Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1830-1846, 1834-08-14

there was unanimous agreement on the
part Of those delegates, that at the ensu-
ing Convention, as little should be done
as possible, and no more than should he
deemed absolutely essential to the allay-
ing Of the public excitcment.--That nei-
ther forcible opposition to the existing
Government of the u. S. nor the separa
tion Of the New England states, were
ever proposed, or ever mentioned. sd,
because Mr.. Potter, who is referred to
by ID. J. Pearce as his sole authority for
the statement, does himself, conclusively
refute the story. After saying that he
never had any conversation with Mr..
Lowell, and never told any other person
that he had; that he never saw him to his
knowledge, and never had any cores
pondence with him--Mr. Potter states
that Col. Pickering, haping receired in
formation from .Nassochusetis, (he thinks
in letter from Mr. LOVELY that they
had appointed delegates 10 the Convention,
said that he hoped Rhode Island 'rould do
The same. This is Mr.. Potter's state
ment with his name signed to it. Is
there any thing here about n separation
of the States--any thing in the remotest
degree exceptonable or improper? But
this is not ALL MIR. Potter, in his letter
from Washington to James Rhodes, esq
written Oct 90, 1884, nt the very peri
cd Of the conversation with Mr.. Picker
ing, and now published by Mr.. Potter,
after expressing his opinion of the course
our General Assembly ought to pursue
in relation to the application which would
probably be made to them from Massa-
chusetts, proceeds to say--"they appear
TO hare no particular object in riew by the
proposed Contention, and they will find
on mature reflection that they have ia
ken very imprudent step, and whenev-
cr they can have the least pretext that
will save their pride they will retract."
This, very likely, was the truth, and it is
pretty nearly of the same import as what
IS said by Mr.. Lowell in the above ex-
ract. Here, then, is full refutation Of
The malicious story in the speech about
dangerous designs, and alarming COM
and declaration. He, (Mr.
Pearce,) states that Mr.. Potter in
formed him that Col. Pickering showed
him Mr.. Lowell's letter, which accord !,
ing to him, Mr.. Potter read and noted its
contents Now, in Mr.. Potter's own
which we published last week,
here is not a word Of this /; nor a word
rom which any such Inference can be
lrawn, but directly to the contrary; for it
appears that Mr.. Potter did not even re-
ollect, to certainty, that the letter re-
eived by Mr. Pickering, came from Mr..
-owell. And besides, the manner in
which Mr.. Potter, in his staten ent treats
he subject, is inconsistent with the idea
hat he had seen and read such letter
rom MIR. Lowell as is alleged by Pearce.
n Pearce's first story, 1--WE call it his sto-
y, because he was contented it should
Ass for his until it was refuted;) in that
tory Mr.. Lowell and Col. Pickering
we're implicated with others, in a charge
# fentertainipg dangerous designs, which,
it was said) MIR. l.. had communicated
o Mr.. Potter. To refute that charge in
II its parts, Mr.. Lowell states that he ne
er had been personally acquainted with
Ilr. Potter, nor had ever corresponded
With him; and Mr.. Potter having seen {
his statement, readily and frankly con- .
irms it, thinking it due (he says) to Mr. i
DWELL, as well as to himself The sim
lie facts that Mr.. Lowell and Mr.. Potter {
'ere unac quainted with each other and
ad never corresponded, were of no con-
equence in themselves, but ofgreat con-
equence to refute the charge against
lr. Lowell and Col. Pickering, Of en- I
ertaining dangerous designs, for which
urpose they were adduced by Mr.. L.
nd in this use Of them, Mr.. Potter aided
i'm by frankly confirming his, Mr.. Low I
ll's) statement of those facts, as an act Z
+ justice. And, if Mr.. Potter had not
'us, in express terms, falsifed and re- i
,ted both these libels--the last as well J