Book . R a B 8 
 
AN 
 
 EXAMINATION 
 
 7 
 
 
 THE qUESTIONy 
 
 WHO 13 THE WRITER OF TWO FORGED LETTERS 
 ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE • 
 
 UNITED STATES? 
 
 ATTRIBUTED TO 
 
 JOHN nUTLEDGE, Esq, 
 
 MEMCER OF COXGRESS, FROM SOUTH CAKOLIKA. 
 
 to Lit. :-^ ^^^'^ 
 
 WAsiriKGTON city: 
 PRINTED BY WILLIAM DUANE &. SON. 
 
 1803. 
 
V '■■ 
 
AN EXAMINATION, &c. 
 
 1 wo forged letters, addressed to the President of the 
 United States, have excited an uncommon interest in the pub- 
 lic mind. The nature of the fraud, the official stations of 
 the persons implicated in the forgeries, and their standing in 
 society, unite in demanding a clear and cool examination of 
 the subject ; one, in which character shall be treated with the 
 respect to which it is entitled, the facts stated with accuracy, 
 the arguments and conclusions drawn from the nature of 
 the case and facts alone — the feelings of party, the prejudices 
 and the passions, kept in strict subjection to reason and truth. 
 Such an examination I will now attempt ; how far it will be 
 faithfully executed, is submitted to the judgment of others. 
 
 It is unnecessary to be constrained in stating, that -those 
 letters have been attributed to Mr. Rutledge, a member of 
 Congress, from South Carolina. Mr. Rutledge, from the situ- 
 ation in which he stands, from his connexions and education, 
 should hold an honorable character, in the maintenance of 
 Vv'hich, he and his friends ought to feel deeply interested : — 
 the invidious course will not be pursued here of going into 
 private life, to obtain evidence against his morality — he ought 
 to be presumed immaculate — nor ought his reputation to be 
 tarnished by light suspicions or vague suggestions. By the 
 , public he should be considered innocent, until he shall have 
 been proved guilty. The character of Mr. Ellery, as one of 
 the Senators from Rhode Island, and in all other relations stands 
 upon high ground. No dark or malignant passion^ have 
 ever been attributed to him ; by the society of which he is a 
 member, he is considered as just, mild, and benevolent, seek- 
 ing for happiness in domestic society — not in the bustle of 
 public life — he derives his claim to confidence from the exer- 
 cise of every virtue — not from a want of virtue in others. 
 Eetwcen these two characters this subject is at issue. Mr. 
 
( 4 ) 
 
 Rutledge stands arraigned at the bar of public opinion for hav- 
 ing at Newport, in the month of August, 1801, written, 
 addressed, and transmitted to the President of the United States, 
 two letters, one on the 2d, and the other on the 8th of August, 
 in the name of Nicolas GefTroy, of Newport, without the know- 
 ledge or assent of Geffroy, with an intent to deceive the Presi- 
 dent, and to lead him to such acts as might bring him into 
 contempt. That these letters were forged, and transmitted 
 in the manner set forth, is universally admitted — some person 
 must conseqvxently be guilty. Mr. Ellery has been presented 
 to the public as accuser, Mr. Rutledg-e as the person accused 
 of the crime. One or the other ranst be criminal. 
 
 It is not to the purpose to accuse or defend the newspaper 
 called the Rhode Island Republican, for not admitting the 
 defence and proofs of Mr. Rutledge into the paper — without 
 ascertaining ivhether they were decent or not. It is not in issue 
 whether the high state of party, and the absolute refusal on 
 the other side, of the Newport Mercury, to admit any thing in 
 favor of the republicans, justified the measure. It does not 
 prove the innocence of Rutledge — equally remote from the 
 question are all the threats against the life of Mr. Ellery, and 
 the late attempts to abuse him — if not to destroy his exist- 
 ence. These things may prove baseness and wickedness of 
 a different kind ; but they do not prove Rutledge guilty of 
 the forgery. The single question is — whether Rutledge is, or 
 is not, guilty of that crime ? 
 
 To enable the public to decide upon this question, it is 
 necessary to give a concise statement of the facts which have 
 been published, and which exist in or belong to the case. 
 
 Rutledge has resided in the summer months at Newport, for 
 four or five years past. Having an extensive correspondence, 
 he had been led to a personal acquaintance with Richardson, 
 the post-master at that place, an old, expeiienced, and approved 
 officer, of more than twenty years standing. Richardson, and 
 the assistant, his son, by frequently receiving billets from 
 Rvitledge, and forwarding his letters sent to the office, had 
 become well acquainted with his hand writing — a number of 
 friendly acts had been done by Mr. Richardson to Rutledge in 
 his absence, for which Rutledge had expressed his obligations 
 to Richardson — the most perfect harmony and good under- 
 standing subsisted between them. Every thing remaining in 
 this situation, Rutledge, soon after Mr. Gerry returned from 
 France, came into Richardson's office, and after walking to 
 and fro for a little time, with an affected carelessness, drew 
 
( 5 ) 
 
 from his pocket, and as he thought unobserved, a lettef, and 
 while wallcins^ from the Eichardsons, dropt it before him— » 
 The transaction was noticed by one of the officers. Rutledge 
 continued walking for a little time longer — then struck tho 
 letter with his foot, as if accidentally — picked it up and exclaim- 
 ed — " Richardson, what mal-xcs you so damned careless, see 
 here a letter, designed for the mail, is lying under foot." — 
 Upon this Richardson received from him the letter, which had 
 never before been delivered into the ofiice, and noticed it was 
 addressed to the honoral^le Elbiidge Gerry. Rutledge soon 
 withdrew. The fact of dropping the letter was then commu- 
 nicated by him who saw it to the other — the letter was examin- 
 ed, and both the officers were satisfied, from the similarity of 
 the writing, that the address was written by Rutledge ; though 
 in a constrained and disguised hand writing. From this mo- 
 ment the post-master seriously entertained doubts respecting 
 the character of Rutledge ; but these doubts, together with the 
 acts which produced them, remained as secrets. Various other 
 instances of letters in the same, or at least a similar constrain- 
 ed hand writing, served but to strengthen the suspicion of the 
 post-master. At length, on the 2d day of August, 180!, a ser- 
 vant girl, who, the post-master, understood, and who said she 
 lived with Rutledge, brought a letter, which she said Rutledge 
 sent to be forv.arded by the post. It was cnc of the forged let- 
 ters. The pojBt-masters examined it, and from their knowledge 
 of both Rutledge's natural and constrained hand vrriting, were 
 convinced it was written by him. The letter was then so far 
 examined and such miarhs given or ascertained as will forever 
 enable them to identify it. Richardson, from what he had pre- 
 viously known of the conduct of Rutledge, and from the dis- 
 guise of the hand writing, at once suspected it was an imposi- 
 tion upon the President, and believed it to be his duty to com- 
 m.unicate the facts to some person belonging to tlie govern- 
 ment. Accordingly on the same day he communicated theni 
 to Mr. Ellery, who had a few weeks before been elected into 
 the Senate of the United States — who com.menced his poliiical 
 career in May, 1801, and n(?ver had been at the seat of govern- 
 ment. Eilery and the luchardsons, on the same day, m.adc 
 memcranda in writing of the above facts. 
 
