and did not know how the temper of people might be now. Up now rose
[George] Reed [Senator from Delaware] and declared for the paragraph. He
saw no reason to object to it because the British speeches were styled
‘most gracious.’ If we choose to object to words because they had been
used in the same sense in Britain, we should soon be at loss to do
business. I had to reply: ‘It is time enough to submit to necessity when
it exists. At present we are not at loss for words. The words, speech or
address, without any addition will suit us well enough.’ The first time
I was up Mr. Lee followed me with a word or two by way of seconding me;
but when the Vice-President, on being up last, declared that he was the
person from whom the words were taken, Mr. Lee got up and informed the
Chair that he did not know that circumstance as he had been absent when
it happened. The question was put and carried for erasing the words
without a division.”
VI.
ADAMS EXPLAINS.
After the adjournment of the Senate that day the Vice-President drew
Maclay aside and explained that he was for an efficient government, that
he had the greatest respect for the President; and gave his ideas on
“checks to government and the balances of power.” Maclay protested that
he “would yield to no person in respect to General Washington,” that he
was not wanting in respect to Adams himself; that his wishes for an
efficient government were as high as any man’s and begged “him to
believe that I did myself great violence when I opposed him in the chair
and nothing but a sense of duty could force me to it.”
Commenting on this day’s debate Maclay records: “Strange, indeed, that
in that very country [America] where the flame of freedom had been
kindled, an attempt should be made to introduce these absurdities and
humiliating distinctions which the hand of reason, aided by our example
was prostrating in the heart of Europe. I, however, will endeavor (as I
have hitherto done) to use the resentment of the Representatives to
defeat Mr. Adams and others on the subject of titles. The pompous and
lordly distinctions which the Senate have manifested a disposition to
establish between the two Houses have nettled the Representatives and
this business of titles may be considered as a part of the same tune.
While we are debating on titles I will, through the Speaker, Mr.
Muhlenberg and other friends, get the idea suggested of answering the
President’s address without any title, in contempt of our deliberations,
which still continue on that subject. This, once effected, will confound
them [the Senators] completely and establish a precedent they will not
dare to violate.”
On Saturday, May 2, the day following the debate on “His Most Gracious
Speech,” the Senate met and several of the members congratulated Maclay
on the stand he had taken. Langdon “shook hands very heartily with me,”
but some of the other New England Senators were “shy.” Senator William
Paterson of New Jersey “passed censure on the conduct of the
Vice-President” and “hinted as if some of the Senate would have taken
notice of the ‘gracious’ affair if I had not. I told him I was no
courtier and had no occasion to trim, but said it was a most
disagreeable thing to contend with the Chair and I had alone held that
disagreeable post more than once.”
VII.
POLITICS AND TITLES.
On Friday, May 8, on motion of Ellsworth, the report of the Joint
Committee on Titles was taken up by the Senate and the great battle was
fairly under way. Two days before this Maclay noted that “the title
selected from all the potentates of the earth for our President was to
have been taken from Poland, viz., ‘Elective Majesty.’ What a royal
escape!”
Surprise, naturally, might be expressed that Lee, elected as a
“Republican enemy to an aristocratic constitution,” should have taken
the lead in advocating titles. Light is thrown on the situation from the
following entry in Maclay’s journal under date of May 15, 1789: “Lee has
a cultivated understanding, great practice in public business.... He has
acted as a high priest through the whole of this idolatrous business....
Had it not been for Mr. Lee I am firmly convinced no other man would
have ventured to follow our Vice-President. But Lee led, Ellsworth
seconded him, the New England men followed and Ralph Izard [Senator from
South Carolina] joined them but really _haud passibus aequis_, for he
was only for the title of ‘Excellency,’ which had been sanctified by
use.
[Illustration:
UNITED STATES SENATOR ROBERT JACKSON GAMBLE.
Vice-President of the Society
for South Dakota.
