also certain, that if every line of his pen in his communications to Congress or to the people was traced to some other person, it would not abate his glory, or the honor and love of this people, a single iota. If his great modesty has contributed to the lustre of his immense elevation, as it undoubtedly has, it will be difficult to prove that he had too much of it.

All the prejudices which have existed in regard to the authorship of the Farewell Address, seem to have proceeded from jealousy of Hamilton, or from this hypothesis of Mr. Jay; but how entirely Mr. Jay's imperfect information led him into the adoption and statement of it, may easily be made obvious.

Judge Peters's letter had conveyed to Mr. Jay "the first and only information" he had received, "that a copy of President Washington's Address had been found among the papers of General Hamilton, and in his handwriting, and that a certain gentleman had also a copy of it in the same handwriting." Of course it would be assumed by some persons, that Hamilton had made two copies of the Farewell Address, and had kept one, and given away another, to furnish the future proof of his authorship. It was upon this hint, and possibly, though not certainly, with something like this interpretation of it, that Mr. Jay wrote his reply to Judge Peters, of the 29th March, 1811, which appears in the work of Mr. Jay's son.

Every man of experience must be aware of this truthand the writer of this Inquiry hopes, that wherever his inferences from evidence may call for its application, he will be regarded as having a full consciousness of it—that if an observer of half a truth proceeds incautiously to infer the

whole truth from it, the half truth is just as likely to lead him wrong as right, and that half a fact is even more so.

We now know that General Hamilton left no copy of the Farewell Address in his handwriting, but only his original rough draught of such an address, which was found among his papers, and is now in the Department of State; that there was a corrected copy and revision of that original draught, also in his handwriting, which he sent to Washington, and which did not come back. In all probability, therefore, it remained among Washington's papers, on the same subject, until his death; and therefore, if any person had in his hands another paper which purported to be a copy of the Farewell Address, and was in Hamilton's handwriting, it was this corrected and revised copy of the original draught.

It must have been obtained consequently from Washington's papers, and from this source only; and those only, who had the custody of Washington's papers at and after the time of his death, can be called upon to explain the circumstance, if it be true.

It is not surprising that the name of the certain person who possessed another copy was not disclosed, possibly not by Judge Peters, certainly not by Mr. Jay in his reply; and this gave an air of mystery to the circumstance; and the odium of that mystery, whatever it was, was reflected upon General Hamilton, as is made obvious by Mr. Jay's letter. And it thus happened that, in complete ignorance of every fact in the case, except one, and that a misleading fact, that Hamilton had read to Jay Washington's draught, "written "over with such amendments, alterations, and corrections," as Hamilton thought advisable, Mr. Jay proceeded to make

out what may be called a record, for posterity. Unfortunately, it was worse than labor lost, for it was labor unintentionally productive of evil. No man would regret it more than Mr. Jay himself, if he were living.

Mr. Jay, at that time, and, doubtless, to the end of his life, was wholly ignorant of the following most material facts, which have been already exhibited to the reader: 1. That Washington had written a long and explicit letter to Mr. Madison, on the 20th May, 1792, requesting him, at that time, to write a Farewell Address, if he approved the measure, and making large suggestions to him on the subject. 2. That Madison had replied to that letter, on the 20th June, 1792, and sent to Washington a draught, containing those expressions in regard to Washington's "very "fallible judgment," and "the inferiority of his qualifica"tions," which strike everybody who reads the Farewell Address, and irresistibly impressed Mr. Jay with the belief, that no man could have written an address which contained those words, except Washington himself. 3. That Washington had applied to Hamilton personally, in the spring of 1796, to "redress" the draught which Washington himself had prepared; and that, on the 15th May of that year, he wrote to Hamilton, sending him the paper, and requesting to correct it, and giving him also authority to write it over anew upon the plan he thought best, founding it upon the sentiments contained in Washington's paper; and that Hamilton had executed the last power referred to, before his interview with Jay,-the execution of that power being a matter which concerned Hamilton alone until Washington should approve it, and which Hamilton thought proper to submit to Washington only. 4. That Hamilton,

before his interview with Jay, had already, on the 30th July, sent to Washington that new form of a Farewell Address; and, in the letter which inclosed it, promised to send him, in a fortnight, Washington's own draught, corrected upon the general plan of it. 5. That the matter upon which he, Mr. Jay, was consulted, on behalf of Washington by Hamilton, was only one of the objects of Washington's letter of the 15th May, this correction of Washington's draught, and did not comprehend the other-the writing it over anewupon the plan Hamilton should think best.

If Mr. Jay had known these several matters, he would have had an outline of all the heads of material facts up to the time of his interview with Hamilton. But he was not aware of any one of them; nor was it necessary that he should be, to enable him to assist in the correction or amendment of Washington's draught, which was an entirely separate and independent matter. Nevertheless, in this imperfect state of his knowledge or information,-perfect enough for the performance of the office Mr. Jay was asked to perform in Washington's behalf,-but wholly insufficient to enlighten him in regard to Hamilton's draught, or to Washington's previous communications with Madison, Mr. Jay proceeded to express a definite opinion upon the whole matter of the authorship of the Farewell Address. 1. He gave an explicit opinion upon the general proposition, that the Farewell Address was a personal act of Washington, and that nobody else could, with propriety, be its author. 2. That it was not likely that Hamilton, or any other person but Washington, was the author, because Washington was perfectly able to write it himself. 3. That if it was "pos"sible to find a man among those whom Washington es

"teemed, capable of offering him such a present as an address, which contained what the Farewell Address does contain, the broadest avowals of his very fallible judgment, and the inferiority of his qualifications,-"it was impossible "to believe that President Washington was the man to "whom such a present would be acceptable."

The presumptive internal evidence from the Farewell Address, combined with that of Washington's ability, which Mr. Jay argues at large in his letter, and very well, and the direct evidence arising from that interview with Hamilton, therefore resulted to impress Mr. Jay's mind with the conviction, most necessarily implied by his whole letter, though not, I believe, anywhere in it expressly stated, that Washington was the sole author of the Farewell Address, such corrections or amendments of it only excepted as Hamilton had read in that interview, and some of little importance, which had been made by both the parties in the course of it. But it gives me pleasure to add that, considering the lapse of time between the date of that interview, in 1796, and Mr. Jay's letter, in 1811, there is a very reasonable excuse for Mr. Jay's regarding the corrections and emendations of Washington's draught by Hamilton, as having gone into the published Farewell Address; because almost all the corrections of Washington's draught contain the same thoughts, expressed in nearly the same language, as in Hamilton's original draught, and most probably in the amended copy Hamilton sent to Washington. I am very happy to suppose that these important passages in the published Farewell Address, contributed to recall the corrections or emendations of Washington's draught, which Hamilton had read to him, and to strengthen Mr. Jay's belief that the Farewell Ad