CHAPTER I.

AMERICA was discovered by Christo­pher Columbus on the 12th of October, 1492. The north-east extremity of Asia approaches within thir­ty-nine miles of the north-western coast of the new world ^*. The passage over this narrow strait is faci­litated by two intermediate islands. Perhaps, in a re­mote aera, some wandering families of Tartars cross­ed over by this route; and, in the course of ages, their posterity dispersed a scanty population over this great division of the globe. The Esquimaux alone, upon the north-eastern coast of the continent, are of a different race, and appear to have been a co­lony from Greenland.

The habitable part of the globe is computed to [Page 10] contain upwards of thirty millions of geographical square miles. Of these, at least nine millions are comprehended in America ^*. This area is about ninety times larger than that of Britain and Ireland, which possess a population of fourteen millions. When the forge, and the plough shall have stretched their dominion to the sources of the Missouri, when a regular body of civilized nations, extending from the St. Laurence to Patagonia, shall cheer and gladden the surface of the earth, America may, without difficulty, support a thousand millions of in­habitants; or most likely, a much greater number.

Though this continent hath been discovered for three centuries, it is yet but imperfectly known to the nations of Europe. Travellers, in describing it, have assumed their wonted privileges of embellish­ment and distortion. The strangest fables have been circulated and believed, with regard to its climate, its aspect, its natural productions, and the manners of its people.

When an American opens one of those nu­merous descriptions of this country, that are pub­lished in Europe, he is commonly struck with the multiplicity of mistakes that occur in almost every page. To give an accurate account of any country requires a considerable share both of industry and accuteness. But peculiar difficulties attend this task, on the western side of the Atlantic. The habits of the people are more various and fluctuat­ing, than in regions which have been long and thickly settled. Alterations and improvements of all kinds advance with such rapidity, at least in the territory of the United States, that what was, five years before, a just picture, often differs widely from the present condition of the same territory. [Page 11] The immense extent of the continent presents such a variety of temptations to the forming of new set­tlements, these are so widely diversified from each other, in their situation, climate, and produce, and such numbers of people are constantly retiring backwards from the eastern coast, into the recesses of the wilderness, that many years must pass over before it can be possible to sketch a picture of America, which will remain for any considerable time, an exact resemblance of the original ^*. This country may be compared with a child rising, by the most rapid growth, into the dimensions of a giant; but consequently requiring a much longer period, before it assumes a completeness of form, than an object of far inferior bulk.

As a specimen of the strange misrepresentations, with regard to America, which are current in Europe, a few passages shall be here selected from some of the books popular in that part of the world. Dr. Robertson informs us that, ‘Over all the con­tinent of North-America, a north-westerly wind and excessive cold are synonimous terms. Even in the most sultry weather, the moment that the wind veers to that quarter, its penetrating influence is felt in a transition from heat to cold no less violent than sudden. To this powerful cause we may as­cribe the extraordinary dominion of cold, and its violent inroads into the southern provinces in that part of the globe ^†.’

Charlevoix is quoted as an authority for this tale. When he wrote it, he must have been thinking of [Page 12] the north-west wind of Canada, through which he travelled. He did not visit the British colonies; so that he could not say whether such a phenomenon prevailed in them or not. From extravagant accounts of this kind, it is not surprising that the people of Europe form an alarming idea of the American climate. To the greater part of the territory of the United States, perhaps to the whole of it, this description bears no resemblance. Char­levoix wrote above seventy years ago; and even though his account had been accurate for that time, yet the climate has since undergone great alter­ations. Mr. Jefferson relates ^*, that formerly the snows in Virginia covered the ground, for about three months in every winter, but that now, in the lower parts of the country, they very seldom lie aweek. He remarks, that, ‘In Virginia, both heats and colds have become much more moderate with in the memory even of the middle-aged.’ Dr. Robert­son mentions a prodigious frost, at Charleston, in South-Carolina, in February, 1747. For many years past, snow and ice have been hardly seen in that city.

The same historian attempts to explain the pri­mitive cause of the extreme degree of cold in Ame­rica. His reasonings appear to be somewhat incon­sistent. As to the northern extremity of the con­tinent he observes that, ‘though the utmost extent of America towards the north be not yet discover­ed, we know that it advances nearer to the pole than either Europe or Asia. The latter have large seas to the north, which are open during part of the year; and even when covered with ice, the wind that blows over them is less intensely cold than that which blows over land in the the same high la­titudes. But in America the land stretches from the [Page 13] river St. Laurence towards the pole, and spreads out immensely to the west. A chain of enormous mountains, covered with snow and ice, runs thro' all this dreary region ^*.’ He goes on to ascribe the peculiar severity of the north-west American winds to their blowing over ‘such an extent of high and frozen land.’ The result of his inquiry is, that the climate of North-America is more cold than that of Europe because the land is broader and approaches nearer to the north pole. The doctor has omitted to give us any reason, why a wind that blows over frozen land must be colder than another which blows over a frozen sea; so that his theory of explanation rests on a mere assumption. But let us admit the justice of his assertion, that the northern extremity of the continent is colder than that of Europe, be­cause it is broader, and advances nearer to the pole. We are certain then, that the southern extremity of America, must be a great deal warmer than the same latitude in Europe; for the land approaches only within thirty four degrees of the south pole, that is, to the latitude of Dunbar, a town in the south-eastern part of Scotland. The continent, besides, is very narrow; and its situation is indeed a perfect contrast to the northern extremity. But here again, the author takes up a quite different doctrine. ‘The most obvious and probable cause of this superior degree of cold towards the southern extremity of America, seems to be the form of the continent there. Its breadth gradually decreases, and its dimensions are much contracted.’ This hy­pothesis he explains in a long note. Thus in one end of America, the breadth, and in another end the narrowness of the continent, is advanced as a phi­losophical explanation of extreme cold.

[Page 14] ‘Another peculiarity in the climate of America is its excessive moisture in general. In some places, indeed, on the western coast, rain is not known; but in all other parts, the moistness of the climate is as remarkable as the cold. The forests where­with it is every where covered, no doubt, partly, occasion the moisture of its climate; but the most prevalent and obvious cause is the vast, and Pacific Oceans, with which America is environed on all sides ^*!’. The Cape of Good-Hope is surrounded by immense oceans; yet the climate is remarkably dry. This cannot therefore be a satisfactory expla­nation for the excess of moisture in the American atmosphere. But if it were so, the writer, to make his theory consistent, ought to have demonstrated, for what reason rain is not known, in some places on the western coast. Peru extends along the shore of the great Pacific Ocean, by far the broadest on the surface of the globe, and yet thirty years are said to have sometimes elapsed in that country without rain. It does not [...], on any sound evidence, that the climate of that country is more wet than that of many o [...]s. Let [...]s hear the account that is given of the weather of England by persons who observe it. In the Gentleman's Magazine, for February 1793, there is an article, dated the 27th of that month, which may serve to assist us, in forming ideas on this point. "The climate of England," says the writer, ‘in the opinion of many, has, of late years, undergone a considerable change. Formerly we used to have smart frosts in winter; and hot and sometimes dry summers. For some years back, both winters and summers have generally been wet, with so little ice, that luxury, by its agents, has been obliged to procure it from foreign parts. In the course of last year, those who kept a register of [Page 15] the weather, tell us, there were but one hundred and three dry days! For the little that is passed of the present year, we have scarcely had six dry days.’ It is not easy to conceive a more dreadful picture of the atmosphere of any part of the tem­perate zones, than what is here set before us. As it comes from the English themselves, and is attested in a respectable publication, it would be trifling to doubt of its general accuracy. Nor is such a quantity of rain and moisture a novelty, as the author seems to hint, in the British islands. ‘We have rain, says a proverb, for nine months in the year, and wet weather for all the rest of it.’ Even Americans seem to have adopted an erroneous opinion respecting the comparative moisture of their climate. Dr. Morse has observed, that, ‘the quantity of rain which falls in England annually is computed to be twenty four inches; in France eighteen inches, and in New-England from forty-eight to fifty inches; and yet in New-England they suffer more from drought than in either of the fore-mentioned countries, although they have more than double the quantity of rain." ^* In New-England they suffer more from drought,’ because there is not one-half, nor, perhaps, one-sixth part of the rain annually that falls in England; where, as we have seen above, there is rain for five days in the week. If double the quantity of rain actually fell in New-England, it would follow, as a necessary consequence, that every day in the year must be wet; but on the contrary, weeks together often pass in New-England without a single shower.

The American climate is colder than that of European countries under the same latitudes, where the woods have been cleared, and the soil culti­vated for many centuries. But this implies not, as it [Page 16] has been ignorantly pretended, any singular malig­nity in the climate of the new world. France, Italy, and Spain, were much colder, in ancient times, than at present, and for the very same reason. Char­levoix even says, that the French settlers in Canada considered the climate as improved by the very slight degree of cultivation which existed in that province, about seventy years ago. Our thick and boundless forests prevent the rays of the sun from penetrating to the surface of the earth; hence the snow cannot dissolve so quickly, as in an open country. The north-west wind rushing over so vast a tract of ice and snow, still further cools the air. But this wind is only felt extremely cold, while snow covers the ground. Whatever may formerly have been the case, the state of Pennsylvania, and the others to the southward, feel at present very little inconvenience from it. ‘In the most sultry weather,’ it is extremely salutary and refreshing, and not an object of terror, as Dr. Robertson, and some other writers have represented it to be ^*.

In the course of two or three generations, at farthest, the climate will correspond with that under [Page 17] the same degree of latitude in Europe. Many tracts of land, that now lie buried in snow, for six months of the year, will then rival the finest regions of the world. Quebec stands a degree and fifty-five minutes to the south of Paris, Halifax, in Nova-Scotia, four degrees and ten minutes to the south of it, and only one degree and four minutes north of Mont­pelier in Languedoc. Montreal is but ten minutes north of Milan in Italy, and one degree and fifty-nine minutes north of Montpelier. Philadelphia is only two minutes north from the same latitude with Pekin in China; and in this city, for half of the year, we enjoy delightful weather. Even the coldest winters are considered as the most healthy. In autumn, for a month together, there is frequently not a single cloud to be seen, while a regular and plentiful dew supercedes the fear of drought. At the same time of the year, the rains of Britain fre­quently continue during a considerable time, for six days in the week, and rot the harvest, while British philosophers are gravely employed in describing and deprecating the malignant moisture of America. In Pennsylvania, asthmatic complaints are said to be less frequent than in Britain, which is a necessary consequence from the superior mildness and purity of our sky. The climate of London is supposed to be equal to that of most other parts of England, and is certainly much better than that of some counties, such as Lancaster and Cornwall. Yet from a writer there, we learn that of the first fifty-eight days in the year 1793, hardly six were dry. We are told, on the same authority, that in the year 1792, England had two hundred and sixty-two days of rain, which is more than a proportion of five days in the week. The British climate also is thought to be growing worse; while it is remarked all over this continent, that ours is constantly grow­ing [Page 18] better. Marshes are every where begun to be drained. Whole forests are daily cut down. The free circulation of air is thus promoted, while an exuberance of moisture is checked. Ten times more land is now cleared in one year, than was cleared in the same space of time before the war of 1756. We may infer that the improvement of the climate will hear something like an equally augmented proportion. Hence it is weak in a modern historian, to refer implicitly, upon this head, to writers of fifty or an hundred years old. He ought to enquire with diligence how circum­stances actually exist. A literary man is apt to ima­gine that he knows much, when he has only read much. He finds twenty different travellers concur in asserting that the climate of a distant country is extremely intemperate. Like Dr. Robertson, he rests with confidence on such complicated attestations, though, perhaps, three-fourths of these writers have only transcribed the opinions of each other.

The best evidence of the salubrity of an atmosphere is derived from the superior good health of its inha­bitants and, excepting the low lands, towards the sea, in Delaware, and the southern states, the continent may, in this respect, bear a favourable comparison with Europe. This fact will be best illustrated by examining the proportion of births to that of deaths, in the two continents.

Mr. Barton ^* has collected a variety of estimates of this kind for particular periods of time, from which are selected a few specimens.

There is a copious collection of estimates of this kind, which ascertain, that the number of births is in proportion to the number of deaths much greater in North-America than in Europe. Mr. Barton has likewise printed comparative tables of the longe­vity of the inhabitants of Britain and America; and it appears that the advantage is not on the side of the former country. In Connecticut, seventy-four persons, out of every thousand who are born, survive the age of eighty years; whereas, at North­ampton in England, only forty survive that period; and at Norwich in the same country, but thirty-one. The citizens of the northern and middle states of this continent may rest perfectly satisfied by the conviction, that they have an equal chance for health and long life, with the natives of any other quarter of the globe. To complaints of heat and cold, these calculations give a satisfactory answer.

Dr. Robertson tells us, that ‘the vast number, as well as enormous size of the trees in America, indicate the extraordinary vigour of the soil in its native state. ^*’ To believe many European wri­ters as to the growth of American trees, one would imagine, that every tree whatever, in the forests of America, grows from four to seven or eight feet in diameter, and from sixty to an hundred and twenty feet in height. In fact, a very large propor­tion of American trees are of the common size [Page 20] of those in the old world, and there are still to be seen in England, the remains of several very ancient oaks, of a greater magnitude than any trees yet heard of in America. Some of these, indeed, rise to a larger bulk than is usual in Europe, but in general, the difference in this respect is only trifling. In America, vegetation is more vigorous than in the British islands, and a tree has acquired in this country a greater magnitude in twenty years than it can generally reach in England during forty years.

There is a common supposition, among the wri­ters of the old world, concerning the woods of America, which has been countenanced by Dr. Robertson: ‘As trees and plants derive a great part of their nourishment from, air and water, if they were not destroyed by man and other ani­mals, they would render to the earth more, per­haps, than they take from it, and feed rather than impoverish it. Thus the unoccupied soil of Ame­rica might go on, enriching for many ages. ^*’

This source of American fecundity is chimerical. It is true that here, as in the old world, the forests shed their leaves during autumn, and these cover the ground in prodigious quantities, but without forming or perceptibly deepening the soil. When these leaves are turned up to the depth of four, six, or perhaps twelve inches, the surface of the earth is frequently found heaped with naked stones, with­out almost a single mark of vegetation; and this is, sometimes, the case for whole miles together. What, then, has become of those immense masses of vegetable putrefaction that have been heaped on the ground for at least four thousand years? Or where is that peculiar mould of earth, formed by those leaves, of which the writers in Europe are [Page 21] speaking? The proper answer seems to be, that they do not exist. In Europe, a large extent of country is often covered with forests, and when the land has been cleared, the soil is frequently found barren. But if the rotting of the falling leaves in America forms a mould of peculiar fertility, the same causes must in Europe have produced the same consequences. As in that continent, how­ever, no such consequences are to be met with, a moderate degree of reflexion might have convinced the advocates of this idea, that the same case must happen in America. Many tracts of this country are entirely divested of trees, and yet are equally fertile with any other part of the continent. By this system, however they should have been compari­tively barren. Besides, a doctrine of this kind leads to extravagant conclusions. If the fall of leaves is to deepen the soil at all, we may at least allow an additional depth of the twentieth part of an inch annually, or five inches in the course of a century. At the end of four thousand years, the sur­face of the earth in North-America, should, by this calculation, have been bedded with a mould to the depth of two hundred inches, or upwards of six­teen feet and an half. But no person will affirm, that such a depth of soil is, perhaps, any where to be found. It is in vain to fabricate plausible theories in opposition to the testimony of the human senses; nor is it of the smallest weight, that such a doctrine may have been adorned by the combined eloquence of Raynal, Robertson, and Buffon.

As an evidence of the malignity of the American atmosphere, it has been remarked, by Dr. Robert­son, that the animals in this country, when disco­vered by Columbus, were less various in their spe­cies than those of the old world. ‘Nature was not only less prolific in the new world, but she ap­pears [Page 22] likewise to have been less vigorous in her productions. The animals, originally be­longing to this quarter of the globe, appear to be of an inferior race, neither so robust, nor so fierce, as those of the other continent. America gives birth to no other creature of such bulk as to be compared with the Elephant or rhinoceros, or that equals the lion and tyger in strength and ferocity. The tapyr of Brasil, the quadruped of the first magnitude in the new world, is not larger than a calf of six months old. The puma and jaguar, its fiercest beasts of prey, which the Europeans have inaccurately denominated lions and tygers, possess neither the undaunted courage of the former, nor the ravenous cruelty of the latter. They are inactive and timid, hardly formidable to man, and often turn their backs upon the least appearance of resistance. (So much the better.) The same qualities in the climate of America which stinted the growth, and enfeebled the spirit of its native animals, have proved per­nicious to such as have migrated into it volun­tarily from the other continent, or have been transported thither by the Europeans. The bears, the wolves, [...]e deer of America, are not equal in size to those of the old world. Most of the domestic animals, with which the Europeans stored the provinces wherein they settled, have degenerated with respect to their bulk or quality, in a country, whose temperature and soil seem to be less favourable to the strength and perfection of the animal creation. ^*’

This passage is inserted here at full length, be­cause it contains a summary of the speculations of Buffon and others on this branch of natural his­tory, [Page 23] Mr. Jefferson, in his Notes on Virginia, has fully vindicated the climate of America from these unjust imputations, and the reader will turn, with peculiar satisfaction, to a work, which unites the sweetness of Xenophon with the force of Polybius, information without parade, and eloquence without effort. Mr. Williams, also, in his history of Vermont, proves, by a multitude of examples, that many animals in America exceed the bulk of the same species in the old world. Some places in this citation, deserve particular notice.

From the inspired writings we learn, that, all quadrupeds, now on the face of the globe, emi­grated from Asia, after the deluge. It is hard then to say, what the writer means by animals originally belonging to this continent, and native animals; which he holds up in opposition to those which have migrated into it voluntarily. If he supposes that the tapyr, the puma, and jaguar have been the produce of separate creation, or that, as he expresses it, America has given birth to them, it is as likely that the bears, wolves, and deer, of America, have also been created in the new world. We are fortunate in wanting the strength and perfection of the rhin­oceros, the lion, and the tyger, for we certainly never should have been the better for them, But the mammoth alone was much larger than the elephant, the rhinoceros, and all the carnivorous quadrupeds put together. This is surely a sufficient evidence of the vigour of nature. Mr. Jefferson mentions an American bison that weighed eighteen hundred pounds, a bear, four hundred and ten pounds, and a red deer, two hundred and eighty-eight pounds. He quotes Buffon, as admitting that the beaver, the otter, and shrew-mouse, are larger in America than in Europe. The black moose, is said by Kalm, to be as high as a tall horse, and by Catesbey, to be [Page 24] about the bigness of a middle-sized ox. Mr. Jeffer­son adds, that the white bear is as large in America as in Europe. If the domestic animals of North-America are inferior to those of Europe, it is only from want of care in those who breed them. ‘It may be affirmed with truth, that in those countries, and with those individuals of America, where necessity or curiosity has produced equal attention, as in Europe, to the nourishment of animals, the horses, cattle, sheep, and hogs of the one continent are as large as those of the other.’ ^* Buffon reckons two hundred and twenty-six different species of quadrupeds. Of these, it appears from tables printed by Mr. Jef­ferson, that an hundred are peculiar to America, and that before its discovery, it contained twenty-six others common to Europe. Dr. Robertson was mistaken in saying, upon the authority of Buffon, that ‘of two hundred different kinds of animals, spread over the face of the earth, only about one-third existed in America, at the time of its discovery. ^†’

If Dr. Robertson had resided for six months in Ken­tucky, he might have avoided some errors in his account of the character and condition of the savages. He would have understood more from studying their manners, living as they rise, than any other person will learn on that subject, from perusing his elaborate dissertation of an hundred and thirty-eight quarto pages. It is told and believed, on the other side of the Atlantic, that very few people of either sex, in this country are unmarried at the age of twenty, and that nothing is more common than to see a couple, whose ages together do not exceed thirty. Boston, New-York, and Philadelphia, con­tain [Page 25] in whole, about an hundred and twenty thou­sand inhabitants less or more; and in these three cities, it is barely probable, that three such couples are to be found. Speaking of North-America, Dr. Smi [...]n says, ‘Labour is there so well rewarded, that a numerous family of children, instead of being a burthen, is a source of opulence and prosperity to the parents. The labour of each child, before it can leave the house, is computed to be worth one hundred pounds clear goin to them. A young widow, with four or five young children, who, among the middling or inferior ranks of peo­ple in Europe, would have little chance for a second husband, is there frequently considered as a sort of fortune. The value of children is the greatest of all inducements to marriage. We cannot, therefore, wonder that the people in North America should generally marry very young. Notwithstanding the great increase occa­sioned by such early marriages, there is a con­tinual complaint of the scarcity of hands in North-America.’ ^* The author had been misinformed in every particular. A family of children is not such a burthen here as in Europe, unless in the sea­port towns, because the plenty of land, and the lightness of our taxes, have introduced a general case of circumstances. But examples are rare, where children have been a source of opulence and prosperity to their parents. The reverse is fre­quently the case; though just as in England it may sometimes happen. As to the hundred pounds of clear gain, by the labour of each child before it can leave the house, an hundred cents would have been a more probable calculation. The young widow, will have just as little chance for a husband, in one [Page 26] of the sea-port towns of the United States, where subsistence has universally become very expensive, as in any part of England. Yet, such marriages occasionally take place in both countries. In the country, where food may be had for a trifle, an American farmer might not be much afraid of such an incumbrance with a wife, yet he would consider four or five children to be one. The value of chil­dren, regarded merely as working machines, would be an idle motive to matrimony, since it would be more expedient to hire servants. The present generation is sufficiently disposed to leave another behind it; but not for the money that is to be ac­quired by rearing of children. As to the great increase by such early marriages, in a considerable portion, at least, of this continent, marriages are not perceptibly more early than in Europe, or, if a difference can be found, it is but small. Mr. Barton, in the article before quoted, has made a large collection of the various amount of births in proportion to marriages, in France, England, Prus­sia, Switzerland, and other parts of Europe. For these four countries, the births are about four to every marriage, or somewhat less. He quotes the register of marriages and births for a town in Mas­sachusetts, during the course of fifty-four years. The former amounted to five hundred and twenty-one, the latter to two thousand two hundred and forty-seven. This gives four births to every mar­riage, with an overplus of one hundred and sixty-three, or less than one-third. But no single instance can be a satisfactory evidence of the superior num­ber of births to a marriage, for the whole of so vast a continent.

One would imagine that, at least, of the great sea-port towns in America, the writers of Europe should have a competent knowledge. This does not [Page 27] always appear to be the case. Mr. Payne, in de­scribing Philadelphia, has favoured his readers with the following information, ‘It (the city) is seated between two navigable rivers, the Delaware on the west, and the Schuylkill on the east. Every owner of a thousand acres has his house in one of the two fronts facing the river, or in the high street, run­ning from the middle of one front to the middle of the other.—Several canals are let into the town from each river, which add to the beauty and convenience of the place.—Its quay is two hun­dred feet square.—The city contains about twenty thousand inhabitants.’ ^* This description is chiefly borrowed from Guthrie, with a few variations, at the fancy of the transcriber. Guthrie, who, in his turn, borrows from Burke, has placed the Delaware on the north, and the Schuylkill on the south of the city, to which he assigns thirty thousand inhabi­tants ^†. To an American reader, such descriptions require no criticism. The city and liberties extend about two miles and an half in length from north to south, but with a small inclination to the east, close upon the western bank of the Delaware. The city spreads for about half a mile from the bank of that river towards the Schuylkill, which runs in a parallel line to the Delaware, west of it, about two miles. As to ‘the two fronts facing the river, and the canals let into the town from each river,’ there is nothing like them. By a report, dated the 19th of August, 1791, the city contained forty-two thousand five hundred and twenty inhabitants. The fever, in summer, 1793, swept off about five thousand people, yet the number is at present perhaps more than fifty thousand.

[Page 28]Hundreds of mistakes of all sorts may be collected from Payne and Guthrie. The former tells us, for example, that Maryland contains ‘an hundred and thirty thousand inhabitants.’ By the census of 1791, Maryland had three hundred and ninety-seven thousand seven hundred and twenty-eight inhabitants. It is needless to spend further time upon Payne and Guthrie, ‘upon faults too evident for detection, and too gross for aggravation ^*.’

One charge yet remains to be noticed, which has been repeated in a thousand different forms. It is here inserted, in the words of Dr. Johnson, in his ‘Observations on the State of Affairs, in 1756.’ After observing of the contest between France and England, about their boundaries, in North-America, ‘that no honest man can heartily wish success to either party,’ he proceeds thus, as to the general title of the European settlers to their lands on this continent:

‘It cannot be said, that the Indians originally invited us to their coasts; we went uncalled, and unexpected, to nations who had no imagination that the earth contained any inhabitants so dis­tant and so different from themselves. We as­tonished them with our ships, with our arms, and with our general superiority. They yielded to us as to beings of another and higher race, sent among them from some unknown regions, with power, which naked Indians could not re­sist; and which they were therefore, by every act of humility, to propitiate, that they, who could so easily destroy, might be induced to spare.’

[Page 29] ‘To this influence, and to this only, are to be attributed all the cessions and submissions of the Indian princes, if, indeed, any such cessions were ever made, of which we have had no witness but those who claim from them, and there is no great malignity in suspecting that those who have robbed have also lied ^*.’

The question has been warmly debated, what right Europeans ever had to territories in America? When the Spaniards laid waste populous and civi­lized empires, the nature of their conduct needs no illustration. We shall here speak only of the set­tlement of those colonies, that are now compre­hended in the federal union. With regard to them, history will not support or justify the harsh language that has been sometimes employed.

New-England contains nearly one-fifth, part of the people in the United States. It was originally colonized by persons who conducted themselves on the principles of strict justice. In March, 1621, Masassoit, one of the principal Indian chiefs, visited the Plymouth settlers. He entered into a treaty with them. It was inviolably observed by himself and his successors for fifty years; and, at this day, the name of Masassoit is remembered in New-England with respect and gratitude. New-York was first planted by the Dutch; and this event does not seem to be marked by any strong symptoms of hos­tility, or of fraud. The lands of Pennsylvania were honestly purchased from the Indians. They adhered peaceably to their bargain, and no third party is entitled to object against it. As to Virginia, Mr. Jefferson, in his Notes, observes, ‘that the lands of this country were taken from them (the na­tives) by conquest, is not so general a truth as is [Page 30] supposed. I find, in our historians and records, repeated proofs of purchase, which cover a con­siderable part of the lower country; and many more would, doubtless, be found on further search. The upper country we know has been acquired altogether by purchase, made in the most unexceptionable form.’ As for the other states, we shall find, that, in general, the lands have been acquired at a price which was considered as adequate, by both parties. Subsequent breaches of treaty have been committed on each side. In consequence, quarrels ensued, just as they do in Europe. They could not always be avoided here, any more than in the old world, unless the new settlers had deserted their lands and left North-America to remain a wilderness.

In some parts of Virginia, Mr. Jefferson com­putes, that the Indians were as one to every square mile. Other regions of the continent were still more desolate. Of this Dr. Robertson gives the following instances. A missionary travelled from the Illinois to Machillimackinac. In twelve days, the party did not meet with a single human creature. Dr. Brickell, in an excursion from North-Carolina towards the mountains, did not, in the course of fif­teen days, meet any person whatever. The continent, with a few exceptions, contained, perhaps, not more than a thousandth part of the people whom it was capable of subsisting. Such vast tracts of excellent land ought not to lie waste; and they never would have been peopled by the Indians. The Europeans purchased extensive territories on the coast, and colonized them. If the natives found themselves incommoded for want of room, they had it in their option to retire backwards into the desart; where a hunter might range for a fortnight without meeting a rival. They had, therefore, no great rea­son [Page 31] to be discontented. It might be said, that they could subsist by hunting only, and that to deprive them of their hunting ground was to starve them. We must admit, with many exceptions, the idea that their chief subsistence was derived from the chace. The tribes on the north and south-western frontier of the union, have large plantations of Indian corn, and raise cattle; so that they now, at least, are in very little danger of starving, though they should never hunt at all. When general Sullivan marched into the country of the Six Nations, he found exten­sive orchards and cornfields. General Wayne, in August, 1794, declared, that the Miamis had the largest corn fields which he ever saw in America; and it has been said, that they extended to five thou­sand acres. Some writers indeed seem to think that it was culpable to take Indian lands, upon any terms, and expatiate on the trifling prices paid for them. But these lands are in reality worth very little to a tribe of hunters compared with their value to a na­tion of farmers and manufacturers. There is no harm in buying ground from an Indian community any more than from a private person in Europe. Why should a tribe of two or three hundred hunters engross an extent of land equal to the support of five hundred thousand or a million of people? The Indians on our frontier are not, at present, famed for simplicity; as will appear in a future part of this volume.

Mr. Guthrie, in his Geographical Grammar, es­timates the whole inhabitants of America at one hundred and fifty millions. This is a very wild mistake. The amount may be ascertained with to­lerable accuracy. The subject is curious and de­serves our attention.

By the census of 1791, the United States contain­ed, three millions, nine hundred and twenty-nine [Page 32] thousand, three hundred and twenty-six persons; some districts were not included. The whole, ac­cording to Morse, vol I. p. 207, may have been three millions, nine hundred and fifty thousand. In 1784, Canada, by a census, was found to have one hundred and thirteen thousand and twelve in­habitants, besides ten thousand loyalists, in the up­per parts of the province. The total population of the British dominions of North-America can scarce­ly exceed two hundred thousand. The native In­dians may be guessed at an equal number; and the settlers in the Spanish part of North America, at an hundred thousand. These make together half a million. About seven years have elapsed, since the census of the United States. The people may be now augmented by one million. Thus, if we allow five millions to the federal government, and five hundred thousand to the Spaniards, the British, and Indians, we have, in whole, five millions, and an half. The empire of Mexico is divided into nine dioceses; and in 1741, a census was made of the people in four of these, and in some part of a fifth. The Indian families were two hundred and ninety-four thousand, three hundred and ninety-one, which, at five to a family, make one million, four hundred and seventy-one thousand nine hundred and fifty-five. Dr. Robertson, who gives this statement, sub­joins, that in two of the dioceses omitted, ‘the In­dian race is more numerous than in any (other) part of New Spain.’ In Nova Galicia, which he terms a vast province, the people, of only ‘a small part of it,’ were numbered. We may, therefore, conclude, that the four districts, where the Indians were not numbered at all, and that part of Nova Galicia which was left unsur [...]eyed, contains, at least, as many Indians, as the other part of the empire. The historian, therefore, was certainly inaccurate [Page 33] in saying, that ‘the number of Indians in the Mex­ican empire exceeds two millions.’ By his own account, they must have been not less than three millions, in 1741, when this imperfect census was made in four dioceses only, and part of a fifth one, out of the whole nine. About fifty-three years have since elapsed. They are, upon the whole, increasing, of which Dr. Smith has brought some evidence ^*, so that by this time, they are, most likely, four millions. The other inhabitants of Mexico are, by the highest computation of Dr. Robertson, three millions. Thus we have seven millions for Mexico, and Peru is not beleived to be more populous. Ad­mitting these two empires to contain fourteen mil­lions of inhabitants, and the other Spanish dominions on the continent of South-America two millions, we have thus sixteen millions. Four millions will be sufficient for Brasil and Paraguay. The rest of that continent, a few spots excepted, is a desart. Hence the total number of inhabitants in South-America does not amount to more than twenty millions, nor those in North-America to more than five millions and an half; at least the over-plus cannot be consi­derable.

The inhabitants of the United States have, by various calculations, been found to double upon a medium, in twenty-five years. Hence, in 1847, their present population of five millions will have extended to twenty, and in 1897, to eighty mil­lions. By the same progress, the close of the nine­teenth century would comprehend an augmen­tation to twelve hundred and eighty millions; and as, before that time, the northern continent must be over-stocked with people, the over-plus will natu­rally find vent in the southern continent. Under [Page 34] many difficulties, the people of New-England, in particular, have continued for an hundred and fifty years to multiply in the preceding proportion; and there is no reason to think, that the ratio will here­after decrease.

Peru was conquered about two hundred and fifty years ago, and Mexico at a more early period. Since that time, these countries have remained in tranquillity; and yet it is very doubtful whether, including every colour, they contain at present five times the number of people which were to be found in them immediately after the Spanish conquest.

Since the first torrent of emigration, in the reign of Charles I. very few individuals have ever gone to settle in New-England; but there has been a con­stant stream of emigration from it into the other colonies. The original settlers amounted, by Hutchinson's account, to about twenty thousand, and, including Vermont, that part of the union has now a million of people. Thus, in a century and an half, the first colony has augmented to fifty times its primitive number; while the increase in the Spanish provinces bears not any thing that ap­proaches to a correspondent proportion. Such is the eternal difference between freedom and slavery. Under a government like ours, the Spanish colo­nies might, by this time, have made the banks of the Amazon and the La Plata, as populous as those of the Delaware and the Hudson.

CHAPTER II.

AS the native Americans were, in a a great measure, defenceless, the sovereigns of Eu­rope immediately marked out this continent for their prey; and a considerable portion of it continues to languish in their fetters. By flagrant usurpation, they assumed the right of granting patents and charters, for discovery and colonization, on the western shore of the Atlantic. If Columbus had accomplished a voyage to the moon, or if Cabot had ascended to the planet Herschel, a king of Spain or England, might, with equal plausibility, have claimed a title of parcelling out these regions to Cortez, or to Penn. This was a violation of natural justice, which had no precedent among the ancients. When the Gre­cian republics dispersed colonies on the coast of Asia, they never attempted to assume that sort of dominion, which hath since been claimed by the monarchs of Europe. The Americans, during the late revolution, might have spared much of their labour in proving what rights they had acquired, [Page 36] by their charters, from the British crown. All go­vernment, which is not founded on the legitimate consent of the people, and conducted by their re­presentatives, is, in itself, usurpation Hence, when a British monarch gave a title to countries which were not his own, it was to be supposed that his successors, in the same spirit of robbery, would em­brace the first temptation to break their part of the engagement. But this breach, on their side, was of little consequence; because, such patents and char­ters formed an insult upon common sense, and the primitive rights of mankind.

If the British government had been at any charge in founding colonies in North America, there might have been some reason for assuming a privilege to give them laws, to smother their manufactures, and restrict their navigation. But, in place of money or assistance, she gave them nothing, or next to nothing, but charters, for possessing territories that were not her's to bestow, and of which she did not always know under what degree of latitude they were placed. The numerous mistakes in extending royal grants have produced confusion and litiga­tion in the colonies. The settlers of America were able, without foreign assistance, to have made laws, and marked out boundaries for themselves. Eng­land interposed in this way for one single purpose only, that, as soon as the colonies became a fit ob­ject for taxation, or monopoly, she might secure to herself the whole benefits that could be drawn from them. People, to this day, and even on this side of the Atlantic, persist in terming Britain the mother country. If her relation to her colonies de­served a domestic name, it was that of a jealous and bloody step-mother.

In the exportation of their own surplus produce, the British colonies, both of North-America, and [Page 37] the West-Indies, were greatly restricted by acts of parliament. Part of their productions could be ex­ported only to Britain. By confining tobacco and cotton, for instance, to the home market, the Bri­tish merchants expected that they would be able to buy them cheaper in the plantations, and to sell them with a better profit in Britain. They likewise proposed, by this regulation, to establish, in their own favour, between the colonies and foreign countries, an advantageous carrying trade, of which Britain was to be the centre, as the only country in Europe into which these commodities were first to be im­ported. Britain encouraged America in the manu­facture of pig and bar iron, by exempting them from duties to which the like commodities were subjected, when imported from any other country. Yet an absolute prohibition was imposed upon the erection of steel furnaces, and slitting mills in any of the colonies. England would not suffer her co­lonists to work in those more refined manufactures, even for their own consumption. They were to purchase, from her merchants and manufacturers, all goods of this kind, for which they had occasion.

She prohibited the exportation from one pro­vince to another by water, and even the carriage by land upon horseback, or in a cart, of hats, of wools and woollen goods of the produce of Ame­rica. This regulation prevented the establishment of any manufactures of such commodities for dis­tant sale; and confined the industry of the Ame­ricans in this way, to such coarse and houshold ma­nufactures, as a private family commonly makes for its own use, or for that of some of its neigh­bours in the same province. After reciting these restrictions, Dr. Smith adds, that ‘to prohibit a great people from making all that they can of every part of their own produce, or from employ­ing [Page 38] their stock and industry in the way that they judge most advantageous to themselves, is a ma­nifest violation of the most sacred rights of man­kind ^*.’ The English nation had originally as­sumed a right of enacting laws to which they had no lawful or honest claim; and a multitude of the statutes which they made were in ‘manifest vio­lation of the most sacred rights of mankind.’ Nor is this an hasty or unguarded expression. For the author adds, that these prohibitions were ‘only impertinent badges of slavery imposed upon them (the colonies) without any sufficient reason, by the groundless jealousy of the merchants and ma­nufacturers of the mother country.’

This account ought to calm the raptures of Ame­rican gratitude towards the supremacy of Britain, even in its best days, and its mildest form. Her commercial regulations have always been adapted, or, at least, designed, to serve her own interest at the expence of the rest of the world, her colonies not excepted. How far she was successful in this effort, may be gathered from the interesting state­ment exhibited by the same author ^†. We shall now investigate some of the principal features of her administration, where the concerns of the mercan­tile interest did not give an impression.

In the first place, it does not appear that the crown of England bore almost any part of the charges of founding the colonies, that now compose the sixteen United States. Before the year 1589, Sir Walter Raleigh had expended forty thousand pounds ster­ling, in attempting to settle adventurers in Virginia. This sum was equal in value to one hundred and fifty or two hundred thousand pounds sterling at [Page 39] this day. Raleigh was ‘ obstructed occasionally by the crown, without a shilling of aid from it ^*.’ His subsequent expences must likewise have been very great. Raleigh was, in 1603, imprisoned, and, in 1609, James the first, granted a charter for settling Virginia to a company.

‘The king and company quarrelled, and, by a mixture of law and force, the latter were ousted of all their rights, without retribution, after hav­ing expended a hundred thousand pounds ster­ling in establishing the colony, without the smallest aid from government. King James suspended their powers by proclamation of July 15th, 1624, and Charles the first took the government into his own hands ^†.’ Mr. Jefferson mentions a variety of subsequent usurpations. The grant of Maryland to lord Baltimore is one of the number. This was obtained in 1632, from Charles the first. It was not till after many years of solicitation, that Charles the second permitted William Penn to found the colony of Pennsylvania. Yet Charles himself had no title to the country, except that general one de­rived from the voyage of John Cabot; and the grant itself was to cost him nothing. This was the insolence, perverseness, and rapacity of a court. Charles the second, had owed considerable sums to admiral Penn, father to William, so that the grant was the discharge of a debt. New-York and New-Jersey were torn from the Dutch by Charles the se­cond, ^‡ [Page 40] in one of his piratical wars against their re­public. He afterwards made a gift of New-Jersey to his brother, James the second, who sold it to private adventurers. The two Carolinas and Georgia were settled in the same way; and, if the founders received pecuniary aid from the British government, it was too trifling to deserve detailed notice.

Massachusetts was first settled in 1620. A number of English partizans, persecuted at home, purchased a tract of territory, situated within the jurisdiction of the Plymouth company. These emigrants were driven from their native country with every mark of hostility and contempt. Archbishop Land, under the auspices of Charles the first, persecuted all kinds of non-conformists with unrelenting fury. The puritans, on the other hand, were ready to submit to all the rigour of persecution, rather than to give up their religious opinions, and conform to the church of England. America opened an exten­sive field; and Land, even from principles of poli­tical expediency, should have been glad to free Eng­land from such dissatisfied and dangerous inhabi­tants. The vengeance of this clergyman was not appeased by the exile of those who differed from his tenets. Many thousands of dissenters, indeed, escaped from their insular confinement; but had not Land interposed his prohibition, the population of New-England might, at this day, have doubled its present amount.

