FOOTNOTES:
[1093] Adams to McHenry, May 5, 1800; Steiner, 453.
[1094] McHenry to John McHenry, May 20, 1800; Gibbs, ii, 348.
[1095] According to McHenry, Adams's complaints were that the Secretary of War had opposed the sending of the second mission to France, had not appointed as captain a North Carolina elector who had voted for Adams, had "eulogized General Washington ... attempted to praise Hamilton," etc. (McHenry to John McHenry, May 20, 1800; Gibbs, ii, 348; and see Hamilton's "Public Conduct, etc., of John Adams"; Hamilton: Works: Lodge, vii, 347-49.)
[1096] Gore to King, May 14, 1800; King, iii, 242-43; also Sedgwick to Hamilton, May 7, 1800; Works: Hamilton, vi, 437-38.
[1097] Adams to Pickering, May 10, 1800; Works: Adams, ix, 53.
[1098] Pickering to Adams, May 11, 1800; ib., 54.
[1099] Pickering to Hamilton, May 15, 1800; Works: Hamilton, vi, 443.
[1100] Adams to Pickering, May 12, 1800; Works: Adams, ix, 55.
[1101] Sedgwick to Hamilton, May 13, 1800; Works: Hamilton, vi, 442.
[1102] Adams to Rush, March 4, 1809; Old Family Letters, 219.
[1103] "There never was perhaps a greater contrast between two characters than between those of the present President & his predecessor.... The one [Washington] cool, considerate, & cautious, the other [Adams] headlong & kindled into flame by every spark that lights on his passions; the one ever scrutinizing into the public opinion and ready to follow where he could not lead it; the other insulting it by the most adverse sentiments & pursuits; W. a hero in the field, yet overweighing every danger in the Cabinet—A. without a single pretension to the character of a soldier, a perfect Quixotte as a statesman." (Madison to Jefferson, Feb., 1798; Writings: Hunt, vi, 310.) And [Adams] "always an honest man, often a wise one, but sometimes wholly out of his senses." (Madison to Jefferson, June 10, 1798; ib., 325.)
[1104] Adams to Rush, Aug. 23, 1805; Old Family Letters, 76.
[1105] Cabot to King, April 26, 1799; King, iii, 8.
[1106] Wolcott was as malicious as, but more cautious than, Pickering in his opposition to the President.
[1107] "He [Adams] is liable to gusts of passion little short of frenzy.... I speak of what I have seen." (Bayard to Hamilton, Aug. 18, 1800; Works: Hamilton, vi, 457.) "He would speak in such a manner ... as to persuade one that he was actually insane." (McHenry to John McHenry, May 20, 1800; Gibbs, ii, 347.) "Mr. Adams had conducted strangely and unaccountably." (Ames to Hamilton, Aug. 26, 1800; Works: Ames, i, 280.) These men were Adams's enemies; but the extreme irritability of the President at this time was noted by everybody. Undoubtedly this was increased by his distress over the illness of his wife.
[1108] McHenry to John McHenry, May 20, 1800; Gibbs, ii, 347.
[1109] See preceding chapter.
[1110] Aurora, May 9, 1800; the Aurora had been attacking Pickering with all the animosity of partisanship.
[1111] The French press had been quite as much under the control of the Revolutionary authorities as it was under that of Bonaparte as First Consul or even under his rule when he had become Napoleon I.
[1112] Aurora, May 27, 1800.
[1113] Ib., June 4, 1800; and June 17, 1800. The Aurora now made a systematic campaign against Pickering. It had "substantial and damning facts" which it threatened to publish if Adams did not subject Pickering to a "scrutiny" (ib., May 21, 1800). Pickering was a "disgrace to his station" (ib., May 23); several hundred thousand dollars were "unaccounted for" (ib., June 4, and 17).
The attack of the Republican newspaper was entirely political, every charge and innuendo being wholly false. Adams's dismissal of his Secretary of State was not because of these charges, but on account of the Secretary's personal and political disloyalty. Adams also declared, afterwards, that Pickering lacked ability to handle the grave questions then pending and likely to arise. (Cunningham Letters, nos. xii, xiii, and xiv.) But that was merely a pretense.
[1114] Aurora, June 12, 1800.
[1115] Pinckney to McHenry, June 10, 1800; Steiner, 460.
[1116] Wolcott to Ames, Aug. 10, 1800; Gibbs, ii, 402.
[1117] Cabot to Gore, Sept. 30, 1800; Lodge: Cabot, 291.
[1118] Wolcott to Ames, Aug. 10, 1800; Gibbs, ii, 401-02.
[1119] Adams's correspondence shows that the shortest time for a letter to go from Washington to Quincy, Massachusetts, was seven days, although usually nine days were required. "Last night I received your favor of the 4th." (Adams at Quincy to Dexter at Washington, Aug. 13, 1800; Works: Adams, ix, 76; and to Marshall, Aug. 14; ib., 77; and Aug. 26; ib., 78; and Aug. 30; ib., 80.)
[1120] Washington at this time was forest, swamp, and morass, with only an occasional and incommodious house. Georgetown contained the only comfortable residences. For a description of Washington at this period, see chap. i, vol. iii, of this work.
[1121] Marshall to Adams, Sept. 17, 1800; Adams MSS. This trip was to argue the case of Mayo vs. Bentley (4 Call, 528), before the Court of Appeals of Virginia. (See supra, chap. vi.)
[1122] Randall, ii, 547. Although Randall includes Dexter, this tribute is really to Marshall who was the one dominating character in Adams's reconstructed Cabinet.
[1123] Adams to Marshall, July 30, 1800; Works: Adams, ix, 66; also Marshall to Adams, Aug. 1, Aug. 2, and July 29, 1800; Adams MSS.
[1124] Marshall to Adams, July 29, 1800; Adams MSS. This cost Adams the support of young Chase's powerful father. (McHenry to John McHenry, Aug. 24, 1800; Gibbs, ii, 408.)
[1125] McMaster, ii, 448.
[1126] Adams to Marshall, Aug. 7, 1800; Works: Adams, ix, 72; and Marshall to Adams, Aug. 16, 1800; Adams MSS. Chief Justice Ellsworth presided at the trial of Williams, who was fairly convicted. (Wharton: State Trials, 652-58.) The Republicans, however, charged that it was another "political" conviction. It seems probable that Adams's habitual inclination to grant the request of any one who was his personal friend (Adams's closest friend, Governor Trumbull, had urged the pardon) caused the President to wish to extend clemency to Williams.
[1127] Marshall to Adams, June 24, 1800; Adams MSS.
[1128] Marshall to Adams, Aug. 2, 1800; ib.
[1129] Marshall to Adams, July 26, 1800; ib.
[1130] De Yrujo to Marshall, July 31, 1800; ib.
[1131] Marshall does not state what these measures were.
[1132] Marshall to Adams, Sept. 6, 1800; Adams MSS.
[1133] Am. St. Prs., v, Indian Affairs, i, 184, 187, 246. For picturesque description of Bowles and his claim of British support see Craig's report, ib., 264; also, 305. Bowles was still active in 1801. (Ib., 651.)
