The Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1822-1829, 1822-08-09

a. ~, '4ii7 s.toiiu call, Which Mr. Eas
ton. 'ess-
On Saturday, the Goth of April. tbe a,r
alter The adoption Of the resain.iea. -. ~,
mouse, aud even before il had been ~
cially referred TO the Department f,r =,
answer,Af Daniel Brent, The Chief el.rt &C
the Department, without consnhing A.,
hut knowing the anxious desire ,b.,,
should feel, of being enabled n renor, a.
paper called for by the House. KNOWING Al
so that II was not upon the files of the H.
partment, called upon Mr. Russell. at H.
lodgings, and inquired of him whelber h,.
could furnish the letter desired and ~,
told by Mr.. Russell that he could I'D
would deliver il 20 the presid.n, AZ
nrehet seems suggested that il would he
better that II should be delivered as a ~.
phcdte than as copy, to which Mr.. Rus-
sell assented. This distinction, which has
reference chiefly to the forms of olbcc
would not have occurred to me. Bet,y.e,'
copy, marked as such by the writer. sir,,.
ed by him, and all in his own hand-wri,inr
and duplicate, furnished as such also liz
the writer, | can perceive no difference az.
substance, though as evidence In a CONT of
justice, or as document in the public ar
cfives, one might bear the character of m
original paper, X the other only of IA COPY.
MIR. Brent had too much respect ior Mr.. Ru.-
sell, to imagine it possible, whether he
gave the paper as a copy or as a duplicate.
that he should give it other than as the LET.
ter originally written, and called for by the
resolution of the House.
fr fnse.,lt \
suggestion of Mr.. Brent, and, with his own
hand, wrote the word duplicate on the
paper, which he had already prepared %
deliver to be reported in answer To the call
OF the House. He did more he erased
with ecfaper the word " COPY which he
had previously written in its stead, and the
traces of which are still discernable ON the
paper.
What, then, does Mr.. Russell mean.
when, III thu Boston Statesman of eth
June last, he says, tbs: When he delivered
the paper at the Department, to Mr.. Brent,
on the 22d of April, g the word Iduplicatei
" had indeed been written on il, in conse.
"quence of his suggestion, as above stated:
" but gore no farther ia6mation, much less
"dny assurance, Hdt Il seas So" These
are Mr.. RusselFs own words and what
can they mean? They have been, at least
by some portion Of the public, understood
to mean, that the paper had been st5 led
duplicate, not by Mr.. Russell, but BIZ mt.
% no the word was written with Mr.. Rus
sells own hand and when received the
paper knew not that there ever had pass
ed word between Mr.. Brent, and him
whether IT should he delivered as dupli-
cate or copy. The Boston Statesman.
OF the same day, in which hs reply is pub
lished, says,"M Russell, without nluch
reflection, consented" Ito give it as a du-
phcate.) | should think he had time enough
for reflection, while at work with the scra-
per, TO eaace the word "copy," for which
1t was substituted. Mr.. Russell's meaning
IS therefore, that, although he wrote the
word duplicate with his own hand, yet he
did not intend it should be received as an
animation, much less as an assurance
THAT TT WAS So"
Mr.. Russell had been explicitly told by
Mr. Brent, that his call to inquire whether
ne could furnish the paper called fer by the
resolution of the House, had not been at
my desire, or with my knowledge, but Of
his OWN motion. But it scenls MIR. RuesclL
did not believe him; and instead of 5!ef-
vering the letter, as he had said he would,
to the President, he brought it TO the De-
partment, and delivered it to Mr.. Brent
himself; observing that he was indifferent
whetherit was communicated to the House
or not but, if it should not be, he wished
II might be returned to him.
The singularity of this observation is hot
among the least extraordinary incidents of
this transaction. Mr.. Russell who, while
the first resolution of the 18th of JanHa5y,
calling for the Client treaty documents,
was to be reported upon by the Depart
ment OF State, had expressed To Eae, and
repeatedly to Mr.. Bailey, the acish that his
letter from Paris should be communicated
Mr.. Russell, at whose suggestion the
specific call from the House Of the 10Th of
April, for that letter, had been moved
Mr.. Russell, who in the interval had writ
ten to Mendon for the original draft of his
letter, had received it from Mendon, aud
ON the morning after the resolution of the.
House calling for il, was already prepared
with copy" of il to deliver to the Presi
dent, copy consisting of seven folio sheets
of approximations this copy, at the slg{
seston of flr. Brent, into duplicate, and
after having AGAIN On Saturday declared TO
Mr.. Brent his IRISH that it might be COM
To the House, brings it gu Nom
day morning to the Department, and in
delivering it to MIR. Brent, says he is indif-
ferent whether it should be communicated
to the House or not but, ifnot, wishes it
may be returned to him.
What was the meaning ofthis tardy hes
itaton and new born Indifference, whether
it should be communicated or not Why
does he say that the application rom the
of State for his letter was made
without any previous intimation, sugges-
ton, or encouragement on his part and