155 



Mr. Brenfs Statement. 



dn the 20th of April of the present year, I called upon Mr. Russell at lii3 

 lodgings in this city, without the knowledge or direction of any other person 

 whatever, to inquire of him, as I did, whether he could and would furnish the 

 Department of State with a copy of -his letter from Paris to the Secretary of 

 State, which was referred to in a resolution that I supposed to be then on its 

 passage (but which had actually passed the day before,) tlirough the House of 

 Representatives, upon the motion of Doctor Floyd, in case the said resolutiou 

 should be adopted by the House, and a regulai application were made to him 

 for it ; observing to him distinctly and particularly, however, that I had no au- 

 tiiority to make such an application myself, and that my entire object was to 

 ascertain the facts just stated. In answer to this inquiry, Mr. Russell informed 

 jiie that his daughter had recently transmitted to him the draft of the letter in 

 fjuestion ; that lie had it thereby in his power to give a transcript of it, and would 

 set about making one immediately, which, when finished, he would deliver to 

 the Presideiit. Upon which I remarked, that this seemed to be the proper 

 Course, the original having been addressed to him, the President, when Secreta- 

 ry of State. I then observed to Mr. Russell, that he had better deliver it as a 

 duplicate than as a copy ; that he knew the original was not to be found upon the 

 fdcs of the Department of State, and that this was the common form with regard 

 to all such comuiunicaiions. He seemed pleased with the suggestion, and said 

 that he would conform to it, without giving me the slightest intimation that he 

 would prefer giving a copy, as such, or that he would furnish any other than a 

 duplicate of the identical letter spoken of and referred to, which had been 

 transmitted by him from Paris to the then Secretary of State. I was prompted 

 by a double motive to this inquiry — first, by an habitual wish that the Depart- 

 ment to which I belonged should always be prepared to furnish what might be 

 required of it by tiie House of Representatives; and, secondly, by an appre- 

 hension that, if it were not so prepaved in this particular case, unjust imputa- 

 tions might be made against the Head of that Department, which I was desir- 

 ous of obviating. In this interview, Mr. Russell told me that it was at his in- 

 stance Doctor Floyd had submitted his last resolution to the House of Repre- 

 sentatives ; that he was influenced, himself, by the wish that his letter should be 

 communicated to Congress, for his justification as to the part he had taken in 

 the negotiation of the treaty of Ghent, with regard to the fisheries ; but that the 

 same gentleman's first motion upon the same subject, was made without his 

 knowledge or advice. On the 22d of the same month, Mr. Russell handed to 

 tne, in my room at the Department of State, in the absence of the Secretary, 

 with a request that I would deliver it over to him, an open letter, marked "Du- 

 j)licate," a copy of which was communicated by the President to the House of 

 Representatives, on the 7th of May last ; obsevving, when he did so, that he felt 

 no particular solicitude about it, and requesting that it might be returned to 

 him, if not used by the Department. A day or two afterwards this paper was 

 put into the hands of Mr. Thomas Thruston, one of the clerks of the office, 

 to be copied. Perceiving that it bore date at Paris, on the Ilth o! February, 

 1822, when Mr. Russell was known to be attending the session of Congress in 

 this city, as a member of the House of Representatives, this young gentleman 

 isked my advice whether he should insert that date in the copy or not ; and I 

 told him, without hesitation, to insert 1816 instead of 1822, as Mr. Russell had 

 evidently, from inadvertence, made a mistake in the date, Mr. Thruston gave 

 it that date accordingly, and made a correspondent alteration in the paper it- 

 self, which he was transcribing, under the impression that he was likewise au- 

 thorized to do so, and that it would never produce criticism of any sort. When 

 Mr. Adams came to be apprized of these circumstances, particularly of the al- 

 teration in the date of the " duplicate" paper, he manifested and expressed 

 much surprise and displeasure upon the occasion. But Mr. Russell, whom I 

 saw iitimedjately after they happened, and to whom I corafiiunitated what had 



