The journal of the American-Irish Historical Society, Vol. IX, 1910

by Various

Daniel Carroll.

Daniel Carroll was a brother of the great Archbishop and is of a consequence somewhat overshadowed by his name and fame, and yet he was a man who achieved considerable distinction in his day and was a worthy member of his distinguished family. He was born in 1730 at Upper Marlboro and was a man of high character and attainments. As soon as the shackles placed upon the Catholics in Maryland were stricken off by the Revolution and they were given free participation in public affairs, Mr. Carroll was elected a member of the Maryland State Senate and was constantly in public life, either as a member of the Senate or as a Delegate to the Continental Congress, a representative to Congress prior to the adoption of the Federal Constitution, or as a delegate to the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787. He was also appointed by Washington a member of the commission to select the site of the National Capitol, serving with Governor Johnson of Maryland and Dr. David Stewart of Virginia. He died in May, 1796, aged 66 years. Mr. Carroll was a man of great wealth, possessing in addition to his own share of his father’s property, also that renounced by his brother Archbishop Carroll when he became a Jesuit. He owned considerable real estate in the District of Columbia and in the present boundaries of Washington, D. C., including the site of the Capitol, and also had large real estate holdings within the corporate limits of the City of Baltimore. In fact, with Charles Carroll of Carrollton, he owned practically all of the original site of Baltimore.

HOW IT BECAME PLAIN “MR. PRESIDENT”[^[20]]—DETERMINED OPPOSITION OF AN IRISH-AMERICAN DEFEATED THE EFFORTS OF THE TITLE SEEKERS IN THE EARLY HISTORY OF OUR REPUBLIC.

BY MR. EDGAR STANTON MACLAY.

I.
Many Favored Monarchial Forms.

So far as the writer has been able to ascertain the United States Senate never has officially repudiated a resolution placed on its files, May 14, 1789, to the effect that it favored a title for the President and, inferentially, titles of commensurate degrees for the members of the Cabinet, Congress and other Government officials down to the Sergeant-at-arms of the Senate whom Vice-President John Adams wished to style “Usher of the Black Rod.” It was even suggested that a “canopied throne” be erected in the Senate chamber for Washington’s use.

Among the titles seriously considered for Washington were “His Elective Majesty,” “His Highness, the President of the United States of America and Protector of the Rights of the Same,” “His Elective Highness,” etc.; while his inaugural address was referred to in the minutes of the Senate as “His Most Gracious Speech.”

It is of record that Senators were addressed as “Your Highness of the Senate” and Representatives as “Your Highness of the Lower House,” while it was solemnly suggested that the proper manner for the Senate to receive the Clerk of the House of Representatives was for the Sergeant-at-arms or “Usher of the Black Rod,” with the mace on his shoulder, to meet the Clerk at the door. In view of the ire aroused between the two Houses at that time, a mallet in the hands of the “Usher of the Black Rod,” when he met the Clerk of the House of Representatives at the door, would have carried out the feelings of some of the Senators better than a mace.

These are some of the apings of royalty that were seriously considered by Congress and, on May 14, 1789, endorsed in the Senate by the very respectable vote of ten to eight. When the British burned some of the Federal buildings in Washington, 1814, many public records were destroyed, so there is difficulty in determining if this endorsement of monarchial forms was rescinded at any time from 1789 to 1814. Still, though one hundred and eighteen years have lapsed since 1789, it is not yet too late for the Senate to purge itself of this “dreadful” contempt of the great American people on this subject of titles.

For some reason, best known to themselves, the members of the first Senate decided that their session should be held behind closed doors. House rule No. 11, as inscribed on the cover of William Maclay’s journal, reads: “Inviolable secrecy shall be observed with respect to all matters transacted in the Senate while the doors are shut or as often as the same is enjoined from the chair.” The result has been that for more than a century afterward this important chapter in our history has remained almost a blank. Fortunate it was that Maclay, who with Robert Morris represented Pennsylvania in the first Senate, kept a daily record of the doings of the Upper House for the two years he was Senator.

