the best judge, frora
being on the spot. All I can say is, I long to see you,
and to know with certainty what we have done together,
which surely ought to be handsome, to pay for your
toils and labors.

72Boston, 17th Sept. 1796..
It is a great while that I am without letters ftom yow^
I must entreat you to write me, under cover to Messrs.^
Barings, via London, and to write me regularly, and at
least monthly. I should in this way regularly receive
your letters, giving me a journal of your proceedings ,-
it vjould be of inexpressible satisfaction to me. Yoii
may well suppose I long to have your affairs in Europe
wound up, and I have no doubt you have an equal de
sire to effect the same purpose. With this sentiment
fully impressed, as it is on ray raind, what can I urge
but what would be iraproper.? I therefore forbear, in
full confidence you will return as soon as you can.
Boston, Ilth Nov. 1796,
What will become of the Abigail I know not. I ap
prehend she will raeet with capture. But if she does,
I hope you will secure the freight ; and as Hammond
must want to come home, you will surely send him to
Russia, and let him return here with Russia goods. All
I fear about the Abigail is on account of your situation ;*
but it is well to look for the best. After the Minerva
is gone, I shall have nothing to do, but collect, pay off,
and remit, for I am determined to engage in no new
adventure ivhatever. I will not attempt to advise you
any more concerning your European affairs. You are
a better judge, and all I can promise is, to manage as
well as I can here. Still I please myself by expecting
you in the spring. At all events write me, and often
too, via London. Letters are inestimable.
*The fear of British capture, in consequence of one of the part ovm-
crs residing in France, was among the causes which led John Codman
to dissolve the partnership.

73
Boston, 20th April, 1797.
My Dear Brother, — I have before me your two
letters, the 19th November, and 13th December, which
are my last advices from you. I am hourly expecting
important ones from you, as accounts are in town to
10th March, and the affairs in Europe make the pres
ent period a very interesting one. You observe you
were amazed no insurance was done on the Abigail's
freight. / could not get any done in this country while
you appeared by the papers to be interested, and was so
long abroad.
Taking it for granted, when we stood on strong
ground, our captain would never change it for the
worse, I conceived by our treaty with England, and
the respectability of our connexions there, that if she
was taken by the English, we should finally obtain
indemnity, and if taken or interrupted by the French,
it would be respected on account of vessel and cargo
being property of their allies. The most apprehended
was the dangers of the seas, and the circumstance of
yourself,* as often mentioned to you, which by the way I
think much less of now, and therefore did not think the
risk worth what the underwriters here thought it was,
for large freights on neutral bottoms were a novelty to
them.

Boston, Nov. 6, 1797.
I have nothing particular to add, having received no
letter from you for six months past ; but to conclude,
with constant affection, yours.
/ do not like directing to you as a French citizen.
Boston, Nov. 17, 1797.
Dear Brother : T have been so long without the
great pleasure of receiving a letter from you, that I have
nothing to reply to. I hope this will raeet yOu in good
health, and that affairs raay have been in sOrae measure
* That is, the circumstance of your being a resident of France, which
exposed the joint property to British capture.
10

74
prosperous with you. / expect you have been disap
pointed in some of your expectations. This is com
mon to all mercantile pursuits, but particularly in times
so peculiar as these. I hope, however, you will content
yourself with what you have done, and not do as D.
Parker has, always been in the pursuit of fortune. I
hope to hear from you soon. This country is all expec
tation and suspense concerning the reception and suc
cess of the American Commissioners gone to Paris. I
hope they will settle every thing between the two
countries to rautual satisfaction. The commerce of
this country has been greatly distressed by the captures
made by the French, and which I think nothing can
justify, as the want of a role d'Equipage has never oc
curred as necessary. / have just been reading over
some of your old letters; they are better than none.

Boston, Dec. 22d, 1797.
Dear Brother, — I have not had the pleasure of a
line from you since date of the 1 5th July, and that I
keep in my pocket-book by way of refreshment. This
day I took out of the post-office a letter which I knew
by the handwriting was directed by Mr. Whittemore.
/ thought I had got a prize in a letter from you. On
opening it I found two letters from Mr. Phelps of Con
necticut, and a bill drawn on him by Mr. Lee, payable
in May next for ^16,000, with a few lines raerely
heading it from Mr. Whittemore, as late as the 3d of
October. Imagine, for I will not attempt to describe my cha
grin—nor will I advert upon it ; was it any body but
you, I should think I had offended you.
I saw sorae time ago, by the papers, the vessel the
cotton was shipped by, the Elizabeth frora Lisbon, was
taken, and carried into France ; / wished to have known
if you obtained her release, or if this property is yet
detained from us ; the sum is an object, and you may
well suppose the suspense gives me some anxiety.
I am afraid the late events in France ivill prolong
your absence, and render it difficult for you to wind up

75
as soon as you intended. I am not so able to advise, as
you are to judge ; but I hope, as relates to property in
the funds, whenever a bright turn to affairs shall arrive,
you will embrace that moment to realize what yov pos
sess in this line, and leave your real property and other
concerns in the hands of some trusty person to manage,
and return to this country. It is highly important we
should be together,
I observe by Mr. Whitteraore's letter of 3d of Octo
ber, inclosing Phelps's bill, that the first of the set
had been sent via Havre, which is not at hand, expect
ing this / have great hopes of a letter from you.

Boston, Feb. 29th, 1798.
The Thetis sailed from thence the 2d of February,
for Charleston and Europe, on her way to Russia. I
instructed Crocker to do the business himself both in
Carolina and in Russia, and have taken the ship here
as I did the Minerva, wholly to my own account,
because I did not think it prudent to hold any naviga
tion in company with you while you resided abroad, and
which I hope you will confirm to me (your consent
to) by letter.
Yesterday I accepted your bill to Andrews & Co.,
60 days, 2,000, dated 17th December. All your other
bills, ^2,000 to Hopkins,
, 2,000 to Prince, payable to Mackay,
1,000 - - - Brown,
5,000 800 - - - Mackay,
5,000 - - - Fellowes,
1,415 78 cts. - - Sturgis,
are under acceptance, and will be paid when due. You
certainly know better than I do, your views in drawing
these bills, — it is beyond my conception. Mr. Coffyn,
has sent me account sales of all the cargoes sent there.
The proceeds of which have been remitted you. There
are unaccounted for there, 178 boxes soap, 7 casks in
digo, 167 bundles leather, and 6 trunks of leather, &c.;
all landed at Dunkirk,

76
I wish also very much, account sales of car
goes TO Havre, per
Catherine, Coffin,
Enterprise, St. Barbe,
Thetis. Prince,
Commerce, Lombard, frora England,
Thetis, Lisbon,
Leonard, Hacket.
Left at Bordeaux, Minerva, Clement,
" Copenhagen, do do do
Elizabeth, from Lisbon, —
to make the proper entries in the books. You will oblige
me very much if you can get me as regular accounts of
these transactions as was received from Dunkirk.
The last letter I received from you, was dated in Sep
tember, — then only a few lines, — since which you may
well suppose the magnitude of the concerns and the un
fortunate state of public affairs, have given me no small
concern. Little did I think when you left this, your absence
would have been so long. It is a great misfortune, and
on consideration, you will see the embarrassment it fre
quently places me in. You will undoubtedly do the
best you can to bring us together — at least let me hear
oftener from you.

Boston, March 23d, 1798.
She is now nearly unloaded, and I have shipped about
17 tons coffee for Rotterdam, by the bearer, consigned
to Mr. T. Theo. Cremer, subject to my future order, I
have not concluded what to do with the remainder, or
with the ship. Public affairs are so alarming I am
afraid to put any thing more at sea, I shall however get
the ship in order. If there was a prospect of this na
tion's settling matters with France, I would send the
Minerva back to Batavia, and ship the coffee on to
Holland in other bottoms. / want your advice and
assistance extremely. If I do this I shall send out Wil
liam Tudor, jr., a young gentleman who lives with me,
and he will come immediately to you, as well for your

77
assistance, as to express to you my mind more fully than
I can write it. And above all to help you in winding
up YOUR affairs to return home. At present I am at a
loss how to act with this valuable cargo. I do not
intend selling any of it here at present. My intention
is, if the conduct of the French cruisers will permit it
to be sent safely with any suitable documents, to send
it to market, and get the proceeds passed to my credit,
per a point, that I may know the end of it, and the value
of it,— for in general I have not been able to get such
knowledge from the many cargoes I have shipped, which
is far from being satisfactory. lean only console my
self about them, that you have the accounts, and have
attended to them, but it is too loose a way of doing busi
ness. Coffyn' s afccounts are all I have received.
In this critical state of things, I shall do the best I
can, and remain always, yours.

From these letters, the two last especially, John Cod
man's dissatisfaction and uneasiness, not without good
cause, considering the long list of cargoes unaccounted
for by Richard, and "the critical state of things" in poli
tics, are most apparent. By the last of these letters, and
this, by the way, is the latest we possess preceding the
dissolution, it appears that John Codman had already
made a consignment to T. T. Cremer, to be held, as he
says, " subject to my future order ;" that he had nearly
determined to send out a special agent, (as after the dis
solution he in fact did,) to bring Richard to some set
tlement, which he intimates under the softened expres
sion of " helping you to wind up your affairs and return
home ;" — and he declares his intention, if he can make
suitable arrangements, to ship the remainder of his
coffee to some market where he could get the proceeds
realized and passed to his credit at once, and know the

78
end of if ; which he complains had not been the case
with his other shipments.
The state of public affairs, which was thus critical at
the date of this letter, (March 23, '98,) grew daily
worse, and John Codman's information respecting the
state of his own affairs under the raanagement of Rich
ard, became less and less satisfactory up to the 1st
May, when the dissolution was announced. These
facts may be exemplified by some of the earliest letters
written by John to Richard, after the date of the disso
lution ; although it is apparent that John Codman, from
regard to his brother, prefers to ascribe the resolution he
had formed, of cutting the partnership connexion, to the
political, rather than the private, causes of complaint
and apprehension; — at least he does not choose, at first,
to say in direct terms, that it was chiefly grounded on
Richard's doubtful position and unsatisfactory conduct.
In looking at the letters which we now refer to,
written shortly after the dissolution, it will of course be
borne in mind, as every mercantile raan will easily ap
prehend, that ranch of the old business, undertaken be
fore the dissolution, remained to be wound up on the
joint account ; — that Richard Codman, being on the
spot, became of necessity the liquidator of raany of the
suspended and unsettled European accounts ofthe late
firra ; — and that he alone had the right to liquidate
sorae of thera, because with him personally the con
tracts had been made. This right and power are of
course recognized by the correspondence. A firm,
even after its dissolution, continues to exist until its af
fairs are settled ; but exists only for the special purpose
of collecting and discharging its former dues, not for
the purpose of contracting new engagements and en-

79
tering upon new undertakings. The power of each
partner to act for and bind his copartner in the settle-*
ment of the old affairs still continues ; — but he has no
power to act for and bind him upon a new contract.
Until all debts of the late house were discharged, Rich
ard Codman in Europe was bound to third persons to
pay those debts, as well as John Codman in America,
and is so treated by all parties ; while as between the
partners themselves, owing to the state of their private
accounts, as will bye and bye more distinctly appear,
the equitable obligation of paying the European debts
rested wholly upon Richard, y^hen joint interests there
fore are spoken of in the correspondence, after the date
of May 1, 1798, it will be seen to refer to unsettled
business which had originated previous to that date,
and that as to all new business each party was proceed
ing on his own separate account.
The following are letters of the 1 st and 2d of June
1798. Boston, June 1, 1798.
Dear Brother Richard, — / have already written
you that on account ofthe situation of public affairs, I
thought it prudent TO dissolve our copartnership,
the first ultimo. Things appear to be coraing to the
last extremity between the two countries, where we
reside ; and as such, you will feel in some measure re
lieved by the considerations, that any measure you may
think adequate for the safety o/your property in one
country, cannot now affect me in another. This mea
sure was not adopted without great consideration and
regret, all which you will be fully sensible of. Lee's
bill on Phelps is protested for non-payment ; but as he
is expected out, I do not return it to you. Pray don't
trust him, nor any of the Americans who are in France ;
they are not possessed of property sufficient to pay you.

80
in case their speculations do not afford them the means.
The cargo of coffee I had from Batavia, I have still on
hand, except about 17 tons sent to Rotterdam. As
times are, I have thought it prudent not to venture out
in the storm with this valuable property. I hope soon
to hear from you ; in anxious expectation of which, I
remain, yours, affectionately, J, CODMAN.
Boston, June 2, 1798.
Dear Brother, — This goes via Copenhagen, it can
convey you nothing new ; as you have no doubt heard
of the vigorous preparations for defence making by this
country against the French. In short, there is the
same spirit awake, that operated in 1775 against the
British, and where it will end, heaven only knows.
Thinking you might wish to stick by your property,
in case ofthe event ofa ivar betiveen the two countries^
/dissolved our partnership publicly 1st ultimo.
You can now do as you please ; but I wish, you may
well suppose, a winding up of the important concerns
you have been engaged in, to govern my conduct here.
In November, you say you had remitted 400,000
livres to J. ^ F. Baring ^ Co. ; in March, they say
nothing about it. You say also you were about remit
ting them an equal sum. I wish I could hear both those
sums were to our credit, and their demand expunged.
Pray attend to this. I have not yet sent away the
Minerva or her cargo, except a small parcel, say 17
tons to Rotterdam, and as times now are, I am afraid
to venture it out ; things cannot remain so much long
er. / long to hear from you. Your situation is
VERY critical, and no one feels it more than I do. I
rest in confidential hope, that all will end well. But
years taken to finish business destroy great part of the
enjoyment they may finally produce ; therefore I hope
you will content yourself soon and return.
I remain, constantly yours, J. CODMAN.
The advices which arrived afterwards, from time to
time, were such as compelled John to speak more plain-

81
ly his great dissatisfaction, his increasing apprehensions
for the safety of his funds in Richard's hands, and his
deep anxiety on Richard's own account. This appears
as follows. Boston, June 6th, 1798.
Dear Brother, — Mr. Lee and Mr. Hopkins both
dined with me to-day, but to my astonishment, brought
not a line from you. The former tells something about
coming away in a hurry, and that your letters would
corae by the next vessel, &c. &c. It is really so vexa
tious when affairs of such importance lay open, that I
have not patience to write about it, and must forbear.
I have this day a letter from Messrs. Barings, dated 6th
of April. They say they have received nothing from you ;
that they had drawn by your order on a House in Ham
burg, who had refused acceptance, because they had no
confidence in any one settled in France ; and therefore
urge for remittances, and look to me in consequence of
getting nothing from you. What in the name of good
ness has become of the 400,000 livres you wrote me, in
November last, you had remitted them, and that you were
about remitting to an equal amount ?
Mr. Lee tells me, he heard you say, you did not re
mit because exchange was 15 per cent against you, and
that your funds were laying dead on that account. How
then can I account for your drawing on me, which you
have done largely, since date of your November letter, and
receiving money for your bills on me, only at par, when
I am thus forced to draw on England to replace it ? If
all this is true, business is going very wrong, indeed and
indeed; but it can't be so, — and yet without your letters,
how can I explain it? While writing, your bill to
Andrews & Co., dated March 25th, for ^2,000, is
brought in and accepted.
Why, for heaven's sake, will France drive us to des
peration. Necessity has no law. We shall keep off
an alliance with England, as long as we can ; but it is
dangerous to provoke it. If you find no disposition on
the part of the French government to heal this breach,
11

82
(made wider by the enemies of both countries,) pray
retire from France on the best terms you can; again I
say retire. Yours, affectionately, J. CODMAN.
Several American men of war are already out, and
more going, with orders to capture and bring in vessels
capturing ours on this coast, or hovering about it for
that purpose.
On the 8th August '98, John again wrote to Richard,
as appears by the letter book, a letter of some length,
which we annex. (See No. 109.) It is to acknowl
edge the receipt of a letter from Richard of the 21st
April, (previous to the dissolution,) which he complains
is the only one Richard had written since January pre
ceding. He wishes his own letter above quoted of the
29th February, which Richard acknowledges he had
received, had prevented Richard from continuing to
draw upon him as he did, and sets forth in moving
terms the great trouble and distress this had occasioned
him, by the constant necessity of raising money, to such
a degree that he was afraid to quit Boston, notwith
standing the yellow fever had broken out, and one of
his own clerks had fallen a victim to it; and he com
plains bitterly that he had received no remittances for
all the cargoes sent, that he found himself compelled
at last to refuse acceptance of Richard's drafts, and that
he, Richard, had been doing a very bad business in not
remitting at a profit, funds which would have enabled
them to pay off the Barings favorably by the course of
exchange. And finally, he expresses apprehension lest
the Barings would return his own bills, since they said
they received nothing from Richard, and experienced
great inconvenience in consequence. " You raay well
think," he adds, " that I have my hands full, and feel

83
no small concern for you and your situation ; but as to
that I must leave it to you and to your usual prudence ;
though I dread the result."
This letter, thinking its spirit perhaps after all some
what too harsh, he did not send, and it is accordingly
marked in the letter book " not sent." His strong
brotherly affection for Richard so far got the better of
his vexation, that he sent, in lieu of it, a very few lines
of softer character, written from his farm in Lincoln, to
which place probably the fever had after all compelled
him to retire. Lincoln, August 10th, 1798.
Dear Brother, — If this should reach you, it is only
to say that for particular reasons / have not accepted
your bills to Fellowes and Brown, ^6,000, ^6,000,
^3,000, ^3,000. They are as well to remain without
acceptance as with ; and the latter would be inconven
ient to my other arrangements at banks. Rely on your
brother^ s friendship ; although I cannot express my sur
prise at this method of draicing and remitting, so disad
vantageous and peculiarly inconvenient to me.
Yours, affectionately, J. CODMAN.
A short time after he writes as follows.
Lincoln, August 26th, 1798.
Dear Brother, — Whether this will ever reach you
or not I cannot say. Times have been so interesting,
and have now got to such extremities, that no one can
tell where it will end. I will not attempt to express
ray feelings for you, you raust conceive them. I hope
your conduct will not be such as your country can dis
approve ; there is the sarae spirit now as existed in op
posing the British attempt to tax us in all cases. It is
not the amount but the principle; — all are one, and
France will one day regret as Britain did, she did not
understand us in time.

84
Messrs. Barings have undoubtedly informed you how
our account stands, — very different from your repeated
advices to me. I hope we shall get through ; but pray,
for goodness sake, do not draw any more upon me.
These last words I would repeat with energy, — but I
hope it is needless. Adieu. Always yours,
J. CODMAN.

In October following, it seems that the still continued
arrival of Richard's drafts, without remittances, advices,
or accounts, had irapelled John to write another letter,
which, when written, he had not the heart to send.
What its severity must have been may be conjectured
from the tenor of its substitute, the whole of which we
insert, though of some length, except those parts which
relate raerely to public affairs.
Boston, 12th, October, 1798.
My Dear Brother, — I had written you a long letter
to go by Mr. Brorafield, more expressive of all my feel
ings, particularly complaining that I have no letter from
you by Mr. Gerry, and that / am astonished and dis
pleased by your continual drafts upon me. I meet them
in every quarter unexpected and unprepared. I refused
acceptance to those of Brown and Fellowes, for I did
not see how I could pay them. I suffered sixty days
of painful anxiety between my wish to support your
credit, and the duty I owe to myself. Being without
any means to pay thera, when they became due, I gave
my note for them, which was discounted, which adds
to my other engageraents a heavy burthen. No sooner
had I done this, than your bills, about ^2,600 to Hom-
berg, appeared, — the one ^400 and odd I accepted, as
it came frora Providence; the other ^2,000, in the
hands of Hurd & Mackey, I have not accepted, and I
doubt much if I shall be able to pay it. Things have
become very serious as to money matters, in this coun
try ; large sums are not to be managed, and you must

85
remember how afflictive it is to be running to banks,
especially when one is deep there already. I must of
necessity come to the unalterable determination of re
turning any more bills you may pass upon me. What
cruel suspense I am in to conjecture why you draw upon
me ! It appears to me like a candle burning out at
both ends.
Messrs. Barings have undoubtedly informed you
how our account stands, say on the 1st June last;
60 deducting 16 and interest, leaves 32. How then
do your words tally, when in your last letter to me, '2,1 st
April, you say as to our account with Messrs. Barings,
we shall not be much in arrears? You will doubtless
find no difficulty to draw upon them, and state your
remittances, all which to be sure are credited, but
also we are debited nearly as much for your drafts on
them ; and I am vexed to see charged C. Voght's drafts,
Rucker & Wortmann's drafts, and vice versa these
drafts back again, — see saw. I am not used to such
business, and now the partnership is dissolved, I
THINK I CANNOT BE SADDLED WITH IT, WITHOUT MY
KNOWLEDGE. You ought ucvcr to havc permitted such
things without giving me your reasons for it. I believe
no person so situated was ever kept so uninformed upon
so many and so important matters ; and if I do not stop
accepting and paying your bills, I see nothing before me
but RUIN. Your not writing me by so good an oppor
tunity as Mr. Gerry, makes me more uneasy than any
thing I can express, and leads me to believe what I
have heard, that you have been unfortunate, and decline
imparting it to me. Messrs. Barings write me they can
go no further for me ; have declined sending the The
tis to Russia, which is a raonstrous disappointment, and
add they get nothing from you, and all their dependence
is on me. How can I remit them when you cut off
THE MEANS, and have been constantly doing this for
years back to immense amounts, and I believe under the
greatest| disadvantages as to exchange! You cannot
blame me if I am mistaken, and you are still doing well,
for you will not write. Your letter of the 21st April is
the only one 1 have received for nine months ; and what

86
do you say then, advising your drafts to Fellowes &
Brown, and Prince, raerely that it was convenient for
you to draw these bills, because you did not wish to sell,
^c. This is not saying what you want of the raoney,
or what is to be done with it. It is high time some end
was put to such things, and we saw each other face to
face. Things are coraing to such extreraities between
the two countries that decided measures must be adopt
ed by you. I wish you would sell on the best terms you
can, and return. Having destroyed the letter I had
first written you, I confine myself only to this, and con
clude with beseeching you to remit me, and not to
draw upon me, and to wind off by disposing of yovb.
PROPERTY for the most it will bring, and return to your
native country as soon as possible.
I remain unalterably yours, J. CODMAN.
This letter however was no sooner written than fra
ternal affection began again to predominate, so that he
could not let the letter go without adding a milder post
script, which runs thus :
Since writing I have accepted Hurd's bill ^2,011, so
that all your bills are accepted and paid. Pray don't
give up to Swan the damages on his bill on Murdock.
I have received part, and secured the remainder. Pray
be more particular with me, and do not draw any more ;
I must determine to accept no more if you draw them.
In November we find further complaints, and new
entreaties for remittances, in a very long letter, from
which, on that account, we make but a few extracts.
Boston, Nov. 16, 1798.
My Dear Brother Richard, —
This letter ivill acknowledge receipt of yours by Mr.
Woodward, who has arrived here, and I believe made a
very handsome thing ofthe goods he purchased in France.
I thank you for your letter by him ; it is the only one
you have wrote from April to September, and consider-

87
ing the importance of things between us, I think you are
very remiss in this particular. In your letter you do
not say what object you had in drawing those bills on
me in favor of Brown, Fellowes, Andrews and Hom-
berg, which have embarrassed me here exceedingly, —
wonderful that you can thus perplex me !
Had you been in England to see about this, [a claim
pending there on account of the late house] a part might
probably have been obtained, but you seem determined
to stay in France, where I fear you will finally be disap
pointed of all YOUR expectations, and feel with increased
sensibility the chagrin, which many do, who have lost
their property unjustly. I know how sanguine you are
of success, and I should think you had experience
enough to be less so. I have warned you and entreated
you, — I have now done, and you must abide the issue.
You tell me if I want funds, which I do most seri
ously, to draw on London and on Hamburg, and you
will take care ofthe bills, if I will advise you. What
can this raean ? if you can take care of thera by funds
at your coramand, why do you draw on me ? Bills on
London are at 5 and on Hamburg 10 per cent, discount
here. A pretty piece of business I should make to
draw on you payable there, for the moneys you have
drawn on me ! You may judge. — No, I raust bear the
pinch here, in hopes that you will rerait me. Why
could you not have invested sorae of your funds in
goods as Woodward did ? I hear that Mr. Deblois is ex
pected, and that you have had sorae concerns with hira.
I hope you raay have sent something by hira. As to
drawing on London, you know Messrs. Barings have
refused sending the Thetis to Russia, and of course
they will go no farther ; and could it be expected ? for
on beholding their account current, I behold nearly as
many charges for your bills as credits for your remit
tances. The former, your not having advised rae of, pro
duced an unexpected balance that well nigh overwhelm
ed me. I rejoice however to see that you say you have
sufficient with you to pay thera and more. Do but ap
ply it while you may. Times are peculiar, and you
are raore peculiarly situated than you yourself imagine ;

88
the wheel of fortune is going round, and the next turn
may produce better, but as likely and perhaps more so,
a total loss. 1 have labored hard here to stand your
drafts added to my other engagements, and keep the
cargo of coffee without selling it here, so as to benefit
by the European market for it. I am now loading the
Minerva, and she will sail for some port in Europe in a
few weeks. / am determined to remit Messrs. Barings
a mass to extinguish their accumulating demands ; but
pray don't let this lessen your exertions ; for here 1
shall be crowded raore than I ever was, which you can
not but conceive, and will therefore exert yourself to
send me some cargoes, or other remittances to help me
here. It is here I want help. Had I not been so
drained of funds, I could have done some good business
here ; but I have been so crowded with your drafts, with
out receiving any assets to pay them with, and no right
to draw on London, even if exchange had been at par,
that I have felt slim ; especially being disappointed in
my Russia cargo, refused a credit on Russia, and my
ship sent away with a poor little trifling freight back to
Charleston, after costing £500 salvage in consequence
of French capture. Had I ever been to sea, or was it
notfor the cares that encumber me, I would embark and
see Messrs. Barings myself.
From the latter sentence it would seera, that, even at
this tirae, John Codraan was beginning to contemplate
the necessity of going himself to Europe, as the only
effectual means of settling up his affairs with Richard
and with the Barings. This scheme it will be seen he
afterwards executed. But in the mean time he resolv
ed to send out a special agent, chiefly to learn the true
state of Richard's affairs, and see what could be done
towards a settlement. This agent was the late Wm.
Tudor, Esq. The subject is referred to in a letter of
the 20rh February, '99, from which we make some
extracts.

89
Boston, 20th Feb., 1799.
Pray, my dear Richard, sell what you have in France
¦ at once. Suppose you get but half, or even a quarter
of what you expect, — that in use here will soon produce
as much as if you realize what you expect in France,
which expectation, too, is precarious, and attended with
delay, — remember that by keeping my funds, you throw
ME out of business here entirely ; for I am determined
to do no more business on credit, i. e. I will be out of
debt, and for this purpose I have come to a finish, and
am moving out of town, bidding adieu to Boston, as an
inhabitant, at least for the present year.
The vessel I was about buying frora Chapman, Wil
ling and Francis bought, and she is now about sailing
for Canton. She is 640 tons, and carries 20 guns ; this
ship will raake raore in one voyage, than you have made
in France, absent from your connexions, these six years
past ; pray then sell what you have, be it what it will,
for the most it will now bring, and get the funds here.
You will see by an account current Tudor will show
you, that I have kept up an account with you as with a
stranger to our late firm, and this is the only way our
books can be kept regular. You should have always
kept at this plan, and furnished regular sales and items,
and furnished your accounts against the house as a
stranger would. You ivill observe I have received no
account sales ofthe several cargoes landed at Havre,
nor of the remnant of goods left at Dunkirk by the
Catherine, Coffyn, nor of coffee at Bordeaux, by Mi
nerva, Clement. These several shipments cost here,
about ^165,000; and as they all sold to great advan
tage, they no doubt neated ^250,000, which, taken for
granted, will leave a balance in your hands of ^^117,-
000 ! This is only a calculation, which, if you will
take the trouble to run over, you will see into. 1 sus
pect, when you get this you will know pretty near how
you and myself stand. You will know, — if my ship
ments per Minerva, Superb, and Mahala, Windsor,
arrived safe, and if so, how Barings' account will stand ;
you will know too, respecting the £16,000 you promis
ed ; and if that is remitted, and if these shipments go
12

90
safe, I shall receive from them enough to pay up all
here, to replace the bank shares,* and thus be put in
the situation, or thereabout, where ive set out eight years
ago. I say, at any rate, if you do not think proper to
coraply with ray wish in whole, do it in part, and send
rae particular word by Tudor, of all yovb. property and
prospects, and of what you fixedly determine upon, un
alterably; and be entreated, be persuaded to come
horae yourself soon. I value not the sacrifice ; I did
NOT SEND MY CARGOES TO FrANCE, TO INVEST THEM
THERE ; in short, I should be willing to make any ex
ertion to wind up YOUR French concerns.

From this time forward, having found complaints,
remonstrances, and entreaties, equally unavailing, and
being fully advised that Richard had received notice of
the dissolution, he writes no more until the surprise
which Richard's engagement with Vans, and his extra
ordinary request for a farther credit of £4,000 sterling,
on his own acknowledged private account, called forth
the letter of 24th July '99, which has been quoted.
Thenceforward, again is a long silence, until the
news ofthe failure of Tudor's agency, and of his having
been persuaded by Richard to divert frora its appropri
ate destination 30,000 guilders of John Codraan's pri
vate funds, suffering them to go into Richard Codman's
hands, a most unjustifiable act on the part of Richard
Codman, which occasioned the letters of 7th and 31st
March, 1800 — letters full of feeling — and which even
a stranger at this distant day can scarcely read without
eraotion. They are as follows :

* That is. Shares in the United States Bank, the private property of
John Codman, and by him loaned to the house of John and Richard
Codman. See the early part ofthe Correspondence.

91 Boston, March 7, 1800,
Dear Brother, — I just heard of a vessel bound to
Holland, and although it is a long time since I have
written you or have received any letter from you, yet I
have not forgotten my brother, my dear brother Rich
ard, Can it be that we have been parted seven years,
during which time circumstances have occurred too
painful to recapitulate ? And to this day I know as little
about you, and your affairs, as the greatest stranger I
meet in the street. What in the narae of comraon sense
has becorae of Mr. Tudor ? Is France possessed of an
opiate that stills the breath, and freezes the pen, of every
one that visits it ? Or can he be deluded, like all others,
to rest there, when he was sent purposely for a different
purpose ? Not only this, but his raission has been at
tended with loss to me in every shape. The foolish un
dertaking has been adopted, to load the Eliza in the
face and eyes of our laws, and in attempting a voyage
impossible to pursue : — 30,000, say thirty thousand
guilders of my money, equal to twelve thousand dol
lars, has been put into France, where already the effect
of my labor is enveloped, which he knew and was sent
to relieve and not to multiply. Alas ! to repine is fool
ish — but where will this drama end ? and when will
you return to this your native country ? Peace at least
between this country and France I hope is near; it is
expected ; and in such an event a new source of trade
will open, and if we could enjoy what we once did, it
would be pleasing. I raust request you to endeavor to
obtain me all the business and all the consignments
that you can, and to return with the first opening. I
hope and pray you have not touched any money of Swan,
or on his account. Be entreated not to ; it is due here,
and I shall be extremely disappointed and chagrined
if you do. What more can I say but to bid you adieu.
J. CODMAN.
Boston, 31st March, 1800.
Dear Brother, — I had a letter last evening from
Tudor, dated in London ; not a line from you. Indeed,

92
from all accounts, connected with your conduct to me,
I know not if ever I am to expect it more.
Wonderful that my brother Richard can so conduct
himself towards me ! and as much so that you could take
advantage of Tudor, and wrest from him cm order on
Cremer^ for 30,000 guilders, money sacredly engaged
to another, — No property of yours, and which you
had no right to control. And that to this day, not
withstanding all your promises, you have not returned.
And when Tudor told you 1 should be astonished, you
replied, astonishment would be only momentary!
Cruel — cruel — cruel! While I am trying to pay the
immense debts the company loere answerable for, both
here and in Europe, you are staying in Paris, a place I
will not attempt to describe for prudence sake, and
wasting your time and reputation, as well as incurring
great expense to no purpose. I shall touch slightly on
your imprudent letters of credit to Wm. Vans, because
from what is current here, and has been for a long time,
this is the fruitful source of all your misery.
I have written you lately, by various opportunities,
to inforra you I had received pay of Swan, and beg you
not to receive a penny from hira, as I have appropriat
ed the araount in paying our debts, which is the great
object I have now in view. What shall I say to induce
your return ? Could I write in tears, or in tears of
blood from my heart, it would be insufficient to express
my feelings. Don't be raortified that your expecta
tions are blasted, as to their brilliant degree, but return,
for heaven's sake return, and do this immediately. Sell
what YOU have at once and be off; depend on it, it is
the best chance you have. You used to be tenacious
of reputation ; — if all these feelings are not blunted,
escape, and do it immediately. Again I say, remit Cre
mer' s money, and do not touch Swan's. I shall be un
governable if you do.
Yours affectionately, J. CODMAN.
I suppose you know that of the £16,000, Barings
only have credited £10,000, saying you could explain
the residue, which they had not received.

93
In conformity with the tenor of these private and
confidential letters to Richard, designed for no other
eye, is the spirit of John Codman's whole correspon
dence, during the same period, with his mercantile
friends and confidential agents in all quarters. While
he uniformly speaks of his brother with the most ten
der and truly fraternal regard, and avoids as much as
possible, saying aught that might unnecessarily injure
his standing and credit with others, he takes the most
vigorous and decisive measures to effect an entire dis
solution of interests between thera, to stop, as far as
possible, the farther accumulation of funds in Richard's
hands, and to wipe off the immense debt which had
been created against them.
Immediately upon the dissolution, which was pub
lished three weeks successively, in two of the Boston
newspapers, and farther raade visible at home by tak
ing down the sign of the late house, and substitut
ing that of John Codman, a change takes place in all
his books and accounts corresponding to the event.
The books of J. & R. Codman are peremptorily closed
on the 1st May '98, except to such entries as were
proper to settle the outstanding accounts of that house
in the necessary course of their liquidation, and a new
set of books is immediately opened in the name of John
Codman, which contains all his subsequent transac
tions. The bank accounts of J. & R. Codman were
closed on the same day, and the balances transferred
to the separate account of John Codman. The Bar
ings were immediately ordered to open with him a
separate account, which grew as fast in credit as that
of J. & R. Codman had grown in debt. The foreign
correspondents of the house, who were not numerous,

94
since Richard's residence abroad had occasioned most
of the European business to be transacted through him,
were speedily notified of the fact ; and those who were
known to John Codman to have had any dealings with
Richard, for the house of J. & R. Codraan, were called
upon to transmit to himself complete copies of all their
accounts from the beginning. All shipments, consign
ments, and correspondence immediately went forth in
John Codman's separate name. All masters of ships
in his employ were called upon to take notice, as new
adventures arose, that they were for his sole and sep
arate account ; and they were instructed to take their
orders in Europe from Messrs. Barings, instead of tak
ing them frora Richard Codraan, as they had been ac-
custoraed to do ; and the Barings, instead of being, as
they had been, the European bankers only of J. & R.
Codman, became at once general agents for John Cod
raan in Europe. All insurances of property put at risk,
were made as upon the property of John Codman. All
persons to whom property was consigned, were ordered
to remit the proceeds to the Barings ; and in those
cases where apprehension was entertained that general
orders might not be regarded, and the funds might fall
into Richard Codman's control, the most precise and
pointed instructions are given to guard against that
catastrophe. To make this as clear to others as it is to us, by
proof, would only be to annex all the letter-books and
account-books of J. & R. Codman, and of J. Codman,
in a body — constituting, as they do, sorae twenty or
thirty folio volumes — and request that they might be
carefully examined from beginning to end. But as this
cannot be in the nature of things, we propose to annex

95
extracts from the correspondence, for examples' sake,
sufficient to establish the fact, selecting more especially
from the letters of John Codman to Messrs. J. & F.
Baring of London, and Alexander Baring, Esq., then
resident in Philadelphia, because they were his most
intimate and confidential correspondents, to whom, of
course, he would have been most likely to open his
real views.
From these it appears, that on the 1st May '98 he
advised the Barings of the dissolution, without assign
ing any particular cause ; he rather speaks of it as if
the partnership had expired in regular course ; but he
distinctly informs them that frora that day forward all
business between them would be transacted in his own
name ; and on the 1 7th May he repeats the informa
tion, ascribing the step that he had taken to the long
absence of his brother in France, and the serious posture
of affairs between that country and the United States.*
May 8, '98, he writes more particularly on the
subject to Alexander Baring, with whom he was on
a footing of greater personal intimacy, and represents,
that as the partnership began on the 1st May, he had
chosen that period for its dissolution, assigning as a
cause the state of affairs, the probable necessity that
Richard Codraan would be under of continuing in Paris,
whatever raight be the political relation between the
two countries, and the greater safety of his own prop
erty from British capture. He adds a distant hint that
all might not be right with Richard, when he says, he
is not able to conceive what had become of the 400,000
livres, which, in the preceding November, Richard
* See Documents, No's 78, 81.

96
wrote he had reraitted, and the equal sum which he
said he should remit shortly, to the Barings at London,
since no such remittances had reached thera in March.*
On the 21st June, circumstances lead him to complain
to the Barings of London, that he had been most vex-
atiously kept in the dark about Richard Codman's
affairs, and he requests also to be particularly informed
of the state of their accounts with his late house.f On
the 20th July they acknowledge notice of the dissolu
tion, and give him distinctly to understand that they
look to him to clear off the debts of the late house,
and that they expect nothing from Richard. f
On the 26th August '98, John Codraan again addresses
the Barings, having received their accounts, and does not
atterapt to conceal his chagrin at the increased balance
against the late house — adding, that notwithstanding his
confidence in the integrity and prudence of his brother,
he wished much to see an end of his speculations, if it
were only for the sake of more satisfactory intercourse
with themselves, to whose payraent he is now direct
ing his energies. He informs them, at the same time,
what shipments he was about to appropriate to this
object, that he knew of no other debt besides theirs in
Europe, and that at home he had araple resources for
every deraand. §
October 26, '98, he complains to Alexander Baring
plainly of the unpleasant situation in which Richard
had placed hira, and that he is obliged to give up (for
the present at least,) all expectation of assistance from
him in paying off the debt to the house in London.

* See Document No. 80. J See Document No. 92.
t See Document No. lOG. § See Document No.U2.

97
November 16, '98, he informs the Barings of a
shipment of coffee made by himself to Hamburg,
under charge of Edward Brorafield, whose receipt for
it he encloses, and that he is about making another
in his own ship Minerva, and that if she stops in the
British channel, the captain will be instructed to call
upon them for orders and advice, for which special ser
vice he proposes to pay them a distinct coraraission.
He flatters himself that the funds placed with them,
to his individual credit, will soon offset the large
balance of debit against the late house, and directs that
if any thing should come frora R. C. it should be placed
to the credit of that account.* The receipt taken from
Brorafield under date of October 4, '98, it will be seen,
binds him to account with the Barings.f
On the 12th December, '98, he writes to the Barings,
by his ship Minerva, having insured for himself, and in
his own name, ^30,000, and having instructed the cap
tain to govern himself by the orders of the Barings. He
reminds them pointedly, that all his remittances, since
1st May last, were to be put to the credit of his private
account, and that any remittances from Richard were to
go to the account ofthe late establishment ; — he informs
them that the Thetis also is to arrive in London, and
he requests them to order cargoes frora the north of
Europe, both for the Minerva and Thetis, on his ac
count. t On the sarae day he writes to two of his cap
tains, directing thera to take their orders from the Bar
ings, and in the course of his letters, mentions, that the
great balance due the Barings was owing to engage
ments of Richard's, unknown to him.^
* See Document No. 115. \ See Document No. 117.
t See Document, No. 113. § See Document No. 118 & 119.
13

98
The 18th December, '98, he writes to his friend,
Alexander Baring, approving of a letter written by one
of the Barings of London to Richard Codman, to warn
him in strong language of the dangerous course he was
pursuing ; he then expresses strongly his own long-felt
anxiety on account of the " inexplicable conduct" of his
brother, which he says had nearly induced him to go out
in the Minerva himself; but that he had concluded to
stop till the spring, and in the mean tirae to prepare for
that event. He thinks proper, too, in consequence of the
apparent apprehensions of the London house, for the
heavy balance due to thera, to disclose to Alexander
Baring his own real situation ; his brother's drafts, he
says, had greatly cramped and crippled hira in his oper
ations ; but that all his own debts in this country would
be covered by debts due to hira here, and sraall rem
nants of property, while he was possessed of real estate,
besides that which he occupied himselfj yielding an
annual income of £1,500 sterling.* The letter referred
to, from the Barings to Richard Codman, under date of
August 24, '98, which seems to have been a voluntary
moveraent on their part, points out to him the necessity
of making every sacrifice to reduce the enormous debt
of his late house, and the extreme impropriety and folly
of his retaining funds, which should be thus applied, for
the miserable and ruinous object of speculation in the
public stocks of France. f The letter from the Barings
to John Codman, under date of 7th September, which
encloses a copy of that to Richard, speaks of Richard
as plunged in that abominable system of agiotaget which

* See Document No. 120.
t See Document No. 122.
i Stock speculations.

99
had ruined so many, and urges John to take speedy
raeasures to reduce the debt to them, which had becorae
insupportable.* John Codraan at this tirae knew, in general, the
araount of funds he had placed under Richard's control,
although Richard had neglected to render any particu
lar and detailed accounts of the proceeds of the cargoes
sent to him ; but he did not, and could not, know,
whether Richard raight not also have so far abused his
confidence, as to have pledged the name ofJ.^R. Cod
man, in raising means for his speculative purchases ;
and if such had been the case, which fortunately was
not, he could not foresee how far he himself might
be personally involved. Alarmed, doubtless, by the
idea of this danger, he writes on the 20th January, '99,
to Voght of Hamburg, and Rucker & Wortraann, with
whom he knew his brother had had considerable deal
ings, to forward him copies of all their accounts ; and
enjoins upon them to take notice, least his brother
should have omitted to advise them, of the dissolution
of J. & R. Codman on the 1st of May preceding.f On
the Ilth June, '99, he repeats this information and
request to Voght, because, he says, the accounts he had
received, both frora Messrs. Barings and Messrs. Araory
of London, contain " frequent debits and credits for
sums paid and received from you, which, knowing noth
ing about, I am obliged to raise an account for you in
our books," (that is, the books of the late house,) " and
this account wants liquidation. "f
On the 15th and 21st of June, '99, his letters to the
Barings (No's. 128, 129,) speak of his great anxiety
* See Document No. 121.
t See Documents No's. 123 & 124.
t See Document No. 127.

100
to hear that soraething had been reraitted by Richard,
towards a sum of £16,000, which the Barings told
him had been long promised ; they speak, also, of
another sum of £15,000, which had been in the
hands of the Barings since March '96, and respecting
which there had been sorae difference between hira
and the Barings — he insisting that it ought to stand to
the credit of the late house — they deraurring, and
finally refusing to put raore than £10,000 of it to that
account, and clairaing the right to retain the other
£5,000 against the separate account of Richard Cod
man, by reason of sorae particular arrangements with
him, unexplained to John Codman. " As it is a thing
I know nothing about," he says, " I can make no ob
servations about it, except that on consideration, you
will allow interest on the annual interest, to extinguish
the sum of £10,000." — "I am sorry any detention is
demanded on account of the £5,000, as this is new and
unexpected to me."
On the 1st July '99, he had received new disturbance,
from the intelligence that his funds, in the hands of Cre
mer of Rotterdam, had, against orders, been appropriated
to the use of Richard Codraan. He therefore, on that
day, writes a letter to the Barings full of bitter com
plaints, and no longer conceals the fact that the irregu
lar conduct of his brother had been a principal cause,
in conjunction with the state of public affairs, which
had led hira to dissolve the connexion. This letter,
though it strikingly exhibits the relative position of the
two brothers, is not annexed, as the sarae raatter suffi
ciently appears in the letters to Cremer and Richard
Codman. To the former he gives express notice, that
notwithstanding his acceptance in Richard Codman's

101
favor, he should hold him strictly to account for the ap
plication of the funds agreeably to orders ; that the trans
actions with Richard Codman must be kept entirely
distinct from the transactions with himself; and that
Richard Codraan only raust be looked to for the reim
bursement of that acceptance. (See No. 166.)
In consequence of this extraordinary and unwarranta
ble interference by Richard Codman with the private
funds of John Codman, the latter now begins to take
extraordinary precautions to prevent the recurrence of
such an event. The following for example is an extract
from his orders to Capt. Hamraond of the Abigail,
bound to Bremen, and there to be delivered to Delius.
Boston, 9th July, 1799.
But I charge you in particular that you see the bills you
may receive for the ship, say £2,260 sterling, remitted
Messrs. Barings, and be sure that they meet with no other
disposition; as you are accountable to me, and to me
only as the sole owner of the ship, and you are not to
be delayed in any of your operations by any orders but
my own. * * * * J. CODMAN.
July 24, '99, (at vvhich date it will be recollected
that J. C's interview with Vans had just taken place,
creating new alarm at his brother's reckless spirit of
speculation,) he writes again and more emphatically on
this^rubject to Delius himself. Boston, July 24th, 1799.
* * * * Qjj arrival you will dispose of the
cargo to the best possible advantage, and remit my
balance per a point to Messrs. J. 8i F. Barings & Co.
London, so as to take up all dependencies, and which
you are to let nothing interrupt. The enclosed to my

102
brother, please to forward. My partnership with him
is dissolved, although my affection and regard for him
continues, and he is deserving of all that confidence
which I have ever placed in him. He has a large
property, as I understand, in France, of such a nature as
will obtain great value in case of peace, but I am ex
tremely anxious for its fate during present exigencies.
I find, frora accounts from that quarter, tobaccoes are
greatly wanted there, and perhaps, after the Abigail is
unloaded and the cargo sold at Bremen, you and he may
do something between your place and that. This is a
new suggestion for your consideration, and perhaps he
will write you upon it. At any rate you are not to con
sider me responsible or connected in any such speculation,
however well I may consider it may be brought about;
neither are you on any account whatever to suffer any
detention or interruption by my brother or any one else,
of my funds in your hands reaching the place of its ap
propriate deposit; and the sooner the thing is done, the
more agreeable and encouraging it will be to me. '* * * *
J. CODMAN.

26th September, '99, in a letter to the Barings of
that date, he speaks of some late accounts from Rich
ard, which lead him to hope he might yet do soraething
effectual before long, and he acknqwledges the receipt
of their accounts with the late house and with himself,
in conformity to which he had made the proper entries
in the different books. (See No. 168.)
January 16, 1800, he informs the Barings that the
precarious state of politics, the tedious suspense he had
been kept in about his brother's affairs, and the heavy
remittances he had been obliged to make their house,
had induced hira to sell the Minerva, and left hira only
the Thetis on hand. (See No. 171.)
In another letter to them, dated March 22, 1800, he
speaks of his brother's affairs as still involved in mys-

103
tery, and hopes he may have made remittances, but that
whatever happens to Richard they may rely on his own
fulfilment of all engageraents.
March 31, 1800, he writes a letter to Delius which
we insert entire. Boston, 31st March, 1800.
Mr. Frederick Delius.
Sir, — I have not yet heard of the arrival of the Abi
gail at Bremen, but I daily expect it, and I hope soon
after to see the account sales, and to hear that remit
tances are made, to the close of all my concerns under
your care, to Messrs. Barings. I observe you have had
some correspondence with my brother. You undoubt
edly understand all my directions particularly expressed
in my letter of July 24th, that my brother should not
control any of my funds in your hands, or alter the dis
position of the sales of my tobacco in Bremen, so that
the proceeds should see any other destination than to
Messrs. Barings. I understand you gave hira this re
ply, which is well on several accounts. In the first
place, however well the cargo raight sell in France, by
our laws I cannot be concerned directly, or indirectly, in
shipping it there. It therefore must be sold in Bremen.
The purchaser may do what he pleases with it, and as
to the funds getting into his hands, I have less and less
confidence in anything that goes into France, and posi
tively forbid you paying a shilling to him in that way
for my account. I dread the loss occasioned by this
shipment, but rely confidentially on your exertions, for
my interest — and remain your raost hurable servant,
J. CODMAN.
May 4, 1800, he instructs Capt. Nichols, the master
of his only remaining ship the Thetis, that he is to
take his orders frora the Barings, and that the cargo he
raay ship is to be " wholly and totally for my account
and risk." (See No. 176.) «

104
On the 9th of the sarae month he addresses the Bar
ings from New York, and in the course of his letter
speaks as follows.
" I expect on ray return to Boston to see Mr. Tudor.
His accounts by letter respecting ray brother were not
satisfactory to me, so that I had almost prepared to go
myself to Europe, to ascertain the actual state of his
concerns, and to bring his affairs to some close. This I
shall determine on on seeing Tudor, who is not yet
arrived in the Minerva."
This purpose, long contemplated, it seeras, after the
interview with Tudor, he found himself compelled to
execute. In a letter to Alex'r Baring, under date of
June 5, 1800, he informs him of his arrangement made
for going to Europe, and a postscript under date of
June 11, says, "I sail to-morrow morning in the Galen."
Leaving him on his way, we now propose to take up
Mr. Vans again, whom we left in Paris, just returned
from his American expedition, in August, 1800. A
correspondence is immediately opened between him and
Richard Codman, which, so far as we have the materi
als, is annexed entire. Much of it may be the subject
of future remark, in connection with particular points in
the case. At present we rather ask attention to its gen
eral complexion, and to those parts only which exhibit
the nature of the past transactions between them, and of
the controversy which grew out of these transactions, as
showing the entirely personal character of the claim
raade by Vans upon Richard Codman, without even a
pretence on his part that it had any connection with
the concerns of J. & R. Codman, or that John Codman
was in any way implicated. The dates of these letters
are according to the French calendar then in use. We
have, however, for the sake of greater clearness, added

105
in ev^fery case the corresponding date, according to oiii:
own calendar; and when we refer to theni, in the course
of our remarks, it will be by the Araerican date. In
speaking of sUms, We Shall not be particular to distin
guish between the livte arid the franc, as they nearly-
correspond, and ai^e Often uS^d indifferently, we find, in
the Original letters.
It will be borne ih mind, that Vans left Paris, on his
American expedition, abOut the 24th of January, 1799,
nearly nine months after the dissolution of J. &; R.
Codman, and probably seven Or eight months after that
event was known at Paris, certainly more than foUr
months after Richard Codman, tardy and irregular cor
respondent as he was, had acknowledged notice and sig
nified his acquiescence. From the Paris correspondehfce,
now referred to, it appears, that shortly before he left
Paris, Vans caused to be transferred to Richard Codraan
an inscription. Standing in the narae of Mrs. Vans, on the
Great Book, as it was called, of the Perpetual Debt of
France, being that description of public stock called
Tiers Consolide, or the consolidated third — a name
acquired from the fact, that the French government had
annihilated, at a blow, by an act of mere arbitrary power,
two thirds of its public debt, and now held itself an
swerable for the interest of the remaining third only ;
a raeasure which it was pleased to terra a consolidation.
This inscription was evidence, therefore, of a promise, on
the part of the French government, to pay to the sub
scriber, or his assignee, 8415 francs of rente, or interest,
annually, forever ; and the stock, a^ par, represented,
nominally, such araoUnt of irredeeiriable capital, as
would yield that annual income at five per cent. These
stocks were, however, subjects of daily fluctuation of
14

106
value in the market, depending upon the stability of
a revolutionary governraent, and the political condition
of the country. If bought on speculation by Vans, they
were bought at a period of great depression, and of course
at a very low price. But in truth they were never the
property of Vans; they belonged to his wife, as her
separate property, the laws of France allowing raarried
women to hold even personal property separately from
their husbands. The evidence of their small value is,
that Richard Codman sold this particular inscription, as
appears not only by his letters, but also by the original
Broker's Bill, in our possession, for 18,617.76 francs,
equal to about ^3,700; that is, the whole capital sold
for little more than two year's interest.* Sorae fifteen
months' interest had also accrued upon the stock;
amounting, if paid in cash, to about 25,000 francs, or
;$[5000 ; but which was in fact usually paid at that time
in another species of government paper, called hons,
payable nominally on deraand, and probably worth little
raore in the raarket, relatively, than the principal gov
ernment promises. But these arrears, though due, h
seems were never collected by Richard Codman, and of
course were payable to, and probably received by, the
party who was entitled to them by the transfer.
In addition to this there were two houses, in Paris,
standing in the name of Mrs. Vans, also her property,
of which a deed was made by her to Richard Codman,
or his assignee, and Richard Codman, on the 26th May,
'99, upon a transfer of them to one Reubel, a member
of the French Directory, received 73,000 francs in
money, equal to about ^14,000 — Richard Codman
giving, at the sarae tirae, security on his own property,
* See Documents No. 189, 296.

lot
that certain incumbrances upon these houses should
be cleared off. There were also some unsettled
claims, both for and against Vans, which had been
left in Richard Codman's charge and management.
The precise state of these we have not been able to
unravel ; but we have seen enough to ascertain that
they were of raore trouble than value. So that the
whole of this great claira of half a raillion of dollars is
built out of about ^20,000 worth of property, belong
ing not to Vans, but to Vans' wife.
The stocks, which were thus transferred, it seeras
Vans insisted, were transferred by way of loan to Richard
Codman, and that, consequently, Richard Codman was
bound either to repay them in kind, or else to account
for them according to their market value at the time of
the demand, which was much greater than at the tirae
of the transfer. He also insisted, that he should account,
in money, for the interest which had accrued upon them,
whether received or not. And in respect to the pro
ceeds of the houses, he insisted that these should have
been invested in other government securities, according
to his orders, which he alleges Richard Codman had
promised to observe ; and, consequently, that this sum
also should be paid for, by such araount of government
stocks as it would have purchased, had it been so in
vested on the 26th May, '99, when such stocks were
at, or near, their minimum of market value.
Richard Codraan resisted these claims of Vans, upon
the ground that all this property was to stand as security
to Richard Codraan, for the credit of £4000 sterling,
given Vans to conduct the joint speculation with, and
for the other engagements and liabilities assumed on
Vans' account ; and that, having at the time no confi
dence in the French government stocks, then daily

108
falling, he vi^as not bound to keep his whole security
in such investments, but had a right to sell apd invest
as he pleased, and could not be held to account for
more than they actually produced to hira in money;
and furthet, that the proceeds of the houses were to be
reduced at least 23,000 francs, or about ;^4600, because
he had supported Mrs. Vans and her family, in her
husband's absence, at an expense equal to that sum.
This was the raatter of controversy between them ;
and the correspondence, which was at first of a most
friendly character, gradually becarae harsh and angry-
Richard Codman, pressed by his extensive engage
raents on all hands, and in a state of actual, bjut
not yet admitted, insolvency, though holding a vast
amount of precarious property in his control, hoping
daily that some favorable turn of events might enable
him to dispose of this property to advantage, and thus
at least to settle with his creditors, if not to realize the
golden dreams he had indulged, was probably unable to
coraply with Vans' deraands, even so far as he adraitted
thera to be just, without a sacrifice pf property involv
ing absolute ruin. From these, or other causes, he was
led to temporize, to put off rendering his account against
Vans, which the latter frequently demanded, and to
discuss modes of settlement and terras of corapromise;
while Vans, on the other hand, was, as it seemed to
Richard Codman, under all circumstances, unreasonable
and extravagant in his deraands, and unwilling to stand
by the agreements which were verbally raade frora time
to time. Vans, at last however, prevailed upon Richard
Codman, as one step towards a settleraent, to give hini
his obligation on demand, afterwards exchanged for one
on short time, for the 841 6 francs of rentes, placing it
on the footing of a loan, and promising to return the

109
same amount of these stocks specifically. This latter
obligation was dated September 29, 1800, and was
payable in one month ; but before it becarae due it was
negotiated by Vans to one Pacaud.
On the 6th October, Vans also obtained frora Richard
Codraan, in further settlement of this disputed account,
another obligation, promising to deliver him, or order,
6000 francs of "rentes provisoires," in three months from
that date. This was another species of government
security— a provisional debt — payable at the pleasure of
the government, with interest annually until paid, at
the rate of five per cent. This obligation nominally
represented 100,000 francs of capital, but was worth at
the time it was given little more than 30,000 francs, and
was intended by the parties to discharge all Vans'
claims for back interest on the stocks, and for all moneys
received by Richard Codman on Vans' account, except
the proceeds of the houses, and of the rentes tiers con
solide. Beyond this the matters of dispute still con
tinued unadjusted, when Vans left Paris on a temporary
absence, about the 21st October. At his return, about
the 10th or 12th of November, John Codman also ivas
in Paris. He arrived at Calais on the 19th of October,
as appears by his letter from that place dated the 20th,
and of course reached Paris, as that was his only point
of destination, within a few days after.
Before entering upon the transactions which followed
John Codman's arrival at Paris, it may now be useful
to look raore particularly at the tenor of the corres
pondence which had taken place previously between
Richard Codman and Vans.
It begins with a letter from Richard Codraan, dated
August 29, 1800. (No. 181.) This letter adraits the
transfer to Richard Codraan of inscriptions standing in

110
the name of Mrs. Vans to the araount of 8,416 livres
rentes, and a proraise to restore them to her on demand.
The date of the transaction is fixed to have been in
December 1799, just before Vans left Paris on his
Araerican expedition, and several months after the dis
solution of R. C.'s partnership with his brother was made
known there. It also admits that he had assisted Mrs.
Vans in the sale of her houses, and that, after giving
security, upon estates of his own, for the removal of in
cumbrances on the title, he had received from the pur
chaser 74,000 livres, of which 1,000 was paid to Mrs,
Vans at the tirae, leaving 73,000 in Richard Codman's
hands to be accounted for. It further admits, that, ac
cording to Vans' instructions, this balance ought to have
been invested in inscriptions ; but informs Vans, that
owing to several circumstances, not particularized, this
was not done — this item therefore, he says, is a matter for
amicable adjustment — and he professes hiraself ready
to settle the affair in a just and araicable way.
Mr. Vans' answer of the same date (No. 182,) ex
presses regret at finding Richard Codman had not the
inscriptions to deliver, and that so great a sacrifice, on
the part of his friend, would be necessary to purchase
them at their then advanced price— -w'lth general profes
sions of a desire to settle in such manner as might be
most convenient and agreeable. Another letter soon
after (No. 1 84,) states his intention to raake out his ac
count against Richard Codman like a merchant, but still to
settle it as a friend — and inquires, whether he ought not
to charge Richard Codman with the back interest, which
had accrued upon the stock at the time it was transferred
to him, and vvhich he therefore might have collected ; —
also, with the interest which had accrued since the trans-

Ill
fer ; — also with half his travelling expenses to and from
America on their joint business.
His next letter, dated September 1st, requests an
answer to his former questions, and inquires, whether
the interest on the inscriptions, transferred to R. Cod
raan, was paid by the government in cash or in bons,
and if in the latter, what was their value.
The answer of Richard Codman, of the same date,
explains the circurastances referred to in his first let
ter, as having prevented hira from investing the pro
ceeds of the houses in inscriptions. He says he had
several charges against Vans in account, and had given
his own security to the purchaser of the houses against
the incumbrances on the title, besides that he had given
Vans authority to draw on Voght for £4,000, for which
he had no other security than these houses and the in
scriptions borrowed. That he had no opinion of in
scriptions at that time as security, especially when they
fell to the price of 7 livres 10 sols, (that is little raore
than 7 for 100) and seeraed to be in danger of falling
to nothing. That if, therefore, he had invested the pro
ceeds of the houses in inscriptions, he should have had
scarce any security at all for his liabilities on Vans' ac
count — such, he says, " as no prudent raan would have
taken ; and in fact such as, considering ray circurastan
ces and connexion with ray brother, I did not think ray-
self authorized to take, especially at a raoraent when
the affairs of France wore the raost unfavorable aspect."
Mr. Vans uses this letter, in consequence of the expres
sion " connexion with ray brother," as one of his proofs
that the partnership had not been dissolved. We shall
notice this more particularly hereafter. But it is per
fectly clear frora subsequent letters that Vans did not
so understand this phrase at the time.

112
Several other letters pass between thera, not very im
portant, until the letter of Richard Codraan, dated 4th
Septeraber, (No. 196,) which in answer to an inquiry
frora Vans, states that the sum realized frora the sale
of the inscriptions transferred to hira frora Mrs. Vans
was only 18,617 livres, or about ^3,750, This state
raent is proved to be true by the original bill of the bro
ker who made the sale for hira, (No, 296,) and is ad
mitted by Vans in his letter of September 6th. (No, 192.)
This letter, and the long one of the following day,
(No. 194) are arguments, on the part of Vans, to show
that Richard Codman had security enough for his en
gagements on Vans' account, and ought therefore to
have invested the proceeds of the houses according to
his instructions. Some of the incidental statements in
these letters are worthy of notice. First, he fixes the
date of his agreement with Richard Codman to have
been January 15, 1799, which corresponds with the
date of the letters of credit and guarantee which Rich
ard Codman furnished. Secondly, he states that the
property, which Vans was to purchase in America under
that agreement, was to be shipped by William Codman,
of New York. Why by William Codman, and not by
John, if John, then in America to ship for hiraself, was
a party to the transaction, and William Codman not.?
Thirdly, after making up a claim for 33,000 francs of
rentes, and 25,000 in cash, as a fair result of the pro
ceeds of the houses which ought to have been invested
in inscriptions, he offers to take in full settleraent 22,500
francs of rentes, and 5,000 francs in cash — provided
however, which is raost raaterial, that Richard Codman
would pay John Codman for the £100 bill, (about 2,400
francs,) which Vans had been enabled to negotiate in

113
Boston, on the strength of John Codman's endorsement,
and which John Codman had been compelled to take
up, and was now the holder of against Vans the drawer.
Does this look like a claira upon John Codman for the
large sum which was claimed against Richard ?
Vans' letter of the Uth September, 1800, (No. 196,)
repeats terras of settleraent to which he was willing to
agree, still farther reduced from those proposed in his
letter of the 7th, but the payment of the £100 bill by
Richard continues to he one of them.
The letter frora Richard to Vans under date of
September 18, 1800, contains the stateraent of another
of Vans' propositions 'for settleraent, which was, the
payment of 11,000 francs in three years, the 8,415
rentes to be returned in three months, the interest
which had accrued on thera to be paid in cash, 5,000
of rentes to be purchased in the name of Mrs. Vans,
and Richard to pay the £100 bill. This, or something
like it, seems to have been verbally agreed to, and
Richard urges Vans, if he knows his own interest,
to stand by the bargain. The bargain is broken,
however, on one side or the other, and new proposi
tions, including a settlement on Mrs. Vans, are propos
ed and rejected. Finally, Vans' letter of September
21st, 1800, [No. 201,] proposes an arbitration, to decide
what they could not finally agree upon, that is, the
terras upon which Richard ought to settle for the pro
ceeds of the houses which had come to his hands, and
which Vans insists should have been invested in the
stocks. This letter also urges the payment of the un
disputed claim for the 8,416 francs of rentes, with the
back interest. In the letter of 22d September, [No.
203,] he urges particularly the immediate payment of
16

114
this back interest by notes, if cash is not at hand.
About this time, too, he renders an account, comprising
all his claims, expressly stated against " Richard Cod
man, Esq." — not against /. ^ R. Codman, nor against
the pretended firm of Richard Codman.*
On the 29th of September, it will be remembered,
that the obligation of R. Codman to Vans to pay him the
8,415 rentes in one month was given ;t and by Vans'
letter of the same date, it would seem that a verbal
agreement was also made, by which Richard was to
settle on Madame Vans, and her son, 7,000 francs of
rentes per annum, to be secured on Richard Codman's
real estate, so soon as Vans should cause to be removed
the "oppositions,"! as they are terraed, laid by Reubel
on Richard Codman's property, on account of the in
cumbrances upon the houses, which Richard Codman,
acting for Mrs. Vans, had sold to him in his own name.
On the 5th October, Vans got from R. Codman, in
farther settleraent, the obligation of that date, above-
raentioned,for the delivery in three months of 100,000
francs capital in "Rentes Provisoires."^ This obligation
was intended to pay the back rentes, or interest, which
had accrued on the 8,415 francs of rente tiers consolide,
(though R. Codman had never in fact received them,)
amounting to 17,300 francs, and 10,000 francs more,
which he had received for account of Vans, after his
return frora America. This appears by the original
memoranda of R. C, Nos. 208 and 209.

* See Document, No. 202.
t See Document No. 205.
j These " oppositions" answer somewhat to our attachments. They
were a species of lien, at least, on the property.
§ See Document No. 207.

115
On the 21st October, it appears by Vans' letter of that
date, [No. 212,] that he was about to quit Paris for a
short tirae. He prays Richard to be in readiness to
meet his obligation for the 8,416 francs of rentes, when
it shall becorae due, as he was about transferring it to
another person, who would be greatly disappointed at any
failure; and the obligation for the "rentes provisoires,"
he says he shall keep, until be sees the issue of sorae
bill on Hamburg, with which, it seeras, Richard had
furnished hira. By Vans' letter of the 1 1th November,
written after his return to Paris, it seems that Richard
had also given him a note for 4207 francs, being six
months interest on the 8,415 rentes tiers consolide.
Such was the state of affairs when John Codman
reached Paris. The period of his arrival in France is
fixed by his letter dated at Calais, October 20th, 1 800.*
The objects of John Codman's visit to Paris may be
gathered from what has gone before. They were, 1st,
to ascertain Richard's real situation ; 2d, to settle his
own accounts with Richard ; 3d, to get such payment,
or security, as he could, for the balance due him ; 4th,
to endeavor to extricate his brother from his private
embarrassments, and to aid him in winding up his
affairs so that he might quit Paris forev^er — an object
which John Codman had much at heart.
The first object was soon accomplished ; John soon
satisfied himself, and probably succeeded in satisfying
Richard, and bringing him to admit, that he was in a state
of absolute insolvency, though with much property on
hand, that might, in certain events, become valuable. f ¦
In pursuance of the second object, he brought Richard
to a full settlement of all accounts between them, on or
* See Document No. 211.
t See Documents No's. 224 & 225.