[1134] Adams to Marshall, July 31, 1800; Works: Adams, ix, 67; Marshall to De Yrujo, Aug. 15, 1800; Adams MSS.
[1135] Adams to Marshall, Aug. 11, 1800; Works: Adams, ix, 73.
[1136] Marshall to Adams, Aug. 12, 1800; Adams MSS.
[1137] Ib.
[1138] Liston to Marshall, Aug. 25, 1800; ib.
[1139] Marshall to Adams, Sept. 6, 1800; ib.
[1140] Marshall to Liston, Sept. 6, 1800; Adams MSS.
[1141] Marshall to J. Q. Adams, July 24, 1800; MS. It is incredible that the Barbary corsairs held the whole of Europe and America under tribute for many years. Although our part in this general submission to these brigands of the seas was shameful, America was the first to move against them. One of Jefferson's earliest official letters after becoming President was to the Bey of Tripoli, whom Jefferson addressed as "Great and Respected Friend ... Illustrious & honored ... whom God preserve." Jefferson's letter ends with this fervent invocation: "I pray God, very great and respected friend, to have you always in his holy keeping." (Jefferson to Bey of Tripoli, May 21, 1801; Am. St. Prs., For. Rel., ii, 349.)
And see Jefferson to Bey of Tunis (Sept. 9, 1801; ib., 358), in which the American President addresses this sea robber and holder of Americans in slavery, as "Great and Good Friend" and apologizes for delay in sending our tribute. In Jefferson's time, no notice was taken of such expressions, which were recognized as mere forms. But ninety years later the use of this exact expression, "Great and Good Friend," addressed to the Queen of the Hawaiian Islands, was urged on the stump and in the press against President Cleveland in his campaign for re-election. For an accurate and entertaining account of our relations with the Barbary pirates see Allen: Our Navy and the Barbary Corsairs.
[1142] Marshall to Adams, Aug. 1, 1800; Adams MSS.
[1143] Marshall to Adams, June 24, 1800; Adams MSS.
[1144] Marshall to Adams, Aug. 16, 1800; July 24, 1800; Ib. and see Adams to Marshall, Aug. 2, and to Secretary of State, May 25; King, iii, 243-46. The jewels were part of our tribute to the Barbary pirates.
[1145] King to Secretary of State, Oct. 11, 1799; note to Grenville; King, iii, 129.
[1146] Secretary of State to King, Feb. 5, 1799; Am. St. Prs., For. Rel., ii, 383. Hildreth says that the total amount of claims filed was twenty-four million dollars. (Hildreth, v, 331; and see Marshall to King, infra.)
[1147] Secretary of State to King, Sept. 4, 1799; Am. St. Prs., For. Rel., ii, 383.
[1148] Troup to King, Sept. 2, 1799; King, iii, 91.
[1149] Secretary of State to King, Dec. 31, 1799; Am. St. Prs., For. Rel., ii, 384-85.
[1150] King to Secretary of State, April 7, 1800; King, iii, 215.
[1151] Marshall to Adams, June 24, 1800; Adams MSS.
[1152] King to Secretary of State, April 22, 1800; King, iii, 222.
[1153] Marshall to Adams, July 21, 1800; Adams MSS.
[1154] Adams to Marshall, Aug. 1, 1800; Works: Adams, ix, 68-69.
[1155] Marshall to Adams, Aug. 12, 1800; Adams MSS.
[1156] Infra, 507 et seq.
[1157] Am. St. Prs., For. Rel., ii, 386.
[1158] Am. St. Prs., For. Rel., ii, 387.
[1159] Am. St. Prs., For. Rel., ii, 387.
[1160] Marshall to Adams, Sept. 9, 1800; Adams MSS.
[1161] Adams to Marshall, Sept. 18, 1800; Works: Adams, ix, 84. After Jefferson became President and Madison Secretary of State, King settled the controversy according to these instructions of Marshall. But the Republicans, being then in power, claimed the credit.
[1162] Secretary of State to King, Oct. 26, 1796; King, ii, 102.
[1163] For a comprehensive though prejudiced review of British policy during this period see Tench Coxe: Examination of the Conduct of Great Britain Respecting Neutrals. Coxe declares that the purpose and policy of Great Britain were to "monopolize the commerce of the world.... She denies the lawfulness of supplying and buying from her enemies, and, in the face of the world, enacts statutes to enable her own subjects to do these things. (Ib., 62.) ... She now aims at the Monarchy of the ocean.... Her trade is war.... The spoils of neutrals fill her warehouses, while she incarcerates their bodies in her floating castles. She seizes their persons and property as the rich fruit of bloodless victories over her unarmed friends." (Ib., 72.)
This was the accepted American view at the time Marshall wrote his protest; and it continued to be such until the War of 1812. Coxe's book is packed closely with citations and statistics sustaining his position.
[1164] Secretary of State to King, June 14, 1799; King, iii, 47; and see King to Secretary of State, July 15, 1799; ib., 58-59; and King to Grenville, Oct. 7, 1799; ib., 115-21.
[1165] This complete paper is in Am. St. Prs., For. Rel., ii, 486-90.
[1166] At one place the word "distinctly" is used and at another the word "directly," in the American State Papers (ii, 487 and 488). The word "directly" is correct, the word "distinctly" being a misprint. This is an example of the inaccuracies of these official volumes, which must be used with careful scrutiny.
[1167] Am. St. Prs., For. Rel., ii, 488.
[1168] Am. St. Prs., For. Rel., ii, 490.
[1169] Infra, 524.
[1170] While political parties, as such, did not appear until the close of Washington's first Administration, the Federalist Party of 1800 was made up, for the most part, of substantially the same men and interests that forced the adoption of the Constitution and originated all the policies and measures, foreign and domestic, of the first three Administrations.
[1171] Wolcott to Ames, Aug. 10, 1800; Gibbs, ii, 404.
[1172] During this period, the word "Democrat" was used by the Federalists as a term of extreme condemnation, even more opprobrious than the word "Jacobin." For many years most Republicans hotly resented the appellation of "Democrat."
[1173] Marshall to Otis, Aug. 5, 1800; Otis MSS.
[1174] For a vivid review of factional causes of the Federalists' decline see Sedgwick to King, Sept. 26, 1800; King, iii, 307-10; and Ames to King, Sept. 24, 1800; ib., 304.
[1175] "The Public mind is puzzled and fretted. People don't know what to think of measures or men; they are mad because they are in the dark." (Goodrich to Wolcott, July 28, 1800; Gibbs, ii, 394.)
[1176] Ames to Hamilton, Aug. 26, 1800; Works: Ames, i, 280.
[1177] Hamilton to Sedgwick, May 4, 1800; Works: Lodge, x, 371.
[1178] Same to same, May 10, 1800; ib., 375.
[1179] "In our untoward situation we should do as well with Jefferson for President and Mr. Pinckney Vice President as with anything we can now expect. Such an issue of the election, if fairly produced, is the only one that will keep the Federal Party together." (Cabot to Wolcott, Oct. 5, 1800; Lodge: Cabot, 295.)
