No. IX. TO THE ELECTORS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

ANOTHER collateral circumstance worthy of serious reflection, is drawn from some ideas, which are understood to have been published in Boston, in certain essays under the signature of Pub­licola, and which have been ascribed to Mr. John Adams, jun. They were written as a partial reply to "Paine's Rights of Man," in 1791; and have been since republished in London, with the follow­ing title and motto, in 1793. They were evidently considered in England, as calculated to defend the British constitution, as it then stood, from any ma­terial changes or alterations. The title runs thus: ‘Answer to Paine's Rights of Man, by John Adams, esquire, originally printed in America.’ The mot­to—‘It is not a mechanical horror [...] of a king or of aristocracy, nor [...] to the sound of an extrava [...] [...] of an innocent riban [...] [...] ­ple to lay violent [...] [...]his book was [...]’ [Page 4]Mr. Paine's trial.^* If the essays of Publicola had b [...]en first published in England, they would not so much have concerned the people of America, be­cause the clearly implied defence of the English con­stitution, would not have been placed under their consideration, either as a matter interesting to them, or as a treatise tending to impair their attachment to the provisions of their own national constitution, in several passages, and particularly by holding up the opinion, that any existing political evils in Eng­land could not be correctly attributed to their form of government, though totally opposite, in its cardi­nal principle, to ours. ‘The principal and most dangerous abuses in the English government’ (says our author, distinguishing it from their consti­tution, p. 18) ‘arise, less from the defects inherent in the constitution, than from the state of society; the universal venality and corruption, which per­vades all classes of men in that kingdom, and which a change of government could not reform.’ It is not admitted by the writer, that there are any de­fects inherent in the constitution, though hereditary; nor is it at all objected to, though all the powers and virtues of the English constitution, with a chris­tian hierarchy to aid them, have not been efficaci­ous to keep universal venality and corruption from pervading all classes of men in that kingdom. Though the interior affairs of Great Britain are represented by our author, as thus universally fordid and vitia [...] ­ed, yet we find he enters a caveat against ascrib­ing these evils to the constitution. The hope, then, that "chance" or "providential" governors or rulers would save us from corruption and fraud, [...] abandoned. It would have been [...] we had been informed how [...] well balanced and stu­pendous [Page 5]a government. We cannot but expect, that our American divisions and balances of powers will work much better. Let us guard against fluc­tuations towards hereditary power and all its expe­rienced evils—Let us extend the sphere of national legislation—Let us not exhibit the political solicism of giving powerful seconds to our chief magistrate, who derive an independent authority from other sources than the national will, and who are not amenable to a national tribunal—Let us borrow, at least, this one useful hint from our French allies, who do not so order things, that the executive pow­er of fifteen or eighteen departments be held from the inhabitants of such a grand division, with little or no amenability to the nation or to the national tribunals. In short, let us rather study to eradicate the seeds of imbecility, of fluctuation, and of evil, from our inestimable federal representative govern­ment, and let us labor to invigorate this truly re­publican constitution, rather than to devote our­selves to a love fo [...] a foreign constitution, which is not, what it professes to be, or for a theory of or­ders and [...]anks, which has never yet been realized. Modern Britain, as we have seen, is governed in fact by little more than a two-hundredth part of her adult males. Of course, no real or even virtual re­presentation of the people is combined with the king and nobles.

In the ancient limited monarchies, the whole mass of the unnobled people, were gathered, as upon an American [...]lection-day, to co-operate in legislation wi [...]h the hereditary orders. The convenience and necessity of an equal representation was not adverted to—Hence arose many disorders. The demarcations of power among the three branches were loose, im­perfect, and incorrect. The awful [...] judiciary powers were not [...] [...]inciples are much bett [...] [...] [Page 6]far superior, and the effects correspondingly happy and favorable. The judiciary power, under the ge­neral government, is more completely separated and independent, than in any former instance, much more so than in England—an incalculable blessing. For truly and most emphatically may it be said, that the judiciary power, under a free, written constitution, is the sheet anchor of the political vessel. The heredi­tary court of appeals, blended with the legislative power, and including the impediments to justice, towards those who are not rich, from the immense expense, and to all suitors, from delay, as establish­ed in the house of lords, is far indeed from satisfac­tory— and the tenure of the very important station of the lord high chancellor, at the pleasure of the crown, is a much more dangerous departure from the division and balance of political powers than is to be found in the American constitution.

