"Next to a conscientious discharge of my public duties, to carry

along with me the approbation of my constituents would be the highest

gratification of which my mind is susceptible. But the latter being

secondary, I cannot make the former yield to it, unless some criterion

more infallible than partial (if they are not party) meetings can be

discovered as the touchstone of public sentiment. If any person on

earth could, or the great Power above would, erect the standard of

infallibility in political opinions, no being that inhabits this

terrestrial globe would resort to it with more eagerness than myself, so

long as I remain a servant of the public. But as I have hitherto found

no better guide than upright intentions and close investigations, I

shall adhere to them while I keep watch, leaving it to those who will

come after me to explore new ways, if they like, or think them better."

If the ratification of the treaty increased the number of its open

advocates, it seemed also to give increased acrimony to the opposition.

Such hold had Washington taken of the affections of the people that even

his enemies had deemed it generally necessary to preserve, with regard

to him, external marks of decency and respect. Previous to the mission

of Mr. Jay, charges against Washington, though frequently insinuated,

had seldom been directly made; and the cover under which the attacks

upon his character were conducted evidenced the caution with which

it was deemed necessary to proceed. That mission visibly affected the

decorum which had been usually observed toward him, and the ratification

of the treaty brought sensations into open view which had long been ill

concealed. His military and political character was attacked with equal

violence, and it was averred that he was totally destitute of merit,

either as a soldier or a statesman. The calumnies with which he was

assailed were not confined to his public conduct; even his qualities

as a man were the subjects of detraction. That he had violated the

constitution in negotiating a treaty without the previous advice of

the Senate, and in embracing within that treaty subjects belonging

exclusively to the Legislature, was openly maintained, for which an

impeachment was publicly suggested; and that he had drawn from the

treasury for his private use more than the salary annexed to his office

was asserted without a blush. This last allegation was said to be

supported from extracts from the treasury accounts which had been laid

before the Legislature, and was maintained with the most persevering

effrontery.

Though Wolcott, the Secretary of the Treasury, denied that the

appropriations made by the Legislature had ever been exceeded, the

atrocious charge was still confidently repeated, and the few who could

triumph in any spot which might tarnish the luster of Washington's fame

felicitated themselves on the prospect of obtaining a victory over the

reputation of a patriot, to whose single influence they ascribed the

failure of their political plans. With the real public, the confidence

felt in the integrity of Washington remained unshaken, but so imposing

was the appearance of the documents adduced as to excite an apprehension

that the transaction might be placed in a light to show that some

indiscretion, in which he had not participated, had been inadvertently

committed.

This state of anxious suspense was of short duration. Hamilton, late

Secretary of the Treasury, during whose administration of the finances

this peculation was said to have taken place, came forward with a full

explanation of the fact. It appeared that Washington himself had never

touched any part of the compensation annexed to his office, but that the

whole was received and disbursed by the gentleman who superintended the

expenses of his household. That it was the practice of the treasury,

when a sum had been appropriated for the current year, to pay it to that

gentleman occasionally, as the situation of the family might require.

The expenses at some periods of the year exceeded and at others fell

short of the allowance for the quarter, so that at some times money was

paid in advance on account of the ensuing quarter, and at others, that

which was due at the end of the quarter was not completely drawn out.

The secretary entered into an examination of the constitution and

laws to show that this practice was justifiable, and illustrated his

arguments by many examples in which an advance on account of money

appropriated to a particular object, before the service was completed,

would be absolutely necessary. However this might be, it was a

transaction in which Washington, personally, was unconcerned.

When possessed of the entire facts, the public viewed with just

indignation this attempt to defame a character which was the nation's

pride. Americans felt themselves involved in this atrocious calumny on

their most illustrious citizen, and its propagators were frowned into

silence.

Meantime several changes were taking place in Washington's Cabinet.

Edmund Randolph, the Secretary of State, resigned his office on the 19th

of August, 1795, immediately after the ratification of Jay's treaty,

which he had opposed. The circumstances which led to his resignation

were by no means creditable to him, but as they brought out in bold

relief one of Washington's noblest traits--his perfect openness and

candor--we are induced to notice them in detail.

A letter addressed to his government in October, 1794, by Fauchet, the

minister of the French republic, was intercepted by the captain of a

British frigate and forwarded to Mr. Hammond, by whom it was delivered,

about the last of July, to Mr. Wolcott, the Secretary of the Treasury,

who, on the arrival of Washington in Philadelphia, placed it in his

hands. This letter alluded to communications from Randolph, which,

in the opinion of Washington, were excessively improper. The

_éclaircissements_ which the occasion required were followed by

the resignation of the secretary. For the purpose, he alleged, of

vindicating his conduct, he demanded a sight of a confidential letter

which had been addressed to him by Washington, and which was left in the

office. His avowed design was to give this, as well as some others of

the same description, to the public, in order to support the allegation

that, in consequence of his attachment to France and to liberty, he had

fallen a victim to the intrigues of a British and an aristocratic party.

The answer given to this demand was a license which few politicians, in

turbulent times, could allow to a man who had possessed the unlimited

confidence of the person giving it. "I have directed," said Washington,

"that you should have the inspection of my letter of the 22nd of July,

agreeable to your request; and you are at full liberty to publish,

without reserve, any and every private and confidential letter I ever

wrote you; nay, more--every word I ever uttered to or in your presence

from whence you can derive any advantage in your vindication."

Notwithstanding that Randolph was under the strongest personal

obligations to Washington, he did not hesitate, in his lame attempt to

vindicate himself, to resort to violent abuse of his late friend and

patron. Washington is said to have lost his temper on reading Randolph's

calumnies, [2] as well he might, for it is difficult to conceive of

blacker ingratitude than he suffered on this occasion. Late in life

Randolph seems to have been sensible of the enormity of his conduct. On

the 2nd of July, 1810, he used the following language in a letter to the

Hon. Bushrod Washington: "I do not retain the smallest degree of that

feeling which roused me fifteen years ago against some individuals. For

the world contains no treasure, deception, or charm which can seduce

me from the consolation of being in a state of good will toward all

mankind, and I should not be mortified to ask pardon of any man with

whom I have been at variance for any injury which I may have done him.

If I could now present myself before your venerated uncle it would be

my pride to confess my contrition that I suffered my irritation, let the

cause be what it might, to use some of those expressions respecting him

which, at this moment of my indifference to the ideas of the world, I

wish to recall, as being inconsistent with my subsequent conviction.

My life will, I hope, be sufficiently extended for the recording of my

sincere opinion of his virtues and merit, in a style which is not the

result of a mind merely debilitated by misfortune, but of that Christian

philosophy on which alone I depend for inward tranquility."

Washington offered the vacant post to Patrick Henry, who was prevented

by private considerations from undertaking its duties. Rufus King, Gen.

Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, and two or three others were asked to enter

the Cabinet as Secretary of State, but they declined. Finally Colonel

Pickering, who had temporary charge of the post, was formally appointed

in December of the present year. James McHenry succeeded Colonel

Pickering as Secretary of War. Mr. Bradford's death, in August, caused

a vacancy in the attorney-generalship, which was also filled in December

by the appointment of Charles Lee, of Virginia. This office had been

previously offered to General Pinckney, Colonel Carrington, of Virginia,

and Governor Howard, of Maryland.

In August of this year (1795), General Wayne concluded a treaty of

peace, at Greenville, with the chiefs of the Wyandots, Delawares,

Chippeways, and other Indian tribes. By this treaty the Indians ceded

the post of Detroit and a considerable tract of adjacent land to the

United States. A tract of land was ceded on the main, to the north of

the island on which the post of Michilimackinac stood, measuring six

miles on lakes Huron and Michigan, and extending three miles back from

the water of the lake or strait. De Bois Blanc, or White Wood Island,

was also ceded--the voluntary gift of the Chippeways.

The foreign affairs of the United States had now begun to assume a

more favorable aspect. A treaty was concluded with Spain on the 27th of

October (1795). It was confined principally to the two great subjects in

dispute, and was styled a treaty of friendship, limits, and navigation.

By this the line between the United States and east and west Florida was

settled, and the western boundary of the United States, which separated

them from the Colony of Louisiana, was fixed in the middle of the

channel of the Mississippi river to the thirty-first degree of north

latitude; and it was also agreed that the navigation of that river,

from its source to the ocean, should be free only to the subjects and

citizens of the two countries.

It was further stipulated that both parties should use all the means in

their power to maintain peace and harmony among the Indian nations on

their borders, and both parties bound themselves to restrain, even by

force, the Indians within their limits from acts of hostilities against

the other, and it was also agreed that neither party would thereafter

make any treaties with those who did not live within their respective

limits. Provision was also made that free ships should make free goods,

and that no citizen or subject of either party should take a commission

or letters of marque for arming any vessel, to act as a privateer, from

their respective enemies, under the penalty of being considered and

punished as a pirate.

Thus, after a tedious and unpleasant negotiation of about fifteen years,

the boundaries between the countries belonging to the United States and

Spain, in America, were settled, and the right of navigating every part

of the Mississippi, a right so essential to the interests of our vast

western territory, was secured to the United States.