It appears from this journal that the first great question that confronted Congress when it held its initial session in New York, April, 1789, was whether or not this “experiment” in government was to assume monarchial forms. Under date of May 1, 1789, Maclay records: “That the motives of the actors in the late Revolution were various cannot be doubted. The abolishing of royalty, the extinguishment of patronage and dependencies attached to that form of government, were the exalted motives of many revolutionists and these were the improvements meant by them to be made of the war which was forced on us by British aggression—in fine, the amelioration of government and bettering the condition of mankind. These ends and none other were publicly avowed and all our constitutions and public acts were formed in this spirit.

“Yet there were not wanting a party whose motives were different. They wished for the loaves and fishes of government and cared for nothing else but a translation of the diadem from London to Boston, New York or Philadelphia, or, in other words, the creation of a new monarchy in America and to form niches for themselves in the temple of royalty. This spirit manifested itself strongly among the officers at the close of the war and I have been afraid the army would not have been disbanded if the common soldiers could have been kept together. This spirit they developed in the Order of Cincinnati, where I trust it will expend itself in a harmless flame and soon become extinguished.”

II.
A Committee on Titles.

Congress was to have met March 4, 1789, but a quorum of the House of Representatives was not had until April 1 and in the Senate not until four days later. From this time until the arrival of President Washington, April 23—Vice-President John Adams arriving only three days before—the attention of Congress was taken up with preliminary matters such as providing a home for the Executive, framing rules for themselves, considering details of the inauguration, etc.

On April 23 Senators Oliver Ellsworth, William S. Johnson (both of Connecticut) and Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, at the instance of Adams, were appointed a committee to confer with the House of Representatives on titles—and thus began one of the fiercest debates in the history of the first United States Senate. On its outcome hinged the question whether the new government was to be monarchial in its forms or strictly plebeian.

As a preliminary skirmish Lee, on April 23, produced a copy of the resolution for appointing the Title Committee and moved that it be transmitted to the House of Representatives. This was opposed by Maclay, who records that Lee knew “the giving of titles would hurt us. I showed the absurdity of his motion, plain enough, but it seems to me that by getting a division of the resolution I could perhaps throw out the part about titles altogether. Mr. [Charles] Carroll of Maryland showed that he was against titles.” The motion, notwithstanding, was carried.

But now Adams precipitated matters by asking how he should direct a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and called on the Senators for enlightenment. There was a manifest disinclination to interfere, but the Vice-President persisted until the question was pointedly put as to whether the Speaker should be styled “Honorable.” It was passed in the negative and the first victory against titles was scored.

It was only a few days after this, May 16, that a letter was received in the Senate addressed “His Excellency, the Vice-President.” Adams said that he supposed that it was intended for him but was improperly directed. “He asked the opinion of the Senate, laughingly, and concluded it was against all rule. I [Maclay] said that until we had a rule obliging people to be regular we must submit to their irregularities, more especially of this kind. Mr. Morris said the majesty of the people would do as they pleased. All this I considered as sportive. But Adams put a serious question: Should the letter, so directed, be read? John Langdon [Senator from New Hampshire] and sundry others said yes, and read it was. It proved to be from Loudon, the printer, offering to print for the Senate.”

III.
Powerful Leaders Support Titles.

That Adams was honest in his belief in titles, insignia of rank and outward exhibitions of authority, and that he took a leading part in the effort to establish them in the new government, is more than probable. In 1829 John Randolph of Virginia recorded: “I was in New York when John Adams took his seat as Vice-President. I recollect that I was a school boy at the time, attending the lobby of Congress when I ought to have been at school. I remember the manner in which my brother was spurned by the coachman of the then Vice-President for coming too near the ‘scutcheon of the viceregal carriage.’” In a letter to [James] Madison, Jefferson wrote that the question of titles had become serious in the two Houses. “J. Adams espoused the cause of titles with great earnestness. His friend, R. H. Lee, although elected as a Republican enemy to an aristocratic Constitution, was a most zealous second.... Had the project succeeded, it would have subjected the President to a serious dilemma and given a deep wound to our infant Government.”

