114 



THE TRIPLICATE. 



In the National Gazette, of 10th May, 1822, printed at Philadel 

 phia, there was published, headed &quot;For the National Gazette,&quot; a, 

 &quot; Letter of Jonathan Russell, Esq. to the Hon. the Secretary of 

 State, in relation to the negotiations at Ghent.&quot; It was dated Paris, 

 1 Hh February, 1815, not marked &quot;private,&quot; and in the same pa 

 per was accompanied by the following article, under the editorial 

 head : 



NEGOTIATIONS AT GHENT. 



The call made in Congress for a particular letter of Jonathan 

 Russell, Esq. on the subject of the negotiations at Ghent, the sup 

 posed object of that call, and the extraordinary tenour of the Pre 

 sident s reply to it, have excited a general curiosity respecting the 

 contents of the document, about which an air of mystery and preg 

 nant importance was thus thrown. The President stated in his 

 message, as our readers will recollect, that lie had found the letter 

 among his private papers, marked private,&quot; by the writer, whose 

 view of his own conduct and that of his colleagues was such as 

 would demand from the two surviving members of the Ghent mis 

 sion, a reply containing their view of the transactions in question ; 

 which reply, upon the principles of equal justice, ought to be com 

 municated at the same time to Congress. The President stated, 

 also, that he had deposited the original of the letter in the Depart 

 ment of State, with instructions to deliver a copy to any person who 

 might be interested. O^rfA copy has come into our hands, for the 

 exactness of which we can vouch, and which we publish entire, 

 this afternoon ;] and ss the House of Representatives has repeated 

 the call for the document, in terms that have empowered the Pre 

 sident to submit with it whatever he pleased of a relevant purport, 

 we may expect to be soon able to lay before our readers, the com 

 munication, in the nature of an answer, which the Secretary of 

 State had expressed a desire to be permitted to oiler. 



Most persons will, we apprehend, find that the ide.is respecting 

 the character of the letter, which they had been led from what has 

 passed, to form, are in a degree erroneous. Mr. Russell has not 

 arraigned the conduct or questioned the motives of his colleagues, 

 who composed the majority on the point discussed on the contra 

 ry, he has, we observe, emphatically borne testimony, towards the 

 end of the letter, to their integrity, (alents, and judgment ; and his 

 purpose seems to have been, not to prove that they erred, so much 

 as to furnish a satisfactory apology for his having differed with them 

 in opinion. If he marked the letter &quot; private,&quot; it is not thence to 

 be inferred that he meant it to remain secret for them, or absolute 

 ly ; but merely that it should not be considered as a part of the 

 public and official record of the negotiations, or otherwise than hi* 



