248 



IF. From the National Intelligencer of Mst August , 1822. 



To the Editors of the National Intelligencer. 



In the Richmond Enquirer of the 27th August, 1822, there is 

 published a letter from Mr. F|oyd to the editors of that paper, ia 

 which he says, that in my Rejoinder to Mr. Russell, I boldly and 

 confidently reiterate, that Mr. Russell procured HIM, to subserve 

 his purposes, and make the call in the House, which he did make ; 

 which assertion he unequivocally pronounces to be utterly desti- 

 tute of that verity which ought always to characterize assertions 

 made to the public. 



Whoever has read the Rejoinder, thus referred to, ihust have 

 seen that the name of Mr. Floyd is not so much as mentioned in it. 

 I have invariably spoken in it of the call of the House of Represent- 

 (itivesy and have mentioned the mover of the Resolution, only to 

 Say, that when Mr. Russell left the City, on the fifth of May, I pre- 

 sumed he knew that the call for the letter would not be renewed 

 by him. I have said that the call of the House of the 19th of 

 April, was made at Mr. Russell's instance or suggestion, and that it 

 was procured by him. My vouchers for this assertion, are the 

 declarations of Mr. Russell himself to Mr. Brent and Mr. Bailey, 

 as attested in their statements — from the latter of which it appears 

 how the call for Mr. Russell's letter was procured by him, namely, 

 that Mr Floyd, before offering the resolution, asked him for a copy 

 of the letter, which Mr. Russell declined giving, telling Mr. Floyd 

 that if he wished a copy, he must move a call for it. Mr. Floyd 

 has not denied this to be fact. If he did deny it, the question would 

 be upon the verity of Mr. Russell's assertion, and not of mine. 

 With the verity which ought always to characterize assertions 

 made to the public, I am as deeply impressed as I could be by the 

 precept of Mr. Floyd, or by his example. 



JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, 



Washington, 30th August, 1822. 



v. Further Remarks upon Mr. Floyd^s Letter to the Editors of the 

 Richmond Enquirer. 



The impartial editors of the Richmond Enquirer, in republish- 

 ing this letter of mine to the editors of the National Intelligencer, 

 repelling the charge of Mr. Floyd, annexed to it a note of their 

 own, styling the distinction pointed out in my letter between the 

 motion of Mr. Floyd, and the call of the House of Representatives 

 which resulted from it, a nice distinction. 



The distinction was this : Mr. Floyd had accused me of having, 

 *' regardless of feelings or opinions, boldly and confidently reiterat- 

 " ed, in my Rejoinder, that Mr. Russell had procured him, (Mr. 

 " Floyd,) to subserve his, (Mr. Russell's,) purposes, and make the 

 " call m the House which he did make." And upon this accusa 



