Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

i \ niaodie. The subject fttfs llwu dibjHJSfil vl and was not renewed. Mr. Cathoiln had previously communicated to Mr. Crawford his intention to presen* the question to Mr. Monroe, an intention Mr. Craw ford approved, although not believing-, as he stated to Mr. Calhoun, that General Jackson would be either arrested or censured by the President. « With great respect, I am. dear sir, yours, JOHN FORSYill. Maj. J\9rts Hamilton, New York. Mr. Crawford to Mr jCalhoun. Woodlawn. Oct. 2. 1830 *Sia—Since the adjournments' ol Congress,. the copy of a letter from you to the President, containing 11 sheets, has been placed in my hands. The object of this labored essay is to prove, that a statement contained in a letter from me to the Hon. John Forsyth, of the Se nate of the United States, is incorrect. 1; there was no evidence but that w hich is con tained in that essay, 1 should wot he afraid ol convincing every rational and unprejudiced, •mind, that the statement to Mr. Forsyth ts es 'seetially correct. In the brief comment which T intend to make upon your essay of 11 sheets, I propose to a- 'voidHie example you have set inc in three 'things, v»js:-I shall not begin by deprecating the official dignity-and weight ot character ol the person I address; when 1 meet with a fact <that-l cannot frankly and distinctly deny, I will not attempt to prove a negative by argu Tnent; and I shall not falsely and hypocritically profess a forbearance which T do not feel. I shall first notice your observation upon' 'the disclosures of the secret ot the Cabinet, which you say is the first that occurred, at leas! in this country. Do you really believe this a« sertion, Mr Calhoun 1 How did tire writtei opinoins of Messrs Jefferso n and Hamilton, oi. tlwi first hank bill, ever see light ? How wer the tacts and circumstances which preceeded and accompanied the removal ot Edmund R n- dolph from the State Departun nt, by Gen. W ashington, disclosed and made known t* the public? If your assertion be true, thos»* ffacts and c rcumstances would, at this moment bo buried in Egyptian darkness. White a ca binet is in existence, and its usefulness liable 'to be impaired, reason ,and*common sense point ■out the propriety of keeping its proceeding- fecret. But after tho Cabinet no longer exists when its usetutness can be no longe r im . paired by disclosures of its proceedings, net ther reason, common sense, nor patriotism ’requires th>«t those proceedings should b«- shroudetl'in impenetrable darkness. The act> of such a X^ahinet become history, and t he nation has the same right to a knowledge of them that it hasto any other historical tact It is presumed that AH nations have entertained this opinion, and have acted upon it. Whenc* the secret history of Cabinets, the most de* potic in Europe. Hence tho history ol the house of Stuart by Charles James Fox, which discloses the most secret intercourse between 'Charles the II., and the French Minister, ly •which it was proven That Charles was a pen sioner of Louis the XIV. King ol France, & had secretly engaged to re-establish Popery in Eng land. Yet in the'face of all,these facts; y-u t}>uo to presume upun tli« mn,c o« lh distinguished person you were addressing, so far as to insinuate that such disclosures hao never been made in any country, but certainly not ih this republic. The next thing which I shall observe ts, tb« manner in which you attempt to obtain evi donee to-controvert my statement to Mr F > myth. That stal< ment contained one prom \eent and distinct fact, ev»*nr thing else in thai statement w^s secondary and collateral to tha fact. It was reasonable, in controverting tha statement, that you should have sought to ob tain evidence to controvert that fact Yo i apply to Mr. Monroe and Mr Wirt, for evi dence. But of what t - N »t of the principa fact, but of secondary collateral matter— Ho omission to appeal to Mr. Monroe whether von made the proposition ascribed to you in rny Tetter to -Mr. Forsyth, is stong pr-sump* ivt 'evidence that you believed his answer woubt confirm my statement. v You remembered the excitement which your proposition produced in the mind and upon th-- feelings of the Pre sident; and did not dare to ask him any ques tion tending to revive his recollection ot that proposition. The different manner in which you approach the President and Mr. W iri eveff^npon the collateral secondary fact, upon which vou do venture to interrogate them • proceeds from the same fact that m.nfe yon uvoid interrogating them upon the principal fact. 