Alabama state intelligencer., 1831-03-16

than ! do that any delay in the mail deprived me of the advantage of the statement m your letter to MT Forsyth, seeing that you ueehig z ed it material to a correct understahulhB oi the facts; but must say, alter caretul pc
 rusal of your letter to him, as well as yours
 to myself, am utterly at loss to perceive
 the sgross errors" ot which you acouse
 me. As far as can understand you, they
 seem to consist in the suppostion that l in
 ferred from Mr Forsyth'sletter that you ap-
 nlied to him personally to obtain the informa-
 lion from Afr Crawford, of what took place
 in the cabinet on the Seminole questions;
 whereas. in fact, you applied not to him, but
 to aJr James Hamilton, of New York; and
 that it was he, and not you, who applied to
 Mr. Forsyth to obtain the information. Ii
 there be difference ill principle between
 the two statements, I can only say that l am
 not responsible for t. The charge of error
 ought to be made against Afr Forsyth, and not
 me His words are ''Having at the request
 of the President to be informed what took
 nlacc in the cabinet of Mr Monroe OH the
 subject of the SeminS lie campaign, laid before
 him copy (except ae omission of name)
 of letter from Mr Crawford, which has
 been since communic, ted to you" Sc. &c.-
 Now, Sir, if had inferred from these words,
 as you suppose did, tlat you had personally
 applied to Hr Forsythto obtain the informa-
 ton for you, would h,ve done no more than
 what l fairly might, without the imputation of "gross errors" Bu l made no such infer ence; on the contrary l have used almost
 the very words of Mf "a fron, f.l tl1y lan- eos ot ~ yoSH AH stters eo me, that the CODY of Afr Crawford's letter to Mr Forsyth had been placed by the latter in your hands, without any previous act or agency on your part; but, by Ar Forsyth's letter to me, am informed that such is not the fact. It seems that he acted as your agent in the af- fair. He states that you applied to Fme to De !iformed Of what took place in the cabinet Of Nr Monroe on the subject of the Seminole campaign" In my letter to Ar Forsyth, use almost verbatim the same language. As far as l am capable of understanding the force ot words, my language does not vary, in the smallest degree, in its sense, from that used by Nr Forsyth in his letter to me, and most certainly does not more strongly imply than his does that you applied to him person ally for information. But, suppose l had tal- len into the sgross errors" of inferrihg from
 Mr Forsyth's letter that you had personally applied to hiM, when, in fact, it was not you, but your agent, James Hamilton (of New York, ) who applied for you in your name, as Mr Forsyth informed you in his letter of the 17th June, it requires more penetration than 1possess to discover how the difference can,
 in the slightest degree, affect the only materi- al question, whether he acted as mere vo- lunteer, or as your agent. Mr Forsyth hm- self decides this question. He tells you ex- pressly, that he did not act as volunteer; and it is on the ground that he acted for you, and not for himself, that claimed ofyou to be put in possession of certain facts connected with the subject of our correspondence, which were in possession of MT Forsyth, and which Ideemed important to the full development of this affair; but, instead of complying wltl so reasonable request, you reply, not oy denying the justice of the request, nor that he acted for you, and not for himself, put oy accusing me of "gross errors," an assump- tion on your part at once gratultous ard lLlma- terial, that l had inferred that you had ap- piled to Mir Forsyth personally, when, !n tact the application had been made for you, lh your own name, by Mir Hamilton. l must say, that cannot see in your statement tlle least excuse for withholding from me the information requested; and am constrained to add, that have looked in vain in the course which you have pursued for the evi- dence of that frankness which you assured me, in submitting the copy of MT Crawford's letter to me, has ever characterized your conduct towards these with whom you had been Ill habits of friendship. As connected with this point, let me call your attention to fact which has not been explained, though in my opinion it ought to be. Itnow appears, that when MT Forsyth placed the copy of MT Crawford's letter in your hands, he also htac- ed 7vith a a copy of his letter referred to by MT Crawford. Why was it that copy of this letter of MT Forsyth did not accompany MT Crawford's when you placed copy of the letter in my hands' Calling upon me in the spirit offrankness and friendship, as you informed me you did, had right to infer that every document connected with the charge, and in your possession, calculated to afford light, would be placed in my posses sion; and such, in fact, was my impression, but which now find to be erroneous. It is with regret that feel myself bound to state that MT Forsyth's letter, with the subsequent correspondence, has given an aspect to the affair very different from what l received from your first letter.
 You have stated some suggestions of the Marshal of the District, which were commit nicated to you as the reason why you have agitated this old affair at this time. You have not stated what they were, to zvhom made, or by 7vhom commnnicated, which, of course, leaves me in the dark as to their na- ture and character. But whatever they may be, the course you adopted, considering the friendly relation which had reason to sup pose existed between us, is well calculated to excite surprise. Instead of applying to the Marshal, in order to ascertain what he did say, and from whom he derived his nforma- tion, and then submitting his statement to me, which course friendship and the high opinion which you say you entertained for my cha racter, ''for fair, open, and honorable con duct in all things" manifestly dictated, you applied for information, as to my conduct, to the man who, you knew, felt towards me