144 



What was the meaning of this tardy hesitation and new-born in 

 difference, whether ii should be communicated or not ? Why does 

 he say that the application from the Department of State for his 

 letter was made without any previous intimation, suggestion, or 

 encouragement on his part ; and that, had it not been made, that 

 paper would never have been left at the Department of State, nor 

 in any other manner presented to the public ? Why did he bring it 

 to the Department ? He had told Mr. Brent that he would deliver 

 it to the President ; and of this disposal of it, Mr. Brent had ap 

 proved. Why does he represent it as a demand upon him from the 

 Department of State of a private letter, never intended for the pub 

 lic ? Neither I nor any person at the Department of State, knew 

 that the letter was private. Mr. Russell knew it, although he had 

 prepared his copy or his duplicate, without marking it as such. He 

 had told me, when I mentioned to him that his short letter of De 

 cember 25, 1814, was among the documents of the negotiation at 

 the Department, and asked him whether he chose it should be 

 communicated to the House ; he had then at first told me that he 

 thought that was a private letter, which it would be improper to 

 communicate ; but when, after having examined it, he decided that 

 part of it should be communicated, he had told me there was ano 

 ther letter written from Paris, which he wished might also be com 

 municated. He had not spoken of it as a private letter, nor did he 

 deliver the duplicate as such to the Department. He omitted from 

 it the word private, which had been written by himself upon the 

 original. This omission was doubtless one of those corrections, 

 which appeared to him proper to exhibit his case most advantageously 

 before the tribunal of the public. Its tendency certainly was to 

 excite a suspicion in the public mind, that the original letter was or 

 had been upon the files of the Department, and that in the answer 

 to the prior call of the House of 17th January, it had been sup 

 pressed. 



Mr. Russell s delivery of his duplicate at the Department of State 

 was entirely spontaneous. It had not even been asked of him by 

 Mr. Brent ; and the inquiry which Mr. Brent had made of him, 

 whether he could furnish a duplicate of the letter called for by the 

 resolution of the House, if application should be made to him for it, 

 had been without my knowledge ; and Mr. Brent had told him so, 

 Mr. Russell delivered his duplicate at the Department as a public 

 letter, and as if the original itself had been also public. What then 

 does Mr. Russell mean, when he says that he left it for my exami 

 nation ? What does he mean, by saying that I had the sole power to 

 publish it or not, as I might judge proper, and to consult my own 

 feelings and interests, in forming my decision ? There was &quot; a reso 

 lution of the House of Representatives,&quot; calling^upon the President 

 to cause to be communicated to them a letter specifically designat 

 ed. The writer of that letter, after repeated expressions more 

 than two months before to me and to Mr. Bailey, that he wished 

 that letter might be communicated to the House, now brought to the 



