i\ 



o. That, considered even on the narrow ground of conflicting^ 

 sectional interests, this article and amendment proposed to 

 place the East and the West in the same state as before the 

 war ; without gain to one or loss to the other. 



4. That the objection, by the minority, against the article and 

 amendment, insisted, in principle, upon the sacrifice of aa 

 Eastern for the benefit of a Western interest. 



5. That the Eastern interest to be sacrificed, was of very great 

 importance to the Union, and of vital magnitude to the State 

 of Massachusetts ; while the Western interest, for which it 

 was to be immolated, was altogether speculative and imagina- 

 ry. It was most truly denominated, by the member of the 

 mission now no more, bragging a million against a cent. 



If, therefore, the letter of Mr. Russell, of 11th February, 1815. 

 from Paris, had been the real exposition of the motives of the mi> 

 nority.for objecting to the proposed article and amendment of Mr. 

 Gallatin, its whole foundation, both of law and of fact, failing, would 

 have left the minority without any justification for their votes what- 

 soever. With regard to the comparative value of the two interests 

 in question, it was impossible for the minority with more sincere 

 and deep conviction to believe the views of the majority to be er- 

 roneous, than the majority thought those of the minority to be so. 

 But it never entered into my head, and never could have entered 

 into my heart, to treasure up these errors of opinion for after-use 

 against a colleague of the mission ; to " set in a note-book, con, and 

 learn by rote," opinions expressed in the mutual confidence of as- 

 sociates in a great national trust, in order to bring them forth, after 

 man}' years, as engines to ruin a rival reputation. 



But the letter from Paris was no exposition of the opinions which 

 had been manifested by the minority at Ghent. The principle, 

 that the fishing liberties had not been abrogated by the war, had 

 been asserted by the mission at Ghent, on the proposal of Mr. Clay, 

 The refutation of it iS the most heavily laboured part of the letter 

 from Paris. If individual opinions upon the expediency of particu- 

 lar measures adopted by the mission, are to be made the test of 

 merit or demerit for individual members of the mission, it is not a 

 little whimsical that Mr. Russell, for the minority, should now dis- 

 claim the principle adopted at the motion of one of them, and which 

 has i'een completely successful in maintaining the interest in de* 



