249 



tion, Mr. Floyd had taken ground to charge me with injustice to 

 him, and with having asserted of him that which was not true. 



If 1 had asserted, personally, of Mr. Floyd, that which he im 

 puted to me, he would have had reason to take offence at the as- 

 s&amp;lt; ion, and to deny its truth : but the assertion that the call of the 

 House, adopted upon his motion, was procured by Mr. Russell, 

 neither implied that Mr. Floyd had made himself subservient to 

 Mr. Russell s purposes, nor any thing at which Mr. Floyd could 

 justly take offence. The fact which I did assert, namely, that the 

 call for Mr. Russell s letter had been made at his own suggestion, 

 is not denied by Mr. Floyd, and is true. It was only by imputing 

 ro me an assertion that I had not made, that Mr. Floyd could make 

 himself ground to stand upon, in charging injustice to him, and un 

 truth upon my assertion. 



My assertion was no more saying that Mr. Russell procured Mr. 

 Floyd to subserve his purposes, than that he procured the House 

 of Representatives to subserve his purposes. 



In stating the simple fact, that the call of 19th April, 1822, was 

 moved for at the suggestion of Mr. Russell, I neither meant, nor 

 thought, that Mr. Floyd acted in subserviency to the purposes of Mr. 

 Russell. I knew he had purposes of his own. That so far as they 

 were applicable to me, those purposes concurred well with those 

 of Mr. Russell, I did believe ; but to Mr. Floyd, all that I meant to 

 impute, was, the wish to obtain the letter, and that the mode of ob 

 taining it had been suggested to him by Mr. Russell. 



Mr. Floyd, sensitive as he is to the idea of a bare intimation that 

 a call of the House, moved for by him, had been procured by Mr. 

 Russell, has, nevertheless, not scrupled to say, in direct terms, that 

 I procured Mr. Fuller to make the call from which he, Mr. Floyd, 

 had desisted. I do not suppose that by this assertion Mr. Floyd 

 intended any thing offensive to Mr. Fuller ; and if he did not, still 

 less reason could he have for taking offence at my asserting, in 

 terms not even personal to himself, nor using his name, that a call 

 moved for by him had been procured by Mr. Russell. He had less 

 cause to use the term, as applicable to Mr. Fuller, than I had, as 

 applicable to him. His call of 19th April, had been directly sug 

 gested to him by Mr. Russell. After the President s message to 

 the House, of 4th May, declining the communication of the papers, 

 unless they should renew their call, it was unknown to me for two 

 days, whether Mr. Floyd would move a renewal of the call, or not. 

 The public curiosity was very highly excited, and many of the 

 members of both Houses of Congress, whom I casually saw in the 

 interval, spoke to me on the subject. I did not conceal from any 

 one of them, my wish that the papers should be communicated to 

 the House ; but I did not ask any one of them to renew the call. 

 I gave them all to understand that if Mr. Floyd should renew the 

 call, I hoped it would by no one be resisted, on any consideration 

 of regurd for me. Every one of them must have known, that if 

 Mr, Floyd did not renew t ( he call, I should be glad if it were re- 