In November (1795) Washington had the gratification to bring to a

close the long negotiations with the Dey of Algiers, by which peace was

established with those piratical marauders and the release of American

captives obtained. This was accomplished through the agency of Colonel

Humphreys, Joel Barlow, and Mr. Donaldson, and about 120 prisoners were

released from cruel bondage, some of whom had been in this ignominious

condition more than ten years.

During the recess of Congress Washington paid a visit to Mount Vernon,

which lasted from the middle of September (1795) till near the end of

October. During this time his attention was divided between the concerns

of his estate and the public affairs of that exciting period.

1. Footnote: Marshall

2. Footnote: See Dr. Griswold's "Republican Court." Also, Sparks

"Writings of Washington," vol. XI, pp. 54, 479.

CHAPTER X.

WASHINGTON MAINTAINS THE TREATY-MAKING POWER OF THE EXECUTIVE.

1795-1796.

The first session of the Fourth Congress commenced on the 7th of

December, 1795. Although the ratification of the treaties with Spain and

Algiers had not been officially announced at the meeting of Congress

the state of the negotiations with both powers was sufficiently

well understood to enable Washington with confidence to assure the

Legislature, in his speech at the opening of the session, that those

negotiations were in a train which promised a happy issue.

After expressing his gratification at the prosperous state of American

affairs the various favorable events which have been already enumerated

were detailed in a succinct statement, at the close of which he

mentioned the British treaty, which, though publicly known, had not

before been communicated officially to the House of Representatives.

"This interesting summary of our affairs," continued the speech, "with

regard to the powers between whom and the United States controversies

have subsisted, and with regard also to our Indian neighbors with whom

we have been in a state of enmity or misunderstanding, opens a wide

field for consoling and gratifying reflections. If by prudence and

moderation on every side, the extinguishment of all the causes of

external discord which have heretofore menaced our tranquility, on

terms compatible with our national faith and honor, shall be the happy

results, how firm and how precious a foundation will have been laid for

accelerating, maturing, and establishing the prosperity of our country!"

After presenting an animated picture of the situation of the United

States, and recommending several objects to the attention of the

Legislature, Washington concluded with observing: "Temperate discussion

of the important subjects that may arise in the course of the session,

and mutual forbearance where there is a difference in opinion, are

too obvious and necessary for the peace, happiness, and welfare of our

country to need any recommendation of mine."

In the Senate an address was reported which echoed back the sentiments

of the speech.

In this House of Representatives, as in the last, the party in

opposition to the administration had obtained a majority. This party

was unanimously hostile to the treaty with Great Britain, and it was

expected that their answer to the speech of the President would indicate

their sentiments on a subject which continued to agitate the whole

American people. The answer reported by the committee contained a

declaration that the confidence of his fellow-citizens in the chief

magistrate remained undiminished.

On a motion to strike out the words importing this sentiment is was

averred that the clause asserted an untruth; that it was not true that

the confidence of the people in the President was undiminished; that

by a recent transaction it had been considerably impaired, and some

gentlemen declared that their own confidence in him was lessened.

By the friends of the administration this motion was opposed with great

zeal, and the opinion that the confidence of the people in their chief

magistrate remained unshaken, was maintained with ardor. But they were

outnumbered.

To avoid a direct vote on the proposition it was moved that the address

should be recommitted. This motion succeeded and, two members being

added to the committee, an answer was reported, in which the clause

objected to was so modified as to be free from exception.

That part of the speech which mentioned the treaty with Great Britain

was alluded to in terms which, though not directly expressive of

disapprobation, were sufficiently indicative of the prevailing

sentiment.

Early in the month of January (1796) Washington transmitted to both

houses of Congress a message, accompanying certain communications from

the French government which were well calculated to cherish those ardent

feelings that prevailed in the Legislature.

It was the fortune of Mr. Monroe to reach Paris soon after the death

of Robespierre and the fall of the Jacobins. On his reception as the

minister of the United States, which was public, and in the convention,

he gave free scope to the genuine feelings of his heart, and, at

the same time, delivered to the president of that body, with his

credentials, two letters addressed by the Secretary of State to the

committee of public safety. These letters were answers to one written

by the committee of safety to the Congress of the United States.

The executive department being the organ through which all foreign

intercourse was to be conducted, each branch of the Legislature had

passed a resolution directing this letter to be transmitted to the

President with a request that he would cause it to be answered in terms

expressive of their friendly dispositions toward the French republic.

So fervent were the sentiments expressed on this occasion that the

convention decreed that the flag of the American and French republics

should be united together and suspended in its own hall in testimony

of eternal union and friendship between the two people. To evince the

impression made on his mind by this act, and the grateful sense of his

constituents, Mr. Monroe presented to the convention the flag of

the United States, which he prayed them to accept as a proof of the

sensibility with which his country received every act of friendship from

its ally, and of the pleasure with which it cherished every incident

which tended to cement and consolidate the union between the two

nations.

The committee of safety again addressed Congress in terms adapted to

that department of government which superintends its foreign intercourse

and expressive, among other sentiments, of the sensibility with which

the French nation had perceived those sympathetic emotions with which

the American people had viewed the vicissitudes of her fortune. Mr.

Adet, who was to succeed Mr. Fauchet at Philadelphia, and who was the

bearer of this letter, also brought with him the colors of France,

which he was directed to present to the United States. He arrived in the

summer, but, probably in the idea that these communications were to be

made by him directly to Congress, did not announce them to the executive

until late in December (1795).

The first day of the new year (1796) was named for their reception, when

the colors were delivered to Washington, and the letter to Congress also

was placed in his hands.

In executing this duty Mr. Adet addressed a speech to the President,

which, in the glowing language of his country, represented France as

struggling not only for her own liberty, but for that of the human race.

"Assimilated to, or rather identified with, free people by the form of

her government, she saw in them," he said, "only friends and brothers.

Long accustomed to regard the American people as her most faithful

allies she sought to draw closer the ties already formed in the fields

of America, under the auspices of victory, over the ruins of tyranny."

To answer this speech was a task of some delicacy. It was necessary to

express feelings adapted to the occasion without implying sentiments

with respect to the belligerent powers which might be improper to be

used by the chief magistrate of a neutral country. With a view to both

these objects Washington made the following reply:

"Born, sir, in a land of liberty; having early learned its value; having

engaged in a perilous conflict to defend it; having, in a word, devoted

the best years of my life to secure its permanent establishment in my

own country, my anxious recollections, my sympathetic feelings, and my

best wishes are irresistibly attracted, when-so-ever, in any country, I

see an oppressed nation unfurl the banners of freedom. But, above all,

the events of the French revolution have produced the deepest solicitude

as well as the highest admiration. To call your nation brave were to

pronounce but common praise. Wonderful people! ages to come will read

with astonishment the history of your brilliant exploits, I rejoice that

the period of your toils and of your immense sacrifices is approaching.

I rejoice that the interesting revolutionary movements of so many

years have issued in the formation of a constitution designed to give

permanency to the great object for which you have contended. I rejoice

that liberty, which you have so long embraced with enthusiasm--liberty,

of which you have been the invincible defenders, now finds an asylum in

the bosom of a regularly organized government--a government which, being

formed to secure the happiness of the French people, corresponds with

the ardent wishes of my heart, while it gratifies the pride of every

citizen of the United States by its resemblance to their own. On these

glorious events accept, sir, my sincere congratulations."

"In delivering to you these sentiments I express not my own feelings

only, but those of my fellow-citizens in relation to the commencement,

the progress, and the issue of the French revolution, and they will

certainly join with me in purest wishes to the Supreme Being that the

citizens of our sister republic, our magnanimous allies, may soon enjoy

in peace that liberty which they have purchased at so great a price, and

all the happiness that liberty can bestow."

"I receive, sir, with lively sensibility the symbol of the triumphs and

of the enfranchisement of your nation, the colors of France, which

you have now presented to the United States. The transaction will be

announced to Congress and the colors will be deposited with the archives

of the United States, which are at once the evidence and the memorials

of their freedom and independence. May these be perpetual! and may the

friendship of the two republics be commensurate with their existence!"

The address of Mr. Adet, the answer of the President, and the colors of

France, were transmitted to Congress with the letter from the committee

of safety.

In the House of Representatives a resolution was moved, requesting the

President to make known to the representatives of the French republic

the sincere and lively sensations which were excited by this honorable

testimony of the existing sympathy and affections of the two republics;

that the House rejoiced in an opportunity of congratulating the French

republic on the brilliant and glorious achievements accomplished during

the present afflictive war, and hoped that those achievements would

be attended with a perfect attainment of their object--the permanent

establishment of the liberty and happiness of that great and magnanimous

people.

In February (1796) the treaty with Great Britain was returned, in the

form advised by the Senate, ratified by his Britannic majesty. The

constitution declaring a treaty, when made, the supreme law of the land,

the President announced it officially to the people in a proclamation,

requiring from all persons its observance and execution, a copy of which

was transmitted to each House on the 1st of March.

