The Massachusetts spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1821-1823, 1822-07-17
NEGOTIATIONS ar GHE.vr.


we now proceed to furnish the substance Of
Mr., Russell's Reply.
MIR. Russell first expresses surprise that both
his original teller, aud she paper deposited
by him at the department" OF State, were
communicated to Congress aud made the sub
ject Of Mr.. AS Remarks; and says that the
PresidentA Message of-the 4th May " evident
ly considers the Contemplated report of Mr..
Adams to be confined TO that letter only
that the letter received from Paris was alone
the document called for, and to be communi-
Gated to the House." He then says
a had left Washington on the 9Th, May
In the belief that, at so late moment of the
session, no call, in reference to that Message,
would be made, or, if made, that it would pro-
duce the letter only received from Paris. with
the corresponding report of the Secretary of
Safe. My surprise was not diminished when,
on reading the remarks of Mr.. Adams, dis
covered, that they mainly owed their exist
ence and character to a paper, which had
been considered not to be the paper called for,
and which had been obtruded on The House,
after my departure, at the special instance of
Mr.. Adams himself, and to afford him an OPP
portunity of giving another specimen of his
taste and temper 10 the publick."
MIR. Russell denies having any agency IN
calling for the letter. r.a original call was
on the nth January, by gentleman with
whom he had not the slightest acquaintance !;
and it was made without any intimation of it
being given to him. Among the papers, COM
municated in consequence of that call, the
letter in question did not appear. There was,
however, a letter from Mr.. R. in which he
mentioned his intention Of afterwards commI-
nicating his reasons for differing from his col
leagues at Client. That letter, Mr.. r. says,
obviously occasioned the second call, on the
18th April, by the same gentleman /; and that
he had repeatedly refused to furnish to indi-
yidual ..embers, copy of the letter in ques-
ton.
As reason for thus refusing, uniformly
assigned the necessity, in my opinion, of the
previous consent and appreciation of the con-
stftuted authorities for the regular publication
of a letter, written by me while IN the pubGcl,
service, to one of those authorities. and in re-
lation to that service.
All the participation which had in this call
was, to leave at the department of State, in
consequence Of Gya application from thai depart-
: 1tent, the paper which has since been publish
ed as duplicate. The simple facts are shese
On the morning of the Goth of April, gentle
man employed in the department of State,
called on me at my lodgings, and inquired if
could furnish duplicate of the letter which
had been called for. intimated reluctance
10 communicating any thing as duplicate.
lie observed, that it need not be presented as
such to the House, but wished to have it so
presented to the department. This is, in sub
stance, what was said on that occasion.
On the e2d, called al the department of
State.-Ar. Adams was not there and | left
the paper with the gentleman who had applied
TO me for it. The wonl duplicaten had in
deed been written on it, in consequence of his
suggestion as above stated out gave no fur
ther intinatcn, much less any assurance, that
it was so. He made no inquiry, and made
no comment. ! observed merely, that left
1t for the examination Of tIr. Adams and that
I was indifferent whether it was communicate
ed, under the call Of the House, or not, as the
letter called for but if mt so esntmanicated,
expressed the expectation thatihEFould be re-
tanned to me. He receised it accordingly.
A few days afterwards again visited tie de-
partment of State, and was again so unfortunate
as not to End Mr.. Adams there. saw. how
ever, the gentleman with whom had left the
paper. and learnt from him, that as it had been
dated, as he supposed, Ivy mistake IN 1922, he
had taken the liberty to correct it, by insert
ing 1916. made no objection, but repeated
nv expectation, that if il should not be deem
ed proper TO use it for the purpose for which
1t had been delivered, it would be returned to
me.
| made third vrsit to the department of
State. on the ID Of May, If | remember cor
rectly. Mr. Adam. was then in his Office and
IN passing thi.her, learned from the gentle
man who had received the paper delivered by
me on the 22d, that it had undergone another
alteration in its date, and that 1916 had been
made to give place to 1875. This LIST altera-
ton was. it seems, found necessary to make
the paper agree in date with he letter received
from Paris, which had at last been found and
thus to be able TO use that paper with better
grace. as duplicate, and to abuse it with the
more confidence for les variation from that let
ter. The correctire P0scer assumed, appears to
have been limited accordingly.
Mr.. Adams soon spoke Of the. paper which
had left, on the 22d, and had NOT proceeded
far without complaining of its difference from
the original which had been found. This cir
cumstance he affected to consider particularly
off nsive. In vain represented that the dif.
ference between the two was not material
that rssitber was personal or accusatory; that
both were merely defensive; and that was
willing that either or neither should be COM
mnnicated, as be might judge proper. soon
perceived that It was too late TO offer explana-
ton with prospect Of succtss. He was not
in humour to listen to me even with civility:
the manner in which he treated the business.