]
“It is easy to see what his [Lee’s] aim is. By flattering the President
of the Senate he hopes to govern all the members from New England and
with a little assistance from Carolina or Georgia, to be absolute in the
Senate. Ellsworth and some more of the New England men flatter him in
turn, expecting he will be with them on the question of residence [of
Congress]. Had it not been for our Vice-President and Lee I am convinced
the Senate would have been as adverse to titles as the House of
Representatives. The game that our Vice-President and Mr. Lee appear to
have now in view is to separate the Senate as much as possible from the
House of Representatives. Our Vice-President’s doctrine is that all
honors and titles should flow from the President and Senate only.”
VIII.
THE GREAT DEBATE OF MAY 8, 1789.
But whatever Lee’s motives may have been, it is indisputable that he
threw his great weight and splendid abilities in favor of titles. In the
momentous debate of May 8 he declared that all the world, civilized and
savage, called for titles; that there must be something in human nature
that occasioned this general consent and, therefore, he conceived it was
right. “Here he began,” records Maclay, “to enumerate many, many nations
who gave titles—such as Venice, Genoa and others. The Greeks and Romans,
it was said, had no titles, ‘but’ (making a profound bow to the Chair)
‘you were pleased to set us right in this with respect to the Conscript
Fathers the other day.’ Here he repeated the Vice-President’s speech of
the 23d ultimo almost verbatim all over.
“Mr. Ellsworth rose. He had a paper in his hat which he looked
constantly at. He repeated almost all that Mr. Lee had said but got on
the subject of kings—declared that the sentence in the primer of _fear
God and honor the king_ was of great importance; that kings were of
divine appointment; that Saul, the head and shoulders taller than the
rest of the people, was elected by God and anointed by his appointment.
“I sat after he had done for a considerable time to see if anybody would
rise. At last I got up and first answered Lee as well as I could with
nearly the same arguments, drawn from the Constitution, as I had used on
the 23d ult. I mentioned that within the space of twenty years back,
more light had been thrown on the subject of governments and on human
affairs in general than for several generations before; that this light
of knowledge had diminished the veneration for titles and that mankind
now considered themselves as little bound to imitate the follies of
civilized nations as the brutalities of savages; that the abuse of power
and the fear of bloody masters had extorted titles as well as adoration,
in some instances from the trembling crowd; that the impression now on
the minds of the citizens of these states was that of horror for kingly
authority.
“Izard got up. He dwelt almost entirely on the antiquity of kingly
government. He could not, however, well get farther back than Philip of
Macedon. He seemed to have forgot both Homer and the Bible. He urged for
something equivalent to nobility having been common among the Romans,
for they had three names that seemed to answer to honorable or something
like it, before and something behind. He did not say Esquire. Mr.
Carroll rose and took my side of the question. He followed nearly the
track I had been in and dwelt much on the information that was now
abroad in the world. He spoke against kings.
“Mr. Lee and Mr. Izard were both up again. Ellsworth was up again.
Langdon was up several times but spoke short each time. Paterson was up
but there was no knowing which side he was of. Mr. Lee considered him as
against him and answered him—but Paterson finally voted with Lee. The
Vice-President repeatedly helped the speakers for titles. Ellsworth was
enumerating how common the appellation of President was. The
Vice-President put him in mind that there were presidents of fire
companies and of a cricket club. Mr. Lee, at another time, was saying he
believed some of the states authorized titles by their constitutions.
The Vice-President, from the chair, told him that Connecticut did it. At
sundry other times he interfered in a like manner. I had been frequently
up to answer new points during the debate.
“I collected myself for a last effort. I read the clause in the
Constitution against titles of nobility; showed that the spirit of it
was against not only granting titles by Congress but against the
permission to foreign potentates granting _any titles whatever_; that as
to kingly government, it was equally out of the question as a republican
government was guaranteed to every State in the Union; that they were
both equally forbidden fruit of the Constitution. I called the attention
of the House to the consequences that were likely to follow; that
gentleman seemed to court a rupture with the Lower House. The
Representatives had adopted the report [rejecting titles] and were this
day acting on it or according to the spirit of the report. We were
proposing a title. Our conduct would mark us to the world as actuated by
the spirit of dissension; and the characters of the [two] Houses would
be as aristocratic and democratical.”
