159 



overlook and despisft it. But, when made the object of two suc- 

 cessive leojisl.itive calls for obsolete and forgotten documents, trum- 

 peted beforehand throvighout the Union, as fraught with disclo- 

 sures which were to blast a reputation worthless in the estimation 

 of its possessor, if not unsullied ; when pertinaciouslj' obtruded 

 upon Congress and upon the nation, by a colleague in the transac- 

 tion deRounced, by a participator in the act reprobated by himself, 

 principles and duties of a higher order than those of mere personal 

 delicacy commanded me to solicit the attention, first, of the House 

 of Representatives, and, secondly, of the nation, to my defence and 

 that of my colleagues, arraigned before them. That defence has 

 been, and will be, strictly confined to the same limits as the attack 

 to which it is opposed ; and if, in the course of it, the attack itself 

 has necessarily been made to recoil upon the accuser, it was because 

 nothing could more forcibly tend to show the futility of the charge^ 

 than an exposition of the conduct of hini who produced them. Let 

 me then be permitted to say, that this is not a mere personal con- 

 troversy between Mr. Russell and me, with which the public have 

 no concern. It did not so begin, nor can it so end. The negotia- 

 tion at Ghent was an event of great importance in the history of 

 this Union. It was conducted by five Commissioners, citizens of 

 different sections of the country. One of the great objections to 

 the entrusting of critical negotiations to Commissions is, their in- 

 'herent tendency to internal dissentions, injurious to the common 

 cause. Of these dissentions I believe there were as tew at Ghent 

 as in any negotiation, by Commissioners of equal number, upon his- 

 torical record. Until the last winter, I had flattered myself that 

 :/i07ie of those difl'erences of opinion had been of a character which 

 it would have been ever necessary to disclose to the world. In 

 making the draught of the joint letter of 25th December, 1814, to 

 the Secretary of State, I had, in speaking of the proposition made to 

 the British plenipotentiaries on the first of that month, said, '• To 

 place both points beyond controversy, zve o^crcd to admit an article 

 confirming both rights," (to the Mississippi navigation and the fish- 

 eries.) The draught having been passed round to all the members of 

 the mission for revisal, was brought back to me by Mr. Russell, 

 with an alteration, which he said was desired, not by him, but by 

 Mr. Clay, to say, instead of "tie offered,'" "a majority of us de- 

 termined to offer." Now, although the expressions first used had 

 been strictly correct, and the offer had been actually made by the 

 whole mission, I readily assented to the alteration, not imagining 

 that Mr. Russell's purpose was to lay it as a corner-stone for future 

 fabrics, either of self-accusation and defence, or of social discord 

 and reproach. He now alleges it as a self-contradiction of mine, 

 that I say the proposition was made by the whole mission, although 

 in the joint letter of 25th December, it was said, a majority deter- 

 inined to offer it. But the contradiction is of his own imagination. 

 The determination was taken by the majority. The offer was made 

 »y the whole. Mr. Russell proposed another amendment, for which 



