resemblance to the style of Hamilton, as exhibited in his letters to Morris and others.

Alexander Hamilton was born in January, 1757, (Mr. Hamilton says on the 11th day,) was selected by Washington to act as his aid-de-camp, in the early part of the year 1777, (Mr. Hamilton says on the first day of March,) when but little over twenty years of age. How startling then the claim, that Washington, whose character for cautious wisdom and dignified self-respect has rarely if ever been equaled, and never excelled, should confide to a youth, however precocious, a portion of his public functions, so important, and of so delicate a nature as that of his official correspondence; and that too, when all thoroughly acquainted with the history of those times know that many of the great and wise patriots of the country, who started the Revolution, had ceased to occupy seats in Congress, and in a measure were succeeded by men wanting both the wisdom and patriotism of their predecessors, and frequently intermeddling with the affairs of the army in such a manner as was greatly to the embarrassment of the commander-in-chief. Congress at that time, rarely adopted a wise measure in regard to military affairs until lugged into it by the patient and perseveing labors of Washington, in his correspondence with them. Furthermore, he was not ignorant of the existence of the celebrated "Cabal," in which a number of its members were engaged, nor of its object. It came into existence in the latter part of the year 1777, when Hamilton was but new in his place; its members for a time cherished a sanguine faith in its success, but like the hopes of the wicked, it soon perished.

Mr. J. C. Hamilton seems to suppose that, because there are many letters in the public archives at Washington, in the hand-writing of his father, which bear the signature of Washington, this is conclusive proof that he was their sole and original author. Now so far is this from being the case, it does not in the slightest degree tend to prove it. The pub. lication of the writings of Washington, by Mr. Jared Sparks, shows what the common sense of any man would suggest, that Washington endeavored to preserve copies of all his official letters, whether written or dictated by him, during his command of the army. Very many of these were written, doubtless, in perplexing haste, and many with much thought and deliberation, requiring attention and review. All these, it is natural to suppose, would show more or less of erasure and interlineation, by way of correction. Every man, who is in the habit of keeping copies of his correspondence, whether of a literary or of a business character, may be confidently appealed to, whether it has not been his invariable practice

to keep for himself the original draft, and forward to its address the corrected copy. But if the hand-writing in which a document appears in the public archives is conclusive evidence of authorship, what are we to suppose when we find the originals of these very letters among Washington's own manuscripts, and in his own hand-writing? Must we believe that General Washington copied, with his own hand, the letters which his subordinates had written for him? We doubt whether even Mr. J. C. Hamilton is bold enough to indulge this supposition, though we must admit, if he advanced it, it would manifest scarcely less intrepidity than the claims made in his first volume, and reiterated and elaborately sustained in the preface to the second.

How many of the letters, signed by Washington, and addressed to Congress, to the Board of War, to other public functionaries, or to individuals, now appear among the public archives in the hand-writing of different secretaries or aids-de-camp, Mr. Hamilton does not inform the public. Doubtless very many; probably the greatest part of them so appear. But what does this prove with regard to the authorship of these letters!

Two volumes of Washington's official letters, commencing within ten days after his appointment as commander-in-chief, and extending to the 13th of December, 1778-embracing the period of four entire campaigns, were published more than sixty years ago. Some of these were professedly writen by secretaries, and appear with their signatures as such. As for the rest, we think it would severely test the discriminating facul ties of a more accurate detector of peculiarities of style than Mr. J. C. Hamilton has shown himself to be, to point out which of those signed by Washington were written by another hand. In fact it may be assumed with safety, that there never were an equal number of letters found in any one publication of epistolary compositions, so uniformly manifesting unequivocal evidence of identity in style.

Mr. Hamilton, in his preface, in a somewhat positive, not to say pompous manner, repells the suggestion that his object has been to exalt his father's fame at the expense of that of Washington. But we are still constrained to ask what other object could he have had? It surely could not have been to establish the reputation of General Hamilton as a writer of extraordinary capacity, force and elegance of diction, for all this both friends and foes accord to him, without a single dissenting voice. No fair minded man can read this book without having the impression forced upon him that the author makes out that Hamilton was the prime mover in every important matter-Hamilton did

this, and Hamilton did that! Nothing is left for Washington but to attach his signature to the various letters of advice and command which the aid-de-camp sees fit to write to Congrees, and to officials of every grade. Is all this true? Can a man who gives such an impression exonerate himself by simply saying that he means no injury to the fame of Washington? If anything can be more impudent than the original claim, is it not this lame attempt to apologize? We regret that such an attempt has been made by a descendant of Alexander Hamilton, a name which will ever adorn the annals of the United States, and be held in admiration for talents and statesmanship of the highest order.

We do not doubt that a far more exceptionable effort is to be put forth in the further progress of this work. We see it shadowed forth that an attempt will be made to attribute the principal, if not the sole authorship of Washington's farewell address to Hamilton. This claim, indeed, has already been made, founded on the unquestionable fact that a paper, very nearly a copy of the address, as published by Washington, was found among the effects of Hamilton, after his decease. This paper was cited by some of his surviving friends, and afterwards by his sons as they grew up, as full proof that he was the author of that celebrated and admirable production.

