New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-07-24

Il seems strange think Of the great De
fender Of the Constitution going into court to
clear himself from the reproach OF having been
al any time IN his career inclined 10 disunion
Nevertheless. only two years before his reply TO
Hayne, Webster felt called upon 10 do this going
OUT OF his way to prosecute a libel against
himself what was meant 10 be only an attack
upon John Quincy Adams, then seeking a re-
election to the Presidency. This case. though
II stirred the little society OF Boston 10 its depth
has found no place in the biographies OF Web
ster beyond some indefinite remarks by Curtis
about the prosecution Of "a gentleman OF high
social standing" and Nj. Benton has done well
10 rescue from the court records and old news
paper files this account Of an interesting incl
Gent in our political history
The case was the outgrowth Of the lasting Bit
terness Of the Federal gentlemen OF Boston"
against Mr.. Adams for his failure TO stand
with them in opposition to the Embargo in
ls0s. Il highly inconsistent for Jefferson,
after having advocated the doctrine that disor-
der was not an unmixed evil in = republic, since
resistance 10 the laws good way OF telling
rulers that the laws were bad. and. after having
drawn the Kentucky Resolutions Of 179S. to de-
nounce as Insurgents the -Englanders
who were being utterly ruined by his weak and
foolish Embargo and Non-intercourse acts New
ertheless. when the issue was made between
Quincy Adams stood for the nation and de-
nounced the Federal leaders who were counseling
resistance to the oppressive laws and talking Of
separation from country which so misused
them. Their bitterness is scarcely TO be won
oered at Not only their commerce pros
trated, but the transportation Of their own food
was dependent on the pleasure Of the Virginia
President When the people OF Nantucket asked
leave TO bring in food from the mainland. the
srnuggled away what they ought 10 have kept,
else they would not be il want In communities
where the spirit OF opposition rife the Presi-
dent would not give individuals permission
transport merchandise except upon proof that
they had never said done anything TO coun-
tenance that spirit This sort OF espionage
seemed little better than British tyranny TO the
New-Englanders. and the Federalist irrecon-
cilables never forgave Mr.. Adams for his sup
port OF the administration and the war with
England
In 1924 they had chiefly supported Crawford
or Calhoun Mr.. Webster, who far from
being an i-reconcilable. though he had been in
full sympathy with the Federalists in opposition
10 the Embargo and the war. had favored Cal
houn, but as between Jackson and Adams had
allied himself with the latter. Others. among
them Theodore Lyman ir., an inheritor Of the old
FederaIist tradition. supported Jackson Near
the close of the campaign OF ls2s General Ly-
man wrote for The Jackson Republican" an
ticle commenting on q recent letter Of Mr.
Adams's, declaring that in 1SOS he did make dis
closures TO Jefferson concerning anti-unionist
movements IN New-England- Going further than
Mr. Adams General Lyman filed in the picture
mentioning by name the Federal leaders OF the
time among them Webster. as persons de-
nounced for treason by Mr.. Adams, and then
pointed out that, notwithstanding this. MI
Adams had subsequently accepted some Of these
men as his intimate friends The evident pur-
pose OF the article was TO indict Mr.. Adams for
having falsely accused men high in New-Eng-
land esteem Il was however. carelessly worded
and besides using the names, contained posi-
tive statement 10 the effect that MI. Adams had
made secret record OF those particular persons
In the archives OF the government as traitors TO
their country.
This Mr.. Webster chose TO take onence al
though General Lyman had been and afterward
became again his good personal friend BE Sc
cured the indictment OF General Lyman The
case was tried and the jury disagreed, having
stood IL was reported, 10 to IN favor Of con-
viction- II was generally admitted that the
prosecution was a mistake, growing. as Chief
Justice Parker said in his charge. out OF a point
of etiquette which prevented explanations that
might have satisfied both parties At this dis
two incidents of trial attract atten-