The opposition having openly denied the right of the President to

negotiate a treaty of commerce was not a little dissatisfied at his

venturing to issue this proclamation before the sense of the House of

Representatives had been declared on the obligation of the instrument.

This dissatisfaction was not concealed. On the 2d of March Mr.

Livingston laid upon the table a resolution requesting the President "to

lay before the House a copy of the instructions to the minister of the

United States, who negotiated the treaty with the King of Great Britain,

communicated by his message of the 1st of March, together with the

correspondence and other documents relative to the said treaty."

On the 7th of March he amended this resolution by adding the words,

"excepting such of the said papers as any existing negotiation may

render improper to be disclosed."

The friends of the administration maintained that a treaty was a

contract between two nations, which, under the constitution, the

President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, had a right

to make, and that it was made when, by and with such advice and consent,

it had received his final act. Its obligations then became complete on

the United States, and to refuse to comply with its stipulations was to

break the treaty and to violate the faith of the nation.

The opposition contended that the power to make treaties, if applicable

to every object, conflicted with powers which were vested exclusively

in Congress; that either the treaty-making power must be limited in its

operation, so as not to touch objects committed by the constitution to

Congress, or the assent and cooperation of the House of Representatives

must be required to give validity to any compact, so far as it might

comprehend those objects. A treaty, therefore, which required an

appropriation of money, or any act of Congress to carry it into effect,

had not acquired its obligatory force until the House of Representatives

had exercised its powers in the case. They were at full liberty to make,

or to withhold, such appropriation or other law, without incurring the

imputation of violating any existing obligation or of breaking the faith

of the nation.

The debate on this question was animated, vehement, and argumentative,

all the party passions were enlisted in it, and it was protracted

until the 24th of March (1796), when the resolution was carried in

the affirmative by sixty-two to thirty-seven votes. The next day, the

committee appointed to present it to the chief magistrate reported

his answer which was, "that he would take the resolution into

consideration."

The situation in which this vote placed the President was peculiarly

delicate. In an elective government, the difficulty of resisting

the popular branch of the Legislature is at all times great, but is

particularly so when the passions of the public have been strongly and

generally excited. The popularity of a demand for information, the large

majority by which that demand was supported, the additional force which

a refusal to comply with it would give to suspicions already

insinuated, that circumstances had occurred in the negotiation which the

administration dared not expose, and that the President was separating

himself from the representatives of the people, furnished motives of

no ordinary force for complying with the request of the House of

Representatives.

But Washington viewed every question which came before him with a single

eye to the performance of his duty to the country. Hitherto, on

more than one occasion, he had proved himself the defender of the

constitution, but he had never been called upon to defend it against so

formidable an attack as that which was now made.

That the future diplomatic transactions of the government might be

seriously and permanently affected by establishing the principle that

the House of Representatives could demand, as a right, the instructions

given to a foreign minister, and all the papers connected with a

negotiation, was too apparent to be unobserved. Nor was it less obvious

that a compliance with the request now made would go far in establishing

this principle. The form of the request, and the motives which induced

it, equally led to this conclusion. It left nothing to the discretion of

the President with regard to the public interests, and the information

was asked for the avowed purpose of determining whether the House of

Representatives would give effect to a public treaty.

It was also a subject for serious reflection that, in a debate

unusually elaborate, the House of Representatives had claimed a right of

interference in the formation of treaties, which, in the judgment of

the President, the constitution had denied them. Duties the most sacred

requiring that he should resist this encroachment on the department

which was particularly confided to him, he could not hesitate respecting

the course it became him to take, and on the 30th of March he returned

to the House the following answer to their resolution:

"With the utmost attention I have considered your resolution of the

24th instant, requesting me to lay before your House a copy of the

instructions to the minister of the United States, who negotiated the

treaty with the King of Great Britain, together with the correspondence

and other documents relative to that treaty, excepting such of the said

papers as any existing negotiation may render improper to be disclosed.

"In deliberating upon this subject it was impossible for me to lose

sight of the principle which some have avowed in its discussion, or to

avoid extending my views to the consequences which must flow from the

admission of that principle.

"I trust that no part of my conduct has ever indicated a disposition to

withhold any information which the constitution has enjoined it upon the

President as a duty to give or which could be required of him by either

House of Congress as a right, and with truth I affirm, that it has been,

as it will continue to be, while I have the honor to preside in the

government, my constant endeavor to harmonize with the other branches

thereof, so far as the trust delegated to me by the people of the United

States, and my sense of the obligation it imposes to preserve, protect

and defend the constitution will permit.

"The nature of foreign negotiations requires caution, and their success

must often depend on secrecy, and even when brought to a conclusion, a

full disclosure of all the measures, demands, or eventual concessions

which may have been proposed or contemplated, would be extremely

impolitic, for this might have a pernicious influence on future

negotiations or produce immediate inconveniences, perhaps danger and

mischief to other persons. The necessity of such caution and secrecy

was one cogent reason for vesting the power of making treaties in the

President with the advice and consent of the Senate, the principle on

which that body was formed confining it to a small number of members.

"To admit, then, a right in the House of Representatives to demand and

to have as a matter of course, all the papers respecting a negotiation

with a foreign power, would be to establish a dangerous precedent.

"It does not occur that the inspection of the papers asked for can

be relative to any purpose under the cognizance of the House of

Representatives, except that of an impeachment, which the resolution

has not expressed. I repeat, that I have no disposition to withhold any

information which the duty of my station will permit or the public good

shall require to be disclosed, and, in fact, all the papers affecting

the negotiation with Great Britain were laid before the Senate, when the

treaty itself was communicated for their consideration and advice.

"The course which the debate has taken on the resolution of the House,

leads to some observations on the mode of making treaties under the

constitution of the United States.

"Having been a member of the general convention and knowing the

principles on which the constitution was formed, I have ever entertained

but one opinion upon this subject, and from the first establishment

of the government to this moment my conduct has exemplified that

opinion--that the power of making treaties is exclusively vested in the

President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided

two-thirds of the senators present concur, and that every treaty so made

and promulgated, thenceforward becomes the law of the land. It is thus

that the treaty-making power has been understood by foreign nations,

and in all the treaties made with them, we have declared, and they

have believed, that when ratified by the President with the advice and

consent of the Senate, they became obligatory. In this construction

of the constitution every House of Representatives has heretofore

acquiesced, and, until the present time, not a doubt or suspicion has

appeared, to my knowledge, that this construction was not a true

one. Nay, they have more than acquiesced, for until now, without

controverting the obligation of such treaties, they have made all the

requisite provisions for carrying them into effect.

"There is also reason to believe that this construction agrees with

the opinions entertained by the State conventions when they were

deliberating on the constitution, especially by those who objected to it

because there was not required, in commercial treaties, the consent of

two-thirds of the whole number of the members of the Senate, instead of

two-thirds of the senators present, and because, in treaties respecting

territorial and certain other rights and claims, the concurrence

of three-fourths of the whole number of the members of both Houses

respectively was not made necessary.

"It is a fact declared by the general convention and universally

understood, that the constitution of the United States was the result of

a spirit of amity and mutual concession. And it is well known that

under this influence the smaller States were admitted to an equal

representation in the Senate with the larger States, and that this

branch of the government was invested with great powers, for on the

equal participation of those powers the sovereignty and political safety

of the smaller States were deemed essentially to depend.

"If other proofs than these, and the plain letter of the constitution

itself, be necessary to ascertain the points under consideration, they

may be found in the journals of the general convention, which I have

deposited in the office of the Department of State. In these journals

it will appear that a proposition was made 'that no treaty should be

binding on the United States which was not ratified by a law,' and that

the proposition was explicitly rejected.

"As, therefore, it is perfectly clear to my understanding that the

assent of the House of Representatives is not necessary to the validity

of a treaty, as the treaty with Great Britain exhibits in itself all the

objects requiring legislative provision--and on these the papers called

for can throw no light, and as it is essential to the due administration

of the government that the boundaries fixed by the constitution between

the different departments should be preserved, a just regard to the

constitution and to the duty of my office, under all the circumstances

of this case, forbids a compliance with your request."

The terms in which this decided, and, it would seem, unexpected negative

to the call for papers was conveyed, appeared to break the last cord of

that attachment which had theretofore bound some of the active

leaders of the opposition to Washington. Amidst all the agitations and

irritations of party a sincere respect and real affection for him, the

remnant of former friendship, had still lingered in the bosoms of some

who had engaged with ardor in the political contests of the day. But,

if the last spark of this affection was not now extinguished, it was at

least concealed under the more active passions of the moment.

Washington's message was referred to a committee of the whole house.

It was severely criticized and resolutions were adopted, by a vote of

fifty-seven to thirty-five, declaring the sense of the House on this

matter, and claiming the right to deliberate on the expediency of

carrying into effect stipulations made by treaty on subjects committed

by the constitution to Congress.

In March the subject came up incidentally. The treaties with the King

of Spain and with the Dey of Algiers were ratified by the President and

laid before Congress. On the 13th of April (1796), Mr. Sedgwick moved,

"that provision ought to be made by law for carrying into effect with

good faith the treaties lately concluded with the Dey and Regency of

Algiers, the King of Great Britain, the King of Spain, and certain

Indian tribes northwest of the Ohio." After much altercation on the

subject of thus joining all these treaties together, a division was

made, and the question taken on each. The resolution was amended by a

majority of eighteen so as to read, "that it is expedient to pass the

laws necessary for carrying into effect," &c.