IX.
“HIS ELECTIVE HIGHNESS.”
Finally the matter came to a vote and the report of the Title Committee,
conferring the title of “Elective Majesty” on Washington was rejected.
Then began the fight, for, at least, some kind of a title for the
President. Izard moved for the title of “Excellency,” but he withdrew
it, upon which Lee suggested “Highness” with some prefatory word such as
“Elective Highness.” Maclay records: “It was insisted that such a
dignified title would add greatly to the weight and authority of the
Government, both at home and abroad. I declared myself of a totally
different opinion; that at present it was impossible to add to the
respect entertained for General Washington; that if you gave him the
title of any foreign prince or potentate, a belief would follow that the
manners of that prince and his modes of government would be adopted by
the President. (Mr. Lee had, just before I got up, read over a list of
the titles of all the princes and potentates of the earth, marking where
the word ‘highness’ occurred. The Grand Turk had it, all the crown
princes of Germany had it, sons and daughters of crown heads, etc.) That
particularly ‘Elective Highness,’ which sounded nearly like ‘Electoral
Highness,’ would have a most ungrateful sound to many thousands of
industrious citizens who had fled from German oppression; that
‘Highness’ was part of the title of a prince or princess of the blood
and was often given to dukes; that it was degrading our President to
place him on a par with any prince of any blood in Europe, nor was there
one of them that could enter the list of true glory with him.”
X.
“ROYAL ETIQUETTE.”
This debate, beginning probably at the usual time for the Senate’s
meeting, namely 10 a. m., lasted until 3.30 p. m., by which time another
committee was appointed to consider a title for the President.
Concluding his record of the notable debate of this day, Maclay writes:
“This whole silly business is the work of Mr. Adams and Mr. Lee. Izard
follows Lee and the New England men ... follow Mr. Adams. Mr. [Charles]
Thompson [Secretary of the old Congress] says this used to be the case
in the old Congress. I had, to be sure, the greatest share in this
debate and must now have completely sold (no, sold is a bad word for I
have got nothing for it) every particle of court favor, for a court our
House seems determined on, and to run into all the fooleries, fopperies,
fineries and pomp of royal etiquette.”
When Maclay attended the Senate on the following day, Saturday, May 9,
he notes: “I know not the motive but never was I received with more
familiarity, nor quite so much, before by the members. Ellsworth, in
particular, seemed to show a kind of fondness.”
XI.
DEFEAT OF THE TITLEISTS.
After correcting the minutes, the Title Committee, appointed by the
Senate on the day before, reported “His Highness, the President of the
United States of America, and Protector of the Rights of the Same” for
Washington. Senator William Few, of Georgia, spoke to Maclay, intimating
his unwillingness to do anything hastily. He then addressed the Senate
on the same lines, although he did not pointedly move for postponement.
Meantime the clerk of the House of Representatives appeared at the bar
and announced the adoption of the report of the Joint Committee, which
rejected all titles.
At this point Maclay got up, said that what Few had said amounted to a
motion for a postponement and asked leave to second him. “I then pointed
out,” records Maclay, “the rupture that was likely to ensue with the
other House; that this was a matter of very serious import and I thought
it our indispensable duty to avoid any inconvenience of that kind; that
by the arrangement between the Houses, in case of disagreement, a
conference might be requested; that my intention was, if the
postponement was carried, to move immediately for a Committee of
Conference to be appointed on the differences between the Houses and I
had hopes that by these means all subjects of debate would be done
away.”
Now Reed moved that the report might be adopted but he was not seconded.
Senator Caleb Strong [of Massachusetts] was in favor of the postponement
but was interrupted by the Chair. Senator [Tristram] Dalton [of
Massachusetts] also was in favor of it and Maclay records: “I could now
see a visible anxiety in the Chair. Strong was up again and said among
other things that he thought the other House would follow—but there was
risk in it.”
