Newspaper Page Text
t |ygi> msitoiiml &jm BHKBDAIHKttKn
UK VIEW COJiTJLUUEO.
had been the intention of the framers of that
instrument; they would have said that the
candidate receiving the highest number of
electoriai votes should he President. Or docs
he mean that the Representatives of a State
are bound to give tire same vote as the elec
tors had done. That principle is not in the
Constitution. The only limitation imposed
upon the House of Representatives, is that
they shall elect one of the three highest of
the candidates. This the House of Repre
sent atives did, and therefore violated no prin
ciple of the Constitution, however they may
have infringed upon the principle of the Vice.
President, which to me is entirely occult. 1
htdieVc he alone can tell what he means, if
he means any tiling ; which is very questiona
ble. Mr. Lumpkin after stating the conduct
of the Vice-President’s friends—add, “How |
then can it In; possible that General Jackson
can suspect the friendship, constancy or sin-!
ecrity of you, or your friends. No he cannot.
lie will not, he doc# not. I have quite too
much confidence in the General, to believe
such idle tales.” Poor Gentleman, lie-has',
been deceived m the course that Mr. Cal-j
houn has pursued, and he is equally dccciv- j
<kl in that which the General has pursued and j
will probably continue to pursue towards the
Vico President. The keen observer of pass- 1
ing events and the prophet are alike mista
ken both as to the President and Vice-Presi
dent, but possibly he tnav be more fortunate
than I have been in discovering the important
principle which the Vice-President thinks 1
ought to have governed the election of Presi
dent, by the House of Representatives in Feb
ruary, 1825.
I proceed now to comment on Mr. Cal
houn’:? notes, to my letter of the 2d October,
1830. It is, however.due to myself, testate,
that, that letter was written without any ex
pectation that it would Ik 1 published. I am,
however, glad, that it was published, and that
if has been accompanied with notes, by the
Vico President. These notes establish two
most important facts. Ist. That John C. j
Calhoun established the Washington Repub
lican, for the purpose of tillifying my repu-
Station ; and 2d, That he was the instigator
and inventor of the charges of Ninian Ed
wards, against tny official and private char
acter- The evidence by which these charges
are established, would he received in any
court of justice in the civilized world; and
is tenfold stronger than that which he has
deemed admissible against ine. It is a rule
of evidence of every days application in our
courts, that where the parties to a suit are to
gether, and 6ne alleges a fact touching their
law suit in the presence and hearing of the
other, which is not denied hv the other, it is!
good evidence against the party not denying
it. Mv letter to the Vice President, of the
3M October 1830, was answered by him, on
the 30th of that month. That letter, was
therefore, in his hands from the 30th of Oc
tober, until the 25th of February, when he j
annexes a parcel of Notes to it, in the Tele- j
graph. I shall in the sequel, state the evi- j
donee upon which those notes are ascribed
to the Vice President. They are such, that 1
he at least, will be constrained to admit. In
my letter to the Vice President, of the 2d ;
October, 1830, I charge him with having cs- 1
tublished the Washington Republican, for
the purpose of r iUifying my reputation , and
that it was edited bv a clerk in his office.—
In one of his notes, he denies that Thomas
I> Me Kenney, the editor of that press, was a
clerk in the War Department, while he was
c !itor of that paper. He asserts that Mc-
K iney sold out his interest in that paper in
J 823, and was not appointed clerk in the
"War Department until February 1821. The
Vice President then admits that lie did estnb-l
lish that Press for the purpose of r illifying
my reputation. 1 have not hc means of as
certaining whether the fact he correctly sta
ted. But for the sake of argument, let it be]
admitted. How dors that benefit the N ice
Prc sident ? Had McKcnncy been appoint-<
od a clerk before he became Editor, or even j
while ho was, Mr. Calhoun would in nil
prob ibilitv r have alleged, that any interfer
ence by the Secretary to prevent the abuse
which was heaped upon me, by that Press,
would have been an infringement of the lih
erty of the Press. But if the appointment
was made, after he ceased his editorial labors,
it was apparently made to remunerate the
services he had rendered hy abusing me—
Jn tny letter of the 2d October, 1 inform Mr.