But are the sober and reflected objections to the hereditary powers of kings and nobles resolvable into a "mechanical" horror against names, having no reasonable foundation? Are they a mere extra­vagant, passionate feeling, into which mankind have worked themselves up? Are the objections to or­ders or ranks, exalting a few to the depression of the rest of a nation no better grounded, than a natural antipathy to an unpleasant sound? Or are those objections as extravagant and ridiculous as the fanciful emotions of a man would be, who should conceive himself to have been born with a natural or physical antipathy to a pretty innocent riband of red, blue, or green? What shall be thought of the republicanism of the implication, that the dis­franchised inhabitants of any kingdom, have little [...] of complaint against the constitution, [...] [...]chanical, extravagant feeling or [...] [...]nds, words, and ribands?

[Page 7] Observations, addressed to the people of America upon the subject of a government opposite in its prin­ciples and construction to ours, are an ill proof of federalism. They cannot be so well tested, as by shewing a contrasted case. If any one were to pro­pose to change our single quadrennial executive, chosen by the boards of electors, into an executive council of seven, chosen yearly by the joint votes of the members of the federal senate and house of re­presentatives— If the same person were to propose annual senators, instead of a senate for the present term—If the same person were to urge the vesting of the powers of a court of chancery in a sole judge, to be annually appointed by the executive council, he would be justly considered as unfriendly to the effi­ciency and stability of our government, or, in other words, as an enemy to the federal constitution. On the other hand, if, instead of an executive council, chosen by the legislature, the deviation from the present happy mode of electing our single magistrate be in the opposite extreme, and an hereditary king be indicated, foretold, represented as inevitable, and insinuated; and, if, instead of annual senators, the deviation from our present mode of appointing sena­tors, be also in the opposite extreme, and a corps of hereditary nobles, with high judicial powers over life, liberty, and property, are recommended, as of unexampled excellency, do not such persons insensibly betray themselves into the like situation of hostility to the constitution of the United States, and to our present tranquillity?

If this matter be carried a step further, and it be impliedly recommended by an example of a very a­larming nature, and by the approbation of that exam­ple, in terms of the most plain and decided force, to vary our constitution as to the great and all impor­tant alterative power, the matter is [...] more serious. This observati [...] [...] [Page 8]to the following extract from the 34th page of the pamphlet in reply to Mr. Paine, which is now under consideration.—"The very act," says the writer, ‘by which septennial parliaments were es­tablished in England, affords sufficient proof, that the power of altering the constitution itself, ought to be delegated, and even exercised by the govern­ment, upon certain critical occasions.’ Is not this observation to the Americans, taken with the former quotation, an evidence of a desire to assimilate our federal constitution to that of England? And if a president be prepared for any other change, might not a bare majority of a future senate and house of representatives, in some moment of real danger, but exaggerated and factitious alarm, give us also, a septen­nial house of commons, and hereditary rulers? Not only a president and senate, but all their families, would have a clear and strong interest to induce them to the measure. The house of representatives would have some personal interest to prolong their existence; and party passions, factitious alarms, and secret addresses to their local, personal, or family interests, might bring us to that, which we are told, that ‘Mankind have universally discovered and pre­ferred,’—chance to a bad choice, and rulers given by Providence, rather than such as we might chuse our­selves.

No. X. TO THE ELECTORS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

IT is proposed to examine a little more the pam­phlet made up, in England, by the republicati­on of the essays of Publicola, ascribed to Mr. A­dams, jun. and printed as from America, with the name of John Adams, Esquire, in the title page.

There is one passage in the pamphlet under con­sideration, which merits particular notice. Be­cause, as it was written in 1791, when our present government was formed, it will appear to be a strong and decided protest against the manner in which the federal constitution was actually accom­plished. It is in the twenty-fourth page, and runs thus: "If however," says our author, speaking of a call of a convention by the British parliament, ‘we can suppose, that the parliament should final­ly accede to the idea, that they are mere tyrants without the shadow of a right to the authority, which they have hitherto exercised; the only act which they could agree to, would be a vote to dissolve themselves, and leave the vessel of the state without either a pilot or a rudder. For the very act of calling a convention, would be an usurpation, and, from the importance of its con­sequences, an usurpation of the most daring na­ture: it would b [...]assuming the [...] the ties of society, and at [...] [Page 10]that this assumed right was without any sort of foundation.’

