143 



What, then, does Mr. Russell mean, when, in the Boston States* 

 man of 27th June last, he says, that when he delivered the paper 

 at the Department, to Mr. Brent, on the 22d of April, &quot; the word 

 ** [duplicate] had indeed been written on it, in consequence of his 

 &quot;suggestion, as above stated: but 1 gave no further intimation) 

 &amp;lt;l muck less .any assurance that it was so.&quot; These are Mr. Rus 

 sell s own words ; and what can they mean ? They have been, at 

 least by some portion of the public, understood to mean, that the 

 paper had been styled a duplicate, not by Mr. Russell, but by rne. 

 O no ! the word was written with Mr Russell s own hand ; ond 

 when I received the paper I knew not that there ever had passed 

 a word between Mr. Brent and him whether it should be delivered 

 as a duplicate or a copy. The Boston Statesman, of the same day 

 in which his reply is published, says &quot; Mr. Russell, without much 

 reflection, consented&quot; (to give it as a duplicate.) 1 should think he 

 had time enough for reflection, while at work with the scraper, to 

 efface the word 4C copy,&quot; for which it was substituted. Mr. Rus- 

 seiFs meaning is, therefore, that, although he wrote the word du 

 plicate with his own hand, yet he did not intend it should be re 

 ceived as an intimation, much less as an assurance, &quot; THAT IT 



\VAS SO.&quot; 



Mr. Russell had been explicitly told by Mr. Brent, that his call 

 to inquire whether he could furnish the paper called for by the re 

 solution of the House, had not been at my desire, or with my know 

 ledge, but of his own motion. But it seems Mr. Russell did not be 

 lieve him ; and instead of delivering the letter, as he had said he 

 would, to the President, he brought it to the Department, and de 

 livered it to Mr. Brent himself ; observing that he was indifferent 

 whether it was communicated to the House or not ; but, if it should 

 not be, he wished it might be returned to him. 



The singularity of this observation is not among the least extra* 

 ordinary incidents of this transaction. Mr. Russell, who, while the 

 first resolution of the 17th of January, calling for the Ghent treaty 

 documents, was to be reported upon by the Department of State, 

 had expressed to me, and repeatedly to Mr. Bailey, the wish that his 

 letter from Paris should be communicated Mr. Russell, at whose 

 suggestion the specific call from the House of the 19th of April, 

 for that letter, had been moved Mr. Russell, who in the interval 

 had written to Mendon for the original draft of his letter, had re 

 ceived it from Mendon, and on the morning after the resolution of 

 the House calling for it, was already prepared with a &quot; copy&quot; of it 

 to deliver to the President, a copy consisting of seven folio sheets 

 of paper transforms this copy, at the suggestion of Mr. Brent, 

 into a duplicate, and after having again on Saturday declared to Mr. 

 Brent his wish that it might be communicated to the House, brings 

 it on Monday morning to the Department, and in delivering it to 

 Mr. Brent, says he is indifferent whether it should be communicat 

 ed to the House or not : but, if not, wishes it may be returned to 

 fcim. 