Under date of June 12, 1789, Senator William Grayson of Virginia wrote to Patrick Henry: “Is it not still stranger that John Adams should be for titles and dignities and preëminences, and should despise the herd and the ill-bred? It is said he was the primum nobile in the Senate for titles for the President.” “Even Roger Sherman” [Congressman from Connecticut], wrote John Armstrong to General Gates, April 7, 1789, “has set his head at work to devise some style of address more novel and dignified than ‘Excellency.’ Yet, in the midst of this admiration, there are skeptics who doubt its propriety and wits who amuse themselves at its expense. The first will grumble and the last will laugh, and the President should be prepared to meet the attacks of both with firmness and good nature.”

That there existed a strong sentiment against titles can be surmised from a caricature that appeared in New York about the time of Washington’s inauguration. It was entitled “The Entry” and was “full of very disloyal and profane allusions.” Washington was depicted riding on a donkey. Colonel David Humphreys [Washington’s aide-de-camp] was represented as leading the animal and “chanting hosannas and birthday odes.” In the background the devil is represented as saying:

“The glorious time has come to pass

When David shall conduct an ass.”

IV.
Precedents Favor Titles.

It should not be forgotten, however, that Adams, Lee and other advocates of titles were powerfully supported in their position by precedents. It was shown that in almost every other detail Americans had adopted English and German—then the dominating races in the thirteen colonies—methods of procedure. The postal service was based on imported lines, our dollar was copied from the Bohemian “thaler,” colonial jurisprudence had its main inspiration in British law. Churches and custom-houses were conducted much the same as in the old countries.

The very fact that opposition to any elaborate form of divine service being connected with Washington’s inauguration was overruled shows how closely the founders of the “new” government followed Old World examples. It appears that the inauguration had been planned with a view to excluding the clergy in their official capacities and, in all probability, this programme would have been carried out had not the ministers in New York protested. Here again precedents from motherlands carried the day. When, at the eleventh hour the “sacrilege” was called to the attention of the Right Reverend Provoost, Episcopal bishop of New York, he cautiously replied that the Church of England “had always been used to look up to Government upon such occasions.” “The question of holding services on the day of the inauguration,” records Ebenezer Hazard, “had been agitated by the clergymen in town.... The bishop thought it prudent not to do anything till they knew what Government would direct. If the good bishop never prays without an order from Government,” wrote Hazard, “it is not probable that the kingdom of heaven will suffer much from his violence.”

In the light of these facts it is not strange that we find Adams, Lee and others turning their eyes to procedures of the Old World for guidance in the matter of titles. To be sure, the Constitution not only declared that no titles of nobility shall be granted by the United States but that employès of the Government, of whatever degree, shall not accept them from any foreign potentate. Yet there was a large question as to what kind of title might have been meant; whether a patent of nobility with landed estates to be handed down from generation to generation—which, undoubtedly, was the “evil” aimed at by the framers of the Constitution—or a mere title of courtesy as “Mister” or “Mr.” or “Sir” used in ordinary correspondence. Congress had met to put the Constitution in operation and had the power to construe doubtful passages. Broader interpretations of the articles have been made than those proposed by the titleists.

Adams had spent much time in Europe and had been impressed with the effect of formalities, titles, wigs, gowns, etc., on the “common” people. That he was correct, in some degree, in his advocacy of these forms is attested by the fact that gowns have come more and more into use in the administration of the judiciary of some states and in the Supreme Court of the United States while, in the general run of commerce, liveries—the insignia of station or rank—are getting to be the rule rather than the exception.