'When you make the inquiry ol Mr W*rt, you enclose him such an extract from my Tetter as informs himofthc nature of the evi .dence. you arc in search of, because, 1 pre tume, you believed that extract would not tend 4o refresh his memory, or relied implied:y up on Mr. Wirt’s disposition to give such evi dence as you desired from hun But you ' wereappretiensive that the same extract seni to Me. Monroe, might refresh his memoiy, unit' me Wo him ta give such an answer as: Ivould'iipt sftt your views. The extract of my Tetter sent u? r - Wirt, describes tacts ami circumstances b which Mr Monroe was a principal actor It w.as therefore deem, d ur. hale to sfthimit them tb ' * " c excitement produced dpoti the President w ^ so manifest that you did not belieVe it could escaped, the attention oi Mr. Witt; yfl»r Vhciv fo-' 0 ** “ Tiered it unsafe to interrogate himfas to jc'fr proposition, personally affecting Gen. JucksO."* j Mr. JTlToDroe says not awdrd tending to show ' that the confidential letter was not produced ■end read m the Cabinet, which was not stag- gested by Mr. Wirt. .EveryJyro in the science of law will felt yott, that-it i* a rule of evi dence, that one affirmative witness outweighs fOany negatives; but although you were at the bar several years, it is possible your law-learn* ing never ascended so high: I might safely rest fbe case here; but I will produce one af firmative witness in support of'the accuracy of 4S»y statement. The Hon Benjamin W. Crow- Hfusbield, in a letter dated 25th July, 1830, says—‘.YOtf a*kifl recollect, while in the councils of the Cabinet, of a letter written by Gen. Jnckson to the Pressdent Monroe? I do Recollect of a conversation about a private let which Mr. Galhouo, I believe, asked for anD the President said he had not got »•» h« upon examination foundl he had it- ibis let ter contained information and opinions re specting Spain and her colony, the Floridas; but the particulars I cannot now undertake to say. or state correctly I remember, I think, your slating that the circumstances there spoken of, did fully explain Gen. Jack- son’s conduct during the campaign. I remem ber, too that Mr. Calhoun was severe upon the conduct of the General, but the words par ticulariy 6poken, have slipped my recollect ion- 'Noiv, sir what do .you think ot the negative statement of Mr. Wirt? Do you think it now so very certain that that letter was not produced and read in the Cabinet upon which your inemorv is so distinct? Do you no't, on the contrary, feel convinced of having attempted lo pass off a falsehood upon the president ot the United States? The main fact contained in my^tarement, is not denied dir ctly or indirectly in your elabo rate essay. But a negative attempted by ar gument And what kind of an argument is of fered ? Why, that “d would he to rate his (vour.j understanding very low to suppose that an officer under our laws could he punish ed without arrest and trial.” S r I rate any man’s understands very low, who acts with a total disregard to principle It is true, that in addi i >n to the argument you add, that to say vou did not propose to arrest General Jackson, but that he should be punished or reprehend ed in some form -or other, is absurd on its face What need is there for arrest and trial prepar atvry to -repremand ? But is it iu teed true 'hat a military officer cannot he punished without arrest and trial ? Was not tho disap probation of the case in the Seminole war a punishment ? 4 think General-Jackson must ; i»ive felt it to be soch. Fshould have oppos- d it, it I had seen any way of placing the go vernment in the right as to Spain, without dis • vowing the principal eveuts df tho Seminole war •It' you are not satisfied with the evidence -F \Ir Crownmshi -ld, Mr. Adams, in n letter dated 30t<i July* 1830 says: 'the main point up .n which it was urged that G *n J-tcksou should *»e brought to trial was, that he had violated his orders by taking St. M irks and Pensaco la.” I; is true that Mr. Adams does not say by whom it was urged to bring General Jack- son to trial ; but you know very well that here was no proportion made iu the Cabinet ff cling G nt-ral J u kson per-^nally, but what >vas made by yourself , If you deny this. I •vdl obtain the necessary .explanation from Mr. Adams. L m«y be proper to state that the two tetters from Messrs. Adams andCrownin* shi dd, are the only communications I have re ceived from them since my departure irom Washington and they ar»- in reply to the only letters 1 have written to them since the alert?' said period There has been as little sympa > hy either individual or political between those gentlemen and me as between (hem and you, and in fact much less between Mr. Adumi and myself than between him and you, at leas' h» fori the coalition hi tween him and Clay. In tact, befote that event-, my impression was that from the time yoifr name was put down lor the Presiib'ncy, you favored the cause o: Mr. A lums And the fact that alt hi* elec tors voted for you as Vxe^President, and tha! »ou suffered Ins printer lo'bncome proprietor of the press you had e-uaMt.