“ from the scene, had bleynded all these together and made only one transaction of it; and passing from one to another unacquainted with the geography of the transaction, the Kanhawa had been substituted for the Ohio. here too arose the doubt whether it was not Greathouse instead of Cresap who killed Logan’s relations. the principal murder was by Greathouse at Yellow creek; but some of them had been killed a few days before by Cresap at Grave creek. the mistake of Cresap’s title, calling him Col ^o. instead of Cap ^t. I presume was merely an Indian mistake. I think I have observed them call those whom they deemed great men among us Col ^o. by way of courtesy. I suppose from the letter you inclose me, which I now return, that some chicanery is to be exercised on Logan’s speech, it’s genuineness, whether it was written in the Indian language, & by whom, but as to all this you can set us to rights. this gentleman begun as I am told (for I have never read a single one of his papers except as much of the beginning of the first as shewed me the stile in which he thought proper to indulge himself, and which determined me at once not to gratify him by reading what he wrote to give me pain) he begun it is said by denying that any such speech was ever delivered, by declaring it a forgery, & a forgery of mine &c.; he finds the current of testimony too strong to be resisted, and wants to see if he can take any hold on the circumstances of it’s being written or spoken, in what language, by whom etc. you have perfectly declared the cause of his taking up the subject. while his wife lived he never noticed it. for years after her death he never noticed it. but when it became an object with a party to injure me in the eyes of my countrymen, this, among other circumstances, was thought to furnish grounds for writing me down. they set this cat’s paw to work on it: and he has served them with zeal. I shall never notice him otherwise than by publishing the evidence I have collected, & correcting the text on the Notes on Virginia conformably to the more exact information of the historical fact. I shall delay doing this a few days, in hopes of recieving from you the deposition you are so kind as to promise. if this could be by the first return of post I should be glad because I must get these testimonies printed before Congress leaves this place. ”

The first issue of the Appendix was printed before May 8, 1800, on which day John Dickinson wrote from Wilmington to Jefferson: “John Dickinson presents his Thanks for the Appendix, and has been much gratified in perusing so complete a Vindication of a Character he has so long and so constantly regarded with high Esteem.”

Two days later, on May 10, Jefferson wrote to Samuel Brown: “ I am much indebted to you for your aid in procuring evidence on the subject of the murder of Logan’s family. your brother has explained to you what was thought best as to Gen ^l. Clarke’s deposition. I received Sappington’s declaration yesterday. I had already published & sent out the pamphlet which I inclose you. but I am now endeavoring to get this declaration printed to annex it to the remaining ones, & if done in time a copy of it shall accompany this . . . ”

A letter to Jefferson from Nathaniel Niles, dated from West Fairlee (Vermont), February 12, 1801, contains the paragraph: “. . . I duly received, and am much obliged by the apendix to the Notes on Virginia, altho the strictures of Mr. Martin, had not, so far as I know, reached this part of the country. I have not learned how he received, nor how he treated the apendix, but presume he must have been silent . . .”

The original autograph letters concerned in this Appendix, the letters from the deponents to Jefferson’s correspondents and the original autograph depositions (part of that of John Gibson lacking) are in the Jefferson Papers in the Library of Congress. There are, however, important gaps in the correspondence. Dr. Samuel Brown’s letter concerning General Clark’s deposition is dated September 4, 1798; the deposition itself is dated June 17, 1798. There is no mention of the reason for not including in the Appendix General Clark’s deposition nor the letter of Judge Innes of March 2, 1799. That there was a reason for the omission of Clark’s deposition is mentioned by Jefferson in his reply to Dr. Brown on May 10, 1800 (quoted above).

The same letter to Dr. Brown announces the printing of the second issue of the Appendix to include the deposition of Sappington which Jefferson had received “ yesterday” (i.e.