"If Mr. Adams should be reëlected, I fear our constitution would be more injured by his unruly passions, antipathies, & jealousy, than by the whimsies of Jefferson." (Carroll to McHenry, Nov. 4, 1800; Steiner, 473.)
"He [Adams] has palsied the sinews of the party, and" another four years of his administration "would give it its death wound." (Bayard to Hamilton, Aug. 18, 1800; Works: Hamilton, vi, 457.)
[1180] McHenry to John McHenry, May 20, 1800; Gibbs, ii, 347. According to the caucus custom, two candidates were named for President, one of whom was understood really to stand for Vice-President, the Constitution at that time not providing for a separate vote for the latter officer.
[1181] "You may rely upon my co-operation in every reasonable measure for effecting the election of General Pinckney." (Wolcott to Hamilton, July 7, 1800; Works: Hamilton, vi, 447-48.)
"The affairs of this government will not only be ruined but ... the disgrace will attach to the federal party if they permit the re-election of Mr. Adams." (Ib.) "In Massachusetts almost all the leaders of the first class are dissatisfied with Mr. Adams and enter heartily into the policy of supporting General Pinckney." (Hamilton to Bayard, Aug. 6, ib., 452 (also in Works: Lodge, x, 384); and see Jefferson to Butler, Aug. 11, 1800; Works: Ford, ix, 138.)
[1182] Hamilton to Carroll, July 1, 1800; Works: Lodge, x, 378; and see Hamilton to Bayard, Aug. 6, 1800; ib., 384.
[1183] Sedgwick to Hamilton, May 7, 1800, quoting "our friend D.[ayton] who is not perfectly right" (Works: Hamilton, vi, 437; and see Cabot to Hamilton, Aug. 10, 1800; ib., 454; also Cabot to Wolcott, July 20, 1800; Lodge: Cabot, 282.)
[1184] Knox to Adams, March 5, 1799; Works: Adams, viii, 626-27. Knox had held higher rank than Hamilton in the Revolutionary War and Adams had tried to place him above Hamilton in the provisional army in 1798. But upon the demand of Washington Knox was given an inferior rank and indignantly declined to serve. (Hildreth, v, 242-44. And see Washington to Knox, July 16, 1798; Writings: Ford, xiv, 43-46.) Thereafter he became the enemy of Hamilton and the ardent supporter of Adams.
[1185] Wolcott to Ames, Dec. 29, 1799; Gibbs, ii, 315.
[1186] Hamilton to Adams, Aug. 1, 1800; Works: Lodge, x, 382, and see 390; Ames to Wolcott, Aug. 3, 1800; Gibbs, ii, 396; Wolcott to Ames, Dec. 29, 1799; ib., 315.
The public discussion of Adams's charge of a "British faction" against his party enemies began with the publication of a foolish letter he had written to Coxe, in May of 1792, insinuating that Pinckney's appointment to the British Court had been secured by "much British influence." (Adams to Coxe, May, 1792; Gibbs, ii, 424.) The President gave vitality to the gossip by talking of the Hamiltonian Federalists as a "British faction." He should have charged it publicly and formally or else kept perfectly silent. He did neither, and thus only enraged his foe within the party without getting the advantage of an open and aggressive attack. (See Steiner, footnote 3, to 468.)
[1187] Phelps to Wolcott, July 15, 1800; relating Noah Webster's endorsement of Adams's opinions; Gibbs, ii, 380.
[1188] Ames to Wolcott, Aug. 3, 1800; Gibbs, ii, 396.
[1189] In the summer of 1800, Jefferson dined with the President. Adams was utterly unreserved to the Republican leader. After dinner, General Henry Lee, also a guest, remonstrated with the President, who responded that "he believed Mr. Jefferson never had the ambition, or desire to aspire to any higher distinction than to be his [Adams's] first Lieutenant." (Lee to Pickering, 1802; Pickering MSS., Mass. Hist. Soc.; also partly quoted in Gibbs, ii, 366; and see Ames to Wolcott, June 12, 1800; Gibbs, ii, 368; and to King, Sept. 24, 1800; King, iii, 304.)
[1190] Ames to Pickering, Nov. 5, 1799; Works: Ames, i, 261.
[1191] Ames to Gore, Nov. 10, 1799; ib., 265.
[1192] Ames to Gore, Nov. 10, 1799; Ames, i, 268.
[1193] Cabot to Wolcott, June 14, 1800; Lodge: Cabot, 274.
[1194] Jefferson to Granger, Aug. 13, 1800; Works: Ford, ix, 138-41; and see Jefferson to Gerry, January 26, 1799; ib., 17-19.
[1195] "The Jacobins and the half federalists are ripe for attacking the permanent force, as expensive, and unnecessary, and dangerous to liberty." (Ames to Pickering, Oct. 19, 1799; Works: Ames, i, 258.)
[1196] "In my lengthy journey through this State [Pennsylvania] I have seen many, very many Irishmen and with very few exceptions, they are United Irishmen, Free Masons, and the most God-provoking Democrats on this side of Hell," who, "with the joy and ferocity of the damned, are enjoying the mortification of the few remaining honest men and Federalists, and exalting their own hopes of preferment, and that of their friends, in proportion as they dismiss the fears of the gallows.... The Democrats are, without doubt, increasing." (Uriah Tracy to Wolcott, Aug. 7, 1800; Gibbs, ii, 399.)
[1197] Huntington to Wolcott, Aug. 6, 1800; ib., 398.
[1198] Ames to Wolcott, June 12, 1800; ib., 369.
[1199] McHenry to Wolcott, July 22, 1800; Steiner, 462. "Your very wise political correspondents will tell you anything sooner than the truth. For not one of them will look for anything but profound reasons of state at the bottom of the odd superstructure of parties here. There is nothing of the kind at the bottom." (Ames to King, Aug. 19, 1800; King, iii, 294.)
[1200] The Republicans were making much political capital out of the second mission. They had "saved the country from war," they said, by forcing Adams to send the envoys: "What a roaring and bellowing did this excite among all the hungry gang that panted for blood only to obtain pelf in every part of the country." (Aurora, March 4, 1800.)
[1201] Goodrich to Wolcott, Aug. 26, 1800; Gibbs, ii, 412.
[1202] Am. St. Prs., For. Rel., ii, 325.
[1203] Republican success in the approaching election.
[1204] Marshall to Adams, July 21, 1800; Adams MSS.
[1205] Marshall to Hamilton, Aug. 23, 1800; Works: Hamilton, vi, 460.
[1206] A Republican victory.
[1207] Marshall to Adams, Aug. 25, 1800; Adams MSS.
[1208] Adams to Marshall, Sept. 4 and 5, 1800; Works: Adams, ix, 80-82.
[1209] Marshall to Adams, Sept. 17, 1800; Adams MSS. The "retrograde steps" to which Marshall refers were the modification of the French arrêts and decrees concerning attacks on our commerce.
[1210] Marshall to Tinsley, Sept. 13, 1800; MS., Mass. Hist. Soc.