-hed in Washing- on for the express purpose of vnfyiiig my haractt-T and landing yours, without stipula ing that it sh -ntd trot ho ivndded again-t Gen. J ick-ion, go tar to es'ab’ish the fact. I have • ow done with vour argumentative denial, and be negative i vide *ce ol Mr. WtYt,hacked hy , our distinct recollection - I shall now take some notice ot your attack- iDon me, wlncti, with the exception of Mr M’ L) iffi ’s letter, are all argumentative, aod prm ipa tv founded upon thai- letter. For the present, I shall say nothing about hit letter or the reasoning founded upon it Yon exp-ess much f« rbeara'-.ca towards me, »Ccau*e you sav I have been unfortunate.^ If ymj mean thirt l have stiff red much bodily Iff rtion, you are right ; but, (hank Go >, t hose (Actions are pa^t ynd I am now, and hav«- uoen for more t a t ilwee yaars, in the enjoy nent of vigorous uninterrupted-health. Bui if by uiif .rtunati . vou mean 1 wa9 not elected President m 1824 5. I must beg leave to dis- -i-nt from the truth of.that assertion I am conscious of being less untortwnaie than you were. Y »u after -.btruding your name upon ?he nation as a candidate for the Presidency ;n a manner until then unknown, and i trust will never be repeated, ami con*lucted yourscM :n the sam»‘ unprecedented manner wtule your name was permiied lo tie up, were put down i»v the State of Pennsylvania, upon which you ff-cted to rely for success My oarne wa- {•ill up by my friend- for the same office, and hv them was kept up, notwithstanding my ho- iffl etions, till the election was consumated in ! . House of Representatives in February, 1825. No man in ttie nation w .s better pleased with my exclusion than I was; lor I dhen vernly believed, and do now believe, that had I been elected, my remains would now he rrpusmg in the national burying ground, near the eastern branch of the Poto mac. I wa9 therefore far from con-idcrmg my self unfortunate in the result ol the election ;n the ll<wise or Represi nfatives. Your forhearance towards n»e has been al fected because you believed you could more effectually injure me. I request, that hereaf ter. if you -hould have occasion to write or speak ol me, you would not again feign a for bearance you do not feel. Y>U affect to lament that my friends did not mu' rfere hd<I prevent my meddling with thi> -matte/ I make no doubt that you would have bee.? very glad to h ave been spared the trouble of making so elaborate a comment up on A feller of th/ec pages. I make no doubt that yon dislike thw lu.va of being exposed and stript of the covert yo' 1 have been enjoying undet the Presidint’s wit)gv, by moans of false hood ii misrepresentation. You ass. rt that my suspicion-that you wrote or c/used to he writ ten, the letter which was publKiu'^d in a N ish vide Ga2otte, Is Without louudalion. A m«irs who knows as well as I do, the smaH weight to which any assertion of yours is entitled, in a matter where your interest leads you to disre gard truth, must have other evidence than yodr assertion, to remove even a suspicion.— You ask why 'not charge Mr- Adams with hav mg written or caused that Idfter to be written? The answer is easy and conclusive; !*he let ter contained two falshoods—one intended to injure me; the other intended to bi-nefit you, and that which was for your benefit, taking from Mr Adams half the credit of defending General Jackson, and giving il to you. Ad mining for thesabc of argument, that Mr. Ad auras was disposed to injure me, no one will I think, suppose that he would voluntarily .as cribe half the merits of his oivn actions to the man who wa* tbuihost strenuous opposer ol his wishes. * ,Jf the intrinsic evidence of the letter fixes ft upon yon and not upon Mr. Ad aros. subsequent events strongly corroborate* the inference deducible from the oontchts of the published letter. During the whole of the "President ml canvass of ’23, and ’24. I have no recollection of any act of Mr. Adams, tending to vilify me ; but yoiihrizc, that you set up the Washington Republican in Washington, for the express purpose of Villifymg rt»y reputa tion, and had the effnintly