privity with the subject began and ended in the one interview, of which the result was sent to Washington on the 10th August. The supposition that the autograph ever came back to Hamilton, either individually or for joint consultation and alteration by Hamilton and Jay, is therefore not only without authority from the correspondence, but is in direct opposition to it, as well as to Mr. Jay's letter to Judge Peters. But the decisive consideration against the transmission of an autograph copy, or any other prepared copy, of the Farewell Address to Hamilton and Jay for correction, and the return of such copy corrected for the final Farewell Address, is this. There was but one interview between Jay and Hamilton on this subject-one interview, after the time for it was previously arranged between them. Mr. Jay's letter to Judge Peters mentions that, and no other, interview. The proceedings at that interview are detailed by Mr. Jay with great distinctness, both what was said and what was done. The result of the interview is given with equal distinctness: it was the reading and approving of a paper containing amendments of "the President's draught,” as Mr. Jay calls it, of which the original was left fair; and the amendments were so made, or arranged, that Washington would perceive by inspection where they would find their proper places in that draught. Now, let it be remarked, such a correction of Washington's draught existed in ori 66 "be very pleasing to me, if you would show him this letter (although it is a hurried one, my time having been much occupied since my arrival by the heads of depart66 ments, and with the papers which have been laid before me), and let me have for "consideration your joint opinions on the several matters herein stated.”—Hamilton's Works, vol. vi, p. 159. 130 HAMILTON'S CORRECTIONS OF WASHINGTON'S DRAUGHT. ginal at Washington's death, and was found among Washington's papers. It is the same which Hamilton returned to Washington, on the 10th August, 1796. A copy of it is in the possession of Mr. Sparks. I have seen and read a copy of Mr. Sparks's copy.* It is sufficient to say, that it * A few days after this essay was put to press, and a part of it printed, I was favored by Mr. John C. Hamilton with a copy of the paper containing Hamilton's corrections of Washington's draught, received by him from Mr. Sparks; the paper alluded to in Hamilton's letter to Washington, dated 10th August, 1796. It is a paper of thirteen manuscript pages, foolscap, sparsely written on one side of each leaf; and, except on the first page, written in two columns. The beginning of it is obviously intended to be a substitute for the beginning of Washington's original draught of an Address, and modifies it to some extent. After completing the correction of this part, there follows, in the right hand column of the second page, this line, as the beginning of a new paragraph: "The period, &c. (take in the whole Address.)" The words "The period," are the initial words of Mr. Madison's draught. See Washington's Works, vol. xii, page 387. The words of the line between parentheses, are therefore a direction to go on with the whole of Mr. Madison's draught. The copy then proceeds, in the subsequent pages, to arrange, modify, and add to the thoughts expressed in the paper entitled by Mr. Sparks, "Hints, or Heads of Topics," beginning with the following paragraph, written by Hamilton: "Had not particular "L occurrences intervened to exhibit our political situation, in some respects, under new " attitudes, I should have thought it unnecessary to add anything to what precedes," &c. This supplies the first sentence of the "Hints, or Heads of Topics," which is as follows: "Had the situation of our public affairs continued to wear the same aspect they assumed "at the time the foregoing Address was drawn, I should not have taken the liberty of "troubling you, my fellow-citizens, with any new sentiment," &c.; and, after this first paragraph closes, there is an asterisk, directing the reader to the top of the adjacent column, on the left hand side, where Hamilton immediately introduces the subject of the Union, (the last but one of Washington's wishes or vows in the "Heads, or Hints of "Topics,") in these words: "Let me, then, conjure you, fellow-citizens, still more earnestly than I have done, to hold fast to that Union which constitutes you one people;" and he goes on through the following pages to page 8 of the manuscript, with an orderly notice of other parts of the "Hints, or Heads of Topics," very much after the manner of his original draught, introducing on page 8, opposite to a paragraph in regard to the spirit of party, the following line, written lengthwise on the right hand margin: "This "is not in the first-may be interwoven;" the first referring, no doubt, to Hamilton's original and amended draught, already sent on. And then the paper proceeds to the is a correction or emendation of Washington's original or preparatory draught, and no more; and in plan, and con end of the amendments and of the paper itself in the same manner, closing with these words: "The nation which indulges against another habitual hatred, or for another "habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is," &c. Immediately below which is this direction: "To the end, as in the former." At the top of the left hand column of this last page (13), and opposite to the concluding paragraph, of which I have given the closing lines, are these words: "Varied from the first I sent, and I think for the "better. If the first be preserved (? preferred), 'tis easy to incorporate this." By recurring to Hamilton's original draught, in his Works, vol. vii, page 589, it will readily be perceived, that the direction "to the end, as in the