Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

MB AGRICULTURAL AND MERCANTILE INTELLIGENCER. Printed and published on Tuesdays and Fridays, by tfJariuadukc /. Slade, at Fire Hollars per annum, payable in advance. VOL. I The Advertiser & intelligencer Is published on Mondays and Thursdays at Five Dollars per annum, in advance. Advertisements inserted at the usual rates: those sent without a specified number of insertions, will be published until ordered out and charged accordingly. Sales of Land, by Administrators, Exe cutors, or Guardians, are required, by law, to be held on the first Tuesday in the month, between the hours often in the forenoon and three in the afternoon, at the couurt-house in the county in vhich'the property is situate. Notice of these sales must be given in a public gazette sixty days previous to the day of sale, . Sales of negroes must be at public auction, on he first Tuesday of the month, between the usual hours of sale, at the place of public sales in the county where the letters Testamentary, of Admin istration or Guardianship, may have been granted, first giving sixty days notice thereoi, in one of the public gazettes of this State, and at the door of the court-house, where such sales are to be held. Notice for the sale of Personal Property must be given in like manner, Forty days previous to the day of sale. , „ r ~ Notice to the Debtors and Creditors of an Es tate must be published for forty days. Notice that application will be made to tne Court of Ordinary for leave to sell Land, must be published four months. Notice for leave to sell Negroes, must be pub lished for four months, before any order absolut shall be made thereon by the Court. “The price of Liberty is eternal vigilance.” Hum the Georgia Jauraul. REVIEW Of the Correspondence between General An drew Jackson and John C. Calhoun, President and Vice-President of the Uni ted States, on the subject of the course of ’ the latter in he deliberations of the Cabinet of Mr. Monroe, on the occurrences in the Seminole War —and the papers to which said Correspondence has given rise. The article, upon which it is our intention to bestow a few reflections, has drawn a cur tain upon scenes wholly new in this country, and altogether discreditable to the move ments of elevated life. The American peo ple have long fluttered thems Ives that vir tue, at least, is the ruling trait oftheir great men, and that whatever of cunningor perfidy existed in the natio: , was to be found in the humbler walks of lift, the invariable attend ant of penury and want. Mliat a delusion must be removed by the subject before us! Upon the great surface of the moral world, duplicity is the growth of every soil, and the fact is fast approaching a fix and confirmation, t hat its more favored a id congenial region, is in the highest rank's of society. The evi dences of treachery, and ail its corrupting consequences, have so signally crowd and upon the political events of this country, and have been exhibited in s ich rapid succession, be fore the American people, that it should a waken no surprise if one were to declare that the federal government is the most deceitful upon which the sun, at this day. pours its. beams. We know the assertion is a strong o.ie, hut to the man who stauoa aside upon some retired elevation, unavved by the stern ness of power, and unmoved by the seduc tions of fame, and attentively beholds the million of secret currents that are forever ur ging men on in the pursuit of office, he will he constrained to say that it is not stronger than true. The remark is not applicable to the constituent elements of society. They are comparatively pure and passive ; hut ope rated upon by the combined influence of av arice and ambition, passion and power, they are often driven into surges that threaten to whelm every thing that is found drifting up on their summits. Ties is precisely the pres ent aspect of the “gr. at deep” of political af fairs in the United States, produced by the essay we are now about to examine. Con taining the figure, the storm is up and still rages ; none dare predict who is to be lost, or who is to he saved. We propose to investigate this subject, dis passionately,—not with any great hope of en lightening any one, —but with a view to warn the peopL not to fall into ranks, with a blind and reckless devotedness to men, vvithou carefully examining the claims which they have upon their countenance and support.