this as of virulence and acrimony, which he boasts of not having returned. If virulence and acrimony had no other vehicle than barsh language, if they could be disguised under professions of unfeigned respect, however cautiously Mr. Russell had abstained from them in his original letter from Paris, he had been much less observant of that decorum in the duplicate, prepared with new relishes of crimi« nation to suit the appetite of political hatred; and the publication in the Boston Statesman is by no means sparing either of virulence or acrimony against me. The whole tenour of his argument in the original letter, against his colleagues, was sneering and sarcastic. In the Boston Statesman, besides direct charges against me, of disingenuousness, of having made an unprincipled and unprovoked attack upon him, of disrespect to the House of Representatives, of infirmities of temper and taste, and of being a dreaming visionary, he tries even the temper of his wit to assail me, and by a heavy joke upon an expression used in my remarks, indulges his own instinct of misquoting my words to make them appear ridiculous. If this be Mr. Russell's mildness and moderation, it looks very much like the virulence and acrimony of others. In the transactions of human society, there are deeds of which no adequate idea can be conveyed in the terms of courtesy and urbanity; yet I admit the obligation of a public man to meet with coolness and self-command the vilest artifices, even of fraud and malignity, to rob him of the most precious of human possessions, his good name" thrice happy they who master so their blood." If in my former remarks upon Mr. Russell's Janus-faced letter, or in this refutation of his new and direct personal attack upon my reputation, I have, even in word, transgressed the rule of decency, which, under every provocation, it is still the duty of my station and of my character to observe, though, unconscious, myself, of the offence, I submit to the impartial judgment of others, and throw myself upon the candour of my country for its forgiveness. This paper has been confined to a demonstration of the frailty or the pliability of Mr. Russell's memory, in rela tion to facts altogether recent. As, upon an issue of facts, I do not even now ask that my word alone should pass for conclusive, statements of Mr. Brent and Mr. Bailey, relative to the production of Mr. Russell's letter before the House of Representatives, and to the incidents from which Mr. Russell has attempted to extort a charge of disingenuousness against me, are subjoined. My only wish is, that they should be attentively compared with Mr. Russell's narrative.

In another paper I shall prove that Mr. Russell's reminiscences of the proceedings at Ghent, bear the same character of imagination substituted for memory; and that what he calls "the real history of the transaction," [the fishery and Mississippi navigation proposal,] contradictory to the statement which I had made in my re marks, is utterly destitute of foundation.

Washington, 13th July, 1822.

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS,

Mr. Brent's Statement.

On the 20th of April of the present year, I called upon Mr. Russell at his lodgings in this city, without the knowledge or direction of any other person whatever, to inquire of him, as I did, whether he could and would furnish the Department of State with a copy of his letter from Paris to the Secretary of State, which was referred to in a resolution that I supposed to be then on its passage (but which had actually passed the day before,) through the House of Representatives, upon the motion of Doctor Floyd, in case the said resolution should be adopted by the House, and a regular application were made to him for it; observing to him distinctly and particularly, however, that I had no authority to make such an application myself, and that my entire object was to ascertain the facts just stated. In answer to this inquiry, Mr. Russell informed me that his daughter had recently transmitted to him the draft of the letter in question; that he had it thereby in his power to give a transcript of it, and would set about making one immediately, which, when finished, he would deliver to the President. Upon which I remarked, that this seemed to be the proper course, the original having been addressed to him, the President, when Secretary of State. I then observed to Mr. Russell, that he had better deliver it as a duplicate than as a copy; that he knew the original was not to be found upon the files of the Department of State, and that this was the common form with regard to all such communications. He seemed pleased with the suggestion, and said that he would conform to it, without giving me the slightest intimation, that he would prefer giving a copy, as such, or that he would furnish any other than a duplicate of the identical letter spoken of and referred to, which had been transmitted by him from Paris to the then Secretary of State. I was prompted by a double motive to this inquiry-first, by an habitual wish that the Department to which I belonged should always be prepared to furnish what might be required of it by the House of Representatives; and, secondly, by an apprehension that, if it were not so prepared in this particular case, unjust imputations might be made against the Head of that Department, which I was desirous of obviating. In this interview, Mr. Russell told me that it was at his instance Doctor Floyd had submitted his last resolution to the House of Representatives; that he was influenced, himself, by the wish that his letter should be communicated to Congress, for his justification as to the part he had taken in the negotiation of the treaty of Ghent, with regard to the fisheries; but that the same gentleman's first motion upon the same subject, was made without his knowledge or advice. On the 22d of the same month, Mr. Russell handed to me, in my room at the Department of State, in the absence of the Secretary, with a request that I would deliver it over to him, an open letter, marked "Duplicate," a copy of which was communicated by the President to the House of Representatives, on the 7th of May last; observing, when he did so, that he felt no particular solicitude about it, and requesting that it might be returned to him, if not used by the Department. A day or two afterwards this paper was put into the hands of Mr. Thomas Thruston, one of the clerks of the office, to be copied. Perceiving that it bore date at Paris, on the 11th of February, 1822, when Mr. Russell was known to be attending the session of Congress in this city, as a member of the House of Representatives, this young gentleman asked my advice whether he should insert that date in the copy or not; and I told him, without hesitation, to insert 1816 instead of 1822, as Mr. Russell had evidently, from inadvertence, made a mistake in the date. Mr. Thruston gave