 On the 8th day of the same Aiiguct, tlie same girl brcught 
 the second letter, addressed to the President, in the same dis- 
 guised hand writing, and declared it was sent by Rutledge — 
 the post-masters were fully satisfied, from an examination, that 
 this also [was written by him, and took such m.easures as will 
 forever enable them to indtntify it. Richardson feeling dis- 
 quiet at the indignity cHlred to the President, and not knowing 
 
( 6 ) 
 
 but that the letters micjht produce some improper effect, wrote 
 to ,the editor of the National Intelligencer at VVashintjtoii, 
 intimating his fears respectins^ anonymous or forged letters 
 addressed to the President, and requesting he might be put 
 upon his guard. On the sa.me day these facts were communi- 
 cated by Richardson to Eilery ; and both Ellery and the 
 Richardsons then made memoranda of them in writing — all 
 •which memoranda can new be produced before any court of 
 justice. On the 28th day of August 1801, the President's an- 
 swer to the letter of the 2d of August, addressed to Nicholas 
 Geffroy, arrived. It was not franked. This letter was deliver- 
 ed to Geffroy, vvho, finding it from the President, and treating 
 qf the contents of the forged letter of the 2d August, and at 
 the same time we!! knowing he had never written to the Pre- 
 sident, ccasidercd tliis letter a mere trick to impose upr.n him. 
 This opinion in his mind was conurmed by the circumstance 
 that the seal was moist, v/hich lVe:|uentiy happens where let- 
 ters and newspapers are conveyed in the same bag, especially 
 in damp or wet weather — lie accordingly called upon the post- 
 master, made complaint of the imposition, delivered back the 
 letter from the President, and received of Richardson tlie 
 amount of the postage. On the same day tiie post-master laid 
 this letter before Mr. Eilery, who immediately wrote to the 
 President and inclosed copies of his memoranda. On the 17th 
 of September 1801, the President wrote an ansv.^er from Mon- 
 ticello, to Mr. Eilery, in which he stated, that he had written 
 die letter and cnc only to Geffroy. 
 
 Upon Ellery's arrival at '\Vashington, in December 1801, 
 being t!ie first time of his coming to Congress, and four m,ontbs 
 after the forgeries had been committed, he wa.ited on the Pre- 
 sident and delivered tohiiTi the lettcrhe had written to Geffroy. 
 Afterwaj'ds, in April 1 802, he received from him the tv.'o forged 
 letters. Until this period he had never seen the hand writing 
 of Rut-edge. After his return from Congress in May 1802, he 
 procured some of the acknowledged hand writing of Rutledge, 
 and on comparison of that with the hand Avriting in the forged 
 letters, he perceived what he believed conclusive evidence of 
 the guilt of Rutledge. Whereupon he applied to an eminent 
 federal lawyer in New-Engia.nd, and laid the forged letters and 
 acknowledged hand Meriting of Rutledge before him.. lie too 
 was convinced by tlie striking similarity of writing ; but doul)ted 
 upon the point of law whether an indictment could be supported, 
 as the letters were not written v/ith an intent to injure Geffroy. 
 He therefore recommended a public exposure in the newspa- 
 pers, that persons might be on their guard against similar im- 
 po-itic-ns. Eilery had pledged himself to the p03t-mv''/5ter that 
 
( 7 •) 
 
 he would not make any charge upon Rutledge, nor give pub- 
 licity to these transactions, unless the public interest demanded, 
 it. Influenced by the advice of the character above reierredto, 
 he -waited on Richardson, the post-ma^te r, informed hiin of the 
 advice lie had received, and lequestcdhis permission to lay the 
 v/hole before the public. The post-master is a very quiet, 
 peaceable citizen — he Avas un',vilHng- to do an act, which, tlicugh 
 bottomed in truth, miight destroy the reputation of Rutledgc — 
 accordingly he strongly opposed openly charging Rutledge 
 v.ith the crime ; Ellery yielded to the vv'ishes and feelings of 
 the post-master, and no measures v/ere taken to expose the 
 offender. After this, en the 21st of July ISvOa, in the morning, 
 before the post-master had left his bed-chamber, a number of 
 letters for tl-ie post office were left at Richardson's house, by the 
 servant of Rutledge, as the post-master was informed by his 
 family. These letters Avere all vvritten on similar paper — seal- 
 ed with black wax, with Rutlcdge's known and common seal, 
 and Were all addressed to the various persons in Rutledge's 
 hand writing — but one of them, addressed to James Thompson 
 Callender, of Richmond, Virginia, Avas in Rutledge's constrain- 
 ed or disguised he.nd, and after the im.prcr^sion of tlie seal on that 
 letter, the Avax had been melted and the impression almost 
 wholly defaced. Tliis letter, AAith the otliers, AA'as fcrAvardcd 
 by the mail — and on the 12th of August 1802, a letter Avas re- 
 ceived at Richardson's ofi'ce, post marked " Richmond Ya." 
 addressed to " Robert T. Smith, of Charleston, South Carolina, 
 now at NcAvport, Rhode-Island" — on the outside of Avhich letter 
 was indorsed these Avords, " Avith a paper." The same day 
 Rutledge applied to the post-ofHce for letters addressed to Robert 
 T. Smith, Avho he said Avas his friend from Charleston, that he 
 had been at NeAvport and gone on to Boston ; and that he 
 had Avritten to him that he shoiUd not return by NcAvport, and 
 wished him to take up his letters. The letter from Richmond 
 was delivered to him — he then asked for the paper and was in- 
 formed that it had not come on. All these facts Avere commu- 
 nicated to Mr. Ellery. Soon after this, the Recorder, printed 
 at Richmond, by Callender, appeared overflowing with falshcod, 
 calumny and abuse against the President. Under these cir- 
 cum.stances Ellery believed it his duty to submit to the public 
 the facts respecting the tAVo letters — having taken the advice of 
 several respectable gentlemen, Avho concurred Avith him in 
 opinion ; the charge Avas openly m-ule upon Rutledge in the 
 llhode-Island Republican. 
 
 It may be Avell to remark, that upon making enquiry, it 
 does not appear that any person of the n?.me of Robert T. 
 Smith, belono^ed to Charleston, or Avas either at Newport o? 
 
C s ) 
 
 Boston last Summer; and that Mr. Gerry did receive an ano- 
 nymous letter about the time first mentioned. 
 
 The delivery of the letters, signed Nicholas Geffroy, and 
 Nic*. Jeffrey, at the post oHice, by Rutledge"s girl — her decla- 
 ration that Rutledge sent the letters, and that they were ad- 
 dressed to the President in the hand writing of Rutledge, are 
 proved by tlie testimony of the post-master and his assistant, 
 already noticed ; and every other fact herein stated can be prov- 
 ed in a court of law. 
 
