154 



this as of virulence and acrimony, which he hoasts of not having re- 

 turned. If virulence and acrimony had no other vehicle than harsh 

 language, if they could be disguised under professions oi' unfeigned 

 respect, however cautiously Mr. Russell had abstained from them 

 in his original letter from Paris, he had been much less observant of 

 (hat decorum in the duplicate, prepared with new relishes of crimi- 

 nation to suit the appetite of political hatred ; and the publication in 

 the Boston Statesman is by no means sparing eitlier of virulence or 

 acrimon}' against me. The whole tenour of his argument in the 

 original letter, against hi? colleagues, was sneering and sarcastic. 

 In the Boston Statesman, besides direct char^^cs against me, o{ disin- 

 genuousnesSs of having made an unprincipled and unprovoked attack 

 upon him, of disrespect to the House of Representatives, of intinn- 

 ities of temper and taste, and of being a dreaming visionary, he tries 

 even the temper of his wit to assail me, and by a heavy joke upon 

 an expression used in my remarks, indulges Iiis own instinct of mis- 

 quoting my words to make them appear ridiculous. If this be Mr. 

 Russell's mildness and moderation, it looks very much like the viru- 

 lence and acrimony of others. In the transactions of human socie- 

 ty, there are deeds of which no adequate idea can be convt-ved in 

 the terms of courtesy and urbanity ; yet I admit the obligation of a 

 public man to meet with coolness and self-coni;nand the vilest arti- 

 fices, even of fraud and malignity, to rob him of the most precious 

 of human possessions, his good name — -"thrice happy they who 

 master so their blood." If in my former remarks upon Mr. Rns- 

 selTs Janus-faced letter, or in this refutation of his new and direct 

 personal attack upon my reputation, I have, even in word, trans- 

 gressed the rule of decency, which, under every provocation, it is 

 still the duty of my station and of my character to observe, though, 

 unconscious, myself^, of the otfence, I submit to the impartial judg- 

 ment of others, and throw myself upon the candour of my country 

 for its forgiveness. This paper has been confined to a demonstra- 

 tion of the frailty or the pliability of Mr. Russell's memory, in rela- 

 tion to fjicts altogether recent. As, upon an issue of facts, I do not 

 even now ask that my word alone should pass for conclusive, state- 

 ments of Mr. Brent and Mr. Bailey, relative to the production of 

 Mr. Russell's letter before the House of Representatives, and to 

 the incidents from which Mr. Russell has attempted to extort a 

 charge of disingenuousness against me, are subjoined- My only 

 wish is, that they should be attentively compared with Mr. Rus- 

 sell's narrative. 



In another paper I shall prove that Mr. Russell's reminiscences 

 of the proceedings at Ghent, bear the same character of imagina' 

 tion substituted for memory ; and that what he calls " the real his- 

 tory of the transaction," [the fishery and Mississippi navigation pro- 

 posal,] contradictory to the statement which I had made in my re 

 marks, is utterly destitute of foundation. 



, JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. 



Waihington, 13th July, 1822. 



