Newspaper Page Text
i
«
VOL. III.
M1LLEDGEVILLE, GEORGIA, TUESDAY, JANUARY 28, 1823.
No. 51.
PUBLISHED WEEKLY,
«r.S'. CKAVTLAXnSf R.M. OR ME,
On Hancock Street, opposite the Auction Store, 1
JlTTHRRK DOLLARS, IN ADVANCE, OK FOUn
DOLl. A (IS AT THE E.XF1RAT10N OK THE
TEAR.
O’ Advertisements conspicuously inserted
at the customary rates. Letters on business,
in all cases, must be tost paid
r- 1 - 1 " 11 ■■ *■ *■" —
FROM THE NATIONAL INTELLIUKNCEit.
LETTER FROM GEN. SMYTH,
To the Freeholders of the Counties of Wash
ington, H i/the, Russell, Tazewell, Lee,
and Scott,
Fellow Citizens : It i« notv about twen
ty-four years since one of the Represen
tatives of the State of Vermont was con
fined some months in it loathsome dun
geon, for having, before the passage ol
the sedition act, written a vindication of
his opinions respecting the official con
duct ofthe Executive of the U. States.—
Let us thank Heaven that those evil
times are gone by ; that the sedition law
is no more ; and that the Representa
tive may express to his constituents his
opinions ofthe qualifications and public
conduct of public men. If we would
preserve those rights, on the exercise ot
which all others depend, let us be cau
tious whom we select to rule over u«.
The election of Chief Magistrate of
this great nation, whose patronage a-
tnounts to many hundred thousand dol
lars annually, and who ha« power to e-
jeet from office all who will not s': nr>-
“ unless each, in its department, is inde-
“ pendent and absolute."
“ The English constitution is the rc-
“ suit ofthe. most mature deliberation on
“ universal history and philosophy.”
“ The Lacedemonian republic may,
“ willt propriety, be called monarchical,
“ and had the three essential parts of the
“ best possible government ; it was a mix-
“ ture of monarchy, aristocracy, and de-
“ mocracy.”
“ Unless three powers huve an abso-
“ lute vote or negative to every law, the
•‘constitution can never be preserved.”
“ Orders of men, watching and balanc-
“ ing each other, are the only security.”
“ Nothing has ever effected [protect-
“ ing the laws, liberties, and properties
“ ofthe people,] but three different or-
“ ders of men, bound by their interest to
“ watch over each o'Jicr, and stand the
“ guard run ofthe law.”
“ Tvr nnv will be the effect, whoever
“ are. the. governors, whether the one,
“ the fen, or the many, it uncontrolled ( ftn) with reference to the Rights of Mi
mies of reform, against an oppressed
people, tell them that they have delegat
ed all their collective power, and insult
them by saying that their tyrannical go
vernment 11 protects their rights, and
guards thei, liberties.”
It is worthy of particular remark, at
what tune these essays were written—in
June, 1791, when all the friends ofliber-
ty had high hopes ofthe happy termina
tion of the French revolution. Some
excesses, it is true, had been committed ;
hut it was not until January, 1793, that
(he King was put to death. At such a
time, to write against changes of govern
ment favorable to the rights of the. peo
ple, proposed to be effected by conven
tions, was au offence against liberty, that
the friends of free government ought not
to pardon.
As Mr. Adams complains that one of
bis expressions lias been distorted mil
misrepresented in the newspapers, I
will copy it. Mr. Jefferson having writ
“ by equal laws, made by common con
“ sent, an I supported, protected, and en-
“ forced, by three different orders of men,
“ in equilibria."
“ In America, the balance is nine-
“ tenths on the side of the people; in-
•• deed there is hut one order.”
L :ch are the principles which Mr.
Ada.os was taught by his highly respect
'd father. They inculcate that the Bri
ll government is the most perfect of
.ill governments. The executive branch
litical hallelujahs, (a power stormy used j of this admired government is a heredi-
during the administration of President I <«ry monarchy, in which the most de-
Adams,) is the most important that the bauched man in the kingdom may suc-
people have to mike. It is the duty of cecd a madman, and he himself he suc-
their political watchmen, their Repre
sentatives, to warn them, if danger to
their liberties is likely to proceed from
such an election. I performed that du
ty toward you, in afr.mk, candid, tempe
rate manner, in a letter which I did not
cause to be inserted in the newspapers,
but which was certainly not confidential.