and -sham-lessness to cause it to be published by h 'clerk in the department, whose tenure of office Was your will The f»cts which 1 have stated ‘frill exon erate Mr. Adams from the charge Of having any concern with the Nashville letter tfnd fix that charge upon you in the estimation of ren-^ son able men, your denial to the contrary nut withstanding. Y »u place great stress upon tho cdrtfliicT of gentlemen in Congress, whom yon assert to be my friends. This is what might be expected from a man of your loose principles. My friends in Congress were men who would have been insulted, had any man, however »-levated, approached them in the language of entreaty aod persuasion. I never did, and never would, if I were to live a thousand years, inter fere with a man who was acting under tho ob ligations of an oatb, to persuade or entreat him to act contrary to the convictions of his own judgement; and if I were such member and any man, however elevated he might be. were to interfere with me ty way of entreaty or per suasion ; 1 should feel myself insulted, and should certainly insult the person so interfere ing The only conversation l recollect ever Johave participated in with a member of Con gress, in reference to the foregoing subject, was with Mr Cobb, at mj own House, in the presence of Mr. Macon, of N. Carolina. In that conversation I supported General Jack- son’- right.to put Ambrister to death. Mr. Mr. Macon, I believe, was convinced ; but I am not: certain that Mr Cobb wa9. That gen tleman acted in concert with Mr. Clay in the part he acted in.the discussion upon the Sem mole war Mr Forsyth and Mr. Lacock were men of high character and experience, -and leant upon no person. Mr. Epps made a speech in favor of the report which was in truded to be made, and was rn conspqnenc*’ placed on the committee in place of Mr For- *vth. I wonder you had not disc-ivived, that he too was a particular friemlof mine. Y*ui say that, as it appears from Mr M’Duf. fio’- I tter, I no -croples about di=clos.ng the mcrets of tho Cabinet, I hud it in my power to change the opinions of i?»y friends, by dis closing the contents of the confidential letter No person who bad a proper regard or the Feting* or ehatact. r of Mr Monroe was Capa Me ol that duplicity which would connive* »t the execution <fa measure, and disavow it rafter it was executed I mild confess, had I been President, 1 shorn! not have been fl.it»er ed by its reception. It’ I had, as you errone <'U«ly repn 3ont me been little scrupulous a b ait disclosing the secrets of the Cabinet, winch «s positively denied, notwithstanding Mr. M'Duffii-’s statement, I should havo made no ••se of that letror and this from respect to Mr VI mroe's feelings and character In the whole course of my life. I have heeu so much in th** habit of utterii g my opinions inti stating facts as they are known to me, when made proper hv time and place, that when I am charge,f, afrer uny lapse ol* time with hav •ng uttered opinions or made statements .of fic»s, I do not hesirat to admit such opininn* w»-re uttered or statement of facts made, if the opinions c**rri»spnnded with thosed entertained or with the knowledge of facts I then possess e-'; bwt when I Atn charged with otteringopm- i'inR-1 never entertained, or with m-k ng state* meat of fycts, inconsistent with my knowledge of them at.tJ*** time they are alleged to have been mad , under circumstances not rendering tho disclosure proper, i have as hub* hesitation >n declaring the charge false Applying this rule To Mr .Vl’P'tffie’s letter, I have no hesita tion in saying he is mistaken in every part of it. 1 can account for tus mist-ke in tho firs p»rt ot his statement. In my letter to Mr. Forsyth, I state that previous to Mr Monroe’s return to the city, you in a private conversa tion with m- ', stated your determination to pur sue the course in the Cabinet that you did, and tliai I approved of it Mr. M’Duffie h«s applied this conversation to the cabinet delib erations, and has jmade me approve of yoiir prnpositittn unfriendly to Gen. J ick-on, which I aver s untrue and you ’your-e f know it to be untrue. At the time of 1|ms private con vrrsalir-if I bad never seen the order- under which G iieral J ickson acted, nor any of his despatches, nor heard of" the confidential let ter. I r lied upon the-accuracy of your re) - ri sentatiohs, and according to them G n j ick son appeared clearly in the wrong and I do* not hesitate to t#ll you f thioight you in thi right. At the time I visit, d Goorgia, I have no recollection rhat Ghii J. rk-onhad adopied any measures to tor^t.J: public opinion, and thereby to anticipate the decision ot the admi nisi ration*- Aipr. have I d this moment any re collection of the existence of any such meas ure If none such existed and I believe non'** existed, then it is utterly impossible that. I should have expressed myself as Mr M’DjU fio makes me, I have, therforo. no hesitation v< saying, the whole, of Mr. M’Duffie’s state rnent is a mistake. I say nottong of the mo lives of 8fj|r. MTluffio in making the statement llecause !