State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1831-1836, 1836-03-22

were aware, III lnc tlIne OF tlle convention,
of the existence of the bribery rumor, yet
we placed no reliance upon its correctness,
and made no public mention of it. More
over, in our remarks in the Convention,
touching Mr. Ilallett's course, we distinctly
disavowed any wish or intention to impugn
his motives. If Mr. Hallett had himself
furnished a precedent for such a course, by
repeatedly attributing unworthy motives to
lis and our friends, for pursuing the path
which duty, consis ency and honest policy
seemed to mark out could not find it in our
heart to follow such a precedent. Neither
expressed any unkindness towards Mr. Hal
lett. We say this not by way of apology,
but to apprize Mr. Hallett that he has alto
gether mistaken our character, if he takes
us to be one who would glory in doing
injury to any man wrongfully.
A word as to the other point in question.
For the newspaper or epistolary reports of
our remarks, we are not responsible. Our
statements relative to the nomination of Mr.
Van Buren, in Massachusetts were,
l. That the meeting was not duly notified,
and that consequently very few Of the Anti
masons, living out of Boston and its neigh
hood were in attendance.
2. That not few of the members of the
meeting were Jackson men, who had never
acted as Antimasons in previous meetings
of the party.
! 3. That the contrary vote was not taken,
though loudly demanded, on the question
of nominating Mr. Van Buren, and conse-
qucntly,
4. That the account of the nomination
given in the Advocate as the unanimous"
voice of the meeting, was calculated to give
a very erroneous impression Of the Massa-
chusetts nomination.
These statements were based upon au-
thorites, then and now believed to be I'M
questionable:
!. We had the assurance of member of
the late Vermont Convention, (who was in
Boston at the time of the Van Buren, nomi-
tion,) that our statements were correct A
number of members of the General Court,
boarding at the same house with our in
formant, gave substantially the same ac-
count of the matter.
( =. We had i'll our possession an extract
of letter, originally addressed to a gentle
man out of this State by leading ant;ma-
son of Massachusetts, who was represented
as having been for some years member of
the State Committee. Receiving by the
same mail letter from Mr. John Clark of
WATERFOWL, containing statements in some
particulars exactly corresponding with those
in the extract, particularly as 10 the wri-
ters conncXion with the antimasonic party
we believed that John Clark was the author
both of the extract, and of the letter address
sed directly to us, and so treated him. On
referring 10 MIR Clarks letter again, we
lind that the extract contained the state
ment used by us, and not the letter. MIR
Clark is therefore correct in saying that he
has not written to any man IN Vermont as
to the nomination in Massachusetts, We
suppose, however, that lis statement made
to an individual out Of Vermont, is as valid
ms though made TO n man in Vermont. MIR
liolIett, being good lawyer, can readily
decide that question.
3. Besides this uncon,radicted evidence
OF the truth OF our statements, we had the
concurrent reports of the newspapers in
Boston, which, so far as we have noticed,
remain unanswered by the Editor of the
Advocate.
we have 1t now in our power to intro
duce another witness, whose testimony of
itself would be sufficient, in the absence of
all the rest. That witness is the venerable
and veteran Antmason, EBENEZER
CLOUGIl, the glory and pride of the true
hearted original Antimasons of Massachu-
sets, whose honesty is proverb. In a
late meeting ut Boston, Mr. Clough is re-
ported as speaking as follows on the main
point we have been considering:
"The Advocate says there were 600
persons" The did not say Anlmasons) pres
ent in this Hall when Van Buren, was nom
mated. If there We're, there ,cere not 100
hands up for him. Yet these new recruits
would tan persuade the public that there
was but one hand up against them, when
the negative was called for. But hotc mann
tooHd hare been up If IT FAD BEEN PUT?
doubt u Pm Buren, ,0ould hare had a vote,
domination Notwithstanding there were
MORE L9CKSO.NITES THAN V.2N-
J BUREN, .l.NIIlL4SON.S PRESE.N"JIr