V.
Forcing the Fight on Titles.

Acting with his usual energy, Adams forced the fighting on titles from the start. He arrived in New York on Monday, April 20, and by Thursday, April 23, he had the Title Committee appointed; and the discussion of titles occupied most of the time of the Senate from then until May 14, when it was finally disposed of. Pending the inaugural, April 30, the subject lay in abeyance. On the morning following, May 1, the Senate met at 11 o’clock. At the conclusion of “prayers” was the reading of the minutes and almost the first words were “His Most Gracious Speech”—referring to Washington’s inaugural address. Adams frankly admitted that these words had been inserted at his instance by Samuel Otis, the secretary of the Senate.

Maclay records: “I looked all around the Senate. Every countenance seemed to wear a blank. The Secretary was going on. I must speak or nobody would. ‘Mr. President, we have lately had a hard struggle for our liberty against kingly authority. The minds of men are still heated; everything related to that species of government is odious to the people. The words prefixed to the President’s speech are the same that are usually placed before the speech of his Britannic Majesty. I know they will give offense. I consider them improper. I, therefore, move that they be struck out and that it stand simply address or speech as may be adjudged most suitable.’

“Mr. Adams rose in his chair and expressed the greatest surprise that anything should be objected to on account of its being taken from the practice of that Government under which we had lived so long and happily formerly; that he was for a dignified and respectable government and, as far as he knew the sentiments of the people, they thought as he did; that, for his part, he was one of the first in the late contest [the Revolution] and, if he could have thought of this, he never would have drawn his sword.

“Painful as it was, I had to contend with the Chair. I admitted that the people of the colonies had enjoyed, formerly, great happiness under that species of government but the abuses of that Government under which they had smarted had taught them what they had to fear from that kind of government; that there had been a revolution in the sentiments of people respecting that government, equally great as that which had happened in the government itself; that even the modes of it were now abhorred; that the enemies of the Constitution had objected to it believing there would be a transition from it to kingly government and all the trappings and splendor of royalty; that if such a thing as this appeared on our minutes, they would not fail to resent it as the first step of the ladder in the ascent to royalty.

“The Vice-President rose a second time and declared that he had mentioned it to the Secretary; that he could not possibly conceive that any person could take offense at it. I had to get up again and declare that, although I knew of it being mentioned from the Chair, yet my opposition did not proceed from any motive of contempt; that, although it was a painful task, it was solely a sense of duty that raised me.

“The Vice-President stood during this time; said he had been long abroad and did not know how the temper of people might be now. Up now rose [George] Reed [Senator from Delaware] and declared for the paragraph. He saw no reason to object to it because the British speeches were styled ‘most gracious.’ If we choose to object to words because they had been used in the same sense in Britain, we should soon be at loss to do business. I had to reply: ‘It is time enough to submit to necessity when it exists. At present we are not at loss for words. The words, speech or address, without any addition will suit us well enough.’ The first time I was up Mr. Lee followed me with a word or two by way of seconding me; but when the Vice-President, on being up last, declared that he was the person from whom the words were taken, Mr. Lee got up and informed the Chair that he did not know that circumstance as he had been absent when it happened. The question was put and carried for erasing the words without a division.”

VI.
Adams Explains.

After the adjournment of the Senate that day the Vice-President drew Maclay aside and explained that he was for an efficient government, that he had the greatest respect for the President; and gave his ideas on “checks to government and the balances of power.” Maclay protested that he “would yield to no person in respect to General Washington,” that he was not wanting in respect to Adams himself; that his wishes for an efficient government were as high as any man’s and begged “him to believe that I did myself great violence when I opposed him in the chair and nothing but a sense of duty could force me to it.”

