Aaron Vail Brown never did receive or publish any letter from General Jackson accusatory of him; that it was Mr. Aaron Venable Brown? But no matter about that. He proceeds to deny that Mr. Erving ever did make known to General Jackson any such facts as his letter asserts that he did. Let it be borne in mind that General Jackson never did come forward as the accuser of Mr. Adams of dereliction of duty in negotiating the Florida treaty; nor did I ever present any letter of his in that light. He pretended, on the face of his letter, only to give the information (from memory) which he had received from our Minister in Spain. If that information was correct, it was then a question only between Mr. Adams and him. What that information was, has been concealed neither from Mr. Adams nor the public. All the material and important parts of that statement appeared during the last spring in the Richmond Enquirer, with comments, over the signature of "Randolph of Roanoke," written by one of the most vigorous writers of the age. To these I must necessarily refer (for they are too long for insertion here) all who have a single doubt on the subject under examination. I must beg permission, however, to insert the following:

"The next confirmatory testimony I shall offer, is that of Mr. George W. Erving (the former Minister to Spain) himself. If I am rightly advised, he indignantly threw up his commission soon after he was apprized of the terms of the treaty, and before its ratification by Spain, and was in Washington about the date of Mr. Clay's letter. In the statement he afterwards drew up in relation to that treaty, and presented to General Jackson, he places Mr. Adams in a most unenviable position. From this document, now before me, I will furnish you from time to time with copious and pungent extracts; but for the present I have only leisure to quote the following summary, which seems germane enough to the matter in hand. Commenting on Mr. Adams's conduct, he says:

"He had a distinct proposal from Pizarro,' (the Spanish Secretary for Foreign Affairs) of a boundary between the Sabine and the Colorado. He had repeated assurances from the Minister of the United States at Madrid, of the earnest disposition of the Spanish Minister to conclude a treaty there. He had abundant proofs of that Minister's sincerity, and finally OF HIS UNEQUIVOCAL INTENTION TO AGREE ON THE COLORADO AS A BOUNDARY, ON THE TERMS PROPOSED BY THE AMERICAN MINISTER.

"With all this before him, Mr. Adams agreed with Onis on the Sabine a a limit, thus ceding to Spain the whole of the territory in that quarter, which

she pretended to have any right to possess; ceding, indeed, every inch of that territory that the United States had power to cede-since the territory as far as the Sabine was actually in possesession of, and made part of the State of Louisiana.'"

Mr. Adams, in his Boston address, attempts to account for the strange conduct here attributed to him, by throwing the blame on Mr. Monroe. He says that if Gen. Jackson had given an opinion against the western boundary as agreed on in the treaty, Mr. Monroe would still have persisted in making the offer. He was earnestly intent on the acquisition of the Floridas, and of indemnity for the spoliations, "and was more than indifferent to any acquisition west of the Sabine." How strange, how incredible the story! Indifferent, and more than indifferent, (hostile, we must suppose,) to any acquisition west of the Sabine! Why, then, all that tedious and protracted negotiation with Spain about it? Why did he not instantly command Mr. Erving to give over further negotiation about the Colorado and the Rio Del Norte, and close on the Sabine immediately? Nay, more; why did he not tell Mr. Adams, negotiating right at his door, to give it up at once, falling back in his claim on the western boundary of Louisiana? Why, let me ask, was not this incredible story told in the life-time of Mr. Monroe?

Mr. Adams had been accused and severely censured in his life-time; yet Mr. Monroe never stepped forward, with the noble frankness of his nature, to relieve his persecuted Secretary.