116
about the 1st January, 1801, by an account stated under
that date, and acknowledged in writing ; and Richard
gave his note of hand of the same date, for the balance
of the account, amounting to ^48,328 67, payable with
interest on demand. A copy of this account, long as it
is, is annexed.* It will be noted, that the terms of the
settleraent were, that John Codraan assumed to pay
the debt to the Barings, and that Richard relinquished
his claira to any share of the effects of the late house.
This account will hereafter be the subject of farther
remark. At present we assume it to have been a true
statement of affairs, and a just settlement.
The next object was to get security, (payment being
out of the question,) for this large debt ; and the only
security which offered was some of the valuable estates
in France, which Richard Codraan had purchased on
speculation. To obtain security on these, by way of
raortgage, the French laws required, that the debt to be
secured, should be evidenced by obligations subscribed
before a Notary on stamped paper — which was not the
case with the settlement note aboveraentioned. With
the view of remedying this defect, on the 17th January,
1801, John Codman empowered an attorney to receive
for hira an obligation frora Richard Codraan, made
agreeably to the French laws, for all, or any part, of the
sura due on the account current which had been settled
between thera ; and on the 31st January, Richard Cod
raan gave, accordingly, a notarial obligation for 110,000
francs, equal to about ^22,000, which was expressed
to be for money lent before that tirae by John to Rich
ard Codman, to be employed in his own business — a
" See Document No. 235.

117
form of expression, which, though according to the truth,
afterwards made trouble.
On the 6th February, Richard Codraan, by another
notarial act, assigned to John a mortgage which he
held on an estate at Tours, called Creraille, to secure
hira in the farther sum of 149,316 francs, equal to
about ^30,000, making, with the other notarial obliga
tion for ^22,000, a sum of ^52,000, which covered
the balance of the account aboveraentioned, and the
amount of monies loaned by John Codman to Richard,
at Paris, after the settlement, as appears by a raemo-
randura at the foot of the account. The notarial obli
gation for 110,000 francs, was also secured on the Ilth
February, by an inscription, as it was termed, having
the effect of a mortgage, or attachment,* on an estate of
Richard Codman's, called La Thuillerie, and also some
times called Daramartin, situated in the District of Meaux,
and another called Rouvrev, situated in the District of
Dreux. In the raean tirae. Vans, and the persons to
whora Vans had negotiated Richard Codman's obliga
tions, comraenced suits for their respective deraands
against Richard Codman, and in June and July follow
ing, having got their respective judgments, they also
caused inscriptions, meaning, in this case, attachments,
to be raade on the same estate of La Thuillerie, by
which means a litigation finally arose between John
Codman and the other creditors of Richard, severally
contending for this property of Richard's. This litiga
tion must be referred to again ; but at present we re
turn to Vans and his negotiations with Richard Cod
man, after John's arrival, and also his negotiations with
* The term inscription, then used, is equivalent to the enrolemont or reg
istering ofa lien on real estate, whether created by mortgage or attachment.

118
John Codman himself, acting, as will be seen, in behalf
of Richard, as well as clairaing for himself an interest in
Richard's property, not as a partner, but as a creditor.
The fourth object of John's visit, the reclaiming of
his brother from Paris, he soon found depended, mainly,
upon Richard's being able to settle with Vans.
The whole of this Paris correspondence is annexed,
so far as we have the materials ; because, it is only by a
few garbled extracts frora it, with the help of some
fabricated and fictitious papers, that Mr. Vans has con
trived to raake some show of evidence, tending to im
plicate John Codraan in his affairs. Let us now look
at it in detail.
Ilth November, 1800, Vans writes to Richard* that
he had negotiated his obligation, (for the 8,415 francs
of rentes, then overdue,) but that, in consequence of
John Codman's arrival, he had requested that it raight
not be presented for a few days ; intiraating, as we un
derstand it, a disposition, for some reason or other, not
to expose Richard, in this business, to his brother John.
He urges him, however, extremely, to pay the little bill
of 4207 francs then due, deducting 1300, which Vans
acknowledges he had already received on account of it.
At this period it appears, that Richard Codman was
endeavoring to collect .the materials for rendering an
account, to his brother, of the proceeds of the cargoes
which had come to his hands. Having kept no regular
accounts himself of these important transactions, he was
obliged to write to the Hombergs, and other agents whom
he had employed, to furnish the data for a settlement.
This appears by letters of the Hombergs, in answer.f
* See Document No. 214.
t See Documents No's 213 & 215.

119
We next find a letter from Vans to Richard Codman,
dated November 17th.* The tone of the correspon
dence had begun to change ; it was no longer as before,
the familiar " Dear Sir," and "Yours, Wra. Vans;"
but the letter of the 19th Noveraber begins with a for-
raal " Sir," and ends with " Your humble servant ;" —
it deraands, in a pretty peremptory tone, accounts,
papers and payment. R. Codman's answerf states
that the stock obligations were on his list of things to
be provided for — and that as to Mrs. Vans, he intended
to secure her an annuity of 7,000 livres, by mortgaging
an estate for the purpose, of which, he says, he had
already made a sale to her. Vans' reply, dated Novem
ber 21, J is an important document. It informs us that
Richard's obligation (for the 8,416 francs of rentes,)
was about to be protested. This, of course, would be
an act of public bankruptcy. It renews the proposi
tion, at the same time, for an arbitration to settle their
differences ; and closes as follows : " I raust remind
you that all our concerns is on account of monies I have
lent you, to be appropriated agreeable to my orders ; I
am therefore not to be put on your Ks^-creditors," —
meaning, as we understand, I can not consent to be
put on the same footing with your common business
creditors, who can expect only a dividend from your
estate ; — ray clairas are of a privileged and honorary
character. They arise from monies lent you — and
placed in your hands, as ray friend and confidential
agent, to be appropriated according to ray orders.

* See Document No. 216.
t See Document No. 217.
t See Document No. 218.

120
This is a claira, therefore, which must be satisfied in
full — and since we can not agree on the amount, we
raust leave that to arbitrators. The letter, therefore,
as we view it, is a distinct admission, 1st, that his trans
actions with Richard Codman were not common business
transactions, such as the house of J. & R. Codman
could be held for, even if it had not been dissolved. 2d,
that Vans was perfectly aware of Richard Codman's
embarrassed situation, and inability to provide for all
the deraands against hira. Yet, neither he, nor any
other of Richard Codman's French creditors, pretend
to raake any claim upon John Codman, who is on the
spot, and abundantly able to satisfy them. Why is
this, except that they all well knew of the dissolution
long before, and that their dealings had been with Rich
ard Codman alone .''
The next document in the course of the correspon
dence, is still more important. It is the first direct
communication at Paris, between Vans and John Cod
man — and it is, not a demand by Vans against John
Codman, for the immense sums which he now states
John Codman owed him, but, on the contrary, it is a de
mand by John Codman upon Vans, for the £100 he had
advanced him in America, upon the strength of the bill
which Vans drew on Hamburg, under Richard Cod
man's guarantee, which bill was protested, and taken
up by the Barings, in London, for the honor of John
Codman, the endorser. This bill, with damages, ex
penses and interest, amounting, in the whole, to
£1 18.1s., he requests Vans to pay, by a letter dated
29th November, 1800.* And what says Vans.?—
* See Document No. 221.

121
Nothing. He makes no answer — but pretends, falsely
as we shall see, that he did not receive the letter.
About this period of the business, as we conjecture,
comes another letter from Vans to Richard Codman,
without date,* acknowledging to have received from
Richard some statement of his affairs, in consequence
of which he proposes to him the following terras of
settleraent. For the 8,416 francs of rentes tiers con
solide, with the arrears of interest, and the 100,000
capital of rentes provisoires, valued together at 153,500
francs in raoney, "owing to your deranged state of
affairs, I will accept, as full payraent, the £100 bill
given me by your brother, and also your estate at
Dreux, and that of Cravenoux, in full payment. These
two estates cost you about 76,000 livres, and no more."
As for the stocks which should have been purchased
with the proceeds of the two houses, valued at 400,000
francs, he proposes to take sundries for Mrs. Vans,
amounting to less than twenty per cent, of the estimated
debt. He informs Richard that the obligation for the
rentes provisoires (100,000 francs) he had sold ; the
other obligation (for the 8,415 francs, rentes) had been
negotiated long before, and therefore, he says, he has
no fear of Richard's buying up his debts to offset these
demands, which it seems Richard had threatened.
This letter frora Richard is not produced by Vans. He
goes on as follows: "I expected before this you had put
in your bilan" — a French phrase which signifies a final
.stopping of payraent. He then recapitulates the terms
of his offer, estimating the whole debt at 553,600 francs,
and the property which he was willing to accept in full
* See Document No. 222.
16

122
discharge at 140,000 francs. "Thus," says he, "pay
four shillings in the pound!"*
This letter alone ought to be conclusive upon the
case. For why should he be willing to take four shil
lings in the pound, owing to Richard Codraan's deranged
state, if John Codman, whose affairs were not in a de
ranged state, was also liable ? Why is he so especially
solicitous that Richard Codman should pay John Cod
raan's little £100 bill, if John Codraan was then in his
debt 650,000 livres ?
Another letter of Vans to Richard Codman, without
date, but which we suppose to have been between the
21st November and the 8th December, proposes payment
for the 8,416 rentes, tiers consolide,by the estate at Dreux
renting for 7260 francs per annum — for the 100,000
rentes provisoire " by all deraands of John Codraan and
Richard Codman" (not of J. & R. Codman, as if the
partnership had continued) " against Mr. and Madame
Vans, from December '98 to this day, including the £100
bill of exchange." He then proposes a particular raode
of arbitration, to determine what should be paid for the
proceeds of the houses, and that the sura so determined
should be paid by notes in one, two, and three years,
with interest at six per cent, provided however, that all
damages awarded, beyond the 73,000 francs realized by
Richard Codman from the sale of the houses should be
paid in notes annually, for ten years, without interest, Sicf
All these letters, since the date of November 12th,
were written while John Codman was in Paris, and
the letter of the 12th November shows that Vans knew
of J. C.'s presence there. But on the 8th December,
1800, we arrive at an iraportant era in the Paris trans-
* See No. 222. \ See No. 223.

123
actions, namely, the first letter written by Vans directly
to John Codman himself. And here Mr. Vans' friends
will eagerly expect the evidence of a demand upon
John Codman, notoriously wealthy and of unshaken
credit, for the whole of that half raillion of dollars which
they have been so often told was due frora his estate.
What must be their surprise and chagrin, then, on read
ing Vans' two letters of this date, to find, that instead of
making this deraand on John Codraan, he is only striv
ing to evade a demand, which John Codraan had made
upon him, for the araount paid on the £100 bill ! With
what astonishment must they learn, that the only
answer of Vans to this extraordinary demand was, not
that John Codman owed him more than a hundred
times the sura, but that the bill was drawn on the joint
account of Richard Codman and Vans himself, and that
Richard Codraan having charged him with it in ac
count, John ought to look to Richard for its settlement !
It seeras that Richard Codman, in some conversation,
had informed Vans, that John Codman was surprized at
not having an answer to his letter of the 29th Novera
ber, deraanding payment for the £100 bill. Being no
longer able therefore to pretend ignorance of the fact.
Vans writes to John Codman on the subject, assuring
him that his letter of the 29th November had never
been received — and he adds, " as your brother has
charged me this bill in his account," (admitting it to be
the separate account of Richard Codraan,) " it is proper,
before I allow the charge, that you should give me a
receipt for payment of it."* That is, he adraits his
liability to John Codman, who, as endorser, had been
compelled to take up the bill of which Vans was the
* See No. 227.

l24
drawer. But the bill was endorsed by John Codman
on the credit of Richard Codman's guarantee. Richard
Codman therefore, as well as Vans, was liable for it to
John Codman, and Vans, who had received the money
on it, was liable to Richard, if he should settle for
it with his brother. Richard Codman therefore, as
Vans says, had charged him with it in his account.
Your brother assumes, as Vans means to argue, to pay
you for this bill, by charging me ivith it in his account.
I am content to allow the charge to hira, but if I do so
you raust send me a receipt for the bill, and look wholly
to your brother for payment.
This John Codman answers only by sending Mr. Vans
a copy of his former letter, which he says he cannot ac
count for Mr. Vans' not having received. (See No. 228.)
Mr, Vans replies, after a protest that he had never
received the letter, and should not have known of it but
for the information from Richard Codman, " I now
inform you that this bill was drawn by rae on the joint
account of your brother and me, which no doubt your
brother has informed you, and I now also inform you that
your brother has charged me in his account this £100
bill. You will please therefore look to him for the set
tleraent of this bill, and send me the receipt requested."
(See No. 229.) Well might John Codman say, when
he first heard, a long time afterwards, that Vans was
talking about setting up a claim against him, "the letters
I have /rom under his hand clearly prove it is my brother
who is his debtor and not me."* For Vans here distinctly
admits that his business was a joint business between
himself and Richard Codman alone— that both himself
and Richard Codman were therefore jointly liable to
XT * o^o ^°^" Codman's letter to Babut from Boston, 5th January, 1802-.--
No. 319. •"

125
John Codman for the bill— and without pretending that
he had any claim against John Codman to offset it, he
only urges John to look to Richard for payment, because
Richard had already charged him with it in account,
and thereby had assumed its payment. This letter also
ought to be, of itself, conclusive upon the case.
The next date we find in the correspondence is Jan
uary 23d ; — but somewhere in the interval between the
8th December and 23d of January, we place two let
ters without date, both from Vans to Richard Codraan.
From the first we gather that some proposed arbitration
bad been agreed to, and was in progress ; but that in
the mean time Vans was greatly in want of money, and
urgent even for so small a sum as 600 francs, and the
letter concludes with a menace if the money is not fur
nished. The next is raerely a menacing letter. Vans
seems, at this time, to have been actuated by the hope,
that these cut throat threats of Richard's life, might
alarm John for his brother's safety, so far as to induce him
to come forward and lend Richard the money deraanded.*
In the same interval, namely, on the 21st December,
we find an account rendered by Richard Codman against
Mr. and Mrs. Vans, (see Nos. 232, 233,) showing what
sums Mrs. Vans had herself taken up out of the pro-
^Th'is menacing game, commenced in France almost forty years ago,
has since been followed up in this country. Mr. Vans has even been un
manly enough to extend these menaces of personal injury to the ividow of
the deceased John Codman, in her ovm house, and to the Rev. Dr. Codman
in his — violating without any possible benefit to himself the sacredness
of female security, and ofthe peaceable feeling and character ofa clergy
man — and more recently he has been guilty (as appears by the record of
his conviction before the Municipal Court of Boston,) of a brutal assault
and battery, committed in one of the most public streets, upon the person
ofthe Hon. J. Lowell, without the slightest provocation, except his being
connected by marriage with tbe Codman family, and being supposed (er
roneously) to have acted as counsel to the executor of John Codman in re
sisting Mr. Vans' unfounded pretensions, and his having been called upon
to testify as a witness before the Legislative Committee of 1835, to facts
within iiis personal knowledge.

126
ceeds of her houses, reducing the balance in his hands
to about 64,500 francs, which, with the fair raarket
value of the two obligations payable in stocks, consti
tuted their whole joint demand — and against this is a
charge for the proceeds of a government bill for one
million of livres, which is stated to have been put into
Vans' hands, and sold by him, realizing the sum of
110,000 livres.
In the same interval too, namely on the 1st January
1801, we find that John Codman and Richard Codman
had corae to a settlement of their mutual accounts, re
sulting in a balance of ^48,000 and upwards against
Richard, for which his promissory note was given (see
Nos. 234, 235,) in a form sufficiently legal in this coun
try, but not capable of being enforced in France, for
want of authentication before a notary and payment of
the stamp duty. And on the 17th January, John Cod
man, being made aware of the insufficiency of this in
strument as the foundation of a mortgage in France,
empowered his attorney to receive a new obligation for
the same debt, or a part of it, in such form as the
French laws required.
Mr. Vans was doubtless aware of these movements,
and of John Codman's intention to obtain payment, or
security, out of Richard Codman's real estate. This
we infer from the letter of January 24, 1801, (No. 237,)
addressed by Vans to Mr. John Codman. Mr. Vans
and his counsel, in their publications, often inquire, why
John Codman should have become a party to the nego
tiations for settlement with Vans, if he was not also a
party to the debt ; — and they rely much upon their
ability to produce one or two letters from John Cod
man proposing terms of settlement. Unluckily for Mr.

127
Vans' argument his own hand has recorded the truth
upon this part of the case. " At present," says he in
his letter of the 24th January, " after thinking of the
situation in which your brother" (not you — or your
house) " has placed me, I have come to a resolution to
settle with him through you, 'if you will give rae any
terms I ought to accept. I therefore propose to you
for to say what you will give me in money for my de
mand of 145,000 livres, and quit ; — and also what you
will give Madame Vans for her deraand ; — for if you of
fer anything I can accept I will settle with you." That
is, instead of calling upon John Codraan as his debtor
to pay him, he proposes to John Codman to buy up his
deraand upon Richard, and thus to effect a settlement
between them. He goes on — " at the same time
permit rae to observe that I have two obligations of
Mr. Codraan," [meaning those for the 8,416 rentes
tiers consolide, and the 100,000 rentes provisoires,]
"which will put him in jail if I chuse. And also it is
in ray power to prevent both you and your brother frora
leaving this country until this business is settled.*
Therefore, sir, if you have me in your power to get
POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY, I have you in my power
to keep you at Paris,\ and unless you make use of your
power I shall not raake use of mine." How, let us ask,
could John Codraan get possession of Richard's proper-
* J. C.'s avowed purpose in visiting Paris was to get his own debt, and
also to wind up Richard's aifairs. "This Vans in various ways, but par
ticularly by the magnitude and unreasonableness of his own claims, could
embarrass and prevent. Americans too, in those days, were often detain
ed upon unfounded complaints against them, either as Englishmen, or as
persons suspected of political intrigue. Nothing was easier than for
those who were on the right side in politics and on good terms with the
police, upon a charge of " indvismej" or some other revolutionary crime,
to cause the arrest ofa private enemy on some colourable pretext of pub
lic offence. Some such measure doubtless was the threat here intended.
f Not as in Richard's case, to put you in jail for debt.

128
ty and hold it against Vans, if John and Richard were
both jointly liable on Vans' deraand ? Or why are
special induceraents, accorapanied with this species of
raenace, held out to John to becorae the purchaser of
Vans' claim against Richard, if Vans held that claim
equally against both? He adds a postscript, " N. B.
I have my agents in the departments who will give me
immediate notice of your having a bill of sale of your
brother's estates." This little postscript is a key to the
whole letter. A transfer of property from Richard, in
payment, or as security, for the large debt which he
owed John, was the very thing which Vans now appre
hended — probably he knew that such measures were
really in progress. But of what importance was it to
him whether the estates stood in tbe narae of John, or
of Richard Codman, if both were his debtors?
Another letter from Vans to John Codman, dated 28th
January, requires the surrender of certain papers in Rich
ard's possession as a preliminary to the proposed nego
tiation, which was now to be conducted through John.
A third letter from Vans to John Codman, dated
29th January, is a singular production, as it seems
to recommend the execution of an idea which Richard
Codman had formerly suggested, namely, the buying
up of Vans' debts in England, by way of offset against
his demands, so as to pay him in his own coin.
Vans seems to think he should be glad to have these
debts, which so grievously embarrassed him, and kept
him skulking about, on his American expedition, in
the manner described in his own letters, in so good
hands as those of Mr. John Codman, and he even
intimates that such a purchase was likely to be quite a
speculation, if John Codman would but give him a new

129
credit to trade upon. In the course of his letter, he
says — " All I ask is to be free and clear from embar-
rassraents for five years, and with your credit I can pay
all my debts, if they were a million." In what way he
expected to be able to avail himself of John Codman's
credit, does not so clearly appear ; but the letter is, at
least, evidence, that Vans was at that time fully aware
ofthe extent and value of John Codman's credit, just
as the letter in which he offers to take four shillings in
the pound from Richard, and expects daily to hear that
he had put in his bilan, shows that he was acquainted
with the full extent and value of Richard's credit and
resources. We now approach a period in the correspondence
which exhibits some of those shameful falsehoods and
fabrications, by which Mr. Vans has contrived to impose
upon the public, with an appearance of evidence against
John Codman. We only glance at thera at present —
being now concerned chiefly in narrating facts in the
order of their actual occurrence. We shall bye and bye
exhibit the frauds and forgeries in full relief.
We have just given three letters from Vans to John
Codman, under the dates of 24th, 28th, and 29th of
January, 1801, inviting him to step forward and effect
a settlement for Richard. It appears by John Cod
man's travelling letter-book, that on the 30th January
he wrote a short answer,* simply acknowledging the
receipt of these three letters — "concerning your demand
on my brother," — and expressing a desire to converse
with Mr. Vans on the subject, being of opinion that the
measures Vans was taking, were calculated to injure
* See Document No. 240.
17

130
both parties. For this purpose, he invites Vans to an
interview, before noon of the sarae day. This letter,
as it shows plainly that John Codraan understood Mr,
Vans' deraand to be only against Richard, could not
well be twisted into an argument in favor of his claim
upon John. Mr. Vans, therefore, suppresses it alto
gether. He has never published or produced any such
letter. John Codman, finding that Vans did not call at the
time appointed, thereupon writes him a second letter,
of the sarae date,* enclosing a stateraent of what he
should advise his brother to agree to — although he says
he had not consulted his brother about it. This letter
Mr. Vans does produce, and publishes as evidence that
John Codman had volunteered to raake him a proposi
tion for settlement, without even consulting Richard
Codman about it. " If John Codman," he repeatedly
asks in his pamphlets, " was not a copartner with Rich
ard Codman, why interfere with the settlement of Vans
without the knowledge or consent of Richard Codman.?"
For the reason why he should have interfered at all,
we refer Mr. Vans to his own letter, of the 24th Jan
uary, in vvhich he himself expressly invites the inter
ference. This letter of his own, it does not comport
with :Mr. Vans' interest to publish, and he, of course,
suppresses it. The reason why John Codraan inter
fered with a proposition upon which he had not ex
pressly consulted his brother, is apparent upon the face
of the letter itself^t was only a proposition which he
should (idcisk his brother to agree to. Besides which,
he was doubtless acquainted with his brother's general
' See Document No. 241.

131
views on the subject of Mr. Vans' pretensions, and
being hiraself his brother's largest creditor, he had
sorae right, if he had seen fit, even to dictate terms of
settlement. The statement enclosed, as recorded by John Cod
raan in his letter-book, was in the following terras :
Terms of settlement proposed to Wm. Vans, for his
demand on R. Codman for the 8,415 rentes.
The lands at Chartres, which rent for upwards of
7,000 livres per annum, one for the other, on condition
that these lands shall be subject to three years' redemp
tion, i. e. any time within three years, if R. Codman,
or his heirs or assigns, pay W. Vans, his heirs or as
signs, the said 8,415 rente tiers con., with the interest
thereon, that then the said lands and their rents shall
be returned, and revert to the said R. Codman. Bal
ance of account due /rom R. C. to Wm. Vans, 1st Ni-
vose, year 9. (21st December, 1800,)— 64,582. 7 ;
also the value of the rente provisoire, whatever that
may be liquidated at, or any other demand vvhich exists
between them ; for this amount R. C. to subscribe his
note of hand to W. Vans, payable at such times as they
may agree, on condition that if R. C. can possess him
self of any debts due by W. Vans, or Freeman & Vans
in England, or elsewhere, that the said Vans will ac
cept them in offset one for the other in equal amount.
Mr. Vans will please consider that the 8,415 rentes
tiers con., was sold by R. Codman for less than 20,000
livres, which now costs him 100,000 to pay it, and that
of this 20,000 livres, raised by the sale of these rentes,
sorae part was paid to Madame Vans by his order be
fore any monies belonging to Madame Vans came into
R. Codman's hands, — the operation of which is oppres
sive to Codman. Mr. Vans will also consider R. Cod
man's recent losses, and that this proposal may event
ually secure Mr. Vans his whole demand, which no
other creditor can expect.

152
Such a paper as this, it would never do for Mr. Vans
to produce — since it most expressly excludes the idea
of any claim having been made against John Codman
himself at that time. In lieu of it, therefore, he pro
duced before the comraittee of 1836, another paper —
the same which he has published in one of his pamph
lets — as John Codman's proposition to him, and which
we shall bye and bye exhibit, with the proof of its
falsehood. At present, we content ourselves whh
standing by our own document as the true one.
This proposition calls forth the indignant answer
from Vans, under date of 31st January, 1801, which
acknowledges the receipt of John Codman's letter of
the 30th, " with the statement enclosed, making me an
offer for a settlement with your brother, R. Codman,'"'
and after some taunting remarks, proceeds as follows :
" I now make some observations to you respecting
your situation and demand on your brother R. C, 1st,
your demand on him proceeds from the sales of several
cargoes belonging to J. & R. C, sent to France dur
ing the existence of the house of J. ^ R. Codman, and
also from the bills drawn by J. ^ R. C. on their house
at Boston in favor of James Prince and others. This
is the fact, and I can prove it.
The next fact is that there is several judgments ob
tained against your brother, and several inscriptions [or
attachments] made on his estates bought at the time the
copartnership of J. ^ R. C. existed. It is also well
known your brother has settled and paid Mr. Recamier
12,000 livres for his demand of 28,000 livres.
Therefore, sir, as I am in full possession of these
facts, and being also well informed that any transfer
your brother may make to you, or others, in his present

133
situation, will be null and void according to law, /
therefore feel full as secure in my situation as you can
be in yours, and do not fear that either you, or he, can
do any more injury to rae in this business than you
have already done. It is not ray wish to go to law,
on the contra I ara willing to make a great sacrifice for
the sake of a settleraent. This day I have three law
yers who raeet together to determine whether I ought
to accept your offer or not, and their decision I will
follow. This decision I will communicate to you to
morrow. Law I detest, but the raoraent I enter into
it, if it takes all I have to get justice it shall go, and
when all is gone this world will be too sraall for such
men as your brother and me to exist in.
You had therefore better think well of the sacrifice
I would advise Mrs. V. to make of her demand of the
inscriptions, a sum which may araount to £40,000 stg.
This sacrifice I was in hopes would have induced
you to raake honorable offers, but which I find, frora
present appearance, is not your intention to make.
Therefore sir, if you persist in your demand on your
brother's estates to the injury of his creditors you
must take the consequence, as at present I do not mean
to make any other sacrifice than those already declared
to you and him."
We are aware that Mr. Vans produces another and
very different paper, which he pretends to be a copy
kept by himself, of his answer to John Codman's letter
of the 30th of January. This we shall take notice of
hereafter. At present our object is merely to narrate
facts, according to our belief and understanding of the
truth, which is finally to be judged of by all the evidence.
We find no letter from Vans among the documents cor-

134
responding to the letter, which he says he sent; —
we do find an original letter, in Vans' handwriting, of
which the principal contents are stated above, and the
whole of which is annexed ; — and this letter, under
date of 12 Pluviose An. 9. (or 31st January, 1801,)
purports, upon the face of it, to be the answer to a let
ter frora John Codraan, under date of 1 1 Pluviose, (or
January 30th,) with a stateraent enclosed, making an
offer for a settlement with R. C. We therefore, for
the present, assume this to be the genuine answer; — and
a most remarkable one it is, upon any hypothesis, con
sistent with the claim of Wm. Vans on the estate of
John Codman ; for the foundation of that claim is that
Richard and John Codraan being partners, John was,
therefore, liable for Richard's engagements to Vans.
Yet, so far is Mr. Vans from setting up any such pre
tence, in this letter, that he complains of John Codman
for persisting in his demands, on Richard's estates, to
the injury of i?ic^ar(Z'5 creditors; and assures John, that
since John's own demands grew out of the old partner
ship transactions of J. & R. Codman, in which Richard
was jointly interested, and since Richard was now so
notoriously insolvent as to have attachments on all his
estates, and to have settled with one of his creditors by
paying less than fifty per cent, of his debt, any transfer
ofthe property vvhich Richard, in his present situation,
might make to secure this partnership debt of John's,
vvould be merely null and void, as to Richard's separate
creditors. "And therefore," says Vans, " I feel as secure"
[of being paid out of this property,] " in my situation,"
" as you can be in yours." Of what importance was
all this, if John was as much the debtor as Richard ?
Why is this world to be too small to hold him and

135
Richard, while John, equally liable, and far more able,
and therefore far more culpable in not paying his just
debts, goes at large, without even a threat of violence ?
With what face is it that Mr. Vans now pretends that
the dissolution of partnership between John and Richard
Codman was unknown at Paris, even as late as the sum
mer of 1802, when here, in his own letter of January
1801, he speaks of the time when the copartnership
existed, and when /. ^. R. Codman at Paris, drew on
their house at Boston, as a time long gone by? Why
is it that he thinks it necessary to consult three law
yers upon the simple question, whether he should take
four shillings in the pound of what he esteemed a just
and legal demand, if he really considered John Codraan,
whose credit he had rated at a raillion, responsible
for the debt.? Why is it, in short, that through the
whole of this volurainous correspondence, we see not
an intimation that he looked for his remedy beyond
Richard Codraan, an acknowledged bankrupt, and
Richard Codraan's doubtful property, already covered
with attachraents .?
In the order of events, it will be borne in mind, that
at the date of this letter, 31st January, 1801, Richard
Codman, by a notarial act, gave to John his obligation
in due form, according to the laws of France, for 1 1 0,000
livres on account of his debt, accompanied by an in
scription, or raortgage, on an estate called La Thuillerie,
Notice of this, probably, led Vans, in the preceding letter,
to raake known his views about the invalidity of such
transfers between the brothers.
The next letter frora Vans to John Codman is with
out date. We fix it at the 5th of February, 1801, by
Richard's letter which follows.

136
This letter from Vans, (No. 244,) says, " in conse
quence of your offer this morning I raake you the fol
lowing proposal ; to accept 200,000.
Cash down, - - - 60,000
R. C's obligation in the name
of those Mr. V. chuses, at 10
years, for - - - 100,000
Paying an interest of 3,000
livres per year, to be paid annu-
ally. To give Mrs. V. a little house
near Daramartin, - - 12,000
Putnam's note, - - 12,000
Rose's note, - - - 9,000
 203,000."
That is to say, he offers to accept 203,000 for claims
which he estimates at near 600,000 ; little more than
33 1-3 per cent. And how to be paid .? One half of it,
in Richard Codman's sole and separate obligation, paya
ble ten years off, with interest, annually at three per cent. !
The obligation indeed was to be " in the name of those
Mr. V. chuses." This has been argued upon, as if it signi
fied that Mr. Vans was to have the privilege of electing
who should sign the obligation. Absurd indeed ! Not
only the words do not naturally present such an idea,
but they cannot bear such a grammatical construction.
He might, upon that hypothesis, had his offer been ac
cepted, have required that it should be signed by the
Barings of London, or the King of Great Britain
himself, or any other total stranger to the business.
And yet it was to be Richard Codman's obligation all
the while ! What then does it mean .? Why plainly
that Vans should have the privilege of choosing the

137
name of the persons to whom the obligation should be
made payable, that is, whether to Mrs. Vans, or to
Mr. Pacaud, or to any other person who was already
interested in the claira, or whom he might wish to
pay out of it. For, surrounded and pressed by creditors,
it was not exactly convenient for Mr. Vans to take
obligations payable to himself, thereby subjecting the
debt, according to the laws of France, to be arrested by
his creditors, whose deraands Richard Codraan hiraself
might buy up at a great discount. He reserves there
fore the right of appointing the payee.
For the answer to this note we are indebted to one
of Mr. Vans' paraphlets, not denying however the genu
ineness of the original, which was produced before the
late committees in Richard Codraan's handwriting. It
is thus, under date of February 6, 1801. (See No.
245.) "Mr. Vans, Sir, It is utterly out of ray power to
comply with the offer contained in the letter to my
brother under this date. It might perhaps be accepted
if the article of 60,000 were taken out of such property
as I have — say Bromfield's and Houghton's note.
Your humble servant, RICHARD CODMAN."
" The article of 60,000," it will be recollected was
" cash" — of all articles in the world the most trouble
some fpr Richard Codraan to furnish at that time. He
therefore proposes that this amount should be taken out
of such property as he has — and he particularizes, for ex
ample, a certain note which he then held.
This voluntary resumption of the correspondence by
Richard Codman leads to a letter from Vans to him,
18

158
without date, but fixed by its tenor at the 5th or 6th
of February, 1801. It runs thus: "I have received
your note in answer to my letter to your brother.
I observe that the 60,000 was the offer made me by
your brother instead of Dreux. Therefore, if you pre
fer to give rae Dreux, instead of the 60,000, I will ac
cept it. I make this sacrifice for an amicable settle
ment. If you refuse this sacrifice, take care of yourself,
for depend on it you will repent in dust and ashes."
This " Dreux," we understand to signify the estate
called Rouvrey near Chartres, in the district of Dreux,
which had formed a principal part of the offer proposed
by John Codman on the 30th January, where it is
spoken of as "the lands at Chartres," producing an in
come of 7,000 livres per annum, and in lieu of which
Vans asserts, in the present letter, that John Codman
had afterwards offered him 60,000 livres in cash. But
since Richard now objects to the cash. Vans proposes,
by way of sacrifice, to take Dreux, (valued at 100,000
livres) instead, telling Richard, at the same time, to
take care of himself if he refuses to let him make
this sacrifice.
The answer to this, if any, we have not the means
of giving, as Mr. Vans has not favored us with it in any
of his publications, and no copy has been preserved.
In the order of events, it will now be noted, that on
the 6th of February, 1801, Richard Codraan executed
and recorded the assignraent to John of a mortgage on
the estate called Creraille.
On the same day. Vans, who had been in corres
pondence with both the brothers alternately, on the sub
ject of a settlement out of Richard Codman's property,
and who knew that John Codman, as the principal

139
creditor, and now assignee, had acquired a deep inter
est in that property, addresses a letter to the brothers
jointly — a circumstance which is built upon as indicat
ing his belief that the partnership still existed, and that
John Codraan was equally liable to hira with Richard.
The suggestion, however, that Vans did not know, at
this time, of the dissolution of the house of J. & R. Cod
man, has been sufficiently exploded by the whole tenor
of the correspondence. It requires at present no special
answer. After writing first to Richard Codman, and
then to John Codman, with a request that he would act
as negotiator, or otherwise, towards a settlement be
tween himself and Richard, and thus entering into active
correspondence with John Codman on the subject, and
then returning to Richard Codman, and finding that his
letters to one brother were communicated to the other,
nothing could be more natural than that Vans should
at last write to thera jointly, (this as it happens is the
only instance of such a letter which has come to our
knowledge,) about a business, which, though in different
relations, greatly concerned thera both. That raust be a
poor claira indeed on John Codraan's estate, which is
built upon no stronger foundation than a slight circura-
stance like this, which, when taken in connection with
the other docuraents, absolutely raelts into nothing.
In this letter Mr. Vans raakes a new offer, and one,
which in sorae of its features is so wild and extraordi
nary, that it alraost leads one to believe that he consid
ered his whole claims, even upon Richard Codman, to
be mere moonshine. He says that he has at last got
an offer to propose, which will enable both John and
Richard Codraan to quit France within ten days. In
the first place, he says, he will accept both for himself

140
and Mrs. Vans,in full payment of their respective claims,
" such a part of your estates in France," [i. e. Rifchard's
estates now transferred to John,] "as shall be our pro
portion." — Proportion compared with what.? Manifestly
the proportion which the araount of their demands should
bear to that of all the other creditors of Richard Codman,
of whom John was the principal. That is, he proposes
to come in with John Codraan and the other creditors,
for a rateable distribution of a bankrupt's estate. This
proportion is to be " ascertained by arbitrators or law,"
as John and Richard Codraan should elect. Secondly,
the balance found due to him, after deducting the divi
dend, " is to be paid in ten years, on billets to order, one
tenth annually, with interest,-^Mr. Richard Codman
[the bankrupt,] to give bond [without surety] for the
fulfilment of the agreement." In consideration of which
Vans offers his services to settle for them all their af
fairs in France. He only wants a full power of attor
ney to dispose of the property in France as he pleases.
He is then to remove all the attachraents on Richard's
estates by giving his own notes to the creditors. The
estates he proposes to keep till " peace value," nsvag
thera in the mean time for the comraon interest of this
new copartnership. He next proposes to buy on credit,
raortgaging the estates for security, from 1 to 500,000
livres worth of merchandize ; this he is to consign J. C.
at Boston for the joint account, and he is sure of mak
ing from 50 to 300 per cent, profit on the shipment.
The profits on this shipment are to enable Richard to
pay off his debts in America, [meaning his debts to John,
for he owed no other there,] &c., &c.
For the answer to this* we are indebted again to one
* See Document No. 248.

141
of Mr. Vans' pamphlets. It is true that it appears there
under the date of 28 Pluviose, or 16th February, which
would be rather a tardy answer to a letter of the 1 8th
Pluviose, or 6th February ; — but when the original was
produced before the committee of 1836, there appeared
a blot in place of one of the figures, which made it
illegible. We suppose it to have been dated 20 Pluvi
ose. The tenor of the letter, which is from Richard
Codman, sufficiently shows that it is an answer to the
letter addressed to the brothers jointly — for it begins
" I received this morning your letter addressed to me
and my brother* The plans of future operations will
not be convenient for me to be concerned in." It urges
Vans to accept the terms which had been offered, be
cause he says " my brother, who is yet here, will dis
charge his claims" (on the estate offered,) " if I can
immediately adjust with you." The offer is an estate
estimated at 60,000 livres, Richard Codman's own note
payable in ten years for 100,000 livres, and cash in two
months, 40,000 livres. It inforras him also that John
Codman is about leaving Paris.
Mr. Vans publishes another short note from Richard
Codraan, which he puts under the general date of
Pluviose, without any particular day of that month.
Mr. Vans has his own reasons for avoiding precise
dates — and when the original was produced before the
committee of 1 835, the date was found to be torn off.
We suppose it to have been written about the same
date with the next preceding. It merely repeats the
information, that his brother is about leaving Paris —
that he hiraself adheres to his last proposal — but would
be glad of an interview before his brother goes.

142
By a letter of the same date, 8th February, from
John Codman to Babut,* it appears, that being on the
point of departure, he had appointed Mr. Babut his agent,
to act for hira in relation to his clairas on his brother's
property — authorising hira to discharge his lien on cer
tain estates, which had been offered to Vans, if Vans
should conclude to accept the offer and discharge his
brother in full. It raay be noted, by the way, that in
this confidential letter to his own agent, he does not even
ask that Vans should be required to discharge any body
but Richard — for the best of all reasons — that Vans, up
to that tirae, had not pretended to extend his claim be
yond Richard, and such an idea had never presented
itself to John Codman's mind. The other estates
mortgaged to hira by Richard, he desires raay be held
sacredly for his own use, and that when sold, the pro
ceeds should be remitted to his London bankers, the
Barings. It appears, also, by this letter, that John
Codman took with him, on leaving Paris, the account
settled with his brother, and the notes given for its bal
ance, not anticipating, at that time, any litigation which
could make thera necessary, or useful, in France — as
the notarial obligations, already executed and registered,
were the foundation of his mortgages, and as he sup
posed, sufficient.
A letter of the 12th February,! from Richard Codman,
addressed to J. Codman at Calais, shows that the latter
had left Paris at the anticipated tirae — after having re-
^sided there nearly four months. Vans knowing of his
arrival, knowing beforehand of his intended departure,
communicating with hira while there, and never once
¦? See Document No. 250. f See Document No. 251.

143
having intimated that he considered him in any way
responsible for Richard Codman's engagements.
A letter, of the 13th February, frora John Codman
at Calais, to his agent, Babut, impresses on hira the
iraportance of not perraitting the estates, which had
been mortgaged to secure his own deraands against
Richard, to be diverted to any other purpose, except
where he had previously agreed to discharge his own
lien, for the purpose of enabling Richard to settle his
affairs with Vans — especially since he had advanced to
Richard in Paris, 20,000 livres, in addition to all his
forraer advances, which new loan was in part, expressly,
to redeera one of these estates frora an incumbrance.
On the 16th February, 1801, Richard Codman wrote
to Vans, raaking another proposition.* We have not
the original, nor any copy of this letter, in our posses
sion ; — but its substance is recited in the French judg-
raent, of which a translation is annexed, and which will
be the subject of future coraraent. From this it ap
pears that Richard then estimated his whole debt to
Vans to be 206,000 fr.

for which he offers the estate of La Thu
illerie, (or Damraartin,) valued at 80,000
less mortgages upon it, - 33,000
 47,000 fr.
The estate of Rouvrey, near Dreux, 110,000 "
Cutting's note, - - - 14,000 "
Rose's " - - 10,000 "
Brorafield & Houghton's, 28,000 "

209,000 fr.

* See Document No. 255.

144
At the same time he adds, that it was impossible for
him, under every circumstance, to pay more than five
eighths of what he owed, but that if Vans accepted this
offer it should be fulfilled within twenty-four hours.
Of course, it was understood that John Codman would
discharge his claims upon the estates named in the
proposition, for the sake of enabling Richard to make
a final settleraent of his affairs.
Vans' letter of the sarae date,* affects to disbelieve
Richard's inability to pay, but names terms, which he
says he will accept, if acceded to by the next noon.
These are —
The estates at Dreux, valued at 100,000 fr.
instead of 110,000,
Firmancourt, or Damraartin, (the sarae
which is also called La Thuillerie,)
valued clear, at - - - 60,000 "
instead of 80,000
Rose's note, _ _ .
Cash, - - - _ _
Cutting's note, . . _
and " bill of exchange in favor of John C." 222,400 fr.
The principal difference, therefore, in the two propo
sitions, is in the valuation of the estates named, the
substitution of cash again, for such notes as Richard
held, and the revival of the old £100 bill, (equal to
2,400 fr.) which John Codman still held against Vans,
and which Vans was still raost anxious to get up.
* See Document No. 254.

10,000

((

40,000

((

10,000

(1

2,400

<i

145
February 16, 1801, Richard Codman writes again,
as Mr. Vans states, and he publishes what purports to
be a letter of that date, acknowledging the receipt
" this morning of your letter addressed to me and my
brother." This answer of Richard Codman's, (which
we have already published in its proper place,*) is
greatly relied upon by Vans, as showing that some letter,
not produced by us, as he would have the reader believe,
had been sent by him, on the subject of his claims,
addressed to both the brothers. How this form of ad
dress happened, and how little real bearing it has on the
question of John Codman's being implicated as a debtor,
has been sufficiently noticed under the date of the 6th
February. But why is not this letter, which Richard
Codman here acknowledges to have received on the
morning of the 16th of February, produced .? " Without
doubt," says Mr. Child,t " because the contents would
correspond with the address" — to Messrs. J. & R. Cod
man" — and therefore, as he suggests, would tend to
prove that the house of J. & R. Codman, (dissolved on
the 1st May, 1798,) was still existing on the 16th Feb
ruary, 1801, or was at least believed by Mr. Vans to be
then existing, and would exhibit the clear evidence of
his joint demand for payment upon both the brothers.
Our reply is, that the letter referred to by Richard
Codman is produced,X and is the same which we
before raentioned as addressed to Messrs. J. & R. Cod
raan, under date of February 6. The whole difficulty
is, that Mr. Vans publishes this answer of Richard
Codraan's, under a false date, calhng it the 28th Plu
viose, instead of the 20th — as is sufficiently manifest
* See No. 248. f See the Review, p. 33. \ See No. 247.
19

146
frora inspection of the original, with a blot over the date,
as well as from its tenor, which is plainly an answer to
the letter of the 6th February, addressed to J. & R.
Codman. For what does R. Codman raean, when he
says, " the plans of future operations will not be con
venient for rae to be concerned in. My first wish is
to liquidate all existing concerns between us and to
begin the world anew." What can he raean, except
ing those wild scheraes of future operation, which Vans
had suggested in the letter of the 6th February, ad
dressed to the brothers jointly, which we produce.
There is no evidence that any other letter was ever
addressed by Vans to the brothers jointly, except the
supposed date of February 16th for Richard Codman's
answer. We see the answer exactly fits the letter of
the 6th February, which was so addressed. We see in
the original that the true date has been rendered illeg
ible. Besides all which we find, by other letters,* that
on the 16th February, when Richard Codman is made
to acknowledge the receipt on that morning of a letter
addressed to J. & R. Codman, a whole week had elapsed
since John Codman had left Paris, and that Vans had
notice on the 6th February, that he was about leaving.
Of course, he would not have addressed a letter to J.
& R. Codman at Paris on the 16th, when he well knew
that J. Codman had left Paris some days before, and
was then on his way to London. And if this letter is
not, as we contend, the answer to the letter we produce,
addressed to J. & R. Codman, on the 6th February,
we ask where is the answer to that letter, and why does
not Mr. Vans, to whora the possession of it belongs,
produce it .? » See Nos. 250, 251, 252.

147
Vans' next letter, dated February 17th,* proposes a
reference again, to determine what was Yans' fair pro
portion of Richard Codman's active property, which he
says he will accept, with R. Codman's notes, for the
balance, in sums of 12,000 livres each, payable within
ten years, and on interest at 6 per cent. This offer,
he adds, he shall have printed, (a favorite raode of
action with hira,) with all the other papers, and laid
before the Tribunals.
We find no copy of an answer to this, and Vans pro
duces none, but writes the next day, (18th February,
1801,) that he does not think they should agree by con
versing, "unless the enoculation [inoculation] given
you by your brother is done away. Reraeraber your
sacred word of honor to Mrs. Vans and myself, that you
would give her Drew [the estate at Dreux] for the sale
of the houses," &c. He then proposes that Richard
should give him this estate on account, he taking off all
his attachments on Richard's property, provided Richard
would obligate himself to give himself and Madame
Vans, " our proportion of your property," — "and for
the balance 1 repeat I will wait the ten years, taking bil
lets payable to order," &c. A postscript adds — " N. B.
There is one thing that I have fixed ow,weather I mention
it in my letters, or not; which is, that the 100 sterling
bill is always to be paid by you to your brother, as I do
not raean to have him pursuing me for this sura — as I
know him too well." John Codman, the debtor for some
millions of livres, pursuing Vans, his creditor, upon a
paltry demand of £100 ! What an idea !
Thus Mr. Vans seeras, at last as at first, to be still
dreading John Codman's acknowledged demand against
* See No. 256.

148
him, instead of pressing an infinitely larger demand
against John Codman; and suffers him, after four months
residence in Paris, to retire, upon full notice of his
intention to do so, without arresting him, or summoning
him, nay, without having urged, or even once requested
him, to pay the enormous debt which he now pretends
John Codraan then owed him.
Leaving Richard Codman and Vans to their negotia
tions, which came to no result, we now propose to
accompany John Codman, with whose acts we are chiefly
concerned, and by whom only we hold ourselves bound,
on his homeward expedition.
It should be premised, however, before quitting Paris,
since the fact has not been distinctly stated, though
sometiraes alluded to, in the correspondence, that, pen
ding the long negotiation which has been detailed. Vans,
and those who claimed under Vans, were regularly pur
suing against Richard Codman, their remedies at law,
and were prosecuting suits in the Court of Commerce
at Paris, to recover judgment against him, on their re
spective demands. John Codman, it will be recollected,
was likewise pursuing his remedies to get possession of
Richard's property, by means of the assignments and
transfers which Richard had made to him, for the purpose
of securing the large balance due on the account settled,
or by the settlement note, or by the notarial obligations,
above mentioned, all of which were raerely different
evidences of the sarae debt, of about ;^60,000, which
had grown up in the raanner before stated. Frora these
conflicting raortgages of John Codman's, and attach
ments on the part of Richard's other creditors, covering
the same property, it was quite apparent that a contest
for priority and preference raust arise, if it had not al-

149
ready begun, unless Richard should be able to raake
terms of settlement with and among the several claim
ants. To enable hira to do so, it has been seen, and
will be yet farther seen, that John Codraan was always
wiUing to make as great a sacrifice of his own security,
as reason, justice, and fraternal affection could deraand.
Having spent four raonths in Paris, with no other object,
after the settleraent of his own affairs with Richard, than
to aid Richard in bringing his to sorae close, and then
finding it impossible to fix any definite period within
which this could be accomplished, he employed Mr.
Babut, a respectable banker at Paris, to represent his
interests in any farther arrangements, negotiations, or
litigations, which might arise, in respect to the distribu
tion and ownership of Richard's property ; and having
given his instructions, proceeded homeward.
The narrative of subsequent events, in respect to John
Codraan, in connection with Vans, may be reduced into
a brief compass. After a few weeks spent in London,
and a few more at sea, he arrived at Boston, in June,
1801. There he resumed business with some activity,
but upon a very circumscribed scale, bending his efforts
chiefly to discharge the heavy balance still due to the
Barings. He engaged little in European commerce,
except with that view, but took pains to secure what
commission business he could from abroad ; — and he died
within two years after his return. To complete his
narrative, we shall have occasion therefore to refer only
to a few letters, or extracts of letters, which are annex
ed, chiefly addressed to Babut, his confidential agent at
Paris, or to his brother Richard, or to the Barings.
He writes to Richard, from London, March 6, 1801,
(No. 298,) that he had given the Barings a formal ac-

150
knowledgement of the entire balance they claimed, from
the late house of J. & R. Codman, allowing them the
£5000 which had so long been in question, — "so that
all is now as they wish it, and I have nothing to do but
to go home and go to work to pay them." He also states,
that he had agreed with Wiggin, a creditor of Richard
Codman's in England, to let him in proportionally whh
hiraself, in the Firmancourt estate and the Cremille
estate, " first deducting the money I advanced in Paris."
But this, he adds, " I can not do to any other creditors,
considering the mountain I have got to struggle with ; "
— meaning the great debt still due to the Barings. He
regrets that he had not taken frora Richard, the obliga
tion of Brorafield & Houghton, as they might complain
if it should get into Vans' hands ; — " and if ever it is in
my power to serve you, / must have the means. If you
have not parted with it I recomraend you to send it to
rae with a delegation (void of expense) in my favour."
— " You must be expected this way ere long, for after
you have finished your affair with Vans you can have
nothing to detain you. Nobody will advance, or do any
thing for you, while you stay where you are. You must
either quit, or live by your own means. But removed
into a new sphere, while your character is good, you
have the only chance that reraains for your future wel
fare. Sir F. [Baring] spoke a great deal of this, that
your integrity was your treasure, and that you must not
risk even that into situations too trying. For God's sake
therefore quit." — " Strobell don't come yet. I long to
hear by him how you come on with that tedious and
disagreeable creature Vans."
Under the same date, he writes to Babut, (No. 299,)
begging him to understand that he cannot advance for

151
his brother more than he already has, and that no monies
are to be paid in Richard Codman's affairs, for which
either John Codman himself, or his friends the Barings,
will be responsible. And he writes the Barings to sira
ilar effect. (No. 300.)
On the 18th of March, he writes again frora London,
to Richard, (No. 301,) renewing his advice not to trans
fer the bond of Brorafield & Houghton to Vans, " for if
you do it will be a source of future trouble to you to
balance between the parties. It will be like another
Deblois, [referring to the transactions, whatever they
were, between Vaiis, Deblois, and Richard Codraan,
which have before been alluded to, in the letters between
R. C. and Vans,] — and I think you have had experience
enough to make you sick of being every body's friend
and advocate, which in the end raakes enemies of all
parties, and fills one with chagrin. If you have not
parted with that instrument of Brorafield & H.'s, trans
fer it to rae, by a line of transfer annexed, which you can
do without expense. It raay in time operate some in
demnification to me, which I know you desire, and I
shall have it in my power to prevent any disagreeable
consequences which I foresee if Vans gets it. With
regard to this creature I see stocks have fallen, which
raay operate in your favor. If you have not yet settled
with him, I advise you to give hira the Dreux estate for
100,000 fr.,* and your note payable in some future time,
at moderate interest, for the remainder, if you cannot do
better by a coraproraise. But as you are on the spot
you can judge better ; all I urge is that you lose no time,
for the object of L' Isle de France is immense, [refer-
* For this object he had authorised the withdrawal of his own claims
on that estate. See his letter to Babut.

152
ring to a new line of business in which he thought R.
C. might be employed.] I saw a gentleman yesterday
from that country who more than confirraed my opinion,
which you know was highly raised. At any rate you
will be ruined in fact, in every sense, if you do not leave
France. It is hardly possible for rae now to keep your
fame afloat from those of our countrymen whose char
acters in France are sunk in infamy. Necessity is im
perious. It requires your removal. Depend on what a
brother says. You will have no confidence, but distrust,
while you stay ; and to live so is a curse. I have called
on none of V.'s creditors, for I wish not to defile myself
with any thing that belongs to him. / saw enough of
his intricacies and intrigues while I was in Paris ; — and
yet they were too weak and low to operate as a snare.
Get rid of him and his — . Pray where is Strobell .? I
expect him every day, and full information by him. I
know your disposition to ease, and to put things off, so
that I must again tease you to consider yourself as de
parting, on the wing, and finishing. Let every thing
tend to this. Adieu."
On the 5th April, he writes, from London still, to
Babut & Co., (No. 302,) that he had well considered
their suggestions respecting the benefit he himself might
derive from making a further pecuniary advance to Rich
ard, to assist him in a settleraent with Vans, as it would
liberate his own claims on the Cremille and Firman
court estates from the embarrassments occasioned by the
counter claims of Vans and Richard's other creditors ; —
" but notwithstanding the desirable appearances which
such an arrangeraent holds out, I am," he says, " so
situated at a distance from the scene of operation, and
of course subject to renewed disappointment, that I

153
have come to an unalterable determination, under no
circumstances and in no event, to come under any new
advances, or any new engagements, for my brother. I
have done all, and raore than a brother ought to do, and
I raust now leave hira to his fate. If you can secure
my rights in those two estates you undoubtedly will.
The claims that you hold upon them, and also the se
curity which you retain in the Dreux estate, will
I hope secure the two former for ray use. My hopes
are that the Dreux estate will enable ray brother to set
tle with Mr. Vans, when Mr. V. finds he has no expec
tation from any other quarter."
So also he writes to the Barings at the same date.
(No. 303.)
From Boston, on the 24th July, 1801, he writes to
Babut, (see No, 312,) saying, "you will doubtless
have seen my brother often, and I should hope ere this
he may have brought his affairs to a close. I am very
sure you will do all in your power to save me something
of the remnants of his property. I can give no further
instructions than what will confirm what I have said
and written to you before."
What these instructions were appears from the for
mer correspondence.
A letter to his friend Alexander Baring, November
9, 1801, (No. 313,) speaks of a gentleman who had
been fortunate in his India concerns, and proceeds thus,
" I was checked in ray operations there by the untoward
affairs in France, and what has or will become of my
brother I cannot foresee. I have done all a brother
ought, and must now leave him, till circumstances place
him in a situation from where I can see better what he
is about. With respect to rayself, my situation is very
20

154
easy and independent, and I can attend again to busi
ness with satisfaction to myself and friends. The worst
is over with rae. I am no longer in suspense ; or dan
ger, from the mistakes of others, and what is past must
be forgotten." On the 30th November, 1801, we find a letter to
Babut, (No. 316,) from which it appears, that John
Codman had received a letter from Richard, informing
hira that the affair with Vans reraained unsettled. He
regrets that his brother should have returned from Au-
vergne to Paris, instead of coming directly home, and
taking the benefit of our systera of bankruptcy, (then
in operation under a law of the United States,) before
which he could expect no one to have new confidence
in him. He then goes on as follows, " he, [Richard,]
writes me that the judgment which Vans obtained
against him, in a clandestine manner, for the obligation
of 5,000 livres rente provisoire, had been annulled by
the Tribunal, and that his hypotheque [raortgage]
upon the estate at Dreux, [Rouvrey,] falls of course ;
therefore raine raust stand good. This is therefore to
authorize and direct you not to relinquish it to Vans,
[as he had been previously authorized to do,] even if
an adjustment can now be raade with hira ; but to keep
'it for my use ; and also that of Dararaartin, [La Thuil
lerie,] and to obtain as ranch more of my brother's
property as you can come at, and persuade him imme
diately to come home."
This object, so near to his heart, of getting his brother
Richard once raore safely horae, and rescued frora the
various mischiefs which surrounded him in Paris, seems
to have been the moving cause of this letter ; and espe
cially of his revocation of the authority, previously given

155
to Babut, to withdraw his claims on certain parts of
Richard's property, should they be agreed upon for
terms of settleraent with Vans. Finding that Richard,
after having once quitted Paris, had returned thither, in
stead of coming home, and apprehending that so long as
the means of negotiation were left, he would be induced
to protract his stay indefinitely, under the fallacious
idea that he was doing what he could towards the settle
raent of his affairs, and that a few raore days or weeks
would close them, John determines at once to cut off
all resources for further negotiation with the intermina
ble Vans, so far as the resources proceeded from or de
pended upon hiraself, and therefore he forbids Babut to
relinquish any of his securities in favor of Vans, and or
ders hira to hold what he can for account of his own
claim against Richard ; thinking by this step most ef
fectually to drive Richard home.
He goes on to speak of his surprize that Richard
should have endeavored to get a new credit frora the
Barings. " He can not expect it," says the letter,
" and indeed I should be sorry if they should give it.
His only way is to come here, and clear himself in a
legal way. Then his friends can and will assist hira.
But by no means suffer him to give notes, payable at a
future day, to hang like a mill stone about his neck.
In short, do not let him liquidate any further with Vans
before he comes here. In the mean tirae, do not give
up ray claira to the Dreux lands, and keep the Firraan-
court estates in your hands ; which I presurae, now
peace has arrived, will sell well. I wish, also, you
raight get hold of the Dararaartin estate, (La Thuil
lerie.) If you find it worth ranch raore than all the
incurabrances, it will be worth while to get a convey-

156
ance* of that likewise ; — and of the Betz estate also.— •
My brother must come here."
At this point of John Codraan's correspondence, it
will be raost convenient to pause for the purpose of
introducing a foreign docuraent, which is esteeraed by
Mr. Vans' counsel to have an important bearing on the
case, and which, probably, came to the knowledge of
John Codraan soon after the writing of the foregoing
letter to Babut. We infer that it had not corae to his
knowledge previously, because it is not raentioned, or
alluded to, in that letter, nor, indeed, in any of his con
fidential correspondence, up to that date. On the other
hand, it is mentioned in the earliest letters to Richard
Codman and to Babut, which follow.
It can not have been forgotten, that the origin of the
transactions between Vans and Richard Codman, out of
which the claira grows, was long subsequent to the dis
solution ; that Vans evidently considered the transac
tions at the time, as they in fact were, to be with
Richard alone, disconnected equally from John, and
from any concerns ofthe former house of J. & R. Cod
man ; and that during the whole negotiation at Paris,
nothing had transpired indicating even a notion on his
part, that he might by any possibility raake out a plau
sible claira against John. On the contrary, while he and
John Codraan were both pursuing their respective rem
edies, as creditors of Richard, against Richard's property,
and while Vans saw himself in danger of losing his whole
debt, by the conveyances which Richard was making
to secure John, the only use he pretends to make of
the fact of a copartnership having once subsisted
* That is, an outright deed, instead ofa mortgage.

157
between John and Richard, is to suggest, that because
John's claim grew out of this former partnership, all
transfers and conveyances to secure it, since Richard
was in a state of bankruptcy, must be null and void in
law, as against the separate creditors of Richard ; — and
"therefore," says he, " I feel rayself as secure in ray situ
ation as you can be in yours."— This was probably some
confused idea he had got from his lawyers about the mar
shalling of a bankrupt's separate effects among his part
nership creditors, and his separate creditors. Afterwards,
as the litigation which we shall hereafter more particu
larly describe, w^ent on between himself and John Cod
man, concerning the merits of their respective claims to
Richard's property. Vans was led to get proof of the
fact of the forraer copartnership, under the idea that it
would tend to defeat the conveyances held by John
Codman, and establish the preference of his own claim.
Having his attention thus pointedly turned to this sub
ject, a new idea at last entered his head, (fertile ever
in schemes to make something out of nothing,) which
was that he might alarm John Codman, and fairly
frighten his claim out of France, by suggesting that the
dissolution of the partnership had never been sufficiently
published in Paris, and that John Codman, on that
account, might be made personally liable to answer
for Richard's engagements. For this purpose, he writes,
not a direct letter of demand upon John Codman,
(directness was not his way,) but a letter to another
person, to be shown to John Codman.
A copy of this letter we now annex.* It asserts, as
the modern petitions do, that Vans had "lent and placed
* See Document No. 317.

158
in the hands of John ^ Richard Codman, at Paris," on
his going to America, certain property ,-^We have seen
that he had all along admitted and contended that the
property was placed in the hands of Richard Codman
alone, and had never even suggested that it was depos
ited with John and Richard Codman, jointly. — He then
goes on to state what the property was. Namely,
" 8,416 rentes tiers consolide," which cost rae, he says,
140,000 livres. — It raay be so, but Richard Codman
sold them, as has been seen, for less than 20,000.
" Two houses sold by R. Codman in ray absence,
80,000." It should have been, if it were of any im
portance to be accurate, 73,000, subject to the araount
of R. Codman's obligation to Reubel, the purchaser, to
clear off the incumbrances, and the araount paid by R.
Codman out of this sura to Mrs. Vans for her support.
" 100,000 livres rentes provisoires, value, 30,000."
It will be recollected that this was not either lent to,
or deposited with, R. Codman, on Vans' going to
America, but was an obligation given to him by R.
Codman, after his return, as so much towards settle
ment, and chiefly for the interest which had accrued on
the 8,415 rentes.
" Lands in America, 6,000."
What lands these were, we have never been able to
learn ; — but if there were any such, since conveyances
in our country are matters of record, Mr. Vans will of
course be able to turn us to the registry of the deed
which conveyed them from himself to John and Richard
Codman, and thus furnish the first piece of evidence of
any thing passing from him into their hands.
" Mr. Compadres' note, 4,000."

159
This is an item of which we know nothing, except
that Richard Codraan denies ever having seen it.*
" Interest due on these suras for three years, about
50,000." On this, we have only to reraark, that since all the
preceding items of capital put together, amount to only
260,000 livres, Mr. Vans must have calculated his
interest at rather an exorbitant rate. Six per cent, per
annum for the whole three years, would have been only
about 40,000 livres ; besides which, the obligations for
rentes, were dated less than one year before the letter,
and the obligation for the rentes provisoires, was given
expressly to pay the interest which had accrued up to
that tirae. Yet he claims the value of the rentes pro
visoires, and the interest besides.
Mr. Vans then goes on to say, that his positive orders
to R. Codman were to invest all his funds in the public
stocks, and that he did so, but afterwards, when they
rose, sold out and put the profits in his own pocket.
This is a new charge, never suggested to Richard Cod
man, (who knew the facts,) in the whole correspon
dence. " Yet now," says Vans, " he says he never
bought, although all his letters to me fully prove he did
buy." How happens it that Mr. Vans produces no
such letters .? He produces letters to show that Rich
ard Codman knew his desire upon the subject, or as he
terms it, his positive orders, and in which same letters
R. Codman excuses, or justifies himself for not follow
ing Vans' wishes, on the ground that he had no opinion
of the security of these stocks, which were falling when
the funds were in his hands ; — but he produces none of
* See Docuraent No. 265.

160
the letters which he says support this new charge,
namely, that he did buy and afterwards sell at a profit.
He next alleges, that Richard Codman, owing to the
advice of John Codman, refused to pay him, supposing
that as they (that is, John and Richard,) had got all his
property, he should not be able to carry on a law suit
with them. He thanks God, however, that he has
found friends who have enabled hira to do so, and that
he has obtained judgments against Richard, and
arrested all his property, amounting to £25,000 stg.
Mr. Vans seems to calculate his security as largely
as his interest — £26,000 sterling are over 700,000
francs — and this amount of property, he says he has
arrested to cover 300,000 francs of debt. But how
extraordinary is the shortness of the memory of some
men .? — for after saying he had arrested all Richard's
property, to the amount of £26,000 sterling — he
immediately adds, " say half the amount given me by
the judgments." He had just stated, on the preceding
page, his whole claim, interest and all, at 310,000
livres, and he now makes his judgments for the same to
be about £60,000 sterling, or nearly a raillion and a
half of livres ! That is to say, for a debt, which, upon
his own showing, by the items, was but 260,000
livres, and which, with the addition of the three years
interest upon it, would have equalled only 300,000, he
arrests property, which, by his own showing, was worth
more than twice the amount of the debt, and then takes
judgments against his debtor for the amount of his debt,
five times over.
Having made this preface, on so grand a scale, he
intimates a disposition, for the first tirae, to come upou
John Codman for this equitable balance of the judgments

161
over the security ; and the principle through which he
proposes to reach hira, is worthy of the ground of the
claira. He says, "John Codraan supposes, that his
having advertised, at Boston, the dissolution of the
copartnership of John & Richard Codman was sufficient
notification of the dissolution at Paris ; but I believe
in this opinion he will find himself mistaken. For
John & R. Codman had a house at Paris as much as
they had at Boston. Therefore if it was necessary
to advertise the dissolution of the house at Boston,
it was equally necessary to advertise the dissolution of
the house at Paris ; which Richard Codman has never
done, and the house of John & Richard Codman exists
at Paris at this raoraent, which I can and will prove."
Here then we corae at the fundaraental equity of Mr.
Vans' claira on the estate of John Codraan, as originally
stated by hiraself. He does not pretend that John
Codraan personally had entered into any engageraent
with him. He does not pretend that one dollar of his
property ever went into John Codraan's custody, pos
session or use. He does not pretend that the partner
ship, as between John Codraan and Richard Codman,
was not bond fide dissolved on the 1st May, 1798. He
does not even pretend that he himself was not fully
aware of the fact, or that he did not deal with Richard
Codman upon his sole and separate credit. But he says
the house of John & Richard Codman existed at Paris, as
much as at Boston, and that because notice of the dis
solution was not there, as well as at Boston, publicly
advertised in the newspapers, John is liable to him for
Richard's engagements, made after the dissolution, and
after Vans himself 'knew of it. He says, in effect, that
John Codman shall be held answerable, upon a contract
21

162
not made by himself, nor by any one for him with his
knowledge, authority, or consent, and from which he
had derived not a particle of benefit, but raade by an
other, who did not even represent that he was acting
for John Codman, and who intended to bind himself
only, raade with a person who knew all these facts,
and who also intended at the time not to bind John
Codman, but to bind only the person with whom he
actually dealt ; and yet he says, John Codman shall be
held answerable upon such a contract, by way of pen
alty, for the accidental omission of a form, and upon
the strictest application of a supposed technical rule of
law. We shall presently show that Mr. Vans is as wide
of truth in his law, as in his facts. At present our wish
is only to mark the peculiar equity of this claim.
But we go on with the document. After saying that
the house still exists at Paris, " which I can and will
prove," he adds, "and unless John Codman comes for
ward, and gives his brother orders, at Paris, to give me
up all the property belonging to John & R. Codman in
France, [meaning of course Richard's estates, which he
and John Codman were contending for,] I will pursue
in justice John &, Richard Codman and arrest their
property wherever I can find it." — Why did he not,
then .? There was enough of John Codman's to be
found. — " But if John & Richard Codman will give me
up all their property in France, ivhich does not amount
to half my demand on them, then I will give a receipt in
full of all demands I have against them." — Could better
evidence be created than this larae and irapotent conclu
sion, that the whole letter was an idle raenace, contrived
to intimidate John Codman into a relinquishment of his
claims on the property of Richard .? What imaginable

163
reason can be given why Vans, anxious as he was to
quit France, — " this hellish country," — as he calls it in
one of his letters, should have been willing to take fifty
per cent, of his demand, payable in French real estate,
rather than to come home and collect his whole debt
from John Codman, who was abundantly able to pay
him, even in cash, that article which he was so urgent to
get out of Richard, and Richard so reluctant to give .?
Why this, if he really esteeraed John Codraan his
debtor.? He then expressly requests, (for his friend raight not
be quick of apprehension,) that the letter raay be shown
to John Codman, — that being the purpose for which it
was indited, — with the faint hope, perhaps, that the
next packet frora America raight bring tremulous and
hasty orders from John Codman, to abandon all farther
claim upon Richard's property.
We now return to John Codman. Iraraediately on
this letter being made known to him, he wrote to
Richard, under the impulse of the moment, the letter
of the 12th December, 1801, (No. 318,) intended
doubtless to make Richard feel deeply the folly of his
conduct, and if possible to accelerate his return.
Dear Brother Richard, — You will see by the en
closed, (Vans' letter to Derby) what Vans is after, and
it unfolds the reason why he does not settle with you,
and on what his hopes are founded. You will also see
the trouble you have given me for these many years
past, by your inconsiderate conduct in staying in France,
and the ruin you have brought upon yourself 'm conse
quence. You must judge for yourself, what you had
best do now, — I am really surprised you should attempt
to get a credit of Barings, or any one else, — attend to

164
R. Araory's advice. Notwithstanding all I have suffer
ed by you, and the neglect with which I was a long
while raost distressingly treated, / still feel a brother's
affection for you; this is iraplanted in my heart, and I
cannot eradicate it. Clear yourself, and I will help and
befriend you, but I will not suffer myself, if I can avoid
it, to be ruined, with all the dependents I ara to sustain.
I think you had better leave all power with Babut,
and corae to this country. Adieu, yours with affection.
The next document which relates to this subject, is
the letter from John Codman to Babut, dated 6th Jan
uary, 1802. (No. 319.) It seems he had received in
formation, that one La Caze refused to transfer the Fir
mancourt estate, agreeably to his obligation. " I sup
pose therefore, says he, that it will be subject to the
clairas of my brother's creditors, and as I am his prin
cipal creditor, it is but just I should come in for my pro
portion with others." He encloses therefore the note
which Richard had given at Paris for the balance of
his account ; and least that should not be available in
law as a note made in France, for want of sorae formal
ity required by the French law, he draws also several
bills of exchange upon Richard to be accepted by him,
and used instead of the note, if it should be found ne
cessary in instituting a process against that estate. With
regard to the estate at Dreux, he says, he is informed
that Vans' inscription [attachment] has failed, and if
so, he wishes to have his claim on that estate pursued,
and the estate sold (without warranty,) and proceeds
remitted. He directs his agent also to do what shall
be for his interest in relation to the Cremille estate,
and the estate at Damraartin, and places 30,000 francs
at his disposal, for the purpose of buying out those who
had prior incurabrances upon it.