It is not our wish to advise for or against any mea­sure, which regards the internal affairs of another country. It is only because the papers of Publicola were offered to American consideration, with a view, no doubt, to the adoption of the ideas they contain, that we observe upon them. Where they imply a condemnation of our measures to obtain this happy constitution, it is very fit and necessary that they be noticed with all our minds and with all our strength.

It is well known, that there was no authority in the Annapolis convention of 1786, to proceed upon any business, other than commercial. Yet they unanimously recommended to the states, which had delegated them, to call another convention for ge­neral objects. This was done. The convention met at Philadelphia. The instrument, under which we enjoy our present happiness, was formed by them, and the old confederated congress of 1787, com­municated the proposed constitution to the states, though one of its provisions was contrary to the old articles of confederation—that, we mean, which set up a new confederation of nine adopting states. It was, however, communicated to the state legisla­tures, and they all called conventions of the people to consider, reject, or adopt it, though it is certain, that no state constitution contained a power to take such a measure. The people, however, did choose con­ventions, and adopted the constitution at various times, from December 1787, until May 1790. The operation took almost three years, exclusively of the later case of Vermont, which was peculiarly circumstanced. We do not perceive in this long [...] [...]arance of "a deserted ship with­ [...] [...] [...]nor of "a daring usurpation" [...] of the right to dissolve the [Page 11]"ties of society"—nor any admission, that the old congress or the state legislatures of 1787, were ‘mere tyrants without the shadow of a right to the authority they had theretofore exercised.’ They saw too clearly, that our late national constitution was inadequate to union, justice, and efficient govern­ment. The objects aimed at were conformable with the spirit of our state constitutions, and were pure, equitable, and wise. Had we departed from sanc­tioned principles and aimed at the elevation of the one, and the few, by sacrificing the equal birth-rights of all the rest of the people, we should not this day have enjoyed a constitution, which has afforded us great prosperity and comparative tranquillity in the midst of a suffering and convulsed world.

The symptoms and evidences of the real writer of the pamphlet referred to, we have already given. It is not at all doubted, that Publicola's essays, of which it is made up, are the work of Mr. Adams, jun. Nothing in the public or private character of this gentleman is known, which is a subject of cen­sure. If there were any thing of that nature, it could have no place here. Some of the political ideas in the pamphlet appear to correspond with the pre­ference to hereditary government, evidenced or ex­emplified by an approbation of, and solicitude for, the British constitution, which has been stated as the great objection to the election of Mr. Adams.

The testimony of Mr. Paine on the subject of Mr. Adams's sentiments or dispositions, so far as it may weigh with the electors, cannot, it is true, be con­sidered as direct. He speaks only of what he has been informed of from such sources as to fix his own belief. It is, however, a circumstance of weight, taken in connection with what has been exhibited from Mr. Adams's books, with the contents of the "Discourses upon Davila," and with [...] and dispositions displayed in [...] [Page 12]the work of Mr. Adams, jun. Mr. Paine's asser­tion is, that he has the authority of one or two persons, for saying that Mr. Adams has declared, that the presidency should be made hereditary, in the family of Mr. Lund Washington. It is true, that the manner in which Mr. Paine has stated this mat­ter, is such as not to give all possible effect to the assertion. But though there may be wanting some­thing of that serious simplicity of narrative or state­ment of facts, which aids the impression, even of truth itself, yet the assertion is perfectly express and clear, and it completely commits Mr. Paine. He may occasionally be eccentric or extravagant, as men of great powers of language, animation, and genius not seldom are; but there appears no reason to sup­pose, that he would give under his hand a wilful misrepresentation of fact, concerning an important subject, and relative to a public officer of high stand­ing. It is now four or five weeks since this asserti­on was published in the gazettes. The circumstance really was very favorable to Mr. Adams, as it afford­ed him an opportunity to shew the community, that this and all other opinions or assertions concern­ing a predilection for hereditary power were untrue. When the anxieties of a virtuous community are a­wakened, it is no less reasonable than prudent, that they should be removed by the exertions of all who can contribute to that end. But when they have particular relation to individuals, the attention to the anxieties of the community is rarely with-held, when it is in their power. Respect to the public feelings and solicitudes ought to produce all the sa­tisfaction of that nature, which circumstances will admit. The general inferences from silence are plain and irresistible, and nothing occurs, that can dimi­nish their force in the present case.