[1211] Marshall, ii, 438.
[1212] Am. St. Prs., For. Rel., ii, 342 et seq.
[1213] Gunn to Hamilton, Dec. 18, 1800; Works: Hamilton, vi, 492; and Rutledge to Hamilton, Jan. 10, 1801; ib., 511; Ames to Gore, Nov. 10, 1799; Works: Ames, i, 265.
[1214] Hamilton to Sedgwick, Dec. 22, 1800; Works: Lodge, x, 397; also, to Morris, Dec. 24, 1800; ib., 398.
[1215] Marshall to Hamilton, Jan. 1, 1801; Works: Hamilton, vi, 502-03; and see Brown: Ellsworth, 314-15. The principal American demand was compensation for the immense spoliation of American commerce by the French. The treaty not only failed to grant this, but provided that we should restore the French ships captured by American vessels during our two years' maritime war with France, which, though formally undeclared, was vigorous and successful. "One part of the treaty abandons all our rights, and the other part makes us the dupes of France in the game she means to play against the maritime power of England.... We lose our honor, by restoring the ships we have taken, and by so doing, perhaps, make an implicit acknowledgment of the injustice of our hostile operations." (Rutledge to Hamilton, Jan. 10, 1801; Works: Hamilton, vi, 511.)
[1216] Bayard to Andrew Bayard, Jan. 26, 1801; Bayard Papers: Donnan, 121.
[1217] Gallatin to his wife, Feb. 5, 1801; Adams: Gallatin, 259.
[1218] Ib., 254.
[1219] Ames to Gore, Dec. 29, 1800; reviewing political events of the year; Works: Ames, i, 286-87.
[1220] Hamilton to Wolcott, Aug. 3, 1800; Works: Lodge, x, 383; and Wolcott to Ames, Aug. 10, 1800; Gibbs, ii, 400.
[1221] Hamilton to Wolcott, Sept. 26, 1800; Works: Lodge, x, 389 (also in Gibbs, ii, 422); and see same to same, Aug. 3, 1800; Works: Lodge, x, 883.
[1222] Troup to King, Oct. 1, 1800; King, iii, 315.
[1223] Aurora, May 20, 1800.
[1224] Sedgwick to King, Sept. 26, 1800; King, iii, 309.
[1225] Ames to Hamilton, Aug. 26, 1800; Works: Hamilton, vi, 463; also Cabot to Hamilton, Aug. 21, 1800; ib., 458; and Aug. 23, 1800; ib., 460 (also in Lodge: Cabot, 284-88); and to Wolcott, Aug. 23, 1800; Lodge: Cabot, 288-89.
The local politicians were loyal to the President; Ames bitterly complains of "the small talk among the small politicians, about disrespect to the President, &c., &c." (Ames to Pickering, Nov. 23, 1799; Works: Ames, i, 272.)
[1226] Hamilton to Adams, Aug. 1, 1800; Works: Lodge, x, 382; and same to same, Oct. 1, 1800; ib., 390. Wolcott supplied most of the material and revised Hamilton's manuscript. (Wolcott to Hamilton, Oct. 1, 2, 1800; Works: Hamilton, vi, 470-71.) For entire attack see Hamilton: "Public Conduct and Character of John Adams"; Works: vii, 687-726 (also in Works: Lodge, vii, 309-65.)
[1227] Parton: Burr, 256-57; Davis: Burr, ii, 65 et seq.
[1228] "This pamphlet has done more mischief to the parties concerned than all the labors of the Aurora!" (Duane to Collot; Parton: Burr, 258.)
[1229] "Our friends ... lamented the publication.... Not a man ... but condemns it.... Our enemies are universally in triumph.... His [Hamilton's] usefulness hereafter will be greatly lessened." (Troup to King, Nov. 9, 1800; King, iii, 331.) "All ... blame ... Mr. Hamilton." (Carroll to McHenry, Nov. 4, 1800; Steiner, 476.)
Some Federalist politicians, however, observed Hamilton's wishes. For example: "You must at all events secure to the Genr. [Pinckney] a majority in Cong., it may there be done with safety, his success depends on the accomplishment of this measure. You know a friend of ours who can arrange this necessary business with the utmost perfect suavity." (Dickinson to McHenry, Oct. 7, 1800; Steiner, 471.)
Again Dickinson writes of "the absolute necessity of obtaining a majority (if it should only be by a single vote) in Cong. to favor the man who interests us most" and hopes "Hamilton's publication ... will produce the desired effect." (Oct. 31, 1800; ib., 472.)
[1230] Washington Federalist, Nov. 29, 1800.
[1231] For instance see the Aurora's editorial on women in the army, January 14, 1800; and see titles of imaginary books editorially suggested for use by the various Federalist leaders, especially Hamilton, Harper, and Gouverneur Morris, in ib., May 10, 1800. On August 21 it described some Federalist leaders as "completely bankrupt of character as well as fortune."
Although it did not equal the extravagance of the Republican newspapers, the Federalist press was also violent. See, for instance, a satirical poem "by an Hibernian and an Alien" in the Alexandria Advertiser, reprinted in the Washington Federalist of February 12, 1801, of which the last verse runs:—
"With J[effer]son, greatest of men,
Our President next we will dash on.
Republican marriages then,
And drowning boats will be in fashion.
Co-alitions, tri-color we'll form
'Twixt white Men, Mulattos, and Negroes.
The banks of the treasury we'll storm—
Oh! how we'll squeeze the old Quakers,
Philosophy is a fine thing!"
The familiar campaign arguments were, of course, incessantly reiterated as: "The Government" cost only "five million dollars ... before the British treaty"; now it costs "fifteen millions. Therefore every man who paid one dollar taxes then pays three dollars now." (Aurora, Oct. 30, 1800.)
[1232] Ames to Pickering, Nov. 5, 1799; Works: Ames, i, 264.
[1233] Ames to Dwight, March 19, 1801; ib., 294.
[1234] Webster to Wolcott, June 23, 1800; Gibbs, ii, 374.
[1235] The Washington Federalist, Jan. 12, 1801, charged that, in Virginia, public money was used at the election and that a resolution to inquire into its expenditures was defeated in the Legislature.
[1236] Charles Pinckney to Jefferson, Oct. 12, 1800; Amer. Hist. Rev., iv, 117. For election arguments and methods see McMaster, ii, 499 et seq.
[1237] Adams to Marshall, Sept. 27, 1800; Works: Adams, ix, 85; and see Graydon, footnote to 362.
[1238] Adams to Marshall, Sept. 30, 1800; Adams MSS.
[1239] Marshall to Adams, without date; Adams MSS.
[1240] Adams MSS. Marshall wrote two speeches for Adams. Both are in Marshall's handwriting. The President selected and delivered the one which appears in Adams's Works and in Richardson. The undelivered speech was the better, although it was written before the French treaty arrived, and was not applicable to the state of our relations with France when Congress convened. Marshall also wrote for Adams the two brief separate addresses to the Senate and the House. (Ib.)
