REVIEW N*REVIEW, AN ARTICLE OF THE NORTH AMERICA OCTOBER, 1834. DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE OF THE UNITED STATES/* FROM 1783 TO 1789, x: " Published under the direction of the Secretary of State, at Washington." • „ WITH ^k, AN EXAMINATION AND COMPARISON ! . ' RELATIVE MERIT, TRUTH, AND PLAN OE THAT WORK, CONTRASTED WITH THE DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE OF THE REVOLUTION, EDITED BY JARED SPARKS, BOSTON. WILLIAM A. WEAVER. WASHINGTON: PRINTED BY BLAIR AND RIVES. 1835. 8 * Ex IGtbrtH SEYMOUR DURST When you leave, please leave this book Because it has been said " Ever'thing comes t' him who waits Except a loaned book." Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library Gift of Seymour B. Durst Old York Library REVIEW. * The American Quarterly Review for September, 1834, contains an article upon the Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States, from the signing of the Definitive Treaty of Peace, September 10, 1783, to the adoption of the Constitution, March 4, 1789, published under the direction of the Secretary of State, conformably to an act of Congress, approved May 5, 1832, 7 vols. 8vo, Washington, 1833. An opinion of the publication is expressed by the Quarterly Review, in the following extract, page 167: " Congress inserted in the appropriation bill for • the year 1832, a clause enabling the Secretary of State to publish the work which we have made the subject of this article. This the Secretary has done in a very creditable mode, and seven volumes are the result of his labors." The editor's opinion of Mr. Sparks' previous publication, is also pronounc- ed creditable to him; but it is evident, from an observation in a succeeding paragraph — " The present work is a continuation of the former, on the same liberal plan of excluding nothing from the contents which could shed any light on the Diplomatic History of the period designated by the law" — that the writer has been deceived, and with him the American public generally. In relation to the second series, from 1783 to 1789, the remark is strictly correct- — nothing was excluded within the scope and meaning of the act of Congress. The selection was made solely relative to time and diplomacy; and the nation has before it, in the second series of the Diplomatic Correspondence, from '83 to '89, the whole correspondence of the period. But the supposition that Mr. Sparks, in his publication, pursued the same course " of excluding nothing from the contents which could shed any light on the Diplomatic History of the period," is a manifest error, and which it is one of the objects of this paper to correct. In the introduction to Sparks' publication, page xi, he observes that, "In preparing the papers for the press, according to the spirit of the resolution of Congress, the first rule has been to print such matter only as possesses some value, either as containing historical facts, or illustrating traits of character, or developing the causes of prominent events." " Those parts of the corres- pondence chiefly marked with personalities, and touching little on public inte- rests, have been omitted, as neither suited to the dignity of the subject, nor to the design of this publication." With this admission, apparently made with frankness, that every thing of a certain character was omitted, Mr. Sparks still gets the credit " of excluding nothing from the contents which could shed any light on the Diplomatic His- tory of the period designated by the law." In the course of our examination of statements made, and observations hazarded by the North American Review, in their article II, October, 1834, reviewing the second series of the Diplo- matic Correspondence, it becomes our duty to show, that the review of the North American is partial, unjust, and deceptive, and that the comparison which they have undertaken to draw between the Boston and Washington 4 editions, is an odious one, engendered by a feeling of disappointment for the friend and ex-editor of the North American Review. Mr. Sparks was an applicant before Congress and the Secretary of State, for the job. His friends even went to the extrefhity of inserting his name in the first resolution reported by the committee authorizing the publication. The resolution did not pass, notwithstanding the "extraordinary qualifications known to be possessed by that gentleman:" notwithstanding " his laborious researches in the public offices of Great Britain and France, [where] he had collected ample materials which enabled him to fill up numerous and important chasms in the various parts of the correspondence of our public agents preserved in the Department of State." If such were the fact, it was unkind in Congress, unkind in the Se- cretary of State, not to remunerate the laborious researches of the ex-editor of the North American Review; but we are not told what those" ample mate- rials" are — no descriptive lists oflettersand documents are given, which are to fill up the important chasms in the correspondence of our public agents. The truth in relation to this matter is, there were no chasms to fill which Mr. Sparks could supply from France or England. The assertion is a gratuitous boast. The correspondence of Mr. Adams, from England, is believed to be entirely perfect; were it otherwise, surely the archives of England would be the last place to look for copies of the correspondence of an American Minister with his own Government; and Mr. Adams very carefully and fully transmitted to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, at home, his correspondence with the Bri- tish Government. We ask the question, and we ask it for information, What are the ample materials collected in Great Britain, which " would enable Mr. Sparks to fill up numerous and important chasms?" r'A journal or despatch book was kept in the office of Foreign Affairs, showing the date, who from, time of reception, and contents of every letter and document received during Mr. Jay's administration of the office; and no surer guide could exist to detect an hiatus in a- correspondence. These journals were constantly referred to, and no chasm detected in Mr. Adams' correspondence. In the correspon- dence of Mr. Dumas, agent at the Hague, this journal was made available in giving a list of the lost letters of that agent, p. 116, vol. 7. Copies of these lost letters, we presume, were not discovered in the public offices of Great Bri- tain or France. This is, therefore, not one of the chasms which the " extra- ordinary qualifications" and "laborious researches" of the ex-editor of the North American Review would have enabled him to fill. Some of Mr. Jefferson's letters have been lost; but the above observations apply equally to the corres- pondence of every Minister abroad. We are told " and of the liberality with which he (Mr. Sparks) was disposed to make use of these materials, for the advantage of the great national work confided to him: the volumes published under his editorship, bore ample testimony." Having no disposition to detract from the "liberality" of the ex-editor of the North American Review, much surprise is nevertheless excited by the infor- mation that the first series of the Diplomatic Correspondence, edited by Jared Sparks, is indebted for so much of its intrinsic value, to the materials collected abroad. Mr. Sparks is silent upon this subject of foreign materials, but his remarks in the 1st page of the preface to the 1st volume, indeed, show conclu- sively that it was from the Department of State alone he obtained the neces- sary documents for the work. Pains have been taken to examine two or three of the printed volumes, and as far as the examination went, without an excep- tion every letter is on file in the Department. Hence it is apparent that from 5 an over zeal in the Reviewers to bedaub Mr. Sparks with praise, and to mag- nify the value of his literary and historical possessions, censoriousness and partiality, have got the better of truth and justice. The name of Edward Livingston having been introduced in the following paragraph, in a manner reflecting upon that gentleman, and his motives of action, in appointing a person whom he deemed competent to superintend the selection and publication of the correspondence from 1783 to 1789, in the absence of Mr. Livingston from this country, justice to the character and con- duct of that gentleman requires some explanation and comment. * "The office of Secretary of State was, at that time, filled by Mr. Edward Livingston. This distinguished gentleman was well aware of the reasons, which existed for confiding to Mr. Sparks the care of the continuation of the work, of which he had edited the commencement, in a man- ner equally creditable to himself, and acceptable to the public. Had it been in his power to do so, uninfluenced by considerations foreign to the merits of the question, as one of a character purely historical and literary, Mr. Livingston would have put the preparation of the proposed work into the same able hands. Unfortunately, the law making the appropriation, forbore to specify the name of the gentleman, who had so many claims to be selected as the editor. Keasons of State, if they may be dignified by that name, transformed the publication into a printer's job, and compelled the Secretary to dispose of it on the principles, which usually govern the dispensation of public patronage. It was necessary lhat the work should be printed at Washington." It has been seen that an attempt was made, and failed, to get the name of Mr. Sparks inserted by a resolution of Congress, as the editor. The matter was left wholly to the Secretary of State. In the absence of Mr. Livingston, we will not undertake to assign his reasons for the non-employ- ment of Mr. Sparks; ' but we will