OCR Interpretation


Virginia statesman. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1828-1829, February 25, 1829, Image 1

Image and text provided by West Virginia University

Persistent link: https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84038586/1829-02-25/ed-1/seq-1/

What is OCR?


Thumbnail for

voi M NO 7. WHEELING, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1329. WHOLE NO. 60.
■#KEl» EVERT WEDXE-.DVY MORM>C, BE
W JAMES CKEEN,
' -u Tj^tn's usd M Lure's Stuns, Main street.
—«•*».
• 1 ’.IS: Tw - dultars if p-iid in advance.—
I ; r.. a#ag«a
Pl VL4B l'.n ' K'. HANIBIM.', CARDS, T1CK
} vvi'v : ivri>o ci\( iatu eucuied
ROMANCE IN REAL LIFE.
We are indebted to a friend in England
: tilt- following interesting little narative
rh strikingly illustrates the remark of
cJ oi the circumstances, am! it is \ ery
.pitifully alluded to in one oi Mr. l!uz
t’s Essays; but tlie following is a minute
, d, we may add, an authentic statement
■ it was drawn up by a gentleman who
v the parties and was long connected
uh the noble family to w hom it relates:
• When the 1 tie Earl of Exeter was in
. minority, he married a lady of tlie name
1 family of Vernon, of Humbury, Wor
stershire, from w hom ire was afterwards
ivorced. After the separation had taken
xe, Lord Exeter, his uncle advised him
en the Hon. Mr. Cecil) to retire into
i country for some time, and pass for a
ute gentleman. He complied w ith the
inquest and took ins course into a retired
rt of Shropshire. There fixing his rcs
x for some time at aa inn in the small
in of Hodnct, he became liberal tt> an
mpled degree, to all about him. Some
r^ople in the neighborhood formed suspi
ctous notions of dim, surmising that he
tasa rogue in disguise, and accordingly
slu'aoed his company. Others took him
c aa Indian Nabob, or some eminent
personage in disguise, and frequently he
bard t.ie rustics exck.im, ‘‘there goes the
lotlemun.” Taking a dislike at his sit
lotion, he looked out for boaruuig ut some
firm house; bflt here again was difficulty.
Few families cared to take bim because be
m too line a gentletnau. At last, in cou
sidertitmn ol the liberal offers he made, a
irtner agreed to fit bun up a room. Here
tmtinued under the name of Mr. Jones,
;:r about two years, apparently contented
• th his retirement. He used occasional! >
ago to London lor a short time, tor the
pose, as tlie country people supposed, of
I v ting his rcuts, but m reality to re
ae the dignity and society of his sta
• Dunng this recluse life, time frequent
ly hung heavy on his hands, be he purchase
i some land with the view ol building up
«vit. The workmen were at first averse
to undertake it, and he did not choose to
oppose or expostulate with them, as it
light tend to a discovery. But on bis
nhhip's offering to pay a certain turn in
tivanee, it was agreed that his design
■ Hilt! be executed. About this time, too,
.V undertook the superintendence of the
' ad, the management of the poor’s rates,
tic. ail of which offices he filled with so
such skill and discernment as surprised
umI as ton is In d the neighborliood.
‘‘lie ventured also to pay his addresses
to a young woman, a farmer’s daughter,
iut was not attended to from motives ol
taution, not being know sufficiently to be
trusted. The person >t w hose house he
uved. being less scrupulous than the erst,
permitted him to pay his acidresses to his
Slighter, w hose rustic beauty and modesty
ie admired. And ulthough the maiden
placed in a humble lot, his lordship
»oa discovered that her virtues would one
•by shed a lustre on a more exalted sta
in On the farmer’s return from his la
r in the field, the Hon. Mr. Cecil (as
‘ r. JonesJ made proposals of raarraige,
:d craved the cousent of the female’s pa
rts. “V\ hat' ' excluimei^Mrs. Higgins
farmer’s wife, “marry our daughter to
- ilnc gentleman, a stranger! No indeed.*5
‘But yes,” replied her husband: “the
- ntleman has house and land and plenty
nwney, and there is no exception to h^
induct.” Consent being obtained, tin
atch was made up, and in twelve months,
>7 fee aid of proper masters, this charm
? young country girl became an accom
fiishetl lady.
