272

RANDOLPH'S APPEAL; ATTACK ON THE TREATY.

patches. Fauchet promised to give this explanation on the next day, but when Randolph called at his house at the appointed time he found that Fauchet had fled to a French vessel in the harbor, which had slipped her cables early in the morning and was then far out at sea. A swift vessel sent in pursuit brought back the reply that Adet would send the papers, which in time did come and from which Randolph subsequently constructed his Vindication.* Washington informed Randolph that he was at liberty to publish any confidential letters or conversations that had passed between them from which he could derive any advantage. The Secretary's Appeal to the People, however, failed to vindicate

* See Gibbs, Administrations of Washington and Adams, vol. i., pp. 232-280; Sparks, Life of Washington, pp. 468-469; Irving, Life of Washington, vol. v., p. 252 et seq.; McMaster, vol. ii., pp. 233-235. Randolph then retired to Virginia

where he resumed the practice of law, but his public career was blighted and his memory bore the stain of the accusation until his vindication was presented by Moncure D. Conway in an article A Suppressed Statesman, in Lippincott's Magazine (vol. xi., p. 429, September, 1887) and in a biog raphy by the same author entitled Omitted Chapters of History Disclosed in the Life and Papers

of Edmund Randolph, chaps. xxiii.-xxiv. See, however, Lodge's opinion of this vindication in his George Washington, vol. ii., pp. 193-198. Randolph's vindication did not satisfy the Federalists. Trescot (Diplomatic History, pp. 159-161) says that the misconstruction of Randolph's conduct has not received historical sanction, and charges Gibbs with malicious ingenuity in what he says of the matter. Randolph's pamphlet gave rise to Cobbett's Observations on Randolph's Vindication (Philadelphia, 1796) and Political Truth: An Inquiry into the Charges against Mr. Randolph (Philadelphia, 1796).

him in their eyes; it was an effort to
evade the main charge by shifting the
issue while the Jay excitement ran
high, so as to convict the President
of either weakness or duplicity in
signing the treaty, and to draw sym-
pathy to himself as the victim of a
British plot to accomplish the de-
struction of the Republican party and
to endanger the liberties of the coun-
try.
try. Madison said: "His greatest
enemies will not easily persuade
themselves that he was not under a

corrupt influence of France, and his

best friends cannot save him from the self-condemnation of his political

career.

The papers, however, still teemed with savage attacks upon the work of Mr. Jay, and letters and pamphlets were issued in defence of the treaty. Some of these were signed by Roman names, such at Cato, Atticus, Cinna, Decius, Cassius, Valerius, Camillus, etc., while other pseudonyms were Americanus, The Constitutionalist, The Federalist, The Sentinel, etc., most of the writers preferring anonymity. It was known, however, that Camillus was Alexander Hamilton; Cato, Robert R. Livingston; and Decius, Brockholst Livingston.† When it became known that Washington had at last signed the treaty,

316.

See Schouler, United States, vol. i., pp. 314

McMaster, vol. ii., p. 245; Lodge, Alexander Hamilton, pp. 191-192. For Hamilton's first objections, see Gibbs, Administrations of Washington and Adams, vol. i., pp. 223-224; for his later views, see his Works, vol. vii., pp. 169–528 (ed. 1851).

WASHINGTON ATTACKED; HAMILTON'S DEFENCE.

the Republican journals broke out into tirades of abuse, the Aurora accusing him even of having violated the Constitution and of having entered into a treaty which was abhorrent to the people of the United States. This journal went so far as to say that even Louis XVI. had never had the courage to heap such insults upon his subjects as Washington had heaped upon the American people by concluding a disgraceful treaty with a nation which the majority of the people heartily despised.* One man (presumably John Beckley, clerk of the House) ventured even to accuse the President of being a thief, cowardly signing himself "A Calm Observer." He had searched the Treasury Department records and discovered what he considered to be evidences of peculation on Washington's part. During his first term Washington had drawn $5,150 over and above his salary allowed by law, much of which had been repaid, but in March of 1793 a balance of $1,037 still stood against him. In the meantime Congress decided that the President's salary should be paid

Gordy, Political History, vol. i., p. 251. The most extensive collection of divergent criticism on the treaty was published in 1795 by Matthew Carey, as The American Remembrancer; or, An Impartial Collection of Essays, Resolves, Speeches, etc., relative, or having affinity, to the Treaty with Great Britain (3 vols., Philadelphia). See also the Features of Jay's Treaty, in Life and Writings of A. J. Dallas, p. 51. For a view of its effect, see F. A. Ogg, Jay's Treaty and the Slavery Interests of the United States, in Annual Report of the American Historical Association for 1901, vol. i., pp. 273–298.