Calhoun, that he had been charged in a
Charleston paper, with being concerned with
Mic Ninuin Edwards conspiracy, to destroy
ijiv reputation, and charged liixi with having
excited Edwards to the. act, and with revising
the charges, and state what General Noble in
formed me, of his (Calhoun’s) daily visits to
Edwards, for Bor id days before he set out j
for the West. No part of this charge is de
nied hr the notes. The whole charge is;
therefore admitted. In the Vice President’s
elaborate essay of the 29th of May 1830, to
the President, speaking of the Nashville let- j
ter, he says, *he (Mr. Crawford) offers no!
yciuiea bar charging me with so dishonorable 1
an'uct, as that of betray ini/ the proceedingsj
■of the cabinet, and tbaffnr the purpose of in- [
jilting one of my associates in the odininistn
titm.” He uijds a few lines further on. “But
'tffiy charge me, and not Mr. Adams ?” - In
mv letter of the 2d October last, to the Vice
President, ie stated, I “copy a question from l
your letter of the 2Hh of May, 1830, tins
expressed • you ask, why not charge Mr.
Adams with having written it f ’ “Mv reply
itj tbar the answer is conclusive- That lit
ter contained two falsehoods, one intended to
injure rife, the other to benefit you (John C.
Calhoun,) and that, which was for (John C.
Calhouns) benefit, taking from Mr. Adams
half the credit of defending General Jackson,
itnd giving it to you (John G. Calhoun.) —
Admitting for the sake of argument, that Mr.
Adams was disposed .to injure me, no one
■a ill,! think, suppose that hg would voluntari
ly ascribe to you half the merit of his own
actions, to the man who wua the most strenu
ous oppose! of his wishes. If the intrinsic ;
evidence of the letter, fixes it upon you (Mr. j
Calhoun,) and not jM<>n Mr. Adams, suhse-{
ipien* events corroborate the evi- j
lienee (feducihle gain the published letter.”
To the oregoiog.reasoning, no objection is
tov.'4 iittbv' note;- reasoning, j# there-1
tore, admitted to be legitimate and sound.—
But it may possibly be urged by the Vice
President, that this is carrying flic principle
ot admission too far. This would be admit
ted if Mr. Calhoun had confined his notes to
tacts ; and had not extended them to reason
ing* Iu iuy lettoT to the Vice President, of
the 2d October last, I state, “you say that the
decision of the Cabinet was unanimously a
greed to. Tlds, l belidve, to be untrue, and
l believe you knew it to be untrue, at the time
you wrote it. My reasons are the following.
The Cabinet deliberations commenced on
Tuesday morning, and on Friday evening, I
thought all the questions had been decided,
anil Mr. Adams was directed to draft a note
to the Spanish Minister, conformably to those
decisions. I intended to set off for Georgia
I on Sunday morning, and in order to prepare
, (lie department for my absence, I was busily
! employed in office, when about 1 or 2 o’clock,
I received a note i'toin the President request
ing my attendance. When I entered, the
greatest part of Mr. Adams’ note had been
rejected, and the remainder was shortly after,
because it was written not in conformity to
the decisions which had been made by the
Cabinet, but expressly contrary to them. He
was then again directed to write a note, con
j formality to the decisions. This was late on
Saturday evening. The next morning, I set
j off for Georgia.” dfr. Adam’s letter of the
j 25th of July, 1830. now before me, reiterates
■ all the arguments lie urged in the cabinet
| and in it iie informs me, “ That the exposi
| tion which appeared in the Intelligencer, was
i riot written hy him.” From all these facts,
1 think it is fairly inferable that .Mr. Adams
i did not agree, to the decision of the cabinet,
I and that you must have known it for it is cer
tain that lie did not agree to it on Saturday,
i anil it is highly improbable that any argil
' meet should have been urged to convince
him after he had been twice directed,*to draft
| Ins note in conformity to decisions which had
i been previously made.” To this train of
; reasoning, the Vice President appends the
; following note : “This appears to he a non
sequitu.. The decision may have been unan
imous, and anew note necessary, because the
note did not agree with it.” lam jierfeCtly
V.illing that the intelligent reader sjiould de
ride the question of logic, between us, by ad
dinga single observation, that in the ordina
ry routine it was the duty of the Secretary of
State to have drawn the exposition which ap
peared in the Intelligencer, and that he would
have, done it, is highly probable, but from his
having dissented from the principles it con
tained. In the foregoing note, the Vice
President evidently objects to the argument
in my letter. If lie excepts to the argument
in this ease, he was more strongly bound to
except to that which tended to fix upon him,
the writing of the Nashville letter, if it was
illogical and unsound, especially as it was
presented in compliance with his express
demand, contained in his letter of the 29th of
May, 1830. By his objecting to the correct
ness ol' the argument, in one case, and wav
ing any objection to that furnished at Ins re- {
qu est, he must be considered as having ac-1
quiesced in the correctness, and legitimacy,
and soundness of the conclusion that he is
he author of the Nashville letter.