1 find myself, in consequence thereof, en
gaged in a controversy, before the whole
nation, with one of the candidates for the
office of President, and called on to ac
knowledge error, or defend the cause of
truth. I choose the latter.
In my former address, I passed slight
ly over the connection of Mr. Adams
with a former President ; but Mr. Adams
teem- to be unwilling that it should be
thus slightly passed over. I admit that
the people of the United States, wlieu
they consider the recorded political sen
timents of President Adams, and that
fruit of his administration, the sedition
act, ought not thus slightly to pass it over.
Air. Adams speaks of iiis filial piety, and
doubtless the political principles 1 have
alluded to are indelibly impressed on bis
mind. I have extracted from a celebrat
ed misnamed political work, some of
those principles, and copied others from
the selections made by another hand,
and present them to your consideration.
“ I only contend,” says President A-
dams, “ tliat the English constitution is,
“ in theory, the most stupendous fabric
“ of human invention, both for the ad-
“ justment of the balance, and the pre
“ vention of its vibrations.”
“ Go into every village in New F.ng-
“ land, and you will find that the office
“ of justice of the peace, and even the
“ place of representative, which has e-
“ ver depended on the freest election of
“ people, have generally descended, from
“ generation to generation, in three or
“ four families at most.”
“ There are, and always have been,
“ in every state, numbers possessed of
“ some degree of family pride, who have
“ been invariably encou raged, if not flat-
“ tered in it, by the people.”
“ And if I should undertake to say,
“ there never was a good government in
“the world, that did not consist of the
“ three simple species of monarchy, art's-
“ tocracy, and democracy, 1 think I may
“ make it good.”
“ I shall shew that a nobility or gentry,
‘‘ in a popular government, not over-
** balancing it, is the very life and soul of
t‘ it.”
“ They [the essays of the greatest
“ writers,] are very much to our purpose,
“ to shew the utility and necessity of
“ different orders of men, and of an c-
“ quilibrium of powers anil privileges.”
“ The only remedy is, to throw the
rich and the proud into one group, in
“ an assembly, and then tie their hands.”
“ By placing them alone by themselves,
“ the society avails itself of all their abi-
“ lities and virtues ; they become a so-
“ lid check to the representatives them-
“selves, as well as to the executive
“ power: and you disarm them entirely
“ofthe power to do mischief.”
“ Democracy becomes tyranny. How
“ shall this he prevented ? By giving it
“ an able and independent ally in an arts
“ tocratical assembly, with whom it may
“ unite against the unjust and illegal de-
“ signs of any ene man.”
“From this example, as from all o
“ thers, it appears, that there can be no
“government of laws, without a balance,
“ and that there can be no balance with-
“ oat three orders ; and, that even three
11 orders can never balance each other,
ceeded by a female child, as chief ma-1
gistrate of a mighty empire, and in no j
responsible to its laws. The Se- ]
nate consists of upwards of three bun- 1
dred hereditary nobles, whose number
the king may increase ut pleasure ; to
gether with twenty six clergymen, of
the dominant sect. The House of Rep
resentatives contains three hundred and
thirty lour representatives of boroughs,
the most of which contain less than one
hundred voters ; many less than ten vo
ters ; and some no more than one vo
ter. The Parliament may continue as
long as they, with the King, please ; at
present the period is seven years ; it
has been some i nes one, and sometimes
three years ; but Parliaments have con
tinued twelve and eighteen years. The
King has a negative on the laws, ap
points the bishops and arch-bishops, mid
convenes and dissolves the. convocations
of the clergy. Such is the most stupen
dous fabric of human invention, and the
most perfect of all forms of government,
according to President Adams.