Nay, still more: such a defence becomes totally inadmissible since the publication of Mr. C. J. Ingersoll's reply to the repeated assaults of Mr. Adams. In that reply he inserts a letter written by Mr. Adams to Mr. George Graham, dated the 2d June, 1818-mark the date, how nearly to that of the treatywritten, too, by the order of Mr. Monroe, in which we find the following:

"The President wishes you to proceed with all convenient speed to that place, unless, as is not improbable, you should, in the progress of the journey, learn that they have abandoned or been driven from it. Should they have removed to Matagorda, or any other place north of the Rio Bravo, and within the territory claimed by the United States, you will repair thither, without, however, exposing yourself to be captured by any Spanish military force. When arrived, you will, in a suitable manner, make known to the chief or

leader of the expedition your authority from the government of the United States, and express the surprise with which the President has seen possession thus taken, without authority from the United States, of a place within their territorial limits, and upon which no lawful settlement can be made without their sanction. You will call upon him explicitly to avow under what national authority they profess to act, and take care that due warning be given to the whole body that the place is within the United States, who will suffer no permanent settlement to be made there under any authority other than their own."

On this letter, Mr. Ingersoll justly remarks:

"Thus it appears that in June, 1818, at the very time when the Florida treaty was in full negofiation, the United States extended, (with all Mr. Monroe's indifference,) not to the Sabine only, where Mr. Adams put a stop to them not only to the Colorado, where Mr. Erving thinks it would have been easy to have settled their limits-nor yet even to the Bravo, the uttermost claim of northern Texas; but even north of it, which must have carried Louisiana far beyond those ancient Santa Fe settlements, of which Colonel Benton has spoken so emphatically in his recent speeches-Thomas Hart Bentona, as Mr. Adams, with precision, denominates that gentleman, somewhat infected, saith Mr. Adams, with the thirst for Tex-ass, which has become an epidemic fever raging to a great extent.

"Now, the argument of all Mr. Adams's denunciation of General Jackson, of Mr. Tyler, of Mr. Polk, of Mr. Calhoun, of Governor McDuffie, of Mr. Brown, of Mr. Erving, and of me, the whole argument of not less than a volume of print, the result of all his midsummer's night dreams, is that the United States had no right to Texas beyond the Sabine; that they made no claim to Texas to the Colorado; that they never dreamed of Texas as far as the Bravo; and that as to the Santa Fe settlement on the north of that river, it would have been the grossest injustice and absurdity to make any pretension to them. Mr. Adams has been in the habit, I have understood, of terming General Jackson a Tennessee barbarian. In his Braintree philip-pics, the General's double-dealing, imposture, folly, ignorance, proffigacy, mendacity-in a word, his villany-in this Texas affair are painted in the blackest colors. He is called Tiberius Cæsar, Louis XI of France, Ferdinand the Catholic, of Spain; robber, thief, hickory hero, and the like; Me. dusa with a gorgon's head; Ate, hot from hell; Alaric, the pest of nations; Attila, the scourge of God, are conjured into Adams's jargon, the whole strain of elaborated allegation, with what he pronounces overwhelming proo's, that, as Texas never did belong to the United States, and never was claimed by them, it was monstrous injustice to Mexico for General Jackson, by what Mr. Adams calls his God-defying villany, to rob that country from Mexico; and it is monstrous traduction of Mr. Adams for General Jackson to express his astonishment that our government gave it up by the Florida treaty. General Jackson is expressly compared by Mr. Adams to a horsethief for doing so; and setting forth the defence of this horse-thief, as Mr