Besides the difficulty of obtaining leave to set­tle in America, the colonists had another formid­able obstacle to encounter and surmount. The crown of England had parcelled out the country to some of its hungry dependents. To these men a new co­lony was of no value, but for what could be squeez­ed out of it. They were careful to exert their au­thority in a style worthy of the source from which [Page 41] it was derived. The arbitrary proceedings of the king and parliament, in assuming a power to make laws for the colonies without their concurrence, filled up the measure of American wrongs. Britain, evidently thrust herself into the government of this country for the sake of what she could get; and, accordingly, when the colonies had made some pro­gress in agriculture, she was careful to cramp their commerce and industry, by vexatious and oppressive edicts. In this account there appear no traces of maternal affection. The royal, or parliamentary au­thority, along with that of the patentees, was, in all cases, and without exception, a gross despotism, founded on the helplessness of the original settlers. Between the patentees, however, a distinction must be made. Of Gorges and Mason, the colony of Massachusetts knew little, but by the law-suits rais­ed in support of their claims. As far as they or Penn had expended money in settling or improving the colonies, they were entitled to compensation; and certainly no farther.

This kind of reasoning cuts short all claims of gratitude on the part of America towards England. As England never had any right of making laws for America, it is not worth while to descend to particu­lar instances, where these laws were oppressive, be­cause the wisest and best of them were, in equity, as truly void, as the gift of an estate by a person who is not the lawful owner. The constant trans­portation of all sorts of criminals from Britain to the colonies, was an insult, of that kind, which might have excused the Americans, for overlook­ing even the greatest obligations. Lewis the four­teenth, if asked, would very chearfully have ceded Canada, Cape Breton, and Nova Scotia to England. These opportunities were neglected. Judge Hutch­inson thinks it likely, that, if the French had been [Page 42] driven out of Canada, an hundred years sooner, New-England, at the time of his writing, i [...] [...]7, might have contained two hundred thousand of [...]di­tional people. Under the notion of England being a parent state, this neglect was highly culpable. In reality, it does not appear that the English govern­ment, in any single instance, paid serious atten­tion to the interest of the colonies. This is not the language of party or prejudice, but the plain in­ference from a series of legislative edicts, and his­torical events. With respect to the wars of 1739, and 1756. Britain has as little to boast of generosity, as in any former part of her conduct towards America. Dr. Smith has spoke of these wars in terms, which can­not be justified by a sober detail of facts. He says, that ‘the last war (that of 1756) which was un­dertaken altogether on account of the colonies, cost Great Britain, it has already been observed, more than ninety millions. The Spanish war, of 1739, was principally undertaken on their account; in which, and in the French war, that was the consequence of it, Great Britain spent upwards of forty millions, a great part of which ought justly to be charged to the colonies ^*.’ From this, the writer seems to infer, that the colonies ought to pay a share of the public debts of England. To enumerate the various causes of the war in 1739, would require much room; but every person who consults history, will see that the British nation had a multiplicity of pretences; for she had no reasons, to commence that war, entirely distinct from any attachment to her North American provinces. Her merchants had, for many years, smuggled immense quantities of goods into the Spanish colonies. The court of Madrid determined to check this practice, [Page 43] and hostilities ensued ^*. On this op [...]ish quarrel, George the second engrafted another [...] the conti­nent of Europe. America had no natural concerns in such measures. If any of her traders embarked in a contraband commerce to the Spanish dominions, it was the interest of the rest of the people to leave there alone, to fight their own battles. At this rate, and with less impropriety, the United States might now declare war against France, Spain, and Bri­tain, for interrupting their navigation. In this war, France attacked us, not as American republics, but as British colonies. At the siege of [...]o [...]isb [...]urg, in 1745, the provinces of New-Hampshire and Massa­chusetts lost between two and three thousand men; a loss, that, as Mr. Hutchinson observes, was very severely felt, and it may be safely ascribed to the turbulent ambition of Britain. America, notwith­standing the affirmation of Dr. Smith, had no rea­son to thank the court of London, for this war and consequently she was under no moral obligation to pay any part of its charges.

As to the war of 1756, Dr. Franklin had pro­posed to defend Pennsylvania, by em [...]o [...]ying an American militia. The colonies, if united, could with ease have defended themselves against any force which the French ever brought into Canada. That they did not actually do so, must be attributed to English jealousy. ‘The defence of her colonies was a great expence to Great Britain. The most effectual mode of lessening this, was to put arms into the hands of the inhabitants, to teach them their use. But England wished not that the Ame­ricans should become acquainted with their own strength. She was apprehensive, that, as soon as this period arrived, they would no longer submit [Page 44] to that monopoly of their trade, which to them was highly injurious, but extremely advantage­ous to the mother country. In comparison with the profits of this, the expence of maintaining armies and fleets to defend them was trifling. She sought to keep them dependent upon her for protection, the best plan which could be devised for retaining them in peaceable subjection. The least appear­ance of a military spirit was therefore to be guard­ed against; and, although a war then raged, the act, organizing a militia, was disapproved of by the ministry. The regiments which had been formed under it, were disbanded, and the defence of the province entrusted to regular troops ^*.’ The generosity of Britain, in that war, was one of the principal arguments, employed by the advo­cates, for reducing the Americans to unconditional submission. The limits of Canada, for which it com­menced are likely to produce, at some future time, a second quarrel on this continent. It may, therefore, be worth while to examine more fully the real causes of the war of 1756, and the real importance of Canada to the rest of the British empire.

The animosity of the English nation towards France, has plunged them into many unprovoked wars against that people. One of the principal causes of that in question, was their jealousy of the share which the French had in trade with the Indians. Some of the latter passed by Albany to Montreal, two hundred and fifty miles farther, to buy goods, which they could have had cheaper at Albany. Guthrie, in his Geographical Grammar, states this circumstance, and adds, with a tone of regret, ‘so much did the French exceed us in the arts of winning the affections of these savages!’ If the [Page 45] Indians preferred the French to the English market, it must have been because they were better treated at Montreal than at Albany; so that the remark, though designed by the writer as an oblique sarcasm on French cunning, is a tacit acknowledgement of the superior prudence and integrity of the French nation. But this diminutive advantage on the side of France, deserved not to have been, as it really was, an object of envy to the people of England. These two rival nations traversed an ocean above a thousand leagues wide, that they might open dram shops, for the de [...]uchery and extirpation of a race of naked barbarians. This traffic was not an object of rational ambition to either party. Their common eagerness to pursue it, may readily be traced to their strong desire of purchasing furs from the In­dians, at a very cheap rate, in order to sell them at an exorbitant price in Europe. The spiritous liquors, which formed a staple commodity in this commerce, have utterly destroyed whole tribes of the primitive Americans: of those who still exist, the havoc has been very great. The Six Nations, for example, are said to have shrunk from a very superior number, to hardly fifteen hundred fighting men ^*. In a moral sense, therefore, this trade was extremely detestable. But, even as a source of wealth, its expediency might have been very doubt­ful. We are told that the Indians would sometimes give away their whole property for a dram. But the traders were frequently robbed and murdered, by the savages, whom they had intoxicated for the purpose of cheating them. This is the natural pro­gress [Page 46] and termination of knavery. After all, the furs were to be transported across the Atlantic, be­fore they could be sold again. Hence, if we take into consideration, the numerous hazards of all kinds that were to be surmounted, before the skin of a beaver was finally brought to market, it seems very likely, that, upon the whole, these wandering pedlars from Europe, would have been employed more honourably and more profitably, both for their countrymen and themselves, at home, in the ordi­nary occupations of domestic life. But the futility of this plan of commerce is placed beyond all doubt by another consideration. Canada was the princi­pal cause of the bloody war of 1756. This war cost England one hundred and eleven millions, two hundred and seventy-one thousand, nine hundred and ninety-six pounds sterling of public money ^*. The expences of France were certainly as great. Thus it is evident that a single campaign cost either nation more than all the furs in the world were worth. Since Britain became possessed of Canada, her trade with that country has been computed to employ about sixty ships, and a thousand seamen. The exports from the province, at an average of three years, in skins, furs, ginseng, snake-root, ca­pillaire, and wheat, amounted to one hundred and five thousand, five hundred pounds sterling per an­num. The imports from Britain were estimated about the same sum ^†. It may be supposed, that the number of ships and seamen engaged in this trade, is at present much greater, than has been above stated; for the trade itself has, of late years, been considerably augmented. In 1786, the exports from the province of Canada amounted to three hundred [Page 47] and forty-three thousand, two hundred and sixty-three pounds sterling. The imports of the same year, were three hundred and twenty-five thou­sand, one hundred and sixteen pounds sterling ^*. Thus the extent of the commerce between Britain and Canada seems to have trebled since the peace of 1763. We shall lay aside the extravagant ex­pence of the conquest, as well as that of preceed­ing wars for Canada, and of its defence in the re­volution of 1775. Let us then estimate the present advantages derived by Britain from this addition to her dominions. The amount of British goods ex­ported to Canada, since the conquest, in 1763, can­not, upon an average up to this time, (January, 1798) be higher than two hundred thousand pounds sterling per annum. This calculation may be safely rested on the particular statements above mention­ed. It is always reckoned a good trade, where a clear profit is to be gained of ten per cent. At this rate, England obtains, by the possession of Canada, twenty thousand pounds annually. It is usual, in es­timating the benefits arising to a nation in Europe, from one of its American colonies, to speak of the whole profits of the commerce, as if they were some peculiar species of emolument, that could have been acquired only by the possession of that indivi­dual spot. This sort of political sophistry has pro­duced some very bloody and fruitless wars. In the case before us, for instance, the same capital could have been employed by British merchants in other branches of trade; and therefore the acquisition of the country did not deserve a struggle. We are, indeed, informed, of the immense advantages that are obtained by the procuring from Canada of raw materials for manufactures ^†. This is another part [Page 48] of the mercantile catechism, that has impelled man­kind to innumerable crimes. The raw materials of manufactures may always be had, by those, who, like the British nation, are able to pay for them. But we shall admit that they could only be found in Canada, and that upon these raw materials, there is a second clear profit of ten per cent. amounting altogether, to a benefit of forty thousand pounds per annum, to Britain. Still that nation is a great loser by the retention of Canada. The expences of her civil and military establishment cannot be ex­actly ascertained, yet they will hardly come to less than an hundred thousand pounds a year; for the single fortress of Gibraltar, even in time of peace, costs England annually twice that sum ^*. In time of war, the expences both of Gibraltar and of Canada, become infinitely greater. If the military establish­ment in Canada be two thousand men, these are so many hands subtracted from the domestic manufac­tures of Britain, to an extent of loss, perhaps, not less than fifty thousand pounds a year. Thus, in one way or other, this province draws from Britain an hundred and fifty thousand pounds sterling per annum, even in time of peace, while its profits are forty thousand. Ireland, in the reign of Elizabeth, required for its peace establishment, more than four times the product of the whole revenue that tyranny could rend from its vitals ^†. Canada is, in this re­spect, what Ireland was to Britain at the close of the sixteenth century. How striking is the folly of nations, of statesmen, and of kings! In the war of 1756 only, the struggle for Canada, cost France and England, between them, two hundred millions ster­ling, and the lives of five hundred thousand men; and, after all, the dominion of the province, if it [Page 49] could have been had for nothing, was absolutely not worth acceptance! In 1784, the expence of col­lecting the customs in Quebec, Halifax, St. John's, and Newfoundland, exceeded their whole amount by a clear loss of seven hundred and twenty-five pounds sterling ^*.

The preceeding statement of facts, proves the right of this country to political independence, and furnishes a satisfactory answer to the accusation of ingratitude, so loudly thundered in our ears, by the orators of Britain.

For the sake both of Europe and America, it is to be desired, that the colonial supremacy, held by the former, over some regions of the latter, may soon expire. This usurped authority has uniformly pro­duced bad consequences to all parties. Spain, for instance, with the most wealthy and tempting por­tion of the new world, hath been reduced to ruin. Her colonies, at the same time, groan under odious oppression. Peru and Chili excepted, the culture of the vine and olive are forbidden to the Spanish co­lonists. They must buy the wine and oll for which they have occasion from old Spain. The difficulty of transporting such bulky articles across the Isth­mus of Panama, is the only reason for exempting Peru and Chili from this edict of desolation. No vessel belonging to the Spanish colonies was ever permitted to carry the commodities of America to Europe. No vessel of any foreign nation is openly received into the harbours of the Spanish dominions on the continent of America. The pains of death, and the confiscation of moveables, are denounced against every inhabitant who trades with them. Yet, in spite of all these regulations, the king of Spain is defrauded of half his revenues. An author, quot­ed [Page 50] by Dr. Robertson, gives a striking picture of the state of government in the Spanish colonies. ‘We have, says he, viceroys, presidents, gover­nors, oydors, corrigidors, alcaldes, and thousands of alguazils abound every where; but, notwith­standing all these, public abuses continue to mul­tiply ^*.’ With such a scene before them, the citi­zens of the United States cannot be sufficiently thank­ful, that they have escaped from the talons of the mo­ther country. Had the king of Britain succeeded in his plan of conquest, the subjects of Spain would have found no cause to envy the condition of Bri­tish colonies.

It is pleasing to observe how the rapacity of despotism overshoots its aim. The Spaniards, both in Europe and America, have their invention continual­ly on the stretch to elude the [...]oyal edicts. This spirit descends from the highest departments in govern­ment to the lowest. The very officers appointed to check contraband trade, are often employed as instru­ments in carrying it on; and the boards instituted to restrain and punish it, are the channels through which it flows. In Mexico and Peru, the annual estab­lishment for defraying the charge of administration, exceeds one-half of the revenue collected. The annu­al amount, in sterling money, exacted by Spain from America and the Phillipine islands, is computed by Dr. Robertson at only two millions and seven hun­dred thousand pounds sterling, of which one-half is expended in support of the administration. If these dominions contain sixteen millions of people, the king of Spain gains by them about one shilling and eight pence per head. A poor reward for the sla­very of a human being! But for their oppressed situation, the Spanish colonies might, perhaps, have [Page 51] been thrice as populous, and certainly much more improved than they are at present. Spain has had a still worse bargain of her colonies than Britain. Even in point of economy, it would have been for her advantage, to declare them independent an hundred years ago. The bloody war of 1739, exclusive of many other quarrels, must have cost her altogether, at least twenty-five or thirty mil­lions sterling. The very interest of this sum would have been more than the whole net revenue that she draws from her colonies. Ev [...] casting open their trade, she would still enjoy as great a share of it, as she could manage. England, by the separa­tion of her colonies, and the breaking up of her mo­nopoly trade, has not lost a single farthing; since her commerce with the United States is much more extensive than that with her North American colo­nies ever was before the revolution. This might be a lesson to the crown of Spain.

The following is a remark made in an English magazine for the year 1791.— ‘Such is the fanati­cism and ignorance of the Spaniards, that it is most probable their settlements will be in the hands of the United States, before their eyes are opened to the light of knowledge and liberty.’ The United States will certainly un­derstand their own interest better than to attempt such an acquisition, or even to accept of it, if prof­fered for nothing. The supremacy of Spain will not, however, be long lived, ‘Her violent and ar­bitrary government has, upon many occasions, been obliged to recall or soften the orders which had been given for the government of her colo­nies, for fear of a general insurrection ^*.’

[Page 52]It may have been so; but that is, at present, no concern of ours. In summer last, Mr. Robert Har­per held out to Congress, the conquest of the two Mexicos, as a temptation for America to league with England against France. The above detail shews how insignificant these possessions are even to Spain herself; and thus, on the side of avarice, the scheme is blasted, even if the regions destined to federal plunder could be seized without resistance. Mr. Harper, at the same time, railed at the French for conquering the dominions of monarchs, who had endeavoured to conquer them. Spain hath not warred against the United States, so that his own plan was evidently by far more atrocious than any which he had ascribed to the republic. A pro­sal for robbery more unprovoked, more shameless, more criminal, was never suggested in the cabin of Blackbeard, or the camp of Brandt. Had his end been to liberate an injured people, the humanity of the vision might have atoned for its madness. The view in which the member held out his scheme was not the dispensation of freedom to slaves, but the acquisition of booty to conquerors. The most serious consideration is, that the incendiary of Nine­ty Six, spoke, to be sure, only as the avaunt courier of his party, who act with the regularity of a Ro­man legion ^*.

CHAPTER III.

‘THE way to empire cannot be too short,’ said Tullia, when she drove her chariot over her father's dead body. ‘The way to Spanish gold cannot be too short,’ exclaims the federal orator to congress. The wisdom of Mr. Harper's scheme is equal to its honesty. For the trifling ex­pence of ten millions of dollars, the United States might assemble twenty thousand men at the mouth of the Ohio. They have then only to descend with the stream, till they gain some proper place for dis­embarking. They next dash through a forest three hundred leagues wide, which leads them to the ca­pital of New Mexico. Some slight objections occur. Three-fourths of the army will die of hunger on the march, from the difficulty of taking sufficient provisions along with them. Three-fourths of the remainder will perish of fatigue and the flux; and the Indians may, probably, knock the rest on the head. But these are the petty cavils of cowardice. Cortez did not calculate, and why should we?

If this plan had only been spouted in a sit of pas­sion, it had not been worthy of attentive remark, [Page 54] But Mr. Harper, in a printed letter to his constitu­ents, dated May 25th, 1797, dwells upon the idea, Recommending an alliance with England, he says, that the colonies of Holland and Spain ‘must sink under the arms of the two countries:’ viz. of Britain and the United States. A long extract, con­taining this assertion, he been circulated in one, at least, if not others, of the federal newspapers. If the friends of order, in congress, had never propa­gated any scheme equally profligate and audacious with this, charity would be led to suppose, that Mr. Harper acted only by the impulse of his own folly. But their struggle for rejecting the Indian, Algerine, and Spanish treaties, unless linked with that of Jay, was a branch from the same root. The war with France, into which they make such vigorous efforts for driving America, is altogether as frantic as Mr. Harper's plan; and hence it is not injuring them to believe that they approved of his proposal for the Mexican expedition.

On the 2d of June, 1797, a number of American captains at Port-au-Prince, in St. Domingo, presen­ted a petition to governor Simcoe. They represen­ted that eleven American vessels, with cargoes, amounting to three hundred thousand dollars, had been captured by British privateers, and were then lying at that port, in expectation of a trial. They had applied for it, and had been told in answer, that they were to be sent for adjudication to Mole St. Nicholas. They state, that some of the vessels can­not proceed to that place without considerable re­pairs: others, had been abandoned by their crews, Some, with their cargoes, were likewise in a state of suffering. Many of the petitioners, being entire strangers, were reduced to inconvenience from want of money. Some crews and supercargoes, from sickness, disappointments, and mortifications, were [Page 55] reduced to the most distressing circumstances. They affirm, that they had carried on a legal trade, agree­ably to the British treaty. They supplicate that a court of admiralty may be appointed at Port-au-Prince for trying their causes, and conclude with some compliments to the personal character of Sim­coe himself.

His answer was haughty and reproachful. He promised to recommend to the judge of the ad­miralty, Mr. Combauld, to decide their cases at an early period; but he gave them no reason to think that there would be a court erected for that end at Port-au-Prince. He hoped that they would be ac­quitted of that contraband traffic which many ci­tizens of the United States carried on with the French government in St. Domingo. He closed with telling them that this illicit trade might, at no remote distance, ‘seriously disturb the national re­pose, and affect the security of the American con­tinent.’ This menace appears somewhat inex­plicable. He cannot surely mean that England is to affect our security by land, as a consequence of her having robbed our ships at sea. The lat­ter was, of itself, enough in all conscience. Thus American vessels are liable to be taken into an Eng­lish port, and to be kept there till their crews desert, their cargoes spoil, and themselves rot for want of an English trial. When no longer capable of sail­ing, they are ordered to make a voyage in quest of adjudication. Mr. Harper and his friends think that they have gained every thing, because they have at last exasperated the French into the same system of privateering, which the British have car­ried on for four years and an half, and in which they still ardently persist.

It would require considerable room to enume­rate all the British confiscations of American pro­perty [Page 56] in the West-Indies, within the last six months. Captain Dunlevy remained in Hispaniola from the 9th of June, to the 20th of October, 1797. The following is a summary of his account, as to Mr. Combauld's operations. Eighteen vessels, with their cargoes, were condemned. Two of the cap­tains of these ships were detained three months be­fore they could get their papers, which could have been had with ease in three days, or a much less time. Another of these captains died of grief. A nineteenth vessel, with her cargo, was sold to pay the costs of court. A twentieth was cleared, but the cargo condemned. Seven were discharged on paying costs. This is manifest injustice; for, if the English were not warranted in seizing them, it was highly oppressive to make them pay any ex­pence whatever. They should rather have them reimbursed for their detention. But what could be expected, when the same nation were both par­ties and judges? Some others in the above list were under trial, when captain Dunlevy came away. The whole amount to thirty one, and several ves­sels were likewise detained, of which the trials had not come on. Many such details of the present year might be given, as to English piracy. Yet the Adamites always speak as if piracy were confi­ned to the French only.

The relative spirit of the American ministry to­wards the two nations is fully exhibited in the fol­lowing narrative. Citizen Adet had complained to Mr. Pickering respecting the French corvette L'Esperance. She was taken by the British ship Argonaut, who went with her prize into Lynnha­ven bay, in Virginia. According to Adet, the cor­vette was there fitted out by admiral Murray, as a British cruiser, and this Adet urged as a violation of the treaty of Paris. Pickering, in his letter to [Page 57] Charles Pinckney, undertakes to answer this com­plaint. He first remarks, that the captain of the corvette, and the French consul at Norfolk, had both been applied to, and shewed no disposition to complain of any improper conduct on the part of the captors. Thus far all is well; but Mr. Pick­ering proceeds thus: ‘the governor (of Virginia) having heard that a respectable pilot by the name of Butler, was acquainted with the circumstan­ces of this affair, he directed his deposition to be taken; it was taken, and imported, that admiral Murray himself, purchased the prize and manned and fitted her in Lynnhaven bay for a cruize; but Butler's deposition was afterwards taken on the part of the British, in which he contradicted all the material facts recited in the former deposi­tion, which he accounted for by saying, that he could neither write nor read, and that there had been inserted in his first deposition what he had never said ^*.’ Mr. Pickering then mentions to Pinckney his anxiety for further information. This had been supplied by the British minister, Mr. Hammond, in a letter from admiral Murray, who declared that he sent the corvette back to sea, as soon as wind and weather would permit.

From the face of this story, it seems that our se­cretary of state acted right. The French consul and captain, at least as he pretends, would have no­thing to do with complaining. Butler, the only evidence against Murray, retracted upon oath; and since the admiral himself denied his having fitted out the L'Esperance, as a privateer, Mr. Pickering had no choice but to give him credit.

Now comes the opposite side of the question. On the 24th of March, 1795, Butler emitted his first [Page 58] deposition, purporting, as above, that the corvette was fitted out by admiral Murray, for a privateer. But it is NOT TRUE, as Mr. Pickering affirms, that Butler ever contradicted this testimony in a second deposition. That of the 24th of March, 1795, was immediately sent forward to Mr. Pickering, and by the latter communicated to Mr. Hammond, who sent a copy of it to captain Cochrane of the Thetis, which was then under repair at Norfolk. When Cochrane was ready to set sail, he selected Butler, as his pilot; and after the ship had got into Hampton roads, he began to charge the man with having acted as a spy on board of English ships. He read in evidence, a copy of Butler's deposition of the 24th of March, and threatened to carry him off, and treat him as a spy. Under those circumstances, Cochrane presented a paper, which he called of the nature of a counter declaration, and required Butler to subscribe it. The pilot was glad to sign any thing, rather than run the im­mediate hazard of being carried away from his bu­siness, his family, and his country; besides the prospect of being starved, flogged, and probably murdered by a gang of barbarians. He was not indulged with a copy of the paper, nor made ac­quainted with its contents. Captain Cochrane did not offer to administer an oath.

When Butler got on shore, he made a deposition before three magistrates of the county of Norfolk, and in presence of a number of respectable citi­zens. He therein related the circumstances of sur­prise, compulsion, and alarm, under which Coch­rane compelled him to sign a paper contradictory to his deposition of the 24th of March. This second deposition was taken on the 4th of May, 1795, and forwarded to Mr. Pickering. Yet our secretary, takes not the least notice of it, and modestly gives [Page 59] the title of a deposition to the paper obtained by captain Cochrane. These particulars are abridged from a copious detail furnished by co­lonel Josiah Parker, who has been five times elec­ted as a representative to congress, and who, for classical propriety of expression, is excelled by no speaker in that house. This gentlemen has docu­ments for proving what is above related. After this explanation, it will be difficult to defend the vera­city of colonel Pickering. Mr. Washington, along with a copy of this letter to Pinckney, sent to con­gress, as usual, an introductory message. It con­cludes in these words: ‘A government which required only a knowledge of the truth to justify its measures, could not but be anxious to have this fully and frankly displayed.’ Canting is always suspicious. Mr. Washington, in the una­voidable exercise of his mind, must have known that this inflammatory letter contained other bun­gling attempts at imposture, as well as that about the Norfolk pilot. Such cobwebs may last for a day, but the brush of history quickly sweeps them down, and consigns them to their native dunghill.

This is the cabinet that makes so much noise about its morality. From contemplating the present secretary of state, we naturally turn to one of his predecessors. For a long time before Thomas Jef­ferson resigned his place, the federal prints were diligent in reproaching him, as unworthy to be en­trusted with so high an office. Since he gave it up, they have censured him for a resignation, of which they were extremely glad. The Minerva con­tains a letter, copied into a Jersey Gazette, of October 11th, 1797, which has these words: ‘The good and the wise saw him suddenly retreat from a post of honour, and essential service, at a mo­ment, when his country was in a situation so cri­tical [Page 60] as to require all the efforts of wisdom, and the posture of firmness and dignity.’

If Mr. Jefferson is so dangerous a man as the six per cent. writers have constantly represented him to be, it was unsuitable to regret his retreat. Ame­rica was well rid of him. But these scribblers had terms to keep with the great body of citizens, upon whom his abilities and his services had made a lasting impression. His retirement was heard of with uni­versal concern, unless among the immediate leaders and agents of the stock-holding and British faction; and with them it was necessary to conceal their triumph. Enlightened men looked around them, and saw no other character capable to fill the gap. Motives of prudence compel Mr. Jefferson's ad­versaries, Phocion excepted, to speak with defer­ence of his talents.

The cause of resignation may be told in a few words. The late president has a reserved sullen temper, which of itself must be extremely tiresome. He had likewise a strong bias to the Hamiltonian and Antigallican system, so that Mr. Jefferson found himself in very frequent minorities. When the three secretaries, and Mr. Randolph, attorney ge­neral, were convened with the president, report says, that Randolph used to argue on the side of Jeffer­son, and when the vote came, to agree with Knox and Hamilton. To a man of independent fortune, and of a literary turn, this situation could have no charms; and as few arose from the emoluments of office. These reasons form a good apology for his retiring; as the events that succeeded his re­treat, compose the best encomium on his abilities. Within three short months thereafter, the president stumbled into that pit of destruction, the plan for a British treaty. The next four months produced what Mr. Hamilton chose to call a rebellion. All the [Page 61] rest of our history has been as calamitous as it well could be, when short of actual war. At last, matters grew so very bad, that general Washington himself durst no longer hold the helm. If resignation, at a critical moment, be culpable, the charge falls a thousand times more heavily on the president than on his secretary.

And here, instead of what has been done, let fancy suppose what might have been done, since the fatal 16th of April, 1794, if Mr. Jefferson, with a sound majority of congress to support him, had conducted the administration of America. Instead of aukward instructions, which the executive blushed to pro­duce, the message would have been open, concise, and decisive; and the representatives would have been consulted about it. "Send back," it would say, ‘our impressed fellow citizens, with double wages for the time of their detention. Send back our vessels, taken in contempt of justice. The subject is complicated, and will require time. But as a pledge of your sincerity, deposit in our treasury before hand, a million of dollars, for the relief of the families of impressed seamnen ^*, and of those merchants who have gone to jail in consequence of your piracies. Unless you do so, we forbid the exportation of provi­sions to the British West-Indies, and shall anni­hilate your armies without firing a pistol. We want no treaty of commerce with you, till the end of the war shall decide your future situation.’

By this firm but reasonable tone, England might have learned to respect the United States. France, [Page 62] courting their amity, would have restrained her cruisers, as she actually did, till July, 1796, when she heard of the final ratification of the British trea­ty, which is the confessed cause of her present de­predations.

As for the western insurrection, Mr. Jefferson has never expressed impatience for the burning of Pitts­burgh; of course, he would have quelled the riots in their infancy, at an expence of five hundred dol­lars. Instead of refusing to pay the militia who burnt Nickajack, instead of inveighing against de­mocratic societies, and boasting of Creek friendship, he would have authorised generals Clarke and Pick­ens to enter the country of these cut-throats, at the head of five thousand men, to teach them some respect for treaties, and some dread for offended justice.

The writer in the Minerva proceeds to declaim upon a letter said to be written from Mr. Jefferson to one Mazzei at Florence. Much clutter has been made about this piece, which, unfortunately for the enemies of Mr. Jefferson, contains only strict truth. The following is the most interesting part of it.

‘Our political situation is prodigiously changed since you left us. Instead of that noble love of liberty, and that republican government, which carried us triumphantly through the dangers of the war, an Anglo-monarchico-aristocratic par­ty has arisen.—Their avowed object is to impose on us the substance, as they have already given us the form, of the British government. Never­theless, the principal body of our citizens remains faithful to republican principles. All our pro­prietors of lands are friendly to those principles, as also the mass of men of talents. We have against us (republicans) the executive power, the judiciary power, (two of the three branches [Page 63] of our government,) all the officers of govern­ment, all who are seeking offices, all timid men, who prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestu­ous sea of liberty, the Britsh merchants and the Americans who trade on British capitals, the speculators, persons interested in the bank and the public funds; establishments invented with views of corruption, and to assimilate us to the British model in its corrupt parts.’

This letter was originally translated from a French newspaper by Webster, who spoke of it as if it had been treason. That an English faction has arisen, and obtained an undue influence in govern­ment, can hardly be denied, when, besides a mil­lion of other traits, we see one president after ano­ther haranguing against French piracy, and passing over in guarded silence, the sea-robberies of Britain. The constitution, of which the letter speaks, is, upon the whole, a good instrument, but liable to numerous and important objections. One of these is the immense patronage bestowed on the president, and a second, the universal negative of the senate. It has been shewn ^*, that a president, with eleven senators to help him, can absolutely stop the whole business of the legislature. This may be called re­presentative government, but it is evidently the dregs of monarchy and aristocracy.

The same piece in the Minerva, that has been above cited, speaks of Virginia as uncommonly prone to insurrection. The American Annual Regis­ter, and the History of 1796, comprehend a variety of remarks in answer to the calumnies heaped upon that state by the federal party. The subject has not, however, been exhausted, and it is of infinite con­cern to undeceive the people who may have been [Page 64] misled by their artifices. The fact then is, that if true republicanism, if a genuine sense of order and of freedom, shall be driven from every other state in the union, their last stand will be made in Virgi­nia. Previous to the actual commencement of hos­tilities in 1775, little or nothing was heard of mobs in that province; for its inhabitants were sensible that the burning of effigies, the bedaubing of a de­fenceless individual with tar and feathers, was not the way to reflect honour on a struggle for inde­pendence ^*. While the British newspapers were fil­led with the noisy and tumultuous proceedings of other colonies, Virginia remained in comparative order and tranquility. Her loyalty was a constant subject of ministerial exultation; for it seemed plain enough, that if she stood by the old country, all the projects of New-England were to end in disappoint­ment. When matters, however, came to an extremi­ty, it was found, that Virginia was as zealous in the common cause as any other state, and much more so than most of them. Connecticut tories supported a bloody share in the partizan war of the frontiers. Mr. Williams, one of the representatives of New-York, said, last winter, in congress, that at the commencement of the revolution, one half of the people of that state were tories. In Pennsylvania, the revolutionary party never could have stood upon their legs, but by the concurrence of Irish emi­grants. In the two Carolinas and Georgia, the peo­ple fought desperately among themselves. But it is believed that, during the whole war, no body of Virginian citizens ever raised the British standard. They did not even submit, when British armies entered the state. Ramsay says, that, in general, [Page 65] they chose to retire out of the way, when Corn­wallis was burning all before him. In battle they were inferior to no troops in the union. The sa­vages, whom they subdued, used to say, that Vir­ginia was the great knife.

This state, so frequently stigmatized as anti-federal, was the very first that suggested a fede­ral union. In 1785, this proposal was made in the Virginian house of delegates. In conse­quence, an imperfect continental convention was, in 1786, held at Annapolis, and this proved the seed­bed of that convention which formed the present constitution. "Virginia," says Morse, ‘has taken a leading, active, and influential part in bringing about the late grand revolution in our federal government ^*.’ Ever since that time, the state has remained in tranquility, and in perfect submis­sion to the laws. To Virginia, America is, in a a great measure, indebted both for her indepen­dence, and her present constitution. To upbraid her then, as antifederal, is the very pinnacle of in­gratitude, of audacity, and fiction.

The stock-jobbing party accuse this state as de­sirous of a war with England. No Virginian above ideotism, should ever desire a foreign war. Inter­sected almost throughout by navigable streams, Virginia lies more open to the ravages of a mari­time enemy than any other state in the union. This truth was severely felt during the war of 1775; and consequently, this will be one of the last states that would ever wish for actual hostility. The cla­mour excited against her, as anxious for a war with England, is, only a branch of the truly federal sys­tem of imposture.

Virginia has been reproached for permitting the continuance of slavery. But we have the authority [Page 66] of Mr. Jefferson ^* for saying, that, long before the revolution, the state wanted to prohibit the impor­tation of slaves; a measure prevented by England. In 1786, the assembly, by an act, put an end to this vile commerce; and a general abolition is gradu­ally going forward. In a petition, lately presented to congress, by some negroes, it transpired, that Virginia affords an asylum to fugitive slaves from the more southern states. She does not, with the savageness of North-Carolina, prohibit their eman­cipation. While Massachusetts connives at eccle­siastical oppression, Virginia has established an uni­versal right of conscience, and no man is obliged to pay for religion, unless he pleases. The clergymen of New-England, or a part of them, cannot avoid being much hurt at a precedent, so dangerous to the commercial interest of the church; and they have, undoubtedly, swelled the torrent of calumny with which Virginia has been overwhelmed in the eastern states.

The vindication of Virginia has been taken up in this place, because the federal party appear very much disposed to extrude her from the union. Ma­ny of their projects and menaces are so closely in­terwoven with downright madness, that it seems difficult to believe the sincerity of the party. And yet, after their attempt for a conditional rejection of three foreign treaties, unless they could obtain a fourth; after their proposed standing army of twen­ty-five thousand men ^†; their doctrine of partitioning the United States ^‡; their French war; their Mexi­can excursion, with other frenzies equally wild and distracted, wonder ceases at the proposed extru­sion of Virginia; or, as Webster and other federal writers term it, a separation from the whole sou­thern [Page 67] states. By such a disjunction, the continent, as to all its external relations, would sink into the lowest insignificance and wretchedness. Yet a Connecticut newsprinter has published a series of letters in defence of this proposed separation; which, among other effects, implies an immedi­ate annihilation of public and private credit, and consequently of the national debt. The federal party revile Virginia, because its members in con­gress have constantly opposed their funding system, the overgrowth of presidential influence, and other matters connected with these. Yet if left to them­selves, Mr. Sedgwick and Co. would long since have extinguished the present government, the funds, and all together. If they can just now en­tangle the union in a French war, this catastrophe may still be expected. The following anecdote displays the genuine spirit of the stockholding party.

‘When the bill for establishing a national bank was under consideration, he (Mr. Madison) had opposed it, as not warranted in the constitution, and incidently remarked, that in the convention a motion was made and negatived, for giving congress a power to grant charters of corpora­tion ^*.’ Mr. Madison subjoins, that, for this slight reference to the convention, he was attacked by several speakers, and among others by Mr. Gerry of Massachusetts, who had been a member of the convention.

On the subject of this bank, Mr. Alexander Hamilton gave in to congress a report, dated 13th of December, 1790, and which fills twenty-one folio pages. He says not a single word as to its be­ing authorised by the constitution, which undoubt­edly [Page 68] gives no such power. But here we learn that it was directly negatived by the framers of that in­strument; and expressly contradicted the spirit and design of it. Indeed, a power of creating corporations, would have vested in congress an op­pressive degree of influence, repugnant to the geni­us of a free government.

Mr. Madison was censured for referring to what passed in the convention. When an obscure passage occurs in a living author, the best mode of expla­nation is by an appeal to himself. When a bond or indenture appears ambiguous, the surest way to get its meaning is, by enquiry at the parties who drew and subscribed it. The reference to the conven­tion was, therefore, strictly proper; and Gerry, and others who objected to it, betrayed impene­trable effrontery. The bare omission of such power in the constitution, was enough to warrant the re­jection of the plan; but when the point had been absolutely debated and negatived in the convention, this added, if possible, to the strength of the case. Congress had sworn to support the constitution. By passing the law for incorporating the bank of the United States, they, at the same instant, broke their own oaths of office, and violated the consti­tution. So far from pocketing the reproof for refer­ence, Mr. Madison and his friends ought to have advertised, in the newspapers, the true picture of this enormous stride of venality. Yet this junto af­fect peculiar reverence for the constitution; and hold themselves out as its exclusive guardians. All who question their purity are its enemies. What astonishing hardiness!

Gerry, and great part of his majority, were des­tined to be partners of the future bank, thus found­ed on a breach of the constitution. These are the immaculate legislators whom Virginia detests, and [Page 69] Connecticut admires. If the first federal congress wanted the comprehensive information, the dignity of sentiment, and enthusiasm of eloquence, that sometimes mark a British parliament, they did not fall short of the servility, meanness, and cor­ruption of its blackest era.

A writer in the New-Jersey Centinel of Freedom, of January, 1797, has well drawn the portrait of such partisans as Webster. ‘The writer of this paragraph," says he, "by good government only means the Hamiltonian administration; by good order, submission to this administration; by federal ticket, a ticket favourable to this admi­nistration; and by peace, peace with England and war with France. It is curious to observe with what effrontery some people talk of good government, good order, peace, and federalism. Every one knows that the Hamiltonian par­ty have discovered a much greater disposition towards antifederalism than their political oppo­nents; for they have on all occasions endeavour­ed to quarrel with the southern states, and dis­affect them to the union. Their love of order has only been discovered by their submission to an administration under their own controul; but as soon as the majority of the house of repre­sentatives checked their progress to dominion, they immediately became refractory, abusive, and attempted to menace the immediate repre­sentatives of the people into an unconditional compliance with their will: their love of peace has only been shewn by an humiliating submission to British insolence and depredation, and in a prostituted commendation of a treaty that has tar­nished the lustre of America.’

The fulsome compliments which have con­stantly passed between the president and congress, [Page 70] betray that spirit of monarchy, of which the letter to Mazzei complains. This servility is carried far­ther by congress than in the British house of com­mons, where a royal speech is always criticized with freedom and minuteness. Among other en­comiums bandied between Mr. Washington and the first congress, one turned on his accepting of no salary but for his personal expences. ‘I must decline," says he, "as inapplicable to myself, any share in the personal emoluments.—And pray that the pecuniary estimates for the station in which I am placed, may, during my continuance in it, be limited to such actual expenditures as the public good may be thought to require.’