 These facts, together with the striking simil?a'ity between 
 the acknowledged hand writing of Rutledge and the writing of 
 the forged letters (which similarity is to be found, not only in 
 single letters, but in every letter, in a variety of words, and also 
 in the manner of dotting, and in his punctuation, both of which 
 are very remarkable) constituted the whole evidence known to 
 those interested in the detection of the fraud at the time the 
 charge was made in Rhode Island — since that period this fur- 
 ther important and conclusive testimony has been discovered 
 against Rutledge — 
 
 1st. That the paper on which the forged letters were writ- 
 ten is different from any other paper ever known to have been 
 in Rhode Island, and in fact is a part of the hot pressed paper 
 which, in the year 1800, was imported into Philadelphia for the 
 use of Congress, bearing this water-mark, " T. Stains, 1799." 
 This paper was, by the officers attending Congress, delivered 
 out to the members at their session, commencing Deceml)er 
 1800, and ending in March 1801 — at which session Rutledge 
 attended as a member, and from Congress retired to Newport. 
 Mr. Ellery had not at this time taken his srat in Congress, nor 
 was he elected till May 1801. 
 
 2d. That in the summer 1802, Rutledge addressed a let- 
 ter to one of the first characters in Rhode Island, written on 
 paper delivered out to the members at the last session of Con- 
 gress — which evinces that he has been in the habit of making 
 use of public paper in vacation. 
 
 3 J. That various anonymous pieces, written and sent to 
 the office of the Aurora, in the winters of 1797, 1798 and 1799, 
 while Rutledge was in Congress — some of which treated of the 
 balls and dinners of Liston — some puffed Rutledge as a candi- 
 date for the speaker's chair — as the favorite of the ladies and 
 the like, though under the guise of irony — while others treat- 
 ed with great contempt the characters of bis frieudsj Champlia, 
 
( 9 ) 
 
 Harper and others— arc all of the same constrained hand writ- 
 ing with the forged letters signed Nicolas Geffroy — undeni- 
 ably written by the same hand — bearing all the characieristic 
 ' marks of Rutledge's writing, in the formation of the words and 
 of the letters, in dotting the letters, and in the mode of 
 pointing.— This assertion is made boldly and positively, after a 
 critical and careful examination — not by the writer alone, but 
 by many of the most respectable members of the two houses 
 of Congress and others — upon whose minds there is not a doubt 
 remaining. It is within the recollection of every person ac- 
 quainted with what passed in those years, that a variety of severe 
 allusions, pointed at some of the federal members of Congress, 
 appeared in the Aurora, and that it was matter of surprise how 
 the Editor of that paper should have knowledge of what passsed 
 at Liston's and in the federal parties-* What must be the asto- 
 nishment of the public, and particularly of the gentlemen 
 themselves at finding, that the honorable John Rutledge was 
 the unknov/n author of most of these pieces ; and that the 
 originals, ia his hand writing, are now at the seat of govern- 
 ment, ready to be exhibited to any person, or before a covu-t 
 of justice — yet so the fact is. One other important fact it is 
 necessary to state in this place. The anonymous writer hav- 
 ing sent to the printing-office some of those pieces which were 
 laid by and not published, addressed a note to the Editor, in 
 
 * It may be asked, how it could happen, that the Editor of a public paper 
 should rely so confidently and implicitly upon the communications of an ano- 
 nymous writer. This the Editor of the Aurora explains this way : That 
 numerous sheets of the sa]ne writing had been i-ejected both by Mr. Bache, 
 his predecessor, and himself ; and that many of those published were much 
 altered and softened from their original violence and aspericy. That he had 
 questijned the authentici;y of the writer on many occasions, but was at length 
 constrained to repose mnre confidence in him from the f^illo.wing incident : 
 — There was in the suite of the British Minister, a painter, a plain but 
 intelligent man, who was employed constantly by Liston, in drawing drafts 
 of milicary posinons, landscapes, &c. "With this man the Edicor frequently 
 fell into company at a weekly musical society. After some articles of 
 the anonymous writer had appeared in the Aurora, concerning Liston, this 
 artist, who had theretofore maintained a cordial acquaintance with the Editor, 
 visibly avoided him a; the club, and changed seats to avoid conversation with 
 him. As the publication had been sometimes a subject of jocularity in the 
 club, the Edi:or took notice of the distance so studiously maintained, and 
 took an ojjportunity to enquire if any offence had been given — the artist very 
 candidly declared there had been none, but some recent publications in the 
 Aurora had very much alarmed him ; as they must have been communicated 
 by some person who had intercourse in the house, and he was apprehensive 
 that if seen in conversation, the suspicion might rest on him — and on this 
 account he soon absented himself from the club altogether. The obvious 
 conclusion was, that the anonymous correspondent commuuicated real faces— 
 though even after that time several articles were suppressed. 
 
 B 
 
( 10 ) 
 
 the same hand writing, requesting him to publish the pieces, 
 and if the author was demanded, he should he made known- 
 accoidingly the pieces were published — the author was demand- 
 ed by the person implicated, and desired by the Editor — in 
 ans^\er to this he received a second note, desiring him to call 
 on General Varnum. The Editor called on General Varnum, 
 who informed hiin he kncAv nothing of the subject. I will 
 now introduce some of these peices, that tlie public may re- 
 cognize the publicdtions alluded to, and also discover tluit they 
 niust have been written by a person then at Philadelphia, who 
 v/as well acquainted with the charactars in Congress, and what 
 was passing. And here I begto be correctly understood — I do 
 not offer these articles as containing truths — I introduce them 
 as the original productions now lying before me, and in likeness 
 as much resembling the forged letters, signed Nicolas Gcffroy, 
 as a man docs himself. Speaking of himself, he says " Lord, 
 " Lord, what a charming thing it is to be a inan of fashion, Mr. 
 '• 11. is a man of fashion, and the Avomen say it was very sen- 
 " sible in old Thunderer to make him the heir apparent, for 
 " that he is a man of fine parts, £tc." When attacking Cham- 
 plin, he says— ^" Young Champlin has commenced speaker 
 '' to the very great mortification of his friends : They are 
 " fearful that his habit of vocifei'ating in society, to the 
 " exclusion of every body present, will be practised in 
 *' public, and that he Avill become as great a chatterbox 
 " in Congress as he is in private — A French gentleman, 
 "• who heard of this federal apprehension, observed that those 
 " Y.'ho diflci'ed vv'ith Mr. C would not be much annoyed by his 
 " movements." (Here follow expressions and allusions too in- 
 decent to be published.) — Speaking of Otis, in relation to some 
 i"emark which fell from Gallatin at the fire side, to which Otis 
 •replied on the floor of Congress, he breaks out in this ejacula- 
 tion — " Now, ye solid men, ye wise men of Boston ! was this 
 " fair ! v/as it honorable 1 vt^as it decent, would it be permitted 
 " in private between gentlemen ? Oh, fie Mr. Otis ! fie upon 
 
 '• it!" Abusing Harper, whom he mortally hated, he says, 
 
 . " A certain member of the committee of v/ays and means finds 
 " out that it will be well to get a wife with a good jointui'e, 
 " and have a father-in-law who stands high at the bank : But 
 " there arc objections to him, and the lady is not nvlUing 
 " to have him, on account of his two sons — she objects greatly 
 " to their colour — he however declares that he is leaving oft" his 
 " old tricks — that the black and the brown shall be discarded 
 " for the fair — and the final arrangement is going on." — Com- 
 menting on a ball given by the British minister, among other 
 tilings, he says — '■ Judge Ellsworth vowed he Avculd not have 
 '• drank so much, if he had known that wine was stronger thaw 
 