Evidently the tide began to turn against titles, for Maclay records: “I
had a fine, slack and easy time of it today. Friends seemed to rise in
succession. Lee went over his old ground twice but owned, at last, that
there was difficulty every way but said plainly that the best mode for
the House was to adopt the [Senate] report—and then the other House
would follow. He found, however, the current began to turn against him
and he laid his head on his hands as if he would have slept.”
Finally Izard got up and said that he was in favor of a postponement. “I
could see the Vice-President kindle at him,” records Maclay. “Izard had
remarked that the House of Representatives had adopted the report
rejecting titles but the Chair interrupted him, saying: ‘No, we had no
right to know, nor could we know it until after the clerk had this
morning official information.’ The members fixed themselves and the
question was called for.”
XII.
“WHAT WILL THE COMMON PEOPLE SAY.”
At this point Adams got up and for forty minutes addressed the Senate.
Maclay writes: “He began first on the subject of order and found fault
with everything almost; but down he came to particulars and pointedly
blamed a member for disorderly behavior. The member had mentioned the
appearance of a captious disposition in the other House. This was
disorderly and he spoke with asperity. The member meant was Mr. Izard.
All this was prefatory. On he got to his favorite topic of titles and
over the old ground of the immense advantage of, the absolute necessity
of them. When he had exhausted this subject he turned a new leaf, I
believe, on the conviction that the postponement would be carried and,
perhaps, the business lost by an attention to the other House.
“‘Gentlemen’ [said Adams], I must tell you that it is you and the
President that have the making of titles. Suppose the President to have
the appointment of Mr. Jefferson at the court of France. Mr. Jefferson
is, in virtue of that appointment, the most illustrious, the most
powerful and what not. But the President must be himself something that
includes all the dignities of the diplomatic corps and something greater
still. What will the common people of foreign countries, what will the
sailors and the soldiers say, ‘George Washington, President of the
United States?’ They will despise him _to all eternity_. This is all
nonsense to the philosopher—but so is all government whatever.’
“The above I recollect with great precision; but he said fifty more
things equally injudicious which I do not think worth minuting. It is
evident that he begins to despair of getting the article of titles
through the House of Representatives and has turned his eye to get it
done solely by the Senate.”
XIII.
“HIGH-SOUNDING POMPOUS APPELLATION.”
Maclay had intended saying not another word on this subject for this
day, but some remarks in the Vice-President’s speech impelled the
Pennsylvanian to rise. He said: “Mr. President, the Constitution of the
United States has designated our Chief Magistrate by the appellation of
the ‘President of the United States of America.’ This is his title of
office; nor can we alter, add to or diminish it without infringing the
Constitution. In like manner persons authorized to transact business
with foreign powers are styled Ambassadors, Public Ministers, etc. To
give them any other appellation would be an equal infringement. As to
grades of order or titles of nobility, nothing of the kind can be
established by Congress.
“Can, then, the President and Senate do that which is prohibited to the
United States at large? Certainly not. Let us read the Constitution. ‘No
title of nobility shall be granted by the United States.’ The
Constitution goes further. The servants of the public are prohibited
from accepting them from any foreign state, king or prince. So that the
appellation and terms given to nobility in the Old World are contraband
language in the United States; nor can we apply them to our citizens
consistent with the Constitution. As to what the common people, soldiers
and sailors of foreign countries may think of us, I do not think it
imports us much. Perhaps, the less they think or have occasion to think
of us, the better.