I will, now, explain the reason why I con
sider the Vice President the author of the
notes appended to mv letter in the Telegraph.
In his elaborate letter of the 29th of May, be
says, “ He, Mr. Crawford, was at Millcdge
ville, on the 10th of August, a few days after
he passed through Augusta, and a little after,
there appeared a statement in the Journal,
somewhat varied from that made in Edgefield,
but agreeing with it in most of the particu
lars. I cannot lay my hand on the article,
but havo a distinct recollection of it. You
no doubt remember it, circumstances fixed it
upon .Mr Crawford, and it has not to my
knowledge been denied." Here it is seen
that Mr. Calhoun relics upon my silence as
evidence of guilt; as evidence that I had
communicated cabinet secrets-'to the Editor
of the Georgia Journal, although he does not
pretend, that the statement in the Georgia
Journal, was charged nponme, hy that Jour
nal, and does not state any of the circum
stances, that he says fixed it upon me.—
When it is presumed, that he had Clark’s
pamphlet before him, and, which, though
written by the most vindictive and malig
nant being that ever existed: admits that the
Editor of the Georgia Journal, formally dent
ed it, in the following paragraph.
may be proper to state, that we did not, as has
been erroneously sup|Kisod, derive our infor
mation, from the Secretary of the Treasury,
Mr. Crawford, respecting the reported divis
ion of the cabinet, on the propriety of arres
ting General Jackson for his late conduct.”
I never suspected, that 1 hail been charged
with any connection with the statement, in
the Georgia Journal, until sometime in Octo
ber of the year 1820, a pamphlet pub
lished by John Clark then Governor of Geor
gia, fell into my hands, which contained the
charge accompanied by the evidence of the
charge, w hich the Governor had been able
to collect, but the evidence was of a nature
so ridiculous, that none but the author would
have made the charge, The same AVilson
Lumpkin, who figures in the correspondence
and address of the V ice President, informed
me that Governor Clark, had sent the charge
and the evidence to General Jackson, to be
by him laid before the President. It is pre
sumed that Mr. Calhoun was connusant of
this fact, as be tells the President in his let
ter of the 29th May, 1830, “ You no doubt re
member it.” I was never informed by Mr.
Monroe, whether the charge was submitted to
him. But he informed the Senators from
Pennsylvania, that the General had urged
mv removal, from the Cabinet, and they com
municated it to me, the same day. The
pamphle t just referred to, obtained no curren
cy. Ido not recollect to have seen a single
reference to it in any newspaper, not even in
the Washington Republican, although the
pamphlet was published expressly to affect
the Presidential election. It was so ridicu
lous and malignant, that even Mr. Calhoun’s
Press, the Washington Republican, w hich
teemed with daily abuse of me, thought it
prudent not to use it. Yet it is a charge con
tained in such a pamphlet, and under such
I circumstances, that the Vice President, con-
Isideni evidence against ine. because I had
i-not denied it.
A number of the Globe, dated in the latter
end'of February last, contains notes explana
tory of the notes appended to my letter, of
the 2d October, 1830, by the Vice President,
which is headed by the following remark.
“ The Editor of the Telegraph has published
Mr. Crawford’s letter to Mr. Calhoun, patch
ed all over with the notes of his antagonist.
—lt is but fair to give the explanatory notes,
given by a friend of Mr. Crawford.” Here
the charge is direct, and positive. The Vice
President was in the City, and must be pre
sumed to have seen the charge. His silence,
therefore, is evidence that he was the author
of the notes. It is, at least, evidence to
which he cannot object; for it is tenfold stron
ger than that which he has urged against me.
This remark has already been published in
a variety of papers, and must, then fore, have
reached him through a variety of channels,
He has contradicted none of them, and must
be presumed to have acquiesced in the truth
of the charge. Besides, no one can believe
that Mr.Calhoun w ould have confided the task
of writing the notes, to another person—ln
iiis letter of the 31st October last, returning
mine, it is seen that he intended to use that
letter against ine. I have never, before the
appearance of Mr. Calhoun’s several publica
tions, understood and felt the force and inten
sity of that exclamation of the patriarch Job,
“Oh tuat mine adversary had written a book.”