( 11 ) 
 
 << cyder." Again — " The devil has got into poor Edmond, 
 <' he will speak after the eloquent Mr. Gallatin — a stiuus^-er 
 " who heard him on Monday, observed that Messrs. Edinon^i, 
 " Gordon, and Sprague, might be very good lawyers, but tney 
 
 " were certainly dry speakers." 'Once more, and I vrili not 
 
 trouble the public further, although very many other pieces 
 are before me — •' A section of feds marching down Chestnut- 
 " street, some days ago, presented a very mosaic sort of front. 
 " A stranger, standing at tiie corner, said to his nomenclator, 
 " who is that sir i" That is Mr. Harper, a violent fed, who was 
 " a ci-devant president of a jacobin club at Charleston — . 
 " Who is the' next sir?" That sir, is general ^'v^illiams, v/ho 
 " came from the old country as tumbler to Dr. Lindav/ — 
 " vVnat,he who sold povrd2Vs,at Dumfries, in Virginia? Yes, 
 " the same — •' Who are the others, sir?" That is paroon Read 
 " of Massachusetts, who gets six dollars a day by being in 
 " Congress, and pays half a dollar to a young sprig of Divinity 
 " for every sermon preached for the old parson, while at Con- 
 " gress. The next is Machir, a Scotchman, from Virginia; 
 *' and the other, that long man, is Mr. A.* from Connecticut, 
 " who has a brown misLress because she is not dear." These 
 are samples of the anonymous pieces before me, all in th© same 
 constrained hand Avriting, and bearing every mark of the writ- 
 ing of Rutledge — If either of the gentlemen, whose names 
 have been mentioned, doubt the truth of this assertion, let him 
 take the trouble of examining, and he will be satisfied. 
 
 4th. A further and a still more conclusive corroborative 
 evidence of the identity of the writer, is found on a compari- 
 son of the paper served to Congi-ess in Philadelphia, in 1799 
 and 1800, which is of a different quality, and bears a diiierent 
 water mark, from that upon which the acknowledged letters 
 and the forged letters of Rutledge were written, in 1801.—, 
 There are now lodged along with the other evidences several 
 origina.1 letters written on this paper of different quality, dated 
 in '' Philadelphia, Feb. 25, 1799," and " Philadelphia, March 
 13, 1800," signed with the name and inthe acknowleged hand 
 writing of John Rutledge ; the water mark of this paper is 
 " A. Blackwell, 1797," and it is exactly of the same quality, 
 watermark, size, and mould, of the paper upon which the nu- 
 anonymous articles sent for publication to the Aurora in those 
 years, are written. 
 
 5th. The samples first stated have not only been compared 
 with the letters, addressed to Richardson by Rutledge, and 
 acknowledged as his hand writing, but with reports made to 
 
 Mr. John Allen, of Connecticut. 
 
( 12 ) 
 
 Congress by Rutledge, and with letters, by him written, no-w- 
 on file in some of the public offices, and also with the Geffioy 
 letters ; and upon a careful comparison of the v/hole, by mem- 
 bers of Congress and others, there has not been an individual 
 of whatever politics, who has not acknowleged the strong si- 
 milarity of hand writing in all the productions. 
 
 6th and lastly. Since this charge has been made against 
 Rutledge, he has been careful in various writings, and in all 
 within the reach of the accuser, to omit and avoid many of 
 those strong and marked characteristics of his hand writing 
 which are to be found in his antecedent writings. This is un- 
 common and unnatural — it is necessary to account for it — and 
 it cannot be accounted for upon any other principle than his 
 wish and attempt to have his hand writing appear different 
 from that of the forged letters. Here then I am content to 
 close the proof in support of the accusation, for the present, 
 though other proofs, and proofs of other similar acts, may here- 
 after be submitted to the public — Let us now attend to his de- 
 fence. 
 
 Mr. Rutledge I'csts his defence : 
 
 1st. Upon his own oath. 
 
 2d. Upon the testimony of eight gentlemen, who testify that 
 they do not believe he wi^ote the forged letters. 
 
 3d. Upon the testimony of three gentlemen, who, in addition 
 to stating that they do not believe he wrote the letters, 
 testify, that the letters afijiear to be an unsuccessful at' 
 tempt to hnkate his hand writing, 
 
 4th. Upon an endeavor to destroy the credibility of the testi- 
 mony of the post-master and his assistant ; by attempting 
 to prove they have told contradictory stories, and by 
 attempting to prove that no white girl lived in his fami- 
 ly at the time. 
 
 It is my study to avoid every offensive expression, to ex- 
 cite in Rutledge and his friends the leastirritability possible, and 
 to furnish the iiieans of a just decision upon the subject in con- 
 troversy. By appearing before the public with his deposi- 
 tion, he has subjected himself to some unpleasant remarks, 
 warranted by principle and essential to truth : He stands 
 charged with the commission of a heinous crime, and the 
 question is, whether he is guilty or not — upon the trial of this 
 
( 13 ) 
 
 issue he can only claim the benefit of, nnd must be govcrne'd 
 by, those maxims and rules whicii are founded in reason and 
 sanctioned by experience. No man is bound to accuse him- 
 seli^ — no man can be compelled to testify against himself — c-ocry 
 one in permitted to lilead not guilty ^hbiu ever guilty he viay bc~^ 
 the rights cf sc!f-fireservation warrant this. But as no man is 
 bound to accuse, so no one is permitted to exonerate himself. 
 Both law and reason decide, that he who will commit one 
 offence, to avoid punishment, v. ill, by denying it, commit another 
 of equal magnitude — suicly our laws are not made to punisii 
 the innocent; yet tliey never allow any man to discharge him- 
 self by oath; wisely considering that he, who, to gratify his 
 pussions or propensities, violates the law, to elude the evils cf 
 detection andpunisl-rrient, at least may commit another viola- 
 tion. I'he oath of Kutledge therefore cannot avail. It ought 
 not to be considered in his own case. 
 