165
He then adverts to Vans thus.
As to Vans, he is weak enough to think he can have a
claim on me, and has written so to his friends here,
which accounts for it that he never would accept any
proposition from my brother ; but his expectations are
without any foundation, as all my brother's dealings ivith
him were in his private capacity, and besides they were
SUBSEQUENT to the dissolutiou of our copartnership.
The LETTERS I have FROM UNDER HIS HAND (Vaus)
CLEARLY PROVE IT IS MY BROTHER WHO IS HIS DEBTOR,
AND NOT ME.
The letters he thus speaks of are those written by
Vans, at Paris, to hiraself, which have been before
noted, and which fully sustain the position here taken.
He then adverts to Richard, still urging his return.
As to ray brother, he ought iraraediately to come
here — you cannot press this determination too strongly
upon him. If I was to write a volume it would only
repeat this idea.
The letter to Richard of the 6th January, (No. 320,)
is to the sarae effect.
Vans' letter to Derby he again speaks of as follows,
showing that he perfectly understood the real object
which Vans had in view.
Vans has written Mr. Derby of this place, and de
sired hira to show rae the letter, that he looks upon me
as responsible, because the dissolution of the house was
not advertised in Paris, and says the house did, and does
still exist there. He is so totally mistaken in this idea,
that I flatter myself that it will not be difficult to get
rid of his pretence, which is only done to frighten me,
and to induce rae to relinquish what is secured to rae."

166
He goes on to inform Richard, that in the opinion of
Mr. Amory, Vans could not recover in this country the
increasing value of the stocks, (which was the chief
raatter in dispute between Vans and Richard,) and that
if Richard would place every thing in Babut's hands,
and come home, that what with buying Vans' debts,
and the protection of our lenient laws. Vans raight at
length be brought to reason, and Richard himself saved
frora the direst calaraities. Referring to his orders to
Babut to hold all he could for hira, he says, "You know
ray disposition ; but it is evident sacrifices will not sat
isfy Vans. Therefore come home to your friends."
And he adds, " Take great care of all your papers, lest
Vans get hold of them ; " — being well satisfied, by what
he had seen of Vans in France, and by the unprincipled
plot against himself, which Vans had now developed,
that he would stick at nothing, and that robbery and
forgery were no more than might be reasonably expect
ed, if Richard's negligence should open to him a safe
opportunity. March 6, 1802, he writes a letter to Babut & Co.
(No. 321 .) By this it appears that Richard Codman had
left Paris, and that John knew not where he had gone.
He complains that he neglects his true interest in not
coming home. He then goes on to the subject of his
own claims on Richard's property. " I know^ you will
do every thing in your power to secure rae whatever is
possible frora my brother's effects. In the first place
all that you can possibly secure is justly due from him
to me. 2nd place it will enable me better to aid and to
help him in future, and in particular in making it for the
interest of his creditors to accept of some reasonable
terms from him. I know of no better way to bring

167
Vans to, than to hold ray securities on the Dreux lands,
and to pursue ray claims on them to final judgment,
turning them, as well as the claim on Grandin and Dil
lon, into money, and into a reraittance to England."
He then goes on to speak of commercial business, and
in the course of his remarks says, " The losses I have
sustained, and the interruption of my business, occasioned
by my brother's withholding so much of my capital, has
been great. Yet my caution and watchfulness, called
forth perhaps the more from the occasion, has enabled
me to support the misfortunes, and to meet with punc
tuality every demand on me, or my late establishment
here, so that even our London friends Messrs. Baring,
have already received frora rae the full payraent to the
extent of their deraands, and I have sufficient capital
remaining for every commercial operation ; — which I
mention to you that you may feel perfect security in any
operation you may comrait to my care."
By examining the state of John Codman's account
with the Barings, at the date of this letter, it will be
perceived that his statement in relation to it is literally
true, though a considerable balance afterwards was crea
ted against him by charges of later date. Thus on the
28th February, 1801, the balance against him was about
£16,600, and thence to the 6th March, 1802, he was
charged with an addition of £600 or 600 more. The
credits for remittances, on the other hand, to this date,
actually received in London, amount to near £16,000,
and others on their way, both from this country and
various parts of Europe, as appears by the correspond
ence, were sufficient to cover the balance.
In a postscript to this letter, he adds his views re
specting Vans' last turn. " With regard to ray copart-

168
nership with my brother, which commenced 1st May
1791, and terminated the 1st May 1798, I consider that
the society [societe] existed only here — in this place ;
— that he could not, and that he did not, raake use of
the firm [i. e. the signature of J. & R. Codman,] in
Paris, and that all his speculations there have been in
his own name and for his own account ; and that his
debts there are his debts and only his. It is therefore
very vain for Vans to have any other expectations but
from him."
There can be no question, from all John Codman's
subsequent acts, that this was his real view of the mat
ter ; and we raay add, frora all that has gone before,
there can be no question that it was the true one.
It seems that after the writing of this letter, John
Codman altered his mind as to the expediency of laying
out any more money in France for the purpose of clear
ing off old incumbrances on the estates, and considered
it wiser upon the whole to take his chance with the
property as it was, so far as he could secure it. He
therefore writes again to Babut on the 10th March,
1 802, (No. 322,) and countermands the authority he
had formerly given to Messrs. Babut & Co., to draw
on Messrs. Barings for 30,000 francs, and requests that
they will advance nothing themselves, on his account,
beyond " necessary lawyers fees, or charges of a petit
nature." A letter of the same date to Sir F. Baring & Co.,
is of the same tenor.
A subsequent one, dated April 16, 1802, (No. 324,)
assigns the reason for this countermand. " 1 did this,"
says he, " because 1 thought it possible those gentle-
raen, (Babut h Co.) under my brother's influence, might

169

misconceive my intention, and appropriate the credit to
a settlement with Vans, it being my decided opinion
that my brother's affairs in general, and with Vans in
particular, will be best adjusted by his speedy return to
this country."
May 17, 1802, he writes again to the same gentle
men, and expresses hiraself very strongly on this subject.
" I have letters from Messrs. Babut & Co., and beg to
be understood both by them and you, that I will not be
answerable for any monies they may offer, or may pay, to
Vans, to settle my brother's account with him, or with
any other of ray brother's creditors ; that if any monies
or credits are advanced to my brother, or for the pay
ment of his debts, either by you, or Messrs. Babut,
they must be done on the strength of my brother's
credit with you, and not upon mine, having raade up
ray mind, that until my brother's return to this coun
try, I will not advance any thing, or suffer any thing to
be advanced on my account, for the adjustraent of his
debts, and pray you to confirm the sarae to Messrs.
Babut." To the same effect he writes Richard Codman him
self in the letter of 13th March, 1802, (No. 323.) " I
have taken the determination to subject rayself to no
more advances of money upon your account," &c. " As
to the threats of Vans towards an attack upon me, they
are so futile that no sacrifice ought to be made to settle
with him on that account. Justice is due to your other
creditors — to Andrews, Edwards, Wiggin, and others,
as well as to him," &c.
In the letter of May 20, 1802, to Messrs. Babut &
Co., while he is equally decided on this subject, he ex-
22

170
plains more fully the grounds of the decision to which
he had come. It is as follows.
Gentlemen : I have received your favor of the 24th
Septeraber ; it is now before me, translated into our lan
guage, and is the latest date I have received from you.
I observe by it, the solicitude you feel respecting
my brother's concerns. They are of such a nature as
to excite in the breasts of all his friends the most poig
nant sensibility; but it appears to me, as it did when I
was in Paris, that to attempt to extricate hira by an ad
vance of any raoney to Vans would not ansyver the pur
pose, and therefore, in all letters and instructions, I
peremptorily refused to reimburse, or to guarantee, any
such payment. When I gave you a credit upon Lon
don for 30,000 francs, it was to enable you to pay Ber
trand and Others, who had securities on my brother's
estates, if by that raeans you could secure the return of
the money so paid, and raake a saving frora the general
wr,eck of his property, — but lest you should misunder
stand my views, and appropriate it any other way,
especially towards paying Vans, I have even counter
manded that credit, and confined my responsibility to the
fees of lawyers, and such small expenses as might occur
in your path, to secure my claim on my brother's effects.
I have done this, not for want of affection to my brother ;
I can forgive the past, and am ready to reach out a
brother's hand and help him, when my aid can be of
real utility to him ; but I am not willing, and will not
pay his debts ; and if you advance any money for that
purpose, you must do it for his account, and not for
mine. I have written Messrs. Barings to the same ef
fect, and if you and they act in any respect as my
agents, you raust act according to my directions. I en
treat niy brother to corae immediately here, and consult
with his friends. I have repeated this idea so often, I
am ashamed to trouble you with it. He owes others,
besides Vans, very large amounts. It is in vain for him
to expect rae to ruin rayself to pay his debts. If he
does expect it, I will not do it ; but a brother's house.

171
his friendship and protection, are sure pledges of his af
fection, which he will find on his return to America. I
anticipate, with earnest hopes, the period when ray
correspondence with you will be raore agreeable. In
the mean tirae, accept the testiraonies of my respect
and friendship, the raost sincere.
In the letter to Alexander Baring, of May 22, 1802,
he expresses hiraself on this subject thus :
My brother's affairs in France have, you know,
given rae much concern, and been attended with the
raost heavy and afflicting circumstances — he is still
pursuing a very wrong plan there ; his only safe one is
to leave all with Babut, and return to this country ; here
perhaps some adjustment may be made with his credi
tors. I have been obliged to say to Babut, and to our
London friends also, that I cannot be responsible for
any advances they may make hira. When you return,
please to confirm it — my affection is strong towards my
brother ; it seems impossible for any thing to eradicate
it ; but duty requires I should keep myself in a state of
security, as well for the benefit of my family,' as injus
tice to those who place confidence in me.
By the letter of 20th July, 1802, to Sir F. Baring &
Co., (No. 328,) it appears that the latter had paid
drafts of Messrs. Insinger for £1360, made in conse
quence of Babut's drafts on them for 30,000 francs, and
also that Messrs. Barings had authorized Babut & Co.
to draw further. The payment of the £1,360 already
raade, being according to the authority forraerly given
Babut & Co. to draw for 30,000 francs, John Codman
says he shall allow, " but," he adds, " having authoriz
ed no further payments, I shall not support them ; but
must consider the advance you say you have authorized
Messrs. Babut & Co. to raake, and which they have

172
made to ray brother, as done by you contrary to my
positive and express direction, and of course for his ac
count and not raine."
The letter of the sarae date to Messrs. Babut & Co.,
(No. 329,) examines the items of the various payments
which they had made, allows those which were for
the purpose of clearing off the prior incumbrances on
Damraartin, [or La Thuillerie,] so as to perfect his own
title, and the payraents made to his lawyers for their
services in securing his claim ; but all other charges, for
payments made, he positively refuses to assume, or sanc
tion, as being wholly for Richard Codman's account.
He is still willing to withdraw his lien upon the Dreux
lands, if that would bring Vans to a settlement, but as
for raaking any new advance to release Richard he de
clines it altogether. The letter is an important one,
and may be seen in the appendix, but it cannot be ne
cessary to insert it here at length.
The letter of 26th September, 1802, to Sir F. Baring
& Co., (No. 330,) confirms the remarks in his preceding
letter of July 20 ; and adds, " I am in expectation the
latter (R. C.) will find his way horae ere long, and hope
Mr. Babut will dispose of the property so as to reimburse
the advances made him."
By a letter to Sir F. Baring & Co., of January 15,
1803, it appears that Richard Codman had at length
arrived in Boston.
It does not appear, however, that the investigation of
the state of Richard's affairs, or the consultations which
must now have taken place between the two brothers, in
respect to Vans' claim, so materially altered since their
last consultations upon it in Paris as to be now set up, or
rather threatened to be set up, for a copartnership claim,

173
produced any change in John Codraan's deterraination
to make no new advance of money, for the extinguish
ment of Richard's debts.
John Codman's last instruction upon the subject,
appears by the letter to Babut, dated April 28, 1803,
which was as follows :
Dear Sir, — Since ray last respects of the 20th July
1802, I have received your two favors of the 20th
Sept. 1802, and 20th Jan. 1803, and have had frequent
consultations with my brother about them. I am
exceedingly sorry to learn, by all your letters, the
increasing difficulties you raeet with in conducting
these affairs, and the expense that seems accumulating
upon them.
I discovered myself, while in Paris, that it was in
vain to go on advancing money to satisfy demands
against my brother, unless one were determined to sat
isfy them all, which was impossible. I had therefore
only to regret the 20,000 livres I was induced to pay
there myself, and gave positive directions to you to pay
no more ; yet contrary to my wish and my directions,
you have paid considerable suras of his old debts, and
he is not the better for it, but has only thrown a new
burden on his friends.
He must benefit by some system of bankruptcy, and
the sooner that is always done the better. I therefore
exceedingly regret your paying Cutting and others,
vvhich has so Httle object towards his final releasement*
He undoubtedly procured a temporary relief by it, but
since his affairs were so embarrassed, he ought to have
put in his Bilan, and taken shelter under the protection
of the law. Your being persuaded by hira to do this
puts rae in a very painful predicament. I know very
well the best motives actuated you, and 1 feel for you
a lively friendship, which circumstances that occurred
while 1 was in Paris, have left an undiminished impres
sion of on my mind. I rejoice that he is now in this
country, where no new occasion of this kind can arise,
and all I wish now is that some end could be put to his

174
affair with Vans, and that you could adjust with him,
and remunerate yourself out of the property you have in
charge. My brother must then benefit by some system of
bankruptcy to clear him from his other creditors, and
you will easily see that this ought to have been done in
the first instance, while he was at Paris.
I do not know what advice or directions now to give,
whether it is possible to settle with Vans or not. It is
very clear he can have no deraand on me, therefore his
threats are vain ; but it would be desirable to settle
with hira if it can be done within the compass of the
property that remains, and so far if you can adjust with
him you raay, leaving the raode to your discretion.
This must be by releasing the estates, and not in money,
as it is important that no event may call on rae for new
sacrifices of my domestic property.
This letter, therefore, left complete authority with
Babut to withdraw John Codman's claim on any of
Richard Codman's property in France, if he should
judge it expedient to do so, as a means of effecting a
final settlement with Vans. In less than three weeks
after the writing of it, John Codman died ; — and how
little iraportance he attached to the idle raenace con
tained in Vans' letter to Derby, is emphatically evinced
by the tenor of his will, already alluded to, executed
on the 17th of May, 1803.
Stephen Codraan was appointed executor of this will.
The course which his testator desired to have pursued,
was plainly indicated by the tenor of his last letter to
Babut. Wearied out with the uncertainties, and diffi
culties, and delays, and expenses, of the proceedings in
France, for the recovery of property, out of which he had
hoped to realize some part of the large debt which his
brother owed him, he was content, at last, to abandon his

175
own claim to that property, if it might be the means of
extricating his brother fully and finally from his embar-
rassraents. But he was equally decided not to advance
another dollar, either by way of new loan to Richard,
whom he had already heaped with obligations, or for
the purpose of carrying on an interminable litigation in
France, with Vans and the other creditors of Richard
Codraan, for the recovery of the estates which had
been raortgaged to hira. As raatters were found by the
executor, in this respect, so precisely have they been
left by hira to the present day. He did not choose to
intermeddle in any way with a tangled business, about
which he knew nothing, pending in a foreign country,
where he was not authorized to administer, and where
a competent agent had been appointed by the testator
himself, with instructions to do what he pleased with
the claims, provided he did nothing to iraphcate his
employer in any farther expenditure whatever, beyond
what he could recover from the property. The execu
tor, therefore, simply gave notice to this agent, by a
circular letter, of John Codman's death, without any
new instructions whatsoever, or any authority to act
for him in the business, and never made any further
moveraent in relation to the scrarable of creditors in
France for Richard Codman's property, except to
inquire through Mr. Lowell, during his visit to France,
what progress was made, and what prospect there was
that any thing might be realized out of this property to
John Codman's estate. This supposed agency of Mr.
Lowell's, is a distinct topic, to which we shall bye and
bye have occasion to advert.
We have thus, at great, but we hope not superfluous
length, considering the multiplicity of facts to be stated.

176
and documents to be referred to in proof, narrated the
origin, commenceraent, and progress of the claim of
Wm. Vans, down to the period of John Codman's death,
appending every document which seeraed to us material
for the elucidation of the truth, with occasional com
ments. It remains only to state, and answer more dis
tinctly, the several grounds on which Mr. Vans now
rests, or has at some time rested, his claira against the
estate of John Codman, and the evidence which he
adduces, or pretends to adduce, in support of them, and
the means which he has adopted to cause his state
ments to be believed, noticing by the way such facts
and occurrences, subsequent to the death of John Cod
man, as may be supposed to affect in any way the jus
tice of the case.
In the first place, Mr. Vans has always pretended,
and over and over again distinctly asserted, in his vari
ous publications, that he holds a judgment, or judg
ments, recovered in France, against John Codman, as
well as against Richard Codman, for the whole debt
which he claims to be due to him ; — and if it were so,
such judgments would undoubtedly he prima facie evi
dence, (hat prima facie only,) in this country, ofa debt
due from the estate of John Codman. We propose to
demonstrate, first, the fact that Vans has repeatedly
published this statement. Secondly, that the statement
is utterly false and unfounded. Thirdly, that Vans has
made this gross misrepresentation knoivingly, wilfully,
and with intent to deceive.
First, — We propose to show that Wm. Vans has re
peatedly published as a fact, that he had recovered a
judgment, or judgments, in France, for a large debt
against John Codman, as well as Richard Codman.

177
This is to be proved by the publications theraselves.
Many of them, probably, are not in our possession ; but
from those which are, we have extracted a few pas
sages to establish this position.
The first is from a pamphlet of twenty-four pages,
8vo., entitled " A true stateraent of the demands of
Wm. Vans against the heirs and executors of the last
will and testament of John Codraan," purporting to be
addressed " To the honorable Senate and House of
Representatives in General Court assembled ;" published
without date, and without the printer's name, but be
lieved to have made its appearance at Boston, in 1812,
pending his first petition.
After stating, at p. 1, that John and Richard Codman
were copartners in trade at Boston, under the firra of
John & Richard Codraan, and at Paris under the firm
of Richard Codman, it asserts thus :
"This house became indebted to Wm. Vans by sun
dry judgments rendered at Paris, as follows."
It then goes on to describe, with some particularity,
several judgments, amounting in the whole to about
^270,000, stating one of the said judgments to be against
Richard Codman, and leaving it to be inferred, that the
other judgments were against John, or John and Richard
jointly. The second is a republication, without date, but be
lieved to have been in 1813, pending his second petition,
of the same paraphlet, almost verbatim, and repeating
in the same words the statement respecting the judg
ments. The next is a paraphlet of 22 octavo pages, without
date, believed to have been published in 1814, entitled,
"A stateraent of facts relating to the demand of Wra.
23

178
Vans on the estates of Messrs. John and Richard Cod
man, at Boston, deceased."
This pamphlet, at p. 1 , describes the constitution of
the house of J. & R. Codman, nearly as before, then
describes the obligation for 8,415 rentes tiers consolide,
and adds, " to recover payraent of this obligation Vans
coramenced a suit in the French courts at Paris, and a
judgraent was recovered against Mr. Codman [leaving
it perfectly uncertain, frora the raanner in which he
states it, whether it was John or Richard,] to pay this
sura of 53,802 American dollars to Wm. Vans."
At p. 2, he states, in like manner, two other obliga
tions of Mr. Codman, (without designating which,) and
judgments against Mr. Codman, founded upon them, for
the respective sums of ^29,000 and ^204,600.
Thus far the statements are rather calculated to mis
lead, than amounting to direct misrepresentations ; but
it will be seen that as Mr. Vans' claira grows weaker
by age, he takes care to strengthen it by greater bold
ness of asseveration.
The next paraphlet in our possession, has a title page
as follows : "A new edition of the deraand of Wm.
Vans on Stephen Codman and the heirs of John and
Richard Codman, for the sum of 370,000 silver dollars,
due him on final judgment rendered in France, at the
Court of Appeals in Paris; with a letter written by
John Lowell, Esq., to C. R. Codman, No. 8, annexed;
and Vans' reply to that letter. No. 9 ; as will appear by
the following statement of facts. The young, the old,
the widow and the parson are invited to buy this book,
and learn how to get and keep property according to
law, (secundem artem.) Boston. Printed for Wm.
Vans. July 1824."

179
At p. 13 of this paraphlet, after stating the copart
nership, it proceeds thus :
" Nor was the copartnership ever dissolved in France,
which is proved by a judgraent of the Court of Appeal
in Paris in the year 1803, which judgraent mentions the
act of copartnership made in 1791, and the notification
put in the Centinel in Boston in 1798 by John Codraan,
and goes on and says," [the following sentence is prin
ted in itahcs, and with inverted comraas, as quoting a
literal translation ofthe words of the judgment,] " that
considering that John and Richard Codman are copart
ners, and had made fraudulent acts to cheat their credit
ors, the court condemns them to pay Vans his demand,
with the rents due and coming due until paid ; " which
amounted in the year 1818 to upwards of 370,000
dollars." At p. 21, this is repeated still raore distinctly, thus :
" Sorae time then elapsed, when finding that I could get
no satisfaction from Richard Codman, I commenced a
process at law, and John and Richard Codman were both
condemned to pay me the principal and interest and ex
penses of my demand. The words of the final j udgraent
rendered in France and wrote in French, are as follows :
" Considering that John and Richard Codraan are co
partners, and that they have raade fraudulent acts to
cheat their lawful creditors, the court condemns them to
pay Vans his demand, with the rents due and coming
due until paid." Which amounted in the year 1818,
with expenses and duties to government, to the sura of
370,000 dollars."
Again, at p. 23. " If my claim on the Hon. John
Codman had been an unliquidated debt, or a disputed
account, then there raight have been some reason in not

180
paying it ; — but when the Rev. John Codman and heirs
all know that this demand was carried into the courts-
of justice in France, where the transaction originated,
and that they [i. e. the heirs] were condemned in all
these courts, after a litigation of six years carried on by
Stephen Codman, notary public of this city, who was
then administrator to the estates of J. & R. Codman,
one vvould have expected that the heirs, so respectable
as the Rev. John Codraan ought to be, would have sub-
raitted, and have executed the judgments obtained against
him in France, and conforraed to the last will of John
Codman, [providing for the payment of his just debts;]
but on the contrary, they have done all they could do to
prevent ray receiving my just demand, and have reduced
rae with a wife and three children to beggary. This
has been done by the adrainistrator and heirs and the
Rev. John Codraan ; and the heirs now inherit the sum
due to me by the Hon. John Codman when he died."
Again, at p. 25, after stating the several deraands, mak
ing in all ^370,000, he adds, " and for these sums Vans
has definitive judgments, condemnmg John and Richard
Codman as copartners to pay him, as before stated."
Again, at p. 31, as follows. "These are the docu
raents mentioned in this narrative to prove the forego
ing facts, the originals being now in my possession.
No. 1, is an extract ofa final judgment rendered at the
Court of Appeals in France, containing five quires of
paper, which condemns John ^ Richard Codman as co
partners to pay Vans his demand." "This judgment, R.
G. Amory, Esq., the brother and lawyer of Mrs. Codman,
took a copy of,* and knows this statement to to be true."
* This serves to identify the docuraent which he pretends to describe.
It is the same of which a translation is published in our Appendix of
Documents.

181
The next pubHcation in our possession, is a pamphlet
entitled, " The third edition, revised and corrected, of
the demand of Wm. Vans on the heirs of John & Rich
ard Codman (for 370,000 dollars,) who were merchants
under the firm of John & Richard Codman in Boston,
and in Paris, in France, the firm was Richard Codman,
as will appear by the following statement of facts.
Boston. Printed by E. K. Allen, Merchants Hall."
Extract at p. 8. " Some time then elapsed, when
finding I could get no satisfaction from Richard Cod
man, I commenced a process in law, and John & Rich
ard Codman were both" [italicised in the original,]
" condemned as copartners to pay rae the principal,
interest and expenses of ray demand. The, words of
the judgment, rendered in France (and wrote in French)
are as follows. " Considering that John & Richard
Codraan are copartners, and that they have done fraud
ulent acts to cheat their true and lawful creditors, the
Court condemns them to pay Vans his demand, with
interest until paid. Which amounted in 1818, with
the expenses and duties to government, to the sura of
370,000 silver dollars."
At pp. 10, 11. "I therefore repeat, that the Rev.
John Codraan and heirs all know, that the Hon. John
Codman, as copartner with Richard Codraan, was con
demned as before stated — and that Rev. John Codraan
did not do to rae as his divine raaster orders to be done,
in pleading in bar to payraent the limitation law."
At p. 13. "For these sums I have definitive judg
ments rendered in France, condemning John ^ Richard
Codman as copartners to pay me, as before stated."
At p. 27. " And this judgment condemns John ^
Richard Codman as copartners to pay me my demand."

182
The next is a pamphlet of eighty-four duodecimo
pages, addressed " To His Excellency, the Governor
of Massachusetts, and the Senate and House of Repre
sentatives," and dated " Boston, printed for Wm. Vans,
1825." At p. 3. " On leaving France lent and placed in
trust in the hands of John ^ Richard Codman, mer
chants in France, property that amounted in the year
1818 to upwards 370,000 silver dollars, that they were
condemned to pay him, at the Court of Appeals at
Paris." At p. 4. " Contents. — First, an Extract of a final
judgment wrote in French, rendered at the Court of
Appeals in Paris, containing five quires of paper, which
condemns John ^ Richard Codman as copartners, to
pay Wm. Vans his demand." This judgment I invite
every person to look at. R. G. Amory, Esq., lawyer
and brother of Mrs. Codraan, took a copy of it,* and
knows this stateraent to be true."
At p. 17. " After waiting a reasonable time and
finding that I could not get any satisfaction, I com
menced a process at law, when John & Richard Cod
man as copartners, ivere both condemned to pay me my
deraand. The words of the judgment are as follows.
" Considering that John & Richard Codraan are co
partners, by an act made in Boston in the year 1791,
which has never been dissolved by both their signatures
or mutual consent, and that they have made fraudulent
acts to cheat their true and lawful creditors, the Court
condemns them to pay Vans his demand, with the rents
due and coming due and expenses until paid." Which
amounted in the year 1818 to 370,000 silver dollars."
* See Document No. 343.

183
At p. 29, the same stateraent is again repeated in
nearly the same words.
The next is a pamphlet of sixteen pages, entitled the
"Lifeof Wm. Vans," — dated, "Boston. Printed in
the office of the Boston Investigator. 1832."
At p. 5. " After waiting sorae time I comraenced a
suit at law in the Court of Commons [Commerce] at
Paris in the year 1 801, when John and Richard Codman,
as copartners, were condemned to pay my demand. Frora
this judgment they appealed to the Court of the First
Instance at Paris, Meaux and Dreux, when they were
again condemned, while both were living, to pay
this debt, which amounted in 1831 to upwards of 500,000
dollars, by a judgment rendered in France as follows.
'Napoleon by the Grace of God Emperor of the French
to all present, &;c.' " It then goes on to represent the
substance of the judgment precisely as before.
The next is a pamphlet of 14 octavo pages, without
date, believed to have been printed in 1832, beginning,
" You take my life when you do take the raeans where
by I live," and addressed to his " Fellow Citizens —
Representatives of the People."
At p. 1. "Therefore I corae again to the Legisla
ture, and complain of injuries and WTongs done me by
the executor and heirs of John & Richard Codman,
merchants and copartners in France, condemned there to
deliver Wm. Vans 4)5, 5'i 3 francs rents per year, meaning
French government stock, that amounted, principal, in
terest, and expenses, in 1830 to upwards of 634,140
dollars 12 cents. These facts are stated in books, nev
er denied in print by the Codman family, but admitted
in the pleas and deposition on oath of Stephen Codman

184
the executor in 1829.* This debt the executor and
heirs now oive me — confirmed by reports made by commit
tees of the Legislature on the petitions of Wm. Vans,t
who left France and arrived at Boston in 1809."
"This report [referring to one ofthe legislative reports]
also said — Vans produced a judgment, rendered in
France, in 1804, condemning John and Richard Codman
as copartners to deliver him 4i5,5l3francs rents per year."
At p. 6, he sets out what purports to be a certificate
of this fact, as follows : " We the undersigned have seen
obligations payable to order, and judgments condemning
John and Richard Codman as copartners in Paris to
deliver William Vans 4i5,5\3 francs rents per year, that
amounted in 1830 to about 530,140 dollars. In witness
whereof we have signed this instrument this 4th of
February, 1830." Instead of affixing names imme
diately under this paper, the pamphlet then goes on as
follows :
" I Augustus Peabody have seen two obligations
signed Richard Codman, one promising to pay Wm.
Vans 100,000 francs, the other 8,415 francs rents per
year. Also a judgment obtained in France condemning
John and Richard Codman to pay him ; and having re
peatedly known these documents produced and exam
ined by legislative committees have no doubt of their
authenticity." And this purports to be signed by Au
gustus Peabody.
" I George Blake have seen the papers and documents
above stated ; being well acquainted with the French

* See the affidavit -here referred to. Document No. 399, which admits
nothing of the kind.
f See the Reports, No. 401, &c. all directly against this allegation, ex
cept those which were founded on Mr. Vans' own representations in the
absence of the other party.

185
language, and manner docuraents of this kind are usual
ly authenticated in France, have no doubt these papers
are original documents." — purporting to be signed by
George Blake.
" I Daniel Davis have seen the obligations in English,
with judgments in French, but do not understand that
language, yet have no doubt frora seeing thera used in
committees of the legislature they are original docu
raents." — Purporting to be signed by Daniel Davis.
" The above certificates confirm the reports of differ
ent committees of the General Court, with the deposition
on oath of Stephen Codman as executor in 1 829."
Another pamphlet, entitled, "An appeal to the public
by Wm. Vans," printed at Salera, July, 1827, at page
8, runs thus : " The words of the judgment are, consid
ering John and Richard Codman, copartners by an act
made at Boston, in 1791, that was never dissolved by
both signatures, or mutual consent, they having made
fraudulent acts to cheat their true and lawful creditors,
the Court condemns them, jointly and severally, to pay
Wm. Vans his demand, with all expenses until paid."
A book entitled " An appeal to the public by Wra.
Vans," printed likewise at Salera in 1827, and orna
mented with engraved caricatures of the Codman fam
ily, at page 8, sets out the words of the judgment as
in the last paraphlet.
Another paraphlet, pubHshed in 1836, repeats the
sarae statement, and adds that he " is willing to stand
or fafl on the truth of this a.ssertion, and if the judg
ment rendered in France does not condemn John Cod
man as partner with Richard Codman, Wm. Vans has
no claim on the estate of John Codman."
24

186
Thus it appears, that Vans has not only constantly
published and republished his own assertion, that he had
a judgment, or judgments, against /oAn as weU as Rich
ard Codman, /or the whole demand, but that he has so
published with a boldness calculated to create belief;
inviting all persons to see the original document in his
possession ; declaring that a copy of it was taken by
the late R. G. Amory, Esq., who knew the fact stated
to be true ; boasting that the Codman family had never
dared to deny it ; and finally publishing names of great
respectability, as certifying to the fact, and appealing
for the truth of it to legislative reports, and even to a
deposition of the executor himself.
Secondly, we propose to show that this assertion
is utterly false and unfounded, and that the evidence so
confidently referred to in proof of it, is either wholly
fabricated, or wholly misstated and perverted from the
truth. Upon this point it must already have struck every
attentive reader, that Mr. Vans is not even consistent
with himself, (falsehood seldom is,) in his statements
respecting the supposed judgraent. In repeated instan
ces, he undertakes to set out its very words, and he
scarcely states thera twice alike ; nor are the differences
such as could, by possibility, arise from raere change of
phraseology in making new translations, at different
times, from the sarae original.
In farther proof of the falsehood of this assertion, we
raake the following extract from the report of the com
mittee of 1833, which, after detailing the evidence
brought before them, concludes as follows.
" Upon the whole matter, the committee are clearly
of opinion :

187
First, that the petitioner has no judgment whatever
against John and Richard Codman, as he has set forth
in his petition — and never had any judgraent for any
debt against John Codman, but for costs of suit only."
The committee of 1835 also, reviewing the subject,
say: " No judgnient in his favor for such a demand against
said John and Richard as copartners, has been produced
before your coramittee, nor is there any reason to believe
that any such judgment exists."
We next refer to Mr. Child's review of the report of
the committee of 1833. The review, nowhere deny
ing, impliedly admits the truth of this conclusion of the
committee of 1833; for the whole object of the review
is to point out supposed errors in their report. But at
pp. 18 and 19, Mr. Child distinctly states lohat judg
ments Mr. Vans has in his possession,, and did show, or
offer to show, to the comraittee. Mr. Child had too?
much discernment, though his client had not, to atterapt
so barefaced a misstateraent of the contents of a written
document which had been carefully examined by others,.
and which must again be produced whenever a new
investigation should be had. He therefore does not
pretend that any of the judgments for debt are against
John Codraan. He says thus. " We shall give an
enumeration of these judgraents, as follows, viz.
" 1 . A judgraent against Richard Codraan, rendered
by the Court of Comraerce at Paris, January 23, 1801,
for the sum of 6,000 /r. rentes, or 100,000 /r. principal ;
equal to an annual income of ^1,000, or a principal of
^20,000. " 2. A judgraent against Richard Codraan, rendered
by the same court, June 20, 1801, for 8,415 fr. rentes,
24 1-2

188
or 168,300 fr. principal, equal to annual interest of
^1,683, or a principal of ^33,660. This judgment
was also for rentes in arrear.*
" 3. A judgment rendered by the same court on the
20th July, 1801, against Richard Codman for 32,098
fr. rentes, or 642,360 /r. principal, equal to an annual
interest of ^6,419-60, or ^128,472 principal.f
" 4. A judgment against John Codman, rendered hy
the Court of First Instance of Dreux, September 28,
1802, that John Codman's bond be stricken from the
list [of Richard's creditors claiming the estate,] and his
mortgage upon the estate of Rouvrey be erased, and
that he pay the costs of suit.
" 5. A judgment against John Codman, by the Court
of the First Instance of Meaux, September, 1802, that
the same be done in regard to the estate of La Thuillerie,
and that he pay costs of suit.
"6. A judgraent against John Codraan, November
30, 1802, on an appeal from judgraents rendered at
Dreux, on the 30th August, and 20th September, 1802.
The judgraents of the court below [i. e. that John
Codraan's claims be stricken off the list,] are confirmed,
and John Codraan conderaned to pay costs, and a fine of
sixty francs to the nation, for his false claim.
" 7. The judgment on the final appeal of which the
report principally speaks."
By reference to p. 17, and thence to p. 13, of the re
view, it will be seen that this last mentioned judgment
only confirraed the fifth judgment above stated, namely,
that John Codman's claim be stricken from the list of
* Mr. Child omits to state that this judgment was recovered, not by Fans,
but by one Pacaud.
t Here again, Mr. Child omits to state that this judgment was recovered,
not by Vans in his own right, but by Vans and wife, in her right.

189
claimants, o-n the estate of La Thuillerie, and cott'-
demned him to pay the costs of his appeal, and the
customary fine of sixty francs.
It will be noted therefore, firsts that all the judgraents
for debt, which Mr. Vans' counsel and vindicator pre
tends to set up, are judgnients against Richard Codraan
alone ; — ^secondly, that they are all payable in rentes, or
French Government Stocks, and not in money ; —
thirdlv, that in translating them into Out currency Mr.
Child has taken the liberty of estimating the stocks at
par, thus making a show of a great sum due, whereas
the stocks, at the time of these transactions, were
worth very little in money, and so continued during the
life time both of John Codman and Richard Codraan.
Fourthly, that the judgraents, as Mr. Child chooses to
call them, against John Codman, are in fact only orders
cf court disallowing his claims against two of Richard
Codman's estates, in cases where the whole controversy
before the court was, which of several creditors of
Richard Codraan should be preferred, as showing the
best claim to the estates in question. Fifthly, that
although four different judgments are spoken of as ren
dered against John Codman, they all in fact relate to
the same matter. They are four in nuraber, only be
cause one of the estates lay in the district of Dreux,
and the other in the district of Meaux, and a decision
frora the court of the district was in each Case necessary
as a step to bring it before the Court of Appeals in
Paris. It is therefore just as it would be with us in a
question of title to real estate lying in tWo counties ;
an action would be brought before the Court of Coramon
Pleas in each county, and each action, after a trial there,
raight be appealed to the Supreme Court. So that

190
there might be four judgraents, two in the Common
Pleas, and two in the Suprerae Court, yet all relating
to the sarae subject raatter. Sixthly, that no one of
these judgraents condemns John Codman to the payment
of any thing except costs, which he would of course be
required to pay as the losing party, and in the Appellate
Court, a/ne, besides, of sixty francs, (about ^12,) to
be paid into the public treasury, which was by law re
quired in all cases of unsuccessful appeal.
Having thus set Mr. Vans and his own counsel in
direct opposition, in their respective statements about a
judgment against John Codraan, or against John and
Richard jointly, for the debt clairaed, we raight per
haps safely dismiss this point. But so much have Mr.
Vans' friends relied upon the supposed judgments
against John Codman, (which never existed,) and so
much does Mr. Child misconceive, or misrepresent, in
some respects, the effect of the record which really
does exist, to which John Codman was a party, and so
liable to error are persons of the raost honest disposition,
who do not understand the French language, or will
not take the pains to exaraine with care so long a docu
ment, that we think it proper both to annex a translation
of that docuraent at length, and also briefly to explain
its contents.
And first, as to the proof that the paper we annex is
a translation of the document in question. — It will be
remembered that Vans, in sorae of his pamphlets, by way
of corroborating his assertion that he held a judgment
against John & Richard Codman covering five quires
of paper, (and of course the raagnitude of the judgment
must be in proportion,) says, that R. G. Amory, Esq.,
the lawyer of Mrs. Codman, took a copy of it. It is true

191
that the late R. G. Amory, Esq., had in his possession,
for a short tirae, the original document which Vans
produces as his judgment against John Codman, (this
appears by Mr. Araory's deposition annexed,) and
caused not a copy, but a translation, of the original to be
made by a French gentleman of the name of De George,
then here, and considered competent to the undertaking.
The original being returned to Mr. Vans, this translation
has remained in our possession, and it is this which we
now annex with the certificate of the translator. The
translation may not be either so precise, or so elegant,
as it might have been if the translator had been a latvyer,
as well as a French scholar ; but there is no question
of its general accuracy ; and it fortunately happens,
that in those passages which Mr. Child esteems most
material, we have now the advantage of comparing it
with a translation by Mr. Child himself. Mr. Child's
translation of these passages we therefore also annex,
to show that the differences are merely in forms of
expression, and not in substance. The only alteration
we have made, in the translation, has been to insert, in
brackets, the dates of our own calendar corresponding
to those of the French calendar then in use, and to put
distinct headings to different parts of the proceedings,
so as to raake them more intelligible to the reader.
Whoever attempts to labor through this voluminous
document will find it a very different thing from one of
our own short and simple records of a judicial proceed
ing, owing to the different forms of the French courts,
and their practice of recording at length all the evi
dence, and the arguments of counsel on both sides, and
the reasons vvhich bring the judges to their conclusion ;
but he will also find that the essence of the document.

192
that is, the conclusion itself, is contained in the space
of a very few lines. As it is a paper, which, frora its
length and complexity, is capable of being, and indeed
has been, abundantly mystified by Mr. Vans and his col
league, we now propose to present a brief explanation
of it, with an abstract of its raost material contents,
referring all persons to the document itself, who may
wish to verify the truth of our abstract.
It purports to be the record of a judgment rendered
by the Court of Appeals at Paris, on the 7th August,
1804. It begins by describing the parties, and their relative
position before the court, and the various processes by
which they are brought there. These processes seem
to be in all cases a raeraorial, or written petition, from
the party who seeks soraething frora the court, and a
summons, or citation, to the other persons interested.
The memorialist, or petitioner, appears to be styled
demandant. The person who comes to answer respect
ing the thing demanded, appears to be styled defend
ant. And as any defendant may, after appearance,
have soraething to ask frora the court in relation to the
thing in dispute, he also raay file his raemorial, and
thereby become a demandant. The same person, it
will be seen, is described, therefore, as both demand
ant and defendant, in the same suit. If, during the
proceedings, it appears that some person not before the
court has acquired an interest in the thing disputed
about, he is notified of the proceedings, and if he
appears, is styled an intervenant, that is, as we under
stand, either a person who intervenes between the par
ties originally before the court, or a person coming in
between the judgment ofthe court below and the judg-

193
ment of the Court of Appeal ; and he also raay becorae
either a demandant, if he files a raemorial asking any
thing in his favor from the court, or a defendant if he
only objects to what is asked by some other party ; or
he may become both demandant and defendant, as the
case may be.
In the present case, the record begins by stating
that John Codman is the person who appeals, and that
two judgments, or decrees, of the Court of First In
stance in the District of Meaux, rendered 15th and
22d June, 1803, are appealed from. These dates, it
may be remarked, by the way, were after the death of
John Codman, though before the news of his death
had probably reached France.
The record then seems to describe five different suits,
or sets of proceedings.
1st. Between John Codraan, styled both defendant
and deraandant, of the one part ; — and J. J. Pacaud,
Wm. Vans, and Madame Gouvain, described as the
divorced ivife of Vans ; and these are called joint de
mandants, of the other part.
2d. Between said Pacaud, Vans, and Madame Gou
vain, styled joint demandants, of the one part ; — and
Richard Codraan, styled defendant, and one Rayjil,
called both defendant and demandant, and one Dumont,
who is here styled proprietor, which signifies, as we
suppose, merely landowner, or householder — indicating
his condition of life, and not his relation to the suit —
of the other part.
3d. Between said Dumont, styled intervenant, and
deraandant, of the one part ; — and said Pacaud, Vans,
and Madame Gouvain, styled both defendants and de-
26

194
raandants, and John Codraan, also styled both defend
ant and deraandant, of the other part.
4th. Between said Rayjil, styled both intervenant
and demandant, of the one part ; — and said Pacaud,
Vans, and Madame Gouvain, and John Codman, all
styled defendants and deraandants, of the other part.
6th. Between Richard Codman, styled intervenant
and deraandant, of the one part ; — and Pacaud, Vans,
and Madame Gouvain, styled defendants and demand
ants, and John Codraan, who is here styled defendant
only, of the other part.
It may here be reraarked, that notwithstanding the
nuraber of persons apparently engaged, and the various
permutations and combinations of processes, by which
they are brought into different relations with each
other, as demandants, defendants, and intervenants,
that the whole business may nevertheless be resolved
into that of two parties substantially, and one substan
tial question before the court.
Madame Gouvain, as the divorced wife of Vans, and
owner of the stocks and houses sold by Richard Cod
raan, had a separate and distinct interest in her late
husband's demands upon him. Pacaud was the person
to whom Vans had assigned Richard Codman's obliga
tion to deliver the 8,416 francs rentes tiers consolide.
Rayjil and Dumont were persons, to each of whom
Pacaud had sold an interest in the judgment he had
obtained against Richard Codman for this obligation.
These parties, therefore, are all claimants under Vans,
and all creditors of Richard Codman.
John Codman, as a creditor also of Richard Codman,
is the opposite claimant.

196
Richard Codman is the debtor whose property is
demanded by the opposing claimants ; and the thing
claimed, is the estate of La Thuillerie, (or rather its
proceeds, after a sale by order of court,) which estate
was situated in the District of Meaux, where the Court
of First Instance sat.
The whole substantial question is, whether John
Codman, as a creditor of Richard Codman, or Vans
and his associates, as creditors, also, of Richard
Codman, should have this property.
John Codraan clairas it by virtue of an inscription,
(equivalent either to an attachment or the recording of
a raortgage, and used here in the latter sense,) made
February 11, 1801.
Pacaud clairas by virtue of an inscription [or attach
ment,] made June 26, 1801. And Vans and Madame
Gouvain claira by two separate inscriptions, [or attach
raents,] raade July 31, 1801.
The inscriptions, (whether raortgages or attach
ments,) if valid, would take effect in the order of their
priority ; that is, John Codraan's deraand, if proved,
being first in order of time, must first be paid out of
the property, and Pacaud, Vans, and Madame Gouvain
could only take what was left. They had, therefore,
a common interest to defeat John Codman's inscription,
which, if allowed to stand, was large enough to absorb
the whole value of the estate, and raore. They , therefore,
endeavor to supercede John Codman's inscription ; —
first, by exhibiting the evidence of their own demands
upon Richard Codraan, namely, judgments recovered
against him before the Tribunal of Commerce ; sec
ondly, by requiring proof of the reality of John Codman's
demand against Richard Codman; and thirdly, by at-

196
tacking the evidence brought in behalf of John Codman
to support it.
The nature of the proceeding, therefore, is not very
unlike that which sometimes arises under our own law,
when a subsequent attaching creditor disputes the
reality of the debt on which a prior attaching creditor
had founded his attachment ; or where several attach
ing creditors dispute the validity of some prior assign
raent of the sarae property, made by their debtor to his
assignee. The real question was, whether John Codman's
claira against Richard Codraan, was sufficiently proved,
by the evidence before the court, to be a bond fide
claim for a valuable consideration. And the whole
effect of the judgraent is, to decide that it was not so
proved by the evidence produced.
The record, having described the judgments appealed
frora, and the parties, proceeds to state the evidence
as it stood in the court below, and to give a history of
all the proceedings.
The evidence was, that J. & R. Codman became
partners at Boston, in May, '91 ; that the firm lasted till
May, '98, when John Codraan advertised its dissolution
at Boston — and a copy of the advertisement is recited ;
that Richard Codman came to Paris in '94, and there
established a private banking house, as it is called, w/w'/e
his house in America still continued ; that Vans, at Paris,
formed a friendly, as well as mercantile, connection with
Richard Codman ; that a joint speculation was entered
into between Richard Codman and Vans; that Vans went
to America on this business, leaving certain French gov
ernment stocks in Richard's hands, with power also to
seU two houses ; that Richard sold the houses to Reu-

197
bel, for 74,000 fr., and laid out 72,000 fr. in governraent
securities, within six days after ; that Vans returned to
Paris in 1800, and deraanded the stocks &c., which
Richard refused to deliver ; that Vans assigned to Pa
caud one of Richard's obligations ; that judgments were
recovered by the several parties against Richard, and
that these judgraent creditors severally prayed for in
scriptions on Richard's property at Meaux.
That before these lawsuits, Richard had made a
notarial obHgation to John, for 110,000 fr., on the 31st
Jan. 1801, expressed to be for raoney lent, and delivered
it to John's attorney, acting under a power executed on
the 17th Jan. 1801, authorizing the attorney to receive
Richard's obligation for a balance of account ; and that
to secure this obligation Richard had raortgaged to John
the estate in question (La Thuillerie), and also the es
tate of Rouvray, at Dreux ; that the inscription on La
Thuillerie was prayed for by John Codman, Feb, 11,
1801, and that on the 6th Feb. 1801, Richard, by ano
ther notarial act, had transferred to John a raortgage of
another estate, called Cremille.
It then states the offer made by Richard to Vans, in
the letter of 16th Feb, 1801, by which the estate of La
ThuiUerie was offered at 80,000 fr., less 33,000 allow
ed for incumbrances on it, and that of Rouvray at
110,000 fr. without any deductions, or allowance for
incumbrances. It is further stated, that Nov. 10, 1801, the estate
of Rouyray was sold under an order of Court, for
62,000 fr. to one Carteron, and that June 25, 1802,
the estate of La Thuillerie was sold in like manner for
50,100 fr. to Vans; — after which, Babut, who is describ
ed as assignee of several of the attaching creditors of

198
Richard Codman, caused proceedings to be instituted
for a hearing of the parties respecting the distribution of
the proceeds of La Thuillerie.
The record then shows how Pacaud had assigned to
Rayjil 30,000 fr. to be first taken out of the proceeds of
his judgment against Richard Codman, and 17,600 fr.
to be next taken out of the proceeds by Dumont ; and
states that all the attaching creditors were required to
produce the evidence of their respective debts ; and that
upon John Codman's producing Richard's notarial obli
gation to him for the 110,000 fr., dated 31st Jan. 1801,
it was objected to by the other claimants, as being fic
titious, and made to defraud the real creditors of Rich
ard Codman, upon which ground they demanded that
John Codraan's claim should be rejected, and his inscrip
tion on the estate of La Thuillerie erased.
This question was argued upon the evidence by coun
sel on both sides. The arguments we do not deem it
necessary at present to notice, except that it was con
tended on the part of Vans & Co., that the power exe
cuted by John Codman, being to receive an obligation
for the whole, or some part, of a balance of account set
tled on the 1st Jan. contradicted the obligation, whicli
was expressed to he for money loaned by John to Rich
ard, to be used in his business, and showed, at any rate,
that the note could not possibly be good for any thing
without the account, to prove its consideration.
The result was, that the court, on advice of the At
torney General, (who it seems always attends in these
cases in behalf of the government,) ordered, on the 16th
June, 1803, that John Codman should produce his ac
count settled with Richard, by the 22d ofthe same June —
that is, in eight days.

199
It will here be noted, by the way, that John Codman
had left Paris, taking his papers with him, including the
account in question, in Feb. 1801 ;* that eight days only
were allowed for the production of the account, and
that John Codman was not only out of the country, but
in fact dead, when this order was passed.
Of course, the account was not produced ; and on the
22d June, 1803, the court, after hearing the "conclu
sions" ofthe Attorney General on the evidence, decreed,
for reasons which are set forth at some length, and
which we shall notice presently, that the obligation for
the 110,000 fr. should be rejected as false and ground
less, and made to defraud the lawful creditors of Rich
ard Codman; — consequently that John Codman's in
scription on the estate should be stricken out, and the
proceeds distributed among the other claimants ; that
Richard Codman, though he had not appeared, should
be held bound by the judgraent of the court, and that
John Codman should pay the costs of suit.
This is the whole substance of the judgment of the
court of First Instance ; and from this judgment John
Codman's attorney appealed.
The record next states the proceedings upon the ap
peal, the raanner in which the intervening parties come
in, and that John Codman had furnished the requisite
security for payment ofthe costs.
It then presents a suraraary of the arguraents and
" conclusions" of counsel for the several parties, before
the Court of Appeal, which we do not think it necessary
at present to state — except that on behalf of John Cod-

* See his letter to Babut, written at his departure from Paris, which
expressly states that he took with him both the account and the notes for
its balance. Doc. No. 250.

200
man, it was contended, among other things, that the
decree for the production in eight days ofa paper then
in America, was unreasonable, and that although the
account was not produced, yet Richard Codman's note
of Jan. 1, 1801, acknowledging the balance of the ac
count, was produced, and ought to be considered equiv
alent to the production of the account itself.
M. Babut was enabled to furnish this note, in conse
quence of its having been transmitted to him from
America, for the purpose of instituting a suit upon it,
and with the view of attaching another estate.*
The record then goes on to state what is called the
point de droit, literally, point of right, which seems to
be a statement of the several questions of law and evi
dence, to be resolved by the court ; these we pass by
for the present ; — and thereupon the Court of Appeals
adjudges concerning the appeal from the judgments of
the court below, and adopting the opinion of that Court,
that said appeal be declared null and void, and that ihe
judgments appealed from should have their full effect,
and that John Codraan should pay the ordinary fine of
60 francs, and all the costs and charges of the appeal.
Such is the whole substance of that document which
Vans has constantly represented to be a judgment
against John and Richard Codman for a debt of several
hundred thousand dollars.
Thirdly. We propose to prove that Vans has made
this gross misrepresentation knowingly, wilfully, and
with intent to deceive.
Can it be otherwise .?
* See John Codman's letter from Boston, of Jan. 5, 1802, Doc. No. 319.

201
In the first place, Mr. Vans, after his fifteen years resi
dence in France, will not pretend to be so ignorant of the
French language as not to be able, on that account, to
read the document in his possession. In the next place,
even if he could not read, or understand, the document
itself, he raust of necessity have known what was the
subject of the long litigation to which he was giving his
personal attention in France. He knew surely what his
lawsuit was about; — he knew that the question was,
whether he, or John Codman, should have the proceeds
of La Thuillerie ; — and he knew, of course, that the
judgment was, only that John Codman should not have
these proceeds, and that he should. He could not but
know, that he had never commenced a suit against
John Codraan, nor even raade a claira upon hira,
while he was in France. By what extent of charity,
then, can it be iraagined, that he really believed he
had got a judgment against John Codman for debt?
But what fixes the wilfulness and deceit of the act,
beyond all possibility of question, is, that he undertakes,
again and again, to set out the very words of the judg
ment, and with boundless effrontery states, as the words
of the judgment, words which do expressly condemn
John & Richard Codman, jointly, to pay his whole
demand, with rents due and coming due, or interest,
until paid, when there is not one sentence in the
whole document containing such words, or any other
words which can by possibility be distorted into such
a construction. Does he transcribe the words of a
document before him falsely, in this essential point, by
accident ? or was it purposely done, with the fraudulent
design of misleading those who should read his libellous
26

202
publications, to place confidence in the truth of this
unwarranted assertion .?
Nor is it raere raisstateraent of the words, of a paper
before his eyes, of which he stands convicted, but also
of palpably false stateraent of facts within his own
knowledge — for he says, that when he found he could
get no satisfaction frora Richard Codman, he comraenced
a suit at law upon which John and Richard Codman
were both — and he himself marks the expression em
phatically, as that which he considered most raaterial
to his stateraent — were both condemned to pay him his
demand — nay, that falsehood raight do its utmost, that
readers raight not even be permitted to shelter the heirs
of John Codraan under the excuse that this was a
judgnient rendered against John Codman after he was
dead, he asserts that while both were living they were
both condemned to pay him his demand ; yet the judg
ment of the Court of Appeals which he produces, such
as it is, not only does not touch the question of debt, but
was not rendered until 1804, nor the judgment appealed
frora until June, 1 803, and John Codman died in the
May preceding, as Vans himself had taken pains to
prove in Paris.* He even goes so much further in
falsehood than this, as to assert that the existence of a
judgraent against John Codraan, " never denied by the
heirs in print," was expressly admitted by the execu
tor under oath, when the paper referred to contains
nothing like such an ad raission. f
Nor is this all — he undertakes farther to bolster up
the falsehood, by publishing a pretended certificate of

* See the certificate of Orne and others published by him. Document,
No. 383.
t See Docuraent, No. 399.

203
Messrs. Peabody, Blake and Davis, three highly re
spectable counsellors at law, that they had seen his
judgments against John and Richard Codman, which
certificates, as published by Mr. Vans, are a mere/a6rz-
cation. They never intended to certify, and never in
fact certified any such thing. On the contrary, Mr.
Peabody, who had been Mr. Vans' counsel, being re
quested by him to sign such a certificate, as drawn
up by Vans himself, positively refused to sign it, because
it stated what he did not know to be true. He was pre
vailed upon however to give him a certificate of what
he did know to be true, namely, that he had seen cer
tain notes of Richard Codman, and a copy of a judg
ment in France on those notes. And thereupon Mr.
Vans has the audacity to publish, under Mr. Peabody's
narae and signature, the very certificate which he refus
ed to sign, instead of the true certificate which he did
sign ; and publishes certificates also frora Mr. Blake
and Mr. Davis, in such a manner as to raake them re
fer to and apparently authenticate the documents men
tioned in the falsified certificate of Mr. Peabody, when
the certificates which they really gave do not convey,
and were never intended to convey, the idea that they
had seen any judgment whatever against John Cod
man. We refer to Mr. Peabody's deposition, and the
letters of Messrs. Peabody, Blake and Davis, in the
appendix, fully establishing these facts.* No man who
reflects for a raoraent on the variety and character of
these manifold falsehoods, can entertain a particle of
doubt that they were aU deliberate inventions, for the
fraudulent purpose of inducing the public, and especial-
* See Documents, No's. 341, and 342.

204
ly the raembers of the Legislature, among whom these
pubhcations were actively disseminated, to believe that
he really possessed a judgment/or debt against John
Codraan. And yet, as will presently be seen, these
are neither the raost, nor the worst, of Mr. Vans' inven
tions to raake proof of his claira.
The next assertion, on the part of Mr. Vans, deserv
ing notice, is, that at the time of his transactions with
Richard Codraan, John Codraan was his copartner.
This is the corner stone upon which he builds his
claim ; — the constant burden of his song, in all his pub
lications and all his petitions. It is easy to assert —
especially for William Vans — but where is his proof.?
Why, in the first place, he pubHshes, in all, or most, of
his pamphlets, certain letters, bills of exchange, and
other commercial papers, made by Richard Codraan at
Paris, respecting the business of J. & R. Codman —
some of them as far back as the year 1796 — but none,
(and this we pray raay be noted,) not one after May
1, 1798. Every document he publishes, as raade by
Richard Codman, and purporting to be for account of
J. & R. Codman, was made before the 1st of May,
1798. His latest document is a bill drawn at Paris,
April 21, 1798.
" We then prove," says he, in one of his pamphlets,
" by the foregoing letters aud bills of exchange that
until the 21st of April, 1798, John & Richard Cod
man were copartners." — Indeed ! Who doubts it .?
Who ever denied it .? Mr. Vans succeeds, after an
astonishing parade of proof, in establishing to his own
satisfaction, as if it were the great question in the
case, what nobody, from the beginning of Wm. Vans'
claim, ever doubted ; — for it was never pretended by

205
the executor or heirs of John Codraan, that a part
nership had not once subsisted between the brothers,
under the firm of J. & R. Codraan, nor that that
house was dissolved earlier than the 1st May, 1798,
which is the date of the public notice of dissolution.
But Mr. Vans' loans and deposits, which he talks of,
with Richard Codman, were not until the first of Jan
uary, 1799. The whole question, therefore, is whether
there was at that time a continuing partnership be
tween John and Richard Codraan, or whether it had
really ceased to exist, agreeably to the public notice, on
the first of May preceding. And after that date, Mr.
Vans fails to furnish a tittle of genuine evidence of a
single act, of either of the late partners, tending to prove
his point. He selects, indeed, as having that tendency,
certain scattered extracts from the Paris correspond
ence, separated from their context, explained by his
own false gloss, and coupled with certain fabrications
of his own, to give thera point. These parts of the
Paris correspondence deserve particular comment. We
propose to show, first, that all the docuraents or ex
tracts, published by hira frora that correspondence,
which are genuine, fail to reach the raark ; secondly,
that all which have any tendency to make out his point
are deliberate forgeries and fabrications.
The first of these letters, on which he relies, is the
letter frora Richard Codraan, dated Septeraber 1, 1800.
We admit this, as published by Vans, to be a genuine
docuraent, except that he oraits the concluding part, in
which Richard Codman declares his readiness to settle
in a just and equitable way — a declaration of no great
raoraent, but oraitted, nevertheless, because it made for,
rather than against, Richard Codman. This letter

206
assigns Richard Codman's reasons for not investing in
the French funds the proceeds of the houses which he
sold to Reubel. His ground is, that he had a right to
hold these proceeds as security for his engagements on
Vans' account, and that he saw no security in the
French funds. " If therefore," says he, " I bad in
vested the balance due you yet in inscriptions, I should
have had scarce any security at all, and such as no pru
dent man would have taken ;^and in fact such as con
sidering my circumstances, and connection with my
brother, I did not think myself authorised to take ; espe
cially at a moraent when the affairs of France wore the
raost unfavorable appearance." It is this particular
expression, " connection with my brother," which Mr.
Vans seizes, and his counsel dilates upon, as if there
were no other connection in life between raan and
raan, than that of copartnership. With equal plausi
bility raight it be argued, that J. & R. Codman of
Boston had gone into partnership with the Barings of
London ; because the forraer write to the latter (Octo
ber 3, '93,) as follows : " we addressed to Messrs,
Horaberg & Horaberg, freres, with orders to remit the
araount to London, to Messrs. J. & T. Amory & Co.,
before we knew of the connection with your house." —
Yet the connection which Richard Codman had formed
abroad, in this case, as appears from the correspondence
and accounts, was only that the Barings had agreed with
him for a coraraission, to give his house a credit, to draw
upon in London, and Richard Codraan had agreed in
behalf of his house, to deposit its funds for European
operations with them. Here was a mercantile connec
tion. Was it a partnership .?