“shortly after this event, the Right lion
yfownlow Cecil, Earl of Exeter, died, <\
nephew succeeded to his%He and es
;°a. This obliged htn to leave his mucl
WT*d retirement, and iiasten to town, lit
'o* his wife along with him, but sund noth
of her new honors and exalted station
h:s way be called at several noblemei
r,(l gentleman's seats, and at length ar
“d at Burleigh House, the seat of hi
ancestors, near Stamford. 'i'ht
^ Jd was lined with gentlemen and tenant
/’ Assembled to welcome their new lore
:i,i lady. They entered in ti.eir carriage
r )ugh the Gothic porch, which washuu|
roUQd with flowers and evergreens, nru
^sed up the avenue shaded by the ok
I “Oh.-’ said she, “wbat a paradis*
T ne Earl could contain hansel
0 longer, but exclaimed, “It is all thine
^,and thou art Countess ol Exeter!’
fell back in the carriageund fumtet
^ithjoy. They arrived at the house, hei
Adyship being recovered, and were wel
°med with every demonstration ot re spec
^ auction.
I “Ha 'ing settled his affairs tohi9 satis
faction, ho returner! into Shropshire, dis
|Clo?i d his rank, and placed hi* lather-in
law iu the mansion, that he had built in the
country, and settled upon him an anuity of
bve hundred pounds per annum. After
" nrds he took the Countess to London, &
introduced her to the fashionable i#or!d,
"here she was universally admired and
esteemed.”
HISTORICAL SCR APS.
Julius Ciesar fought 50 pitched battles,
and Killed one tuilhou and a half of men—
l or whose good?) Manlius, who threw
jd wn the Hauls from the Capitol, had re
ceived-24 wounds, and taken two spoils,
: >re he was IT years of age. Dent at us
fought l*J0 battles, was 30 tunes victori
ous in single combat, and received 45
wounds in front. lie had among bistro
pines <0 bei a, S murial, 3 obs'dionel, and
13 civic crowns. Cato pleaded 100 caus
es, and gained them all. Cyrus knew the
names ot all the soldiers in his annv; Lu
cius Scipio knew the names of all tiie Ro
man |x.o;ile, Chimedcs could relate all
he ever heard, in the same words. Julius
t asar wrote, read, dictated and listened to
tho conversation ofhis friends at the same
tune. A philosopher is mentioned by
Pliny, w ho being struck w ith a stone, for
j got his alphabet. A man reputed for his
stupidity falling from his horse, and being
1 trepanned, became very remarkable for
the sprightliness ofhis genius. The ora
tor C’arvinus forgot his own name. Mith
ridates spoke to the ambassadors of*22dif
ferent nations without an interpreter. Ju
! 1 us \ uitor lived to an advanced old age,
: without water or using any kind of liquid
nourishment. Crasus, grandfather of the
Friumvirassus, who was slain by the Par
jthrins, never laughed. He hud on this
j account, the sirname of Angelastus.
Consolatory Rt flections on Deformity.—
Deformities and imperfections of our bo
dies says B irton, in his Antimony ofMe
! uichollv, as lameness, crookedness, dt*af
| ness, blindness, be they innate or acciden
il, torture many men; yet this may com
| fort them, that those imperfections of the
; body do not a whit blemish the soul, or
i hinder the operations of it. but rather help
tV much increase it. Seldom, says Plu
i turch, honesty and beauty dwell togetlier.