 We come then to the testimony of eleven persons who 
 have sworn that they do not believe he v.rote the forged lettei s. 
 As it respects ti;e eight first who are referred to under his 
 second point of defence, it does appear on v/hat tiieir belief is 
 founded — whether on the confidence they repose in the sta- 
 tion and declarations of Rutledge, or upon a want cf similarity 
 between the forged letters and his acknowledged hand writing. 
 On which ever ground they Lave placed their belief, their of.tiis 
 are equally direct — no imputation rests on them. 1- rem the ac- 
 knowledged similarity, confessedby three of his own Avitnesses, 
 attested by more than thirty respectable characters in Rhode- 
 Island, and perceived and acknowledged by every perscn who 
 has made the comparison at the seat cf government, and it has 
 been made by very many of diiierent pciitics, — I really think 
 these gentlemen, in testifying, must have relied, not on the 
 •want of similarity in the writing, but upon their full confidence 
 in him. It is, however, most favorable for him to consider these 
 gentlemen as testifying, that in their opinion, there was not a 
 similarity between his acknowledged writing and the forged 
 letters. It shall therefore so be considered. To destroy the 
 effect of this testimony, it is answered, that most of tlie gen- 
 tlemen did not compare the hand v.riting of these letters with 
 various specimens or samples of his acknowledged writing, 
 but with mere scraps of vvriting in their possession ; that they 
 did not assume the labor of investigation and discovery, by 
 carefully examining the form and shape of letter by letter; but 
 formed their opinion by the general appearance of the body of 
 the writing from the first impression ; that, adopting this 
 mode of examination many others might agree with them, Avho, 
 upon a careful comparison of each individual letter with a, 
 similar letter, ai'e decidedly of opinion Rutledge wrote the 
 
( 14 ) 
 
 forged letters. For it is a foct, that these letters are in a dis- 
 guised hand vvriting, v,hich will be hereafter explained ; iind tha.t, 
 en the part of the accustition, the examination and compari- 
 son were made with great care and exactness, letter by letter 
 and word by AVord,with various specimens of his hand writing- ; 
 t'.at there is a vast variety in his writing, and the more of Lis 
 acknowledged writings there are produced as tests of his gviilt, 
 the more clearly it is proved — and that with these means oi 
 invcr/Ligation, thus carefully examined, two Senators in Con- 
 gress; tr.e Lieutenant Governor, the Secretary of the State and 
 several members of the Senate and House of Representatives 
 in Rhode-Island, with nearly thirty others of the principal 
 people of that state, have attested and are ready to attest that the 
 ibrged letters are of his handwriting — that, in addition to this, 
 tiiese letters have been carefully compared by many members 
 of Congress and others, of different politics, at the seat of 
 government, with various official reports in the hand writing 
 oi' Rutledge, now on file in the ofnce of the clerk of the House 
 of Representatives, and with letters from him registered in 
 some of the offices — the result of Avhich examination has been 
 an universal acknowledgment of the striking and unprecedent- 
 ed similarity of hand writing, and a general belief that he is 
 the avithor of this forgery. Nor does it rest here, for the fact 
 is, that by drawing together at the examination a general assort- 
 ment of the samples of his writing, not only every letter of the 
 alphabet to be found in the forged letters has a fellow and exact 
 likeness in a corresponding letter ; but every different mode 
 of foi-ming and letter, as for instance, (P. or T. in writing) is met 
 and supported by a similar letter, formed in the same manner 
 in his acknowledged writing. — This is beyond the art of for- 
 gery — it is the contour of the man — it impresses with irresist- 
 ible force the stamp of guilt. 
 
 In the next place, three of his witnesses have sAvorn that 
 these letters appear to be an vmsuccessful attempt to imitate his 
 hand writing — doubtless they testified according to their belief, 
 for they are honorable men — one of them holds a seat in Con- 
 gress — but of all the attempts which have been made to screen 
 Rutledge from the charge, this, for him, is the most unfortu- 
 nate. The gentlemen themselves, on reflection, must abandon 
 this belief, or subject themselves to ridicule. The formation 
 of the letters in the acknowledged hand writing, and in the 
 forgeries, is precisely the same — the only perceivable differ- 
 ence is in the attitude — this difference is most strikingly ?.ppa- 
 rent at the commencement of the forgery, for about ten or a 
 dozen lines — then the mind of the writer, as it would be 
 natural to expect, became more and more occupied by the sub- 
 
( 15 ) 
 
 ject, and less attentive to disguise the writing. The writing, 
 by degrees, approaches nearer and nearer to the natural and 
 undisguised writing of Rutledge, till, drawing to a close, the 
 main ideas of the writer being communicated, the mind 
 resumes its solicitude to disguise the writing, and secret the 
 author — then again, a careful attention is paid to the attitude 
 of eucli individual letter — it is placed erect, or inclining to 
 the left, contrary to his common manner of v/riting — the 
 disguise once more is as great as at the commencement — the 
 letters end in this manner. This is precisely the conduct to 
 be expected ; not from a man forging the hand writing of ano- 
 ther, but from one attempting to disguise his own Vi'riting. 
 He commences with the highest solicitude to renaain unknown 
 — then loses himself in the body of his v,'ork — and having 
 coni|)leted his undertaking, or nearly so, the preservation of 
 himself once more claims his principal attention. But the 
 man who attempts to forge the hand writing of another, places 
 the sample before him, consults the attitude, the figure, the 
 size, and the shape of each letter, and endeavors, by every 
 means in his power, to give to his writing the exact appearance 
 of. his sample. He who believes, that these letters were writ- 
 ten by a man attempting to imitate tl\e writing of Rutledge, 
 must believe that when one attempts to imitate, he endeavours 
 to be unlike — that in search of similarity, he labors to produce 
 dissimilarity ! 
 
 The friends of Mr. Rutledge have insinuated that the 
 forgery was committed by ?.ir. Ellery. Th.e charge has not 
 been made openly. It has been whispered in the hollow mur- 
 murs of party jealousy. The feelings of party ought not to 
 interweave themselves with this transaction. The appeal is 
 not to the feelings of the people. It is not to their politics. 
 It is made to their cool and collected judgment, when rightly 
 informed. Nor is the question, whether the political system 
 of Mr. Ellery or Mr. Rutledge shall be preferred. It is 
 plainly, v/ho forged the letters in the name of GefTroy ? It is 
 true that Mr. EHery is the friend of Mr. Jefferson, and that 
 Mr. Rutledge is his enemy. -^ 
 
 A few remarks v.ill shev/, that the charge against Mr. 
 Ellery is wholly unfounded. When a crime has been com- 
 mitted, and there are tv/o who had equally the means of 
 committing it, it is natural to infer that it was committed 
 by that one to whom we can trace a motive. To Rutledge a 
 motive can be assigned — that is, a wish to lead Mr. Jefferson 
 to adopt some injudicious naeasure, thereby to bring him into 
 sontempt. To Mr. EUerv no such motive can be assigned. 
 
