The Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1822-1829, 1824-07-20
rshei. On the ssth We Published The sub.

construction was put upon the rule of the
Senate, HuJ, fszusugfl ths kiatiness of a
. mriDbcr Of the HVssc vi Espresentati, rs,
no others bni mea,srrs aud officers al
ftongress brihs allowed tosenter the Office
: of the Secretary of the Senatel We obtain
, ed acapy of The documents, and an x
J tract from the Journal of the Senate
These papers AVE-. published, volumiDous as
they were, on The 2Sih--2gtb of May, as
$ We received them, with the exceptions,s VIZ.
that, being much pressed for room, we
omitted the c1unteE.projd of the British
Commissioners, WHICH, not being adopted ,
was not material, and Is not nov alleged 10
have been SO, and the Extracts from two
resolutions Of the House Of Representa-
tnes, one Of the glh ofFctruafy, 1921, tht
other 9th, 18th April, 1922, Inch, having
been before published, and only here intro
duced rs showing the corroboratlon
between the views of Congress, and
those expressed IN The President S Message,
W. did moi suppose IL be material. III IS
singular coincldcpce that the space which
those extracts would have OCCUPIED, WAS
in part filled by the official" account Of
the Caucus oftiIe Connecticut Legislature,
nominating the Honorable JouS QUIaCf
ADAMS AS a candidate for the Presidency.
This, bc'it remembered, WAS Saturday.
Ia the intermediate time between that time
aud Monday, we heard that the omission
! of these extracts were material. What did
we do then We did not, To be sure, fall
down upon our kness, aud and ask pardon
for no sin, but we did promptly, VIZ /; on
| Monday, put Into type, and on Tuesday
publish, in the National lutcillgencer, these
identical extracts, saying at the time that
we thought "e Tad published every thias
| material upon the subject, and should still
think so, had it not been otherwise suGg.s
ted by friend" viz. by that much respec
ted gentleman who hlls, WITH 50 great
proprleiy the situation of Chief Clerk IA the
Department of State. II this was not ian |
Apology" itcertaisly was apromp, attempt |
10 repair an omission, which, lfnlaicriaiwas
yet merely inadsertent. These omissions
are have never seen represented as "Iuten |
tional slpprcssions by the Secretary Of |
State" Or we should have certainly contra
dlcled the statement.
But, il secihs, we published summary |
Jf tine arguments against the Treaty, AT the |
same l,mc we published the documents
Now, with great Difference, we supposed !
II 10 be our duty In lay before otn readers, |
the people Of the United States, dH the III |
formation which We could obtain, IN rela |
ton To the proceedings of their government |
of which the Senate Is AZ much part ~
The Department State. Nor, bp that as il |
may, can we conceive how the publication
cnuld conflict with the views Of the EXecu !
tive. We should suppos. the rc,erse--Wc
had like 10 have sad, We are srrc II was |
olherwlse, because II tended TO show 10
Great Britain. H.. force of the resistance
which IL was necessary for the EX"Cufse |
To overcom, IN procuring the ratification oi
Tins Convention, even as qualified, aud
proved how much in earnest the ETrcu
i've was III pressing the ratification Of tt
The summary of arguments was obtained
from a member Of the Senate OF the United
States, and ,he publication was accom-
panied by these ameng other obscrsa
tlOas.
=" The ratification oftke Cenverticn was !
decidedly opposed, though strongly pres
sed by the President, by eogenf arguments
too, rs will appear from p,rusa of his
| Message" &c.
"fhe arguments in favor ofthc Treaty are
fully stated IN the Presidents Message and
the Diplomatic Correspondence. The ar
! guincnt5 said toha,c been urged, Ia Sen
ate, III opposition To the Treaty, were sub
stantlally as follows. We state them BOW,
ia Il the reader, who takes an interest in
the subject, may at once have eicw ofhe
" iole ground"
We rhclfu fully submit the decision to the
ubllc, whether W. did not do our duty in
making this publication, as far AZ regards
oul motive, and whether the happening
was not palpably theresut oi accident, and
not of design, as the write Of the article for
the journal insinuat"s.
With respect To the apology which ap
pears To have been expected from Us with
out being asked, we have only to say, that
10 apologize for doing wrong, under erro
| nfous Impressions, IS 20 us q sincere plea
sura. Not hrna sensible OF having com
miltcd wrong, we had nothing 10 apologize
for.
As TO our not having defended the Nd
ministration, il was because. after the raft
icntlon Of the Convention, we did not see
the occasion for it. The Secretary of State
is well aware that we did, pre-, ious TO the
ratification Of the Treaty, publish favor
able view Of its principle. Free discussion
deserves II elicit truth, rather than pcrvrrt
or conceal il and the Secretary cruld not
but be assured, that we should have been
proud To putilsh any exposition oi tue me
rits of that Treaty, which he, or any other
functionary, thought proper, especially as
the object of that Treaty had our mos,
cordia approbation--a sentiment which
will be found in the National lnIclligcncer
of Jun. almost contemporanrously with
the publication Of the summary of the ai'
guments against the Treaty in thc follow
Ing words:
4 "As far as our personal feeling On the
subject goes, we should have considered il,
under all the circumstances, an uufnrtu
nate incident, had the treaty been rejec;
ed"