Litchfield enquirer., 1829-04-02

at the proper time, to be plared at the head of the military movements which 1t was fore
 seen would he necessary for carrying it into execution. In all this there was no overt act of treason."
 Without permitting myself to believe that you will cOuntenance any impUtatiOn against the honor or patriotism of my late venerable, parent, it is too obvious that the publication of Governor Plumer's letter and your commu- nicatiOn oH. c. Otis and others. pot only tend to such inpntation, but, moreover, add to it the sanction of your name.
 Under these circumstances, deemipc it a sacred duty to preserve the memory of my father from all stain, must also consider it my right to ask, that you will inforln me whether by the publication of Governor Plu-- Iner's letter. or in your cOmmuncation to II. G. Otis and others. an opinion is to be au- thOrized that you are in possession Ot any ev- idence. or that you believe the late A. H. consented to attend the alledged meeting of the leading federalists of Boston, or that he | was at auy time concerned in project to ef- feet dissolution oft the Union, and the estab- | lishment of a northern confederacy, or in any l manner whatsoever. I beg further to ask, sir, that if the indication in the paragraph of l your letter last above quoted of the individu- al to whom a proposal had been made to per-
 init himself tO be placed at the head of cer-
 tain expected military movements, refers to
 my father, you will furnish me with the eyi-
 dence upon which that indication and refer-
 ence have been made. .
 have the honor to be, Sir. your Ob't serv't.
 JAMES A. HAMILTON. WAsHINGroN, March 9th, 1929.
 James 4. Hamilton. Esq. Washington.
 Sir-In answer to your letter of this date,
 take the liberty of referring you to Mir. Plu-
 tner himself for an explanation of the state ment im his letter of the goth Dec. last.
 The information which l received in the spring of 1904 at Washington, was entirely l distinct from and independent of that of MT. Plumer. A part it was not that your fla l ther bad consented to be placed at the head of the project or to take part in it, but that it | had been communicated to him with view to engage his cooperation in it. in the event of necessity for the em- plOyment of military force for it's execution, it was contemplated that he should be placed at its head. My informant, to my best recol- lection, was Mr. Uriah Tracy, then Sena- tor from Connecticut-I say to the best of my recollection, because, at one of my con- versations with Mir. Tracy, on this subject. another member of Congress, also now decea- sed, was present and am not perfectly sure from which of them it was that I received this information. Alter the close of that ses- sion of Congress. being at New-York on or about the 7th April, 1904, Mr. Rufus King informed me that person had been that day cOnversing with him and also with your fa- ther, as understood Mir. King in favor of the project; hut that he himself and he was hap py to say, your father also, entirely disap- proved ofit.
 This is an the evidence that have that . your. father was made acquainted with the project; solicited by others to join it; and intended by them to be placed at its bead.- ' That he was said to have consented to attend a a meeting at Boston in the autumn of 1904, V stands upon other testimony than mine. That Q he ever assented to the project of separation.I E do not know or believe, and from the inform n ation given me by MT. King, had reason to s believe the contrary. !;
 With regard to my inferences OF belief f. from the testimony of Mir. PIun,er, wishing h, Q do all possible justice to the memory of h. 'our father, l cheerfully state them at your lesire. . F..-sa at ..g ,,~E
 I believe then implicitly the statement of c Mr. Plumer as made by him,-namely, that r, be scds int formed at the session of Congress in d 803-4, that your father had consented to- z attend the proposed meeting in the au- tumR of 18OSat Bost0n--and that in 18O4-5 a he scas informed that the meeting had been s prevented by your fathers decease-I believe i, also the fact that he had consented 10 attend il the meeting-But from the information given a me hy MT. King. Ibeleve, that in consentng | f to attend the meeting, your fathers purpose was to dissuade the parties concerned from the undertaking, and to prevail upon them to <, abandon it. My belief is founded upon my entire confidence in the veracity of Mir. Pl1. mer. upon the general coincidence of the in. formation stated in his letter, with that which l had cOtempOrane0usly received at Wash ington. and upon the remarkable fact men. toned by him, that he was told it at the sub. segwent session of congress, that the autum nal meeting at Boston had failed in ,conse. qucnce of the decease of your father-That the project was continued or resumed, not withstanding your fathers descease, until the Hartford Convention in 1874, I also believe.
 had further reason for believing that the project was disapproved by your father, be- cause it had originated principally from dis. satisfaction at the annexation of Louisiana to the Union, a measure, which from common report, understood was approved by him. l am with respect, Sir, your humble ser want, J. O. ADAMS, | Abduction cf Stephsnson.-Th Governor