( 16 ) 
 
 To Mr. Rutledg-e another motive may be assif^ed, he had deaf- 
 ings with Ge'iVoy, and mig'^t e^^pect to obtain svich answer 
 or answers from him as the President might write to Geffroy, 
 for the purpose of pubiication, perversion, and ridiculing Mr. 
 Jefferson — Mr. Ellery could have had no such motive, '-r. 
 Rutledge, it v/ill not be denied by his friends, would not shun 
 an opportunity that might fall in his way, to assail the political or 
 literary reputation of .Mr. Jefferson ; those who know him well, 
 are satisfied he would court and seek for an occasion to do so. 
 This is not the character, nor could it be an object of Sir. Ellery. 
 lie v.'as the friend of Mr. Jefferson — he could have no wish to 
 deceive him ; but must have a stron;; one to prevent his being 
 deceived. As a Senator of the United States he was connected 
 Avith him — as a person of similar politics, he had his confi- 
 dence, and actually corresponded with him — he therefore could 
 not v.'ish to address the President under a feigned name. But 
 some have suggested the motive was to destroy the reputation 
 of Rutledge. Why should he wish to destroy Rutledge's 
 reputation ? They were not rivals — they belonged to diflerent 
 states, separated by the distance of a thousand miles — no misun. 
 derstanding had subsisted between them — no indignity had ever 
 been offered by the one to the other. (3f consequence it is to be 
 presumed that no such motive existed in the mind of Mr. Ellery. 
 Others have conjectured the design was to destroy his politi- 
 cal intluence. It cannot be believed that any person would adopt 
 {;uch means to produce that end. Mr. Rutledge has never 
 been very respectable in Congress — he has never been influen- 
 tial — he is neither the Achilles nor the Ajax of federalism. 
 If Ellery planned and executed the forgery, he must have had 
 the writing of Rutledge for a sample. The means of support- 
 ing his accusation were, in that case, at his command — the 
 reports made by Rutledge to Congress might as well have 
 been examined last winter as this — the forged letters he could 
 have procured at any time. If, then he had planned the des- 
 truction of Rutledge — intent upon the accomplishment of his 
 design, he v/ould have devoted himself to his preparations ; 
 and, impatient for his prey, he would have seized upon it 
 instantly. No such thing took place — eleven months passed 
 away after his knowledge of Rutledge's guilt, and before he 
 ever saw his hand writing. Contempt for him — pity and 
 compassion for his family — and a disposition on his own part 
 to live at peace with all men, as well as to accord with the 
 feelings and wishes of the post-ma.ster, induced him to for- 
 bear. It may be asked, why then, at the end of thirteen 
 months, did he come forward v/ith the accusation ? An im- 
 pressive reason is given in the facts stated. Rutledge had 
 sent to Callender a letter, superscribed in his constrained hand 
 
. ( 17 ) 
 
 writing. Callender had given an answer, addressed to Robert 
 T. Snaith, and came forth in his paper with the foulest and 
 the blackest calumny against the President ; and Rutledge 
 had called at the office, and taken the letter addressed to 
 Smith. 
 
 If it be reasonable, when a crime has been committed, and 
 two had equally the means of committing it, to believe that one 
 is guilty, to whom some motive may be ascribed — where a 
 crime has been committed and but one of the two had the 
 means of perpetration, it is much more reasonable to believe 
 him guilty with whom alone the power rested. In all cases, 
 where the motives to the act and the means to accomplish it 
 are exclusively attached to one, it is full proof — we must believe 
 that one guilty. Rutledge had the motive — he had the means. 
 The writing is exactly similar to the anonymous productions 
 sent to the Editor of the Aurora, and the paper was delivered 
 to Rutledge in the Hall of Congress. There is not the least 
 similarity between Mr. Eliery's hand writing and the forged 
 letters — no one has ever suggested that they bore the least 
 resemblance of each other — he had not the paper — no such 
 paper had ever been in New England for sale — he had never 
 been in Congress — he had not been out of New England — he 
 could not have known the facts stated in the Aurora, conse- 
 quently he could not have been the author of them — once 
 more, he could not have forged these letters, he had no sample, 
 he had never seen the hand writing of Rutledge. 
 
 But the following irrefragible facts place the forgery, so far 
 as it has been insinuated against Mr. Ellery, on grounds too 
 plain to be mistaken. 
 
 1 St. Numerous articles in the same hand writing as the forged 
 letters had been for several years, and only during a 
 portion of time after the meeting and before the close 
 of the Sessions of Congress in Philadelphia, sent by 
 private messengers, and thro' the post office, for publi- 
 cation in the Aurora. 
 
 Sd. Those communications took place in 1797, 1793 and 1799 — 
 and the answers to the Editor of the Aurora, calling 
 for an interview, were generally made within the follow- 
 ing day. The writer must therefore have been in Phi- 
 ladelphia at all those periods. 
 
( 18 ) 
 
 3d, ^Ir. Ellery was not at Philadelphia, nor out of New Eng- 
 land from 1794 to 1801 — of course he could not be the 
 -writer of the articles in Philadvilphia in 1797, 1798, 1799, 
 nor give such an answer as the reference to General 
 Varnum, in the course of forty- eight hours. 
 
 Mr. Ellery was neither present, did not possess the means, 
 even if it could be presumed that he could have had any notics 
 of the kind. 
 
 Let us now for a moment consider the fourth and last 
 point of Rutledge's defence. It is this — that the testimony of 
 the postmaster and his son ought not to be accredited. I have 
 not questioned the character of any Avitness. I have not com- 
 mented upon the testiinony of r^Ir. Kinloch, who has volunteer- 
 ed in giving three depositions in favour of Rutledge. I have 
 not called the attention of the public to the strong solicitude of 
 Rutledge's friends to free him from the charge. Nor have I 
 examined the difference in feelings and interest between those 
 who wish well to ]Mr. Ellery, who stands acquitted of every 
 charge of impropriety, by shewing probable cause for his ac- 
 cusation, and those who wish well to the accused, who stands 
 trembling at the bar of public justice, and Avhose fame and 
 character are forever gone unless he can destroy the testimony- 
 presented against him. These are points which might well ht 
 submitted to public consideration — ^but do not so Avell become 
 that man who offers an impartial statement to the public, with 
 those remarks only which flow spontaneously from the consi- 
 deration of the case. — The postmaster and his son are men 
 of unspotted reputation. Indeed the reputation of the former 
 stands so high, that v,hen some of the friends of the late ad- 
 ministration attempted to get him removed from office for his 
 political opinions, other friends of the same administration, of 
 the first respectabiliiy, rallied round him, as a man of tried 
 and approved honesty and punctuality, and effectually skrcen- 
 ed him from the meditated vengeance. The cause of their 
 "Suspicion is both just and apparent-— vrhen one had seen Rut- 
 ledge drop the letter addressed to Mr. Gerry, in the disguised 
 hand writing ; and both had examined and found it to be his 
 writing — and when repeated other instances of letters in the 
 same disguised or constiained hand writing had excited their 
 attenticn—is it extraordinary that they should pay particular 
 attention to the letters addressed to the President in the same 
 disguised writing? Or can it be believed,- that after having for 
 years mailed all his letters to his numerous correspondents, 
 and received a number from him, they had not a perfect know- 
 ledge of his writing? But Kinloch has testified, that, when 
 
( J9 ) 
 