Mr. Adams, in bis paper signed “ Pub-
licola,” and wiitten in 1791, apparent
ly for the purpose of preventing any re
form in the British government, animad
verts on the work entitled “ The Rights
of Man,” written by Mr. Paine, in an
swer to an essay written by Mr. Burke,
who denied the right of a people to
change their government. Mr. Burke, in
speaking of the French revolution, af
firmed, that “ if the majority of any other
people, the people of England for in
stance, wish to make (he same change,
they have the same right ; just the same
undoubtedly ; that is, none at all." The
doctrine of Mr. Paine was different.—
He said that “ the end of all political as
sociations is the preservation ofthe rights
of man, which rights are liberty, proper
ty, and security ; that the nation is the
source of all sovereignty derived from
it.” That “ when a nation changes its
habits of thinking, it is no louger to be
governed as before.” He spoke the
language of our declaration of indepen
dence, and of our bills of rights. Mr.
Adams took up the pen on the side of
Burke, the advocate for established abu
ses, and argued* that, for the British go
vernment to call a convention would be
a flagrant breach of trust, and the abdi
cation ofthe authority lawfully commit
ted to them. They might, he said, dis
solve themselves ; but calling a conven
tion by act of parliament appeared to
him to involve an absurdity. “ It is
thus : “ 1 have no doulit our citizens will
“ rally a second time round the standard
“ of common sense”— Mr. Allans, speak
ing of this and other expressons, says,
“ They seem, like the Arabiaa prophet,
“ to call upon all true believers iu the
“ Islam of democracy, to diaw their
“ swords, and in the fervor oftheirde-
“ votinn, to compel all their roentrytnen
“ to cry out “ There is but one Goddess
“ of Liberty, and Common Sense is her
“ prophet.” This was a skirmish ofthe
wit of Mr. Adams.
Mr. Adams say* his opinion of PainS A:
his writings was not then (in 1791) ve
ry exalted. His opinion then was very
different, not only from that of Mr. Jef
ferson, but from oilier distinguished men
of that day, as well as from the opin
ions of the Congress ofthe United States,
expressed sifter the close of the revolu
tion. And Mr. Adams himself, in 1791,
has coupled the name of Mr. Paine with
that of Mr. Jefferson, and said, “ both
“ those gentlemen are entitled to the
“ gratitude of their countrymen.” Mr.
“ Burke spoke ol Mr. Paine as “ the au-
“ thor ofthe celebrated pamphlet which
“ prepared the minds of the people for
“ independence.” Lord Lrskine suid, in
“ 1792, 1 can only say that. Mr. Paine
“ may be right throughout, but that Mr.
“ Burke cannot. Mr. Paine bus been
“ uniform in his opinions ; but Mr.
“ Burke has not.” Yet it seems Mr.
Adams’s opinion of Mr. Paine was not
very exalted ; although he unites him
with Mr. Jefferson, and Lord Erskine
prefers him to Mr. Burke. Let us hear
the opinion ol' Congress.
“ August £6, 1783.
“ On the report of a committee, con
sisting of Mr. Gerry, Mr. Petit, and
“ Mr. King, to whom was referred a
“ letter on the 13th from Thomas Paine.
“ Resolved, That the early, unsolicit
ed, and continued labors of Mr. Paine'.
“ itrexpl lining and enforcing the prinn-
“ pics of the late revolution, by iuge-
“ nious and timely publications upon the
“ nature of liberty and civil government,
“ have been well received by the cilir
“ zens of these states, and merit the ap-
“ probation of Congress ; and that, in
“ consideration of those services, and
“ the benefits produced thereby, Mr.
“ Paine is entitled to a liberal gralificu-
“ tion from the United States.”
“ October 3, 17 C ft.
“ On the report of the committee
“ consisting of Mr. lloivel and Mr.
“ Long, to whom were referred sundry
“ ietters from Thomas Paine, and the
“ report on his letter of the 14th Sep-
“ tetnber.
“ Resolved, That the Board of Trea-
“ surv take order for paying to Mr.
“ Thomas Paine the sum of three thou-
“ sand dollars,* for the considerations
“ mentioned in the resolution of the
“ 26th of August last.”
