ed, that nothing need now be said on that point. Indeed I should have considered myself as highly criminal, advised as I was of your conduct, had I not united in the inquiry into it: for what offence can be more reprehensible in an officer charged with the finances of his country, than to be engaged in speculation? And what other officer who had reason to suspect this could justify himself for failing to examine into the truth of this charge? We did so—apprized you of what we had done—heard your explanation and were satisfied with it. It is proper to observe that in the explanation you gave, you admitted all the facts upon which our opinion was founded, but yet accounted for them, and for your connection with Reynolds on another principle. ’Tis proper also to observe that we admitted your explanation upon the faith of your own statement, and upon the documents you presented, though I do not recollect they were proved or that proof was required of them.
You will remember that in this interview in which we acknowledged ourselves satisfied with the explanation you gave, we did not bind ourselves not to hear
