134 



Ji protesC to be necesary to prove sincerity, that nothing- which i 

 have written was directly or remotely intended to impute either 

 weakness, absurdity, or treachery, to the majority, and to infer 

 such an imputation from my letter would seem to require a mind 

 distorted by passion and a "jealousy that discolours every thing.'^ 



There was a difi'erence, and I believe, an honest difference of 

 opinion between me and some of my colleagues, on certain points, 

 and if I felt it to be my duty to act according to my own, I certainly 

 bad the right to state the grounds of my opinion to those to whom 

 I was immediately accountable for my conduct. In doing this, I 

 accused no one — and if in endeavouring to prove that my opinion 

 was correct, 1 implied that the opinion of those who differed from 

 me was incorrect, I did no more towards them, than what, from the 

 very nature of the case, was indispensable, or than what they, in 

 defending their opinion, must necessarily have done towards me. 

 Mr. Adams, indeed, goes much further. He appears to believe 

 that self-vindication cannot be separated from reproach. In a con- 

 scientious difference of opinion between fallible men, who reason 

 btrt to err, there can be no just cause for reproach ; but a pretend- 

 ed difference of opinion between infallible men must necessarily 

 imply wilful error somewhere. 1 Jo not pretend to infiUibility, 

 and sincerely pity those who do. It may be less difficult to some 

 minds to abuse the man, than to refute the argument. " Censure, 

 reproach, and misrepresentation is, indeed, a shorter and easier 

 process " 



I still differ with Mr. Adams on his doctrine that the treaty of 

 1783, by reason of its peculiarity, could not be abrogated by war. 



I still differ with him concerning the relative value of the navi- 

 gation of the Mississippi and the tishing privilege. 



I still differ with him, in respect to the consistency of his prin^- 

 ciple with the proposal which was first decided on, and after a pe- 

 riod of three weeks, actually offered by a majority. 



I shall probably continue to differ with him on these points, un- 

 less he can produce other and better reasons for my conversion 

 than those contained in his remarks. 



For his doctrine, he appeals to a class of treaties which are not 

 known to exist, and to the ordeal of mj^^ds with which he has not 

 made us acquainted. He relies on instinct when he says " I stop 

 here for a moment to observe how instinctively hoih parties recur 

 to the treaty of 1783, with a consciousness that it was yet in full 

 force^^'' when at the very first conference the British ministers gave 

 us notice that the fishing privilege, granted by that treaty, would 

 not be renewed, without an equivalent, thus considering that treaty 

 to be at an end. 



Express renunciation or conquest, that is, consent on our part 

 or force on the part of Great Britain, might, according to Mr. 

 Adams himself, abrogate our rights under the treaty of 1783; and 

 these are precisely the means only by which we can be deprived 

 <^r our rights under an-y treaty. The peculiarity, therefore, for 