undertake to show that there existed good and sufficient reasons why the work was not intrusted to him. 1. The compensation allowed to Mr. Sparks for his Revolutionary Corres- pondence, had been unprecedented and extravagant. The whole cost of his edition, 12 vols. 1000 copies, at $2 61 cents, per volume, was $31,329 67 Whole cost of Washington edition, from 1783 to '89, 7 vols. 1000 copies, at $2 30.6 per volume, - - - 16,142 52 Makes a saving to the Government, in the Washington edition, of thirty cents four mills per volume, 7000 vols. - - 2,128 Mr. Sparks received $400 per volume for editing the Diplomatic Corres- pondence, 12 vols. $4,800 To which, as a part of his profits, add the difference of printing, &c, 30.4 cents per volume, 12,000 vols. - 3,648 Compensation of Mr. Sparks, $8,448 This sum of $8,448, was so much extra profit beyond the cost of the Secret Journals, $2 121 cents per volume, upon which Mr. Sparks' contract was based. The publisher of the Secret Journals must have had a profit, and what- ever that profit was, Mr. Sparks likewise enjoyed the same, besides the $8,448. In addition to this enormous compensation, Mr. Sparks made a private job of the work, printed a large edition for private sale, and he can best tell, if he will, how much more he realized from the editorship in this one article of " public patronage;" which appears to have been disposed of to him " on principles," with the " governing dispensations" of which, at the time, the Reviewers seem to have been familiar. * North American Review, page 303, line 22, for October, 1834. 6 2. The Reviewers observe, " it was necessary that the work should be printed at Washington;" and although this is said ironically, the position is, nevertheless, true. The papers and documents (with the exception of Mr. Sparks' ample materials, obtained during his laborious researches in Great Britain and France) form a part and parcel of the archives of the Department of State; and the Department of State is in Washington, and the Secretary of State for the time being, lives in Washington; and "under his direction," the work was to be printed; and fortunately, perhaps news to the Reviewers, numerous printing presses, and any quantity of new types, may be had in " the half Babylon, half desert, in which the Government at present is located" That a gentleman of the resplendent talents and " extraordinary qualifications" of the accomplished and never-to-be-sufficiently-praised ex- editor of the North American Review, was not to be found within the scope of Executive patronage, is indeed a misfortune; but, fortunately, yes, the Reviewers say "fortunately, the Secretary of State, [remember reader, they speak of Edward Livingston,] was as well qualified for the general superin- tendence of such a selection as any gentleman possibly could be who had not made that branch of our documentary history a particular study." A disin- terested person would probably admit the sufficiency of the reasons already given, for not sending documents five hundred miles from Washington " to be printed under the direction" of the Secretary of State. But other and impor- tant reasons exist, why Mr. Sparks should not have 4 been intrusted with the publication of the second series. He was limited by the resolution of Con- gress of the 27th March, 1818, to publishing " the foreign correspondence of the Congress of the United States, from the first meeting thereof, down to the date of the ratification of the definitive treaty of peace, between Great Britain and the United States, in the year 1783, except such parts of the said foreign correspondence as the President of the United States may deem it improper at this time to publish." Here was a distinct, specific limit, as it regards time. The consideration shown by Mr. Sparks for the law or resolution, is strikingly manifested by his transcending the designated limits, and publishing the letters of Franklin down to November 29, 1788, five years subsequent to the limit. — See vol. 4, pp. 164-228. Omitting the correspondence of Lafayette, which is voluminous during the Revolutionary period, he commences the correspon- dence of Lafayette March 30, 1782, and brings it down to October 15, 1787, four years later than the limit. — See vol. 10, pp. 7-63. He has likewise pub- lished ninety pages of R. Morris' correspondence subsequent to the 10th Sep- tember, 1783, and omitted his correspondence anterior to February 7, 1781. — See vol. 12, pp. 411-502. In the preface to Morris' correspondence, Mr. Sparks says, " the letters here published are a selection only from the large mass, which has been preserved." — See vol. 11, p. 345. The correspondence of Luzerne terminates 1787, and a note is appended to a letter of the Chevalier, stating that certain letters, and a paper on com- merce of the Marquis de Lafayette, are missing, (see vol. 11, p. 184,) which is not the fact. They exist in duplicate in the Department of State, and have been printed by us in their appropriate places. — See second series, vol. 1, p. 391. Having pointed out some of the errors of commission of the editor of such " extraordinary qualifications," that time and space and laws and resolutions impose no barrier to his genius, we proceed to notice some of the sins of omission, which our " laborious researches," not " in the public offices of Great Britain or France," but in those of the " half Babylon, hall desert, in which the Government at present is located," enable us to point out. 7 The resolution under which Mr. Sparks published, contained the customary reservation, whenever public documents are called for, " except such parts of the said foreign correspondence as the President of the United States may deem it improper at this time to publish." This reservation of discretionary power to the Executive over what shall be printed of foreign correspondence, at all times correct, was evidently here inserted pro forma. But what is Mr. Sparks' reading of the exception? Why to omit ad libitum, to cut, to carve, as he would a school boy's theme, the writings of the diplomatists of the Revolution; to rewrite, or, to use his own language, " the editor has taken the liberty to make free corrections of the author's style, and to omit a good deal of irrelevant matter." — See note, page 267, vol. 9. The extent of this " good deal" omitted, we will undertake to show in two or three of the cor- respondences, and having done so, we solicit the Quarterly Review to a recon- sideration of the opinion, that Mr. Sparks " excluded nothing from the con- tents which could shed any light on the diplomatic history of the period desig- nated by the law." Of the correspondence of Arthur Lee, Mr. Sparks has published vol. 2, 282 pages. There are in the archives of the Department of State, 946 pages of that Minister's correspondence, each of which recorded page in large folio, is fully equivalent to a printed page. Here is an omission of 664 pages, (more than sufficient to fill an entire volume,) a single omission, which we think fully justifies Mr. Sparks in saying he has omitted a " good deal." Of his cutting and carving, we give one of numerous examples, in a letter of A. Lee, of the 25th February, 1779, vol. 2, p. 231, where the letter is mutilated to the extent of reducing a document of twenty-three closely writ- ten pages to less than two printed pages. Here we have what has been called on the floor of the Senate " a diminutive metamorphit," not of an unwritten speech, but of an authentic document, the contents of which bear strongly on a moot case of the present day. Thirty-two letters of the Marine and Secret Committee, of which John Hancock was chairman, from the 30th May, 1776, to the 29th December, 1776, addressed to S. Deane, W. Bingham, commanders of continental ships, and others, seventy-one pages, are omitted in toto. The correspondence of Oliver Pollock, an accredited agent of the United States at New Orleans, and subsequently at the Havana, with the Secret and Commercial Committees; and letters of those Committees to O. Pollock, from June 12, 1777, to July 19, 1779; with letters from General Galvez — are omitted. The correspondence of Pollock embraces a period from the 10th October, 1776, to 1782—232 pages. Three consecutive reports of Committees on instructions to the Delegates of Massachusetts, relative to the fisheries, boundaries, &c. The second report, dated March 13, 1782, is an important state paper, and is supported by refer- ences to 44 documents — 51 pages. These papers might have been introduced in Mr. Sparks' collection with advantage. They contain no " personalities," and are cerlainly not " irrelevant," as they tend strongly to elucidate a much vexed and unsettled question of the present day, in which Massachusetts is interested. In the seventh volume of the Diplomatic Correspondence, (second series,) we have given, page 287, a correspondence of J. Paul Jones. This volume is pronounced by the North American Review to be " decidedly superior to that of most of its predecessors." The insertion of the correspondence of 8 Jones, it is therefore to be presumed, meets their approbation. We may then venture to ask, why Mr. Sparks did not avail himself of the materials in the Department of State, and publish the earlier correspondence of Jones, which is intrinsically valuable, and certainly not irrelevant to the history of the times. His correspondence with Franklin, Adams, Dumas, and the French Ministers at Paris and the Hague, is voluminous, and would have given addi- tional interest to his volumes. Show a page, for example, in the published work of deeper interest than his well-written and,; thrilling descriptions of his conquest of the Drake, and subsequently of the Serapis and Countess of Scarborough. Mr. Sparks gives, in vol. 3, page 