207
What, then, was the connection subsisting between
Richard Codman and his brother, at the date of this let
ter, or at tbe date of the transaction to which the letter
refers, naraely, the sale of the houses to Reubel, May 26,
1799 .? What connection was it, which operated as a
reason why, considering his own circumstances and that
connection, and the unpromising aspect of French affairs,
Richard Codman did not feel himself authorised to take
French inscriptions for security on his engagements
with Vans .? If it be true, as has been stated, and the
proof shows it, that he, Richard Codman, had been taken
into business by John, without bringing to the joint
account either capital or credit ; that he had enjoyed for
years the benefit of that association, using his brother's
capital and credit, as well as skill and industry ; that
funds of the house, to an extent vastly beyond his por
tion of the profits, had been sent into his hands, and
that instead of employing these funds in the operations
of the house, he had embarked thera in his own private
speculations and purchases, and thereby had becorae a
great debtor to the brother, whose funds he had thus
withdrawn and appropriated without his consent, while
his raeans of paying him depended on the value of
French stocks and French real estate ; is not this pre
cisely such a connection, and such a state of circumstan
ces, as ought to have rendered him cautious, to an ex
treme, about the security he should take for new and
doubtful engagements, implicating still farther funds,
which in reality were not his own .? Was he author
ised to sport at mere hazard with his brother's property ?
Had the connection between them ceased, so far as to
leave him perfectly free to gamble as he pleased?
Were the joint undertakings of the old house all wound

208
up and settled, so that Richard's responsibility as a
partner on those accounts, was at an end .? For the
effect of a dissolution is simply to put an end to new
speculations on the joint account ; — it is notice to the
world that the parties no longer hold theraselves re
sponsible for each other in any new engagement; — but
until the old debts are Hquidated, and the joint property
is realised, they remain necessarily connected, often for
years. Such is the comraon understanding of mer
chants. So Richard Codman intended. And so Vans
at the time understood.
The expression is, at raost, merely ambiguous, and
capable of such meaning as the real facts of the case
shall warrant. Richard Codraan uses a vague and
general term, which might indicate either an existing
active partnership connection, or such connection as
appertained to the liquidation of a past partnership,
which had resulted in great advantages to himself, and
great indebtedness to a most lenient and confiding cred
itor, whora he was pecuHarly bound in honor to see
paid — to say nothing of the Barings, for whose heavy
claim he was also especially called upon to hold his
brother harmless. That this latter was the kind of
connection which must have been meant, because it
was the only kind of connection which then actually
existed, we shall presently demonstrate, frotn the state
of the accounts, connected with the other facts already
in the case. But meanwhile, we content ourselves
with this, that it is perfectly clear that Vans himself
understood the letter at the time, as we do now, and
did not understand that an existing partnership con
nection in new undertakings was meant, because the
subsequent correspondence shows, that he distinctly

209
admitted the dissolution of that copartnership, and
instead of pursuing John Codraan for his debt, was
driving Richard Codraan to give his own separate obli
gations, and prosecuting those obligations to judgraent
against Richard Codman alone, while John Codraan
was equally open to hira, had he been equally liable.
The letter in question, it will be reraerabered, is dated
the 1st Septeraber, 1800; — it was on the 29th of the
sarae Septeraber that Vans took a note for the 8,416
francs rentes tiers consolide, signed with the separate and
individual name of Richard Codman. On the 6th of
October following, he took, in like manner, a note for
the 5,000 francs rentes provisoires, signed with the
separate and individual name of Richard Codman ;
and on the 23d January, 1801, while John Codraan is
in Paris, he sues and gets judgment, for a large part of
his debt, against Richard Codman. Did he prefer the
security of Richard Codman alone, to that of John &
Richard, jointly .?
Add to these facts, which speak volumes, and are
absolutely uncontradicted by any other fact in the
case. Vans' own letter of the 31st January, 1801, to
John Codman, in which he says that your demand
on Richard arose frora cargoes sent to France " during
the existence of the house of J. ^ R. Codman," and that
attachments had been laid on Richard's estates bought
" at the time the copartnership of J. ^ R. Codman
existed," and then see what interpretation Vans hira
self had put on the doubtful expression which Richard
had used, and which Vans now most unrighteously
endeavors to wrest from its true meaning, as he him
self then understood it.
27

210
The next letter, on which Mr. Vans relies in proof of
the copartnership, is that from John Codman, dated 11
Pluviose, An. 9, or 30th January, 1801, enclosing a
stateraent of an offer, which he says he should advise
his brother to agree to, though he had not consulted him
about it. This has been already sufficiently coramented
upon. The previous correspondence shows how John
Codman was induced, by the request of Vans himself, to
interfere, as a sort of mediator, between Vans and Rich
ard, and to raake proposals for settlement in Richard's
behalf. Upon this letter, therefore, we only refer to
our former remarks.
But that which follows, in Mr. Vans' publications,
deserves particular coraraent indeed. It is published in
one or raore of his paraphlets, as his own answer to
John Codman's letter, above mentioned, and it was
offered, as such, to the legislative comraittees of 1833
and 1 836. This letter we pronounce unequivocally to
be a fabrication, and a forgery, if a man can be said
to forge his own letters. We deny that any such
letter was ever sent to John Codraan, or written at the
tirae this purports to have been written. In the first
place, we give the letter as we find it in one of Mr.
Vans' pamphlets, — viz. that entitled, " A true state
ment," &:c. at p. 18. It reads as follows:
"Paris, Pluviose 9.
Mr. John Codman.
Sir, I have duly received your letter of the Ilth Plu
viose and note your offer therein contained, as well as
the manner you express yourself; but I cannot accept it,
unless the Drew [Dreux] or Rovery [Rouvray] estate
are [is] given for the 8,415 rentes. The demand you

211
have on Madam Danuel, and the Firraancourt estate
you say are [is] worth 60,000 livres. Your letter states
that you raake rae this offer for your brother, but you
say you have not consulted him about it, and say meet
him or me on the subject ; which proves that you are both
one and the same person. And I can assure you I do
not fear for ray raoney as I can prove you are copartners.
Your humble servant, WM. VANS."
Vans says this was his answer sent to John Codraan's
letter of the 30th January, and if it was an answer sent
to any letter of John Codraan's, it was an answer to that
particular letter, because it expressly refers to it, both
by date, and by quoting its language.
We now quote from the printed report of the legisla
tive comraittee, of 1833, as follows :
" This answer," (the sarae which is now the subject
of our reraark,) " was a copy written on a loose, half
sheet of foreign paper, and there was no proof that the
original was ever received by, or sent to John Codman.
The respondent produced an original answer frora the
petitioner to the sarae letter of January 31st,* dated the
following day, also acknowledging the receipt of the
letter and of the stateraent enclosed, but in nothing else
corresponding at all with the alleged copy produced by
the petitioner."
"No answer from John Codman to the letter of
which the paper exhibited by the petitioner was alleged
to be a copy, was produced by him ; but he produced
as an answer to it, a letter frora Richard C. appearing

* It should be 30th. This is one of those trivial errors ofthe report
which Mr. Child magnifies into material misrepresentations !

212
to be dated 17 Pluviose, (February 6th,) Sc;ying that
he could not accept the offer made by the petitioner,
and referring to a sum of 60,000 fr. mentioned in a
letter from the petitioner of that date. The respond
ent, aft^i' the argument cf the petitioner's counsel
was closed, offered to exhibit another letter from the
petitioner to John Codman, (mentioning the same sum
of 60,000 fr.,) as that to which the letter of Richard C.
was an answer; but the committee declined receiving
it in that stage of the hearing, as they did not find there
ivas in the case any satisfactory ground to believe that the
alleged letter of the petitioner was ever sent to John
Codman." Thus it appears, that, in the opinion of this committee,
the copy offered was a fabrication, and that Vans un
dertook to support it before them, by adding falsehood
to falsehood. We propose to maintain the soundness
and certainty of this opinion. Mr. Child, in his review
of the report, (p. 32,) attempts to answer the charge ;
but in the course of that attempt does not deny a single
fact which the comraittee state. He denies only their
inference. It may be taken then as adraitted, that there
is no proof that any such letter was ever sent, unless it
be found in the evidence the committee state. It rests,
wholly, on Mr. Vans' assertion, that the paper exhib
ited is a copy of a letter which he sent. And what is
the proof to the contrary .? Not merely a siraple denial
that any such letter is in our possession, though this
would be enough, because it is incumbent on Mr. Vans
to prove that he wrote and sent such a letter, and not
on us to prove that he did not write or send it ; but in
addition to this denial, we actually produce the original

213
*
answer which Mr. Vans did send, written in his own
hand writing, and under his own signature, to this sarae
letter of John Codraan's.
But how does it appear that the letter we produce is
the answef .? Read the first sentence and see.
Paris, 12 Pluviose, 9 yr.
Mr. John Codman.
Sir, I received your letter, which you did me the hon
or to write to me, under date 1 1 Pluviose, with the
statement enclosed, making me an offer for a settlement
with your brother R. C.
This letter was sent, for we have it. It answers a
letter of John Codman's to Vans, under date of 1 1 Plu
viose, and one letter only of John Codman's, of that
date, is produced by Mr. Vans — it answers a letter
which enclosed a statement offering terms of settlement
with Richard — and no other letter of John Codman's,
of corresponding date, enclosing a statement, or offering
terms of settlement for Richard, is brought to light. Were
there then two answers by Mr. Vans to this one letter .?
Yet you must either assume this extraordinary fact, that
Wm. Vans wrote and sent two distinct answers to this
sarae letter — answers varying in every respect, the one
from the other, — or else you are forced to the conclusion,
that one is a fabrication. Which is the false one is
ascertained by the fact, that the one possessed by John
Codman, and produced by his representatives, has to it
the autograph signature of Wm. Vans, — while the other
is supported by no evidence at all, except Mr. Vans'
naked assertion — which we have already shown to be
of very light value ! Then compare the contents of the
two papers, and see whether both could possibly have

214
been written by Vans, at or about the same time. In
the pretended answer he says, you and your brother are
both one and the same person, and I do not fear for my
raoney, because I can prove you copartners. In the gen
uine answer he says, your demand on your brother pro
ceeds from the sales of cargoes sent to France during
the existence of the house of J. ^ R- Codman — and
attachments have been raade on your brother's estates
bought at the time the copartnership existed — and if you
persist in your deraand on your brother's estates to the
injury of his creditors, you must take the conse
quence. The point of the pretended answer is, the actual
existence of a copartnership at the time, raaking John
Codman jointly liable with Richard, while the genuine
answer expressly admits the past existence of the co
partnership, and argues upon the then separate, and even
adverse interests of the two brothers. The pretended
answer, therefore, is not only unsupported by proof, but
is absolutely inconsistent with the genuine answer,
which is proved. The conclusion is irresistible, that
the pretended answer is a base fabrication, made with
intent to deceive others, and thereby to defraud the heirs
of John Codman.
Being charged with the fabrication, Mr. Vans next
attempts to bolster up the spurious document by con
necting it with those which are genuine. He attempts
to prove the admission of its receipt by Richard Cod
man, and for this purpose offers the letter of Richard
Codman, dated 17 Pluviose or February 6th. This let
ter says, " it is utterly out of my power to comply with
the offer contained in the letter to my brother under this
date. It might perhaps be accepted if the article of
60,000 were taken out of such property as I have, &c."

215
Now this, says Mr. Vans, shows that ray letter to
John Codraan had been received and comraunicated to
Richard. True, it shows the receipt of some letter frora
Vans to John Codman. But does it show the receipt
of the letter which says you are both one and the same
person, and I can prove you copartners .? So far from
it the spurious letter purports to have been an imraedl
ate answer to John Codman's letter of the 30th Jan
uary, for it begins, " I have duly received your letter of
the Ilth Pluviose," &c. Of course, if it were a
genuine letter it must have been written on that or
the following day, for both the parties were in Paris,
and the correspondence was proceeding with such
activity that several notes sometimes passed in a
single day. But the letter to John Codraan, which
Richard speaks of under date of February 6th, is some
letter received on that day — his expression is, " the let
ter to ray brother under this date." The letter too,
which is thus acknowledged by Richard, was sorae let
ter containing at large the terms of an offer from Vans for
settlement, which Richard says he cannot comply with.
And the spurious letter contains no general offer for
settlement at all. It simply declines the offer made by
John unless the Dreux estate be given for the 8,416
rentes. Why then is this letter of Richard's on the 6th
February, offered as proof of the receipt of the spurious
letter frora Vans which should have been written on the
30th or 31st of January .? Because it is God's will that
knavery should always confound itself by the folly of
its own crooked devices. Because it is impossible, in
the very nature and constitution of the human mind, that
falsehood should ever imitate successfully the force and
simplicity of truth. It is upon this principle alone, that

216
judicial tribunals are enabled to detect the guilty, and
to acquit- the innocent. Deprive society of this protec
tion, and fraud and falsehood would universally triumph
over truth and virtue.
The genuine letter of Richard Codman of the 5th of
February, speaks of a sum of 60,000, as standing in the
way of his acceptance of Vans' proposal. " It might
perhaps be accepted, if the article of 60,000 were
taken out," &c. Vans therefore, for the purpose of
giving an appearance of authenticity to his fabricated let
ter, puts into it a sentence naming this sarae sum, under
the idea that thus it would be made to correspond some
what with Richard's genuine letter, and that the latter
therefore might be received as proof that the former
had been actually sent. And yet it is so miserable and
wretched a contrivance, so poorly executed, that its
folly seems to overmatch its wickedness. The sen
tence invented for this end is " the demand you have
on Madame Danuel and the Firmancourt estate you
say are worth 60,000 livres." Your offer, says Richard,
" might perhaps be accepted if the article of 60,000
were taken out of such property as I have." And from
this correspondence of figures and sums argues Vans,
and his abler colleague argues so too, it follows that the
disputed letter raust be genuine, and must have been
received. Nay, his abler colleague goes soraewhat
farther, and instead of quoting the language of the dis
puted letter misrepresents it altogether, when he says,
" Vans names that sum, (the 60,000) as the value of a
piece of property, which he requires of John Codman,
m addition to his previous offers of compromise." Who
ever looks at the letter will see that the sum is not

217
named by Vans in the manner, or with the meaning,
which his counsel represents.
The miserable weakness ofthe contrivance is apparent
in this very thing. The 60,000 which Richard speaks
of, was a sum manifestly forming a part of some offer from
Vans; therefore he says, the offer might be agreed to,
" if the 60,000 were taken out of such property as I have,
say Bromfield & Houghton's note." But the sentence
in the spurious letter, which it was designed that this
genuine sentence of Richard's should fit, speaks of the
sum of 60,000 livres, not as a part of any offer from Vans,
but rather as a sura forraing a part of the offer Vans
had from John Codman. It says, this offer (John's) I
cannot accept " unless the Dreux (or Rovery) estate are
given for the 8,415 francs. The demand you have on
Mad. Danuel and the Firmancourt estate, you say are
worth 60,000 livres." What sense is there in Richard's
saying, in answer to this, your proposition (Vans') might
be agreed to, "if the 60,000 were taken out of such
property as I have," when Vans had offered nothing,
and objected nothing respecting the 60,000 livres, nor
has made any proposal whatever, except that the Rouv
ray estate should be given for the 8,416 rentes .?
But the retributive justice which visits the fraud lies
here, that this sarae sentence, so clumsily contrived in
the spurious letter to fit on to a genuine letter of subse
quent date, for the purpose of giving the fabrication an
air of authenticity, fits not at all the antecedent letter
which it purports to an.swer — and thus returning "to
plague the inventor," furnishes additional proof of the
forgery. For John Codman's letter of the 30th of Jan
uary, and its statement enclosed, contain not one word
about Madame Danuel, or the Firmancourt estate, or
28

218
any sum of 60,000 livres. Yet in answer to that letter.
Vans raakes himself to say, in the fabricated letter, " I
cannot accept it unless the Dreux (or Rovrey) estate,
(which by the way had been distinctly offered to him,)
are given for the 8,416 rentes — and adds, "the demand
you have on Madame Danuel and the Firmancourt
estate you say are worth 60,000 livres," when John
Codman had said not one syllable about either of them.
Well may we exclaim with Mr. Child, " really the ar
tifices of this old man surpass all belief!"
But the evidence of the falsity of this contrivance
does not stop here. We say, Richard's letter of the 5th
February, acknowledging the receipt of some letter from
Vans to John, does not point at the letter which Van^
falsely asserts that he sent ; and we show, from circura
stances, that it could not have referred to that letter. In
addition to this, we now produce the original letter from
Vans to John Codman, which Richard Codman does
refer to. It is the same which has been already noticed,
in the history of the Paris correspondence, under date
of February 6th. It will be remembered that Richard
says, " it is utterly out of my power to comply with the
offer contained in the letter of my brother under this
date. 1 1 might be accepted if the article of 60,0,00 were
taken out of such property as I have — say Bromfield &
Houghton's note." And the letter we produce, as that
to which Richard referred, is a letter /rom Vans to John
Codman, containing an offer, made up of several items,
the first of which is, " cash down 60,000." Who can
doubt that this was the objectionable article of 60,000,
which forbad the acceptance of the proposition, unless
that sum could be taken out of such property as Richard
had, in notes, or otherwise, instead of cu.sh ?

219
The reply which Vans thereupon makes to Richard,
puts this in a still clearer light, for he writes iraraediate
ly, "I have received your note in answer to my letter to
your brother. I observe that the 60,000 [i. e. the cash,
which you object to,] was the offer raade me by your
brother instead of Dreux. Therefore if you prefer to
give rae Dreux [a piece of property which you have,]
instead of the 60,000, [cash, which you have not,] I will
accept it," &c. Thus Vans is met at every turn by the
works of his own hand. When he offers the copy of a
letter, which he says he sent in answer to John Codman's
letter of 30th January, we produce the original letter
which he did send, expressly answering it. When he
offers a letter of Richard Codraan's, acknowledging the
receipt of some letter frora Vans to John Codraan, by way
of proving that he did send the pretended answer, we
produce the original letter frora Vans to John Codman,
which Richard Codman expressly replies to, and also a
reply frora Vans to Richard, corroborating the facts. So
that the forgery and falsehood of Wm. Vans, in this
particular, stand bared at every point.
And what is his counsel's defence against this charge .?
It is, first, that the fabricated document " 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 fab
rication, it must have been fabricated about the same time
and place that it should have been written if genuine."
If it be a fabrication, we think it of little importance
when or where it was fabricated ; since it could not
have been fabricated with any honest design. But in
respect to its being written on French paper, of that
dingy hue which marks so many of Mr. Vans' documents.

2^0
and which so well comports with the shadowy charac
ter of his claim, and the dusky nature of its proofs, we
would call attention to a fact stated in the report of the
legislative committee of 1833, namely, that this fabri
cated letter was written on a loose half sheet of foreign
paper — a fact marking but raore strongly the contri
vance of deceit. To give it the external aspect of a
genuine docuraent, of ancient date, written in France,
he tears off the unwritten half of sorae old French let
ter, and upon that mutilated sheet, with ink of a proper
tinge, indites the document which he has exhibited to
committee after comraittee, as a copy made and pre
served at the time and place of its pretended date !
Secondly, thirdly, and fourthly, says Mr. Child, it is
apparent from "the whole spirit ofthe correspondence,"
and other circumstances which he dwells upon, that Mr.
Vans always regarded John Codman in the light of a
partner; what motive then for the imputed forgery,
which went to prove po other point .? The whole spirit
of the correspondence ! Admirable indeed ! Our an
swer is a reference to the genuine correspondence itself,
in the order of its dates, and to the other circumstances
too, sorae of which we raay notice raore at large.
But, says Mr. Child, by way of exhibiting the spirit of
the correspondence, " Vans said to the brothers, in an
earlier letter — I will not take a cent less than my whole
debt." Mr. Child's habitual accuracy surely has forsaken
hira. Mr. Vans uses no such words. He says to Richard,
not in an earlier, but in a later letter, addressed to him
alone, and not to the brothers, dated on the 17th of Feb
ruary, which was some days after John Codman hud left
Pfiris — " I will never settle with you to receive one
shilling less than my demand." This is the only sen-

221
tence in the whole correspondence that bears any re
semblance to what Mr. Child states.
Again, says Mr. Child, " he said also — I will not be
put upon Richard's list of creditors," — and the word
" Richard's " is italicised by Mr. Child, as if to mark
that Vans had used it, in contradistinction to John's,
and meant that he would not be put on Richard's list
of creditors, because he looked to John. Mr. Child is
here not only inaccurate, but a little infected with his
client's facility of invention. By looking at the letter
referred to, the original of which is in our possession,
under date of 21st November, 1800, and a full copy of
which is annexed, it will be seen that the words are,
" I will not be put on your Zts^-creditors,"' — and this
addressed, not to the brothers, but to Richard himself,
in answer to Richard's stateraent, that the rente provis
oire was on his list ;--^and it will be farther seen, that
the reason assigned why he did not choose to be so dealt
with, was, not because he considered hiraself one of
John's creditors, but because he was a borrowed money
creditor, and not a business creditor, of Richard's.
Once raore, — says Mr. Child, " at another tirae he
said — I am willing to accoraraodate as to time — for the
remainder I will take a note for ten years to be signed by
whom T please." If Mr. Child's client has shown him
a copy of any such letter as this, we have only to say,
that it is another of his client's fabrications and forger
ies. The only thing like it, in the whole correspon
dence, is the expression in the letter of February 6,
1801, in which Vans proposes to take " Richard Cod
man's OBLIGATION in the name of those Mr. V. chuses," —
meaning, as we have already remarked, payable to ivhom
Mr. V. chooses. Yet Mr. Child, pretending to quote

222
the very words, and marking them as a quotation, says,
" to be signed by whom I please." This is worthy of
Wm. Vans himself, and ought to have been the work of
his own pen.
We have thus shown, in accordance with the report
ofthe comraittee of 1833, that the pretended reply of
Vans is a forgery, or at least a supposititious paper,
invented and contrived, (we know not where nor when,)
but in truth a false document; and we have shown farther,
that Mr. Child, adopting as truth his client's falsehood,
carries the falsehood farther than even he had dared to
do, and concludes by changing the expressions used in
genuine documents, so as to give them an interpreta
tion entirely opposite to their true construction, creat
ing a new invention of deceit to bear out his client in
the original forgery — so that we know not which most
to admire, the inventions of the client, or the improve
ments of the counsellor.
The circumstances which Mr. Child relies on, beside
" the whole spirit of the correspondence," to show that
Vans had no motive for the forgery of the letter which
we pronounce forged, are that the fact of an existing
copartnership is found by the French courts in 1802-4,
(this, by the way, we deny,) and that, in 1802, Vans
was engaged in collecting proof of it. Why then, he
asks, fabricate a paper, to show that in 1801 he consid
ered John and Richard copartners .?
Because it was raost raaterial to his case to exhibit, if
he could, proof that he had taken the earfes^ opportunity
to charge John Codman, on his arrival at Paris, personally
and directly, with this partnership liability for Richard's
engagements, on vvhich he now founds his claim ; and to
prove, if he could, that John Codraan had, by silence at

223
least, admitted the fact. We have already shown, that in
the course of his lawsuit, and about the date of his letter
to Derby, it had entered Vans' brain, to suggest the part
nership liability of John, by way of threat, and in order
to procure better terras of compromise out of Richard's
property. But proof begun then was somewhat late in
the day, for the purpose of really asserting and enforc
ing a claira against John, as copartner, and therefore he
had all the raotive which a bad raan could have, to in-
yent proof of earlier date. He dared not forge proof of
a raore direct character, more certain of detection, and
more liable to exppse him to criminal penalties. He
contents himself, therefore, with sraall and circuitous
inventions, moving towards his object with stealthy and
serpentine indirection. He prefers the safer forgery of
copies of imaginary letters, from himself, to the bolder
enterprise of writing a letter to himself, under the im
itated signature of John Codman.
But we have not yet quite done with this tissue of
falsehood. The fabricated letter purports to answer
a letter frora John Codraan, enclosing a statement.
John Codman's genuine letter is produced by Vans,
because of the argument which he draws frora the fact
that the proposition enclosed was made by the writer
without having consulted his brother — for so John Cod
man certainly says. An offer of settlement — from John
Codman — made without even consulting Richard Cod
man ! How could this be if John was not a partner, and
acting as for himself.? We have already shown that
Vans, while he asks this question, suppresses his own let
ter, which we have produced, inviting John Codraan to
the very act which he now uses against him. We have
also shown that he suppresses a former letter frora John

224
Codman, which acknowledged the receipt of several
letters frora Vans, " concerning your demand on my
BROTHER ; " because that was a peculiarly awkward form
of expression for Mr. Vans' side of the case. We have
shown that he publishes a pure fabrication, as his own
answer to the genuine letter he produces ; and that he
makes a false use of another genuine letter, (frora
Richard Codman,) to give an air of truth to his own
fabrication. We now propose to show that he has in
substance, though not in form, mutilated the genuine
letter frora John Codraan, which he does produce, by
exhibiting with it, and publishing as the statement
enclosed, (to all intents and purposes a part of the
letter,) another and different statement which it did not
enclose. The genuine statement enclosed, is copied, as well
as the letter, in John Codman's travelling letter book,
in his own hand, and the very heading of it was such
as was fatal to Vans' scheme — fatal to the use he pro
posed to raake of that letter, which was to raise a spe
cious presumption, from the act and the language com
bined, that he had deraanded payment of his debt from
John Codman, as a partnership debt. The heading ofthe
statement enclosed is " Terms of settlement proposed
to William Vans for his demand on Richard CoDxMan,
for the 8,415 rentes." The whole tenor of the paper
accords with this heading. The demand is spoken of
throughout as a demand on Richard Codman alone.
A part of the proposal is that Richard Codman shall
give his own note. And the paper concludes, "Mr.
Vans will also consider Richard Codman's recent losses,
and that this proposal may eventually secure Mr. Vans
his whole demand, which no other creditor can expect."

225
What then shall Mr. Vans do .? He wants to use the
letter — but not the statement enclosed, which would
defeat his object — arid as the letter purports to enclose
a statement, in express terms, it would never do to pro
duce the letter without some stateraent. To make a
stateraent, suitable to his purpose, would be direct and
indictable forgery. But araong his papers he finds one
which he thinks will answer his turn, because it is a
statement of property and suras, and it contains no
such objectionable phraseology as the true statement.
He therefore publishes the following, as the statement
enclosed by John Codman.
"The estate at Dreux, valued at 100,000
The estate at Damraartin, valued at 38,000
Brorafield & Houghton's note, - 36,000
Rose's, - - 11,600
Cutting's, - - - 14,500

199,000"

And such a document he produced before the Legis
lative comraittee of 1835, as John Codman's state
ment — but so far as we could judge, on a hasty exam
ination, we believe it to be not even John Codraan's
handwriting, but Richard Codman's ! — a different state
raent — raade by a different person — at a different tirae —
and probably for a different purpose.
And here again the counsel has not merely followed,
but surpassed his client. Mr. Child's account of the
matter is as follows. " On the 30th day of January,
1801, John Codman offered to Mr. Vans, as the basis
of a compromise, property estimated by John Codman
29

226
to be worth ^80,000 ! This property consisted of some
capital messuages in France, together with gardens,
forests, vineyards, &c., of great extent and value, and
several notes and bonds against American merchants at
Paris."* Now even the paper produced and published
by Vans as John Codman's stateraent, instead of show
ing property estimated at ^80,000, exhibits a nominal
sum of 199,000 livres only— which is short of P0,000
— and that partly in notes which remained unpaid for
three years after at least, and we believe unpaid to
this day.f And if We go back to the genuine paper,
as recorded in John Codman's letter book, we shall
find that so far frora valuing the property offered at
even ^40,000, it raakes no valuation at all. Instead
of all the described raessuages, forests, vineyards,
bonds, notes, &c., which Mr. Child enumerates, it
offers but one specific piece of property, viz. the lands
at Chartres (or Dreux,) and states no circumstance
in regard to their value, except that they rent for
7,000 livres, (about ^1,400,) which would make them
worth not more than ^20,000, — and in fact Vans him
self asserts, in his letter to Richard Codman of the 6th
of February, (No, 246,) that John Codman had esti
mated the cash value of this very estate at ^12,000
only — at least that was all John Codman himself was
wiUing to allow for it. Vans' own words are — " I ob
serve that the 60,000 was the offer raade me by your
brother instead of Dreux." Yet says Mr. Child the
property which John Codman offered on the 30th of
January, 1801, (the date of his letter,) was estimated
by him to be worth ^80,000 ! Strange, that Mr. Vans
* See his Review, p. 5.
t See No. 348.

227
and his counsel, with the best intentions in the world
of agreeing in their statements, should so often be at
variance !
The next parcel of the Paris correspondence which
Mr. Vans puts forth in proof of his claira, is another of
these forgeries, with a variation ; that is, instead of be
ing a fabrication of one entire document, the forgery
consists in a material alteration of a letter really written
and sent, It occurs in the remarkable letter, noticed
in its place, which was addressed by hira to Messrs. J.
& R. Codraan, under date of February 6, 1801 ; and is
printed in the sarae paraphlet which contains the other
fabrications above raentioned, at p. 19, as follows.
"Paris, Pluviose, or the year 1801."
[In the original it is " Paris, Pluviose, 9 yr."]
" Messrs. John & Richard Codraan.
" Gentlemen, It was my intention to have waited on
you in person, but, upon reflection, I found we were
always further off in our views in conversation, than in
writing. I have made up my raind and fixed ray de
termination to raake you an offer, which will enable
you both to leave France in ten days, provided you ac
cept ray proposal. First, I will for rayself and Madarae
Vans, with her consent, accept to receive such a part
of your estates in France as shall be our proportion,
which shall be determined by ourselves, arbitrators, or
law. Secondly, the balance which shall appear to be
due to us, after deducting this part, shall be paid in
ten years, in billets to order, with interest thereon,
which billets shall be given by Richard Codman as
copartner. 29 1-2

228
I now offer you, gentlemen, my services to settle all
your affairs in France, and now state to you the raanner
I mean to settle them.
(Signed) WM. VANS."
By comparing this with the original, of which a true
copy is annexed by us, a number of alterations, addi
tions, and omissions, mostly not very raaterial, will be
noticed. Indeed raore than half of the genuine letter,
although this publication purports to be a whole letter, is
oraitted, wisely perhaps, being that part, chiefly, which
is not only iraraaterial, but ridiculous — the scheme for
winding up the property in France under Vans' manage
ment. But the alteration which is material, lies in the
addition of these two words — " as copartner." The
proposal here exhibited is, that Richard Codman shall
give his notes " as copartner " — that is, in a manner
binding upon John Codman. It will be seen that no
such words exist in the original. On the contrary, a
sentence upon this subject, wholly omitted here, stands
in the original, as follows. " Mr. Richard Codman to
give bond for the fulfilment of this agreement, and to
leave Mr. Barlow to execute it." That is, the original
proposes to settle on Richard's security alone; — the
fabrication proposes to settle on the joint security of
Richard and John. A material variation indeed !
Especially when Vans connects with this, as he does by
publishing it iraraediately after, an answer to this letter
" directed to rae and ray brother," acknowledging its
receipt, and taking no notice of that part of the proposal
by which Richard was to sign as copartner. That is,
he fabricates a charge of copartnership, for the sake of
coupling it with a genuine docuraent in his possession,

229
purporting apparently to answer the letter containing
that charge, and yet, by silence on this point, seeming
to admit its truth. Now what could justify or induce
an honest raan, who felt that his claira on John Codraan
was a just one, in making and propagating such a
forgery ? A forgery it is proved to be. The words
inserted are forgeries — absolute forgeries to all cottimon
intents and purposes, if not in respect to legal and
crirainal liability. But if it were true, as he asserts,
that the dissolution was never known in France, and
that he trusted R. Codman on the credit of the house,
why invent this falsehood .?
It is by a series of such fraudulent misrepresentations
as these, that Wm. Vans, backed recently by his more
adroit associate, has heretofore been suffered to impose
on the credulity of the public.
But, says Mr. Child, the copartnership was admitted
before the French courts, and by their judgraent found
as a fact — meaning that the copartnership was admit
ted and found as existing at the time of the judgment.
This we deny. According to our view of that docu
raent, when it speaks of the copartnership at all, it is
with reference to the past — a copartnership which had
existed ; and instead of raaking any express adjudication
upon this point of partnership, it is noticed only inci
dentally, as one of a number of assigned reasons, which
led the court to conclude, upon such evidence as they
had, that John Codraan's deraand against Richard
Codraan was not a genuine and bond fide debt. This
requires us to look again to the record of these judicial
proceedings. It will be seen that ihe facts of the case, upon which
the counsel and the court reason, are set out in the first

230
place, under the head of " Evidence," or " Point de
Fait." Among these are distinctly stated, the forraation
of the house of J. &t R. Codman, at Boston, in May,
1791, and the publication of the notice of dissolution,
in May, 1798. The firm lasted, it is said. Until that
time ; and it is also stated that Richard Codraan remo
ved to Paris, and established a private banking house
there, in 1794, whilst his house in America yet contin
ued. (See Appendix, page 268.) It is nowhere stated
that John Codraan was interested, as a partner, in
Richard's business at Paris; On the contrary, it is
expressly spoken of as his private business, and the
plain inference frora the other facts stated, is, that the
partnership, which had subsisted only in America, ter
minated when the notice of dissolution appeared. It is
stated, indeed, that the joint adventure of Richard Cod
man and Vans began in 1797, which would have been
before the dissolution of J. & R. Codman ; but this is
manifestly either a raere error of the copyist, (the date
is in figures,) or else an alteration, by Vans hiraself,
of the copy he produces ; because we have seen, both
frora the original documents, and frora Vans' own state
ment, that this business between hiraself and Richard
Codraan was not entered upon until January, 1799. No
other fact is set forth, affecting in the smallest degree
the question of partnership.
When we corae to the arguments of counsel, at
the first hearing in the lower court, we do not find
that it was even argued, on behalf of Vans and his
associates, that the forraer partnership of John & Rich
ard Codraan had any bearing upon the points in dis
pute, still less that any partnership was then existing
between them, or existed at the tirae of Vans' en-

231
gagements with Richard. The allowance of John
Codman's claim is objected to on other grounds. What
they insist on particularly is, the production of the
account, to prove the reality of the debt. This was
accordingly ordered by the court, and when, at the
expiration of the eight days allowed for it, the ac
count was not forthcoming, the court proceed to give
judgment, that John Codman's claira to the property
should be disallowed, and his inscription on the estate
erased. Among the various reasons assigned, which
lead to that judgment, the matter of partnership is
noticed as follows : " Considering, lastly, that John &
Richard Codraan are brothers, and had been [or have
been] represented as copartners, which has not been
denied by the counsel for John Codraan, and that these
double titles, united to the suspicions aforeraentioned,
authorize the idea of their assisting each other in an act
of fraud — the Tribunal says that the said obligation for
110,000 livres, or francs, shall be rejected frora the order
as being false and without ground, and in defraud of the
legitiraate creditors of the said Richard Codman."
(See App. page 276.) Why do they say " in defraud
of the legitiraate creditors of Richard Codm,an" only, if
they considered John Codraan a partner with Richard, in
the transactions with Vans .? Why do they not say in
fraud of their creditors .? The answer is plain — because
it had not even been argued before thera, far less proved,
that Vans was a creditor of John Codman ; or in other
words, it was not even pretended that John Codraan
was a partner with Richard, at that time, or in these
transactions. What was the representation, then, vvhich
had been raade, and not denied, respecting the partner
ship .? Look to the preceding parts of the record and

232
see. There had not been a particle of representation
on the subject, nor any allusion to it whatever, except
among the facts in evidence, early in the record. And
what is the representation there .? Why, that John &
Richard Codraan were copartners in America until a
certain notice of dissolution was pubHshed, in May,
1798 — and that Richard Codman, coming to Paris in
1794, there established a private (by which we under
stand a separate) banking house, while his house in
America yet continued. When the court say, there
fore, that these persons are brothers, and have been
presented, or represented, as copartners, which has not
been denied by John Codman's counsel, who can
doubt that they raean presented and admitted as copart
ners until the dissolution ?
Mr. Vans, in a recent paraphlet, quotes a French gen
tleman as being of a different opinion. " Mr. Bugard
observes," says he, " the words in French, stated in
the judgment, are ils ont ete presentes comme associes —
which means they were presented as copartners at the
time the judgment ivas rendered, in 1 802 ; for had the
court meant to say that they had formerly been part
ners, the words vvould have been ils ont ete presentes
comme ayant ete associes." And twenty other gende-
men, says Mr. Vans, well acquainted with the French
language, will certify the same. Very likely — nor do
we question at all the truth of the position as a mere
point of grammatical accuracy. But the objection falls
wholly short of our argument — which goes not at all
upon little niceties of tense in a single expression, but
upon the general scope and raeaning of the ivhole in
strument, gathered from a full view and careful compari
son of all its parts.

233
The force of the objection of Mons. Bugard, and
the twenty French gentleraen, can be made perfectly
intelligible to a raere English reader, by stating it
literally in an English dress ; for there is no difference
in the two languages in this respect. The words
in question, literally translated, are, (and for this pur
pose we take Mr. Child's own translation,) "Consider
ing, finally, that John and Richard Codman, are
brothers, and have been presented as copartners."
Now, says the objector, this refers to the time at which
the court is speaking. We deny it — " are brothers,"
is present time ; but " have been presented as copart
ners," refers to a time past. Nevertheless, says the
objector, if the court had meant to be understood, that
the brothers were formerly partners, they should have
said, " Considering, finally, that John and Richard
Codman are brothers, and have been presented as hav
ing BEEN, [ayant ete,] copartners." And this is the
whole point of the objection.
Now we admit that this latter expression would
have been rather more precise and accurate ; but it is
a degree of accuracy not commonly used — in this case
not demanded by the occasion — and the objection
that it was not used, as we before reraarked, falls
wholly short of our argument. For the words " are
brothers," [sont freres,] and " have been, [ont ete,]
presented as copartners," still opens the question when,
where, and how, have they been so presented .? The
record must show — and the answer is, as before, that
they had been spoken of, in the record, as copartners
only in America, and only until the dissolution in May
'98; in other words they are spoken of in 1803, in effect,
not as "being," but as "having been," copartners.
30

254
There was no necessity for a nicer phraseology than the
court employs, because the alternative of a partnership
then subsisting, or just expired, was wholly immaterial to
the view which the court were taking. The point
was, not whether John Codman, either was, or had
been, a partner of Richard's, but whether John Cod
man's mortgage on La Thuillerie, was for a bond fide
debt, or whether it was taken raerely to assist Richard
Codman in covering his property from the reach of his
creditors. The court are of the latter opinion, judging
of course upon such slender evidence as they had.
They enumerate the circumstances which lead to that
opinion ; and araong these circumstances, are the rela
tionship and connection of the parties. John Codman
is a brother, and therefore as the court reason, more
likely, than a stranger, to aid Richard in covering his
property. He is not only a brother, but is also, or has
been, connected with him, by a partnership in business ;
and this double relation, joined to the other suspicious
circurastances, strengthens the presuraption,inoiir minds,
of compliance on the part of John Codraan, to become
accessary to Richard Codman's scherae of covering the
property frora his creditors. The connection in busi
ness, like the relationship in blood, was a raere circum
stance, to show the intimacy between the parties. The
one was of no raore force than the other ; and the argu
ment was just as good if the partnership had lately
terminated, as if it were still continuing. The court
therefore, had no occasion to fix the fact, one way or
the other ; and it was just as proper and natural for
them to say, that the brothers had been presented as
copartners, as to say that they had been presented as
having formerly been copartners, although the latter
may have been the idea intended.

235
That the latter was the idea intended, we infer, not
only frora the raanner in which the partnership had
been previously spoken of in the record, but from the
nature and essence of the argument — to say nothing of
its being in accordance with the truth of the case.
The mortgage is said to be a cover and fraud on
Richard Codman's creditors, not on creditors of John
and Richard Codman ; and the supposition that both
the brothers were jointly and severally liable, as part
ners, to the creditors then before the court, defeats the
whole argument. For a conveyance of real estate from
one partner to another would be no cover, and conse
quently no fraud as to creditors of both — creditors of
the copartnership — because the property is equally liable
whether it belongs to the one or the other of them.
Suppose the estate Richard's, it is liable because the
debt is Richard's ; suppose the estate John's, it is still
liable, because the debt is John's. When the court say,
therefore, that the conveyance from Richard Codman
to John Codraan was a fraud, on Vans and the other
creditors of Richard Codman, it is precisely equivalent
to saying that John Codraan was not liable for these
debts — or, in other words, that he was not a partner in
the transactions between Vans and Richard Codraan.
And such, doubtless, was their opinion, so far as they
formed any, on a matter not directly in issue.
This view is corroborated by the subsequent course of
the record. When the case came up before the Court of
Appeals, this matter of the partnership, thus incidentally
glanced at in the opinion of the Court of First Instance,
becomes for the first tirae raatter of solemn argument.
John Codman's counsel there argues, that it " had been
erroneously concluded, by Messrs. Pacaud and Vans and

236
Madame Gouvain," that because John was Richard's
brother, and because they had been presented in the
lower court as partners, without denial of the fact, that
the obligation for 110,000 francs was therefore a mere
act of accommodation, and had no substantial founda
tion ; and also, that it was incorrect to assert, that a
partnership was subsisting at the date of the obligation,
(31 Jan. 1801,) when it was in proof that the partner
ship had ceased in May, 1798. (See App. page 279.)
On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of
Vans and Co., "that John and Richard Codman are
brothers, that besides they had been partners in a general
concern, of which general concern John was for a long
tirae the head in Boston, as Richard was of that in
France, which has never been denied, and is moreover
proved by the public papers, and the bills of exchange
drawn by the said John & Richard Codraan, when one
or the other had occasion to do so ; consequently all the
transactions that have been carried on in Paris by Rich
ard Codman, whether it were with Vans, or Pacaud, two
of the aforeraentioned creditors, they ivere necessarily
in common between John and Richard Codman ; and that
supposing Richard could really have been debtor to
John, in consequence of advances, or capital he had
furnished, he could never be reimbursed until aU credi
tors ofthe firm were paid." (See App. pp. 281, 284.)
Thus we see, that it was in August, 1804, the time
of the hearing on the appeal, that Vans' counsel, /or
the first time, ventured to argue in the French courts,
that John was his debtor, as well as Richard, by reason
of a partnership between thera, and that therefore the
conveyance from Richard to John was void, whether
Richard owed John or not, and could have no effect
until their joint creditors were paid.

237
But why, asks Mr. Child, does John Codman's coun
sel argue, in the Court of Appeals, that the partnership
was not in existence on the 31st January, 1801, if the
court below had not settled otherwise. Our answer is,
because Vans and his associates, in the Court of Ap
peals, for the first time, raake the partnership an express
point. But, says Mr. Child, the arguraent for John
Codman precedes, in the record, that for Vans and Pa
caud. True — but look to the *' conclusions" — Vans
and Pacaud had previously stated this, in their written
"conclusions," as a point to be argued. The " conclu
sions " are written statements by the parties of the
points on which they rely. They are filed in the case,
for the purpose of notifying, to the court and the coun
sel, what is for arguraent. And although they raay come
after the argument, in the arrangement of the record,
they really precede it 'in point of fact. The counsel for
John Codman, having this distinct notice that a new
point was now first raade respecting the partnership, of
course argues upon it as a raatter brought before the
court — and his language is, that this "had been errone
ously concluded, by Messrs. Pacaud and Vans and Mad
ame Gouvain."
Pursuing the record, we find, farther on, that the
Court of Appeals did not adopt Vans' argument on this
point, but on the contrary expressly reject it. How
does this appear .?
In the first place, they state the questions for consid
eration, (point de droit.) They are eight in number.
No question about the partnership is among them.
(See App. page 290.)
In the second place, they conclude (without having
touched the point of partnership) as follows — "Con-

258
cerning the appeal interjected by John Codman, from
the judgments rendered, by the civil tribunal of Meaux,
on the 27th Prairial and 4 Messidore, year 11, and
adopting the opinions [motifs] of the first judges, the
court has declared, and doth hereby declare, the appeal
null," &c. (See App. page 292.) This adopted opinion
of the first judges, as we have already seen, does not
include, even incidentally, the existence of a partnership
at the time of the judgraent, still less does it adjudicate
the point.
But thirdly, and this is raost raaterial, and yet is
wholly overlooked by Mr. Child, the Court of Appeals,
after declaring the appeal null — and that John Codman
should pay the ordinary fine of 60 francs— that the judg
raent should be common to, or should include and bind,
all the parties then before the court — and that John
Codman should pay to the attorneys of the other parties
their respective costs — expressly adjudge, (see App.
page 292) that "on the remainder of the conclusions" —
that is, all the conclusions not already disposed of —
"the parties are nonsuited!" — and, in this reraainder,
on which the parties are nonsuited, is the conclusion of
Vans ^ Pacaud, that John Codman ivas liable to them,
as a partner of Richard Codman ! !
It seems therefore to us perfectly clear, from the
whole record, that the court, so far as it adjudicates at
all upon this point, adjudges directly against the posi
tion which Vans endeavours to maintain — and adjudges,
according to the truth of the case, that there was no
partnership between John & Richard Codraan at the
date referred to, certainly none in the transactions out
of which Vans' suit arose. At any rate, so far from an
admission in behalf of John Codman that the partner-

239
ship continued in 1801, it was distinctly denied by his
counsel, as soon as it was distinctly asserted by the
other side, which was not tifl August, 1 804.
Indeed, such anadraission would have been adraitting
the whole case ; — and nothing can be more absurd and
ridiculous than to suppose the French courts, either
by evidence, or admission, found the fact of a partner
ship, in respect to the deraands which Vans had in suit,
and yet used the fact raerely as a circumstance, to raise a
presumption of fraud in the conveyance frora Richard
to John Codraan, when the bare fact, that they were
partners in the debt and in the property, raust have
been, of itself, conclusive against John Codman's claim.
Instead of a long investigation of circumstances, to im
peach the consideration of Richard Codman's note to
his brother, the court would have cut the case short at
once upon this single point. They would have said, no
raatter whether Richard owes John or not, for here is
a clear case of partnership. John is just as much a
debtor to Vans as Richard is — and no conveyance from
Richard to John can give him a title paramount to the
claims of their coraraon creditors. And so the counsel
of Vans and Pacaud argued before the Court of Ap
peals — and upon this point were nonsuited ! Why .?
No raan can give any reason in the world, except that
the court did not find the fact of the partnership.
But whatever raay have been the opinion of the
French court upon this point, as the evidence stood be
fore them, we cannot finally dismiss their judgment,
without adverting to the circumstances under which it
was obtained. John Codraan, it will be remembered,
left France in February, 1801, and Richard Codraan
also was in America, in January, 1 80S, as appears by a

240
letter from John Codman to Messrs. Barings, dated on
the 16th. (See Doc. No. 551.) But the judgment of
the Court of First Instance, at Meaux, was not render
ed until June of that year, and that of the Court of
Appeals not till August, 1804. Consequently both these
trials were had after the decease of John Codman, and
in the absence of Richard Codman ; and although
Messrs. Babut &l Co. were left in charge of the business
by John Codman, with instructions to take care of his
interest in the raatter, and probably with some general
information about the state of accounts between himself
and Richard, yet, when unexpected obstacles presented
themselves to the allowance of his claim on the nota
rial obligation of 110,000 francs, and when it became
requisite to go behind that paper, for the purpose of
proving its validity, circurastances, respecting the set
tlement between John and Richard Codraan, came into
controversy, with the details of which, known only to
the parties, Messrs. Babut & Co. cannot be supposed
to have been intimately acquainted. The case was
tried, therefore, under every disadvantage on one side,
resulting from the absence of the parties immediately
concerned in those transactions, and with all tbe
advantage on the other, of Vans' personal presence to
direct the manageraent of his own case, and to place
before the court such evidence, and such evidence only,
as he and his counsel might think useful to their own side.
In the next place, it will be noted, that .John
Codman's claim principally failed, by reason of the
non-production of the account between hira and Richard,
which was ordered to be produced in eight days.
Messrs. Babut & Co. could not produce it, because it
was in America. They did produce the settlement note,

241
as appears by the Record, (App. p. 278,) because this
they were enabled to do, by John Codman's having, for
another purpose, transmitted it, as appears by his letter
to them under date of January 6, 1802. But the note, it
seeras, did not answer the purpose ofthe account, because
it exhibited nothing of the iteras which went to com
pose the debt. John Codraan never had, personally, any
notice ofthe order for the production of the account, for
he died before that order was passed. His executor,
who was in America, had no notice, because the time
limited was only eight days ; and if he ever received
notice afterwards that it might still be produced before
the Court of Appeals, which does not appear, yet know
ing nothing of the nature of the business, and reasona
bly afraid of committing himself in a matter of which he
was wholly ignorant, he did not think proper to inter
fere at all about the conduct of a suit, which his testator
had left to Messrs. Babut & Co. to manage as well as
they might, with such means as they had at command.
A foreign judgraent, wherever obtained, under such cir
cumstances, and whatever it may purport to establish,
can carry with it very little weight. This judgraent can
have none, if the questionable account is now produced,
and shown by other evidence to have been a genuine
and bond fide settleraent. For there is no one thing in
this record, which we think it of the least iraportance to
refute, except the apparent iraputation on the character
of John Codman for participating in an act of fraud, as it
is termed, against Richard Codraan's creditors, by ac
cepting conveyances frora hira, as security for a fictitious
debt ; for so the French courts undoubtedly considered
it, frora the want of requisite proof to establish its reality.
51

242
Another remark to be made upon the subject is, that
the French courts of that period, a period just emerging
from the reign of anarchy and terror, instead of deserv
ing the eulogy passed upon them by Mr. Child, were
notoriously corrupt, and open to the influences of in
trigue. This is raatter of history ; — abundantly exem
plified in their frequent condemnations of American prop
erty, on principles and pretexts raost frivolous and fraud
ulent. And if Messrs. Vans and Pacaud, and the celebra
ted Madarae Gouvain, had not a large stock of raoney at
coramand, they had at least the prospect of it, if they
succeeded in their suits — to say nothing of other means
of influence, which may have belonged to them — and
they were on the spot, while the other parties were ab
sent. This is another circumstance, vvhich we apprehend
detracts something from the value of the judgments of
this " learned and exalted tribunal," as Mr. Child is
pleased to call it.
We have stated above, that the executor of John Cod
raan did not think proper to interfere at all in the con
duct of the suit in France. This is denied by Mr.
Child, who relies particularly upon the alleged agency
in France of John Lowell, Esq., in this business. But
this subject belongs rather to another part of the case,
naraely, the allegation that the executor and heirs of
John Codraan deceitfully contrived to detain Wra. Vans
in France, until the arrival of a time when the statute
of limitations raight be successfully pleaded at home.
We shall therefore again postpone the consideration of
the executor's acts, and of Mr. Lowell's agency, until
we corae, as we soon shall, to this part of the case.
In the mean tirae, we propose to exhibit evidence of
the reality of the settlement between John and Richard

243
Codman, at Paris, in January, 1801, and of the actual
existence of a debt from Richard to John Codman, of
near ^50,000, at the time of that settleraent ; a debt
which continues unpaid to the present day. Because if
this be satisfactorily shown, the whole effect of the
French judgraent is done away, so far as it raay either
bear upon the question of a continuing partnership, or
raay seera to affect injuriously the character of John
Codman. We have already stated and proved, by the expo
sure of John Codman's most confidential correspon
dence, the reasons which led hira to announce the
dissolution of the house of J. & R. Codraan, on the 1st
of May, 1798. The evidence of the reality and noto
riety of this dissolution, is found, not only in an adver
tisement of three successive weeks, in two of the pub
lic newspapers, and particular notice to the correspon
dents of the house, but, more decisively, in the entire
change which instantly took place in the whole course
of the business — the opening of John Codman's separate
books of account, and of separate accounts with his
correspondents and agents, at home and abroad — the
sending forth of all new adventures and consignments,
not only in his own name, but with strict orders to those
who had charge of them, to account for the proceeds
with the Barings only, and not with Richard Codman —
the absolute withholding of all farther funds, as far as
was possible, from the hands of Richard Codman —
and the positive prohibition, to all persons who held his
funds, not to permit Richard to use or control them, nor
to pay over to Richard a single shilling for his account.
Araong the reasons which led to the dissolution, and to
this change in the course of business, and to these strict

244
orders and prohibitions, it will be reraerabered, was the
extraordinary conduct of Richard Codman himself, in
failing to rerait, for a large amount of funds, which had
corae to his hands, while, on the contrary, he was con
stantly drawing upon John Codraan for raore, rendering
no accounts of his transactions for the house, writing to
his brother scarce twice a year, notwithstanding the
important concerns they had pending, and then commu
nicating little or no information, respecting either their
comraon business, or his own private undertakings
and speculations. This we have shown from the pri
vate correspondence between the brothers. It has been
also shown, frora this source, that the intelligence which
reached John Codraan after the dissolution, becarae more
and more alarming ; that the balance of debt claimed
by the Barings against the late house, had grown to the
enorraous sura of near ^250,000; that John Codraan was
daily looking, and daily looking in vain, for large prom
ised reraittances frora Richard, to reduce this heavy
debt ; that he was still kept, frora raonth to raonth, and
year to year, in profound ignorance, and the raost cruel
suspense, respecting the true situation of his property
in Richard's hands ; that he was shocked, frora time to
time, by new instances, which came to his knowledge,
of Richard's iraprudencies, and still more at the appar
ent rapacity with which Richard was seizing upon his
private property, abroad, as opportunity presented,
notwithstanding there was no longer the pretence of a
partnership connection to justify the interference; that
in consequence, he had long meditated, and was several
times on the point of executing, a voyage to Europe,
for the purposes of learning the whole truth, bringing
his brother to some settlement, and extricating him, if

245

possible, frora the toils which held him at Paris, and
which had already converted the expedition of a season
into a sojourn of years ; and that John Codman, at last,
did make the voyage, solely for these purposes, and with
these objects in view.
We apprehend, that if this series of facts had been
proved before the courts of France, as they have now
been exhibited here, " the learned and exalted judges,"
(to quote Mr. Child again,) of those tribunals, raight
have seen probable cause enough, even without look
ing into the accounts, for the obligation of 110,000
francs, vvhich was in dispute before thera. But we
now propose to exhibit the proof, as it appears from
the accounts themselves.
In the first place, we annex a stateraent of the balan
ces of the principal accounts open in the books of J.
& R. Codraan, as they stood on the 1st May, 1798, the
day of the dissolution. We orait such accounts with
individuals at horae, as have no particular connection
with the subject of inquiry.
By this stateraent, it appears, that the house
owed John Codraan, individually, at that date, for
his share of profits, during the whole tirae of the
copartnership, so far as accounts had then been
settled, and deducting payments which had been
made for his private account, upwards of ^45,000.
It appears, also, that the house owed Richard Codman,
for his share of profits, during the whole term of the
copartnership, so far as accounts had then been set
tled, and deducting such payraents as had been raade
to hira by the house for his private expenditures, about
^56,000. It appears, further, that there was an account
called " Remittances, R. C." signifying, as the entries

246
show, remittances to and from Richard Codman. This
account stood credited, on the 1st May, '98, with
^104,286 74, for the balance of all remittances made
by hira, for the use of the house, during the whole time
he had been abroad, so far as accounts had been ren
dered. Another account called " Invoice, R. C." is of
a sirailar nature, representing the araount sent home
by Richard Codraan, hiraself, in goods, during the same
period, amounting only to ^7,439 39. Goods shipped
directly to Boston by the Russian raerchants, or others,
of course do not go into this account. It farther ap
pears, that there were outstanding, at that date, various
shipraents and adventures to Europe, the accounts of
which were wholly unsettled, under the heads of " Ad
venture to Havre, per ship Catherine," "Adventure to
Havre, per ship Enterprise," &c. amounting in the
whole to upwards of ^165,000. Caspar Voght, also,
the Hamburg merchant, stands charged with near
^48,000, for property which had gone to him ; and
Francis Coffin, Jr. of Dunkirk, with upwards of
^18,000, for the balance of his account. The Bar
ings, on the other hand, stand credited with over
,^146,000, for payments made by them on account of
the house, as far as advices had then been received,
and Ryberg and Co., of Copenhagen, are credited, in
like manner, with nearly ^15,000, due to thera.
By referring to the letters from John to Richard
Codraan, written before the date of the dissolution,
particularly that of Feb. 29, '98, (No. 72.) it will be
seen that at least seven or eight different cargoes, sent
to Richard, then reraained unaccounted for.
By comparing the names of these shipraents, as de
scribed in that letter, with the names of the open

247
accounts of outstanding adventures, we shall perceive
their identity. The proceeds of the same cargoes,
abroad, must, in the ordinary course of commerce at
that period, have been a much larger sura than they
stood charged at for their cost here. John Codraan,
in his letter of Feb. 20, '99, (No. 125,) estiraates their
proceeds at ^250,000. For all this, Richard Codman
was accountable ; and whenever his accounts should be
rendered, so that proper entries could be made from
them in the books of the house, each of these particu
lar accounts would be closed, according to the system
on which the books were kept, by carrying its balance
to the debit of the account called " Remittances, R. C."
In like manner the large sura charged to Coffin, and a
great part of that charged to Voght, it will be seen, by
tracing through the correspondence, went into Richard
Codman's hands, and were to be accounted for by hira.
These suras, also, as soon as they were acknowledged
by Richard Codraan in his accounts, would go to the
debit of the sarae account called " Remittances, R. C."
Most of these particular accounts of adventures out
standing, reraained open and unsettled until after John
Codraan's return frora Europe, because Richard Cod
raan, during that whole period, as the correspondence
proves, rendered no account, and John Codman, there
fore, had no materials for making the requisite entries,
until after the Paris settlement.
All the accounts of J. & R. Codman, open on the 1st
of May, 1798, and relating to affairs in America, were
gradually closed, shortly after the dissolution, by charg
ing John Codman with the Bank Stock, and other
property, held on joint account, as well as with all
notes receivable, and debts due to the house, excepting

248
such as were bad or doubtful, and by crediting John
Codraan, on the other hand, with all notes payable, and
other debts due here frora the house, as he gradually
paid, or assuraed thera in his private capacity.
The foreign accounts, as they carae in frora time to
tirae, and were settled, passed in the sarae way either
into John Codraan's account, or into the account call
ed " Remittances, R. C." according as he, or Richard
Codman, had realized the property, or paid the debt.
That is, in general, John Codraan took the property,
excepting what was in the hands of Richard Codman,
and paid the debts ; and the debts, it will be seen,
exceeded the property after making that exception.
Another statement annexed, is an abstract of the ac
count called " Remittances, R. C," — showing its ba
lance at the date of the dissolution, and all the charges
and credits made to it after that date. Its agreement
with the other accounts vvhich stood open on the 1st
May, '98, and with the facts which we know respect
ing thera frora the correspondence, will be noted. The
balance of this account, at the date of the last entry,
was a debit of ^46,676, 14, which was transferred to
the private account of Richard Codraan.
Another statement annexed, is an abstract of the sev
eral settlements ofthe " Profit and Loss account," as they
were made from time to tirae, by distributing the ba
lance between the partners in the proportion of one
third and two thirds. This shows that Richard Cod
man had received his full proportion of the profits, and
that for every loss with which he is charged, John Cod
man is also charged with a double proportion.
Finally, we annex a stateraent of all accounts which
reraained open, and unsettled, in the books of J. & R.

249
Codman, at the ¦ death of J. Codraan. These still re
main open. They consist, chiefly, of old debts due to
the house, to the araount of about ^50,000, which were
considered bad, and have so proved. The account of the
ship Abigail, vvhich had been captured, but for which a
claim was yet pending, had not been closed, and is still
open. This also was looked upon as a loss, and has so
proved. An adventure to Fredericksburg, in the hands
of Fontaine Maury, stood, and yet stands, in the same
situation. And after these, the only remaining ac
counts, of any consequence, are the accounts of the two
partners themselves. The account of " Remittances,
R. C," which represented the final balance of funds in
Richard Codman's hands, had been closed by charging
it to his private account. And all other accounts,
whether of property, of debt, or of credit, had been
closed by charging and crediting thera to John Cod
man's private account, the gains and the losses having
gone into the profit and loss account of the house. And
the result of the whole business, of the seven years' co
partnership, was, that without counting the losses by
bad debts, and for the account of the Abigail still unset
tled, araounting in the aggregate to about ^46,000,
Richard Codraan owed the late house of J. & R. Cod
raan about ^51,000; and the late house owed John
Codman about ^75,000. The open accounts of bad
debts, if closed and distributed in the proportions of
one third and two thirds, would add ^16,000 to Rich
ard Codman's debt, and take ^50,000 from John Cod
man's credit, leaving the former a debtor of about
^46,000, and the latter a creditor for about the sarae
sum. Upon adjustment of accounts therefine, accord
ing to the books, between the two partners, Richard
52

250
Codman would have stood indebted to John Codraan,
in May, 1805, for a final settlement of all their past
partnership transactions, about ^46,000, besides what
he owed him on private account, for transactions sub
sequent to the dissolution.
Besides the foregoing statements, we annex a copy
of Richard Codraan's individual account with the house,
beginning with the balance on the day of the dissolu
tion, and showing all the iteras of debit and credit,
after that date, which lead to the result above men
tioned — a balance of ^51,000, due from him to the
house, without charging him with his share of the out
standing bad debts and losses unsettled.
Having thus exhibited the state of the accounts, as
they appear by the books, we would remark, that from
the entries which existed there, prior to John Codman's
going to Paris, and of course prior to any agreement
between the brothers respecting their settlement, and
prior to any intercourse between John Codman and
Vans, or any knowledge of the transactions between
him and Richard, (except what was derived from the
interview at Boston, in July, 1799, when John Codman
refused to accept Richard's letter of credit in Vans' fa
vor,) the final result of the accounts was inevitable.
That is, it was apparent on the 1st of May, 1798, and
still more so frora day to day until June 1800, when
John Codman sailed for Europe, that Richard Codman
raust be his debtor to the araount of frora 40,000 to
^60,000, unless Richard Codman should pay over, or
remit, the large araount of funds which had gone into
his hands. The evidence of what cargoes had gone to
his hands, is found in the correspondence before 1st May,
'98. The evidence of the cost of that property at home,

251
is also found from entries made in the books, before 1st
May, '98. The evidence that the proceeds of those
cargoes in Europe remained unaccounted for, and that
no considerable remittances were made for them, is
found in the private confidential letters of John Codman
to Richard Codman, and to others, throughout the years
'98, '99, and 1800, and the same letters exhibit, also,
evidence of the fact, that John Codraan had paid a large
amount of Richard's drafts upon the house at horae.
The character of this evidence is such as cannot in
its nature be irapeached. To fabricate a complete and
consistent systera of volurainous accounts and corres
pondence, involving the transactions of years, preserving
throughout the appearance of reality, and corresponding
precisely with letters and accounts written and rendered
by other persons in various parts of the world, would
exceed the ingenuity of raan, under any teraptation of
motive. Nor can a sufficient motive in any case be well
imagined, when the object and use of such docuraents
are justly considered. For these are the private records
which a merchant raakes, frora day to day, of his own
transactions, in his own account books, /or his own use ;
and the private communications, which he makes in
confidence to others, or in the course of his daily busi
ness, and which he records also in his own letter books,
for his own use. Any falsity in these books defeats
the very purpose for vvhich he keeps them, which is,
his own private information and governraent in the
transaction of his business with others. And since
the evidence of the facts, which show to what result
the accounts raust necessarily come, unless Richard
should remit, was created before John Codman's visit
to Paris, and mostly before he had any knowledge that

262
there was a transaction of any kind pending between
Richard Codman and Vans, it follows that John Cod
raan could not, by any possibility, have fraraed these
previous entries and records, in anticipation of a case
vvhich subsequently arose, but which, at the tirae, was
neither existing, nor foreseen. If, therefore, the settle
raent at Paris, between John and Richard Codman,
should be found to correspond, substantially, with the
known state of facts and accounts, as they previously
stood, and if the subsequent entries in the books of J.
& R. Codraan shall also be found to correspond sub
stantially with that settlement, the reality of the debt
is proved, by evidence of the highest kind, and most
unimpeachable character.
With this reraark, we now annex a copy of the ac
count settled at Paris, Jan. 1, 1801.* We shall not
attempt to substantiate by vouchers the truth of every
item, because of the great prolixity of examination,
and bulk of proof to which this would lead ; but we
shall refer to the corroborative evidence of documents
annexed for other purposes, or as they raay happen to
present theraselves, in relation to some of the principal
iteras. For convenience of arrangement the Paris account
was divided into two parts, the first headed " Richard
Codman of Paris, his European Account with J. & R.
Codman of Boston;" the second headed "Richard
Codman, his American Account with J. & R. Codman
ot Boston."
The European account commences April 25, 1795.
The debit side consists of payments made to Richard
Codman, by persons in Europe, for the account of J.
* See Document, No. 235.

253
& R. Codman, and the proceeds of ships and cargoes
sold there by hira. The total of this side of the ac
count is about £118,000. stg.
The credit side of the account is composed of remit
tances made by him to the Barings, and other persons
in Europe, for the account of J. & R. Codman, and
other payments made by him abroad for the same
account, with an allowance of over £5,250 stg. for
commissions, brokerage, and difference of exchange, and
one or two small items of property in Europe, relin
quished to John by Richard — such as a note of hand
payable in Paris, and seven cases of looking glasses in
the hands of the Homberg's, at Havre. The total of
this side of the account is about £129,000; which
leaves a balance to the credit of Richard, for monies
paid by him, for the house, to persons in Europe, more
than he had received for the house from persons in
Europe, of nearly £11,000.
This part of the account is settled bv turning the
balance iuto dollars, and carrying it forward into the
American account.
The American account begins May 29, 1794. The
debit side consists wholly of drafts drawn by Richard
Codman on J. & R. Codman at Boston, in favor of
third persons, paid in Boston by John Codman, and
amounting to upwards of Si 75,000. The credit side
consists of reraittances, whether in drafts or goods, raade
by Richard Codraan directly to J. i^ R. Codman at
Boston, or to other persoiis in America for account of
that house, and of reraittances made to J. St R. Cod
man by other persons in Europe for account, and by
the order, of Richard Codman, together with the bal
ance of the European account, and sundry articles of

254
property relinquished by Richard to John. The total
of this side of the account is about ,^129,000, leaving
a final balance, due at that date, from Richard to John,
if the settleraent be a true settlement, of ;$f48,528 67.
The account terminates with the following agree
raent, signed both by John Codman and Richard Cod
man. Paris, January 1, 1801.
Then settled the above account, extended from two
other sheets, and balance reduced to a note of hand, by
which the said Richard Codman acknowledges hiraself
indebted to John Codraan, the sura of forty-eight
thousand three hundred and twenty-eight dollars, fifty-
seven cents, in full for aU debts, dues, and deraands be
tween thera. And it is understood that the said John
Codman undertakes to pay Messrs. John ^ Francis
Baring, of London, all their just demands against the
late house of John ^ Richard Codman, of Boston; and
that the said Richard abandons all right, title, and de
mand, to all effects whatever, of said John ^ Richard
Codman's. J. CODMAN,
RICHARD CODMAN.
There is also a raeraorandum in the raargin, of
" Cash lent at Paris since, by J. C. to R. C." under dif
ferent dates, and in various sums, amounting in the
whole to about 19,400 francs, a little short of ^4,000.
We annex also a copy of the note, referred to in the
abovementioned settleraent as given by Richard to
John.* It purports to be " upon the final settleraent of
all accounts between rae and ray brother John Codraan
of Boston," and states that triplicates had been executed,
but " to serve only as one." A raeraorandum in pencil,
at the foot, in the handwriting of John Codraan, in
forras us, that one of the three was witnessed by Joel
* See Document, No. 234.

255
Barlow and Robert Fulton, both well known Americans,
then living in Paris, and both long since deceased.
This witnessed copy was afterwards sent by John Cod
man to Babut, as appears by his letter of the 5th Jan
uary, 1802. The other two originals remained araong
John Codman's papers here, and are in our possession,
as well as the original account.
We now select sorae of the principal iteras, for the
purpose of showing, how the general truth of the ac
count is proved both by internal, and by extraneous ev
idence. The first which strikes us, in the European account,
is under date of May 27, 1796, where Richard Codraan
is charged with the sale of the ship Gov. Bowdoin for
£3000. This item happens to be proved by Vans him
self. In the paraphlet entitled " the third edition," &c.
p. 19, is published an account current of Putnara & Cal-
lender with Richard Codraan, in which the former
charge themselves with the price of the ship Gov. Bow
doin, purchased frora hira for £5000, and state on the
credit side the manner in which payment was made.
We annex a copy of the account, as we find it in the
pamphlet.* A large number of iteras, both of debit and credit, in
the European account, purport to be for drafts on, and
remittances to, the Barings. We produce the original
accounts, rendered by that house to J. & R. Codman.
They are found to verify every item of the Paris account,
vvhich purports to be connected with the Barings. And
vice ver.sd, every item in the accounts of the Barings,
which purports to have been a reraittance frora Richard
Codman, will be found credited to him in the Paris set-
See Document, No. 376.