[1241] The original manuscripts of these speeches, in Marshall's handwriting, are in the Adams MSS. They are notable only as an evidence of Adams's confidence in Marshall at this, the most irritating period of his life.
[1242] Beard: Econ. O. J. D., chap. xiii.
[1243] When it was certain that Adams had been defeated, "Solon," in the Washington Federalist of Jan. 9, 1801, thus eulogized him:—
"The die is cast!... Our beloved Adams will now close his bright career.... Immortal sage! May thy counsels continue to be our saving Angel! Retire and receive ... the ... blessings of all good men....
"Sons of faction [party]! demagogues and high priests of anarchy, now have you cause to triumph. Despots and tyrants! now may you safely pronounce 'ingratitude is the common vice of all republics. Envy and neglect are the only reward of superior merit. Calumny, persecution and banishment are the laurels of the hoary patriot.'...
"... We have to contend ... for national existence. Magistrates and rulers, be firm.... Our constitution is our last fortress. Let us entrench it against every innovation. When this falls, our country is lost forever."
This editorial, as well as all political matter appearing in the Washington Federalist during 1800-01, is important because of Marshall's reputed influence over that paper. (See infra, 541.)
At news of Jefferson's success the leading Federalist journal declared that some Republicans in Philadelphia "huzzaed until they were seized with lockjaw ... and three hundred are now drunk beyond hope of recovery. Gin and whiskey are said to have risen in price 50 per cent since nine o'clock this morning. The bells have been ringing, guns firing, dogs barking, cats meuling, children crying, and jacobins getting drunk, ever since the news of Mr. Jefferson's election arrived in this city." (Gazette of the United States, Feb. 19, 1801.)
[1244] At that time, the presidential electors did not vote for a Vice-President, but only for President. The person receiving the largest number of electoral votes became President and the one for whom the second largest number of votes were cast became Vice-President. When Jefferson and Burr each had seventy-three votes for President, the election was thrown into the House of Representatives.
Thus, although, in casting their ballots for electors, the people really voted for Jefferson for President and for Burr for Vice-President, the equal number of votes received by each created a situation where it was possible to defeat the will of the people. Indeed, as appears in the text, that result was almost accomplished. It was this constitutional defect that led to the Twelfth Amendment which places the election of President and Vice-President on its present basis. (See "The Fifth Wheel in our Government"; Beveridge: Century Magazine, December, 1909.)
[1245] Jefferson to Burr, Dec. 15, 1800; Works: Ford, ix, 155.
[1246] "Jefferson & Burr have each 73 votes and ... the Democrats are in a sweat." (Uriah Tracy to McHenry, Dec. 30, 1800; Steiner, 483.)
[1247] Jefferson to Madison, Dec. 19, 1800; Works: Ford, ix, 158.
[1248] Jefferson to Breckenridge, Dec. 18, 1800; ib., 157.
[1249] Hamilton to Wolcott, Dec. 16, 1800; Works: Lodge, x, 392.
[1250] See these letters in ib., 392 et seq.; and to Bayard, Jan. 16, 1801; ib., 412 (also in Works: Hamilton, vi, 419, but misplaced and misdated).
[1251] Hindman to McHenry, Jan. 17, 1801; Steiner, 489-90; and see Carroll to Hamilton, April 18, 1800; Works: Hamilton, vi, 434-35.
The Washington Federalist, even when the balloting was in progress, thus stimulated the members of its party in the House: "Unworthy will he be and consecrate his name to infamy, who ... has hitherto opposed ... Mr. Jefferson ... and shall now meanly and inconsistently lend his aid to promote it [Jefferson's election].... Will they confer on Mr. Jefferson the Federal suffrage in reward for the calumnies he has indiscriminately cast upon the Federal character; or will they remunerate him ... for the very honorable epithets of pander, to the whore of England, 'timid men, office hunters, monocrats, speculators and plunderers' which he has missed no opportunity to bestow upon them." (Washington Federalist, Feb. 12, 1801.)
[1252] Hamilton to Wolcott, Dec. 17, 1800; Works: Lodge, x, 395.
[1253] Jefferson rightly attributed to Burr Republican success in the election. "He has certainly greatly merited of his country, & the Republicans in particular, to whose efforts his have given a chance of success." (Jefferson to Butler, Aug. 11, 1800; Works: Ford, ix, 138.)
[1254] Sedgwick to Hamilton, Jan. 10, 1800; Works: Hamilton, vi, 511-14; Cabot to Hamilton, Aug. 10, 1800; ib., 453 (also in Lodge: Cabot, 284); Hindman to McHenry, Jan. 17, 1801; Steiner, 489-90; Morris to Hamilton, Jan. 5, 1801; Morris, ii, 398; and same to same, Jan. 26, 1801; ib., 402 (also in Works: Hamilton, vi, 503); Carroll to McHenry, Nov. 4, 1800; Steiner, 473-76; Rutledge to Hamilton, Jan. 10, 1801; Works: Hamilton, vi, 510.
[1255] Bayard to Andrew Bayard, Jan. 26, 1801; Bayard Papers: Donnan, 121.
[1256] Bayard to Hamilton, March 8, 1801; Works: Hamilton, vi, 524.
[1257] Tracy to McHenry, Jan. 15, 1801; Steiner, 488-99; and see Bayard to Andrew Bayard, Jan. 26, 1801; supra.
[1258] Hamilton to Wolcott, Dec. 16, 1800; Works: Lodge, x, 392.
[1259] Wolcott to Hamilton, Dec. 25, 1800; Works: Hamilton, vi, 498.
[1260] See Chief Justice Ellsworth's statement of the conservative opinion of Jefferson. (Brown: Ellsworth, 324-25.)
[1261] Jefferson to Mazzei, April 24, 1796; Works: Ford, viii, 237-41. The letter as published in America, although it had undergone three translations (from English into Italian, from Italian into French, and from French into English again), does not materially differ from Jefferson's original.
It greatly angered the Federalist leaders. Jefferson calls the Federalists "an Anglican, monarchical & aristocratical party." The Republicans had "the landed interests and men of talent"; the Federalists had "the Executive, the Judiciary," the office-holders and office-seekers—"all timid men who prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty, British merchants & Americans trading on British capital, speculators & holders in the banks & public funds, a contrivance invented for the purposes of corruption," etc.
Jefferson thus refers to Washington: "It would give you a fever were I to name to you the apostates who have gone over to these heresies, men who were Samsons in the field & Solomons in the council, but who have had their heads shorn by the whore England." It was this insult to Washington which Marshall resented most bitterly.
Jefferson must have known that Mazzei would probably publish this letter. Writing at Paris, in 1788, of Mazzei's appointment by the French King as "intelligencer," Jefferson said: "The danger is that he will overact his part." (Jefferson to Madison, July 31, 1788; Works: Ford, v, 425.)
The Republicans frankly defended the Mazzei letter; both its facts and "predictions" were correct, said the Aurora, which found scarcely "a line in it which does not contain something to admire for elegance of expression, striking fact, and profound and accurate penetration." (Aurora, May 26, 1800.)
