158 



Russell, that his Inquiries were wholly without the authority of any other per- 

 son ; that his object was to know whether Mr. Russell could and would furnish 

 the letter, if it should be wanted, and if he should be applied to for it ; and 

 that Mr. Russell told Mr. Brent that he could and would furnish it to the Pre 

 sident ; and that he further told Mr. Brent, (on Mr. Brent s inquiry,) that Mr, 

 Floyd had made his (second) motion on his (Mr. Russell s) suggestion. Mr. 

 Russell assented to the correctness of this recapitulation, explaining the last ob 

 servation by saying, that Mr. Floyd, before he moved the second call, asked 

 him if he could give him (Mr. Floyd) a copy of the letter, and that he (Mr, 

 Russell) declined, and told Mr. Floyd that if he wished a copy he must move a 



Callf0rit JOHN BAILEY. 



Washington, 10 th July, 1822. 



From the National Intelligencer of August 7, 1822. 

 TO THE EDITORS. 



In the reply printed in the National Intelligencer of the 17th 

 ultimo, to a publication by Mr. Jonathan Russell in the Boston 

 Statesman, of the 27th of June preceding, it was stated that the 

 subject would be resumed in another paper. That paper, with 

 others elucidating all the topics of general interest discussed in Mr, 

 Russell s letter, has been prepared, but will be presented to the 

 public in another form. Mr. Russell s letter from Paris, of llth 

 February, 1815, was ostensibly a vindication of himself and his mo 

 tives against an accusation instituted by himself self-defence 

 against &quot;self-impeachment ! The substance was, a secret impeach 

 ment of the majority of his colleagues before their common supe 

 rior authority. That accusation he saw fit, during the late session 

 of Congress, to bring before the Legislative Assembly of which he 

 was a member, and shortly afterwards to produce before the pub 

 lic, in newspapers, at Philadelphia and at Boston. If, in meeting 

 this accusation wherever it has appeared visible and tangible, 1 have 

 been compelled to present myself more than once to the public at 

 tention, it has been under circumstances deeply mortifying to me, 

 and assuredly not of my own choosing. I have been called to re 

 pel a succession of charges, supported by the name of a man high 

 in the confidence of the country ; an associate in the trust which, 

 he substantially accuses me of having betrayed, and implicating the 

 character, conduct, and memory of other citizens employed on the 

 same service. It has, indeed, recently been suggested that this is 

 a mere personal controversy between Mr. Russell and me, with 

 which the public have no concern. And why was it brought before 

 the public ? So long as the purport of Mr. Russell s letter was 

 merely propagated in whispers just hinted in anonymous para 

 graphs of newspapers, and hoped not to be true in charitable letter* 

 from Washington, however infamous the imputations with which it 

 was occasionally oound up and circulated, a man conscious of his 

 innocence, and secure in the uprightness of his intentions, might 