 Rutledge asked the elder Richardson, who brought the letters 
 to the office, Richardson replied that he did not wish to say- 
 any thing on the subject; that Rutledge rejoined that he 
 thought his a civil question ; and that, as they were going, as 
 he understood, Richardson answered that he did not keep a 
 record of such things and did not know who brought the let- 
 ters. Admitting this declaration to have been made, what 
 proof is derived from it ? Is it evidence that Mr. Richardson 
 is perjured? Is it evidence of a want of credibility in him? 
 No — The answer he first gave is an evidence of his persever- 
 ing in his wish and determination not to state his knowledge ; 
 and his last answer confirms the same opinion — " He did not 
 keep a record of such things." If he really was ignorant, why 
 did he first declare that he did not v.ish to say any thing on 
 the subject? Why did he afterwards declare that he did not 
 keep a record of such things ? Is this the plain language of a 
 man who has no knov,'ledge of the subject about vvhich he is 
 interrogated? Certainly not — the answers evince a disposition 
 to avoid the cpiestion and create upon the mind of the hearer 
 a belief that the person so acting is possessed of informa- 
 tion which he wishes not to disclose : and this in fact wfis the 
 situation of Mr. Richardson. By what authority could Rut- 
 ledge claim that or any other information wluch Richardson 
 did not wish to disclose ? Richardson had a right to elude the 
 question without its alTectlng his testimony — this has been de- 
 cided repeatedly in our tribunals of justice. — Once more, this 
 same Kinloch has testified to certain conversations with the 
 assistant postmaster, with a view to raise a doubt respecting 
 the testimony of that gentleman, not reflecting that his assi- 
 duity in favor of Rutledge — in consulting every person in New- 
 port — in preventing Gefi'roy from testifying — in giving three 
 distinct depositions himself, and crowning the same by a sup- 
 plementary letter — had placed his own testimony in a doubtful 
 point of view. This testimony of Kinloch the assistant has 
 contradicted and explained. No inference can be drawn for 
 or against young Richardson from the attempt or explanation. 
 
 Rutledge has clearly proved that he entered into posses- 
 sion of the house on Washington-square the 16th of July, 1801 ; 
 and by the testimony of a seamstress he has proved that she 
 had taken some work for the family at the same time — was at 
 his house, for about three weeks, as often as every other day — 
 heard them frequently complain for want of help, and did not 
 see any little white girl. The business of this female did not 
 lead her either to the table or kitchen of Rutledge — she there- 
 fore probably was not at his house, either at the place or at the 
 time most likely to see the servants. As for the complaint for 
 
( 20 ) 
 
 the want of help, it might arise from the insufficiency of both 
 Polly Osburn and Betsey Chapman for the service — they were 
 both small young girls and employed for a few days each, which 
 proves that either they or their employers were not satisfied. 
 But make the most of it, still from this testimony, one of the 
 girls might have been there on the 6th of August. Several 
 other loose circumstances are relied on, but the testimony of 
 Betsy Chapman appears to be the only thing material — for I 
 lay out of the case what has been said by one party or the 
 other about an attempt to bribe the witnesses — the proof on that 
 subject when examined amounts to nothing. She testifies, that 
 according to the best of her recollection, she went to live with 
 Rutledge about the last day of August ; and that she never 
 carried any letters to the post office, and was never sent any- 
 where with or for letters — hut ivas tivke sent to the post office for 
 neivs/ia/iers. Let it be remembered that this girl does not ven- 
 ture to ascertain the time when she went to live in Rutledge's 
 family — she only says t/iat according to her recollection ! — the 
 recollection of an illiterate young girl of eleven or twelve years 
 of age, after a lapse of fourteen months, and without any par- 
 ticular circumstance to strengthen it I — But mark ! One fact is 
 agreed, that is, that Betsy Chapman went to Rutledge's when' 
 Polly Osborn left there. Mrs. Osborn testifier, that her daugh- 
 ter lived with Rutledge, two weeks in the svimmer 1801, and 
 left his service, according to her recollection, about the last day 
 of Jidy — of course Betsy Chapman was there the fore part of 
 August. I think tlie facts stated by Betsey Chapman will shew 
 she was at Rutledge's at the time ; and, if I am not mistaken, 
 will shew a great deal more — they will shevv she was the iden- 
 tical person who delivered the forged letters at the post-office, 
 notwithstanding she denies the fact, which amounts to no more 
 than this, that she does not remember it. Her testimony re- 
 minds one of that bird, which to avoid the huntsman, conceals 
 the head and leaves the body exposed to viev/. She says " she 
 " never carried any letters to the post-office or any where else. 
 " She remembers hcm.^ tivice sent for nciusliajiers to the post- 
 " office" — Yes, she was sent twice, and but tivice to the post-office, 
 and there was no occasion but tmice to send a person not usual- 
 ly employed in that service — that is, when the two forged let- 
 ters were sent, one on the 2d, the other on the 8th of August. 
 But how did it happen that for z^w/ce, and twice only, Rutledge 
 employed this girl to go for nevjspapers to the post-office ? 
 Where Avas his body servant, who usually attended the office ? 
 Why, if she is correct, did he send one for papers, and as it is 
 presumed, another for letters, and possibly on the same prin- 
 ciple, a third with his letters for the office ? When Betsey 
 Chapman was going to the office, why Avere not his letters sent 
 
( 21 ) 
 
 by her ? Why was she not instructed to bring such letters as 
 had arrived for him ? Was she too young and ignorant to be 
 intrusted with his letters ? If so, why not order the servant who 
 was sent for his letters to bring his papers ? Would he have 
 been overladen, and did he want the aid of this puny gii'l to 
 convey Rutledge's mail ? Or did Rutledge, for twice, and only 
 for twice in his life, divine that the mail had brought him papers 
 and not letters, and so venture to employ this girl in the ser- 
 vice. Let him believe that has faith — for my own parti do not 
 believe in any such thing. Nor is his tnvice sending this girl to 
 the post office any mystery to me. It suited the nature of his 
 undertaking, to make use of persons not commonly employed 
 in that service — I cannot think that part of her testimony which 
 relates to her not carrying any letters to the office can be in- 
 titled to belief — it is not the mode in which people commonly 
 order their affairs. The post-master and his assistant testify 
 the letters were brought by a girl who declared Mr. Rutledge 
 sent her — she testifies that she was twice at the office, but car- 
 ried no letters — they are men of established reputation — she is 
 a girl of eleven or twelve years only, with no established char- 
 acter — on their minds the transaction made a strong impres- 
 sion — on hers no peculiar impression was made — .their recol- 
 lections are strengthened and supported by their memoranda, 
 made at the time — she had no memoranda, nor any thing to 
 refresh her memory. The public will decide whether, under 
 the circumstances, Betsy Chapman or the post-master and his 
 assistant are intitled to belief. 
 
 I have now completed the remarks on the defence of Rut- 
 
 { 
 
 ledge. Before I close the subject, it is necessary to state the 
 great points on which the accusation is founded, and on which 
 the accuser relies in support of the charge. They are these— 
 
 1st. The direct and positive testimony of the post-master 
 and his assistant, who have sworn to the fact — wliose testimony 
 is supported by their original memoranda, made on the days 
 the letters were delivered into the post office, and by the vari- 
 ous corroborating facts and circumstances heretofore stated. 
 
 2d. The paper on which the forged letters were written, 
 being delivered out to Congress, in the Isst Session of the last 
 Congress, when Rutledge attended as a member, form conclu- 
 sive evidence of his guilt. On inquiry it does not appear, that 
 any such paper vras for sale in Rhode Island, or ever had been ; 
 and it does appear that in other instances Rutledge has used 
 Congressional paper in vacation. We all know that our banks 
 preserve paper for the purposes of comparison — there was no 
 
( 22 ) 
 
 person at Newport Avho could have access to thispaper, excepting 
 Rutledge and Champlin. When we reflect upon this fact, that 
 the forged letters are the same hand writing with the anony- 
 mous pieces abusing Champlin himself, to such a degree that 
 decency forbids their publication, we may rest satisfied he was 
 not the author of the forgery ; and as they two alone had the 
 means, that is the paper, we must infer that Rutledge is guilty. 
 