— As they have been appealed Io in the most studied and solemn fo in, so, in the most cool and deliberate manner, should they make up t!i ir verdict. They owe it to their self-respecl. They owe it to their virtue and integrity, as it is an event brought on, not l>y their agency, not to commit themselves on either side, until they have duly weighed and considered all the evidence submitted to their inspection. justice he done, and let the guilty party fall into that merited contempt which always waits the unsuccessful issue of selfish mo tives. The pamphlet is addressed to the people of the United States, and the testimony laid before them, doubtless, with a view to tiici*" impartial decision. Asa part of that com munity thus invoked, we feel authorised to suTunit our judgment; and having nothing to disguNe, we are free to say that Mr. Cal houn h. s not sustained himself. 'I he rea sons for ti.’ opinion shall now he frankly given. In the first place, wo do most seriously ob ject to the manner of the address. It is an a, Veal to the sympathies of the people ; an attempt to h arrow up their feelings, and un der the compassion which a most suing com plaint never fails to produce, it is hoped to a ducothetn into favor, contrary to t!i< u bei u. r judgment. This is a species of political tj.rihpicv y tint the American pul-lb ought to despise, because it implies an effeminacy iii their understanding, adverse to sober in vestigation, and easily touched by the whin ing arts of supplication. But a cause thus supported, seldom fails to betray itself, and he who the rather chooses to risk his fortunes upon the feelings, than upon the firm, staid judgment of a community, will sooner or later find himself upheld by the most deceptive as well as unsubstantial props. The address too, is not only very artful, but very uncandid. It is intentionally long in its details, and complicated in its facts, constantly breathing the sighs of persecution and breaking out upto the groans of injured innocence. The latter deceive—the former are not understood : consequently, the mind is drawn oil’from the true question, and rising from such a mixture of cold suggestion and cunning sensibility, most persons believe something must be wrong. It is said of those who practice that kind of deception, called slight of hand, that they principally succeed by their powers of dis tracting the attention of spectators at the crit ical moment of performing the trick. A mused and called ot"to a foreign object, that individual point of time is eagerly seized to play otY the delusion, and the fraud becomes complete. Not until e this manoeuvre is the communication of Mr. Calhoun. Stript of all the parade of facts, and the pageant of long rendered services, hard earned fame, and all that sort of self-devotion, what does the case amount to? In the spring of 1818, General Jackson, in continuat on of his splendid a chievements, performed duriug'the last war, called on by the gov a i anient to chastise and subdue the combined forces of the Lower Creeks and Scminol? tribes of Indians, who had carried on a most inhuman predatory war upon the States of .1 labaina and Georgia, al most from the clos i of the war with England and the Indians, (V.wn to the above mention ed period. As usual, success attended his valour, and the eni my find from before him, in every direction; but encouraged and sup ported by English emissaries, and countenan ced secretly by the Spanish authorities in Florida, they sheltered themselves in that Province. From which it was their design ty sally forth agr n upon the frontiers of the States to renew their work of plunder, ra in ad murdr r. This was readily perceiv ed by General Jackson, and he foresaw that his operations would prove entirely ineffectu al unless their refuge was destroyed. Actua ted by reasons so forcible, and fortified, as he believed, with the permission of his gov ernment, he (lid not hesitate to capture, Flori da. This course gave great inquietude to Mr. Monroe, who thereupon called a cabinet council which, though, it broke up without censuring General Jackson, Itad, like most councils, some of the agitating materials, that intrigue never fails to put in operation, tending to the accomplishment of ultra de signs. Under the boasted, but often affect ed virtue ofsecrecy, only so much of the pro ceedings of this meeting, over and above the honorable acquittal of General Jackson, came to light, as was designed, artfully, to leave upon Ids mind the belief that a serious attack had been made upon h s merited fame by William If, Crawford. And that but for the warm defence urged in his behalf by Mr. Adams and Mr. Calhoun, a reputation which had cost him so much danger and toil, would have received an insidious stab. General Jackson remained the dupe of this delusion for something like twelve years; and nothing hut that singular fatality, with which, per haps, the retributive justice of heaven has bound the workings of infamy, that some where in its course through time or eternity, it will be arrested, saved him from being un deceived only at that bar where a long, woo ing address loses its charm to mislead. General Jackson receives information which to him, is utterly astonishing, and which, as he himself acknowledges, tries his faith to the last degree: that Crawford was friendly to him, and that Calhoun was the reverse! ! Now, this is the plain simple state of the ques tion. Ingenuity may wring it as it pleases, treachery may torture it in every possible shape—disappointed ambition may smooth it with all the arts of sophistry—pretended pu rity may lord it with facts, dilate it with ar guments, and drench it with tears, stiili it is nothing more than the foregoing unvarnished tale, llow is General Jackson to act ? lie is sensible of having injured Mr. Crawford.