Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1827-02-16

ttis,. u
sented to him blythe messenger, ana, Oh e IA
mining it, he perdsived that the ieusr .. .ne
LIST Of April, 1879 missing thal nc i'n,n.
diately went into Mr.. Calhoan's room anu s's.
ed the fact that paper was missing, apon
which Mr.. Calhoun called MAJOR vahaereh'e'
and asked him il he knew any thihs o.
Major Vandeyeuter answered Pro"Fu!,, nv
and Mr.. Calhoun, looking sterniy, MIST A. a."
deyenter, and then at Mix, said ne knew ho'hins
of il. On examining the three copies' .ney a'e
all found to agree tolerably well IN substance
but different both in the arrangement a"u eo,
structon Of the sentences, ana III TIC WINS
used TO express the same idea. ne co'i'po,'-
lion is evidentlv that of an liiteraie man. VIM
does not understand the rules oil grainih~a0a'
construction.
Major Vandeyenter denies unequlNo cai.y ina.
he ever wrote such letter TO W.T. oaihou"'
and also states, that on the occasion aliuaea "
bv Mix, when he states the loss OF the iel'er III
the Department, Of War, he had nothing iul-
Their 10 do with the bundle oil papers lnah ~
take them from Mr.. Calhoun's laoe, I'D COM
3liance with his order, and deliver them 10 Inc
messenger at the door to be handed oY nun "
Mr. Mix He also states, that the buhaie aP-
leared not 10 have been opened al all, anu zap
tain Smith also says that Mr.. alhoun was en-
gagged in official business with him during Inc
whole time the papers remained there.
The Committee have no hesitation In pro,
nonncing these alleged copies OF cohhaehia'
! letter from Major Nandevenler 10 Mr.. Caihouh'
TO be gross fabrications, and that the whoie $40
nv about receiving such letter from Vande'en-
Ter, and losing it in the Department OF wa, IS
| tissue Of falsehood throughout
To say nothing of Mx's character, and me
positive denial of Vandeventer, both as to the
| fact of wiling such letter, and as TO the TACT
Of taking il GU, OF the bundle III the Depart
ment of War, the story is, in itself, so Impro-
bable, and contains so many internal evidences
of fabrication, that the Committee feel bound
to reject the papers presented as forgerles.'
1t appears that Major Vandevcnter had gone
to New-York 10 prevail upon Mix 10 consent TO
the transfer to Goldsborough, and had succeed
ed in that object, by personal communication
1t is quite likely, therefore, that he used all the
arguments he could suggest in the converse
lions he had with Mix on the subjec. previous
TO obtaining his consent, aud it is particularly
to be presumed, that, if he had any thing CON
fdential, he would have communicated 1t YER
bally and not in writing.
Nothing can be more unnatural and mpro-
bable, upon the face Of it, than that he would
have formally reduced to writing and sent 10 a
man who was in the same city with him comb
dental matter, which he must have previously
stated I'M conversation, if the whole be not a la
IRRIGATION In addition TO the improbabilly OF
the story itself, the papers presented as copies
Of the confidential letter, have internal eviden-
ces OF their having been fabricated by Mix
He swears that they were all taken from the
original, whilst in his possession. Ii he had
merely taken copies from the original, it would
have been much easier TO take a true copy than
an incorrect one, and all the objects OF copying
would be defeated by not making the copy ac-
curate Now, il is found, that all the three co.
pies, taken, as he says, from the same original,
differ from each other, in the construction,
com position, and arrangement OF the senten-
ces. But the most conclusive badge OF forgery
stamped upon the papers themselves, is their
composition. They are evidently composed by
an illiterae man, who does not understand the
ar, of writing good English, and correspond, in
this respect, with The general character OF
Mix's composition. On the contrary, from
the letters of Major Vandeyenter, 1t is obvious
tina, he writes correctly and grammalically.-
Moreover, i, is highly impro bable, in The ma
ture of things, that Mix should have taken
three separare copies, unless we suppose he had
foresight, Of its loss; and even if that had
| been the case he would have taken one correct
copy, instead Of three incorrect ones. The
story relative 10 the loss of the original, is
equally improbable, and is accompanied by pal.
| pable contradictions He first stated that he
los, it previous to the Sth Of April, 1921; and
! afterwards, that il was FIVE or six months, o" a
year, before Mr. Calhoun left the Department
Of War. That he should have left the papers
with Mr.. Calhoun, to be deliberately examined
and returned, and asked for them in FIVE or six
minutes, can only be accounted for upon the
supposi,ion that his object, from the beginning,
was to give plausible face TO the story he was
inveniing.
The whole of his evidence relative to this
letter, is contradictory and suspicious. He
stated in the first instance, that one OF the CO.
pies was nearly correct, but, that the one he
then had with him was so inaccurate that he
would not present 1t. The next day, when he
produced all three Of the copies, he could not
tell which was the most accurate, or whether
the one which he had refused to give up, as
being too inaccurate, was less accurate than
the rest. That copy, in fact, contains all that
the Others contain, and is at least equally as