The subject of the British treaty was again taken up on the 15th of

April. Its friends urged an immediate decision of the question, alleging

that every member had made up his mind already, and that dispatch was

necessary, in case the treaty was to be carried into effect. The posts

were to be delivered up on the 1st of June, and this required previous

arrangements on the part of the American government. They appear to have

entertained the opinion that the majority would not dare to encounter

the immense responsibility of breaking the treaty without previously

ascertaining that the great body of the people were willing to meet

the consequences of the measure. But its opponents, though confident of

their power to reject the resolution, called for its discussion.

The minority soon desisted from urging an immediate decision of the

question, and the spacious field which was opened by the propositions

before the House was entered into with equal avidity and zeal by both

parties. Gallatin, Madison, Giles, Nicholas, Preston, and other eminent

members of the republican party, in animated terms opposed the execution

of the treaty and entered fully into the discussion of its merits and

demerits. Fisher Ames, Dwight, Foster, Harper, Lyman, Dayton, and other

men of note among the Federalists, urged every possible argument in its

favor.

The debate on this occasion is one of the most celebrated which has ever

taken place in Congress. Fisher Ames' speech is acknowledged to have

been the most remarkable and effective which he ever made. So completely

was the House carried away by his eloquence that an adjournment was

carried for the avowed reason that it was not possible to decide calmly

on the question until the members should have taken time for reflection.

Reflection convinced not only the members of Congress, but the people,

that the opposition to the execution of the treaty was ill advised and

unreasonable. The length of time consumed in the debates was favorable

to a just view of the subject, and finally a majority of the members who

had been opposed to the treaty yielded to the exigency of the case and

united in passing the laws which were necessary for its fulfillment.

On the 29th of April (1796) the question was taken in committee of the

whole and was determined by the casting vote of the chairman in its

favor. The resolution was finally carried in the House by a vote of

fifty-one to forty-eight.

Besides the acts which arose out of the treaties, Congress passed

others, regulating the dealings of the inhabitants of the western

frontier with the Indians; authorizing the survey of certain public

lands, with a view to the sale of them; ordaining measures for the

protection and relief of American seamen, and equalizing the pay of

members of both Houses of Congress. There were some $6,000,000, which

was not quite the full amount of the income, appropriated to the public

service and the interest of the debt. But there were so many other

demands upon the treasury that, after vainly endeavoring to obtain

another loan, part of the bank stock was sold, a procedure which was

reprobated by Hamilton as a violation of system. The opposition party

would not agree to raise further revenue by indirect internal taxation,

and only that augmenting the duty on pleasure carriages was passed into

a law. Equally strenuous was their opposition to a naval force. Even

under the pressure of the Algerine piracies, the bill providing a decent

naval force in the Mediterranean could not be carried through the House

without inserting a section which should suspend all proceedings under

the act in case the contest with Algiers was brought to an end. That

event having occurred, not a single frigate could be completed without

further authority from the Legislature. Although no peace had been

concluded with Tunis or Tripoli it was with the utmost difficulty that

a bill for the completion of three, instead of six, frigates could be

carried. On the 1st of June (1796) this long and important session of

Congress was brought to its close.

Before Congress rose Washington had written (May 22, 1796) to Thomas

Pinckney, the American minister in England, who had desired his recall.

In this letter he refers to the recent debate in Congress on passing

the laws necessary to give effect to the treaty: "A long and animated

discussion," he writes, "in the House of Representatives respecting the

treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation with Great Britain took place

and continued in one shape or another till the last of April, suspending

in a manner all other business, and agitating the public mind in a

higher degree than it has been at any period since the Revolution. And

nothing, I believe, but the torrent of petitions and remonstrances,

which were pouring in from all the eastern and middle States and were

beginning to come pretty strongly from that of Virginia, requiring the

necessary provisions for carrying the treaty into effect, would

have produced a division (fifty-one to forty-eight) in favor of the

appropriation.

"But as the debates, which I presume will be sent to you from the

Department of State, will give you a view of this business more in

detail than I am able to do, I shall refer you to them. The enclosed

speech, however, made by Mr. Ames at the close of the discussion, I send

to you, because, in the opinion of most who heard it delivered or have

read it since, his reasoning is unanswerable.

"The doubtful issue of the dispute and the real difficulty in finding a

character to supply your place at the court of London, has occasioned a

longer delay than may have been convenient or agreeable to you. But as

Mr. King of the Senate, who, it seems, had resolved to quit his seat

at that board, has accepted the appointment, and will embark as soon as

matters can be arranged, you will soon be relieved.

"In my letter of the 20th of February I expressed in pretty strong terms

my sensibility on account of the situation of the Marquis de Lafayette.

This is increased by the visible distress of his son, who is now with

me, and grieving for the unhappy fate of his parents. This circumstance,

giving a poignancy to my own feelings, has induced me to go a step

further than I did in the letter above mentioned, as you will perceive

by the enclosed address (a copy of which is also transmitted for your

information) to the Emperor of Germany, to be forwarded by you in such

a manner, and under such auspices, as in your judgment shall be deemed

best, or to be withheld, if from the evidence before you, derived from

former attempts, it shall appear clear that it would be of no avail to

send it. [1]

"Before I close this letter permit me to request the favor of you to

embrace some favorable occasion to thank Lord Grenville, in my behalf,

for his politeness in causing a special permit to be sent to Liverpool

for the shipment of two sacks of field peas and the like quantity of

winter vetches, which I had requested our consul at that place to send

me for seed, but which it seems could not be done without an order from

government, a circumstance which did not occur to me or I certainly

should not have given the trouble of issuing one for such a trifle."

Rufus King, senator from New York, above referred to, had been nominated

to the Senate as minister to London on the 19th of May, three days

before the date of Washington's letter to Mr. Pinckney. Hamilton,

writing to Washington respecting him, thus describes his character: "Mr.

King is a remarkably well-informed man, a very judicious one, a man

of address, a man of fortune and economy, whose situation affords just

ground of confidence; a man of unimpeached probity where he is known,

a firm friend to the government, a supporter of the measures of the

President; a man who cannot but feel that he has strong pretensions to

confidence and trust."

In June (1796) the President went to Mount Vernon where he continued

for more than two months. He kept up a constant correspondence with his

secretaries, and held himself ever in readiness to return to the seat of

government, if his presence should be needed.

During this visit to Mount Vernon the following letter was written to

Thomas Jefferson. It brought the correspondence, which, from time to

time, had taken place between them, to a final close.

"MOUNT VERNON, _July_ 6, 1796.

"DEAR SIR:--When I inform you that your letter of the 19th ultimo went

to Philadelphia and returned to this place before it was received by

me, it will be admitted, I am persuaded, as an apology for my not having

acknowledged the receipt of it sooner.

"If I had entertained any suspicions before that the queries which have

been published in Bache's paper proceeded from you the assurances you

have given of the contrary would have removed them, but the truth is,

I harbored none. I am at no loss to conjecture from what source they

flowed, through what channel they were conveyed, and for what purpose

they and similar publications appear. They were known to be in the hands

of Mr. Parker in the early part of the last session of Congress. They

were shown about by Mr. Giles during the session and they made their

public exhibition about the close of it.

"Perceiving, and probably hearing, that no abuse in the gazettes would

induce me to take notice of anonymous publications against me, those

who were disposed to do me such friendly offices have embraced, without

restraint, every opportunity to weaken the confidence of the people,

and, by having the whole game in their hands, they have scrupled not

to publish things that do not, as well as those which do exist, and to

mutilate the latter, so as to make them subserve the purposes which they

have in view.

"As you have mentioned the subject yourself, it would not be frank,

candid, or friendly to conceal that your conduct has been represented as

derogating from that opinion I had conceived you entertained of me, that

to your particular friends and connections you have described, and they

have denounced, me as a person under a dangerous influence, and that if

I would listen more to some other opinions all would be well. My answer

invariably has been that I had never discovered anything in the conduct

of Mr. Jefferson to raise suspicions in my mind of his insincerity;

that, if he would retrace my public conduct while he was in the

administration, abundant proofs would occur to him that truth and right

decisions were the sole objects of my pursuit; that there were as many

instances within his own knowledge of my having decided against as in

favor of the opinions of the person evidently alluded to, and, moreover,

that I was no believer in the infallibility of the politics or measures

of any man living. In short, that I was no party man myself, and the

first wish of my heart was, if parties did exist, to reconcile them.