273

quarterly, and during the first quarter after this had become the custom, Washington had drawn $11,000, an excess of $4,750 over his allowance. "Calm Observer" therefore claimed that the President was drawing $44,000 a year, instead of $25,000 according to law.* So vile and common did the attacks on Washington become that it came to be regarded as a passport to popular favor to oppose the President.t

But the press was teeming also with all kinds of replies- coarse, spiteful, and serious, the best and most influential of which was The Defence, by Camillus (Hamilton).‡ He laid stress on the facts that the treaty had been denounced before it was known and that, as first published, the text was inaccurate. He explained its merits and defended what were considered its defects, declaring that the United States had sacrificed nothing while obtaining privileges which no other nation had been able to secure from Great Britain; that no existing treaties were violated; and that

no

dishonorable restrictions were laid. Peter Porcupine also entered the lists in behalf of the treaty, issu

For the details of this attack, see Marshall, Life of Washington, vol. ii., pp. 370–371. McMaster, vol. ii., p. 250.

See Hamilton's Works, vol. vii., p. 172 et seq. || John Adams said that the defence of Camillus was the work of Jay, King, and Hamilton, but was to pass for Hamilton's. Letter of January 31, 1796, Works, vol. i., pp. 485-486. See note in McMaster, vol. ii., p. 245. See also J. C. Hamilton, History of the Republic, vol. vi., p. 273; Von Holst, Constitutional and Political History, vol. i., p. 127.

274

PORCUPINE'S PAMPHLETS; WASHINGTON'S MESSAGE.

ing a number of pamphlets, entitled The Comprehensive Story of a Farmer's Bull, The Democratic Memoirs, The Democratic Principle, A Bone to Gnaw for the Democrats, A Little Plain English Addressed to the People of the United States on the Treaty, all of which made the Democrats wince. Porcupine was almost as hard on his own party, and members of his own political persuasion had little good to say of him. The Democrats assailed Porcupine with great vindictiveness and issued a large number of pamphlets in reply to his.*

The first session of the Fourth Congress convened on December 7, 1795, and Jonathan Dayton was elected Speaker and John Beckley, Clerk.t The next day Washington

66

*For the arguments contained in these pamphlets, see McMaster, vol. ii., p. 251 et seq. Some of the replies were: A Pill for Porcupine, etc., containing a Vindication of the American, French and Irish Characters against his Scurrilities. By a Friend to Political Equality, 1796; A Twig of Birch for a Butting Calf; Congratulatory Epistle to the Redoubtable Peter Porcupine on his Complete Triumph," etc., a Poem. By Peter Grievous, Jr., 1796; A Rub from Snub; or, A Cursory Analytical Epistle, addressed to Peter Porcupine, etc., 1795; The Imposter Detected; or, A Review of Some of the Writings of Peter Porcupine. By T. Tickletoby; A Rooster, or, A Check to the Progress of Political Blasphemy, intended as a brief reply to Peter Porcupine, alias Billy Cobler. By Sim Sansculotte; The Vision: Dialogue between Marat and Peter Porcupine in the Infernal Regions, 1796. See also James Bowdoin, Opinions Respecting the Commercial Intercourse between the United States and Great Brit ain (Boston, 1797); Oliver Wolcott, British Influence on the Affairs of the United States Proved and Explained (Boston, 1804).

A

Annals of Congress, 4th Congress, 1st session, p. 126.

delivered his annual address.* Regarding the British treaty, he said:

Though not before officially disclosed to the House of Representatives, you, gentlemen, are all apprised that a treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation has been negotiated with Great Britain and that the Senate have advised and consented to its ratification upon a condition which excepts part of one article. Agreeably thereto, and to the best judgment I was able to form of the public interest after full and mature deliberation, I have added my sanction. The result on the part of his Britannic Majesty is unknown. When received, the subject will without delay be placed before Congress."

