and publish them in his own way. "And not only one, but two copies" of the letter were "taken"! Having one, they might multiply it to an indefinite extent. The offence as charged, therefore, is very moderate.

Who will not smile at the puerility of this complaint, as if Mr. Clay were not entitled to a copy of this letter, after having been thus addressed? It would have been very proper, if General Jackson had sent an apology to Mr. Clay, for the insult done him, on this occasion, by His agent. To complain of Mr. Clay, was putting himself on a level with his employè, who doubtless tried to obey his instructions, but did it very awkwardly. To affect, that this "letter had found its way into the newspapers, without his consent, agency, or wish," only shows, that when he wrote this address "to the public," he did not know what his agent, Mr. Beverley, had written to Mr. Zane, and to Mr. Green, editor of the Washington Telegraph: "It is ALL for the public," and such like. The evidence, that Mr. Beverley's first letter was published in the Fayetteville Observer, by a similar misfortune, is not so full. No doubt it was equally "without the consent and against the wishes" of General Jackson.

Speaking of the original communication to Mr. Beverley, at the Hermitage, on the 8th March, "before all his company," General Jackson says: “I answered him candidly," (in the letter of the 6th June, it was "freely and frankly,") "being unable as unwilling, to refuse telling things I had heard, and knew to be true." "Knew to be true." Does he mean, it was true that he heard them? or that the things were true? The latter, doubtless. What need, then, of any further controversy ? It is pretty strong, certainly. It was unbecoming. It was using his authority, not evidence.

"be

General Jackson says, he did not know, that Carter Beverley was the author of the Fayetteville letter, till he received his letter of the 15th of May. Did he not know, that Carter Beverley was at his house on the 8th of March, asked him that question fore all the company," and rode away to Nashville that very morning? All the world knew it, and Mr. Beverley, in his letter to Duff Green, June 25, complains bitterly of the "attacks on him, by those detestable, hireling, scurrilous printers of the west," on account of that letter. Possibly General Jackson did not read the western papers. It was unnecessary he should know it, to have secured its publication. It was morally impossible, that such a communication. as he "freely and frankly" made, "before all his company," on the 8th of March, should not be published by some one of them-no matter by which-nor was it important or necessary, that General Jackson should know which. To have it done, was the important thing. The end secured, it was well enough, and might be very convenient, as in this instance, not to know who did it. This "explanation," therefore, "of the manner, in which his opinions found their way into the journals of the day," as if it were unexpected, was an uncalled-for display. Nevertheless, it might answer his purpose, as it showed how innocent he

was.

Mr. Beverley wanted to know of General Jackson, " if, in anything he had misquoted, or misconceived his meaning," in the Fayetteville letter; and "under such circumstances, concealment and silence might have seemed mere affectation, or indeed something of a different, and even of a worse character." It may not be perfectly obvious what this "something of a different and worse character," is. But that is no matter. It is this no "concealment and silence," that challenges attention. No "concealment" from whom, if his letter of the 6th June, was not to be published? But the next sentence shows, that it was designed for publication : "Publicity having been given to the conversation, and an appeal made to me for its accuracy, I felt it to be due to Mr. Beverleythat nothing of fabrication should be imputed to him and to myself-that what I had stated, should be correctly understood." By whom? The public, of course. Very well. It is an error, then, that it was published without General Jackson's "consent or wish.” But the general seems very solicitous to support Mr. Beverley's veracity, as well as his own-" that nothing of fabrication should be imputed to him, and to myself." What did he think of Mr. Beverley's veracity, in his penitent letter to Mr. Clay, of February 8, 1842, when he said: "In the discharge of an act of conscience," &c., "I feel exceedingly desirous to relieve you, as far as I can, from the slander, and my own feelings from the severe compunction that is within me?”

THEREFORE, since the "publicity given to this transaction, has arisen from no agency or procurement of mine, I have not, as is charged, placed myself in the attitude of a public accuser!"

But General Jackson complains of Mr. Clay, as having made a

statement, contradicting and denying, not anything I have writ

ten, but that which he himself makes me to say.

I have not

said, nor do I now say, that the proposal made to me, was with the privity and consent of Mr. Clay. Neither have I said, that his friends in Congress made propositions to me."

Mr. Clay's statement is as follows: "These charges are, 1, that my friends in Congress, early in January, 1825, proposed to him, that, if he would say, or permit any of his confidential friends to say, that, in case he was elected president, Mr. Adams should not be continued secretary of state, by a complete union of myself and my friends, we would put an end to the presidential contest in one hour. And, 2, that the above proposal was made to General Jackson, through a distinguished member of Congress, of high standing, with my privity and consent."