"To this I may add, and very truly, that, until within the last year or

two I had no conception that parties would, or even could, go the length

I have been witness to, nor did I believe until lately that it was

within the bounds of probability, hardly within those of possibility,

that, while I was using my utmost exertions to establish a national

character of our own, independent, as far as our obligations and justice

would permit, of every nation of the earth, and wished, by steering a

steady course, to preserve this country from the horrors of a desolating

war, I should be accused of being the enemy of one nation and subject

to the influence of another, and, to prove it, that every act of my

administration would be tortured and the grossest and most insidious

misrepresentations of them be made, by giving one side only of a

subject, and that too in such exaggerated and indecent terms as could

scarcely be applied to a Nero, a notorious defaulter, or even to a

common pickpocket. But enough of this. I have already gone further in

the expression of my feelings than I intended."

The queries referred to in the above letter were those which had been

addressed to the Cabinet by Washington previous to the arrival of

Mr. Genet. As they were strictly confidential and could not have been

obtained for publication without treachery somewhere, Jefferson had

written to Washington to exculpate himself. It will be seen that

Washington, with his usual magnanimity, accepts the explanation of

Jefferson; but, as the party of which the latter was the acknowledged

leader were constantly carrying on the war of politics by abusing and

misrepresenting the former's motives and purposes, it is not surprising

that their correspondence should have terminated at this time.

Of the numerous misrepresentations and fabrications which, with

unwearied industry, were passed upon the public in order to withdraw the

confidence of the nation from its chief, no one marked more strongly the

depravity of that principle which justifies the means by the end, than

the republication of certain forged letters, purporting to have been

written by General Washington in the year 1776.

These letters had been originally published in the year 1777, and in

them were interspersed, with domestic occurrences which might give

them the semblance of verity, certain political sentiments favorable to

Britain in the then existing contest.

But the original fabricator of these papers missed his aim. It was

necessary to assign the manner in which the possession of them was

acquired, and, in executing this part of his task, circumstances

were stated so notoriously untrue, that, at the time, the meditated

imposition deceived no person.

In the indefatigable research for testimony which might countenance

the charge that the executive was unfriendly to France and under the

influence of Britain, these letters were drawn from the oblivion into

which they had sunk, it had been supposed forever, and were republished

as genuine. The silence with which Washington treated this as well as

every other calumny, was construed into an acknowledgment of its truth,

and the malignant commentators on this spurious text would not admit the

possibility of its being apocryphal.

Those who labored incessantly to establish the favorite position that

the executive was under other than French influence, reviewed every

act of the administration connected with its foreign relations, and

continued to censure every part of the system with extreme bitterness.

Not only the treaty with Great Britain, but all those measures which

had been enjoined by the duties of neutrality, were reprobated as justly

offensive to France, and no opinion which had been advanced by Mr.

Genet, in his construction of the treaties between the two nations,

was too extravagant to be approved. The most ardent patriot could not

maintain the choicest rights of his country with more zeal than was

manifested in supporting all the claims of the French republic upon the

United States. This conduct of the opposition increased the disposition

of the French government to urge charges against that of this country,

and the French minister regulated his proceedings accordingly.

In the anxiety which was felt by Washington to come to a full and

immediate explanation with the French Directory on the treaty with

Great Britain, Colonel Monroe, the American minister at Paris, had

been furnished, even before its ratification, and still more fully

afterwards, with ample materials for the justification of his

government. But, misconceiving the views of the administration, he

reserved these representations until complaints should be made, and

omitted to urge them while the Directory was deliberating on the course

it should pursue. Meanwhile, his letters kept up the alarm with regard

to the dispositions of France, and intelligence from the West Indies

served to confirm it. Washington received information that the special

agents of the Directory in the islands were about to issue orders for

the capture of all American vessels laden in whole or in part with

provisions and bound for any port within the dominions of the British

Crown.

Knowing well that the intentions of the executive had been at all times

friendly to the French republic, Washington had relied with confidence

on early and candid communications for the removal of any prejudices

or misconceptions. That the Directory would be disappointed at the

adjustment of those differences which threatened to embroil the United

States with Great Britain, could not be doubted, but, as neither this

adjustment, nor the arrangements connected with it had furnished any

real cause of complaint, he had cherished the hope that it would produce

no serious consequences if the proper means of prevention should be

applied in time. He was therefore dissatisfied with delays which he had

not expected, and seems to have believed that they originated in a want

of zeal to justify a measure which neither the minister himself, nor his

political friends, had ever approved. To insure an earnest and active

representation of the true sentiments of the executive, Washington was

inclined to depute an envoy extraordinary for the particular purpose,

who should be united with the actual minister, but an objection, drawn

from the constitution, was suggested to the measure. It was doubted

whether the President could, in the recess of the Senate, appoint a

minister when no vacancy existed. From respect to this construction of

the constitution, the resolution was taken to appoint a successor to

Colonel Monroe. The choice of a person calculated for this mission

was not without its difficulty. While a disposition friendly to the

administration was indispensable, it was desirable that the person

employed should have given no umbrage to the French government.

After some deliberation, Washington selected Gen. Charles Cotesworth

Pinckney, of South Carolina, for this critical and important service. In

the early part of the French revolution, he had felt and expressed all

the enthusiasm of his countrymen for the establishment of the republic,

but, after the commencement of its contests with the United States, he

stood aloof from both those political parties which divided America.

He was recommended to the President by an intimate knowledge of his

worth, by a confidence in the sincerity of his personal attachment to

the chief magistrate, by a conviction that his exertions to effect the

objects of his mission would be ardent and sincere, and that, whatever

might be his partialities for France, he possessed a high and delicate

sense of national as well as individual honor, was jealous for the

reputation of his country, and tenacious of its rights. [2]

In July, immediately after the appointment of General Pinckney, letters

were received from Colonel Monroe communicating the official complaints

which had been made against the American government in March, by M. de

la Croix, the minister of exterior relations, with his answer to those

complaints. He had effectually refuted the criminations of M. de

la Croix, and the executive was satisfied with his answer. But the

Directory had decided on their system, and it was not by reasoning that

their decision was to be changed.

Washington's correspondence with the members of the Cabinet during his

summer residence at Mount Vernon was incessant. In his letters to James

McHenry, Secretary of War, we find evidence of his attention to minute

details of business, and his care of the public funds. In his letters

of the 8th of August, we find, besides a reference to the fact of

the delivery of the posts on the frontier by Great Britain, under the

treaty, some curious details respecting the army:

"Your letter of the 3d instant," he writes, "with the information of

our possession of Fort Ontario, lately occupied by the troops of Great

Britain, and the correspondence between Captain Bruff of the United

States troops, and Captain Clarke of the British, was brought to me

by the last post. Several matters are submitted by the former for

consideration--among them, the mode of supplying the garrison with

firewood, and furnishing it with a seine. With respect to the first of

these, providing it with a horse or pair of horses and a batteau, as the

fuel is to be transported so far, seems to be a matter of necessity, but

the practice of the American army should be consulted for precedents,

before the British allowance is made to the soldiers for cutting and

transporting it to the fort, when the means by which it is done are

furnished by the public. If no allowance of this sort has been made

heretofore in towns, where wood was to be bought, which, if I remember

rightly, was the case invariably while I commanded the army, it would be

a dangerous innovation to begin it now, for it would instantly pervade

all the garrisons and the whole army, be their situation what it may. In

time of peace, where no danger is to be apprehended, and where the duty

is light, I see no hardship in the soldiers providing fuel for their own

use and comfort. With regard to a seine, as the expense would be small

if it is taken care of, and the convenience great, I think the garrison

should be indulged with one." He had always an eye to the comfort of the

soldier as well as to economy in the expenditure of the public money.

The garrison might have horses for draught, a batteau, and a seine to

catch fish in the lake, but in time of peace they were not to have extra

pay for cutting wood to keep themselves warm.

1. Footnote: This letter, dated May 15, 1796, contained an affecting

statement of Lafayette's case, and a request that he might be permitted

to come to the United States. The letter was transmitted to Mr.

Pinckney, to be conveyed to the Emperor through his minister at London.

How far it operated in mitigating immediately the rigor of Lafayette's

confinement, or in obtaining his liberation, remains unascertained.

2. Footnote: Before offering the appointment of minister to France

to General Pinckney, Washington had offered it to Gen. John Marshall,

afterward chief justice; but the situation of his private affairs would

not permit its acceptance.

CHAPTER XI.

WASHINGTON RETIRES FROM THE PRESIDENCY. 1796-1797.

Washington's fixed determination to retire from office at the end of

his second term had long been known to his confidential friends. Many of

them had opposed it from an apprehension of a political crisis arising

from the hostile demonstrations of France and the strong support given

to French pretensions by the opposition party in this country. When, in

July (1796), Washington proposed to declare publicly his determination,

Hamilton wrote to him, "If a storm gathers, how can you retreat? This is

a most serious question." Washington, yielding to the wishes of Hamilton

and other intimate friends, delayed the announcement of his purpose.

As the time for a new election approached the people, uncertain of his

intentions, became extremely anxious. The strong hold, says Marshall,

which Washington had taken of the affections of his countrymen was, on

this occasion, fully evinced. In districts where the opposition to

his administration was most powerful, where all his measures were most

loudly condemned, where those who approved his system possessed least

influence, the men who appeared to control public opinion on every

other subject found themselves unable to move it on this. Even the

most popular among the leaders of the opposition were reduced to the

necessity of surrendering their pretensions to a place in the electoral

body or of pledging themselves to bestow their suffrage on the

actual President. The determination of his fellow-citizens had been

unequivocally manifested, and it was believed to be apparent that the

election would again be unanimous when he announced his fixed resolution

to withdraw from the honors and the toils of office.