—Mine has written two hooks, and one set of
notes, by which he is convicted by legal evi
deuce, Ist. Of having written, or caused to be
written, the Nashville letter, which in his let
ter of the 29th of May, 1830, he asserts never
to have seen. 2d. Of having set up the Wash
ington Republican, for the purpose of villi fly
ing my reputation. 3d. Of having conspired
with Ninian Edwards, to destroy my official
and private character. In his letter last re
! ferred to, the Vice President pronounces,
“That it would have been dishonorable for
him to have written the Nashville letter to in
jure one of his associates in the administra
tion.” No rational being will, I think, dis
sent from this sentence. But he is by his
notes, convicted of this dishonorable act. Now
it is respectfully submitted to the decision of
enlightened readers of this review, whether
it is more dishonorable to have written that
letter, which contains but one falsehood, to
the injury of that associate, than to have es
tablished a jrress. for vilifying the reputation
as the same associate, which teemed, with dai
ly falsehoods upon that associate.
The Vice President affects much patriot
ism and great veneration for the fundamental
institutions of the United States. There is
none of those institutions more vital than the
liberty of the press. That liberty can never
he impaired in the United States, but by its
licentiousness. It is firmly believed that no
press established in the Union, carried the
licentiousness of the press to such extremes as
the Washington Republican, not even excep
ting the notorious Peter Porcupine. The
Vice President is therefore an enemy to the
liberty of the press.—Again it is respectfully
submitted to the community, to decide, wheth
er it was more dishonorable to have written the
Nashville letter, than to have excited Xininn
Edwards to conspire with him to blast my
reputation for ever and fix a stigma upon my j
innocent, and unoffending children l The fore- J
going questions arc submitted with the full
est confidence, that the answers will he such
as a virtuous community ought to give; that
the dishonorable conduct, rises in regular gra
dation and terminates in a climax. The Vice
President is liberal in his charges of my en
mity against him. lam represented by him
as his bitterest enemy his most inveterate on- 1
ctny. It is true F feel no friendship for him, 1
and have not since the publication of - the
Nashville letter, and have never made decla
rations of friendship for him since that period.
W hat is the evidence which he produces of
my enmity to him? Ist. tny letter to Alfred
Batch, Esqr. 2d. my letter to Mr. Barry, res
pecting the election of Vice President. The
reader is requested to compare this evidence-,
with the charges which have just been estab
lished by legal evidence, against the Vice
President, iV decide between us, which has
furnished the most evidence of enmity and
resentment. Sonic English author Ido not
recollect which at this moment, says that a
man who has been injured by another, may
forgive the injury, anil even become the
friend of the person w ho inflicted the in jury,
hut that the person who inflicted the injury,
can never be reconciled to, or be the friend
of the person injured. If this reasoning is
applied to the Vice President and myself it
must lie evident that he can never become
my friend, but that it is jiossible I should be
come his. But what does-the Vice Prcsi
dent mean, when he charges me with being
his bitterest enemy? Does he mean that J
would do him an act of in justice or personal
injury? If he moans this he is wrong. There
is not a human being in the world to whom I
would do a personal injury, or an act of injus
tice. But if he means lam not friendly to
his further promotion he is right. I know
his radical unworthiness, and could not con
scientiously aid his further elevation toofiiep.
If I were to do it, I should render myself the
accomplice of the injury which he might, and
probably would inflict upon the community-
As the Vice President in his notes to my
letter insist upon Air. McDuffie’s evidence,
and that evidence is the foundation of al
most all his reasoning and of almost all the
inferences drawn in his elaborate letter of
the 30th of May 1830; it is proper at once
for me to say there is no truth in any part of
Air. McDuffie’s statement, except that I pass
ed through ths village of Edgefield, in the
summer of 1818, and was at the house of
Col. Simpkins. Every thing beyond that in
Mr. McDuffiie’s statement is the fiction of
his brain, (sec Judge Moore’s letter.**) Af
ter reading that letter, the reader is informed
that I passed through the village of Edge
field on Friday morning, and arrived at Lex
ington, -Sunday, to dinner. Col. Simpkins
and Mr. McDuffie, neither possessed or meri
ted my confidence. Messrs. Moore, Cobh
and Dudley Dunn, were my personal and po
litical friends and neighbors. Can any man
in his senses believe I would have made tin
disclosures attributed to me by Mr. McDuf
fie on Friday morning, and on Sunday should
have cautiously refused, all such communica
tions to my pi rsonal confidential and politic
al friends? Butin the Presidential canvuss
of 13:5-} and 1824, every tiling was w ielded
by M* Calhoun and his friends, to injure me
and none of those friends was more active
j that! Mr. McDuffie. I remember in one of
his dinner speeches at Cambridge I think, he
I designated me as the radical chief, a term at
i that time in the estimation of .Mr. McDuffie
land his patron Mr. Calhoun, of the bitterest
reproach. If the fact contained in Mr. Me
' Dulfie’s lcttei to the Vice President had been
| known, they would have been proclaimed at
cross road, master ground, and even
I upon the house tops not only in South Curo
i lina, hut throughout the United States. Not
j a whisper howevei was heard of them during
j that period of excitement, because they had
/ not been hatched, and were conceived and
j brought forth only when it was believed to he
necessary for the Vice President’s defence.