— Let us fer a moment withdraw the correspon dence between these two great personages, and suppose them face to face. This would he the language used by them. General Jackson, with his usual frank and unconceal ed manner, says: Sir, you know you have of ten given me to understand that you stood by me and supported my character in the seri ous investigation which took place, of my conduct in Florida. I have lately learned that, so fir from having your friendship on that occnron; you were the first man to move an enquiry into my conduct, and perhaps the only man for censuring inc. Can this be true ? What kind of an answer ought te be expected from a question so direct ? By all that is due to candor —by every considerarion which gives value to sincerity—which adorns the truth and gives unfading lustre to fidelity, was lie rot entitled to a a reply as open and unequivocal as the question had been honest and manly? Is this te oil r ictet of tin t reply? Does Mr. Calhoun answer and nay :—General Jackson, it is not true; or, 1 never gave you to understand that I sup port'd you in that council? These are tile only two replies that could or ought to have boon n Lined to a question so simple. But, MACON : TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 1831. instead of one or the other of these answers i what does lie say? 1 appeal to the people— as their public servant, acting so long for their best interest, having the constitution constantly in view—always governed by a strong feeling of duty, and a stronger sense of the public welfare, whether I ought to answer such a question—whether I ought to be ar raigned for my official conduct—whether 1 ought to be questioned for my constitutional privilege—whether General Jackson, though he is President, should put me upon the rack for opinions exercised in the faithful discharge of public duty—a duty which I porformed fearlessly for my country, and from certain letters of Mr. Monroe’s private corrcspon j dence with General Jackson, he had a right to believe that ha took Florida contrary to orders—Fellow-citizens, this is all a plot to ruin my political standing—l can convict General Jackson’s informant of falsehood, in some part of his statement, if he will only give me up all the names of the persons con cerned in the plot, and all their letters, and all the other information which 1 may need.— This is a foul plot, and 1 have been most in humanly treated, anhused and traduced! Is this a fair answer io a fair question? In vain General Jackson replies:—Mr. Calhoun, I do not upbraid you with official misconduct. I I do not arraign your motives. They are with your God. Ido not question your pub lic or priv ate rights. Ido not denounce yeur opinions. They are sacred. But 1 only ask you have I been deceived? la it true that you were for censuring me, for my con duct in Florida, when you told me and my friends you were not? Understand me: do not mistake the question, it is r.ot your o piuion I blame. No one denies your ui.e ; s tionable right on that point. But it is the denial of that opinion of which I wish to i • n formed. it is the doing of one tiling, a r ; saying another. Did you not attempt to mak me believe you were for ne, when it turns out you wore against me? And did you not seek the more strongly to confirm this im pression by laying it upon another? Tijs is t..e true question between us. Do not attempt to divert the public mind, bv long and labor ed statements, and by assailing their pity, from what every body must perceive is the true and only ground. What is the response of Mr. Calhoun? —It is all a plot, a foul plot against me. I will not answer the question any other way than by saying that you treat me very ungenerously in withholding the let ters and names of the conspirators—in arraign tng my official conduct, and in believing William 11. Crawford’s statement, though by my present mode of treating you, you have every right to believe it true! What could General Jackson do? With that scorn which conscious integrity ever idols, ho says to Air. Calhoun: “ I regret that instead of a negative, which I had a right to expect, 1 had the poignant mortification to see in your 1 tier an admission of its truth. Understanding the matter now, I feel no in terest in this altercation, and now close this correspondence forever.” We shall now attempt a more methodical analysis of this correspondence. Mr. Cal houn, with a sensibility amounting almost to agony, rests his defence mainly upon two grounds. 