[134]
Will you have the goodness to inform me how the derivation from the certified copy occurred?
My recollection is that the army was not at Centreville on October I, 1861.
If General Smith, as early as the 1st October, was engaged in a combination to undermine, his subsequent correspondence and intercourse intensify by the hypocrisy the baseness of the act. I, however, think it more probable that he was inspired and wrote the paper about the date of his signature, as set forth in the Mss., viz.: 31st January, 1862.
One purpose would be served by the early date, i. e., to make it appear to have been written very soon after the conference.
Believing a fraud has been practiced, I desire to learn the facts of the case.
I did not feel willing to write to Colonel Scott about this matter, and, therefore, trouble you, as one of the family of C. S. A.
Ever truly your friend,
Note from Colonel Scott on receipt of Mr. Davis' letter:
The date, October I, 1861, is that of the meeting, and does not appear on the document.
See note at foot of page 884. The (late of the paper from the completion of it by signature is shown on page 887 to have been January 31, 1862.
The record is printed from triplicate copy turned in by General Joseph E. Johnston.
Copy sent to Mr. Davis must have been from Beauregard's copy.
R. N. S.
On receiving this endorsement from Colonel Scott, Mr. Davis wrote me as follows:
My Dear Sir,—Please accept my thanks for your attention to my inquiry about the printed letter of S. G. and B., found in Vol. 5.
The explanation, you must permit me to say, does not quite cover the case.
The date at the top is added to the certified copy of the original and the date of Smith's signature near the close of the paper is omitted, and substituted by the date for the joint signature of the three, that being after the endorsement
