Litchfield enquirer., 1829-02-26

1 you that ueither nv scnee Of isistics por ne,
 self-respect does require 0fme to produce the
 evidence for which you call or tO disclose the Flames of persons, for whom you haze and can have no right to speak
 These considerations arpear,: indeed. to me
 so torcible that t is not without surprise. that
 l am comPg glled 10 belieYe they had escaped your observation. Ecannot belieee of any uf
 yon, that which am snre never entered tIts hearts Of some of yOsls slsat YeR Ah0nld have
 saserted the present naUllenl. for the purpose oi dtaWiag the into a c0ftfpSefsy not only With yOprselyts. but with others, yOli know not whpn--tf daring mo to the denOunce-
 inent of names, which twenty years since, f declined committing t0 the ear oE confidential friendship; and to the production ofeyidence which. although perfectly satisfactory to my mind, and peFiSesIy competent for flle foundation If honest md patriotic public eon-> duct, WAS adequate. in \ court of law neither fO thr copgiction oE tlse guty ,nor to tho i,is- |tieaiiun ef the accssset and 70 explicitly pro, knGaNced lgy anysGif " s . ,as sa Y6uaay that you 3is no iiesigr, nor yx;;sb to produce m effect on my pom tical party Or
 question whateyer,- to enter into vsn-
 dicationpf the measures publicly adopted and
 ayowcd by the persons against whom the
 above charge has been made. But can you
 believe that this subject could be discussed
 between you and me, as you propose, when calling upon me for n statement. with the asowed intention of refnting it. and not pro- d,ice an effect on any political party or ques-
 ton ? With regard to the public measures ofthose times andthe succeeding. which you declare to have had your sanction and appro-
 baton, 1t needs no disclosure now, that ra- dical and irreconciieahle difference of opinion between most of yourseIyes and me esexisted. And can you suppose that in disclosing names
 and stating facts, known perhaps only to my s.IE, could consent to separate them from those public measures which you so cordially approved ard which So deeply lamented? Must your own defence against these charges
 forever rest exclusively upon . solemn pro- testation against the natural inference from
 the irresistible tendency of action to the se- cret intent of the actor That statesman who believes in human virtue, should De slow 1 to draw this inference against such solemn
 asseyerations. I resdily admit but for the regulation of the conduct of human lie, tlie
 rules of evidence are widely different from
 those which receive or exclude testimony in
 court of law. Even there, you know, that violent presumption is equivalent, in cases
 affecting fife itself. to positive prnof; and in
 a succession of political measures thro' be-
 ries of years, all tending to the same result.
 there is an internal evidence, against which 1 mere denial, however s0lepn, can scarcely
 claim the crcdence even Ofthe charity that tbeiieyeth all [iTggys s-e ssT ~ l Letme add, that the statement authorised
 by me, as puhlished in the Nat. Intelligencer
 was made. not only without the intenti0n.but
 without the most distant imagination ofoffen-
 ding you or ofinjuring any one of you. But, 1 on the contrary. for the purpose of expressly
 disavowing a charge which was before the public, sanctioned with the nan1e of the late MT. Jefferson, iniputing IO certain citizens of Massachusetts treasoDable negotiations with
 the British government during Ehe s0Gv, and
 expressly stating that he had received infor-
 nation of this from mo. On the publication of this letter, deemed it ind,spensably due l to myself, and to all the citizens of Massachu- setts, not only to deny having ever given such
 information, but all knowledge of such fact.
 And the more so, because that letter had been
 published, tho without my knowledge, yet
 was well assured, from motives of justice and
 kindness to me. It contained declaration 1 by Mr. Jefferson himself, frank, explicit, and true, of the character of the motives of my I conduct, in all the transactions of my inter-
 course with him, during the period ofthe em- l bargO. This was 4s0iHs uPUn which his memory could not deceive him, point upon
 which he was the best of witnesses and his
 testimony was the more decisive, because
 given at moment. as it would seem, of great
 excitement against me upon different views of public policy even then in conAict,and pro-
 ducing great exacerbation in his mind. The
 letter contained also narrative of personal
 interview between himself and me in March 1 1908, and stated that had then given him
 information of facts which induced him to consent tO the substitution of the nOn-inteP- course for thS embargo; G also that had ap-
 prised him of this treasopa:le negotiation by
 citizens of Massachusetts, to secede from the
 Union during the war and perhaps rejoin after the peace. Now, the substitutiOn of the nOn-intcrcourse for the embargo took place 1g months after this interview, and at a suc-
 ceeding session of Congress. when was not
 even member of that body. The negotia-
 ton for seeding fron the Union with view to rejoin it afterwards, if it ever existed must
 have been during the war;, had no kn0wl-
 edge of such negotiation, or even of such
 design. I could therefore have given no such information.
 But in giving an unqualified denial to this statement of Mir. Jefferson. and in showing that upon the face of the letter itself it could ! not bc correct, it was due to him to show that the mis.statement on his part was not inten- tional; that it arose from an in6rmity of me- mory, which the letter itself candidly acknowl- | nd~.,A. Hh.k ;S hlan1aN e0~nEhar m snSNs~