The answer of the representatives, dated May 5th, 1789, tells him that this restriction, ‘cannot fail to demonstrate the purity, whilst it increases the lustre of a character, which has so many ti­tles to admiration!’ Thus they began, and thus they have ever since gone on. Of all the vulgar artifices for popularity ever heard of, this as to accepting of no salary is perhaps the most pitiful; and yet such has been public infatuation, that, while drawing for every cent of his allowance, general Washington has been celebrated for refu­sing to take more than his net houshold charges. The granting of so large a sum had bad effects, by adding the wet of avarice to that of ambition.

CHAPTER IV.

AS our presidents and friends of order, are so wonderfully delicate on the subject of English piracies and impressments, this chapter shall begin with some recent anecdotes of that kind. Every federal artifice has been employed, from the two speeches of Mr. Adams to congress, down to the scurrilous paragraphs in Mr. Fenno's gazette, with the view of exciting the tempest of public indig­nation against France. A summary, like that which follows, will help to preserve in equipoise the ba­lance of resentment.

On the 27th of July, 1797, Nathaniel Silsbee, cap­tain of the ship Betsey, addressed a letter to the prin­ter of a Salem newspaper. He had arrived at Sa­lem three days before, from Madras. He left in that port nine English ships of war. One of these was the Sybille frigate, captain Cook, who pressed from captain Silsbee Edward Hulen, a native of Salem. He also threatened that if complaint should be made by Silsbee to the governor, on shore, he would not only take every seamen, but also every officer from the Betsey. He did not commit this violence from scarcity of hands; for he told cap­tain Silsbee that he had thirty-five men over and [Page 72] above his ship's complement. He added, that he be­lieved fifteen of them to be real American born citizens. He said that he had pressed them from on board of American ships at Lisbon, in spite of the remonstrances of the American consul at that place. Cooke farther declared, that he would keep these men in perfect security, till the end of the war.

After the impressment of Hulen, the Betsey was daily visited by a lieutenant from the Sy­bille. During his stay on board, this officer took full command of the ship, mustered the crew regularly on the quarter deck, and would not suf­fer any ship's duty to be carried on at these times. He farther threatened to correct the American officers for not manning the ship's side, and paying him such respect as he said that the presence of any British officer ought to command. Hulen has left an aged and disconsolate mother, who depended entirely for support upon her son. Cap­tain Silsbee adds that several other American seamen were, about the same time, pressed from other Ame­rican ships at Madras. The case of Edward Hulen, must afflict every friend to the United States. But it will give joy to that British junto, in this city, who, by a recent measure, have done their utmost for promoting assassination. The late and present be­haviour of American tories afford an able vindi­cation for the prudent severity of the French re­public.

A letter from a Philadelphian captain, dated Cape Nicholas Mole, 13th July, 1797, gives the following account. Off Tortuga, his vessel, which was bound for Gonaives, a French port, was taken by an En­glish frigate. That same evening, while the ships were lying within twenty yards of each other, the frigate fired a twelve pound shot ‘in hopes to sink [Page 73] me,’ says the captain. On arriving at Cape Ni­cholas, his papers were examined, and returned; but government would neither buy his provisions, nor permit him to proceed on his voyage; ‘they pay no attention to the treaty here.’ The rea­son for detaining him seems to have been lest he should sail for a French port; as he subjoins that he was to sail for Kingston by the first convoy. The captain further says that the English bring in for adjudication all American vessels going to or co­ming from French ports. Those going to are libel­led for having in their invoices nails and knives, French letters, French supercargoes; or in short any trifle serves as a pretence, and they are gene­rally condemned. Those coming from French islands are libelled for having coffee on board, ship­ped by the French administration, and are generally condemned as French Amoricans.

Thus the English consider Jay's transaction as a mere jest. The twenty fifth article of that paper says that ‘nothing in this treaty contained shall, however, be construed or operate contrary to former and existing public treaties with other so­vereigns or states.’ Now, before this war began, England did not pretend that she had any title to stop American vessels bound to a French port; nor did she ever attempt to stop them. The violation would not have been endured in a single instance, and was in itself too extravagant ever to have been projected.

By the twenty-third article of the treaty of com­merce, signed at Paris, in 1778, it is declared, that "free ships shall also give a freedom to goods;" thus, that English property in an American ship shall be secure from a French privateer. The twenty-fifth clause of Jay, as just now quoted, com­prehends a protection of the treaty of Paris; and [Page 74] yet, in practice, the English have broken it many hundreds of times, to the entire ruin of a multitude both of French and American citizens. They were not contented with this. They seized, also, Ameri­can vessels bound to or from French islands, which tended directly to destroy the trade of the latter. Thus the French were put upon the most unequal and distressing footing. They were not to interrupt American trade with the English West-Indies, while England was destroying American trade with the French West-Indies. Instead of interfering, our palsied executive, through the medium of the senate, were encouraging Mr. Fenno to publish daily co­lumns of invective against the French revolution.

It was not to be supposed, that any people, and much less that a people intoxicated with victory ^*, were long to endure such partial treatment as that above described, without feeling resentment and meditating vengeance. The frigid neglect of Mr. Washington has been succeded by the boyish petu­lence, or factious malignity of Mr. Adams; and both have gone directly to the extirpation of the Ameri­can mercantile interest. Had Mr. Jefferson been elected president, France would have placed some [Page 75] confidence in the known purity of his republican principles. This national choice, would have held out a kind of pledge for the general good will of the citizens of the United States; and the deluge of commercial desolation must, in that case, have had a fair chance for being, in some degree, suspended. But when the French found, that Mr. Adams, the friend of England, was raised to the chair, they foresaw that extremities were to be the sole re­source.

And here it is grateful to observe, how com­pletely deceit has overshot its mark. With many honourable exceptions, the great body of the mer­cantile interest, in this city, is devoted to England, as existing, in some measure, by credit obtained in that country. The printed ticket, the ballot-box, and post-office manoeuvres, as well as the legal opinion, so timeously tendered, during the late elec­tion for president, were the work of the federal party, of whom our British merchants compose such a powerful division. Having, by the most scandalous artifices, obtained the election of Mr. Adams, as president, they now reap the fruits of it in the ruin of their trade, and the probability of a French war, into which their hero is straining every nerve to plunge them. Had they permitted the election to proceed in an honest way, Mr. Jefferson must have been president, and our affairs with France might have been in a train of accommodation.

The letter from the West-Indies, last quoted, has neither the name of the ship nor captain, and this might afford room for doubting its authenticity. But the substance of its contents has been verified from a thousand other channels. The printer of the Philadelphia Gazette has no disposition to tell faults of England, but on the best evidence. The suppression of the vessel's name arises, most likely, [Page 76] from the prudence of its owner. His bills, indorsed by some federal friend, are, probably, lying pro­tested at the banks; and the guilt of having sent such a piece to the press, would be an adequate reason for sending him to prison. He must know little of the paper-money party, who fancies them incapable of such a process. It will be wonderful indeed, if, before this time, the Scotch tories at Norfolk, have not commenced the ruin of the pilot Butler.

It is not true, by the way, that even yet the French universally capture American ships. Here follows an instance to the contrary. On July 28th, 1797, the schooner William, captain Linnel, arriv­ed at Norfolk, from Grenada. On the 4th current, while in company with a schooner, of and for New-London, two French privateers brought them too. After examining their papers, the French told them that they had particular orders not to stop or dis­turb any American vessel, and were very sorry for having put them out of their course. The mate of the William had six hundred dollars under his care, and they told him that he had no occasion to hide them, as they should take nothing but what appeared to be English property. A French sailor was severely threatened by his captain for attempting to steal a pig. On the 23d of May, 1797, James Hammond, an American seaman, was pressed from the ship Hope of New-York, captain Pierce, at Madeira. This was done by captain James, of the British brig of war, El Corso. Some days after, the same brig impressed five others of his men, two of whom were, with difficulty, recovered. Hammond and other three were kept. On the 28th of June, the brig Abigail, capt. Lake, while lying in the port of Gi­braltar, was boarded by the Hamadryade, a British frigate. Four of his crew were forcibly taken away. [Page 77] Two of them had been recently redeemed from slavery at Algiers. Captain Lake, who gave this account, arrived at Philadelphia on the 31st of August, 1797. Other instances of British impress­ment might be collected, but these are sufficient for a sample of the admirable effects of our British al­liance ^*.

The History of 1796, exhibits oceans of demon­stration that the dread of a British war, in the event of congress rejecting Jay's bargain, was the joint of offspring of ignorance, and knavery. Dr. Smith, Mr. Sedgwick, and the other six per cent. leaders, panted for nothing so much as alliance with a monarchy, which furnished ample prece­dents for every species of financial corruption, and which held their political opponents in mortal ab­horrence. The merchants kept in view compen­sation for previous piracies, a perpetuity and ex­tension of their British credit, and the domestic danger of persecution from the banks, if they re­jected this conclusive step of the Hami [...]nian sys­tem. The people, at large, who could have no interest but that of their country, believed asser­tions, which the timid republican representatives hardly ventured to contradict. Thus was the wel­fare [Page 78] of the United States sacrificed to the short-sighted prospects of interest and fear. General infa­tuation overlooked the moral certainty that France, having already broke down one half of Europe, would demand and extort from America a tenfold atonement for the ungrateful and injurious prefer­ence given to the most detested of her enemies.

The season of repentance and degredation has at length arrived. Like Cesar's ides of March, it has come, but it has not gone. On this head, the Ma­ryland Journal of June 18th, 1796, contains a few remarks that, like the prophecies of Cassandra, will find belief when it is too late. They were oc­casioned by the capture of the Mount Vernon, a few days before, and are as follows.

[Page 82]It is generally understood, that, in the conven­tion of 1787, a form of government, in substance monarchical, was proposed and rejected. Mr. Ha­milton conducted this party. At the period of accept­ing the constitution, the republicans were displeased by the length of time for which the senate hold their seats; and, it has been affirmed, that their friends in the convention, only acceded to it as a matter of compromise. If the aristocratical party had carried the point of a president and senate elected for twelve, or even eight years, this would have an­swered, very completely, all the purposes of mo­narchy. They could, as at present, throw out every bill from the representatives, which did not suit their views. In the mean time, their chief, the pre­sident, had the absolute disposal of the loaves and fishes; and so long a period of useless resistance, could not fail to wear out the obstinacy of almost any republican in the lower house. Here then, be­hold royalty in all its deformity of strength and cor­ruption! The federal senate of twelve years were likely to have been more flexible, more abject, than even a British house of peers. The latter, in general, enjoy an independent property twenty or forty times greater than that of most American senators. Hence the former are less accessible than the latter, either to foreign or domestic corruption. Had Mr. Ha­milton, therefore, and his party, obtained this object of a longer period for the election of a senate and president, the whole fruits of the revolution must have been forfeited. Of the two systems, British su­premacy would have been the lesser evil. There is no peculiar sublimity in American legislators, that would render them impenetrable to an argument from the mint. Franking, for instance, was not more odly perverted by an English member to pay the wages of his footman, than by Roger Sherman [Page 83] transmitting his dirty linen from Philadelphia to a Connecticut washing tub.

The actual plan of a federal constitution, as laid before the convention by Mr. Hamilton, was never exposed to the public view. A copy of it has been obtained for insertion in this volume. It was com­municated by a gentleman who has long held an important situation in the government of the coun­try. By singular good fortune, his character has escaped the shafts even of federal calumny; and his name is at the service either of Mr. Hamilton, or of any gentleman who shall, at his desire, enquire for it. In two or three sentences he may have va­ried a word, from inaccuracy of transcription, but he is positive as to having preserved the ideas, in every article, with strict fidelity. The paper has also been read, in presence of two members of con­gress, to a gentleman who sat in the convention; and he declared his belief that it was a faithful copy of the plan suggested by Mr. Hamilton. After this previous explanation, as to the authenticity of the paper, nothing remains but to give a copy of it, annexing to some of the articles a few observa­tions.

The last word, undoubtedly, applies to the senate and governor, whom the fourth and sixth articles had already vested with the power of all appoint­ments. [Page 88] So immense an accumulation of patronage, would have made them as absolute as the late kings of France. Such a system as that here sketched out was a direct extirpation of the liberties of America. General Washington, as a member of the conven­tion, knew this plan; and that it met with his ap­probation is plain; for when raised to the presi­dency, he appointed Mr. Hamilton to be secretary of the treasury. This office, in the way by which Mr. Hamilton conducted it, immediately comprehend­ed twenty times the real influence enjoyed by Mr. Jefferson, as secretary of state. The president thereafter continued to foster Mr. Hamilton with augmenting confidence, and never failed to ratify all the statutes of his majority. These circum­stances speak very distinctly; nor will the president's tuneful periods in praise of republican govern­ment obliterate the stain. Mr. Washington ought to have held in detestation every man capable of inventing or defending so vile a scheme. Instead of that, the apostle of a federal throne was pressed to his bosom.

When such plans were in agitation, it is not sur­prising that a party in the convention became so­licitous to shut their doors. But time has, at length, rent the veil of secrecy; and the primitive prin­ciples and projects of Mr. Hamilton and his friends are now fairly committed to the world.

When, in the convention of 1787, the vote was carried for shutting the doors, the republican par­ty should have walked out of the house. Their want of firmness hath been the sole cause of their depression. It was of infinite consequence that the opinions and arguments of every member in the convention should be exactly known. The re­publicans could not have committed a greater er­ror than by flinching from the publicity of debates. [Page 89] As the convention met in order to frame a repre­sentative government, their numbers ought to have borne some proportion to the importance of the states from whence they came. For though the meeting voted seperately by states, and not in an indi­vidual mass, yet still that state which sent the grea­test number of representatives had the best chance of obtaining its own wishes. Five lawyers in a cause have the advantage over two of equal abili­ties. To this convention Pennsylvania sent eight representatives, Delaware five, Massachusetts two, Virginia three, and New-York one. The consti­tution was indeed to be thereafter submitted to the states seperately; but, when once framed, it was difficult to get an alteration without rejecting the whole plan.

CHAPTER V.

ON August 25th, 1797, a pamphlet was published at Philadelphia, under the following title: ‘Observations on Certain Documents, contained in No. V. and VI. of the History of the United States, for the year 1796, in which the Charge of Speculation, against Alexander Hamilton, late Secretary of the Treasury, is fully refuted. Written by Himself.’

This piece extends to thirty-five pages, besides an appendix of fifty-eight. The first part comprises the author's reply to the accusation against him. The latter contains fifty-six letters and other papers.

[Page 90]Mr. Hamilton opens his pamphlet with a des­cription of the jacobins of America. In his dialect, the word jacobin comprehends one-half of the ci­tizens of the United States; for, at the late election of president, the two parties, under the respective names of Adams and Jefferson, were exactly ba­lanced. By accident, or fraud, a part of the ci­tizens of Pennsylvania were prevented from trans­mitting their votes to this city, within the time re­quired by law. Hence Mr. Jefferson had only thir­teen suffrages from this state, when the voice of the people had given him fifteen. The transference of these two votes to the opposite scale, decided against Mr. Jefferson. He lost the presidency by a minority of sixty-eight suffrages against seventy-one. Had the remainder of the Pennsylvania votes been accepted, he would have been president by seventy against sixty-nine.

When two parties are thus minutely poised, they should, if possible, speak about each other with temper and decency. Such conduct ought especially to be expected from Mr. Hamilton; who filled, for about seven years, one of the first offices under the federal government. An idea of gravity and dig­nity is annexed to such a station.

Of American jacobins our ex-secretary speaks thus. ‘The most direct falshoods are invented and propagated, with undaunted effrontery, and un­relenting perseverance. Lies, often detected and refuted, are still revived and repeated, in the hope that the refutation may have been forgotten, or that the frequency and boldness of accusation may supply the place of truth and proof.—If truly this be, as every appearance indicates, a conspiracy of vice against virtue, ought I not rather to be [Page 91] flattered, that I have been so long and so peculi­arly an object of persecution ^*?’

This martyr of virtue, this exulting object of persecution, this antagonist of falshood, has publish­ed ninety-three pages to prove, that he was guilty of conjugal infidelity, that is of breaking an oath; for the latter is one of the crimes comprehended within the former. This is the man, who, at the same moment, has the hardiness to announce ‘a conspiracy of vice against virtue.’ Mr. Hamil­ton should speak with reserve as to the faults of others. The portrait which he draws of American jacobins, corresponds, precisely, with the publica­tions and measures common, though not universal, among the writers and leaders of the federal party. No man has plunged farther than Mr. Hamilton himself into the ocean of calumny. He should, therefore, be one of the last men to complain about it.

The entire form and essence of this vindication is so vile, so disgusting, so grossly indecent, that one hardly knows either how to transcribe or abridge it. Some of the principal facts are as follows.

In summer, 1791, Maria, the wife of James Reynolds, waited upon Mr. Hamilton at his house in Philadelphia. She told him that her husband had treated her with cruelty, and deserted her; that her relations resided in the state of New-York, and she solicited money to pay the expence of re­turning to them. Mr. Hamilton, for the purpose of bestowing charity, paid a visit to Mrs. Reynolds at her lodgings. "She met me," says he, ‘and con­ducted me into a bed room.’

‘After this, adds our author, I had frequent meetings with her, most of them at my own [Page 92] house; Mrs. Hamilton, with her children, being absent on a visit to her father.’ OBSERVATIONS, p. 18. The ex-secretary might have spared the ad­ditional offence of this palliation. If he had really felt that remorse and shame to which he pretends, Mr. Hamilton never could have printed this lug­gage of circumstances. They were not requisite even to "wipe away a more serious stain." OBSERVA­TIONS, p. 10. Their omission could not have im­paired the force, but they add to the ignominy of his exculpation. Mr. Hamilton might have copied the delicacy of the painter, who cast a veil over the face of Agammenon, to conceal what it was impos­sible to express.

An indignant husband soon makes his appearance; and Mrs. Reynolds, in a letter to the colonel, says that he had been swearing he would write to Mrs. Hamilton. This was in December 1791. No. II. of the appendix is a letter from the husband demanding satisfaction, which he affirms that he will have, "before one day passes me more." In No. IV. he says ‘I have this proposal to make to you. Give me the sum of one thousand dollars.’ There next follow two receipts for this money, the one for six and the other for four hundred dollars. The lady was unwilling to quit so good a friend. She addresses him in love sick epistles, real or forged, and declares that till he shall visit her, ‘my breast will be the seate of pain and woe.’

Reynolds himself, also, writes a letter to the colonel, dated March 24th, 1792. He expatiates on his own good nature in permitting the ex-secre­tary's visits, gives hints of his power to be trouble­some, and of his disposition to oblige. Some other letters succeed, demanding money. They had been complied with, for it appears by No. XV. da­ted April 17th, 1792, that the colonel continued [Page 93] his visits. On the 2d of May, he received a formal prohibition from ever seeing the lady again. ‘I was in hopes, says Reynolds, that it would ware off, but I find their is no hopes.’ Solicita­tions for money follow. The two hundred dollars mentioned by Clingman ^* were obtained to fit up a boarding house. The last letter is dated August 30th, 1792. In the OBSERVATIONS p. 9, Mr. Ha­milton calls this an amorous connection. If this account be true, it merited a coarser name.

The object in publishing this correspondence is to prove that the connection between Reynolds and the ex-secretary did not refer to the purchase of certificates, but to the charms of Mrs. Reynolds.

Yet Mr. Hamilton and his friends have always enlarged on his poverty. The scale of expence in this affair disagrees with that supposition. In eighteen months Maria, must have cost him at least about eighteen hundred dollars. The expence is ex­travagant in proportion to its end. It revolts against his well known character for economy. He says that he was afraid of having the matter known to Mrs. Hamilton. Yet in her absence, he had frequent interviews with Mrs. Reynolds at his own house. This betrays but small regard for the secret. ‘Ser­vants, have ears, as well as other people,’ says Slipslop. It appears, likewise, that he received nu­merous messages and letters from the parties, and that Reynolds paid him several visits at his house. All this discovers little attention to the dread of disclosure; and indeed the story was well enough known.

Mr. Hamilton rests much upon the profligate character of the parties, and the improbability of his having entrusted such a being as Reynolds with [Page 94] his secrets of speculation. But, by his own ac­count, he did commit his confidence to this man, and protracted the connection with his wife during a whole year after he had been menaced with a discovery.

His pamphlet, full as it is of defiance and de­famation, puts a close to his claims for superior ve­racity. He who acknowledged the reality of such epistles, could feel no scruple to forge them. The latter supposition is as favourable as the former to his good name. He speaks much about his attach­ment to Mrs. Hamilton, while he squandered what was due to his family, and rambled, as he pre­tends, for eighteen months in the embraces of pol­lution.

The evidence or presumption against the authen­ticity of the letters printed by Mr. Hamilton stands thus. Reynolds affirms, that Mr. Hamilton had em­ployed him as an agent of speculation. This the ex-secretary denies; but, their probity being upon a par, we know not which of them to believe. Mrs. Reynolds adds her testimony, as to the belief of speculation, and says, that the correspondence and receipts for money, since published by Mr. Hamil­ton, were fabricated by him and her husband ^*. But if they actually were so, it remains to be guessed why, when, and where they were composed.

On this hypothesis we are to believe that Mr. Hamilton, on the motive of threats from Reynolds, and of his being visited in prison by Messrs. Muh­lenberg, Monroe, and Venable, hasted his enlarge­ment. This happened, on the evening of Wednes­day, the 12th of December, 1797. The interview between Mr. Hamilton and the members was on the evening of Saturday following. The corres­pondence [Page 95] must have been framed in the interval; and a day or a few hours were sufficient for that effect.

In No. IV. Clingman, says, that Reynolds, on the night of his liberation, sent a message to Mr. Hamilton, and by desire waited on him on Thursday morning. In No. V. he relates some particulars, which, according to his account from Reynolds, past at this interview. Clingman, in a post-script to No. V. says, that, as Mrs. Reynolds assured him, the letters were fabricated by her husband and Mr. Hamilton. The latter, in this publication, takes no notice of the allegation by Clingman, that he, (Mr. Hamilton) saw Reynolds after his enlargement. He ought, in consistency to have denied it. But he had already owned the fact to the three members. Mr. Hamilton, a rake, and Mr. Reynolds, a swin­dler, alternately give each other the lie. The pro­bability of untruth and fraud upon each side is so great, that it is impracticable to determine be­tween them ^*.

In the appendix, No. XXXIII. we meet with a letter to Mr. Hamilton, from Messrs. Muhlenberg and Monroe, dated 17th of July, 1797, wherein they write thus: ‘the explanation of the nature of your connection with Reynolds, which you then gave, removed the suspicions we had before entertained of your being connected with him in speculation.’ There is another from Mr. Vena­ble to the same effect. The ex-secretary rests much upon this admission. But every other person is now equally well qualified with these gentlemen to judge of the evidence; so that this is nothing more than the opinion of three individuals.

[Page 96]Yet even their opinion is unfortunately mutila­ted. Mr. Hamilton has printed thirteen letters that passed between himself and Mr. Monroe. From these it appears that Mr. Monroe still entertained considerable doubts. They were grounded on the information given by Clingman, which closes No. V, and bears date the 2d of January, 1793. In one letter Mr. Monroe says, ‘whether the im­putations against you as to speculation, are well or ill founded, depends upon the facts and cir­cumstances, which appear against you upon your defence. If you shew that they are ill founded, I shall be contented.’ Mr. Hamilton, in a suc­ceeding letter, writes thus: ‘the result in my mind is, that you have been and are actuated by mo­tives towards me malignant and dishonourable.’ The parties wrote on till they were at the point of fighting a duel. The second class of doubts excited in Mr. Monroe, by Clingman, as to the innocence of the ex-secretary, did not take place till some weeks after the three members had received the explanation from Mr. Hamilton. The one circum­stance happened on the 15th of December, 1792, and, the other on the 2d of January thereafter. Now, the exculpatory letters from the three mem­bers refer to nothing subsequent to the former date; and as the suspicions of Mr. Monroe were revived by Clingman, it is natural to imagine that those of Messrs. Muhlenberg and Venable were likewise ex­cited. Whether this was the case, or not, appears of little consequence, unless, because it shews the very slippery nature of the vindication derived from them. If this was the best defence which they would give to Mr. Hamilton, he has but scan­ty room for triumph.

The colonel dwells, with much complacency, on his own transcendant dignity of character. ‘It is [Page 97] morally impossible," says he, "I should have be [...] foolish as well as depraved enough to em­ploy so vile an instrument as Reynolds for such insignificant ends, as are indicated by different parts of the story itself.’ OBSERVATIONS. p. 10. The ends alledged were, speculation to the extent of thirty thousand dollars. Mr. Hamilton pretends that he employed Reynolds as a conveni­ent husband. This end was infinitely more insig­nificant than the other; so that the inference in the above passage evidently contradicts the fact.

On p. 13, he speaks of ‘the general improbabili­ty, that I should put myself upon paper with so despicable a person, on a subject which might ex­pose me to infamy.’ The improbability has actu­ally been fulfilled.

‘As to the disappearance of the parties after the liberation, how am I answerable for it? Is it not presumable, that the instance discovered at the treasury was not the only offence of the kind of which they were guilty? After one detection, is it not very probable that Reynolds fled to avoid detection in other cases?—Reynolds was conside­rably in debt. What more natural for him than to fly from his creditors?’ OBSERVATIONS, p. 35. ‘Could it be expected that I should so debase myself as to think it necessary to my vindication to be confronted with a person such as Reynolds? Could I have borne to suffer my veracity to be exposed to the humiliating competition?’ Ibid p. 36. This tone does not become Mr. Hamilton. People of regular morals, think that the profligate, who debauches another man's wife, cannot be degra­ded by confronting her husband.

As to the disappearance of Reynolds, after his enlargement, Mr. Hamilton has not even offered to deny the having seen him privately on the suc­ceeding [Page 98] day at his own house. In No. V. of the documents, he owned to the three members of con­gress, ‘that he had received a note from Reynolds in the night, at the time stated in Clingman's pa­per, and that he had likewise seen him in the morning following.’ This looks somewhat mys­terious. The dismission of Reynolds from prison, without trial, remains to find a decent apology; but, if it was presumable that he had been guilty of other and similar offences, this highly aggravated the im­propriety of discharging him. As to his running away for debt, there does not appear any particular reason for thinking that he fled on this account. Reynolds, in his torn letter to Clingman, gave a more natural and simple account of his intended disappearance. ‘He has offered to furnish me and Mrs. Reynolds with money to carry us off. If I will go, he will see that she has money to follow me.’ The word he can refer only to Mr. Ha­milton, which is clear from the rest of the letter. He was writing in full confidence to Clingman, and could have no imaginable reason to frame a fiction.

The confronting of Reynolds with Hamilton, before the three members of congress, would have been more satisfactory to them than the production of any papers. Besides, although our ex-secretary professes such disdain of being placed in a state of comparison with him, yet the instinctive indigna­tion of innocence, would have prompted most peo­ple, to drag forward so perfidious an accuser; and, in presence of the gentlemen, to have extorted a confession of his fraud. The same shyness of ap­pealing to the original parties, appears in this pam­phlet. Clingman and the lady have been married. They reside now at Alexandria. Reynolds himself lives, it is said, in New-York. If the letters pub­lished by Mr. Hamilton in the name of Maria are [Page 99] genuine, it would be very easy to obtain her attes­tation of the fact. A justice of peace, at Alexandria, could dispatch the business in half an hour. She could be directed to give a sample of her hand; and, by comparing this with the letters, it would be as­certained whether or not they really came from her pen. But Camillus dares not to meet this test.

Instead of such an obvious and decisive elucida­tion, Mr. Hamilton ^* brings forward Mary Willi­ams, keeper of a boarding house in Philadelphia. This woman swears, that she is well acquainted with the hand writing of Mrs. Reynolds, and that she is well satisfied of the letters being genuine. She gives no particulars of her acquaintance with Mrs. Rey­nolds, except the declining to admit of her as a lod­ger. This is as lame a kind of evidence as can well be conceived. Why not appeal to the lady herself, in place of such a circuitous method?

These letters from Mrs. Reynolds are badly spelt and pointed. Capitals, also, occur even in the midst of words. But waving such excrescences, the stile is pathetic and even elegant. It does not bear the marks of an illiterate writer. The construction of the periods disagrees with this apparent incapa­city of spelling. The officer who can marshall a regiment, must know how to level a musquet. A few gross blunders are interspersed, and these could readily be devised; but, when stript of such a veil, the body of the composition is pure and cor­rect. In the literary world, fabrications of this na­ture have been frequent. Our ex-secretary admits that he has been in the habit of writing to this fa­mily in a feigned character. The transition was easy to the writing in a feigned stile. Mrs. Rey­nolds herself may have wrote these epistles from [Page 100] the dictating of the colonel; for ‘the variety of shapes which this woman could assume was end­less ^*.’ It is natural, then, to suspect, that she real­ly may have acted that part. But if the colonel is not afraid of her springing a leak in the bottom of his tale, why does he avoid her testimony, and try to divert our attention by the prattle of Mary Wil­liams?

But even admitting that the love letters and others were genuine, this does not take away the probability of a swindling connection between Rey­nolds and Hamilton. The way in which the colo­nel and Maria became acquainted rests on the sin­gle evidence of himself. Reynolds does not ap­pear to have dropped to Clingman even a hint of in­continency. Mrs. Reynolds ^† told the three mem­bers of congress that she had burned a considera­ble number of letters from Mr. Hamilton to her husband. The dread that her deposition may stum­ble upon this fact, appears the only reason why the colonel chuses to keep her out of the way.

Hence, if the letters from Mrs. Reynolds are in her hand writing, this does not prove that they were the real effusions of a libidinous correspondence. If that correspondence had a being, it does not destroy the possibility of another, of a quite dif­ferent sort, between the colonel and the husband. Speculation in June may well consist with adul­tery in December. The whole proof in this pam­phlet rests upon an allusion. ‘I am a rake, and for that reason I cannot be a swindler. I con­fess that I stole a horse; but, if you say that I stole a cow, I scorn to be confronted with my accusers.’ This is an edifying and convenient species of logic. Both Reynolds and his lady af­firm [Page 101] that there was a speculation, and until they undergo a thorough examination, before some pro­per authority, the doubt never can be resolved. Under such circumstances, it was proper that Mr. Monroe should suspend his judgment.

Mr. Hamilton says ^*, that, during his discussion with the three members, he discovered no symptom different from that of a proud consciousness of inno­cence. What pride, what conscious innocence, any man could feel, in the midst of such an acknow­ledgment, the reader is left to judge.

Thus much for the main points in Mr. Hamil­ton's piece. A few episodes remain to be handled. It now comes out that the improper communica­tions from the treasury office to Reynolds and Cling­man were made by Fraunces, a clerk therein. This man afterwards presented a memorial to congress arraigning Mr. Hamilton. His charge was rejected as groundless. In a note, the ex-secretary adds, ‘would it be believed, after all this, that Mr. Jefferson, vice-president of the United States, would write to this Fraunces friendly letters? Yet such is the fact.’ In the appendix, we find these alarming epistles. Observe now, to what a destitution of materials the ene­mies of Thomas Jefferson are reduced! The first letter, dated June 27th, 1797, must have been in answer to some request for money. ‘I shall not have one dollar to spare,’ says the vice-president. Another, dated next day, refuses a certificate of character. This is the wonderful friendship so shock­ing to the nerves of our fiscal Atlas! The letters are, in themselves, entirely unimportant. They have no reference to any part of the ex-secretary's budget. In what way he got them, or for what reason he [Page 102] printed them, is yet to be told. They cannot lessen, by the value of one cent, the reputation of our vice-president. If this correspondence is one of the great­est faults in Mr. Jefferson which hatred can disco­ver, and fury reveal, he enjoys the purest character which has adorned history. But since Hamilton speaks of disreputable correspondence, we may re­mind him of that which he supported, for a twelve month, with Mr. Reynolds, and of his crouching under the menaces of this precious agent ^*. If any thing, within one million of degrees of such dis­grace, can be fixed on Mr. Jefferson, pray let us hear it; for, in that lexicon of lies and calumnies, printed by our Portuguese ambassador, Dr. Smith, hardly one article, granting it to be true, has the vestige of common sense.

Instead of inveighing against the republican party, as propagators of slander, Mr. Hamilton ought to thank them for a degree of forbearance and deli­cacy of which his friends have very seldom set an example. During the time of this connection, it was known to many members of congress. If any repub­lican character had been the hero of the story, it would infallibly have been echoed from one end of the continent to the other. Yet that party, with much good nature, observed profound silence. Mr. Jefferson had received a copy of these documents. He never shewed them, nor ever spoke of them, to any person. In summer, 1797, when the vice-pre­sident heard of the intended publication, he advised that the papers should be suppressed. Benevolence could not go farther, but his interposition came too [Page 103] late. Mr. Hamilton well knew that Mr. Jefferson was master of his secret, and had kept it; and yet he took the opportunity of this pamphlet to attack his benefactor's reputation. If the papers had been printed four years sooner, the best effects might have ensued to America, for the president would undoubtedly have dismissed Camillus.

Quitting these two letters from Jefferson to Fraun­ces, we come to the offence for which Reynolds was imprisoned, and the causes for which he was discharged. Mr. Wolcott ^* says, that Reynolds and Clingman were prosecuted for having suborned a person to commit perjury. After the prosecution commenced, Clingman confessed that he and Rey­nolds had lists of the names and sums due to cer­tain creditors of the United States, and which had been obtained from a clerk in the treasury, with a view to the forgery of warrants on it, in the name of such creditors. As to the name of this clerk, Hamilton, in No. V, intimated to the mem­bers that it was Duer. But Wolcott ^† affirms, that Duer had no concern with it. Thus, the two gen­tlemen contradict each other, and on a point which must have been equally well known to both. Mr. Wolcott explains the reason for withdrawing the prosecution, which was, that the offenders gave up the lists of creditors obtained from the treasury, and told the name of the unfaithful clerk. This he calls "an important discovery." As for deli­vering the lists, these were only copies, and not original papers. It was quite easy for the parties to keep other copies, and proceed to fabricate warrants; indeed they might withhold and conceal part of the very lists which they had got from the treasury.

[Page 104]Mr. Hamilton, speaking of this dismission, says, ‘it was certainly of more consequence to the pub­lic to detect and expel from the bosom of the treasury department, an unfaithful clerk, to pre­vent future and extensive mischief, than to dis­grace and punish two worthless individuals.’— OBSERVATIONS, p. 34. But the ex-secretary should have proved that the dismission of the one was ne­cessary towards the discovery of the other; and this he has not done. ‘The culprits were compel­led to give a real and substantial equivalent for the relief which they obtained from a department over which I presided.’ Ibid. The substantiality is very doubtful. As for presiding, the comptroller is independent. Either Mrs. Reynolds was the real and ultimate cause of this discharge, or it resulted from some invisible machinery, which the movers do not chuse to bring forward. It revolts against propriety, and the official judgment of Mr. Wol­cott, to say, that he would dismiss two criminals for so trifling a reason. Clingman, of himself, confessed to Wolcott, the affair of the stolen lists of names from the treasury. From the certificate of the lat­ter ^*, it is to be understood, that he made the con­fession, unsolicited, and even unsuspected. But adds the comptroller, ‘both Clingman and Reynolds obstinately refused, for sometime, to deliver up the lists, or to disclose the name of the person through whose infidelity they had been obtain­ed.’ All this must clearly be a sham. The cul­prits were under prosecution for another crime, the subornation of perjury. Their despair is evi­dent, from the voluntary confession of Clingman. The delivery of the lists, and the disclosure of the name of their associate, were matters of course. [Page 105] The comptroller had only to proceed with his suit, and could, at any period, have ensured the promul­gation of every secret which they had. When a public officer, like Mr. Wolcott, conjures up an absurd excuse for having deserted his duty, those who pay his salary have a right to criticise him. Mr. Wolcott dismissed, with impunity, two offen­ders that, as he says, he might reach Fraunces, a clerk in the treasury. Had the comptroller been a boy or a fool, reason might have smiled at his frivolity of triumph. But since he is a man of long experience in business, and free from the sallies of a florid imagination, it is just to infer that some­thing deeper than vanity lies at the bottom of the pool.

Other passages in this pamphlet might admit of remark, but the above appears to be a sufficient specimen. The arguments and the testimony pro­duced by our ex-secretary are alike unsatisfactory. He lays much weight upon the purity and elevation of his personal character. His own performance explodes it. He triumphs in an exculpation from the three members of congress. Yet, as to Messrs. Monroe and Muhlenberg, his auxiliary writers constantly represent them as traitors to their coun­try. According to Mr. Hamilton's own descrip­tion of jacobins, they must be the vilest of mankind; and their attestation can deserve no credit what­ever; but yet it fills him with pride. An impar­tial bystander might address him thus.

‘If Muhlenberg, and his two friends, are the fire­brands of faction, which you represent them to be, then it was unworthy of your innocence to ask a vindication from them. The oak does not lean upon the bramble; nor strength court the protection of weakness. But since you have ap­pealed to these gentlemen, in defence of your [Page 106] character, you betray an evident consciousness that they have a character to lose. This earnest recourse to their honour discovers that you dis­believe your own general portrait of jacobins; and the peculiar reproaches that your scribblers have poured on Messrs. Muhlenberg and Monroe. A vestal does not prop her purity by the evidence of a bawd; nor a Sully wash his hands while Cartouche holds the bason. You arraign these men as calumniators; and, on the same page, you refer to their veracity in defence of yours. This is a contradiction. You placed yourself in a delicate situation. If they had refused, as they well might have done, to take notice of your ap­plication, your fame was, by your own arrange­ment, in a dangerous way. The confidence that you reposed in them, and the alacrity which, in spite of all provocations, they have manifested to serve you, refute your clamours against them. The first step in support of your same, fixes you in detected calumny.’

‘You give an insufficient reason, for the release of Reynolds from jail. You received a visit from him before sunrise on the ensuing morning. He then disappeared; and when the three gentlemen waited on you respecting his accusations, you tell a long history of an intrigue, and produce a bun­dle of letters concerning it. That they are the real hand writing of the parties we have no proof but your word, and a deposition from the mistress of a boarding-house. On the contrary, Reynolds never spoke to Clingman of any thing but specu­lation. His wife adds her suspicion; and affirms, that the love epistles, and receipts for money, are a fabrication by her husband and you. The whole collection would not have required above an evening to write them. At the distance of four [Page 107] years and an half, and when warned and chal­lenged to produce the parties themselves, you still avoid a personal reference. You speak as if it was impossible to invent a few letters. Yet, upon this very business, you wrote in a feigned hand. And what is your molehill appendix, altogether, to the gigantic fabrications of Psalmanazar and of Chat­terton? Send for the lady, or pay her a visit. Take her before a magistrate, and let us hear what she has to say. Your avoiding a public meeting with her, holds out a strong presumption of her inno­cence. Try, also, to find out Reynolds. Never pretend that you scorn to confront accusers. The world will believe that you dare not.’

