£52 



The case seems to have been different on the next day. Mr, 

 Floyd then proposed to strike out from his resolution, the exception 

 of papers, which, in the opinion of the President, it might be im- 

 proper to disclose ; and to the demand for the correspondence, had 

 added that for the protocol. 



The following observations of Mr. Floyd in this day's debate^, 

 [17th January, 1822,] explaining his reasons for wishing for the 

 whole correspondence, without excepting even such parts of it as m 

 the President's opinion it might be improper to disclose, are par- 

 ticularly remarkable. He observed " that the bill which he had 

 "this day reported to the House, contemplated a considerable 

 *' change in the intercourse with the Indian tribes, in the West ; and 

 " it appeared by the report of the Secretary of War, made yester- 

 *' day, that a g7'cat influence zcas exercised over those tribes by our 

 *' European tieighbours in thai quarter. The correspondence be- 

 •* tween the commissioners at Ghent, embraced this subject among 

 " others, and he thought it was desirable that the House should be 

 *' in possession of the whole of it." 



Mr. Floyd, in his recent publication, says that when the papers 

 were communicated to the House, in answer to this call, on exam- 

 ining them, he could not find any tlmig he -wanted. ; but that he ex- 

 pected to find it in the letter of Mr. Russell, promised in his sepa- 

 rate despatch of 25th December, 1814. He disclaims any inten- 

 tion, however, of calling for a private letter, and says, that if by 

 any proper act he could have prevented this affair, he would have 

 done so. Whether he found, in Mr. RusselPs letter, when it was 

 communicated, any thing that he wanted, he has not said. There 

 was much touching the value of the Mississippi river, and much 

 about the influence exercised over those Indian tribes, by our Eu- 

 ropean neighbours in that quarter : the bearing of it, or of any part 

 of it, upon Mr. Floyd's bill for the occupation of Columbia river, is 

 not so perceptible as its bearing upon the object which he now 

 seems to disclaim. If he means to be understood to say, that he ha3 

 no other motive in calling for that letter than those that he has as- 

 signed in his recent publication, 1 should only regret that this paper, 

 when obtained, was so little suited to answer his expectations, or to 

 give him the information of which he was in pursuit. 



That he had other objects in view, it was certainly very natural 

 to believe, upon observing the earnestness with which he pressed for 

 the whole Ghent correspondence, without excepting such part as 

 the President might think it improper to disclose ; and upon com- 

 paring his observations in the debate of 17th January, with the 

 contents of Mr. Russell's letter. 



His resolution of 19th April, called on the President (if not in- 

 jurious to the public good) for any letter or communication ^ which 

 inay have been received, from Jonathan Russell, after the sigrvature 

 of the treaty of Ghent, and written in conformity to the indications 

 contained in his letter of 25th December, 1814. Although in this 

 call, there is neither qualification of the character of the letter or 