Having long contemplated this event and having wished to terminate his

political course with an act which might be at the same time suitable to

his own character and permanently useful to his country, he had prepared

for the occasion a valedictory address in which, with the solicitude

of a person who, in bidding a final adieu to his friends, leaves his

affections and his anxieties for their welfare behind him, he made a

last effort to impress upon his countrymen those great political truths

which had been the guides of his own administration and could alone,

in his opinion, form a sure and solid basis for the happiness, the

independence, and the liberty of the United States.

This interesting paper was published on the 17th of September, at a

time when hopes were entertained that the discontents of France might

be appeased by proper representations. It contains precepts to which the

American statesman cannot too frequently recur.

WASHINGTON'S FAREWELL ADDRESS.

TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES.

FRIENDS AND FELLOW CITIZENS:--The period for a new election of a citizen

to administer the executive government of the United States being not

far distant, and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must

be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with that

important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce

to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should not

apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered

among the number of those out of whom the choice is to be made.

I beg you at the same time to do me the justice to be assured that

this resolution has not been taken without a strict regard to all

the considerations appertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful

citizen to his country, and that in withdrawing the tender of service,

which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no

diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful

respect for your past kindness, but am supported by a full conviction

that the step is compatible with both.

The acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in, the office to which

your suffrages have twice called me, have been a uniform sacrifice of

inclination to the opinion of duty and to a deference for what appeared

to be your desire. I constantly hoped that it would have been much

earlier in my power, consistently with motives which I was not at

liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement from which I had been

reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous

to the last election, had even led to the preparation of an address

to declare it to you, but mature reflection on the then perplexed and

critical posture of our affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous

advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the

idea.

I rejoice that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal,

no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the

sentiment of duty or propriety, and am persuaded, whatever partiality

may be retained for my services, that in the present circumstances of

our country, you will not disapprove of my determination to retire.

The impressions with which I first undertook the arduous trust were

explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust I

will only say that I have, with good intentions, contributed toward the

organization and administration of the government the best exertions

of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious, in the

outset, of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience in my own

eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the

motives to diffidence of myself, and every day the increasing weight

of years admonishes me more and more that the shade of retirement is

as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that if any

circumstances have given peculiar value to my services, they were

temporary, I have the consolation to believe, that while choice and

prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not

forbid it.

In looking forward to the moment which is to terminate the career of

my political life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep

acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude which I owe to my beloved

country for the many honors it has conferred upon me; still more for

the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me, and for

the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable

attachment by services faithful and persevering, though in usefulness

unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from

these services, let it always be remembered to your praise and as an

instructive example in our annals, that, under circumstances in

which the passions, agitated in every direction, were liable to

mislead--amidst appearances sometimes dubious--vicissitudes of fortune

often discouraging--in situations in which not unfrequently want of

success has countenanced the spirit of criticism--the constancy of your

support was the essential prop of the efforts and a guarantee of the

plans by which they were effected. Profoundly penetrated with this

idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to

unceasing wishes, that Heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens

of its beneficence--that your union and brotherly affection may be

perpetual--that the free constitution, which is the work of your hands,

may be sacredly maintained--that its administration in every department

may be stamped with wisdom and virtue--that, in fine, the happiness of

the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made

complete, by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this

blessing, as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the

applause, the affection, and the adoption of every nation which is yet a

stranger to it.

Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare which

cannot end but with my life and the apprehension of danger natural to

that solicitude, urge me, on an occasion like the present, to offer to

your solemn contemplation and to recommend to your frequent review, some

sentiments, which are the result of much reflection of no inconsiderable

observation and which appear to me all-important to the permanency of

your felicity as a people. These will be offered to you with the more

freedom, as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a

parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his

counsel. Nor can I forget, as an encouragement to it, your indulgent

reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion.

Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your

hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the

attachment.

The unity of government, which constitutes you one people, is also now

dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of

your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your

peace abroad, of your safety, of your prosperity, of that very liberty

which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that from

different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken,

many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this

truth, as this is the point in your political fortress against which the

batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and

actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of

infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of

your national union to your collective and individual happiness, that

you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it,

accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of

your political safety and prosperity, watching for its preservation with

jealous anxiety, discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion

that it can in any event be abandoned, and indignantly frowning upon the

first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country

from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together

the various parts.

For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens

by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to

concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to

you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride

of patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local

discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same

religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a

common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty

you possess are the work of joint councils and joint efforts of common

dangers, sufferings, and successes.

But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves

to your sensibility, are greatly out-weighed by those which apply more

immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds

the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the

union of the whole.

The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by

the equal laws of a common government, finds in the productions of

the latter, great additional resources of maritime and commercial

enterprise, and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South,

in the same intercourse, benefiting by the agency of the North, sees its

agriculture grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own

channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation

invigorated--and while it contributes, in different ways, to nourish and

increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward

to the protection of a maritime strength to which itself is unequally

adapted. The East, in like intercourse with the West, already finds and

in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and

water, will more and more find a valuable vent for the commodities which

it brings from abroad or manufactures at home. The West derives from the

East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort, and, what is perhaps

of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure

enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions, to the

weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side

of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as

one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential

advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength or from

an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power, must be

intrinsically precarious.

While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and

particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to

find in the united mass of means and efforts, greater strength, greater

resource, proportionally greater security from external danger, a less

frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations, and, what is of

inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from

those broils and wars between themselves which so frequently afflict

neighboring countries, not tied together by the same government, which

their own rivalships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which

opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate

and embitter. Hence likewise they will avoid the necessity of those

overgrown military establishments, which, under any form of government,

are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as

particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that

your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty and

that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the

other.

These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting

and virtuous mind and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary

object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government

can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to

mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope

that a proper organization of the whole, with the auxiliary agency of

governments for the respective subdivisions will afford a happy issue to

the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With

such powerful and obvious motives to union affecting all parts of

our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its

impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism

of those who, in any quarter, may endeavor to weaken its bands.

In contemplating the causes which may disturb our union, it occurs as

matter of serious concern, that any ground should have been furnished

for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations--northern

and southern--Atlantic and western, whence designing men may endeavor to

excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests

and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence, within

particular districts, is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other

districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies

and heart burnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend

to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by

fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our western country have lately

had a useful lesson on this head. They have seen, in the negotiation

by the executive and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate of

the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that even

throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the

suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the general government

and in the Atlantic States, unfriendly to their interests in regard

to the Mississippi. They have been witnesses to the formation of two

treaties, that with Great Britain and that with Spain, which secure to

them everything they could desire in respect to our foreign relations

toward confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely

for the preservation of these advantages on the Union by which they were

procured? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such

there are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them

with aliens?

To the efficacy and permanency of your Union a government for the whole

is indispensable. No alliances, however strict, between the parts can be

an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions

and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced.

Sensible of this momentous truth you have improved upon your first essay

by the adoption of a constitution of government, better calculated than

your former, for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management

of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own

choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation

and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the

distribution of its powers uniting security with energy, and containing

within itself a provision for its own amendments, has a just claim to

your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance

with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the

fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems

is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of

government. But the constitution which at any time exists, until changed

by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly

obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of

the people to establish a government, presupposes the duty of every

individual to obey the established government.

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and

associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design

to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberations

and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this

fundamental principle and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize

faction; to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put in the

place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often

a small, but artful and enterprising minority of the community, and,

according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the

public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous

projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome

plans, digested by common councils and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now

and then answer popular ends they are likely, in the course of time

and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and

unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and

to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterward

the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

Toward the preservation of your government and the permanency of

your present happy state, it is requisite not only that you steadily

discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority,

but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its

principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be

to effect in the forms of the constitution alterations which will impair

the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly

overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited remember that

time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true characters

of governments as of other human institutions--that experience is the

surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing

constitution of a country--that facility in changes upon the credit

of mere hypothesis, and opinion exposes to perpetual change from the

endless variety of hypothesis and opinion--and remember, especially,

that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country

so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent

with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself

will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and

adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name,

where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of

faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits

prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil

enjoyment of the rights of person and property.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State,

with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical

discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view and warn you

in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of

party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having

its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under

different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled,

or repressed but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest

rankness and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the

spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages

and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself

a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and

permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually

incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute

power of an individual, and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing

faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this

disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public

liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless

ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common and continual

mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest

and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public

administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies

and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another;

foments occasional riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign

influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the

government itself, through the channel of party passions. Thus the

policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will

of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks

upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the

spirit of liberty. This, within certain limits, is probably true, and in

governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence,

if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular

character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be

encouraged. From their natural tendency it is certain there will always

be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose, and, there being

constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public

opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it

demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest,

instead of warming, it should consume.

