AFTERNOON.

Met according to adjournment.

A motion was made and seconded, that the vote for considering the new Constitution by paragraphs, be reconsidered, and

say impertinent, in him to do it? Does that honorable gentleman think the Convention deficient in point of sagacity, to discern the probable effects and consequences of the system submitted to their consideration, and that they need a portion of his wisdom, and public virtue, to point them out, and to prevent their sacrificing the liberties of America? Was he accountable to that honorable body for having given his negative to the system? On what other supposition, than that above-mentioned, can we then account for his very extraordinary conduct? But slightly to pass over his officious letter to the legislature of this State, endeavoring to vindicate himself, before he had been called upon by them, for giving his negative to the proposed system of government, I would state a few facts, necessary for the information of the public, to enable them to make up a right judgment in the present case.

The Convention, as Mr. E. Gerry says, were considering that part of the Constitution which relates to the equal representation of the States in the Senate, when Mr. Strong, one of his honorable colleagues in the Continental Convention, rose, and informed the house, that this was agreed to by a Committee consisting of a member from each State, and that Mr. Gerry was one of the number. This information, however harmless in itself, roused the very irritable passions of Mr. E. Gerry; he changed his seat instantly to the table before the President, pulled forth his budget of peccadilloes, displayed them in order before him, took pen, ink and paper, and, as he now informs us, set about writing a letter to the President for correcting this error' of his honorable colleague. Risum teneatis amici? But stop, what may be sport to us, might be death to him—I mean political death. What, shall it be understood in that honorable body, that Mr. E. Gerry had reported in favor of an equal representation of the States in the Senate? For this is the utmost extent of the information of his honorable colleague. Yet is he greatly alarmed at it, and determines, in a rage, to wipe away 'the injuries resulting from its unfavorable impressions.' He writes, then strikes out, writes on, strikes out again, until at last, no longer able to keep his seat, (where he was left to go on without molestation from any mortal,) he rises in the midst of the debates on that paragraph, to use his own words, 'to inform the President that he was preparing a letter' (for the gentleman has chosen that mode of opposition to the federal government) 'to throw light on the subject,' and request him to make this communication to the house. He did so. But what was to be done? Were all the debates to be suspended until Mr. E. Gerry had finished his very important letter to the President upon the subject? Were the honorable Convention so benighted, in the opinion of Mr. E. Gerry, that it was not safe to leave them to go on in their debates, until he should have an opportunity to

that the Convention take the whole Constitution into consideration and mature deliberation.

A motion was made and seconded, that the consideration of the said motion be referred to to-morrow morning, 10 o'clock, and the question of reference being put, passed in the negative.

throw light' in their path? Mr. E. Gerry well knew that no question was to be taken upon separate paragraphs, had he been capable of a moment's reflection; therefore, he must have seen that by waiting until the irritation of his spirits had subsided, even to the next week, he would not have lost an opportunity to have done his utmost to rescue 'the liberties of America from destruction,' of which he seems to conceive himself to be the great champion. But so it was, friend Russell, Mr. E. Gerry could not rest quiet a moment under such atrocious imputations as his honorable colleague had cast upon him.

Thus matters stood, when the honorable gentleman with whose name and character Mr. E. Gerry has taken such indecent liberties, and who had but just before come into the house, rose, and asked the President, whether there was any question in writing laid on the table for that gentleman to answer; being told that there was not, he added, that it seemed to be the sense of the house that the question should be reduced to writing, and the answer also. This idea was questioned by some, and a debate ensued. The same gentleman arose again, and said, he did not wish to exclude light from the house by his inquiry, but that it ought to come in an orderly manner: the reason why he supposed it to be the sense of the house, that both question and answer should be in writing, was, that the day before, one, and the first, too, was proposed to that gentleman verbally; it was so done, and the answer also. Further, that the honorable gentleman had applied to him the evening before, and proposed that every question to be asked him, should be reduced to writing and laid on the table, that he might consider them deliberately, and give his answer in writing also; that he then told the gentleman he approved of his proposal, as well for the sake of preventing unnecessary discussion in the house, as a misrepresentation to his disadvantage. That for these reasons, he had been induced to make the inquiry. A motion was then made by Mr. Wedgery, that the house should depart from their vote, and leave the honorable gentleman (Mr. Gerry) at full liberty to give his reasons at large, respecting the Constitution, without waiting for any question whatever to be put to him. This changed the nature of the debate, and brought up a gentleman from Newbury Port, who said to this effect: If this house should signify their wishes to have the honorable gentleman admitted to enter fully into their debates, as a member of it, he was so far from wishing to exclude any light from this house, that he would not oppose it, but would acquiesce in their decision, however humiliating and mortifying it might be to him. Hereupon the subject of debate was again changed, by a motion from another part of the house, by Gen. Thompson, that the honorable gentleman should be admitted into the debates, as a member of it. This made the debate still more serious, when the honorable

A motion was made and seconded, that the Convention adjourn till to-morrow morning, 10 o'clock, and the question of adjournment being put, passed in the negative. The first motion was then withdrawn by the leave of the Convention.