Commenting on this day’s debate Maclay records: “Strange, indeed, that in that very country [America] where the flame of freedom had been kindled, an attempt should be made to introduce these absurdities and humiliating distinctions which the hand of reason, aided by our example was prostrating in the heart of Europe. I, however, will endeavor (as I have hitherto done) to use the resentment of the Representatives to defeat Mr. Adams and others on the subject of titles. The pompous and lordly distinctions which the Senate have manifested a disposition to establish between the two Houses have nettled the Representatives and this business of titles may be considered as a part of the same tune. While we are debating on titles I will, through the Speaker, Mr. Muhlenberg and other friends, get the idea suggested of answering the President’s address without any title, in contempt of our deliberations, which still continue on that subject. This, once effected, will confound them [the Senators] completely and establish a precedent they will not dare to violate.”

On Saturday, May 2, the day following the debate on “His Most Gracious Speech,” the Senate met and several of the members congratulated Maclay on the stand he had taken. Langdon “shook hands very heartily with me,” but some of the other New England Senators were “shy.” Senator William Paterson of New Jersey “passed censure on the conduct of the Vice-President” and “hinted as if some of the Senate would have taken notice of the ‘gracious’ affair if I had not. I told him I was no courtier and had no occasion to trim, but said it was a most disagreeable thing to contend with the Chair and I had alone held that disagreeable post more than once.”

VII.
Politics and Titles.

On Friday, May 8, on motion of Ellsworth, the report of the Joint Committee on Titles was taken up by the Senate and the great battle was fairly under way. Two days before this Maclay noted that “the title selected from all the potentates of the earth for our President was to have been taken from Poland, viz., ‘Elective Majesty.’ What a royal escape!”

Surprise, naturally, might be expressed that Lee, elected as a “Republican enemy to an aristocratic constitution,” should have taken the lead in advocating titles. Light is thrown on the situation from the following entry in Maclay’s journal under date of May 15, 1789: “Lee has a cultivated understanding, great practice in public business.... He has acted as a high priest through the whole of this idolatrous business.... Had it not been for Mr. Lee I am firmly convinced no other man would have ventured to follow our Vice-President. But Lee led, Ellsworth seconded him, the New England men followed and Ralph Izard [Senator from South Carolina] joined them but really haud passibus aequis, for he was only for the title of ‘Excellency,’ which had been sanctified by use.

UNITED STATES SENATOR ROBERT JACKSON GAMBLE.
Vice-President of the Society
for South Dakota.

“It is easy to see what his [Lee’s] aim is. By flattering the President of the Senate he hopes to govern all the members from New England and with a little assistance from Carolina or Georgia, to be absolute in the Senate. Ellsworth and some more of the New England men flatter him in turn, expecting he will be with them on the question of residence [of Congress]. Had it not been for our Vice-President and Lee I am convinced the Senate would have been as adverse to titles as the House of Representatives. The game that our Vice-President and Mr. Lee appear to have now in view is to separate the Senate as much as possible from the House of Representatives. Our Vice-President’s doctrine is that all honors and titles should flow from the President and Senate only.”

VIII.
The Great Debate of May 8, 1789.

But whatever Lee’s motives may have been, it is indisputable that he threw his great weight and splendid abilities in favor of titles. In the momentous debate of May 8 he declared that all the world, civilized and savage, called for titles; that there must be something in human nature that occasioned this general consent and, therefore, he conceived it was right. “Here he began,” records Maclay, “to enumerate many, many nations who gave titles—such as Venice, Genoa and others. The Greeks and Romans, it was said, had no titles, ‘but’ (making a profound bow to the Chair) ‘you were pleased to set us right in this with respect to the Conscript Fathers the other day.’ Here he repeated the Vice-President’s speech of the 23d ultimo almost verbatim all over.

“Mr. Ellsworth rose. He had a paper in his hat which he looked constantly at. He repeated almost all that Mr. Lee had said but got on the subject of kings—declared that the sentence in the primer of fear God and honor the king was of great importance; that kings were of divine appointment; that Saul, the head and shoulders taller than the rest of the people, was elected by God and anointed by his appointment.

