157 



bound volume above-named, and also other files, on which, if mislaid, the let 

 ter would most probably have been placed ; but no trace of it was found. Afc 

 his suggestion I made inquiry of the Secretary and of the Chief Clerk ; but 

 they had no knowledge of such letter. The Secretary informed me that his first 

 knowledge that such a letter had been written, was from Mr. Russell s declar 

 ation to him since the call of 17th January ; and that the existence even of Mr. 

 Russell s letter of 25th December, 1814, was unknown to him previous to his 

 examination of the files in consequence of said call. 



Mr. Russell, while making the above inquiries for his letter of the Hth Feb 

 ruary, 1815, remarked to me, that he had not a copy of it here, but had at 

 home, (in Massachusetts,) and that he could get a copy by writing to his 

 daughter, there ; but supposed that would be too late for a compliance with the 

 (first) call. He asked me if I supposed a copy, so made out, would be received 

 and communicated to the House with the other papers. I replied that I did 

 not know sufficiently what was usual on such occasions. After he had delivered 

 the &quot; duplicate&quot; at the Department, he told me that he had written to his 

 daughter for the copy, and that she had sent it. 



While Mr. Russell, at his first visit, was examining various records of the. 

 office, he noticed a paragraph in the instructions to the Commissioners of peace 

 of loth April, 1813, respecting British traders within our limits ; a paragraph, 

 which was omitted in the copy sent to Congress by Mr. Madison with his mes 

 sage of 13th October, 1814, (see Wait s State Papers, vol. 9, p. 357,) and 

 which, it is believed, was never published till it appeared in the National Ga 

 zette of lOth May, 1822. Of this Mr. Russell requested of me a copy. On 

 direction of the Secretary, I made and sent to him the copy : and, several 

 weeks after, (I think early in April,) on his remarking to me that that copy was 

 mislaid or not found, and asking another copy, a second was made and sent to 

 him. 



Soon after the call of 19th April, Mr. Russell was at my room, and said 

 (wholly spontaneously) that Mr. Floyd had made his motion for that call TZ* 

 fire.li/ without his knowledge, or without consulting .with him, or words to that 

 effect. He also said he did not know Mr. Floyd s motive for making his firs^ 

 motion (for the call of 17th January.) 



On receiving the duplicate, the Secretary of State gave it to me to be copied | 

 for which purpose it was handed to Mr. Thiuston. The date having been al 

 tered from 1822 to 1816, as stated by Mr. Brent, the Secretary, OB seeing the. 

 alteration, expressed distinctly his displeasure at the circumstance. When Mr. 

 J&ussell next came to the Department, Mr. Brent, in my presence, mentioned to 

 him the incident of the alteration from 1822 to 1816 ; and (such is strongly my 

 impression, scarcely leaving a doubt, though Mr. Brent is uncertain whether 

 this intimation happened at this or the next visit of Mr. Russell,) intimated 

 that 1816 was put by mistake for 1815, and that 1815 would be the reading of 

 the copy for the House, if such was Mr. Russell s pleasure. Mr. Russell not 

 only assented to the alteration, (to 1815,) but requested that it might be read 

 thus, in a manner more emphatic and formal than an ordinary request ; pur 

 porting, that he wished this declaration of his to be taken as authority for the 

 alteration. And, at his next call, he brought with him the draught from which 

 he made the duplicate, and, after exhibiting its date to Mr. Brent, in his room, 

 brought it to me, to show that &quot; 1822&quot; was a mistake in copying. The draught 

 was plainly &quot; l3l5.&quot; 



When the copy was made for the House, the Secretary was anxious that it 

 should conform with scrupulous exactness to the paper deposited by Mr. Rus- 

 se], with the sole exception of the date, which he wished modified according to 

 Mr. Russell s special request. 



On the 1st of May, Mr. Russell and Mr. Brent were in my roonvand Mr. 

 Brent recapitulated the conversation between himself and Mr. Russell, on the 

 20fh April, when Mr. Brent made certain inquiries respecting Mr. Russell s 

 f-tter. The recapitulation in substance stated, that Mr. Brent informed Mr. 



20 



