The Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1822-1829, 1822-08-16

iof paragraph in the original letter,
leypressly declaring that he had believed
with the majority that the propositions re-
hiiag 10 the navigation ii the Mississippi
aud 10 the fisheries " eioiated IN no ,eay our
Instructions" found loisted into the dupli-
cate paragraph, accusing the majority
not only of the violation oil their lnsTuc-
tions, bta of a xilfuI and wanton ylolation
of them, az understood by themselves; aud
ia support this intcrpolated charge, eau
esprd paragraph nf instructions solennly
cited, OF which he had, within two months
obtained from the archives of tae Depart
ment two successive coJses-let me can-
didly confess thai the sentiment uppermosf
IN my mind WIS Indignation. MIR. Russell
comments upon the iDfirmitics Of my tenn
per, and says, that when afterwards pom
ted out 20 btm, face to face, these Palter-
ings o. his own hand writing, and gave him
proof from the records of the Department,
that thr instructions cited by hnn in sup
port of his charge against his colleagues,
had been cancelled al the time To which the
charge applied, was not in hlImor to lis
ten To hun even with ci,ilhy. This deny.
did listen to him with csilsy. The rea-
-on. that hc Assigned % me for the sarience
between his original and his duplicate was,
that the whole of the original draft, for
which he had sent TO McndOn, h9d not
been found, and that he had been obliged
to make up the last leaves from memory.
He said, too, that there was no material
variation OF tdcts, as represented in the two
papers. lie said, as he says in the Boston
Statesman, that he had felt himselfat liber-
" 10 after the paper to make his case bet
ter for the public eye. He said he had ne
yer written against me anonymously in the
newspapers, aud minated that, in the year
1916, when was in Europe, there had
appeared in the Bosten Ccnlinel para
| graph, chargas HIM with having been viii
hing, al Ghent TO give up the fisheries
th'ng Of which had never before heard.
He assured me that, in Bringing his letter
before the pubic, his motive had mol been
to combine with my enemies to ruin my
reputation. To all tins | did listen with
perfect chilty and composurc and the
last words with which parted from him,
however painful 10 him and myself, were
not wanting in civility. They are clearly
impressed upon my memory, and | trust
they are upon his. He is al liberty to pub
lish them if he thinks fit, as they were spo-
ken. should not have alluded To them
here but for his charge Of nrivility, which
is as Eroundless as all the other charges OF
which he has been the willing bearer "a
gainst me.
Bnt Mr.. Russell did not say, that he had
understood the application from Mr.. Brent
to him, 10 know whether he could furnish
the duplicate of the letter called for by the
House, had been1nade withmy prisity or by
my authority. He did NOT sag that it bad
not been his 'ntention To deliver it as "A du-
pllcate. lie did not say that he had pur-
posely dated IT PARIS, nth February,
1872" 30 give notice that it was net the let
tar written by Hmm in 1873, called for by
the House. lie did not say that it was at
| my option whether to communicate it to
the House or not, nor did he insiruate that
the alteration ut the Dopartnentofth the date
from 1929, 10 1916, and then To l3l5, had
been made without his appreciation or con
sent. 70 all tins he knew She refutaton
was Too near at hand to admit Of its being
said at the time and place. As to his CIV
Ing explanations To me, what explanation
could hcENc? What explanation has he
given to the public The caIl of the House
was for specified paper written By him
he had furnished paper as duplicate OF
IT. IN his cwn hand writing. 1t had been
detected as paper, 80 much1hc same. and
yet so different, that it was susceptible of
| no explanation consistent with fair dealing :
and the cxpedients to which Mr.. Russell is
reduced, III attempting to account for it
now, afford the most unanswcrable proof.
that he has for il no honest explanation to
give. BE desperately seeks an apology
for II, by ilnpHting to me a design TO en-
trap HIM, by the alteration Of the date Ofiis
| duplicate, from 1872 10 1916, and :icn TO
1919, made al The Departmcnt These
alterations We're made like The application
of Mr.. Brent 10 Mr.. Russell, for the ,du-
plieaic Without my kaculedge, and happen-
ed thus.
After comparing the two papegs toge-
thcr, gave thr duplicate 10 Mr.. Bailey, for
copy Oft to be made, 10 BE- reported to
! the President, ier communication to thu
House. llr. Bailey gave II 10 he copied TO
J ilr. Thomas ThruSton, a Clerk IN The De
partipont, younS Rlan OF a lair ND honor
able mind. PeYcciyng lie date or lhc lei
ter to be Paris, 18th February, 1872" aud
knowing that Mr.. Russell had bttn tN.o'
the whole Of thai month attending Con
grcsa IN this ely; not suspectlnS fora mo-
ment that dis date had been designediy as
stunned by Mr.. Russell, he consulted Mr..
Brent, who, CONCLUDING with him that the
date Of The ..oar was ar nadvrrtancy, au-
thoriseI him to rect:fy it in the copy. Mr.
Thruston thought that he might extend
! that kindness 10 Mr.. Russell further, by ma
king the saline change in the paper ITSELF
lie passed his pen there fore through the fl
cures 1922, and wrote over them 1915.
thinking that Was the year in which the let
| ter was written This change was not On.
| La ,nnHn ,ihn1t NV lrn...l..Ll.rn hut Ln..