it that date accordingly, and made a correspondent alteration in the paper itself, which he was transcribing, under the impression that he was likewise authorized to do so, and that it would never produce criticism of any sort. When Mr. Adams came to be apprized of these circumstances, particularly of the alteration in the date of the "duplicate" paper, he manifested and expressed much surprise and displeasure upon the occasion. But Mr. Russell, whom I saw immediately after they happened, and to whom I communicated what had

been done, expressed his full and entire approbation of it; and the next day he brought to the office the draught from which he stated the "duplicate" was prepared by him, bearing date Paris, 11th February, 1815, which he particularly showed to me, as a corroborative justification to the Department of State for the alteration that had been made in the date of his paper. It was then, I think, that I informed him of the substitution which had been made in the office copy of the year 1815 for that of 1816, to correct our own mistake; and he authorized and requested me to have a like alteration made in his "duplicate," which was accordingly done. Mr. Russell, upon this occasion, again expressed his indifference as to the determination of the Executive with regard to this "duplicate," and repeated his request that it should be returned to him if not used.

In one of our conversations I asked him why he had delivered that paper to me, and not to the President, to whom he had said he would deliver it? His reply was, that he had done so because he deemed that course most respectful to the Department of State, being under the impression, notwithstanding my declaration to the contrary, that I had sounded him upon the subject of the paper in question by authority, (meaning, I presumed, by direction of the Secretary of State,) and that it was actually required at the Department of State.

In a conversation between. Mr. Russell and myself, on the 1st May, in Mr. Bailey's room, at the Department of State, in the presence and hearing of that gentleman, he fully and expressly admitted and confirmed the correctness of the statement given in this paper of the conversation between us of the 20th of April, at his lodgings, with regard to the facts that the call of Doctor Floyd for his letter had been made at his suggestion, and that I mentioned to him I had no authority to make an application to him for a copy of that letter, and that I made none.

Washington, 10th July, 1822.

Mr. Bailey's Statement.

DANIEL BRENT.

Several days after the passage of the resolution of the House of Representatives of the United States, of 17th January, 1822, moved by Mr. Floyd, and calling on the President for copies of certain papers relative to the negotiations at Ghent, but before the copies had been communicated to the House, Mr. Russell, of the House, called at my room in the Department of State, and expressed a wish to see a letter addressed by himself, separately, at Ghent, to the then Secretary of State. He stated that the present Secretary of State had mentioned the letter to him, and had desired to know whether it was his (Mr. Russell's) wish that this letter should be communicated to the House with other papers embraced by the above call, or not. This letter, (a short one, dated "Ghent, 25th December, 1814,") was accordingly shown to Mr. Russell by me, in a volume containing the original communications from our Plenipotentiaries at Ghent, which had been bound and lettered in the Department several years before. Mr. Russell, on reading the letter, said that he saw no objection to the communication of it, and asked me if I saw any. The reply was, that none was seen. He said that the concluding paragraph, as it related to his return to Sweden, and not at all to the negotiations at Ghent, did not require to be communicated to the House. I requested him to mark such part as he wished communicated. This he did; and, conformably to this, the copy was made, by subsequent direction of the Secretary of State, and thus it appears in the printed copy, p. 50. At the same time, or very soon after, (I do not remember which,) Mr. Russell expressed a wish that the letter might be found and communicated, which, in his letter of 25th December, 1814, he intimated his intention of writing. The wish was repeated at subsequent times, both at my room and elsewhere; and much desire was manifested by him on the subject. Mr. Russell and myself together, as well as myself separately, examined at different times the

bound volume above-named, and also other files, on which, if mislaid, the let ter would most probably have been placed; but no trace of it was found. At his suggestion I made inquiry of the Secretary and of the Chief Clerk; but they had no knowledge of such letter. The Secretary informed me that his first knowledge that such a letter had been written, was from Mr. Russell's declaration to him since the call of 17th January; and that the existence even of Mr. Russell's letter of 25th December, 1814, was unknown to him previous to his examination of the files in consequence of said call.

Mr. Russell, while making the above inquiries for his letter of the 11th February, 1815, remarked to me, that he had not a copy of it here, but had at home, (in Massachusetts,) and that he could get a copy by writing to his daughter, there; but supposed that would be too late for a compliance with the (first) call. He asked me if I supposed a copy, so made out, would be received and communicated to the House with the other papers. I replied that I did not know sufficiently what was usual on such occasions. After he had delivered the "duplicate" at the Department, he told me that he had written to his daughter for the copy, and that she had sent it.

