Ottoman Algeria in Western Diplomatic History with ... - Bibliothèque

“would, it is more than probable, meet with severity in the extreme, sufficient
to make humane civilized people shudder at even the mentioning of it.” 39
As probably expected, such an apologetic tone could but be scorned but
the dubious and arrogant Americans. The instinct and genius of the lawyer Jay
produced the following answer one month later, undoubtedly after having
carried an inquiry—if he did not already know, which is a weak probability:
I wish it [letter] had been accompanied with some evidence, if only such
a degree of it as might create strong probability, and afford ground for
just suspicion. Public and extraordinary measures for detecting and
punishing crimes always imply a presumption that they exist, and tend
to establish imputations which may prove unjust and injurious … mere
suspicion is very slender proof of guilt. 40
Jay, nevertheless, “laid before Congress the letter” of Temple. If the American
government was really desirous about investigating the case, there was plenty
of ‘proofs,’ to incriminate the counterfeiters as indicated in the Temple’s
answer of the same date. 41 But there is no evidence that Congress acted on it
either out of duplicity or simply because it did not consider the information
important enough to merit concern; and the matter of counterfeiting stopped
short at this point on the American side. Temple, however, informed that he
would “transmit to his Majesty’s Ministers, by the packet to sail on Friday, one
of those counterfeit passes, purchased by my desire at Philadelphia” as “proofs
of such an atrocious forgery of national documents.” For the rest, he estimated
39 USDC, 6:29, From John Temple to John Jay, June 7, 1785.
40 Ibid., 6:30, From John Jay to John Temple, July 5, 1785.
41 Ibid., 6:32, From John Temple to John Jay, July 5, 1785.
172