Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.