The Daily Advertiser

To the Printer of the Daily Advertiser.

SIR,

I observed, in your paper of the 19th, an extract of a letter from a gentleman at Newport, to the printers of the Hartford paper, with some remarks on the proceedings of the legislature of the state of Rhode-Island, in their late session.

It is not my design to vindicate the conduct of that state with respect to their paper money system; I believe it to be impolitic in the highest degree, at the same time I consider such currillous reflections on the conduct of a sovereign state, as indecent and scandalous, and calculated to inflame the passions and fix them in error, rather than to lead them to abandon them. But what is very extraordinary in this publication is, that it is said 'the assembly of Rhode-Island seem at present to be established in their proceedings by receiving governor Clinton's letter.' At first view, one would suppose, from this writer's mode of expression, that governor Clinton had written to the legislature of Rhode-Island, advising and encouraging them to persist in their paper money system. But from what follows, it appears that he alluded to the circular letter agreed to by the convention of this state, inviting their sister states to unite in calling another general convention, to consider of and recommend amendments to the new constitution.— Why is this called governor Clinton's letter? It is true he signed it, but not in his private character, nor yet as governor, but by order of the convention.—

I ask again, what tendency had this letter to establish and comfort the legislature in their proceedings respecting the paper money, when it did not contain one word relating to it, nor do any of the amendments recommended, hold out the most distant idea in its favor?

This writer's reasoning upon the constitution, and amendments to it, is as extraordinary as what he says respecting governor Clinton's letter. He says that the arguments in its favor, drawn from the proceedings of Rhode-Island are the most powerful and uncontradictory of any that have yet been suggested—It is this, Rhode-Island is against the constitution, therefore it is a good one, because Rhode-Island has done wrong in making paper money. Rhode-Island is in favor of amendments to the new constitution, therefore none ought to be made, because she has acted unjustly and impolitically in her paper system. If this writer has no better arguments to support his opinion in favor of the new government, very little dependence is to be placed upon him. Is it true, that because a man is wrong in one measure, or even in many, that he is wrong in all? at this rate any government might be proved good. No one can doubt but that Rhode Island would oppose a hereditary despotism: but would it thence follow that it would be a good government? But my principal aim in taking notice of this publication, is to point out the conduct of a few individuals in different parts of the union, who are using all the means in their power to divert the minds of the good people of America from the subject of amendments. Most of those who were for adopting the new constitution in this state, declared in the most explicit terms that they wished for amendments; but they differed with a number of their fellow citizens who were opposed to its adoption with respect to the mode of obtaining them. They said, we will adopt it first, and procure the alterations in the mode prescribed in the constitution.—I was among those who were of this opinion, and it is evident that great part of the people of America were in this sentiment. This appears from the proceedings of the different conventions, as well as from other evidence. The convention of this state, though divided upon the question, whether they should adopt the constitution or not, a great majority were in favor of the amendments they recommended; and they were unanimously of opinion that some amendments were proper; and with one voice united that a revision of the system was necessary to recommend it to the approbation and support of a numerous body of their constituents, and earnestly exhort and request the legislature of the several states to take the earliest opportunity of making application for another convention, to meet at a period not far remote.

Similar language was held by the most of those who were in favor of the system previous to its adoption.

It is therefore an insult, not only upon the people of this state, but to a majority of the people of the United States, to treat the proposal of calling another convention with the contempt that this writer and some others have done.

Wisdom and sound policy dictate that the Constitution should be revised, that it should be made conformable, as far as may be, to the wishes of all.

It is impossible to support a free government, against which the sentiments of a great part of the people are opposed, and those who would attempt to do it, manifest a disposition unfriendly to equal liberty.

The constitution is adopted by small majorities in a number of the most important states in several of them a confidence that their sister states would consent to unite in a revision of the system, and alter the exceptionable parts, was the prevailing inducement with a number to accede to it.

This confidence was cherished by the express declaration of many of the advocates for its adoption, that they would cordially concur in endeavoring to procure a revision of the system. I hope none of those who made such professions will be guilty of such duplicity of conduct as to oppose the calling a convention to propose amendments.

I consider the man who pursues this conduct as promoting a measure that will produce discord, and perhaps convulsions, in the United States, and therefore, as acting the part of an enemy to his country.

A Federalist who is for Amendments.