1. 'J hat Mr. Cranford has been guilty of fal chood. 2. That the whole affair is a base intrigue, andfoul plot against his poll ical stand ing. I. 'i'lie first position is attempted to bo sup ported by negative testimony, and this is of two kinds. 1. Mr. Crawford’s enmity of long standing, and recent evidences of its exercise towards Mr. Calhoun. 2. The testimony of Mr. Monroe, Alt. Wirt and Mr. Adams, as to their want of recollection of a particular fact, the certificate of Air. McDuffie, and the Diary of a Mr. Garnett, as to his confessions. The first gentlemen who are made to enter upon the stage, (more, to bo sure, in the cha racter of “ lamp lighters,” than in any other,) are Wilson Lumpkin ad Daniel Newnan— They both give Mr. Calhoun the alarm that certain “political jugglers” arc plotting a se paration between him and Gen. Jackson, by representing that Calhoun lias pursued a de ceptive course towards Gen. Jackson, on pre vious occasions. Air. Lumpkin states: “ I feel the more at liberty and authorised to make this communication, because 1 know, of my own knowledge, you and your friends are mis represented upon this subject. However. Gen. Jackson, himself, must secand know the object of these shallow efforts." Again: “ I do not know one conspicuous friend of yours, but what has constantly, zealously, and uni formly, supported Gen. Jackson, from the day that Pennsylvania declared in his favor, <o the! present time. How, then, can it be possible that General Jackson can suspect the friend ship, constancy, or sincerity of you or your friends? No; he cannot —he will not —he does not. I have quite too much confidence in the General to believe such idle tales.”— Air. Newnan states: “ I hope Mr. Calhoun will take the earliest opportunity of seeing General Jackson, and potting all tilings straight; fori cannot believe; for one moment, the allegations of W. 11. C.” These letters are addressed to Mr. Calhoun in the month of January 1629. How must he have felt, knowing what lie did, when these his friends expressed such a solicitude to guard him against the effect of misrepresentations, which he, in his own heart, knew to he true? Why did be not undeceive these persons? Why lid ho not sav: Gentlemen, tier ■ was a time when I beli v and General Jackson acte I wrong, anf. under the strong obligations of fidelity to the constitution of my country, I moved an enquiry into his conduct, in the Seminole war, with a view to censure him, though that war was to save your own women and children from the tomahawk and scalping knife?— Think you these men would have felt and pronounced such confidence in the falsehood ofWm. 11. Crawford’s “allegations?” They would have gone to their graves in the belief that Craw ford was a “political juggler," but for the late unfortunate devclopement which General Jackson has and will and does be lieve, in spite of the “confidence” of one of the gentlemen, is no “idle tale.” Ilow they feel and w hat figure they cut be fore the world, is far from provoking the en vy of, perhaps, any one but Mr. Calhoun himself. In looking round for a situation on which the eye could rest for relief, his, we confess, is the only one tiiat proffers any com fort. The next is the testimony of Mr. Monroe, Mr. Wirt, and Mr. Adams. It Seems’jthat in Mr. Crawford's statement, made through Mr. Forsyth to the President,lie had alleged these facts, viz: “My own view s on the subject had undergone a material charge after the Cabinet had been cont end. Mr. Calhoun made some allusion to a letter that Gen. Jack son had written to the Preside it, who ImA for gotten that he had received such a letter, but said if he had received such a one, he would find it, and went directly to his cabinet, and brought it out. In it General Jackson ap provesof the determination of the govern ment to break up Amelia Island and Galvez town ; and gave it also as his opinion that Florida ought to be taken by the United Slat s. He added, it might be a delicate mat ter to decide, but if the President approved of :t, he had only to give ft hint to sortie con fidential member of Congress, say Johnny Ray, and he would do it, and take the res ponsibility on himself. I asked the Presi a- at if the letter had been answered : he re plied, io; for that he had no recollection of receiving it. 1 then said that 1 had no doubt thai General Jackson, in taking Pensacola, believed lie was doing w hat the President wished. After that letter was produced, un answered, I should have opposed the inflic tion of punishment on General Jackson, who had considered the silence of the President as a tacit consent; yet it was after the letter was produced and read, that Mr. Calhoun made the proposition to the Cabinet for punishing the General.” Mr. Crawford further states : “that letter had a most important bearing on his mind." Three leading facts are presented in this statement: 1. That there was a confidential letter from Gen. Jadkson to Mr. Monroe. 