1783.
Sir:
Having always entertained an esteem for you personally, I could not,
without reluctance, yield to impressions that might weaken that
sentiment: and it is with pain I find myself drawn, by circumstances,
to animadvert upon the late message from the Executive Council to the
Assembly of Pennsylvania relative to the mutiny, in a manner which may
seem to impeach the candor of those who were the authors of it.
But it will be impossible for persons who have read the report of the
committee, and the message of the Council, however inclined to make
allowances for the force of involuntary bias, not to conclude, that
on one side or the other, the facts have been wilfully discolored.
I decline any attempt to set the public opinion right upon this
subject; because, after all that can be said, the judgments of men will
eventually be determined by personal and party prepossessions. So far
as I am concerned, I persuade myself those who are acquainted with me,
will place entire confidence in my fairness and veracity. I doubt not
your Excellency’s friends will be equally partial to you, and those
of the Council to them. But though I should despair of rectifying
or fixing the public opinion, by an appeal to the public; and though
I have seen too much of the ridicule thrown upon such appeals, from
men in official stations, and of the ill effect they have had upon
the national character, not to be willing to sacrifice the desire of
justifying myself to considerations of prudence and propriety; yet I
cannot forbear indulging my feelings so far as to enter into a few
explanations with your Excellency; submitting the justness of them to
the testimony of your own mind.
As this is a mere private discussion, I address myself to your
Excellency in particular; and the rather, as, from the style and manner
of the message, I take it for granted you had the principal agency in
it: and I shall consider, on the same grounds, the notes in [20]
paper of the [20], as a comment on the report of the committee by
yourself; in aid of the message.
I take up the matter individually, because I mean to treat it on a
private footing; and because, though I do not acknowledge any peculiar
responsibility, it happened to be my lot, as chairman, principally to
conduct the conferences on the part of the committee.
I regard the whole of this business as a most unfortunate one; in
which, probably, none of the actors will acquire great credit. I
deplore it, as tending to interrupt the harmony between Congress and
a respectable, a meritorious member of the Union. Who were right, or
who were wrong, is a question of less importance, than how mutual
irritations may be best healed. Whatever revives, or continues, the
former, is to be regretted. I lament to be under an inducement to
discuss circumstances that relate to it in the remotest degree. Nothing
but an attack upon the ingenuousness of my conduct, could have called
me to it. Its prudence, either collectively or individually, would
patiently have been consigned to the lash of censure and criticism,
merited or unmerited.
Happily, in the present case, the members of the committee have a
strong ground, from which they cannot easily be forced. Apprehensive
of misconception, I will not say of misrepresentation, they tried
to render it impossible by written documents. The presumption, with
impartial minds, cannot fail to be in favor of that side which gave so
decisive a proof of its disposition to fairness, as to endeavor to put
it out of its own power to misrepresent.
The professed scruples of the Council, cannot be admitted to have any
weight. Usage, and the plainest rules of propriety, will dictate, that
it never could have wounded the dignity, or delicacy, of the executive
of any State, to have given to a committee of Congress, appointed
to confer on a subject of moment, a written answer to a request in
writing after previous explanations. The fact stated speaks for itself.
The consequences show, that the precaution of the committee was well
judged; and that it would have been well for the Council to have
concurred.
In the present case it might be observed, that there was, in the first
instance, a written application from Congress to the Council, in the
customary form of resolutions: and though a committee was authorized to
confer and explain, a formal and authentic answer might reasonably have
been expected by Congress; and, when desired by the committee, should
have been understood as desired on their behalf.
There is an awkwardness in reasoning upon self-evident positions; but
as the Council have, by their conduct in the first instance, and by
their message since, put forward a doubt upon the subject, and made it
a point of importance, I shall be excused for examining it a little
further. On what could the objection of the Council be founded? They
say it had been unusual. Admitting the fact, was the mere novelty of
the thing a sufficient reason against it? If there was no apparent
inconvenience in making a new precedent; if; on the contrary, there was
a manifest convenience in it; ought not such a punctilio to have given
way to considerations of utility?
Was it derogatory to the dignity of the Council? Surely, if they
communicate in writing with the executive servants of Congress, even
those in subordinate stations, as is the practice of every day, and as
is indispensable to the prosecution of public business, they might, at
less expense of dignity, pursue the same mode with a part of that body
itself.
The distinction taken by the Council, in their message to the
Assembly, respecting the responsibility of such executive officers,
as not applicable to a committee, if it amounts to any thing, proves
only this: That such officers ought, in prudence, to take greater
precautions for their own justification than a committee of Congress
need to do. It is not to be inferred, if a committee of Congress,
acting ministerially, think it expedient to use circumspection, that
those with whom they are transacting business, can, with propriety,
refuse to join with them in that mode which is best adapted to
precision and certainty.
But, indeed, the ground of distinction is erroneous. A committee of
Congress act in a ministerial capacity, and are therefore responsible
to the body to which they belong, as well as the servants of that
body, though in a different manner. If it be said they do not act
ministerially, but stand in the place of Congress; then the Council,
upon their own principles, ought to have complied with their request.
To diminish the exceptionableness of their refusal, it is true,
as stated by the Council, that though they said they could not
_condescend_ to do what the committee had asked; yet they declared
themselves willing to _grant_ an answer in writing, if Congress should
request it; and that they proposed, that the committee should put their
verbal answer in writing, to be afterwards perused and examined by them.
The answer of the committee, as I doubt not your Excellency will
recollect, was, as to the first point, that Congress in all probability
would not make the request, having determined (as the Council had been
already informed) not to resume their deliberations in the city, till
effectual measures had been taken to suppress the mutiny; and should
they assemble, would naturally feel a delicacy in requesting what had
been denied to their committee. And as to the second point, that the
Council having judged it inexpedient to give a written answer, the
committee would content themselves with making the most accurate
report in their power, relying upon the confidence of the body to which
they belonged, and upon the candor of the Council.
Your Excellency is too good a judge of human nature, as well as of the
force of language, not to have perceived at the time, the effect which
the refusal of the Council had upon my mind. I own it struck me, either
as an uncandid reserve, or an unbecoming stateliness; and, in either
supposition, a disrespect to the body of which the committee were
members.
Though nothing enters less into my temper than an inclination to
fetter business by punctilio, after the Council had discovered such
overweening nicety, I should have thought it a degradation to my
official character, to have consented to their proposal.
The desire of self-justification is so natural, that I should not have
been surprised to have seen the transactions which are the subject of
the Council’s message, receive a coloring favorable to their purpose:
but I did not expect to find material facts either suppressed or denied.
The report made by the committee on the first interview with the
Council, was, I acknowledge, from memory, and therefore I admit a
possibility of error; but, so far as my memory can be relied on, the
representation was just. And I am certain that there is a mistake in
the insinuation, that the circumstance of the message sent to Congress
by the Board of Sergeants, was not mentioned at all to the Council;
for I have a note of it, taken immediately after the first conference
subsequent to the mutiny. The affair, by the event of , having
assumed a more serious aspect, I kept a regular minute of the
proceedings; a summary of which, made up our report to Congress, and
which I shall annex, at large, to this letter for your Excellency’s
perusal.