While Mr. Russell, at his first visit, was examining various records of the office, he noticed a paragraph in the instructions to the Commissioners of peace of 15th April, 1813, respecting British traders within our limits; a paragraph which was omitted in the copy sent to Congress by Mr. Madison with his message of 13th October, 1814, (see Wait's State Papers, vol. 9, p. 357,) and which, it is believed, was never published till it appeared in the National Gazette of 10th May, 1822. Of this Mr. Russell requested of me a copy. On direction of the Secretary, I made and sent to him the copy: and, several weeks after, (I think early in April,) on his remarking to me that that copy was mislaid or not found, and asking another copy, a second was made and sent to him.

Soon after the call of 19th April, Mr. Russell was at my room, and said (wholly spontaneously) that Mr. Floyd had made his motion for that call entirely without his knowledge, or without consulting with him, or words to that effect. He also said he did not know Mr. Floyd's motive for making his first motion (for the call of 17th January.)

On receiving the duplicate, the Secretary of State gave it to me to be copied ; for which purpose it was handed to Mr. Thruston. The date having been altered from 1822 to 1816, as stated by Mr. Brent, the Secretary, on seeing the alteration, expressed distinctly his displeasure at the circumstance. When Mr. Russell next came to the Department, Mr. Brent, in my presence, mentioned to him the incident of the alteration from 1822 to 1816; and (such is strongly my impression, scarcely leaving a doubt, though Mr. Brent is uncertain whether this intimation happened at this or the next visit of Mr. Russell,) intimated that 1816 was put by mistake for 1815, and that 1815 would be the reading of the copy for the House, if such was Mr. Russell's pleasure. Mr. Russell not only assented to the alteration, (to 1815,) but requested that it might be read thus, in a manner more emphatic and formal than an ordinary request; purporting, that he wished this declaration of his to be taken as authority for the alteration. And, at his next call, he brought with him the draught from which he made the duplicate, and, after exhibiting its date to Mr. Brent, in his room, brought it to me, to show that "1822" was a mistake in copying. The draught was plainly "1815.”

When the copy was made for the House, the Secretary was anxious that it should conform with scrupulous exactness to the paper deposited by Mr. Russel, with the sole exception of the date, which he wished modified according to Mr. Russell's special request.

On the 1st of May, Mr. Russell and Mr. Brent were in my room and Mr. Brent recapitulated the conversation between himself and Mr. Russell, on the 20th April, when Mr. Brent made certain inquiries respecting Mr. Russell's letter. The recapitulation in substance stated, that Mr. Brent informed Mr.

Russell, that his inquiries were wholly without the authority of any other per son; that his object was to know whether Mr. Russell could and would furnish the letter, if it should be wanted, and if he should be applied to for it; and that Mr. Russell told Mr. Brent that he could and would furnish it to the President; and that he further told Mr. Brent, (on Mr. Brent's inquiry,) that Mr. Floyd had made his (second) motion on his (Mr. Russell's) suggestion. Mr. Russell assented to the correctness of this recapitulation, explaining the last observation by saying, that Mr. Floyd, before he moved the second call, asked him if he could give him (Mr. Floyd) a copy of the letter, and that he (Mr. Russell) declined, and told Mr. Floyd that if he wished a copy he must move a call for it. JOHN BAILEY,

Washington, 10th July, 1822.

From the National Intelligencer of August 7, 1822.

TO THE EDITORS.

In the reply printed in the National Intelligencer of the 17th ultimo, to a publication by Mr. Jonathan Russell in the Boston Statesman, of the 27th of June preceding, it was stated that the subject would be resumed in another paper. That paper, with others elucidating all the topics of general interest discussed in Mr. Russell's letter, has been prepared, but will be presented to the public in another form. Mr. Russell's letter from Paris, of 11th February, 1815, was ostensibly a vindication of himself and his motives against an accusation instituted by himself-self-defence against self-impeachment! The substance was, a secret impeachment of the majority of his colleagues before their common superior authority. That accusation he saw fit, during the late session of Congress, to bring before the Legislative Assembly of which he was a member, and shortly afterwards to produce before the public, in newspapers, at Philadelphia and at Boston. If, in meeting this accusation wherever it has appeared visible and tangible, I have been compelled to present myself more than once to the public attention, it has been under circumstances deeply mortifying to me, and assuredly not of my own choosing. I have been called to repel a succession of charges, supported by the name of a man high in the confidence of the country; an associate in the trust which he substantially accuses me of having betrayed, and implicating the character, conduct, and memory of other citizens employed on the same service. It has, indeed, recently been suggested that this is a mere personal controversy between Mr. Russell and me, with which the public have no concern. And why was it brought before the public? So long as the purport of Mr. Russell's letter was merely propagated in whispers just hinted in anonymous paragraphs of newspapers, and hoped not to be true in charitable letters from Washington, however infamous the imputations with which it was occasionally bound up and circulated, a man conscious of his innocence, and secure in the uprightness of his intentions, might