Judge Moore, whose letter is herewith pub
lished, has been for many years a Judge of
! the inferior court of Oglethorpe county, and
l very extensively known in this State, and
j where lie is known enjoys the reputation of a
I man of honor, honesty, and veracity', equal to
that of any man in the State or United States.
: His statements are therefore entitled to full
' credit. Dr. Dunn, who now resides in West
Tennessee, 116 doubt recollects the same
tacts and will doubtless confirm them when
: required. It may be right to state that my
i visit to Col. Simpkins’ house was confined to
the time which elapsed between the breakfast
of the passengers and the starting of the
stage. Every person who has travelled in the
stage, knows that it is generally ready to
start before the passengers have finished
tljeir meals. My visit to Col. Simpkins’ must
therefore have been hut for a very few min
utes, vet Mr. McDuffie has furnished his
friend W ith materials, for an hours conversa
| tion at least. The reasons contained in my
letter of the 2d of October, were sufficient to
have convinced any truth-speaking man of
the falsehood of Mr. McDuffie’s statement,
but lam not at all surprised that the Vice
President did not feed their force, as his own
conduct did not enable him to appreciate,
them.
The 'N ice President’s pamphlet, discloses
a piece of evidence that I had not before seen.
It is the letter of Robert S. Garnett, late a
member of Congress from Virginia. Mr.
Garnett in his letter, seems to he in haste to
make the important communication. To use
.the huntsman’s phrase, he seems to have
gone off at half bent. In his letter to the
Vice President, lie makes me say that Gener
al Jackson, ought to be comb ined , and the ex
tract from this diary which immediately fol
lows, (and which it is presumed w r us before
him when he wrote his letter,) makes me say
that the General ought to be censured. Now
it is seriously submitted to every rational and
reflecting person, whether even the diary of
a man is entitled to any credit who cannot
distinguish between the words condemned
and censured. I conscientiously believe that
I never used either of the words ascribed to
me by Mr. Garnett. My conduct towards
Mr. Cobb upon the subject of his resolutions
contradicts Mr. Garnett’s diary.f f So does
Judge Moore’s letter. So does my recollec
tion of the sentiments I entertained of the
propriety, or rather of the impropriety of a
■legislative inquiry into the subject. But I
will not press this subject further, for I really
have no unkind feelings towards Mr. Gar
nett, and had father he subjected to the
slight shade of inconsistency, his diary may
cast upon me, than that he should he sub
jected to a much graver imputation.
The Vice President in one of Ins notes,
says that a very material part of Mr. Adam’s
letter to me, lias been with-held by me.—
That material partis negative wholly, and it
will he seen by the annexed extract of mv
letter to Mr. Adams, j: 1 did not expect
he remembered any tiling about the confi
dential letter, and assigned my reasons for it.
Mr. Calhoun has doubtless received a copy
of my letter from Mr. Adams, as I have au
thorized him to furnish it. If there is any
thing in that letter which in his opinion
(tends to contradict or weaken the force of
lhat extr- ct, he can expose it by publishing
the whole letter. Mr. Adams states the
; grounds on which it was proposed to bring
[ General Jackson to trial, hut does not state
!by whom it was urged. Iu my letter of the
(2d of October, 1830, to the Vico President, 1
; slate that *‘Mr. Adams must have alluded to
| him, as no other member of the Cabinet had
j ipade any proposition of au unfriendly char
j actor to the general and add that if he denies
that the charge in Mr. Adams’ letter applies
j to him, I wilKohtain the necessary expla
nation.'’ The Vice President appends no
; note to this part of my letter, and must there
j fore he considered as admitting the truth of
my statement. But his pamphlet shews that
|he has addressed a letter to Mr. Adams, on
the subject of his letter to me and has not
| ventured to ask the question of him. This is
! therefore a second admission of the truth of
, the charge, that lie proposed to bring General
i Jackson to trial, I still believe there was no
express proposition to arrest or try General
Jackson. But the Vice President's own ad
‘mission if duly considered and analyzed, a
mounts in substance, to that and nothing
eke. He admits that he proposed inquiry.