77, the instructions from Dr. Franklin to Commodore Jones, page 205, the agreement between Jones and the officers of his squadron, and it does appear to us that the letter of Commodore Jones to Dr. Franklin, of the 3d of October, 1779, of 18 pages, giving an account of his cruise and the capture of the Serapis, and his letter to the Commissioners, of the 27th May, 1778, containing a relation of the capture of the Drake, 14 pages, might at least with equal propriety, have been introduced. Jones' correspondence would fill a volume. We now come to the correspondence of Charles W. F. Dumas, and what purports to be a translation thereof — vol. 9, page 254. Upon comparing this correspondence with the originals, we are strongly reminded of a down-east hyperbole, of something less than nothing — " the little end of nothing whittled down." This correspondence has been whittled and whittled, until, if it were possible for the author to see the correspondence attributed to him, he would either be much astonished at his own brevity, or the wonderful powers of con- densation of his translator. In vol. 9, Mr. Sparks has given us seventy-one letters of Dumas, (or rather fragments of letters.) From the date of Dumas' first letter, April 30, 1776, to the 23d June, 1783, there are on file 117 letters, with numerous important documents and state papers enclosed. Here is then an omission of 46 letters, to say nothing of enclosures. But this is not the worst; of the manner in which those published have been mutilated, we pro- pose to give an example. We will take the letter of the 1st September, 1776, erroneously dated by Mr. Sparks, the 30th September, 1776, (vol. 9, p. 288,) and contrast the original with the translation in opposing columns. D. ler 7br, 1776. Monsieur, Apres avoir envoye a. votre correspondant a St.Eustache dont vous m'avezdonne l'addresse dans votre lettre du 12e xbr. 1775, ma troisieme lettre cottee C, dont vous trouverez ci-joint un ample extrait, qu'il vous plaira de relire, du moins la fin ou j'ai ajoute quelque chose, je commence ma quatrieme Depeche D. En supposant qu'il ne vous soit parvenu qu'une seule de mes trois precedentes depeches, vous ne devez pas etre embarrasse de lire ce qui sera chifTre ici et a l'avenir. Ce Hortalez dont Mr. A. L. votre ami m'a parle dans deux de ses lettres comme Charge d' Affaires du Congres qui viendroit me voir, et a qui il avoit donne mon adresse n'a pas encore paru devant moi. Je n'ai pas regu non plus la lettre que vous m'avez ecrite apres celle du 12e Decembre 1775, To the Committee of Secret Correspondence: September 30, 1776. Gentlemen, After having sent to your correspondent at St. Eustatia, whose address you gave me in your letter of the 12th December, 1775, my third letter of which you have here annexed a large extract, I commence my fourth despatch. M. Hortalez, of whom Mr. Arthur Lee spoke in two of his letters, has not yet appeared; nor have I received the letter that you say yon have written to me between that of the 12th 9 et avant celle du 2e Mars 1776, comme vous me 1'apprenez dans cette derniere. La non-apparition de cet homme et de cette Iettre m'inquiete et m'afflige, non seulement parcc que tout ce qui me vient de vous, Mon- sieur, et de vos amis, m'est cher et precieux plus que je ne saurois le dire mais aussi, et sur- tout parce que je crains que le service du Con- gres general n'en souffre. Le respectable porteur de celle du 2e Mars est arrive a Paris le 7e Juillet d'ou il me l'a envoyee avec une des siennes datee du 26e Juillet. J'en ai une autre de lui du 18e Aout, ou il me marque " that he has a certain pros- pect of succeeding in his business." II m'y fait aussi une promesse qui me rend heureux d'avance, c'est de vouloir bien loger chez moi, ma femme a deja prepare son appartement; et nous verifierons la fable de Philemon et Baucis: car un homme vertueux est pour moi un Jupi- ter, et je me trouverai plus honore d'un tel hote, que d'une douzaine de ces princes qui ont ven- du leurs sujets a vos ennemis s'il n'arrive rien qui altere ses desseins, j'aurai ce bonheur au mois d'Octobre prochaine. Du 30e 7 br. Je vous ai dit, Monsieur, dans ma precedente, que les lettres de Mr. A. L. ont beaucoup contribue a rendre mes visites mes lettres et mes memoires, agreable dans une cer- taine maison. En voici une que j'en ai recue depuis peu, qui vous le prouvera. Du 26e Aout, 1776. Apres m'avoir parle d'un service qu'il veut bien me rendre en son pays ou j'ai quelques affaires a. demeler, dont nous sommes convenus de nous servir comme de pretexte pour mas- quer nos entrevues, voici comme il poursuit: Madame ****** a pris la peine de me remettre vos lettres, et je vous prie de m! envoy er par elle la suite de tant de choses interressantes, y com- pris le recti de la personne que vous attendiez (du porteur de votre lettre de Philadelphie de 2e Mars.) Je vous prie de me mander tout ce qui vous est parvenu depuis la derniere lettre que vous avez eu la bonte de m'ecrire. Je suis dans l'usage de recevoir des paquets de toutes les mains; c'est le devoir de mon poste. Ainsi je recevrai avec reconnoisance, mais d'une ma- nieredistingueeceque vous aurez la bonte deme faire passer, comme ce qu'il y aura surement de mieux en f aits, en portraits, en situations. Puis toutes les plumes n'ont pas le talent de la votre. " Dans tout ce que Je demande a votre ami- tie, Monsieur, vous aurez bien du nouveau sou- vent a exposer." L'eloge donne a. ma plume doit retourner a Mr. A. L. car Je ne fais que le traduire. Du ler. 7 bre. "Je vous prie de continuer a me donner de vos nouvelles. Je vous remercie bien sincere- ment du dernier envoi. (Je lui decouvris ce qui concernoit Mr. Porteur de votre lettre du 2e Mars, Apres en avoir eu la permission de ce dernier.) " Rien n'est plus interessant, et n'e- claire peut etre d'avantage les matieres." 3 of December, 1775, and that of the 2d of March, 1776. The non-appearance of this gentleman and of the letter here referred to, disquiets me some- what, not only because all that comes to me from you, gentlemen, and from your friends, is dear and precious to me, but also, and above all, because I fear that the service of the general Congress may suffer by it. The bearer of your letter of the 2d March (Silas Deane) arrived at Paris the 7th July, whence he sent it to me, with one of his own, dated the 26th. I have another from him of the 18th of August, in which he remarks to me " that he has a certain prospect of succeeding in his business." He proposes also to visit Hol- land. I have before told you, that the letters I re- ceived had contributed much to render my visits, my letters, and memoirs, agreeable in a certain quarter. This will be seen from the following note, which I received a short time since dated August 26: After having spoken to me of a service, which he had consented to render me in his country, where I had some affairs to settle, and which we had agreed upon as a pretext to mark our interviews, the writer thus proceeds: " Madame ****** has taken the trouble to send me your letters, and I beg you to send me by her all in- teresting particulars, including the narration of the person whom you expect, (Silas Deane.) I pray you to send me all that you have receiv- ed since your last letter. I receive packets from all quarters; it pertains to my office. So I shall receive with gratitude whatever you may have the goodness to send me." 10 Du 16e. 7 bre. " Vous m'aviez flatte - que J'aurois l'honneur de vous voir dans le courant de la semaine qui vient de finir. C'est cette attente qui m'a em- peche de vous repondre, comptant vous dire de vive voix le reste, comme Je vous le dirai au premier voyage que vous ferez a la Haie. " Tout ce que vous m'avez recorumande a ete fait et achemme suivant vos desirs. Les miens seront toujours de m enter votre confiance et de vous servir.* Je lui avois envoy e ouverte, avec un cachet volant la lettre que Je vous ai ecrite par St. Domingue. Nous etions convenus de cela de bouche, et il m'avoit promis de l'envoyer a Bor- deaux bien recommande. J'ai lieu de croire que cette lettre a ete envoyee et lue a. de certaines personnes pour qui j'avois mis expres a la fin de la lettre, que lorsque par une legislation et constitution sage vous aurez courrone, Mes- sieurs, l'ouvrage de votre liberte, je mourrai con- tent d'avoir vu un grand r. et une grande rep. vouloir sincerement le bien des peuples. J'ai recu il y a quelques jours une autre lettre de Mr. S. D. de Paris, 14e. 7 bre. toutes celles que je recois de lui comme de vous, Messieurs;, me sont precieuses; et celle ci Test doublement, puisque, outre les expressions les plus aifec- tueuses dont elle est remplie, mon zele pour votre cause, Messieurs, y est recompense par le temoignage de l'avoir bien servie. Je ne puis resister a la tentation de transcrire ici ce qu' il me dit la dessus. The measures you took before my arrival here, are perfectly right. You are entirely in the right in saying that the H. of B. are the allies ive should first and principally court; that F. is at the head of this H., and, there- fore, what is done here, is sure to be done by the -whole. This, therefore, requires my whole attention; and I can only say to yon, my pros- pects are no ivay discouraging. J hope in per- son soon to tell you how very much I am yours and your lady's. Je ne saurois rien aj outer de plus analogue a ce que vous venez de lire, que les assurances de mon parfait attachement pour les Etats Unis de l'Amerique Septentrionale et pour leurs dignes Representants au Congres general. Daignez recevoir, Monsieur, celles de mon profond res- pect pour tous les membres en general, et pour vous et Messrs. Dickinson et Jay en particulier. Vouspouvez, Monsieur, mettre a. Tavenir mon vrai nom sur vos lettres, comme vous avez fait ci-devant, et