and what we had offered him for the western boundary, and asked his opinion of it. He thought the friends of the administration would be satisfied with it, but that their adversaries would censure it severely, and make occasion for opposition from it. He thought even that it would bring us again in 'collision with the Indians, whom we are removing west of the Mississippi. But as we had no map at hand, I could not give him a precise idea of the proposed line, by mere description, and he promised to call at my house tomorrow morning at ten, and look it over upon the map."

FEBRUARY 3, 1819.-General Jackson came to my house this morning, and I showed him the boundary line which has been offered to the Spanish minister, and that which we propose to offer, upon Melish's map. He said there were many individuals who would take exception to our receding so far from the boundary of the Rio del Norte, which we claim as the Sabine, and the enemies of the administration would certainly make a handle of it to assail them; but the possession of the Floridas was of so great importance to the southern frontier of the United States, and so essential even to their safety, that the vast majority of the nation would be satisfied with the western boundary, as we propose, if we obtain the Floridas. He showed me on the map the operations of the British force during the last war, and remarked that while the mouths of the Florida rivers should be accessible to a foreign naval force, there would be no security for the southern part of the United States."

Reader, now look back, and see what Mr. Adams asserted in 1836.

He said Gen. Jackson was in Washington at the time the treaty was concluded, which was on the 22d February, 1819. The extracts from his diary show that he was here on the 1st, 2d and 3d of February.

. He asserted that," by the direction of Mr. Monroe, he took the treaty, DRAWN UP AS IT WAS, to General Jackson, &c." The extracts prove that he took no treaty to General Jackson at all, and showed him no paper concerning it, except Melish's map !

He asserted, that "he took the treaty to him at his lodgings, which were in a house at that time kept, he believed, by Mr. Strother." The extracts prove that he took neither treaty nor paper to him not even Melish's map.

He asserted that "he took and delivered that treaty into the hands of General Jackson." The extracts prove that he neither took nor delivered any such paper, or any other paper.

He asserted that General Jackson kept the treaty some time— possibly not more than one day; bat he kept it a sufficient time to form a deliberate opinion upon it. The extracts show, that

he never kept the treaty, not even "possibly" for one day. He asserted," he called upon him [General Jackson] after a day or two. The extracts show that General Jackson called on Mr. Adams.

He asserted that General Jackson then" returned the treaty." The extracts prove that he had no treaty to return,

Finally, Mr. Adams brings this tissue of fabrications, shown to be such by his own evidence, to a close, by asserting that General Jackson "returned the treaty with his approbation of that particular boundary." The extracts show, not only that this assertion is not true, but that it is the reverse of truth.

Reader, look back and read again the extracts from Mr. Adams' diary: Is there a word in them approving the Sabine as our western boundary? NOT ONE WORD. On the contrary, he makes General Jackson say, "He thought even that it would bring us again in collision with the Indians whom we are removing west of the Mississippi." This is so worded as to show that it was part only of an argument used by General Jackson against that boundary. He thought "even," or he thought also, showing that some other objection had preceded. In the last interview, General Jackson is made to discuss the importance of Florida, and to say that, in case it were obtained, "the VAST MAJORITY OF THE NATION would be satisfied with the western boundary as we propose." Not a word as to HIS being satisfied; not a word showing that he approv ed, or would ever agree, were he President, to give up Texas even for Florida. And is there a man living who believes that he would?

These extracts, therefore, show that Mr. Adams was as wickedly false in the main question, as he was in the artful web of circumstances, woven out of his own imagination, to give his assertion point and weight. His diary does not show that General Jackson approved the Sabine boundary; but as far as it gives his individual views in that respect at all, shows that he disapproved it.

There is another circumstance connected with this transaction which makes us look upon this man with perfect loathing. The first extract from his diary shows that he was directed by President Monroe to ask General Jackson's opinion "CONFI

DENTIALLY.". The second shows that he did consult him "IN CONFIDENCE." He was the mere agent of the President, bound, by every obligation of honor, to keep in confidence what was committed to him in confidence. What right had he to put on his diary what was committed to him by the President in confidence, or received from General Jackson in confidence? Making a record of that which ought to have died with him unless disclosed by the consent of parties, was itself a breach of confidence, and a betrayal of trust. The man who keeps a "diary" of confidential communications, or even of private daily conversations, is a spy upon society, and a traitor in heart. He who will pencil down the casual expressions of his friends and visitors, and lay them aside, felicitating himself on the use he may make of them thereafter for his own benefit or other's injury, is fit only for an assassin, and should be driven out of society. We would as soon associate with one whom we knew had a dagger under his cloak, ready to stab us when he wanted our purse, and could get us by the throat. But such a man Mr. Adams has proved himself to be. Shame to those who once made him President! In his "Volumes" of Diary he has a store of daggers for all who ever gave him their confidence or conversation.