To this address the ex-secretary would be puzzled to make a sound answer. Some of his friends are less sore than he is on the subject of speculation. In spring, 1794, commodore Gillon, replying, in congress, to Dr. William Smith, said, ‘what makes the gentleman angry? Did I speak a word of pilot boats?’ The doctor pocketed this hint, which was equally well understood by every man in the house. Dr. Smith has always been among the fore­most in the battles of the ex-secretary; and no fact is beter believed, than that many others of the fe­deral members did speculate in certificates to the amount of millions. Of this party, Mr. Hamilton was the centre and the soul. He not merely plan­ned, but dictated their measures; a circumstance established by the uniform correspondence between his reports and the statute book of the first and se­cond congress. Now, if he really did not touch a cent of their earnings, still he must own that he kept sorry company. If Mr. Hamilton shook from about his ears the golden shower, and trampled under foot the wages of speculation, he can be no­thing less than a second Abdiel.

[Page 108] ‘Of all the vile attempts which have been made to injure my character," says Mr. Hamilton, that which has been lately revived in No V. and VI. of the History of the United States, for 1796, is the most vile.—A just pride, with reluctance stoops to a formal vindication against so despica­ble a contrivance, and is inclined rather to op­pose to it the uniform evidence of an upright cha­racter.’

‘This would be my conduct on the present oc­casion, did not the tale derive some sanction from the names of three men of some weight and con­sequence.’ OBSERVATIONS, p. 9.

As for the vileness of the attempt, &c. it is as fair as any thing can be. In committing the documents to press, the publisher exercised a right and a duty. It did not appear, from any thing on the face of these papers, that the three gentlemen were satis­fied with Mr. Hamilton's explanation. And he knew that they were not unanimous in the acquittal. The enquiry was a public concern, and the public were entitled to judge for themselves.

With regard to uniform uprightness of character, there is no man in America, whose good name has encountered such violent opposition as that of Mr. Hamilton. If he is to answer every charge against him, that has been made on respectable authority, this piece does not complete the task. Mr. Findley, in his History of the Western Insurrection, has urged many accusations, as bad as that of jobbing in cer­tificates. The following are two instances. Mr. Ha­milton has not attempted to deny any part of them.

The commander of the army lodged for some time in the house of major Powers, about thirty miles from the town of Washington. This man had been active in promoting a settlement. ‘His ser­vices were acknowledged, while head-quarters [Page 109] were at his house, and he was paid a larger sum than he demanded, for his trouble and ex­pences ^*.’

Sometime after this payment, Mr. Hamilton sent for major Powers to Washington. He then examin­ed him concerning the conduct of Albert Gallatin, and of some other persons with whom the major was not even acquainted. The answers were unsatisfac­tory, and an officer was ordered to conduct him into another apartment, where he might, for an hour, re­fresh his memory. He was thrust into a room, among a croud of prisoners, under the point of the bayonet. When called out again, he told Mr. Hamilton that he had nothing further to recollect. The secretary reproved him in severe terms for concealing truth. He was immediately committed a close prisoner. The best bail was offered for his appearance and refused. The military conducted him to Pittsburg and kept him in custody till the eighth day. Mr. Hamilton being then gone, "the judge" sent for major Powers, and politely assured him that he had no charge whatever against him.

Thus a meritorious citizen, whose services had been gratefully rewarded, was, without warrant, accuser, or even a pretence of guilt, imprisoned for eight days. The motive to this outrage was yet baser than the act itself. Mr. Hamilton wan­ted Powers to turn evidence against people of whom he knew no harm. The crime of Reynolds and Clingman was said to be subornation of perjury. The proceedings of the secretary came very near it. He had, by the way, no legal authority to commit any body. He held no regular trust of that nature. As for the judge, who endured such transactions before his eyes, it may be hazardous to say much about him. The other of the two cases is as follows.

[Page 110]John Hamilton was, at that time, high sheriff of Washington county, and colonel of the Min­go Creek regiment of militia. Mr. Findley enu­merates his successful exertions to prevent mischief. This man, hearing that a charge had been lodged against him, went thirty miles to present himself to judge Peters. His honour had not time to exa­mine him. He was, however, arrested, and sent to the town of Washington. He applied again to the judge for examination; but in vain. He was sent prisoner to Philadelphia, a winter journey of more than three hundred miles. He was paraded, along with others, through the streets, with a badge in his hat, and cast into the cells. After near TWO MONTHS AND AN HALF, he obtained an examination, and was admitted to bail. In the sequel, not a suspicious circumstance could be found aginst him ^*. The reason for this outrage is given by Mr. Find­ley. The secretary of the treasury had resolved on his destruction. For actions like these, James the second was turned out of England, and George the third expelled from this continent.

If Mr. Hamilton wanted to drive the western people into the arms of Britain, and to excite a second insurrection, worse than the first, this beha­viour was judicious and consistent. But while he has thus coolly trampled on law, justice, humanity, and every maxim of sound policy, our ex-secreta­ry should not refer to his uniform uprightness of character. In passing, we cannot withhold a tri­bute of admiration to the spirited and important part acted by the American bench. It is to be la­mented that some patriotic citizens did not raise a subscription for supporting an action of damages against judge Peters.

[Page 111]Thus the sheriff of a county was illegally taken from the exercise of his office, an office as sacred and important as that of judge Peters himself; and, at that time, of high consequence to the peace of the country. Because the judge had not leisure to examine him, he was hauled to Philadel­phia, and confined, for about seventy days, before he could obtain a hearing. Mr. Peters, when at Washington, had promised to examine him with­in half an hour. What a fine specimen of justice was this to hold out before the people beyond the mountains! John Hamilton had to make a second journey to this city, in June, 1795, to stand trial, so that, first, and last, he must have travelled fifteen hundred miles. Yet this was one of the very men who prevented David Bradford from seizing the arms and ammunition in the garrison at Pi [...]t [...]burgh; and a thousand dollars would but poorly have compensated sheriff Hamilton for his imprison­ment; while the stab inflicted upon public justice demanded more severe remembrance. Our fede­ral literati are constantly talking about the atro­city of the western riots, which they dignify or degrade with the name of rebellion. They should reflect, also, upon the behaviour of a great part of that army by whom it was crushed ^*.

CHAPTER VI.

‘IT is a maxim deeply ingrafted in that dark system, (the jacobin) that no character, however upright, is a match for constantly rei­terated attacks, however false.—Every calumny makes some proselites, and even retains some; since justification seldom circulates as rapidly and as widely as slander.’ OBSERVATIONS, p. 8.

Mr. Hamilton himself is fond of attacking per­sonal characters. A considerable portion of Mr. Findley's book consists of details respecting the ca­lumnious accusations which the secretary circulat­ed, while acting in his incomprehensible capacity on the western expedition. It is believed that not even a syllable of these charges has been contra­dicted, and far less refuted, either by himself, or by any body for him. It is impossible and useless to quote in this place a tenth part of these details. They were ushered into the world under a name known and respected. They are as explicit as they imaginably could be; and as indefensible as either truth or calumny, or history or fable, could make them. A sample or two shall be selected from the mass.

Two judges of Westmoreland county waited on Mr. Hamilton and judge Peters, to enquire in what way they ought to proceed against offenders. Instead of a suitable answer, they were urged to accuse Mr. Gallatin, as having ‘expressed him­self in a treasonable manner at the first Pa [...]kinson [Page 113] meeting. And when they denied having heard any such expressions, the secretary asserted, that he had sufficient proofs of them already. They however, persisted in asserting that he used no such expressions ^*.’ They further subjoined, that his efforts had tended more than perhaps those of any other person, to the restoration of order. They were sifted, also, regarding Mr. John Smilie, but to no effect. At this inquisition, Mr. Hamilton said, that he never would forgive Findley, who ‘had told or wrote lies about him ^†.’

One John Baldwin was treated yet worse. He refused to give evidence against sheriff Hamilton. For this he was insulted, told that he evaded swear­ing truth, and that he had forfeited the benefit of the amnesty by not giving the testimony demand­ed. Somebody Vaughan, a light horseman from Phi­ladelphia, assisted the secretary at this scene.

Such behaviour was only suitable to an English star chamber, or a Scots court of justiciary. If judge Peters had assumed the command of a wing of the army, or if general Morgan, or any other military officer, had placed himself on the bench with Mr. Peters, the grossness of the fact would have been instantly discerned, and the continent have resounded with outcries of indignation. But the secretary had no office, either civil or mi­litary. He was, in every shape, and in every sense of the word, an intruder and an usurper, and he exercised his authority as might have been ex­pected from the way in which he obtained it. Behold him ascending the bench, assisted by a district attor­ney, an inspector of excise, and a light-horseman. This knot of self-created magistrates attempt to dic­tate the deposition of a witness; and, as in the case of Baldwin, they threaten his life on the event of [Page 114] his refusal. Observe, also, the tremulous judge, shrinking into the back ground of the picture, while the laws and liberties of the people are troden under foot. Mr. Hamilton, ‘by his own authority, wrote a severe reprimand to the commander in chief of the right wing of the army, in consequence of which, he was treated in a manner not becoming his rank ^*.’ This was destroying discipline, the back bone of an army. It was a self-created power, by far more dangerous, than any contemplated by democratic societies. The president suffered Mr. Hamilton to assume it, and forebore calling him to account for it.

Here is another sample of Mr. Hamilton's dis­cretion. He expressed much surprise at the western people for reposing so much confidence in fo­reigners. He said, that Gallatin and Findley ‘were both foreigners, and therefore not to be trust­ed ^†.’ Mr. Findley has been longer, by many years, in the country than our secretary himself, whose father was from Scotland, and his mother from Ireland. Their son was born at sea, or in an island of the West-Indies. He had no right to con­temn foreigners. This is the general cant of his party. Above all, they detest Irishmen, because the latter, coming from a most oppressed country, have a natural bias to political investigation. A great part of the people in the four western counties are na­tives of that island, so that this language held out an insult upon the community at large. It was one of the many direct measures, employed by Mr. Ha­milton, for the excitement of deep and durable mischief. At the house of captain Dicky, he com­plained of the thirteen letters, published sometime before the insurrection, by Mr. Findley. He swore [Page 115] that they contained lies against him. His landlord replied, that he believed their contents to be true. Such a foolish demeanour, of which Mr. Hamilton afforded many examples, would have been scarcely pardonable in a boy.

Another trait in the colonel's conduct de­serves attentive reflection. The money for de­fraying the expence of this army, was supplied by him in direct opposition to the constitution. That instrument, article i. section ix. clause vi. says, that ‘no money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.’ There existed a statute autho­rising the president to call out the militia, in case of an insurrection; but by an oversight in fram­ing the law, he had no power to take money from the treasury to support them. ‘The monies drawn from the treasury on that occasion (the western expedition,) were paid out of a fund appropriated for other and distinct purposes; they were not drawn, agreeable to the constitution, in consequence of any appropriation made by law. It might be a defect in the law, authorising the expence, not to have provided the means; but that defect should have been remedied by the only competent authority, by convening congress ^*.’ This omission in the law shews the masterly stile in which our statutes are sometimes composed.

If the bombardment of a British fleet, or the disembarkation of a French army had not left one moment to spare, engulphing necessity would justly have superceded all forms, and vindicated the ir­regular abstraction of a million of dollars. Yet even in that case, the president, at the next meet­ing [Page 116] of congress, ought to have explained and apo­logized for the measure.

But no such imminent danger had a being. There was ample time to have assembled congress. Ne­ville the inspector's house was burnt on the 17th of July, 1794. The first proclamation by the president was issued on the 7th of August, and the second on the 25th of September following. It was not till after the latter date, that the militia were or­dered to march. The seven weeks intervening between the two proclamations allowed full time for assembling the legislature. Of this Mr. Adams hath afforded an instance, in the first session of the fifth congress. Instead of this legal and practicable measure, the president and Mr. Ha­milton walked straight through the constitution, through the privileges of the legislature, and the duties of their own respective offices.

If congress had been previously called, the very report of their assembling would have struck a mortal damp into this thoughtless rabble, who had neither plans, leaders, nor resources. The solemnity of the step was sure of making a con­siderable impression. Time would have been gained, also, for more accurate information; and as the fifteen thousand militia, who did march over the mountains, never saw an enemy, it is to be supposed that five thousand could have done the business equally well.

But Mr. Hamilton had many good reasons for not wishing to call congress. The sound policy of the excise law would have met with a severe dis­cussion. The expence and danger of a civil war must have rendered excise completely odious. Every lenient measure was sure to have been tried before a single regiment would be ordered to march, and the sequel shews that they must have [Page 117] been successful. The sober and substantial mass of the western citizens, though averse to excise, were yet firm on the side of government. In the prospect of an agreement, Hamilton saw no­thing but the reprobation of his measures, and the fracture of his importance. The parties in congress are nicely poised; but every legislative assembly has a number of doubtful members, and the natural aversion to civil bloodshed, held out an irresistible cause, or a solid pretence, for universally deserting the six per cent. standard. In this case, the latter could not, probably, have mustered one-third of the members, and mino­rities are always dangerous to a political par­ty. The republicans abhor the ex-secretary with a cordiality of hatred equal to his own. They consider him as a second Pandora's box, from whose transcendant capacities for mischief have exclu­sively and collectively sprung the whole political misfortunes of America. The utmost force of the party was certain, therefore, to have been levelled personally at him, and his vulnerable sides offer­ed an ample verge for the quivers of invective. Hence he shunned a previous meeting of congress, where it was more than an equal chance that he should find not protection and triumph, but re­proach and defeat. This seems to be the only rational key to his conduct in hazarding a ci­vil war, and a rape upon the treasury, without consulting the legislature.

The insignificance of their conduct when they did meet, shewed, that the victory of Mr. Hamil­ton was as complete in Philadelphia as at Pittsburg. On the 19th of November, 1794, the president ad­dressed the two houses. He began, as usual, with a reference to divine goodness, and to the riches, power, and happiness, for which America seems [Page] destined. A pompous and exaggerated sketch was then given of the insurrection. Certain self-created societies were referred to, as having assumed the tone of condemnation towards the measures of go­vernment. But the president forgot to mention, and much less to apologize, for the self-created power of taking a million of dollars from the pub­lic treasury. When he related the outrages com­mitted upon officers of government, he overlooked the provocations by which they had been excited, the numerous instances of mismanagement on the part of the secretary of the treasury, by which they had been fostered, and the thousand-fold enormities of the federal army, and of that secretary, under which they had been overwhelmed. There is a French fable, of a gardener and a hare, that some­times came through the hedge, and cropt his cab­bages. He represented the case to a gentleman, who, next day, with a pack of hounds, entered the gar­den in chace of her. The dogs did more mischief in five minutes, than the hare could have done in seven years, and after all, puss got away.

This is a concise and impartial picture of the fe­deral army, with one small distinction, that the gar­dener was a fool, and the secretary a knave. Never think that you understand the story of this insur­rection, till you read Findley and Brackenridge. Compare their copious and interesting narratives with the collection of papers published by govern­ment. The temperate and manly stile of the for­mer historian is sometimes clogged with a tiresome length of periods. His reference to dates is occa­sionally confused ^*, and the remarks which he in­tersperses, [Page 119] might improve by concentration. But these are trifling specks, and only mentioned here to obviate the hostility of fiscal criticism. Mr. Findley was a farmer, and a soldier in the Ameri­can army, for many years before he became a pro­fessed author; and the wonder ought to be that his faults are so few. His accuracy has been attested by the silence of the secretary, while the toothless scurrility of the treasury newspapers announces that he has drawn blood.

Mr. Brackenridge writes with more ease and vivacity than Mr. Findley. His perspicuity, his simplicity, his picturesque minuteness, conduct his reader into the scene of action. You see, hear, and feel, just as the author actually did; and this itself is a talent of high excellence. Amidst much en­tertainment, candour will forgive the serious or affected vanity that sometimes peeps through the curtain of his mind. These two writers have been neglected. An estimate of the sales may induce a belief that they have never been perused by more than two or three thousand American citizens, that is to say, by perhaps a two-hundredth part of the community at large. Without such a perusal, however, it is impossible to comprehend the nature and effects of the western riots. The declama­tion that fills the federal gazettes and pamphlets cannot afford a just or luminous conception of this all-important subject; which is, therefore, grossly and almost universally misunderstood. Next to the composition of a good book by yourself, one of the best services to the public is the recommending of another which has been ove [...]looked.

After thus explaining where a proper account of the insurrection may be found, we go back to the president, his congress, and his speech. ‘It has been a spectacle, says he, displaying to the [Page 120] highest advantage, the value of republican govern­ment, to behold the most and the least wealthy of our citizens standing in the ranks as private soldiers, pre-eminently distinguished by being the army of the constitution.’ He ought to have said, of monarchical government, for every part of the business bore the stamp of despotism. In the first place, the four counties were outlawed, on the sin­gle notification of judge Wilson. That any single man should have been entrusted with so vast a dis­cretionary power was inconsistent with republican freedom.

General Washington sent commissioners to treat with the insurgents, but if Hamilton had been pre­sident, he would immediately have marched against them, and the four counties must have been co­vered with blood and ashes, by the official temerity of one man, and the ferocious impetuosity of ano­ther. This is but a poor specimen of republican go­vernment, and yet it might take place.

Again, the army was raised on principles purely monarchical. The president acted solely on the au­thority of a law investing him, during the recess of congress, with unlimited power, a law that may one day overturn the constitution. Let us explain it by the following supposition. The present congress will cease to exist, on the 3d of March, 1799. On the 4th, Mr. Adams may get a certificate from some confidential judge, that Virginia or Tennessee is in a state of rebellion. Whether the story be true or false, rests entirely within his breast. He directly calls out the militia, and, as this insurrection is ten times more dangerous than that of Braddock's field, he requires an hundred and fifty thousand men. He sets out at their head, parades four or eight hundred miles, renews the horrors of the western expedition, and, till the first Monday of December thereafter, he [Page 121] and his militia are absolute masters of America. They proceed, at an expence of two hundred thou­sand dollars per day, to be drawn from a treasury which has not one spare shilling. No part of the constitution can, practically, stop Mr. Adams in his progress. The legislature does not assemble till the first Monday of December, unless the mere accident of a law, by their predecessors, may have ordained a more early date. Even this remedy could easily be prevented. On a preconcerted plan, the majority in the senate would be sure to reject any bill for the more early meeting of congress. Thus nine months of a royal interregnum might readily put an end to the government. The precedent set by general Washington, for emptying the treasury, would greatly facilitate such a conspiracy. The above explanation clearly proves, that, according to law, our lives and properties may soon be at the mercy of some chief magistrate.

The federal army did not, then, display the spectacle of a republic, but the embryo of royalty hatched in the dregs of legislative ignorance. Con­gress gave the president authority as good as unli­mited, for raising an army; but they forgot to in­form him in what way that army was to be paid. This was, as if a merchant should send a ship to the West-Indies, and forget to furnish her with bis­cuit or water. What imbecility, what unacquain­tance with the first principles of legislation, are un­folded in this congressional performance! Its worst parts might be amended by a clause like the fol­lowing.

‘The president shall not be permitted to call out the militia, till he has held a council with the vice-president, the three secretaries, the at­torney-general, and the governors of at least four of the states nearest to the seat of the fede­ral [Page 122] government. Of these nine, six with himself may form a quorum; and a majority of at least five members, shall decide. Every opinion shall be given in writing, and each of the council shall be answerable and impeachable for his vote. The proclamation for the actual calling out of the militia should be directed to contain a sum­mons for the meeting of congress, it being other­wise high treason to obey the call. Leave should also be granted to take the requisite sums from the treasury; or if not there, a case very likely, the council might be authorized to open a loan.’

Till some amendment of this kind shall be made, the liberty of the United States must be in seri­ous hazard. General Washington went to the treasury. Some future president may go to the bank. The one step will not be a jot worse than the other. The act, when amended, should be an­nexed to the constitution, lest some future congress might dare to repeal it. The prospect of mischief is not distant. Its approach may soon be expected. Deriving, like Venus, his birth from the deep, the United States have already been harrassed with their Machiavel. If Washington did not act that of Cromwell, it may be ascribed to the soundness of his judgment, and the consciousness that a party who basked under the splendour of his name, left him almost nothing to be desired.

We return to the president's speech. He advi­ses the citizens of the America to cherish their con­stitution, not merely for their own sakes, but ‘for the sake of those, who, from every clime, are daily seeking a dwelling in our land.’ This sounds very well; and, if Mr. Jay's treaty had con­tained one line for the protection of emigrants from the British dominions to America, it might have [Page 123] been believed that, in the above expression, Mr. Washington was sincere. The pressing of men from Irish passenger ships, on the coast of America, is not only, in itself, an act of shocking cruelty, but an egregious insult on this country. In Novem­ber, 1794, when this speech was delivered, Mr. Washington had professedly put himself at the head of that party who revile emigrants in the mass, who want to exclude them from voting at elections, and who, in summer 1797, wanted to pass a stamp duty of an hundred dollars, on their admission as citizens.

In a subsequent paragraph, the president speaks of having extended his protection to the Creeks. This passage has already been criticised ^*; but I subjoin a circumstance that has not yet reached the newspapers. On the 8th of November, 1794, only eleven days before the delivery of this speech, the secretary at war received a letter from the go­vernor of Georgia. It inclosed a deposition concern­ing two murders by the Creeks. On the 30th of September, preceeding, they had, near fort Fidius, shot down and scalped Catharine Cessna, a young lady. Five of them had, also, shot and scalped a ne­gro woman. Governor Matthews further mentions, some thefts of negroes and horses, committed by Indians, in Liberty county; and that the Tallisee king, and Broken Arrow, were both for war. With this letter before him, the president came forward, and, without one word about avenging the blood of Catharine Cessna, and of a multitude of similar victims, harangued on his success in the protection of her assassins. This case is only a sample of, per­haps, a thousand, equally horrid, and equally un­avenged. The honour of America, if one may speak [Page 124] of non-entities, hath been as basely prostrated by land as by sea.

How little reason those savages had to complain, appears from the copy of a talk with them, trans­mitted by the governor of Georgia to the secretary of war, in a letter dated Augusta, August 19th, 1794. The piece is too long to be inserted here; but the following extracts are made from an attest­ed manuscript of it. After stating the treaty of New-York, he says, ‘some goods were promised to you, which you received, and you were to make a plain line between our people and yours. This you failed to do.’ He then relates, that when they and their families were in want of corn, the presi­dent sent them a gratuitous supply. He also opened a store at St. Mary's to furnish them with goods. They murdered the men who kept it, and carried off the goods. The murderers were not punished, nor any satisfaction given. ‘You have killed many of our citizens, says the governor, and car­ried away a great number of our horses, cattle, and negroes. All this your father, general Wash­ington, has borne with, from a wish to be the friend of your nation.—You ask about forts.— They are on the north side of the river, and on the land that was given by your nation at the treaty at New-York, for which you have been paid; and I cannot see why you complain of it. By that treaty your nation is to receive twelve hundred dollars a year for the lands, which is ten times as much as all the game you can kill on it in one year is worth. I cannot see how your na­tion can dispute the river's being the line, as it was agreed on at three treaties in Georgia, and the one at New-York.’ Such were the people to whom the president gave his protection. The [Page 125] speech has not even one hint about the defence of citizens on the Georgian frontier.

‘From a desire, also, says the president, to remove the discontents of the Six Nations, a set­tlement meditated at Presqu' Isle, on lake Erie, has been suspended; and an agent is now endea­vouring to rectify any misconception, into which they may have fallen.’ The matter was shortly this. No misconception existed on the part of the Indians, excepting from English bribery. A letter from general Wilkins to Clement Biddle, quarter­master general of Pennsylvania, explains the story. It is dated April 25th, 1794, and mentions, that Cornplanter and other Indians had been invited to an English council at Buffaloe creek. ‘On the re­sult of that council, says the general, seems to hang war or peace between us and the Six Na­tions. There have been a great deal of pains used lately by the English to [...]our their minds, and they seem, in some measure, to have effected it.’ A let­ter from general Gibson to governor Mifflin, dated Pittsburg, June 11th, 1794, incloses a deposition by David Ransom, informing, that Cornplanter had been bought by the British, and that there had been a plot to cut off the settlers at Presqu' Isle. Captain Denny, in a letter to general Gibson, dated 14th and 16th of June, 1794, confirms this intelligence. The correspondence contains many other circum­stances, proving the hostile designs of the British. It was not, therefore, an Indian misconception, but an English conspiracy; and if the president did not chuse to tell the story candidly, he should have been silent. Even without defending Genet, one cannot say that he came within an hundred degrees of the guilt of governor Simcoe. Genet wanted the United States to attack the enemies of France; but Simcoe wanted the Indians to attack the United States. We [Page 126] had not done the smallest injury either to the Six Nations or to England. The perfidy of the latter can­not, therefore, admit of aggravation. The French had assisted this country in obtaining her liberty, and now solicited her to assist in the securing of theirs. It might be improper in America to grant the request, but it was extremely natural in the French to make it.

Passing over the rest of this speech, we come next to the answer of the senate. It ran as usual, in a fulsome echo. As if this trisle had been worth notice, the president replied with much satisfaction on finding that his conduct was approved by ‘the enlightened representatives of a free nation.’ In the last sentence, he alluded to ‘those judicious and spirited exertions, which have brought VIC­TORY to our western army.’ He was at the head of an army for seven years and an half. He was several times beaten. His fame, as a conquer­or, rests on the capture of nine hundred Hessians ^*. Hence, general Washington may have misunder­stood the meaning of the word victory. But in com­mon language a battle must always go before a victory. Now, the western army never saw a person in arms against them. They stabbed a man who was in liquor or mad. They shot a boy, who was sick ^†; and these two acts of homicide, or murder, include the whole bloodshed of the campaign. The troops did not so much as meet with any share of that fugitive opposition, exerted by a gang of English smugglers on the coast of Sussex. [Page 127] From what hath since transpired, a single British regiment of foot, another of horse, and two field pieces would, at a twentieth part of the expence, have been altogether equal to the performances of our fifteen thousand militia.

The answer of congratulation from the senate past immediately. That from the representatives cost more time. They began to debate on Monday the 24th of November, 1794; and this first day was spent on a notable dispute. One part of the proposed address had these words: ‘we cannot otherwise than warmly approve of a policy in our foreign affairs.’ &c. Your policy was recom­mended as better. After exactly twenty specches upon it, the clause was wholely withdrawn, as the house could not agree, and were ashamed to divide on the respective merits of the article and the pronoun. The president had cast an oblique reflection on self-crea [...]d societies as fomenting the insurrection. It was proposed that the answer should echo this censure verbatim. The debate lasted till Thursday afternoon; and the precise echo was rejected by forty-seven votes against forty-six. Next morning, some loquacious members wan­ted to renew the contest. On this, Mr. M'Dowell said, that twenty-five days of the session were now elapsed, and he was as at a loss to know what the house had been doing. The words combinations of men were put instead of self-created societies into the repercussion of censure. Thus the answer past.

It is proper to take some notice of these traits, as a warning to future legislatures. After all this wrangling, the paper in question proved but a poor production. If truth or reason, or the public ser­vice, had been at all consulted, the house would have begun by asking the executive why he took from the treasury eleven hundred thousand dollars, [Page 128] without their leave, and in contempt of the consti­tution? Why he did not take measures, as he ve­ry well might have done, for checking this riot in the bud? Why he raised an army of such enor­mous numbers, when a fifth part of them, at the utmost, could have done the business? Why he permitted Alexander Hamilton to engross such ex­travagant authority? Why the whole country was insulted, the prisoners, and even witnesses so bar­barously treated? And why he was awed by such diminutive enemies as the Talissee king, Broken Arrow, and the Cornplanter?

It was not from want of good will, in forty-seven members, that these questions were avoided. But, such was the popularity of the president, and the universal rage excited against the rioters, that the smallest resistance to adulation of the executive, would have been held as bad as treason. In allu­sion to the assembling of the militia, the repre­sentatives, amidst other encomiums, have the following words: ‘the spectacle, therefore, when viewed in its true light, may well be affirmed to display, in equal lustre, the virtues of the Ame­rican character, and the value of republican government.’ Such a racket has been made about the raising of this western army, and the sublime patriotism by which it was inspired, that something more shall be said upon it.

If the western people had been able or willing to stand an attack, not one half of the militia were fit for fighting. The ranks were crouded by young men, altogether unacquainted with the use of arms ^*. On the 9th of January, 1795, general [Page 129] Smith told the house of representatives that ‘num­bers of the militia did not know how to set up a tent. The Virginian militia who went out, were neither trained nor disciplined. As for the Ma­rylanders, when he drew part of them out, and ordered them to load, he found that fifty of them had put down the ball before the charge of pow­der. Some of them did not even know how to lay a gun over their shoulders.’ A merchant would not entrust, as his book-keeper, a clerk, who put the wrong end of his pen into an ink-standish; or who was ignorant of the difference between addi­tion and subtraction. Yet such a novice would be just as fit for the desk, as these militia were for the camp. When you take up the subject in this point of view, when you reflect on the folly of con­ducting troops like these into actual service, your mind must feel a sudden oppression under the burst of astonishment. There could be no use in sending such people to reduce an insurrection. It was the most unmilitary management conceivable. If fight­ing was wanted, these raw recruits were useless. If the country beyond the mountains was peceable, their multitude would only make them insolent and mischievous. A small part of their own number of French or British veterans would have crushed them like an apple in the cyder press. In his his­tory of the war of seven years, the king of Prussia gives a lesson on this head. He says that when his armies had been ordered into winter quarters, the recruits for the next campaign were collected as early as possible, because it required three or four months to teach them the exercise. Between the two proclamations of the president, the one for being in readiness, and the second for marching, only seven weeks intervened, and within that time not all the drill sergeants of Potzdam could have [Page 130] taught them the use of arms. But if Frederic re­quired three or four months to form a soldier, the best officer in the United States would need longer time. Whatever then congress, or the pre­sident, might think of such a spectacle, no reader of sober and impartial understanding will ad­mire that kind of generalship which assembled se­veral thousands of raw lads from the plough and the workshop, and dispatched them three hundred miles in quest of an enemy.

Put the case that out of these troops one third were real soldiers, who had seen service, and ac­quired military feelings. The other ten thousand who put in the ball before the charge, or who committed acts of equivalent ignorance, were a mere burden on the professional men. The latter would have been more formidable without them. These matters are so very clear that it is almost a shame to repeat them. Yet, if the government of a country chuses to commit its character by such proceedings, the public have a right to re­view them.

We shall be safe in computing that the super­numeraries of the excise army, cost six hundred thousand dollars of extra and useless expence. Five thousand good soldiers, if the camp contained as many, would have been quite equal to the business. Suppose that the remaining ten thousand were ab­sent from their common employments for ninety working days. At the common and moderate com­putation of a dollar per day, the loss of labour, by the enlistment of these ten thousand hands, comes to nine hundred thousand dollars. Add this to, per­haps, six hundred thousand dollars, of money ad­vanced from the treasury, for the expence of the [Page 131] march of supernumeraries, the two sums make to­gether dollars, 1,500,000

For the last three years, or thereabouts, two and an half per cent. per month has been a common rate of interest among many of our merchants. It has often been at five per cent. The above estimate of thirty per cent. a year falls by far short of the lowest of these two rates, as the monthly compound in­terest is kept out of sight. Here we see that the in­surrection was suppressed at an enormously greater expence than was necessary. A general alarm was raised in behalf of the constitution, an alarm very laudable, if it had been exactly founded on facts. This, along with the ultimate success of the expe­dition, and the interested encomiums of Mr. Ha­milton's regiment, have shed a lustre over the whole transaction, that no part of it deserves. Before the citizens of the United States rush upon the extirpa­tion of a second insurrection, they will do well to be sure of its existence.

A case has been imagined, in a former page, of a president, during the recess of congress, hasting the country into a civil war. It is possible that his conduct might merit impeachment; and for this, or other offences, the constitution has reserved a remedy. He is to be tried by the senate, and the chief justice shall preside. He cannot be convicted unless by the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present. The latter clause is equitable; for candour will presume that a president acts for the best; and it would be iniquitous to condemn him by the casting vote of a senator, who, in the eye of law, and most likely of reason, is not a better [Page 132] man than himself. But a serious objection lies against the tribunal before which he is to be tried. One of the most likely cases of an impeachment would re­gard foreign treaties, because, in these there would be the greatest risk of corruption, and of consequent treachery. Here the constitution leaves us, like a whale on the strand, for the president cannot act without the advice and consent of the senate ^*, and if he and two-thirds of them should think fit to sell America, she has only to submit to the purchaser. Even in the event of domestic mismanagement, as little can be hoped from the vigilance or virtue of the upper house. They have already broached a doctrine the wildest and most criminal, that has pro­bably been ever heard of in a legislative assembly ^†; and general Mason did only one-half of his duty to the country, when he forbore to publish that en­gulphing tenet. There is no assurance, nor, indeed, much probability, that any future senate will pos­sess more information, or integrity, or indepen­dence, than the members now in office. A president has always in his gift a variety of appointments, sufficient to secure a majority of two-thirds. This tribunal, then, for the purpose of his impeachment, is entirely useless.

The prospect of justice would not be much im­proved by a transference to the house of represen­tatives. Perhaps the safest and fairest way of pro­secuting the chief magistrate might be to name de­legates from each of the states, in the numbers and proportions that should be found adviseable. Such persons only ought to be eligible as have never held an office of profit under the general government, [Page 133] and who shall, by acceptance of this trust, be ren­dered incapable to exercise any such office for a cer­tain term of years to come. These remarks apply to no particular sect of politicians. They point at an evident and immense gap in the constitution; for, under the present form, it is plain that the trial of a president could be nothing but a farce.

CHAPTER VII.

WHOEVER is conversant in the writ­ings of the federal party, must have observed, that, amidst mountains of declamation, they labour under a distressing famine even of alledged facts. The bribery of Randolph by Fauchet; the institution of democratic societies; their conspiracy with Genet; the encouragement which they gave to the western mob; and, finally, the grand rebellion itself, com­pose almost the only intelligible charges of all those on which the six per cent. cymbals are eternally tinkling. As to Randolph, the party contented them­selves with railing. They never entered the field of argument; but, in as far as evidence and argu­ment can go, the point has been decided without [Page 134] their aid ^*. In defence of democratic societies, something has been already advanced ^†; and as for Genet, it has been proved that, whenever he was understood to have quarrelled with the president, the great mass of republicans immediately deserted him ^‡. Nay, it is remarkable, and to candid minds it must be decisive, that the favourite of all these societies was then, and is now, Thomas Jefferson, the very man who freed this country from Genet. It must, at the same time, be allowed, that, in many respects, Genet was hardly and uncandidly dealt with; but of him, his instructions, and his proceed­ings, more will be said hereafter.

Seven letters, under the signature of Manlius, appeared, sometime ago, in the Columbian Centi­nel. The first of them is dated the 3d, and the last, on the 17th of September, 1794. They consist of furious invective against the republican party. In No. III. the writer complains, that ‘Mr. Dexter, noted for solidity of judgment, strength and perspicuity of reasoning, elegance and accuracy of stile, in an anarchical gazette of Philadelphia, is made to talk like a school boy.’ If Manlius want­ed to mock Mr. Dexter, his attempt is successful. If he wanted the public to believe his panegyric, he betrays his own want of judgment or veracity. No person has, for the last four years, ever so in­tolerably tired the patience of congress, as Mr. Dexter, if we except Robert Harper, and even the latter is greatly superior to the former. He has in­genuity, information, and an easy delivery, if he could only know when to stop. In the session of November, 1796, he made two very interesting speeches; the one for the widow of John de Neuf­ville, [Page 135] and the other, for the inhabitants of Savan­nah.

Of democratic societies, Manlius, No. I. speaks thus. ‘They have opposed their veto to the doings of the president, to the laws of the union, and to the will of the whole people.’ [ Veto is a word borrowed from the tribunes of ancient Rome. By pronouncing it, they prevented the enacting of a law. The societies never made even a motion in any legislature whatever, nor have they endeavour­ed to obstruct the execution of any law. If they had done so, they would have been apprehended, and the dispute would have been decided in a court of justice. They did nothing more than publish their opinions. They were warranted to do so, by the constitution, which declares, that ‘congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ^*.’ If they went too far the attorney general could stop them.] "They have arraigned," says Manlius, ‘the conduct of the most wise and virtuous citizen now on earth; they have de­clared that this beloved first magistrate hath trampled on the constitution.’ [There never was a chief magistrate in the world, who escaped with­out arraignment. We might as well attempt to keep mankind from coughing, or sneezing, as ex­pect that any government can give universal satis­faction. The democratic societies only did what occurs in every assembly of the human race. They censured their government, and so do the slaves of Dahomey and Morocco.] ‘They have excited opposition to the laws; and, an armed rebellion, probably, in consequence of their false sugges­tions, is actually raised in the very centre of the United States. MANY of our fellow citizens have [Page 136] been murdered, and their dwellings burnt to the ground. They have endeavoured to involve the country in all the distresses of war; while they have opposed the adoption of every measure to prepare for this dreadful calamity.’

This extract presents a fair sample of the stile of Manlius. His letters have been reprinted in a pamphlet, and enjoy some sort of reputation. The preceding passage is one of those few, wherein we can disrobe him of the mist of declamation, and grasp him on the ground of facts. ‘Many of our fellow citizens have been murdered.’ The papers published by government speak of no such mur­ders. But previous to the burning of Neville's house, and in a series of three years, about eight persons had been maltreated. On the 6th of Sep­tember, 1791, Robert Johnston, an excise officer, was tarred and feathered at Pigeon-creek, in Washington county, by a party in disguise. Four other cases of the same nature occurred soon after. One of the sufferers was a lunatic, and another a private person, who had innocently re­marked, that, when people did not obey govern­ment, they could not look for its protection. It does not appear that any punishment was inflic­ted on these offenders, and hence the executive must have expected a continuation of outrages. An office of inspection for Washington county was opened in August, 1792, at the house of cap­tain William Faulkner. This man was soon after threatened with destruction, unless he turned away the inspector. He did so and no personal violence was committed. Disorderly meetings went on, and still the executive forbore to crush them.

In April, 1793, a party in disguise, broke, du­ring the night, into the house of an excise officer in Fayette county. He was from home, but they [Page 137] abused his family. Warrants for apprehending them were delivered to the sheriff at Fayette. He did not, and probably durst not, execute them. Still government persisted in its want of energy. If re­bellion had been the object of the cabinet of Phi­ladelphia, this was the very way to nurse it. Such apparent lenity was the height of real barbarity. Every new act of blackguardism sanctioned that which was to come next; and every day must have increased the disrespect for social order. It was in a high degree culpable for government thus tamely to stand by, and permit the flames of bru­tality and sedition to extend unresisted from one year to another.

On the 22d of November, 1793, a party again visited the house of the collector of excise in Fay­ette county, for whom they had searched in April. He gave up his books and commission. Yet it is own­ed that about the end of 1793, the law appeared to be gaining ground. The smallest exertion of execu­tive power must have ensured its ultimate success. Some of the principal recusant distillers began to comply, and others discovered a disposition to do so. One of the former had his barn burnt. The still-house of a second was destroyed; that of a third narrowly escaped the same fate; and his grist and saw mills were damaged. The blame must fall entirely on the timidity or negligence of admini­stration. ‘The most wise and virtuous citizen now on earth,’ can gain no more honour by this ama­zing inattention to his duty than he formerly did by shooting the French officer who advanced with a flag of truce ^*. On the 6th of June, 1794, an act of violence occurred in Washington county. The [Page 138] office of excise was kept in the house of John Lynn, who was tarred, feathered, and tied to a tree. Some days after, part of his house was pulled down. From the first violence committed on Ro­bert Johnston to the last date, two years and nine months had elapsed. During this long interval, the executive looked on, like the mariner, who sees his vessel springing a leak, but who lets the hold be half filled with water before he tries to stop it. If a thousand well affected militia had been quartered in the vicinage of the rioters who assaulted Mr. Johnston, if they had been driven out of the coun­try, or sent to the workhouse, we should have heard nothing of a western insurrection; or of a waste of public money, of property, and of time, to the va­lue of some millions of dollars. It is well known that a rabble, when unresisted, always proceed from bad to worse, till the violence of the disorder pro­duces a remedy, which is often more dangerous than the disease. The smallest political foresight might have discovered that, first or last, it would be needful to extend the arm of power, and that the sooner this was done so much the better.