les adresser, sous convert, soit a, Mr. Marc Michel Bey Libraire a Amsterdam, soit a Mr. A. StucJcey merch't, Rotterdam, selon la destination du Vaisseau qui les portera. Pour pouvoir finir cette lettre a mon aise, j'ai fait promener mes deux eleves avec une dame, en m'engageant a amuser son nourigon; ce mar- mouset s'est si bien amuse, qu'il m'a jette l'e- critoire sur une feuille de cette de peche. Je n'ai recopie que ce qu'il a barbouille, afin de pouvoir envoyer mon paquet sans retard. I have sent to him open with a flying seal, the letter that I wrote you by St. Domingo. We agreed on this verbally, and he promised me to send it to Bordeaux well recommended. I have cause to think that this letter has been forward- ed, and pleased certain persons, on whose ac- count I had expressed, at the close of the letter, that when by legislation and a wise constitu- tion, you shall have crowned the work of your liberty, I shall die content with having seen a great King, and a great Republic, sincerely wish the good of the people. I received some days ago another letter from Mr. Deane, dated at Paris, 14th September. All the letters that I have received from him, as well from you, are precious to me, and this one doubly so, since besides the kind expressions with which it is filled, my zeal for your cause is recompensed by the testimony that I have well served it. 1 1 Si je continue de ne pas signer mon nom, ce n'est point par pusillanimity mais parceque je crois que votre service exige que je reste encore quelque temps inconnu, au moins jusqu' a ce que Mr. D. vienne loger chez moi: car alors je serai connu partout pour le plus zele Americain de toute la Republique, et je m'en ferai une gloire. Tout ce qui pourroit m'en arriver seroit la perte de mon poste actuel: mais en ce cas je suis sur que le Congres me dedommageroit par une subsistance equivalente pour moi et les miens, vu que je pourrai continuer de lui etre utile, autant, et plus encore que par le passe, parce que je ne serai plus gene par d'autres de- voirs, et que toute ma personne pourra etre en tout temps, et en tout lieu au service, de l'A- merique. J'ai ete bien mortifie (et je l'ai mar- que dans maderniere lettre a Mr. D.) de ne pas etre libre en dernier lieu. J'aurois vole a P. pour lui aider, au moins par la connoissance que J'ai de plusieurs langues Europeennes. J'ai une autre lettre de Mr. S. D. de Paris, 3e. 8 bre. en voici l'extrait. " Since my last in which I mentioned the King of Prussia, I have attained a method of sounding that mon- arch's sentiments more directly through another channel, which voluntarily offering, I have ac- cepted, and therefore waive writing on the sub- ject, for the present, any thing" (il m'avoit parle d'un memoire sur lequel j'aurois compose une lettre pour that monarch) " save that you may undoubtedly serve the United States of America most essentially in this affair in a few weeks from tins. The attention to my business here, the critical situation of affairs at this Court and the anxious suspense* for the events at New York and Canada, have actually fixed me here, and having received no intelligence for some time past, has well nigh distracted me. I have however favorable prospects, and the most confirmed hopes of effecting my views in Eu- rope." J'ai une autre lettre de Mr. A. L. de Londres 23e. Sept. ou il me dit entr' autres " We may every day expect to hear of a decisive action at New York. Decisive I mean as to the fate of New York, and of General Howe, but not of America, which depends very little upon the event of New York being taken or saved. I have been apprized by Hortalez that the busi- ness for which I recommended him to you is to be transacted through France, which is the reason of your not seeing him." Je terminerai cette Depeche par vous dire Monsieur que dans la derniere entrevue que J'ai eue avec un certain personnage, il m'a te- moigne qu'on est fort content de moi, " Conti- nuez m'a t'il dit de nous donner des copies, extraits, traductions, des interessantes lettres que vous recevez de vos amis dela et de^a la mer; etendez meme de plus en plus votre correspon- *Oh que je partage bien cette anxiete avec ce digne homme. Dieu veuille que nous avion* bientot, lui et moi, de bonnes nouvellea. If I continue not to sign my name, it is not from fear, but because I think your service re- quires that I remain yet sometime unknown, at least until Mr. Deane arrives here, for then I shall be known every where, for the most zealous American in all the Republic, and it will be my pride. All that can come of it will be the loss of my present post; but in this case I am sure that Congress will indemnify me by a sub- sistence suitable for me and mine, seeing that I shall be able to continue useful to them as much and even more than in time past, because I shall not be encumbered with other duties, and all my faculties will be employed in the service of America. I have been much mortified in not being at liberty, as I have expressed to Mr. Deane. I should have flown to Paris to assist him, at least by the knowledge I have of many European languages. I have the honor to be, &c. DUMAS. 12 dence multipliez vos correspondants tant que vous pourrez; devenez le canal, le centre, de ce que vos amis auront a dire a leurs amis en Ang* ** et ceux ci a leurs amis en Am**** le confident en un mot, de part et d' autre et pre- nez moi pour le votre toujours, et vous finerez par entrer en fin en correspondence avec le Mi- nistre meme. Je le verrai frequemment cet hiver, et Je travaillerai a menager cela." En fin Monsieur, soufFrez que je recommende a votre attention, et a celle du Congres Genl. le Memoire ci-joint marque par un N. B. pour surcroit de precaution, je mettrai dans ma sui- vante Depeche une copie de ce memoire et je pourrai alors vous apprendre aussi, Messieurs, le succes qu'il aura eu a Hambourg, car le jeune homme qui s'en est charge Fa deja envoye. Voici un Expose des droits des Colonies a l'independence. J'ignore le nom du brave hom- me qui en est l'auteur; mais le manuscrit m'a ete envoye par rimprimeur, pour savoir si cela etoit bon, c'est a dire en langage de Li- braire, s'il se debiteroit bien. Je lui ai repondu qu'il avoit tout ce qu'il faut pour le meriter. Je vous recommande, Messieurs, avec vos braves armees, et tous vos braves peuples, a la garde et protection de l'etre souverainement bon et sage, de tout mon coeur, qui est tout a vous. Je ferine et depeche ce paquet aujourdhui lOe Octobre. Du 10 Octobre 1776. Suite de la Depeche D. Au moment, Monsieur, ou J'alloisexpedier ce paquet; il m'est parvenu une lettre avec cette addresser a Monsieur, Jtfonsieur Deane, en- voye par le Congres des Americains actuelle- tnent a la Haie en Hollande. E?i Hollande. Demain j'enverrai cette lettre a. son addresse. Je vois a de certaines marques, qu'elle vient d'angleterre. Le meme personnage par lequel je suis en relation avec une certaine Cour, me l'a envoyee avec une lettre, qui dit ce qui suit. " On m'a addresse de Cambray en France, sous mon couvert, par la poste derniere, la lettre que j'ai l'honneur de vous envoyer ci jointe. Vous saurez mieux que moi ou il faut la faire passer. Ainsi par egard pour vous et pour vos amis, je crois ne pas devoir differer un moment de la confier a. Madame ****** ayez je vous supplie, la bonte de vous souvenir, que vous m'avez promis une participation a tout ce qui parvien- dra dans vos ?nai?is et a votre co?inoissance, de plus d'un endroit; j'y compte avec un veritable empressement pour vous servir." Vous comprendrez sans doute, Monsieur, que c'est dans le paquet d'une puissance, qui est bien bonne amie des Etats Unis de l'Amerique cette lettre est venue jusqu' a moi. The above is a fair specimen of the "free corrections and omissions" in which Mr. Sparks indulged himself. As far as it goes, we think it likewise a free translation, the sense and meaning of the original being but a secondary 13 consideration to rounded paragraphs and well-turned sentence?. Mr. Sparks addresses the letter to the Committee of Secret Correspondence — this is, per- haps, not important, except that it is not true. Mr. Dumas, at that time, corresponded with Dr. Franklin; and Mr. Sparks has published the evidence of the fact, in the letters of Dr. Franklin to Dumas. — See vol. 9, pp. 255, 260, 290. But, as one deception practised generates another, it becomes necessary, throughout the letter, to translate Monsieur, Gentlemen; which is uniformly done. What may have been the object of this, we do not pretend to divine: some secret of Mr. Sparks' " book-making" with which we are unac- quainted. Another specimen of translation, and we are done with this portion of the subject. In the original letter, 7th paragraph, we find the following expression: " nous sommes convenus de nous servir comme de pretexte pour masquer nos entrevues;" which Mr. Sparks translates — " We had agreed upon as a pretext to mark our interviews." The obvious meaning of the writer was to conceal, or mask their interviews; and he says it in as plain language as it is possible to employ; and yet, Mr. Dumas is made to say, when his precise object was concealment, the opposite to his intentions. As it is obvious, at the first glance, that the correspondence from '83 to '89, is differently arranged from that of Mr. Sparks', in the following extract from our instructions, we show the plan of the work: " Mr. Weaver and Mr. Knapp* will collect the letters written by the Department for Foreign Affairs of the United States, from the peace of 1783, to the 4th day of March, 1789, (whe- ther the Department was administered by a Secretary, by the President of Congress, or by a committee,) written to Foreign Ministers residing here, or to our Diplomatic Agents residing abroad, and the answers to those letters, ar- ranging