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country

should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration to

confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres,

avoiding, in the exercise of the powers of one department, to encroach

upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers

of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of

government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power,

and proneness to abuse it, which predominate in the human heart, is

sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity

of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and

distributing it into different depositories and constituting each the

guardian of the public weal against invasions of the others, has been

evinced by experiments ancient and modern, some of them in our country

and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to

institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or

modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong,

let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the constitution

designates. But let there be no change by usurpation, for though this,

in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary

weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must

always greatly overbalance, in permanent evil, any partial or transient

benefit which the use can at any time yield.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,

religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man

claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great

pillars of human happiness--these firmest props of the duties of men

and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought

to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their

connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked,

where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the

sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments

of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge

the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.

Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds

of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect

that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles.

It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring

of popular government. This rule indeed extends with more or less force

to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it

can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the

fabric?

Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for

the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of

a government gives force to public opinion it is essential that public

opinion should be enlightened.

As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public

credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as

possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but

remembering also, that timely disbursements to prepare for danger,

frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding

likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of

expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the

debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously

throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.

The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it

is necessary that public opinion should cooperate. To facilitate to

them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should

practically bear in mind, that toward the payment of debts there must be

revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be

devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that

the intrinsic embarrassment inseparable from the selection of the

proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be

a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the

government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the

measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any

time dictate.

Observe good faith and justice toward all nations, cultivate peace and

harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct, and can it

be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a

free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great nation, to give to

mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided

by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt, that, in the

course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay

any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to

it? Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity

of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended

by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered

impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that

permanent inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and

passionate attachments for others, should be excluded, and that,

in place of them, just and amicable feelings toward all should be

cultivated. The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred,

or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its

animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it

astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against

another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay

hold of slight causes of umbrage and to be haughty and intractable when

accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur.

Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed and bloody contests.

The nation, prompted by ill will and resentment, sometimes impels to

war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The

government sometimes participates in the national propensity and adopts

through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the

animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated

by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace

often, sometimes perhaps the liberty of nations has been the victim.

So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces

a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the

illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common

interest exists and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays

the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the

latter, without adequate inducements or justification. It leads also to

concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others,

which are apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions by

unnecessary parting with what ought to have been retained, and by

exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the

parties from whom equal privileges are withheld, and it gives to

ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the

favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their

own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding

with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation to a commendable

deference for public opinion or a laudable zeal for public good, the

base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments

are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent

patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic

factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion,

to influence or awe the public councils! Such an attachment of a small

or weak, toward a great and powerful nation, dooms the former to be the

satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to

believe me, fellow-citizens), the jealousy of a free people ought to

be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign

influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.

But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the

instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense

against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive

dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on

one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the

other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are

liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp

the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is,

in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little

political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed

engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us

stop.

Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none, or a very

remote, relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies,

the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence,

therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial

ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary

combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue

a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient

government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury

from external annoyance, when we may take such an attitude as will

cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously

respected, when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making

acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation,

when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice,

shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own

to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that

of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of

European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any

portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty

to do it, for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing

infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable

to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best

policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in

their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary, and would be

unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on

a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary

alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony and a liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended by

policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should

hold an equal and impartial hand, neither seeking nor granting exclusive

favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things;

diffusing and diversifying, by gentle means, the streams of commerce,

but forcing nothing; establishing, with powers so disposed--in order to

give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants,

and to enable the government to support them--conventional rules of

intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will

permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned

or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate, constantly

keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested

favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence

for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance

it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for

nominal favors and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not

giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate

upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which

experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and

affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and

lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual

current of the passions or prevent our nation from running the course

which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But if I may even

flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some

occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury

of party spirit; to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue; to

guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism, this hope will be

a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare by which they have

been dictated.

How far, in the discharge of my official duties, I have been guided by

the principles which have been delineated, the public records and other

evidences of my conduct must witness to you and to the world. To myself

the assurance of my own conscience is that I have at least believed

myself to be guided by them.

In relation to the still subsisting war in Europe my proclamation of

the 22d of April, 1793, is the index to my plan. Sanctioned by your

approving voice and by that of your representatives in both Houses

of Congress, the spirit of that measure has continually governed me,

uninfluenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it.

After deliberate examination, with the aid of the best lights I

could obtain, I was well satisfied that our country, under all the

circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and was bound in duty

and interest to take, a neutral position. Having taken it I determined,

as far as should depend upon me, to maintain it with moderation,

perseverance, and firmness.

The considerations which respect the right to hold this conduct it is

not necessary on this occasion to detail. I will only observe that,

according to my understanding of the matter, that right, so far from

being denied by any of the belligerent powers, has been virtually

admitted by all.

The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without anything

more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every

nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the

relations of peace and amity toward other nations.

The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be

referred to your own reflections and experience. With me a predominant

motive has been to endeavor to gain time to our country to settle

and mature its yet recent institutions and to progress, without

interruption, to that degree of strength and consistency which is

necessary to give it, humanely speaking, the command of its own

fortunes.

Though in reviewing the incidents of my administration I am unconscious

of intentional error, I am, nevertheless, too sensible of my defects

not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever

they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the

evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that

my country will never cease to view them with indulgence, and, after

forty-five years of my life dedicated to its service, with an upright

zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion,

as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest.

Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that

fervent love toward it, which is so natural to a man who views in it the

native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations, I

anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat, in which I promise

myself to realize, without alloy, the sweet enjoyment of partaking, in

the midst of my fellow-citizens, the benign influence of good laws under

a free government, the ever favorite object of my heart and the happy

reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors, and dangers.

UNITED STATES, _September_ 17, 1796.

The sentiments of veneration with which this farewell address was

generally received were manifested in almost every part of the Union.

Some of the State Legislatures directed it to be inserted at large in

their journals, and nearly all of them passed resolutions expressing

their respect for the person of the President, their high sense of his

exalted services, and the emotions with which they contemplated his

retirement from office. Although the leaders of party might rejoice at

this event it produced solemn and anxious reflections in the great body,

even of those who belonged to the opposition.

The person in whom alone the voice of the people could be united having

declined a re-election, the two great parties in America brought forward

their respective chiefs, and every possible effort was made by each to

obtain the victory. Mr. John Adams and Mr. Thomas Pinckney, the late

minister at London, were supported as President and Vice-President by

the Federalists; the whole force of the opposite party was exerted in

favor of Mr. Jefferson.

Motives of vast influence were added on this occasion to those which

usually impel men in a struggle to retain or acquire power. The

continuance or the change, not only of those principles on which the

internal affairs of the United States had been administered, but of the

conduct which had been observed toward foreign nations, was believed to

depend on the choice of a chief magistrate. By one party the system of

neutrality pursued by the existing administration with regard to the

belligerent European powers, had been uniformly approved; by the other

it had been as uniformly condemned. In the contests, therefore, which

preceded the choice of electors, the justice of the complaints which

were made on the part of the French republic were minutely discussed,

and the consequences which were to be apprehended from her resentment

or from yielding to her pretensions were reciprocally urged as

considerations entitled to great weight in the ensuing election.

In such a struggle it was not to be expected that foreign powers could

feel absolutely unconcerned. In November, while the parties were so

balanced that neither scale could be perceived to preponderate, Mr.

Adet addressed a letter to Colonel Pickering, the Secretary of State, in

which he recapitulated the numerous complaints which had been urged

by himself and his predecessors against the government of the United

States, and reproached that government in terms of great asperity

with violating those treaties which had secured its independence, with

ingratitude to France, and with partiality to England. These wrongs,

which commenced with the "insidious" proclamation of neutrality, were

said to be so aggravated by the treaty concluded with Great Britain

that Mr. Adet announced the orders of the Directory to suspend his

ministerial functions with the Federal government. "But the cause,"

he added, "which has so long restrained the just resentment of the

Executive Directory from bursting forth, now tempered its effects. The

name of America, notwithstanding the wrongs of its government, still

excited sweet sensations in the hearts of Frenchmen, and the Executive

Directory wished not to break with a people whom they loved to salute

with the appellation of friend." This suspension of his functions,

therefore, was not to be regarded "as a rupture between France and the

United States, but as a mark of just discontent, which was to last

until the government of the United States returned to sentiments and to

measures more conformable to the interests of the alliance, and to the

sworn friendship between the two nations." "Let your government return

to itself," concluded Mr. Adet, "and you will still find in Frenchmen

faithful friends and generous allies."

As if to remove any possible doubt respecting the purpose for which this

extraordinary letter was written, a copy was transmitted, on the day of

its date, to a printer for publication.