This detail of circumstances must, in every can­did mind, alleviate the blame of the western riot­ers. Their ignorance was as much to be pitied, as their barbarity was to be detested. They were permitted to advance by gradual and even by an­nual steps to the brink of destruction. They were then pitched over the precipice, with an in­solence and ferocity of vengeance that sink the judge to a level with the criminal. As for Man­lius, and his numerous murders, they are the offspring of his own calumnious fancy. The insurgents do not seem ever to have shed so much as a single drop of blood, excepting at Neville's [Page 139] house, where three of the defenders were wounded. From the publications of the times, Manlius must have known that his assertion was an untruth. With his eyes open, he circulated this falsehood to promote incendiary and infamous purposes. Such is the patriot, who rails at democratic so­cieties.

Of this western insurrection it has become the mark of a party to speak in strong terms. On April 12th, 1796, judge Iredell, of the supreme court of the United States, referring chiefly to this rupture, delivered a charge to the grand jury of Pennsylvania. Some parts of it are open to objec­tion. Describing the superior excellence of the American constitution, he says, that, in other coun­tries, ‘suspicion has supplied the place of evi­dence.—The highest instances of public virtue have been doomed to the punishment of the high­est public offences. Happily for the United States, such scenes have been known to them only by the history of other nations.’ This is wrong. In the cases of Randolph, and of sheriff Hamilton, the most direct evidence was set aside by suspicion. The numerous instances of oppression committed in the west, under the eye, though not by the desire of judge Peters, prove, that here, as in other coun­tries, government may oppress with impunity. The judge then alludes to the suppression of the insur­rection, ‘a period which will form as bright a page, as any in the American annals.’

This brightness must be produced by the parti­cles of lustre flowing from ‘the army of the con­stitution.’ Carlisle is only an hundred and seven­teen miles west from Philadelphia. When the troops arrived there, they quarrelled among themselves. They were on the brink of mutual massacre. ‘The streets and avenues of Carlisle were occupied by [Page 140] the army, during the night; and an apprehension of the town being burnt excited a general pa­nic ^*.’ The rational part of the troops could not preserve order; and, it was believed, that nothing but the arrival of the president prevented serious mischief ^†. Messrs. Redick and Findley, deputies from the western country, ran the risk of being as­sassinated. As for the insurgents, it was common to swear, that ‘there was no need of judges or juries. Let them only see the men, and they would skewer them ^‡.’ Those of the troops, who alledged that they were merely come in aid of the law, and that they ought not to usurp its functions, were branded with the title of whisky men; and, as such, were the objects of menace and indignation. The presi­dent obliged those who had killed the two persons above mentioned ^§, to give security for standing their trial. Some persons, of no mean rank, were morti­fied at this measure. Some foolish people having, at different times, mixed with the left wing of the army, general Morgan kept his men from killing them, by threatening that he would kill them him­self. He took them out of the way, and dismissed them privately. On the march, it was his rule to keep his troops on the parade, till he had called on the inhabitants residing near the encampment. He immediately paid them for what had been taken or destroyed ^‖. Yet even this officer did sometimes for­get himself. He was guilty of the first breach of peace in the western country. James M'Allister ‘had charged a quarter of a dollar for a quart of whiskey to a soldier. The general knocked him [Page 141] down with the butt of his whip, and abused him considerabl ^*.’ At fort Cumberland, general Smith of Baltimore, discharged about fifty disorderly men in one day; he did his utmost, and with consider­able success, to enforce discipline. In the camp at Carnaghan's, in Westmoreland, the most expe­rienced officers were afraid, that the disorders com­mitted by the army would ruin the country. Gene­ral Irwin, at some risk, seized two culprits. They were severely punished, and the example had a pro­per effect. But it was a service of danger. While the sentence was executed, fears were entertained, that the regiment to which the offenders belonged, might interpose to rescue them; so that general Chambers, with his brigade, was placed in a situa­tion instantly to charge, in case of mutiny.

When judge Iredell, Manlius, and other friends of order, indulge themselves in praises of the western army; in declamations against the in­surgents; and, in arraignments against the demo­cratic societies, they will do wisely to reflect on the particulars here stated. Such an army was, when taken collectively, as great an object of terror as the insurrection itself. No democratic society has done any act that approaches to the bacchanalian project of burning Carlisle. It is affirmed, that the societies wanted to plunge America into a British war. This project did possibly float in the brains of a small number of madmen. That it could be the desire of any considerable part of the members is untrue. But even a British war was still less dreadful than a civil one; and if it had not been for some officers of experience, and, above all, for the respect paid to the president, this sanctified western army would have produced a second rebellion, before at­tempting [Page 142] to quell the first one. The sober portion of the troops were on the point of being obliged to attack the rioters within their own ranks.

How dreadful must have been the condition of the United States, if Carlisle had actually been de­stroyed. It is weakness to shrink from the retrospect of this woeful probability, or to hold up ‘the army of the constitution’ as a pattern for future ages. From the hurry with which that corps was huddled together, nothing splendid could justly be expected. If Alexander Hamilton had advised the previous calling of congress, or if he had, in 1791, pursued proper measures to check the outset of the riots, he would have rendered an eminent service to the United States. Proceeding with judge Iredell, he tells the grand jury, that the insurgents were se­duced ‘by the basest artifices, and the grossest mis­representations of a few designing men; whose views, in all probability, were much deeper, and more malignant than they were avowed to be.’ The judge ought to have specified who these few designing men are, otherwise he sinks to the same rank with Manlius, Curtius, Camillus, aad the rest of that tribe, who prattle about conspiracies alike incomprehensible to themselves and every person else. If he refers to Findley, Smilie, Brackenridge, and Gallatin, Mr. Hamilton strained every nerve, without finding a spark of evidence against them. The judge cannot surely want to trump up another edition of Fauchet's romance; and if that is not his object, he should, in defence of his own reputation, declare what was his meaning.

Again, we hear that the insurrection was sup­pressed in a manner ‘worthy of the government of a free people.’ He should have added, as in the instance of sheriff Hamilton, of major Powers, of the deputies of submission menaced with murder, [Page 143] of the expected conflagration of Carlisle, or of the man knocked down for asking the price of a quart of whiskey. To this paper the grand jury replied, that the insurrection ‘has, however, been attended with good consequences.—It has offered another proof of the firmness, the wisdom, and benevo­lence of our much beloved president.—It has opened the eyes of a once deluded people.’ This is the sum total of advantages named by the jury. They have cost a waste of two or three millions of dollars; two or three millions of calumnies in the federal newspapers; and vexation, oppression, and ruin to a great number of people. Eyes have, in­deed, been opened; but what have they seen? the horrors of military despotism, inflicted by a raw militia; the impossibility, in most cases, of obtaining redress; the usurpation of both civil and military powers, by a secretary of the treasury, who had no title to interfere with either. The grand jury close with referring to the ‘unexampled prosperity of our dear and happy country,’—exemplified in the devastation of commerce; the explosion of cre­dit; the contempt of England; and the prospect of hostilities with France.

Of the western army, more yet remains to be said. Andrew Watson, William H. Beaumont, Je­remiah Sturgeon, and George Robinson, resided, in 1794, at Pittsburg. Mr. Brackenridge declares, that the town did not contain four less suspected, or less offending men. They ‘were dragged out of their beds, at two o'clock in the morning; not suffered to dress themselves, but in an unfinished manner; obliged to march, some of them, with­out putting on their shoes, which they had to car­ry with them in their hands; dragged out of their beds amidst the cries of children, and the tears of mothers; treated with language of the most [Page 144] insulting opprobrium, by those apprehending them; driven before a troop of horse, at a trot, through muddy roads, seven miles from Pitts­burg; impounded in a pen, on the wet soil; the guard baying them, and asking them how they would like to be hanged; [what a precious spe­cimen of the federal army!] "some offering a dol­lar to have the privilege of shooting at them; car­ried thence four miles towards the town; obliged to lie all night upon the wet earth, without cover­ing, under a season of sleet, rain, and snow; dri­ven from the fine with bayonets; when some of them, perishing, had crawled, endeavouring to be unseen, towards it;" [This is no better than the history of Kirk and his regiment; or of the Scots presbyterians, under Charles the second.] next day, impounded in a waste house, and de­tained there five days; then removed to a newly built and damp room, without fire, in the gar­rison at Pittsburg; at the end of ten days brought before the judiciary, and the information aganst them found not to be regarded!" [Oh most lame and impotent conclusion!] "Was this the way to quell an insurrection?" [No but it was the way to make one, and that was what Mr. Hamil­ton wanted.] "Was this the way to make good ci­tizens? Do I blame the judiciary? No.’ [But every body else will. Mr. Brackenridge is a law­yer, and most likely unwilling to offend judge Pe­ters. In the Scots court of session, it is a rule with their lordships to ruin every practitioner who quar­rels with them. Something of this sort, perhaps prevails at Pittsburg. Judge Peters, when he dis­missed these four men would certainly blush to look in their faces. Haul people out of their beds at midnight, drag them eleven miles at a trot, barefooted through the mire, impound them for [Page 145] ten days in mud, before you examine them, and then discharge them, for want of evidence!

It signifies nothing to rail about Jefferies, or the present lord justice clerk of Scotland, or the other monsters of juridical prostitution, who have so fre­quently polluted the eastern shore of the Atlantic. These feats have been acted under our eyes; and you must either admire the gentry who atchieved them, or you are an enemy to order, a disorganizer, a jacobin, and a pensioner of France.] ‘I blame the management of those concerned to injure them. These were neighbours and friends of mine, and that is the secret of their suffer­ings ^*.’ A poor apology for the bench! On the march, Andrew Watson fell sick. The captain of the guard lent his horse to the prisoner. ‘Gene­ral Chambers coming up, ordered him to dismount with opprobrious appellations ^†.’ From such bad treatment, the health of Beaumont and Robinson suffered severely. These details should be univer­sally known; when presidential speeches, charges to grand juries, and the whole mass of federal pam­phlets and newspapers are crouded with the exploits of the army of the constitution. Nothing can be more terrible to any country than a tumultuous body of soldiers, directed by a revengeful states­man, and sanctioned by an understrapping judge.

To this black narrative, let us see what can be compared on the side of democratic societies. Man­lius, No. IV, asks if Americans will confide in men, ‘who inure their arms to the dextrous use of this instrument of death ^‡; in horrid pomp, by its means, execute the image of one of your first pa­triots ^*; [Page 146] in men who have already excited an ar­med rebellion against the laws of their country; and spread havoc and desolation over the peace­ful dwellings of our fellow citizens; who have already produced treason and murder.’ And again—"the treasons and murders of Pittsburg." The only blood spilt was, as already said, by the ar­my; and as for havoc and desolation, that committed by the insurgents was but like a grain to the bushel of the excise heroes. Manlius, in a long note, condescends upon particulars. In May, 1794, the people of Lexington in Kentucky burnt in effigy John Jay. And what then? before the burning they guillotined him. The defence of Mr. Adams was suspended about his neck, and in his left hand he held ‘Swift's last speech in congress on the sub­ject of British depredation.’ This childish sto­ry formed a triumphant article in some Kentucky newspaper. Manlius cites it at full length, and adds; ‘these are samples of the doings and the resolutions of the anarchists. These people are now in arms.’

Historical knowledge must be at a very low ebb in Boston; otherwise no writer durst have forged the notorious fiction just quoted. If, in 1794, the people of Kentucky had been in arms, they might have remained so. No federal army, or indeed any other, could have reached them. But, happi­ly, this is the first and last notice which we have received of a rebellion in that quarter The lie was good or bad enough to please the tradesmen and farmers of Massachusetts. In their irritation, Manlius reaps the harvest of his labours. He prints a swarm of inflammatory fables, and proceeds to rail at inflammation.

[Page 147]It does not appear that any democratic society had concern in burning of Jay's effigy. Manlius, as the second, and only other fact, quotes mi­nutes of a meeting held at Pittsburgh, on the 29th of April, 1794. They contain warm expressions, censure the appointment of Jay, the system of stockholding, and declare that ‘we are almost ready to wish for a state of revolution.’ The parties assembled were of no consequence, and Mr. Fenno, and Manlius himself, have employed num­berless expressions quite as inflammatory against the republican party, as these are against the parti­sans of Britain.

On the 26th of November, 1794, Dr. Ames, in a speech to the representatives, attacked democra­tic societies. He repeated the above circumstances from Manlius. He added others. The socie­ty, at Charleston, in South Carolina, had solici­ted the jacobin club of Paris to adopt it. This was in October, 1793. The plan, it seems, had come to nothing. ‘The club of Pinckney district, in Carolina," ys Dr. Ames, "had voted in fa­vour of war, and against paying taxes.’ He should have recited a copy of the vote, but this, also, ended in smoke. ‘Are the resolves of the clubs of this place and New-York forgotten?’ subjoined he. ‘Could outrage and audacity be expected to venture further? One condem­ned the excise as odious and tyrannical; the other, inforcing that sentiment, published its con­demnation of Mr. Jay's mission of peace.’ Some notice hath already been taken of this speech ^*. As to excise, a committee of the British house of commons, in one of their reports, declared it to be a system ‘pernicious to the manners of the peo­ple; [Page 148] repugnant to all good government; and which threatens the destruction of that very re­venue, which it is its object to secure ^*.’ This is the stile of a British parliament; an authority quite in point.

There was another fact omitted both by Dr. Ames and Manlius. The former and his friend, Dr. Smith, were burnt in effigy at Charleston, (S. C.) for opposing Madison's resolutions. Perhaps this, also, may be ascribed to democratic societies. But all these indecencies put together, do not balance even half a page of Findley or Brackenridge. It signifies nothing to burn one judge in effigy, compared with the dragging of another to the distance of three hundred and fifty miles from his district, and, with­out examination, confining him for seventy days in the cells of Philadelphia jail. But let us go back to the federal army. It would have been happy for the four western counties, if the troops had con­fined themselves to burning of an effigy. When they departed, a select body remained behind. ‘They were noisy in taverns, late in their patroles through the streets (of Pittsburg). The cow of one man, that had but one, was stabbed; the horse of another run through the body ^†.’ Some officers quarrelled with a waggoner. ‘Two or three slices were taken from his scull, and a finger was cut off ^‡.’ An hundred and fifty dollars were paid as a composition to the sufferer. M'Dermot, who gave the wounds, was at the head of a second outrage. After forcing a man, whose wife was sick, to give them entertainment, the company confined him to his chamber, made strokes at him with their swords, threw his bedding on the floor, danc­ed [Page 149] upon it, broke his tables, chairs, and other fur­niture. The bill of damages was paid, with many imprecations ^*. Mr. Brackenridge relates other cases of this sort, and makes a general reference to many more. These anecdotes should be read and studied by every man who values the lives and pro­perties of American citizens. Dr. Ames would not sell one of his fingers for an hundred and fifty thou­sand dollars. Mr. Jay would rather be burnt in ef­figy, daily, for an hundred years together, than part with the least slice of his scull. To celebrate, with­out discrimination, the exploits of such an army, is insulting the truth of history. Desperadoes, like M'Dermot, ought to have been turned out of this select corps, with every mark of disgrace. No such step has been heard of; and hence we may look for similar treatment from the next constitutional army.

Among the prisoners, Mr. Findley enumerates colonel Crawford and son, Mr. Sedgwick, a justice of the peace, Mr. Corbly, a baptist minister, and others. He never could learn that Mr. Sedgwick had done any thing to lay a foundation even for suspicion. These people assert, that they had not the opportunity of signing the terms of the com­missioners, until the appointed day was past. After an imprisonment of several months, they were ad­mitted to bail. On their trial, no bill was found against any of them ^†.

In the American Annual Register, Chap. X. some observations are made on the correspondent case of George Lucas, another pretended insurgent, such as Mr. Sedgwick and Co. Compare this with what follows. The president, in his speech to congress, on the 19th of November, 1794, strongly recommends [Page 150] an indemnification to persons in office, who had suffered in defence of government; such as Neville, the inspector, whose house was burnt. ‘The ob­ligation, says he, and policy of indemnifying them, are strong and obvious. It may also merit attention, whether policy will not enlarge this provision to the retribution of other citizens, who, though not under the ties of office, may have suffered damage by their generous exertions for upholding the constitution and the laws. The amount, even if all the injured were includ­ed, would not be great; and, on future emer­gencies, the government would be amply repaid by the influence of an example, that he who in­curs a loss in its defence, shall find a recompence in its liberality.’

This reads very well. Send your servant on a message, and order him to mount an unruly horse. He is, in spite of his efforts, thrown off and bruised. You cannot chuse but to pay the surgeon's bill. Thus far we go with the president; for the go­vernment of a country proceeds on the same prin­ciples with that of a family, only that it covers a more extended scale. Put the case then, that your courier shall, with or without design, ride over a dozen passengers on the road. The surgeon brings in a second account. This also will fall to be paid either by him or you. Equity requires that ultimate compensation should be made by the owner of this horse, who put him into the way of doing the harm.

It demands no depth to see the fairness of this pro­position, and the propriety of its application to justice Sedgwick, to colonel Crawford, serjeant Lucas, and Mr. Corbly. In consequence of the president's re­commendation, a bill past to indemnify those who suffered losses in the service of government by the insurgents. The same bill should have contained [Page 151] a clause for indemnifying those who had been grossly abused by the western army, or who had endu­red unjust imprisonment by the mistake of govern­ment. Humanity, justice, and sound policy, pled as warmly in the latter instance as in the former. The case was even stronger than that of passengers rode down by a horse. The federal ar­my, that instrument which executed such a misappli­cation of punishment, was, in part, raised at the ex­pence of its victims. It was only, by their own con­sent, granted seven years before, that, as it regarded them, the president held his office; for if they had, in 1787, set up an independent government, it would have been difficult or impossible to hinder them; nor should it be forgotten that the constitution was re­conciled to their choice by considerable manage­ment, solicitation, and artifice. The officers of ex­cise, who lost property, or were abused personally, had reaped personal emoluments from the execu­tive. Lucas and Sedgwick had not. They drew only blanks in this lottery; while they were just as well entitled to protection, and retribution, as officers of excise, or any other class of citizens. Nay some of them, sheriff Hamilton, and major Powers, for example, had been active instruments in suppressing the riots. Their claim to compen­sation was of the most forcible nature. They got none.

The policy of such a measure is no less evident than its justice. By paying only the sufferers on one side, congress were placing themselves at the head of a party, and what is yet worse, of that par­ty who were most in the wrong; for, after the explanation already made, candour will admit, that the outrages perpetrated by the whiskymen, vanish in a comparison with the barbarities and villainies committed by part of the army, and of its conduc­tors. [Page 152] Now, the government of a party is, in itself, illegal, and but for the sake of expediency, de­serves no attachment. The people to the westward could not help seeing, and reprobating such gross partiality against their magistrates, and other fel­low citizens, and in favour of excise officers. Their resentment may, at this time, be held of small con­sequence. But they are a growing society. In the census of 1791, the four counties were estimated to contain about seventy thousand people. At pre­sent, they can hardly have fewer than an hundred thousand, and, as the country is in a rapid pro­gression, twelve years more will double their num­bers. In new settlements, the proportion of able bodied men to the general population is very great ^*. The two hundred thousand inhabitants of the year 1810, will probably be able to muster forty thousand armed citizens. The mountains that seperate their territory from the Atlantic coun­try are equivalent to a second army. The masters of Louisiana and Canada will be ready to furnish them with arms; an assistance equally to be ex­pected from Spain, France, and England. In case of serious provocation, and actual insurrection, the memory of ancient injuries will make the people desperate. Sheriff Hamilton, will hardly give him­self up, a second time to a tribunal, that he knows, by experience, to be prejudiced and despotic. In­stead of striving to crush mischief, he may possibly, at the head of his Mingo creek regiment, seize a post on the Alleghany, and bid defiance to congress and excise. Major Powers will not likely become a second time, an embassador of obedience, that he may be imprisoned, for eight days, at the point of the bayonet. A revolt like this, would far better [Page 153] promote the views of British ambition than an al­liance with the Miamis, or Simcoe's pitiful conspi­racy with the Six Nations. On this subject the remark of general Smith was very fair. ‘Gen­tlemen say that they hope there will be no more insurrections. I hope so too. But does that insure the thing? I believe not sir. Nothing was farther from the thoughts of the house, at last session, than an insurrection ^*.’ This short view explains the impolicy of railing at western people in the mass; a practice so carefully followed by the federal party. They should like­wise reflect upon its injustice. ‘Though out­rages had been committed on excise officers, yet no sheriff nor constable, had been opposed in arresting the offenders. They had been brought in upon process, and prosecuted at the court. There was no reason in the distinction; but it was made ^†.’ If the six per cent. orators, want a second insurrection, their constant yelping is the most certain way to raise it. The shortest method for making a rascal of any man, is by assuring him that you know him to be one.

The sixth article of the amendments to the con­stitution says, that ‘no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affir­mation.’ In many of the cases already quoted, the spirit of this amendment was plainly violated, and, in that of Powers, even the letter; for, after being kept so long a prisoner, the judge discharged him without even examination.

The seventh amendment enjoins, that no person shall ‘be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.’ The stipulation is illusive, by the generality of the stile; for, the con­stitution [Page 154] should either have defined what is meant by due process, or it issues in mere words.

The eighth amendment declares, that, ‘in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury, of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.’

This amendment is, likewise, unsatisfactory; for a speedy trial is an indefinite phrase, that may be stretched to intolerable delay. Thus, in the cases of the western people, about six months, or up­wards, intervened between arrestment and trial. This was any thing, surely, but speed. The word district lies, also, open to objection. The state of Pennsylvania is a district four hundred miles broad. A person dragged to that distance, a whiskey rioter, for example, is completely separated from his con­nections, and loses every benefit of trial by jury from the vicinage. The very length of the journey is, in itself, a severe punishment to any man, who has business to mind. Suppose that he gets bail, re­turns home, comes back to Philadelphia, and is ac­quitted, or, perhaps the grand jury throws out the bill, so that he does not even stand a trial. His three journies amount to twelve hundred miles, which, at twenty miles per day, employ sixty days. His expences, in travelling, cannot be less than a dollar per day, and his loss of time about as much more. Here is a fine of more than an hundred dollars, and, perhaps, he has not one dollar of his own. This calculation does not include his waste of time in at­tending tho court, and three prefatory months in prison, before he could find bail for his appearance, or, perhaps, before judge Peters found leisure to examine him. To the poorest man brought from the western country, the arrestment must, in itself, have been equal to an exaction of three or four hundred [Page 155] dollars. The above three amendments to the con­stitution point out no explicit principle to protect him. As for compensation, I suspect that no writer on law, has ever so much as suggested a hint of it. The extreme iniquity of this omission has already been explained ^*. Amidst the numerous projects for political reformation, I have never met with an ef­fectual remedy proposed for arbritrary imprisonment, before trial, on the part of government.

We have seen a few of the abuses in this way, which occurred during the western insurrection. While they can be repeated with impunity, it is rash to say much about the rights and liberties of an American citizen. While your government can apprehend you, make you walk four hundred miles on foot, and thereafter lie three months in jail, be­fore examination, it is childish, it is even imperti­nent, to raise a racket about the superior public vir­tue of American citizens, or the superior purity of the federal constitution. If the former had shone with peculiar splendour, it is likely, that a certain judge would, long since, have been impeached, fined, and dismissed. If the latter had been as excellent, as it is said to be, it would have held out a warning sufficient to deter him. As for the secretary of the treasury, his non-impeachment by the house of re­presentatives, was an eminent neglect of duty. It is true that two-fifths of them, or, perhaps, a majo­rity, would have opposed any motion of that sort. The senate, also, were sure to have acquitted the criminal. Yet difficulties, like these, ought not to hinder an honest member of congress from obeying the dictates of his conscience. Some elder represen­tatives affect to smile at the blunt but respectable sincerity of colonel Lyon, of Vermont. It would [Page 156] be well for the country if every member durst speak his sentiments with as much honesty.

To the amendments above cited, the follow­ing addition might be an improvement. ‘Every man, apprehended for any crime, shall be entitled to an examination as early as possible; to bail, if the offence be bailable, and to a speedy trial. But as it is impossible, in such matters, to six a precise rule, the following provisions will en­sure the circumspection of government in issu­ing warrants to apprehend the accused, and its dispatch in deciding their fate. From the day of his arrest, till that of trial, he shall receive wholesome and plentiful diet, and be lodged in an apartment dry, and as well aired as may be ^*. In the event of an acquittal he shall be entitled to treble the ordinary wages of a labourer, in that part of the country where he resides; or, if he is a tradesman, to treble the wages that a journeyman of his profession can, upon a medi­dium, earn. The quantum is to be determined by a jury of his own vicinage, as early as possible, after his discharge. Over and above this sum, it shall bear a weekly compound interest of one per cent. from the day of the prisoner being ap­prehended, until the day that he shall be ultimately paid the balance found due to him by the ver­dict of the jury. In case of his death before trial, one half of the sums so due, on his being acquitted, shall be awarded to his nearest heir [Page 157] at law; the amount being fixed as aforesaid, and the proportional compound interest conti­nuing to accumulate till the day of payment. If strong suspicions remain of the prisoner's guilt, or, if the accidental death or absence of a witness hath mutilated the evidence of the pub­lic prosecutor, the jury of the vicinage are to have a discretionary power of reducing the prin­cipal sum to one half, and the compound interest to one per cent. per week of the remaining moi­tey. If the prisoner shall be compelled to travel on foot for more than fifty miles to the place of confinement, or of trial, he shall receive at the rate of one day's wages for every thirty miles such of distance. In court, he is to be allowed able counsel, and any reasonable number of wit­nesses, whom he may wish for, shall be paid at public expence. His damages, on acquittal, are to be defrayed by the county, district, or government, at whose instance he has been tri­ed. If his health suffers materially from bad diet, or an unwholesome apartment, addi­tional damages may be assigned at the discretion of the jury. For the time of his enlargement upon bail, the prisoner, if finally acquitted, shall only be entitled to the expence of travelling to and from the place where he resides.’

The reader may smile at this effusion of fancy, but until a similar regulation shall be adopted, the constitution must labour under an important defect. The point of justice is not worth an argument, since every candid heart must echo approbation. This practice of arbitrary imprisonment, both be­fore and after trial, has, in the old countries, been an instrument of general and enormous tyranny. In Scotland, when a culprit had been condemned to transportation for a number of years, it was, some­times, [Page 158] two or three years before government sent him off. In equity, this interval should have been deducted from the space of banishment; but that was not the practice. The following anecdote refers to this custom. It is published here by way of consolation, as shewing that public justice can­not be more stupid or brutal in America, than she often is in Europe. Not many years ago, two brothers were capitally convicted at Edinburgh for house breaking. One of them was to be respi­ted; but, by a blunder in drawing out the paper, the wrong christian name crept in, and on this mis­take he was hung. The survivor, whom it had saved, underwent a long and painful imprisonment, till, seeing no termination of misery, he attempted an escape. He was detected, and the blood-thirsty bench instantly obtained from the king an order for his execution. One of their lordships, less bar­barous than the rest, observed that the imprison­ment which this man had endured was too dread­ful for human patience, and hinted that he was a much [...]ter object of pity than of a halter. The remark was in vain, for pity very seldom touches the breast of a judge, or at least of a Scots one.

From this excursion, we go back to the propo­sed amendment. As government is erected for an universal dispensation of justice, it is completely monstrous that government itself should be placed beyond the reach of justice. With regard to ac­quitted prisoners, nobody can deny the fact. When a man is apprehended either here, or in Europe, for a capital offence, he is often half starved to death, of cold and hunger, before his trial comes on. If, in the sequel, he must die, that alone is enough; and if he is discharged, the court can make no atonement equal to his previous sufferings. Thus is Jurisprudence transformed into a prostitute, [Page 159] a daemon, such as she displayed herself on the wes­tern expedition.

To an acquitted prisoner the retribution proposed cannot be thought extravagant. Even with the pre­vious assurance of safety, if that were possible, a labourer, or a journeyman mechanic, would much rather continue at the axe or the anvil, than undergo a scene that, like a snail on the wall, is sure of leaving slime behind it. The treble wages offer no temptation. To a person in extensive business, they offer much worse than none. They hold out the prospect of certain loss, which, however, he is bet­ter able to support than a poorer man. The com­pound interest would ensure expedition, as those in hazard of paying it, would effectually spur the judge to an early discharge of his duty. The tra­velling expences might tend to moderate the incon­venient distance to which a person accused may sometimes be dragged. The probability of retri­bution could hold out no encouragement to real guilt; besides, that the jury of the vicinage could cut compensation through the middle. The chance of paying smartly for mistakes would render a court cautious in granting warrants. The same prospect would retard the acquittal of a pri­soner, when he is known to be guilty. On the 3d of March, 1795, the day on which the third congress dissolved, Mr. Dexter laid before the house of representatives a resolution for mitigating, in some instances, the severity of penal laws. He said, that he had known a prisoner come to the bar laughing, because, though guilty, he knew before hand that the jury would acquit him. Condemning the severity of the law, they refused to condemn the prisoner. Justice, or cruelty overshot its mark; and he was discharged in contempt of evidence. But if the jury knew that such an act of perjury, [Page 160] on their part, was to produce a heavy fine on the county or district, we should hear no more of this corrupted mercy. It would reflect singular dignity on the jurisprudence of America, to set the first ex­ample to the world of such a magnanimous regula­tion. It might blunt the derision that posterity must feel, at those torrents of self-applause which the present age hath so bountifully poured upon itself. Such an article in the constitution would augment the safety, and promote the indemnification of in­nocence, while, at the same time, it multiplied the dangers of guilt. Of such an article every party may, in turn, feel the benefit, or suffer by the want. The unavenged excesses of the fall of 1794, prove, that, till something of this nature shall be adopted, the vaunted liberties of America are but the frag­ments of a system. If the sixth year of our govern­ment hath reached such Mamaluke maturity of des­potism, what prodigies may be expected in the ac­cumulation of a century!

Here it may be useful to notice another defect in the federal constitution. The king of England can, at pleasure, dissolve his parliament. Whenever they become unmanageable, he has a right of directing them to disperse. If they neglect his orders, there is nothing to hinder his guards from shooting them, under the riot act. This royal privilege has ob­vious and dreadful consequences to the indepen­dence of parliament. A member in opposition, has, perhaps, expended one-half of his estate in canvassing for his borough. By a single message from the crown, the labour of years, and the waste of ten thousand guineas are rendered abortive; and he must, a second time, contend with the profusion of ministerial bribery. Charles the first consented to suspend this prerogative; and that oversight paved the way to the foundation of the commonwealth [Page 161] of England. It was by a bold exertion of the right of dissolution, that William Pitt, in 1784, broke up the coalition parliament. The expedient has been often adopted. It is a sure card in the hand of a de­cisive minister, and one of the strongest links in the chain of corrupted influence.

With such an example before them, the framers of the constitution of 1787, have granted, in sub­stance, the very same prerogative to the president. They could not have betrayed a stronger mark of incapacity. In article ii. section iii. are these words: ‘He may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both houses, or either of them; and, in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as HE shall think proper.’

In article i. section ii. it is provided, that ‘con­gress shall assemble at least once in every year.’ The presidential privilege reduces this rule to a nullity. Before they have been a week in session, his senate may propose an adjournment. The two houses disagree, and the president determines that they shall rise. With a view to this emergency, the appropriation bill may be posted through both houses within a few days after they sit down. If the representatives become restive, he can dismiss them, without an appropriation act. He has only to quote the precedent of Mr. Washington, and march to the bank or the treasury.

CHAPTER VIII.

ON April 28th, 1796, Dr. Ames deli­vered, in congress, a speech in defence of the Bri­tish treaty▪ ‘If a treaty, says he, left king George his island, it would not answer; not if he stipulated to pay rent for it. [This is wild exaggeration.] It has been said, [And pray, by whom has it been said? for no such language ever addressed the ears of congress.] the world ought to rejoice if Britain was sunk in the sea; if, where there are now men, and wealth, and laws, and liberty, there was no more than a sand-bank for the sea monsters to fatten on; a space for the storms of the ocean to mingle in conflict ^*.’

[Page 163]Dr. Ames has not specified where, or by whom this object of rejoicing was proposed. If any demo­cratical member of congress had uttered that wish, Mr. Fenno would have refreshed the public with an hundred editions of it. To ascribe to a party opinions which they do not hold is uncandid, and serves only to embitter political animosity. This citation helps to ascertain the credit due to some other assertions in that speech ^*.

In a note subjoined to this speech, Dr. Ames adds, that the present war ‘has done more injury to the morals and happiness of nations than all the wars of the last century.’ As to the quantity of blood shed in the revolution, the party have already been told, and they dare not deny the fact, that, in Ben­gal only, the English have destroyed about as many people as the late kingdom of France contained. Stale objections deserve stale answers. The guillo­tine is tender mercy compared with the rack and the wheel, both of which have been abolished by the revolution. It has likewise put an end to the French slave trade, which England continues to cul­tivate. Robespierre, and his chief accomplices, ex­piated their crimes on the scaffold; and even they were not worse than Turrene, ravaging the Pala­tinate, than Cromwell, extirpating the Irish nation, than the New-England saints, of the last century, burning witches, or, than the Connecticut tories, with Brandt and Butler at their head, breaking up the settlement of Wioming. Smith's Wealth of Na­tions, and Arthur Young's Travels through France, will inform Dr. Ames, that, as to morals and hap­piness, a very large majority of the French nation could fear no change for the worse. They have freed [Page 164] themselves from an oppressive monarchy and nobi­lity; and from a clergy of enormous expence. The government, as in the United States, is representa­tive, and religion left at liberty. The French were just as well entitled to freedom as the Americans. Their revolution has been attended with much vi­olence and iniquity; but so was ours. In the affair of September, 1797, the simple exile of the vanquish­ed leaders, displays unexampled lenity. The French have not merely freed themselves. They have like­wise delivered other nations from slavery. The perfidious stadtholder is expelled from his office. The bishop of Liege no longer uplifts a revenue from the gaming tables of Aix-la-Chapelle. Flanders, Nice, and Savoy, are admitted to share in the go­vernment of the republic. The Austrian usurpers are driven from Italy; and, in a few years, the whole peninsula will enjoy a representative govern­ment. The corporation of German tyrants hath been shaken to the root, and lopped of numerous branches. Every campaign has been pregnant with horrors, but not more so than those of former wars. The progress of republican principles hath been gradual, but irresistible. Mankind begin to see that they are capable of legislating for themselves, and to laugh at their previous veneration for emperors and kings.

This prospect ought to gladden the heart of a true republican; but the American revolution seems to have gone too far for the feelings of many people in this country. No sooner had the New-Englanders got rid of their British monarch, than a consider­able part of them began to look out for something very like another. It was chiefly through them that the new constitution conferred such immense power and influence on the office of president. And, ever since, most of the New-England members of con­gress [Page 165] have been disposed to strain his prerogatives. Observe what follows.

The constitution, article i. section ix. clause vii. says that ‘no title of nobility shall be granted by the United States.’ On April 24th, 1789, the representatives received a message from the senate. It stated, that they had appointed a committee to consider ‘what stile or titles it will be proper to annex to the office of president and vice-presi­dent, if any other than those given in the consti­tution.’ The representatives refused their con­currence, and the affair was dropt. Nothing could in itself, be more despicable, nothing could be more opposite even to the letter of the constitution, or betray a stronger taste for monarchy than this pro­posal. The constitution prohibits titles of nobility. The senate recommend titles, and certainly not of degradation. Of course they must have been adap­ted, like the similies of Mr. Bayes, to elevate and surprise. Most serene, most potent, most illustrious, or any luggage of that kind, would have excited ridicule instead of respect. But in smiling at the childishness of the scheme, we should not overlook its ultimate tendency. The next proposal was, pro­bably, to have been by what title shall members address each other; and the continent might soon have resounded with babbling appellations.— ‘This day his grace the most serene John Adams, vice-president, &c. set out for his seat at Braintree.— Last night arrived, in this city from Mount Vernon, his high mightiness, the most potent and illustrious George Washington, &c.—To-morrow his excellency, the right honourable Alexander Hamilton, with his lady, and their suite proceed to New-York, on a visit to his excellency the most illustrious colonel Duer.—Their serene highnesses, the most puissant the senate of the [Page 166] United States, have resolved that in future it shall not be lawful for any senator to pick his teeth, to yawn, or emit the like symptoms of intellec­tual vacancy, till half an hour after prayers have been finished.’ It was from the same spirit, that Messrs. Dexter and Sedgwick wanted, on the 1st of January, 1795, to engraft, on our government, a foreign nobility ^*. In both instances, the innova­tion would have raised infinite discontent, and it was to produce no good effect of any kind. It breathed the pure spirit of disorganization; a fa­vourite term of reproach with the federal party.

On titles, Thomas Paine has written with great success; and this is one reason why the friends of order hate him. Abuse of this author is now as naturally expected in a federal newspaper as tea and chocolate in a grocer's store. To such things, com­pare two resolutions of congress of the 26th of Au­gust, and 3d of October 1785. In consequence of his ‘early, unsolicited, and continued labours in ex­plaining and enforcing the principles of the late revolution, by ingenious and timely publications, upon the nature of liberty, and civil govern­ment,’ they direct the board of treasury to pay him three thousand dollars. This attestation out­weighs the clamour of the six per cent. orators. They dread, they revile, and if able, they would persecute Thomas Paine, because he possesses ta­lents and courage sufficient to rend asunder the mantle of speculation, and to delineate the ricketty growth of our public debt.

In his speech to congress, on May 16th, 1797, Mr. Adams complains heavily of France, as wan­ting to promote civil discord in America. The pas­sage that has almost produced a French war, claims [Page 167] particular notice, and is in these words. France ‘will not abase herself by calculating the conse­quences of the condescension of the American government in listening to the suggestions of her former tyrants. Moreover, the French repub­lic hopes that the successors of Columbus, Raleigh, and Penn, always proud of their liberty, will ne­ver forget that they owe it to France. They will weigh in their wisdom the magnanimous be­nevolence of the French people with the crafty caresses of certain persons who meditate bringing them back to their former slavery.’ These were the words of Barras, president of the directory, on the 30th December, 1796, in his farewell reply to Mr. Monroe. The stile betrays ostentation that might have been spared; and contempt which has been deserved; but not a spirit of animosity. It is certain that, humanly speaking, America could not have compelled Cornwallis to surrender, but for the interference of France; and even the va­nity of a selfish benefactor should be endured with respect. It would have been wise in the president to take no notice whatever of this satiri­cal flight. He opened the door to such harangues as had not before been heard in congress. Among other polite repartees, Mr. Thatcher observed that Barras must have been either mad or drunk. Thus, in half a minute, we turned the balance of ci­vility to the side of France.

But there is the best reason for affirming that the indignation of Mr. Adams was affected; that he wanted to find a pretence for quarrelling with the republic; and that, if expressions far stronger than those of Barras had been employed by lord Gren­ville, not a murmur would have been heard about them. We shall examine each of these two points.

