144 



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

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

 he say that the appUcation 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, althoiigh he had 

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

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

 cember 25, 1814, was aniong 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. Thi^i omission was doubtless one of those corrections, 

 which appeared to him proper to exhibit his case mosi advantageously 

 before the tribrmal of the public. Its tendency certainly was tp 

 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. RusselFs 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 duphcate of the letter called for by the 

 resolution of the House, if apphcation 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 " a reso- 

 lution of the House of Representatives," 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 