How manv deformed Kings. Princes, Em
perors, could I reckon up, Philosophers,
Orators* Hannibal but one eye, Appius,
Claudius, Timoleon blind, Mulcasses,
King of Bohemia, and Tresias, the Pro
phet. The nioht hath its pleasure; and
for the loss of that one sense, such men are
commonly recompensed in the rest. Ho
► nier was blind; yet who made more accu
iate. lively, or better descriptions with
bo»h O'Va* Democritus was blind; yet as
L acinus writes of him, he saw more than
ill Greece besides; as Plato concludes,
when our bodily eyes arc at worst, gener
ally the eves of our soul see host. Some
{divines and philosophers, have evirated
themselves, and put out their eyes volunta
rily. the better to contemplate; Angenius,
Politanus, had a tetter in his nose, ful
some in company; yet no man more elo
quent or pleasing in his works. iEsop
was crooked—Socrates purblind, long
legged hairy—Democritus withered—Sen
eca lean and harsh, ugly to behold; yet
show me so many flourishing wits; such
divine spirits? Horace a little blear eyed
contemptible fellow, yet w ho so sententious
and wise? Galbathe enqteror, was crook
(backed; Epictetus lame; the great Alex
ander a little man of stature; Augustus
Caesar of the same pitch; Agesilnus despi
cabile forma; Uludisalus Cubitalis, that
pigmv King of Poland, reigned and fought
more victorious battles than any ot bis long
shanked predecessors.
V irtuo refuseth no stature; and common
ly your great, vast bodies, and line fea
tures aro sottish, dull, and leaden spirits,
What’s in them? What in Otus and
Ephialtes, (Neptune’s son in “Homer,”]
nine acres long? What in Maximinus,
A;v\, Caligula, and the rest of those great
Zanzummins, or gigantical Anakims, vast
burharious lubberst A little diamond is
worth more than a rocky mountain, w hich
made Alexander Aphrodisiseus positively
conclude, the lesser the wiser, because the
soul w as much contracted in such a body
Beanls.—Among all nations, beard*
have at various times been subjected to the
caprice of fashion.
The Creeks wore their hoards until tin
reign of Alexander, as likewise, the Ro
mans until the four hundred aud fifty fourtl
year of Rome.
It was ^cipio Africanus, who introdu
ced the custom of shaving every day. A
number of the Ern[*crors followed his ex
ample; but Adrian resumed his fashion o
wearing the beard, and his successors re
tamed "it until Constantine. It appearcc
"again in ihc time of Heradius; and a)
ifhe Greek Emperors preserved then
beards.
The Goths and the Franks wore bu
one rnustacluo.
f| (jIonian ordered all his subjects to sufTei
their beards to grow. Peter the great caus
jed his nobles to be shaved.
I The eastern eclesiastics never shaved
■ on the contrary, the clergy m the west al
ways did. All die ancient philosophers won
t long beards. Moses forbade the lsreahtei
C*to mar the corners of beards ”
In some conntrics the heard is consid
ered as a mark of grief; while, in others,
i shaving indicates the same.
A flowing beard is considered honora
I Me in the east, and no greater insult can
be ottered than plucking by the heard.
The constant necessity of shaving is
: certainly troublesome 6c could any means
i be discovered to prevent it, it would cer
1 tainlv be a very valuable acquisition. I
I have wished a hundred times u were fash
ionable to wear the beard here as in Tur
key.—What oceans of hither, what cart
loads of soap, what cargoes of razors
would be saved! But then the ladies,
' dear souls, how should our lips meet theirs!
They would scarce like the brush of a
; bushy face, and so we must even be com
' polled to scrape and cut our woe-begonc
jphizes.
Purity of elections.—I was reading
! Governor Y an Huron’s message to my
| uncle Toby, and when I had got through
that part where he speaks of the evil effects
! of employing money at our elections, the
old gentleman smiled and related the fol
| lowing anecdote:—“It puts me in mind,”
said he, “of a voung clergyman I once
j knew; many years since, who preached an
i eloquent sermon, in the course of which he
j took occasion to remark on the impropriety
of spending the evenings of the Sabbath in
social visits—a custom a3 he said, very
common among young men. You re
member the sermon, Trim!” “O yes,
vour honor, perfectly well,” said thecoi
I poral, “and the clergyman too; he was a
j sedate looking man, and wore spectacles.”
“Well, as I was saying, (continued my un
i cle) he had been preaching against the
evil, of going to see the girls on Sunday
j evening—when after service he took me by
1 (lie arm—come, says he, let us go to the
1 Deacon’s and spend tho evening with his
daughters—IIow, cried I, with much sur
I prise, is it possible you can make such u
1 proposal to me, after the sermon you have
just concluded? Pshaw! says he, I only
made those remarks in order that we might
have the hettcr chance ourselves.” Vi hen
my uncle Toby had conclubed, Corporuli
Trim and myself indulging in a .hearty
laugh. N. Y. Nat. Advocate.