Mr. Adams very adroitly attempts to
draw your attention to the exceptionable
writings of Mr. Paine, published subse
quent to the date of bis own essay, enti
tled Publicola; but they can have no
effect on the character of Mr. Paine, and
not,”§ says Mr. Adams, “ a mechanical j his writings, as it stood in 1791 : nor
“ horror against the name of a King, or! do they afford any apology for Mr. A-
of aristocracy, nor a physical antipathy
“ to the sound of an extravagant title, or
“ to the sight of an innocent ribband,
“ that can authorise a people to lay vi-
“ olent hands upon the constitution which
“ protects their rights and guards their
“ liberties.”
It is a singular circumstance, that the
enemy of reform whose arguments wore
most relied on in England, in 1792, in
opposition to “ The Rights of Man,” was
a native American citizen—Mr. Adams.
When the prosecution agninst Mr. Paine
for writing the Rights of Man came on
to be tried, the attorney general relied
on the arguments of Mr. Adams to prove
that, to write against hereditary govern
ment, the crown anJ parliament, was a
libel. The principles of liberty must
indeed be scorned and abhorred by that
American citizen, who, in a contest for
human rights on the other side of the
Atlantic should take the side of the ene-
’oes Publicolu, No. 5.
§ No. 4.
ams, whose object seems to have been
to discourage the progress of liberty, and
to lower the standing of Mr. Jefferson,
whose name he had no occasion to make
use of, if his sole object was to combat
the arguments of Mr. Paine.
1 now proceed to consider the expla
nations given by Mr. Adams, of those
votes from which 1 drew the conclusion,
that !.o opposed the administration ol
Mr. Jefferson, mid is no statesman. Mr.
Adams would not vote for the act to
bike possession of Louisiana, as he says,
because the second section was uncon-
* How partial is fortune ! The man who, by
his powerful pen, “ phekarkd iiis minus or
THK PEOIU.E FOR INDEPENDENCE,'’ Without
which the sivord could not have achieved it,
received three thousand dollars; and Mr. Adams
has received, as hus been stated, ncaily one
hundred thousand DOLLARS. For what ser
vices ? Ofthe diplomatic correspondence of
.Mr. Adams, during ids several missions under
the federal administration, so much has been
deemed worthy to appear in the state papers
as might make three common pages.
stitulioiial. That section provided a
temporary government, organized on the
principles ofthe former foreign govern
ment, to coutinue until the end of the
then present session of Congress. He
admits now that Congress have a con
structive power to pass such a law ; but
says tlie advocates for the bill could not
shew the power.
1 should have expected the advocates
of the bill to coutend, and a statesman
readily to assent, that beyond the limits
of the United Slates this nation has the
same power and rights that any other na
tion has beyond its limits , that the.se
rights can only be exercised by the go
vernment, either with or wilhoot law,
as the case shall require ; that the trea
ty-making power of this government is
as full and perfect as the treaty-making
power of other governments ; that Con
gress have power to make all laws ne
cessary and proper to carry into execu
tion any power vested in the govern
ment ; and, consequently, have power
to pass the necessary laws to carry into
execution the treaty-making power. I
should have expected them also to have
called in aid that clause ofthe constitu
tion which provides that Congress shall
have power to make all needful rules
and regulations respecting the territory
belonging to the United States ; and, as
Mr. Adatns says, that, “ ofthe power to
“ make the treaty,” he had no doubt, as
“ having been granted by the constitu-
“ (ton ;” I cannot perceive how it hap
pened that the advocates of tlio measure
found it impracticable to cotiviuce him
that Congress possessed power to pass
the laws uecessary and proper to carry
the treaty into effect.
Mr. Adams does not appear to have
expressed any objection to the provisi
ons of the act for taking possession
of Louisiana, as conferring arbitrary
power. He was opposed, lie says,
to any legislation respecting Louisiana.