them according to their dates, and they will also collect all the com- munications to our Government, by foreign agents here, and by our Diplo- matic Agents abroad to the Governments to which they are sent, to individuals on public business, and to our ow T n Government." " The correspondence, and other papers relating to each foreign Govern- ment, to be classed together generally according to the order of dates, but disre- garding that order so far as to arrange the papers relating solely to one sub- ject, with each other in their proper order. For example, if in the correspon- dence between our Minister in France, a representation is made on the first of January, and the answer to it is not made until March, the answer will be in- serted immediately after the representation, although other papers may intervene in point of date. This, however, is to be observed only when the matter is of importance, and when the papers relate solely to one subject; otherwise, the general order of date is to be observed." This plan of bringing together the letter and answer, and papers connected therewith, we think has its advantages; at all events we admit it a fair subject for inquiry and criticism, and only object to such a comparison as that of the writer in the North American Review, which is a fair sample of Boston prejudice, dyed in the wool. Mr. Sparks had his plan too, which the reviewers are so much in love with; they do not intimate which charms them most, the plan or the execution; but one or both are worthy of a learned quotation: " Servetur ad imum " Qualis ab incepto processerit, et sibi constet." * The second named gentleman did not act under hi* appointment. 14 Let us see what this plan was, so worthy of being continued to the end. In the advertisement, vol. 1, p. 9, he says: " The plan adopted, in arranging the papers for publication, has been to bring together those of each Commis- sioner, or Minister, in strict chronological order. As there is much looseness, and sometimes confusion, in their arrangement, as preserved in the Department of State, this plan has not always been easy to execute. The advantage of such a method, however, is so great, the facility it affords for a ready refer- ence and consultation, is so desirable, and the chain of events is thereby exhi- bited in a manner so much more connected and satisfactory, that no pains have been spared to bring every letter and document into its place, in the exact order of its date. Thus the correspondence of each Commissioner, or Minister, presents a continuous history of the acts in which he was concerned, and of the events to which he alludes." Mr. Sparks laid down a plan for himself of perfect ease and simplicity, and we will not pronounce it otherwise than a very good plan — " to bring toge- ther those [letters] of each Commissioner, or Minister, in strict chronological order." Has he adhered to this plan? Not at all. Every correspondence, notwith- standing his assertion, is a jumble of correspondents, as may be seen by glanc- ing over the tables of contents. The correspondence of Dumas, vol. 9; contains only 71 letters of Dumas, and 73 letters and papers from others, seve- ral of which are not even addressed to him: for example, the [Due de la Vauguyon to John Paul Jones, Oct. 29, 1779, p. 378; John Paul Jones to the Due de la Vauguyon, Texel, Nov. 4, 1779, p. 382; John |Paul Jones to B. Franklin, Alliance, Texel, Dec. 13, 1779, p. 399; and many others of sim- ilar affinity. We would ask, in the name of common sense, where is the pro- priety of inserting in Dumas' correspondence, a letter of John Paul Jones to B. Franklin? Yet this is a plan and execution, in the opinion of the North American Reviewers, worthy of a learned quotation, and in which we think there is a greater display of learning than of impartial criticism. Of the nume- rous examples of the same kind before us, we will point the attention to one other: in vol. 1, is given the correspondence of the Commissioners at the Court of France. Under the rule, it might be expected to find all the letters of the Commissioners " brought together in strict chronological order." No such thing! In Arthur Lee's correspondence, vol. 2, for letters to and from the Commissioners, see pp. 21, 23, 24, 36, 58, 64, 72, 79, 86, 86, 113, 116, 130; vol. 2, pp. 429, 430, other letters of the Commissioners may be found in the correspondence of R. Izard. If Mr. Sparks ever had any thing like a digested plan, he certainly got bravely over it before he got to the end of the 2d volume. From a close examination of Dumas' printed correspondence, we think the above remarks fully justified, by appearances; but so strange has appeared the insertion of letters of Jones to Franklin, and the French Minister to Jones, and Jones to the French Minister, under the plan laid down by Mr. Sparks, and from which he seems so widely to depart, or to have totally forgotten, that we have been induced to a re-examination of the matter, with a view to find out, if practicable, some reason for such deviations. L^pon referring to the original letters of Dumas, we find two tetters of the date of the 30th December, 1779, both written in English. The second letter of that date, addressed to Robert Morris, containing as enclosures 23 numbered papers, is wholly omitted. The first letter, 30 December, contains a postscript; of that postscript Mr. 15 Sparks contrives to manufacture a letter, we will show the modus operandi, by copying the original, and giving Mr. Sparks' version, as published by him, vol. 9, p. 404. " Philadelphia. The honorable Committee of Foreign Affairs. At the Hague, Dec. 30, 1779. Honored Sirs, The last three months having been entirely employed in the service of the American squad- ron, at Texel Road, it was impossible for me, during this whole time, when never at home, to despatch you any packet in the usual way. This parcel, containing 24 numbered papers, of very interesting matters, will make you some amends. The unanimous resolution No. 6, may truly be called vox populi; the other, two No. 19 and 20, are the noise of an influenced nominal plu- rality, strongly contradicted by the best part of this country. Be pleased to lay this whole parcel before his Excellency, the President in Congress, who will receive, at the same time, a packet, which I forward him from Commodore Jones, of which those papers will be both a commentary and a supplement. Every year but this, honored and dear sirs, your committee made me happy with a kind letter. My conscience, however, tells me, the steady friend of America, at the Hague, (as your Baltimore journal has styled him,) is still worth the remembrance and favor of Congress May the new year, which we are soon to enter in, prove for the United States, by a glo- rious peace, the commencement of an infinite number of happy ages, prays, Honored sirs, Your most ob't and most h'ble serv't, DUMAS — concordia, &c. This very day, when I was just to close these packets, I receive a letter from Captain Jones, of which a copy is here joined. I hope in a short time, to hear of his good arrival. The two prizes, viz. Serapis and Scarborough, and the two French ships Pallas and Vengeance, are still riding under French colors and captains. Our good Alliance, while here, has caused me much anxiety and trouble. Now she leaves me still exposed to the ill nature of my old foes in this country, whom, however, I dread not so much as certain false friends, highly incensed now against me, for not having found me as blind and complaisant to their particular treach- erous views, as they had expected I would be. The formal confirmation, by the most honora- ble Congress general, of my character of Agent of the United States, which I have already spoken of in my former despatches, and which I must entreat you, honored sirs, to solicit for me, will silence them. Indeed I cannot be quiet, nor safe, without such a solemn piece. I have from our good friend, the pensionary of Amsterdam, the ulterior protestations on De- cember 22d, of Amst. Dort, Rotterdam, and To the Committee of Foreign Affairs. The Hague, Dec. 30, 1779. Gentlemen: This day I have received a letter from Captain Jones, of which a copy is here joined. I hope, in a short time, to hear of his safe arrival. The prizes, Serapis and Scarbo- rough, and the two French ships, Pallas and Vengeance, are still riding under French colors and captains. The good Alliance, while here, has caused me much anxiety and trouble. Now she leaves me exposed to the ill-nature of my old foes in this country, whom, however, I dread not so much as certain false friends, highly incensed now against me, for not having found me as blind and complaisant to their particular views, as they had expected I would be. The formal confirmation by Congress, of my character as Agent of the United States, which I have alrea- dy spoken of in my former despatches, and which I must entreat you to procure for me, will silence them. Indeed, I cannot be quiet nor safe without such a testimonial. I have the honor to be, &c. DUMAS. 