Portland gazette and Maine advertiser. (Portland, Me.) 1805-1818, 1808-05-09

your Excenency has brought or can bring
against me ! and thinking il proper that the
whole letter should tie known shall pub
lish Il entire Those who will be at the
trouble to compare the paragraphs YOU have
chosen to publish as extracts, with the let
er itself, will see that they are SO com
bounded, and with such alterations and ad
Iitions, IS to be, in TACT, studied IMPOSITION
on the public.
In examining your letter, / observe ma
~ extraordinary passages calling for ami
madvs sIon bot TO notice ali Of them,
would too severely task my own, as well as
the readers patience In my remarks, il
may sometimes be diG ult to adapt my Ian
gaage to the subject, without wounding the
public sense Of the decorum proper to be
observed in writing intended for the pub
lie eye. But it shall be my ehdeayour not
10 transgress that bound.
Your Excellency perceiving that doubt or
disbelief had arisen, relative to your asser-
ton, that you returned my first letter uh
read" seems resolved, in your last, TO re-
move all doubt, and TO enforce belief, by re-
peating, directly or indirectly, five or six
times that YOU did send il back unread
Now, plain man, conscious Of having told
The truth, would have rested on single as
sertion
You suggest that the governors cornrlu-
nication to the legislature "must Be always
IF something which he believes to deserve
their attention, and 20 BE- within their au-
thOrity as legislature !" but that you do
not conceive that my letter was within this
description" This opinion Of my letter yOa
appear 10 have formed since YOU acknowledge
that you have read Il. And how could you
undertake to decide that point, as by your
own statement YOU did, 4pffhou reading II !?
w az it not possible, was ii not Probable, that
in the actual state Of things, the iufOrma-
ton X contained might afford matter proper
for the consideration Of the legislature OF
Massachusetts,, relative 10 the embargo,
which was peculiarly injurious 10 that state
Will your Excellency maintain the ser,ile
doctrine that as frecmen they might not e
ven take into consideration their grievan-
css, resulting from the measures OF their
national rulers May not the Legislative
BODY Of state make known 10 the naticEal
legislature the sutierihgs Of the whole people
of state, rs individuals exhibit their pri-
waite wrongs Is il IL wtul for legislative bo-
dies only 50 far 10 interfere as 20 express
APPRECIATION, and never, however forcible the
call, their a. pnobatilR 81 natisnal meas
.srra, ~ making aPpiicatioh Tor change
Has your Excellency forgotten that, during
this very session Of Congress, as governor
Of Massachusetts land az YOU state, with
the unanimous request Of its legislature
YOU presented 10 Congress q strong memoir
Al in behalf Of some OF the citizens Of that
state who had been purchasers Of lands un-
der grants from Georgia , And did the es-
sentIal Interests Nj an her citizens, deeply
affected BY the embargo, less merit the at
tention Of your EXcelency and the legisla-
ture than the claims Of small TV1nSer OF
those citizens perhaps YOU will say that
the legislature had already adopted resolu-
tons approving of the embargo. True
and accounted for il on the suppositioR,
very naturally 70 5e entertained BY the leg
stature, That the assembled ygisI07a Of The
ia ion, az WASH srton, would not have a
dopted So terrible a remedy but for evils Of
the greatest magnitude, which an embar-
70 alone could avert Now the great de-
sign 1f my letter was, TO satisfy them that
the embargo was nUt, id tie national legIs-
iature, the offspring o. wisdom : for SrisLon
cannot exist without tnozg elge and still
affirm thai Congress were not informed Of
any adequate cause for the embargo and
therefore, inste& d Of implicit appreciation,
tile embargo demanded examination, and
perhaps remonstrancc, with 4 view 10 ct.
feet It's repeal
But you say /" Mr. Adams, my coIesgte,
IL qui,e Oppressed to ne in his opinion Of the
embargo lie voted for il, and still consid-
crs II wise measure, and a necessary one
You have his letters before YOU upon it."
True--he did vote for the embargo and /
must now ted yUur Excellency low he adj
vocatcd that measure. l. IS not willingly,
Sir, that speak Of him in an address 10 The
pubhck. Though ofen opposed IN opm-
ion, on rational measures, there has never
existed for a n8or.eht any personal differ
cnce between ua. Bun as YOU have now
contrasted Ills opIniun with mine, TO inval.
date my p0hlick statements you compel
me 10 relate the fact.
In my first letter informed your Excel
lency Of the haste with which the embargo
bill was passed il the senate, also in
formed YOU that :" a little more time was
repeatedly asked, to obtai7 further iufoy1lla-
nan, and ID consider measure Of such mo-
mcnt, Of such universal concern but that
these requests were denied !" and must
now add, by 10 one more zealously than by
Mr.. Adams, my colleague Hear his words
But even Your EXcelleHcy's strong faith in
the Presidents supreme wisdom may
pause, while independent men will be
shocked at the answer ct my colleague t.
those requests "The President (sald he
" has recommended the measure on his
" high responsibility would not consiae,
-" would not deliberate would 4ct.
Doubtless the pyesiuent possesses such
A" further information as viii justify the
"mcasure !" Need give 20 your Excel
lency auy other proof (rhough other proof
4bouhds) of " Lind confidence in our ru-
lers n Need ] give further evidence Of
" the dangerous extent Of executive inau-
ence i"-When the people Of Massaehu-