John Quincy Adams Digital Diary

27729. V:15. Coll. Trumbull came this Morning to enquire where his third picture was to be hung, and who was to give him a receipt for it. I referred him to the President. Mr Burton of North-Carolina, came with a Mr Gage— M’Glassin a Candidate for Office, and also a Mr Burr who came with William Lee. Mr Wilcocks also with pressing importunity, for the appointment of Consul General in Mexico. Mr Jonathan Russell came for the Letter of the President to the Emperor of China, and mine to the Vice-roy of Canton. He said he liked my substitute for the draft of the President’s Letter, much better than the draft itself. Dropping this subject I told Mr Russell, that I thought the Letter he had left at the Department to be communicated to the House of Representatives in answer to Dr Floyd’s Resolution was a very extraordinary paper, and his conduct in the whole transaction relating to it, as equally extraordinary— He knew I had been at Paris, and that he was in habits of daily, and professedly friendly intercourse with me when the original Letter was written. That he should have written it, without notice to his colleagues whose conduct it so severely arraigned was strange. That he should now have furnished a paper as the duplicate of that Letter, but materially differing from it, was still more so— He said that I would remember when on the 25th. of December 1814—I had made the draft of the joint Letter of the Mission to the Secretary of State, mentioning that we had offered to the British Plenipotentiaries the Article, confirmative of the fisheries to us, and of the Mississippi Navigation to the British, Mr Clay had desired that an alteration should be made, saying that a majority of us determined to make this offer. This was Mr Clay’s desire, and not his; but when the joint Letter was so written, as he had voted in the minority on the question, he thought it necessary to justify his conduct to the Government, and therefore had written the Letter from Paris— That when he came to this Country in 1816, there had been a paragraph in the Boston Centinel, charging him with having been willing to sacrifice the fisheries at Ghent. That Mr Floyd had moved his Resolution calling for the Ghent papers, without consulting him; but as upon the first call of Mr Floyd, his, Russell’s separate Letter of 25. December 1814. had been reported it became necessary for his justification that the Letter containing his reasons, as promised in that Letter should also appear. He had written to his daughter at Mendon, for his own original draft of the Letter, she had found and sent it to him all but the two last sheets— There was therefore some variation between the original and the duplicate of his Letter; and he had inserted some passages to defend himself with those who feel a particular interest in the fisheries. But there was no alteration of facts. I told him he was mistaken— There was an alteration of fact in the form of the most aggravated of all his charges against the Majority of the Mission, that of a wilful, direct, and positive violation of Instructions. This was not in the original Letter; but on the contrary; there was an express acquittal of the violation of Instructions. But the charge was in the duplicate, in language as strong as he could make it— He said the acquittal in the original and the charge in the duplicate referred to different Instructions— I replied that the original had no reference to the Instructions cited in the duplicate— It expressed a concurrence with the Majority in the belief that the proposal referred to in no ways violated our Instructions. The terms were general, and reserved no exception. The duplicate limited the acquittal of violated Instructions, to the single Instruction of 25. June 1814. but brought in an express charge, in the most aggravated terms of the violation of other Instructions, namely those of 15. April 1813. from which it cited the paragraph, which it alledged to have been violated— And this duplicate, now delivered by himself as having been the Letter written by him at, Paris in Feby. 1815 declares that he had thought at Ghent, and still thought that this wilful and positive violation of Instructions had been 278committed; while the real, original Letter, expressed no such opinion, and made no such charge— But I could shew him that it was impossible he should have thought at Ghent that we had violated the passage cited in his duplicate, of the Instruction of 15. April 1813. because before the proposal was made, we had received the subsequent Instruction of 19. October 1814. which released us entirely from the restriction of that passage, and authorised us expressly to conclude a Treaty upon the Basis of the Status ante Bellum— I then shewed him on the Book of Records of the Department, the Letter from Mr Monroe to the Mission of 19. October 1814 to the Mission, which was received on the 24th. of November of that year; and also another Letter of 6. October 1814. containing the same authority, but which I told him had not been received by the Mission— I further told him that President Madison, by a Message to Congress of 9. Octr. 1814 had communicated to Congress, so much of our Instructions, as would shew the terms upon which we were authorised to make Peace; the Instructions of 15. April 1813. were included in that communication; but the passage cited in the duplicate in proof of violated instructions, was omitted, as having been subsequently cancelled. During the whole of this exposition, Russell’s countenance gave the usual indications of detected imposture; alternately flushing and turning pale. He said he had no recollection of the receipt of this Letter of 19. October 1814— And asked if I thought the Status ante Bellum, included necessarily the right of the British to navigate the Mississippi— I said that was a matter upon which he was at Liberty to make his argument; but when, with the authority to conclude on the Basis of the Status ante Bellum, was connected the omission from the Instructions communicated to Congress of the paragraph cited by him as having been violated; when copies of these Instructions, thus communicated were transmitted to us, as shewing the terms on which we were authorised to conclude, it was impossible for me to doubt that the passage now cited by him, had been cancelled— At all events it had been so considered at Ghent, for this Instruction of 19. October had not only been received, but was actually produced in the course of the discussions of the Mission. He said if I recollected that there could be no question but it was so. But he said he could assure me he had not acted in this case in concert with my enemies, and had never written or published a word against me in the newspapers. He had acted from no motive of hostility to me— I then said to him, Mr Russell, I wish not to enquire into your motives.— Henceforth, as a Public man, if upon any occasion whatever I can serve either you or your Constituents, it will afford me as much pleasure as if nothing had ever occurred between us; but of private and individual intercourse, the less there is between us from this time forward, the more agreeable it will be to me— He only replied “I wish you well”—and left me— Among the other observations he had made was that he was entirely indifferent whether his Letter should be communicated or not; and he had told Mr. Brent so, on delivering the Letter to him; and he asked me if Mr Brent had told me this. I said he had not; but that I had requested the President to communicate both the Letters to the House, with such remarks, as I had to make upon them; among which I should certainly notice the variations between the original and duplicate of his Letter. About two hours after he left the Office, I went over to the President’s upon other business, and found Russell with him— He had no doubt been there the whole of the interval. Mr Thompson the Secretary 279of the Navy was also there, and when I went in, Russell immediately withdrew. The President said he believed Russell was not so anxious, for his Letter to be sent to the House as he had been— I said I presumed not; but it was too late for him now to retreat— I then told the President and Mr Thompson, what had passed this Morning between Russell and me; and that I had expressly renounced all future private and personal intercourse with him. Mr Thompson soon afterwards retired, and upon conversing with the President he told me nothing of what Russell had been saying to him, but I found in him an increased reluctance to sending in the letter to the House. Not having yet finished my remarks I did not press the subject upon the President; but mentioned Mr Wilcocks’s importunities for a Commission as Consul General in Mexico. But he does not incline to make any formal appointments to the South-American States at present. Mary Roberdeau and Mary Hellen left us again this day.