1. Maj. Gen. William Heath forwarded these proceedings when he wrote GW on 12 Nov. (DLC:GW).

The court of inquiry for Varick and Maj. David S. Franks convened at West Point on 2 Nov. but immediately adjourned until 3 Nov., when Varick addressed the assemblage: “I now appear before you thro’ the indulgence of his Excellency the Commander-in-Chief on a subject which involved not only the most important interests of the United States of America, but especially and very intimately those of the State of New York; and which still affects my dearest object in life, a fair reputation.

“I come not before you as a wrong-doer, charged with misconduct, but conscious of no crime during a period of above five years’ variegated duty in the service of my country. I come to you now as a petitioner, suing for justice to a once fair and unblemished character; which thro’ the infamous perfidy and horrid treachery of the late Major-General Arnold (of inglorious memory) in attempting to betray into the enemy’s hands the post at West Point and its dependencies, and in his desertion to the enemy, stands unhappily impeached of, and exposed to, odious suspicions of crimes of the deepest dye: those of treason, or misprisions of treason, from the designing, the envious, the disingenuous and uninformed of my fellow-countrymen and fellow-citizens.

“It is a justifiable and laudable ambition, and a wish which I believe to be natural to all honest men who have served their country with conscious fidelity and integrity, that not only their reputations may remain fair and unimpeached, but that their merits may be made known, at least to their contemporaries, with deserved applause.

“It is peculiarly so to a young man who is rising in life and who has served his country faithfully in a subordinate capacity, and has fair prospects of receiving further marks of confidence from, and who from his merit alone can hope for the attention of, his countrymen and fellow-citizens.

“As such a character, I trust, I do appear before you. Unfortunately, however, my reputation, thro’ no misconduct of my own, but by the baseness of a parricide, is betrayed into the most distressing and disagreeable reproach, from which, I hope—nay I do confidently expect—that this Court, on a proper representation of facts, supported by honorable and incontestable testimony, will fully exculpate and rescue it. …

“As my conduct in the army and since my dismission by Congress, prior to my joining Mr. Arnold’s military family, may form a very important part of the evidence strongly presumptive of my innocence or guilt in the present case, I hope you will be in opinion that testimony thereof will be of some importance and necessary to enable you from the circumstantial evidence, which alone can be offered to you, in the professed and pointed subject of your inquiries, to form a competent and just decision on the line of my conduct since I joined Mr. Arnold as a volunteer, and his secretary, and also that it will be necessary and proper to evince to my countrymen and fellow-citizens the true tenor of my language and actions from the commencement of the war to the day of my joining him, and to show to them my indefatigable and unintermitted exertions thro’ every period of my service in the army, prior thereto, to promote the weal of my injured country. …

“Let me therefore claim your indulgence and candor while I introduce to you full evidence of my approved conduct and patriotism, from the earlist commencement of the war and especially from the 28th June or 1st of July, 1775, when I entered the service of my country as a Captain in General McDougall’s regiment, and secretary to Major-General Schuyler’s separate command, until the 25th day of September last, when General Arnold joined the enemy, and from that to the present day.”

Varick asked the court to decide two contested matters: “Whether I was, or was not, a principal in, or advised of, the perfidious and treacherous transactions of Mr. Arnold with the enemy; or of his desertion or intentions to desert to them on the morning of the twenty-fifth of September last. … To inform yourself whether I was, or was not, an agent in, or conniving at, Mr. Arnold’s abuse of power in his embezzlement of the public stores and provisions” (Hart, Varick Court description begins Albert Bushnell Hart, ed. The Varick Court of Inquiry to Investigate the Implication of Colonel Varick (Arnold’s Private Secretary) in the Arnold Treason. Boston, 1907. description ends , 53–64, quotes on 54–56, 58–61).

Varick then presented depositions, testimonials, and certificates vouching for his services and patriotism (see Hart, Varick Court description begins Albert Bushnell Hart, ed. The Varick Court of Inquiry to Investigate the Implication of Colonel Varick (Arnold’s Private Secretary) in the Arnold Treason. Boston, 1907. description ends , 65–80). He next presented correspondence and depositions that illustrated his relationship with Maj. Gen. Benedict Arnold (see Hart, Varick Court description begins Albert Bushnell Hart, ed. The Varick Court of Inquiry to Investigate the Implication of Colonel Varick (Arnold’s Private Secretary) in the Arnold Treason. Boston, 1907. description ends , 81–119; see also Document XX, n.5).

Following adjournment to Sunday, 5 Nov., Varick interrogated Franks concerning their service under Arnold and Varick’s consistently unfavorable view of Joshua Hett Smith’s “moral and political character” (see Hart, Varick Court description begins Albert Bushnell Hart, ed. The Varick Court of Inquiry to Investigate the Implication of Colonel Varick (Arnold’s Private Secretary) in the Arnold Treason. Boston, 1907. description ends , 120–36, quote on 122–23). Varick also submitted questions on the same subjects to Dr. William Eustis, who provided written answers on 4 Nov. (see Hart, Varick Court description begins Albert Bushnell Hart, ed. The Varick Court of Inquiry to Investigate the Implication of Colonel Varick (Arnold’s Private Secretary) in the Arnold Treason. Boston, 1907. description ends , 137–46). Varick then interrogated Col. John Lamb (see Hart, Varick Court description begins Albert Bushnell Hart, ed. The Varick Court of Inquiry to Investigate the Implication of Colonel Varick (Arnold’s Private Secretary) in the Arnold Treason. Boston, 1907. description ends , 147–55).

