123 



ier, written solely for the vindication of my own conduct, to those 

 to whom I war- immediate!} 7 responsible, was asked of me, by a per 

 son known to be under the orders of the Secretary of State, for the 

 purpose of presenting it lo the public, a tribun-d for which it had 

 never been intended, and to which it ought not to have been pre 

 sented without my consent. I certainly did believe, that I was 

 permitted to make those corrections of the copy in possession, 

 which appeared to me to be proper to exhibit my case most advan 

 tageously before that tribunal. I the more confidently entertained 

 this opinion, as the paper was not to be there exhibited without the 

 previous examination and consent of the adverse party. Such were 

 the views with which it was unreservedly confided to Mr. Adams. 

 But he communicated my private letter, as the paper called for, 

 and, with it, he disingenuously communicated the paper, entrusted 

 to him, not as the paper called for, but as a convenient vehicle for 

 passionate invective and intemperate personal abuse against .ae. 

 If justice, or even decency towards me, presented no obst;i -le, 

 still, I should have believed, that a respect for the Representatives 

 of the people of the United States, would have at least been suffi 

 cient to have deterred him from so rude and irregular a course of 

 proceeding. 



His tirst remark on what he ostentatiously presents as a duplicate 

 is, that the letter written at Paris, although of the same general 

 purport and tenor, with the so-called duplicate, differs from it ia 

 several highly significant passages.&quot; He presents, as an example, 

 a parallel extracted from the two papers. He deduces from this 

 parallel, the contradiction that I did believe, in the one paper, and 

 that I did not believe, in the other paper, that we were permitted, 

 by our instructions, at Ghent, to offer a stipulation for the naviga 

 tion, by the British, of the Mississippi. So far however, from the 

 parallel passages exhibiting such a contradiction, they contain 

 within themselves the evidence of their consistency with each 

 olher. 



The original letter refers exclusively to the instructions of the 

 25th of June, 1814, (a) on which the majority, in the despatch of 

 the 25th of December, of the same year, solely relied, when they 

 j-aid, &quot; our instructions had forbidden us to sutler our right to the 

 fisheries to be brought into discussion, and had not authorized us to 

 make any distinction in the several provisions of the 3d article of 

 the treaty of 1783.&quot; 



(o) Extract of a letter of insl nations, rec tired from the Secretary by the Com 

 missioners at GJtent, dated 25/A of June, 1814. 



&quot; /// formation has been rfceirrd, from a quarter deserving attention, that the 

 Idle events in France huce produced such an effect on the British government, as 

 lornake it probable that a demand will be made at Gothenburgh tosurrtn ier our 

 right to thejisherics, to abandon all trade bfyvnd the Cape of Good Hope, and tit 

 cede Louisiana to Spain. 7* e cannot believe that s ucli a demand ui/t be r. tide.; 

 xhould it be, if-Guutlf, of course, treat it as it deserves. These rights mu^not be 

 irctight into discussion. If insisted on, your negotiations v. ill cease.&quot; 