[1262] Marshall to Hamilton, January 1, 1801; Works: Hamilton, vi, 501-03.
[1263] Following is a list of the annual salaries of different officers:—
| President | $25,000 |
| Vice-President | 5,000 |
| Chief Justice | 4,000 |
| Associate Justices | 3,500 |
| Attorney-General | 1,500 |
| Secretary of the Treasury | 3,500 |
| Secretary of State | 3,500 |
| Secretary of War | 3,000 |
(Annals, 1st Cong., 1st Sess., Appendix, 2233-38.)
[1264] At the very beginning of the movement in his favor, Burr refused to encourage it. "Every man who knows me ought to know that I disclaim all competition. Be assured that the Federalist party can entertain no wish for such a change.... My friends would dishonor my views and insult my feelings by a suspicion that I would submit to be instrumental in counteracting the wishes and expectations of the United States. And I now constitute you my proxy to declare these sentiments if the occasion shall require." (Burr to Smith, Dec. 16, 1800; Washington Federalist, Dec. 31, 1800.)
[1265] Pickering to King, Jan. 5, 1801; King, iii, 366.
[1266] See Aurora, Jan. 21, 1801.
[1267] "Lucius," of Fredericksburg, Virginia, in the Washington Federalist, Jan. 21, 25, and Feb. 6, 1801.
The following extracts from the first of these articles reveal the temper and beliefs of the Federalists: "Burr never penned a declaration of independence; ... but he ... has engraved that declaration in capitals with the point of his sword: It is yet legible on the walls of Quebeck. He has fought for that independency, for which Mr. Jefferson only wrote. He has gallantly exposed his life in support of that declaration and for the protection of its penn-man. He has been liberal of his blood, while Mr. Jefferson has only hazarded his ink....
"He never shrank from the post of danger. He is equally fitted for service in the field and in the public counsels: He has been tried in both: in the one we have seen him an able and distinguished Senator;—in the other a brave and gallant officer....
"Mr. Jefferson is better qualified to give the description of a butterfly's wing or to write an essay on the bones of the Mammouth; ... but Mr. Burr ... in ... knowledge ... necessary to form the great and enlightened statesman, is much superior to Mr. Jefferson....
"Mr. Burr is not ... consecrated to the French; ... nor has he unquenchable hatred to ... Great Britain. Unlike the penn-man of the declaration he feels the full force of the expression, 'in war enemies, in peace friends'... Mr. Burr ... will only consult national honor and national happiness, having no improper passions to gratify.
"Mr. Burr is ... a friend of the Constitution ... a friend of the commercial interests ... the firm and decided friend of the navy ... the Eastern States have had a President and Vice President; So have the Southern. It is proper that the middle states should also be respected....
"Mr. Burr has never procured or encouraged those infamous Calumnies against those who have filled the Executive departments ... which we long have witnessed: Nor have those polluted Sinks, the Aurora, the Argus, the Press, the Richmond Examiner, and the like, poured forth their impure and fœtid streams at the influence of Mr. Burr, or to subserve his vanity or his ambition.
"If Mr. Burr is elected, the Federalists have nothing to fear.... The vile calumniators ... of all who have ... supported our government, and the foreign incendiaries, who, having no interest in Heaven, have called Hell to their assistance, ... from Mr. Burr have nothing to hope....
"Mr. Burr can be raised to the Presidency without any insult to the feelings of the Federalists, the friends of Government; ... without an insult to the Memory of our Washington; for it was not by Mr. Burr, nor was it by his friends, nor to serve him that the great, the good, the immortal Washington was charged with having, by his name, given a sanction to corruption, with being meanly jealous of the fame of even that contemptible wretch Tom Paine, with being an unprincipled Hypocrite and with being a foul murderer! a murderer under circumstances of such peculiar atrocity as to shock with horror the merciless savages, and to cause them indignantly to fly from his blood polluted banner!"
[1268] "John Marshall ... is the reputed author of a great part of the [rubbish] in the Washington Federalist." (Scots Correspondent [Callender] in Richmond Examiner, Feb. 24, 1801.) There is no proof of Callender's assertion; but some of the matter appearing in the Washington Federalist is characteristic of Marshall's style and opinions. See, for instance, the editorial on the prosecution of Theodore Dwight, denouncing "party spirit" (Washington Federalist, March 1, 1801). The Aurora of March 26, 1801, denounced "John Marshall's Federal Gazette at Washington."
[1269] Monroe to Jefferson, Jan. 18, 1801; Monroe's Writings: Hamilton, iii, 256. An article signed "Horatius" in the Washington Federalist of Jan. 6, 1801, stated this position with great ability. The argument is able and convincing; and it is so perfectly in Marshall's method of reasoning and peculiar style of expression that his authorship would appear to be reasonably certain.
"Horatius's" opinion concluded that the power of Congress "is completely adequate ... to provide by law for the vacancy that may happen by the removal of both President and Vice President on the 3d of March next, and the non-election of a successor in the manner prescribed by the constitution."
[1270] Monroe to Jefferson, Jan. 18, 1801; Monroe's Writings: Hamilton, iii, 256.
[1271] Jefferson to Madison, Dec. 26, 1800; Works: Ford, ix, 161-62.
[1272] "Hortensius" to John Marshall, Secretary of State, in the Richmond Examiner; reprinted in the Aurora, Feb. 9, 1801. George Hay, the writer of this letter, was a lawyer in Richmond. Jefferson appointed him United States Attorney for the District of Virginia, and, as such, he conducted the prosecution of Aaron Burr for treason before John Marshall, who, as Chief Justice of the United States, presided at the trial. (See vol. iii of this work.)
Marshall was again attacked in two open letters, signed "Lucius," in the Richmond Examiner, Feb. 10, 13, 1801. His reported opinion, said "Lucius," alarmed "the active friends of freedom"; Marshall was "the Idol of his party" and knew the influence of his views: unless he publicly disclaimed the one now attributed to him, "Lucius" proposed to "unveil" Marshall's "motives" and "expose" him "uncovered to the sight of the people"—his "depravity shall excite their odium," etc. "Lucius's" attacks ended with Jefferson's election.
[1273] The paper criticized "the intemperate counsel of a certain would be attorney-general of the United States (George Hay, Esq. of the antient dominion) ... under the signature of Hortensius, and addressed to General Marshall, in consequence of a lie fabricated against him relative to an opinion said to have been given by him upon the late presidential election, which the honorable attorney knew to be a lie as well as we did, but was fearful of being forgot, and despaired of getting a better opportunity to shew himself!!!" (Washington Federalist, Feb. 12, 1801.)
[1274] Jefferson to Monroe, Feb. 15, 1801; Works: Ford, ix, 178-79; and see Jefferson to McKean, March 9, 1801; ib., 206.
[1275] Jefferson to Madison, Feb. 18, 1801; ib., 182.
[1276] Monroe to Hoomes, Feb. 14, 1801; Monroe's Writings: Hamilton, iii, 259; and Monroe to Nicholas, Feb. 18, 1801; ib., 260.
[1277] For these incidents and reports see Gallatin to his wife, May 8, 1801; Adams: Gallatin, 249.
