Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1824-06-08

his public service, and no honor for him afte,
ms retirement. CHATHAM.
Mr.. HAYS LETTER.
Mr. Hay has once more dragged the Low
RE Correspondence before the public. Fo
what purpose, in the name of Heaven? Tt
combat positive facts with vague supposi
t'ons: 10 attempt to prove that all the wit.
nessrs are mistaken in what they have attest.
I'd that they have mistaken one letter, for
another; that IL was not Gen. Jsckson's let
ter To Mr. Monroe but Mr. Monror's letter ia
Gen. Jackson, which Mr.. Monroe showed u
them. Truly we may commend Mr.. HAYS
rdlour IN this literary crusade, more than hi
discretion. If he himself believes what he
says, we would venture 10 conjecture that h.
himself IS the only person whom he has con-
'erted-the ever ducilr and trimming Edi-
tor OF the Washington Republican always ex-
copied. .a,..
II is in vain that all the witnesses before the
public most positively declare il was the let
ter of Gen. J.-Mr, Hay chooses To hunt up
certain vague supposiiiens for con,radicting
their assertion.-lt is in vain, Mr.. Lowrie
says the letter was read to him @-tlat Mr..
Lacock says the same ething--,hat Messrs.
RuggIes and Thomas attest to Mr.. Findlay's
havIng declned il was this. letter which was
read To hid nd Lowre-It il in vain, MIR.
Palmer say bat The President looked for this
letter among his papers, and not finding it,
promised TO shew il to him. AZ some future
time II IS all a mistake, says blr. Hay. Your
senses have deiuded you. II was the answ err
and not the original letter, which wa:i nroinis-
ed or exhibited to you-It is in vain. tina,
MIR. Jonathan Roberts attests to having seen
this letter twice--the last time in tie presence
OF third person; and the first time, before
any anstcer could have been written; soon
AFTER The letter was received while the 8. Pre-
sideni's situation seemed To be AN enbarrass-
ed one, and the confederation sfon dns,oer agi-
fdted. The President seehied disposed tn
reply. My own impressions tsays MIR. r.
were, thai reply at all was not imperioIsly
called for" And yet MIR. Hay is now bold
enough TO tell MIR. r. that he is mistaken in
the character of the paper; that it was not
the letter itself, but the dnsuer 10 il which
MIR. Il. saw, though Mr.. X. positively states
the dnSiOer ,oas not then in eriSfence. A gem
tleman must have great confidence in himself.
who would thus expect that the world should
pay greater respect to his own imagnations
than 10 the memory Of half dozen wi,nesst s.
Mr.. Hay. for instance, chooses to- Imagine
that il was Mr.. Roberts who wished to know
the Presidents views touching the formation
OF his cabinet- when MIR. r. himself lets lis
into the reas"ns why the President might
wish to consat hin, about Gen. Us letter.
As TO Mr.. MonrOe's habits, ii is we'll know n
that no gentleman is more in the habit al con-
suliing his confidential friends on confidential
matters.
Mr.. II. argues that If Us letters had been
shown, no one could have mistaken or have
misrePresened them. Essentially they were
not misrepresentsd Messrs. Lowrie and
Roberts were right in point of substance
they were wrong as 10 form only But the
denunciatioD Of The Hartford Convention
could not have been forgotten, NOR was il for
such a declaration had crept Into the papers
long before the source, from which il ssas la.
ken, was laid open to the public. :.
Us letter might have been on the Presidents
table, without surprising it had been lying
there for four years - for, whe, The APP
ponimeDt Of Irish had male some stir in
Pennsylvania, what so natural as 10 suppose
that this letter was hunted up for topics OF
Justification
All the other suggestions Of Nj Hay seem
10 us equally visionary and VAN. but why
are thpy made What is the object Of this
letter? II strikes us. that Mr.. III. wishes 10
account for the declaration which Gen. J /.
says was made by Mr.. Monroe ; Ia wit that
he never showed "any letter at ALL" We
have no doubt from what we have recentlv
learnt, that Mr. NJ. himself ~ as under this i'm
preston. Hence we conjecture, he might
have been induced TO make such n deriarn,ion
to Gen. J.-Tbat he was however mistaken.
we think, is perfectly clear from the stale.
ments Of LowFir and oihers.-B,it.. if Mr..
Hay supposes That the letter was confidential
and That II was breach of confidence for Mr..
~ to snow it--& " his present view is 10 clear
MT ": oiany such imputaIion, has he not
failed ~ doing SOP What mighty difference
does IT make, whether show a letter to you
laying down certain principles, or whether
shu" my answer TO that letter when the an
s'ctr s sufficient TO point DOT what are the
principles and views Of my correspondent |?
It's tweedls dunn, and f*eedlc dee.
RECEIVER's LETTER, &c.
A. E....~- e h. 81. Lo. ,.ol..L- A.