This open and direct appeal of a foreign minister to the American

people, in the critical moment of their election of a chief magistrate,

did not effect its object. Reflecting men, even among those who had

condemned the course of the administration, could not approve this

interference in the internal affairs of the United States, and the

opposite party resented it as an attempt to control the operations

of the American people in the exercise of one of the highest acts

of sovereignty, and to poison the fountain of their liberty and

independence by mingling foreign intrigue with their elections. The

reader of history, however, is familiar with the fact that the course of

Adet in this affair was in strict accordance with the uniform practice

of the new rulers of France at that time. Their agents endeavored to

prejudice the people of every country in Europe against their respective

governments, and never hesitated to interfere directly between

the people and the government, wherever there was any prospect of

introducing French ascendency by such proceedings. The people of

the United States, on the present occasion, resented the officious

interference of Adet in the pending election as a gross insult, and it

undoubtedly aided the party which it was intended to defeat. Congress

met on the 5th of December (1796). There was not a sufficient number

of senators present on that day to form a quorum. In the House of

Representatives, among the new members who presented themselves was

Andrew Jackson, from Tennessee, the future President of the United

States.

On the 7th of December Washington, for the last time, met the national

Legislature in the hall of the House of Representatives. His address was

comprehensive, temperate, and dignified. No personal consideration could

restrain him from recommending those great national measures which he

believed would be useful to his country, although open and extensive

hostility had been avowed to them.

After presenting a full view of the situation of the United States and

the late transactions of the executive, he added: "To an active external

commerce the protection of a naval force is indispensable--this is

manifest with regard to wars in which a State is itself a party;

but, besides this, it is in our own experience that the most sincere

neutrality is not a sufficient guard against the depredations of nations

at war. To secure respect to a neutral flag requires a naval force,

organized and ready to vindicate it from insult or aggression; this may

even prevent the necessity of going to war by discouraging belligerent

powers from committing such violations of the rights of the neutral

party as may, first or last, leave no other option. From the best

information I have been able to obtain, it would seem as if our trade to

the Mediterranean, without a protecting force, will always be insecure,

and our citizens exposed to the calamities from which numbers of them

have but just been relieved."

The speech next proceeded earnestly to recommend the establishment of

national works for manufacturing such articles as were necessary for the

defense of the country, and also for an institution which should grow up

under the patronage of the public and be devoted to the improvement

of agriculture. The advantages of a military academy and of a national

university were also urged, and the necessity of augmenting the

compensation to the officers of the United States in various instances

was explicitly stated.

The President, in adverting to the dissatisfaction which had been

expressed by one of the great powers of Europe, said: "It is with much

pain and deep regret I mention that circumstances of a very unwelcome

nature have lately occurred. Our trade has suffered, and is suffering,

extensive injuries in the West Indies from the cruisers and agents of

the French republic, and communications have been received from, its

minister here which indicate the danger of a further disturbance of our

commerce by its authority."

After stating his constant and earnest endeavors to maintain cordial

harmony and a perfectly friendly understanding with that republic, and

that his wish to maintain them remained unabated, he added: "In pursuing

this course, however, I cannot forget what is due to the character of

our government and nation, or to a full and entire confidence in the

good sense, patriotism, self-respect, and fortitude of my countrymen."

After some other communications, the speech was concluded in the

following terms:

"The situation in which I now stand, for the last time, in the midst

of the representatives of the people of the United States, naturally

recalls the period when the administration of the present form of

government commenced; and I cannot omit the occasion to congratulate

you and my country on the success of the experiment, nor to repeat my

fervent supplications to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe and Sovereign

Arbiter of Nations that His providential care may still be extended to

the United States; that the virtue and happiness of the people may be

preserved, and that the government which they have instituted for their

protection may be perpetual."

The answer of the Senate embraced the various topics of the speech and

approved all the sentiments it contained.

It expressed the ardent attachment of that body to their chief

magistrate, and its conviction that much of the public prosperity was to

be ascribed to the virtue, firmness, and talents of his administration.

After expressing the deep and sincere regret with which the official

ratification of his intention to retire from the public employments

of his country was received, the address proceeded to say: "The most

effectual consolation that can offer for the loss we are about to

sustain arises from the animating reflection that the influence of

your example will extend to your successors, and the United States thus

continue to enjoy an able, upright, and energetic administration."

In the House of Representatives a committee of five had been appointed

to prepare a respectful answer to the speech, three of whom were friends

to the administration.

Hoping that the disposition would be general to avow in strong terms

their attachment to the person and character of the President, the

committee united in reporting an answer which promised, in general

terms, due attention to the various subjects recommended to their

consideration, but was full and explicit in the expression of attachment

to himself and of approbation of his administration.

The unanimity which prevailed in the committee did not extend to the

House.

After amplifying and strengthening the expressions of the report, which

stated regret that any interruption should have taken place in the

harmony which had subsisted between the United States and France, and

modifying those which declared their hope for the restoration of that

harmony, so as to avoid any implication that its rupture was exclusively

ascribable to France, a motion was made by Mr. Giles to expunge all

those paragraphs which expressed attachment to the person and character

of the President, approbation of his administration, or regret at his

retiring from office.

After a very animated debate the motion to strike out was lost and the

answer was carried by a great majority.

Early in the session Washington communicated to Congress the copy of

a letter addressed by the Secretary of State to General Pinckney,

containing a minute and comprehensive detail of all the points of

controversy which had arisen between the United States and France,

and defending the measures which had been adopted by America with a

clearness and a strength of argument believed to be irresistible.

The letter was intended to enable General Pinckney to remove from the

government of France all impressions unfavorable to the fairness of

intention which had influenced the conduct of the United States, and

to efface from the bosoms of the great body of the American people all

those unjust and injurious suspicions which had been entertained

against their own administration. Should its immediate operation on the

executive of France disappoint his hopes, Washington persuaded himself

that he could not mistake its influence in America; and he felt the

most entire conviction that the accusations made by the French Directory

against the United States would cease, with the evidence that these

accusations were supported by a great portion of the American people.

The letter and its accompanying documents were communicated to the

public, but, unfortunately, their effect at home was not such as had

been expected, and they were, consequently, inoperative abroad.

The measures recommended by Washington, in his speech at the opening of

the session, were not adopted, and neither the debates in Congress nor

the party publications with which the nation continued to be agitated,

furnished reasonable ground for hope that the political intemperance

which had prevailed from the establishment of the republican form of

government in France, was about to be succeeded by a more conciliatory

spirit. It was impossible for Washington to be absolutely insensible to

the bitter invectives and malignant calumnies of which he had long been

the object. Yet in one instance only did he depart from the rule he had

prescribed for his conduct regarding them. Apprehending permanent injury

from the republication of certain spurious letters, which have been

already noticed, he, on the day which terminated his official character,

addressed a letter to the Secretary of State, declaring them to be

forgeries and stating the circumstances under which they were published.

On the 8th of February (1797) the votes for the President and

Vice-President were opened and counted in the presence of both Houses,

and John Adams announced the fact from the chair of the Vice-President

that he himself had received 71 votes, Thomas Jefferson 68, Thomas

Pinckney 59, Aaron Burr 30, and that the balance of the votes were given

in varying small numbers to Samuel Adams, Oliver Ellsworth, John Jay,

etc. The total number of electors was 138. Thus John Adams became the

second President of the United States, and by some mismanagement on the

part of the Federalists Pinckney missed the Vice-Presidency, and the man

of all others most dreaded by the Federal party was placed in the very

front rank of the Republicans, and with the clear presage of success in

the future.

Washington's feelings on the immediate prospect of retirement from

office are expressed in the following extract from a letter to

General Knox, dated March 2, 1797: "To the wearied traveler who sees

a resting-place and is bending his body to lean thereon, I now compare

myself, but to be suffered to do this in peace is too much to be endured

by some. To misrepresent my motives, to reprobate my politics, and to

weaken the confidence which has been reposed in my administration are

objects which cannot be relinquished by those who will be satisfied

with nothing short of a change in our political system. The consolation,

however, which results from conscious rectitude and the approving voice

of my country, unequivocally expressed by its representatives, deprive

their sting of its poison and place in the same point of view both the

weakness and malignity of their efforts.

"Although the prospect of retirement is most grateful to my soul, and

I have not a wish to mix again in the great world or to partake in its

politics, yet I am not without my regrets at parting with (perhaps never

more to meet) the few intimates whom I love. Among these, be assured,

you are one."

Bishop White has given the following anecdote, illustrating the

strong feelings of regret awakened among Washington's friends by his

approaching retirement from public life:

"On the day before President Washington retired from office a large

company dined with him. Among them were the foreign ministers and their

ladies, Mr. and Mrs. Adams, Mr. Jefferson, and other conspicuous persons

of both sexes. During the dinner much hilarity prevailed, but on the

removal of the cloth it was put an end to by the President, certainly

without design. Having filled his glass, he addressed the company,

with a smile, as nearly as can be recollected, in the following words:

'Ladies and gentlemen, this is the last time I shall drink your health

as a public man. I do it with sincerity, wishing you all possible

happiness.' There was an end of all pleasantry. He who gives this

relation accidentally directed his eye to the lady of the British

minister, Mrs. Liston, and tears were running down her cheeks."

Mr. Gibbs, in his "Administrations of Washington and Adams," refers to

the parting levee in the following terms: