122 



and was again so unfortunate as not to find Mr. Adams there. I 

 saw, however, the gentleman with whom I had left the paper, and 

 learnt from him, that as it had been dated, as he supposed, by mis 

 take in 1822, he had taken the liberty to correct it, by inserting 

 1816. I made no objection, but repeated my expectation, that if 

 it should not be deemed proper to use it for the purpose for which 

 it had been delivered, it would be returned to me. 



1 made a third visit to the Department of State, on the 2d of May, 

 if I remember correctly. Mr. Adams was then in his office, and 

 in passing thither, I learned from the gentleman who had received 

 the paper delivered by me on the 22d, that it had undergone ano 

 ther alteration in its date, and that 1816 had been made to give 

 place to 1815. This last alteration was, it seems, found necessary 

 to make the paper agree in date with the letter received from Pa 

 ris, which had at last been found ; and thus to be able to use that 

 paper, with a better grace, as a duplicate, and to abuse it with the 

 more confidence for its variation from that letter. The corrective 

 poivcr, assumed, appears to have been limited acccordingly. 



Mr. Adams soon spoke of the paper which 1 had left, on the 22d, 

 and had not proceeded far without complaining of its difference 

 from the original which had been found. This circumstance he 

 affected to consider particularly offensive. In vain I represented 

 that the difference between the two was not material ; that neither 

 was personal or accusatory ; that both were merely defensive ; 

 and that I was willing that either or neither should be communicat 

 ed, as he might judge proper. I soon perceived that itjfcas too 

 late to offer explanation with a prospect of success. He was not in 

 a humour to listen to me, even with civility ; the manner in which 

 he treated the business, destroyed, in me, even a wish to conciliate 

 or appease him. 



1 have stated these facts principally to show, that the paper was 

 left at the Department of State, not on my own proper motion, but 

 that it was left there on the application, and marked duplicate at 

 the suggestion of a person belonging to that Department, and pos 

 sessing the confidence of VIr. Adams. Such an application was 

 altogether unexpected by me, and was made without any previous 

 intimation, suggestion, or encouragement on my part ; and had it 

 not been made, that paper would never have been left at the De 

 partment of State, nor in any other manner presented to the pub 

 lic. Having twice failed in my attempts to see Mr. Adams, 1 had 

 no opportunity of offering those explanations which the case ap-* 

 peared to require, until it was too late to offer them. 



I considered it an act of frankness to place the paper, when thus 

 applied for, whatever might be its merits or defects, in the power 

 of the person who might consider himself the most liable to be af 

 fected by its publication. In this act there was certainly neither 

 secrecy nor concealment to offend him. He had the sole power to 

 publish it or not, as he might judge proper, and to consult his own 

 feelings and interests, in forming his decision. When a private let- 