CORRESPON DENCE.
BOSTON, Nov. 20, 1823.
To the Hon. John Quincy dants.
Sir,—The undersigned, citizens of Mas
sachusetts, residing in Boston and its vi
cinity, take tho liberty of addressing you
I on the subject of a statement published in
J tho National Intelligencer of the 21st of
J October, and which purports to have been
i communicated or authorized by you.
In this statement after speaking of those
individuals in this State, whom the writer j
designated as ‘certain leaders of the party
which had the management of the 8tate
Legislature in theirhands, in the year 1808,
and saying, that in the event of a civil war,
he (Mr. Adams) ‘bad no doubt the leaders!
of the party would secure the co-operation
; with them of Great Britain,’ it is added,
! ‘That their object was. and had been for
! several years, a dissolution of the Union,
and the establishment of a separate Con
federation, he know from unequivocal evi
dence, although not proveable in a court
of law.
This, sir, is not the expression of an o
pitiion as to the nature and tendency of the
measures at that time publicly adopted, or
proposed, by the party prevailing in the
State of Massachusetts. Every citizen
was at liberty to form his own opinions on
that subject; and we cheerfully submit the
1 propriety of those measures to the judgment
of an impartial posterity. But the sent
ence which we have quoted contains the I
; assertion of a distinct fact, as one within
your own knowledge. W c are not permit
j ted to consider it as the unguarded expres
! sion of irritated feeling, hastily uttered at a
time of great political excitement. Twenty
years have elapsed since tins charge was
first made in private correspondence with
' certain members of Congress; and it is now
deliberately repeated, and brought before
the Public under the sanction ofyour name,
as l>eing founded on unequivocal evidence,
I within your knowledge.
We do not claim for ourselves, nor even
for those deceased friends whose represen
tatives join in this address, the title of lead
ers of any party in Massachusetts; but we
were associated in politics with the party
prevailing here at the period referred to in
the statement above mentioned; some of us
concurred in all the measures adopted bv
i that party; and we all warmly approved &
supported those measures. Many of our
associates who still survive, are dispersed
throughout Massachusetts and Maine, and
could not easily be convened to join as on
f -the present occasion. We trust, however.
that you will not question our right, if not
I tor ourselves alone, at least in behalf of
I the highly valued friends with whom we
■ acted at that time, and especially of those
of them who are now deceased, respectful
t |y to ask from you such a full and precise
statement of the facts and evidence relatiug
• to this accusation, as may enable us fairly
to meet and answer it.
The object of this letter therefore is, to
; | request you to state.
First, Who are the persons, designated
«: as leaders of the party prevailing in Mas
s j sachusetts in the year 1S08, whose object.
! vou assert, was and had been for several
___;
[years, a dissolution of tho Union, and the
[ establishment of a separate Confederation?
and
Secondly, The whole evidence on which
that charge is founded.
It is admitted in the statement of the
charge, that it is not proveable in a court
of law, and of course that you are not in
possession of any legal evidence by which
to maintain it. The evidence however
must have been such as in your opinion
would have been pronounced unequivocal
by upright and honorable men of discrim
inating minds; and we may certainly ex
pect from your senso of justice and self
respect a full disclosure of all that you
possess.
A charge of this nature, coming as it
does from the first magistrate of the nation,
acquires an importance which we cannot
uflect to disregard; and it is one which we
ought not to leave unanswered.—We are
therefore constrained, by a regard to our
deceased friends and to our posterity, as
well os by a sense tf what is due to our
own honor, most solemnly to declare, that
we have never known nor suspected that
t ie party which prevailed in Massachusetts
m the year 180S, or any other party in this
state, hate ever entertained the design to
p ouuce a dissolution of the Union, or the
establishment of n separate Confederation.
It is impossible for us in any other manner
to refute, or even to answer this charge,
until we see it fully and particularly stat
ed, and know the evidence by which it is
to he maintained.
The undersigned think it due to them
selves to add, that m making this applica
tion to you, they have no design or wish
to produce au effect on any political party
or question whatever. Neither is it their
purpose to enter into a vindicatian or dis
cussion of the measures publicly adopted
and avowed by the persons against whom
the above charge has been made. Our
sole object is to draw forth all the evidence
on which that charge is founded m order
that the public mayjudge of its application
and its weight.
We are Sir, with due respect,
Your obedient servants,
H. (». OTIS,
ISRAEL THORNDIKE,
T. II. PERKINS,
WILLIAM PRESCOTT,
DANIEL SARGENT,
JOHN LOWELL,
WILLIAM SULLIVAN,
CHARLES JACKSON,
WARREN DUTTON,
BENJ. PICKMAN,
HENRY CABOT,
Son of the late George Cabot.
C. C. PARSONS,
Son ofTheophilus Persons, Esq. dcc’d.
FRANKLIN HEX I ER,
Son of the late Samuel Dexter.
MR. ADAMS’ REPLY TO THE PRECED
ING LETTER.
Washington, 30th December, 1*25.
Messrs. II. G.Otis. Israel Thorndike, T.
II. Perkins, William Prescott, Daniel
Sargent, John Lowell, Win. Sullivan,
Charles Jackson, Warren Dutton, Ben
jamin Pickmnn, Henry Cabot, C. C.
Parsons, ami Franklin Dexter—
Gentlemen—I have received your let
ter of the 26th ult. and recognizing among
the signatures to it, names of persons for
whom a long and on my part uninterrupted
friendship, has survived all the bitterness
of political dissension, it would have afford
ed me pleasure to answer with explicitness
and candor not only those persons, but
each and every one of you, upon the only
questions in relation to the subject matter
of your letter, w hich as men or as citizens
I can acknowledge your right to ask; name
ly w hether the interrogator was himselfone
of the persons, intended by me in the ex
tract which you have given, from a state
ment authorized by me and published in the
National Intelligencer of 21st October last.
Had you or either of you thought proper
to ask me this question, it would have been
more satisfactory to me to receive the in
quiry separately from each individual, than
arrayed in solid phalanx, each responsible
not only for himself but for ail others. The
reasons for this must be so obvious to per
sons of your intelligence, that 1 trust you
will spare me the pain of detailing them.
Hut. Gentlemen, this is not all. You
undertake your inquisition, not in your
own names alone, but as the representa
tives of a great and powerful party, dis
persed throughout the State of Massachu
setts and Maine: A party commanding, at
the time to which your inquiries refer, a
devoted ma jority in the Legislature of the
then United Commonwealth; and even
now, if judged by the character of its vol
unteer delegation, of great influence and
respectability.
1 cannot recognize you, on this occasion,
j as the representatives of that party, for two
i reasons—first, because you ha\e neither
I produced your credentials for presenting
yourselves as their champions, nor assign
ed satisfactory reasons tor presenting your
selves w ithout them. But, secoodly, and
chiefly, because your introduction of thal
party into tins question is entirely gratitu
ous. Your solemn declaration that yot
do not know that the federal or any othei
party, at the time to which my statement re
ters, intended to produce the dissolution o
the Union, and the formation of a new con
federacy, does not take the issue, which
your own statement of my charge (as voi
are pleased to consider it/has tendered.—
The statement authorized by me, spoke, not
of the federal party, but of certain leaders of
that party. In my own letters tothe Mem
bers of Congress, who did me the honor at
that agonizing crisis toour National Union,
of soliciting my confidential opinions upon
measures under deliberation, I expressly
acquitted the great body of the federal par
ty, not only of participating in the secret
I designs of those leaders, but even of being
privy to or believing in their existence. 1
now cheerfully repeat that declaration. I
well know that the party were not prepared
for that convulsion, to which the measures
and designs of their leaders were instigat
ing them; and my extreme anxiety for the
substitution of the nonmtcrcourso for the
embargo arose from the imminent danger,
that the continuance and enforcement of
this latter measure would promote the
views of those leaders, by goading a ma
jority of the people and of the legislature
to the pitch of physical resistance, by stale
authority, against the execution of the Laws
of the Union; the only etlectuul means by
which the Union could be dissolved. Your
modesty has prompted you to disclaim the
character of leaders of the federal party at
! that time. If I am to consider this os more
than a mere disavowal of form, I must gay
! that the charge, which I lament to see has
I excited so much of your sensibility, had
■ no reference to any of you.
