Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1821-08-17
Fr.r Tic Nalioatl Ia.cIlir,ece-l

s
" Inc iul.0aiis" majority in the House Of Repre-
sentative tt at these rssoircs Imennng the
resolution '.o csci 'l Mr.. Mason, relative to suits in
the ciTcu 1. ~ le y. :. for the district of Ohio
against cc.5 l--= Oe that STATED d;sf;,c,l, sb.,rs
Wtat IS tse a ~ he 'pls IF The Democratic State Of
Nlo Iio7 F-r GO rms saiiect, respecting which an
sta'o 81 Gao. he Legislature adjourned the dav
ON wt'c!, e Scnate postponed these resolves True
,he Legislature did atliourn that day but il was an
ao'mmen. uptil-'0-moYo,r morning Il ii iras orr
~ 10 hS c.reHri1tGce, ro5a6iy that tie subject icas
CLi5JTen IN the Seote."
Some kind gentleman 1--WE need not say he
was federaiist) seems, very early, to have
furnished tha editors of the inte!ligenccr
with copy Of Mr.. Nasons resolutions. so
they were published at Washington even before
they could appear III many papers of New
Hampshire, with the Interesting canton. In,
Potcat Constitutional Proceedinr." We do
not complain of this, nor would we too loudly
hint that any body had personal objects which
should induce hlm to make such a PROMPT
communication to the seat OF government =
But we have right to complain OF the mis-
representations contained in the above para-
graph, which although it appears to have pro
ceeded from the pen OF Mr.. Gales himself we
viii hazard the bet Of our chance in being
appointed president, director or attorney in
the branch bank of the United States, was
written and forwarded together with the re-
solutions, by some person belonging to the
State OF New hampshire. Indeed the simple
word " resolves" adopted in this sense, oulv
in Connecticut and New hampshire proves
pretty clearly, that the comment, no less than
the text, was written by person educated in
one or the other of these States.
IN the first place we protest against the as
sertlon that MIR. Mason's resolutions express
ed the sense of the people of The Democrat
lc state OF New mpshirc"-becausc every
expression Of the voice of n. Hampshire. so
far as II has been ascertained BY any election.
has been against the doctrine that the United
States courts have in no instance committed
any real cncroachmcnt on the rights of any
States of the Union"
In the next place, it is a mistake that the
indefinite po5tponcmeut in the Senate was
owing to want of time to act on the resolu-
tons, and that they would probably have pass
cd had there been longer time TO consider
them. twas understood and expected t!,at
Judge Iiyermore of the Senate would be IA
vOrable TO the resolutions. That gentleman.
without giving his own opinion, stated at con
siderable length the arguments for and against
the doctrines contained in the resolutions
lie voted indeed against indefinite postpone
mcnt but he immediately after stated TO the
writer of this article, that he thus voted only
desiring to meet the question on their final
passage, being called % do which, he should
hare giUcn The entire resolutions his neouiire.-
80 that, had the final question been taken, the
majority against the resolutions would have
been at least QUO greater than it actually was.
NJ Hampshire Patriot.