 3d. There are certain expressions in the letters from 
 which it is reasonable to infer that Rutledge wrote them. The 
 writer speaks " of inaking the harvest" — this is the dialect of 
 a southern man — it is never heard from a Yankee. He speaks 
 "of gathering the harvest." Again, the v/riter speaks of the 
 Daily Rose and offers to send one to the President — the only one 
 growing in the state of Rhode Island, was in the garden occu- 
 pied by Rutledge. Once more, the writer mentions the price 
 given for the land which was bought for the accommodation of 
 the garrison. This land was sold to the government, by the 
 ladies of whom he rented his house. — It is admitted that any 
 other person might have used these expressions ; but we are 
 not to judge of what is barely possible. Our judgment must 
 be founded upon what is most probable. Being in the habit 
 of contemplating the beauties of the Daily Rose, his mind of all 
 others would be the most likely to offer the suggestion — be- 
 sides he was the only person who could make the present. 
 Being connected with the ladies who sold the land, he had the 
 most certain means of ascertaining the price at which it was 
 sold. Being himself a southern man, he was most likely " to 
 " make the haiwest." A harvest to be sure he has made-.— but 
 it is of sorrow, shame, and mortification. 
 
 4th. The exact similarity between tlie hand writing of the' 
 pieQfs sent to the Aurera, and the forged letters, forms additi- 
 onal evidence that Rutledge is the author of the letters. The 
 forged letters and the anonymous pieces were from the same 
 pen. Rutledge was at Liston's levees, balls, and dinners — he, 
 and he alone, of all the persons in Nev/port, could speak of 
 what happened at those entertainments — he was from South 
 Carolina — he knew that Harper had been a meniijer of the 
 Jacobin Club — he had resided at Newport, where Champlin 
 and his family reside — he knew vv'hat would inflict the most 
 severe wound upon the sensibilities of Champlin — he aspired 
 to become speaker afte? Dayton, and is well knov/n to have 
 been severely mortified at his disappointment — he knew what 
 had happened betv/een Gallatin and Otis — he was in the federal 
 •secrets — he therefore knew how to communicate all the niinu- 
 
( 23 ) 
 
 tije. Can any one longer doubt from what origin the Aurorft 
 derived its superior and surprizing knowledge of these things ? 
 
 5th, and lastly. I will make some additional remarks upon 
 the striking similarity between the writing of the forged let- 
 ters, and his acknowleged hand writing. To do justice to 
 the subject, without the aid of a fac simile^ is impossible. By 
 that, and by that alone, can the subject be brought home to 
 the knowledge of the inquirer. This may become necessary, 
 and in case it does, it shall be presented to the public. Indeed^ 
 as the question under discussion is of the last importance to 
 Rutledge, it would be a most desirable thing to have his friends, 
 and the friends of Mr. EUery, join in selecting some able artist, 
 tQ lay before the public, in fac simile, his acknowledged hand 
 writing, in various reports to Congress, and other writings, to- 
 gether with the forged letters and the anonymous pieces 
 addressed to the Aurora. As this is not done with svich means 
 as I have at command — I again repeat that the only dissimi- 
 larity is in the attitude of the letters. This dissimilarity 
 would arise from an attempt to disguise his vv'riting — not from 
 an attempt to counterfeit it. The peculiar characteristics of 
 his writing are to be found in every instance in the forged let- 
 ters — in his acknowledged writing every le1J;er "z" is dotted, 
 and near the line — the same is discovered in his forged let- 
 ters — his marks of punctuation are some way below the line 
 — so it is in the forgery — his " v" resembles the apotheca- 
 ry's mark for a drachm — it is so in these letters — his " you" 
 might as well be read " son'" — again the same is discovered in. 
 the letters signed Nicolas Geifroy and Nics. Jeffroy — when 
 tw'O " .s«" come together in his Avriting, they are generally 
 both small and swelled out at the bottom, so as to approach 
 the letter o— the same is discoverable in a variety of instances 
 in the letters. Indeed I might proceed tlirough the alph^et, 
 contrasting letter with letter. la the hand v. riting of Rutledge 
 . there is a great variety — it is therefore more diiTicult to coun- 
 terfeit — pi'obably no one piece of his writing Avould include 
 all the varieties to be found in the two forged letters; but 
 bring together a variety of his acknowledged productions, and 
 for every letter in the forgery you will find a corresponding 
 letter in his genuine writing, in every respect conforming to 
 each other — This cannot be the forgery of his hand writing — 
 How-should the various samples be procured? How would the 
 forger know when he had discovered the infinite variety of 
 Jlis writing? Or why should he not rest contented, when for 
 each letter he had a sample? The forged letters consist of 
 seven pages — in them there are more than two thousand words, 
 and more than eight thousand letters — of all this mass of 
 
 »> 
 
( 24 ) ,$^- 
 
 words and letters, not one word or letter can be found that 
 does not agree with the same word or letter in some of his 
 acknowledged writing — yet they are all written in a flowing, 
 easy, hand writing — not a single letter is mended — not a sin- 
 gle letter is to be found to which a second stroke is given.— 
 I cannot believe that man ever did exist, who was capable of 
 such a forgery. — A name — a note, or a bill of exchange may- 
 be forged — ^but I never yet heard of any man's attempting to 
 forge seven pages in sviccession. Much less did I ever hear 
 of the forgery of a variable hand writing for seven pages, so 
 naturally and so correctly performed as to have a resemblance 
 in every letter and yet not one mended. — Witnesses may be 
 perjured, but as Pilate said, " v/hat is written is written."— 
 It abides — it remains — it speaks for itself — it cannot be per- 
 jured. — To my mind, these facts afford evidence stronger 
 than the testimony of witnesses. It is conclusive — irresista- 
 ble — ^uncontradictable. It is " strong as {iroof of holy ivrit," 
 
 » FAC SIMILE. 
 
 As nothing can more conduce to the demonstration of the truth, than the 
 pubUcaticM of fac simile engravings of the ivriting of the forged letters, as 
 hinted at in the foregoing pamphlet, William Duane will undertake to have 
 engra'vings executed, if an adequate sum to defray the expence shall be subscrib- 
 ed, he will receive subscriptions for the purpose, aiul be accountable for the dc* 
 livery of a number of copies to each subscriber proportioned to his subscription. 
 This proposal ought to be accepted by all parties, as nothing can more tend M 
 the exculpation of Mr. Rutledge, if he is not guilty ; and the indifference or 
 opposition of his friends to the proposal will be very naturally considered as an 
 e<iiif/ence o/" apprehension at least. 
 
 A paper is opened at the book -store for the receipt of subscriptions— and 
 those may contribute who do not chuse to appear, by addressing their subscrip- 
 tions as above. 
 
 !0> 
 
 LEJc