First, That the president desired, and still de­sires, [Page 168] a French rupture, is evident from his patron­age of the Gazette of the United States. Its edi­tor, Mr. Fenno, is printer to the senate, and as much at the nod of Mr. Adams, and of them, as their clerk or door keeper. He vindicates all the measures of the federal party; and, since the beginning of the French revolution, he has railed at that people in the most violent tone. The following paragraphs are copied from his newspaper, so late as the 20th of September, 1797. Read them; and then ask yourself whether Mr. Adams and his senate can be sincere in wishing for a reconcilement with France? While they countenance the publisher of such invectives, they cannot be supposed either to expect or desire French amity. It is of the utmost importance to ascertain whether our executive is serious in its efforts for pacification. Judge if the following language is of that sort.

‘By the advices this day published, it is ren­dered probable that the constitution-makers of sans-cullotte land, that great nursery of pirates, assassins, and robbers, are, ere this, once more blown up.’ [This is abundantly brutal, but the writer goes from bad to worse.]

‘A new, long, and violent contest will succeed; but the issue will be favourable to France, and mankind.’ THE KING shall have HIS OWN again; [This is charming doctrine for a republic. Few people will hereafter be hardy enough to deny that there is a monarchical faction among us; and as the printer is the mere organ of his employers, it is but candid to rank Mr. Adams, and his fede­ral majority in the senate, as the leaders of that faction.] ‘and America and the world shall have peace. Adieu, then, to Messidor, and Prairial, to Nivose, Pluvoise, and Ventose, and Sans-Cul­lotides, [Page 169] and all the long train of cabalistic non-sense, which have poisoned the French name in all quarters of the world.’

‘Surgo, [he means Mr. Bache,] take thy last subsidy; seize on it quickly, for thy masters, ere this, are no more. Thy occupation's gone!’ [Every body knows in what way Mr. Fenno is subsidized. As for Surgo, the French do not value the sentiments of America, and would scorn to hire a printer for attempting to direct them. To the arms of the United States the republic is about as impregnable as the moon. She can bombard our sea-ports, destroy our commerce, and leave us to kick against the pricks ^*.

But while the presidential gazette ejects such filth, we cannot, in reason, hope for a favourable conclusion from the triumvirate embassy. Indeed, if our envoys possess common sensibility, they must look somewhat foolish, if they are admitted into the presence of Barras. Put the case that he has on the table before him a volume of Mr. Fenno's newspaper, and that he shall ask them who are the patrons and prompters of that editor? Their an­swer, if they speak truth, must be, that it is the funnel of government. He may then tell them that they are hypocritical rascals; that, with the olive branch in one hand, they hold a stink-pot in the other; that, in the midst of such publications, their embassy is an additional insult; and that they may be thankful to get safely out of the territo­ries of the republic.

The restive and sullen demeanour of Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, at Paris, was both useless and [Page 170] impertinent. It deserved no part of that praise conferred on it by Mr. Giles, and other members, in the late session of congress. France, in the per­son of her representative, had endured a thousand affronts from the presses of Philadelphia. She had finally, and with intimation of her disgust, re­called citizen Adct. She did not, however, enjoin Mr. Monroe to quit Paris, but a successor having been appointed in his room, this removal presen­ted a decent opportunity for getting entirely quit of American ambassadors. If Monroe had not been recalled, it is likely that he might still have been permitted to remain at Paris. America would then have escaped from eighty thousand dollars of ex­pence, on account of the late extra session of con­gress, besides about thirty or forty thousand, as the extra charges of the present triple deputation ^*. What was yet more important, she would have escaped from the speech of the 16th of May, 1797; from all the improper harangues of which it was the fountain head; and from all the bad effects which are to be expected by the farther irritation of France.

As the republic had recalled her ambassador from the United States, she could not be suppo­sed anxious for the residence of an American en­voy at Paris. My declaration, that I shall no lon­ger enter your house, amounts to a tacit prohibi­bition of your coming into mine. Besides, the [Page 171] directory well knew why Monroe was recalled. His crime consisted in a cordial attachment to the French revolution. They were, therefore, to look with a jealous eye on the person appointed to succeed him. This alone would have ensured to Mr. Pinckney a cold reception; even if the recall of Adet had not afforded a plausible reason for refusing to receive him. He was wrong for not leaving France, on the first injunction of de­parture. He improved his delay into a quar­rel with the French minister. Hence it was highly injudicious in Mr. Adams to send him back, as he has done, a second time. This, in itself, is a spe­cies of disrespect to the French government. If peace with the republic was the point in view, the surest way would have been to send back Jef­ferson or Monroe. The directory would recog­nize them, not merely as ambassadors, but as friends. From such a deputation there would at least be a chance for the return of mutual confidence. From the present choice of envoys there can be but little ^*.

That it was improper to send Mr. Pinckney back to France, appears from his own printed correspon­dence. It contains various expressions highly disre­spectful to the directory. The remarks may be very just, but the good policy of Mr. Adams, in expos­ing them to the world, admits of doubt. Mr. Pinck­ney gave his letters of credence to the French mi­nister, De la Croix, on December 9th, 1796. On the 11th, the latter informed Mr. Monroe, that no envoy could be received, till America had granted the redress of grievances demanded by France. [Page 172] De la Croix, by addressing Monroe, gave a broad enough hint that he wanted to have no business with Pinckney. Yet, next morning, our envoy sent him a long letter, enquiring, whether he should quit the republic. On the 15th, the French minister signifi­ed his opinion, that this was the desire of the direc­tory; but that he would consult them again. Mr. Pinckney stood on the ground of diplomatic privi­leges, though he adds, that the directory had recent­ly sent off thirteen foreign ministers. On the 26th, he again sent to enquire of De la Croix, whether he might reside in the republic. He received a sharp answer, which his secretary wanted the French minister to put into writing. This was re­fused, with some bad humour. De la Croix wonder­ed at Mr. Pinckney, for having staid so long, after he had been informed that it was impossible to al­low him. Still he lingered in Paris, till the 5th of the ensuing February, having teased the directory, till they gave him a written order to quit the French territories. His letter, conveying this last news, con­cludes with an ardent wish for a return of the good sense and good humour of the republic.

This bickering would not be worth an analysis; but as the federal party make a prodigious clamour about it, the particulars rise above their natural de­gree of interest. Instead of harassing De la Croix, and the directory, and standing upon the tiptoe of diplomatic privilege, Pinckney would have served the United States better, by quitting France on the first intimation, that he could not be received in an official character. The previous dismissal of thirteen ministers, might have convinced him, that the di­rectory would remain inflexible, and that impor­tunity could only serve to widen the breach. Ad­mitting that the French were in the wrong, and that is extremely doubtful, a wise envoy would [Page 173] have made some allowance for the pride and inso­lence of victory. It is the inseparable tribute of hu­man infirmity, at the shrine of fortune. Both parties were highly chagrined, in the act of Mr. Pinckney's ultimate dismission. Ask yourself, then, whether it was a prudent step to send him a second time to Paris? The quarrel of nations had been exasperat­ed into that of persons ^*.

Mr. Adams has completed this individual rup­ture. If Pinckney could have had any chance of doing service, the pulication of his confidential cor­respondence with the executive, has infallibly put an end to it. The French may come to an agreement, because they may not be prepared for attacking us. But this truce will resemble the state of Rome, after the death of Otho. Potius bellum cesserat, says Tacitus, quam pax caeperat ^†. To shew the good sense of our president, and his plan for pleasing France, it is worth while to cite a few of the passages in Pinck­ney's letters, that must be sure of offending the di­rectory.

‘I think the ground I have taken has puzzled them; they wish me gone, but they apprehend that it would be too harsh a measure, to send off, in a peremptory manner, the minister of my country ^‡.’ [He soon saw how little they cared for that; but the directory did not want to be harsh, till civility had failed.]

[Page 174] ‘The letter of the 21st of Frimaire, from M. De la Croix to Mr. Monroe, above recited, shews the distinction which this government attempts to make between the American people and their government ^*.’ [The letter alluded to, comprises only a few common-place expressions of respect and kindness for the Americans. Its total insignificance makes the passage worth quoting, as it thus more strongly marks the jealousy of the federal party.] ‘I pray you to be persuaded, citizen minister," says De la Croix, "that this determination ^† hav­ing become necessary, allows to subsist between the French republic, and the American people, the affection founded upon former benefits, and reciprocal interests; an affection, which you your­self have taken a pleasure in cultivating, by every means in your power ^‡.’

[These words convey little meaning, and certain­ly no harm. Nothing but the delirium of faction, or the sourness of disappointed self-conceit, can see, in this compliment, any design to make an alarm­ing distinction between the government and people of America. One-half of the short but wicked ad­dress from Barras to Monroe, contains a polite turn in the same style; and, on these high and migh­ty misdemeanours, Mr. Adams, in his speech to congress, founds the charge of inflammation against France. After the above reference, Mr. Pinckney subjoins:]

‘I trust, that America will shew that her senti­ments and those of her government are one; and that she will never suffer any foreign nation to interfere in her concerns; and that an attempt to divide her citizens will be the signal for rallying, [Page 175] and render them the more united ^*.’ [Mr. Pinck­ney brings no evidence that France, on this occasion, attempted to interfere, or divide. His sudden bounce upwards, was needless and malicious. But he had known the temper of government, and its wishes for a handle to charge France with the plan of sow­ing sedition in this country. He had received nine thousand dollars of outfit, being eight thousand, five hundred, more than were necessary ^†; and he was impatient to prove his gratitude. When you suffer the executive of a nation to pay public officers extravagantly, they are almost sure of degenerating into the mere creatures and apes of their immedi­ate employer. Mr. Pinckney well knew, that the complimentary phrases of Barras signified no more than your humble servant, at the bottom of a chal­lange ^‡.]

‘I need not, says Mr. Pinckney, comment on so strange a composition; (the speech of Bar­ras) it, however, evinces the disposition of the directors of this country towards us, and the sys­tem which they have adopted, by endeavouring to persuade our countrymen that they can have a different interest from their fellow citizens, whom themselves have chosen to manage their joint concerns ^‖.’ [Never was a sentence of the Bible, or of Aristotle, more woefully tortured than [Page 176] this unhappy speech. If Barras was to say any thing in the shape of censure, he could not have said less; and he knew, as well as Mr. Pinckney, that the British treaty was the work of a party. The federal newspapers are constantly reviling the French na­tion. They despise all notice of such foolery; though they know, and cannot fail to resent it. But while the Gazette of the United States declares the French, en masse, to be robbers and assassins, while it hopes that their government is blown up, and that the Bour­bons will be restored; with what grace can John Adams, or this Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, pre­tend to complain of Barras?]

‘There are now twenty-five thousand French troops in Batavia (Holland); and, it is here no se­cret, that they can direct what measures they please ^*.’ [Had the directory, like our executive, time and patience to pick straws, could they sink to the frivolity of the Anglo-federal cabinet, a formida­ble charge might be reared up against Pinckney, for conspiring to separate Holland from the republic. The one accusation would be just as plausible as the other.]

‘I am happy to find that Mr. Adet's disorganiz­ing manoeuvres have been treated, by my country­men, as they deserved, and that his attempts to divide, have tended to unite them ^†.’ The plais­ter of adulation is here laid on pretty thick. When Genet behaved with petulance to Mr. Washington, he had, at least, the merit of acting above board. Here is a man, who, under covert, seems to do eve­ry thing in his power to sester the animosity of our executive against France. It has been thought of importance to enter into this dissection of his of­ficial correspondence. It was from his rubbish of [Page 177] materials, that Mr. Adams fabricated his military harangue. When the papers were read in the house of representatives, the spirited behaviour of Pinck­ney met with loud applause. The speech of Barras was condemned by every member who took notice of it.

President Adams would find it difficult to give a good reason for presenting this correspondence, in its full extent, to congress. He well knew that it would be printed, that copies of it would be sent to France, that many parts of it were sure to offend the direc­tory, and that, from the day of its arrival, they would regard Pinckney as a calumniator and a spy. If the president wanted the directory to refuse, for a second time, the admission of his credentials, this was the most likely way to succeed. Mr. Fenno himself would have been as commendable a choice as Mr. Pinckney.

In an early part of this chapter it was affirmed, that Mr. Adams ‘desired, and still desires a rup­ture with France.’ Evidence on this charge has now been examined, and the public will decide as to its justice.

Along with the above, another point was stated, that, ‘if expressions far stronger than those of Bar­ras had been employed by lord Grenville, not a murmur would have been heard about them.’

In proof of this affirmation, there is a letter from Thomas Pinckney, dated London, January 9th, 1794. In a conversation with Pinckney, Grenville made a reference to ‘evil disposed persons among us, who, according to the intelligence he had re­ceived, were endeavouring to irritate our peo­ple against Great Britain, as well as to oppose the measures of our own government, and, in short, to reduce us to the present situation of France; a misfortune which they deprecated, as well for [Page 178] our fakes, as for the common welfare and tran­quility of mankind.’

As for the common welfare of mankind, it was just a month after this conversation that Dorchester, by desire of Grenville, delivered his war-talk to the Indians.

Genet was accused of threatening to appeal from the president to the people. But here something in­finitely worse has been actually performed. Gren­ville at once appeals from the people to the presi­dent. He charges a great part of them with wishing to involve the continent in anarchy and bloodshed, and gives notice, in a stile plain enough, that Eng­land would be glad to assist our executive in support of order. Compared to this insolence, the glance of Barras fades beneath criticism. If one drop of republican blood had warmed the heart of Thomas Pinckney, he never would have become the agent of this communication. The president did not like Genet's proposed appeal to the people, but he was highly satisfied with this appeal to himself. From that day forward, he drew more closely the bonds of union with England. The hint would have suit­ed queen Elizabeth, or Philip the second; in ad­dressing the earl of Murray, or a leader of the French league.

The residence of Phineas Bond in Philadelphia, as British consul, presents an evidence of pitiful tameness. ‘No state, says Hutcheson, is bound to admit any exiled criminal or fugitive subject of theirs, as an ambassador from any neighbour­ing state. But if such a one is sent with such com­mission, he cannot justly be seized or punished, but he may be immediately ordered to quit our country ^*.’ Bond was so much attached to Mr. [Page 179] Guelph, that he accompanied the British army from this city. He did not return to America till some years after the revolution. No act of indemnity has been extended to him. His British commission alone saves him from the penalties of an outlaw, which his subsequent insolence has highly deserved. If ge­neral Lee had survived the late war, and been sent as a consul or ambassador to England, the court of London would have resented the nomination as an insult, and he might, perhaps without much impro­priety, have been committed to the tower. But the British government has a sense of dignity, which America is yet to learn. By the way, our tories clamour greatly at the severe fate of French emi­grants, while their own conduct shews how dange­rous indulgence might be. It is needless to act a re­volution by halves. When American prisoners were starved to death at New-York, the republicans should have used theirs exactly in the same manner. If retaliation had been instantly begun, it would have saved many thousands of valuable lives. But what could be expected from America, when her soldiers blubbered under the gibbet of a British spy ^*?

On February 21st, 1797, a treaty of com­merce, between England and Russia, was sign­ed at Petersburgh. By the third article, Russian sailors are amply secured from impressment; as also the passengers on board of their vessels, British subjects alone excepted. The tenth establishes the maxim that free bottoms make free goods; a maxim by which an American vessel might convey a cargo of French coffee from St. Domingo to Bourdeaux. A reasonable exception is made against supplying a [Page 180] nation, at war with either party, with arms or am­munition; and especially places under siege or block­ade. ‘But in all other cases, says the treaty, shall the said subjects freely carry into those places, passengers and all kinds of goods, except ammu­nition.’

The eleventh article specifies ammunition, as a term strictly confined to military stores. It adds, that, in case of seizure, ‘neither the vessels, nor the passengers, nor the other goods, shall be de­tained, or hindered in the prosecution of their voyage ^*.’

Compare this treaty with ours, in four different points, and then confess that Americans are unequally dealt with. First, As for impressment no security is granted. Second, The seventeenth article gives up the privilege of neutral bottoms. ‘If any property of an enemy shall be found on board such vessel, that part only, which belongs to the enemy shall be made prize.’ Third, By the second para­graph of the eighteenth article, ‘provisions and other articles, not generally contraband,’ may be seiz­ed, the British government paying for them. A jar­gon stipulation is introduced of their being only seiz­able when ‘becoming contraband according to the laws of nations.’ The latter phrase, like a poly­pus, or a stocking, may, without injury to its tex­ture, have its inside turned out. But the above is the real and practical signification of the clause. Russian provisions are, in no case whatever, seizable. Fourth, The next paragraph of the eighteenth arti­cle is as inferior as all the rest to the Russian treaty. An American vessel attempting to enter a place be­sieged, is, in the first instance, to be turned away, and, on a second attempt to get entrance, her cargo, [Page 181] though not contraband, shall be confiscated. But a Russian ship may enter at any time, and with ‘all kinds of goods, except ammunition.’

Thus, in four points, of the highest consequence, the Russian treaty has the advantage of ours. A stranger might wonder that any man in America is capable of defending Jay. Some of his advocates have been impelled by motives distinct from in­ternal approbation. Four hundred and thirteen merchants and traders, in Philadelphia, gave an address of thanks to the president for passing of the treaty. Of this number, it is charitable to be­lieve, that one-half acted under the hope of pleas­ing, or the dread of offending Mr. Thomas Wil­ling, president of the bank of the United States, and who appears at the head of the list. With several, it was a sufficient motive to see their names in such reputable company. Many dozens of the subscribers have since become bankrupt. Morris and Nicholson were so at the time ^*; and certainly were not ‘more immediately concerned than any other class of men ^†,’ since the real in­terest lay with those to whom they were indebted. The following enquiry will prove some of the ob­ligations which this country has to Mr. Willing, and to a part of the gentlemen with whom he had the honour to act.

A bank is established by permission from the go­vernment of a country, for the universal conveni­ence of its citizens. Hence its directors have no title to make a distinction between persons or par­ties, any farther than respecting their solvency. A bank is, or ought to be, designed for the good of [Page 182] society at large. Individuality of discouragement, or of favour, is excluded from the scheme. Such par­tiality would transform it into a nuisance.

But equality of treatment should more especially be the case with the bank of the United States. One fifth part of its paper money capital belongs to the national government. For this reason, eve­ry citizen is, at second hand, a partner in it; as he pays a proportion of taxes to the public stock, from whence that fifth share was derived. But it is notorious that this bank has been employed as an engine of government, to serve the views of British interest. Discounts have often been refused at this national bank to men of most undoubted opulence, merely on account of the republican principles of those who drew or accepted of the bill. The despotism of paper money pervades every muscle and vein of Philadelphian society. The domination of British custom-house officers has been exchanged for that of American stockjobbers ^*. As a minute example, several gentlemen of consi­derable property, declared that they durst not subscribe for the late History of 1796; but that they would be sure to buy it as soon as prin­ted. They feared federal vengeance; of which a stoppage of discounts at the bank is the foremost and favourite weapon. The effects of such a stop­page would infallibly ruin the mercantile character of any man in Mr. Willing's list.

It has been remarked ^†, that Philadelphia has thirty offices exclusively for printing of books. This was a year ago; but, since that time, and owing to the late torrent of bankruptcies, some [Page 183] have been shut up, and others have become half idle. If the paper money of this country had been confined within one-sixth part of its present limits, these bankruptcies would have been restricted in at least as great a proportion. Instead of thirty printing offices, but indifferently employed, there might have been fifty well employed. In Edin­burgh or Glasgow, a good journeyman printer will earn fifteen shillings sterling or a guinea per week. In Dublin, his wages are, it is true, higher, but in Philadelphia, he makes upon a medium, eight or ten dollars. A difference in the expence of labour attends, also, the manufacture of paper. By much the greater part of this superior rate of wages may be traced not to the scarcity of hands, but to the excess of bank notes, and the consequent rise of markets. The dearth of wages, to these two classes of workmen, renders it difficult to pay them. Hence the employer must sometimes borrow mo­ney, at an high interest, in order to clear their accounts. The difference of wages, with a pre­mium for the advance of money, is laid by the paper-maker on his manufacture. A second upon his own work, is superadded by the printer, and a third by the bookseller. It is partly by this means, that books are dearer in Philadelphia or New-York than in England, though we have, comparatively, but very few taxes, and the pecu­liar advantage arising from an unbounded extent of fertile territory. The surest way to augment the circulation of a commodity is to be able to sell it cheap. An American printer is often un­dersold, at his own door, by the Scots or Irish printer, who has labour at a price one-third lower. In London, wages are higher than probably any where else in Britain. A journeyman book-prin­ter, who exerts himself, can clear two guineas per [Page 184] week, but even there, by dint of large capitals, and the superiority of an old establishment, the printer and bookseller can afford to deal for less profit, and to give longer credit than a printer in America, where the interest of money is so much higher than in England.

It will be replied that, before the bank of the United States was opened, a journeyman prin­ter could be had for three, or four dollars, that trade was then very dull, and that English books were imported as fast as they are now. In reasoning, it is common to ascribe effects to im­aginary causes, merely because the latter occurred at the same time with the former. Yesterday, at noon, the clock struck twelve, but the sun would have crossed the zenith, whether the clock had struck or not. It will be supposed that bank pa­per arrived only by degrees at its present oppres­sive magnitude; that at first it promoted a prudent extent of foreign trade; and that trade in turn stimu­lated internal manufactures. It is not the use, but the abuse of paper money, that is liable to objec­tion. Had the quantum of its circulation become stationary, five or six years ago, it might have done well; but, instead of this, it has gone forward to set open such stoodgates of gambling and of usury, as hardly ever overwhlemed any country before. If the expence of print and paper had remained sta­tionary since 1792, the volume which now costs a dollar, could have been had for four or five shil­lings. This must have excluded in whole or nearly so, the present large importation of paper, and it must, at the same time, have greatly augmented the present manufacture of printing. The like increase would have ensued in some other bran­ches, more readily than in this one. Both here and in Britain the wages of a printer are higher [Page 185] than those of most other tradesmen, and nearer the same level in the two countries. This is, no doubt, one reason why book-printing has thriven more rapidly here than so many other manufac­tures. On the contrary, look at weavers. In the old country their wages are so low, and their work can be furnished so cheap, that, in several branches, no establishment in America can compete them.

Internal manufactures are a more important, be­cause a more safe and durable acquisition than foreign commerce. They can involve no external quarrel, and they are beyond the reach of external piracy. The tanner, at Lancaster, has nothing to fear from the corsairs of Barbary; and a potter, or cutler, on the Susquehanna, may smile at the menaces of the British navy. Twice the present number of American tradesmen, though purchased by losing half the present number of American merchants, would produce a very desirable alteration in the real strength and resources of the United States.

The whole force of the banking system has been directed entirely towards the promotion of foreign trade. The encouragement which it afforded to domestic improvement was but as by proxy, through the medium of that wealth which commerce ten­ded to produce. But naturally speaking, matters, if left more freely to their own operation, and less impeded by mountains of paper money, would have taken a surer course. A multitude of manu­facturing villages, planted over the continent, are preferable to an immense quantity of shipping dispersed over the ocean. A carpenter, or a black­smith, is more likely to be sober, long-lived, and to leave a family behind him, than that part of our seamen employed in distant voyages. Dr. Blanc, a Scots physician, who served under admiral Rod­ney, [Page 186] remarks, that sailors look, for the most part, older by ten years than landsmen of the same age. Great numbers are annually lost at sea or perish by the hardships peculiar to their profession. Per­haps not one-half of the aggregate body enjoy the comforts of a dry death. Of those engaged in voyages to foreign countries, only a few are mar­ried. The sailors of New-England have the re­putation of being orderly, and attached to their families; but this is not, in most parts of the world, the general character of mariners. Of their extreme utility and value to the United States, notice has been formerly taken ^*. But internal manufacturers are a still more essential class in the scale of national prosperity. If you can find a taylor, or shoemaker, at the next plantation, it is surely more profitable to employ him than to send your wheat three or four thousand miles by sea, to be exchanged for cloaths and shoes. Besides the risk, and the waste of additional labour in the voyage, the tradesman whom you employ in France or England is not your fellow citizen. A mecha­nic, residing in America, forms a part of the nation. His earnings are expended among us. His family are blended with and augment the general mass of population; whereas a sailor is often but slightly connected with his native country, in which he is indeed a stranger, while the foreign manufacturer, who is to consume your commodities, has no alli­ance whatever with it, but the transitory prospect of receiving employment. Mr. Gallatin ^† computes the number of American seamen at near forty thousand. Of these, it is much to say that six­teen thousand are married, and raise families. Here then we have twenty-four thousand batchelors, to [Page 187] support whose numbers, recruits are much more frequently wanted than by any other body of men If they had been on shore, as mechanics, five out of six of them would have married, and three children to each, arriving at an adult age, would make an increase of sixty thousand people. These hints are thrown out not to depreciate the real value of the banking system, and much less of fo­reign commerce; but merely to shew what is now indeed, universally granted, that the former has been driven to a ruinous excess, and that the latter ought not to be encouraged at the expence of do­mestic manufactures, which, of the two systems, greatly deserve the preference.

A short review will discover what an enormous mass of paper has been issued in this city. The bank of North America, the eldest on the continent, was first incorporated by an act of congress, dated April 1st, 1782. Its present charter, granted by the state of Pennsylvania, bears date the 17th of March, 1787.

Thus, within the space of only seven years, from 1787, to 1793, inclusive, three batteries of [Page 188] paper money, extending to FIFTEEN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, were opened, and still continue to play against the antient fortress of gold and silver. The capitals of other banks on the continent amount to about five millions. Bring twice as many tur­kies to the market as you can possibly sell; and the price of money will instantly rise, or, accor­ding to common ideas, that of turkies will fall. In the same way, by thrusting so many thousand reams of artificial money into the market, gold soon became of much inferior value. Like Swift's pippin, the honest old milled dollar, that never de­ceived any body, that makes its visits always wel­come, and is the only stedfast friend, found itself jostled out of the market by five or six upstarts. By degrees, as the operations of the banks exten­ded, the necessaries of life grew dearer, till, in some instances, they arrived at an intolerable pitch. Three hundred dollars per annum were lately gi­ven for a house in Water-street, Philadelphia, that would not turn rain, and that had not a single tolerable room. Even on the skirts of the city, an hundred dollars are often paid for an hovel of rotten boards, comprehending two or three apart­ments rather wider than a centry box, and which would not, in the vicinage of London, bring a rent of three guineas. It was well observed, some­time ago, by an old citizen, that, if Philadelphia could get but another bank, we should soon pay a dollar for a bunch of asparagus. Some copies of this book will reach France and England; inten­ded emigrants are requested to compare these de­tails with that cant of the peculiar facility with which a family can be raised in America; and, in the name of all that is sacred, let them not envy the happiness of residing in an American sea-port.

If the capitals of the three banks had extended, [Page 189] collectively, to three or four millions, they might have done service; as fifty drops of laudanum will cure a cholic, when five hundred would kill the patient. But when congress, by a law, which they had not the smallest title to make, abruptly opened an enormous sluice of ten millions of dollars, they acted with the foresight of the shepherd, who wish­ed for the Ganges to run through his fields. The bank of Pennsylvania came next, with its three millions, like the second three hundred lashes on the back of a British soldier, who has stolen a cou­ple of hens. No scarcasm is intended on the foun­ders of this institution. They did not foresee its consequences to the public at large. It has been of much pecuniary advantage to the government of this state; and the assembly reasonably supposed, that, while such great sums were made by banking, they had an equal right, with others, to the profit of an adventure. Their establishment had another effect of some value. Its operations tended to weak­en the vortex of influence which ten millions of ca­pital gave to the bank of the United States. After this explanation, it may be safely asserted, that the bank of Pennsylvania was injurious to the country, not from any peculiarity in the establishment itself, but because the market was previously overstocked. In one respect it is greatly superior to the Hamilton bank. The government of Pennsylvania derives a considerable revenue from its bank, and which is said to defray its whole expences. Congress gains only forty thousand dollars, and even that is ac­quired by a second breach of the constitution, as illegal as the act of incorporation itself.

Of the ten millions of paper capital held by the bank of the United States, two millions were ad­vanced by government, in virtue of a clause in the charter. But if it was irregular to found a bank, it [Page 190] must be still more so to sport in shares of it with public money. In the annual reports from the treasury to congress, an hundred and sixty thousand dollars are stated as the share of government in the dividends. The two millions of dollars were bor­rowed, at six per cent. from the bank itself. Thus, after striking off an hundred and twenty thousand dollars of interest, the clear profit, as above stated, is only forty thousand. It is believed, that either of the banks of North America, or of Pennsylvania, would give a large sum for the additional conve­nience and repute of handling public money. A dis­tinction of this nature is interesting to any banking company. The remittances of revenue from Scot­land to the exchequer at London, pass, of course, through the hands of an Edinburgh banker. The agency is said to be worth ten thousand pounds ster­ling per annum, and it sometimes produces a sharp competition. William Ramsay, who is understood to have a fortune of at least three or four hundred thousand pounds sterling, and who was thus far above contesting for a trifle, missed this employment, some years ago, in a hard struggle with sir William Forbes, the foreman of Thomas Mair's jury.

From these observations it results, that, though banks have promoted the extension of commerce, the too great amount of their notes in circulation, and the monstrous usury for which paper opened an avenue, have, in the issue, filled Philadelphia with insolvencies. By previously stretching the price of labour to twice its natural height ^*, they have mate­rially impeded the maturity, or rather infancy, of American manufactures.

In the present, as in other parts of this volume, a [Page 191] boldness of language has been, sometimes, unavoid­able. Before the friends of order hasten to condemn it, let them look at Mr. Fenno's gazette of March 4th, 1797. It has one article which begins thus. ‘Died, last evening, of a two years con­sumption, the house of representatives of the Unit­ed States. The remains of this many-headed MON­STER, like unto those of the Levite's concubine,’ &c.—The rest of the paragraph corresponds with such a beginning. Mr. Fenno would certainly be very glad, if the house of representatives were abolished. If any writer should speak in this way of the senate, the same editor would arraign him as a jacobin. To the admirers of the senatorial gazette, an author may reply in the words of Boileau: ‘Sir, while you can relish such verses as those of your marquis, you will do me a particular pleasure by despising mine.’

‘If the Redacteur ^*," says citizen Fauchet, "had contained, against the federal government, the hundredth part of what is daily to be found in the Gazette of the United States, against the di­rectory; the legislative body; and, in general, against the republic; some forward deputies, with good reason, perhaps, would, long ago, have made a motion for calling the directory to an account on the subject. A writer, openly known to be in the pay of the British legation, publishes, periodically, in Philadelphia, the most atrocious libels against us; and it is almost certain, that this libeller is encouraged by all those who com­pose the administration ^†.’

President Adams has obligingly ascertained, that this British agent enjoys his patronage, by permit­ting the man to publish an edition of his DEFENCE.

[Page 192]No person has been more severely attacked by the friends of order than Mr. Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg. At the same time, his political friends have been offended by his casting vote in favour of Jay's treaty. The following paper, written by himself, explains the motives of his conduct.

CHAPTER IX.

IT is clear, at the first glance, that some­thing must be unnatural in the present condition of the United States. Except in some parts of New-England, they are free from the expensive usurpa­tion of an established church. Industry is not cramp­ed by corporation laws. Excellent land may be had [Page 195] for a trifle. The people, in proportion to their numbers, are taxed, upon an average, above seven times less than those of Britain ^*. Yet with all these circumstances, so prodigiously favourable to pros­perity, government staggers under a heavy debt, of which the interest is paid by an effort. Congress want to borrow farther sums, and it is hard to see where the smallest loan can be had. Their inge­nuity has been racked in devising taxes, of which some were unproductive, like that upon snuff, and others, like the sugar excise, were oppressive. Both impost and internal taxes are carried as far as they can go; and the last and present house of represen­tatives have, by a large majority, rejected a land­tax.

Within less than nine years from the birth of her new constitution ^†, America seems to have com­pleted the career of her funding system, and to be as firmly wedged in all its evils, as the monarchy of France was, just before it expired. By sea, an attempt was made to build six frigates. After dri­velling for some years, without being able to finish them, the proposed number was reduced to three. By land, it has been found burdensome to support an establishment of three thousand regulars. At sea, our commerce has been plundered with impunity, by every nation that chose to do so; while the whole western frontier has been violated by a few solitary tribes of savages, who make treaties only to break them, and whose suspension of hostility is [Page 196] always courted by government with fresh presents. It is hard to conceive a more consummate picture of political debility. With excellent sailors, and the best ship timber in the world, America cannot ob­tain a fleet. With a militia of immense numbers, the Indians are yet permitted to murder families by the dozen.

In the sea-port towns of this country provisions were, for some years past, at a higher price than, in common seasons, they cost in any part of Europe. Yet, in 1795, the exports comprised an hundred and forty one thousand bushels of wheat; two mil­lions one hundred and eighty-seven thousand bushels of other grain and pulse; six hundred and eighty-seven thousand barrels of flour; an hundred and seventy-nine thousand barrels of meal and bread; an hundred and thirty-eight thousand tierces of rice; two hundred and one thousand barrels of beef, pork, and lard; four hundred thousand quintals, and fifty-six thousand barrels of fish; twenty-three thou­sand hundred weight of cheese; twenty-eight thou­sand firkins of butter; and six hundred and ninety-five thousand bushels of potatoes and onions. Nor is this year selected for any peculiar magnitude of exports. In 1790, there were shipped seven hundred and twenty-four thousand barrels of flour; in 1791, six hundred and nineteen thousand; in 1792, eight hundred and twenty-four thousand; in 1793, one million and seventy-four thousand; and, in 1794, eight hundred and twenty-eight thousand. During 1796, an hundred and ninety-seven thousand bar­rels of flour were shipped at the port of Philadel­phia only. In the marsh-market of Baltimore, five hundred turkies have been sometimes sold in a sin­gle day. New-York is famous for the peculiar ex­cellence and variety of its fish; and Philadelphia is amply supplied with every article of subsistence. [Page 197] How then did it happen, that these markets were, for so long a period, exorbitantly dear? How did it come to pass that, while America kept other na­tions from starving, the manufacturers, and la­bouring poor, in the sea-ports, and through some parts of the country, were condemned to extortion?

At fifteen dollars per barrel, a pound of flour comes to four-pence, and one-seventh sterling. Add one-third for the profit of the baker. It then costs six-pence sterling, or ten-pence currency. At this price, a labouring man, with a dollar per working day, a wise and four children, could only buy, out of his dollar, nine or ten pounds of bread; and on Sunday he must have fasted. For six persons this pittance was just able to keep soul and body toge­ther. But what was he to do for a relish to his bread? Himself and family could not go naked. A swarm of incidents were to rush upon his pocket ^*.

House rent, also, was an important item. He had, if in town, to pay, at least, forty dollars per an­num for some hole, beside which, an English far­mer's pig-stye was another temple of Ephesus. It is amazing to think of the patience with which poor people do, in this country, endure such treatment; and of the profound silence, regarding their wrongs, that is observed by our admirable newspapers. When a tradesman cannot, with his utmost industry, keep his children from starving; when not a single statute interposes for his relief, what ought he to [Page 198] care who shall be president, or what becomes of the legislature of the state wherein he lives, or of the representatives of the union? The man to whom government does not extend suitable protection, has no obligation to feel towards it either gratitude, attachment, or respect. The wages of labour did not rise in any thing like an equal proportion to the price of provisions, and the general expence of liv­ing. Thus the poor were placed, like Tantalus, just within reach of plenty, which they were forbid­den to taste. The best economist in Philadelphia would be puzzled to support a family of six per­sons, though he had ten dollars per week, when flour was at fifteen, or even twelve dollars, per bar­rel. But it is certain that great numbers of trades­men and labourers protracted the existence of them­selves and their families, upon a weekly income of six or eight dollars, while flour stood at fifteen dol­lars, and while some of Mr. Thomas Willing's com­purgators ^* were borrowing and lending wind-bills and paper dollars to each other, at five per cent. a month, to facilitate the exportation of seven hun­dred thousand barrels of flour. Both sides of this picture explain why the prison of Philadelphia has long been as populous as a bee-hive, and why, in the yellow fever of August, 1797, numbers of citi­zens were compelled to remain and perish, because they could dot muster the expences requisite for a removal. The poor form the pedestal on which so­ciety does ultimately rest; and this is the degree of attention which they and their hardships meet with, from the government and police of this wisest of nations.

[...] [...]vast and sudden rise in the rate of subsistence must, in England, have produced an actual famine, [Page 199] and thousands were sure to have died of hunger, though administration would undoubtedly have done every thing possible to prevent it. A London news­paper of December, 1795, says, that two millions sterling had, in that year, been paid for bounties on the importation of corn. This bounty proved a trap-door to American merchants. Flour was bought here at fourteen dollars per barrel, and sold in Li­verpool for eight dollars. The bounty might, per­haps, cover the expence of freight. Members of parliament, and others, entered into resolutions for eating coarse bread, and the homeliness of that served up at the royal table was described, in a ministerial print, with minuteness and ex­ultation. But in America, misery, like that then felt in England, can hardly take place; because the cheapness of land outweighs many legisla­tive imperfections. Nine-tenths of people are farmers, and of consequence take care, in the first place, to feed themselves. Of the rest, a large majority possess property of some kind, and do not live, as the phrase is, from hand to mouth. Hence the possitive sufferers formed a much lesser propor­tion to the community than they would have done in France, or England. Now, it always happens that a poor man, residing in the midst of ten others richer than himself, contrives to jostle on with more ease than if all his neighbours were, like him, necessitous. This is one main reason why the more dependent class in the sea-ports did not en­dure that awful extremity of distress which, in 1795; almost overwhelmed Britain. Besides, if a poor man has a numerous family, he can find some person who will take healthy children on an indenture, as servants or apprentices ^*.

[Page 200]But, for these alleviating circumstances, no thanks are due to the rulers of America; and though people did not absolutely die of hunger, yet there existed between that and competency many modes of substantial hard fortune. It was culpable in our legislators to stand tamely by, while part of its citizens laboured under such peculiar penury.

Yet it is more easy to point out misfortunes than to provide an effectual remedy. In Europe, five different methods have been practised to prevent or to remove the distresses of famine. One of these is to prosser a bounty on the instant importation of foreign grain. The second gives premiums for the improvement of agriculture. As for Ameri­can scarcity, both of these plans are out of the question. Provisions always abound, but the poor cannot sometimes get at them. A third expedient is to prohibit by law the exporting of victuals, when they have risen in the market beyond a cer­tain price. The maritime parts of Britain are, with this view, divided into districts ^*, and the she­riff of each county, has under some restrictions, a discretionary power of opening or shutting the ports. But the British corn laws do not invite imitation. They propagate so much confu­sion and mischief as to discourage regulations of that nature. A fourth source of relief has been by the distribution of money, or provisions, at the public expence. In the case of the fire at Sa­vannah, the house of representatives determined that the constitution did not allow them to bestow charity. The assembly of Pensylvania, however, gave, on the same occasion, fifteen thousand dol­lars. But this practice of donations, besides being [Page 201] altogether a direct and heavy expence, becomes very liable to abuse.

A fifth scheme, practised in Geneva, and Swit­zerland, is to have large granaries constantly stock­ed with flour. By a peculiar process of beating it into a hard substance, flour is preserved, with­out injury, for several years, as lord Gardenstone was assured on the spot, by people concerned in the business. Now, although congress cannot give money, they can lend it. Fifty thousand dollars were, in 1795, appropriated for trading with the Indi­ans, and, in 1796, an hundred and fifty thousand dol­lars ^*. Congress have also wandered to the depth of two millions of dollars in banking. It would seem as agreeable both to sound policy, and to the constitution, to establish granaries in a few of the principal towns on the sea-coast that are most lia­ble to a rise of markets. Individual pride, and some rules of restriction, would hinder the rich, or those in easy circumstances, from battening upon this institution. Let a number of poor families be enrolled, and supplied from this source with flour, at all seasons of the year, for six dollars per barrel. This would place the lower classes more at their ease, and tend greatly to cheapness of labour, increase of emigration, and the facility of establishing manufactures.