16 Schiedam, against the arbitrary resolution taken by a plurality, on the 17th 19 Nov. last, your honors will have them in my first. They are very strong." The enclosures follow in regular order, from No. 1 to No. 24. Had Mr. Sparks published this letter as he found it, we should have seen, at a glance, the reason of his introducing those papers (or rather a part of them) in the correspondence of Dumas. But Mr. Dumas spoke of them as " very interest- ing," and if his letter had been published, it might have led to the inquiry — what has been done with these twenty-four interesting papers, and twenty- three others which form their " commentary and supplement," enclosed in another letter entirely suppressed? Let us examine for a moment the relative effect of the two plans of publi- cation. If these papers, the two letters of the 30th December, and their en- closures, had fallen within our limitations of time, we should have printed, in regular chronological order, the first letter of Dumas of the 30th December, and then the enclosures, in the regular order of their numbers, without regard to their dates. The second letter of the 30th, would then follow, and be succeeded by its twenty-three enclosures, the " commentary and supplement," as Dumas calls them, to the first twenty-four. To our simple understanding, this appears to be a very natural and satisfactory order of arrangement. The whole question would then be presented to the public as Dumas submitted it to Congress. That Mr. Sparks found himself embarrased in his plan whenever he came to enclosures, is obvious. If his enclosures were permitted to follow the let- ters in which they were enclosed, his whole system of " strict chronological order," is upset, for enclosures must necessarily be of an earlier date than the letter enclosing them. If he published the letter stating the fact of so many documents being transmitted, the question would arise, where are they? The latter horn of the dilemma is evaded, by suppressing such letters; but unfor- tunately for " such efficient editorship," the omission of the letter transmit- ting them, the only evidence that they are papers belonging to Dumas' corres- pondence, renders Mr. Sparks completely obnoxious to the charge of inserting numerous papers in the different correspondences, irrelevant and foreign to the subject, and entirely without the limit of his plan, which was to bring together " those of each Commissioner or Minister in strict chronological order." Whatever may be the public estimation of the respective flans upon which the two series of Diplomatic Correspondence are published, we say it openly, that the course pursued by the editor of the Correspondence of the Revolu- tion, in omitting large correspondences, purely diplomatic, at his option, in making his free corrections, in suppressing letters, and making letters of post- scripts, has been no part of our editorial duty. We simply gave all the letters which we were able to find of a diplomatic character, from 1783 to 1789, in the Department of State — and it is gratifying to make the declaration, that having been since temporarily employed in that Department, in completing an arrangement of the Revolutionary papers, and of those of the Confederacy, from 1775 to 1789, and binding them in volumes — even after handling them, paper by paper, till the labor has been perfected, we have discovered nothing within our limits, to cause a regret that it had not been seen earlier, or which shall hereafter exist as a reproach to our researches. It is true we have not had access to the archives of France or England, but a reproach comes with 17 an ill grace from that quarter which has made so bad a use of our own. Bad use — we repeat the words emphatically — for who can tell, when he reads a letter in Sparks' Correspondence, whether it may not be so much distorted from the original as to convey opposite ideas? whether it is not a letter of 20 pages condensed into two? or a despatch concocted out of a postscript? This subject admits of amplification, but we will not dwell on it, nor multiply examples of what the editors of the North American Review are pleased to consider " efficient editorship." The publication of the Documentary History of the United States, by Clarke & Force, under an act of Congress, will, in the course of a year or two, if they publish all the papers in relation, to the Revo- lution, open this subject fully to the investigation of the public; and, in that case, we assert, will amply support all the facts here related, and place the comparative merits of Sparks' Correspondence, printed at Boston, with the second series, from '83 to '89, printed at Washington, upon that basis which truth alone can sustain. For ourselves, with all our faults, we sincerely court the ordeal. Having mentioned the Documentary History of the United States, we think it not irrelevant here to show, that the economy practised by Mr. Livingston in the publication of the Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States from '83 to '89, has been productive of a still more important saving to the public Treasury. By the act approved March 2, 1833, making provision for the publication of the Documentary History of the Revolution, it is " provided, that the rate of expense shall not exceed the actual cost per volume of the Diplomatic Correspondence now printing, or heretofore printed, under the direction of the Secretary of State." Let us see the effect of Mr. Living- ston's decision in making the work published here the basis of this contract, instead of that of Mr. Sparks. He had effected a saving of thirty cents six mills upon each volume published at Washington, less than the cost of the Boston edition. Each folio of the Documentary History will contain 7 octavos; 7 *30.6=$2.14.2; 1500 copies of each volume, 1500 x 2.14.2=$3213, a saving of three thousand two hundred and thirteen dollars upon each volume; which sum again multiplied by twenty, the supposed number of volumes, 20 x 3213, will give the enormous reduction from the prices which Sparks obtained, of $64,260. We leave this fact to speak for itself; it requires no comment. An accusation is brought against us, that we have republished " ten letters contained in the correspondence of Lafayette, [which] are to be found in Sparks' collection, and needed not to be repeated in the present work." And further: " The second volume of the work before us, opens with the corres- pondence of Franklin. This correspondence, with the exception of a few letters between Dr. Franklin and Sir Edward Newenham, relative to the appointment of a son of the latter, as American Consul in France; and one or two letters, scattered up and down in the series, is contained in Mr. Sparks' Diplomatic Correspondence of the Revolution. That it should thus be re- peated in a work avowedly undertaken as the sequel of its predecessor, is an illustration of that want of efficient editorship, to which we have already allu- ded. This is an inadvertence," &tc. This accusation, like some others, comes with an ill grace from the eulogist of Mr. Sparks. We have already shown that Mr. Spafrks, by the resolution of Congress under which he published, had no right to publish one of those letters of Lafayette or Franklin, after the 10th September, 1783, being limited 18 " specifically to the date of the ratification of the Definitive Treaty of Peace between Great Britain and the United States, in the year seventeen hundred and eighty-three." Mr. Sparks, in his correspondence, vol. 4, ille- gally published 69 pages of Franklin's Correspondence. We confess we were embarrassed by that procedure, and until the fact was ascertained of his hav- ing, as usual, made large omissions, we were not fully assured of the propriety of the republication. The Diplomatic Correspondence from '83 to '89, con- tains 30 pages of additional matter more than Sparks' Correspondence. We see no cause of regret for the course pursued, and beg leave to correct the error into which the Reviewers have fallen, and to assure them it was delibe- rately done upon grave advisement, and not an act of inadvertence. If Mr. Sparks transcended his limits, we took care to keep within ours. The same argument applies to the republication of the ten letters of Lafay- ette. Mr. Sparks published 21 pages unauthorized: for the same period we have given 70, and actually published papers which he marked as missing from the files of the Department. Other acts of inadvertence are brought against us, and farther adduced as a proof of our bad taste. We have committed the sin of republishing, in seve- ral instances, in their appropriate places, as enclosures, documents transmitted home by different Ministers, necessary to the right understanding of the paper which they accompanied, and which we might have avoided by multiplying notes and references from volume to volume. We have preferred the method which has called down the censure of the North American Review. We are happy, however, to find ourselves sustained on this point, by a similar course of Messrs. Gales & Seaton, in their great publication of American State Papers. The North American Reviewers observe, page 312: " The second volume contains interesting documents, relative to the commencement, of our rela- tions with Morocco and the other Barbary Powers. The schedule of presents by the Dutch, to the Emperor of Morocco, is misplaced on the 283d page, in the middle of a letter from the Count Florida Blanca, of which it furnishes a rather abrupt complement." An absolute falsehood! By referring to the letter of Mr. Jefferson, August 14, 1785, vol. 2, p. 372, second series, it will be seen Mr. Jefferson encloses in that despatch several papers, numbered 1 to 9. They are printed in the exact order of their numbers, viz.: No. 1. Baron Thulemeier to T. Jefferson, (p. 373.) No. 2. Thomas Jefferson to Baron Thulemeier, (p. 375.) No. 3. Instructions to William Short, (p. 376.) No. 4. Instructions to Charles Dumas, (p. 378.) No. 5. Mr. Carmichael to Thomas Jefferson, (p. 379.) No. 6. Louis Goublot to William Carmichael, (p. 380.) No- 7. Count Florida Blanca to William Carmichael, (p. 382.) No. 8. List of presents by the States General, to the Emperor of Moroc- co, (p. 383.) It is obvious, at the first glance, that No. 7 is only an extract of a letter from Count Florida Blanca to William Carmichael, transmitted by Mr. Carmichael to Mr. Jefferson, and by the latter to his Government. The list of presents is precisely in the position where it ought to be, and the