256
tlement. And this confirmatory evidence is yet the
stronger, frora the circurastance that raany of the cred
its in the Paris account are credited by the Barings,
without expressing that they were received frora Rich
ard Codman, and are sometiraes credited in several
items, the aggregate of which make precisely the corres
ponding credit of the Paris account. For example, in
the European account, Richard Codraan is credhed, " by
Dorner's reraittance to Baring £48,648. 10. 7." In the
accounts of the Barings are credited twenty-five differ
ent items, all for remittances from Dorner, the aggregate
of which is £48,648. 10. 7. And again, Richard Cod
raan is credited in the European account with " 6 bills
on Dyde, £5846." In the Barings' accounts are cred
ited, twelve bills on Dyde, of £641 each, araounting to
£7692; but on the other side of this account, six of
these bills are counterentered as having been returned,
leaving the final credit £5846, precisely as in the account
stated between John and Richard Codraan.
The great voluminousness of these accounts has de
terred us frora printing the whole. We were obliged
to select, therefore, those which were subsequent to the
dissolution, for their importance in another view. But
all of them were produced and exhibited before the
committee of 1855.
In the European account, Richard Codman is charged
with the proceeds of seven different cargoes received
by him, naraely, one by the ship Catherine, one by the
Enterprise, two by the Coraraerce, two by the Thetis,
and one by Leonard. By comparing this with the
statement of accounts, as they stood in the books of J.
& R. Codraan, May,l, 1798, the first cost of each of
these cargoes will be found charged as unsettled and

257
unaccounted for, under the names of adventures by
these ships, or adventures to Havre. On turning to
John Codman's letter to Richard Codman of 29th
Feb. '98, we find these sarae cargoes enumerated there
as those which had gone to Richard's hands, and of
which no accounts had been rendered ; and by the
subsequent correspondence it appears that they con
tinued unaccounted for. One of the cargoes, by the
Comraerce, is stated, in the Paris account, to have been
tobacco frora London, producing in France £4751 ; and
by looking at the account of the Barings, under date of
January 24, 1796, we find the house of J. & R. Codman
charged with £4285. 4. 6. for the cost of tobacco ship
ped by the Commerce from London.
On looking at the account called "Reraittances R. C,"
in the books of J. & R. Codraan, we find that account
charged, after John Codman's return frora Paris, with
the proceeds of all these seven cargoes, in suras corres
ponding with those charged in the Paris account. And
we find, also, credited to the same account, all the suras
which were credited to Richard in the Paris settleraent.
The proceeds of the cargoes by the Catherine, and the
Enterprize, are set down in the Paris account in round
suras of £5000 and £7000, because Richard Codman, too
full of his own schemes to attend to the details of business
for the house, had never accurately settled the accounts
of these sales with the agents whom he had employed,
or at least could find no record of the transactions.
But by comparing the sums thus assumed, with the sums
originally charged for the first cost of these cargoes in
America, and raaking a reasonable allowance for their
probable increase of value, upon being landed in France,
we shall see that these suras were not arbitrarily as-
55

258
sumed in the Paris account, for the purpose of swelling
its balance; and by looking at the account called "Re
mittances R. C," we find that the same sums were in
fact charged to that account, by John Codman, at home.
Farther than that, we find letters from the Hombergs,
of Havre, through whora these sales were conducted,
written in the Noveraber preceding, M'hile John Codman
was in Paris, endeavoring, through Richard, to collect
the materials for a full settlement, in which they state
their inability to furnish any accounts of these particular
cargoes.* We find another letter from John Codman
to the Hombergs, in December, still calHng for these
accounts. t And we find letters frora Richard Codman
to John Codraan, written in the February after the set
tleraent, and just after John Codraan had left Paris, in
which he states that he had found a little account book,
containing his raeraorandum at the time of the sales of
these two cargoes. J This book was produced before the
legislative comraittee of 1856 ; and it appeared that the
actual amount of the sales, according to the memoran
dum then made, corresponded very nearly with the sums
assuraed in the Paris settleraent.
The itera of £6260 and upwards, about ^^25,000, al
lowed to Richard Codraan for commissions, &c., striking
ly illustrates the position, that John Codraan's object
was, not to create a specious appearance of debt, having
no substantial foundation, but to effect a real settlement
with his brother, not only upon the fairest principles of
coraraercial justice, but even with unusual liberality.
As a raere partner, drawing his share of the coramon
profits, subject to the common losses, Richard Codman
* See Doc's. No. 213, 215.
t See Doc. No. 274.
t See Doc's. No. 251, 253.

259
had no legal title whatever to a charge of commission
for his personal services — to say nothing of the negligent
manner in which those services had been rendered. But
John Codraan, viewing these services in the light of
an agency abroad, for the house which was established
at Boston, and not as the ordinary acts of a partner,
within the proper sphere of his partnership, and pre
ferring to err, if at all, on the side of liberality, towards
a brother deeply involved by iraprudent speculations,
chose rather to place the settleraent on this equitable
footing, and to allow his brother this large gratuity, for
his iraperfect services. Does this look like truraping up
an account, for the purpose of covering Richard Cod
man's property from Vans and his other creditors.?
There is another little item in the European account,
which Vans himself has verified. It is the charge of
£75 for a draft on J. & T. Amory, of London, in his
favor. In the pamphlet entitled " A true statement,"
&c., at p. 16, Mr. Vans has published a copy of this same
bill of exchange. It was made by Richard Codman at
Paris, for his accommodation. He publishes it araong
his proofs of the copartnership, although it vvas raade at
a time when nobody denies that there was a partnership.
For the true date of the transaction was, 10th April,
'97 — more than a year before the dissolution. We
annex a copy of this bill, and of the letter of advice
which accorapanied it, both extracted frora the paraphlet
above named.* The bill so published not only happens
to verify the Paris account, but is also in itself a
singular illustration of the truth of John Codman's
statement in the letter to Babut of March 6, 1802, that
the house of J. & R. Codman was considered by the
* See Doc. No. 280.

260
partners as existing only in America, and that its signa
ture could be used only there ; for it will be observed,
that this bill, drawn under the signature of John ^ Rich
ard Codman, though really raade at Paris, on the 10th
of April, '97, was dated by Richard as if made at Boston,
on the 10th of February, sixty days before the real date
of the transaction ; while the letter of advice which
accompanies the bill, being under Richard Codman's
own signature, is dated at Paris, April 10th, 1797, and
speaks of the bill as if it were in fact drawn by the house
at Boston. This, so far as we know, is the only instance
in which Richard Codman ever used the signature of
the firra abroad. The contrivance resorted to, for the
purpose of giving the docuraent the aspect of a really
Boston drawn bill, shows, most eraphatically, that Rich
ard Codman understood the act to be, in strictness,
unauthorised by the nature of the partnership. The
transaction was direct notice, moreover, to Vans, that the
house was a mere Boston house. All other bills drawn
by Richard Codman abroad, so far as they have come to
our knowledge, were drawn under his own separate
signature, expressing either upon their face, or by an ac
companying letter of advice, that the sura drawn for was
to be placed to the account of /. ^ R. Codman, if the
transaction in truth arose in the course of the partner
ship business. We annex copies of sorae of these bills,
chiefly extracted frora Vans' pamphlet, as an example of
the usual form in which he drew.* The form is precisely
that which would have been adopted by any mere agent
of the house, who vvas not also a partner. It may be
farther reraarked on this item of £75 in the Paris ac
count, that although the account purports to be a final
* See Doc's. No. 279, 281, &c.

261
settlement of all business transacted by Richard for the
joint account, that this is the only item which relates in
any way to Mr. Vans, and this is charged to Richard
Codman, as being his own private affair, though trans
acted in the name of the house.
Passing to the American account, there is scarcely an
item on the debit side, (wholly made up by Richard
Codman's drafts paid in Boston,) which is not proved
by the letters annexed frora John to Richard Codman,
in which he advises Richard, from time to time, not
without complaint, of the acceptance, or payment, of
these very drafts. Those in favor of Fellowes for
^6,000 and 5,000, the duplicates having corae to Vans'
possession, are published by him in the pamphlet called
" the true statement," &c.* They are all found regu
larly entered in the books of J. & R. Codman, at the
respective times of their acceptance or payment.
Besides which we have in our possession, as vouchers
for these charges, the original drafts themselves. The
credits of the account are, in like raanner, found to cor
respond with the entries in the books, with accounts
rendered by other persons, and with facts stated in
the private correspondence.
Among the credits for property relinquished at the
time of the settlement by Richard Codman to John, is
one for 177,000 livres, in a debt due from the French
government, assigned to John Codraan, valued at
^8,000. Lest it should be conjectured that this was
connected in some way with Mr. Vans, and formed a
part of the French government stocks which he says
were deposited with Richard Codraan, we refer to pri
vate letters annexed, showing the nature of that claira.
* See No. 279.

262
See the letters from John Codman & Richard Codman
to J. Melville, Jr. (No's. 276, 277.) From this it ap
pears, that the claim originated in the seizure of a quan
tity of rice by the French governraent sorae years be
fore. Whose the rice was, or in what way the claim be
carae the property of Richard Codman, we suppose is
not material to inquire ; it is clearly not among the pre
tended clairas of WiUiara Vans, and has no connection
with his affairs.
Another itera of credit vvhich raay be noted, is the
assignraent of "the brig Elizabeth and cargo, valued at
;^2,267 80." This serves to show that Richard Cod
man, being the owner of the brig and cargo, was en
gaged even in commercial business, on his own separate
account, after the dissolution ; and this doubtless is the
sarae vessel vvhich Vans refers to as the sole property of
Richard Codman, in his letter of February 10, 1799.*
The vessel having been captured by the British, is
credited not at her cost, but at what was realized, or
expected to be realized from her, in that condition.!
Richard Codman's interest in his father's estate, and
one third of the old ropewalk lands, &c., bought on
joint account by J. & R. Codman, now relinquished to
John, closes the Paris account ; and this was a complete
settlement, between the brothers, for all known transac
tions of Richard abroad, for account of the late house.
It raay be noted in passing, that it includes on the
one hand no transaction betiveen Richard Codman
and Vans except that of the £75 bill, which, being
drawn in the name of J. & R. Codman, had of course
* See Doc. No. 155.
t A copy of the Paris account in Richard Codraan's hand- writing ex
presses this itera : "By brig Elizabeth and cargo neatins: £51 0 5 sterling—
$2,267 80." 6 s 6

263
been settled for by the house ; and that it ii\pludes on
the other hand, none of Richard Codman's speculations
in French stocks, or French real estate. These had not
only been conducted in his own name alone, but were
treated by the parties to this settlement as having been
in fact wholly for his own account.
The next document which we annex may be terraed
the Boston account of Richard Codraan with the house,
as stated by John Codman at Boston, 26th February,
1803, just after Richard Codman's return frora France.*
This account is headed "Mr. Richard Codman in account
with J. & R. Codman," and is signed by John Codman.
It shows that Richard Codman had been regularly cred
ited with his share of the profits of the joint business,
and with all monies received on his separate account,
amounting, May 1 , '98, to upwards of ^60,000, and had
been regularly charged with all raonies paid for his
private account in Boston, or received by hira while in
Boston for account of the house, araounting to near
^16,000, leaving a balance to his credit, on that day, of
near ^35,000. Against this is charged one third of the
profit and loss, as divided on the 10th March, 1802 —
the balance of the Paris account, as adjusted there,
January 1, 1801, deducting suras received by John
Codman, but omitted in that account, to the araount
of about ^1,800 — one-third of the bad debts outstand
ing, according to a schedule endorsed on the account —
and one-third of the account of the ship Abigail, which
was still open. On the other side is credited ^2,000
for paintings and statuary, which had been sent by
Richard Codraan from Paris, to his brother, soraetirae
* See Doc. No. 333.

264
before ; aod a balance is struck of ^46,519 58, as due
at that date, (26th February, 1805,) to John Codraan,
by reason, as is stated, of his having paid the debts of
the house.
We do not propose to enter into a rainute examina
tion of this account for the purpose of establishing
the items which compose it. Its general conformity
to all the other accounts and facts in the case, is suffi
ciently apparent. The particular use we make of it,
therefore, is to show, that in an account stated by John
Codman, at Boston, against Richard Codraan, then
here, raore than two years after the settlement at
Paris, the balance apparently due on that settlement,
is treated as a real debt, and charged to Richard
accordingly ; and that the balance remaining due from
Richard to John Codman, on account of their old part
nership business, was then reduced by reason of the
new credits, only to about ^46,600.
Having thus closed the partnership concerns, John
Codraan next states his private or individual account,
with his brother, in a paper which we annex, headed
" Mr. Richard Codraan in account with John Codraan."*
This begins with the liquidated balance of the old part
nership account, namely, ;^46,619 58, and adds the
monies lent to Richard Codman at Paris, as stated in
the memorandum at the foot of the Paris account, whh
sorae other small suras paid for him, and concludes
with a balance against him of ^50,864 58. This
account is not signed, but is in the hand writing of
John Codraan, and raust, of course, have been stated
after the 26th February, 1 80S, and very shortly before
his death, which happened in May following.
* See Doc. No. 334.

265
Thus we think we have demonstrated, by the evi
dence of private account books, intended only for the
eye of the parties who kept thera, and private corres
pondence, intended for those only to whora it was
addressed, and the private statement of confidential
accounts between the brothers theraselves at Boston,
where the state of affairs in France could have had no
operation upon thera, all corroborated by the accounts
of third persons and other independent vouchers, that
the account settled at Paris was raade in good faith,
and represented an honest debt. It follows, therefore,
that John Codman was justified in endeavoring to
secure that debt, as far as possible, out of his brother's
encumbered estates ; and that until his debt was paid,
whatever security he might be wilHng to relinquish,
for the sake of enabling his brother to make terms of
settlement with his other creditors, was evidence of his
good feeling and strong brotherly affection, but not of
a fraudulent purpose, or a fictitious claim. It follows,
too, that if this evidence had been exhibited before the
courts of France, the judgraent of those tribunals,
unless they were wholly corrupt and insensible to the
calls of natural justice, raust have been the reverse of
the judgraent now produced ; and that against this evi
dence, the judgraent can weigh nothing, to irapeach the
character of John Codraan, or to prove that the part
nership was not in fact dissolved, even if the record could
be so perverted, raisrepresented, and misunderstood, up
on this latter point, as to receive that forced construction.
But it is soraetiraes pretended by Mr. Vans and his
counsel, on very various and shifting grounds, that the
partnership, whatever raay have been the intention of
the parties, was not legally dissolved, in such manner
54

266
and form as to be binding upon Mr. Vans, or to defeat
his right of imposing a partnership liability on John
Codman. In the first place, Mr. Vans pretends, as we have
seen by his letter to Derby, that John Codman and
Richard Codman constituted a house of trade at Paris,
under the firm of " Richard Codraan," at the same
tirae that they had a house in Boston, under the firm
of " /. ^ R. Codman ;" and that although the latter
raay have been legaHy dissolved, by the public notice
of dissolution in the newspapers here, the forraer was
never dissolved in France, (we suppose his learned
counsel would argue that it exists still,) because no
public notice of dissolution of the firra of Riqhard Cod
man had been advertised in the newspapers at Paris.
This strange notion, totally at variance with the facts
of the case, as they have been developed by origuial
docuraents, which determine the actual constitution of
the copartnership, and the mere agency of Richard
Codraan abroad for his house at horae, has been the
substratura of Vans' claim, as set forth in his various
publications, and most of his petitions, and_ it is stated,
in the report of the legislative comraittee of 1833, as
the ground raaintained before thera. We are the less
soHcitous, however, to refute this extraordiaary posi
tion, because it was abandoned in the subsequent peti
tion, which expressly states the loans and deposites
set up as the foundation of the claira, to have been
made with the house of John ^ Richard Codman at
Paris ; and because the notion of Richard Codman's
being a firm, is repudiated and disclaimed with indig
nation, by Mr. Vans' counsel and colleague, in the
review. He even reckons this statement of the com-

267
mittee, that such a position had been taken at the hear
ing, among their corrupt misrepresentations and wick
ed contrivances to injure the cause of Wm. Vans.
" A wretched legal absurdity," says the review, p. 69,
" that there were two partnerships, between two and
the same raen, because one was in Europe and the
other in Araerica, is created by the reporter, and im
puted to me, who never uttered such a word, nor enter
tained such a thought." Compare this with the fol
lowing extract from the paraphlet entitled " A True
Statement," &c. " The annexed statement of facts
will prove, that John Codman and Richard Codman
were copartners in trade at Boston, under the firm of
John & Richard Codman, and at Paris, under the firm
of Richard Codraan." And see any other of Mr. Vans'
pamphlets to the sarae effect. We are content, how
ever, to hold this arabiguous and various-tongued raoh-
ster to his present disclairaer, by counsel, of such doc
trine, after showing that it is distinctly and deliberately
made, in language not to be raisinterpreted.
For this purpose we quote frorii the Review, at p. 64,
as follows. " The comraittee say, p. 4, it was insisted
by the petitioner, that there was a house established in
France by J. & R. Codraan, under the firm of Richard
Codman. This was denied by the respondent, who
contended that Richard Codman acted abroad as agent
of J. & R. Codman. Strange as it may seem, this
statement, as respects the petitioner, is wholly errone
ous. The reverse is the truth. That ground was
expressly disclaimed before the comraittee, when sorae
thing which Vans' counsel had said, was attempted to
be so interpreted. It was disclaimed as ahsurd. If
John & Richard Codman, being general partners, had

268
had houses in the four quarters of the world, they
would have been one partnership. What Mr. Vans'
counsel contended was, that Richard was a partner,
and that he did partnership business in his own name
alone, which business vyas distinctly recognised and
acknowledged by John as partnership business; and
this the coraraittee state in the sarae page. Richard
Codman transacted the business of the Boston house in
France, sometimes in the name of J. & R. Codman,
and soraetiraes in his own narae. The testimony,
however, was, that he usually did it in his own nahie
alone." This we suppose puts an end to the notion of
any distinct house of trade established in France under
the firm of " Richard Codman." And it follows, that
if the house of John & Richard Codman at Boston, was
lawfully dissolved, in good faith, May 1, 1798, although
Richard Codman raay have continued, for several years
after, to do business in France, like other men, " in
his own name alone," that business was his business,
and not the business of John ^ Richard Codman.
And here the whole burden of proof lies on Mr.
Vans. For if Mr. Vans transacted business in France
with Richard Codman, in his own name alone, as
he adraits, and took the engageraents of Richard
Codraan in his own name, as he proves, not purporting
on their face to bind any company, or person, other than
hiraself, it is surely for hira to show, that the business
was nevertheless a partnership business, and that John
Codman was interested in, and bound for the engage
ment. But say Mr. Vans, and his counsel, Richard Cod
man had always done the business of John & Richard
Codraan abroad, in his own narae alone ; therefore, al
though there was no distinct /rm. of Richard Codman

269
in France, yet whatever business he did there in the
name of Richard Codraan, raust have been the busi
ness of John & Richard Codraan. Adrairable logic ! —
assuming only that he who soraetiraes acts, or who raay
formerly have soraetiraes acted, in his own narae as
the agent of another, raust always have acted, and raust
always continue to act for another so long as he lives,
provided he acts in his own name ! Or, in other words,
a man's acting in his own narae is by itself presuraptive
proof at least, perhaps the learned counsel will say con
clusive, that he is acting for some one besides himself.
And by the converse of this rule, doubtless, he who acts
expressly in the name of a partnership raust be presura-
ed tp be acting /or himself alone.
It happens that the law has been expressly settled, up
on this point of burden of proof, even in the case of an ex
isting partnership conducted in the name of an individ
ual. Our own Supreme Judicial Court, prompted doubt
less Mr. Child would say, by those secret and corrupt in
fluences which usually govern its decisions, and for the
purpose of anticipating the case of William Vans, if it
should ever come before them, in spite of their opinion
that the Legislature cannot constitutionally grant this pe
tition, have already declared the law to be, that if a part
nership is carried on in the name of an individual, and
a promise is raade in the name of that individual in the
same form as if it were his own, such proraise does not
prima facie bind his copartner ; but the burden of proof
is on the proraisee, to show that it was in fact made
for the use of the partnership. We refer to the case of
the Manufacturers and Mechanics Bank against Win-
ship, 6 Pick. Rep. p. 11. So that even if there had
been no dissolution of the house of J. & R. Codman,

270
prior to the period of Richard Codman's engagements
to Vans, it would not be incumbent On the heirs of
John Codman to show that those engagements, raade
by Richard Codraan personally and in his own name,
were not raade in behalf of his house, but it would, on
the contrary, be incurabent on Mr. Vans to prove, that
such engageraents were made in behalf of the house.
But we trust we have already shown, taking upon our
selves a burden which does not belong to us, that this
was not the fact ; and that the engagements, whatever
they raay have been, were Richard Codraan's own;
and that the only pretext, as originally stated by Vans
himself, for charging John Codraan with these engage
raents, was the now disclairaed and repudiated notion
that there was a partnership at Paris, under the firm of
Richard Codraan, not legally dissolved there at the
time of these engageraents.
But it is soraetiraes pretended by Mr. Vans and his
counsel, that the house of John & Richard Codman at
Boston, was not legally dissolved, because the notice of
dissolution was signed by John Codman alone, and was
without the signature, or express assent of Richard
Codman. On this point also, as we are advised, the law
is expressly settled against Mr. Vans. If a partnership
is unlimited as to time, any partner may withdraw' from
it when he thinks proper. The language of one of the
most learned, cautious and doubting judges that ever
sat upon the English bench (Lord Eldon) is — "a part
ner, notfor a term, has certainly a right to say I instantly
dissolve the partnership."* Especially a partner who
furnishes all the capital — which was the case with John
Codman. The partner who furnishes nothing, may
* Cited in Watson on partnership, p. 380.

271
be dismissed at any time by his copartner, unless it
has been otherwise expressly stipulated between them.
Indeed some of the highest judicial authorities in Araer
ica have even gone beyond the English decisions in this
respect ; and hold that either partner, raay without the
consent of the other, dissolve the partnership at his
pleasure — even when it has been expressly covenanted
between them that it shall endure for a term not expired, —
leaving the dissenting partner to his remedy by action
for breach of the covenant.* In the case of J. & R. Cod
man, it will be reraerabered, that the partnership was
not for any fixed term of time. It was a raere partner
ship at will, and of coilrse dissolvable at the will of either
partner. And although Mr. Vans quotes the opinion of
one Mr. Church, a raerchant at Lisbon, that the partner
ship could not be dissolved by John Codman without
Richard's assent and signature,it appears not only that the
decisions of courts, at home and abroad, are otherwise,
but that John Codraan acted upon this subject under
the advice of John Lowell, Esq., then one ofthe lead
ing members of the Suffolk bar, and upon consultation
with his father, the late Judge Lowell, then a distin
guished ornament of the bench. f
But again, it is pretended, by Mr. Vans and his
counsel, that the dissolution had no effect in France, for
want of due notice. He pretends, in the first place,
that owing to the interrupted coraraunication between
France and America, then on the eye of war, the fact
of the dissolution at Boston could not have been known
at Paris, until after his loans and deposites with
* See Skinner v. Dayton, 19 John. 538.— Marquand v. N. Y. Man. &
Co., 17 John. 525.-3 Kent's Com. 55.
t See Doc. No. 393.

272
Richard Codman. Those, it will be remembered, are
proved, by his own writings, to have been made just
before his quitting Paris, on the American expedition,
which was January 24, 1799. But it appears from the
correspondence between John and Richard Codman,
that Richard had notice of the fact, at least as early as
September, 1798. This has been already stated, but
not demonstrated. We now propose to prove it. We
produce one half of an original letter, (that half which
contains the date being unfortunately missing,) in the
handwriting, and with the signature^ of Richard Cod
man, containing the following words : " I observe that
you had dissolved our partnership. I think the step in
the present situation of affairs, [that is, on the eve of a
war between the two countries,] very prudent." Two
questions arise. 1st. Is this a genuine letter frora Rich
ard Codraan to John Codraan ? 2d. At what date was
it written .?
Upon this subject we begin by extracting the remarks
of Mr. Child, in his review, pp. 41-2, as follows :
" A mere fragment of a letter, asserted to have been
written and sent by Richard to John Codman, was the
only particle of evidence which was produced to show
that Richard ever was Informed in France of the disso
lution of his own house ! There was no date to it,
there was no proof, or explanation, how a part came to
be torn off and lost, and there was no proof that it was
sent by Richard and received by John. Yet the com
mittee were so Hberal as to admit this fragment, and the
reporter to set forth its contents, without any slurs what
ever." This mere fragment, as it is termed, is one half of a
common letter sheet, fully written on both sides. We

273
confess that tve are wholly Unable to giye either proof,
or explanation, htiW or when " a part came to be torn
dff; " being as uninformed as Mr. Vans, and perhaps
more so, on this subject. As we find it, so we produce
it. We reraark, howeVer, that it is torn. Or rather we
should say separated, precisely Where iti old letter, often
handled, is raost apt to be, namely, at the folding of the
two half sheets ; and considering the antiquity of the
document, and the frequency of the hearings on the
petition of Wra. Vans, arid that, when produced, it
must of course be subjected to the feeling, as well as
sight, of all the raembers of the coraraittee, to say noth
ing of the opposite party, it would not be very remark
able, if, upon some such occasion, the two half sheets
should have been separated by accident, nor that one of
them should then. Or afterwards, have been casually lost.
This perishing of evidence is one of the necessary evils
attending the revival of antiquated clairas. It raay have
been, too, as is not uncomraon with raercantile letters,
that the first half sheet had upon it a draft for raoney,
in which case it is usual to separate the part containing
the draft frora the rest of the letter.
The half sheet which we do produce, is in itself en
tire ; that is, neither torn, nor mutilated, but raerely
separated from the other half sheet to which it was
originally attached. Does Mr. Child raean to intimate,
(for he does not expressly say so,) that this separation
was effected designedly, by some representative or heir
of John Codman, /or the purpose of suppressing evidence
which might make against him, and preserving that
which raade for hira .? If he does, we answer, that the
missing half sheet could not, by possibility, have con
tained any thing relative to those transactions between
35

274
Richard Codman and Vans, which constitute the basis of
his claim, because we shaU prove, conclusively, that the
letter was written before those transactions existed. Did
it then contain any thing respecting the dissolution of
copartnership — any thing tending to show that it was
not a bond fide and actual dissolution .? Certainly not;
because it is apparent, by the manner in which the dis
solution is spoken of, in the half sheet which we do pro
duce, that it was there spoken of for the first time in
that letter. After speaking on other topics, it says, " I
observe that you had dissolved our partnership." How
could this language have been used, if observations had
previously been made on this sarae point .?
Frora the tenor of that which exists, it is perfectly
apparent that the part which does not exist, or cannot be
found, contains nothing material to our present subject of
inquiry, except the date, which we are fortunately able
to fix otherwise — sufficiently, at least, for our purpose.
It begins with the middle of a sentence, in these words :
" heard from, I suppose she has gone to Russia, agreea
ble to your orders, and which you no doubt comraunica
ted to Messrs. Barings." He had of course been pre
viously speaking of one of their Russia ships. He goes
on to speak of the account of the Barings, and the
£15,000, which he says they ought to credit to the
house, explaining only that it regards a transaction with
Mr. Parker ; of his hopes that John Codraan would
have shipped coffee to Europe ; of his intention to sell
off his own property in France, and pay the Barings
out of it, and to return horae ; of the want of accounts
frora Copenhagen ; of certain protested bills of Mr.
Swan's ; of the claira in England for the Abigail's
freight ; and then says, " I observe that you had dis-

275
solved our copartnership," &c. ; and immediately goes
on to speak of the high prices of tobacco and other ar
ticles all over Europe, and concludes — " If you can
make any expedition in these articles which you raay
think safe, I think it will be well. If you want funds,
and draw on Hamburg, or London, I will take care of
ihe bills, if you will give me advice of them." The
words of this latter sentence, it wiH presently be seen,
are important.
Is this a genuine letter written in France, and sent
thence by Richard Codraan to John .? In the first place,
the miscellaneousness of the topics, and the hasty
brevity with which they are treated, are precisely what
we should expect frora a correspondent, who, with
numerous and raoraentous affairs on hand, wrote to his
brother and partner little oftener than once in six months.
In the second place, it is written on foreign paper, a
circumstance which Mr. Vans' counsel will hardly re
fuse to adrait as an arguraent for its genuineness, con
sidering that it is the principal arguraent which he hira
self uses for the genuineness of the copy of a letter
produced by Vans, which, unfortunately, is otherwise
shown to be a fabrication. In the third place, it is
in Richard Codraan's own hand writing, and signed
by himself, and he has been dead raore than thirty
years. In the fourth place, it is found araong John
Codman's papers, who has also been dead nearly thirty-
five years. And lastly, which proves its authenticity
beyond all controversy, it is answered by John Codraan,
and his answer stands recorded in its proper place in his
letter book, under date of Nov. 16, 1798.
That this is the answer, appears by its tenor in several
parts, but raore particularly in this, which directly refers

to the concluding sentence quoted above- " Yoy tell
me," says the answer, " If T ivant funds, vvhich I most
seriously do, to draw on London, or Hamburg, and you
will take care of the bills, if I would advise you ;" —
retorting Richard's own language upon him, and then
proceeding to show the folly of his suggestion. This
proves that the paper in question was written, sent, an^
received in Boston, before the 16th Nov- '98,
What then was its date ? The answer informs us
of the month, though not of the day of the month, and
this is sufficiently near for the present purpose. The
answer begins thus. " My dear brother Richard —
This letter will acknowledge receipt of yours by Mr.
Woodward, who has arrived here, and I believe made a
very handsorae thing of the goods he purchased, in
France. I thank you for your letter by hira. It is
the only one you have wrote from April to Septem
ber, and considering the iraportance of things between
us I think you are very reraiss in this particular." It
appears then that this letter was dated on sorae day in
the month of September. It appears also that Richard
had not written to John for five months preceding.
It follows that in the month of September, at latest,
Richard Codraan had notice of the dissolution; and
probably he had before the first of July, according to the
usual course of coraraunication between the two coun
tries. At any rate our not finding any earlier acknowl
edgement from him, is no arguraent against this proba
bility, since he had not written at all in the interval.
It farther appears, frora the answer, that the letter in
question was received by Mr. Woodward. "This letter
will acknowledge receipt of yours by Mr. Woodward.""
Now we have that gentleman's deposition. He is asked

277
"On your return to, the United States, did you bring
any letter from Richard Codman to John Codman.?"
He answers "yes, sir, and delivered it. with my oion
hand, agreeably to the request of Richard Codman."
This is pretty direct evidence that there was such a
letter. In respect to dates, after the lapse of forty
years, it is not to be expected that the witness could
be precise. He says, in answer to that question, " It
was a great while ago, and I have not had occasion
to be particular as to the date. I left Paris, and
went down to Nantes, and embarked there. I think
I left Paris in the early part of August, and embarked
in the latter part. That is as near as I can recollect
now." Now it happened that we were enabled to
fix, what the witness could not recollect, by finding
an original letter from him dated at Nantes, and
addressed to Richard Codman at Paris, ll is dated
Sept. 3, 1798, states that he is about to sail in a few
days, and requests Richard Codman to send down the
letters which he wished to forward. This letter is not
annexed, as it relates to Mr. Woodward's private affairs,
and is wholly iraraaterial to the case, except for the pur
pose of fixing a date, which is fixed near enough with
out it. The date of Richard Codraan's letter was
undoubtedly in the early part of September. Yet Mr.
Vans, in the pamphlet entitled " A New Edition," &c.
p. 13, boldly asserts as follows : " War having been
declared by America against France at the time I left
Paris in January, 1799, to come to America, there was
no other way of getting to America but by Holland, or
Hamburgh, as all intercourse was stopped between the
two countries. It is therefore evident that Richard
Codman, in Paris, did not know, nor could not know

278
that John Codraan at that tirae had put a notification
of dissolution in the Centinel newspaper in Boston."
And again, in the paraphlet entitled " The Third Edi
tion," &c. p. 26, he says, " There being war at that
time between America and France, the coraraunication
between this country and France was stopt, and there
was no way of getting to France but by HoHand or
Haraburgh. I therefore repeat that Richard Codman,
did not know at the time I left France, (24 Jan. '99,)
that John Codman had put a notification in the Centi
nel in Boston as stated before ; nor was it known in
Paris, as I have the declaration of Messrs. Swan, Dal-
lard, Callender, Cutting and Melville, all who say that
they had not heard of the dissolution of John and Rich
ard Codman in 1801." The nuraber of falsities in
these sentences would be astonishing if they came
frora any other writer. War never was declared by
America against France, although there were some
threats and some reprisals. This is matter of history.
Intercourse between the two countries was never stopped,
so as to prevent the receipt of intelligence there of the
dissolution — for we see that in Nov. '98, Mr. Woodward
had just arrived from France with a cargo of French
goods. Richard Codman did know of the dissolution
long before his transactions with Vans, for we have
seen that he acknowledged the notice of it in Septem
ber — three or four months at least before the commence
ment of those transactions. And we add, that the fact
of the dissolution was notorious in Paris at or about the
same time ; and that neither Swan, Dallard, Callender,
Cutting, or Melville can be shown, as we believe, to
have said any thing to the contrary.

279
In respect to the testiraony of these gentleraen, not
having the docuraents in our possession, we are obHged
to rely on what Mr. Vans has published as copies ; but
without the least confidence that they are true copies,
as we have scarcely known hira in a single instance to
publish correctly any document to which we have had
access, or indeed to state the truth about any thing
which was not for his own iraraediate advantage.
For Mr. Swan's stateraent, we refer to the pamphlet
entitled "A statement of facts," &c. p. 18. This pur
ports to exhibit the answers of Mr. Swan, before some
body in France, who styles himself a justice of the
peace, to certain interrogatories propounded by Wra.
Vans. It is called a deposition, although not under
oath, nor with notice to the opposite party. The date
is 29th Prairial, tenth year, corresponding to our 17th
June, 1802. It states, that the house of Dallarde,
Swan & Co. had dealt largely with John & Richard
Codraan, in the years 1792-3, (which was before Rich
ard Codraan went to France ;) — that John Codraan and
Richard Codman were raerchants and " partners in a
house established at Boston," (not at Paris ;) — that in
'94 Swan had paid to Richard Codraan, at Havre, a sum
of money, " for the account of John Codm.an," (not of
the house, and if it were, it was six years before the
dissolution ;) — that Richard gave a receipt for it in his
own narae ; — and that Swan in '96 had " had concerns
for the account of John Codman, with the house of
John ^ Richard Codman, in Boston." All which has
no bearing, either upon the question of the nature of
Richard Codraan's agency in France for the house,
while it lasted, or upon the question ofthe continuance
of the partnership after May 1, '98. The question is

280
then asked, " Do you know whether the partnership of
John & Richard Codman is dissolved .? " — that is, at this
date, of 17th June, 1802. This direct question the
witness does not directly answer, but evasively says, " I
never was apprised in France of the dissolution of patt-
nership of John & Richard Codraan, either by letters, or
public documents, either by John Codraan, or Richard
Codraan." — That is, as we understand it, the witness
does not raean to say that he did not know, or had not
been informed, that the house of John & Richard Cod
raan had been dissolved these four years, but only that
neither John, nor Richard, had given him formal notice,
IN France, by a circular letter announcing the event, or
by any public advertisement there. This is what the
witness must have raeant, if he meant to state the truth;
and not being sworn, he perhaps felt hiraself under no
obligation to tell the whole truth.
To prove it, we refer to the stateraent of the
Hon. Wra. Sullivan, in a letter dated January 19, 1835,
corroborated by his testiraony under oath before the
comraittee of that year. Frora this it appears, that Mr.
Swan, (who was the witness' father-in-law,) was in
Boston, or its neighborhood, in May, 1798, and contin
ued here until the raonth of July of that year. He was
personally acquainted with John Codraan, as the witness
states, and this appears also frora the correspondence,
and indeed from the very deposition in question. He
of course knew, while here, so notorious a fact as a dis
solution of the principal raercantile house of the place
— especially when it was publicly announced in the
newspapers, and when the raembers of the house were
among his personal friends and acquaintance. There
fore it is, that he answers the question equivocally, by

281
saying, that he never was apprised in France of the dis
solution, by letter, or any public document.. He was
apprised of it on the spot where it took place, and ,saw it
there publicly advertised for a month.
Besides this, we refer to a letter .from John Codraan,
at Boston, to Mr. Swan at Paris, dated Deceraber 4, 1 801 ,
six months before the date of his deposition. Frora this
letter it appears, that they had met in Paris, and that after
John Codman's return to Boston, he raakes a proffer to
Mr. Swan, and through hira to Mr. Dallarde, with whom
Swan was, or had been, in partnership, of his commer
cial services, as a coraraission merchant, at Boston, act^
ing under his own name and separate signature. " If
you, or your friends," says he, " Mr. Dallarde, or others,
should incline to ship goods of French manufactory to
this place, and order remittances back in exchange or
produce, / beg leave to offer both you and them my
services." " I can give the greatest facility to business
entrusted to my care," he, signed, John Codman.
And this, it will be recollected, was after Richard Cod
man's insolvency had become notorious at Paris, during
John Codman's visit, — Mr. Swan being, as the corres
pondence shows, well acquainted with both of thera.
We refer, also, to docuraents vvhich show, that in May,
1801, Mr. Swan acted as a referee between Vans and
Richard Codraan, relative to the very claims which Mr.
Vans now sets up against John Codman, and which he
then set up against Richard Codman alone, as his sepa
rate concern.* With what face, then, can Mr. Vans pre
tend, that Mr. Swan, making this declaration in June,
1802, meant to have it understood, that according to his
* See Appendix, Documents Nos. 265 to 269.
56

282
information and belief, the house of John 4r Richard
Codman was still in full life ?
As to Mr. Dallarde, the only evidence we find of any
thing reserabling testiraony, (and the reserablance is
but faint) from him, is in the pamphlet addressed " to
the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives,
&c., supposed to have appeared in 1812, at p. 19.
It is about six lines, neither sworn to, nor witnessed,
nor purporting to be an answer to any particular inter
rogatory. Its date is 28  10th year, or 1812!
The latter we suppose to be a mistake however for
1802. But what is most curious about it is, that it is
signed "P- Dallarde ^ Co." — as if it were a partner
ship transaction — a piece of testimony binding upon
the firm, like a note of hand ! It begins " We the un
dersigned" — but soon runs into the singular nuraber —
" and / always considered him" — (the paper just before
had named Richard Codman) — " / always considered
him copartner of John and Richard Codman" ; — (that
is I always considered Richard copartner with him
self;) "and moreover /never heard that the house of
John ^ Richard" (where that house was we have never
been informed) " was dissolved."
(Signed) "P. DALLARDE ^ CO."!!
Upon the whole we are of opinion that this valuable
docuraent, as here published, bears strong raarks of the
inventive genius of WiUiara Vans. We dismiss it with
out further comment, excepting that John Codman's let
ter to Mr. Swan, above quoted, expressly includes Mr.
Dallarde, araong the persons to whom he tenders his
personal services, under the single narae of John
Codman.

283
The same pamphlet, p. 18, contains what purports to
be the declaration of Benjamin Callender, before a
magistrate of France, signed 5 Messidore, 10th year,
answering to our 23d June, 1802. This paper was
offered to the committee of 1833 as a deposition, but
rejected by them, because it had no raagistrates' signa
ture to it. This is one of the griev^ances complained of
by William Vans. It raight also have been well reject
ed as a deposition, judging frora the caption printed by
Mr. Vans, because it does not purport to have been un
der oath, any raore than Mr. Swan's. It does however,
according to that publication, purport to have been sign
ed by Callender, whereas, when produced before the
committee of 1855, it was found, we believe, to have
no signature at all — a totally unauthenticated paper —
signed by nobody.
Let us see however what are its statements. The
first question is, " Do you know the house of commerce
of John & Richard Codraan." Answer. "I know
that the brothers, John & Richard Codraan, are mer
chants and copartners together." This we admit
would be evidence, if it were sworn to by a witness
who had means of knowledge. The succeeding
questions lead the supposed witness to state what his
means of knowledge were, and they resolve themselves
into two transactions of the house of Putnam ^ Cal
lender with Richard Codman, one the purchase frora
him of the ship Governor Bowdoin, belonging to John
& Richard Codraan, the other the sale to hira of certain
assignats for his own obligation, both in the year '95.
The question is then put, " Have you been in
formed of the dissolution of the copartnership of John
& Richard Codman." Answer. " I have never been

284
informed by letter; iior by any public notification, ofthe
dissolution of the copartnership of John & Richard Cod
man." Thus it will be seen that this witness, like
Swan, does not pretend to deny that he was acquainted
ivith the fact., but states only that he had not been in
formed either by letter, or by public notification. But
it seems, that if Mr. Callender had not been informed
by public notification, his partner, Jesse Putnam, Esq.
had. For, annexed to another paraphlet published by
Vans, entitled " A Stateraent of Facts," &c., we have
an affidavit of Mr. Putnara, sworn to in 1815, before a
magistrate in Boston, the concluding words of which
are, " I also saw in the Boston Centinel, at Bourdeaux,
I believe in 1798, tt?f advertisement by John Codman,
notifying the dissolution ofthe copartnership between Mm
and Richard Codman."
This piece of evidence Mr. Vans has not seen fit to
produce in raodern tiraes, although the affidavit was
taken at his own request, and published by him in the
pamphlet abovementioned. Indeed the language of
this affidavit is guarded throughout, and states nothing
which is not in literal accordance with the facts.
It states the purchase of the Governor Bowdoin,
before '97, frora Richard Codman in his own name,
although it was the property of the house ; that
in the years '96 and 97, Richard Codman had specu
lated largely in the French funds ; that he resided in
France from '9o lo 1800, doing business always, as far
as had come to the witness' knowledge, under his own
name of Richard Codman ; that he had bought lands and
estates in his own name ; that he appeared to have
many and extensive negotiations and transactions in
rherchandize, in assignats, in the public funds called in-

286
scriptions, in silver and gold ^ in bills of exchange, all
in his ownname, although the witness says he had rea
son to believe that some of the purchases, sales and
negotiations, were for account of ^ the house of John &
Richard Codraan. Undoubtedly, those purchases and
sales of 'raerchandize, gold and silver, bills of exchange,
and perhaps assignats, which were the paper currency
of France, and other raercantile commodities, being in
the usual course of the business of the house, though
made in his own name, raay have been for account of
the house, so long as it existed. This is proved affir
matively by the accounts and correspondence. Those
speculative purchases and sales of real estate and stocks,
which were not in the usual course of raercantile busi
ness, though made also in his own name, were for him
self, and not for account of the house. This also is
proved, negatively, by the accounts and correspondence,
which embrace no such transactions.
The testiraony of Nathaniel Cutting, taken in 1812,
before two justices of the Peace, in the District of
Columbia, as published in the sarae pamphlet, p. 19,
is of a very different character frora Mr. Putnam's.
Mr. Putnam confines himself lo the statement of facts.
Mr. Cutting deals mostly in opinion. He says he
resided in Paris frora '96 lo 1801, and was well
acquainted with John and Richard Codman, then
[when .?] reputed copartners in trade ; — he adniits that
he can not remeraber having ever had a commercial
transaction with either ofthe Codraan's, but he feels sure
that Richard Codman was fully authorised to use and
sign the firra of the copartnership, viz. "John & Richard
Codman" in France and elsewhere, [we have seen that
Richard was not so sure of it] ; — and he adds, " I always

286
supposed and believed" that Richard's extensive business,
and vast acquisitions of real estate, were founded on,
and were for account of, the joint funds and interest of
the copartnership ; and was "the raore confirraed in this
opinion," when I saw John Codraan corae personally to
Paris, and apparently enter into possession of the property
previously acquired by Richard, and proceed conjunctly
with him in the adjustment of his open accounts."
Thus we have Mr. Cutting's opinion, and the grounds
of that opinion. But when we see from the documents
that Richard Codman had misappropriated the joint
funds, in raaking these purchases without John Codman's
consent, that he had thereby becorae a large debtor to
John, that the priraary object of John's visit to Paris was
lo bring Richard to account, and reclaim these perverted
funds, that Richard transferred his real estate to John as
security for this large and just debt, and that John Cod
man, for that cause, "apparently entered into possession,"
that John was also extremely solicitous to settle his
brother's affairs and withdraw him from Paris, and that for
this reason, as well as for the settleraent ofthe accounts
of the late house, he appeared to " proceed conjunctly
with him in the adjustment of his open accounts," we
see the grounds of the opinion utterly swept away, and
the whole value of the opinion with them.
Mr. Cutting then goes on to speak of the dissolution
in these words — "Nor did I ever hear, or know, within
the period aforesaid, that the said copartnership was dis
solved or annulled in France, either by public adver
tisement, or otherwise." Thus it appears that this
witness, like all the others, (except Monsieur P. Dal
lard & Co.) does not pretend that he did not know, or
had not heard of the dissolution of the copartnership,

287
as it took place, at Boston, but states only that he
neither knew or heard of its being dissolved in France,
by public advertisenienl or otherwise — proceeding
upon the supposition that there was a copartnership in
France distinct from the Boston house, erabracing the
subject of French slocks and French real estate, and
requiring sorae act thefe to dissolve it. A supposition
not only disproved by the evidence, but now disclaimed
as we have seen, by Mr. Vans' counsel.
Mr. Moville, who is also quoted by Vans, as saying
that he had not heard of the dissolution of John &
Richard Codraan in 1801, says not one word upon the
subject. His deposition, as found in the pamphlet last
referred lo, at p. 21, appears to have been taken in
perpetuam, before two Justices of the Peace in the
county of Berkshire, Dec. 6, 1812, but without any
notice to the opposite party. He says that he knew
Richard Codman in Paris, from 1796 to 1802; that he
had some coraraercial dealings with hira ; that " Rich
ard transacted his mercantile business under the firra of
Richard Codraan, and that in said business he was in
partnership with his brother John Codraan at Boston."
He states, also, that John Codraan in Paris, con.sulted
him about Vans' claims on the firra of Richard Codman,
and informed him of certain propositions for settlement,
and proposed raaking over to Melville himself several
estates as security for advances to effect this object.
Pretty good evidence that John Codman was no part
ner in these debts, as he would have had no trouble in
raising the raoney oul of his own funds, and /or his oivn
account, if he had had occasion to do so. This, Mr.
Melville declined, but farther particulars, frora lapse of
time, he says, he cannot recollect. This is the sura and

288
substance of his testimony, according to the deposition
of 1 8 1 2, which is the testimony Mr. Vans refers to above.
If, however, we raay credit Mr- Child's representa
tions of Mr. Melville's testiraon)' before the comrait
tee in 1855,* it would seem that the farther lapse of
twenty years and upwards, since the year 1812, had
brightened his recollections considerably. For besides
other new matter, he is there represented as stating posi
tively, that " he never knew, or heard, of a dissolution
of the partnership, in France, up to the time of Rich
ard Codman's departure from that country in the year
1802 ;" by which Mr. Child gives us to understand that
the dissolution ofthe house in Boston was unknown in
France at that date. If, on the other hand, it were decent,
or safe, to lend our ear to the representations ofthe com
mittee on this subject,! we shall learn that Mr. Melville's
testimony was, " that he had no knowledge of any no
tice of dissolution in France ;" — giving us to understand
that he knew of no publication by advertisement there.
But least there should be a lurking doubt which
of these representations is raost credible, we annex a
copy of a letter frora John Codraan to this sarae Mr.
Melville, dated at Paris, the 9th of December, 1800,
and another frora Richard Codman of the same date,
respecting a demand on the French Government,
which Richard Codman had assigned to John Cod
raan and which John Codman, in his own name, and
for his own account, lodges with Melville for collection,
— a transaction which clearly indicates the separation
of interests then existing, and of course known to Mel
ville. It appears, besides, frora this letter, that Mel
ville had previously offered his services, as a banker and
-* See Review, p. 38. -j- See their Report, p. 15.

289
merchant, to John Codman. 'We also annex two letters
from Melville hiraself, in 1801, addressed, not to the
house of /. ^ R. Codman, but to the house of John
Codman, at Boston, with whora he then raaintained a
regular correspondence, and these letters expressly speak
of Vans, as pursuing Richard Codraan alone iu France.*
Besides all this, it appears frora Richard Codraan's
surrender in bankruptcy, that Melville hiraself was
a creditor of Richard Codman's ;\ and yet he never
pretended to assert a claira against John Codman !
He was, therefore, in 1800 and after, corresponding
and dealing with each of the brothers separately,
doing business as an agent for John Codman al
Boston, and granting a credit to Richard Codman at
Paris, without any mingling of the two concerns, or
pretence that a partnership then existed between them.
Who can doubt, therefore, whatever his present recol
lections may be, after thirty-five years have elapsed,
(and he admits thera to be very iraperfect,) but that he
knew of the dissolution well enough at the time of
these letters and transactions .?
With these facts in the reader's mind, let hira look
again at Mr. Melville's deposition, and see what it
amounts to — and what credit is to be given to the gene
ral stateraent that Richard Codraan was in partnership
with his brother John Codraan, frora 1796 till 1802, if
that is the fair interpretation of his language .? We do
not mean to impeach this witness, otherwise than by his
forgetfulness of dates, or rather his omission to fix them
precisely. It is true he confines the partnership to mer
cantile business — which excludes such transactions as
* See Doc's. No. 314, 315. t See No. 348.
57

290
Mr. Vans founds his claims on, even if the partnership
were continuing at the lime of those transactions. But
it is plain the witness does not mean to state how long
this mercantile partnership continued. He is asked no
question which directs his mind to that point. He
says he was acquainted with Richard Codman in Paris,
frora '95 until he left France in 1802; — he after
wards says, that in raercantile business, John & Rich
ard Codman were in partnership. This is indisputa
bly true. How long they continued in partnership is
not asked hira ; and since it appears by original docu
ments, that, before 1802, he hiraself was dealing with
John Codman as a separate merchant, at Boston, and
also with Richard Codraan separately, at Paris, it is
but fair to the witness to presurae that he did uot mean
to assert that the partnership continued to that time. If
he did, his raeraory of dates is worth nothing, com
pared with the evidence of documents and his own acts.
We have now noticed all the testiraony of any
importance, relied upon by Mr. Vans, to prove that the
dissolution of J. & R. Codman was unknown at Paris,
until after his undertakings with Richard Codman.
There is, indeed, in the pamphlet which contains the
certificate of P. Dallarde & Co., another certificate,
purporting to be signed J. Recamie — intended, we
presume, for J. Recamier, who was Richard Codman's
banker at Paris, and connected by marriage, as we have
understood, with Mr. Vans ; but it states only, " that
since the year 1796, I have had different affairs of
commerce with Richard Codman at Paris, and that I
always treated with him as Richard Codman." This
Mr. Vans used to say proved that Richard Codman
was the firm at Paris ; — which his counsel now dis-

291
claims. It is clear enough, at any rate, that Mr. Reca
mier understood perfectly well that when he dealt with
Richard Codman, it was simply " as Richard Codman."
It is not only proved by the language of this certificate,
but by his accounts, which are annexed, and by the
fact that he settled his claira against Richard Codraan,
at the tirae of his failure, and when John Codraan was
in Paris, for less than fifty per cent, of ils araount. This,
of course, he would not have done, if he had considered
Richard Codraan the narae of a house, and John Cod
man liable, as a partner. This fact appears by the
original account so settled,* and also by Vans' own
letter of Slst January, 1801, to John Codraan,! show
ing that he knew of that settlement.
There is, also, an affidavit of one Wra. Hall, raade
before Benjarain Parsons, in June 1826, published in
the pamphlet of that year, addressed " to his Excel
lency," &c., p. 75, which cannot be read without strik
ing the reader as very little worthy of credit. It states
that he was John Codman's wharfinger, and that he
had often been told by John Codman, after his return
from France, about the transactions of Richard Cod
man with Vans, and his own fears that he was impli
cated as copartner, because the notification of the dis
solution was rnade without Richard Codman's knowl
edge or consent ; — all which confidential matter, cora
municated by John Codman to his wharfinger, was
accompanied with the highest eulogy upon the honor
and probity of Wm. Vans. This story, so improbable
in itself, and so contradictory to the language used by
John Codman in his letters of that period, whenever
* See Document, No. 291.
t See Document, No. 243.

292
he had occasion to speak of Mr. Vans, is wholly dis
credited, when we learn that the affidavit is drawn up
by Vans hiraself in his own handwriting,* and that
Hall, however reputable he raay forraerly have been,
had fallen into such habits as make his testimony no
longer worthy of the slightest belief. The evidence
on this subject, as it appeared before the comraittee of
1855, will be found in their report. We refer, also, to
the record of the conviction of Wra. Hall, before the
Justices of the Police Court of Boston, as " a vagabond
and idle person," and the depositions of the officers of
the House of Industry, showing that he has been con
fined there for years, and that his character is such that
he cannot be believed upon oath.f
Having cleared off Mr. Vans' evidence, we now pro
pose to show by our own, that the dissolution of the
house of J. &. R. Codraan was notorious at Paris
before the engagements of Richard Codraan with Vans,
and to no one better known than to Vans himself.
At the outset of this inquiry, however, we desire to
dismiss another of Mr. Vans' pretensions, namely, that
his relations with the house of J. & R. Codman were
such as entitled him to particular notice by letter.
The rule of law in this respect is, that publication in
the newspapers of the place where the house is estab
lished, is sufficient notice to ah the world, except its
regular foreign correspondents, who are entitled to par
ticular notice by letter, unless it can be proved that the
newspaper notice, or actual notice in sorae other way,
reached the party who claims the privilege. If Mr.
Vans, therefore, claims this privilege, it is incumbent
* This appears by the Report ofthe Committee of 1833.
t See Documents, Nos. 388, 389.

295
upon him to prove his title to it. In other words it is
incurabent on hira to prove that he was an established
customer and correspondent of the house.
For this purpose, the evidence which Mr. Vans has
heretofore relied upon, is a bill for cordage against the
ship Farae and owners, receipted by John & Richard
Codman, at Boston, in July, 1791. Mr. Vans represents
that the ship Fame was owned by the house of Freeman
& Vans, of which he was a partner; and we suppose
this fact may be true, although no evidence of it was
offered to the committee of 1855. In the paraphlet
entitled " A new edition," &e. p. 20, is what purports
to be a copy of this paper, not, however, without
an alteration frora the original, as exhibited to the com
mittee, since the bill, as here printed, is headed " Free
man ^ Vans, owners of the ship Farae, to J. & R.
Codman, Dr." instead of " the ship Fame and owners
Dr." &c., thus supplying, by false representation of a
document, the material point not proved before the
committee. Mr. Vans also produced, before the coramittee of
1855, a couple of notes taken up by Freeman & Vans,
from J. & R. Codraan. These, we presurae, were
notes given in payraent for the cordage, since the
receipt at foot of the bill, as published by Vans, pur
ports that payment was received by note. This is all
the evidence offered by Mr. Vans, of the large dealings
which he pretends to have had with John & Richard
Codman. The books and correspondence of J. & R.
Codman, and of J. Codman, on the other hand, cqm-
pletely negative the pretension. The books of J.
Codman show, indeed, that in January, 1791, before the
formation ofthe house of J. & R. Codman, Wm. Vans

294
was indebted to him personally upon a note of hand.
The books of /. ^ R. Codman, on the other hand, show
no transactions whatsoever with Wm, Vans individually,
and none with the house of Freeman ^ Vans, except
for the bill of cordage and its settlement, and some
sraall raoney loans, with a final close of their account in
August, 1794.
The house of Freeman & Vans, moreover, it will be
remembered, vvas a Boston house ; and as such, if it had
continued till 1798, would have been entitled to no
other notice of the dissolution of J. & R. Codman than
the advertiseraent in the newspapers, the change of the
sign over the door, and other acts of public notoriety
here. But the house of Freeraan & Vans, before June,
'95, came to an end, and was dissolved, by the death of
Mr. Freeman, as Vans hiraself states in his paraphlets.*
Mr. Vans, in the raean tirae, had gone abroad, and estab
lished himself in Paris, where he continued till 1809,
and did business, most extensively, as he inforras us, on
his own separate account. During this period of near
fifteen years, there was no intercourse whatsoever, be
tween him at Paris, and the house of John & Richard
Codman at Boston. He not only fails to exhibit a par
ticle of evidence to show a single dealing or transaction
between them, but the account books and letter books
of the house are wholly silent upon the subject. Not
withstanding this, his counsel argues, that every individ
ual, who had ever been a party to any sort of transaction
* " Between Sept. 1794 and the month of June 1795, Freeman & Vans
lost the following vessels and cargoes, sent by Freeman & Vans from
Boston. First, ship Mary and cargo, Stejihen Deblois, supercargo —
schooner Lafayette, and cargo of piece goods — also, a brig and cargo
bought of Wm. Gray, Esq. — This vessel Mr. Freeman took passage
bound to Hamburgh was lost.^^ — From "An appeal to. the Public," &c.
adorned with cvts, at p. 101.
"Brig Enterprize, with coffee, lost on the banks. My partner Mr.
Freeman was in her." — From the " Life of Wm. Vans,'' p. 4.

295
with J. & R. Codman, at Boston, was entitled to notice
by letter, wherever he might happen to be, al the tirae of
the dissolution. What can be raore absurd .? It involves
the necessity of knowing, and notifying, individucdly, all
the partners of each house with which they ever dealt ;
and after its dissolution, and the dispersion of its raera-
bers, they are lo be traced and followed, in all their
individual raoveraents, into all quarters of the globe.
Upon this principle, no house of trade ever was, or ever
could be, legally dissolved.
Vans, as a merchant in France, was no raore entitled
to notice there, because Freeraan & Vans, of Boston, had
formerly had sorae transactions, in Boston, with J. & R.
Codman, than he would have been if such a firra as
Freeraan & Vans had never existed ; and not being
hiraself in correspondence with J. ^ R. Codman, he was
no more entitled to notice by letter from them, because
he had a particular intercourse with Richard Codman in
Paris, than any other stranger in France.
Mr. Child asserts, indeed, that not a soul was noti
fied in France ; not even Richard Codraan himself.
The falsehood of this latter point has been proved.
But the truth is, that the house of John & Richard Cod
man had no correspondents in France at the period of
their dissolution, nor for many years before, except
Richard Codman himself, and the Messrs. Homberg, of
Havre, arid with the latter their intercourse had almost
ceased. This appears both from their account books and
letter books. Yet the Horabergs, being correspondents,
were duly notified, as appears by their letter annexed.
They had negligently addressed a letter, probably by the
error of sorae clerk, in 1801, to "Messrs. John & Richard
Codraan, Boston." John Codraan, who received it, in

296
his answer of the 15 Feb. 1802, after acknowledging
its receipt, says, "The address was to the late house of
John & Richard Codman, which you have been already
advised, was dissolved here (where only it ever existed,)
since the first of May, 1798." Messrs. Homberg in
reply address "John Codman" under date of 22d April,
1802, and say, "In reply to your much esteeraed favor of
16th Feb. il was by error that ours of the 26th Oct. a. p.
was addressed you under your old firm of John & Rich
ard Codraan. We were advised in time of the dissolu
tion of that firra." Mr. Child's suggestion is, (see
Review, p. 55,) that this raay mean, that they were
advised in time to do something for John Codman. But
there is nothing in the letters to support the suggestion,
that they meant any thing more or less than to acknowl
edge that they had received seasonably, and in due
course, the notice vvhich John Codman refers to as hav
ing been formerly sent. Yet Mr. Child argues upon
the letter as if, at its date, nearly four years after the
dissolution, the Hombergs had then for the first time
received notice !
Mr. Vans also publishes a letter frora E. Church to
himself, dated at Paris, 16 Prairial, an. 10th, that is
Sd June, 1802, in which he says, that he is totally a
stranger to any dissolution of the house of J. & R.
Codman of Boston, and consequently that if he had
given credit to Richard Codman six months before, he
should have considered John Codman equally respon
sible." (See the pamphlet entitled "a true statement,"
&c. p. 9.) But it will be borne in raind that Mr. Church,
who vvas established not in France, but at Lisbon, was
no regular correspondent of the house, and therefore no
raore than Mr. Vans entitled to a particular notice. The

297
only transaction in which he ever was concerned with
the house, is exhibited in the paraphlet above referred
to.* It seems, that in 1795, the ship Thetis, belonging
to John & Richard Codman, was sent by Richard Cod
man frora Havre to Lisbon, consigned to Jacob Dohrman
& Co., who were to furnish a cargo. The bills which
Richard Codman furnished in payment on some house
in Europe were not honored ; in consequence of vvhich
the consignees detained the ship, until Mr. Church,
who was the United States' consul, at that port, and
well acquainted with the standing and credit of the
house of J. & R. Codman, upon request of the captain,
and in the expectation that sorae coraraercial advan
tages raight be derived frora it, stepped forward and
furnished the necessary funds ; for which he was both
thanked and reimbursed — although he says he lost by
the transaction about £800, in difference of exchange
and interest. If he did, we have only to say that il
was his own fault, as John Codman hiraself had fully
acknowledged the obligation he had conferred, and his
responsibility for the business, and it does not appear
that Mr. Church ever presented, or raade known to
John Codman, any such claira. If he had, he would
have found, as all who dealt with John Codraan did,
both justice and liberaHty. If Mr. Church thought
otherwise there was at least property enough to respond.
But a single isolated transaction, of this sort, with a
raercantile house, is no such establishment of corres
pondence, as entitles lo particular notice of any change
which its constitution raay undergo. The rule applies,
as we understand it, only to those who have running
accounts, or pending business, or have been customary
*Doc's. No. 371,&c.
58

298
dealers and correspondents, with the house dissolved.
And the Messrs. Homberg's of Havre were the only
hou.se in France so related to J. & R. Codman in 1798.
The house corresponded in general only with Richard.
He acted and corresponded in his own name as he
pleased ; and if he raeant to bind his house, he expressed
in his obligations and letters, that the business was for
their account.
As to another of Mr. Vans' pretences, — that it was
the duty of John Codraan not only to have notified the
dissolution to foreign correspondents by letter, but also
to have advertised in the newspapers at Paris, as well
as in the newspapers of Boston, it goes upon the hy
pothesis of a distinct house established in Paris. The
argument of his counsel indeed is, that a general raer
cantile partnership has no particular location ; that it is
absurd to consider it as bounded by parallels of latitude
and degrees of longitude ; that on the contrary it exists
everywhere. Is public notice of its dissolution then to be given
by advertisement everywhere ? What do merchants
mean when they speak of the Messrs. Barings of Lon
don — the Messrs. Hombergs of Havre — or John &
Richard Codraan of Boston? It is true that a house
of trade like an individual, raay act, through agents,
all the world over. But it has nevertheless a special
locality, according to legal and mercantile understand
ing, as much as the individual has. There is some
place whence its operations proceed, and to which
their results return. Its orders and notices raust pro
ceed, directly, or indirectly, frora that place. And when
the law requires that a notice of dissolution shall be
published in the Gazette, it raeans a newspaper of that

299
same place. Or will the learned counsel seriously con
tend that it means all the newspapers of the world ?
For if we omit any, how shall we be sure that some old
customer of the house may not happen to be in the
very spot omitted .? And after all, what is lo be done
if he happens lo be in sorae spot where there is no
newspaper .?
There was no raore reason why J. & R. Cod
man should have published their notice of dissolu
tion in the newspapers of Paris, than in the newspa
pers of London, unless it be shown that they were a
house of trade established in Paris, which the evidence
wholly disproves. There is not a particle of evidence
for it. The most pretended is the supposition, opin
ion, or belief, of some individual, not founded upon any
dealings, or facts within his own knowledge — but a
mere vague hypothesis. Are rumor and hypothesis
then to create liabilities .? Partnership is a contract ;
and parties to it are bound according to its terras ; they
are bound to third persons according to that constitu
tion which they have proraulgated. If they give notice
of a house established at Boston, they cannot be
treated as a house established in France, although a
member of the house raay happen to be there, and
while there may act sometiraes for the house, and some
times for hiraself.
How then, it raay be asked, shall those who deal
with the partner abroad, know whether they deal on his
credit, or on the credit of the house ? In two ways.
First, by the terms of the contract, which, if il be for
account of the house, will so express. And we have
seen that all the contracts raade by Richard Codraan,
for account of his house, did so express. Secondly, by

300
the subject matter of the contract, which of itself may
deterraine that it does not fall within the^ scope of the
partnership business, as promulgated and held out to the
world. And such was the case with all Richard Cod
raan's speculations upon properly fixed in France, and
all his undertakings of private trust and confidence in
behalf of William Vans. Merchants, all over Europe,
were dealing with Richard Codman. There was the
same reason, therefore, for advertising in London, Ham
burg, and elsevvdiere, as for advertising in Paris. But
these merchants knew well enough whether they were
dealing with Richard Codman for himself alone, or
with Richard Codman as the agent, and for the account,
of the house of John & Richard Codraan. The proof
is, that we find the sarae individuals dealing with him,
in both capacities, and carefully drawing the distinction.
We find, for exaraple, a bill drawn by Richard Codman
on his house in Boston, in favor of the Hombergs of
Havre ; — and we find that same bill endorsed by the
Horabergs to /. ^ R. Codman, and reraitted by them on
account. That is, they receive the bill, as so much paid
to thera by Richard Codman, on his private account,
and they pass the bill as so much money to the house
of J. & R. Codman, whora they owe.* And we find
numerous dealings of theirs with Richard Codraan, in
his own name, terminating, at the time of his failure,
in a balance against him ; and yet, so far from clairaing
that balance against John Codman, they even perrait
specific property in their hands, to pass by assignraent
frora Richard lo John Codraan, and still look to Richard
alone, for their debt.f So we find Recamier, of Paris,
dealing with Richard Codraan in his own narae, and
* See Document, No. 281. | See No. 96.

301

when he became insolvent, compromising the debt
without any pretence of claira against John Codraan.*
We find the sarae thing in respect to Voght of Hara
burg, who takes what lie considers feeble security,
upon an estate of Richard Codraan's in France, instead
of calling upon John Codman — although he had been
a customer of J. & R. Codman, and dealt with them,
often through Richard Codraan, upon one account, at
the sarae tirae that he kept another account with
Richard Codraan, for his individual transactions. \ So
we find Mr. Phelps, at Paris, drawing one bill payable
to Messrs. John & Richard Codraan, and another, in the
sarae raonth, payable to Richard Codraan individually.!
And the Barings, of London, having received in '96 a
reraittance of £15,000 frora Richard Codman, keep it
suspended for several years, upon the doubt whether
they shall pass it to the credit of J. & R. Codman, or
put it to the separate account of Richard Codraan, and
finally insist on carrying 5000 of it to this latter account,
against the reraonstrances of John Codraan.^ Those
who dealt with Richard Codman, therefore, knew per
fectly well whether they dealt with hira on his own credit
simply, or whether they dealt with hira on the credit of
his house, and for account of his house, and expressed
their contracts accordingly. They knew perfectly well
that J. & R. Codraan vvas a house at Boston, and not at
Paris ; that if they dealt and corresponded with Richard
Codman at Paris, and not with J. & R. Codman at
Boston, they had no title to particular notice by letter,
of the dissolution of that house ; and that they were to
look, for any advertisement of the dissolution, to the
* See No's. 287 to 291. % See No. 284.
t See No's. 292 to 294. § See No's. 305, 306.