It was a hard matter for Washington to go before Congress now that the House was no longer Federalist, but contained many of those who had so vilely abused him during the last few months. The reply of the House to the President's speech was made another occasion for insulting him; it was even suggested that the customary reply be omitted and that a committee be sent to assure him that suggestions would be attended Better counsel prevailed, however, and, after a long debate, the clerk wrote an answer prepared in

his
to.

*

Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. i., p. 182 et seq.

† Annals of Congress, 4th Congress, 1st session, pp. 128-130, 131-132, 134-135, 144-149; Benton, Abridgment, vol. i., pp. 606-608. Writing to Jefferson, December 13, 1795, Madison says: "The answer, as it stands to be reported, contains a clause which will put the House of Representatives in a dilemma similar to that forced on the House of Delegates, and I believe will never be swallowed, because it is in part notoriously untrue. It affirms the confidence of his fellowcitizens to be undiminished, which will be denied by many who sincerely wish it to be the case." Madison's Works (Congress ed.), vol. ii., p. 63, also p. 66.

CONGRESS CALLS FOR PAPERS.

276

WASHINGTON REFUSES TO SUBMIT PAPERS.

President with the advice and consent of the Senate did not become the law of the land until sanctioned by the House of Representatives.* He said:

*

"To construe the Constitution consistently, we must attend to all the sections of it. If it is attempted to be construed by referring to particular portions, and not attending to the whole, absurdities must arise. * * By one section it is declared that a treaty is the supreme law of the land, that it operates as a law; yet it is to be made by the President and Senate only. Here will be an apparent contradiction; for the Constitution declares that the legislative power

*

*

acts of the several States; but the clause by no means expresses that treaties are equal or superior to the laws of the Union, or that they shall be supreme law, when clashing with any of them.” *

The advocates of the treaty claimed, on the other hand, that the Constitution clearly vested in the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, the power to make treaties; and that when a treaty was thus made, it was complete and became obligatory on the United States. To refuse to comply with its

and to violate the pledged faith of the United States. After an animated debate, the resolution was adopted on March 24 by a vote of 62 to 37 (absentees 5).

shall be vested in the three branches. By this stipulations was to break the treaty construction there would appear to be two distinct legislatures. If still it is insisted that treaties are the supreme law of the land, the Constitution and laws are also; and, it may be asked, which shall have the preference? Shall a treaty repeal a law or a law a treaty? Neither can a law repeal a treaty because a treaty is made with the concurrence of another party — a foreign nation that has no participation in framing the law; nor can a treaty made by the President and Senate repeal a law, because the House of Representatives have a participation in making the law. It is a sound maxim in govern

When the President received the resolution, he said "that he would take time to consider it." He was in a peculiarly delicate position. The

ment that it requires the same power to repeal passions of the people were strongly

a law that enacted it. If so, it follows that laws and treaties are not of the same nature [for treaties are not laws and do not become laws

until sanctioned by both Houses and Congress]. Gentlemen had dwelt much on that part

*

*

of the Constitution which declared the Constitu-
tion, laws, and treaties [are] laws of the land;
but they had avoided reading the whole of the
clause and had not given to it its obvious mean-
ing.
The clause does not compare a
treaty with the law of the United States, or
either of them with the Constitution: it only
compares all the acts of the Federal Govern-
ment with the acts of the individual States, and
declares that either of the first, whether under
name of Constitution, law or treaty, shall be
paramount to and supersede the Constitution
and laws of the individual States. In that
point of view are treaties said to be the supreme
law, to wit: when standing in competition against

* See also Schouler, United States, vol. i., p. 324.

excited against the treaty; in case he should refuse to submit the papers, suspicion would be aroused that during the negotiations circumstances had occurred which the President feared to publish. He was inclined also to yield to the demand of the House by reason of the large majority that favored the resolution.

* Annals of Congress, 4th Congress, 1st session, pp. 466-469; Benton, Abridgment of Debates, vol. i., pp. 644-645.

† McMaster, vol. ii., p. 267 et seq.

Annals of Congress, 4th Congress, 1st session, pp. 759-760; Lodge, George Washington, vol. ii., p. 204; McMaster, vol. ii., p. 275; Hunt. Life of Madison, p. 232; Stevens, Albert Gallatin, p. 118.