If the treaty ol’cession had not changed
the rights ofthe inhabitants, they would
have no cause to complain of being, for
a few weeks, governed, as they had be
fore that time been governed ; and this
law, which Mr. Adams opposed, guaran
tied to those inhabitants what before
they did not pos.-ass, the fref. enjoy
ment OF THEIR LIBERTY, FRUPERTY, AND
religion. No tiew power was to be
exercised in Louisiana ; the powers
usually exercised there were restrained,
and the salutary exercise thereof en
joined.
Mr. Adams it seems, would have ta
ken possession of Louisiana, and would
then have taken the sense ofthe inliab
itants of that country, before he would
have passed any laws to have force
there. Well ; suppose Gen. Wilkinson
and his army iu possession of the coun
try and its fortifications ; the sense of
j the inhabitants is taken, and the various
| people from all the nation- of Europe,
like men of color, the VVashioangns, and
I the Indians, are brought to the poll, and
a majority of the whole number vote
against being subject to, or united
with, the United Stales. Would Mr.
Adams, as a statesman, have given up
the country, and lost our 13 millions ?
Perhaps Mr. Adams might have admit
ted that we had a right to the land ; but
even that could not be sold without legis
lating for Louisiana. The doctrine con
tended for by Mr. Adams will not do in
practice. We possess the same rights
as other nations, and the same power as
other governments, without the limits of
the state. War is a game, which, if we
should at any time play at, as we must
pay what we lose, 90 we shall take what
we win. But neither Ceylon nor Cuba
can become one ofthe Uoited States, by
treaty. That can only happen by the
consent of the American People in
Congress assembled ; fur Congress a-
lone has power to admit a state. The
President and Senate cannot, by treaty,
exercise a power, which the stales and
thejpeople have committed only to Con
gress.
It is worthy of special remark, that
Mr. Adams, iu the treaty negociated by
him with Spain, provides that the inha
bitants of tile Floridas “ shall be incor
porated in the Union ofthe U. States,
“ as soon as may be consistent w ith the
“ principles ofthe Federal Constitution,
“ and admitted to the enjoyment of all
“ the privileges, rights, and immunities,
of the citizens of the United States.”—•
We find no provision here for asking the
consent ofthe people of Florida. But
Ibis is not all. Mr. Adams was desired
by the Committee of Foreign Relations
to prepare a bill for the government of
Florida ; he did prepare such a hill, or
cause it to bo prepared, and sent it to
the Committee of Foreign Relations.—
The act founded thereon contains the
following clause :
“ Sec. 2. And be it further enacted,
“ That, until the end of the first session of
“ the next Congress, unless provision for
“ the temporary government of said ter-
“ ritories be sootier made by Congress,
“ alt the military, civil,, and judicial pow-
“ ers exercised by the officers of the ex-
“ isting government of the same territo-
“ lies, shall be vested in such person and
“ versons, and shall be exercised in such
“ manner, as the President of the United
“ States shall direct, lor the maintaining
“ the inhabitants ol'said territories in the
“ free enjoyment of their liberty, pro-
“ perly, and religion.” Such was the
form of government, prescribed for
Florida by Mr. Adams ; and, he tells
you, that against the perfectly regulut
exercise, for the purposes of the most
rigorous justice, of the powers thus pre
scribed by Mr. Adams himself, “ the
Halls of Congress, the slreetH of your
cities, the summits of your mountains,
aud the echoes of your valleys, have
resounded with clamors of violated right*,
and unconstitutional acts of despotism.”
For the grant of this “ tremendous pow
er,” as Mr. Adams terms it, his apology
is, that “ the pinciple had not been set
tled” iu 1803 : and that the powers of
Congress are now “ established by the
construction then (in 1803) given to the
constitution.” Yet he says “ were the
question now a new one, I have no hesi-
tation in saying, that 1 shall retain the
same opinion, and give the same " vote.”
And is this the true construction of our
constitution, that a single act passed by
Congress, establishes a power claimed
by that body, and makes it the duty of
every member in the minority to give
up his opinion, although if the question
was new he should retain it ? If this be
so, there is no real difference between
our constitution and that of England,
where, whatever has been once done,
may be constitutionally done again.
