Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1824-07-13

sarbe the publication of the Documents re-
laiing TO the Convention for the suppression Of
the Slave Trade" To refute this allegation
let plain tale suffice.
The Convention with Great Britain was ra
titled on Saturday, the s2d May. On the
Monday following. the injunction Of secrecy
was removed, aud on Tuesday following
Nc stated the fact, with promise to
publish the particulars" in our next,
we should be able to obtain them
we were not able to obtain them, owing
| 10 tne construction put upon the order OF
'he senate, that the substance and not the
particulars Ut the Proceedings were To be pub
''shed. On the 26lh we published the sub
stance OF the Treaty, and the fact of its quail
neo fa''hcation, which, seeking the gratifica-
non oil our readers, we took much trouble tn
obtain. On that day different construction
was pun upon the rule Of the Senate, and,
through the kindness ola Member Of the
House OF Representatives no others but Mem
oers and officers OF Congress being allowed to
enter the Othce OF the Secretary Of the Sem
ate,) we obtained copy of the Documents,
and an extract from the Journal of the Seuate.
ihese papers we published, volumnous as
they were, on the 28th-s9th of Nav. as we
received them, with the exceptions. viz: that,
oe'ne huch pressed Tor room, we omitted the
counter-projet of the British Commissioners.
which, not being adopted, was not material,
and Is not now alleged TO have been SO, and
the Extracts from two resolutions of the
House VI Representatives, one IF the 9th of
February, 1891, the other of 10th April, 1892"
whicf, having been before published, and only
here introduced as showing the confederation
between the views of Congress, and those
expressed IN the Presidents Message, we did
not suppose to be material. 1t is singular
coincidence that the space, which those ex-
| fr ~ hay sid ell.
| by the official account of the Caucus of the
Connecticut Legislature, nominating Hon.
John Quincy Adams as candidate for the
Presidency. This, be it remembered, was
Saturday. In the intermediate time between
that publication and Monday, we heard that
| the omission of those extracts was deemed
| material. What did we do then We did
| not, To be sure, fa! down upon our knees, and
ask pardon for no sin, but we did promptly
W.; on Monday, put into type, and on Tues
day publish, in the National Inielllgencer.
these Identical extracts, saying at the time
that we thought we had published every
thin5 material upon the. subject, and should
still think so, had II not been otherwise sur-
gested by friend" viz: by that much res
pected gentleman who fills, With SO great
propriety, the situation of Chief Clerk in the
Department of State. If this was not an
apology" it certainly was prompt attempt to
repair an omission, which, ii material was vet
merely inadvertent. THESE omissions we
have never seen represented as g intentional
suppressi-ns by the Secretary of State" or
we should certainly have cOntr adcted the
statement.
| But, 1t seems, we published a summary of
the arguments against the Treaty, at the same
time that we published the documents. Now.
with great Difference, we supposed il to be our
duty TO lay before our readers, the people of the
u. States, atI The Information which we could
Obtain IN relation 10 the Proceedings of their
government, of which the Senate is as much d
part as the Department of State. Nor, be that
as II may, can we conceive how that publica-
ton could conflict with the views of the Exec
utive. We should suppose the reverse-we
had like To have said, we sure il was 9TH
erwise, because 1t tended TO shew TO Great
Britain the force OF the resistance which il was
necessary for the Executive to overcome in
procuring the ratification Of this Convention,
even as qualified, and proved how much in
earnest the Executive was in pressing the
ratification of it. The summary of arguments
was obtained from IA member of the Senate of
| the United States, and the publication was ac-
companed by these among other observa-
| tons
F" The ratification of the Convention was decided,
W opposed, though strongly pressed by ihe Presidents
Dy c0Sent arguments too, will appear from perusa
" The arguments in favor of the Treaty. are fully
stated IN the Presidents Message and the Diplomat.
ic Correspondence. The arguments said TO have
oeen urged ~ Senaie, iU opposition TO the Treaty
were substantially as follows. We state them now
that the reader, who takes interest in the subject.
may at once have rieao of he Iohoie !gro,o.d'
We cheerfulIy submit the decision to the
| public, whether we did not do cur duty in
making this publication, far as regards our
motive, and whether the happening was not
| papaGiy the result of accident and not of de.
sign, DIS the writer of the article for the Jour-
| na insnuates.
With respect TO the apology which appears
to have been expected from us without being
asked, we have only TO say that to apologize
Tor doing wrong, under erroneous impressions,
OF having committed wrong, we had nothing
to apologize for.
As to our not having defended the admins
tratiOn, 1t was, because, after the ratification
oflhe Convention, we did not see the occasion
tort. The Secretary OF State is well aware
That we did, previous to the ratification of the
Treaty, publish ia, orabIe view of its pIinci-
pie. Free discussion serves 10 elicit truth.
rather than pervert or conceal it and the
Secretary could not but be assured, that we
should have been proud to publish any expo
sition OF the merits of that Treaty, which he
or any other functonary, had thought proper,
especially AS the object Of that Treaty had cur
most cordial approbatoD-a sentiment which
VIII be found 10 the National Inieliigencer of
June 4, almost contemporaneously with the
pVolcaiIon OF the summary of the arguments
against The Treaty. in the following words
As lar as our personal feeling on the subjecr