The Massachusetts spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1821-1823, 1822-07-31
Whole No. 2574.

having persisted in Offering for it an eoaiyalent
which was to let in British srnugglers, British
emissarics, and all the horrours Of Indian
warfare, upon the 1snc9endirg inhabitants Of
TIE west Was this one Of those corrections
winch 'ir. Russell believed himself uermiste
to make, which appeared to him proper. to ex-
hIblt his case most adVantageously. before the
tribunal of the publick?
Proceeding in The comparison between the
Two papers, when came to that sublime pam
egyrick upon the fishermen to atone for the
aosoiute surrender aud eager sacrifice of their
do!ed ont to them as peace-oterilg for the
extingushmeHt, as far as Mr. Russell's labours
could avail, of Their means of subsistence
that the essential security and prosperity Of
the @1aJly, must be preferred TO the convenience
and minor interest of the few;" to that swell
ing peal Of self-a9plause, for early proposes
SONS silenced, and local predictions subdued
ali substituted in the duplicate, for mere
postscripted trust, in the original, that Lis drgu-
nlent TO demolst,ofe the abrogation of the
treaty OF 1888, by the war, and the consequent
disconiinuarce Of The fishing pritiIege. would
not be ascribed to any hostility to those inter-
estet in 1.-THE mingled emotions at the Dot
tom of the soul Of the writer, betrayed by these
self-accu,ng and selt-extoline variations from
his letter as it had been originally written, ex-
cited IN my mind a sentiment too much cheer
ed with merriment, and loo much n1itigated by
compassion, for anger to have in it AIRY part.
But when, IN place of paragraph in the orig
NAL letter, expressly declaring that he had
believed with the majority that the PROPOSE
tons relating TO the navigation of the Niissi-
slppI and to the fisheries. : riointed an no Eoy
our tnstructionS," | found foisted into TIE du-
pllcate paragraph, accusing the majority not
only OF the violation Of their instructions, but
Wliiul and wanton violation of them, as I'M
derstood by themselves; and to- support this
mteFpoiaied charge, a cancelled paragraph
oil instructions solemniy cited, of which he had,
WITHIN two months, obtainedfrom the archives
OF the Department two successive copies-let
me candidiy confess that the sentiment upper
most in my mind was iradtgnGfion. Mr.. Rus
sell comments upon The inirmties of nv tenn
per, and says, that when afterwards pointed
out to him, face 10 face, these palterings Of his
own handwriting, and gave him proof from
the records of the Department. that the in
structions cited BY him in support Of his charge
against his colleagues, had been cancelled at
the time to which the charge applied, was not
in humour to listen to him even with ciyilty.
This deny. did listcn to him with civiIity.
The reason that he. assigned to me for the va
rance between his original and his duplicate
was, that the whole Of tie original draft, for
winch ne lad sent TO hlendon, had not been
iound' and that ne had been obliged to make
the two last leaves from memory. He said.
TOO, that there Was no material variation of
Jaets, as represented in the two papers. He
SAID, as ne says IN the Boston -Statesmar. thar
ne mad felt himself at liberty to alter HE n.-
per To make his@case better to the puhick eve
nc sad be had never written against me anon
ymousiy IN The newspapers, and intimafe3
that, IN the year 1916. when was in E1ro,,o
thefe had appeared III the Boston Cen,ineI
paragraph, charging him with having haos,
willing, al Client, TO give up the fisberies-e,
thing OF which had never before heard n
assured me that, in bringing his letter hefora
the publlck, his motive had nat been TO com
olne with my enemies to ruin nv rennta,;o,
10 all this did listen with perfect ciyili,y a,i
composure; and the last words with g6;ot
parted from him, however painful 10 him aai
myself, were not wanting in civiIitv. T;,o~,
are clearly impressed upon nv memory sndy
trust they are upon his. He is at Gbertv =
publish them, il he thinks 1T, as thew ,yora,
| spoken. should not have alluded 70 thos
here, but for his charge of inciyi,Av wb;ch !;
as gronnGless as all the other CHARGES IF 49,
he has been the willing bearer against me.
But Mr.. Russell did not say that he had -,
oeistood the application from Mr.. Brent 10 b;n,
10 know whether he could furnish the dnrl;f
I! cate OF the letter called for by the Housa 10.
3een made with nay privity, or by nv author;-
" tie did not say that it had not bee,, II,
intention TO deliver it as a duplicate. Ha al
not say that he had purposely dated il 6 Pari.
llth February 1922 to give notice 49, :,
was not the letter written by him in Ie,e
called Tor by the resolution of the IIopso ~
did not say that it was at my option vhe,ha.
to communicate it to the House or not ~.
did he lnsinuate that the alteration at tho n
partment, OF the dale from 1922. first ~ Io1e
and then to 1915, had been made w;tbo,,t ~;
appreciation or consent. To all this he -.
lhe fsiutatioi' was too near at hand to admit
OF It's being said at that time and nlaca a.
to his giving explanations TO me-wb.+
pianation could he give What exnla,s4;1
has he given to the publick? The call IF ~"
house was Tor specitca paper written by hin,
lie had furnished paper as a du,,lirate If +,
IN ms own handwriting. 1t had been dato..ts
ed as paper so much the same, and vet -
oinereht, that II was susceptible of no exn,a1
nation consistent with far dealing ana the o.
pedients to which Mr.. Russell is reduced !,
attempting to account for it now, affords ~.
most uhahswerable proof, that he has for il no
honest explanation TO give. He desperately
seeks an apology for il, by imputlng to me !
design TO enirap him, by the alteration of ~
o"ee OF ms duplicate, from 1929 to 1915. ana
toen TO 1879, made at the Department.
nese ALTERATIONS were made, like the anpji-
cstlon OIL Mr. Brent to Mr.. Russell, for The
duplicate, icithou my kaou!edes. and han, sns
ed thus t'Pen-