There arc't nefieve hut two modes of inqui
ry known to the law martial, Ist a court of in
quiry strictly so called, which is always re
sorted to when the facts upon which the gov
ernment is called upon to decide, are riot
well ascertained, a court of enquiry is prop
er, and the duty of the court is simply to as
certain the facts, and report them to the gov
-1 eminent for its decisiou. 2d. A court mar
tial for the trial of military offenders, when
the facts are sufficiently ascertained, for the
government to decide that the officer, ought,
or ought not to be put on his trial, lathe
ease of General Jackson, the facts were all
distinctly known. They consisted of the or
ders of the war department, and the reports
and dispatches of the general under those or*
1 dors. There was here no necessity for a
! court of inquiry. Mr. Calhoun then in pro-
I posing an inquiry, did in fact, though not in
j words, propose a court martial, which presup
i poses an arrest. The President who is ac
quainted with the martial law, no doubt un
! derstood Mr. Calhoun’s proposition as one
subjecting him to arrest and court martial.
All the other of Mr. Calhoun’s notes to tny
letter admit of a satisfactory explanation, or
are too insignificant in their nature to re
quire attention, and would swell this review
to an inconvenient extent. I therefore
take my leave of them reseniiig to mys< If
the right of explaining or refuting them if it
should hereafter become necessary.
In the publication of James A. Hamilton,
Esq. it appears that after an inter, iew with
the Vice President, after his return to New
York, lie wrote to the Vice President, stating
the facts which the Vice President had com
municated to him that were not of a confi
dential nature, and requested him to correct
the statement if he had misunderstood him.
The Vice Pftsident replies, and does not cor
rect the statement, and does not even inti
mate, that statement was incorrect in any par
ticular. Now however in his supplementary
address, lie asserts that Mr. Hamilton’s
statement is incorrect. By the rules of rea
son, and logic, the Vice President is estop
ped from denying the truth of that statement,
for when called upon for that puposc, he did
not pretend that the statement was incorrect
in any particular. But now he says, it is in
accurate and lie could not have corrected it
without exposing cabinet secrets that would
have been improper. Mho ever heard of
such an excuse ! f All that he was required
by Mr. Hamilton, was to say whether his
statement was correct or not. No develope
ment of cabinet secrets or reasoning were
necesssary. He had only to reply that Mr.
Hamilton’s statement was incorrect, and if he
pleased to correct the statement. Mr. Ham
ilton, did not even request hi in to do that.—
But the fact of principal importance disclosed
is that the \ ice President did disclose the
confidential secrets of the cabinet, to Mr.
Hamilton,Mr. H.expressly says in hisaddress.
“Theconversation was extended, and on his
part (the \ ice President’s) embraced much
that I never felt myself at liberty to disclose.
The Vice President then in February 1828,
did disclose much of the confidential proceed
ings of the cabinet which Mr. Hamilton has
never felt himself at liberty to disclose. It
is only when the Vice President understands
the information given, is likely to he publish
ed that his quahns of conscience are excited,
and that he feels the sacred nature of cabinet
secrets, although the facts intended for publi
cation had not been communicated in confi
dence. He seems at that time to have had
an instinctive horror of publications. I ex
pect at this time lie deeply regrets, that in
stinctive horrors slumbered when he commit-]
ted his first address to the press. This dis-j
closure of Mr. Hamilton’s will I hope shut |
the mouth of the Vice President as to the se- i
crets of the cabinet. Mr. Adams and Mr.
Wirt, may continue to descant upon the sa
cred nature of cabinet secrets. 7’hey will
find few admirers and still fewer advocates.
The principles for which they and the Vice
resident contend, suit only dishonest coun- j
sellors. For my own part I never said a
word or did an act in the cabinet, that so far
' |
as I was concerned, I should have been un- j
willing to he publicly known the same day. i
But the counsellor who would give advice in ;
the cabinet, or do acts there, which he would I
he ashamed to own publicly, would place !
great value upon the sacredness of cabinet
secrets. Mr. Monroe and Mr* Crownin-j
shield, have acted like honest men upon this :
business. They have said nothing about the!