502
newspapers of Boston, where the house was, and not to
the newspapers of Paris, or of any other place, where
the house was not.
But of what consequence is it to the rights and
claims of Mr. Vans, whether others were duly notified
of the dissolution or not, if he himself, not being entitled
to-particular notice by letter, in fact knew ofthe disso
lution when he dealt with Richard Codraan. It is of no
importance how he derived his information, if he in fact
had it, and dealt upon that understanding. Had he
not the information .? Consider the circurastances.
The transactions with Richard Codraan, out of which
the claira grows, began in January, '99, We have
proved direct notice to Richard Codraan, received in
Paris by hira, at latest, in the Septeraber preceding.
Vans was then living at Paris on the raost familiar
footing of intimacy with Richard Codman, borrowing
small suras of hira frora day lo day, dining with him,
riding with hira, visiting at his country house, receiv
ing hira at his own house, and finally on his departure
for Araerica placing his wife in Richard Codman's
charge, and looking to him lo furnish her with money
during his absence.* Can il be imagined for a moment,
that, during this whole period, Richard Codraan had
never coramunicated to Vans so iraportant a fact as the
dissolution of his Araerican house, when his brother had
published it in the newspapers ? Consider the necessary
notoriety of the thing. The dissolution of the house of
John & Richard Codraan, of Boston, was at that day an
event of as much interest to American merchants re
siding in Paris, and must have been as ranch a topic of
* See No's. 136, &c.— Also, No. 163.— and No. 233.

505
conversation among thera on the exchange, as the dis
solution of the house of Baring, Brothers & Co., of
London, would now be araong raerchants on the ex
change at Boston. Letters, newspapers, travellers,
would all bear the news thither.
Mr. Vans pretends, indeed, that all coraraunication
between France and America was absolutely cut off —
so that even news could not travel. This is proved to
be false by positive evidence of direct coraraunication, —
besides which it is raatter of historical notoriety, that
the difficulties between the two countries did not corae
to a suspension of intercourse at that period. And even
if it were otherwise, the extent of Mr. Vans' position is
absurd. If there had been no direct coraraunication
between France and America, was there none through
Holland .? Was there none through Hamburg .? Did
France communicate with no country which comrauni
cated with Araerica .? And if she did with any, at a
time when Araerican ships were the carriers of the
world, could Araerican news be utterly excluded from
the ears of Paris .?
The fact was published in the Boston newspa
pers ! Mr. Putnara, Vans' own witness, swears that
he saw one of them at Bourdeaux in the year '98. Did
newspapers, at that period, reach Bourdeaux and stop
short of Paris .? Il was a period of intense interest, be
it reraerabered, in respect to Araerican affairs. The
very same numbers of the Columbian Centinel which
contain the advertiseraent of the dissolution of John &.
Richard Codraan, contain addresses from all parts of
the country to the President of the United States, and
to Congress, stimulating thera to declare war against
France. They contain the despatches just received

504
from our Envoys at Paris, advising our government of
the slights and insults and hostile decrees of the French
Directory. They contain debates of our own Con
gress upon those despatches — and indeed bills lo au
thorize the equipping of vessels of war and the raising
of a provisional army of 20,000 men, if the President
should think it needful. One of them contains the
answer of John Adams to an address frora the Young
Men of Boston, beginning with these remarkable words.
" At a period when a powerful and perfidious nation,
aspiring to the domination of the world, annuls, in the
career of her pride, all bonds of national amity, when
the most conciliating raeasures, which the pacific dispo
sition of our government has adopted, have been repelled
with indignity, silence would become cowardice, and
neutrality treason." Did not such language, from
the first magistrate of the nation, ring throughout
France .? Was not the newspaper in which it firstap-
peared, — reaching Bourdeaux — transmitted to Paris.?
Was it not there sought for with avidity by Americans,anA
especially Bostonians ? And where were these news
papers to be looked for and found .? If, no where else
at least in the bureaus of our own ministers and consuls.
The late Elbridge Gerry was one of our envoys. Can
it be doubted that he received regularly his files of
Boston newspapers .? Vans says he hiraself was an
American Consul there. Be it so, — a native of Salem
and long a Bostonian, did not he also receive at his
consular office his files of Boston newspapers .?
The pregnant probability of the fact that he did
see these very papers is not without confirraation. We
refer to the affidavit of Joseph Russell, Esq., a Bos
tonian, then residing at Paris, recently given at Wash-

505
ington, where he then happened lo be, in answer lo
interrogatories proposed. He slates, that he was in
Paris through the year '98, and until the 1 st May, '99 ; —
that he learned there the dissolution of partnership be
tween John & Richard Codraan ; — he knows of his own
personal knoivledge that Richard Codman, after that
event, transacted raercantile business not only in his
own name, but for his own account, since he was
himself concerned with him in a cargo of brandy, ship
ped to him by Richard Codraan, for sale on his own
account ; — that he himself often saw the Boston news
papers al Paris, that the Americans generally had op
portunity of seeing thera, through the Araerican rain-
ister and consul residing in that city ; and that all
were then anxious lo see thera, in consequence of
the expectation of war between France and the
United States ; — and he adds that Richard Codman,
up to the time when the witness quitted France,
was reputed lo be a raan of property, and was in good
credit at Paris, and was understood to be the owner of
a large real estate in France, and to have a considerable
amount invested in the French funds.* Can it be doubt
ed that Mr. Consul Vans saw all the Boston newspa
pers which Mr. Russell saw .? — or that he heard all that
Russell heard respecting doraestic news .? — or that he
knew all which Russell knew respecting the affairs of
Richard Codraan .? Putnara, at Bourdeaux, knew of
the dissolution. Horaberg, at Havre, knew of the dis
solution. Russell, at Paris, knew of the dissolution.
Vans had intercourse with thera all, to say nothing of
* See his affidavit. Doc. No. 99.
59

506
Richard Codman.* Yet he alone, of all the Araericans
then in Paris, never heard ofthe dissolution !
But it happened, in the progress of investigation,
preparatory to a legislative hearing in 1855, that still
raore direct testiraony was developed. It appeared
by the letter books of J. & R. Codraan, that one of
the letters was sent to France, by Joseph Woodward,
Esq., of Boston. That gentleraan was iraraediately
suraraoned as a witness, and his deposition taken in
perpetuam in the presence of Mr. Vans' counsel. . This
witness, though aged, infirra, and exlreraely deaf,
which rendered his exaraination soraewhat difficult,
was yet found in full possession of his raeraory, and his
stateraents are to the point. He says he left Boston in
March, '98, arrived in France in May, was in Paris
several raonths, and returned to Boston in November
following. He knew John Codraan, and carried a letter
frora hira lo Richard Codraan, and also brought one
back from Richard lo John. That while in Paris, he
saw a number of the Boston Centinel, containing an
advertisement of the dissolution of J. & R. Codman.
He recollected distinctly several other things, calculated
to impress him, which, while at Paris, he saw and read
in the Boston newspapers of that period, and which
prove the general accuracy of his recollection. He
states farther, that the Araericans whora he saw and
conversed with at Paris, saw the same papers, and that
the raerchants generally knew of the dissolution ; — that
he was acquainted with Vans, and saw him two or three
* See his letter to R. C, dated 14th February, '99, (No. 156,) in which
he speaks of Horaberg; and his pamphlet entitled "Life of Wm. Vans,"
p. 4, mentions Homberg & Co. of Havre as one ofthe houses with which
he did business. Another of his pamphlets mentions Putnam & Callen
der in the same way.

307
times at a coffee house in Paris ; — and he remembers
having conversed, not with Vans, whom he did not
particularly associate with, but with Mr. Joseph Russell,
about the dissolution, as a raatter of notoriety.*
Here then are four several particular instances of in
dividuals in France, whora, after the lapse of nearly
forty years, we are enabled to prove acquainted there
with the fact of the dissolution, about the tirae it took
place. Vans seeing and knowing thera all, and on the
most intiraate footing with Richard Codraan hiraself ;
and yet Mr. Vans and his counsel have the hardihood to
assert, that the dissolution was not known to a soul in
France, and that he, associating and negotiating with
these very individuals, and with hundreds of Araeri
cans in Paris, now dead and gone, who also associated
and negotiated with thera, never casually heard, frora
any of them, the current raercantile news of the day,
respecting the fortunes of his intiraate friend and daily
companion !
" If I had known," says he, " that the copartnership
was dissolved of John & Richard Codman, I should not
have taken Richard Codman's letters of credit and come
to America." (See "The third edhion," &c. p. 26.)
Why not .? The proof is, that Richard Codman was then
in high credit, and reputed a man of large property — as
well he might be, by those who judged frora his visible
possessions and extensive speculations, and who could
not pierce the veil which concealed his erabarrassraents
and secret debts. The truth is, it was only because of the
dissolution, that Richard /e?^ himself at liberty to enter
into this joint adventure with Vans. It was only because
of the dissolution, which relieved R. C. frora the busi-
* See his Dep. Doc. No. 100.

508
ness of his house, that Vans ventured to propose a part
nership business with himself. The character of the
enterprise, the terms of the contract, the very letters of
credit theraselves, are unanswerable proof, that Vans
knew that he was dealing with Richard Codman alone.
A letter of credit on John Codman ! Why not on the
house of J. & R. Codman .? This would have been the
first question to present itself. Authority to draw on
Caspar Voght, for the account of Richard Codman!
Why not for the better account of J. & R. Codman .?
The goods purchased to be shipped by Wm. Codman of
New York, for account of Richard Codman ! Why not
to be shipped by J. & R. Codraan of Boston, for their
own account .? " If Mr. Vans " (this is his own lan
guage, under his own hand, at the beginning of the
undertaking,) " should not be able to negotiate his bills
on Europe," (guaranteed by Richard alone,) " will Mr.
Codman " (Richard) " give Mr. Vans liberty to draw on
Mr. John Codman at Boston, for £4000 sterling, order
ing him to redraw on Haraburgh to pay himself, and a
letter to Mr. John Codman to this effect." Again —
" Mr. Vans understands that the business he now goes
to Araerica on, is to be for the joint account of Mr.
Richard Codman one half, and the other half for the
account of Wra. Vans."
This is the language of Vans. The language of the
other party to the contract is, " as you are bound to
Araerica on business in which / am interested, and
may there be in want of funds, I hereby engage and
bind myself, to guarantee the acceptance of your bills
on Mr. Caspar Voght of Hamburg, to the amount of
£4000 sterling, payable in London." " Your bills,
drawn as above mentioned, will meet due honor from

309
Mr. Caspar Voght for my account," — " And as it
raay so happen that you cannot negotiate your bills on
Europe readily, you are hereby authorised to draw on
Mr. John Codman, of Boston, for my account." And
the language of Mr. John Codraan, of Boston, as soon
as he hears of it, is, "As to the credit upon me, I have
totally declined undertaking this business." — " In conse
quence of ray brother's letter of guarantee in your favor,
I have agreed to endorse your bill for £100 sterling on
Caspar Voght of Hamburg, for account of Richard
Codman," — " But as times are, and my brother situated
where he is, I think it would be the extreme of impru
dence to engage in any thing of magnitude on his or
your account," Does it not surpass belief, that in the face
of these facts, and of this plain language of all the par
ties concerned, Mr. Vans should yet impudently assert,
that he was dealing with the brothers jomi/^/, as part
ners, and that in truth he did not know ofthe dissolution
of J. ^ R. Codman.
He says, had he known it, he should not have taken
Richard Codman's letters of credit, and come to
Araerica — and that he could not know it in France,
for want of coraraunication between that country and
Araerica. We have seen there was no interruption
of communication. But if there were, he was for
weeks in Amsterdara, and at the Hague, before he sailed
for America. What interruption to coraraunication was
there then.? Did he see no newspapers, no persons
from America, and hear no news about American affairs
there.? Did not his great relation, Mr. Wm. Vans
> Murray, the Araerican minister at the Hague, get news
from his own country.? He goes to Hamburg, and
spends nearly two months in that city, before his era-

310
barcation. His business there lay with Caspar Voght ;—
it was on hira he was to draw ; — to hira he raust have
coramunicated the outlines of his project ; and Voght
had just received a call for accounts from John Codman,
with express notice ofthe dissolution,* Did he not learn
il there .? Did he still go on in full faith that he was
dealing with /. ^ R. Codman ? Or, since he would
not have taken Richard Codraan's credit alone, why did
he not then return lo Paris, and abandon the enterprise,
especially as it seeras frora his letters he had half a mind
to do so, on other accounts .?
But on what is the claira, even against Richard Cod
raan founded, and at what date does it arise .? The
legal claim, if any exists, is founded not on these trans
actions in 1799, but on the obligations which Vans took
in 1800, and the judgments he obtained in 1801. No
breach of contract on the part of Richard Codman is
pretended, until after Vans' return frora Araerica.
The breach of contract then consists, as he states it,
in Richard Codman's refusal to restore hira property
left in his charge. And in settleraent for that, he then
takes Richard Codman's separate obligations in 'his own
name, and pursues Richard Codman alone to judgment.
If he has any claira it rests on these securities. Did he
not know of the dissolution at this tirae, in Sept. 1800.?
He had been lo Boston. Had not the dissolution been
heard of there .? He saw John Codman personally ;
and he found not only that John Codraan was doing
business on his own account, and that the old firra of
J. & R. Codraan had corae lo an end — but that J. C.
would not act, to any considerable amount, on Richard
* See the notice. Doc. No. 123 — ^ Voght's answer, No. 94, dated in
April, '99— and Vans' letter from Hamburg, dated in April, '99, No. 163.

311
Codman's credit. This was direct notice. He knew
then, at least, that Richard's signature, in whatever
shape, no longer bound John ; and he knew too, that
while John's credit was unshaken, and his wealth
beyond dispute, Richard's credit had becorae at least
doubtful, and his property precarious. Yet with all
this knowledge, brought home to him, he goes back to
Paris, and takes Richard Codman's separate securities.
Do they involve John Codraan .? Did Vans think they
did .? Let us see. John Codraan arrives at Paris soon
after, as if thrown by a kind Providence in his way, lo
answer all just demands. Yet Vans molests hira not.
He asks not for his debt. John Codraan deraands
of him £1 1 8. What does Vans do then .? Set up in
offset his own large claira .? Not at all. He asks only
respite from this indisputable demand against hira, for
money received in Boston on his own £100 bill, drawn
on Richard's credit and dishonored. Richard becoraes
notoriously insolvent ; Vans is perfectly aware of it, as
appears by his own letters ; John is still within his
grasp, and is notoriously wealthy ; yet he pursues only
Richard, and Richard's property. Other creditors claira
it. It is covered with raortgages and attachraents.
John Codman himself comes in for a large debt, raore
than sufficient to swallow all the residue. The whole
value of this encurabered property in France, whether,
it be worth any thing or nothing, depends upon the
turn of political events. Yet he prefers to contest the
validity of John Codman's claira on these encurabered
estates, and to enter into the scramble among all Rich
ard Codraan's creditors, for what he may get out of
this precarious property, and persists for years in litiga
ting for this chance of a fraction, instead of seeking

312
satisfaction of his entire demand, where, if due, it
could not but be answered to the uttermost. And yet
the monstrous proposition is advanced that it was a
partnership debt — it was a partnership debt ! and John
Codraan was responsible ! ! and Vans had never heard
of a dissolution ! ! Credulity cannot believe it.
And what excuse have we frora Vans and his learned
associate for this inconceivable folly .? It raay be found
in the paraphlet called " A New Edition," &c. at p.
26, as follows : " I have been asked by a number of
individuals why I did not come to America, and prose
cute ray deraand here, instead of carrying on a lawsuit
in France. The answer I now give is, that the property
Richard Codraan had of rae was, a great part of it, in
French Governraent five per cent stock, called Tier
Consolida, [Tiers Consolide,] which fluctuated in the
raarket, soraetiraes at one price, soraetiraes at another.
I therefore coraraenced a suit in the Court of Com
merce in France, then in the Court of the First In
stance, then in the Court of Appeal, and finally carried
il into the Court of Cassation. In all these courts
John & Richard Codman were condemned as copart
ners to pay rae ray deraand. Going through all these
courts took up about nine years, owing lo delays made
by lawyers, which I presume Stephen Codman, the
administrator, knows well. As soon as I had obtained
these judgments I set off for Boston," &c. (See also
the pamphlet entitled " A Stateraent of Facts," &c.
p. 2, and that called " The Third Edition," fee. p. 32.)
Mr. Child adds, (see Review, p. 20,) that " there was
no motive lo sue John Codman in France, because he
had no visible property there, and his person could not
be arrested before judgment ; that the property stand-

313
ing in Richard's name was believed to be sufficient ;
and that the iraportance of a joint judgment was not
duly estimated, because at that time it could not be an
ticipated that the partnership would ever be denied,"
Was this a ground for giving up the claim on John .?
Would it have injured the judgment to have it condemn
both? Are these good reasons for stating his claim
falsely.? Stating it too, as the French laws require,
under oath? Was il not dangerous to take a judgment
against one, which would be a bar lo a new suit against
both on the siraple contract .? What can be raore futile,
frivolous, and false, than these reasons .? The value of the
stocks could be ascertained only by a judgraent in France !
And how do the French judgraents against Richard, as
certain it .? Their substance is recited araong the evi
dence before the Court of First Instance, at Meaux, as
appears by the record before us.* The Tribunal of
Commerce decreed, that Richard Codman should dis
charge his obligations, according to their tenor, in stocks,
or their value ; and that for the purpose of ascertaining
the amount, Mr. Vans should be authorized to purchase
that quantity of stocks on the Exchange, at the expense
of Richard Codraan. That is, that he should fix the
raarket price by the actual sales of the day, proof of
which would be proof to the French courts, of the
araount in money which Richard Codraan owed hira.
The same evidence was as open to him before the judg
ment as after il, and was just as necessary after the
judgment as before. The sarae facts, which were thus
required to be proved before the courts of France,
would have been the proper evidence of value, before
* See Document, No. 343.
40

514
the courts of this country. And the French judgments
settle nothing upon the subject.
In the next place, the judgments against Richard
Codman, such as they are, were all obtained in Janu
ary, June, and July, 1801.* If those judgments fixed
the value of the stocks, it was fixed then — in 1801 —
and the long litigation afterwards, was neither to get
judgraent for the debt, nor to ascertain its amount;
but simply to get satisfaction, out of Richard's property.
The contest before the Tribunals of First Instance, and
the Court of Appeals at Paris, and the Court of Cassa
tion, if the case ever went there, was, as we see by
the record, not upon the question what Richard Codman
owed Vans, but whether the pfoceeds of the estates
raortgaged and attached, should go to Vans, or to John
Codman. It is utterly false, therefore, that this litiga
tion was a necessary, or even a convenient, preliminary
to the bringing of a suit here.
The pretence that the property of Richard Codman
appeared to be so abundant, as to render it superfluous
to sue John Codraan, raay well be answered by Mr. Vans
hiraself, for he asserts, (we shall show bye and bye that
he asserts falsely,) that he never got anything out of it on
account of his deraand. How is this.? The judgment
shows that he defeated John Codraan, the largest
adverse clairaant, and yet the property paid nothing, so
nuraerous were the other incurabrances and claims
upon it. John Codraan's estate got nothing, or it would
have appeared in the executor's accounts ; — Vans says,
he got nothing, although he litigated about it nine years,
in all the courts of France ; — and yet, this property,
* See them enumerated in Mr. Child's Review, p. 18, or see our Ap
pendix, p. 293.

515
which paid nobody, was so superabundant, that it
would have been mere supererrogation lo have sought
anything on this side of the Atlantic. It was not
worth while to sue John Codman, though in France,
because he had no visible property there, and his person
could not be arrested without a judgraent ! Yet in the
next breath, we are told, that all the business Richard
did in France, was on the joint account, and all the
property, bought in his narae, was John's, as ranch as
Richard's. But being nominally Richard's, it was just
as well, say they, to sue Richard ; it was not worth
while to raolest John, who was only a passenger ; as
for getting a joint judgment against both of them, for
this jtnnt debt, who would have thought of it .? Who
could have anticipated, that a dissolution of the copart
nership would ever be set up, raerely because it had been
published in the wew;spaper5, two or three years before —
or that John Codman, after that, would ever pretend lo
deny his liability on any obligation, of subsequent date,
that was signed Richard Codman ?
We have thus treated the question, as if it really
depended upon the fact, whether a dissolution of the
partnership between John Codman and Richard Cod
raan had been duly announced, and whether the news
had reached Paris, and was known to Vans, before he
took the engagements, or securities, of Richard Cod
man alone. We have also adverted to the point, that
if the partnership had been stiH subsisting, it would be
necessary for Vans, before he could hold the estate of
John Codman, lo prove that Richard Codraan's obliga
tions, though purporting to bind no one but hiraself,
were in fact for the partnership account. Mr. Vans
has never furnished a particle of evidence to this point.

316
He deals in nothing but round assertion. We deny —
which is enough, until some evidence is furnished. But
we go farther. We say we have disproved it by antici
pation. The evidence already in the case shows, that
this business was not in its nature, a partnership business.
The origin of the claira, by Vans' own showing,
is a raere personal trust reposed in Richard Codraan.
Vans goes to Araerica, and leaves with Richard
Codman personally, the management of his property
and affairs. He transfers stocks to the individual
narae of Richard Codman, and gives him power to
sell real estate, and to invest the proceeds in other
stocks, in his own individual name of Richard Codraan.
What has John Codman to do with this .? Suppose it
true that Richard Codraan has abused his friend's con
fidence, and becorae a defaulter to his trust. Upon
what principle of law, or equity, is John Codman
answerable for that.? What has it to do with the
affairs of the partnership .? Mr. Vans and his counsel
seem to suppose, that because a raan is a partner, he
can do nothing but for the partnership account ; and that
if be buys a house, or a horse, for his own use, hires a
box at the opera, or raakes a bet at the roM^e et noir
table, it is all a joint business, and his copartner is as
rauch interested, and as ranch responsible, as hiraself.
But the settled rule of the law-raerchant, and the
rule of common sense, is, that a partner cannot bind
his copartner, if he would, for any engageraent not
within the ordinary scope of the partnership contract.
And how stands the evidence on this point .? John &.
Richard Codman establish a house of trade at Boston,
and give notice to all the world that they propose
to do business as general raerchants, engaged in

317
foreign trade for their own account, and as coraraission
merchants at Boston. One of the partners goes abroad
for special objects connected with their foreign trade.
He establishes a credit in London, on which the raer
chants in Russia, who furnish cargoes for the house,
raay draw ; and on which the partners theraselves raay
draw, as they see occasion, and on which other houses
in Europe raay draw, when specially authorised by
either of the partners, for the purposes of the house in
Araerica. He goes to France lo receive consignraents
of cargoes shipped to him frora his house in Araerica,
to direct thera to the best European markets, to con
duct their sales through suitable agents, to concentrate
the proceeds in London for the reiraburseraent of the
bankers there, and to await new drafts frora Russia, or
elsewhere, to employ the ships as profitably as may be
on intermediate voyages between the seasons of Rus
sian iraportations, to send cargoes frora one part of
Europe to another, or thence to America, as he shall
see the way lo profit, and generally to superintend and
aid, abroad, the commercial operations of the Boston
house, while he procures such commission business as
he can for the house to transact at home. No raan who
carefully reads the annexed correspondence, can doubt
for a moment that this was the constitution of the
copartnership ; and if so, the buying and selling of real
estate and of stocks in a foreign country, and the
undertaking of personal trusts there, and that without
any coraraission or corapensation al all, was as rauch
without the pale of the copartnership, as the box at the
opera, or the contract at the garaing table.
The learned counsel for Mr. Vans argues, that there
are expressions of hope, and of fear, lo be found in sorae

518
of the letters from John Codman to Richard Codman,
respecting the turn of Richard's speculations, which
betray a deep interest in the result. And well might
John Codman feel a deep interest in the result ; not
only from affectionate solicitude for his brother's wel
fare, apparent in every letter that he wrote, but
because ^60,000, al least, of his own property, and he
knew not for a long time but vastly more, w^as em
barked in the result of those speculations. Not because
they were his speculations, or for his account, but be
cause Richard had imprudently used the joint funds for
his own account, and whether he vvould ever be able to
replace them or not, depended wholly upon the result
of hazardous enterprises — embarked in upon borrowed
capital — borrowed, too, without and against 'its own
er's consent. Not an expression can be found in any
letter of John Codman's, which is not entirely consist
ent with this reality of the case. And not a letter,
account, or other docuraent, under the hand of either
of the brothers, has been found, which indicates that
any transaction in France, not strictly coraraercial in
its character, was understood between thera lo be for
the benefit of John Codraan, or for the joint benefit of
John & Richard Codraan. They were enterprises of
a character totally opposed to the whole course of John
Codraan's mind, of which prudence and caution were
striking characteristics, marked by every sentence from
his peri.
A stronger illustration of his opinions on such points,
could hardly have been furnished lo us,if he had written
with that view, than is furnished by the language of his
letter to Richard, under date of November 2, 1793.*
* See Doc. No. 28.

319
By consulting the previous correspondence, it will be
seen, that when Richard went to Europe, for the
purpose of estabHshing a permanent credit in London,
John Codman transferred from his private funds, as a
loan to the house, one hundred shares in the old United
States Bank. The plan was, that this stock should be
lodged as security with any London house who would
furnish the credit. The failure of the house with
whom such an arrangement was originally contem
plated, occasioned sorae derangeraent of this plan, and
Richard Codraan sold, at a profit, in Europe, the
whole, or sorae part, of this stock — recommending lo
his brother to buy again in this country, and remit the
shares, which he would sell again at a profit, or other
wise use, as he should find most for the common
interest. That is, Richard Codman was desirous of
embarking the house in a system of stqck speculation ;
and although this related wholly to stock in the United
States Bank, a domestic slock, and of the most stable
character, yet John Codman thus answers the scheme. —
" You will observe I have not purchased any bank
shai-es on speculation, as you raentioned. I think it a
precarious business, and somewhat out of our line;
neither do I wish it lo replace the shares you have
sold, being satisfied the use of the funds in business are
more profitable to the house, and their engageraent
[i. e. the engageraent of the house,] to replace them to
me hereafter, and pay rae the declared dividends,
makes it equally so to me. Besides all which the ease
and independence it will soon occasion, is of every con
sequence." Yet this man is supposed to have madly
plunged, to an indefinite extent, into purchases and
sales, on time, of the government stocks of revolu-

320
tionary France — a bankmpt government — striking off
two-thirds of its debt at a stroke, and well disposed
to do the sarae with the other third — stocks fluctuat
ing daily in the market with every breath of popular
opinion, respecting the stabiHly of the government of
to-day — which had just guillotined the government of
yesterday. John Codman ! — he who thought it too
precarious even to buy a few shares in the U. S. Bank,
lo rerait to Europe, lest they should fall on the pas.sage,
becoraing an absolute agioteur, and contracting, as in
the course of regular business, to deliver to Wra. Vans,
some raonths ahead, so raany tiers consolides, and so
raany rentes provisoires, when the change of a day
might double their value!
But, says Mr. Vans, raine vvas a commercial transac
tion. He says soraetiraes, indeed, that it "was not a
coraraercial transaction" — but " a sacred trust." He
says this when he wants to show what an ill-treated
man he has been. But when he is told that John Cod
man is not answerable in law for Richard Codman's
abuse of private trusts — he wheels round and says —
raine was a commercial transaction — it was founded
on an adventure in tobacco — jointly entered into by me
and RichardCodraan, acting for himself and his brother —
the business of the stocks vvas only incidental to that —
they were left as security for my part of the capital, and
Richard Codraan said he had credited me with thera in
account, which proves it vvas a commercial transaction —
and of course within the scope of the partnership.
But did Richard undertake to act /or his brother?
Where is the evidence of that .? Vans' own draft of
the contract says otherwise. Richard's letter of credit
says otherwise. And John Codraan says, though the

321
affair coraes lo hira only in the shape of a letter of
credit, and not as a joint speculation — " I have totally
declined undertaking this business." The tobacco
speculation is not even offered lo him — and the credit
he will not accept. So that we are obliged to revert to
Vans' deposit of property with Richard Codman. But
if the care of Vans' property and affairs vvas really a
raatter of business, let us go back to the original notice —
a notice to Vans, (then of Boston,) and indeed to all the
world, that as to the undertaking of the business of
others for a commission, the copartnership of John k,
Richard Codraan was limited expressly to the transac
tion of such business at Boston.* They never under
took to transact commission business in France. They
never gave any such notice. They never in fact did
it. Even Richard Codman, in his own narae and for
his own account, never undertook it. We find no evi
dence of it in a single instance. He charges no cora
raission to Vans. Vans never expected to pay any.
This appears frora the whole correspondence. Even
when Vans raakes all sort of extravagant and exagger
ated claims upon hira, Richard Codraan does not pro
pose, as under such circurastances he reasonably might,
to cut them down, or offset in part, by a commission.
Will any one believe then that John & Richard Cod
man had formed a partnership in France to take care
of other people's property, and transact their business
for nothing ? This would be a novelty at least. And
yet if that novelty did not exist, what pretence is there
for saying that Richard Codraan bound his brother to
respond for Vans' deposits because he was a copartner .?
* See Doc. No. 1.
41

322
But why are not the books of Richard Codraan pro
duced, which contained this credit in account, cries Mr.
Vans .? If the books of Richard Codraan were pro
duced, says he, and did not show conclusively that John
Codraan was interested in the transactions, 1 would
abandon ray claim forever. Mr. Vans made the sarae
offer some years ago, if the books of John ^ Richard
Codman were produced and did not substantiate his
claim. They were produced before the committee of
1 835, and instead of substantiating were found to nul
lify his pretensions altogether. Yet we do not find Mr.
Vans prepared to abandon. On the contrary the cry
is next for the books which Richard Codman kept in
France. Why do not the heirs of John Codraan pro
duce them ? We did produce before the coraraittee of
1836, all we had, and they were found to contain nothing
which helped Mr. Vans. But these are not all, says
Mr. Vans, why do you not produce the rest .? Simply
because we have no other books to produce — and we do
not believe there ever were any other. This, says Mr.
Vans, is very extraordinary, that Richard Codraan should
not have kept a full set of regular account books, as
all other raerchants do. It raay be so, and yet not
rauch out of keeping with the rest of Richard Codman's
business transactions in France, as they appear from
unquestionable evidence. Al any rate if such books
existed, the books of a bankrupt raerchant who died
thirty years ago, they do not belong to us, nor do we
know where they are to be found. The assignee
of Richard Codman, under the coraraission of bankrupt
cy, swears he never saw thera.* The adrainistrator of
Richard Codraan swears he never saw them.f And
* See Document, No. 352. f See No. 353.

323
there is not a particle of evidence that there ever were
any such books except Mr. Vans' assertion — and we
have not even that to show, if such books were kept in
France, that they were ever brought from France,
where all the business was done which they recorded.
What had John Codman to do with these supposed
books .? It is admitted that Richard Codman acted
there in his own name simply, whether for account of
the house here or not. It is adraitted Richard Codraan
was not a firra, and that there was no house established
in France, to vvhich John Codman was a party. Take
it for granted then that Richard Codman had books —
were they John Codraan's books .? On the contrary,
he had no raore control over these books, no raore right
to the custody of them, no more power even lo inspect
thera, than he had to control, keep and inspect the
books of the Barings of London, or of the Hombergs in
Havre, or of any other agent who transacted business for
him abroad. Nor, if produced, could they by possiblity
exhibit any new fact material lo the case — they could
show nothing which is not proved by other and better
evidence. Suppose they showed credits to Mr. Vans.
Would that prove anything raore than that Richard
Codman, whose personal accounts they were, owed
hira .? His own notes show that. Mr. Vans pretends
that Richard Codraan's books vvould show that his
(Vans) property went in fact to the house of John ^
Richard Codman. But the books of John & Richard
Codman vvould show that, if it were so. Their books
show all their own transactions ; and whatever specific
property in France, or elsewhere, was bought, or sold,
by Richard Codraan for the account of John & Richard
Codman, appears in the Paris settleraent, and appears in

524
the books of John & Richard Codman. Vans' transac
tions would now be found in those books also, if they
had been for account of John & Richard Codman.
But Mr. Vans and his counsel suggest, that the pro
ceeds of this property raight have gone to the use of
the house indirectly, so as not to be traced in their
books, and yet that it would appear clearly frora the
books of Richard Codraan. For example, property be
longing to Mr.Vans might hav^e been sold to-day by Rich
ard Codraan for cash, to-raorrow he answers a draft of
John Codman's, or buys a bill on London", to remit to
the Barings, for cash; and his books might show, that
he had on that day no other cash on hand, for these
purposes, than that which came frora the sale of Mr.
Vans' property. Suppose it were so, we should deny,
as raatter of law, that this raade John Codman in any
way responsible to Vans. But loithout the books of
Richard Codraan, vvhich we should be as glad of as
Mr. Vans, for the sake, if such a thing were possible,
of leaving him and his counsel nothing to clamor for,
except our property, which we are not prepared to di
vide with them — without these books we are able to
demonstrate, that there is no foundation for the sug
gestion. We say suggestion, but it coraes in the shape
of assertion from Mr. Child, with a degree of boldness
too which vvould lead those who have not examined the
proof of his assertions in other parts of the case, to sup
pose that he really knew something to warrant it.
Hear his language.
At p. 19 of the review, he says, Vans ordered Richard
Codman to invest the proceeds of his houses in stocks ;
— " which he did ; but afterwards pledged thera to his
banker to raise money to meet the payment of bills drawn

325
on him by John Codman," Again, al p. 56. " It was
at the very height of John's pressure upon Richard, and
when John was expressing to his confidential correspon
dents, the Barings, a hope to stand firra, notwithstanding
his brother's disastrous business in France, and when
also the Barings had a balance of ^200,000 against the
firm, that Richard used this property of Mr. Vans to pay
bills drawn by John. John Codraan wrote to his cor
respondents, respecting the pretended dissolution, say
ing, " the business will go on just as it did before, except
inmynarae." Hedirected iheBarings "to pass Richard's
future reraittances to the partnership account." Richard
Codman in that year remitted to the Barings about
^50,000 more than he drew from them " ! — It is upon
this substratura, we presume, that Mr. Child founds the
reraark at p. 8, that John Codraan was deaHng hard
measure, in the Paris negotiation, " to an old friend and
benefactor of his house. We say benefactor, because
we are of opinion,, -z/po/i the whole evidence, that the
seasonalile resources which Mr. Vans property furnished,
at a particular juncture, to John & Richard Codraan,
prevented serious embarrassraent, if not failure, of the
firm." Amazing temerity ! — that any man claiming the
respectable standing of counsel learned in the law,
should, without any possibility of personal knowledge
on the subject, hazard in print, under his own name, and'
upon his own responsibility, statements so utterly desti
tute of the shadow of a foundation, as are contained in
these sentences ! We proceed to demonstrate their utter
falsehood. In the first place, the language of John Codman is
misrepresented, in what purport to be quotations from
his letters to the Barings, and marked as such. In the

326
letter announcing the dissolution, (dated May 1, '98,)
he does not say "the business will go on just as it did
before, except in my name" ; but he says, "you will
please to notice that the copartnership of John & Rich
ard Codman has expired, and that from this day the
business will be transacted in my own name."* In the
letters referred lo by Mr. Child, respecting the accounts,
he does not direct the Barings to pass Richard's future
reraittances to the partnership account — as if it were a
continuing partnership; but he says, on the 17lh May,
'98, " any reraittances you may receive frora him will
go to the credit of the late house, and I shall be rejoiced
to see thera araount to sufficient to pay you the balance
due frora their account, which I shall feel no less re
sponsible for, or interested in, than before ; "f and on
the 16th November, '98, he says again, " any remittan
ces you may receive from Mr. R. C. on account of the
former firm you will place to that credit and give me
regular advice of."t
In the next place, it is utterly false that Richard
Codman used this property of Mr. Vans' to "pay bills
drawn by John." Not a bill was ever drawn by John
Codraan on Richard, after the dissolution, nor as we
believe, before. No such bill, nor any evidence of such
a bill, is shown by Mr. Child. The books of John &
Richard Codman, and the correspondence, would ne
cessarily show it, if any such were drawn. They show
nothing like it. On the contrary, they show that Rich
ard vvas drawing hard upon John, and that John vvas
remonstrating, and complaining, refusing acceptance,
and threatening lo refuse payment.
* See Doc. No. 78. f See No. 81. f See No. 115.

327
But in the third place, the great point of effrontery
is the assertion, that Richard, in the year when he be
came possessed of Vans' property, remitted to the Bar
ings about ^60,000 more than he drew from them.
This year it will be recollected was 1799. We produce
the original accounts, rendered by the Barings under
their own signature. We have annexed copies of them
— beginning just after the dissolution ;* and it appears,
that instead of ^50,000 raore than he drew for, having
been reraitted by Richard, after January, '99, not a
dollar was ever reraitted by him after May, '98 ; nor is
there, after the 1st January, '99, any considerable credit
to the account, frora any source, except the credit of
£11,500, under date of April 8, '99 — being for the
£10,000 (a part of the old disputed item of £15,000,)
with the interest upon it — which had lain in the hands
of the Barings for several years, (ever since March,
'96,) the subject of constant correspondence, as the
annexed letters show — John Codman claiming that it
ought to be credited lo the house, and the Barings in
sisting that in consequence of sorae transaction, to which
Richard vvas a party, they had a right to give it another
appropriation.! It is a part of the sarae itera of £16,000
which Richard speaks of, in the letter acknowledging
notice of the dissolution. t Not another itera of credit
is there in this account, after January, '99, except about
£200, recovered upon a claira in Hamburg, and about
£400 for a sale of goods received several months before,
until its balance was finally transferred, in 1800, to the
individual account of John Codraan. Nor can it be

* See Doc. No. 304.
t See Doc's No's 128, 297, 305, 306.
\ See No. 98.

328
shown that Richard Codman ever reraitted, or paid, the
Barings, for account of his late house, to the value ofa
livre, after the news of the public dissolution had reached
Paris, accompanied as it was, by a notice frora John
Codman, that he assumed lo settle its concerns, nor that
Vans' property, or any particle of it, went directly or
indirectly to the use of the partnership, or of John
Codman, or his heirs. Yet, says Mr. Child, the sea
sonable resources furnished to John & Richard Codman
by the property of Wra. Vans in Richard Codman's
hands, prevented the failure of the firm, and entitled
Mr. Vans to be called an old friend and benefactor of
the house ! To those who were acquainted with the
circumstances ofthe respective parties at the time, this is
merely ridiculous. But when those who are unacquain
ted with these circumstances, are imposed upon by such
gross falsehood, it becoraes something worse than ridic
ulous. We are thus able, to demonstrate, without the sup
posed books of Richard Codman, that the fact, which
Mr. Child pretends to believe would appear by those
books, did not exist. We prove it by even better evi
dence than the books themselves would be, if there
were any — because it is evidence vvhich comes frora
disinterested persons — the Barings — who had no rao
tive to render any other than true accounts of the
moneys they paid and received.
But we have stated our belief, that Richard Codman
did not keep the regular account books, which Mr.
Vans calls for. We will now briefly exhibit the grounds
of this belief. Richard Codman was irregular and loose
in all his business transactions. This is apparent enough
to all who read the evidence. One of Mr. Vans' own

329

witnesses gives hira this character.* He went to France,
not with the design of establishing h'lmself there — but for
temporary purposes, as the correspondence shows. He
was induced to stay, frora raonth to raonth, and year to
year, by the attractions of Paris, and the speculations
in which he had foolishly becorae involved — but always
expecting that a few months more vvould enable hira to
wind up his affairs and be off. During a considerable
part of his stay, the state of political affairs was such,
in the raidst of anarchy and terror, that old and estab
lished houses of the country dai'ed not keep regular ac
counts, books, or other authentic records, of their trans
actions. This appears by original letters of the Messrs.
Homberg.f Richard Codraan had the less occasion to
do so, because he transacted all his business through
established mercantile and banking houses, to whora he
looked for accounts. The Horabergs of Havre, and
other coraraission merchants, made his sales — Recami
er, of Paris, and other bankers, managed his financial
concerns. Hence we find him applying to the Hom
bergs, and others, for accounts, when John Codman, al
Paris, required a settleraent. He hiraself was unable
to furnish John Codraan with accounts. In some cases,
he could not procure accounts from his agents. It was
so with respect to sales of the cargoes by the Enterprize
and Catherine especially. He had received the pro
ceeds, but could not tell the exact amount, and could
nehher find, nor obtain, an account of the sales. This
appears by the Paris account, in which the proceeds of
these cargoes are set down in round sums, and by a
* " Mr. R. C. appears to be a very irregular man in business." See the
letter frora East to Church, as published by Vans. Doc. No. 373.
t See Nos. 213, 215.
42

350
letter from John Codman to the Hombergs, particularly
requesting thera to furnish these accounts,* and by let
ters frora Richard to John Codman, after the, latter
had left Paris, in which Richard informs him that he
had at last found a little book, containing his original
minutes of those sales. f This little book, and two
more like it, imperfect and irregular account books,
or meraorandura books, are the books we produce.
They are not a regular raerchant's accounts, and his
keeping such books shows that he did not keep belter.
His copies of letters too, when preserved al all, are
not preserved in letter books, as is usual with regular
raerchants, but are on loose sheets of paper, — a farther
evidence that he was not in the habit of keeping regular
books. Finally, in his examination before the corarais
sioners of bankruptcy, he solemnly swears, under the pen
alties of the bankrupt law, that he had truly disclosed and
surrendered all books and papers in his custody, posses
sion, or power, relative to his property ; while both his
assignee and his administrator, state upon oath, that no
account books (unless these little meraorandura books
can be called so,) carae lo their hands. Upon this evi
dence, we are satisfied there never were any other books
than those we produce.
But let us retort the arguraent. Mr. Vans says,
Richard Codraan, being a raerchant in France, must, of
course, have kept regular account books. He also states
that he himself was a merchant in France, doing, from
his own account, a raost extensive business, and he lived
there fifteen years, or near it. Of course he kept books.
Why does he not produce thera .? We called upon hira,
before the coramittee of 1 855, to produce his books, and
* See No. 274. f See Doc's. Nos. 251, 253.

551
he made no answer to the call. The conclusion is,
either that he kept no books, (and if so, why does it
seem to him so extraordinary that Richard Codman kept
none .?) or else, that the books, if produced, would show,
as they unquestionably would, that all his transactions
were with Richard Codman individually, that all his
charges were against him, and that there is not an item
of account against John Codman, or against John ^
Richard Codman jointly. With this we dismiss the
subject of the books.
But the dissolution, say Mr. Vans and his learned
coadjutor, was all a pretence, and the payment of Skin
ner's bills proves it. This is set out in the petition of
1834, and in Mr. Child's review, as a case precisely
similar to that of Wra. Vans, in every thing but payment.
The consideration for the bills, it is said, was the sarae
with that of Vans' notes, namely, rentes loaned. The
place was the sarae ; the signature was the same, name
ly, that of Richard Codraan ; the tirae of the loan was
two years and a half later than the loans raade by Vans,
and three years after the pretended dissolution ; yet
these bills, it is said, were exhibited as a claira on the
partnership, and were paid by Stephen Codman, the
executor of John, and administrator of Richard, several
years after the death of both. Such is the statement —
and the argument is, that since Richard was a certifica
ted bankrupt, this joint debt must have been paid oul of
John Codman's estate, and his executor has thereby
admitted, first, that the partnership continued in 1802,
and secondly, that it extended to transactions in the
French stocks.
Now supposing the statement correct and complete,
what ground of claim, legal or equitable, would the

332
payment of Skinner's bills give to Wm. Vans.? Sup
pose the executor had expressly admitted, in Skinner's
case, contrary lo the truth, both the continuance of
the copartnership, and that it embraced such objects.
Would this adinission, in point of law, ought il in point of
equity, to bind the heirs of John Codraan, and the estate
in their hands, so as to render thera liable for other claims
sirailar to Skinner's .? Or, if it were true, that the ex
ecutor had, by raistake, or as matter of favor, and in
violation of his official trust, paid one illegal demand
against his testator, is that such evidence of admission
of the facts, which ought to have existed to have raade
the demand legal and binding, as should hold hira to
pay all other illegal demands, founded on like facts .?
Would it be a satisfactory cause for special dispensation
frora standing laws, lo enable the holder of such a de
raand to sue, in the hope of recovering on such evidence ?
But if Mr. Child's arguraent were sound, the facts do
not support il. There was no analogy between Skin
ner's claim and Vans' claira ; — there was no payment
out of the estate of John Codraan ; — there was no ad
mission, by his executor, that Skinner's claira was a
partnership debt ; — it did not arise out of a loan of
rentes, two years and a half later than the loans frora Vans,
but out of loans several yeajs earlier, and long before
the house of John and Richard Codraan was dissolved ;
and yet it vvas never clairaed as a partnership transac
tion, nor treated by the parlies as such, but was claimed
as a debt against Richard Codraan only, and as such
was corapromised by his administrator, at fifty per cent.
of the total sum due. We will briefly state the facts
as they were, according to the testimony before the

333
committee of 1855, referring to their report* for proof
of them, together with the documents which we annex.
The witness produced by Mr. Vans, was John Skin
ner. He stated, not of his personal knowledge, but as
matter of hearsay, derived from his brother, Richard S.
Skinner, deceased, that the former house of John Skin
ner & Sons, had a claim on the house of John & Rich
ard Codman, arising out of a loan of French stocks,
made by Richard Skinner to Richard Codraan, at Paris,
in 1796 or 6; — that is, two or three years before the
dissolution of J. & R. Codraan. That for this a secu
rity was given in the name of J. & R. Codraan ; but
that ten years afterwards, viz., about the year 1806,
this security was given up at Richard Codraan's re
quest, and a new one then taken, in the narae of Rich
ard Codraan alone ; and that this last security was
paid by Stephen Codraan in 1811. And he added that
the reason of the change of the securities aboveraen
tioned, frora that of J. & R. Codraan to that of R.
Codraan alone, was, according to his impression, that
John Codraan might not appear in the matter.
Such was the hearsay testimony of Mr. Vans' witness.
And in support of it, he produced an account of John
Skinner & Sons, headed as against John & Richard Cod
raan, for certain bills of exchange, said to have arisen
out of this loan, which bills were drawn upon Richard
Codraan, and accepted by him, and which account was
proved, against the assignee of Richard Codraan's
effects, under ihe commission of bankruptcy. It ap
peared that nothing was paid by the assignee upon this
claim out of Richard Codman's effects ; and it did not
appear that any demand, or claim, for this supposed
« See App. p. 398.

334

partnership debt, was ever made upon the estate of
John Codman.
Thus stood the case, as exhibited by the petitioner,
according to the report of the coraraittee. Mr. Child,
as usual, quarrels with the report in several particulars,
but none that are material to us, according to our
view of the case. He pretends that the date of the
transaction about the loan of the stocks was 1801,
when the bills of exchange were drawn, as hereafter
mentioned. But this, he admits, is contrary to the
statement of his own witness, who he thinks must be
mistaken in supposing it to have happened in '95 or 6.
If it was in 1801, so much the raore certain is it that
John Codraan could have had no concern in it. In the
next place, he denies that his witness said a security
was al first taken in the name of J. h R. Codraan, and
insists that the witness only said that the security for
the original transaction was upon the house of J. ^ R.
Codman; — a variation in his judgraent so raaterial, that
it is difficult to adhere to epithets of courtesy towards
the coramittee, in speaking of it. But if Mr. Child is
right in supposing that no security, in fact, 'was given
by Richard Codraan, in the name of J. & R. Codman,
we have only to say, that we suppose so too, however
the hearsay witness may have testified ; although we
do not " feel ours.,lves bound to say," as Mr. Child
does, " that the statement of the reporter that the
security was in the narae of J. & R. Codraan, is with
out evidence, and against evidence, and is untrue."
We now propose to annex certain docuraents relat
ing to this raatter. The first is the certificate of Rich
ard Codman's discharge, under the old bankrupt law of
the United States, dated Noveraber 14, 1805, with the

555
consent of certain creditors therein naraed, among
whom is " John Skinner for John Skinner ^ Sons."*
Second, an extract from the records of the corarais
sioners of bankruptcy, containing a copy of the account
of Skinner & Sons, sworn to by John Skinner, jr., as a
debt due from Richard Codraan. The account is head
ed as if il were against John ^ Richard Codman ; but
it is wholly for bills of exchange, drawn by Richard
Skinner on Richard Codman, dated at Paris, ISth
February, 1801, payable at Rotterdara two years after
date, and accepted by Richard Codman, amounting,
with interest, damages, &c. to ^7,929 82.t It may be
remarked, in passing, that if these bills, though raade
long after the dissolution, were for account of a transac
tion which took place in 1796 or 6, as the witness said
he had heard, which was long before the dissolution,
this raay account for the charge being made by Skin
ner & Sons in their books, frora vvhich the account is
drawn, against John & Richard Codraan, upon the erro
neous supposition that Richard Codraan, in this tran
saction, was acting for account of his house ; and far
ther, that the drawing of the bills in 1801, long after
the dissolution, on Richard Codraan alone, and those
bills on a two years' credit, and for less than the whole
debt, shows that Skinner & Sons were then satisfied,
that the original transaction was not for account of the
house, and that they could not do better than to take
Richard Codraan's own security, on a long credit, not
withstanding Richard Codman, at the date of the bills,
was notoriously insolvent.

* See Doc. No. 35L
t See Doc. No. 355— and for the acceptances see No. 359.

356
Third. We produce and annex a copy of the original
account rendered in Paris, by Richard Skinner, which,
it will be observed, is against Richard Codman alone,
and not against J. & R. Codraan. It is staled in Feb.
1801, but contains a credit for ten certificates of back
rentes, which being paid serai-annually, seeras lo indi
cate that the origin of the transaction was at least five
years earher.*
Fourth. We annex a note of hand for the foot of
the account, with interest, given by Richard Codman
to Skinner & Sons, dated December 17, 1805, being
more than a month after Richard Codraan's discharge
under the bankrupt act, payable half in four and half
in six years, on which payment is acknowledged by
Wm. S. Skinner as received of Stephen Codman,
administrator of Richard Codman, (not Stephen Cod
man, executor of John Codman,) January 12, ]811.t
Fifth. We annex a bond of indemnity, given to said
Stephen Codraan, as adrainistrator of Richard Cod
man's estate, by John Skinner & Sons, frora which it
appears, that Stephen Codraan did not pay the debt in
full, but that it was compromised at fifty per cent.%
Thus it is shown, by original docuraents, that the
claira of Skinner & Sons arose out of a transaction with
Richard Codman, while the house of John & Richard
Codman was in full activity ; that it was a transaction
at Paris with Richard Codraan, and related to a loan of
French governraent stocks ; — that Skinner, or his clerk,
at first supposed it raight be for account of the house of
John & Richard Codman, and charged it against them
accordingly ; — that the house of John & Richard Cod
man, however, did not adrait it to be a transaction for
* See No. 356. f See No. 357. \ See Doc. No. 358.

337
their account, and that Skinner was so well satisfied of
the fact, that, long after the dissolution, he drew for the
araount on Richard Codraan alone, ajid look his sepa
rate acceptances ; — that these acceptances were, as will
be seen by the account, for less than the face of the
debt, payable at a distant day, and without interest ; —
that they were taken at the very tirae when Vans says
Richard Codraan had threatened to put in his bilan,*
and while John Codraan, well known to Skinner, a
Boston raan, was himself in France ;\ — that these ac
ceptances, when due, were protested for non-payraenl ;t
— that Skinner & Sons never presented any claira for
thera against John Codman in his life time, nor against
the estate of John Codman, after his decease ; that
instead of this, they proved the claim against Richard
Codman under the commission of bankruptcy; that
Richard Codraan obtained a certificate, which discharg
ed him from this and all other debts then existing;
that he afterwards, looking upon this as an honorary
engagement — a loan which had been already once
compromised — voluntarily renewed his promise to Skin
ner & Sons, by giving his note of hand for the amount,
payable at a distant day ; that he died a few years after
that, leaving the note unpaid ; — that some years after
his death, his administrator paid fifty per cent, of the
face ofthe note ; and that Skinner & Sons, considering
the case hopeless for any farther payment, thereupon
gave up the note. There, is not the slightest pretence,
therefore, for saying, either that this was iu fact a
partnership transaction, or that the executor of John
Codman ever admitted it to be such. From the begin-
* See No. 254. t See No. 253. X See No. 359.
43

358
ning to the end, it had nothing to do with the estate of
John Codman.
But says Mr. Child, Stephen Codraan, who raade the
payraent, was executor of the will of John Codraan, as
well as adrainistrator on the estate of Richard Codman.
One of two things therefore must be true ; — either Ste
phen Codman raade the payment out of John Codman's
estate, (in which case, as the argument is, he bound
the estate by his admission that Richard Codman's ob
ligations, raade in 1801, involved John Codraan as co
partner,) or else he paid it out of Richard Codman's
estate, in which case he raust have property in his
hands belonging to that estate, for which Vans ought to
be perraitted to prosecute.
But it is clear that Stephen Codraan did not make
the payraent out of John Codraan's estate. First, be
cause the papers theraselves express otherwise. Second
ly, because the claim was not against John Codman,
but against Richard Codman, upon his own separate
note of hand, raade after the dissolution, after the death
of John Codraan, and after Richard's own bankruptcy
and discharge. Thirdly, because no such charge ap
pears in the executor's account settled at the Probate
Office. Fourthly, because, before the date of this pay
raent in 1811, Stephen Codraan had raade a final set
tlement of John Codraan's estate, as appears by his ac
count settled with the Judge of Probate in 1810, and
had delivered over all the property, so that he had
nothing in his hands in 1811, belonging to the estate
of John Codraan, out of which he could have raade the
payraent. As to the other branch of the supposed dilemma,
it is not perhaps incumbent on the heirs of John Cod-

339
man to answer it at all. What we have proposed to
put beyond doubt is that William Vans never had a
just claira on John Codman, or his estatCi As to his
claim on Richard Codman's estate we feel neither
solicitude nor responsibility, and have not undertaken
to discuss it. Yet in passing we desire to notice the
inconclusiveness of the arguraent, that because the ad
rainistrator of Richard Codraan had assets in hand,
earned by Richard Codman after his bankruptcy and
discharge, sufficient to pay fifty per cent, of the only
debt shown to have been in force against the estate,
(being upon a note given after the discharge,) that
therefore he raust have assets still left sufficient to pay
Mr. Vans also, and ought to be corapelled so to appro
priate them, notwithstanding the debt due lo Mr. Vans,
like all other debts of Richard Codraan's which arose
prior to the bankruptcy, was discharged by law under
it. All we have to do, with this part of the case, is to
show, conclusively, that Skinner's bills were not paid
out of John Codman's estate. We have already shown
this, and we have nothing lo add respecting Richard
Codman's estate, for the purpose of corroborating the
position, except to show that his administrator acquired
funds sufficient for that payraent. This appears by
the original docuraents which the adrainistrator pro
duced before the coraraittee of 1836.* The receipt of
Messrs. Perkins and Lloyd in May, 1804, shows that
they had eraployed Richard Codraan lo go as super
cargo in the ship Cordelia to South America, requiring
him, as a condition of his eraployraent, to take an inter
est of twenty-five hundred dollars in the voyage, which
** See Documents, No. 360 to 364.
43 1-2

340
sum the aid of friends enabled hira to furnish. His
note dated at Boston in Deceraber 1805, shows that he
had then returned frora that voyage, and the receipt
upon it of Messrs. Perkins and Lloyd, in April, 1806,
shows that he was then dead, and that they settled their
account with his administrator. Their original ac
count of the result of the voyage shows that Richard
Codman's commissions as supercargo, and the proceeds
of his adventure furnished assets for the payment of the
few debts contracted after his bankruptcy. As to
debts contracted before that period, even if the funds
had been larger than they were, upon what prin
ciple could Mr. Vans' claim be distinguished from that
of any other creditor..? Or how does he expect that
the legislature of Massachusetts can invalidate a dis
charge which is absolute and coraplete by a law of the
United States .?
But the bankruptcy, as well as the dissolution, say
Vans and his counsel, was all fraud and pretence; and
the evidence of it, as stated in the petition of 1854, is,
that " il appeared by the records of the United States
District Court, that the process of said bankruptcy was
coramenced at the instance of the heirs and relations
of said John Codman, a few days after his decease, and
that the entire expense of the coraraission in the case
was paid by said Stephen Codraan, out of said John
Codraan's estate."
It appears indeed, frora the correspondence annexed,
that John Codraan had long been anxious that his
brother should quit France, return to the United States,
and take the benefit of the then existing bankrupt law.
Being thus cleared frora embarrassments, which would

341
otherwise have hampered him for life, he raight then
endeavor to re-estabHsh hiraself in the confidence of his
American friends and mercantile acquaintance, with a
fair chance of repairing his broken fortunes. In that
event, John Codraan proraised to aid hira anew ; but he
uniforraly refused lo irapair his own property, farther
than he already had, by making new advances, or incur
ring new liabilities, for the useless purpose of endeavor
ing to wipe off Richard's old debts, since they were too
numerous and extensive lo justify this sacrifice, on the
part of a brother with a large family and nuraerous
dependents. It appears also, that the executor, who was doubtless
well acquainted with his testator's views in this respect,
took upon hiraself the responsibility, in furtherance of
those views, and with the consent of such of the heirs as
were of age, to pay oul of the estate the sum of ^200,
towards defraying the expense of the coraraission of
bankruptcy. It does not appear, however, that the pro
ceedings in bankruptcy were instituted by the executor,
or the heirs of John Codraan. The first petitioning cred
itors were J. & T. Araory & Co., of London, who proved
a considerable debt. These gentleraen were connected
with the Codman's by marriage, but had no interest
whatsoever in John Codman's estate. The property of
Richard Codraan, taken upon the comraissioners war
rant, consisted only of a few personal effects, insufficient
to defray the expenses of the coraraission. And upon
his surrendering hiraself to the coraraissioners, and sub
mitting to exaraination, he stated fully upon oath the
property which he possessed ; consisting of clairas upon
bankrupts, and other worthless remnants, from which
nothing was ever recovered. Creditors who were no way

542
concerned, or connected with the Codmans, became
parties to the proceedings, which were conducted with
all the usual formalities of law ; and these creditors,
directly interested to discover property if they could,
were satisfied, at the time, of the truth of their debtor's
disclosures, and with the whole course of the proceed
ings, and expressly assented to his discharge. It
seeras therefore both idle and ridiculous, at this late
period, after the lapse of more than thirty years, for
Mr. Vans, who did not choose to prove his claim, as he
might have done, under the coraraission, and who was no
party to these proceedings, to atterapt to irapeach them
upon such frivolous grounds — as that ;^200 was paid
by the executor of a deceased brother, towards defray
ing the necessary expenses of the commission, and that
some of the petitioning creditors were connections of
the bankrupt — who, seeing no chance worth estimating
of recovering their own debts, were naturally desirous
to aid a friend in procuring a fair discharge.
We now annex certified copies, frora the files of the
comraissioners of bankruptcy, of several papers which
throw light upon the subject. First, the affidavit of
John Leach, a person no way related lo John Codman,
nor interested in his estate, proves that Richard Cod
raan, after the dissolution of partnership with his brother,
had traded as a merchant on his own account in France,
and had settled recently, at Boston, a large account with
the deponent.* Secondly, the warrant for the seizure of
the bankrupt's effects and the officer's return ; by which it
appears, that no visible property was found here, except a
few articles of personal convenience, and of little value.f
Thirdly, Richard Codraan's final surrender and disclos-
' See Doc. No. 346. \ See No. 347.

343
ure, upon oath, of all his property and effects wheresoever
situated. They wiH be found to consist wholly of the
debts of bankrupts, certain claims on the French govern
ment, and property pledged in France as security for his
own debts there.* Araong these il will be noted is a
claim on the French governraent for a million of livres
left in the hands of Wm. Vans ! His several parcels of real
estate in France, called Cremille, Drqux, [or Rouvrey,]
Damraartin, [or La Thuillerie,] and Firraancourt, are
also enuraerated ; the three former as conveyed to his
late brother John for a bond fide consideration ; and the
latter as conveyed to one Lacaze in tmst, and all as
being in law under the clairas of Vans and other credi
tors. It will be noted also, that no books of account
are among the articles seized or delivered, and that he
expressly swears that he has given up to the assignee,
" all books, papers and writings relative to his property,
which were in his custody, possession, or power."
Fourthly, instructions lo the assignee, from sundry cred
itors no wise interested in the estate of John Codman,
to recover what property he could in France, with
the express restriction however that he should advance
no money for the purpose, beyond what he should
actually recover and receive; which was equivalent to an
express prohibition to take any steps towards the re
covery of property so situated, as the assignee vvas not
bound, and could not be expected, to incur any personal
responsibility whatever for this object. f Fifthly, the as
signee's account, by which it appears that the whole
expense of the proceedings, independent of the assignee's
own charge, which was paid out of the estate of John
Codman, was ^295 10. J Sixthly, the certificate of
* See No. 348. t See Doc. No. 349. % See No. 350.

544
Richard iCodman's discharge, assented to by two thirds,
in nuraber and value, of the creditors who had proved
their clairas; of which creditors, no one, except Thomas
Araory, was any wise connected with the faraily of
John Codman.* The evidence which we find here,
therefore, under oath, before a regular tribunal, and in
the presence of adverse parties, is entirely consistent
with, and every where corroborates, the other evidence
in the case, as derived frora accounts, correspondence,
or otherwise.
But how is it possible, we are asked, (see the review,
p. 10,) that Richard Codman, entitled to one third of
the profits, could have been " disraissed frora a prosper
ous and opulent house, saddled with a dead loss of
^60,000 .? " How is it possible that one brother should
have been a bankrupt, and that the other should have
left a large fortune .? We answer, that the accounts and
correspondence show.
In the first place, John Codman had a large fortune
of his own, at the beginning of the copartnership, in
1791. His letter lo Alexander Baring, in December,
'98, (No. 120,) states that the income from his own
real estate, besides what he personally ocpupied, was,
al that remote day, £1600 sterling, or about ^7600.
His letters respecting the establishment of a credit in
Europe, show that he had loaned to the house one
hundred shares in the Bank of the United States,
worth at par ;^40,000, and then worth considerably
raore, which were his separate property. The stock
account in his private books, before the house of J. &
R. Codman was formed, shows that he held a large
araount of notes, bonds, and other securities, which
* See No. 351.

545
were his private property, and none of which was trans
ferred to the hoase; for no capital was put into the
house — it traded wholly on the credit of John Codman's
capital. Richard Codraan, on the other hand, it is ad
mitted, (see the review, p. 10,) went into the house
with no property.
In the second place, whatever raoney was raade
by the raercantile operations and business of John
Codman, after the 1st of May, '98, to the day of
his death, was wholly on his own account, without the
participation of Richard Codman.
In the third place, il appears that Richard
Codman received all his share of the profits of the
house, being one third, during the seven years
that the copartnership lasted, and that this one
third araounled, on the 1st of May, '98, to upwards
of ^40,000 ; but that, owing principally to his own de
falcations to the house, this handsorae share of profit
was diminished, in the winding up of its affairs, to about
^22,000, and that when his share of the bad debts, and
of the loss by the Abigail, came to be charged against
him, it was diminished to something short of ,^7,000.
Were these losses charged against Richard Codman only,
for the purpose of diminishing his share of the property .?
Not at all ; on the contrary, it appears that every charge,
whether of profit or of loss, was doubled upon John
Codman, and that his final profit, upon the whole seven
years, was but little exceeding ^15,000.
What, then, becarae ofthe profits, coramonly esteeraed
so large, of this prosperous and opulent house .? The
answer is apparent to all who look at the accounts, or
read the correspondence. They were absorbed and
squandered by Richard Codraan, at Paris, in extravagant
44

S46
living, and visionary speculations, entered into for his own
private benefit, for which he used the funds of his house,
and incurred an enormous debt to the copartnership, which
he Was unable to repay. All this was so much loss, and
swept off so much profit. So that upon a settlement of
the partnership accounts, he stood indebted lo his broth
er near ^50,000, and his brother, instead of making
anything, was absolutely a great loser by the copartner
ship. But starting with large private means, stopping
with customary prudence when his reraittances to France
had reached a certain point without return, dissolving
his connection with his brother in due season, and ap
plying hiraself diligently to business on his own account,
for the last five years of his life, he was enabled some
what to repair the disasters which Richard had occa
sioned, and lo leave what was esteeraed in that day an
araple inheritance. While Richard Codraan, on the
other hand, starting without a farthing of property, in
vesting all his own earnings, and whatever other funds
came to his hands, in gambling speculations, when those
resources were cut off, and the credit which he derived
from his brother was withdrawn, having incurred an
enormous debt, which whether he could ever discharge
or not, depended wholly upon the turn of property fluc
tuating from day to day, instead of prudently stopping
when he might at the day of the dissolution, and wind
ing up his affairs, as he was urged by his brother to do,
at any sacrifice, persisted in following the hazard of the
die, until all his visionary property had racked away,
and left hira encurabered with obligations incurred in
acquiring it — a mere bankrupt.
Mr. Vans' counsel argues, indeed, that the accounts
between John & Richard Codman, are not settled, as
they should have been — upon the principle, that vvhen

347
there is no express agreement between partners, the law
will divide the profits equally. But can there be no
express agreeraent without written articles ? If there
can, what better evidence of the agreement could be
created than so many successive settlements of the
joint profit and loss, made by the partners themselves .?
What reasonable pretence is there for disturbing such
settlements, after the lapse of raore than thirty years .?
Besides, an original raeraorandum, m^Ae hand writing of
Richard Codman, though not signed by the parties, proves
conclusively the understanding and agreeraent on his
part, at the outset of the copartnership, that he was to
receive an interest of one third only, for his services —
as he in fact did, though his services were worse than
nothing.* And since all the credit, and all the risk,
was John Codman's, it surely was not unreasonable, that
he should receive so moderate a proportion ofthe profits
as two thirds.
A raost exaggerated view is raoreover held up, at
times, by Mr. Vans and his counsel, of the iraraense
value of Richard Codman's real estate in France, ac
companied by suggestions that it was fraudulently con
veyed to John Codman, and the proceeds realised by
hira, or his heirs. But whatever may have been ils
value, it is utterly false that a single dollar was ever
reahsed out of it by John Codraan, or his representa
tives. Mr. Child says, that out of the proceeds of the
estate at Meaux, ^6,600 went to pay a prior mortgage
held by Babut, the agent of the Codmans. There is
no proof of this. But admitting it to be so, we see
from the correspondence that Babut was furnished by
John Codman with 50,000 francs, for the express pur-
* See Doc. No. 2.