former," refers to the middle of the second paragraph on that page, where these words occur: 66 That nation " which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some "degree a slave. . . It is a slave to its animosity," &c. Hamilton's direction, therefore, is to go on to the end of that paragraph, in the copy of his original and amended draught, sent on the 30th July; perhaps, also, to the end of Washington's Conclusion. There is no further clause or direction on my copy of the paper, nor was there, I presume, on the original. We may suppose, therefore, perhaps, that the corrections, having supplied the place of Mr. Sparks's "Hints, or Heads of Topics," Washington's Conclusion, as I have called it, was to be followed to the end, after the paragraph referred to in his own draught first sent. This character of the paper I possess, which I think is here accurately described, though it substantially accords with Mr. Jay's account of it, makes it difficult to believe that at least parts of the "President's draught" were not read at that interview from the very paper itself; for in the copy there are but two words written of Mr. Madison's draught, nor yet any part of Washington's Conclusion. There is not even an express direction at the end, to include that Conclusion. But as the subjects contained in the "Hints, or Heads of Topics" had been corrected and amended by Hamilton, as far as he intended, and as his own correcting paper did not supply any conclusion at all, the former direction to go on "to the end, as in the former," may have comprehended the Conclusion of Washington's paper, as well as the remainder of the paragraph in his draught first sent. It would seem to follow, that the lapse of time had in some degree impaired Mr. Jay's recollections of the interview. Parts of Washington's draught must have been read from the paper. Neither Madison's draught nor Washington's Conclusion appears in my copy. The paper, moreover, is not a transcript, as Mr. Sparks calls it, but Washington's paper "corrected upon the general plan of it," as Hamilton's letter of 25th June said it would be, with marks and references to show how the corrections or amendments should be incorporated. spicuously in extent or volume, is a totally different paper from the Farewell Address, from Hamilton's original draught, and from Washington's autograph copy, in either stage of it, with or without the cancelled passages. But it is certain, at the same time, that Hamilton's corrections, in several particulars, followed the sentiments and language of his original draught, with or without such variations as he introduced into his amended copy, which he sent to Washington on the 30th July, 1796,-the corrections of Washington's draught having been begun and being under way before he sent his amended copy to Washington. It follows necessarily, from these premises, that the autograph copy was not sent to Hamilton and Jay, and that they had no interview to correct it, and that they did not correct it; and, if we may imply a negative from the full affirmative evidence we possess, that neither Jay nor Hamilton ever saw it. The paper which was read and approved in that interview, and sent back, was Washington's original draught, and not Hamilton's original draught, nor Hamilton's revision of that draught, nor Washington's autograph copy of the Farewell Address, nor anything else but Washington's original or preparatory draught amended, the same which was sent to Washington on the 10th of August. The paper thus sent to Washington was not the subject of a single remark by him afterwards, except in his letter of 25th August, when he inclosed to Hamilton, at his own request, the amended copy of Hamilton's original draught, and said, "I have given the paper herewith inclosed several serious "and attentive readings, and prefer it greatly to the other draughts," which other draughts were two only, Washington's original or preparatory draught, "left. fair," as Mr. 66 Jay says, and the emendations of it by Hamilton, which had been read by Hamilton to Jay. The supposition, therefore, that Hamilton and Jay, or Hamilton with Jay's assistance, made, by amendment or otherwise, a third draught, after Washington had sent forward his autograph copy, or a prepared copy, of the Farewell Address, for correction, confounds both dates and facts, and puts all the letters of Washington and Hamilton, and Mr. Jay's letter to Judge Peters, just as much as the others, completely out of joint. Of course, a hasty or current perusal of Hamilton's letters and original draught might have led to the same impression in anybody, which the Preface to the copy of the autograph in Mr. Irving's work expresses; but the possession of those letters for the requisite time in my hands, has enabled me to look with great care into the whole series, and to get, I think, the true bearing of all. It may be very safely predicted that such a third draught as the Preface in Mr. Irving's Appendix postulates, will never be found, since no one of the letters I have referred to, recognizes it as having existed, and, on the contrary, the very connected story they tell implies, necessarily, that it never did exist. That Hamilton's revision, from which I have supposed that Washington copied his autograph in extenso in the first instance, before he altered any part of it,the same which the Preface in Mr. Irving's Appendix calls Hamilton's second draught,—will never be found, is another matter. There can be no doubt that Washington, according to his uniform habit, of which the traces are strong in regard to the papers concerning the Farewell Address, did preserve it up to the time of his death. In all probability, it will not be found, if there has been anything illicit in its disap |