erroneously thought was Washington's frequent practice in his public writings.*

Another variety, with more, but still incomplete, knowledge of the facts to sustain it, and with a natural partiality to incline it to assign the largest contribution of every ingredient to Washington, though without undervaluing either the talents or the direct contributions of Hamilton, regarded the Address as the joint work of both, but the preponderant work of Washington in all respects-Washington's style in its language, as much as his judgment in the plan, or his sentiments in the principles. It conceded to Hamilton a considerable share, but left the contributing shares of each of the parties perfectly indefinite.

The third variety of opinion was that of a very eminent and excellent man, from whom it passed to others, with a result as erroneous as the opinion first noticed, and more erroneous than the second, being at the same time more definite in the wrong direction.†

This eminent man, perfectly acquainted with one important fact in the case, bearing upon Hamilton's connection with the Address, and entirely unacquainted with all the rest, reasoned from this fact as if it had been the only fact in the case, and closely restricted the bearing of it, by an opinion of his own, which certainly was not Washington's, that the Farewell Address was in some emphatic way, "a "personal act—of choice, not of official duty-and was so

*This thought may be seen in a remarkable letter by the elder President Adams, to Dr. Benjamin Rush, dated 28th August, 1811. "Works of John Adams,” vol. ix, p. 639. John Jay. Letter to the Hon. Richard Peters, 29th March, 1811. Life and Writings of John Jay, vol. ii, p. 336.

"connected with other obvious considerations, that he '(Washington) only, could with propriety write it."

66

This positive and explicit opinion, which resulted in the conclusion, not directly expressed, but necessarily implied by the whole letter from which the above extract is taken, that Washington was the only writer of the Farewell Address, and Hamilton no more than the corrector or emendator of Washington's original draught, has had decisive weight with a great many persons; and from the character of the writer, and the solemnity with which he expressed his opinion, and gave the details of his personal knowledge, could not but have such weight. It inclined the scale, before the opposing evidence could be fairly weighed against it; and it will incline it, until that evidence is exhibited and deliberately weighed.

From the time that this letter was published, in 1833, and, in only a less extensive degree, from the time of its date, in 1811, the question assumed an invidious bearing towards Alexander Hamilton, and on the other hand, towards the principal party also; and has at length become almost a moral question, involving a breach of faith or honor on Hamilton's part, and of some assumption of another's merit on the part of Washington, without the countenance of any other circumstance in their respective lives to justify or excuse an imputation of this nature.

In a certain state of opinion respecting the authorship of the Farewell Address, it would have been agreeable to concur in a part of Mr. Sparks's remarks on this subject, in the twelfth volume of Washington's Writings, of which he was the editor; "that the manner in which that Address origi"nated is one of small moment, since its real importance

66

"consists in its being known to contain the sentiments of Washington, uttered on a solemn occasion, and designed "for the benefit of his countrymen." There is no reason to question the propriety of this remark; nor would there be any indisposition to stop there, if Mr. Sparks and others had stopped there. But Mr. Sparks has proceeded in the same place to examine the question of origin to some extent, and has expressed his opinions upon the whole subject, generally with candor, and always with a fair estimate of Hamilton's intellectual powers, and of his special aid in the preparation of this Address; but without making all the discriminations which the evidence supports, and with rather a measurable valuation of the Address itself as a literary composition, so as to leave the merits of it on a less elevated grade than they ought to occupy, and the relative contributions of both Washington and Hamilton to the work, in greater obscurity than, now at least, there is any necessity for. Mr. Sparks also has explained, or excused, this obscurity, by an implication that in some degree tarnishes the honor of Hamilton; for, as Hamilton did preserve, that is to say, did not destroy, the original draught of the address he had prepared for Washington, and did likewise preserve the original letters of Washington upon that subject, as well as upon others, it is certainly a tacit reflection upon Hamilton's honor, for having done this, to say, "that in a case of so "confidential a nature, and in which his honor was so much

66

66

concerned, it may be supposed that Hamilton would not preserve every communication that he received." All this on the part of Mr. Sparks has been, perhaps inadvertently and unconsciously, colored or promoted, by reflections from another paper previously published, to which he refers, the

letter of Mr. Jay to Judge Peters; which ought to have had no such effect, and can have none at all at this day, when the facts are more accurately known. It is not reasonable, therefore, in this state of Mr. Sparks's impressions, to abide by the general proposition he seems to espouse, though it is not very clearly stated, that Washington himself was the composer or writer of the paper, though with important assistance from Hamilton. It might have been left there, but for this reflection upon Hamilton's name; for the question is really of no moral importance, however interesting it may be as a matter of historical or literary curiosity; and Hamilton's reputation as a writer and thinker, on questions of public policy, requires nothing to be added to it, and can gain nothing by a decision on this point in his favor, which it may not very safely do without. But those who honor Hamilton's patriotism and pure integrity, and his elevated character in all respects, cannot be contented to let any obscurity rest upon the point, which there is light enough in the evidence to remove; especially under an hypothesis, that Hamilton, from motives of honor, did not preserve, that is to say, did destroy, papers which would have made the point clear, while at the same time he did not destroy, that is to say, did preserve, the principal paper by which his claims, whatever they may be, are to be determined. This is an uneasy state of the question to many persons. It is quite possible that Mr. Sparks did not perceive the full bearing of his remark; and it is possible, also, that the friends of Hamilton have seen more point in the remark than Mr. Sparks intended to give it. But it has by this, and like causes, become a duty, both to Hamilton and Washington, to go over the whole matter

upon original grounds, which is the direct object of this Inquiry.

It need not be said-for this will become obvious by the whole cast of these remarks-that my reverence for Washington, my admiration of him, my interest in his true glory, even in his honor in all that regards the Farewell Address, are not, and never have been, inferior to those of any person I have known; and at the same time, that none of these sentiments impair those I have always entertained in the like respects for Hamilton. It will only be necessary for me to follow the greater interests of truth, to show my personal admiration of both, and to do justice to each in the matter of this celebrated paper.

I shall endeavor to make these statements as plain and clear as possible; abating none of their plainness and clearness by a vain effort for literary effect. This may, perhaps, take more space than may be agreeable to all; but those who have an interest in the question, will not be unwilling, perhaps, to give the necessary time and attention to it, if they shall perceive that the examination is conducted in a calm and impartial spirit, with an orderly arrangement and an ample citation of proofs, a careful deduction of inferences, and a full concentration of all these influences upon the published Farewell Address of Washington.

I shall be under a necessity, in order to avoid a heavy mass of quotations, of asking the reader to refer to the printed and published works I shall name, if he desires more full information than my extracts will give him, or wishes to test my accuracy in making them; and when I shall offer a comparison between the original draught of an address by Hamilton, and the Farewell Address signed and