The Massachusetts spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1821-1823, 1822-07-17

between the pflVate ietteT IeCei'eu i'Vaai o'iS
and the paper left at the department of State,
which have afforded such an ample field to
Mr.. Adams for the display Of the enviable at
tributes of his head and heart"
Mr.. Russell defends himself from the I'M
putation OF inconsistency in having subscribed
to doctrines and propositions which in his let
ter he opposes, ON the ground that he was
bound to scquiesce in the decision of the ma
jority, and to conceal from The British pleni-
potentisrss the fact of the disagreement a.
mong the American Commissioners.
I" lf Nh Adams does not agree with me in
this view ,f the rights and duties of minor
ity, he VIII only present another instance in
which wedifcr from each other in opinion.
/ did nit give silent rote, which Mr. Adams
says, sit may be did, after having said
that concurred with Mr.. Clay in opposing it.
{" did entertain, and expire at Client, the
/ opinions disclosed in my letters" and, if did
+, not disclose them Sc 10 The same erteni.r did
state then with sufficient precision and perspi-
! Guilty to elttle them to all the consideration
| which they might deserve"
! Mr.. Russell denies that he imputed TO his
SoHOdsuc's an OpIuiou tudt tiS hiUcPCh~
dence of he United States was derived from
the treaty of 1733"-he "simply said" that
he "cOua moi beIiere that the independence
of the lifted States was derived from the
treaty of 1882 &C In denying such deriva-
ton, although fairly inferrible from the doc
trine of Mr.. Adams, charged no one with
believing it,"
Mr.. Russell mentions that he had good
reasons for representing that his colleagues
"resed their claim to the fishing privilege,
on prescription :" and quotes several passa-
ges fnm letters of MIR. Adams, from which he
contc,ds the doctrine of prescription is fairly
= inferrhle.
After explaining another instance Of uis-
representation, as charged upon him by Mr..
/; Adam, he adds
Inave now, trust, satisfactorily explain
! ed the Inconsistencies and HSsue of misrepre-
senidtDns with which Mr.. Adams has with so
much Lightly and propriety charged me- To
| whom Inconsistency and Misrepresentation
i can bejustly Imputed, am impartial publick is
left 10 decide"
As t, his writing " secretly' from Paris, he
; says be was not aware that propriety or
etiquette required him to show to his col
/ leagues private letter. Mr.. Gallatin, and
! probably the others, wrote private letters,
which were never submitted to Mr.. RS i'm
speciien. lie then suhjoins-
/ q I
! Adam: appears to believe, a protest to be nee
esssr, to prove sincerity, that nothing which
| | have written was directly or remotely in
tended to ituputc either weakness, absurdity
| or treachary TO the majority; and to infer such
an imputaton from my letter would seem to
require mind distorted by passion; and " a
JEALOUSY that discolours every thing
| There was a difference land believe an
honest difference, of opinion between me and
so ne Of my colleagues, on certain points and
| hi reII II 10 Ur my duty ACT aCroruIng TO
my own, certainly had the right to state The
| grounds of my opinion to those to whom
| was Immediately accountable for my conduct.
| In doing this, | accused no one-aud if in en-
deavouring to prove that my opinion was cor
| rect, implied that the opinion of those who
differed from me was incorrect, did no more
towards them, than what, from the very ma :
ture Of the case, was Indispensable, or than
what they, in defending their opinion, must
| necessarily have done towards me. Mr.. Adj
ans, indeed, goes much further. He APP
pears to believe that Standardization cannot
be separated from reprOach. In conscien-
tious difference of opinion between fallible
men, who reason but to err, there can be no
Just cause for reproach-but pretended diff
ference of opinion between infallible men
must necessarily imply wiIful error somewhere.
! do not pretend to nfallibity, and sincere
ly pity those who DO. II may be less difficult
to some minds to abuse the man, than to refute
the argument. "Censure, repFoach and mis-
representation is, indeed, a shorter and easier
process"
still differ with Mr.. Adams on his doc
trine that the treaty of 1888, by reason of its
peculiarly, could not be abroSated by war.
| still differ with him concerning the rel
alive value of the navigation of the Missisip-
pi and the fishing privilege.
stiIl differ with him, in respect to the con-
sistency of his principle with the proposal
which was first decided On, and, after period
of three weeks, actually offered by ma jori-
ty.
I-shail probably continue TO differ with him
on these points, unless lie can produce other
and better reasons for my conversion than
those contained in his remarks"
Upon these points of difference Of opinion,
relating to subjects somewhat too diPlomatick
to be interesting to general readers, Mr.. Rus
sell argues al some length. 1t would not be
easy to condense the argument, nor is il ma
terial, as we apprchend, to the understanding
Of the issue, between these parties, now before
the publick. Without commenting, in This