548
pose of buying up a mortgage on this estate, prior to his
own inscription ;* so that if the suggestion be true that
^6,600 went to Babut's hands out of the proceeds of
the estate, it went only to repay the money which John
Codman had paid out for it. Not a single other Specific
fact is stated, far less is any evidence produced, to show
that a particle of this French property ever came to the
beneficial use of John Codraan, or his heirs. On the
contrary, it appears frora the judgraent which is exhib
ited, and other evidence in the case, that John Codraan's
clairas on this property were defeated, by the inge
nuity of Vans and the other clairaants in France. Even
if it were otherwise, it would be incurabent upon Vans
to show, not that John Codraan's estate had reahsed
something, but that it had realised more than the ^50,000,
which was due frora Richard, and to secure which the
property was transferred, before any thing could be
found in the hands of the heirs which ought in equity
to respond lo the clairas of Richard's other creditors.
Another suggestion is^ that costs at least, were due
frora John Codraan, according to the judgraent exhib
ited ; — and it is triuraphantly asked, what equitable
reason there is why these costs should not be paid out
of John Codraan's estate .? and why Vans should not
be allowed lo prosecute for them? Mr. Child devotes
several pages to abusing the coraraittee of 1853, for
their alleged unfairness, in not reporting in favor of
the petitioner for costs. Is it to this, then, that the
great claira of Wra. Vans has corae at last.? Half a
raillion of dollars dwindled down to a two-penny claim
for costs ! ' See Doc's No's 319, 326.

349
Mr. Child, indeed, represents these costs as araount
ing to the respectable sura of ^40,000 ; but what does
he refer to for proof.? Why, he says his client states
it so in a letter to Stephen Codraan, dated March, 1805.
The authority is excellent, but unluckily, even the
assertion of Wra. Vans is not found, on exaraina
tion, to bear out his counsel. The language of the
letter referred lo, is " this process has been procrasti
nated until this day, and expenses have already been
paid by rae and your brother's agent, Mr. Babut, of
more than 200,000 livres ;"— which is about ^40,000.
Perhaps sorae of our readers raay have learned by
experience, the difference between the costs and the
expenses of a lawsuit. The taxable costs, with us,
include only raoderate fees paid to the officers of
the court and witnesses, with sorae sraall allowance
for the attendance of the attorney. They do not
include counsel fees, nor any of the larger expenses,
equally necessary, which attend a lawsuit. Is it
otherwise in France .? Is a thing so indefinite as
counsel fees, while any nuraber of counsel raay be era-
ployed, that the party pleases, and of any grade, from
the highest to the lowest, rated araong the standing
costs of court .? Certainly not. Yet it is expenses of
which the letter speaks, and not costs ; — the expenses,
too, of the ivhole course of litigation about all ¦ the
estates in controversy, and not the expenses which
relate lo that particular estate, respecting which a judg
ment in Vans' favor is produced ; — and raore than that,
it is not the expenses of Wm. Vans, which are thus
extravagantly estimated by himself, but the expenses
of both sides — " paid by me and your brother's agent,
Mr. Bitbut.^ Yet Mr. Child speaks a^ if he had abso-

560
lutely exhibited evidence of a judgraent recovered
against John Codraan for ^40,000 costs of court ; —
while the whole proceeds of the property in dispute,
according to his own stateraent, was only about
^10,000, and that subject to abateraent, for a mort
gage of ^6,600, prior to the claims of both the combat
ants, and leaving only ^5,500 for the real value of the
bone of contention. — ^5,500 in dispute, and ^40,000
costs, recovered by the prevailing party ! This is really
too much, either for French justice or American cred
ulity. The fact is, that the taxable costs of the French
courts appear, by the judgments which Mr. Vans pro
duces, lobe even 5ma//er than with us. In the judg
ments recovered against Richard Codman, the costs are
stated ; and they are, in each case, from 25 to less than
50 francs ! From five to ten dollars !
In the second place, the costs which the judgment
did cover, whatever they raay have been, were paid
more than thirty years ago. Mr. Child says there is no
evidence of this. But is it not sorae evidence, that
after five and twenty years of persecution, we now, for
the first time, hear of this as a distinct ground of claim,
stated by Mr. Child, in his review, for popular effect,
but not seriously urged, even by hira, before the commit
tee ? Additional evidence will be found in the record
itself. We extract the following sentence. " Respect
ing Mr. John Codman, after having furnished the ne
cessary bonds required of a foreigner, for the costs and
charges to which he might be liable, it having been
demanded by Messrs. Pacaud and Vans, and Madame
Gouvain, the said security had been received by a
decree of the 15th Floreal (2d May,) last;— after
which he began his mode and ground of defence."

351
The case, then, stands thus, Mr. Vans produces a
copy of a French judgment, as he calls it, by which
John Codman is condemned to pay costs, and nothing
else. What they are, or how rauch they araount to,
whether 40 francs or 100 francs, this record does not
state. Suppose Mr. Vans then, had his right of action
given him, and were to bring his suit upon this docu
ment, how is he to recover a dollar, when the docu
ment does not show any particular sum to be due .?
His counsel argues, as if it were incumbent upon us to
show payment, before he exhibits any evidence of debt.
But the same document which he uses to show that John
Codman was adjudged to pay the costs, also shows
that security had been required beforehand, by Mr.
Vans, for these very costs, and that security, satisfactory
to him and to the court, was actually given. Having a
claim, then, for taxable costs, the amount of which
was capable of being ascertained only in the French
court, and having security in that court that the
amount should be paid when due, who can doubt that
the araount was ascertained at the time of the judg
ment, and paid .? Who can doubt that Vans availed
hiraself, on the spot, of aU the security he had required .?
This same record, with all the other evidence in the
case, is exhibited and inquired into by three successive
committees of the legislature, iraraediately after Mr.
Vans' return from France, and they all report that there
is no claim whatsoever, against the estate of John Cod
man. Of course, they were satisfied, upon the evidence
then exhibited, that the costs recovered had been paid.
Yet twenty years afterwards, Vans having never, in
the mean time, raade any claira for these costs, as
remaining unpaid, but pretending that John Codraan

552
was liable for the principal debt incurred by Richard,
his counsel starts this claina for costs, as a new discov
ery araong the treasures of the French judgraent, and
pretends, for the first time, that they are still due. It
will be recollected, in this connection, that John Cod
man had placed, funds al the disposal of his agent, for
the express purpose of defraying the expenses ofthe lit
igation.* This agent was required to give, and did give
security for the costs. Probably he became security
hiraself. And Mr. Vans states, in his letter above re
ferred to, written long after the date of this judgment,
that 200,000 livres had been paid, by himself, and by
Babut, as agent for John Codman, in the conduct of
the suits. This is ridiculous exaggeration — but it
is nevertheless an admission by Vans, that Babut, as
well as himself, had paid largely — and who can doubt,
in the absence of all evidence to the contrary, that the
costs recovered by Vans, a petty sum, were included
in these large payraents, especially when we consider
that there was direct security, for which Babut vvas
answerable .? Doubtless, the attorneys took care of that.
For when the raatter of costs is seriously urged, it can
not but be noted, that the French judgraent itself re
quires, that these costs should be paid, not for the
benefit of the parties, but of the attorneys, who had
raade the advances. At any rate, the sura could not
possibly have araounled to raore than a few hundred
francs — and if we fail to produce a receipt, before
Mr. Vans has produced any evidence of the amount,
we have at least shown a pretty good offset in the
£100 bill, unpaid to this day, and amounting, with
interest, and customary damages, (we claira nothing
* See Doc, No. .326.

363
for rise of value,) lo the sum of ^1 ,500 — to say noth
ing of the unsatisfied executions for costs recovered
against Wm. Vans in our own courts — and ^500 paid
for a release, which he says is worth nothing.
But we proceed lo a more important point. We
have had occasion, frequently, in the course of our
remarks, to state and prove sorae of the raanifold and
gross falsifications of papers, and fraudulent misstate
ments, of William Vans, contrived for the purpose of
creating a show of evidence against John Codman and
his estate. The most glaring and fraudulent of these
acts remains to be noticed.
We begin by quoting the language of the report of
the committee of 1833, as follows. " Il was alleged
by the respondent, that the date of Richard Codman's
note, ofthe 8th Vendemiaire, year 9, had been fraudu
lently altered, so as to carry it back two years. To
show this, he produced a copy of one of the notes, and
a translation of the other, in the petitioner' s handwriting,
enclosed in a letter to R. G. Araory, Esq. dated Oct.
27th, 1809* — and the explanatory words, "or Sept.
1797," are added. The other note is truly translated,
as dated in the year 9, adding the words " say Sept.
1800." According to the French calendar, the 8th
Venderaiaire, year 7, would be Sept. 29th, 1798, and
not 1797, as explained in the petitioner's copy. Sept.
1797 would be before, and Sept. 1798, after the disso
lution of the house of J. & R. Codraan. On recurring
to the original of that note, the date of the day of the
month, and of the year, are in figures, and the figure
representing the year has raanifestly been scratched and
* Here insert " One of these notes is truly copied, with the exception of
the date, which is written 8 Vend. An. 7th." This was accidentally omitted,
as we have been informed, in the copying or printing ofthe Report.
46

354
blotted, and the date of the year in the certificate of
the stamp duty, written on the margin, has been taken
out with a sharp instrument. — Henry Codman testified,
that he attended the hearing on the petitioner's petition
in the winter of 1811-12 — that the original note for
8,415 francs rente was then claimed by the petitioner,
and supposed to be dated in the year 7, and that there
was no blot on the figure — that in a subsequent hearing,
in January, 1814, he found it was dated in the year 9,
and that the figure had been written over, or erased, but
there was then no blot upon it — that the petitioner was
then charged with having altered the date, and an
angry discussion ensued — that the blot, which now ap
pears on the figure representing the year, has been
made since that time. The blot now entirely defaces
the figure, and a hole has been worn through the paper.
The committee are satisfied, that this date has been in
tentionally ALTERED AND DEFACED, and that the date
ofthe stamp has been intentionally cut out."
Such is the statement of the committee ; and Mr.
Child's first comment upon it is, that " this is substan
tially a charge of forgery." So we understand it ; as
such we propose to establish it ; and since Mr. Vans'
own counsel admits, that the charge " will be fatal if
not answered," we propose to show that upon the evi
dence it has not been, and cannot be, answered.
The counsel is indeed pleased to indulge a vein of
pleasantry, upon the supposed confusion and uncertainty
of the committee's report on this part of the case. He
represents that " one " note, and " the other " note,
"copy," and "translation," "a translation," and
" the other" " copy," "dance and serpentize, r'lght and
left, through the mazes of the sentence," to such a

365
degree that " it would be an imposition upon the reader
to attempt to clear up, or to criticise, such a passage."
We suppose the statement of the comraittee, though
much condensed, sufficiently intelligible ; but if not,
we will endeavor to avoid the like ambiguity on our
part. What is dark in the report we hope to illumine ;
and to exhibit this passage in the life of WiHiara Vans
in a light so broad and clear that he who runs raay
read, and apprehend it.
It will be recollected, that in the course of the nego
tiation at Paris, in the year 1800, between Vans and
Richard Codman, before the arrival of John Codman,
Richard Codraan, gave Vans two obligations, one for
5000 francs rentes provisoires, and one for 8,415 francs
rentes, tiers consolide.
The forraer was written in English, as follows :
" 100,000, capital, or 6000 rente provisoire. For
value received, in silver raoney, I proraise to deliver lo
WilHam Vans, or to his order, in three raonths from
this date, an inscription coramonly called rente provis
oire of the public debt of France, of one hundred thou
sand francs capital, or 5000 rentes per annum ; it being
well understood that it is an inscription rente provisoire,
and not raoney, let the price of said rente, at the time
of delivery, be more or less. Paris, 15th Vendemiaire,
year nine ; [which corresponds toour4lhOct. 1800.]
RICHARD CODMAN."
This above recited obHgation is the "one" which
we do not charge to have been fraudulently altered.
That which follows is "the other," which we do charge
to have been fraudulently altered. It was written in
French, and originally stood in words and figures, as fpl-
laws.

356
" Je reconnais avoir re9u a litre d' emprunt, du cito-
yen WiUiara Vans, une inscription tiers consolide de la
dette pubHque de France, de la somrae de huit mille
quatre cent et quinze francs de rente annuelle, laquelle
inscription, qui etait sous le nom de Madarae Vans, a
ete transferre a une autre pour mon corapte,etje m'en-
gage a rendre au citoyen Vans, ou a son ordre, la
surdite inscription de huit mille quatre cent quinze francs
de rente annuelle, dans un mois, avec les interets a
compter de ce jour. A Paris, le 8 Venderaiaire, de I'an 9.
8415 de rente. RICHARD CODMAN."
The following is a literal translation of the same.
" I acknowledge to have received, as a loan, from
citizen William Vans, an inscription tiers consolide of
the public debt of France, of the sura of eight thousand
four hundred and fifteen francs of annual rent, which
inscription, which was in the narae of Madarae Vans,
has been transferred to another for my account, and I
engage lo deliver to citizen Vans, or lo his order, the
aforesaid inscription of eight thousand four hundred and
fifteen francs of annual rent, in one month, with the
interest, [or rentes accruing,] from this date. Paris, 8
Vendemiaire, year 9 — [which corresponds to our 29th
September, 1800.]
8416 francs rente. RICHARD CODMAN."
The year, it will be observed, is not written in words,
but is indicated by the figure "9." So it was on the
original paper, which had, besides, in the margin, a cer
tificate of the payment of the stamp duty, as required
by the laws of France ; — which certificate was dated
" Paris, le 8 Vendemiaire, an 9," the latter figure indi-

557
eating the year of the French republic when the stamp
duty was paid.
Now what we charge is a fraudulent alteration of the
figure 9, in the last line ofthe note — that it was altered
frora a 9, to a 7 — and that this alteration was made by
Wm. Vans, with intent to induce the heirs and represen
tatives of John Codman, and others to whora the note
might be exhibited in evidence, falsely to believe, that
said note was given before the dissolution of John ^
Richard Codman, (or before that dissolution was cora
monly known at Paris,) and that it bound the estate ' of
John Codman, as the copartner of Richard Codman.
The report of the coraraittee of 1 853 inforras us, that
when the original docuraent was exhibited lo them, there
appeared in the place of the figure 9, in the body of the
note, a mere blot, with raarks also of erasure by scratch
ing, as with a penknife ; and there appeared in the place
of the figure 9 in the stamp certificate, only a hole, raade
by some sharp instrument which had entirely cut out the
figure. Neither of these figures, therefore, can noiv be
read ; or rather we should say, could then be read ; for
we will not undertake lo say, how many new phases
this piece of paper may have exhibited since the hear
ings of 1835 and 1855, nor what is its present aspect.
We allege that the 9 in the note was, at one tirae,
fraudulently altered to a 7, and that the 9 in the stamp
certificate was cut out, lest it should lead to a detection
ofthe alteration in the note. We farther allege that at
a subsequent tirae, the danger of detection being irami-
nent, the 7 in the note was altered back again to a 9 ;
and that upon careful inspection marks of erasure and
alteration were then visible. We farther allege that at
a still later time, and indeed we suppose at several

358
times, the figure has been scratched and blotted over,
and otherwise defaced, as it now is, or was when last
seen, /or the purpose of covering up and obliterating the
marks of forraer alteration. We further allege that
all these alterations were raade by the adroit finger of
William Vans, and that the alteration first mentioned
was raade for the fraudulent purpose which we have
naraed. We trust we have raade ourselves intelligible
in the charge — and if so, we will proceed to the proof.
The first point to be established is the original and
true date of the note. The correspondence, at Paris,
between Richard Codraan and Vans, vvhich ensued
upon the return of the latter frora Araerica, in August,
1800, shows conclusively that Vans was not previ
ously in possession of any note, or other obligation
for the 8,41 5/". rentes tiers consolide loaned lo Rich
ard Codraan. Vans' letter of Sd September, 1800,
asks that an obligation for the borrowed rentes may be
given hira ; and Richard Codraan's answer of 4th Sep
tember, 1800, says, "You will find here enclosed the
obligation for the inscription borrowed, upon stamped
paper as you desired."* The obligation there enclosed,
however, was not the same which now exists, but was
an obligation upon demand. This appears by subse-,
quenl letters; and in lieu of this obligation on demand,
vvas afterwards substituted, tbe note, respecting which
we now inquire, dated 29th September, 1800, and pay
able in one month frora that date. The letter from
Vans to Richard Codman, dated 14th September, 1800,
speaks of the obligation which he then had for the
8,415 rentes as being on demand, and requests payraent
of it.f On the 22d Septeraber, he again urges Richard
* See Doc's Nos. 188, 189. f See No. 196.

369
Codman to fix a day when he will deliver these in
scriptions.* On the 21st October, which was a few
days before the obligation now inquired of would be
come due, he says, " I pray you to have my inscriptions
borrowed, ready to be delivered agreeable to your obliga
tion, as I shall transfer your obligation to a person with
whora I have some business, and who will be much dis
appointed if they are not ready to be delivered to him."t
From this it raay be gathered that an obligation on
time had been substituted for the obligation ofthe 4th
Septeraber, on demand. Frora the letter of the Ilth
Noveraber, 1800, it appears that the obligation on time
had then becorae due. It says, " I wrote you, before I
left Paris, that I had negotiated your obligation, and
that in consequence of your brother's arrival I had re
quested il not to be presented for a few days."t It is to
be deduced from the correspondence therefore, that the
obligation finally given, for the 8,416 francs rentes, was
dated somewhere between lhe25d Septeraber and 21st
October, 1800, and that it fell due soraetirae after the
the 21 st October, and before the 12th Noveraber.
This is perhaps sufficiently near for all present pur
poses, since the only raaterial question is of the year
and not of the raonth, or day. But the French judg
ment aids us in fixing the day of the date, because in re
citing the transfers lo Pacaud, and from him to Rayjil
and Dumont, it informs us that interest ran from 8 Ven
deraiaire, year 9, (29th September, 1800,)§ and the
note produced is found to be in fact on interest, from
its date. Besides this, we do not understand Mr. Vans'
• See Doc. No. 203. t See No. 212. t See No. 2] 4.
§ See Doe. No. 343, at page 271 of the Appendix. The date is trans
lated there by mistake 30 September, instead of 29th.

560
vindicator to deny, that 8 Vendemiaire, year 9, was
the true date of the note ; on the contrary we under
stand hira as distinctly admitting it lo have been really
raade and dated in the year " 9." His own words are,
"^The original was — year 9." See his review, p. 27.
Secondly, 8 Vendemiaire, An 9, (or 29th September,
1 800,) being then fixed as the true date, the next question
is whether the note has been altered at all, designedly.
Upon this point we have the concurrent testiraony of
all the'raerabers ofthe committee of 1855. They all
saw and personally examined the original note, and all
say, in their report, that "the figure, representing the
year, has manifestly been scratched and blotted;" and
that " the date of the year in the certificate of the
stamp duty written on the raargin, has been taken out
with a sharp instrument," — that the blot on the figure
in the note " now entirely defaces the figure, and that
" a hole has been worn through the paper," where the
figure was. There can be no mistake about this. It
is a plain raatter of eyesight. We have also the con
current testimony, to the sanie point, of the raerabers
ofthe coraraittee of 1855, who say, that the report of
1833 "contains a fair and substantially correct state
raent of the clairas of said Vans, and of all the material
facts in his case."
Thirdly, when and how did this happen .?
Upon this point we have the testiraony of Mr. Henry
Codman, who is not an heir of John Codraan, nor
anywise interested in the pending controversy, except
as he is the son of Stephen Codraan, who is a brother
of the late John Codraan, and the executor of his will.
If his tesriraony, as reported, is believed, it will ap
pear that this note was produced, at the first hearing

361
which the petitioner had, before a committee of the
Legislature, in 181 1-12, as a note dated in the year 7 ;
that there was then no blot upon the figure ; that it
appeared to be a 7, and passed the examination of that
committee, and of the adverse party, as a note of that
date. There was then no suspicion of foul play.
But, all parties taking the date to be truly 8 Vende
raiaire, an 7, answering to our 29th September, 1798,
il was a subject of inquiry and argument before that
coramittee, whether or not notice of the dissolution had
then reached Paris. The comraittee found and report
ed against the petitioner.
The same witness attended another hearing on
Vans' petition before a legislative comraittee of 1814.
The note was then again produced, and appeared to
be dated in the year 9! This contradiction led to
scrutiny ; and it was apparent, on the face of the paper,
that there had been some alteration; it was raanifest,
that there had been a writing over the original writing,
and also some erasure ; but the figure, as it then stood,
was legible, distinctly, as a " 9," — and there was no
blot upon it. The petitioner was al that time distinctly
charged, before the coraraittee, by the late Sarauel Dex
ter, Esq., with forgery, and an angry discussion ensued.
This is the tesriraony of Mr. Henry Codraan ; and if
there be any error in his stateraent, il is in the power of
Mr. Vans to contradict hira by highly respectable raera
bers of the coraraittee, who were present at the exara
ination, and are still living, and well known to the
community. What the alterations were, cannot now be seen by
inspection, because of the blot made upon the place of
the figure, and the hole worn through the paper ; but
46

362
this blot and this hole, together with that " other" hole
in the place where the date of the starap was, are, and
raust forever continue, plainly visible, to all whom Mr.
Vans may indulge with the sight of a singularly ill
treated instrument, on which he is weak enough to
found his hopes of fortune — or rather, wicked enough
to induce others lo embark theirs.
Fourthly. By whora, and with what design was the
first alteration raade .?
To this point we produce an original letter, in our
possession, /rom Wm. Vans, in his own handwriting, to
the late Rufus G. Araory, Esq., dated at Boston, 27th
October, 1809,* in which he says, " Having found the
original of the two obligations of John ^ Richard Cod
man, given rae by R. Codman, I now enclose you a
copy of them ; and it would give me great pleasure, if
the coraraunication I have raade to you should induce the
heirs of the estates of John & Richard Codman to come
to an amicable settlement with me, as I ara disposed to
raake every sacrifice, [it seeras that of principle was not
excepted,] that prudence could dictate, to obtain that
object. As I intend to leave Boston the beginning of
next week, I would thank you to give me the decision
ofthe heirs as soon as you conveniently can. I will
wait on you at any lime you raay please appoint, and
make every farther coraraunication you raay desire in
my power, as I have no secrets in this business."
Attached to this original letter, is what purports to
be a copy of the two obligations, wholly in the hand
writing of Wm. Vans. That which is first written, is
the obligation for the 5,000 fr. rente provisoire, and
purports lo be dated, "Paris 13 Vendemiaire, An 9,
* See Doc. No. 366.

565
(say Septeraber, 1800." Then follows the obligation
of which we are inquiring, set out thus.
" Second obligation. Copy.
8,416 rentes tiers consolide. 168,000 capital.
Borrowed and received of William Vans an inscription
tiers consolide of the public debt of France, of the sum
of eight thousand four hundred and fifteen francs rente
per annum, which inscription, standing on the public
books in the name of Madarae Vans, and which has
been transferred lo another for my account, I promise
to return to William Vans, or to his order, the sarae
inscription of 8416 rents tiers consolide, in one month
from this date, with the rents then due. Paris, 8 Ven
demiaire, 7 year, or Septeraber, 1797.
(Signed,) RICHARD CODMAN."
Here is a double misrepresentation. 1st, the figure
7 is put in lieu of the figure 9. 2nd, the French date,
as given, is falsely translated, as signifying Sept. '97,
instead of Sept. '98.
Now the object of this communication, as plainly
appears upon ils face, was, to gel an immediate settle
ment, by corapromise, of a claim then set up against
the heirs of John Codman, for what was represented lo
be the joint debt of John and Richard Codman, though
founded upon obligarions raade and signed by Richard
Codman ; and this being the object of the letter, the
larger of these obligarions is falsely represented as dated
in Sept. 1797, which was .several months before the
dissolurion of the copartnership of John and Richard
Codraan, while its true date was in Sept. 1800, more
than two years after that dissolution. That is, the date
is represented as being three years earlier than it in fact

564
was, for the sake of anticipating the period of the disso
lution, and thus making il more probable that the estate
of John Codman might be legally holden for the debt.
In other words, the design was, by a fraudulent misrep
resentation, to extort money frora the heirs of John
Codraan, in discharge of a supposed debt of their father.
Was the original note altered at the tirae this copy
was sent, and with this view, or not .?
Unquestionably it vvas. For if the scherae had been
successful, and the heirs of John Codraan, supposing,
upon this representation, that their father's estate raight
be liable, had offered terms of settlement, in the execution
of that settleraent the original note must have been pro
duced and given up; and if it had been found dated in
the year 9, instead of the year 7, as had been represented,
the iraposition would have been instantly detected, and
dangerous consequences raust have ensued. The "9,"
therefore, in the note, was doubtless altered at, or about,
that tirae, to a " 7," (an alterarion not difficult to exe
cute,) so as to conform to the representation. And for
the same purpose of fraudulent imposition, the note thus
altered,was produced before the legislative comraittee of
1811-12, as evidence of a claira against the estate of
John Codman, and passed examination as a note dated
year 7. To repeat the language of Mr. Child, this is
"fatal, if not answered." Let us see then how he an
swers it.
In the first place, he relies upon the general good
character of his client, to which he, and he alone, bears
high testimony. Perhaps, after the exposition which
has heretofore been raade of many fraudulent altera
tions, fabrications, and misrepresentations of evidence
in this case, with occasional and incidental develop-

365
ments of other trails of moral beauty, this ground of
defence may not go for much. We are content to let
it go for all that it is worth.
In the second place, he ridicules the charge, as stated
by the committee of 1835, as being vague, confused,
and unintelligible. We trust we have not left ourselves
open to any complaint on this score.
In the third place, he undertakes to " explain the
whole affair," as he understands the truth to be, " leav
ing this precious parcel of the report," (to use his own
decorous language,) " to be puzzled into nothing, or
swallowed as every thing, as may best suit customers."
His explanation is, as follows. "In the year 1809,
soon after Mr. Vans' return frora France, he sent, (it
seems,) to Rufus G. Amory, Esq. at his request, a
copy of the note for 5000 francs rentes, and a transla
tion of that for 8,415 francs rentes, of which the origi
nal is in French. In respect to the French note, Mr.
Vans is said to have made a mistake in translating the
" an neuf," of the French calendar, 1797, instead of
1800." It was not, however, the words " an neuf," which
were mistranslated, but the figure " 9," which was
translated into the figure "7; " — and then the "an 7,"
which had been manufactured out of the " an 9,"
was falsely translated into " 1797," instead of 1798.
Mr. Child proceeds. "Mr. Codraan brought this
translation and copy before the comraittee in 1811, and
Mr. Vans at the same time brought the originals. On
comparing the translation with the French, the raistake
was observed, and according lo the tesriraony of Henry
Codraan, Esq., an intenrion on the part of Mr. Vans to
defraud was iraraediately charged. This was very

566
absurd ; because Mr. Vans produced the originals,
which would of course be alone resorted to as evidence,
and the deception could scarcely be raoraenlary."
Does Mr. Child, when he makes this representation,
deceive hiraself, or does he hope to deceive others .?
Mr. Henry Codraan, as his testimony is reported by
the comraittee of 1855, does not say that Mr. Vans
was charged with an intention to defraud al the hearing
in 1811 ; on the contrary, he states that at that hearing
the dale was supposed to have truly been, as it then
appeared to be, " an 7," and not "an 9 ; " and if
the original was corapared, at that tirae, with the trans
lation sent to Mr. Araory, instead of leading to detection
of the fraud, there would have been found no discrep
ancy ; for the translated note was also dated "year 7."
The two papers then, to all outward appearance, entirely
coincided, and consequently the fraud, at that hearing,
passed undetected.
" Mr. Vans at that tirae, as at all tiraes," says Mr.
Child, " exposed his original notes unreservedly, and left
thera lying on the table, as he was occasionally absent
frora the roora."
These facts, so far as they are material, and we shall
see presently what use is raade of thera, Mr. Child
states, of course, upon the information of his client; for
Mr. V. had not secured the services of such counsel al
the early hearings of his case, and Mr. Child does not
pretend to have been personally present.
He goes on — " Henry Codraan testified further, that
at the hearing in 1811 il was found, (we think he said
by himself, and that he first called attention to it,) that
the date of the French year had been altered, in the
original note for 841 5/r. rentes."

367
The witness states no such thing of the hearing in
1811. We appeal to the comrailtee's report of his tes
riraony. He states the discovery of an alteration as
first made in 1814.
Mr. Child proceeds. " The reporter makes Henry
Codman say, that the alteration was to the year " 9," —
but that cannot be, because the year " 9 " was the orig
inal date."
There is nevertheless no error here, either of the re
porter, or of the witness ; — for this part of Mr. Codraan's
testiraony, as will be seen by the report, (we repeat it,)
relates to the hearing in 1814, and not lo the hearing in
1811. At this hearing of 1814, the note was produced in
its second state of change, naraely, altered back again frora
the " 7 " to the "9." Then it was, that upon comparison
ofthe original, so realtered to "9," with the translation
sent to Mr. Amory, in which the date still stood " 7," a
discrepancy was perceived. It was reraerabered too,
that at the forraer hearing in 1811, the original had been
found to coincide with the translation, and had passed as
truly dated " 7." This discrepancy led to a sharp in
spection of the original, and upon sharp inspection, the
double alteration was clearly discernible ; — that is, it was
discernible that the " 9 " which then stood on the
paper, was not the same " 9 " which had originally stood
there ; it was discernible that there had been some era
sure, and some writing over and upon the original figure.
But the figure which then stood there, was a plain, leg
ible " 9," with no blot, or hole, to deface or obscure it,
while at the forraer hearing in 181 1, it had been a plain,
legible, unblotted " 7."
Mr. Child goes on with his explanation. " Henry
Codman, according to the committee, says, that the date

368
at the hearing in 1811 was supposed to be the year 7."
And thereupon the learned counsel remarks upon the
looseness of this testimony. "Supposed lo be the year 7 !"
But the date was in truth only supposed lo be the
year " 7." It was really the year " 9 ; " — and the rea
son why it was supposed to be " 7," was, that the " 9 "
had been so altered as to seem a " 7."
Mr. Child then goes on lo say, that " at the hearing
in 1814 the alteration was discovered and charged in
good earnest, and that an angry discussion ensued."
How then discovered, we may ask, if it had been already
discovered at the forraer hearing in 1811 .?
He adds — "that in 1855 a new discovery is made,
by Mr. Henry Codman, of the dale's being so blotted
as entirely to deface the figure, and that the date of the
starap had been cut out."
That these are facts, that is, that blots and holes do
appear in the place of dates, Mr. Child does not pretend
to deny.
" And Mr. Metcalf," says he, " (we cannot say the
coramittee) charitably concludes that these alterations
have been raade intentionally, raeaning by Wra. Vans,
and that he has comraitted a crirae for which he is
liable to the States Prison."
Such is Mr. Child's " explanation of the whole affair,
as he understands it ; " — and having thus explained the
facts lo his own satisfaction, not however without mis
representing the evidence, as the coraraittee report it, and
not without admitting the fact, that the note is now de
faced and mutilated, he proceeds to an arguraent.
The charge, he says, rests wholly upon the testiraony
of Henry Codman; and he sets forth, prominently, all the
circurastances of his connection with the parties, inclu-

569
ding the fact of a small pecuniary legacy left hira by
his uncle John, which might be supposed to give a bias
to his testimony.
We have no complaint to make of this. It is fair
arguraent u^pon facts, and we are content that such facts
should have the weight to which they are entitled. So
far as those circurastances detract from the credibility
of Mr. Codraan, let thera be taken into the account.
But we deny that the charge rests exclusively, or main
ly, on the unsupported testiraony of this witness, whose
well known character requires no vouchers from his
relations. Nothing rests upon his testimony but the
succession of changes which the appearance of the
paper has undergone at different periods, and what sort
of alterations they were. The main fact of alteration
and violence, designedly committed, appears now on
the paper itself, and is testified to by every member
ofthe committees of 1855 and 1855. The intent of
the original alteration, and that it was frora a " 9 "
to a " 7," are proved by a paper in Vans' own hand
writing, viz. the translation of this note sent to Mr.
Araory, with a corresponding fraudulent misrepresenta
tion of the true date. The intent of the subsequent
alterations, naraely, to cover up a forraer fraud, is also
manifest frora the present appearance of the paper,
which is such as to corroborate Mr. Henry Codman's
testimony, in every point, if indeed there were any thing
to impeach it.
Mr. Child's arguraent then is, that the raisdate of the
translation sent to Mr. Araory in 1809, vvhich he wishes
to consider by itself, is a mere mistake. Frenchraen
themselves, he says, often err in turning the old revolu
tionary calendar into that of raodern use ;— foreigners,
47

570
by raislranslation, are still raore liable to err ; and he
points oul several errors of the comraittee of 1855, in
illustration of his remarks. But these are all mistakes
of a single day, arising from an error in calculation.
Thus, "11 Pluviose, ari 9," is represented in the report
as corresponding to our Slst January, 1800, whereas it
in truth corresponds lo our SOth January, 1800; — and
so of all the other instances which he enumerates, ex
cept one, where the mistake is of a year, and arises ev
idently from raere inadvertence, upon a point no wise
raaterial. It speaks of the judgraents recovered against
Richard Codraan as being in 1802, instead of 1801.
But does the error of Mr. Vans, in the translation of
the note sent by him to Mr. Amory, arise either from
mistranslation of a foreign language — accidental miscal
culation of figures — or mere inadvertence ? The paper
which he undertakes to translate has in it the figure
" 9." He writes it " 7." There is no error of transla
tion, or of calculation in this. Is it then mere inadvert
ence ? Several facts conspire to prove that it is not.
It was a paper not hastily written, judging frora the
hand writing corapared with other writings of WilHara
Vans. It was a paper made as the foundation of a claim
of great magnitude on the estate of John Codraan, and
therefore made with care. He well knew, and could
not have forgotten, after all his trouble in procuring
these obligarions from Richard Codman, that both were
given about the same time ; yet in copying and trans
lating them, he represents one as dated in the "year 9,"
and the other as dated in the " year 7," of the French
republic, and interprets these dates so as to represent
one note to have been made, as it in fact was, in the
year 1800 — and the other, which was given but a few

371
days before, as made in 1 191— three years before ! He
interprets the " 8th Vendemiaire, an 7," which he had
falsely represented to be the French date, as signifying
a day in " Septeraber, 1797," when it in fact signifies
29th Sept. 1798 — thus carrying the dale back, by his
translation, still one year farther than he had carried it
back by writing " 7 " for " 9." This mistranslation,
therefore, added to the misstatement of the figure " 7 "
for the figure " 9," is such a concurrence of double false
hood, as is wholly inconsistent with the supposition of
mere inadvertence.
We have thus considered the letter to Mr. Araory, as
Mr. Child wishes to have it considered, — by itself. But
in this connection we would also now refer to another
document. It is a paper in the hand-writing of Andrew
Ritchie, Esq., who, while he was a student al law, in
the office of the late Rufus G. Amory, made this copy,
at his request, from a statement exhibited by Mr. Vans
to Mr. Amory, as the lawyer of the executor and heirs
of John Codraan.* It purports to be a specification of
his demands, and contains throughout, the sarae misrep
resentation of date, accompanied by other misrepresen
tations of .similar character, and made w'lth similar design.
Mr. Vans undertakes, in this paper, to state his claim
in two ways, viz. 1st, agreeably to the account render
ed to him, as he says, by John and Richard Codman, at
Paris ; 2d, agreeably lo the judgments, which he says
he had recovered against them. The whole purport of
the paper, therefore, is a falsehood — for no account
was ever rendered to hira by John and Richard Cod
man — nor did he ever recover any judgment against
them. These being the fundaraental falsehoods to be
* See Doc. No. 367.

572
raaintained, it vvas essential that the accounts should
seera to relate to a period prior to the dissolution, as the
date of that event was well known to the executor and
heirs. He therefore states, not the date of the note,
but the date of the loan, as in Septeraber, 1797. Here
is no roora for error of translation — no accidental
raissing of a figure. He undertakes to state the true
tirae of a transaction, and states it as having happened
in Sept. '97, instead of Jan. '99. It is not a single slip
of the pen — but is repeated, over and over again,
throughout the docuraent. He goes into a calculation
of interest, from this same date of Septeraber, '97.
He next makes a similar misrepresentation as to the
date of another transaction, on which he founds a claim
— namely, the sale of the houses by Richard Codman
for Mrs. Vans. He states this to have been in May
'98 — the very month in which the dissolution took
place, but before it could probably have been known in
Paris. The true date was May '99. He gives the
French date indeed, in this case, correctly — "7 Prairial
an 7," but falsely represents it as meaning. May '98,
instead of May '99. He gives the French date cor
rectly, because it would appear by some document on
which he relied as evidence, and which could not be
easily altered. He contents hiraself therefore, in this
case, with a false representation of the English date
which the French date was intended to express. So in
the copy sent lo Mr. Araory, he states the dale of the
obligation for 100,000 francs rente provisoire correctly,
because it would appear by the document itself when
ever he should be required to produce it; but in the
paper now under consideration, he states the date of
the loan of 8,415 francs rente tiers consolide, as of the

373
year 7 — because he had previously altered the date of
the original obligation so as to read 7, instead of 9.
Now take this paper by itself, and the misrepresen
tations of lime will be found to bear clear marks of
design — especially when made subsidiary to its general
plan of inducing the executor and heirs falsely to bebeve,
that John and Richard Codraan, while John Codraan
was in Paris, in 1800, had rendered him an account,
charging themselves jointly with this property, and that
he had afterwards recovered judgments in France, for
this debt, against John ^ Richard Codman, jointly.
But connect this paper, which contains stateraents of
the tirae of pretended transactions, with the letter to
Mr. Araory, purporting to give copies of the original
documents ; — and you perceive that the dates of these
copies in the one are raade correspondent with the
pretended dates of the transactions in the other. And
both are equally false. Can any one doubt that this
correspondence is by design — or that that design was
fraudulent !
Finally, add to all this the corresponding alteration
of the original document — a " 9," altered to a " 7."
Under this latter date it actually appeared before the
committee of 1811-12. This fact is directly proved
by testiraony wholly uncontradicted — and its truth is
corroborated, and raade clear as noon-day by the note
itself, as it is now produced, altered — mutilated — dis
figured, with its original date absolutely obliterated and
expunged. This alteration of an original of course was
not an act of inadvertence. We therefore cannot find
charity enough lo believe, that the corresponding rais-
representation in the translation sent to Mr. Amorv,
was by inadvertence — nor that the repeated and uni-

374
form misstateraent of the tirae when the transactions
happened, which are mentioned in the paper copied by
Mr. Ritchie, was by inadvertence. They are all in
tentional frauds, and mutually aid each other in fixing.
the fraudulent design of each.
Mr. Child next argues, that the alteration detected
by Henry Codraan in 1814, (for he already forgets
that he had just insisted, contrary to the report ofthe
committee, that the detection was testified to as having
happened in 1811,) is an incredible fact. In other
words that the witness is gu'dty of wilful perjury ; for
it will be presently seen that Mr. Child does not suffer
it to rest on the footing of mistake and misrecollection.
This is a defence vvhich requires as strong proof as the
charge. Let us then see how it is raade out. The
fact he says is incredible, because Mr. Vans had pro
cured a translation of this note to be made by the late
Samuel Mackay on the 16th February, 1813, as ap
pears by his certificate of that date ; that this transla
tion exhibits the true date of the note as il originally
was, viz. in the year 1800; and that this translation
has accompanied the original ever since, has been
shown to every comraittee, and has been published
these ten years in Mr. Vans' books. And the learned
counsel, having laid this foundation, proceeds to argue
upon the absurdity of supposing that his client raeant
in 1814 to alter the date ofthe original, when he thus
exhibited and published a translation which raust
expose it.
The arguraent is well enough, if the premises were
sound ; but the fallacy lies in the assumption, at the
outset, that the alteration from "9" to "7" vvas
stated by the witness as raade in 1814; or that the

576
note was then exhibited, before the legislative cora
mittee, as a note of the latter date, when he in fact said,
that it was so exhibited before the comraittee of 1811,
and that at the hearing of 1814 the "7" had been
altered back again to a "9," under which date the
note was then presented. Mr. Child persists in endeav
oring to confuse and sraother up the testimony, as it
stands reported, upon this point. But it is clearly
stated in the report, that at the hearing in 181 1-12, the
note was supposed to be dated in the year 7, and that
at the hearing in 1814, il was found to be dated in the
year 9, with raarks of alteration. At the hearing then
in 1814, which is that Mr. Child chooses to speak of
and argue upon, the note was exhibited as a note of the
year 9, and corresponded with Mackay' s translation then
also exhibited, but unluckily did not correspond with
Vans' own translation of 1809, produced by the re
spondent. The contradiction of the tivo translations,
led to the scrutiny of the original, and thus to the
discovery, that although the date was then 9, il was
manifestly not the sarae 9 which was originally there,
and that there had been alteration. The arguraent,
therefore, falls, its basis being removed; — and it
may be remarked, by the way, first, that Mackay's
translarion did not exist at the lime of the hearing in
1811 ; secondly, that none of Mr. Vans' publications
prior to the hearing in 1814, give any date whatever to
this note. The one entitled "A True Statement," &c.,
for instance, which appeared in 1811 or 1812, and was
republished the following year, speaks of the obliga
tion for 8,415 francs rentes tiers consolide, but assigns
no date to it; — while that which appeared in 1814,
(after he had been charged with the forgery,) entitled

376
" A Statement of Facts," &c., gives the true date of
the note. The solution is, therefore, that some time
between these two hearings of 1811 and 1814, and
doubtless before the translation was made by Mackay
in 1815, Vans, for the purpose of concealing his former
fraud, endeavored lo restore the original 9, either
because he had become alarmed at the hearing of 1811,
and imagined, as guilt often does, that he was more
sharply looked after than he really was, or else because
he was sarisfied that his translator, examining the paper
closely for the purpose of making an accurate transla
tion, raust perceive an alteration, or else, perhaps, be
cause some person to whose scrutiny the note was sub
jected, had put startling inquiries about the date, which
led him to apprehend that it would not successfully pass
another exaraination. The sarae reasoning which then
led hira to restore the original date, has since led him to
obHterate entirely all distinct raarks both of the true
date, and of the alteration.
Mr. Child next goes lo the cutting out of the date of
the stamp certificate, and argues upon its inutility, be
cause, he says, the certificate of registry shows in what
year the note was made. That certificate, we suppose,
shows in what year the note was registered, but not in
what year it was made, or in what year it was stamped;
— and it raight well be that a note, made and stamped
in the year " 7," should not be recorded till the year
" 9." " Besides," he says, " the actual date of the note
appears in the certificate of registry." It is true that
the certificate of registry intends to recite the date of
the note; but in that recital the figure indicating the year
is so illegibly written, that it raight pass almost equally
well for a 7 or a 9, and consequenriy never could have

577
led to detection. The more prominent date of the
stamp certificate being wholly taken out, and the date of
the note itself altered, well enough to pass a cursory
examination, there was little apprehension that any
person would apply himself lo decyphering the contents
of a mere formal French certificate of registry, which
in this country was of no raanner of iraportance to the
validity of the note.
" But more than all the rest," says Mr. Child, " the
certificate of registry appearing on the note would al
ways show where a true copy of the note, as it origi
nally was, can be found, so long as the public records
of France shall endure." As if any one would send out
to France, for the special purpose of ascertaining this
fact! Nor even if such a mission were instituted, is it
by any raeans certain, that after the lapse of near forty
years, the records of a raere notary public, for such we
take to be the office in which such registry is raade,
would be found.
Again, it is said, that "the note is described seven
tiraes by its true date in the different judgraents, and
in one of thera is copied verbatim, with all the dates of
its making and registering," and this judgment, it is said,
was offered to the coraraittee of 1855. But at the
tirae of the hearing in 1855, let it be reraerabered that
the date of the original note was utterly defaced, so that
h could not be corapared al all witb its recital in any
other docuraent. It does not appear that any one of
these judgraents was offered to the coraraittee of
1811-12, before whora the note was presented under
the false date of " an 7 " ; and at all subsequent exam
inations, the note was presented either under the
realtered date of "an 9," conforming to the recital in the
48

378
judgments, or else in its present blotted and disfigured
slate, which forbids all comparison.
It is further said, that the alteration, from " 9 " to
" 7," falls short of accomplishing ils imputed purpose,
since it only carries back the date to Septeraber, '98,
which was still subsequent to the dissolution. Why did
he not alter it to an earlier date .? Because the altera
tion frora 9 to 7 is more easily made than to a 6, or a 5,
and less exposed to detection by raanifest erasure of
the instrument; and although this "an 7" did not quite
go behind the date of the dissolution, yet il was hoped
lo cure it by mistranslation, carrying back the date a year
farther;, as we see by the translation sent to Mr. Araory;
and if this error of translation, as it would have passed
for, had been detected, still the " an 7 " truly translated,
brought the date so close upon the date of the dissolu
tion here, as to leave roora for arguraent that news of
it could not have reached France, under the interrupted
state of communication vvhich Mr. Vans represented to
exist. And in fact it was so argued, before the commit
tee of 1811.
But why alter one of the notes, it is asked, and not the
other ? And what motive was there for altering either,
when the judgments were higher evidence of the debt ?
This latter position is untrue; — a foreign 'judgment
is no better evidence of debt, than a note of hand ; and
it is a new defence to a proved forgery, that no for
gery was committed on another instrument. But since
the question is asked, we will undertake to answer it.
The note for the rente provisoire has the date of the
year written out at large. It is " year nine," which
could not easily be altered to " year seven." Whereas
the note for the rentes tiers consolide has, for the

579
year, simply the figure 9, which a little scratching,
and a slight mark of the pen, easily alter to a 7.
In this connection we take occasion to point out
another exaraple of the raanner in which Mr. Vans' coun
sel has atlerapted to mislead. The coraraittee of 1855
had stated in their report, that "the date of the day and
year in the other note, [raeaning the note which has not
been altered,] is not in figures, but written at length in
words." " This," says Mr. Child, " is incorrect. The
date of the day in this " other note," as well as in the
other " other note " is in figures, and not in words, as
any person may see by calling and examining both notes.
This is a very sraall raatter, but its object is great. It
is to insinuate that the reason why Mr. Vans did not
fraudulently alter both notes was, that it would have
made a perilous hole to cut out words." Now every
reader of this passage would understand Mr. Child as
meaning to assert, that the coramittee had erred in that
which was material to the argument. Il is the date
of the year, (a single figure,) in the note for the rentes
tiers consolide, that was altered. The committee say
that the dale of the day and year in the other note
was not in figures, but in words. Mr. Child perceives
the force of the arguraent, and therefore seems lo deny
the fact on which it was founded. He says the state
raent is incorrect. Why .? Because " the date of the day
in this " other note " is in figures." True, the date of
the day is — but the date of the year is not. The date
happens lo be written " IS Venderaiaire year nine."
And it is upon this paltry equivocation, that Mr. Child
rests his client's defence. He states that which is lit
erally true, but with the view of giving a false impres
sion, and in a manner calculated to do so.

380
In short, this whole defence is of precisely such a
character as might be set up, with equal plausibility,
against every case of forgery and fraud which ever ex
isted. It consists in an enumeration of the chances of
detection, estimated by a cool -spectator, after the fact,
and then arguing frora the folly, as well as knavery of
the wretch who could be supposed to corarait such an
act, with these chances before him. It supposes that
he who is about to commit a crime, raust see beforehand,
and raust effectually guard against, all chances of de
tection which exist. If this were so, secret crirae would
never be detected ; and we raay add, that it never is
detected, without exciting astonishraent, that the very
thing vvhich leads to the detection had not been guarded
against. So much easier is it to see how an evil raight
have been avoided after the fact, than it is to foresee all
the dangers which attend crirainal raoveraent. Those
who deal in a system of deception, it has been said,
ought lo have great raeraories. Wm. Vans, when he
was preparing his case for the comraittee of 1814, and
consulted his judgraents, saw great danger that the al
teration of his note raight be detected by the corapari-
son, and he thought to avoid it by altering the note back
again ; but he forgot that several years before, he had
created evidence, by a copy under his oivn hand, of the
date of the note, as it stood after the first alteration ;
and thus, as has often happened to other raen, in en
deavoring to avoid the danger of detection on the one
hand, he ran into it on the other, and was detected.
But one thing Mr. Child had yet to account for, or
the whole defence must go for nothing; and that is
the indisputable fact of mutilation, visible on the face
of an original docuraent in Vans' possession, and pro-

581
duced by hira as evidence. Here are blots, erasures,
holes, in the place of dates. How came they there .?
That they carae by design, is apparent. That they
were raade for no honest purpose, is certain. Who
made them, then, and for what purpose .? The des
peration of the defence, on this point, is of itself con
clusive proof of crime. For will it be bebeved, that
without a single fact, or circurastance, to support it,
except the supposed motive of discrediting Vans and his
cause, it is deliberately asserted and boldly argued,
that this was done by some one of the Codraan faraily.?
This, says Mr. Child, " accounts for one note's being
defaced, and cut from time to time."
And when and how are these acts of villany sup
posed to have been perpetrated .? No raan who does
not read Mr. Child's review, will credit it. The
supposition is, that these successive rautilations were
made, at different times, in the presence, and on the very
table, of the committees of the Legislature who were con
ducting the examination. Sorae one of the Codraan
family, and frora the manner in which Mr. Henry Cod
man's testimony is spoken of, this assassin-like blow
seems to have been aimed raore especially al hira,
some one at any rate interested in their cause, is sup
posed, finding the note on the table of the comraittee,
then and there to have assailed it with pen and penknife
— at one tirae to have cut a hole in the starap certifi
cate, at another to have erased a part of the " 9" in the
note so as to turn it into a " 7" — at another lo have turn
ed it back again into a " 9"— at another to have covered
it with a blot— and at yet another to have picked a
hole in its place — always successfully, and always un
seen, before all the members of the committee, counsel.

parties, witnesses and spectators, who usually fill the
room al a hearing on Vans' petition. This raonstrous,
absurd and incredible libel, gratuitously concocted upon
mere hypothesis, without the pretence of a single fact,
or a particle of evidence to support it, is printed and
circulated under the name of " David L. Child, Coun
sellor at Law." One vvould have thought that the
learned counsellor raight, professionally, or otherwise,
have seen enough of the law of libel to know that this
was treading upon somewhat dangerous ground.
We have preferred to argue this part of the case
chiefly upon the evidence reported by the Commit
tee of loSS, because their report of it cannot be
doubted — especially since the comraittee of 18S6 have
revised the proceedings of their predecessors, and de
clared their report to be correct in all raaterial points.
But we ought not to dismiss the matter without advert
ing to the further evidence before the coraraittee of
1835. When the alterations and cuttings on the face of
the note were pointed out lo the last naraed commit
tee, Mr. Vans, pursuing the suggestion of his counsel's
revieiv, hastily rose, and cried out in the presence of a
large assembly, " Harry Codman did it." But it was
proved by members ofthe former committee, as well as
by the Hon. FrankHn Dexter, present as counsel in the
case at the forraer hearing, that when the fact was
charged upon ]\Ir. Vans at that hearing, he pjade
no such remark. . He was perfectly silent. So that
this suggestion, the basest, as it is the most unfounded,
of all the pretensions of Wm. Vans, is due entirely to
the ingenuity of his counsel. The forgery vvas clearly
proved, if not adraitted, before one of the eariiest coin-

383
Hiittees, and it remained for the prolific imagination of
Mr. Child, tiventy years afterwards, to suggest, /or the
first time, that the forgery was coramilted, in a public
meeting, by some raeraber of the Codraan faraily.
The testimony of Mr. Henry Codraan at the hearing
in 1855, was substantially the same as reported by the
comraittee of 1855, but on some points raore full. We
give it according to minutes of counsel taken al the
tirae. Report of H Codman's testimony in 1 836.
I never saw this note until I saw it produced before a
committee ofthe Legislature in 1811-12. All I knew
of it before was by a letter frora William Vans to the
late Rufus G. Amory, in vvhich the note was represent
ed as dated 8 Venderaiaire, year 7 — which Vans said
vvas Sept. 1797. We knew, or learnt, enough of the
French Alraanac to ascertain that 8 Vend, year 7, raust
have been Sept. 1798 and not '97. We thought that
error of the translation an accident — and went before
the committee, supposing the real date of the note to
be Sept. '98 — for we had at that tirae very little knowl
edge of the facts of the case. The instruraent was
produced, and appeared to bear date of the year 7, and
it so passed through the whole of that hearing. We
did not scrutinize it severely. Il always puzzled us,
(comparing this date with that of other papers and facts
which carae to our knowledge,) how this note should
have been dated in '98. This hearing was in 1811-12.
It was argued that the date of the note, being four
months after the dissolution, there Avas time enough for
notice to have reached Paris. Mr. Jesse Putnam testi
fied lo facts respecting it. At a subsequent hearing the
note was produced again, and the date of the year ap
peared to be a 9 instead of a 7, and it appeared blurred
and blotted. It vvas obvious that there had been an
erasure — a tampering with the paper. The late Mr.
Samuel Dexter, who was counsel in the case, charged
Vans direcdy with a forgery, and threatened to have

384
hira indicted. Two years ago I stated this to have
happened in 1814. I have since satisfied myself that
it must have been in 1812-13. The reason of my
forraer irapression was that Mr. Sarauel Dexter, who
was our counsel in 1814, charged Vans with the forgery,
and I supposed Mr. Dexter had attended before one
coramittee only. But I have since ascertained by his
receipt for services that he attended before two cora-
raittees. I never observed that the date of the stamp
cerrificate had been cut out, until it was discovered and
pointed out by Mr. Franklin Dexter, at a hearing before
the comraittee of 1853. I believe I did not see the
paper from 1814 to 1832. I never saw it except at
hearings before coraraittees. It was very little in ray
hands at any tirae — never except in the presence of Mr.
Vans, and his counsel, and the coraraittee. There is a
larger and raore decided blot on the paper now in the
place of the figure 9, than there was al the tirae of the
second hearing.
Mr. Dexter, and Mr. Thoraas Loring, the latter a
raember of the coramittee of 1833, also testified, that
the paper had undergone new changes since the hearing
of 1 835 — especially in the hole which occupies the place
of a date in the stamp certificate. Il was described as
being, in 1835, a very small diamond shaped cut, just
large enough to take out the figure 9, not very perceptible
without close examination, and evidently made with a
sharp instrument. At the hearing of 1 856 the hole was
rauch larger, and more irregular and ragged — so as to
present raore the appearance of an accidental wearing
and tearing of the paper. This new iraproveraent was
effected by Mr. Vans, in the interval between the two
hearings, with the view of effacing still farther, if pos
sible, the traces of former crirae. It serves only to fix
the fact. During this interval the paper was in his own
possession. It vvas never even seen by the adverse

38:5
pap-tyv It oannot, thet)efore, now be sw^^es^edr that
" Harry Codraan did it."
We conclude our remarks upon this point in the case
with.a quotation from Mr. Child himself. " Lastly, the
alteration of the date of the note makes it null and.
void, and it could not be recovered if forty thousand
juries were to be granted to Mf. Vans."
We have thus fplly Sitated and examined raogit of the
evidence respecting the original raerits of the claira
upon the estate of John Cpdman. But we stated in
the outset, that before Mr. Vans couldi fairly entitle
himself lo have those merits inquired into, it was in
curabent upon him to prove that a certain release, under
his own hand and seal, purporting to be for a valuable
consideration, is absolutely null and void. A copy of
this release, and of the deposition in perpetuam of the
late Rufus G. Amory, Esq-, in respect tp the circura^
stances under which it was given, have been annexed.*
If the testiraony of this witness is believed, it plainly.
results frora it, that the release was executed freely and
voluntarily on the part of Vans, without even a request,
ora representation, by way of inducement, from the
heirs of John Codman. So far from it, the proposition
originally carae frora Mr- Vans himself, through his
own friend and agent, Gen. Winslow, who represented,
that the payraent of the ^^600 asked for would, even be
an act of charity towards Mr. Vans, and raight, at any
rate, be the raeans of saving future expense and trouble,
as he was willing to execute a release of the strongest
character which Mr. Araory could draw, calculated to-
put a final period to the annoyance of continual solici
tation and persecution. * See Doc's', Nos. 394, 396.
49

386
Upon this representarion a release was drawn by Mr.
Araory, delivered to Gen. Winslow, returned by him in
Vans' own handwriting, signed, sealed, witnessed, and
acknowledged ; and the raoney was thereupon paid, xvith-
out even seeing Mr. Vans. This transaction, accord
ing to the testiraony of the only witness who testifies
on the subject, was intended by the parties, (and if
the testimony of the whness is believed, the instrument
must operate according lo that intention,) to conclude
forever all claim and pretensions of claim, before the
Legislature, and elsewhere. This highly respectable
witness, now deceased, is of course assailed with the
vituperation of Wm. Vans ; but his character is too ex
tensively known to require public vindication. Even
Wra. Vans has not presuraed, in any of his publications,
which have corae to our knowledge, to irapeach his
veracity, nor does he any where, to our knowledge,
contradict one particle of his testiraony. We may be
excused, however, for a passing coraraent on the weight
of the testiraony of Rufus Greene Araory. A purer and
raore upright raind never existed — and his profession
raade hira perfectly intelligent upon the subject of which
he speaks.
What then is there to set against this direct evidence .?
Nothing — nothing — absolutely nothing, but the bare
assertion of Wm. Vans, unsupported by any proof
whatsoever, that he refused to sign the release until he
was assured by Gen. Winslow, (no agent of the Cod
mans,) that the intention of the paper made il a release
only on condition that John and Richard Codman were
not copartners at the tirae of Richard's transactions with
hira — so as to leave that question still open. False and
absurd upon its face ! If true, why was not Gen.

387
Winslow's deposition taken to establish so material a
fact? Why did Mr. Vans leave it to stand on the
weight of his own unsupported word, which he knew
could not be received as evidence in his own cause .?
Why does he forbear even to make the assertion, until
after his only witness is dead? Could it have been true .?
If so, why was it not inserted in the release itself? Does
the paper express any such condition ? Can it bear any
such interpretation .? On the contrary it recites that the
v6ry matter of controversy was, whether John Codman
was a partner in the transactions, or not. It was this very
point which was surrendered, compromised and sold by
Vans, for the Hberal price of ^500. We call it a liberal
price, being after his claim al law, if he ever had any,
was barred by the statute of limitations, a!fter he had
repeatedly sued to the Legislature in vain for a dispen
sation of that statute, and after several comraittees, as
we have formerly shown, had examined into the raerits,
and reported that he had no claim, on the estate of John
Codman, either at law, or in equity. The possibility of
such a dispensation with the statute, (which he still
asks,) and the possibility that he raight, by false testi
mony, persuade a jury to believe that John Codraan was
a partner in his transactions, reraote and trifling as these
possibiliries are, were the only things which the widow
and heirs of John Codraan could buy frora Vans for
the |f500 — the only shadows Vans had to sell. And
this sura was paid, according to the testiraony of Mr.
Amory, wholly upon the ground that Vans, being about
to leave this part of the country, would, for that gratuity,
renounce all pretensions of right to raolest the repre-
sentarives and heirs of John Codraan ever after. Yet
so far is he from renouncing his claim, according to

388
his solemn bargain, that he even raakes use of this act
of charity and liberality, (for such under aU the circum
stances of the case it was.) as a new and additional
proof that John Codman was his debtor, and that the
widow and heirs of John Codman knew il; since,
as he argues, they could have had no other motive
lo have paid hira ^500 for a release.
We are not surprised at such an arguraent frora Mr.
Vans, and perhaps, after what we have seen, we ought
not to be surprised that it should be repeated by Mr.
Child. Yet Mr. Child professes to be learned in the
law — and nevertheless argues, as if he believed it, that
the release proves the debt. " It shows," says he, " that
they acknowledged that they owed the debt,by paying
a part of it. Payraent of part of a debt has always been
held in law to be a new promise to pay the whole."
So that hereafter no claim can ever be settled by com
promise — there can be no such thing as a release for a
consideration — because the very act of paying the con
sideration and taking the release is an admission vvhich
destroys its validity. Such is Mr. Child's law !
He insists loo, that the contract is unconscionable upon
the face of it, being a release of ^^500,000 for ^500 ; and
that the release is void for fraud and deceit, because it
sets forth, as the basis of the contract, that John and
Richard Codraan were not partners al the tirae of Mr.
Vans' transactions with Richard. Extraordinary in
deed, we must once raore repeat, that any raan claira
ing the standing of a respectable counsellor, should de
liberately, in print, and under his own signature, impose
upon the public such perversions and misstateraents as
these, so easily detected. For the whole evidence on
the subject is contained in these two written documents,

589
the release, and the deposition ; and they show, that in
stead of being a release of ^500,000 due from the heirs
of John Codraan, it was a release of a claira doubtful in
its araount, denied lo be of any validity in its origin,
disputed in all its progress, barred by the statute of lim
itations, and at that time utterly hopeless in the result.
They show that instead of any fraud, or deceit, being
practised upon Vans, the contract was raade upon his
own motion, and upon his own representations ; and that
instead of being based on the assumption that John and
Richard Codraan were not copartners, the instruraent
expressly recites that the copartnersihip was alleged
on the one side and denied on the other — clearly in
dicating that the supposed existence of this controverted
fact was the sole foundation of the claira on John Cod
man's estate, and that the settlement of that slender
doubt, by a corapromise, was the final cause of the
payment. This arguraent of Mr. Child's rerainds us, by the way,
of another of his client's fabrications. He has repeat
edly published a false copy of the release — materially
differing frora the genuine instrument — and calculated
to give color and support lo his stateraents and argu
ments respecting it. We refer to the two papers in
our appendix of docuraents, where they raay be cora
pared.* But it is in vain to follow Vans through all his
fabrications and falsehoods. They are nuraberless as
the sands on the sea shore.
If this release stands valid and unshaken, why is the
Legislature disturbed, year after year, with petitions
for a dispensation from the standing laws of limitation
* See Doc's, Nos. 394, 395.

590
in favor of Wra. Vans .? And why are coraraittees srill
to inquire into the original merits of the claira, as if no
such release existed .? If it be within the constitutional
power of the Legislature of this Coraraonwealth to dis
pense with their own general laws in favor of an individ
ual, yet surely they have not the power, nor would they
be disposed to exercise it if they had, of annulling a
contract, solemnly entered into between private parties.
Yet this contract of release is, in itself, a peremptory
bar to all future claira, on the estate either of John
Codraan, or of Richard Codman. It proves that Vans
has no debt; — no just cause of action, capable of being
enforced, even if the bar of the statute were removed
as prayed for ; and therefore, that there is no reasona
ble ground for its reraoval.
Upon other grounds, il is perfectly apparent, that
Vans is not now the owner of a legal, or equitable
claira, against any body. If there were no release, if
there were no statute of liraitalions in the way, nor
any discharge under the United States Bankrupt Law,
we raaintain that Vans could not recover a single dollar,
even against Richard Codman himself, were he now
living ; and this for several reasons.
In the first place, it is perfectly clear that his original
claira against Richard Codraan, was in behalf of his
wife, and for her property. By the laws of France,
she was capable, even before the divorce, of holding
property, personal as well as real, in her own right,
and separately from her husband. Now the 8,415
francs of rentes tiers consolide are stated, on the very
face of the obHgation which Vans produces, to have
been an inscription in the narae of Mrs. Vans ; and the
houses, which were sold by Richard Codman for 75,000

391
francs, are stated, throughout the correspondence, to
have been her property. These are the sole original
foundations of his claim.
Mr. Vans, sometimes pretends, indeed, that the prop
erty was put into his wife's narae, raerely for his con
venience, and that it was not really hers. His own
writings convict him upon that point. In his book
entitled " An Appeal to the Public," &c., published at
Salem in 1827, at p. 104, he says, in France, "the
custora is, when a gentleman marries, to make a settle
ment on the lady, for the benefit of her and children.
In conformity to ancient usage, / made a settlement on
Mrs. Vans, of 25,245 livres per year, standing on the
great book of the public debt of France, equal to ^6,000
per year. This debt the national convention reduced
in 1797, to one third its capital. It was then cahed
tiers consolide, or the consoHdated debt of France.
That reduced the rente of Mrs. Vans lo 8,415 livres
per year. It was this rente she lent Richard Codman,
as already stated." These are his own words. Vans
himself declares this stock lo have been settled upon his
wife, for her own benefit. The sum sounds large, for a
setriement from Wm. Vans ; but il will be recollected
that the stock was intrinsically worth almost nothing at
that rime. Even after the consolidation, this nominal
capital of raore than ^50,000, sold for less than ^4,000.
It is possible, therefore, that Vans, (erabarrassed^as he
was,) may have been able, out of some borrowed fund,
to purchase the stock hiraself for Mrs. Vans, as a set
tlement ;— though we think it most probable that il was
purchased with her own, or her father's raoney. How
ever that raay be, it was her own vested property— and
he so states it.

392
Then as to the proceeds of the housesi, which Vans
insisted Richard Codman^ should have invested in the
public stocks, a judgment was afterwards got against
Richard Codman, founded upon that principle, for the
value of 52,098 francs of rente — a great nominal sura,
though Hquidated, it would seem, al a sraall araount, of
actual capital. That judgraent Mr. Vans was required
to produce, before the coramittee of 1 855 ; and upon
examination of the record, it was found to be a judg
ment in favor of Vans and wife, in her right. In the
proceedings before the French court, for the distribution
of the proceeds of La Thuillerie, Madame Gouvain, late
Mrs. Vans, but then divorced from him, prosecutes for
this as her judgraent, and in her own right.* This,
therefore, also was clearly the property of Mrs. Vans.
Now upon what else does Mr. Vans found his
claira .? Nothing but the obligation for 5,000 francs of
rente provisoire. And what was the consideration for
that .? We find il given, almost ivholly, for the interest
which had accrued on the 8,415 francs of rente tiers
consolide.-f But if the principal belonged to Mrs. Vans,
of course the interest did also. If the note for 8,415
rente tiers consolide, was in equity hers, so was the
note for 6,000 rente provisoire, or the raost of it, which
represented interest on the forraer. The only part of
the consideration of the note for 6,000 rente provisoire,
which lis not shown to have proceeded frora the prop
erty of Mrs. Vans, is a sura of 10,000 francs, (one
tenth part of the nominal capital of the note,) which
Richard Codman received after Vans' return from
America. Whence that sum proceeded, the documents
do not inform us. But all the rest of the property,
* See Doc. No. .343. f See Doc's, Nos. 208, 209.