sacred nature of cabinet secrets. Mr. Cal- i
houn endeavors most zealously to make it I
manifest that he is acting in self-defence, 1
and that he is culled upon by the President,
to justify certain proceedings of his while in
the cabinet ; to account for his opinions and j
acts as secretary of the war department.— J
The Vice President well knew, at the time I
he was endeavoring to impose this charge up
on the public, that it was untrue. The Pres
ident distinctly states his cause of complaint
agains the Vice President. It is simply I
this, that while he had pursued one course ;
in the cabinet, lie had contrived to make him
believe that lie pursued a different and di
rectly opposite course, and have no doubt
that lie might have added with strict truth
that he had contrived to make him believe
that, I had acted in the cabinet, the part
w hie if he himself had pursued. Notwith
standingmv conviction that the Vice Presi
dent had pursued this course, 1 have made
no advance towards the President to ascer
tain the fact. Duplicity is the only charge
which the President has urged against the
Vice President. If he is innocent of the
charge why does lie not publish his coma -i
pondende with the General, and shew that he
disclosed to him frankly the course he had
pursued towards him: until he does this he
must remain subject to tiie charge of duplici •
/i/, urged against him by the President. Du
plicity out of the cabinet, and not for his con
duct in the cabinet, is what the President I
charges against the Vice President.
The Vice President in his address, com
plains of plots and conspiracies directed a
gainst him. The Telegraph charges these
plots and conspiracies upon Mr. Van Huron, |
and the Telegraph no doubt speaks by the j
authority of the Vice President. Hitherto
tnv enemies have affected to consider me the •
principal whenever I have been charged
with any agency. But now the Vice Presi
dent and Ins editor, seem disposed to consid
er inc only as the instrument of Mr. Van Hu
ron. Whfc/j that gentleman and Mr. Cam- j
brclong visited me in April, 1827, I do not j
believe that the presidential question, was
the topic of conversation during the visit.
What makes me more confident on this sub
ject is, that I have a distinct recollection
that Mr. Van Buren wrote to me from Augus
ta, to know my determination on that subject,
if I had formed one. Before they left mv
house, they informed me that they intended
visiting a gentleman of my acquaintance in
South Carolina, of great worth and respecta
bility. I wrote to him, introducing them.—
After they had left his house, he answered
my letter expressing much satisfaction with
llie visitors, especially with Mr. Van Buren, 1
except in one particular, and that was that
he seemed disposed to let Mr. Culhoyn re
main w here he was. Now says he, I want, to
punish him for the mischief no has done.—-i
Ibis satisfied me that NT r. Van Buren was at
that time not unfriendly to the Vice Prcsi-;
dent. Mr. Van Buren is charged with con
spiracy, because he is the only person sup
posed to have an immediate interest in the
downfall of the V; C o resident ; and t}io con
spiracy is supposed hv the \ "
and his editor, to have fir ; r • ‘
spring of 1827, when \! r v
men Iriendiv visit. B-m. d ."
hack, the charge defeats
1 resident m ins letter to the P,' Bl
| Lo, li of August, 18.70,
Ito A- Buleh, Esc. ( ,f thc } j,r 1°
sajs, “ A proposition of the uM
part undar period when the
doubtful and warmly contested jHI
incut as to its object.” Tl,.
election was then on (ho 1 l t !,
most doubtful, and warmly a./tUa !
give plausibility to the oj utr , 1( .
against Mr. Van Buren, it , , ''H|
not only that lie foresaw
election certain, hut that he f W(
general who,, elected Would an,
Un Buren) Secretary of State r B
mir that gctl.m 1!U , more fore,;..,. 1 ." ■
claims or deserves, and the V,ce pH
rather less, than he possesses, j, B
Presnh nt seriously intends tonppl-'B
spiraey ‘>f which bethinks, or ai;H
! ,s I 1 ' 0 . ' *'•">> to Jf,. Van Buren' ,B
t make it originate after he be,-
,of State, tor until then he could |
; mten st m prostrating tins n01i,;,. iH
( fl 'truth is, there never has rxUqnH
! - juracy against the Vice l‘r,V
i lv '•"'.spiraey that has existed g j n ,‘ B
1 si*, except that of the
i Niiiiciri Edwards against me, i m , ;„ B
j conducted by the Nice Preside,,- H
j trends, to expose me to the resent,',‘H
i vengeance of General Jackson. CH
j unveiled and can no longer he , 0 . B
!)];■ p'ut'er cries out plots and con'JH
I he recent conduct of the Vie- p,■
I hri "- r * forcibly to mind that line Of ,'.H
j out nor who says. “Quern dens ~/H
Iff* dewentatr Which being tranjH
“He w hom God intends to ruin, he f : M fl
mad, or deprives him of his reason ’ ■
\ ice President was not in this situntiß
never would have published the cnrrJ
mice. A tithe of the talents and
he has generally been supposed , o ’fl
sess, would have prevented that p, ,■
But his want of reason did riot .-tnii B
his determination to publish. The first
ot reason and common sense, that!
out in the publication, is the (liscloMireoß
/in tended neutrality between Mr.