[...] the gazette of Easton in Maryland, [...] [...]rts of a similar nature (not [Page 13]as to selecting the family of Mr. Lund Washington, but) as to what has been alleged to have been de­clared to one or more of the members of the [...]nate, by Mr. Adams. The Easton writer treats the report as having actually issued, upon investigation, in mis­take or mistatement. This very slight and very vague reply, renders it impolitic in the writer to have brought up the subject. For surcly, if he is au­thority, he must be informed. If informed, how can he be uncertain whether the assertion was found to be untrue—false—and mistated, or misconceived and mistaken? Such an assertion concerning Mr. Adams has been in circulation for two years. It is known as well to the supporters as to the opponents of Mr. Adams. The influence of the opinion of its truth has long been, and now is, very considerable indeed. Being really known to the supporters of Mr. Adams, and, of course, to that gentleman himself, and there being no use whatever made of the long interval between its origination and the pre­sent time, to remove the impression and relieve the great anxiety and dissatisfaction it produced in the public mind, the report remains to this hour in a state of confirmation from the silence. It is an abso­lute truth, that persons, who had supported Mr. Adams's former elections, and who, according to every appearance, might have been willing to sup­port him again, have become sincerely and great­ly solicitous for some other candidate.

This very serious report of what was said to those senators, has occasioned an alarm, which can never be allayed or suppressed, without the obvious and natural satisfaction, which so very important a mat­ter requires. One of the most powerful impulses to the examinations of the real and generally repu­ted writings of Mr. Adams, and of his eldest son, was the assertion upon this subject. The gra [...] will determine the degree [...] [Page 14]votes, which all these things ought to have in their minds, as they may affect future confidence in the chief magistrate, public tranquillity, and the mainte­nance of the constitution of the United States.

No. XI. TO THE ELECTORS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

IT has been a subject of frequent and acrimonious observation, by the opponents of Mr. Jefferson, that he is so much disposed to justify the French Re­volution, as to overlook all the excesses which that nation has committed. This, however, by no means, appears to be true. Phocion in the fourth page of the pamphlet and in his first newspaper essay, not being able to adduce any testimony on the subject, very logically makes it a sine qua non of Mr. Jefferson's moral character, that it should ‘be shewn that he has disapproved of the cruelties, which have stained the French Revolution.’ It might be fairly observed, that a proof of approbation is incumbent on his op­ponents. But the following paper, of the current year, will shew that the President of the United States [...] given official, personal, and national assu­ [...] [...] [...]mpathy, earnest wishes, the [Page 15]deepest solicitude, and the highest admiration of the French Revolution, overlooking as a politician, but secretly, no doubt, lamenting, as a man, their aber­rations from moderation and humanity in the strug­gles of a convulsive reform of their late stupendous despotism.

It will be remembered that this explicit commu­nication was made in the current year—that it was after all the cruclties, alleged or real, which Mr. Jefferson could have known when in the govern­ment, had occurred—and that therefore those in­considerate men, who attempt to criminate him for not having evidenced reprobation of the French ex­cesses, would also deeply inculpate the president. Thus it is then, that the views of the head of the executive government have been counteracted by those who criminate Mr. Jefferson for according with the chief magistrate.

