Lancaster gazette. [volume] (Lancaster, Mass.) 1828-1830, 1829-02-24

try by some person 10 WhOmlt was CASUAL
ly shown, as REASONABLE affair, or as indica-
ting the channel of reasonable correspon-
dence, as this Nova Scotia letter to Mr..
Jefferson. There is no proof that the man
to whom it was addressed was not friend
to this country and its government. Mr..
Adams SAYS that he was not" a Federal
Leader" and in point of fact, It's ascertain
ed that he was secluded and quiet citizen,
now deceased, whose name was never heard
publlckly, until it was in connexioh with
his correspondence, and whose person,
name, residence and letter, were absolutely
unknown to the leaders of every party, with
the exception of Mr.. Adams, and those with
whom he communicated. How incense
quential then, not to say ridiculous, to bring
it forward as proof Of reasonable connex-
ions and designs of Federal Leaders It's
distressing to think that this information
was communicated as something serious, to
men who were ready to seize upon "trifies
light as air." and use them" as demonstra-
ton strong" to injnre and degrade Massa-
chusetts. 1t was secretely conveyed to the
ears of Mr.. Giles, who IN both instances
when Massachusetts has furnished Pres
ident, declared himself in favour ola sep
aration from us. We have before us a doc
uInent, which proves that he made such
declarations in 1878. We ali know that
he has recently done it.
MIR. Adams says gentleman was even
spoken of as suitable military leader to
the band of insurgents; and then says GOT
all these proceedings the opposition to the
purchase of Louisiana was the key, the
Hartford Convention the CATASTROPHE Yet
afterward, eight or ten gentlemen, members
of the Hartford Convention, and the oppos-
ers of that purchase, assure US most solemn
ly that they never heard of, or suspected
any such designs-and these men, howey-
er they may be viewed politically, are. GER
tanly respected for moral and intellectual
qualifications. Can we believe they would
all perjure themselves? Yet if they, the
very key" Of the plot, are ignorant of its
existence, how can we suppose Mr.. Adams
obtained his knowledge?
The allusion to the dead and the insinua-
ton that letters may have been burned. and
memories turned treacherous, is we think
peculiarly unfair and ungenerous--it is
wounding men with invisible weapons. and
precluding the possibility of defence.
Mr.. Adams's letter is certainly the most
extraordinary specimen Of the equivucal
power OF aaguage-inunendoes are given
Tor proof, and assertions take the place of
facts. In Mr.. Adams's letter the term .dis-
oiution of the Union" is interpreted to mean
something different from what it does in the
original charges, and in common accepta-
ton. A design TO dissolve the Union we
have always understood to mean an inten-
ton to engage in measures hostile to the
Union for the purpose of dissolving it, and
establishing new nation bounded BY Ger
tain territorial limits. In this sense it would
be the motive or cause of a civil war, or of
resistance in some shape to the federal au-
thorities. But how does Mr. Adams explain
it ? He says that an opinion that an act of
the federal government was Unconstitutional
followed out by acts of resistance. puts
those that resist out of the pale of the con-
stitution, and is dissolution of the DIXON
the "whisky insurrection" was then aQis-
solution of the Unloni In this sense dissN-
luton would be consequence of resistance
or of civil war, though there was no design
to dissolve the Union can this be fair? we
think not-Mr. Adams certainly shifts his
ground. Mr. Adams hints to the sons of de-
ceased leaders, t at he has no reason to
think that their sires would have called for
names and evidence. This we understand
to signify that they knew too well whose
the names and what the evidence were.
The proper course would seem to be for
those sons to make separate calls upon Mr..
Adams, for to that this remark appears to
us to invite them.
Of the political aspect of this subject we
would say but little-not that we are slow
in forming opinions, or unwilling to tell
them freely--but because we deem such
dlcussion injurious rather than useful. We
were educated to think the Hartford Con-
yention "a most foul conspiracy
though years and observation have tanned
down this prejudice, we do still look upon
it as injudicious and as forming very bad
precedent. We are also inclined to the
opinion that it was unconstitutional, and we
take leave TO say that the argument whic h
the appeal contains in support of its consti-
nationality, is predicated wholly upon the
acknowledged right of the People, to as
semble in their own persons, or by their
delegates, to deliberate and TO act upon pub
lick questions, whatsoever and wheresoev-
err they please. We believe that meas
ure of this kind ought on grounds both of
law and policy to originate with the people
in their inherent sovereign capacity. The
Legislature are authorized TO make laws for
promoting " the general welfare" If the
power to send delegates to such meeting
as that at Hartford reside in the Legislature
at all, it is derived from this clause. Does
it mean the general welfare" of Massachu-
sets, or of some other State or States? The
question requires no answer If this view be
correct, then the part which some Districts
of New Hampshire took in the Hartford
Convention was constitutional, while that of
Massachusetts, of Rhode Island, and of Con-
necticut was not so. But we will say no
more on this part of the subject We wish
it might be permitted to rest. No man is
yet qualified either to speak or to hear i'm
partially upon the subject. Certain we are
that the people are not prepared to hear it
defended.