Gen. Jackson, in tile Presidential camaß
1823 and 4. ft ser ins he had man?r ( J
ceive his friends as well as General"
There can he no doubt that Mr.
believed him, “a sincere, zealous,
and uniform,” support! r ol'Gem r and
fids opinion ot Mr. Lumpkin's, isr-,,.
rated to him in January, 1 wgu. li,
undeceives Mr. Lumpkin until in IVh.
he declares to the public that he
neutral between -Mi. Adams and the (I,
This declaration was wholly uunmssß
The principal thing he intended to do nBB
contradict me. That in his estimation
indispensable; but that imposed no oh.. B
upon him to disclose his conduct upon
occasion. He might have saved 2/r.
kin s feelings, and in all probability
served his friendship hv si Erie e. A-iisß
(•fleets great consideration for .Mr. JE'B
vet in his letter of the 29th of Mxy,
referred to, lie makes Mr. Monroe
the fust time lie had read General
private I. ttcrw’as in December, ]s]B,
he had before him .Mr. .Monroe's
21st December, ISIB. in w hich he
Gen. Jackson he had read it in the
ceding, and on Mr. Calhoun's
New although I have no high opinion
accuracy or tenacity of J/r..Voim.'s r>Hj
rv, it cannot he more defective than
President’s if he is to he believed. JB
But there are circumstances
with this question, that must he
gainst the A ice President. .Mr. MonrocHf.
pears to have had the subjeetly consnmtkßj
his mind. The Vice Pn shield
with the correspondence, three let; r>
the President to the General, dat’ and in JtH
Octob-r and December, in the last of v.hiH
he states when and Jiorr the confidential H
was read. In May 1830, nearly
forwards, with Mr. Monroe’s account of H
matter in writing before him. he makesH
Monroe say that he had never read tli" i'B
until December, 1818. However, dct’ctH
Mr. Monroe’s memowv may he, the \ ice ItS
idont’s is worse. In mv letter to iiim oftM
2d October, 1830, I stale that some tiincfl
the year l ft 2l, lie informed me that hi- afl
mory could not he relied upon, as to !!*'■
even after a short lapse of time. In Odaiiß
of that year, 1 state /hat fact to him in a'.rltß
which he answered the next day, and
no exception to that statement. I 'in n®
make this statement from inemoty .
now before me, a letter written by w\ B
next day in which that fact, is rcc-ardt and. 1®
samd fact is contained in my letter iaytcu®
To tlio statement thus prescnte'L-Mr._CaHwifl®
attaches no note, thereby tw ice adniittifig l *®
correctness of the statement of the flat’’* ®
his memory- Yet in Ins letter-of the
May, 1830, he asserts that his rceollcrticiiW
distinct that the couriden ial iet.er was -a
produced and read, f the rabh of hi
mory retained imi'rfcscions as durably
he could not. have m sade this assertion ’ll
had had mie pri.no:pie ofliortor, or luvai-'.’ 1
his heart. Hr. Monroe arid Mr.
have said as much as u f n r ■
v.z : that they had no reeolkcgtion that |! '’j
produced ami read. There is but o f ‘‘'l
in which it. is impossible, for an honed wi
to lualte such a declai? tion. And ti)a, ( .l
when lie has a distinct recollection of " !l
which renders it imp >)S dlde that ]
fact should have o< c' irred. But Mf- !il
does no! allege any thing of kind H|l<
which to found hr v distinct
is naked assertic , 0 f f u ., distinct rccJ' ri
that he pahns r pon ',|, c President ami ml
wards upon \t u pood m,. 0 f (no Vnl
’Mates by hir (>ul)j( t .. lt ion. Now l rcpcatj
no honrvti r inn c , or w iW have at
such a dr c |nrati Jll7 Jet his Ids memo#,
ever so good. How then coold tl*
rqid’ nt wl jp ( , mcaiorv he. has t*' ce 1
roctlv admi' ( , (i c0 „ld not l e relied po
to 1? ets, af ri . tho la.,sc of hearly twf tv>'
pretend t f ?wu ii cct n( ,t a fact, UK '•-■'
rie! ,l,( * ’ irj happen at a particular tinw,
out p.e if tlmt any pcc-wMarcircua j r.ir
1,1 J i* in his meioery.