No. XII. TO THE ELECTORS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

IT would be a vain attempt to banish party from any government, arbitrary or free. The object of the prudent and the virtuous will ever be, there­fore, to mitigate the spirit, and to check its excesses and exaggerations. Party has arisen to a consider­able height in the United States. Our well and tru­ly balanced government, in which our president has applied his qualified negative oftener than the five last British monarchs, and in which the two houses have negatived each other with an independent de­cision, has kept us in order in a difficult and trying season, and in a time of general agitation and con­vulsion under monarchy in Europe. It is an un­comfortable truth, that our various partizans have much misrepresented each other to their respective constituents, in a prejudiced and angry manner. These circumstances have very much contributed to the materials which Phocion has wrought up into his essays and pamphlet. A cursory notice of some facts and events, which have occurred in America, may tend to produce harmony and to remove preju­dices. Time, however, admits but little to be done to this useful end. It is certain and manifest, that the excise system of revenue has been the most trying measure of the general government. Prejudice against it existed in many places, and from sever [...] [Page 18]causes. It therefore behoved the true and prudent friends of the government, not to discountenance a mode of revenue, which a war would have render­ed necessary to us, and which we have been obliged to use in peace. The inevitable difficulties were of themselves too great. It is a fact, little known, that all the senators of North Carolina, South Ca­rolina, and Virginia, voted for the passing of the bill, while three of the senators of the eastern states voted against it, including both of those from Mas­sachusetts. It must be added, that Mr. Jefferson's particular friends in the senate, voted for the mea­sure. A similar support to the excise law took place in the other house, on the part of the ablest and most influential friends of Mr. Jefferson.

The act of congress most important to the effici­ency of the executive power, is that which enables the president to remove the officers of the executive government at his discretion. In proportion to the number of members in the house of representatives, the votes from the southward of Pennsylvania were more numerous than from the northward, and the names of Mr. Jefferson's ablest friends will also be found among the voters for this important act. Of such magnitude is the law, that it is now greatly to be desired that an amendment to the constitution, securing the power to the president for ever, might be adopted. By strengthening our elective chief we diminish the pleas for making him hereditary.

The subject of boundary was predicted by the malignant enemies of American union and pros­perity, as an abundant source of discord and con­tention. Virginia had the oldest charter, and a ve­ry broad one indeed. Yet she has settled amicably with North Carolina, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, the great questions of boundary, conceding what ther states maintain to this day in their favor.

[Page 19] Connecticut alone has kept open one point with Pennsylvania, and another with New York. It may be affirmed, without the least hazard, that the in­ternal peace and harmony of this country has, in no instance, been so lightly hazarded as by the legisla­ture of Connecticut, in selling, for a few thousand pounds, a claim to a quantity of valuable land, reckoned little short of a million and a half of acres, in the state of New York. If they had a right to it, deep, very deep indeed, has been the injury to their constituents. Because the property is intrinsi­cally worth three or four millions of dollars. If they had not the right, the act of selling it comes under a denomination, which we forbear to name. It is important to observe, that the transaction took place in the last year.

No disposition to good government is admitted to exist in the southern states. Yet two eastern states out of four, rejected the constitution in the first in­stance, and of the four southern states only one re­jected. There was no instance of unanimity in adopting the constitution to the eastward. But Jer­sey, Delaware, and Georgia, were unanimous, and the minority in Maryland was less than that of Con­necticut, the most unanimous eastern state, being in Maryland only eleven.

It is urged against some of the southern states, that they impeded the payment of debts, which the treaty of peace secured to the subjects of Great Bri­tain. It is, however, some extenuation, if the plea is insufficient, that they pleaded the infraction of the treaty of 1783, concerning their negroes. And it is true, though little known, that Connecticut, without such a plea, was found to have in full force in 1790, a law which, also interfering then on the scorce of debts with the treaty, was set aside by the supreme court of the United States. It is also true, that the insurrection of 1786, in Massachu­sets, [Page 20]was, in a great degree, owing to the operation of the courts of law, which, of course, decreed the payment of private debts to the creditor citizens from the debtor citizens of the same state: not to persons lately alien enemies, against whose govern­ment a breach of treaty was alleged. The courts of law were declared by the insurgents to be griev­ances, and their suppression was required. It has been said that the southern states were indisposed to the funding system; but have they not passed laws to raise imposts and even excises to discharge the interest and sink the principal? Virginia, particu­larly, has paid the excise, on the produce of her soil, in an examplary manner, and to a large amount. If the tempers of some, and the very low sales of their certificates by others, have occasioned loud com­plaints, have the same not appeared in the shape of insurrection, in the state of Massachusetts?—It is well known that the payment of the public debt was among the chief causes of the insurrection of 1786.

