Alabama state intelligencer., 1831-05-11

Three leading facts presented in dlis state ment:
 l. That there was confidential letter from Gen. Jackson 10 Mir Monroe.
 7. That its contents were as represented by Mir awinrd--and,
 3. That it was before the Cabinet and had ifs in- fucnce al least upon MT Crawford
 The first fact is admitted both hy Mir Monroe and Mir Calhoun. The second is moi denied by my one and receives the most satisfactory confirmation from the fact that if Mir CIawfords statement of ifs con tents had been untrue General Jackson having written it himself, must better recollect il than any one else and he would moi surely have submitted an erioneous account of it to Mir Calhoun. For if he knew any part of Mir Crawfords statement to be in correct il ought to have admonisfed him to take care of the rest Then these two points are proved. The only difficulty is to the third. Here Mr Cal houn reminds US of the lawyer, who never fails in q bad cause to try to mpeach the credit of the witness It is rule of evidence that if the witness lies in one part of his testimony, il destroys his credit to all the rest, and perhaps never Was iulc much tortured by the profession where all other hone fails wit ness Is eXamned crOss-examned and Ie-e amned GSf , o"9r pSain, to make him slip in some small
 secy The Jury rom m ths s9sT ahGg u 6T e eefRR ahG ot iSilg loud and bOsternus speech, hear the last O the shameless, barofaced lie that the witness had sworn to Now just is the camor of Mir Cal houn. He seems to rest his whole support on sup. posed inaccuracy of Mir Crawford, and tlatfGs 10 Il l point of time. He brings in Mir Monroe to prove
 
 own witness has to have his recollection refreshed before he testify: for Mir Monroe expressly de- cares to Mir Crawford, Gas the question whether that letter was mentioned in tie Cabinet involved the correctness of my memory, did not wish in re- plying to Mir C&lhouns letter, to rest my memory alone, and in consequence made appeal through friend to MT Wilt. who declared that il was not mentioned in the Cabinet n.r brought before it, and that he had never heard oft beiure." Consequent- ly upon Mir Nlrts memory does Mrs. onroe testify, Vpt ne h..,I n opfxy MrCrawlord'sl This is proving the fraiyof n, ,mo- " with vengeance But if Mir Wirt's more yico- rous intellect Is to furnish the proof, it proves too much. His memory is entirely leo strong. He not only recoects that the letter not before the Ca- blnet, but that there such letter at alIi Just as well may be contended tlat no such letter ever existed, because MT Wirt meyer heard of it before" us that 1t was not before the Cabinet be- cause he also had no recollection of it. This kind ot evidence Will not do against the positive testi- mony ot man of, at least, equal credit with Mir Wrt. especially as we shall shew presently, he is upheld by tie most satisfactory aid.
 MT Adams testimony is of the same character- Is, at last nothing than trial of lbe strength ol memory and to say that mans recollection is not to be trusted because it varies from anothers is | striking at lie foundation of all testimony, not com mltted to writing. Memory is entirely the creature f circumstances, and is exercised greater or less degree, according to the Jorce with which it is a,- pressed. Ii 1t were not for the power of assocntioh nothing could be recollected for one instant No iaci goes upon the memory without being aacompa- med with many others which serve US pointers to bring It up whenever it wanting and hence when ever long treasured circumstance is searched for Tn me mind, we begin to feel for it through some of the more striking agents with which it was originally | communicated. Now according to the interest or ndneement which operates at the time of receiving te imfresson in that same degree will it be retain ed' ana brought up wien required. We know not what parts of this Cabinet council most interested the
 different members of 1t, what particular range or d rection their minds took on that occasion But this much we do know Mir Crawford not only gives the act without qualification, but gives according to the philosophy of memory, the most forcble reasons for its trnth He went to the Cabinet prepared to SUD- port Mir Calhoun in the that was to be taken | asG:nsl General Jackson, and doubtless had in pre- Vous conversations assured him. but that after he got there His views underwent material change" What had changed theml No who knows ei- ther tlle moral or physical courage of Mir Cra;ford will dare ascrlbe it to fear. What was it then? IL was this letter. And, having worked a most sinstl. lar change in his opinion, does not every one per ceive that powerful association of which we have been speaking, and which would chain the fact so strongly to the memory, that nothing but disease or death would remove it
 But has Mir Crawford nothing but his unasss,ed recollection to sustain him Let us bring into one view his coHoborating proofs. Let it be borne in innd that the litter andits contents are proven and that the cabinet meeting took place on the 18th and 10th oi July, ISIS. Letalltle members of Mir Craw- lords statement be properly arranged and con stantly recollected
 l. That MT Calhoun made proposition to pun ish Gen. Jackson rN' S That the letter was brought up by an allusion from Mir Calhoun
 B That Mir Monroe had forgotten it.
 4. That it had not been answered because it had been forgotten.
 NOW we assert that the above is the only fair and material analysis that be made of the statement and which it is sad and attempted to be proven. by Mir Calhoun, is false. We invoke the candor of an impartial community only for one moment
 On the first point, then is any further proof want has at least convinced General Jackson of it. and that was the principal object for furnishing the sate
 ment But lest it may be taken back in some future : supplemental communication, or be made the sub Ject of another plot, what says MT Wirt Mir Cal nouns own witness, on this point He says samong other ideas thrown out for consideration, according to the usual course of Cabinet consultations think that at the first meeting you suggested the proprie- ty o an inquiry into the conduct of the commanding General" Does this need aid Listen 10 what
 Nlr Crownnsheld states, I remember too that Mir
 Calhoun was serere upon the conduct of the General; but the words particularly spoken have spped my recollection" This last fact not only supports Mir Wlrt but shews what the Lawyers call the anino.-
 They were not words of hodf and passion We mav then ilry conclude that the first point is made out
 on the 2d pont-that the letter was brought up by an alluson from Mir Calhoun. Mir Monroe is the
 first witness shall call to the stand, and as he :, leans towards MT Calhoun, his evidence will have great weight What does he say to Mir Calhoun T
 'Ihe letter was laid aside and forgotten by me- and
 never read until after the conclusion of the ,dr and
 then did on sntima0n from you that it required I attention" When did the war conclude? In the II month of May. To what time does Mir Monroe in. fond ftntt tho sta., 5i.t.-l r