an left the Convention
"with full knowledge of the effect of his absence on the vote about to
be taken," if they mean that I knew or supposed that they intended to
reverse their own action, or that Mr. King would not announce the vote
as it had been resolved, or would declare the vote divided, or that
they would support him in it, or that the Convention would overrule
the delegation, then they assert what they could not know to be true,
and what is not true in fact. My note sets forth what I was told, and
what I replied.

My associates argue that I failed to discharge my duty, because I did
not obtain leave of the Convention before going into the Supreme
Court. Though I do not remember to have heard before of leave granted
by a deliberative body to a member to go out for half an hour, or for
one or two hours, I will observe, by this Convention absence was
expressly allowed, if it did not "interrupt the representation of the
State." My associates do indeed claim that, when I left the hall, the
State ceased to be represented, ten Commissioners only remaining
behind. The argument of this strange position appears to be, that a
State is not represented when its vote can be divided, and that the
vote of New York was divided. Here is a double fallacy. To say that
the vote was divided, begs the question. It was not divided so long as
the resolution passed by the delegation remained valid, and its
validity is not denied. The other part of the proposition is equally
fallacious. A State is represented when there are in the body
delegates authorized to represent it, whatever be their number. The
arguments of my associates seem to be, that a State could only be
represented in the Peace Convention by odd numbers, and that if it
sent eight or ten representatives, it would have no representatives at
all.

But what shall I say to the following sentences:--"Nor is the opinion
of Mr. Field entitled to consideration, when he imputes to the
majority a want of fidelity to him, in not claiming and adhering to
the vote which had been taken when all were present, and which was
afterwards rendered null by his absence. They did adhere to it, and
endeavored to cast the vote accordingly. It was his duty to have been
present, and to have thus given effect to that which had been
previously agreed to." Would any one imagine that the authors were
speaking of a vote, given in expectation of my absence, and to
determine what should be done when I was