Adams said he heard him make it in Boston, he pronounc's it a much better justification for stealing the horse than General Jackson has for what Mr. Adams calls stealing Texas from Mexico. What are we to think, then, of the statesman, or honest man, or any man, who, after spending a whole summer, with his unquestionably superior advantages, and the best opportu nities of making good his case, is thus easily convicted, by the records of his own departmen', by a letter under his own signature, every line of which bears intrinsic evidence of Mr. Monroe's wary patriotism, and of Mr. Adams's peculiar diplomacy? And what shall we say of that sting at a benefactor who warmed him in his bosom, when Mr. Adams writes of Mr. Monroe that he was more than indifferent as to Texas-Mr. Monroe, whom Mr. Adams hides behind, to cover him from the charge? Write a letter of instructions,' said President Monroe to Secretary Adams, 'to Geo. Graham, to hasten forthwith to Texas. Let him make his first stopping-place at Galveston, far beyond the Sabine; thence let him follow the intruders to Matagorda, which is at the mouth of the Colorado; if he does not find them there, let him go to the Bravo; and if there, or at any other place to the north of it within the territory claimed by the United States, make known that no settlement can be made there without their sanction, for the place is within the United States, who will suffer no settlement other than their own. Is this the language of a President who was more than indifferent as to Texas? Is this the memory Mr. Adams should sully for want of patriotism? Far beyond San Antonio, reaching almost to Matamoras and Monterey in the south, to Albuquerque and Santa Fe in the north, Mr. Monroe insisted that neither Frenchman nor Spaniard, nor Don Onis, the representative of the King of Spain, nor the Viceroy of Mexico, nor Joseph Bonaparte, should be suffered to put a foot, nor any other, without authority from our government. Yet does Mr. Adams not only take high umbrage at any expression of astonishment that he should, six months after, have surrendered all those magnificent regions, but he denounces as worse than a horse-thief the President who reclaimed them, and lashes as a rascal round the world the individual who ventures to publish Mr. Erving's argument, that at least as far as the Colorado, we might, by the Florida treaty, have established our title to Texas, if not to the Bravo."

There is but one other topic discussed by Mr. Adams in these various speeches to his constituents, which I desire to notice, and with that I shall close this address. I allude to his allegation, formerly as well as now made, that the Florida treaty was shown to General Jackson, and that he approved of it. Much has been said on this subject by several of the newspapers of the day, particularly by the Globe and Kendall's Expositor. There is, in the latter, a review and exposure of all that Mr. Adams has said on this point, so direct and lucid that I

submit it to your consideration, with the solitary remark, that I have no faith nor confidence in the alleged diary of Mr. Adams. He did not and would not produce it at the proper time, when everything he ought to have held dear to him was at issue. If genuine, it does not sustain him; if a forgery of subsequent fabrication, it is another melancholy proof that great attainments are not always accompanied by virtue.

From Kendall's Expositor.

The National Intelligencer, of the 12th instant, contains a long address of John Quincy Adams, delivered "at a meeting of the Boston Whig Young Men's Club, on the evening of the 7th instant," defending his own course in the negotiation of 1819, when Texas was ceded to Spain, and assailing General Jackson in no measured terms.

On its face this production bears evidence that while the snows which rest around the temple of this aged man have, in some degree, paralyzed his mental powers, they have but kindled the fires of his malignant heart into a brighter flame. The diabolical spirit which breathes through this address, presents to the imagination a hoary-headed sinner sinking unrepentant into the grave, already beginning to feel the pangs of "that death which never dies," and attempting, with impotent rage, to hurl back upon a fortunate rival, whose success has been his disgrace, and whose glory his shame, a portion of that fire with which he is already tormented.

"Grossly, glaringly, wilfully false."-Such are the epithets this "arch. angel fallen" bestows upon statements of Andrew Jackson, and attempts to show it by counter-statements, in themselves "grossly, glaringly, and wilfully false," capping the climax by proving his own mendacity.

"At some time more propitious to calm consideration," as Mr. Clay said when he promised to expose Mr. Adams's conduct at Ghent, we may, if some one else does not, make a formal reply to this long-studied and most wicked tissue of petty malignity, false assertion and shameless misrepresentation. For the present, we shall content ourself with proving Mr. Adams a liar by. his own testimony!

On the 7th of May, 1836, while a discussion involving the treaty of 1819 was going on in the House of Representatives, Mr. Adams is thus reported, viz:

"He mentioned also another fact: the present chief magistrate of the United States being in the city at the time, Mr. A. was directed to take the treaty to him and ask his opinion about it, and it was approved of by that gentleman."

On being applied to for information on the subject, President Jackson said he had no recollection of having been consulted, and thought Mr. Adams must be under some mistake. This was stated in the Globe. Mr. Adams noticed the statement in