393
horises, stocks, and notes given for them, clearly be
longed to Vans' ivife — and after the divorce, what
pretence is there of right on his part, to irtterraeddle
with it.? If there be an unsatisfied claim for il, why
does it not belong in law, it certainly does in equity, to
Madame Gouvain.? How comes Vans to be the own^r.?
He never had any equitable tide. He never had any
legal tide, except as the husband of Mrs. Fans— and
that title ceased, when this relation between them had
terminated. It is trUe, that long before the divorce, he had per
suaded Richard Codman to make the obligatiohs fOr this
property payable to him. The stock was originally
vested in Mrs. Vans, as he states, upon a contract for a
permanent marriage settlement, and yet he himself after
wards breaks up that settlement, by inducing Mrs. Vans
to pledge her property to Richard Codraan, as security
for the credit which he hiraself had got frora Richard
Codman to trade upon ; the investment is changed for
his benefit, not fOr hers. The property is sold, and
then, for the proceeds of that property, he takes Richard
Codman's notes, payable to himself, or his own order.
Does he hold these in trust for the use of Mrs. Vans .?
Let us see how he appHes them. It appears by his own
letters, that the larger obligarion was negoriated, alraost
as soon as he got it, in his own business.* He was
required before the coramittee of 1856 to produce his
judgments. Among them is found a judgraent against
Richard CodraaH, not in Vans' favor, but in favor of
one /. J. Pacaud, for this very note of 8,415 francs
fente tiers consolidS. When called upon to explain
* See Nos. 212, 214,
50

594
this, his counsel said, though there was no evidence
of it, that Mr. Pacaud was a raere agent, eraployed
to sue the note, for Vans' benefit, because Vans,
being a foreigner, could not maintain an action in the
French courts in his own name. Yet when another
of the judgraents was produced, (being like all the rest,
against Richard Codraan,) viz. the judgraent for the
5,000 rente provisoire — this was found lo be in favor of
Vans himself, and in his own name, and was recovered
in the very same court in which Pacaud had recovered
for the 8,416 rentes tiers consolide.* Besides this, the
record of the proceedings before the French courts, re
lative to the distribution of the proceeds of La Thuille
rie, shows that Pacaud, suing in his own name, upon
his own judgraent, had assigned over a large part of
his claira under that judgraent, to one Rayjil, and an
other large part of it to one Duraont, and these persons
were notified of the proceedings, and carae in for their
share of the proceeds, as having a real interest in the
claira.f The greater part of the judgraent, therefore,
upon the note for 8,415 rentes tiers consolide, was their
property by assignraent frora Pacaud. And the balance
of it was Pacaud's property, as owner and assignee of
the note on which it was founded. Here was assign
ment after assignraent — Vans had not a particle of inte
rest in it left — and yet he now clairas for the whole, as
if il were his own property.
What does he claira upon .? The judgment ? The
judgraent is not his — it is Pacaud's. The record shows
it. Has Pacaud ever assigned it lo him .? Where is
the evidence of that .? Where is the deed of assignment .?
* See also No. 343, in which these judgments are recited.
t No. 343.

396
Vans produces none — but on the contrary, he does ex
hibit another docuraent for another purpose, which shows
that Pacaud, instead of assigning the judgment lo him,
had assigned it chiefly lo other people. Does he claim
upon the note ? If he does, we ash him how came he by
that note ? What title has he to the possession of it .?
The note had been negotiated to another. Vans had re
ceived the full value of it. The purchaser and endorser
had sued it in his own name, and recovered judgment
for it. The note, in France, was dead — extinguished —
merged in that judgment. No action could be main
tained upon it there, because it had already passed into
a recorded judgment. The note and the judgment
could not both be in force for the same debt. By the
law of France therefore — by the law of the place of the
contract — the note was a nullity, and the law of the
place of the contract must govern here, as well as there.
How comes Vans by the hole .? — we repeal it. How
carae it into his hands .? He says, by reason of Pa
caud's endorsement, and he points to a signature on the
back of the note purporting to be the signature of J. J.
Pacaud. Whether genuine or not we have no means
of judging — but it is iraraaterial. The paper, purport
ing to be so endorsed, belongs to the custody of the court
which rendered judgraent upon it. How carae il off
the files ofthe French court ? Pacaud had no more title
lothe possession of il than Vans. The endorsement by
Pacaud, and his delivery of the note to Vans, if it were
really delivered to him, after the judgment, could pass no
property in it. It could not in France, where the note
had ceased to exist as a negotiable note— and therefore
h cannot here, since the endorsement was a French
contract, and to be tried by the laws of France. Yet

596
this obligation, founded in the outset upon his wife's
property, diverted by Vans to his own use in fraud of
the marriage: settlement, sold for its value by Vans and
negotiated to a third person, sued by that third person,
and turned into a judgment, the very judgraent assigned
over to other third persons — this extinct obligation —
dead and buried by the laws of France — and while in
Hfe and being, the property of others— furtwely taken
from its legiriraate custody, is brought out to the United
Slates of Araerica — set up by Vans as hi? own — palmed
off as a note still in full force — made the ground of
claim, not only against Richard Codraan who signed it,
but against John Codraan, who never did — or rather
against the representatives of John Codraan after his
death — under the false pretence that it was given for a
partnership transaction — and a forged date is put
UPON THE PAPER ITSELF for the purpose of raaking it
seem that it might have been founded on a partnership
consideration ! ! ! What a coraplicated tissue of false
hood, and accumulation of crirae is here !
But this is not all. The notes thus set up against
John Codraan, were not only raerged in judgments
against Richard Codman, but all these judgments, whose
soever they were, founded on all these obligations and
considerations, were fully paid and satisfied, more than
thirty years ago, out of Richard Codman's property in
France. It was a considerable property, as Mr. Vans
himself represents. What became of il .? Richard
Codraan, we see, was a certificated bankrupt in 1 805,
without a farthing of property, — beginning life anew as
a supercargo — and dying soon after. His property in
France, we see, had been seized upon by his creditors.
There was a contest for it. John Codraan hiraself was

397
a clairaant. We know that, not a dollar of it ever carae
to his estate. We know that his clairas were opposed
by Vans, and those claiming under Vans, and we know
that John Codman's claims were defeated. Of course
the proceeds of those estates, beyond all prior incura
brances, raust have gone to the use of the other claimants.
In the case of the estate called La Thuillerie, (one of
a nuraber,) it is admitted by Mr. Child, (see review, p.
32,) that ^5300 at least, less expenses of sale, went to
Vans, although he says, on the strength of his client's
assertion, that this was not one third of his costs and
charges. But besides this, it appears from his client's
own admission, in the paper copied by Mr. Ritchie, that
at least two other estates, (Dreux and Firraancourt,)
which he hiraself values in that paper at 107,000 francs,
were recovered by hira.* The same estates were valued
by Richard Codman at 170,000 francs,t and Vans hira
self was. wiUing to take thera al 160,000.t He farther
admits, in the sarae paper, that he had received frora
Babut 70,000 francs, and frora another source 24,000
francs. We find too, frora the proceedings in bankrupt
cy, that Richard Codraan staled under oath, araorig his
conringent reranants of property, a claira against the
French governraent, on a bill drawn at the Isle of France,
for one raillion of livres, left in the hands of Wm. Vans.
This Vans has never accounted for. We know not what
came frora it. It was then esteeraed of sraall value.
But raost of the old claims on the French government,
which had any foundation in justice, have at some time
or other, and at sorae rate or other, been finally adjust
ed. Mr. Vans pretended, al the hearing before the
committee of 1855, that he had returned it to Richard
* See Doc. No. 367, f See Doc. No. 224. t See No. 254.

398
Codman; and he produced a receipt from Richard Cod
raan for the return of a bill similar in character and
amount. But the receipt was dated Dec. 27, 1800 —
and Richard Codman's letter calling upon Vans for this
bill, is dated 21st Feb. 1801.* Swan's letter to Vans,
April 30, 1 801 , charges it as still in Vans' possession,
and Vans does not deny the charge. t And in 1805,
Richard Codman, under oath, slates it lo be in Vans'
hands.X We must take il therefore to have been used by
him, until he shows the contrary. He got something for
it. How much, he does not choose lo tell. Richard
Codman at one time charged it to hira al 1 10,000 francs.^
At another. Swan says Richard Codraan was willing to
let it go for 50,000 livres. It has gone for nothing. Vans
credits nothing for it. He undoubtedly sold it for sorae
thing considerable — not less than the 50,000 livres at
which Richard Codraan was content to let it go, and
perhaps for the 1 10,000 at which it was charged to him.
Here then is over 200,000 francs admitted to have
been received, and probable evidence of from 500,000 to
400,000. Now what were the judgments .? They were
payable in rentes, making a great nominal sum by estimat
ing the capital at par. But what was their real value?
What were they liquidated at? The records show. The
attachments on La Thuillerie show. Il appears frora
this record that these judgraents were liquidated al
90,000, 50,000, and 30,000 francs respectively- in all
170,000. II And of this, 50,000 only was in the narae of
Vans, for the liquidated value of his rente provisoire.
The rest belonged to Maiiame Gouvain, and Pacaud and
his assignees. And even that 50,000, though standing
" See No. 258. | See No. 348. II See No. 343.
t See Nos. 267, 268. § See No. 2^.

599
in his name, belonged in eqiMty lo his wife, mostly, if
not wholly. At any rate, the properly realised overpaid
the judgments, whomsoever they belonged to. We are
justified in drawing this inference, at least until Vans
discloses truly what he did receive. The evidence is
such as to shift the burden from us to hira. He raust
Mceount-^he must show what balance is due lo him on
these ste/e judgraents — what reraains unpaid. He can
show no balance. He has had every livre of his debt —
and more.
But leave the judgraents, and go back to the original
claira. ^hat was the or'igmal cash transaction? The
proceeds of Mrs. Vans' houses were 74,000 francs, of
which 1,000 was paid to her at the time, and upwards
of 25,000 afterwards, leaving a balance in Richard Cod
man's hands of 54,582 francs.*
The cash realised by Richard Codraan
from the 8,415 rentes tiers consolide, on
an actual sale, was only 18,760 " f
The interest accruing on this stock,
which he had actually received, was only 5,800 " J
And he had received on Vans' account,
from some other source, 10,000 "

In all, 87,152 francs,
or about ^17,000 in raoney, received/or the joint account
of Vans and his wife. This is the whole cash founda
tion, reduced to silver money, — and out of this Vans
builds up a claim lo ^630,000.§ How .? Why in the
first place, he says all the cash should have been invested
* See Nos. 232, 233. f See No. 296. J See Nos. 208, 209.
§ We do hira wrong. His last stateraent is $686,576. See his " State
ment of Facts "for, January, 1837— in which he modestly affirms, as usual,
that the Report ofthe last legislative committee is destitute of truth!

400
in government stocks, at the period of their greatest de
pression. They were then worth only about seven per
cent.* Of course he would have had in government
paper one hundred francs for every seven francs of silver
raoney. That stock is now, after nearly forty years,
worth par, or raore — and he estiraates it accordingly in
his claira. For every livre put in, he deraands at least
fourteen. Fourteen hundred per cent, profit! A fair
raercantile operation !
Having thus formed his capital, by the present value
of these imaginary stocks, he claims all the interest
which would have accrued upon it from that day to this,
as if he had really been its holder. Now we see, from
his own letters at Paris to Richard Codraan, that he
hiraself, with all the extravagance of his pretensions at
that lime, (and they have grown every day since,) re
peatedly offered to settle for little more than two hundred
thousand francs, and Richard Codraan repeatedly offered
to settle with him at or about that sura.f
The differences between thera were only in their re
spective estiraates of particular pieces of property pro
posed in payraent — and not in the norainal araount of
the debt. Vans' own friends and referees, at the time,
and on the spot, thought there was no difference between
them worth quarrelling about ; and that where there was
a difference. Vans vvas wholly in the wrong. J Richard
Codraan was always ready to account for the stocks
which he had received in like stocks, although worth
rauch more than when he received them. He was al
ways ready to account for the rente provisoire, though
given chiefly for what he had never realised, according
* See No. 186. f See Nos. 209, 222, 244, 250, 254, 255.
t See 267, 269, 270.

401
to its market value. And he was always ready to ac
count for the cash balance, arising frora the proceeds of
the houses, as so rauch due in cash. But, as he clairaed
a right, by his contract with Vans, to hold that cash, or
invest it, as he pleased, for his own security, he was not
willing lo account for it, as if il had been invested in
stocks at a discount of 93 per cent., after the stocks
had risen to 50 or 55 per cent. The question whether
he ought lo do so or not, was submitted by rautual
agreeraent to Joel Barlow, a well-known and intelligent
American, perfectly familiar with the facts, and with
that species of contract — hiraself a deep speculator
in the French stocks, and one of the very few who
retired from that hazardous game with a fortune. We
see his opinion.* Il was against Vans — and Vans
would not abide by it. The matters in dispute between
them were again submitted to Swan — and he was of the
same opinion. f But Vans would not abide by it. Swan
estimates all Vans' just claims, for himself and his wife,
at Httle more than 196,000 livres. And this, he says,
Mr. Codman confesses, and offers to pay in full — not in
cash, for he could not — but in property, nearly all of
which Vans had agreed to lake — and at Vans' own val
uation. " I positively see," he concludes, " no raaterial
difference between you." But Vans would not so see —
he insists on pretensions which nobody could adrait —
and is even rude to Swan for not adrahring thera. J He
prefers to go lo law — and taking advantage of the ab
sence of the opposite party — having alraost every thing
his own way in the French courts, (in that day notori
ously open to influence and intrigue,) he is successful in
his lawsuits. He pounces upon Richard Codraan's es-
* See Doc. No. 270. t See No. 267. t See No. 268.
61

402
tales — he ousts John Codraan wholly from any part of
them — he recovers property which, by his own admis
sion, yielded hira raore than 200,000 francs, probably in
truth more than 350,000, for a debt which, estimated as
a cash transaction, was short of 100,000 — and which,
estimating it as a stock transaction, where it was a stock
transaction, was short of 200,000 francs, in the judg
ment of his own friends and referees.
It seems to us, therefore, perfectly clear, 1. that noth
ing but Mr. Vans' own obstinacy and avarice, coupled
with a disposition to extort all he could from his friend,
Richard Codman, prevented his receiving at once all he
was justly entitled lo — 2. that resorting to the property
of Richard Codman, through the French courts, he con
trived at last to recover and realise out of that property,
much more than his honest debt. And then he comes to
America, and sets up a claira against the representatives
of John Codraan, who never was a party to the transac
tions, for a balance reraaining due lo hira, as he says, of
^630,000 ! ! !
The real truth is, that upon an equitable settlement
of all accounts. Vans would be found indebted to the
Codmans at this very day, for large sums realised out of
Richard Codraan's property beyond what was due to him
and for which he has never accounted — as well as for
that little unpaid £100 bill, the object of so rauch terror
lo hira in France, which wants nothing now but a repeal
of the statute of limitations, to make Vans as much
afraid of it as ever.
We slated in the outset, that it was incumbent upon
Mr. Vans to show, not only a just claim, but also some
sufficient cause why it was not prosecuted within the
period limited by law.

403
The causes assigned by William Vans are various, and
his stories, as might be expected, not enrirely consistent.
In the pamphlet entitled "A True Statement," &c., p. 5,
he alleges that Stephen Codman, the executor, "pre
vented his returning to America in time to make his
claim," and "kept him in France until 1807, at which
time there was an embargo in Araerica, and not a vessel
in France bound to Araerica." "But wishing," he says,
" to get lo Araerica he proceeded frora France, with
his children, to Arasterdam, and from thence lo Rotter
dam, where he embarked in July, 1809, and in Octo
ber the same year landed in New York." And so, as
he says, " returned to the United Stales, as soon as
Stephen Codman, the adrainistrator would j»ermi^ him."
In the paraphlet entiried "A Stateraent of Facts," &c.,
p. 2, he says, the reason why he did not return to
America and prosecute the estate of John Codraan,
was, that ihe property of Richard Codman appeared to
be sufficient to answer his demand, and that the value
ofthe stock which was due to hira, being unknown in
America, it was necessary lo fix it by a judgment in
France. But that when he had obtained his judgments
for the debt, he found all the estates conveyed away to
John Codraan, and was obHged to enter into a lawsuit
to defeat the conveyance. That frora the Court of First
Instance John Codraan's lawyer appealed to the court al
Paris; that before the Court of Appeals the death of John
Codraan was disputed, and a new trial had ; and that
from the judgment of the Court of Appeals John Cod
man's lawyer carried the case up lo the Court of Cassa
tion, "a court to try law questions," and that he "was
detained two years in France to attend this court ; when
the lawyer of John Codraan, finding that the statute of

404
limitations in America would bar the deraand of Vans,
withdrew his appeal, and said that he believed John
Codraan was dead, and that Vans raight go to America
and prosecute his suit." These delays, he adds, were
by the direction of Stephen Codman, with design to
keep him in France, and then to plead the limitation
law to defraud him of his property. In the paraphlet
entitled " A new edirion," &c., p. 16, he lays his de
tention in France to a combination between Stephen
Codman, and the heirs of John Codraan and Babut, the
agent of John Codraan, conspiring, through delay in
the lawsuits, to keep him from America, till the Hmita-
tion law could be pleaded. Al p. 26, of the sarae
pamphlet he again states, that his reason for not prose
cuting John Codman's estate, was the supposed suffi
ciency of Richard's property there, and the necessity of
fixing a value lo the stocks by a judgraent in France ; —
which, owing to the delays raade, took up nine years ;
and that as soon as he had obtained his judgraents, he
set off for Boston, and arrived here in the year 1810.
In the pamphlet entitled " The third edition," &c., p.
51, he says he was thus prevented, by the carrying on
of the suit in France, " for six years after the death of
John ^ Richard Codman." Mr. Child too takes up
and repeats his client's story. He says, (see review, p.
11,) "The barrier of the pretended dissolution being
broken down in France, the parly wished to gain tirae
lo prepare the raain defence behind the liraitarion law
of Massachusetts, keeping up however a raoderate skir
mishing to detain their adversary at a distance, until
the narae of the Coraraonwealth would cover and pro
tect all these transactions."

405
If we examine in detail the causes thus assigned, we
find that neither any one of them, nor all of thera
together, even upon Vans' own stateraent, and upon the
supposition that they were all true, justify, in the sraall-
est degree, his omission to sue within the period
Hmited by law. As to the supposed necessity of get
ting a judgraent in France, to fix the value ofthe stocks,
we have already shown, first, that there was no such
necessity ; and secondly, that his judgraents do not fix
ihe value any otherwise than judgments here ivould —
namely, by reference to the price of the slocks on the
exchange. As to the suggestion that Richard's property
in France seemed in the outset sufficient to cover his
demand, is that a reason, why, when he found it all
conveyed away, and nothing to be got but through
obstinate litigation, he should not have turned round
upon John's properly in America, which was both
sufficient and unincumbered by adverse claims .? As to
his charge against the executor and heirs, of fraudulently
detaining him in France, it appears, from his own show
ing, supposing his story true, that they used no means
of detention whatever, except the lawful prosecution of
their own claims. Was it indispensable that Mr. Vans
should stay personally in France, during the whole nine
years, because he had a lawsuit pending there .? John
Codraan did not stay — Richard Codraan did not stay —
though each of thera was a party to the lawsuit. And
even if it were necessary, or highly convenient, that he
should superintend in person the conduct of his own
cause, was it necessary that he should corae personally
to Araerica, in order lo commence a suit here against the
estate of John Codraan.? Why could he not have
instructed his attorney here to make a demand and

406
institute a suit .? Could not a writ be filled and served,
unless he stood by to see il .? And by the way, he was
carrying on a lawsuit in Salem, long after his return to
France. But it is worth while to look at dates, for the purpose
of seeing the falsehood of the reasons he assigns. He
says it was necessary lo get a judgraent there to fix the
value of the stocks, and he would have you understand
that he was nine years in getting that judgraent. Yet
the dates of his judgraents for the debt, against Richard
Codraan, were, as given by Mr. Child hiraself, all in
1801, that is, long before the death of John Codraan.
Whatever litigation ensued was not respecting the debt,
but respecting the satisfaction of the debt, which he per
sisted, as well he raight, in taking out of Richard Cod
man's estates in France. Yet this is a reason why he
could not sue John Codraan in Araerica ! He talks of
nine years of litigation. But we have seen that his first
suit against Richard Codraan was commenced in 1801,
and he got judgraent in the course of that year for the debt.
Then arose the question, whether he or John Codraan
should have Richard's properly, and upon that question
he got judgment against John before the Court of First
Instance in 1805, and before the Court of Appeals at
Paris, in 1804. The only possible remaining question,
was, whether certain points of law should be carried
before the Court of Cassation, which he truly states to
be, " a court lo try law questions." It is in the nature
ofa Court of Errors, judging upon the record of the
court below, and not upon new evidence. The presence
of Wm. Vans must have been of great assistance to
the court, in deterraining a point of law ! Yet this last
appeal, he tells us, detained him two years more ; and

407
if it did, it made but five years, instead of nine, for
the whole litigation. The idea of carrying the cause
to the Court of Cassation, was abandoned, as it would
seem, from Vans' own dates, in 1806 ; he had no longer
any litigation in France to detain him ; three years only
had elapsed after the death of John Codraan, so that
no limitation law prevented his suing. He admits
expressly in one of his paraphlets, that the law-suits
lasted only into 1807, and then his remaining excuse
for not coming home until 1809 or 1810, or not pros
ecuting without coraing home, is that there was an
embargo, which at last drove him to come by the way
of Holland; a way, which, if it were necessary for hira
to come at all, was just as open to hira at first, as at
last. And after all, he was in fact in Boston at least
as early as October 1809, for that is the date of his
letter to Mr. Araory ; and Richard Codraan died only
in 1806, so that he was then in araple tirae to have
commenced his suit against the adrainistrator of his
estate ; yet he now asks for special dispensation from
standing laws, to enable hira to raaintain a suit against
Richard Codman's adrainistrator, as well as against John
Codman's executor, on the ground that detention
abroad, by the fraud of the other party, prevented his
suing in time.
In connection with this idle suggesrion (resting on
Vans' own assertion merely,) of contrivance by the
qxecutor and heirs to keep him in France, Mr. Vans
and his coadjutor endeavor to make some handle of
what they are pleased to terra Mr. Lowell's agency in
that country. They would have you understand that
Mr. Lowell, who travelled through several parts of
Europe in 1804-5, with his family, solely for health

408
and recreation, had been sent out as a special agent, for
the raere purpose of contriving ways and means to keep
Vans in France. The stateraent is absurd enough on
its face. As if any counselling, concerning a litigation
pending there, could prevent Vans frora coraing lo this
country if he pleased, or frora suing here without cora
ing. Yet Mr. Child speaks of it, as if this " was the sole
or principal object " of Mr. Lowell's visit. At any rate,
he says, " he certainly did concern hiraself with the af
fairs ofthe deceased [John Codraan,] in that country."
And how did this happen .? How came Mr. Lowell to
concern hiraself in these affairs .? ' Mr. Child oraits to tell
us that it was by the solicitation of Vans himself. This
was the fact. And all the concern then taken in the
matter, was to write, by Vans' request, to the executor
of John Codman, recommending a compromise. He did
so. And when, a few days after, he received a note from
Vans, inquiring whether he had performed his promise,
or not, he wrote Vans a few lines in reply, out of
which he and his counsel, with the usual aids which
their ingenuity supplies, have built huge castles.
One word, and the length to which our remarks have
already run will permit us to add but a word, respect
ing this letter. Mr. Vans has used it as evidence to
prove that Stephen Codman " knew of his deraand on
John & Richard Codraan." Now no one denies that
Stephen Codraan knew of the controversy going on in
France respecring the right to Richard Codraan's prop
erty ; but the letter affords not the least evidence that
Stephen Codraan was notified, or that Mr. Lowell un
derstood, that Vans had, or pretended to have, any claim
on John Codman's estate. Look at the letter. Here
it is, as published by Vans hiraself.

409
Paris, SOth Messidor, or 1805.
Sir, — Your note, by raistake dated to-raorrow,
reached me this morning. Nobody could have been
raore explicit than I have been to every application
made to me in your behalf — that I had no authority to
interfere in the affairs of Mr. Codraan, and that until I
had such authority I should not interfere, further than
to qualify myself to fmm a correct opinion.
The senliraents I have repeatedly expressed in favor
of an adjustment are sincere. In no case do I ever per
mit rayself to act with insincerity ; and every man who
treats with rae raust treat upon that principle.
I have written Mr. Stephen Codman, the executor,
and have given him as dark a picture of your expenses
and delays of justice as I thought they deserved, and have
recommended that he should authorise a compromise. I
have even intiraated, that rauch ought not to be hoped
for, after payraent of all charges. But I have not given,
and shall not give, specific opinions as to quantura,
because I have not had the requisite inforraation where
on to ground such an opinion. I regret that the tirae
presses so rauch ; it is the effect of accident, and not
my fault. I repeat that I wish a coraproraise — shall
always recoraraend a Hberal one. Whether you will so
esteem it I cannot tell.
(Signed) JOHN LOWELL.
Now what evidence does this afford that Vans had,
or pretended to have, any deraand on John Codraan .?
It shows first, (precisely as Mr. LoweU states,) that
Vans had raade, or caused to be raade, applications to
Mr. Lowell in his behalf. Applicarions for what .? and
why raade lo Mr. Lowell .? Made to Mr. Lowell be
cause, as Vans weU knew, he was connected with John
Codraan by raarriage, and obviously, frora the tenor of
the letter, asking his influence to bring about a com
promise. And what was that coraproraise .? Was it
that John Codman's executor should pay a part of Vans'
62

410
demand to be free from the remainder? or was it that
the executor should pay something for the relinquishment
of Vans' claim on the estates of Richard Codman, so
that the conveyances to John Codman might have their
full effect — or else that his representatives should them
selves relinquish some part of these estates, for the sake
of quiet enjoyment of the remainder .? Was it a cora
proraise to be raade, by the executor as Vans' debtor, or
as Richard Codraan's creditor? That is the question.
" I have recoraraeiided that he (the executor) should
authorize a coraproraise. / have even intimated that
much ought not to be hoped for, after paying all charges."
Did Mr. Lowell, when he wrote this, consider John
Codman's estate indebted to Vans ? Surely no one, but
Mr. Vans and his counsel could draw such an inference,
even if the letter stood alone and unexplained.
But great reliance has been placed on the preceding
clause — and we will take il, even as Mr. Vans publishes
it. " I have written Stephen Codman, and given hira as
dark a picture of your expenses and delays of justice as
I thought they deserved" — as if Mr. Lowell thereby in
tended lo express an opinion that Mr. Vans, and he
alone, had been deeply injured by the dilatory and ex
pensive proceedings of the French courts. The two
parts of the letter must be taken together, to understand
its true meaning, and taking them together, even as Vans
publishes thera, no man could doubt that Mr. Lowell
considered it a case in which both the claimants were
suffering, under the exactions and delays of those tribu
nals so rauch praised by Mr. Child, and that a cora
proraise of their adverse clairas on Richard's property
was advisable, even if John Codman's estate should re
ceive but little, after paying the expenses. That John

411
Codraan's estate could be called to pay any thing, ex
cept the expenses of the litigation, is not intiraated.
And after all, the whole force of Mr. Vans' arguraent,
on this letter, lies in the word " your " — " your expenses
and delays of justice " — as if he only were the aggrieved
and suffering party. Now when the original letter carae
lo be produced by Mr. Vans before the coraraittee of
1855, it appeared, upon inspection, that what Mr. Vans
prints as " your," was a contraction often used in raan-
uscript for " the "¦ — and this was unquestionably, by the
context, what Mr. Lowell intended. " I have given the
executor as dark a picture of the expenses and delays of
justice as I thought they deserved, and have recoraraen-
ded that he should authorise a coraproraise. I have even
intimated, that much ought not to be hoped for, after
payment of all charges." Mr. Vans never pretended to
Mr. Lowell, who he knew could inforra hiraself on the
spot, that he had any claira against John Codraan, or his
estate. His representation was, that both parties were
suffering by the expenses and delays of courts and
lawyers, in a doubtful contest for Richard Codraan's
property — and that it vvould therefore be better for both,
either to agree on some division of the property, or else lo
fix upon a sum which one party should pay to the other,
to withdraw and leave him a clear field. Mr. LoweU,
upon Vans' representations, corroborated by the infor-
raarion he picked up frora Babut, (and by the way he
was not well enough acquainted with him at that time
even to know his name,) thought so too, and recomraen-
ded accordingly. In this way Mr. Lowell explained the
letter, in one afterwards written to Mr. C. R. Codraan,
though no explanarion of it could have been necessary
« See Doc. No. 391.

*

412
had it not been tvilfully perverted and misrepresented by
Mr. Vans. We submit it, either as it was written, or
as Mr. Vans has published it, (we care little which
reading is taken for this purpose,) to the candid consid
eration of every intelligent raan, to say whether it con
tains the slightest evidence that Mr. Lowell thought
John Codraan's estate indebted to Mr. Vans, or even
that he had received any intiraation to that effect from
Vans himself. As lo Mr. Child's coraraent, that if these
two letters, which he affects to think so irreconcilable,
be not explained, "Mr. Lowell raust corae down frora
the exalted station which he occupies in public estiraa-
tion," we feel that we owe an apology to Mr. Lowell
for noticing it. That such a raan as Mr. Lowell should
sustain such an attack, frora such a quarter, is far raore
laraentable than surprising; but if Mr. Child thinks he,
or his client, can by their aspersions drag down the rep
utation acquired by John Lowell, through a long life
of unsullied and unsuspected integrity, il can only be
because they have had no experience of the value and
strength of such a character.
But that Mr. Vans and his colleague raight not be
left even a shadow of excuse for their base and un
founded suggestions, we obtained and presented lo the
coraraittee of 1855, and now annex, an affidavit frora
Mr. Lowell, stating more fully the facts within his
knowledge, and stating thera under oath — if that, in the
opinion of any, raay be considered as adding weight to
the value of his word.* Nor did we stop here — we
produced, also, when it was called for, the " dark pic
ture," itself— the original letter, out of the supposed
contents of which, Mr. Child builds so largely. It is
* See No. 393.

415
just what might have been anticipated. The cotempo
rary paper, written more than thirty years ago, entirely
corresponds with Mr. Lowell's statement. It is the
letter of a passing traveller, having no other concern in
the pending lawsuit, than a desire to understand its
position, because his friends were interested at home,
and writing at the suggestion of the other party. Il is
addressed to Mr. Stephen Codman, and runs thus :
Paris, July 6, 1804.
Dear Sir, — Just upon the eve of ray departure, you
said soraething to rae of the state of your brother's
affairs in France. I replied, that I should stay sorae
considerable tirae in England, and this terrninated your
conversation. I now regret exceedingly that nothing raore tran
spired. Feeling as I do, a deep interest in the welfare
of your brother's faraily, I am extremely sorry that I
have no power to settle this unpleasant dispute.
I have seen Vans, who is as tired of law as his oppo
nents, and who desires a settleraent. I have also waited
on Mr. Babbit, your brother's agent, who agrees in the
opinion that a compromise is essential to the interest of
both parties — that the expenses exceed belief- — and
that a large ptirt must be borne by your brother's estate.
I hope sorae powers will arrive either to rae or Mr.
Babbit during ray residence here. If not, I shall leave
my address here, and Mr. Babbit can, if necessary, con
sult rae by letter. I shall return to France next March,
and if it is not previously adjusted, 1 will contribute ray
aid, if you wish it.
I ara to have a full state of the case laid before rae
by your brother's lawyer for ray opinion, which I will
coraraunicate to you, but I thought I would not let this
opportunity pass to let you know ray general view of
the iraportance of a compromise.
I have the pleasure to be, respectfully,
Yr. friend and serv't, JN. LOWELL.
Be pleased to present Mrs. Lowell's, Miss Araory's

414
and ray own respects to your Mrs. C, and our ardent
love to our sister C  and children.

This is the dark picture — and it was, as Mr. Lowell
states in his affidavit, " Mr. Vans' dark picture — for il
carae from him only, or chiefly." To this letter, he
states in his affidavit, " I never received any reply from
Stephen Codraan." He received one letter in Europe,
from Stephen Codraan, not in reply to this, but written
before this was received, siraply requesting him to
inquire what was the state and prospect of the lawsuit.
And this is pre(;;isely what Stephen Codraan and the
heirs did to detain Mr. Vans in France. This is the
fraudulent detention — the conspiracy which prevented
his coraing to Araerica, till after his right to sue there
was barred by a liraitation law ! That is, they did lit
eraUy nothing. They never interfered — they gave no
instructions — they did not even answer Mr. Lowell's
letter. And that letter, written al the tirae, and on the
spot, shows that Mr. Lowell, as he told Vans, had no
power, or instructions frora the executor, or authority
whatsoever to interfere in the affair. He never did
interfere, as he states upon oath. Nor did the executor.
And this very non-interference, Mr. Child represents as
proof of fraud. The executor preferred, he says, to let
a judgraent go against John Codraan on the ground of
fraud, to producing the account which had been called
for. But the decree was to produce it in e^^^/t^ days. The
executor never heard of it till the lime had passed.
Whether it would afterwards have been received in the
upper court we know not. But of what avail would
it have been to have sent out the account, without
adequate proof of its reality .? The account, standing

415
alone, raight have been considered a fabrication as well
as the note. With the account he raust have sent the
vouchers — the correspondence — the books, and even
the clerks to prove the entries, if it was to be a raatter
of strict proof in a court of law. In short he raust
embark in a business of vvhich he could not see the end.
He had no personal interest in the matter. He was a
mere executor. The heirs were mostly under age, and
unable lo act for themselves. He had no authority to
administer in France. He could raaintain no action there
in John Codraan's right. As a foreigner residing in
America, he could not have obtained license to adminis
ter in France, even if he had applied for it. Babul could,
if he saw fit. Should he then, request Babut to do so on
his account? If he did, he iraraediately erabarked hiraself
in the business, and becarae answerable for all the costs
and consequences. Was he bound to .? His testator's
last letter of instructions, had given lo Babut full author
ity over the whole claira, and all the property involved.*
Babut was authorised to pay himself out of it, and to
settle with others, as he should think most fit for John Cod
man's interest. In short. Babul was an agent, selected
and appointed by his testator with full power. Was it,
then, for the interest of the estate here in America,
upon which only he could administer, that he should
undertake to instruct Babut .? To judge of this, he
inquired, through Mr. Lowell, as to the prospect of
anything being realised out of the disputed property in
France. He received little encouragement. He was
told that the expenses would exceed belief — that a
large part must be borne by his brother's estate. Final
success was uncertain. It vvas uncertain, even in the
* See Doc. No. 332.

416
event of success, whether the litigation would not eat
up the property. He preferred, therefore, not to adopt
it — but to leave the matter to the direction which his
testator had given it. And what executor so situated,
acting with due caution, would have done otherwise .?
Yet, because he did nothing, he is represented as hav
ing been guilty of a fraud, wholly for the benefit of
others, and as having been the active cause of those
delays of the lawsuit, which Mr. Vans ridiculously
pretends prevented his suing in America, and coerced
his stay in France, as if his person had been kept there
by force of arms !
And if this is a mere unsubstantial and frivolous pre
tence, consider for a raoraent, with what fatal force it
recoils on its contriver. For why did he, without ne
cessity or constraint, consurae so many years in this
French litigation .? What answer can be given consis
tent with his present claira .? He says John Codraan
was liable to hira as the copartner of Richard — upon a
contract in Richard Codman's name — but in truth for
the partnership account. Such an allegation is not, in
itself, contradictory and irapossible — but is it true .?
That contract, whatever it was, originated in France.
As to the effect of signatures, and the operation and
raeaning of the contract, both parties being, at the time,
resident in France, where the contract was made, and
where il vvas intended to be performed, the laws of
France are to govern. This is a settled principle of
international law. Now it is indisputable, that neither
Vans hiraself, nor his astute counsel in Paris, nor the
courts of that country, " learned and exalted tribunals,"
as we are told they were, could have entertained a rao-
ment's belief that John Codraan was a party to that con-

417
tract. How does this appear.? First, by the form of the
action. It was against Richard Codman alone. Vans
insrituted a process, founded upon his previous oath, as
the French laws require, that Richard Codman, by his
obligations of certain dates, had contracted lo deliver
him certain French stocks. He instituted this process
while John Codman was in France — and there is no
allegation that he was a party lo the contract. Sec
ondly, in 1801, upon these first and only suits for the
debt, judgments were rendered, according to the form of
the declaration, against Richard Codman alone. Such
a judgment, rendered in the courts of Araerica, would
have raerged the original contract here, so that il never
could have been revived. It never could have been made
capable of beiug sued again — either against the sarae
person, or against any other person, as a party to the
original contract. In the same manner the judgments
in France raerged the original contract there — " transit
in rem judicatam." The siraple contract was absorbed
in the higher remedy, a judicial decision, never to be
opened anew, or questioned by the original parties ; least
of all by the party who had solicited and obtained it.
Mr. Vans, having thus obtained, on his own motion,
a judgment against Richard Codman alone, while John
Codman was equally within his reach, next seeks to
obtain satisfaction of this separate judgment, out of the
effects of his sole judgment debtor. For this purpose
he comraenced a new process, and alleged, that his
debtor was the sole owner of certain estates, which, to
the injury of his own private creditors, he had illegally
conveyed to his brother John Codman, and he therefore
prays that that conveyance might be set aside. Upon
this nexo suit, arose the long and expensive controver-
55

418
sies, in the several courts of the several districts where
the estates were situated, which, as Vans alleges, occu
pied hira in France nine years, and the costs of which
his present counsel, extravagantly and falsely, rates at
^40,000 ! Great, the expenses, (not the costs,) un
doubtedly must hav^e been.
Now if Vans, his counsel in France, and the courts
of that country, had then, entertained the most remote
belief, that John Codman was a party to the contract,
or could by possibility be proved in Paris, where the
transaction took place, to be liable as a party, why all
these most expensive and dilatory procedures, to show
that the conveyance from Richard Codman to John
Codman, did not divest the property from Richard Cod
man, but left it still open lo attachraent as his, by his
separate creditors? Why all this destructive litigation
for such an object, when siraple proof of the fact,
(easily proved, if true, on the spot, and shortly after the
date ofthe contracts,) that John Codraan was himself a
party to them, would have terminated the whole contro
versy in ten days .? For if, in France, it was then
known, or believed, that the partnership continued —
and that it embraced these transactions — and that John
Codraan was equally bound for them with Richard —
whether the estates in the district of Meaux, and the
estates in the district of Dreux, belonged to John Cod
man alone, or to Richard Codman alone, or to both togeth
er, was a question utterly insignificant. In either event,
these estates were equally liable to Vans — and the whole
litigation of nine years, or five years, whichever il raay
have been, to settle that question, is perfectly absurd,
ridiculous, and incredible. Nothing can give to it a
raeaning, or an object, but the simple truth, that it vvas

419
understood and known by all parties, at the time, and on
the spot, that John Codraan was not a party to the
original contract, by the laws of France, and that there
was nothing to look to, by those laws, (and for this
purpose they are our laws,) for satisfaction of the debt,
but Richard Codman's person, and Richard Codman's
contested property. Mr. Vans, therefore, by his own acts,
before he came to this country, more strongly, even, than
by his subsequent release under his own hand and seal,
has openly testified and declared, that he has not, and
never had, a legal claira against the estate of John
Codraan, /or the avowed reason, that John Codman was
NOT A PARTY TO THOSE CONTRACTS, which he nOW
fraudulently seeks to enforce against his heirs.
There is one other point only which deserves a word.
If the heirs of John Codraan have so clear a case, what
reasonable objection have they to submitting it to a jury ?
Why are they not willing to grant Mr. Vans, all he
seeras to require, a fair jury trial ? This question is
often asked, both in the legislature, and abroad. It is
a popular and plausible quesrion. Before answering it,
we raust ask the reader to advert to a class of evidence
not yet noticed — that which shows the arts which Vans
has practised, and successfully too, lo prejudice and cor
rupt public opinion on this subject. We refer, first, to
his own nuraberiess publications ; — secondly, lo the de
positions annexed, which prove, by unquestionable tes
timony, that he has spread through the community, to a
great, but unknown and alarming extent, a direct pecu
niary interest in his fraudulent claim.*
For raore than five and twenty years, it has been the
sole and constant occupation of William Vans, to in-
* See Doc. No. 397.

420
flame and poison the public mind, by the disserainatiofi
of the raost scandalous falsehoods. No sraall degree of
ingenuity has been exerted, through a course of years
as long as is required to raaster most objects of human
pursuit, in persuading the public that William Vans is
an injured innocent. Thousands and thousands of print
ed statements, uncontradicted, and often incapable of
contradiction frora their very absurdity, yet it would
seem not the less effectual for that, have been industri
ously scattered and peddled through town and country,
with raore efficiency than is found to attend the labors of
the most zealous missionaries for the propagation of good
principles, by the diffusion of their tracts. Not a man
can be found in the city, scarcely one in the state, who
has not heard and read of the sorrows of William Vans ;*
— while to expose his forgeries and falsehoods, as fast
as he propagates them, would require that he should be
followed frora door lo door, with an industry and perse-
verence equal to his own. In this occupation, all the
heirs of John Codman united, freely confess theraselves
unable to cope with William Vans single handed. They
have heretofore preferred to subrait in silence. They
knew that the constitution and laws protected their
property. They believed that the reputation of their
father, and their own, could receive no permanent injury
frora such attacks.
But WiUiara Vans has not stopped at the raost
industrious misrepresentation. He has already divided
John Codman's estate, among those to whora he now
challenges us to submit for judgment. Shares in the
expected plunder are openly offered and sold. They
* We have heard of some of his pamphlets read and commented upon
even at Canton, in the empire of China I

421
have been offered to members of the legislature them
selves. It is called a stock! Mr. Vans' stock!!
And one dollar paid entiries the holder to ten, or
twenty dollars, or more — according to the stale of the
market — when he shall have recovered his ^500,000
frora the heirs of John Codraan ! If a dollar is not al
hand, a flitch of bacon, or a shoulder of mutton, or any
other little valuable coraraodity, is perfectly acceptable
instead, and raay be bartered for a share in the stock !*
Now who can teU, if we came to a jury trial, how raany
of the jurors, to whora Mr. Vans so loudly invites us to
subrait our cause, raight be holders of this deferred slock,
to be rendered available by their own verdict?
Undoubtedly, if the trouble and expense to which we
have been subjected, in a long course of unparalleled
persecution, could have been foreseen, it would have
been wiser, in the outset, to have submitted at once to a
trial by jury. It raight then have been safely done. An
unprejudiced jury raight then have been found — and
nobody, who has looked at the evidence in this case, can
doubt the result. But who could have/oresem the con
tinuance of legislative trials for five and twenty years?
Had it been foretold, it would have been, like the proph
ecy of Cassandra — an incredible truth. No raan would
have listened to it. No man could have believed before
hand, that Vans himself would have persevered in these
rejected addresses for a quarter of a century. Still less
that such a man could have enlisted public sympathy on
his side, in such a cause. The experiment vvas then
untried of a comfortable subsistence acquired by the
vending of libels, and of a never before heard of stock,
accompanied by charitable contributions for the relief of
* Stec N&th'l Fisher's Deposition, App. p. 369.

422
an itinerant pretender to half a raillion of stolen property,
wanting nothing but the aid of a jury for its restoration.
It was natural to suppose, and we did suppose, that
repeated defeats in the legislature, and constant reports
upon the falsehood of this claim, would have had sorae
tendency to discourage, and at length lo terrainale, all
further attempts al what seeraed desperate — especially
after the Supreme Court had decided that the legislature
had no power to grant such requests — and after Vans had
himself released, under hand and seal, his last shadow
of pretension. The attempt would have terminated
with the release, but that Vans in the raean tirae had
discovered a useful secret — which was, that continual
claira and claraor were productive of present profit, while
attended by sorae faint hope of future plunder upon a
grander scale. He would long ago hav6 abandoned a
deraand utterly unfounded, and perfectly hopeless, if he
had not found, that the easiest raode of gaining an idle
livelihood vvas through the credulity of the public. The
raisguided charity of sorae, the appetite for slander of
others, and the luring prospect of participation in the
" spoUs of victory," to those who were capable of being
actuated by this base raotive, put him in funds, frora
day to day, belter than all his French speculations.
But after all that Mr. Vans has done, with such
success, that twelve hundred of the voters and jurors
of Boston have been found willing to subscribe a
paper asking the .legislature to grant the prayer of his
petition, and nuraerous papers of sirailar description have
poured in from all parts of the country, what friend of
justice would seriously recomraend the heirs of John
Codman to subrait their cause to the judgraent of a
jury ? Where could twelve raen be found, who could

425
truly answer, upon their oaths and consciences, the re
quisitions of the law, and say, that they had neither
formed, nor expressed an opinion, nor felt any bias on
this subject ? Those who held the stock, with the real
design of participating in the piracy, are the only per
sons in the world who would be sure to answer in the
negative. It is altogether loo late, therefore, for Mr. Vans, after
laboring so dUigently and successfully as he has lo pre
occupy and corrupt the public raind, to call on us to
give hira the chances of a jury trial. Nor does he
hiraself greatly desire it, so long as the public will lend
hira their substantial sympathy, on the faith of imagi
nary wrongs and grievances unredressed.
But even if there were a probable prospect of
obtaining twelve irapartial raen lo sit in this cause,
ivhy should the heirs of John Codman voluntarily
consent to it ? If we are asked why we do not agree
to a jury trial, we beg lo ask any man of coramon
sense to give us a good reason why we should. It is
not requiring us siraply to adopt a particular mode
of trial, but also to abandon one ground of just and
complete defence — arising frora lapse of time — against
an unjust and fraudulent claira. Why should this be
done .? To accommodate Mr. Vans .? If it is put on
the score of courtesy we beg to be excused. To
save us frora all farther annoyance of calumny and
falsehood .?— What likelihood is there of that, so long
as William Vans exists .?— To satisfy the public, per
haps .? — What concern is it of theirs .? What interest
have they in it .? By what right do they claira to
interraeddle with the adjudication of private property,
otherwise than through the consrituted tribunals, and

424
according to the usual course of law .? Adrairable min
isters of justice ! — they listen freely to one party in the
absence of the other — buy his lying pamphlets — take a
share in his clairas — and then deraand of us to abandon
our legal defences, on penalty, if we refiise so reasona
ble a request, of being believed to be all he represents
us — receivers of stolen goods.
Now as a question affecting reputation, whether of
the living or the dead, would a mere verdict in the
candid opinion of any honest man, add weight to the
reports of so raany legislative coraraittees, as irapartial,
as disinterested, to say the least, and certainly raore in
telligent than any jury likely to be empannelled, who
have exarained the evidence, with vastly raore care, and
deliberation, and liberality towards the petitioner, than
could possibly be awarded to him in a court of law .?
And as a raere question of ^roper^^, what could be raore
absurd, than for those who have a perfect legal defence,
rendered absolutely certain, by its having been already
adjudged, to abandon that for the sake of trying another,
which we think indeed equally unanswerable, but which
has not yet been judicially tried .? Vans and his ad
herents may well cry "go to a jury." It is the chal
lenge of an assassin, who invites you to come out of
your strong hold, under the pretence of fair fight, when
he has already prepared a secret ambush, intending to
waylay and stab you in the dark. We shall choose,
therefore, while we have our senses, to stand on our
rights, and defend ourselves where we are attacked.
We shall rely upon the laws of the land until they are
repealed — and upon the constitution, so long as it lasts.
We shall rely upon the faith and integrity of the Legisla
ture of Massachusetts, until we see that they have none.

426
And we shall hope that the people of Massachusetts, at
least those who have been honestly misled, will al last
have their eyes opened to the frauds of an impostor.
Why were these liraitation laws invented .? Why
were they adopted by our forefathers .? Why are they
continued by us .? — Because every raan who reflects, is
sensible, that in the investigation of truth, the chances
of error and of fraud multiply as time elapses, and that
nothing would be secure, if it were subject to unlimited
litigation. The knowledge of witnesses, and the wit
nesses themselves, and all the documents and landmarks
which preserve the raeraory of human events, perish, in
a few short years, through death, decay and accident —
and the loss of evidence raust always operate against
the cause of truth. Hence positive statutes prohibiting,
after certain fixed periods, the trial of questions in
volving rights of property, have existed in every civilized
nation. They were not the offspring of sudden experi
mental legislation here. They had been in force for
centuries in the land of our fathers and emigrated with
them. When we adopted a constitution of our own,
and the whole body of the law was the subject of revi
sion, and open to araendraent, these statutes for the
Hmitation of actions, real and personal, were araong
the eariiest reenacted. The wisdom of our ancestors,
confirmed the wisdom of their ancestors, and has been
confirraed in turn by that of their successors. No man
dreams of repealing these statutes of repose. No man
proposes to enlarge the terms vvhich they severally pre
scribe. On the contrary, every change which new ex
perience has suggested, in the progress of legislation,
has tended towards/wr/^er abridgment of the period of
contest, and especially in favor of those whom the law
54

426
has clothed with a trust, and empowered to represent
and bind the rights of others.
The first of these statutes of liraitarion, in personal
actions, applies to suits upon tbe contracts of living
persons. It was passed with unusual care and delib
eration. It was enacted frora time to tirae, and frora
tirae to tirae postponed, unril full experience was had of
its beneficial operation, when it went into final effect as
a perpetual law of the land, and continues such, v»^ilh
universal approbation, to the present day. And what
is its effect .? To preclude all right of action, after six
years, upon the plainest and raost indisputable written
contract, signed by the party himself, who is required
thus tardily to perforra it. He who is sued upon his
own note of hand, has only to show that the debt is
more than six years old, and his law suit is at an end.
It is every day's occurrence — and no one asks, why do
you so .? With greater reason, though not more effect
ually, this statute forecloses all inquiry into claims of a
more disputable character, founded upon contracts im
plied, or presumed by the law.
Some years after the passing of this general statute
of limitations, applicable to all citizens indiscriminate
ly, experience taught the iraportance of limiting still
further suits against executors and administrators. The
mischiefs to be remedied were, first, that persons act
ing in these capacities were peculiarly liable to be im
posed upon by unfounded deraands, and less able than
the original party lo the supposed contract, to discover
the truth and exhibit a just defence. Secondly, that
estates already distributed, and supposed to be fully and
finaUy settled, were soraetiraes disturbed by fresh suits
brought against the executor or adrainistrator, upon old

427
and dormant claims, after the property had passed out
of his hands. Thirdly, that persons suitable for such
trusts were reluctant to undertake thera, unless some
short period were put to their responsibility. In these
cases, therefore, the Legislature in ils wisdora enacted,
that no right of action should be enforced against an
executor or administrator, after four years had elapsed,
with due notice of the trust. The period was at first
three years, afterwards extended to four. This statute,
like the former, went into operation gradually, and upon
great deliberation. It has now been the law of the
land for raore than forty-five years. No one questions
its general utility, nor deraands its general repeal.
The reasons which led to the adoption of these laws,
apply with peculiar force lo the clairas of WiUiara
Vans on the estate of John Codman. The supposed
contract on which they are founded, was made in
January, '99. No deraand under that supposed con
tract was raade until more than ten years after. It
was then barred by all the statutes of liraitarion. John
Codraan, the party supposed to have raade the con
tract, had been dead raore than six years. His estate
had been fully settled and distributed. The written
evidence produced was signed, not by John Codraan,
but by Richard Codraan. Nothing on the face of the
paper showed John Codraan to be a party to it. It
was raade by another person, and in a foreign country.
The claimant asks to have it presumed, frora circura
stances of ancient date, and relating to transactions dis
tant in place, as well as time, that John Codraan was
nevertheless bound by it. It appeared that this written
contract, signed by Richard Codraan, had been sued in
France, while John Codman ivas there; that it had passed

428
'mto a judgment against Richard Codman alone; and
that years had been spent in obtaining, or endeavoring
to obtain, satisfaction for this separate judgment out of
Richard Codman's separate property. Yet the clairaant
against John Codraan's estate applies to the Legislature
for a dispensation frora the general laws, in order that
he raay bring a suit against John Codraan's executor, to
try the question whether it is not lo be presumed, from
the proof which he raay bring, that John Codraan was
nevertheless a party to the original contract. Three
successive legislative coraraittees exaraine the evidence,
and unanimously pronounce that there is no foundation
for the claim. In the course of their investigations, it
is clearly proved, that the claimant has attempted to
fabricate evidence to charge the estate of John Codraan,
and has fraudulently altered the date of his contract with
that view. The Suprerae Judicial Court decides, in
another and sirailar case, (sirailar except that il was
founded in the strongest equity and clearest evidence of
an unpaid debt,) that the legislature cannot, under the
constitution of Massachusetts, repeal its laws as to one
citizen, and not as to all. Thereupon the clairaant
executes a complete legal release of all his pretensions.
He notwithstanding renews his petitions, and two more
legislative comraittees, by request of John Codraan's
heirs, examine the evidence anew, and unanimously re
port that there never was any foundation for the claim.
And yet, after thirty four years frora the death of John
Codman, he is still asking, as a special favor to him,
that the laws of his country may be changed, so far as
he and we are concerned, in order that he raay be per
mitted lo sue the representatives of the deceased, and
that ive may be deprived of that safeguard — the limita-

429
tion laws — under which all other citizens quietly repose,
in the full enjoyment of their property and rights. In
the raean tirae, we ask nothing but the same protection
which all our fellow citizens enjoy — the protection of
"standing laws" — according to which the constitution
of Massachusetts declares, that " each individual of the
society has a right to be protected in his life, liberty,
and property." And if these foundations of society
are lo be broken up, in such a case as this, we at least
will neither cooperate in the work of destruction, nor
partake of its reproach.
We have now, for the first, and we trust for the last
rime, exhibited in full to the public our views respecting
Vans' petition.
We believe that those whora we address wUl, upon
due consideration, be satisfied ; —
First. That the Legislature of Massachusetts can
not, consistently with the obligations ofthe constitution,
grant the prayer of this petirion ; and that any act passed
in conformity with it, raust inevitably be pronounced,
by the courts, unconstitutional and void.
Second. That if WiUiara Vans ever had any just and
lawful claim on the estate of John Codraan, or if any
such claira on the estate of Richard Codraan was un-
.satisfied, he has nevertheless voluntarily discharged
both estates, by a formal and unconditional release,
executed with full knowledge of its effect, for a valua
ble consideration, upon a fair bargain wholly solicit
ed BY HIMSELF.
Third. That Mr. Vans' petirion has already received,
from the legislature of Massachusetts, aU the attention
which the most meritorious claim could demand ; that
frequent exarainations,aud unanimous reports,as often as

450
a full examinarion of the evidence was had, ought, long
since, to have put the subject forever at rest; and
that neither the legislature, nor the public, nor ourselves,
ought now, or hereafter, to be disturbed anew, by the
reopening of raatters carefully inquired into and delib
erately SETTLED, upon afull view ofthe evidence, more
THAN TWENTY YEARS AGO, as wcU as recently by the
coraraittees of 1853 and 1855.
We have not chosen, however, to shelter ourselves
behind any, or all, of these reasonable answers. We
have gone into the foundations ofthe claira, and spread
out the evidence at large, both that on which Mr. Vans
has heretofore reHed, and that which we produce lo op
pose il.
Upon this evidence, we believe, our readers must be
satisfied ; —
That William Vans is not now the owner of an equi
table claim against any one, arising out of his transac
tions with Richard Codman ; and that z/" Richard Cod
man HIMSELF were now living, and there were neither a
release, nor a statute of limitations, nor a discharge in
bankruptcy, to interpose, William Vans could recover
NOTHING even against him ; — for these reasons.
First, Because the property loaned or deposited with
Richard Codman, and for which William Vans now
clairas, was never the property of said Vans. It
belonged to a French lady, then his wife, but afterwards
divorced from him, and the claim for it, after the divorce,
was wholly hers.
Secondly, Because the jmncipal obligation, taken
from Richard Codraan, /or that property, was soon after
sold and negotiated by Vans, for its full value, to a third
person, who thereupon became the sole owner of it.

431
Thirdly, Because the judgments recovered
against Richard Codman, for his several obligarions and
undertakings, were (with one exception,) in favor of
Vans' wife, and Vans' assignee, as the lawful
owners or THOSE JUDGMENTS.
Fourthly, Because all the judgments and demands
whatsoever have been fully satisfied, out of Richard
Codman's property in France, and Vans has already
recovered and realised, out of that property, more
THAN WAS ever JUSTLY DUE TO HIM.
But whether this part of the case be conclusively
made out or not, no man who reads the evidence, can
doubt the truth of the following propositions.
First. The whole claim is founded upon transac
tions in France with Richard Codman, under his own
separate name and signature.
Second. The partnership, between Richard Cod
man and John Codman, while it lasted, loas confined to
COMMERCIAL opcratious, originating and terminating
here, in America, and did not embrace the stock spec
ulations and real estate speculations of Richard Codraan,
in France, nor any business transacted by him there in
his own name for other persons, whether on com
mission, or as a private and friendly trust.
Third. The firm of the partnership was John and
Richard Codman ; its location was at Boston ; and
there never was a house of trade established at Paris,
under the firm of Richard Codman, or otherwise, to
which John Codman was a party.
Fourth. The partnership connection, such as it was,
was DISSOLVED, absolutely, lawfully, and in good faith,
on the first day of May,. 1798,- and neither party had any
power to bind the other, upon any new engagement,
after that date.

432
Fifth. Notice of this dissolution was made public,
at the tirae, by advertisement in the newspapers, and
all other customary formalities ; the fact was known
very shortly after, at Paris, as well as at Boston ; it
was notorious araong all Americans residing there, and
all persons concerned in American trade ; and was per
fectly well known to William Vans himself.
Sixth. The business entered into, at Paris, between
WiUiara Vans and Richard Codraan, oul of which this
claira arose, was begun long after this dissolution had
become notorious ; it was a joint speculation of their own,
entirely between themselves, and founded upon
previous knowledge of complete separation of inter
ests between the two brothers.
Seventh. John Codman positively refused the
only part offered him in this business, which was, the
GRANTING OF A CREDIT tO VuUS, OU RlCHARD CoDMAN's
guarantee. Eighth. The trusts reposed in Richard Codraan, by
Vans, were altogether of a personal character, and
could not have affected John Codman, even if the gen
eral partnership were still continuing.
Ninth. No funds in Richard Codman's hands,
PROCEEDING FROM PROPERTY OF VaNS, Or of Vuns' wifr,
were ever mingled directly, or indirectly, with the
funds of the late partnership, or of John Codman, or of
his estate, nor were they ever applied, in any raanner,
to the use of John Codraan, or his heirs.
Tenth. William Vans never had any judgment for
debt, nor any evidence of debt whatsoever, against John
Codman. Eleventh. The only legal claim he ever had against
John Codman, or his estate, was for a small amount of

453
COSTS, recovered by reason of John Codman's failure to
establish a certain claim in France, and these costs were
fully paid in France, more than thirty years ago.
Twelfth. William Vans, while pursuing Richard
Codman, in France, for separate obligations and separate
judgments against him, never pretended to set up a claim
against John Codman, then in France, and equally
within his reach.
Thirteenth. John Codraan, on the other hand, did,
at that time, demand of Vans a hundred pounds, with
interest, and damages, on a certain bill of exchange,
which Vans admitted to be due, without suggesting
anything in offset.
Fourteenth. Richard Codman had become justly
indebted to John Codman, in the course of their joint
dealings, to a large amount, in consequence of which
John Codman and Vans became opposing claimants
in law of Richard Codman's property in France.
Fifteenth. WUliam Vans never, during the life
time of John Codman, made any direct demand upon
him for the now pretended debt, nor ever indirectly sug
gested his liability, except for the purpose of inducing
hira TO ABANDON his just claims on Richard Codman's
property. Sixteenth. WiUiam Vans shows no sufficient
cause for not having enforced his claim, if he had one,
against John Codman's estate, within the time limited by
law, nor anything done, or contrived, by the executor,
or heirs, of John Codman to prevent him.
Seventeenth. There is no species of falsehood,
misrepresentation and deceit, to which Vans has not
resorted, for the purpose of manufacturing false evi
dence of a claim on the estate of John Codman, and of
55

434
imposing on the credulity of the public in that behalf,
and of exciting them to an interest, even of participa
tion, in his scheme o/" plunder.
Each of these positions we believe lo be impreg
nable. And if any one of them, added to the first, be
true, it is a complete answer to the claim.
We have been led to adopt this course, as we stated
in the outset, principally from the desire of vindicating
ourselves, and the raeraory of a rauch loved parent,
frora the foul aspersions of an unprincipled slanderer.
We cannot hope indeed to silence him,, or those whora
he raay hire, by an interest in his claira, lo abet hira, with
anything short of the coercion of the law. We expect
indeed, that our present publication, will serve to furnish
raatter for new libels, and an excuse for the republica
tion of old forgeries, unril the law, supported by public
opinion, shall interfere to repress them. We expect
this, because WiUiara Vans lives upon coraraolion. The
whole course he has pursued in relation to this claim,
and indeed, the whole tenor of his life, as disclosed
from his own pen, compel the conclusion that his sole
aim and object have been, and are, to extort money upon
false pretences, either from the heirs of John Codman,
or from the tender hearted pubhc — he cares not which.
Why else this unparaUeled obstinacy in presenting a
claira totally unfounded and steadily rejected for five
and twenty years .?
Why else these repeated suits at law with absolute
foreknowledge of defeat .? Why else this continued
publication of falsehood and calurany .? Why these
fabricarions and forgeries .? Why these libellous ap
peals to the public .? Why this stirring up of the mulri-
tude .? Why this spreading of an interest in his claim

456
among the people .? Why else this release fairly bought
and sold, upon his own motion, for the sura of five
hundred dollars, on a proraise, utterly disregarded, of
exemption frora farther persecutions .? Why these beg
ging and why these menacing letters, with which some
of your meraorialists have been constantly haunted .? —
letters of every grade, frora the most abject suppli
cation, on the pretence of charity, and promise of
amendment, lo the coarsest abuse and plainest threats
of violence.* Indeed, his scheme of living by these
means is openly avowed in his works. We cannot hope
therefore to silence him, by the exhibition of that Irutb
which he does not regard. Nor do we greatly care
for the noisy censures of such, whora he has enlisted
in his cause, as will not, or cannot read what we have
written. StUl less do we respect the opinions of sorae,
who neither inquiring, nor caring to inquire, into the
raerits of the cause, have been ready, upon slight
solicitation, to buy into the Vans lottery, and be
come joint adventurers, under the conduct of such
a captain, in a mere piratical enterprise. But we
do respect the good opinion of the intelligent and the
honest of all classes ; and we include in this number
many who have been misled by the artifices of a raan
industrious and ingenious only in fraudulent devices.
We desire to satisfy such persons of their error ; and if
they have given a candid attention lo our stateraents
and our proofs, we are confident of this result.
We have been long deterred frora the execution of
this task, first, frora an unwUlingness to enter the
* We have not thought it worth while to publish these letters. But a
specimen of Mr. Vans' style, if it should happen to meet any reader who
is not familiar with it, may be found in the Appendix. See Document,
No. 398.

456
list with such an adversary as William Vans, or to bring
our private concerns ' oefore the public. Secure as we
feel that there is no transaction of John Codman, our
deceased father, which we would wish blotted out, or fear
to submit to the strictest scrutiny, yet we are not una
ware that the raistakes of Richard Codraan, during his
residence abroad, are raade raore prorainent in these
transactions, than we should desire. Circurastances to
which he was exposed, his age and inexperience, the
allureraents and temptations which surrounded hira in
Paris should not be forgotten ; and notwithstanding all
his errors he left raany friends who would gladly
testify to brighter traits of character by which he was
endeared to aU who knew him. Secondly, we have
been deterred by the necessary voluminousness of a
complete exposure of the case, accompanied by doc
umentary proof. We have, after all, used but a portion
of that which exists. The necessity of abridgment,
(strange as the word raay seera,) as far as was con
sistent with fair stateraent and full proof, has often
corapelled us lo exhibit extracts only from letters of
sorae length, vvhen we should have preferred to print
the whole letters. But whenever we have done this,
we have been careful to extract all frora each letter
which seeraed to us lo have any raaterial bearing
on the case. Those vvhich are between the principal
parties and agents, naraely, John Codraan and Richard
Codraan, Vans, and Babut, those which related chiefly
lo transactions connected with Vans' claira, or which
were written at a period when that may be supposed
to have had any influence, we have usually annexed
entire. When we have annexed an extract only, we
have, in all cases, we believe, so stated. And we shall

457
cheerfully exhibit to any respectable individual, who
may apply, for his own satisfaction, any original docu
ment, or copy, in our possession, to which we have
referred. We cannot expect, after aU, that most persons will
feel sufficient interest in the merits of a raere private
controversy, made public by such extraordinary meas
ures on the part of the claimant, to go fully into this
extensive enquiry. All we hope, is, that those who do
not, will be careful neither to form, nor adhere to, an
opinion against us, frora the statements and pretended
proofs of the adverse party. Al any rate, we feel that
we have discharged a duly to ourselves, to the raeraory
of our deceased parents, and to the public, in placing
means of accurate inforraation within the reach of all
who respect truth and desire justice. We trust that
such an exposition raay have sorae tendency to put an
end to future legislative inquiry on this subject ; (raay
we not say all similar subjects .?) and we hope that
both the public and ourselves raay be allowed, at sorae
day within the period of human life, to rest under the
claims of William Vans, at least, as presenting them
selves in any shape to merit notice.
Mr. Child concludes one portion of his strictures on
the report of the committee of 1853, with this remark.
"There is not another government in the world, where
Mr. Vans would have been kept languishing so long
for mere permission, not to take the property of others,
as has been alleged, but to show that others have taken
his." On the other hand, we would conclude with
the reraark, that the progress of Wra. Vans' claim, by
virtue of appeals to the people, even upon questions
judicially setried, and the necessity which has at length

438
been iraposed upon us of publicly answering that appeal,
notwithstanding the protection of general statutes and
a written consriturion, strikingly Ulustrate those tenden
cies of our popular insritutions which require lo be
watchfully regarded ; and w^hile we believe that there
is not another governraent in the world less likely to do
injustice, in any raatter upon which the people are.fully
informed; yet every reflecting and intelligent citizen
raust perceive, that no free governraent, having araong
its eleraents the protection of private property and pri
vate reputation, can safely perrait clairas like those of
WiUiara Vans, founded in fraud, raaintained by forgery,
and raade popular by libels, to be borne along, and kept
aHve, by raere clamor against constituted authorities and
equal laws.

YALE UNIVERSITY UBRARY

3 9002 02983 0602

(, ''.,'1