Believe me, respectable fellow citizens, it is not to censure, not to raise a clamor against the eastern states, that these things are mentioned; but, by self-examination, to produce convictions of truth, and to renovate that "spirit of amity and mutual con­cession" which prevailed, alas, more in 1787, 1788, and 1789, than it has done for the last four years. Let us proceed to other facts.

Much has been represented upon the subject of Mr. Jefferson and the late printer of the National Gazette. It has been proved, upon the oath of Mr. Freneau, that there was no foundation for the idea of a connection or influence with or from Mr. Jef­ferson. This is absolutely true. It has not been candidly laid before you. If Mr. Jefferson meant to support Mr. Freneau, it is extraordinary that he did not allow him the whole sum of five hundred [Page 21]dollars per annum, when the legislature assigned that sum for a clerkship, and when the linguist [Mr. Freneau] was obliged to procure translations of Spanish, Portuguese, German, Low-Dutch, Italian, or any other foreign papers, the department of state might receive. It is doubted whether a man of equal talents could be obtained, for five hundred dollars, now.

Why is it mentioned, that not only Mr Jefferson, but a clerk, before in the office, understood French? Are there no other foreign languages but French, and could Mr. Jefferson apply a secreiary's time to make translations, which, it was known, the presi­dent would want, being unacquainted with the French? Other gentlemen of the executive govern­ment, who did not understand French, were to be consulted on many affairs. To them also translati­ons were necessary, as they likewise were for the two houses of congress, and for promulgation to our citizens. If another clerk understood French, did he understand all other foreign languages?— was he critically well acquainted with English and French?—Though before in the office, had he not his time and talents fully employed in his proper business?

The representations concerning the case of Mr. Freneau, were so frequent and open in the gazettes, that it must have been known to the president. It cannot be doubted, that the affair was a subject of conversation between him and Mr. Jefferson. If the president thought there was a propriety in Mr. Fre­neau's removal, or a necessity for it, he would cer­tainly have said so to the secretary of state, and Mr. Jefferson would as certainly have removed him on the president's wish. This ought to be conclusive with every man, and particularly with such a writer as Phocion, who studies to carry an appearance of de­ference and attachment to the chief magistrate. But, [Page 22]as in regard to opinions concerning French affaris, so in this case, the president himself has been inconsi­derately implicated in censure, to get at Mr. Jef­ferson. It would be frivolous to say, the president could not cause the dismission of a translating clerk.

It is with the greatest regret; that we touch upon foreign topies, even in reply, but Phocion has made it necessary. It will be remembered, that Mr. Jefferson was in France, when the measures of the first nation­al assembly were taken. He saw the daily evidences of that enmity to the French revolution, which the despotic part of the combined powers manifested in 1788 and 1789, on account of the admission of the French people, or tiers clat, into a share of the go­vernment. He saw, that the idea of a reform, in any degree through the agency of the people, excited the passions and exertions of the hereditary orders. He saw those orders, headed by the blood relations of the king and queen of France, preparing to inter­pose in the internal affairs of France, and ultimate­ly threatening a partition of the kingdom, to pre­vent the establishment of any degree or portion of power in the people of France, as a part of the po­pular order in Europe. He must have seen that the destruction of the power of the people in France, naturally led to similar vies in regard to America. Such were the natural reflexions of Americans, disposed to support popular elective government, in these states. If the protestant cause from 1755 to 1760, interested the freest of the civilized nati­ons, in the success of the arbitrary princes who sup­ported it by their arms, as in the case of the last Prussian king, how natural was it to feel an interest in the success of the French struggle, which was maintained by hereditary despotic monarchs, against the new-born power of the people of Europe in the Gallic instance? It was manifest that the Americans, their constitution and their government, which are [Page 23] inseparable, were interested, at least, by prudence and policy, not to say by feeling.

