lated to the subject of old continental money; neither did he make any
proposition, in convention, committee, or on any occasion, to any member
of convention or other person, respecting the redemption of such money;
and the assertions of the Landholder to the contrary, are altogether
destitute of the shadow of truth.

The Landholder addressing Mr. Martin, further says, "Your reply to my
second charge against Mr. Gerry, may be soon dismissed: compare his letter
to the legislature of his state, with your defence, and you will find,
that you have put into his mouth, objections different from anything it
contains, so that if your representation be true, his must be false." The
objections referred to, are those mentioned by Mr. Martin, as being made
by Mr. Gerry, against the supreme power of Congress over the militia. Mr.
Gerry, in his letter to the legislature, states as an objection, "That
some of the powers of the federal legislature are ambiguous, and others
(meaning the unlimited power of Congress, to keep up a standing army, in
time of peace, and their entire controul of the militia) are indefinite
and dangerous." Against both these did Mr. Gerry warmly contend, and why
his representations must be false, if Mr. Martin's are true, which
particularized what Mr. Gerry's stated generally, can only be discovered
by such a profound reasoner, as the Connecticut Landholder.

The vanity of this writer, in supposing that his charges would be the
subject of constitutional investigation, can only be equalled by his
impertinence, in interfering with the politics of other states, or by his
ignorance, in supposing a state convention could take cognizance of such
matters as he calls charges, and that Mr. Gerry required a formal defence,
or the assistance of his colleagues, to defeat the unprovoked and
libellous attacks of the Landholder, or any other unprincipled reviler.

The landholder says: "That Mr. Martin thought the deputy attorney-general
of the United States, for the state of Maryland, destined for a different
character, and that inspired him with the hope that he might derive from a
desperate opposition, what he saw no prospect of gaining by a contrary
conduct;" but the landholder ventures to predict, "that though Mr. Martin
was to double his efforts he would fail in his object." By this we may
form some estimate of the patriotism of the landholder, for, whilst he so
readily resolves Mr. Martin's conduct into a manoeuvre for