121 



The member who had made that call, made also the call of th* 

 19th of April. This second call was obviously occasioned by th« 

 extract of my letter of the 25th of December, 1814,* above men- 

 tioned, which the tirst call had brought forth. To that member I 

 had never communicated, by transcript or otherwise, the contents 

 of my letter written at Paris, for which he called. I had refused to 

 others any account or copy of that letter, for which they had applied 

 to me, as I believed, for publication. As a reason for thus refusmg, 

 I uniformly assigned the necessity, in my opinion, of the previous 

 consent and approbation ol the constituted authorities for the regu- 

 lar publication of a letter written by me while in the public ser- 

 vice, to one of those authorities, and in relation to that service. 



All the participation which I had in this call was, to leave at the 

 Department of State, in consequence of an application from that 

 Department^ the paper which has since been published as a dupli- 

 cate. The simple facts are these: on the morning of the 20th of 

 April, a gentleman employed in the Department of State called on 

 me at my lodgings and inquired if I could furnish a duplicate of 

 the letter which had been called for. I intimated a reluctance to 

 communicating any thing as a duplicate. He observed, that it need 

 not be presented as such to the House, but wished to have it so 

 presented to the Department. This is, in substance, what was said 

 on that occasion. 



On the 22d, I called at the Department of State — Mr. Adams 

 was not there — and I left the paper with the gentleman who had 

 applied to me for it. The word " duplicate" had indeed been 

 written on it, in consequence of his suggestion as above stated ; but 

 I gave no further intimation, much less any assurance, that it was 

 so. He made no inquiry, and I made no comment. I observed 

 merely, that I left it for the examination of Mr. Adams ; and that i 

 was indifferent whether it was communicated, under the call of the 

 House, or not, as the letter called for ; but if not so communicated. 

 I expressed the expectation that it would be returned to me. He 

 received it accordingly. > 



A fe\w days afterwards I again visited the Department of State, 



* ThefoUoicing is the extract alluded to : 



Extract of a letter from Jonathan Russell, esq. to the Secretary of State, dated 

 at Ghent, 25th of December, 1814, and comnnmicated to the House of Repre- 

 sentatives, by the President, on the 21 st of February, 1822. 



^^ My necessary occupation, at this moment, in aiding my colleagues to prepare 

 our joint despatches, puts it out of my power to furnish you ivith any details or 

 observations exclusively my own. 



" jis, however, you ivill perceive by our despatch to you of this date, that a majo- 

 rity only of the mission was in favour of offering to the British plenipotentiaries^' 

 an article confirming the British right to the navigation of the Mississippi, and 

 ours to the liberty as to the fisheries, it becomes ine, in candour, to acknowkd<re that 

 I was in the minority on that question. I must reserve the power of communi- 

 rating to you, hereafter, the reasons which influenced me to differ from a mojo- 

 oity of my colleagues on that occasion, and if they be iiisufficienl to support rnv 

 opinion, I persuade myself they will, at least, vindicate my motives.'''' 