•-do mu. know them; but this I wt! *ay, ‘that'Mr. McDuffie tins, upon a former oc caxion-, ^bowu a -willingness to asperse me, It is somewhat doubtful for what purposes Mr. M’Duffie’s statement was obtained, as his slate meht hi|s no direct bearing on the fact’s, state.’ iu my letter to Mr Forty!h It appears to rnr >n reflection, that tiio princip-il object in oi* taming it, To impeacJ^ my veracity. 1; that whs tbe objcct, I have no fear of.the re sult, where he and I are known To give you a Rowland for your Oliver, read the en closed extract of the letter of Cap'ain Ross. I know nothingx/f the correctness of his state ment, farther than that he made the statement to me in substande before he left'Washington, and further added, that he communicated bis impression to a military officer residing ih Washington, and attached to the War Depart ment, who told bun that was no matter of sur prise: that tho officers attached *to the D«. - parttnent had made.that discovery j$ffore. I nave left (he r.ame of the office* a blank, as 1 was unwilling to involve him in a controversy with jrou, without his consent. You say that the decision of the Cabinet was: unanimously agreed fo. This I heliove to be untrue at ttie time you wrote it. Mv reasons are the following :—The Cabinet deliberations, commenced on Tuesday morning, and on Friday e' eirng, all the questions which had been discussed were, I thought, decided, Hhd Mr. Adam9 d rected to draff a note to the Spai.irah Minister, conformable to those decisions. I intended to set off for Georgia on Sttuday morning *. and, in order to to prepare the Department I6r my absence, 1 was busily employed in office, when, about one or two o’clock, I rece ved a note from the Pre sident, requesting my 'attendance. When I. entered, the greatest part of Mr. Adams’ notev had been rejected, &l the remirindcr was short ly after, and he was directed to draft another note pursuant to the decision which had been made. The next morning I set off for Geof gia. Xlr Adams' letter, which is now before me, contains a repetition of the arguments he used in the Cabinet; and in the letter he in forms me, that tho exposition which appeared in the Intelligencer, fras not written hy him. From all these tacts, 1 think it fairly inferrable, that Mr Adams did not agree to the decision of the Cabinet, and that yota must have known it; for it » clear that be did not agree to it on Saturday; arid it is highly improbabHe that n- ny arguments should have been urged to con vince him* after ha had been twice directed to draff his note in conformity to decisions which had been pre viously made. You dwell with much stress upon the lapse of time since those deliberations, and seem to be unconscious that the same lapse of time ap plies to all your certificates, negut.ve and affir mative. Yon seem (o repose full confidence cn Mr. M’Du-ffie’s recollection, although it was of a casual conversation, not likely to m^ko the same impression upon the mind, as tho facts contained in my letter to Mr Forsyth. You even Tefer to your recollection of a very trivial fact, which tou say happened during the next session of Congress. T have now a letter be fore me, dated in October, 4821, in which 1 state to you, that you hwi a short time before informed mo, that your memory conld not be relied on as to facts. You wrote me a letter 'he next day> in which, you did not controvert that fact; yet, now after a lapse of twelve years you rely upon you* memory for a very trivial tact, via : Your application toseethat private confidential letter, because you had received sonip hints about it, and you believe from some of my friends Do yon not perceive some in consistency in your essay ? You bad just cen sured me for not using this letter, and then in- vnuate that I had used it, as you seem to think I ought to have used it. In truth I do not be lie v* ono word of your insinuation, nor do I believe you do, for the reason 1 have already stated ; I know I never made use of it. But you insinuate that I made disclosures of the secrets of the Cabinet to the editor of the newspaper in Miltedgeville, because