“But suppose this is a desirable point; how is it to be gained? The
English excepted, foreigners do not understand our language. We must use
Hohen Mogende to a Dutchman, Beylerbey to a Turk or Algerine and so of
the rest. From the English, indeed, we may borrow terms that would not
be wholly unintelligible to our own citizens. But will they thank us for
the compliment? Would not the plagiarism be more likely to be attended
with contempt than respect among all of them? It has been admitted that
all this is nonsense to the philosopher. I am ready to admit that every
high-sounding, pompous appellation, descriptive of qualities which the
object does not possess, must appear bombastic nonsense in the eye of
every wise man. But I cannot admit such an idea with respect to
government itself. Philosophers have admitted not the utility but the
necessity of it and their labors have been directed to correct the vices
and expose the follies which have been engrafted upon it and to reduce
the practice of it to the principles of common sense, such as we see
exemplified by the merchant, the mechanic and the farmer whose every act
or operation tends to a productive or beneficial effect; and, above all,
to illustrate this fact that government was instituted for the benefit
of the people and that no act of government is justifiable that has not
this for its object. Such has been the labor of philosophers with
respect to government and sorry indeed would I be if their labors should
be in vain.”
XIV.
“AFFECTATION OF SIMPLICITY.”
Vice-President Adams now put the question and the postponement was
carried; immediately after which Maclay offered a resolution for a
conference between the two Houses. It was carried and the committee
appointed. But now Ellsworth drew up another resolution in which the
differences between the two Houses were to be kept out of sight and to
proceed _de novo_ on a title for the President. “I did not enter into
the debate,” records Maclay, “but expressed my fear that the House of
Representatives would be irritated and would not meet us on that ground.
And, as if they meant to provoke the other House, they insisted that the
minute of rejection should go down with the appointment of the
committee. Little good can come of it thus circumstanced, more
especially as the old committee were reappointed,” namely, Ellsworth,
Johnson and Lee.
Monday, May 11, on motion of Lee, the subject of titles was postponed to
the following day, but under date of May 12 Maclay records: “The
business of considering the title, which was laid on the table, was
postponed to see what would be the result of the conference of the Joint
Committee on that subject.” Adams’s solicitude for titles was evident,
for when the Senate met, May 13, he reminded the members that the report
for the President’s title lay on the table. The Senate was informed by
Lee that the committee on titles had met in the Senate chamber but were
interrupted by the assembling of that body and had agreed to meet on the
following morning. Again, on May 14, the Vice-President “reminded us of
the title report” but the committee was out on it. In a short time,
however, they reported that the Lower House “had adhered in the
strictest manner to their former resolution,” which was against the
granting of titles of any kind.
This, indeed, was a heavy blow for the advocates of titles. Catching at
the last straw, Lee now moved that the Senate _de novo committee’s_
report in favor of titles be taken from the table and entered on the
files of the House. The spirit of his motion was that attention should
be paid to the usages of civilized nations in order to keep up a proper
respect to the President; that “affectation of simplicity would be
injurious”; that the Senate had decided in favor of titles but, in
deference to the expressed feelings of the Lower House, the Senate, “for
the present,” should address the President without title.
XV.
“YOUR HIGHNESS OF THE SENATE.”
On the day preceding this debate the Speaker Muhlenberg of the House of
Representatives had accosted Maclay as “Your Highness of the Senate,”
saying that Congressman Henry Wynkoop, of Pennsylvania, had been
christened by them “His Highness of the Lower House.” As the question of
titles was gone all over again, Maclay records that he determined to try
what ridicule would do. He said: “Mr. President, if all men were of one
stature, there would be neither high nor low. Highness, when applied to
an individual, must naturally denote the excess of stature which he
possesses over other men. An honorable member [Ellsworth] told us the
other day of a certain king [Saul] who was a head and shoulders taller
than anybody else. This, more especially when he was gloriously greased
with a great horn of oil, must have rendered him _highly_ conspicuous.
History, too, if I mistake not, will furnish us with an example where a
great Thracian obtained the empire of the world from no other
circumstance. But, if this antiquated principle is to be adopted, give
us fair play. Let America be searched and it is most probable that the
honor will be found to belong to some huge Patagonian. This is indeed
putting one sadly over the head of another. True, but Nature has done it
and men should see where she leads before they adopt her as a guide.