Adjourned to Thursday morning, 9 o'clock.

member from Dracut, arose, and said, that he considered this a violation of the right of election of the inhabitants of Cambridge, (the residence of the letterwriter,) who had not thought fit to send him as their delegate-they certainly well knew, he said, the gentleman's sentiments upon the subject, and they had chosen others to represent them-this motion would make him a member of the house, to every purpose but that of voting. He said he was therefore against it. The gentleman who is the principal subject of Mr. E. Gerry's letter, said: To admit the honorable gentlemen, agreeably to this motion, would be going further under the idea of obtaining light, than this house had a right to go. To-day, one gentleman would wish to introduce his friend in support of his own sentiments, and to-morrow, a member of opposite sentiments would expect the same indulgence, with the same view, for his friend; and thus, instead of our being the representatives of the people, we should convert ourselves, in effect, into electors of their representatives. The motion was then called for in writing. Mr. Wedgery reduced it into writing, to the following effect: That the honorable gentleman should have liberty to give any information to the house he should have to communicate, respecting the passing of the Constitution,' or, (for I am not certain which,) 'respecting the subject in debate.' The Hon. Gen. Brooks, of Lincoln, then observed, the motion was ambiguous—the word information, might mean either information in matters of fact, or information resulting from reasoning upon facts. He wished, therefore, to be informed which was the gentleman's meaning. Mr. Wedgery cried out, both. The debates were then continued on this explanation, until an adjournment was called for, which took place, without any decision of the house upon the foregoing matters.

Thus have I gone through a state of facts relative to the transaction alluded to in Mr. E. Gerry's letter, and which is all the foundation he could have had in support of the very bitter and indelicate assertions or charges against the Hon. Judge Dana. Nothing more personal, that I recollect, fell from that gentleman, than is mentioned. The only cause of offence against him, seems to be, that his first inquiry led on to all the debates which ensued, for which he cannot justly be made responsible. His motion, or inquiry, was as certainly in order, as Mr. E. Gerry's conduct was out of order and improper. He must therefore thank himself for all the consequences of it. If his 'situation was not eligible,' or his 'condition was humiliating,' he had consented to be placed there; and had he kept up to the terms of his invitation, nothing of the sort which did happen, could have happened, to mortify his feelings.

The gentleman conceives that he was denied 'leave to speak,' and even ‘to

THURSDAY, January 24, 1788.

Met according to adjournment.

A motion was made and seconded, that the vote for considering the new Constitution by paragraphs, be reconsidered, and that the Convention take the whole Constitution into consideration and mature deliberation, and the question being put, passed in the negative.

The Convention proceeded in the consideration of the Constitution or Frame of Government reported by the Convention held at Philadelphia, and after debate thereon, postponed the further consideration of the same to the afternoon.

Adjourned to 3 o'clock, P. M.

address a letter merely for the purpose of setting a matter right, which, in the progress of debates, had, by an erroneous statement, tended to his injury.' Was this the case? How easy would it have been for him to have desired leave to set his honorable colleague right in point of fact, and to have done it instantaneously. Surely no member would have opposed so reasonable a request. But, instead of this, the gentleman rose only to request the President to inform the house he was preparing a letter to throw light on the subject' generally; and not with any design to clear himself from any imputations which he had conceived affected his character. If, therefore, he was misunderstood by the Hon. Judge Dana,' as he says 'he soon perceived he was,' ought not Mr. Gerry to have reflected that he himself had led that gentleman into the error (if any there was) of suggesting that he was entering into their debates.' In short, it is questionable, in any view of this matter, whether Mr. E. Gerry can justify the indecent, illiberal treatment of that gentleman, he has so acrimoniously dealt out in his letter; apparently written before he had given time for his passions to subside, and his reason to dictate his pen. Besides, if his charges were in fact true, does it not follow that the honorable Convention themselves must bear their portion of them, for permitting one of their members to persist (according to his representation) in a course of conduct disorderly in the extreme. Certainly, every one will suppose, had they viewed it in that light, they would soon have reminded that gentleman of his duty, and set him down in his turn. But I believe no member of the house thought Judge Dana's conduct in the least disorderly or reprehensible. If it had been, Mr. Gerry not being destitute of friends in that house, some of them would have been ready enough to have called Judge Dana to order, and have given Mr. Gerry complete protection from the abuse of any man.

BOSTON, Jan. 29, 1788."]

A SPECTATOR.

AFTERNOON.

Met according to adjournment.

The Convention proceeded in the consideration of the Constitution or Frame of Government reported by the Convention held at Philadelphia, and, after debate thereon, postponed the further consideration of the same to the morning.

Adjourned to Friday morning, 10 o'clock.

Met according to adjournment.

FRIDAY, January 25, 1788.

The Convention proceeded in the consideration of the Constitution or Frame of Government reported by the Convention held at Philadelphia, and, after debate thereon, postponed the further consideration of the same to the afternoon.

Adjourned to 3 o'clock, P. M.

AFTERNOON.

Met according to adjournment.

The Convention proceeded in the consideration of the Constitution or Frame of Government reported by the Convention held at Philadelphia, and, after debate thereon, postponed the further consideration of the same to the morning.

Adjourned to Saturday morning, 10 o'clock.

SATURDAY, January 26, 1788.

Met according to adjournment.

The Convention proceeded in the consideration of the Conitution or Frame of Government reported by the Convention held at Philadelphia, and, after debate thereon, postponed the further consideration of the same to Monday morning. Adjourned to Monday morning, 10 o'clock.