Your avowed object is controversy,—
You call for a precise statement of tacts
and evidence; not affecting, so fur as you
I know, any of you, but to enable you fairly
to meet and to answer it.
And you demand,
1. Who are the persons designated as
! leaders of the party prevailing m Massa
chusetts in the year lt^OS, whose object I
, assert was, and had bseu, for several years,
j a dissolution of the Union, and fhe estab
lishment of a separate confederacy ? and
2. The whole evidence, on which that
i charge is founded.
I ou observe that it is admitted, in the
statement of the charge, that it is not
proveable in a court of law, and your in
ference is, that I am of course not in pos
session of any legal evidence, by which to
. maintain it. Yet you call upon me to
' name the persons aflected by the charge; a
[charge in your estimation deeply stigma
tising upon those persons; and you permit
yourselves to remind me, that my sense of
justice and ielf-respect oblige mo to disclose
all that I do possess. My sense of justice
to you, gentlemen, induces me to remark,
that 1 leave your self-respect to the moral
influences of you own minds, without pre
suming to measure it by the dictation of
mine.
Suppose, then, that in compliance with
i your call, I should name one, two or three
persons, as intended to be included in the
charge. Suppose neither of those persons
to be one of you. You however have giv
en them notice, that I have no evidence a
gainst them, by which the charge is prove
! able in a court of law’—and you know that
I, as well as yourselves, am amenable to
the laws of the land. Does your self-re
spect convince you that the persons so
named, if guilty, would furnish the evidence
against themselves, which they have been
notified that 1 do not possess? Are you
j sure that the correspondence, which would
prove their guilt may not in the lapse of2“»
I years have been committed to the flames!
, In these days of failing and of treacherous
; memories, may they not have forgotten that
any sucn correspondence ever existed?—
| And have you any guarantee to offer, that
! I should not be called by a summons more
I imperative than yours, to produce in the
I temple of justice the prouf, which you say
I have not, or be branded for a foul and
j malignant slanderer of spotless anil per*
: secuted virtue? Is it not besides imagina
' ble that persons may exist, who though
twenty-five years since driven in the despe
ration of disappointment, to the meditation
and preparation of measures tending to the
dissolution of the Union, perceived after
wards the error ol their ways, and would
now gladly wash out from their own memo
ries their participation in projects, upon
I which the stamp of indelible reprobation
i has passed? Is it not possible that wine of
j the conspirators have been called to ac
count before a higher than an earthly tribu
nal for all the good and evil of their lives;
and whose reputations might now suffer
needlessly by the disclosure of their names?
I put these cases to you, gentlemen, as
: possible, to show'you that neither my sense
of justice nor my self-respect does require
j ot me to produce the evidence for which you
call, or disclose the names of persons, for
whom you have and can have no right to
1 speak.
These considerations appear indeed to
! me so forcible, that it is not w ithout sur
prise, that I am compelled to believe that
they liad escaped your observation. I can
not believe of any of you that which I am
1 sure never entered the hearts of some of
| you, that you should 1iavc selected the
; present moment, for the purpose of draw
ing me into a controversy not only with
i yourselves, hut with others, you know not
whom—of daring me to the denouncement
of names which twenty years since I de
i chned committing to the car of confidential
friendship; and to the production of evi
dence which, though*perfectly satisfactory
to my own mind, and perfectly competent
i j for the foundation of honest and patriotic
public conduct, was adequate in a court oi
law neither to the conviction of the guilty,
__ -Jl_ft h
nor to the justification of the accuser, and
so explicitly pronounced by myself.