But if a man be warranted in transferring to paper the confidence reposed in him expressly or implicitly, and thus endanger its exposure by his death or other accident, is he at liberty, years afterwards, without the consent of the parties trusting him, to make use for it to his own advantage? In this matter, all Mr. Adams knew of General Jackson's opinions was, according to his own showing, obtained in confidence. When, in 1836, he undertook to speak of General Jackson's opinion, he had obtained the consent of neither the General nor Mr. Monroe, releasing him from his word of honor, nor had either of them assailed him so as to furnish the pretext of self-defence. If, therefore, Mr. Adams' dairy had contained all he said it did, he would, for divulging it under such circumstances, have been a traitor to every principle of honor held sacred among men. But what measure of infamy belongs to the man who notes down what passes in confidence between him and his friends, and becoming afterwards estranged, makes asser

tions avowedly upon the faith of this contemporaneous record which find not the least countenance in its language or its sentiments? Let mankind give the verdict, and faithful history record it.

AARON V. BROWN,

WASHINGTON, D. C., December 14, 1844.

THE FLORIDA TREATY.

From notes furnished by Gov. A. V. Brown.

To the Editors of the Richmond Enquirer:

WASHINGTON Crry, February 2, 1845. The Florida Treaty-General Jackson and Mr. Adams-The New York Courier and Enquirer-Samuel S. Governeur, Charles J. Ingersoll, and A. V. Brown.

Every intelligent man in the United States is well aware that the treaty of 1819, which secured the Floridas and lost us that part of Louisiana known as Texas, was negociated by John Quincy Adams as Secretary of State, on the part of our government, and Don Louis de Onis, the envoy of Spain; and it is equally known by those who have investigated closely the correspondence which took place between those two diplomatic functionaries, on the part of their respective Governments, that Mr. Adams could have secured for the United States a much better treaty than the one which was negotiated; as will be seen by reference to the communication of Mr. Erving in 1829. But, Don Onis, who was a man of great diplomatic powers, saw that Mr. Adams was not very particular as to boundary, and he took advantage of it, and secured to Spain, independent of other pecuniary advantages, a territory of more importance than the one she lost. In the face of these historical reminiscences, and particularly at this juncture, when the lost territory is anxious to re-annex itself to us, to secure

to her citizens that liberty and independence which had been guarantied to them by the treaty with France, and who had been alienated by a blundering piece of diplomacy, which was inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, so boldly and beautifully asserted by the Hon. Wm. H. Hammett, in his speech upon the question of annexation; the Hon. John P. Kennedy, in his puny efforts to establish for himself a reputation as a statesman and a man of talents, and to shield Mr. Adams from the imputation of having lost sight of the true interests of his country in that negotiation; and being controlled by sectional and geographical feelings rather than those which should belong to a statesman of enlarged views, reiterated the assertion of Mr. Adams, made up from his celebrated diary, which had been sleeping silently ever since, that General Jackson gave his assent to the treaty of Florida before it was negotiated; and that it was submitted to him by Mr. Adams, for an expression of opinion. He said, if the friends of Gen. Jackson denied this assertion, the evidence was in the possession of one of the legal representatives of Mr. Monroe's family, (Samuel S. Governeur,) in a correspondence between Gen. Jackson and Mr. Monroe, which established the facts as stated by Mr. Adams, and recorded in his diary. As a friend of Gen. Jackson, whose fame is the common property of his country, I boldly proclaim, that the assertion of Hon. Mr. Kennedy is not warranted by the facts; and unless he establishes what he asserts, even by his volunteer witness, (Samuel S. Governeur,) who received the lucrative appointment of Postmaster at New York from General Jackson, in consideration of his connection, by marriage, with Mr. Monroe, that he, for veracity, will be placed in the same category with Mr. Adams upon this subject. Upon the mere ipse dixit of this Don Quixotte, the New York Enquirer of January 18th, said that General Jackson was in an "unfortunate dilemma, by denying the assertion of Mr. Adams, that he approved of the treaty of 1819, at the time of its adoption." It further stated, "that Messrs. Charles J. Ingersoll, A. V. Brown, and the Globe, had not hesitated to accuse Mr. Adams of forgery, in order to repel his assertion, sustained as it was by his diary." These extracts show the New York Enquirer's own statements, based upon the authority