This is not such an opinion of the
paramount delegations ofthe constitution,
as ought to be entertained by one who
aspires to take the oath, to “preserve,
protect, and dcftfnd the constitution of the
U. States.”
As Mr. Adams so readily yields to pre
cedent, it is unfortunate that he was not,
iu 1803, intimately acquainted with our
statute book, or he would there have
found a precedent, not indeed exactly in
point, but one which I deem much strong
er than tlie act for taking possession of
i_.onsisana. In 1790, North-Carolina
ceiled to the United Stales her western
territory, and the U. States accepted the
cession. The territory contained about
90,000 citizens ofNorth-Carolina,whose
rights ceitaiuly were not less than those
of the inhabitants of Louisiana under
Spain. Congress, and the President,
Washington, without asking their con
sent, gave them u government, and pro-
' lie 1st of January, 1608, should be found
in company with Mr. Baldwin and Mr.
Jackson, (hi Senulois from Georgia, anil
Mr. Ellery, Senator form Rhode Island;
for Georgia then imported slaves, and
probably desired to continue in the ex
ercise of the pi ivilege ofimportingslaves
as long as possible ; and some very dis
tinguished citizens of Rhode Island have
continued the trade long after 1808.—
Although Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Jackson,
were friends to the administration ofMr.
Jefferson, it was not in that capacity that
they voted with Mr. Adams against bung
ing in a bill to suppress the slave trade,
ut as representatives of the interests ol
Georgia. I admit they were in the same
dilemma with Mr. Adams. He tulle you
that in 1803 he voted against bringing
in a bill to suppress the slave trade after
1-3 January, 1808, because, in his opin
ion, it w as unconstitutional. “ But the
principle having been settled, (hat the
” prohibition might be enacted in antici-
" pation,” he voted for the bill in Janua
ry, 1807. His vote does not appear by
the Journal ; hut it i* presumed that he
states it, correctly. Here another con
stitutional principle is settled with a fa
cility that shows how light constitutional
objections weigh with Mr. Adams.—
How was this point settled ? Why, by
a simple vote ot (he Senate alone, giv
ing leave to bring in the bill, and reading
it twice. Not even a vote of Congress
was necessary to settle this question, and
to remove the conscientious and consti
tutional scruples of Mr. Adams.
Mr. Adams is by no means justifiable
iu placing General Washington at the
head of those who, in 1789, denied to
Congress, for 20 years, the power to
prohibit the Slat e i rade. lie presided
over the Convention with his wonted
dignity, bat he took no part in forming
the Constitution ; and Virginia, one of
whose delegates he was, voted to pro
hibit the Slave Trade from the 1st of
January, 1800, instead of 1808 , but it
was decided otherwi-ie by New-Hump-
shire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Mary
land, North Carolina, South Carolina,
and Georgia.
I shall make no reply to the reasons
which Mr. Adatns has assigned for some
other votes which I disapproved, but
leave to you to consider those votes and
his reasons together. He is pleased to
say that my charges are groundless and
sent, gave them a government, and pro- unproved;to!. I he assertion that those
vided them with laws, in the making of c ^nrges are groundless, is certainly a9
-.li-l ,i— i---i *--- ' unfounded as any assertion that Mr,
w hich they had no share. Their govern
or and judges were appointed by th
President, some of them sent from III
original states, and vested with pow
er to adopt such laws of any ofthe states,
criminal rim)civil, as might be necessary,
which should he in force, unless disap
proved by Congerss. Now, I apprehend,
that, if Congress in 1790 had power to
legislate for the people of the territory
ceded by N. Carolina, a people accus
tomed to self government, and entitled
to all the rights and privileges of Ameri
can citizens, they had at least an equal
right to legislate for the people inhabi
ting the territory ceded by France. If
the U. States may govern American citi
zens without their consent, to prepare
them for self government, (as is now
done in all our territories) they might, in
like manner, govern the inhabitants of a
territory ceded by a foreign power, who
never possessed the right of selfgovern-
j merit,
I As to the printed speech of Mr. Adams,
j he may be assured that I never knew
j or heard that he hud delivered a printed
speech in the Senate respecting Louisia
na, or any other subject, before my
former address to you was written.
