“I never for a moment entertained an idea of accepting it.”[108]
How admirably he touches the point when he asks, “Should I not
thenceforward be considered as a dependant?” According to our Scripture
the gift blinds the eyes; according to Washington it makes the receiver
a dependant.
In harmony with this sentiment was his subsequent refusal, when
President, as is recorded by an ingenuous writer:--
“He was exceedingly careful about committing himself; _would
receive no favors of any kind_, and scrupulously paid for
everything.… A large house was set apart for him on Ninth Street,
[Philadelphia,] on the grounds now covered by the Pennsylvania
University, _which he refused to accept_.”[109]
By such instances, brought to light recently, and shining in contrast
with our times, we learn to admire anew the virtue of Washington.
It would be easy to show how in all ages the refusal of gifts has been
recognized as the sign of virtue, if not the requirement of duty. The
story of St. Louis of France is beautiful and suggestive. Leaving on
a crusade, he charged the Queen, who remained behind, “not to accept
presents for herself or her children.”[110] Such was one of the
injunctions by which this monarch, when far away on a pious expedition,
impressed himself upon his country.
My own strong convictions on this Presidential pretension were aroused
in a conversation which it was my privilege to enjoy with John Quincy
Adams, as he sat in his sick-chamber at his son’s house in Boston,
a short time before he fell at his post of duty in the House of
Representatives. In a voice trembling with age and with emotion,
he said that no public man could take gifts without peril; and he
confessed that his own judgment had been quickened by the example of
Count Romanzoff, the eminent Chancellor of the Russian Empire, who,
after receiving costly gifts from foreign sovereigns with whom he had
negotiated treaties, felt a difficulty of conscience in keeping them,
and at last handed over their value to a hospital, as he related to Mr.
Adams, then Minister at St. Petersburg.[111] The latter was impressed
by this Russian example, and through his long career, as Minister
abroad, Secretary of State, President, and Representative, always
refused gifts, unless a book or some small article in its nature a
token and not a reward or bribe.
The Constitution testifies against the taking of gifts by officers
of the United States, when it provides that “no person holding any
office of profit or trust under them shall, without the consent of the
Congress, accept of any present or emolument from any king, prince, or
foreign State.” The acceptance of a present or emolument from our own
citizens was left without constitutional inhibition, to be constrained
by the public conscience and the just aversion to any semblance of
bargain and sale, or bribery, in the public service.
The case of our President is exceptional. Notoriously he has taken
gifts while in the public service, some at least after he had been
elected President, until “the Galena tanner of a few hundred dollars
a year”--to borrow the words of my colleague [Mr. WILSON], one of
his supporters--is now rich in houses, lands, and stock, above his
salary, being probably the richest President since George Washington.
Notoriously he has appointed to his Cabinet several among these “Greeks
bearing gifts,” without seeming to see the indecorum, if not the
indecency, of the transaction. At least two, if not three, of these
Greeks, having no known position in the Republican Party, or influence
in the country, have been selected as his counsellors in national
affairs and heads of great departments of government. Again do I
repeat the words of our Scriptures, “A gift doth blind the eyes of the
wise”; again the words of Washington, “Should I not thenceforward be
considered as a dependant?”
Nor does the case of the first Secretary of State differ in character
from that of the other three Cabinet officers referred to. The
President, feeling under personal obligation to Mr. Washburne for
important support, gave him a complimentary nomination, with the
understanding that after confirmation he should forthwith resign. I
cannot forget the indignant comment of the late Mr. Fessenden, as we
passed out of the Senate Chamber immediately after the confirmation.
“Who,” said he, “ever heard before of a man nominated Secretary of
State merely as a compliment?” But this is only another case of the
public service subordinated to personal considerations.
Not only in the Cabinet, but in other offices, there is reason to
believe that the President has been under the influence of patrons. Why
was he so blind to Thomas Murphy? The custom-house of New York, with
all its capacity as a political engine, was handed over to this agent,
whose want of recognition in the Republican Party was outbalanced by
Presidential favor, and whose gifts have become notorious. And when the
demand for his removal was irresistible, the President accepted his
resignation with an effusion of sentiment natural toward a patron, but
without justification in the character of the retiring officer.
Shakespeare, who saw intuitively the springs of human conduct, touches
more than once on the operation of the gift. “I’ll do thee service for
so good a gift,” said Gloster to Warwick.[112] Then, again, how truly
spoke the lord, who said of Timon,--
“No gift to him
But breeds the giver a return exceeding
All use of quittance.”[113]
And such were the returns made by the President.
Thus much for gifts, reciprocated by office. The instance is original
and without precedent in our history.