2. That its contents were as represented by Mr. Crawford—and, 3. That it was before the Cabinet, and had its influence at least upon Mr. Crawford. The first fact is admitted both by Mr. Monroe and Mr. Calhoun. The second is not denied by any one, and receives the most satisfactory confirmation from the fact that if Mr. Crawford’s statement of its contents had been untrue, Gen. Jackson having written it himself, must better recollect it than any one else, and he would not surely have sub nitted an erroneous account of it to Mr. Calhoun.— For if he knew any part of Mr. Crawford’s statement to he incorrect, it ought to have admonished him to take care of the rest. — Then these two points are proved. The on ly difficulty is as to the third. Here Mr. Calhoun reminds us of the lawyer, who never j fails in a bad cause to try to impeach thecred -lit of the witness. It is a rule of evidence I that if the witness lies in one part of his tes timony, it destroys his credit to all the rest, and perhaps never was a rule so much tortur ed by the profession where all other hope fails. A witness is examined, cross-examined and re-examined over and over again, to make him slip in some small particular, arid then what an uproar about his inconsistency ! The jtuy from the beginnings the end uf a long, loud and boisterous speech, never hear the last of the shameless, barefaced lie that the witness had sworn to! Now just so is the clamor of Mr. Calhoun. He seems to rest his "'hole hope on a supposed inaccuracy of Mr. Craw ford, and that as to a point of time. He brings in Mr. Monroe to [trove that Mr. Craw ford’s recollection is incorrect, and his own witness has to have his recollection refresh ed before he can testify: for Mr. Monroe ex pressly declares to Mr. Crawford, “as the question w hether that letter w f as mentioned in the C binet involved the correctness of my memory, I did not wish in replying to Mr. Calhoun’s letter, to rest on my memory alor e, •n l in .consequence made an appeal through a friend to Mr. Wirt, who declared that it was not mentioned in the Cabinet, nor brought before if, ami that he had never heard of it before.” Consequently upon Mr. Wirt’s Memory does Mr. Monroe testify, and yet this second hand recollection is to outweigh Mr. Crawford’s! This is proving the frailty oi" memory with a vengeance. But if Mr. Wirt’s more vigorous intellect is to furnish the proof, t proves too much. His memory is entirely too-trong. He not only recollects that the letter was not before the Cabinet, hut that there n :ver was such a letter at all! Just as well may it he contended that no suchlet er ever existed, hi cause Mr. Wirt “never heard of it before,’' as that it was not before the Cabinet, because he also had no recollec tion of it. This kind of evidence will not do against the positive testimony of a man of, at least,equal with Mr. Wirt, especially is we shall shew presently, ho is upheld by die most satisfactory aid. Mr. Adams’s tea* timony is of the same eharacUr It is, at last, nothing more than a trial of the strength of memory, and to say that one man’s recollection is not to be trusted because it varies from anothers, is striking at the form ation of all testimony, not committed to wri ting. Memory is entirely the creature of circumstances, and is exercised in a greater or less degree, according to the force with which it is impressed. If it were not for the power of association, nothing could be recol lected for one instant. No fact goes upon the memory without being accompanied with many others which serve as pointers to bring it up whenever it is wanting, and hence whenever a long treasured circumstance is searched for in the mind, we begin to feel for it through some of the striking agents with which it was first communicated. Now ac cording to the interest of inducement which operates at the time of receiving the impres sson, in that same degree will it be retained, and brought up when required. Wc know not what parts of this Cabinet council most interested the different members of it, what particular range or direction their minds took on that occasion. But this much we do knew; Mr. Craw ford not only gives the fact without qualification, but gives, according to the phi losophy oi memory, the most forcible reasons for its truth. lie went to the Cabinet pre i pared to support Mr. Calhoun in the course that was to be taken against General Jack son, and doubtless had, in prev ions conversa ions, so assured him, hut that alter he got ihere, “ his views underwent a material change.” What had changed them ? No man who knows either the moral or physical courage of Mr. Crawford, will dare ascribe it to fear. What was it then? It was this let ter ? And, having worked a most singular change in his opinion, does not every one perceive that powerful association of which we have been speaking, and which would chain the fact so strongly to the memory, that nothing but disease or death would remove it? But has Mr. Crawford nothing but his un assisted recollection to sustain him? Let us bring into one view Ins corroborating proofs. Lot it be borne in mind that the Idler and its contents are proven,and the cabinet meeting took place on the 15th and lOtiiof July 1818. Let all the members of Mr. Crawford’s state ment be properly arranged and constantly re collected. 1 That Mr. Calhoun made n proposition to punish Gen. J citson 2 That the kit r was brought by an allu sion from Air. Calhoun. 3 That Air. Monroe had forgotten it. 4 That it had not been answered beoause it hod been forgotten. Now we ass rt that tile above is the only .air and matt rial analysis that can. he made of the statement, and which it is said, and at tempted to be proven, by Mr. Calhoun, is false. We invoke the candour of an impar tial community only for one moment On the first point, then, is any further proof wanting than Air. Calhoun own acknowledg ment? He has at least convinced General Jackson of it, and that was the principal ob ject for furnishing the statement. But lest it may he taken back in some future supple mental communication, or be made the sub let of another plot, what says Air. Wirt, Mr. Calhoun’s own witness, on this point ? He says, “among other ideas thrown out fob con sideration, according to the usual course oi Cabinet consultations, i think that at the first meeting, you suggested the propriety of an i iqviry into the conduct of the commanding General.” Does this need aid ? Listen to what Mr. Crowninshield states, “1 remember too that Mr. Calhoun was severe upon the con duct of the General; but the words particu larly spoken have slipped inv recollection.” This last fact not only supports Mr. Wirt but shews what the Lawyers call the ultimo. — They were not words of heat and passion. We may then fairly conclude that the first point is made out. On the 2d point—that the letter was brought up bv an allusion from Mr. Calhoum Air. Alonroe is the first witness we shall call to the stand, and as he leans towards Mr. Cal houn, his evidence will have great wc ight. What does he say to Mr; Calhoun? “The letter was laid aside and forgotten by me, and 1 never read it until after the conclusion of the war, and then I did it on an intimation from you that it required my attention.” When did the war conclude? In the month of May. To what time does Air. Monroe i.itend that the word “then" shall refer ? If to the “con clusion of the war,” then this letter was brought up the “intimation” of air. C’. some where between May and July, the time of the meeting. But more of this anon. Let us here connect a confession oi Mr. Calhouns on this subject, which everyone will perceive lias a very important bearing. In his long let ter to Gen. ra! Jackson, after “coming over the sick bed scene of old Air. Alonroe., and the reading of the letter, he says, “ I.thought no more of it. Long r/!'cr, 1 think it was at •fie commencement of the next s -sion o. Congress [Dec. 1816] I heard some allusion which brought the letter to my recollection. It was from a quarter which induced ino to believe that it came from Mr. Gnwfo'd. 1 -called and mentioned it to Mr. M.,and found that he had entirely forgotten the letter. Al ter searching some time, he found it among some other papers, and read it as ho to and me for the first time. Ah! Air. Calhoun! \oi: heard some allusion to the letter! From u quarter that induced you to believe it cum from Mr. Crawford? You called and men tioned it to Mr. Monroe! Found he had en tirely ; rgot'en it t Aft* eeawhirg mu time found it, and read it for the first time. — Wonderful coincidence with Mr- Crawford’s statement, if the evidence will only change the point of time to Mr. Crawford’s state ment ? Let us see hew far this can be (lorn - But before wc proceed, let me ask you,Mr*. Calhoun, you who stickle so much for all tho facts, and all the names, and all the letters to help you prove a “foul plot” why did you not state the “ ip/arter ” from which your infor sprung, that induced you to believe it came from Mr. Crawford ? Perhaps from this very source, Mr. Crawford will be able to provtv that insead of your reminding Mr. Monroe of" the letter in December, it was exactly at or near the loth day of the prececding July.—- But we think he will be able to do it at all events. On the 21st of December, 1818, Mr. Mon roe writes to General Jackson : “ Your letter (meaning the aforesaid famous letter) to me, with many others fiom friends, was put aside* ie consequence Of my indisposition and tho great pressure on me at the time, and never recurred to until after my return fromLoudcm on the receipt of yours hy Mr. 11. and then, on tiie suggest ion of Mr. Calhoun ” Connec ted with this argument, which has been ably used before, by a friend of General Jackson* it is very important to bear in mind some (latte, Mr. Monroe returned from Loudon ea on the 14th, of July, 1618, and answers the letter received hy Ilambly on the 19th of the same month. Then if it was “recurn and tod / ’- ter his return from Loudon, on the roc ipt of Gen. J’s letter, r by Humbly ,” it follows conclu*- sivelj*,that it was adverted to between the 14th and 19th of July, and the meeting of the Cabinet being on the 15th and 16th of that month, a very strong presumption arisea that it was done at one of these meetings and. upon the suggestion of Mr. Calhoun. At all events, so near the time as to slip the onusf from Mr. Crawford. Now what becomes of Mr. Calhoun’s statement that he called Mr*. Monroe’s attention to the letter at the meeting’ of Congress in December ? Does not every body perceive, that to say the least of it, hist memory misgives him on this point, and vet 1 lie holds Mr. Crawford bound to recollect to a minute when a particular fact occurred Though all the other facts are true, yet if there is the variance of a hair’s breadth, as to time, n matter almost immaterial, and always subject to uncertainty, the witness must lie discredited. The foregoing argument receives addition \ al strength from another statement of Mr* Monroe’s made to Mr. Crawford. In his let** ter to him he says: “I lay in bed more th: a a week, during which that letter was removed and every thing relating to that war h vii g* been previously arranged, it was forgotten and never read by me until after the meeting of the administration and the decision as to th® <tour.se to be pursued in reference to its mar * agement. My impression is that I read it; then on a suggestion of Mr. Calhoun that ic required my attention.” Mr. Monroe is vague* and indefinite as to time. It might have been just before ox at the time of the meeting of the administration, as well is after, and thi i is confirmed by the singular fact that in every mention of the letter, by every individu 1, who says any thing about it, the President h forgotten it, and Air. Calhoun is the very man. who brings it to bis recollection. But if the o* yet remains any doubt on this point how c it. ft longer ex-d after the t i nony of Mr | Crowninshield 1 We rare not ibr his tiiiii* culty about time, if his other facta are tru'.— And that they are true who can doubt? This* ditliculty only proves what we have :JrMv adv n ed, < o . uncertain our memory is as time. Let any man try himsell on tnatpo.ut and see whether he can call to recoil ction the exact jwriod, at which any of the leading transactions of his past life have occurred,and yet, would he doubt them because the indi vidual point of time has slipped him ! How unreasonable to require of Air. Crawfords ab solute certainty as to time when Air. Crown inshield, Mr. Monroe and Air. Calhoun him self, have all shewn so much uncertainty in that particular? Then what says Mr. Crown* inshield? “ I do recollect of a conversation a bout a private letter which Mr. Calhoun, I believe asked for, and the President said be had no got it, hut upon examination found ho had it. 'This letter contained information and opinions respecting Spain and her colo nics, the Floridas } but the particulars I can* not now undertake to say or state correctly. I remember, I think, your stating that the cir cumstances then spoken of did fully explain General Jackson’s conduct during the cam paign.” After this evidence no candid man, no man who is not given “ over to believe a lie,” can for one moment doubt of the sub* st intial truth of Mr. Crawfords statement. The third and fourth points of Air. Craw fords statement, viz. that Air. Alonroe had forgotten the letter and that it hail not been answered, because forgotten, arc already a bundantly proved by the r< f rcnecs made to sundry letters. What remains of Mr. Craw ford’s.statenient upon which any fair and lion* ■st reasoui rcan cast the shade of suspicion ? It s established beyond all reasonable cavvl. The next is Mr. McDuffie’s statement, he says Air. Crawford(in the summer of 1819) “ spoke without any kind of reserve as the resjiccti'.c parts trA nby the different mem bers of the Cabinet while the subject was un der d< .11 be ration. He stated that you had been in’ favor of an enquiry into the conduct ofGe •leral Jackson, and that he was the only mem ber of the cabiuat that bud concurr.l with vou.” Now adrrvt all this, and indeed, for nur own parts, we cannot conceive of testimo ny more in favor of Mr. Crawfard than thrsj- no. a