Alabama state intelligencer., 1831-05-11

After searching some time found it, and read it tor the first time! Wonderful coincidence with MT Crawford's statement, if the evidence will only changethe point of time to Mir Crawiofd's statement! Let us see how far this can be done.
 But before we proceed, let me ask you, MT Cal. houn, you who sticke much for all the facts, and all the names and all the letters to help you prove "fou plot" why did you not state the quarter rom believe it came from Mir Crawford Perhaps from this very source Mir Crawford will be able to prove that instead of your reminding Mir Monroe of the let ter in December it was exactly at or near the 10th day of the proceeding July. Bot we thlnk ne VIII be able to do it at all events.
 On the 2lst of December 1918, Mir Monroe writes to General Jackson: ''Your letter (meaning the aforesaid famous letter) to me, with many others from friends, was put aside, Tn consequence oi my indspostion and the great pressure on me at the time, and never recued to until atermy return rom Loudon on the receipt of yours by Mir Hambly, and then on the suggestion of Mir Calhoun Connected with this argument which has been ably used before by friend of General Jackson, it is very important to bear in mind some dates. MT Monroe returned from Loudon on the 14th ofJuly, 1S1S and answers the letter received by Hambly on the 18th of the same month. Then if il was ''recurred to atter his return from Loudon on the receipt of Gen. Jacksons s letter, by Hambly" it follows conclusivey that was adverted to between the 14th and 18th of July, and the meeting of the Cabinet being on the 10th and 16th of that monh very strong presumption arises that it done at of these meetings, aud upon the suggestion of Mr Calhoun. At all events so near the time as to slip the onus from Mir Crawford, Now what becomes of Mir Calhoun's ,he iotter at tbe meeting of Congress in December' Does not etery body perceive, that say the least ofit his memory mlsglves him on this point, and yet he holds Mir Crawford bound to recoect to minute when a particular fact occurred Though all the other hcts are true, yet if there is the varience of hairs breadth as to time matter almost mmaterial, and always subject to uncertainty the witness must be discredted.
 The foregoing argument receives additional strength from another stament of MT Monroe's made to Mir Crawford In his letter to him he says: "l lay in bed more than week. during which that let ter was removed, and every thing relating to that war having been previously arranged it was forgot ten and never read by me until after the meeting of the administration and the decision to the course to be persued in reference to its management. My impression is fiat read it then on suggestion of MT Calhoun |. at it required my attention" Mir Monroe IS voCue and indefinite as te time. It might have been just before or at the time of the meeting of the administration, as well as atfer; and ths IS confirm ed by the singular fact that in every mention of the letter, by every individual, who says any thing about it. the President has forgotten it, and MT Cal houn is the very who brings It to hls recollec- ton. But if there yet remains any doubt on tms point how can it longer exist after the testimony of MT Crowninshieldl We care not for this difficulty about tme if his other facts are true And that they are true who can doubtl This difficulty only proves what we have already advanced, how uncertain, our memory to time. Let any man try himself on that point and see whether he can call to recollection the eIact period at which any of the leading trans actions of his past life have occurred, and yet would he doubt them because the individual point of time has supplied him How unreasonable to require of Mir Crawford absolute certainty to the time when Mir Crowninshield Mir Monroe and Mir Calhoun, himself have all shewn so much uncertainty in that particular! Then what says MT Crowninshield? do ofa about a letter which Mir Calhoun, believe, asked for, and the President said he had not got it, but upon examina- ton found he had it. This letter contained inlorma- ton and opinions respecting Spain and her colonies, the Foridas; but the particulars cannot now under take to say or state correctly l remember think, your stating that the circumstances then spoken of did fully explain General Jacksom's conduct, during the campaign" After this evidence no candid man, no man who is not given lover to believe lie {" can for one moment doubt of the substantial truth of Mir Crawford's statement.
 The third and fourth points of Mir Crawford's statement viz: that Mir Monroe had forgotten the letter and that it had not been answered, because forgotten are already abundantly proved by the re- ferences made to sundry letters. What remains of MT Crawford's statement upon which any fair and honest reasoner cast the shade of suspision? It is established beyond all reasonable cavil.
 The nsxt is Mir McDufies statement: he says, Mir Crawford Gin inc summer of lSl9) "spoke without any kind of reserve to the respective parts taken by the different members of the Cabinet while the subject was under delberation. He stated that you had been in favor of an inquiry into the conduct of General Jackson, and that he was the only member ofthe Cabinet that had concurred with you" Now admit all this, and indeed, for our own parts, we cannot conceive of testimony more in favor of MT Crawford than these very facts. With small ex- panation of which they justly susceptible, they do as efectually relieve the motives of MT Crawford from all suspicion of unairnesss in this whole trans action as it is possible to conceive Motives mark the character of an act Intention constitutes the criminaty of deed, and these few facts of Mir Me Dufies do clearly exhibit the purity of MT Craw- ford's conduct this occasion it is in the power ofevdence to "lay open and make plain' any fact whatever. First, with regard to the explanation al luded to-and let it be borne in mind that MT Me Dufiie is calling up facts that had been stored away for twelve years and perhaps seldom thought of in that tirne-he says Mir Crawford stated that Mir Cal houn had been in favor of inquiry into the con duct of General Jackson and that Mir Crawford had concurrred with him." Mir Crawford does not deny this no,c. He says he went to thelCouncil with full determination to censure General Jackson, but that after he got there, his own views the sub feet had undergone material change" and that Ion his mind at least that letter had most important bearing" Now who does not believe that all MrCraw ford intended to convey was, that he had concurred in all his antecedent conversations, with MT Cal houn in the course which ought to be pursued to- wards General Jackson? Is not this the most chari- table construction to be placed upon that statement perhapsnot duly recolected2 Whatearthly hlyinduce- ment could Mir Crawford have to tell MT McDufie not only bare faced but wholly useless falsehood The thing is unreasonable.
 Now as to that part of his testimony which we conceive so favorable to MT Crawford. He is charg ed with betraying the secrets of the Cabinet and having lately divulged them to ruin Mir Calhoun's political standing. How is this to be reconcedl- Mr Crawford just after the Council breaks up, on his way home goes right into the bosom of MT Cal.