Such was the state and course of things till 1793. No man can doubt the unity of opinion between the president and Mr. Jefferson, which prevailed on French affairs. At that time a French agent, as little the friend of France as of America in his diplomatic conduct, gave this country the most just and serious causes of offence and uneasiness. Mr. Jefferson must have been very early struck with the extravagance and danger of Mr. Genet's conduct, for the first communication to that minister, from the secretary of state, which was within a very few days after his arrival at the seat of government, clearly proves that Mr. Jefferson decidedly and ex­plicitly resisted the irregular and dangerous preten­sions of Mr. Genet. These papers were officially communicated to the legislature by the president. Mr. Genet's first communication was of the 27th of May, and Mr. Jefferson's reply was of the 5th of June. It appears from the latter, that he had before made an oral communication to Mr. Genet. In both these we see that Mr. Jefferson had, in a conci­liating, though a firm, explicit, and decided man­ner, maintained the independent rights and neutral duties of this government and nation. These very decided and early communications, Phocion has carefully omitted, and only brings into view a sub­sequent communication to Mr. Governeur Morris, dated above ten weeks after, the firm spirit of which he endeavors to undervalue. This material omis­sion of Phocion justifies the pointed repetition of the remark, that he is a very prejudiced, and consequently, a very deceiving and dangerous in­formant.

It merits the particular consideration of the elec­tors, that the duty Mr. Jefferson had to perform, [Page 24]on this occasion, was infinitely delicate and import­ant. He knew that the president was as earnest in his wishes for the success of the French revolution, as a decided whig in a neutral chief magistracy, could possibly be. He most probably knew, too, that a republican common interest was perceived be­tween the two countries, by the president—and the same impression existed, no doubt, in his own mind. He knew that France was under a highly-excited revolutionary government and feeling, and that mi­litary supplies and officers were engaged in France, and commissions of congress issued, and prizes sold, in the French dominions, before the war of 1778, with England. These were all contrary to the law of nations—subjected France to war, and would subject the United States. Though the French Re­public might feel much therefore, the United States could not consent to such proceedings in their actual situation. The French agent was very extravagant in his language, and disorderly, to an extreme, in his conduct. This could not be endur­ed; yet, a quarrel with France, was studiously to be avoided; because it would throw us into the arms of the combined monarchs, with whom we had no common feeling—no common interest—no ground, however slight, of common cause. This government, impressed with real friendship towards France, under the circumstances stated, had to pro­test, in a dignified manner, against the agent of that republic. It behoved us to take ground, which its own perfect soundness, and our arguments and firmness should render impregnable. Let any man impressed with these views of the subject, examine Mr. Jefferson's thirteen official letters, of June and July, 1793, to Mr. Genet, and let him also take up Mr. Jefferson's letter (following those) of the 16th August to Mr. Governeur Morris, and he will [Page 25]have reason to be thankful for the unshaken firmness, the intelligence, and conciliation, which Mr. Jef­ferson displays, in controuling the operations of Mr. Genet and in requiring of the French government, and ultimately effecting, his final recall. So com­pletely was this done, that Mr. Genet has never since returned to France. No sooner had these very difficult and painful scenes been well gone through, than the British order, against our trade, of June 1793, came forth and shewed us how lit­tle it would have done for us to have been driven by a quarrel with France into the arms of England. While the agitations and injuries from those orders were embarrassing the business of the department of state and the commerce of the country, a new and more alarming scene was opened before us. The schemes of the combined powers were extend­ed. An explicit manifesto of Great Britain of the 31st October 1793, was published, in which monarchical government was dictated to the French republic; and this only other republic upon earth, by virtue of an accompanying secret order of the Bri­tish government, nearly of the same date (Novem­ber 6th, 1793) was to be sacrificed, without notice, in its commerce, navigation, seamen, mercantile capital, supplies, and revenues. Yes, respectable electors, one of these republics was expressly to be subverted, and the other to be ruinously crippled and deranged by virtue of two acts, matured at the same time, and no doubt in due connexion, upon the same foreign council board! These things are not repeated to inflame. But if a secretary of state, who dealt firm­ly with a grossly offending foreign minister of that other republic, under such trying circumstances, is to sustain imputed infamy, instead of imputed merit, from the pen of a self-deceiving witness, it behoves us carefully to look back to the serious transaction [Page 26]of the time. It is manifested to you, by our eleventh number, that the president has retained in his mind, the strongest attachment to the principles of the French revolution, notwithstanding all the miscon­duct of their agents. National interests are not altered by ministerial errors or crimes. Mr. Jeffer­son has done no more than the president. The ex­ecrations of Phocion, on this account, are clearly implied execrations of both, for a judicious poli­cy and moderation, by which the wildness of the sons of Gallic LIBERTY, was not permitted to impair their wonted attachment to the revered PARENT.