New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1885-05-29
influence of the judiciary measure upon the course

influence of the Judiciary measure upon 'Ao O
of events.
The next count in the indictment against Aaanl'
is his share in the publication OF hutchinson r.
vate letters to Whately, and the use maue VI NJ.
by the patriots to Hutchinson's detrment' "hen
Franklin in London demonstrated against the ar
bitrary policy of the Grown, he was assureo wa
the most restrictive measures we're urgco
by Americans Of high standing resons -
the colonies In proof of this NUM-
Der of letters written by hutchin'on
and other Tory officials TO Whately, Member VI
Parliament, were placed in his hands. nc ""s
allowed to send them to America, TO DE reau' o
not copied nor printed. He sent them 10 Oushi"e'
Speaker of the Massachusetts, Assembly huan'
exhibited them in a secret session OF tha' oouS
They produced an immense sensation, 1or 'ney
clearly convicted Hutchinson and the OUTFITS u
conspiring against the liberties OF their country
Finally they were copied-it is not known oy "ho'o
acencv-and were given to the public. Mr.. Hosmer
roundly denounces not only the breach OF faith oy
which the letters were copied and printed but tine
use made of them against Hutchinson, his tender
ness for the royal Governor being quite as unreason
able and obtrusive as his bitterness against
Adams. "The completely of Samuel Adams
with the whole affair."" he says " is unmlstakaoie'
His name occurs constantly III '
course of the proceedings MS as
cendancy among the Wings at the moment was
at its highest" This is indeed reckless manner
of apportoning censure Adams must be guilty ol
something wrong because " his name occurs con-
stantly in the course of the proceedings u! Now In
spite of Mr. HOsmer's opinion to the contrary IL
seems to us perfectly plain that the Judgment Oh
the patriots of 1873 upon the Hutchinson letters
though somewhat infamed by the passion OF the
hour, was substantially just aud that the public
a. +;on Of hiSc psnOndeuCe,
Governor urged upon the Crown an abrdgment
of what are called English liberties in the province
of which he was an unworthy son, was natural ana
legitimate Nor considering the subject and char-
acter of the letters the official position OF ther
writer and the object they were intended
70 serve is il possible to claim for them the sanctty
of private correspondence merely because their
author wished them to be kept secret from the
people whom they chiefly concerned. Inc ques-
tonable points of the transaction are, hrst' no"
did Franklin obtain the letters and, second, Who
was responsible for the copying and publication
With the first Adams certainly had nothing to do;
and the responsibility for the breach of faith in
volved in the copying and publication has never
been ascertained. There is no testimony at any
rate to fix it upon Adams.
The further charge against Adams that he wrote
a speech for Hancock TO deliver Is too frivolous 10
detaiu u.s. Mr.. Hosmers final accusation is that
during the Massachusetts, debates on the adop-
ton of the Federal Constitution Adams tired
to dupe the psope into believing that the
amendments which he favored originated with the
popular Governor Hancock: The admirlng Mr..
WellsD he writes unconscious rs we have found
him before of any devious trckery, takes pans 10
show how Adams strove hard to produce IN his
hearers false impression" But Weiss narrative,
which Hosmcr has only abridged. is complete
refutation of this charge of fraud The amend
ments were drawn mp by friends of the Const
tuition to meet the objections of Hancock and
Adams, and were submitted 10 both these dis
tipguished lea1ers IN advance. Hancock agreed TO
present them in the convention, supporting them
by speech. and thereby of course he made them,
according TO the usage of all deliberative bodies,
his propositions. The only foundation for the
charge of false pretences on the part of Adams Is
that in debating the amendments he spoke
of them as "your Exceencys propositions
"although he well knew where they really came
FROM Pray by what other designation should he
have spoken of themi II he had not done just as
he did lie must have offered gratuItOus afront TO
his friend, violated parliam entary precedent and
decorum and proved himself a fool.
There is one feature of Professor Hosmcrs book
which deserves praise and that is the appreciation
of the importance of Adamss position as the great
leader Of the town-meetng-the institution from
which the most valuable part of our political sys-
tenn has been derived. The dea however, although
if is obviously in the authors mind throughout his
work. is not very well developed; for the book
| lacks literary art and in that respect indeed, falls
| considerably below the standard of the series IN
| which it has found place.