Varick delivered a closing address to the court: “I have now gone thro’ the evidence on the important and pointed subjects of the Inquiry. It was impossible, from the nature of the case, that I should prove to you, by positive evidence, that I was neither party nor privy to Arnold’s wicked and cruel designs against his country and to his mean and dirty peculation and embezzlement of public property. But your report on the subject, whether honorable or dishonorable to me, must depend on circumstances which I have proved to you, as inconsistent with the supposition of my guilt. I trust I have proved to you fully such circumstances as, when combined and taken at one general view and weighed with precision and candor, will convince your judgments that I was not only incapable of being an agent in Arnold’s nefarious and mean practices, but that during my service under him and prior to the date of my joining his family, I had some merit.

“I hope the testimony I have offered has in no instance fallen short of the allegations I made to the Court at my opening the business of the Inquiry. I shall not insult your judgments by attempting any explanatory observations or comments on any part of the evidence offered, but readily submit the simple facts as proved for your candid decision.

“I cannot, however, dismiss the subject without acknowledging—that most pleasing of all human duties—my gratitude and obligations to his Excellency, our Commander-in-Chief, as well for his delicacy, tenderness and civility towards me, on the discovery of Arnold’s perfidy, and in the moments of my severe indisposition, combined with the most affecting and pungent anxiety and distress, as for this singular indulgence in offering to me an opportunity of redeeming that invaluable jewel—a fair reputation—from reproach; of establishing my character in the opinion of all candid and good men; of erasing from the minds of my honest and misinformed fellow-countrymen any unfavorable impressions which my connection with the guilty Arnold has made to my prejudice; of putting calumny, envy and unprovoked malevolence to perpetual silence, shame and confusion; of defeating the unmanly intentions of the disingenuous and designing, and finally, of convincing my fellow-citizens and fellow-countrymen that, altho’ I have been unfortunate, I am still worthy of their full confidence.

“Thus I cheerfully quit the painful subject, in full expectation that your honorary report will compensate for all the anxiety, distress and pain into which the guilt of a traitor has involved me” (Hart, Varick Court description begins Albert Bushnell Hart, ed. The Varick Court of Inquiry to Investigate the Implication of Colonel Varick (Arnold’s Private Secretary) in the Arnold Treason. Boston, 1907. description ends , 162–64; see also Document I, n.2).

2. GW announced Varick’s unanimous exoneration in the general orders for 16 Nov. (see also Hart, Varick Court description begins Albert Bushnell Hart, ed. The Varick Court of Inquiry to Investigate the Implication of Colonel Varick (Arnold’s Private Secretary) in the Arnold Treason. Boston, 1907. description ends , 165). For sample newspaper publications of these general orders, see The Pennsylvania Packet or the General Advertiser (Philadelphia) for 28 Nov. and The New-Jersey Gazette (Trenton) for 29 November. For the membership of Varick’s court, see Document XIX, n.2.

3. Congress read Varick’s memorial on 14 Sept. and referred it to the Board of War (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds. Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. 34 vols. Washington, D.C., 1904–37. description ends , 18:824). Varick’s memorial, written at Orangetown, N.Y., on 25 Aug., summarized his military services and requested restoration to the army at the rank of lieutenant colonel after his discharge as deputy mustermaster general and basing his request on a belief that “It was not the Intention of the Honorable Congress, to deprive any Officer of his rank in the Army who had with Integrity, Attention & Assiduity discharged the several Honorable as well as laborious, expensive & very perplexing Offices, which Your Memorialist had been appointed to, from the Commencement of the War to the 12th of January last” (DNA:PCC, item 41; see also Document XV, and n.2 to that document). The Board of War reported on Varick’s memorial on 28 Sept., and Congress passed a resolution that he “be informed that Congress are sensible of his good conduct and services in the several employments he has held during the present war, but that the circumstances of the army will not admit of a compliance with the request contained in his memorial” (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds. Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. 34 vols. Washington, D.C., 1904–37. description ends , 18:871). Varick had been dismissed after congressional discontinuation of the Mustering Department (see Samuel Huntington to GW, 14 Jan., n.1).

4. For enemy incursions from Canada into New York, see William Malcom to GW, 12 Oct., and n.4.

5. Congress did not grant Varick’s request (see JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds. Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. 34 vols. Washington, D.C., 1904–37. description ends , 18:1120, and Samuel Huntington to Varick, 6 Dec., in Smith, Letters of Delegates description begins Paul H. Smith et al., eds. Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774–1789. 26 vols. Washington, D.C., 1976–2000. description ends , 16:420–21). GW later assigned Varick to oversee the transcription of his military correspondence (see GW to Varick, 25 May 1781, DLC:GW).