[1278] Thus, for example, the Washington Federalist of Feb. 12, 1801, after the House had balloted "upwards of 30 times":—
"But say the bold and impetuous partisans of Mr. Jefferson, and that, too, in the Teeth of the Assembled Congress of America—'Dare to designate any officer whatever, even temporarily, to administer the government in the event of a non-agreement on the part of the House of Representatives, and we will march and dethrone him as an usurper. Dare (in fact) to exercise the right of opinion, and place in the presidential chair any other than the philosopher of Monticello, and ten thousand republican swords will instantly leap from their scabbards, in defence of the violated rights of the People!!!
"Can our Countrymen be caught by so flimsy a pretext?
"Can it possibly interest either their feelings or their judgment?
"Are they, then, ripe for civil war, and ready to imbrue their hands in kindred blood?
"If the tumultuous meetings of a set of factious foreigners in Pennsylvania or a few fighting bacchanals of Virginia, mean the people, and are to dictate to the Congress of the United States whom to elect as President—if the constitutional rights of this body are so soon to become the prey of anarchy and faction—... it would be prudent to prepare for the contest: the woeful experiment if tried at all could never be tried at a more favorable conjuncture!
"With the militia of Massachusetts consisting of 70,000 (regulars let us call them) in arms—with those of New Hampshire and Connecticut united almost to a man, with half the number at least of the citizens of eleven other States ranged under the federal banner in support of the Constitution, what could Pennsylvania aided by Virginia—the militia of the latter untrained and farcically performing the manual exercise with corn-stalks instead of muskets—... What, may it be asked, would be the issue of the struggle?"
[1279] "The means existed of electing Burr, but this required his co-operation. By deceiving one man (a great blockhead) and tempting two (not incorruptible) he might have secured a majority of the States." (Bayard to Hamilton, March 8, 1801; Works: Hamilton, vi, 522-24.)
"The Federalists were confident at first, they could debauch Col. B.[urr].... His conduct has been honorable and decisive, and greatly embarrasses them." (Jefferson to his daughter, Jan. 4, 1801; Works: Ford, ix, 166.)
[1280] "I was enabled soon to discover that he [Burr] was determined not to shackle himself with federal principles.... When the experiment was fully made, and acknowledged upon all hands, ... that Burr was resolved not to commit himself, ... I came out ... for Jefferson." (Bayard to Hamilton, March 8, 1801; Works: Hamilton, vi, 523.)
[1281] The Federalist managers were disgusted with Burr because he refused to aid them in their plot to elect him. "Burr has acted a miserable paultry part," writes Bayard. "The election was in his power, but he was determined to come in as a Democrat.... We have been counteracted in the whole business by letters he has written to this place." (Bayard to Bassett, Feb. 16, 1801; Bayard Papers: Donnan; 126.)
Burr had not "used the least influence" to be elected. (Bayard's Deposition; Davis: Burr, ii, 127.)
"Had Burr done anything, for himself, he would, long ere this, have been President." (Cooper to Morris, Feb. 13, 1801; Davis: Burr, ii, 113.)
[1282] Depositions of Bayard and Smith, in Gillespie vs. Smith; Randall, ii, 613-17; and Davis: Burr, ii, 135-37; also Baer to Bayard, April 19, 1830; ib., 118; and see Bayard's account; Remarks in the Senate, Jan. 31, 1835; also, Bayard to McLane, Feb. 17, 1801; Bayard Papers: Donnan, 126 et seq.
In his "Anas" (Works: Ford, i, 392-93) Jefferson flatly denied his deal with the Federalists, and this, afterwards, provoked much controversy. It now is established that the bargain was made. See Professor McMaster's conclusion: "The price settled ... the Republicans secured ten states." (McMaster, ii, 526.)
[1283] For accounts by participants in this exciting and historic contest, see Gallatin's letters to his wife and to Nicholson from Feb. 5 to Feb. 19, 1801; Adams: Gallatin, 257-63; Dana to Wolcott, Feb. 11, 1801; Gibbs, ii, 489-90; Bayard to several friends, Feb. 22, 1801; Bayard Papers, supra.
[1284] Jefferson to Madison, Feb. 18, 1801; Works: Ford, ix, 183.
[1285] After Jefferson's election, for many days the Washington Federalist carried in italics at the head of its editorial columns a sentiment characteristic of Marshall: "May he discharge its duties in such a manner as to merit and receive the blessings of all good men and without redding the cheek of the American Patriot with blushes for his country!!!"
[1286] Gallatin to his wife, Feb. 17, 1801; Adams: Gallatin, 262.
[1287] Adams to Congress, Dec. 3, 1799; Annals, 6th Cong., 1st Sess., 187-88; and Richardson, i, 289. Yet at this period the business of the courts was actually decreasing. (See Brown: Ellsworth, 198.) But the measure was demanded by the bar generally and insisted upon by the Justices of the Supreme Court. (See Gibbs, ii, 486.)
[1288] Adams to Congress, Dec. 3, 1799; as written by Marshall; Adams MSS.
[1289] Gunn to Hamilton, Dec. 13, 1800; Works: Hamilton, vi, 483.
[1290] The Federalist attitude is perfectly expressed in the following toast drunk at a banquet to Wolcott, attended by "the heads of departments" and the Justices of the Supreme Court: "The Judiciary of the United States! Independent of party, independent of power and independent of popularity." (Gazette of the United States, Feb. 7, 1801.)
[1291] Wolcott to Ames, Dec. 29, 1799; Gibbs, ii, 316.
[1292] Annals, 6th Cong., 1st Sess., Dec. 19, 837-38.
[1293] Richmond Examiner, Feb. 6, 1801.
[1294] Jefferson to Madison, Dec. 19, 1800; Works: Ford, ix, 159. The Republicans were chiefly alarmed because, in the extension of the National Judiciary, offices would be provided for Federalists. Even Jefferson then saw nothing but patronage in the Judiciary Act.
The "evident" purpose of the bill, said the Aurora, Feb. 4, 1801, was to "increase the influence of the present Executive and provide a comfortable retreat for some of those good federalists who have found it convenient to resign from their offices or been dismissed from them by the people."
In comparison to this objection little attention was paid to the more solid ground that the National Judiciary would be used to "force the introduction of the common law of England as a part of the law of the United States"; or even to the objection that, if the Judiciary was extended, it would "strengthen the system of terror by the increase of prosecutions under the Sedition law"; or to the increase of the "enormous influence" given the National Courts by the Bankruptcy Law.
The Aurora, March 18, 1801, sounded the alarm on these and other points in a clanging editorial, bidding "the people beware," for "the hell hounds of persecution may be let loose ... and the people be roasted into implicit acquiescence with every measure of the 'powers that be.'" But at this time it was the creation of offices that the Federalists would fill to which the Republicans chiefly objected.
[1295] Rutledge to Hamilton, Jan. 10, 1801; Works: Hamilton, vi, 511.
[1296] Jefferson to Madison, Dec. 26, 1800; Works: Ford, ix, 161.
