Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1831-02-28

President, and did not dare to ask hun any question
tending To revive his recollection of that proposition
the different manner in which you approach the
president and Mr. Writ, upon the collateral and
secondary fact upon which you do venture to ntero-
gate Them, proceeds from the fact that made
You AVOID interroSating them upon the principal TACT
When you make the enquiry of Mr.. w irt YOU enclose
MN such an extract from, my letter informs him oil
inc nature OF the evidence you III search OF, De-
cause presume, you believed that extract would not
Iehu 10 refresh hts memory, relied implicitly upon
Mr. Wirts disposition TO give such evidence as you
DESIRED from him. But you were apprehensIve that
'he same extract sent to Mr. Monroe might refresh ms
memory and enable him to give such answer as
"oaiu not SUIT your views. The extract OF my letter
sent TO Mi. Writ described facts and circumstances
Ia winch Mr. Monroe was principal actor. 1t was
therefore deemed unsafe to submit them to him. Inc
excTement produced upon the President was so man.
nest that You did believe it could have escaped
the attention of Mr.. Writ you the eforc believed 1t
unsafe TO lnferrogate him your proposition per-
sonaliy affecting Gen. Jackson. MR. Monroe says not
word tending I" show that the confidential letter
was not produced and read in the cabinet which was
not suggested by Mr. Writ Every tyro in the science
ct law, will tell you that it is rule of evidence that
one affirmative witness outweghs many negatives but
although you were at the bar several years. is pos
sibie that your law learning assembled SO high
might safely rest the here; but will produce
one affirmative witness IN support OF the accuracy OF
my statement opposed 1t is by Mr.. Nirts negative
statement. The Hon. Benjamin w. Crownnshield
in letter dated 25th july 1880, says "you ask if
recoect, while in the councils of the cabinet of let
|
roe? do recollect of a conversation about private
letter which Mr.. Calhoun, believe, asked for and the
president said he had not got it, bat upon examination
found he had it. The letter contained information and
opinions respecting Spain and her colony the Flori-
das; but the particulars undertake say
or state correctly remember, think, your stating
that the circumstances then spoken of did fully explain
Cen Jackson's conduct during the Campaign. / re-
member too that Mr.. Calhoun severe upon the
conduct OF the General but the words particularly po-
ken have slipped my recoilecton.>" Now, sir what
Pppti yt stn Of r Writ
Do you think it very certain that that letter
was not produced and read in the cabinet anon which
your memory Is SO distinct? Do you not, the con
trary, feel convicted OF having attempted pass of
faisehood upon the President of the United States
| The main fact contained lii my statement is moi
denied directly indirectly in your elaborate ESSAY
But negative is attempted by argument Aud what
kind of an argument is offered? Why, that lit would
be TO rate his (your) understanding very low to sup
pose that officer under laws could be punsbet
without arrest und trial" SIR, rae any mans IN
Outstanding very low who with total dsrerarc
TO principle. II is true that in addition to the aGru
nlent you add that 10 say you did not propose to ar
rest General Jackson, but that he should he punish
ed or rcprchended in form or other, lis absurt
on Its face What need is there for and tria
preparatory to reprI.nand? But is it indeed true
that military officer cannot be punished without
arrest and trial? Was the Misrepresentation in the
case OF the Seminole Il punishment? | think
General Jackson must have felt it 10 be SUCH
should have opposed 1t, If / had seen any way O.
placing the government in the right as TO Snain
without disavOwns he principal events Of the Sem
mole war.
| If you are moi satisfied with the evidence of Az
Crownshield, Mr. Adams, IN letter dated 30th July
1851, lays: "PIe main point upon which il was ur1
ed that Gen. Jackson should be brought to trial was
that lie had violated his order, by taking ST. Marks
ana fehsacoIaT 1t Is true that Mr. Adams does no,
say by "hcm 1t was urged 10 bring Gene al Jackson
to trial! but you know well hat there was NJ promo
siilon made in the cabinet affecting General Jackson
personally, but what was made by yourself If you
deny This, Will obtain the necessary explanation
from MIR Adams. Il may De proper state that the
Two letters from hlessrs Adams and Crownlnsi,eld
are The Oniy Communications have received from
them since my departure from Nashinnton and thcv
are IN reply To the only letters have written to them
since the aforesaid period. There has been as little
sympathy either 3lna or political between those
gentlemen and raG Us between them and Won aud in
fact much less between Mr. Adams and rlvseIf thar
beiwccn lin and you least before the coali,ior
between him and Clay IN fact, before that even,
| my impression that from the TING vour name
! was put down for the Presidency you favored tht
cause of Mr. Adams. And The fact that III his ecc
tors voted for you as Vice President, and that va,
suffered his printer to become proprietor of the press
you had established IN Washington Tor the express
purpose of vlityng my character and laudine yours
without STIMULATING thai it should no: be wielde,
against Generul Jackson 60 far to bsh the fact
lave done with your argumcntatiye ;,cnio.
and the negative evidence of Mr. Writ backed h,
| Your distinct recollection
EMr Crownshield since acknowledged tina, h, ,, -
and we hedo annex his letter. page 20 of the pmb