The Massachusetts spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1821-1823, 1823-03-26

body in the Convention who desired
dissolution
2. Having thus proved that there was
somebody in the Convention in favour of
Dissolution, the writer next under
takes to prove that this somebody must
have been Mr.. Otis. Here again we
shall allow this writer to appear in his
own language.
If such views were entertained, who shall
claim the merit of their authorship Hon. Mr..
OTlS!. The Legislatures of three States only,
Massachusetts, Concecticut and Rhode-Island,
sent delegates to this Convention.-Meetin
in two counties in New Hampshire, of which
counties the Federalsts were in one a bare
majority, and in the other minority, sent each
one delegate. The Legislature of Connecti-
cut passed a resolution for the appointment of
seven delegates to consult with delegates
from the other New England States, upon
whatever measures might be expedient, "that
should not be inconsistent Uith The duty they
Otced 10 The gorernmsnt Of the United States."
Let any one contemplate these facts, and then
say if any other than Hon. Mr.. Otis and his
associates from Massachusetts, could have
proposed such subject for discassion.-No
member from Connecticut would have VEN
tured such proposition, when thus explicitly
restrained by those who deputed him. No
one from the small state of Rhode-lsand would
have haZarded proposition that would have
amounted to DECLARATION OF WAR A
GAINsT THE UNION. Still less would the del
egates from a few individuals in New Hamp-
shire have incurred such responsibility. The
delegation from Massachusetts,, then, could
ALONE have been its authors.''
Having thus shown that the Delegation
from Massachusetts were the authors of
the project, the next object is TO bring
the charge home to Mr.. Ous. 1t is done
IN the following sentences: t
" Would measure of such magnitude, in-
voiving consequences of such tremendous mo-
ment, have proceeded from any subordinate
Member OF the Massachusetts, Delegation ?''-
" The Leader of the Massachusetts Delega-
ton then, mast hare been ihe first ID propose
and support an the COarsatiOa a Dissolution of
the Union."!!
This argument requires no refuta-
ton. The simple statement Of it is
enough to bring into contempt the cause
in which it is used. We cannot, how
ever, torbear making one or two re-
marks respecting it. 1t has been seen,
that the writer has said, that no Mem
Der from Connecticut could have sug-
gested or advocated the project of
Dissolution, because they were chosen
by the Legislature of that State, for the
purpose of adopting measures, 9 that
should not be Inconsistent zvith the duty
they olved to the Government of the INIT
ed States" The fact, that the Legisla-
ture had passed vote of this kind, is
conclusive evidence that the Delegates.
deriving their power from that Legisla-
ture, would not have been found among
the advocates OF Dissolution. This IS
the writer's own argument, and we GER,
tainly think it good one. We then
ask our readers to look at the Centinel
of.the 9th inst. where they will find the
vote of the Legislature of Mo@acbu-
sets, containing a statement of the OBJ
ject for which they had chosen Dele
gates to the Convention They viii
find it to contain the following passage ::
$ To devise, il practicable, means Of secu-
rity and defence, which may be consistent
with the preservation OF their resources from
total ruin, and adapted to their local situation,
mutual relations and habits, AND NOT RE
PUGNANT TO THEIR OBLIGATIONS as
MEMBERS OF THE UNION"
The Delegates FROM Connecticut
were TO adopt measures "aot mcoastst-
ent 1gih the duty they ozgcd to the Govera-
me1,t of tie United States" The Dele
gates from Massachusetts were to adopt
measures "not repugnaat 10 their o6Iiga-
tons as Members of tisa onion" The
case is too clear to require comment.
If there be any force in the argument by
which the writer exculpates the Con
necticut Delegates from all concern in
any project of dissolVing the Union, the
same argument applies 10 the Massachu-
sets Delegates Was the writer igno-
rant of all this )? We do not believe that
he was. He has ransacked every cor
ner; he has studied every anonymous
essay in the most obscure newspaper,
from which he could collect any thing
which he could torture or atgtilHe into
evidence against the Convention; and
we do not believe that he omitted so OBJ
yious a source of isqalry as the votes Of a
Legislature respecting this subject. Ifhe
had seen this vote, what are we to think
of the honesty of a writer, who makes
a charge of this high and solemn nature,
kno wing all the time that there is evil
dence which, according TO has O;rn confes-
sion, conclusively dlsproyes the charge 3?
But again-we have seen that the
whole argument of the writer rested on
the fact, that the Report of the Couven-