Besides the good policy of such a plan, of which the above hints are a faint outline, justice requires retribution to the inhabitants of sea-ports, who bear, beyond all proportion, the greatest weight of public taxes. In 1796, the duties on merchan­dize and tonnage amounted to twelve times more than the whole produce of internal taxes. But it is evident that the inhabitants of the sea-port [Page 202] towns consume a greater quantity of the imports than an equal number of people in the country, especially at a distance from the sea-coast. For instance, take the article of clothing. In towns, a weaver is generally a rare phaenomenon. It is believed that Philadelphia does not contain even a single weaver. But in the country, and especi­ally remote from the sea, the people make their own cloth. In the debates on Mr. Madison's re­solutions, general Scott, of Washington county, in this state, observed, that the union contained about four millions and five hundred thousand peo­ple, and that their bedding and cloathing could not come to less than ten dollars annually per head, being, in the whole, forty-five millions of dol­lars. ‘Where said he, do all these manufactures come from? Suppose that British imports were two millions sterling, and one half of them in clothing. The amount is only about four mil­lions and five hundred thousand dollars, or one-tenth part of the annual consumption.’ None of these calculations can be rigidly exact ^*. Yet they clearly shew that one great branch of impost falls by far the most heavily on people in the sea­ports, who, at least to the south of New-England, wear, in general, British or Irish manufactures, while inland inhabitants are spinning and weaving for themselves. Other articles, such as wine, tea, sugar, and coffee, are used much more commonly in towns than in the country. It has always been a favourite maxim in congress to throw the stress of taxation upon impost, and recently on excise. Hence, it is likely, that the fifty or sixty thousand inhabitants of Philadelphia pay thrice as much [Page 203] money to government as the four western coun­ties of Pennsylvania, the states of Vermont, Tennessee, and Kentucky collectively. While the legislature give six hundred and twenty dollars for the fare of Doublehead's horses ^*, and sixty-four thousand dollars per annum in the shape of pen­sions and rations to the savages ^†, it would not certainly be extravagant to lay out fifty or an hun­dred thousand, upon granaries for the benefit of a most useful body of citizens.

The landed interest enjoys, indeed, entire as­cendany, in the federal government. The con­stitution, article i. section ix. says, that ‘no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.’ Section x. apparently reverses this article by declaring, that ‘no state shall, without the consent of congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports, or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws.’ By the first clause, defining the power of congress, they are disabled from lay­ing any duty on exports. By the second, they can expressly grant a power to individual states of lay­ing duties on exports, beyond what is needful for the purpose of inspection. They are authori­zed to give a right, which they dare not exercise in their own capacity. But passing over this seem­ing inconsistency, the received doctrine is that no duty can be levied on exports. By this ex­emption, the farmers gain an immense, and appa­rently an unfair advantage. A barrel of flour, or a hogshead of tobacco, when exported, brings as [Page 204] clear profit to its owner as a loaf of refined su­gar; nor is it obvious that there should be a distinc­tion in the right of taxing them. When seven or eight hundred thousand barrels of flour are expor­ted in a single year, at the exorbitant price of twelve or fifteen dollars, one should imagine that the farmer might well afford to pay a duty of one dollar per barrel. This class reap undisturbed the profit of an immense exportation, while they cast the burden of public expence almost entirely on the manufac­turers, and consumers of exports. A land tax has been opposed as impracticable to be levied. A du­ty on exports might be collected without the addi­tion of many revenue officers, and perhaps without the smallest increase of their present number.

From the prodigious advance in the amount of exports, a question has been started as to the scarcity of money, for the two last years. Mr. Harper, in his first letter to his constituents, says, p. 21, that ‘it would be very much for our interest for Bri­tain to remain at war with all Europe, because she and her enemies are obliged to purchase our provisions at an enormous price, and our neutra­lity gives us immense advantages in the carrying trade.’ If foreign nations could be prevented from sea-robbery, the United States might certainly derive benefit, though it would be purchased on shocking conditions. There is a greater advantage to be hoped from it. The contending powers, by the weakening of each other, may, for some years, be disabled from tyrannizing so much as they would, perhaps, be otherwise disposed to do, over the de­fenceless navigation of America. The captures which they have made afford one great reason for the decline of credit. This loss falls chiefly on the mercantile interest, and the scarcity of cash is most felt in that quarter. With augmented profits, the [Page 205] farmers have, undoubtedly, much augmented their expence of house-keeping. Their demands for ma­nufactures increased considerably, at least in some parts of the union, during 1796. But besides, the country holds out an immense field for improve­ment, and it is improving rapidly in spite of the alledged scarcity of cash. A man dealing to the va­lue of ten thousand dollars, makes often larger gains, than from turning over only two thousand; but as his projects frequently augment much faster than his capital, he very often finds himself more straitened than when his expected profits were much smaller. The spirit of excessive land-jobbing on one side may turn out as distressing as that of over-trading on the other. Each distemper will, in due time, partly cure itself. If matters could be reduced to a proper level, it will be found that there has been rather a distortion, and partial mis­application, than a diminution of general wealth, which, when matters can be duly tempered and ba­lanced, has undoubtedly, within the last three years, received some increase. In every part of the coun­try, the area of cultivated land is hourly augment­ing. Every newspaper announces the formation of additional settlements, the planning of roads and bridges, and sometimes of canals, and though our numbers are daily augmenting, yet every man con­nected with agriculture, finds employment and com­pensation. Within the last twelve months, land has, indeed, fallen much in its value, and especially in the back countries; but that is because it had been racked beyond its real worth by the dreams of spe­culation. That fever is now subsiding, and the pulse of prices, by returning to its former and more steady height, promises, not a decline of vigour, but the restoration of political health. One of our insolvent land-jobbers, whose bills are advertised for auction, [Page 206] and knocked down at a shilling or six-pence per pound, will, perhaps, tell a creditor, that he is one of the richest men in the country; but that the bankruptcies in Europe caused the return of his bills under protest, and he cannot submit to sell his lands, at this juncture, when they would not bring one-half of their real value. He, therefore, locks himself up, and till the return of better days, bids defiance to justice. In this explanation, however, that he gives, there occurs no actual destruction of real property, but of that which was imaginary. He obtained immense sums in paper money, which he never could have procured in gold and silver. He became entangled with the brokers, at thirty or sixty per cent. and, in his explosion, ruined an immense number of creditors. Still, however, the land re­mains. The grass will grow; the corn will ripen; and the soil will, in due time, bring its natural price, just as if he and his projects never had existed. The ruin of so many individuals is a considerable mis­fortune; but still it is one of that kind from which the country at large, though not the immediate suf­ferers, will soon recover. The bank of Ayr, in North Britain, which broke near thirty years ago, is a case in point. After a short, but rapid progress, it stopt payment, having granted credit almost indiscrimi­nately, to every adventurer. To have seen the lists of bankruptcies, and the notices of the sale of lands, one might have supposed that the nation was irre­deemably ruined. Besides every other sort of mis­chief, land was, within a few years, sold, to pay the company's debts, to the value of seven hundred thousand pounds sterling. But amidst all this alarm, it was not an extinction but only a transference of property. Agriculture continued to extend its pro­gress, with more than usual rapidity; and notwith­standing the wreck of so much private credit, the [Page 207] effects were not visible in the general mass of pro­perty. This fact, however unaccountable, was ge­nerally remarked at the time; and as the natural resources of America are infinitely greater than those of North-Britain, she will overcome this embarrass­ment with still greater facility.

To hasten this amendment, a check should be given to the enormous extent of paper currency. No expedient appears less distressing to individuals, or more simple and expeditions in its operation than to abolish all notes under fifty dollars. An inter­val of time would, no doubt, be granted to prevent too sudden a jerk in the state of circulation. Some effectual steps ought likewise to be taken for the suppression of usury. Till that bramble shall be grubbed from the roots, all other regulations will be found incomplete, for the recovery of mercan­tile soundness. This truth is so trite as to be re­peated in this place with reluctance. But the prac­tice of exacting enormous interest, has become so frequent, and its professors are now so numerous, that to give, or to receive thirty per cent. is not con­sidered as disgraceful.

It cannot be too often repeated that till the ex­orbitant quantity of paper money shall be reduced, and till the practice of usury shall also be checked, all hopes of being able to manufacture entirely for ourselves must end with disappointment. The importance of that object has been stated in an advertisement of a late edition of Shakespeare, and the following extract merits preservation. ‘The independence of the United States cannot be secure, till we shall be much farther removed than at present, from the necessity of importing the manufactures of Europe. It is ridiculous and humiliating, that we should so frequently send four thousand miles for a pair of blankets, [Page 208] a pen-knife, a psalm-book, and a quire of pa­per. This situation, so unnatural and absurd, cannot last long, and, the sooner that we put an end to it, the better. It was the constant policy of Britain, to rivet the shackles of this country, by strangling in their cradle, her in­fant manufactures. Chatham, whose statue has been erected and demolished in this country, declared, in parliament, that he would not suf­fer the colonies to manufacture a hob-nail for a horseshoe. If this antagonist of America, could express himself in such language, we know upon what quarter public interest calls for exertion. We no longer send for hob-nails, because, by a late ingenious invention, we make nails better, quicker, and cheaper than any other people; and we may soon expect other discoveries of utility.’

‘Of manufactures few deserve encouragement better than that of paper. But it can never reach maturity, while we continue to import annually from Europe, such immense quanti­ties of printed books. As paper itself is made out of rags, and as this is the only use to which they can be put, the price of paper manufactur­ed in America, is, in a great measure, clear gain to the country. This is one reason why the erection of paper mills claims patronage from every friend to the United States.’

‘But that is not all. By extending the scale of making paper, we may expect to lower its price, and by lowering the price of paper, we encou­rage another great and most useful trade, that of printing. The latter, within the last ten years, has arisen in this city from almost nothing, to a considerable extent. Typography augments the stock of public knowledge, and knowledge improves the morals, and stimulates the diligence [Page 209] of the people. So attentive is Britain to her interest, in this respect, that no book which has ever been printed in that island, is allowed to be imported into it. If such a book falls out of print, the nation must remain without it, un­less a British bookseller shall republish it.’

‘These considerations shew the propriety of encouraging a publication like ours. It is time that American manufactures should begin to take root, for, in twenty years, we shall equal the population of Britain. To promote all kinds of domestic industry, is the most ef­fectual method to explode the schemes of fo­reign monopoly, and the conspiracies of Euro­pean despotism, to invigorate THE POLITICAL PROGRESS of the United States, to extend the basis of their prosperity, and ensure their in­dependence.’

In the outset of this chapter, notice was taken of the attempt to commence an American navy. Such an establishment never can succeed in this country, to any real purpose, till wages are redu­ced. The same reason that retards other manu­factures will obstruct that of ships, whenever they are to be built at the expence of government; or at least of such a government as that which we now enjoy. The Treasurer's Accounts, for 1796 ^*, mention six hundred and seventy dollars and eigh­ty cents to John Barry, for his pay and subsistence, as captain of one of the frigates. This was the lea­der of that banditti, who treated members of the legislature of Pennsylvania in the manner already described ^†. To entrust this man with a public commission was, in itself, a mark of disrespect to public order. But the riot was perpetrated on the [Page 210] federal side, and that would have been accepted as an ample excuse, by his present employers, al­though his rabble had burnt the state-house. No mortal, excepting a Philadelphian board of admiral­ty, ever dreamed of paying the captain of a ship for three or four years before she was built. This is an undisguised theft of public money; yet al­though theft is its only proper name, not one of our representatives has dared to challenge it. The salary is nine hundred dollars per annum; and supposing it held for three years before the launch, then each of our three captains has cost two thou­sand seven hundred dollars before he had any ves­sel to command. Our executive might as well have cast these eight thousand one hundred dollars, into the Delaware. The duke of Richmond's tax upon coals is a larger but not a plainer job; nor has the salary of Dr. James Mease, at Mud Island, been more woefully thrown away. From such a sample the inference is that prodigality has engraf­ted itself upon every other part of the expendi­ture of the eleven hundred thousand dollars; and that it is imprudent to trust our existing ru­lers with any money that can be kept out of their hands. These pensions to captains are like an English county-mark on a sharper's cheek, which at once unfolds the recesses of his character. This would have been a powerful answer from Mr. Christie, to Messrs. Parker and Swanwick's defence of the six frigates.

On June 24th, 1797, Mr. Gallatin said, in con­gress, that the building of the frigates would cost double, and the payment of their seamen, almost treble of what they would have done in Britain. This is one of the consequences of an excess of pa­per money. A million of dollars, in 1796, were not, in reality, worth more than seven hundred thou­sand, [Page 211] or thereby, three years before. The altera­tion in value has been severely felt by government. From October 1st, 1795, to September 30th, 1796, the charges of the military department amounted to twelve hundred and sixty-three thousand dollars. Of this sum, it is likely that one-third or fourth part would have been saved, if flour had not risen be­yond eight dollars per barrel. If congress had been able to lay a duty upon exports, this inconvenience must have found a remedy. A duty of three dollars per barrel on exportation was sure of making flour as much cheaper at home. But at present, the imme­surable influence of the landed interest overbears every other part of the community. Commerce cannot be protected without a fleet, and yet the farmers, who reap the largest share of the benefits of commerce, refuse even a penny to build one. "You shall not tax our exports," says the constitu­tion. "You shall not tax our lands," exclaim the farming majority in congress. ‘Buy our flour, at double the former price. Ensure and ship it. You and the underwriters must look to that. If we are paid, it is a matter of indifference in our eyes, whether your vessels are captured or not. We shall not pay for mounting a single tier of guns to protect them.’ The farmers have treated the merchants with as much ungenerosity, as the latter have exhibited towards their seamen ^*.

The original object of the frigates was to sail to the coast of Africa, and attack the Algerines. The absurdity of that plan has already been proved ^†; but the inference does not follow, that American commerce can ever be secure without a navy. Four material objections occur against proceeding, at pre­sent, in the business. First, Government has no [Page 212] money, and could not borrow a sum equal to any serious equipment. Second, Unless there is either a land-tax, or an amendment of the constitution, as to taxing of exports, the treasury must always be in a mendicant condition, and incapable to support a navy, though it were built for nothing. Third, It is admitted, that the frigates have cost much more than they should have done, after allow­ing for the rise of wages. Hence, it is disagreeable to vote money for such bad managers. Fourth, If Mr. Adams possessed a fleet of any tolerable force, he would never be quiet, until he got into some quarrel with the French navy. An American squa­dron is highly needful, but till the system of finance has been improved, the plan of building one cannot be successful. At the same time, till public money shall be under more frugal management, it could hardly be adviseable.

The following is a short history of the progress and expence of the federal navy. On March 27th, 1794, an act past for building four frigates of for­ty-four guns, and two of thirty-six. A second act of June 9th, 1794, appropriated six hundred and eighty-eight thousand, eight hundred and eighty eight dollars, and eighty two cents ‘to defray the expences which shall be incurred, pursuant to’ that act. This expression is not correct. The former law had likewise appointed the number of the crews, their wages and rations; but the ap­propriation of money, of June 9th, did not extend to these articles. It regarded only the charge of building the six frigates ^*. The estimates of this expence bore an appearance of great exactness, [Page 213] when they extended to eighty-two odd cents. But notice the sequel. Early in June, 1794, an act past for the equipment of gallies, and that of June 9th, the last day of the session, appropriated eigh­ty thousand dollars for this use. The law for the gallies was since repealed, and, on April 20th, 1796, congress added the sum appointed for them to the fund for the frigates. At the same time, the latter were reduced from six to three, viz. to two of forty-four guns and one of thirty-six.

Notwithstanding this reduction, an act of March 3d, 1797, granted an hundred and seventy-two thousand additional dollars ‘for finishing the fri­gates United States, Constitution, and Constella­tion;’ besides five thousand for the pay and sub­sistence of three captains, and of labourers employ­ed in taking care of the three frigates. An act of July 10th, 1797, assigned two hundred thousand dollars more for completing of these frigates.

The whole sums appropriated stood thus.

By the first estimate, six frigates were to be com­pleted for six hundred and eighty-eight thousand dollars; and, yet with four hundred and fifty-two thousand as a supplement, three were not finished. In the present session, of November 1797, an hun­dred and fifty thousand dollars were again asked. [Page 214] Surprised by this new demand, Mr. Livingston brought into the house of representatives a reso­lution for appointing a committee of enquiry into the expenditure of money, which had been appro­priated for the naval service.

The resolution was taken up on the 15th of Ja­nuary, 1798. Mr. Harper objected to it, as im­plying a censure on public officers, which was improper; since there had not been specified any ground of suspicion against them. He said that statements from the public offices were, within a few days, to be laid before the house, agreeably to a previous order, and recommended that no com­mittee should be appointed, till these papers had been examined. If they did not prove satisfactory, he should vote for enquiry.

Mr. Livingston replied that the patience of the house had been worn out by these repeated appli­cations for money. The expence had exceeded all belief. The most extensive imagination could not have conceived an amount like that which con­gress had, from time to time, been blindly led to appropriate. The statements expected, and re­ferred to by Mr. Harper, came down only to Ja­nuary 1st, 1797. They could not, therefore, even if the house had them, give adequate satisfaction. The three hundred and seventy-two thousand dollars granted since January 1st, 1797, and the demand now made, did not come within the period of these papers. This was the main scope of Mr. Livingston's observations. The resolution past, and a committee were appointed.

Next day, January 16th, 1798, some documents from the war-office were laid before the house. Instead of an hundred and fifty thousand dollars, the sum formerly applied for, only an hundred and fifteen thousand, eight hundred and thirty-three [Page 215] dollars, are reported as necessary. The total charge will then stand thus.

By the computation of March, 1794, each of the six frigates was to cost a fraction less than one hun­dred and fifteen thousand dollars. By the actual issue, in January, 1798, each of these three ships that were to be completed, will cost, as above specified, an overplus of an hundred and eighty-nine thousand dollars. This makes, upon a medium for each frigate, three hundred and four thousand dollars, instead of the original estimate of an hun­dred and fifteen thousand.

Three ships are not to be finished. The materials must either be sold or laid up. It is natural to be­lieve that a considerable part of them would be ap­plied to the completion of the other three vessels. Hence the real cost of the latter will exceed three hundred and four thousand dollars each, as trench­ing on more than their proportion of the materials, bought with the original six hundred and eighty-eight thousand dollars. In a word, it may safely be affirmed, that the United States, and her two sisters, have required thrice as much money as they were expected to cost; and double the sum for which an architect on the river Thames would have built them. Almost four years have been occupied, and this American armada is not yet completed.

In 1794, when the plan was first adopted, Dr. [Page 216] Smith, and his friends, affirmed, that the frigates might be built, manned, and blockading the streights of Gibraltar, within a year. At the end of two years, the president informed congress, that some of their keels were laid, and some of their stern-posts raised, all in the best manner. So skilful were the calcula­tions of Dr. Smith, and so rapid the progress of our admiralty! The above documents, of January 16th, estimate the pay and subsistence of the officers and crews for a year, at two hundred and eighty thou­sand, three hundred and seventy-nine dollars. Thus, the total sum wanted immediately, amounts to three hundred and ninety-six thousand, two hundred and twelve dollars.

This money can only be raised by loan; and, in the fullness of time, the interest of that loan must also be borrowed. On July 6th, 1797, an act past for a stamp duty on vellum, parchment, and paper. But such an uproar has been excited against it, that, in the present session, the operation of the law has been suspended until the first of July next. On July 8th, when a number of representatives had gone to the country, an act past for an additional duty on salt. It originated in the diligence of Dr. Smith. A resolution is, at present, before congress for the repeal both of these salt ^* and stamp duties. They were the only taxes laid in the first session of the fifth congress, and they are most likely to be repealed ^†. In the preceeding session, although the want of money was strongly urged, no more than two statutes of taxation were past. The one laid an additional duty on certain imported articles. The [Page 217] other altered the mode of excising stills. If they produce any augmentation whatever, of the reve­nue, it can be but trifling. In the interim, the des­truction of trade ensures an immense mutilation of impost duties, for 1797. We shall soon see the par­ticulars in a report from the treasury.

The expences of government are in a state of constant augmentation. The abortive efforts of the two last sessions prove, that its practical sources of new revenue are almost exhausted. When expence uniformly exceeds income, the result is known. In the event of a French war, the ruin of commerce would ensure an annual deficit, at the treasury, of several millions of dollars. The interest of the national debt could no longer be paid; and bank­ruptcy must, of course, ensue. Yet, in summer last, pensioner Harper told congress that, ‘if we threw our sword into the British scale, the French would kick the beam!’ America can be but a cracker at the tail of England's explosion. Mr. Allen, in the same session, declared, that, ‘if France obtained Louisiana from Spain, we ought to de­clare war against the republic.’ He did not in­form the house on what right he rested their claim to direct Spain in the disposal of her colonies. On the same ground, if congress were to assign Rhode-Island, or Nantucket, to the Dutch, England, or Sweden, would be warranted in commencing hos­tilities against this country. We need not startle at jacobin rapacity, or the partition of Poland, or the British in the Old Jersey, or the Dutch at Amboyna, or Titus at Jerusalem, when one of our own ines­timable representatives recommends a project the hermaphrodite offspring of Newgate and of bedlam. It is time to speak distinctly, when a few lunatics or traitors have brought this continent to the brink of a French war, that is, to the brink of perdition. [Page 218] In three months after it shall begin, the value of ground property, in Philadelphia, will sink to fifty per cent. of its present value.

Another sure consequence must be the breaking up of the union. Kentucky and Tennessee have been long and justly exasperated at the Hamiltonian sys­tem of defending the frontiers. The approaching close of this volume does not leave room for insert­ing an investigation of that amazing business ^*. Many tyrants have want only murdered their subjects; but the Washington cabinet exhibits the first example in history, of a government, that will neither de­fend its people, nor suffer them to defend themselves. On the Atlantic side of the continent, this subject is as grossly misapprehended, as the western expedi­tion hitherto has been. Kentucky and Tennessee are in a rapid progress of population ^†. They know the real cause which retards the execution of the Spanish treaty, and the setting open of the western waters. France is enraged at the compact with Eng­land. She sways, with irresistable weight, in the court of Madrid; and the treaty with Spain will never be fulfilled, till that with England has been modified or dissolved. The south-western citizens regard a free navigation as the chief object of their wishes. The republic, by the medium of Spain, has only to hold out this temptation, as the signal of re­volt. The Philadelphians would not consent to shut up the Delaware, for the sake of protracting their [Page 219] union with Kentucky. They cannot require that self-denial which they would not exert.

By the calculation, above inserted, of three times the original estimate of the three frigates, the final outfit of each of them comes to three hundred and forty-five thousand dollars, or in whole to one million and thirty-five thousand dollars. They carry an hundred and twenty-four guns, which thus cost, within a minute fraction, eight thousand three hundred and forty-six dollars, and three fourths, per gun. In sterling money this amounts to eighteen hundred and seventy-eight pounds, eight shillings and four-pence halfpenny. In Eng­land, the common computation for every gun, is a thousand pounds, including stores for six months. These do not come within the above American estimate; so that England can send a ship to sea, at half our charge. Yet, from the decline of ship-building, in consequence of Jay's treaty, wages are, at this time, comparatively low. The current wages of American seamen are thirty dollars per month; a rate unheard of in the French or English service. With such an odds of expence against the United States, it is needless to think of a navy.

Indians have been spoke of in this chapter. On January 18th, 1798, an estimate was laid before the representatives of the charges of a propo­sed treaty with the Cherokees. The whole sum amounts to twenty-five thousand, eight hundred and eighty dollars. This includes fifteen thousand dollars for rations to two thousand Indians; and five thousand dollars for presents. It must be observed that these Indians, as well as the Creeks, have never kept a single agreement made with them. Their perfidy is equal to their cruelty. If a new treaty is to be framed, there can be no use for the presence of two thousand savages. Two [Page 220] hundred are sufficient; and this would save thir­teen thousand five hundred dollars. The sums an­nually wasted on these people are very considera­ble. It is time to try another way of treating. Offer an hundred dollars per scalp for the first three hundred Cherokee warriors, who shall be cut, or shot down. The south-western riflemen will soon earn the money. This may be called inhumani­ty. But if one of these Indians had stabbed your father, and stuck the hearts of your children, on the point of his scalping knife, perhaps you might endure the proposal. Government is afraid of a frontier militia. Were the rampart of savages removed, thousands of families would instantly wander beyond the reach of customs and excise. The president and senate, supported by a party of representatives, chuse rather to give the Indi­ans every possible measure of countenance and protection, to expend very large sums of money in the purchase of treaties that are sure to be broken, and to connive at some hundreds of annu­al murders.

Our present political aspect does not promise much. It combines the helplessness of infancy with the decrepitude of age; the feebleness of a young government without its alledged purity, and the corruption of an old one, without its readiness of resources. The world never saw a more com­plicated scene of weakness, ignorance, and folly, than that now displayed in the United States. The president, on May 16th, 1797, delivers a speech against France, that is only just less than a declara­tion of war. In the same moment, he pretends to desire a peace with the French. For this pur­pose he sends back to Paris Pinckney, the very man who had just quarrelled with the directory, and who, by his obstinacy and impertinence, had [Page 221] forced them to thrust him out of their territories. To cut up all chance of future confidence between the two governments, Mr. Adams suffers, or invites congress to print Pinckney's confidential correspon­dence. The representatives desire a list of French and British depredations. Messrs. Adams and Pick­ering suppress the British list, and send down the French one, with an apology consisting of a noto­rious falsehood ^*. The representatives pocket this violation of their orders; an insult that would not have been endured with silence in the tamest house of commons which England ever saw.

CHAPTER X.

THE Gazette of the United States is the professed organ of the political sentiments of Mr. Adams and his friends. Hence its princi­ples become important, less by their intrinsic value than on account of the source from whence they spring.

In Mr. Fenno's paper, of January 10th, 1798, a writer speaks of ‘nine hundred and fifty millions [Page 222] of men corrupt, anarchical, hateful and hating one another, turned loose from religious and civil restraint, and blended in one fiery democracy ^*. If malice could vent itself in prayer, the actual state of our enemies, the French, exceeds its last supreme ejaculation.’

If the French have become our enemies, this arises from the mean, pedlar-like spirit of our po­licy. Their actual state is certainly different from ours. France is the terror, and the United States are the contempt of Europe. Their friendship is universally courted, and ours universally despised. In confidence that the republic would be overtur­ned, America hasted to desert her benefactress. By an eventual and offensive treaty, she guaranteed the French dominions, at a period when, but for the sake of form, her guarantee was not worth acceptance. In 1794, she could not fulfil the sti­pulations of 1778; but, to prove that her ingrati­tude was equal to her weakness, she inverted them. Jay's treaty comprises a multitude of conditions in­jurious to the republic. The plan of this agreement was made by Mr. Washington, in April, 1794. At [Page 223] that time France, like Caesar at Munda, contended not for empire, but existence. Admit that this compact, if it had been faithfully fulfilled, was beneficial to the mercantile interest of America. Still, a generous man would have despised profits that were to be gained by sacrificing the interest of his depressed friend. An honest man must have regarded every concession against France, as a real violation of the treaty of Paris ^*. A wise man might, in July, 1795, the time of ratification, have foreseen that the republic would be ultimate­ly victorious.

As for the actual state, look at ours; a wasted commerce; an empty exchequer; a government without confidence, and a people without union; a bench, where land-jobbing does not displace a judge; a legislature, where perjury does not unseat a senator; a press, from whence an adulterer expa­tiates on his proud consciousness of innocence; a cabinet, countenancing publications, which a knot of London porters would be ashamed to read. In this city of brotherly love, usury sits on her native throne ^†; opinions are decided by the bludgeon; and [Page 224] a ruffian may come behind his neighbour's back, knock him down, leave him for dead on the spot, laugh, like a recent felon, in the faces of the jury, and march triumphant from the bar, for a fine of fifty dollars!

We return to Mr. Fenno's correspondent. ‘Hu­man happiness, says he, will not be encreased, till all the present actors of the farce of innova­tion, are rotted and forgotten. To ameliorate the state of society, by destroying tyranny and super­stition, is a benevolent wish. I have listened to, and repeated, those fairy tales myself. It is a dream!’ These are the manly sentiments propa­gated by our executive. They imply an express censure of the American revolution, which attempt­ed to overturn tyranny, but only half completed its design. The party who at present hold the govern­ment, found means to saddle America with a debt which daily grows larger; and they have now taken the ground and the doctrines of George the third.

Mr. Fenno pronounces, that, to attempt the improvement of society, by destroying tyranny and superstition, is a fairy tale and a dream. The mind cannot conceive, nor can language ex­press, a more hateful maxim. Candour will place no confidence in a party capable of inculcating such opinions. As for the attack on France, it chimes in unison with the two speeches of president Adams. [Page 225] A few extracts from the first of these productions will prove this to be true. In that of May 16th, 1797, he speaks thus:

‘The refusal, on the part of France, to receive our minister, is, then, the denial of a right; but the refusal to receive him until we have acceded to their demands, without discussion, is to treat us neither as allies nor as friends, nor as a sove­reign people.’—As for the matter of right, Vat­tel contradicts Mr. Adams ^*. General Washington refused to open a letter from lord Howe; and the old congress would not treat with Carlisle, and the rest of North's commissioners. Citizen Adet had attempted to negociate at Philadelphia. He was treated with neglect, and Mr. Adams and his friends encouraged a British agent to lampoon him. As for allies or friends, the United States had no claim to either title. Jay's treaty put an end to it.

Again.— ‘There is reason to believe, that the executive directory past a decree, on the 2d of March last, contravening, in part, the treaty of amity and commerce of 1778, injurious to our lawful commerce, and endangering the lives of our citizens.’ They acted only in self-defence. This decree is fully explained in the next chapter. The British were then, and are still seizing Ameri­can ships, and pressing their seamen; but Mr. Adams passes over that.

‘Endeavours have been employed to establish and foster a division between the government and people of the United States. To investigate the causes which have encouraged this attempt is not necessary.’—The most likely cause is English gold. Webster and Russel, that ideot of editors, who has defended Hamilton's Defence, would not [Page 226] write so much nonsense to serve Pitt, unless he paid them. No man in his wits will believe that Camil­lus wrote his thirty-eight letters for nothing. Did he ever plead thirty-eight causes without a fee?

But Mr. Adams refers not to these gentry, for they are his intimate friends. He alludes to the speech of Barras, as alarming; though this trifle could make no more impression on the public mind of America, than a pistol-ball on the bastions of Luxembourg. The supposition, that it was to have a dangerous effect here, betrays gross affectation, hypocrisy, and imposture. The people of this coun­try care very little about two or three sentences of a speech delivered in Paris. But, if Barras was able to do so much mischief, the president ought to have suppressed the sarcasm. Mortui non mordent. It could do no harm, if we heard nothing about it. If a previous translation had escaped into the Aurora, a fortnight must have sunk it in forgetfulness. But the point with Mr. Adams was to make a bustle, in order to make a quarrel. This is the plain truth. Mr. Adams may yet hear of a speech from Barras, that shall make both him and congress tremble.

"It must not be permitted to be doubted," says he, ‘whether the people of the United States will support the government, established by their vo­luntary consent, and appointed by their free choice.’ True. But if they see that government evidently driving them into a ruinous war, without taking any one rational step to shun it, they will not be tardy in making their importance felt.

Mr. Adams then pledges himself to support the British treaty. ‘Convinced that the conduct of the government has been just and impartial to foreign nations,—nothing will ever be done by me to im­pair the national engagements; to innovate upon principles, which have been so deliberately and [Page 227] uprightly established; or to surrender, in any man­ner, the rights of the government.’ As the com­pact was made for fear of an English war, it may suitably be repealed for fear of a French one. The purport of this bouncing passage is to assure the French, that they have no chance for concessions from the United States, if Mr. Adams can disap­point them.

In one of his letters, published by congress, Charles Pinckney, when speaking of his dismission by the directory, puts this question. ‘You will judge whether the answer of the Senate and the house of representatives to the president's speech ^*, and the late successes in Italy, have not concur­red to occasion it ^†?’ The answers were only an echo to the speech itself, which was quite as in­flammatory as them. But the envoy, in a letter to the secretary, could not with politeness, include that sacred performance ^‡ among the causes of ir­ritation. This notice of the tendency of such addresses and speeches, on the minds of the direc­tory, might have made Mr. Adams cautious in what way he conveyed his sentiments to congress.

Mr. Fenno's gazette of January 18th, 1798, has this passage. ‘Like the Romans, whom they (the French) imitate, war and rapine are neces­sary to their existence.—If England is not destroy­ed by internal faction, she will be able to keep the MONSTERS in their den, until they devour each other.’ This writer has forgot the unpro­voked conspiracy of Pilnitz, by which the crowned heads were to revive in France the tragedy of [Page 228] Poland. He has forgot that the duke of Bruns­wick menaced Paris, and its eight hundred thousand inhabitants, with military execution.

Mr. Adams affects to desire a peace with France. The person who believes him is completely dives­ted of common sense. Look at the stile of his own newspaper. No farther evidence can be wanted. Pitch a barrel of tar into a bonfire, and say that you intend to extinguish it. Such is the picture of somebody. This old man cannot descend to the grave in peace, till he has entan­gled his constituents in a war that must put an end to the government of the country, and replunge her into the horrors of 1780. These are our thanks for twenty-five thousand dollars a year, for eminence, adulation, and immeasurable patronage. For the complete model of depravity, why should we refer to another world? Can a fallen angel be as base as man?

In Mr. Pickering's letter to Pinckney, p 91, he speaks thus of citizen Adet. ‘After an exhibition of complaints in a stile so exceptionable, he could add but one more improper act, that of publishing his notes in the newspapers: he had scarcely transmitted them to the executive before he forwarded them to the printer for pub­lication.’ Mr. Pickering here complains of Adet for his precipitate appeal to the press. Granting, what is untrue, that the envoy acted wrong, Pick­ering did an offence against the directory of the same kind. This letter to Pinckney at Paris bears date the 16th of January, 1796. A copy of it was, on the 19th, sent by the president to congress, by them instantly to the press, and of course to the newspapers. It was fit that congress should be acquainted with the letter, but its publication was a still greater affront upon the directory than the [Page 229] printing of Adet's notes was upon Pickering. The Frenchman did not send his pieces to the press till they had reached their place of destina­tion. This was a degree of politeness neglected by Mr. Pickering.

It will be answered, that when the president sent the papers to congress, he did not know whe­ther the representatives would print them, and that they had a right of doing so. When a fri­gate is to be built, or a ship to be freighted with ammunition, for the dey of Algiers, a president knows in what way to communicate with the le­gislature, and yet to prevent his papers from being exposed to the public eye. The federal repre­sentatives support a due understanding with the executive; and unless they had known that the publication would be acceptable to him, the con­tents of Mr. Pickering's letter would have been kept secret.

Mr. Pinckney observes, that the French ‘wish to destroy the trade of Great Britain, and they look upon us as one of her best customers, and, to obtain their object, they care not what we suf­fer ^*.’ This may be very true, but it comes to a plain declaration that the French are interested and faithless, while the publication permitted by the president implies that the remark enjoys his approbation. There is particular reason to believe that Rufus King hath transmitted to our executive most unfavourable accounts of England. But not a word of them transpires from the cabinet. The truth of Pinckney's observation would not justify its publication. If every man were to tell exactly what he thinks of each of his acquaintances, soci­ety would be transformed into a bear-garden, and [Page 230] the field of diplomacy into a field of battle. On the plain score of discretion and civility, it will be difficult to defend the measures of Messrs. Adams and Pickering towards the French nation. These remarks explain the degree of merit in our execu­tive. Let us now, in a slight sketch, examine whe­ther congress itself acted better.

The two houses met on May 15th, 1797. The speech was made on the 16th. The senate did not present their answer till the 24th. Thus, upon this trifle, they spent eight days, and twelve or fif­teen hundred dollars worth of their time. They might have made a proper answer in fifteen minutes. ‘We learn, say they, with sincere concern, that attempts are in operation to alienate the af­fection of our fellow citizens from their govern­ment. Attempt, so wicked, wherever they ex­ist, cannot fail to excite our utmost abhorrence.’ They must surely then have abhorred their own printer, Mr. John Fenno, for calling the preceding house of representatives a many-headed monster. The speech of Barras was made at a distance; and, before they went so far in quest of affronts offered to this government, the senate should have silenced this organ of discontent, for it was ten thousand times louder than the French directory. The answer of the senate was dull and toad-eating, but much less faulty than the one reported on May 22d, from the select committee; and which, with a few slight alterations, was ultimately presen­ted. This committee consisted of five members. The majority, Mr. Kittera, Mr. Rutledge, and Mr. Griswold, were truly federal.

Their report was as complaisant to the speech as Mr. Adams could desire it to be.— ‘While we view with satisfaction the wisdom, dignity, and moderation, which have marked the measures of [Page 231] the supreme executive of our country, in its at­tempts to remove, by candid explanations, the complaints and jealousies of France, we feel the full force of that indignity which has been offer­ed our country, in the rejection of its minister.’ The law of nations, as laid down by Dr. Hutche­son, gave the French a right of sending Pinckney out of their territories; and his own letters shew, that, while he remained in Paris, he proved an in­flammatory and dangerous resident. The select com­mittee will not certainly pretend, that the direc­tory were obliged to read and answer any papers that Mr. Pinckney might wish to present. They were to be masters of their own time. They had already, by citizen Adet, explained, as far as they thought necessary, their demands upon America. If Mr. Kit­tera becomes tired of a correspondent, he will think himself at liberty to return his letters unopened.

Thus much for the rejection of our minister; but put the case that he had been actually received. A hire­ling, in the pay of an English agent, is next ordered to write pamphlets against him; and, among other epi­thets, to call him an unprincipled bully; a gasconading impudent bluff; and a dog ^*. Instead of interfering, as every other government would infallibly do, to check such behaviour, a French Oliver Wolcott visits the bookseller, thanks him for the perfor­mance, and offers to make him editor of the Redac­teur ^†. In the interim, that executive publication loads the United States with every abusive appella­tion that malice, or brutality, can suggest; exe­crates their revolution; reproaches them as athe­ists; and, finally, expresses an ardent hope that con­gress [Page 232] are blown up, and that George the third shall once more have HIS OWN again. This usage con­tinues, not for a day, or a month, but for four years at a stretch.

Mr. Pinckney would be worse used, by permission to reside in Paris, under such circumstances, than by a direct dismissal. A man of spirit would prefer the latter. The above was precisely the situation of Adet. in Philadelphia. Hence, our complaint, as to the rejection of Pinckney, betrayed the utmost har­diness or stupidity. The report next promises to convince the world ‘that we are not a degraded people.’ In respect to foreign envoys, we have degraded ourselves. After the insolence and rib­b [...]l [...]ry wantonly poured upon Adet, and the che­valier de Yrujo, neither the king of Spain, nor the directory, can undervalue any reputable man of business, by desiring him to reside in this country.