Alter the cession by France, and de
livery of possession to the United States,
the sovereignty either vested in them,
or in the inhabitants of tlie territory, of
all the classes and colors. In the Flori
da treaty, negociated by Mr. Adatns as
Secretary of State, “ IBs Catholic ma-
I jesty cedes to the U. Slates, in full rtio-
' pf.rty and sovereignty, all the terri
tories,” &c. According to the Secreta
ry ol State, the sovereignty passed to the
United Slates ; but according to Senator
Adatns the sovereignty of Louisiana
when it passed from France, vested in
the inhabitants of the ceded territory.
I As Mr. Adams has two opinions, I will
| take that which 1 most approve, apd
conclude that the sovereignty, aud the
Adams could make ; for the evidence
E 011 which those charges rest, are his
.. votes of record on the journals ofthe
Senate. His memoranda of his motives,
it they justify him in giving those votes,
are known to himself alone. As to pro
vocation, I admit Mr. Adams has not
giveu me any, other than that which is
offered to every citizen who sees a man
aspire to the Presidential Chair, whoso
long-fixed political sentiments be disap
proves, as highly dangerous, and from
whom he does uot expect the adoption
ol a liberal system ol policy, such as
becomes the only free nation, the
hope of mankind. 1 should consider
myself censurable it my opposition to
Mr. Adams arose from private pro
vocation. Mr. Adams himself says,
that public principles can be settler] only
by public discussion, lie ought, then,
rather to he gratified that an opportuni
ty has been afforded him for public dis
cussion. He says that he would have
been satisfied had I merely declared to
you my intentions, as to him. I doubt not
that the reasons which 1 have assigned for
my opposition are what chiefly interests
him. But, although Mr. Adams would
huve excused me trom offering the rea
sons which decided me to be opposed to
him, you would not have been satisfied
with a simple declaration that I was op
posed to him, without hearing the rea
sons (or such opposition. I considered
what you had a right to require, and not
what would be agreeable to Mr. Adatns.
I might here close my reply - but Mr.
Adams seems dissatisfied that I did not
adduce more of his votes given in the
Senate ofthe United States, lie affirms,
with apparent earnestness, that he ne
ver gave a vole either in hostility to (ha
administration of.Mr. Jefferson, or indis-
| regard to republican principles, or in
aversion to republican patriots. If all
this be so. it is unfortunate Shat the name
consequent power to regulate the com- j ^ r ’ Miould, during die first
rnerce of the country, v.a* iu tlie United ! ) e "' 3 0 “U sfil ' ice *u the benato, be so
sn TLo,- lono frequently lound united with Hid nat
States. There was no objection in 1803
1 1o tlie immediate prohibition of the im
portation of slaves from abroad ; for a
privilege to import slaves until 1800,
was reserved, by the constitution, on 1 v
to such of the original states as should
think proper |o use it. But, Mr. Adams
says, that slaves might have been brought
into Louisiana by the way of Georgia ;
it was therefore useless to prohibit then
being imported directly into Louisiana,
from abroad. If this is good reasoning,
there should be no quarantine regula
tions at our cities on the Atlantic ; for
the yellow fever may, perchance, be
brought by land from New-Orleans.
It is not at all remarkable, that Mr. Ad
ams in voting in 1803 against the proifitii
tion of the importation of slaves after
ly found united w ith thd names of
those who were the steady opponents of
the repuhlir.au administration, and of re
publican principles.
Oh the 2d of December, 1303, Mr.
Adams voted, iu a minority of 10,* n-
gainst the 12th amendment to the consti
tution of the United Stales, which pro
vides that the electors shall designate in
their ballots tor w hom they vole as I’n.
sideat, and tor whom as Vice President.
Thus he seen, to have approved of tie:
former provision, under which the feder
al party in Congress attempted to rnnke
Aaron Burr President, when not a single
vote had been given for him by the elec
tors, with intention to rniku him Presi-
* Aitain*
JPicier:..',
, Rutter, Deyton, (1 illli
Humor, Xruey, VVoll
iNC, Olroi,