Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1824-05-07
POSTCRIPT

To the Editors Of The National LateXipeacer.
GENTLEMEN: The reasons which induced
me to reply to the communication under the
signature ofP, decide me to notice that of MIR.
Hay. Although he lntimates that the President
was not ''apprised" of his communication. no
intelligent man can read it without believing
that the statements it contains have been made
on his authority; and such, doubtless, was the
impression Mr.. Hay intended to make. The
scurrity and intemperance Of his publications
do not require notice, nor shall they provoke
me to animadversion. The situation in which
am placed, (if other considerations did not, J
forbid that l should suffer myself to be drawn
into personal alterations with those who, for
the qualification of their pride, or the advance.
ment of their interest, choose to enlist on the
side of power and patronage.
Mr.. Hay admits that it was not his intention,
in his first communication, to meet the main
question. ''The position of the case, (he says
"required no such moyement.n To do so is
now his protested object; and the manner it is
accomplished, merits observation. In nv pub
lishcd letter to the President, say, ssYo u then
stock from your bundle a letter, which YOU
''stated to be from Gen. Andrew jackson, and
''read to It's part thereof The part read, re-
s.con,nended to you, as a measure of policy. to
tJorm you,- administration by the appointment of
| ''distinguished Individuals from both the great
'tPotiticot parties Of the country, without men,
''tioning the names of Individuals Mr.. Hay
ssars, ssthe main question is, whether Gen.
jackson did, or did not, write a letter to the
president Of the United States, advising him
''to form his administration t'co distinguished
"republicans, andtoodistinguished federatists"
'sNIr. Lowrie, The adds,) AYERS that Gen. Jack
s'son did write such letter TO him and Mr..
''Findlay. ldeny the truth of these assertions,
81 say, Gen jackson did not write such let
s'ter; say, Mr.. Monroe did not read such a let
e'ter TO Mr. Lowrie and Mr.. Flndlay, or 10 any
s'body else.
The difference between my letter and the ex-
pressions attributed to me, will be perceived
Why docs Mr.. Hay extract the terms used BY
the newspapers, with so much care and preci-
sion, and substitute them for nine? 1t has, in
deed, been rurnored, that the disagreement be-
tween the expressions used in Mr.. kremcr's let
ter, and those of Gen. Jackson's, Though the
contents are in substance the same,) will be the
ground on which the charge of falsehood is to be
sustained. But the high responsibility of the
source from which it must come precludes the
possibility ola resort to sowretched asubtcrfuge.
The point in controversy is simple, and can nei-
Their be obscured or avoided. 1t is, whether Mr..
Monroe did, or did not read to Mr.. Findiay
and myself, letter from Gen. Jackson, in
which was recommended to him the policy oil
forming his administration from the two great
| political parties Of the country; not in what
| precise words the advice was given.
| In further support of the allegation that Mr.
| Monroe possessed such letter, now lay be.
| fore the public the declaration of Jonathan
| Roberts, Esq. late Senator from Pennsylgania
OF Mr.. Roberts's character, it is unnecessary &c
speak. His integrity is unimpeached and un.
1 iupeacbable. His account Of the letter is dis
hncf II merits, and cannot fail to receive
| Implicit credit. If, in the judgment OK intelli
gent and honorable men, there is yet doubt rest
ing upon ihe subject, let it be removed. Lei
the lettcr ofGeDeral Jackson, or SO much there
Of as r'fatcs to the subjec,: be DibI;shet !