ing his duty to them, and that he had quitted it to be more at liberty to afford them his best services.

Such is the course which would be indicated by a firm and virtuous independence of character. Such the course that would be pursued by a man attentive to unite the sense of delicacy with the sense of duty--in earnest about the pernicious tendency of public measures, and more solicitous to act the disinterested friend of the people, than the interested ambitious and intriguing head of a party.

CATULLUS.

V.

METELLUS.

Nov. 24, 1792.

It was my intention to have closed with my last paper the discussion of Mr. Jefferson's conduct, in the particulars which have been suggested, but the singular complexion of the last number* of a series of papers originating in the American Daily Advertiser, obliges me to resume it.

As if bold assertion were capable of imposing any thing for truth, an attempt is made in the papers alluded to, to impress the following opinions:-1st. That the extract which was given of Mr. Jefferson's letter, on the subject of a proposition for the transfer of the French debt, is "false," "deceptive," and "mutilated." These are the epithets in different passages applied to it. 2d. That Mr. Jefferson was the mere vehicle, or, to use the precise terms, "only the vehicle of communication to Congress." 3d. That he "discountenanced" the proposition. 4th. That the "only" proposition which he made to Congress was to borrow the money in Holland to discharge the debt.

* No. IV.

To give color to these assertions, I am called upon to produce the entire paragraph, from which the extract has been made, and it is suggested that the whole was deposited in the quarter from whence the extract is believed to have been taken.

I pledge my veracity that this suggestion is unfounded; as is another-that the information which has been communicated by me is derived from the opportunities of official situation. I affirm unequivocally that I obtained, through different channels, a full knowledge of the transaction in February, 1787-being in no public station whatever-that I then saw the extract, which has been published, and which was at that time taken from the original letter, and has been since preserved in the most authentic form. That I then also received information equally authentic of the general substance of the letter, as relating to the matter in question, and of all other particulars concerning it, which have heretofore been stated, and which have been preserved in a manner, that admits no doubt of their accuracy or genuineness. For this, I again appeal to the letter itself, on the files of the Depart ment of State, where alone, as far as I am informed, its entire contents are deposited, and which I entertain no doubt will confirm not only the truth of the extract which has been given, but the justness of the representation of the contents of the letter in all other respects.

Considering the extract as genuine, which undoubtedly it is, it speaks for itself—and unequivocally falsifies the suggestion that Mr. Jefferson was "only the vehicle" of communication to Congress. It imports, without the possibility of evasion, advice to accede to the proposition which was made to the Dutch company, on the dishonorable ground of there being danger, that the public payments would not be punctual, and of its being in that case expedient to transfer the discontents, which would arise from the want of punctuality, from the court of France to the breasts of a private company. It therefore clearly makes him more than the mere vehicle of communication-the patron and adviser of the measure upon the condition which has been stated. It as clearly refutes the astonishing assertion that he "discountenanced" the proposition, whatever subterfuge may be brought to color it.

And it equally destroys the other allegation, that the only proposition which Mr. Jefferson made to Congress, was to borrow the money in Holland to discharge the debt.

It has been admitted, that there was another proposition, in the same letter, of that import; but it is denied, under the appeal which has been made, that it in any manner derogates from the advice contained in the extract. It is understood to have been offered as an alternative, in case the proposition of the Dutch. company should not be approved-as another mode which might be adopted to effect the payment to France.

It will be remarked by an attentive reader, that while an artful attempt is made to bring into question the genuineness of the extract, a direct denial of its genuineness is not hazarded. Recourse is had to equivocal implications. It is said to be "false" and "deceptive," not in terms, but "upon a sound construction," -that "the contents of the letter, even in the extract published, have been shamefully misrepresented,"-not that the extract is itself a forgery, but that "other parts of the letter, absolutely necessary for the full comprehension of it, are kept back." The jargon of asserting, that a literal extract from a paper is "false and deceptive upon a sound construction," is a proof of the embarrassment of the commentator. Whoever will examine the extract will perceive, that as to the purpose to which it has been applied, it is an entire thing. The sentiment reprobated, is there complete, and can be affected by nothing collateral. The inferences resulting from it can only be repelled by establishing that the extract is in terms false. This, I believe, will not be pretended.

It is as little true (in the sense in which it is evidently meant to be understood) that the proposition for the transfer of the debt has been imposed upon Mr. Jefferson as his own, as it is that he discountenanced it. It has been acknowledged that the offer was first made by the Dutch company; and has only been maintained that Mr. Jefferson advised its acceptance on principles contrary to good morals; a position which can never be over. thrown without introducing a new system of ethics. In this sense, too, and with the disapprobation which belongs to it, was it understood by those to whom the advice was addressed, to the honor of the public councils of the day.

It is suggested that the animadversions upon Mr. Jefferson's conduct in these papers proceed from "private revenge." This supposes some private injury, real or imagined. The assertor must be not a little embarrassed to support the probability of such a cause. It is affirmed that none such exists. Private revenge, therefore, cannot be the stimulus. Let facts speak the true motives.

VI.

CATULLUS.

Decr. 22d, 1792.

If perseverance can supply the want of judgment, Mr. Jef ferson has an excellent advocate in the writer of his "vindication." But I mistake, if his last attempt is not found to involve still more deeply the character he wishes to extricate.

To repel the imputation on Mr. Jefferson arising from the advice which he gave to Congress respecting the debt to France, he not only labors to show that, taken in all its circumstances, it is not of the exceptionable complexion under which it has been represented, but endeavors to infuse a belief, that the sense of the extract originally communicated has been altered by the interpolation of certain words, as well as by the suppression of a part of a paragraph, from which the extract is derived.

It will strike the most careless observer as not a little extraordinary, that a person who by undertaking to state the contents of a letter with precise accuracy, and even to detect a minute verbal deviation, must be understood to have access to the original, should, instead of submitting to the public eye a literal transcript of that original, content himself with giving his own paraphrase of it, and should expect that this would be accepted upon the strength of his assurance, that it exhibits the genuine contents of the letter, on the point in dispute contained in one paragraph only" that the arrangement of the idea is the same, and that in substance nothing has been added to or taken from

it," thus modestly offering his own construction of substance, the very thing in question, for the thing itself.

That the extract, as given by me, is correct in every material expression, is proved by the statement in the VINDICATION. That it is literally correct, I must continue to believe until something more to be depended upon than constructive substance is offered in lieu of it.

The information I possess is drawn from two sources; one a memorandum in the handwriting of a friend, which was given to me as an exact transcript of the words of the letter, and which was copied verbatim, in the second of these papers: the other, a document of unquestionable authenticity, not long since consulted, which states the contents of Mr. Jefferson's letter in the following form:

Mr. Jefferson suggests that "if there is a danger of the public payments not being punctual, whether it might not be better that the discontents which would then arise, should be transferred from a court, of whose good will we have so much need, to the breasts of a private company."

"That the credit of the United States is sound in Holland, and that it would probably not be difficult to borrow in that country the whole sum of money due to the court of France; and to discharge that debt without any deduction, thereby doing what would be grateful to the court, and establishing with them a confidence in our honor."

This statement in the document alluded to serves to confirm the memorandum, in form as well as substance. Speaking in the third person, it represents Mr. Jefferson as suggesting "whether it might not be better, &c.," whence it is natural to infer, that speaking in the first person in the letter, the terms are, “I submit whether it may not be better, &c."

The form of conveying the idea by way of question is common to both vouchers; and the word "whether," which is also common to both, presupposes the words "I suggest," or "I submit," the last being the most accurate, and in that view the most likely to have been used.

It is observable, also, that the same statement disconnects the