This claim, at the time, or about seven years after the death of Hamilton, drew forth a letter from Governor John Jay. It was dated in March, 1811, and was addressed to Judge Peters of Philadelphia, and may be found on page 336, of the second volume of "The Life and Writings of John Jay." In this letter, the fact of such a copy being found among General Hamilton's papers, is satisfactorily accounted for; and the claim of original authorship in Hamilton thoroughly disposed of and set aside.

That letter, not surpassed in force of reasoning or elegance of diction by any one in our language, states historically in regard to the real authorship of the address, that General Hamilton, a short time before its appearance, informed him that he had received a letter from the President, accompanied by a "valedictory address," which he requested him and Governor Jay to revise. A day was fixed upon by them for attending to the President's request, at the Governor's house. Hamilton attended according to agreement. He then remarked to Governor Jay, that on reading and considering it, "he thought it was susceptible of improvement, and that he thought it the best and easiest way to leave the draft untouched, and in its fair state, and to write the whole over with such amendments, alterations and corrections, as he thought advisable, and that he had done so, and proposed to read it, and make it the sub

ject of their consideration." The Governor then goes on to say, that they proceeded to consider it, paragraph by paragraph, until it met their approbation. Some few alterations were made, and the original manuscript draft, and the amended one, were then sent to the President. How far the President approved of and adopted the amendments proposed, does not, by Governor Jay's letter, appear. Probably the most, if not all of them, were adopted; for having selected the two ablest political writers in the nation, as the revisers of what he had written, he would be very likely to follow their advice. The manuscript in Washington's own hand-writing, finally sent to the printer, was, after his decease, sold by his executors. We have seen what professed to be an exact printed copy, with every alteration from the first draft exactly delineated; and if so, they were nearly all verbal alterations. Governor Jay, in his letter, not only gives an historical account of the action of Hamilton and himself in compliance with Washington's request, but with eloquent indignation and lofty scorn denounces in advance the assertion, if it should ever be put forth, that any one but Washington was entitled to the credit of being the author of the "valedictory address.” As the Life and Writings of John Jay were published many years ago, and the taste of the great mass of readers is directed to new publications, it may be expedient to give a short extract from the letter in question.

The Governor, in his letter, before giving the minute statement above cited, of the course pursued by Hamilton and himself in the revisal, succinctly, but in his peculiarly forcible and eloquent manner, speaks of the great achievements of Washington, of his ability as a writer, the great amount of his writings and of his surpassing dignity of character, then proceeds to enquire whether it can be credible that Hamilton, after receiving the "valedictory" for revisal, should send it back, and with it an entirely new one drawn up by himself, together with his advice to make use of it instead of his own. A supposed proceeding which he describes in the following appropriate language:

"Among those to whose judgment and candor President Washington would commit such an interesting and delicate task, where is the man to be found who would have the hardihood to say to him in substance, though in terms ever so nice and courtly-Sir, I have considered your draught of an address. It will not do; it is really good for nothing. But, Sir, I have taken the trouble to write out a proper one for you; and I now make you a present of it. I advise you to adopt it and pass the world as your own; the cheat will never be discovered, for you may

it on

* *

depend on my secresy." "If it be possible to find a man among those whom he esteemed capable of offering to him such a present, it is impossible to believe that President Washington was the man to whom such a present would have been acceptable. They who knew President Washington, in his various endowments and qualifications and virtues, know that aggregately considered, they formed a 'tout ensemble' which has rarely been equaled and perhaps never excelled."

If all this be not sufficient to silence the claim of Mr. J. C. Hamilton, that his father was the real and sole author of the address, surely a letter from that father to General Washington, published in the works of Hamilton, edited by the son, ought to be deemed amply sufficient. That letter, bearing date some short time before the appearance of the valedictory address in which Washington declines being a candidate for the then approaching election, begins thus-" When last in Philadelphia, you mentioned to me your wish that I would redress a certain paper which you had prepared," and then goes on to request that the paper might be sent to him as soon as convenient. It is not necessary to quote the exact language. Every circumstance being considered, no possible doubt can be entertained that the valedictory address was the paper alluded to in the letter.

Mr. J. C. Hamilton's claim of the authorship by Hamilton of that address, cannot be persisted in without involving a direct imputation of want of veracity of both the distinguished men whose letters have been cited. That Hamilton should retain a copy of the draft agreed upon by Jay himself, everybody must agree was perfectly natural and proper; if for no other purpose, certainly for that of seeing how far those proposed amendments were approved of and adopted by Washington. No one who entertains a just estimate of the character of Alexander Hamilton, can be found who will believe he would have suffered that paper to have remained unexplained, if he could have imagined that such an unworthy use would have been made of it as has here been attempted. The world, it is hoped and believed, will hold his fame above the taint of such an unworthy act.

The third volume of "The Spanish Conquest in America** has been long upon our table. This peculiar history is written for the special object indicated in the title-to show the relation of the Spanish Con

*The Spanish Conquest in America, and its Relation to the History of Slavery, and to the Government of Colonies. By ARTHUR HELPS. Volume Third. New York: Harper & Brothers. 1857. 12mo. pp. 532.