embers who were not then present, and some
of them not yet in office, is easily explained, if we observe who they
were; to wit, that they were of New York and Pennsylvania. New York
did not sign till the 15th, because it was not till the 9th, (five days
after the general signature,) that their Convention authorized them to
do so. The Convention of Pennsylvania, learning that it had been signed
by a majority only of their delegates, named a new delegation on the
20th, leaving out Mr. Dickinson, who had refused to sign, Willing and
Humphreys, who had withdrawn, reappointing the three members who had
signed, Morris, who had not been present, and five new ones, to wit,
Rush, Clymer, Smith, Taylor, and Ross: and Morris and the five new
members were permitted to sign, because it manifested the assent of
their full delegation, and the express will of their Convention, which
might have been doubted on the former signature of a minority only. Why
the signature of Thornton, of New Hampshire, was permitted so late
as the 4th of November, I cannot now say; but undoubtedly for some
particular reason, which we should find to have been good, had it been
expressed. These were the only post-signers, and you see, sir,
that there were solid reasons for receiving those of New York and
Pennsylvania, and that this circumstance in no wise affects the faith of
this Declaratory Charter of our rights, and of the rights of man.

With a view to correct errors of fact before they become inveterate by
repetition, I have stated what I find essentially material in my papers,
but with that brevity which the labor of writing constrains me to use.

On the four particular articles of inquiry in your letter, respecting
your grandfather, the venerable Samuel Adams, neither memory nor
memorandums enable me to give any information. I can say that he was
truly a great man, wise in council, fertile in resources, immovable in
his purposes, and had, I think, a greater share than any other member,
in advising and directing our measures in the Northern war. As a
speaker, he could not be compared with his living colleague and
namesake, whose deep conceptions, nervous style, and undaunted firmness,
made him truly our bulwark in debate. But Mr. Samuel Adams, although not
of fluent elocution, was so rigorously logical, so clear in his views,
abundant in good sense, and master always of his subject, that he
commanded the most profound attention whenever he rose in an as