[1297] Annals, 6th Cong., 1st Sess., 878.
[1298] Annals, 6th Cong., 1st Sess., 879.
[1299] Ib. The person who made this absurd speech is not named in the official report.
[1300] Ib., 896.
[1301] Annals, 6th Cong., 1st Sess., 897. This curious entry is, plainly, the work of some person who wished to injure Marshall and Lee. Nicholas's motion was lost, but only by the deciding vote of the Speaker. (Ib.) The bill, as finally passed, limited the jurisdiction of the National Courts to causes exceeding four hundred dollars. (Ib.)
[1302] Ib., 900, 901, 903, and 905.
[1303] Ib., 734.
[1304] Ib., 740-41.
[1305] Ib., 741.
[1306] Ib., 742.
[1307] Adams to Jay, Dec. 19, 1800; Works: Adams, ix, 91.
[1308] Jay to Adams, Jan. 2, 1801; Jay: Johnston, iv, 284. Jay refused the reappointment because he believed the Supreme Court to be fatally lacking in power. See chap. i, vol. iii, of this work.
[1309] Gunn to Hamilton, Dec. 18, 1800; Works: Hamilton, vi, 492.
[1310] Jefferson to Madison, Dec. 19, 1800; Works: Ford, ix, 159. It is impossible to imagine what this "something worse" was. It surely was not Marshall, who was in nobody's mind for the Chief Justiceship when Jay was named.
[1311] Pickering to King, Jan. 12, 1801; King, iii, 367.
[1312] Story, in Dillon, iii, 359.
[1313] Adams to William Cunningham, Nov. 7, 1808; Cunningham Letters, no. xiv, 44; also mentioned in Gibbs, ii, 349.
[1314] Gibbs, ii, 349, 350.
[1315] As we have seen, Marshall's "reading of the science," "fresh" or stale, was extremely limited.
[1316] Adams to Boudinot, Jan. 26, 1801; Works: Adams, ix, 93-94. Adams's description of Marshall's qualifications for the Chief Justiceship is by way of contrast to his own. "The office of Chief Justice is too important for any man to hold of sixty-five years of age who has wholly neglected the study of the law for six and twenty years." (Ib.) Boudinot's "rumor" presupposes an understanding between Jefferson and Adams.
[1317] Bayard to Andrew Bayard, Jan. 26, 1801; Bayard Papers: Donnan, 122.
[1318] Aurora, Jan. 22, 1801.
[1319] It is worthy of repetition that practically all the emphasis in their attacks on this act was laid by the Republicans on the point that offices were provided for Federalists whose characters were bitterly assailed. The question of the law's enlargement of National power was, comparatively, but little mentioned; and the objections enlarged upon in recent years were not noticed by the fierce partisans of the time.
[1320] Aurora, Feb. 3, 1801.
[1321] Baltimore American; reprinted in the Aurora, April 2, 1801.
[1322] Richmond Examiner, Feb. 6, 1801.
[1323] Marshall's nomination was confirmed January 27, 1801, a week after the Senate received it. Compare with the Senate's quick action on the nomination of Marshall as Secretary of State, May 12, 1800, confirmed May 13. (Executive Journal of the Senate, iii.)
[1324] Adams to Dexter, Jan. 31, 1801; Works: Adams, ix, 95-96.
[1325] Marshall to Adams, Feb. 4, 1801; ib., 96.
[1326] Adams to Marshall, Feb. 4, 1801; ib., 96.
[1327] Same to same, Feb. 4, 1801; ib., 96-97.
[1328] Jay held both offices for six months.
[1329] Auditor's Files, Treasury Department, no. 12, 166. This fact is worthy of mention only because Marshall's implacable enemies intimated that he drew both salaries. He could have done so, as a legal matter, and would have been entirely justified in doing so for services actually rendered. But he refused to take the salary of Secretary of State.
[1330] Ames to Smith, Feb. 16, 1801; Works: Ames, i, 292.
[1331] Marshall to Wolcott, Feb. 24, 1801; Gibbs, ii. 495.
[1332] Wolcott to Marshall, March 2, 1801; Gibbs, ii, 496.
[1333] The irresponsible and scurrilous Callender, hard-pressed for some pretext to assail Marshall, complained of his having procured the appointment of relatives to the Judiciary establishment. "Mr. John Marshall has taken particular care of his family," writes Jefferson's newspaper hack, in a characteristically partisan attack upon Adams's judicial appointments. (Scots Correspondent, in Richmond Examiner, March 13, 1801.)
Joseph Hamilton Davies, a brother-in-law of Marshall's, was appointed United States Attorney for the District of Kentucky; George Keith Taylor, another brother-in-law, was appointed United States Judge of the Fourth Circuit; and Marshall's brother, James M. Marshall, was appointed Assistant Judge of the Territory (District) of Columbia. These appointments were made, however, before the new Judiciary Act was passed. (Executive Journal of the Senate, i, 357, 381, 387.) Callender appears to have been the only person to criticize these appointments. Even Jefferson did not complain of them or blame Marshall for them. The three appointees were competent men, well fitted for the positions; and their appointment, it seems, was commended by all.
[1334] Jefferson to Rush, March 24, 1801; Works: Ford, ix, 231.
[1335] The Republicans did so later. "This outrage on decency should not have its effect, except in life appointments [judges] which are irremovable." (Jefferson to Knox, March 27, 1801; Works: Ford, ix, 237.)
[1336] Parton: Jefferson, 585-86. Parton relates this absurd tale on the authority of Jefferson's great-granddaughter. Yet this third-hand household gossip has been perpetuated by serious historians. The only contemporary reference is in the address of John Fowler of Kentucky to his constituents published in the Aurora of April 9, 1801: "This disgraceful abuse was continued to the latest hour of the President's holding his office." The "shameful abuse" was thus set forth: "It [Judiciary Law of 1801] creates a host of judges, marshalls, attorneys, clerks, &c., &c., and is calculated, if it could endure, to unhinge the state governments and render the state courts contemptible, while it places the courts of law in the hands of creatures of those who have lost the confidence of the people by their misconduct. The insidiousness of its design has been equalled only by the shameless manner of its being carried into execution. The Constitution disables any member of Congress from filling an office created during his period of service. The late President [Adams] removed persons from other branches of the Judiciary, to the offices created by this law & then put members of Congress into the thus vacated offices.... This law can be considered in no other light than as providing pensions for the principals and adherents of a party [Federalist]. The evil however will not I trust be durable and as it was founded in fraud the return of a wiser system will release the country from the shame and imposition." (Fowler to his constituents in the Aurora, April 9, 1801.)
[1337] Jefferson to Rush, March 24, 1801; Works: Ford, ix, 230-31; to Knox, March 27, 1801; ib., 237; to Mrs. Adams, June 13, 1804; ib., x, 85.
[1338] Neither Randall nor Tucker, Jefferson's most complete and detailed biographers, both partisans of the great Republican, mentions the Lincoln-Marshall story, although, if it had even been current at the time they wrote, it is likely that they would have noticed it.
[1339] Jefferson to Knox, supra.