The Massachusetts spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1821-1823, 1822-07-24

, On Saturday, the Goth Of April, the day az
Ter the adoption of the resolution Of the House,
and even before il bad been officially referred
10 the Department for an answer, MIR. Daniel
Brent, the chief clerk Of the Department, with
out consulting me, but knowing the ANXIOUS
desire that should feel, of being enabled TO
report the paper called for by the House,
knowing also that Il was not upon the files of
the Department, called upon Mr.. Russell, at
his lodgings, and inquired of him whether
he could furnish the letter desired and was
told by Mr. Russell that he could, and would
deliver it to the President. Mr.. Brent it seems
suggested, that il would be better that it
should be delivered as a duplicate than as
copy, to which Mr.. Russell assented. This
distinction, which has reference chiefly TO the
forms OF office, would not have occurred TO
me, Between copy, marked as such by the
writer, signed by him, and all in his own
handwriting, and a duplicate, furnished as
such also by the writer, ! can perceive no diff
ference of substance, though, as evidence in a
court OF justice, or as document in the publick
archives, one might bear the character OF an
original paper, and the other only of copy.
Mr.. Brent had too much respect for Mr.. Rus
sell, to imagine it possible, whether he gave
the paper as copy or as duplicate, that he
should giss it other than as the letter original
ly written, and called for by the resolution Of
the House.
MIR. Russell, however, did assent to the sug-
gestion of Mr. Brent, and, with his own hand,
wrote the word 'tduplicaten on the paper
which he lad already prepared 10 deliver, to
be reportedin answer 10 the call of the House.
He did moe: he erased with scraper the
word copy which he had previously writ
tan Sc sIead, and the traces of which are
still discernsd on the paper.
What. tlea, does Mr.. Russell mean, when,
in the Boston Statesman of 9th June last, he
says, that wen he delivered the paper at the
Department to Mr. Brent, on the 22d of April,
the word duplicate had indeed been writ
ten on IT., u consequence o. his suggestion, AS
above stated b,a care no further intin,aiion,
naatch less any GssUdace, that al aeas So.n
These are llr. Rnsseil's own words; and what
can they mean? They have been, at least by
some portion of the pubfick, understood to
mean, tina the paper had been styled du-
plicate, MT by Nr. Russell, but by me. o
mo-. the word was written with Mr.. Russel's
own hand; and whenI received the paper,
knew notthat there ever had passed word
between slr. Brent and him, whether it should
be delivered as 4 duplicate or copy. The
Boston Statesman, OF the same day in which
his rcpl! is published, says, {" Mr.. Russell,
without much reflection, consentedn Ito give
il as dtplicate.) should think he had time
enough or reflection, Willie at work with the
scraper efface the word "copy'' for which
it was substituted. Mr.. Russell's meaning is
therefor, that, although he wrote the word
duplicae with his own hand, yet he did not
intend should be received as an iatmattoa,
much lees as an assurance, THAT 1T WAS 500
Mr.. Russell had been explicitly told by Mr..
Brent tat his call to inquire whether he could
furnish the paper called for by the resolution
OF the House, had not been at my desire, or
with ny knowledge, but of ha own motion.
But il seems MIR. Russell did not believe him,
and instead ofdelivering the letter, as he had
said he would, to the President, he brought il to
the department, and delivered it TO Mr.. Brent
himself. observing that he was indifferent
whether it was communicated to the House or
not but, il it should not be, he wished it
might be returned 10 him.
The singularity Of this observation is not a.
mong the least extraordinary incidents of this
Transaction. Mr. Russell, who, while the frst
resolution efithe 9Th of January, calling for
the Client tieaty documents, was 10 be re-
expressed TO me, and repeatedly to Mr.. Bal
ley, the aish that his letter from Paris should
he COMMUNICATIVE Russell, at whose sug-
gestion the speefck call from the House of
the 10Th of April, for that letter, had been
moved-Mr. Russell, who in the interval had
written TO Mendsn for the original draft of his
letter, had recefed it from Mendoa, and on
the morning after the resolution Of the House
calling for it, WIS already prepared with
copy" Of it TO oliver to the President, copy
consisting of sevei folio sheets ofpaper-trans-
forms this copy, a the suggestion of Mr.. Brent,
into duplicate and after having again, on
Saturday, declared to Mr.. Brent his irish that
it might be communicated TO tic House,
brings ii on MonIay morning to the depart
ment, and in delivering it to Mr.. Brent, says
he is indifferent whether it should be commu-
nicated TO the Hose or not but if not, wish
es it may be returned to him.
What was the meaning of this tardy hesita-
ton and new-bon indifference, whether il
should be communicated or not? Why does he
say that the application from the Department of
State for his letter was made without any pre-
vious intimation, suggestion, or encourage
ment on his part and that, had it not been
made, that paper would never have been left
at the Department, Of State, nor in anv other
manner presented to the publick Way did
he bring it to the Department? He had
told Mr.. Brent that he would deliver il to the
President and OF this disposal of it Mr.. Brent
nd approved. Why does he represent it as
demand upon him from the Department of
State of n pirate letter, never intended for the
publck Neither |, nor any person at the De-
partment of State, knew that the letter was
pirate. Mr.. Russell knew il, although he
had prepared his copy or his duplicate without
marking il as such. He had told me- when
mentioned TO him that his short letter Of Decem