‘Knowing, as we do, adds the report, the confidence reposed by the United States in their government, we cannot hesitate in expressing our indignation,’ &c. This relates to Barras, a topic-already worn to tatters. As for confidence, it is now, on the part of the republicans, at an end. On the accession of Mr. Adams, they were very well disposed to live on good terms with him. Most of them were ignorant of his correspondence with sir John Scott. Several of his late opposers declar­ed their belief of his being an honest man, and that he had too much spirit to be led by any party. With great candour and propriety, Mr. Bache refused to admit remarks unfavourable to Mr Adams. ‘Let us give him a fair trial,’ said this editor, to one of his correspondents, ‘and then, if he actually does wrong, our censures will fall with the grea­ter weight.’ The Aurora was, accordingly, crammed, for some time, with encomiums on Mr. [Page 233] Adams, deduced from the professions of republi­canism that he made in some speeches. For conduct so full of justice and of good nature, Mr. Bache has been since upbraided in the six per cent. newspapers. From the 16th of May, 1797, downwards, Mr. Bache firmly believed, that Mr. Adams was only [...] leader of a party. His amicable stile, until the [...]losure of that day, deserved praise in place of censure. Mr. Adams then convinced all impartial men, that he had entangled himself in the British interest. Hence he will constantly meet with their cordial opposition. This the select committee well knew.

They proceed to say, that ‘fully impressed with the uncertainty of the result, we shall prepare to meet, with fortitude, any unfavourable events which may occur, with all the skill we possess, and all the efforts in our power.’

On this report, Mr. Nicholas, in strong terms, recommended a conciliating stile. Upon the answer, about to be given, the peace of the United States might, in a great measure, depend. He proposed an amendment, which was, upon the whole, proper. Yet it had this expression. ‘The rejecting of our minister, and the manner of dismissing him from the territories of France, have excited our warmest sensibility.’ This complaint might have been spar­ed. Mr. Nicholas, in his speech, also said, that ‘he hoped, on this occasion, they should get rid of that irritation, which injury naturally produced in the mind. He declared, that he felt for the in­sult which had been offered to Mr. Pinckney; and he felt more for him, from the dignity with which he had borne it, and which had proved him to be a proper character for the embassy.’ A rea­sonable suspicion may be entertained that this re­spectable member expressed more strongly than he [Page 234] felt. He saw that the British party were very strong in the house, and that direct opposition to the main principle of the address would be hopeless. But such half-way declarations, although sometimes ex­pedient within doors, have a tendency to mislead the public at large. Mr. Nicholas, indeed, after far­ther compliments on Mr. Pinckney, and his good temper, ‘confessed, that the business did not strike him with all the force with which it seemed to have impressed the mind of that respectable character.’

Mr. Nicholas added, that ‘he considered the answer, reported to them, as going to decide the question of peace or war for this country. He thought it a thing of that sort, which might have the worst possible effect, and could have no good effect. It might tend to irritate, to prevent any sort of enquiry or settlement taking place, but it could not tend towards an adjustment of differ­ences.—We are condemning the French govern­ment, because they ask for redress, without listen­ing to negociation; yet we say to them, we are right; you have no cause to complain.’ Mr. Ni­cholas shewed the inconsistency of this prejudging tone. He stated, by the way, that the house had the strongest proofs, even the declaration of an English governor, that, in case of success against France, England had designed to declare war against Ame­rica. The speech, with a small exception, was commendable.

Dr. William Smith rose next. He entered into the feelings of Mr. Pinckney, and the injurious treat­ment which he had received from De la Croix and the directory. He then took a survey of the me­rits of the British treaty. "The gentlemen," said he, ‘tell us we are feeble. They know that we are not feeble; and that, if occasion calls us forth, [Page 235] we shall be found able to defend ourselves.’ The United States have the greatest natural resources for defence by land, and for attack by sea. But as go­vernment neither has money, nor can tell where to get any important sum, a war would run the ut­most risk of overturning it. This disablity of rais­ing cash arises from the half-crown certificates, the bungling assumption act, and the deluge of bank notes. The doctor had, no doubt, by this time, a prescience of his embassy to Portugal. Yet he might have reflected that six months of a French war would sink the stocks to thirty per cent.

Mr. Freeman read a long passage from Vatel. The substance of it was, that nations were not obliged to receive a perpetual succession of foreign ministers, when there was nothing particular to be negociated. They might be allowed to meet such envoys upon the frontiers, to receive their message, and dismiss them, without once permitting them to enter upon the territory of the nation to which they were sent. Vatel added, that republics, in particular, might have very good reasons for not choosing to permit an ambassador to reside among them; because, such a character was frequently employed to excite discontent among the citizens. Thus he agrees exactly with the law of nations, as already cited from Hutcheson ^*. Mr. Freeman re­ferred to the recent dismission, by the directory, of thirteen other ministers. This shewed that no par­ticular indignity had been offered to the United States.

Mr. Giles moved that the committee of the whole house should rise, in order to refer the report, and amendment by Mr. Nicholas, back to the select com­mittee.

[Page 236]This proposal was objected to, with great vio­lence. At that part of the debate, Mr. Otis made his maiden speech. A few extracts shall be given from a copy of it written by himself.— ‘His con­stituents, and himself, were disposed to regard the inhabitants of the southern states as brothers.’ [The party who sent Mr. Otis to congress, take every opening to calumniate the southern states. To speak plainly, the reasons are as follows. First, At the time of funding the national debt, most of the southern representatives, resisted the stock-jobbing views of eastern members. Second, If the Virginians could obtain an ascendency in the two houses, it is likely that they would proceed to tax the public stocks, and to lay an impressive stamp duty on bank notes. If their plan of paying the national debt had been adopted, Dr. Smith, and Mr. Hillhouse, would have only got the ten-pence or half-crown per pound, which they actually paid for certi­tificates. Thus twenty or thirty millions of dollars might have been saved. Seven years ago, four mil­lions of dollars were sufficient for building ten ships of the line, and twenty frigates ^*. This force, ready to be supported by three hundred privateers, would have compelled either France or England to look, like Pompey, both before and behind them, previous to their molesting an American merchant­man. But instead of a commanding navy, and a commerce invulnerable in every corner of the globe ^†, the United States have a regiment of credi­tors, with doctor William Smith at their head, [Page 237] feasting on the public revenue, and receiving sixty, eighty, or an hundred per cent. for the real sums that they advanced. While this is the case, you can­not walk five miles in any inhabited district of Ame­rica, without meeting some one who will tell that he was formerly half beggared by the explosion of congress paper money. His claim on government is eight or ten times juster than that of Sedgwick or William Smith, yet he gets not a single cent. They receive twenty shillings per pound, while he, pos­sibly with a wooden leg, or a palsy, earned in the service, must pay taxes to defray the demands of these creditors, who sat in congress, and voted themselves into opulence, at the expence of their fellow citizens. This is the sort of people under whose banner Mr. Otis hath enlisted. His speech proceeds thus:]

‘The injuries sustained by us were of a high and atrocious nature, consisting in the capture of our vessels, depredations upon the property and persons of our citizens, the indignity offered to our minister; but what was more aggrava­vating than the rest, was, the professed deter­mination not to receive our minister until the complaints of the French should be redressed, without explanation and without exception; until we should violate treaties, repeal laws, and do what the constitution would not authorise, vacate solemn judgments of our courts of law.’

This extract shall have a full answer. To be­gin with the British treaty, it was an injury of a high and atrocious nature towards France. It contravened our previous treaty with her. Be­sides an hundred other writers, Mr. Dallas, in his Features, has clearly proved this point. With a general reference to that pamphlet, Part V. one or two instances are here inserted.

[Page 238]By the eleventh ^* article of the treaty of alliance between Louis XVI. and the United States, the lat­ter guarantee to the former ‘the present possessions of the crown of France in America, as well as those which it may acquire by the future treaty of peace.’ The king, on his part, guarantees the territories of the United States. The federal party have spent thousands of pages to prove that America owes nothing to France, on the score of gratitude, which was exclusively due to the king himself. Nay some of them have alledged that the treaties between the two countries were voided by the dissolution of the monarchy. If the latter position is true, France cannot be blamed for break­ing obligations that cease to exist.

Alexander Hamilton, in his long-winded letters of Pacificus, argues that the guarantee became void, because the treaty was entitled not offensive and de­fensive, but only eventual and defensive; and as the French were the first to declare war against Eng­land, hence they were the offensive party, and the guarantee expired, at least for this time. Such ap­pears to be his inference.

If this was the view of the treaty, it should have been so expressed. But the twelfth article, though explanatory, makes no distinction, and the conclusion ought to be that the two powers never once thought of it. The guarantee is in general terms. If we forbear to guarantee the French West-Indies, we should certainly not assist England in at­tacking them. If the treaty had any signification whatever, this was implied in it, for its whole avowed object was to resist Britain. Without pro­visions from the United States, the English could not have attacked Martinique, or Guadaloupe. [Page 239] Every barrel of pork or flour shipped from this continent to the British West-Indies, was as clearly assisting England against France, as if we had sent our three frigates. A suspension of shipping provi­sions would have entirely prevented English military operations, and have starved the English islands. This was to render to France a very important service; and, being merely of the negative kind, it furnish­ed to England no pretence for hostilities.

It will be said that such a prohibition was to sacrifice commerce. Every guarantee implies a sacri­fice. If a man is never to fulfil a treaty, when it crosses his personal interest, it is entirely useless to make treaties. By stepping forward in this way, America could have shewed that she was not, what she now is, the mere anvil of the belligerent world. To save her West-Indies, England could not have helped acceding to a peace; while, placed upon an isthmus, between the opposite tides of hosti­lity, America might, in some measure, have dicta­ted the terms of an agreement. By doing nothing, by a mere act of negation, she was to have done every thing. By an embargo against England, for only four months, America could not have lost more than five or six millions of dollars, and very probably not half that sum. The whole exports of 1793, came only to twenty-six millions of dollars; and, on a medium, those of four months, came to less than nine millions. Of these nine millions a great part did not consist of provisions. Such were cotton, indigo, and fifty-nine thousand nine hundred and forty-seven hogsheads of tobacco. Of the pro­visions various kinds, as pork and beef, were in no danger of spoiling. Much of the flour would have been exported, with other vivres, to the West-Indies, in French bottoms. Much of the remain­der could have been kept without suffering damage. [Page 240] Putting these matters together, it will be seen that, by four months of patience and fidelity, and at the loss, comparatively small, of one, two, or three millions of dollars, America might have preserved her character, along with French amity. She had only to prohibit every American or foreign vessel from exporting provisions, with the single exception of France. At present, the republic may, in fa­miliar language, explain herself thus. You pro­mised to help me in defending my house. I did not ask your aid, but you have lent the robber a hatchet to break up my door. This volume is addressed only to men, who respect the spirit as well as the letter of a bargain. To them enough has been said in demonstration of American sel­fishness, ignorance, and duplicity. French depre­dations are a bitter dose, for which America may thank herself.

CHAPTER XI.

ALONG with the treaty of alliance eventual and defensive, there was subscribed at Paris another of amity and commerce. The latter instrument, in a spirit of liberality very different [Page 241] from Jay's, had fixed the rule that free bottoms make free goods. The twenty-third article says, that it shall be lawful ‘to sail with the ships and merchan­dises aforementioned, and to trade with the same liberty and security from the places, ports, and havens of those who are enemies of both or either party, without any opposition, or disturbance whatsoever, not only directly from the places of the enemy aforementioned to neutral places; but also from one place belonging to an enemy, to ano­ther place belonging to an enemy.—And it is hereby stipulated, that free ships shall also give a freedom to goods.’ The article has much more to this effect. The twenty-fourth enumerates all sorts of provisions as coming within the definition of free goods. This treaty is dated at Paris, Fe­bruary 6th, 1778.

The eighteenth article of the British treaty has been above cited, and besides abolishing the privilege of free bottoms, it warrants the seizure of provi­sions, on paying the price of them.

The twenty-fifth article does, indeed, say, that, ‘nothing in this treaty contained shall, however, be construed or operate contrary to former and exist­ing public treaties with other sovereigns or states.’ If this stipulation had been observed, it seems that the republic would have had no cause to com­plain of that eighteenth article. But the measures of England have been a systematic violation of it. In spite of the treaty of Paris, America has con­stantly suffered French goods to be taken out of her bottoms. Vast quantities of provisions have been seized from American shipping bound for France, at the very time, when the English were boasting that they would starve her ^*. In the face [Page 242] of such matters, it is not wonderful that the French are angry.

Mr. Jay's friends reply, that France, by the second article of the treaty of Paris, was enti­tled to ‘any particular favour in respect of com­merce and navigation’ that should be granted by the United States to another nation. Of con­sequence, when Jay gave up the right of free bot­toms, and of provision vessels, to England, the French came to have the same privilege of stopping them. But the twenty-fifth article, above quoted, shews that Jay had really saved the republic, in this point. Yet the exception of the French, as to provisions, and free bottoms, ought, at so criti­cal a time, to have been fully and fairly named. The desertion of neutral rights, even in the slight­est way, opened a pretence for abuse.

The case between France and America appears to be shortly this. Jay, in his treaty, gave up the principle of free bottoms, with the exception of treaties already made by the United States. This was wrong; yet the twenty-fifth article ought to [Page 243] have saved France. The English, in reading their copy of the treaty, overleaped this excepting arti­cle, and, just as if it never had been written, con­tinued to seize French property on board of Ameri­can vessels, as likewise American provisions freight­ed for any part of the republic. When this trea­ty was published in America, the directory were busy in arranging affairs of intricate complication, and stupendous importance. The recent conquest of Flanders and Holland called for their whole attention. Compared with such objects, the cap­ture of five hundred vessels, either by their ene­mies or from them, was a trifle. Besides, opposi­tion to Jay's treaty became so violent in America that there was the greatest chance for congress oversetting it, as indeed it escaped in the end on­ly by a single vote ^* out of ninety-seven.

In summer, 1796, a splendid prize was to be contended for in Italy, and till that dispute had been partly decided, the directory did not wish to entangle themselves in American negociation. Buonaparte, whose name hath since become synoni­mous to victory, soon convinced the world what was to be the fate of Lombardy. When the di­rectory perceived the republic to be prosperous on that side, they of course turned their attention to this country. Observe the following dates.

Jay's treaty had been signed on the 19th of No­vember, 1794. It was ratified by the senate, on June 24th, 1795, and by Mr. Randolph, as secretary of state, on August 14th, 1795. The appropriations for effecting the British treaty were not ageeed to, by the representa­tives, till April 30th, 1796. During this whole [Page 244] time, the French did not plunder American vessels, unless in two or three rare instances, while the British were seizing them by hundreds. That this was the case has been ascertained in the History of 1796, which contains a copious ac­count of all captures made by French, or English privateers up to about the end of April. The detail was then suspended from want of room.

This forbearance, on the part of France, from the time that the treaty had been approved by the pre­sident, till appropriations were made for it by con­gress, was the result of honourable and sound poli­cy. By commencing the capture of American ship­ping, while the fate of Jay's treaty was yet unde­cided, they would have been sure to exasperate the people of this country, and run the chance of driv­ing them into a still closer connection with England. They did not furnish America with any pretence or provocation to quarrel with them, while, at the same time, they left her to the free operation of her own mind. The republic, during this interval, suf­fered severely by the treaty; for they respected that of Paris, while the United States permitted Eng­land to break it. The French, agreeably to its sti­pulations, allowed British property to go free, if protected by an American bottom; while the Bri­tish, in express violation of the twenty-fifth and saving article of Jay's treaty, seized French pro­perty in American shipping.

These are facts incontestably true; and they place France in the most favourable light, when com­pared to Britain. Under very great disadvantage, the republic adhered to her treaty of 1778, while England was incessantly violating the one, dictated by herself, that she had just made with Jay. The republic thus acted with strict honour, while Eng­land displayed treachery. Yet even this perfidy and [Page 245] effrontery had no effect in rousing America to manly feelings. On the contrary, in spring, 1796, while the treaty was before congress, and while British captures and impressments filled every newspaper, Messrs. Harper and Tracy stood up in the house to deny their existence. An artificial caterwauling was, in the meanwhile, excited all over the country, that unless the United States agreed to Jay's treaty, England would declare war. In vain did Mr. Gal­latin, and others, urge, that, before the appropria­tion for effecting it, England should be compelled to suspend her piracies. For urging a proposition so just in itself, and so important to America, they were, in the brutal, paper-jobbing dialect, reproach­ed as pensioners of France.

The republic, in the unavoidable exercise of her judgment, could not help despising a people so com­pletely enfeebled by pusillanimity, by selfishness, and by faction. Almost one half of congress were so far from wanting to redress the British injuries com­mitted on their allies, and even on their own con­stituents, that they censured every member who wished to complain. When the directory saw that the federal faction were entirely victorious; that England continued to seize French property in American bottoms; and that our executive took no effective steps to prevent it; having waited as long as justice to their fellow citizens could permit them to wait; they, on July 2d, 1796, passed a decree, of which Mr. Pickering gives this ac­count. ‘It announces, that the conduct of France towards neutrals, will be regulated by the man­ner in which they should suffer the English to treat them ^*.’ If they were to be ruled by that precedent, they could never be at a loss to vindi­cate [Page 246] all sorts of crimes. Though the decree was dated July 2d, 1796, it was not, as Mr. Pickering observes, ‘in general operation, until October.’ From this account it clearly follows, that French depredations are the consequence of congress having appropriated for Jay's treaty, with­out making even an attempt to enforce that of Paris, for the protection of French property under the American flag.

The principle laid down in the decree is, in itself, equitable. It has been followed, on the 2d of March, 1797, by one still more explicit, and which forms No. II. of the documents, already cited, laid before congress, by Mr. Adams, on June 22d, 1797. An abridgement of the chief articles in the latter edict, will explain the greater part of the present grounds of complaint, which France has against America, and which are fairly deducible from Jay's unhappy desertion of the doctrine, that free bottoms make free goods; that a French cargo is safe under the American flag.

The directory begin by quoting a law of May 9th, 1793, of which, the present decree is little more than a second edition. This law, which had either been long suspended, or, indeed, never exe­cuted, sets out with complaining that the enemies of France violate the flag of neutral powers to her prejudice, and therefore, says, that she can no longer fulfil, towards those neutral powers in general, the wish that she has constantly manifested for the en­tire freedom of commerce and navigation.

The law of 1793, then enjoins, that neutral ves­sels may be stopt, when the property of an enemy is found on board of them. Thus, if a merchant in London, comes over to Norfolk, in Virginia, buys a quantity of tobacco, and ships it for England, in an American bottom, the cargo will be seizable. [Page 247] The vessel, however, is to be discharged, as soon as unloaded, and what American property she may contain is also free. She is to be paid the freight for which she was hired, with a just indemnification for the time of her being detained. French tribunals are appointed to determine those matters. The law, with equity, adds, that its operations against neutral bottoms are to cease, whenever the enemy shall de­clare that they will no longer molest French pro­perty in the like situation. All this, with the long forbearance of France, till so late as October, 1796, evidently proves, that the republic was driven into the present attack upon neutral bottoms, by the ne­cessity of creating a counterbalance to the previous and still continued piracies of Britain.

Having cited this law, the decree next refers to Jay's treaty, and that of Paris. It explains wherein they differ, and in what way they must be recon­ciled, in order to secure an equal advantage to France as to England. The directory quote, in their defence, the second article of the treaty of Paris, which begins in these terms.

‘The most christian king, and the United States, engage, mutually, not to grant any particular fa­vour to other nations, in respect of commerce and navigation, which shall not immediately be com­mon to the other party, who shall enjoy the same favour.’

After explaining the necessity for taking advantage of this stipulation, the decree quotes the seventeenth article of Jay's treaty, and, grounding precisely on the same footing, declares, that free ships are NOT to make free cargoes. It next refers to the eighteenth article, and in like manner extends the list of contraband goods beyond what was settled by the treaty of Paris. Jay had admit­ted ship-timber, pitch, tar, hemp, and some other [Page 248] articles to be seizable, even though American pro­perty. The decree follows up this blow, and justice cannot blame it.

Jay, by the twenty-first article, consented, that an American sailor, fighting on board of a French vessel, and taken prisoner by England, shall be treated as a pirate. The French decree copies this clause, and then makes the same declaration. It farther adds, that an American shall not be permitted to plead impressment. This is hard upon individuals, but as to the United States at large, they never made any serious efforts to hinder English kidnapping. Their negligence caused great numbers of Americans to be impressed, and whether as volunteers, or by compulsion, they are equally effective against France. Hence the republic is warranted, in her own de­fence, to use every method for compelling the Uni­ted States to do justice to themselves, and to her.

Mr. Pinckney ^* says, that American sailors are at present detained in Brest, as prisoners of war, and ‘suffer much by close confinement and bad provisions.’ They may thank the miserable clause which declared them liable to be considered as pirates, if they enlisted on board of French ships of war. But for that clause, the French would have been glad to set them free, and take them into their own service. At present, many Ameri­cans are, in spite of the treaty, in the French navy, and these prisoners in Brest will be kept most likely, as a pledge, in case that Barney, or some other Americans, in the French service, shall be captured by the English. Jay has authorised Gren­ville to hang Barney, and the directory keep ano­ther set of Americans for the halter of retaliation. To such a climax of independence, respect, and [Page 249] dignity, has this country been elevated by the masterly politics of the federal party. It is im­possible that we should escape the universal con­tempt of Europe. The six per cent. cabinet have converted the national character into a sort of po­litical common sewer for the reception of every indignity from every government on earth.

The two decrees of the French directory, of July 2d, 1796, and March 2d, 1797, are evi­dently engrafted on the principles of the British treaty, and must be ascribed exclusively to it. They differ essentially from the bu [...]aneering proclama­tions of the British king, for the leg [...] adjudication of American vessels. They go precisely as far as the United States already suffered England to go, and not a step farther. In executing these French de­crees, many seizures have taken place, which they did not apparently contemplate. Many horrid out­rages have been committed on the property and persons of Americans; for the crew of a French privateer are composed of as coarse materials as those of an English one. But the conduct of our government led exactly to such a situation. For some years past it has beat up for external indigni­ties. It has sent out riders to take in commis­sions for insult. Such were those factors of de­gradation, Thomas Pinckney and John Jay. ‘If the treaty is ratified,’ said president Washing­ton, ‘the partisans of the French, or rather of war and confusion, will excite them to hostile measures; or at least to unfriendly sentiments ^*.’ In every word he was mistaken. The treaty was opposed by friends of peace and order. Since it past, they have never excited the French to hostili­ties. But war and confusion were justly foreseen, [Page 250] as the obvious consequence of the treaty itself. It was framed under the auspices of a party in pro­fessed enmity to France. ‘The success of the duke of Brunswick was most earnestly wished for by the principal agents of this aristocratic and fiscal party, who had not even the decency to conceal their sentiments upon the subject.— The pulse of the whole party beat in unison with him, as he advanced towards Paris, and with him they were covered with shame and mortification as he retreated ^*.’ Yet, with their usual sincerity, they affect to date their dread of France from the arrival of Genet, about eight months after.

This explanation has been somewhat long, but it accounts for the present conduct of the French. It shews that they have received atrocious provo­cation; that they bore it for a considerable time, with patience, till they saw that no redress was to be expected. They are now acting, from honest resentment, what England did from wanton inso­lence. This is the real distinction between the pi­racies of the two nations. When a man becomes both judge and avenger in his own cause, he is apt not only to get justice, but something more than justice. This is, no doubt, the way with the French; but for the original mischief, we are to blame such legislators as Harrison Otis, to whose harangue we are now to return.

‘Where, said Mr. Otis, are your sailors? Listen to the passing gale of the ocean, and you will hear their groans issuing from French prison ships.’ If they were taken in English ships of war, the French are well entitled to confine them. While the British impressed Americans by thousands, [Page 251] the federal party were troubled with an invincible deafness. But whenever the French begin to offend in the same way, they become quick of hearing.

Mr. Otis ‘ defied the ingenuity of any gentle­man to draw a comparison between the di­rectory and the British parliament, to the ad­vantage of the former; and insisted that the de­mands of Charles de la Croix were upon a para­lel with those of lord North.’ If the orator means to compare the parliament of 1775, with the pre­sent directory, or to say that the dismission of Pinck­ney amounts to another Boston port bill, he com­mits a gross violation of truth. Incendiaries, like Mr. Otis, have hurried this country into a series of measures offensive to France, and previously design­ed to be so. America must now retrace her steps. If La Croix had sent forty thousand men to invade this continent, there would be some meaning in the defi­ance of Mr. Otis. But now, it is the challenge of ig­norance, debility, and imposture.

‘There was a time when he (Mr. Otis) was ani­mated with enthusiasm in favour of the French revolution, and he cherished it, while civil liberty appeared to be the object; but he now considered that revolution as completely atchieved, and that the war was continued, not for liberty, but for conquest and aggrandizement, to which he did not believe it was the interest of this country to contribute.’

The power of France may become dangerous to the United States, because they have treated her as an alien. This cannot be helped. They are but in the gristle of political strength, and must sail with the stream. As for the revolution being completely atchieved, Mr. Fenno hath since affirmed, that it is on the eve of being blown up ^*. The hope of a dif­ference [Page 252] between the directory and the council of five hundred, induced Malmesbury, as the French affirm, to retard, for some time, his second nego­ciation. This we learn by a message from the for­mer body to the latter. Such a delay, at this late period of the war, shews the good will and unex­tinguished hope of the combined powers. Civil li­berty is as much the object of the revolution as it ever was. Mr. Otis and his party pretend to be re­publicans. Hence, instead of regretting, they should have been glad at the establishment of an Italian republic. They ought to wish for a similar refor­mation in the German empire; that mankind might have a choice of their own, and be no longer driven into military service, like an ox to the slaughter. A true republican will rejoice as much at the success of his principles, as a true christian at the propaga­tion of the gospel. Had Otis been an Irish peasant, existing, with his family, upon six-pence sterling per day, he would have seen the propriety of an alte­ration in government ^*. If his father, an Austrian farmer, had cut off his thumbs to secure him from conscription, our spokesman would have panted for the deposition of his imperial majesty. The rest of this long speech may, without injuring the fame of Mr. Otis, be suffered to sink in oblivion.

[Page 253]Mr. Giles rose soon after. He remarked, that while we were so loudly denying ourselves to be a divided people, the very debate proved us to be so. This incontestable observation, strikes at the root of the president's speech. Barras had only said what all mankind know to be true.

Mr. Swanwick spoke in defence of the amend­ment of Mr. Nicholas. He ‘thought, that a num­ber of gentlemen had already fixed their opinions for A FRENCH w [...].—It was said, that it would be dictating to the executive to express our opi­nion of what measures ought to be taken. Mr. Swanwick did not understand this language. The executive had called us together to tell us the present state of affairs. And are we to sit with our arms folded? Are we to go into the merits of the speech; its arguments; and the circum­stances attending it; and not to say a single word of what ought to be done, because it is not our department? What! Is not the peace of the coun­try within our department? Are we called toge­ther only to vote for taxes? Are we so muzzled by the constitution, that we must be silent about the great concerns of the nation? We are not now interfering with the treaty-making power, but merely giving a general opinion. Could such silence have been in the view of the framers of the constitution? We may not give an advice before hand! After the treaty is made it is the law, and the house have no right of doing any thing but to give their money.’

This argument was unanswerable.

If the federal patriots could obtain their apparent object, the legislature would sink into a mere office for the registration of taxes. No British minister durst forbid a member of parliament from discus­sing the preference of peace or war.

[Page 254]Mr. Livingston was for the amendment. ‘If we adhere," said he, "to the stile of the address as re­ported, go to war we must. WAR is the idea of the speech.—Mr. Livingston asked, if we were to fight the French because they expressed good wishes for the people of America." (This referred to the speech of Barras.) "Mr. Livingston thought, that the Dutch had fully as much reason to be offended with Quincy Adams, as we had to com­plain of Barras.’ Here he read the passage in Mr. Adams's letter, which describes the dependent state of the patriotic party in Holland.

Mr. Coit proposed several additions and altera­tions of his own. He was sorry that the house had ever got into the habit of answering presidential speeches. He recommended the omission of all which related to Barras, and the insertion of something in a softer tone.

Mr. Livingston had spoke of the impressment of thousands of American seamen. Mr. Harper, in contradiction to this, declared that he could produce very good authority; being that of the gentleman himself. He was appointed chairman of a committee to report on the subject; and, af­ter an enquiry of several months, the result stood thus:

This he thought a sufficient reply.

Mr. Livingston said, that, with regard to the im­pressment, returns had only been made by five or six collectors; so that the accounts contained [Page 255] nothing like a statement of the real amount of impressments.—Among others, the great port of New-York had sent no return. Even those that were made out referred only to a few months, from the beginning of January, 1796; and thou­sands of seamen might have been impressed before that account began. Mr. Livingston had never heard that any of the above people were released.

To this explanation Harper made no answer. He stood plainly convicted of an attempt to deceive the house. He wanted, as Henry Fielding expresses it, to convey A LIE in the words of truth. The report contained, indeed, only ninety seven names; but then, as Harper well knew, it was confined to a mere handful of the impressments.

Mr. Giles made a long speech in favour of the amendment of Mr. Nicholas. He ‘gave Mr. Pinck­ney great credit for his behaviour. He had ac­quired as much reputation, as, in such an exigen­cy, it was possible to acquire. But Mr. Giles could not say that the dismission was entirely groundless.’ It was very well grounded, as hath already been proved. Mr. Pinckney deseved no part of this encomium. Mr. Giles said, that ‘the ten­dency of the speech and report was to declare war.—France would think it equal to a declara­tion of a war, if this amendment was rejected.— It was no secret that the United States had not done justice to France.’

Mr. Gallatin adverted to the singular doctrine of the house not being at liberty to give their opi­nion on the preference of peace or war, because it interfered with the power of making treaties. Mr. Gallatin said, that ‘he could cover the table with parliamentary precedents for giving such opinions, even in a country where the king is entrusted with the sole power of making war.’

[Page 256]In a subsequent speech, on May 27th, Mr. Har­per said that Buonaparte was fit only for the per­petration of atrocities; that he was a man who had established a reputation upon crimes; that he could be compared to none but the leaders of Goths and Vandals; with other phrases, foreign to the sub­ject, yet well fitted for inflaming his audience against France, and the latter against them. The attempts of Harper to involve the continent in a French and Spanish war, cast Nero and his confla­gration into the shade. In presence of the Spa­nish ambassador, he last summer named his catho­lic majesty to congress as the vassal king of Spain. Mr. Harper has not received the education, nor does he possess the feelings of a gentleman; otherwise this burst of vulgarity could not have escaped from his lips. Behold the being that hisses at the Corsi­can hero!

After such doings, Mr. Harper and his party pretend to be angry at the dismission of Pinckney. Put the case that Barras had granted him an audi­ence, and had spoke as follows. ‘Your president is an old doating fool. His head is turned with his elevation. He suffers himself to be led by the nose by a circle of associates in the pay of Britain. But unless he and his congress chuse to correct their stile, the republican navy shall lay New-York and Philadelphia as flat as the floor that you stand on.’ Such a harrangue would not be more brutal or insolent than the menace which Harper has thrown out of conquering the Spanish colonies. Pluck out the beam before you seek for the mote.

The words of this legislative luminary were taken down, and published a few days after, in the Merchant's Advertiser, as a part of his speech. By this time he had begun to be ashamed of it. He [Page 257] went to Mr. Bradford's office, made a considera­ble noise, and obtained admission for a corrected co­py of his harangue. It appeared, for the second time, on the 10th of June. Mr. Harper therein only says, that Buonaparte was ‘a great man, tru­ly qualified to be the instrument of such oppres­sion.’ He afterwards printed a third edition of it, in three successive numbers of another newspa­per, wherein it swelled to the incredible bulk of seven folio pages. It is hard to believe that one half of this matter was ever pronounced in the house, for they sit only four or five hours.

We shall here conclude this imperfect glance at the debates on the president's speech. The repre­sentatives did not get their address ready, till the second of June. They had met on the 15th of May, heard the oration on the 16th, and had tugged for sixteen days inclusive, from the 17th, to the 2d of June following. The amendment of Mr. Nicholas was rejected. All the passages, quoted in the outset of this sketch, were retained. The yeas and nays were called over seven times. The address finally past, by sixty-two votes against thirty-six; and, with admirable consistency, censured the directory, for gently hinting to Monroe, that we are a divided people. This paper affirmed, also, that ‘the con­duct of the government has been just and impar­tial to foreign nations.’ The affirmation is uni­versally known to be false ^*; and as such, had been constantly contradicted by the republican side of the house. The session ended on July 5th, 1797, hav­ing [Page 258] lasted exactly fifty-two days. Of these, sixteen were spent upon an answer to the president. The whole charge of the session, by an account given in, was about eighty thousand dollars, or fifteen hun­dred and thirty eight dollars, and a fraction, per day. Thus the address required twenty-four thou­sand six hundred dollars worth of time, and amount­ted, in the judgment of the minority, to a decla­ration of war against France. The journal of the whole session forms but an hundred and forty pages. The reply of Mr. Adams to this address, ends on the forty-fourth.

So much bustle about a president's speech, evi­dently shews that we are ambitious of posting to­wards monarchy. Speaking of the late birth day of general Washington, a federal newspaper has these words.— ‘Two public companies, and many pri­vate parties, observed this POLITICAL CHRIST­MAS, and HALLOWED it ^*!’ It is believed that no English print was ever polluted with such abject profanation. Mr. Adams was not contented with scolding at France. He hath since been inveighing against those who disapprove his conduct. He was angry at Barras for attempting, as he alledged, to separate the people from their government. He now declares, that such a project has actually been fram­ed in the United States; and that it has a high pro­bability of success! The particulars are thus.

On August 7th, 1797, Mr. Adams dined at Fa­nueil Hall, in Boston, with two hundred and fifty of his fellow citizens. An address was presented to him, which has this passage. ‘When domestic fac­tion appears to have conspired with foreign in­trigue, to destroy the peace of our country; when our constituted authorities are reviled and insul­ted ^*; [Page 259] and the most daring attempts to separate the people from their government are openly made and avowed; at such a crisis we are excited, no less by our inclination than our duty, to re­probate,’ &c.

To this yell of malice and stupidity, the presi­dent made a most gracious reply. The address had fourteen lines upon faction. Mr. Adams rung the changes through forty-eight. ‘I cannot," says he, but be of the opinion, that the profligate spirit of falsehood and malignity, which has appeared in some, and the unguarded disposition in others to encourage it, are serious evils, and bear a threat­ening aspect upon the union of the states, their constitution of government, and the moral cha­racter of the nation.’

Thus hath our president proclaimed his resent­ment because a minority of congress were unwil­ling to embark in his French war. He seems to justify an observation made by Mr. Paine. ‘I have always," says he, "been opposed to the mode of refining government up to an individual, or what is called a single executive. Such a man will al­ways be the chief of a party. A plurality is far better. It combines the mass of a nation better together; and, besides this, it is necessary to the manly mind of a republic, that it loses the debas­ing idea of obeying an individual ^†.’

The house of representatives have always pos­sessed a number of men, equal to Mr. Adams. Nothing but the spirit of servility would excite such a noise about his speech. The debate on mak­ing an answer to it produced a dozen speeches equal [Page 260] to his. But then Mr. Adams has the right of appointment to many snug places, with an annual sinecure to himself of twenty-five thou­sand dollars. These be thy gods O Israel! But for his high salary, and his unbounded patronage, an answer to a president's speech would be very con­cise, and the debates upon it very cool.

If the change to a quintuple directory can be accomplished, without intermediate mischief, it may be as well for America if Mr. Adams shall be her last president. This remark is not levelled at the gen­tleman, but the office. Matters have come to such a height that Mr. Jefferson, if chosen at the next election, will, perhaps, be forced to take refuge in his party. They can hardly commit as much harm as their predecessors have done. The certificates are funded. The bank government is established. Yet, after all, democratical ascendency will still be, most likely, but the domination of a party. A native citizen of the county of Philadelphia, of the first class, both in point of information and of fortune, was asked, during the late presidential canvass, whe­ther he preferred Adams or Jefferson. ‘I wish for the latter, he replied, as, by far, most likely to keep us out of a French war. But I would rather see a stick of wood in the chair than either of the candidates. The very bustle that you make about this election proves that your constitution is a monarchy. A pure republic will rest nothing upon the choice of a single man.’

The answer to the speech should be circumscri­bed to a verbal message: and congress ought to give up the custom of visiting a president at his levees, and on his birth day. A gradual extinc­tion should be promoted of that fulsome stile with which, for these nine years, our presidents have been addressed.

[Page 261]In his answer to the Boston address, Mr. Adams speaks of ‘a threatening aspect upon the union of the states.’ The strongest aspect of that kind appears in Connecticut. On December 23d, 1796, there was distributed to the assembly of Pennsyl­vania, a pamphlet, entitled, Papers Respecting in­trusions by Connecticut Claimants. It begins with a circular letter of April 16th, 1796, from the go­vernor of this state to those of New-Jersey, New-York, Rhode-Island, Connecticut, and Massachu­setts. This inclosed the copy of a proclamation, issued by him, at the instance of the assembly, for preventing intrusions. A request was subjoined that it might be published in their respective states; and, that if any attempts were made to emigrate into Pennsylvania, they might be opposed.

Observe the various reception that this letter met with from these five governors. As New-York has a similar quarrel with Connecticut, Mr. Jay not only published the Pennsylvanian manifesto, but superadded another of his own. New-Jersey and Massachusetts have no such interest in the cause, and in these two states it was sent to the newspapers, without such an appendage. Rhode-Island, influen­ced by its Connecticut neighbours, appears to have done nothing at all. The governor of Connecticut declined personal agency in printing the proclama­tion, but, with an obliging answer, laid it before the two branches of the legislature.

From the other papers we learn, that, early in May, 1796, a land surveyor, from Connecticut, and four assistants, were on the Pennsylvania line, near the one hundred and twenty-nine mile stone. They designed to run off six townships within this state. A letter from Lycoming county, of June 18th, 1796, informed, that there were five setts of surveyors on the same business. On June 22d, a committee of [Page 262] that county was held to counteract the invaders. In a letter of July 6th, to the governor, the committee write thus. ‘We have further been informed, that, some few days since, a party, of fifteen or twenty men, were seen, well armed with rifles, and equipped, proceeding on into the country up the Cawanesque, in the neighbourhood of the state line; and that a party of fifteen surveyors, with their hands, were to set out from about the mouth of Tioga river, to survey in the same coun­try. General report says, that this proceeding has taken place, since a council was resolved upon and holden at Tioga point, in consequence of your excellency's proclamation being sent into that coun­try. We are assured, that they are in numerous parties, throughout the northern parts of this country, and we apprehend that they expect resistance to their intrusions. We are decidedly of opinion, that a civil magistrate, unprotected by an armed force, would be in imminent danger in attempting to arrest any of the intruders.’ Measures were taken to repel them, and their pro­ject was, for that time, suspended.

Here we see, that a party of armed men entered Pennsylvania, with a purpose to resist the governor's proclamation. Granting their claim to be well founded, it ought not to be supported by rifles. A similar conduct in other disputes about land, would fill the continent with carnage. A purchaser, jost­led out of his farm, has only to charge his gun, and level at his enemy. This precedent is the most alarming, the most antifederal, that can well be imagined. It came from a body of people firmly devoted to Mr. Adams. If any other state had inva­ded Connecticut with a detachment of men in arms the whole union would have rung with reproaches, from Trumball, Webster, and the rest of her lite­rati. [Page 263] The design was dropt from dread of a superior force, but will, it is likely, be renewed with the first opportunity. Our president may point out, if he can, what other state entertains any plans which are half so dangerous to the general peace. If go­vernor Misslin had refused to publish a proclamation against the western insurgents, he would have be­haved precisely as the governor of Connecticut did, in the affair of the Susquehanna company.