assertion sent forth to the world, in that extract from the pages of the Review, shows abundantly the degree of credit to be attached to their assertions, when they say (p. 305) — 19 "Thus much we' have said, not censoriously or unkindly, but with a strict regard to truth and justice." From such justice, good Lord deliver us; for the truth, we put our hope in the old adage, magna est, fyc. Of the general spirit of truth and justice in which the Review is written, we present the following caricature of the first Department of the Government at Washington: **. By whom the selection and preparation of the papers contained in it were actually made, we are not informed. We presume that some of the gentlemen in the Department of State were employed for that purpose ; and bestowed upon it the time and attention which could be spared from their other labors. We have not the slightest disposition to reflect unkindly on the manner in which the duty was performed by them. We have no doubt they did all that could reasonably be expected, under the circumstances of the case. But no one, who has but walked through the rooms of an extensive public office — who has seen a Department of Government beset with the crowd of idlers and visiters who throng it from curiosity — harassed with the legion of office hunters, mousing about for holes where they can creep in — wearily trod by the long-suffering band of claimants, languishing with hopes deferred — bustling to meet the urgency of Congressional calls — perplexed with party troubles, cares, and intrigues — alternating from the gratified officious- ness of new incumbents, eager to signalize their ministry, to the over-applied assiduity of the departing, anxious to save the credit of their administration. We say, no one, who has glanced at this scene, needs to be told that this is not the place where a literary labor is to be performed. There is no calmness or tranquillity in it. The air is hot and close. Hurry and anxious expecta- tion, and fear of change, prevail. Painstaking, laborious merit, is a contemptible thing," &c. &c. The above is a fair specimen of the powers of distortion exercised in this Review — of an imagination we have elsewhere seen described, capable of creating without substance, of painting without colors, and of killing without crime. " With respect to the typographical execution of the work before us, it is greatly deficient in correctness." — p. 305. If Mr. Sparks is to be considered as the standard of correct orthography, and all deviations from him heterodox, then we have erred, especially in regard to proper names. But let us see how this matter stands : — In vol. 3, page 12, Doctor Franklin recommends two Polish officers to the notice of General Washington, Count Pulaski and M. le Comte Kotkouski. This orthography is thrice repeated in vol. 3, p. v., p. 12. In an original letter, we find the celebrated Polish officer signed his name Kosciuszko. Vol. 4, p. 243, for Bourgoyne, read Burgoyne. Vol. 1, p. 10, Messrs. Plairne k, Penet's, read Pliarne, &c. Idem, p. 139, Duke de Vauguyson, read Vauguyon. Same page, M. Monthieu, read M. Montieu. Error six times repeated, pp. 140, 141 ; corrected vol. 1, p. 318. Vol. J, p. 197, Montpellier, read Montpelier. Idem, p. 148, Horneca Fitzeau, read Horneca Fizeauz. Idem, p. 310, General Putman's, read Putnam's. Idem, p. 388, livres turnois, read livres tournois. Vol. 4, pp. 401, 402, Courrier de F Europe, read Courier, he. We have been at some trouble to consult original documents for the true orthography of names corrected above, and have given the right reading; but in several instances Mr. Sparks has corrected himself. Without troubling the reader with multiplied examples within our power of the same kind, we will only inquire of those reviewers, so prompt to discover a mote in their neighbors' eye, from what language Mr. Sparks derives authority for the word Senior, as we find it vol. l^p. 468 : " Senior Martinelli ?" The word is, undoubtedly^ 20 an English adjective; but we presume Mr. Sparks does not mean the elder Martinelli. Martinelli appears to have been an Italian, and therefore Signore might have been used. Two other nations use the term, and nearer alike in sound than orthography. The Spaniards write SeHor; the Portuguese Senhor: but the word has been Anglicised, is spelled Seignior, and there is therefore no apolog) r for the use of the adjective Senior, which has a definite "\neaning, and is entirely out of place as used by Mr. Sparks. In relation to the imperfections, " with respect to the typographical execution of the work," charged upon the Washington edition, and the alleged superiority of that of Boston, we deny the assertions of the North American Review, and appeal to facts. The two editions are before the world. The types used for the Washington edition were new, purchased by Mr. Blair expressly for the occasion, and the press-work done by hand. Sparks' edition was printed on " Hale's steam-press," and with a worn-out type, which, by the time he printed the last volume, was almost illegible. The paper used at Washington is of a much superior quality to the other, a difference of at least one dollar per ream, which of course was another item of profit to Mr. Sparks. In the numerous extracts which have been made from the North American Review, we have shown the degree of candor and impartiality due to that periodical, when the interests of themselves or their friends is the point at issue. The following extract is intended to show them in a more amiable light — to expose the frankness with which they treat the political opinions of their friends. " What would a logician like Jay have thought of the Nullifier of that day, who should have attempted to escape the wholesome and direct common sense of this argument, by maintaining, that, if the treaty was unconstitutional, the States might annul it] — as if a claim on the part of the State to annul the acts of the confederated Government were any the less ridiculous and irra- tional, because it was founded on a right lirst to pronounce them unconstitutional ! So with the modern doctrine of Nullification. The citizens of the States are bound to obey all constitutional laws of Congress; their State Governments cannot absolve them from this obligation. It would be as ridiculous in practice as it would be irrational in theory for a State to arrogate the power of annulling constitutional laws. But then it has the power, at all times — amidst the heats of party and in the turmoil of elections, and under the influence of whatever, in a popular Government, can disturb the calm empire of the understanding, and give force to the passions — to declare any law unconstitutional, and then pronounce it null, and release the citizens from obedience." We have no comment to make, and give the quotation merely to show the ease and familiarity with which burning coals may be handled by the prac- tised charlatan. In the same number of the North American Review to which we are indebted for their notice, in their article on periodical literature of the United States, page 298, it is stated, that " in 1822, the work (North American Review) was again transferred to Mr. Sparks, and in 1830 it passed into the hands of the present Editor. Under all the changes in its editorial management, it has been chiefly sustained by the labors of the same persons who w 7 ere originally the principal contributors, and to whose valuable aid our readers are still indebted for much of whatever entertainment and instruction may be found in its pages." From the above admission of the Review, the presumption is a violent one, that Mr. Sparks being one of the " principal contributors," that he himself has been the author of the very entertaining and instructive article upon the Diplo- matic Correspondence from '83 to '89, as well as of other articles, Reviews of his own productions. Who so competent as that "learned and indefatigable editor" to do our feeble efforts impartial justice— himself a disappointed appli- -21 cant! Who can appreciate his merit so well as himself! We are strongly confirmed in the opinion that to Mr. Sparks we are indebted for the very entertaining articles scattered so profusely through the numbers of the North American Review, of which himself and his works are the subject. We proceed to make a few extracts from different articles, to show the identity of the Reviewer and the Reviewed. The first extract we make (Diplomatic Cor- respondence, vol. 1, page 12) is avowedly by Mr. Sparks. " The editor's researches in the public offices of England and France, with particular reference to the early diplomatic relations between those countries and the United States, have put in his possession a body of facts on the subjects discussed in these papers, which might have been used to advantage in supplying corrections and explanations; but, for the reason abovementioned, he has not deemed himself authorized to assume such a duty. He is not without the expectation, however, that the public will hereafter be made acquainted with the results of his inquiries in some other form." North American Review for October, 1831, p. 477: " Without enlarging on this point, we will but refer our readers to an article in a former num- ber of this journal written by Mr. Sparks, the indefatigable and judicious editor of the work before us, to whose researches into the Revolutionary history of America, as contained in the archives of this country, of France, and of England, the public is under the highest obligations." Same volume, page 484: " Meantime we must not omit, in closing our desultory notice of the present collection, to repeat our thanks to Mr. Sparks for the manner in which he has discharged his duty, in preparing it for the press. He has reduced the vast mass