You say tiiat you have no design nor
wish to produce an edict on any political
party, or question whatever,—nor to enter
into a vindication of the measures publicly
| adopted and avowed by the persons against
whom the above charge has been made.—
But can you !>c!ieve that this subject could
be discussed between you and me, as you
propose, when calling upon me for a state
ment. with the avow ed intention of refuting
it, and not produce an effect on any politi
cal party or question? \\ itii regard to the
public measures of those times and the suc
ceeding, which you declare to have had
yonr sanction and approbation, it needs no
disclosure now, that a radical and irrecon
cilable difference of opinion between most
of yourselves and me existed, And can
von suppose that in disclosing names anil
stating facts, known perhaps only to my
self, I could consent to separato them for
those public measures, which you so cor
dially approved and w hich I so deeply la
mented? Must your own defence against
these charges forever rest exclusively upon
a solemn protestation against the natural
inference from the irresistuble tendency of
action to the secret intent of the actor?—
That a statesman who believes in human
virtue should be slow to draw this inference
against such solemn asservations. 1 readi
ly admit: but for the regulation of the con
duct of human life, »hc rules of evidence
arc widely different from those, which re
ceive or exclude toatimony in a court of law.
Even there, you know’, that violent pre
sumption is equivalent, in cases effecting
life itself, to positive proof; and in a succes
sion of political measures through a series
of years, all tending to the same result,
there is an internal evidence against w hich
mere denial, however solemn, can scarce
ly claim the credence even of the chanty
that bclieveth all things.
Let me add that the statement authoris
ed hy me, as published in the National In
telligencer, was made, not only without
the intention, but without the most distant
imagination of offending you or of injuring
anyone of you. But, on the contrary, for
the purpose of exptessly disavowing a
charge, which was before the public, sanc
tioned with the name of the lute Mr. Jef
ferson, imputing to certain citizens of Mas
sachusetts, treasonable negotiations with
tlw British government during the irnr,
and expressly staling thut he had received
information of this (tom me. On the pub
lication of this letter, I deemed it indis
pensibly due to myself, and to all the citi
zens of Massachusetts, not only to deny
having ever given such information, but all
knowledge of such a fact. And ihe more
so, because that letter had been publislicd,
though without my knowledge, yot I was
well assured, from motives of justice and
kindness to me. It contained a declara
tion hy Mr. Jefferson himself, frank, ex
plicit, and true, of the character of tho
motives of my conduct, in all the transac
tions of my intercourse with him, during
the period of the embargo. This was a ^
point upon which his memory could not
deceive him, a point upon which he was
the best of witnesses; and his testimony
was the more decisive because given at a
moment, as it would seem, of great excite
ment against me upon different tiews of
public policy, even then in conflict and
producing great exacerbation in his mind.
i nc loiter contained also a narrutivc ol a
personal interview between himself and
me in March 1909, and **tutrd that I had
then given him information offucts, winch
induced him to consent to the substitution
of the non intercourse for the embargo; and
that I had apprised him of this treasonable
negotiation by citizens of Massachusetts,
to secede from tho Union during the war,
and perhaps rejoin after the peace. Now
the substitution of the nonintercoursc for
the embargo, took place twelve months af
ter this interview, and at a succeeding
session of C ongress, when 1 was not even
a member of that body, '/'he negotiation
for seceding from the Union with a view to
rejoin it afterwards, if it ever existed, must
have been during the war. I l ad no
! knowledge of such negotiation, or even of
! such a design. 1 could therefore have
! given no such information.
But in giving an unqualified denial to
this statement of Mr. Jefferson, and show*
I mg that upon the face of the letter itself, it
j could not be correct, it was due to him to
j show, that the misstatement on his part
| was not intentional; that it arose from in
firmity of memory, w hich the letter itself
! candidly acknowledged; that it blended
together in one indistinct mass, the infor
1 ination which 1 had given him in March
1909, with the purport of confidential let
ters, which 1 had written to bia and my
friends in Congress a year after, and w ith
j events, projects, and perhaps mere suspi
cions, natural enough as consequences pf
jihe proceeding times, but which occurred,
ifat all. from three to six years later, and
of which he could not have had informa- ‘ *
tion from roe. 'Hie simple fact of which I
j apprized Mr. Jefferson, was, that, in the
summer of 1807, about the tune of w hat
was sometimes called the a fair of the Leo
pard and C hesapeake, I had seen a letter
from the governor of Nova Scotia to a per
son iu Massachusetts, affirming that the
Hritiv-h government had certain informa
tion of a plan by that of Prance, tocouqu< r
the British possessions and cffiact a revolu
tion in lf»e United States, by ruenns of a
war w ith Great Britain.

xml | txt