General Clark suspected it, and because I never de- Med it. I never knew that 1 was charged with it except in Gt-nerai Clark’s book, and there the evidence effered in support of it was so ridiculous, that no person, less ignorant and malignant that General Clark, would have paid the f ast attention to it. Besides, if I had dc- n-ed that charge and nut gone through his book >nd denied everv charge in it however ridicu I tus, it would have been alleged hy you & your] tolaborers, that th^chargos not denied were ad uuted. But. sir, since you renew the charge, I give it the most unqualified denial. The edi tor of the paper alluded to. said presence, in my that he had been informed that it had been pro posed in the Cabinet, to arrest Gen. Jackson. I simply replied that no such proposition hud been made in the Cabinet. Let us apply vour own role to you, and see •tow you will stand the test of your own reas oning. A Charleston paper of last March, •tated that you had been charged with parti cipation in the Ninian Edward’s plot against my reputilion. Have you ever denied this chargi ? Again : you have been charged in the 3-utli Carolina papers with being a nulhfier. — Air Gales has denied this for you ; but have you denied it yoursell ? Have you ever con -ulered the ridiculous figure you may cut in the sequel, if this nullification advances much further? In 1818, you v»ete among the foremost in avowing the expediency and right of protect ing domestic manufactures. Now, your disci- ;de* deny the right, and propuse to nullify an act <of Congress, founded upon the principle ol protection. You may depend upon it, if you tod year friends sboUl i proceed so far as to •o. ur the guilt, and suffer the punishment oi treason and uii*uccussiul rebellion, you will ueet with no sympathy among the sister Suites I have said that Mr Wirt’s negative state ment is the only evidence you have in support >f your negative assertion, tbut the confiden- tal letter was not produced and read in the Cabinet. For proof of this, read theencios d extract of Mr. Monroe’s h tter by which it will be sees that, having no reliance upon his •wn recollection, be applied to Mr. Wirt for "dorniation ; and he candidly and very prop- rly adits: “Still, as the quest ion turns on me mory alone, Mr Wirt, as well'as 1, may be mis- aken—and in fegard to me, as I was sick iu ••ed when. I received the letter, that presump- ion is the more probable.” Y<-u appear to boast of the serviees’you ren- ;ered Gen. Jjckson in his tit most need What nose services were, you have not condescen- t-d lo slate in your very elaborate essay. : Nor «ave 4 hoard them dialed at before# Perhaps ” ■ * V #. •. your meritorious service* were in entreating^ persuading members of Congress to appruvn acts that you deemed worthy of punishment when'deliberating in the Cabinet. 1 will, how ever ’hrit -dwell upon this topic. If you can satisfy the President that you rendered him es sentia? /i&rVice, I have no objection I bat you should be rewarded for it . W hat 1 object to is, that be should ?>e rewarded for ascribing to me vour own acts. ' . You say Ihfct to plrfce Gen. Jackson’s de fence upon the confidential letter, is to do him an injary, and that he in his reports never rest ed it upon that ground. Whether this he trie or not, 1 have no means of judging But, in the course of the subsequent winter, I saw an' essay in a Nashville paper, in which the wri ter asserted, that the Administration knew that' G-n Jackson entered Florida, that he intend ed to take the Spanish forts; and that know ing it, and not countctmanding it, the Adminis tration hid made his acts their own, and were not at liberty to disavow them. I carried this letter to the President*, and requested him to read the essay, giving him my opinion that tho es^ay was either wrilte’n Under Gen Jackson’s immediate inspcctiop, cr by a person that haff access to his private papers; for. that the con fidential letter was evidently referred to A short time after, he returned the Gazette, say. ing, ho entirely concurred with me in opinyui. Extract No. 2, of bis letter shows, that Mr. Monroe now recollects the circumstances, td which my letter to him called his attention I must take some further notice of Mr. Wirt’s negative statement, before 1 close this commentary. Mr. Wirt commences his letter by expressing doubts about disclosing the sc* crets of the Cabinet, without the consent ot the President, and every member of the Ca binet present f suppose this squenmishness of Mr. Wirt, suggested to you the very wise de clarations that you only request information as to your part, in the declarations of the cabinet. This he gravely assents to, and then states that you proposed an injury to General Jrack- son’9 conduct He then proceed* with nearly two pages, stating what he doe9 not recollect, A'l that he does not rccollet, I do distinctly re collect, and so does Mr. Crowninshield. feut what he does not recollect, is arraved t>v Vou as evidence against what I anil Mr. CrowninshieM do recollect. And Mr. Wirt, from his manner ol stating his non-recollccljona, seems disposed to countenance the use you have made of his negative statement. You are welcome to it, and to the reasoning with which he has supplied vou.’ Since the dissolution of Mr Monroe’s Cabinet, I have not felt myself restrained from disclosing any fact that transpired io it. While existed. I disclosed none of its sccrots ; and whoever says 1 did, 3;»V9 what is not true. 1 know of no intrigues to injure you or any otJipr it person, either directly ; r indirectIv. Had i been called in the year 1825, iifior the third of March, n* I was called on by Mr. Forsvth last spring. I should have made the same de-clo sures then, (hat I made to Mr Forsyth. Whi ther Mr. Wirt remembers the facts contained in my statement, is perfectly indilT-rent to me, even if Mr Crowninshieltl had no» remember ed them. But his recollection of the facts m almost as distinct as mine Mr. Adams’ recol lection is, that it was proposed to tiring Gene ra! Jackson to trial; and Mr. CrowninshieldV, that yon Were screre npon the conduct of the General. I believe both of these gentlemen have giv en the impression that your arguments made npon their minds. ImLed neither of tb*>fn have intended to give your express words I •- m. therefore,not withstandingffre'ir statements, of opinion the pr^iosition ascribed fo vou in my letter to Mr Forsyth, U literally correct ; although “it may be to rate his (vour) undo*- standing" very luW and may be absurd on its face.” I believe I baVe bow gone through vour tedious essay and have been murh more tedious than I expeled to be ; hut your insinu ations have b<*en so multifarious and various that I ould not well he shorter. ;.nd fhave r t timo fo revise it and make it shorter. A few words more about conspiracies. General No ble informed me that for about two weeks be* fore Ninian Edivards set off to the west in 1823, he lodged in th*- same house witlrlum, && that a person going to Edwards’ room, had to i pass by his, and that during that time you paid a daily visit to his (Edwards’) room arid spent from one to two hours with him He sent his memorial back to Washington, while he was on hi« journey; it is therefore highly probable that the njt>9t of it was written in Washington, and reviewed and revised hy you during, your daily visits to that compeer of yours. Everv person who knew Edwards, was convinced he never would have ventured upon such a step without having received assurances from p r- *ons he deemed capable of protecting him — Your letter ot the 3d vf Jolv to the managers of.the 4th of July dinner at Washington, was considered at the time an act redeeming tho pledge of protection you had given him It is true that Mr. Adams and Mr M’Lean united with you in the letter. Mr Adams’ motive for singing it Was apparent. E iwnrds was his*' political supporter. His son-in-law held the vote ot Illinois in his bands; without which, it appeared in the event, Mr. Adams could not have been elected. Mr. Adams, therefore, had an adequate political motive for doing the act. You could have had >o such motive, nor could Mr. M’Lean, 1 beli ve, have had any other motive for his, Conduct than that of subserviency to your wishes, and a de sire to enable you to fuifif your promise to Ed* wards. Froan the.time Gen. Noble gave me the information^ and that you signed the letter of the 3d of July, ( never doubted that the plot against my reputation was your handy work, and originated in your brain, so fertile in mis chief And yet voU complain of intrigues and conspiracies* 4 have through my whole life been a plain thorough going man. When diffi culties have arisen 1 have honestly met them, &' undet the protection ot the shield of integrity have Vanquished them. I am now twp old to adopt a r.e W course of conduct* I atttth rot ire* rnont, and bare no wish to emerge from that ret rement. I had like to have forgot your charge of infringe ng the purity of the electoral colleges. ‘I wrote the letter to Mr. Barry of which you qpmplairv and that was not the only letter. But at the time that letter was written, I had fio io forma tion that .(he ejeetore ef Kentucky frero pUdf