Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1824-04-13
WASHINGTON April 8.
Gro. w. C'RuMp, D. c.


The Letters of Mr.. Oris in the defence of the
Hartford Convention are broughtto close, hav
ing occupied thirty or forty columns of each
newspaper in which they were published We
have not had leisure to read them throughout.
From what we hare read Ofthem, however, we
are enabled to say that Mr.. OrIs has bestowed
his best talents aud uncommon labor upon tho
subject. If the contents of the numbers on both
sides of this question; which were published in
in this paper some three years ago, arc rccol-
fected, our readers can have little absolutely
new to hear of the merits or dement's of the
Hartford Convention. One idea, however, sug-
s-estcd by one of the late writers in Boston
paper on thcsanc subject, is quite new. 1t is q
pity to abridge it.
/" Let it be remembered, That, although our
gallant lite navy performed prodges of valor;
though our brave MALTA at New Orleans, uu-
assisted as they were by the national govern
rlcuf, won iInperishable honors by their valor
vet was it to the influence wrought upon the
public feeling by The Hartford Conrcntio:s, ne
ihra any other Cause, that this destructive con-
test was brought to speedy termination, and
To them should we be grateful that Congress
is not perhaps, now sitting committee Of
Of supplies for the maintenance objects and arm
les, to prosecute the ware
The writer of this passage is marvellously
considering it is going upon ten years since the
IS destructive contest" was &c brought to
speedy termination" The Treaty of Peace
was signed at Client on the 24th December,
1914: the Hartford Convention met on the 5th
of December, 1914, and adjourned on the 5th
Of January, 1915. SO that, according to this
ingenious writer, the negotiations at Client were
influenced by Proceedings which could not have
become known there for three months after
the business of that Mission was concluded!
The Ambassadors from the Convention were
indeed met, at the Seat of the General Govern
ment, by the bearer of the Treaty of Peace it
self, which, happily for all parties, put end to
their mission.
With regard to the Hartford Convention, we
believe that, at this day, few even of those who
had full confidence in the political honesty of
the motives which led to it, are not satisfied that
its tendency was dangerous one, justly deprc-
catef at the time of it, and not proper to be JUS
tilted now, with view of its being drawn into
precedent hereafter. Between the late Pro-
ceilings of the Legislature of Kentucky, pro-
testing against certain decisions of the Supreme
Court, and the proceedings which gave birth 10
the Hartford Convention, there is no parallel,
as ia pretended in some of the late Boston papers
In the former case, ali the circumstances are
wanting which gave an Objectionable character
to the latter. LII should ever again happen, e.
ven iapeqce, that several states combine to act
for Themselves any point, particularly one OF
cxtrancous policy, sentence OF condemnation
would not fail to attend the transaction, whether
the states lay in the South the West or the East.
Suppose a bill laying excessive duties on Imports
we're TO pas Congress, and FIVE Southern States
were to coalesce for the purpose of taking the
collection of the duties on imports into their
.o,vn hands until Congress should repeal the oh
noxious act, would the Statesmen of the present
day, of any denomination, approve that act, II
not, then, motives and party feelings out of the
question, and as question of present policy
merely, the Hartford Convention ought not, il
appears to us, to be held up as Proceeding
deserving to be approved in history. The bal
lot box affords remedy for all grievances, to
which resistance is not justifablc and resistance,
it is now defensiyey contended was not propos-
ed by the institution Of the Hartford Convention.
G.Naf. Init