of materials to convenient order, and supplied from other and authentic sources the lamentable chasms in the files of the Department of State." We have seen the truth of all this! North American Review for October, 1834, p. 302: " In his laborious researches in the public offices of Great Britain and France, he had collected ample materials, which enabled him to fill up numerous and important chasms, in the various parts of the correspondence of our public agents preserved in the Department of State." For example, Lee's and Dumas' correspondences! North American Review, October, 1834, p. 478 — [the Washington papers:] " He has made it a matter of conscience to visit the scenes of most of the important events in our history, — to examine in person the archives of Congress and of the United States, represented in that body, as well as the private collections of many revolutionary characters of note; and finally to explore the immense repositories in the foreign offices of the British and French Govern- ments." Who but Mr. Sparks would know any thing about his conscience! If he had had a little in relation to us, or borne in mind the 34th aphorism of Washington, " detract not from others, neither be excessive in commending," we should have been saved the trouble of this reply, and the reviewers have remained unreviewed. If the above extracts are not from the same pen, the reviewer and reviewed certainly write much alike; the same idea of voyages, and labo- rious researches, and chasms filled, is the predominant one; and yet they may have no more connexion than the Siamese twins! Of the degree of fulsome adulation addressed to Mr. Sparks throughout the pages of the North American Review, we propose but one more example, which we extract from page 468, October, 1834: " It is fortunate that the preparation of the work [Washington papers] has fallen into the hands of a person every way so well qualified to execute it to the public satisfaction as the present editor. On this point, we have expressed ourselves so fully in a preceding article of this number, that it is unnecessary to add any thing in this connexion." Mr. Sparks' former publications of a similar 22 kind, afford the best evidence of his qualifications;" [verily, we think so too!] "and the great experience he has now acquired in the editorial profession, the unwearied labor which he has be- stowed upon this undertaking," &c. By another extract or two from the same article, p. 469, we will endeavor to show the extent of the great good fortune of the public, [mere printing falling into the hands of Mr. Sparks,] here and elsewhere so glowingly depicted, that we are strongly reminded of " the last highest prize drawn here," or " the latest improvement in challenge blacking," all equally fair puffs, whether the sale of a lottery ticket, or a Boston book, with Jared Sparks upon the back, fresh from " Hale's steam-press," be the vendible article. In the one case, forty or fifty per cent, is no reduction; in the other, like the lamp of Aladdin, old types are better than new, and common paper superior to fine vellum. In the printing of the Washington papers, we are told by the reviewers, page 469, of two rules: " He [Mr. Sparks] has labored to follow as exactly as possible: — First, to select such parts as have a permanent value, on account of the historical facts which they contain — whether in relation to actual events, or to the political designs and operations in which Washington was a leading or conspicuous agent; secondly, to take such other parts as contain the views, opinions, counsels, and reflections of the writer, on the various topics suggested to him by the occasion, and serve to exhibit the structure of his mind, its powers and resources, and the peculiar traits of his personal character." Let us now hear Mr. Sparks, [preface to the second volume Washington Papers,] which the North American Review also quotes, page 469: "~ "According to this plan, [the two rules above,] when a letter throughout bears the features above described, it will be printed entire. "But many of the letters, both in the public and private correspondence, for the reasons already assigned, will necessarily be printed with omissions of unimportant passages, relating chiefly to topics or facts evanescent in their nature, and temporary in their design. "Nor is this difficult; because the omitted passages usually treat upon separate and distinct subjects, and may be removed without injury to the remaining portions of the letter." From the plan here laid down by Mr. Sparks, though the Washington Papers have sat for the picture, we have no difficulty in recognising, as if in a mirror, the real Simon Pure, " The Diplomatic Correspondence of the Ameri- ca^ Revolution, edited by Jared Sparks." We have here really the plan of that early specimen of the efficient editorship," as the Review is pleased to term it, of Mr. Sparks, which appears by his own showing, as well as ours, (and we are pleased to have arrived at a definition of the term,) to consist in mutilating the letters of his author, separating facts evanescent from facts not evanescent, topics temporary from topics otherwise, and taking care, in doing so, not to mar the sense nor the meaning of the writer. Mr. Sparks tells us this is not difficult : his alter ego speaks of the "unwearied labor" and for once ventures, in the most delicate manner conceivable, an opinion, if an opinion it may be called, where a thing is spoken of as merely questionable: " If any part of the plan, as thus explained and developed by the editor, could be regarded as questionable, it would perhaps be the occasional omission of portions of letters, of which other portions are retained. As a general principle, we consider it highly important, that in all collec- tions of this kind, the documents published should, as far as possible, be entire. In most case% subjects so nearly connected in time, place, or the personal relations of the writer, as to come within the compass of the same letter, will have, though they may not be apparent to the casual reader, bearings upon each other, which may serve to explain and modify the statements made, or 23 the opinions given upon each. Hence the perusal of a letter, known not to be entire, with what- ever discretion the omission may be supposed to have been made, can never give us the same assurance that we are in possession of the w T riters views, which we should feel if we had the whole before us. We are aware, that there may be cases, in which a too scrupulous adherence to the principle of publishing all documents and letters entire, might be inconvenient, in a collection of moderate extent, like the present; but we would venture to suggest to Mr. Sparks, the expedi- ency of deviating from it as rarely as possible, in the further progress of his labor, especially with papers of much importance or interest." Concurring, as we do, in the propriety of the above remarks, we cannot but smile at the degree of humility and profound deference with which the Re- viewer " ventures to suggest," and " if any part of the plan could be regarded as questionable;" forming so bold a contrast with the style and manner of the Review of theXJorrespondence from '83 to J 89, that we scarcely know whether we should preier to be vilified, or to be praised, at that rate; at all events, we are in no danger of Being spoiled by the tardy compliment of the Review, when it tells us somewhat encouragingly, " The editorship of the seventh volume is decidedly superior to that of most of its predecessors." — page 329. The Quarterly Review thought the whole work done in a creditable mode. With the view of sustaining the Quarterly, in the opinion which it appears to have deliberately formed, we give the following letters upoxi that subject, from sources which we think even the North American Review will admit to be entitled to attention: Montgomery Place, Jclt 30, 1833. Dear Sir: I have received the 5th and 6th volumes of the Diplomatic Correspondence, and although, on the point of my departure, I have not had time to examine them, I have not the least doubt that you have paid the same attention to the selection of the matter and the execution of the printing that you bestowed on the preceding volumes. I with great pleasure bear witness to the industry and judgment which you employed while I was in the Department; and I sincerely hope that some occasion may be found for employing your talents in the service of the Govern- ment, being persuaded that in any task that requires fidelity, diligfence, and a high talent for busi- ness, you will do honor to yourself and great service to the country*, With my best wishes, &c. I am, &c. * EDWARD LIVINGSTON. Wm. A. Weaver, Esq. Department of State, Washington, April 14, 1834. Sir: I have received your communication of the 10th instant, informing me that the service in which you have been engaged, under the direction of this Department, in preparing for the press, and superintending the publication of the Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States from 1783 to 1789, has been completed. In terminating your employment it gives me pleasure to express my entire satisfaction at the manner in which the duties assigned you have been performed. I am, respectfully, &c. LOUIS McLANE, Secretary of State. To William A. Weaver, Esof. Washington. • • On this point, we hope the North American Review is now satisfied". That they were not informed earlier " by whom the selection and preparation of the papers contained in it were actually made," — they are at liberty to impute either to our modesty, wfiich was satisfied with the approbation of our supe- rior?, or to the absence of* a private speculatK5n, in connexion with the public printing, which rendered puffing unnecessarv.