In the first place, it may be observed, that, when Mr. Clay published this statement, he, at the same time, published, side by side, in the Kentucky Reporter, July 4th, General Jackson's letter, to which his communication was a reply, and the two things went together all over the country. There was, therefore, no unfairness. If his statement was incorrect, everybody would see it, and he only injured himself. In the next place, he did not profess to quote General Jackson's language, in his statement. That stood by its side, in General Jackson's letter. But his object, doubtless, was to give what he conceived to be the substance of the charges, and the public, with both documents in their hands, would judge for themselves. So the reader of these pages can judge, having the same means. Doubtless, General Jackson was startled to see what all would believe he meant, and what was undoubtedly conveyed in his letter, brought out by Mr. Clay, in the plain terms of his statement. The general seemed to think he was endowed with the faculty, or entitled to the privilege, of making these charges in covert language, and then of escaping from the responsibility. It will be seen, that his attempt to escape, was a mere cavil. Mr. Clay's statement brought the matter to issue, and fastened the responsibility where it belonged. Why should General Jackson show this concern, and make this denial, if he was not alarmed? He went much further in this address to the public, than what he here denies, and stated, that he "knew these things to be true." Besides this, as will soon be seen, he elaborates an argument, from false premises, to the length of one third of his address, to prove them! "Still," he says, "I have not said, nor do I now say" it! He calls them "Mr. Clay's interpretations of his letter to Mr. Beverley!" Of course they are, and the question is, whether they are true and fair? The general says, "His [Mr. Clay's] contradiction is a something suggested by himself, and is not contained in my letter." Who could say, that the contradiction of the letter, was a part of the letter? The absurdity owes its origin to him, who so unnecessarly denied it! But General Jackson himself, it seems, makes his own "interpretations." "The conclusions and inferences from that conversation [with Mr. Buchanan], the time, and all the circumstances, satisfied my mind, that it was not unauthorized. So I have thought, and so I still think." That a man who objects to interpretation in others, should claim the right to use it as his sole evidence, is rather cool.

It was cruel in General Jackson, who had been so faithfully served by Mr. Buchanan in this affair, after having borne testimony to his being "a gentleman of the first respectability and intelligence"-" of high character and standing"-to speak of him, in this address, as one, who, as I understood, had always, to that moment, been on familiar and friendly terms with Mr. Clay." It is true, he might settle this offence privately with Mr. Buchanan ; or, if necessary to his object, he might sacrifice him. It was a perilous position to be thrust into, and Mr. Buchanan was not a little surprised, as will appear from his letter to the public. There was another loophole of escape, for Mr. Buchanan, and not less for General Jackson. It was known from Mr. Buchanan's general urbanity, that, "being on familiar and friendly terms with Mr. Clay," did not necessarily imply, that he was Mr. Clay's political friend. Mr. Buchanan has, down to this time, been on "familiar and friendly terms," with many of his political opponents. It was manifestly important, however, at this particular juncture, that General Jackson should be able to make an impression on the public mind, that he thought Mr. Buchanan was a political friend of Mr. Clay, at that time, though his devotion to the general was doubtless as well known to him, as when he afterward sent him minister to Russia. It was impossible, that the politics of so prominent a member of Congress of such "high character and standing"-and so actively and efficiently engaged for the election of General Jackson to the presidency, against the other candidates, approaching the general, and proffering confidence and aid-should be unknown to anybody much less to General Jackson. Nevertheless, when writing this address to the public, it was absolutely necessary to put Mr. Buchanan in a very awkward position; though Mr. Green, editor of the Washington Telegraph, and occupying a mediate position, as a correspondent, between General Jackson and Mr. Buchanan, was informed by the latter, that the general was laboring under a mistake.

But General Jackson says: "If he [Mr. Clay] shall be able to sustain the averments he has made, and acquit himself of any participation and agency in the matter, I beg leave to assure him, that, so far from affording me pain, it will give me pleasure." Here is betrayed the principle of this whole conspiracy. By the course of the conspirators, from beginning to end, Mr. Clay was doomed to prove a NEGATIVE! They seemed to consider themselves entitled to say all manner of evil about Mr. Clay, but never regarded themselves as bound to prove it! Mr. Clay must "acquit himself!" If he would do that, it would "give them pleasure!" But how can he do that, so long as there is an unprincipled villain in the land, that will give positive evidence against him? Though, as it happens, such a witness has never been found. One witness affirming to a fact, annihilates the evidence of ten thousand witnesses, who could only say, they are ignorant of the fact. Thus was the burden of proof constantly thrown on Mr. Clay, when, by all rules of evidence, as recognised in any earthly court, it was incumbent on his accusers. Mr. Clay congratulated himself in the possession of General Jackson's letter of the 6th of June, to Mr. Beverley, on the principle, that he now had a "responsible accuser," who was bound to establish his accusations. But the general turns round, and coolly says, "If Mr. Clay shall be able to sustain his averments, and acquit himself, it will give me pleasure." What could surpass such effrontery? The general adds: "For the honor of the country, I should greatly prefer that any inference [interpretation) I have made, may turn out to be ill-founded."

The fundamental, vital, and all-pervading principle of this conspiracy, to wit, throwing the burden of proof on the accused, is a most atrocious violation of law and justice, striking at the foundation of society, and putting every innocent man in the power of bad men! Accusation of crime tantamount to conviction till disproved! The accuser not responsible! Who, then, can be saved? With no little force did Mr. Clay say, in his speech at Lexington, July 12th, 1827, before this matter was all out: "This compendious mode of administering justice, by first hanging, and then trying a man, however justifiable it may be, according to the precepts of the Jackson code, is sanctioned by no respectable sys