“I sat after he had done for a considerable time to see if anybody would rise. At last I got up and first answered Lee as well as I could with nearly the same arguments, drawn from the Constitution, as I had used on the 23d ult. I mentioned that within the space of twenty years back, more light had been thrown on the subject of governments and on human affairs in general than for several generations before; that this light of knowledge had diminished the veneration for titles and that mankind now considered themselves as little bound to imitate the follies of civilized nations as the brutalities of savages; that the abuse of power and the fear of bloody masters had extorted titles as well as adoration, in some instances from the trembling crowd; that the impression now on the minds of the citizens of these states was that of horror for kingly authority.

“Izard got up. He dwelt almost entirely on the antiquity of kingly government. He could not, however, well get farther back than Philip of Macedon. He seemed to have forgot both Homer and the Bible. He urged for something equivalent to nobility having been common among the Romans, for they had three names that seemed to answer to honorable or something like it, before and something behind. He did not say Esquire. Mr. Carroll rose and took my side of the question. He followed nearly the track I had been in and dwelt much on the information that was now abroad in the world. He spoke against kings.

“Mr. Lee and Mr. Izard were both up again. Ellsworth was up again. Langdon was up several times but spoke short each time. Paterson was up but there was no knowing which side he was of. Mr. Lee considered him as against him and answered him—but Paterson finally voted with Lee. The Vice-President repeatedly helped the speakers for titles. Ellsworth was enumerating how common the appellation of President was. The Vice-President put him in mind that there were presidents of fire companies and of a cricket club. Mr. Lee, at another time, was saying he believed some of the states authorized titles by their constitutions. The Vice-President, from the chair, told him that Connecticut did it. At sundry other times he interfered in a like manner. I had been frequently up to answer new points during the debate.

“I collected myself for a last effort. I read the clause in the Constitution against titles of nobility; showed that the spirit of it was against not only granting titles by Congress but against the permission to foreign potentates granting any titles whatever; that as to kingly government, it was equally out of the question as a republican government was guaranteed to every State in the Union; that they were both equally forbidden fruit of the Constitution. I called the attention of the House to the consequences that were likely to follow; that gentleman seemed to court a rupture with the Lower House. The Representatives had adopted the report [rejecting titles] and were this day acting on it or according to the spirit of the report. We were proposing a title. Our conduct would mark us to the world as actuated by the spirit of dissension; and the characters of the [two] Houses would be as aristocratic and democratical.”

IX.
“His Elective Highness.”

Finally the matter came to a vote and the report of the Title Committee, conferring the title of “Elective Majesty” on Washington was rejected. Then began the fight, for, at least, some kind of a title for the President. Izard moved for the title of “Excellency,” but he withdrew it, upon which Lee suggested “Highness” with some prefatory word such as “Elective Highness.” Maclay records: “It was insisted that such a dignified title would add greatly to the weight and authority of the Government, both at home and abroad. I declared myself of a totally different opinion; that at present it was impossible to add to the respect entertained for General Washington; that if you gave him the title of any foreign prince or potentate, a belief would follow that the manners of that prince and his modes of government would be adopted by the President. (Mr. Lee had, just before I got up, read over a list of the titles of all the princes and potentates of the earth, marking where the word ‘highness’ occurred. The Grand Turk had it, all the crown princes of Germany had it, sons and daughters of crown heads, etc.) That particularly ‘Elective Highness,’ which sounded nearly like ‘Electoral Highness,’ would have a most ungrateful sound to many thousands of industrious citizens who had fled from German oppression; that ‘Highness’ was part of the title of a prince or princess of the blood and was often given to dukes; that it was degrading our President to place him on a par with any prince of any blood in Europe, nor was there one of them that could enter the list of true glory with him.”

X.
“Royal Etiquette.”

This debate, beginning probably at the usual time for the Senate’s meeting, namely 10 a. m., lasted until 3.30 p. m., by which time another committee was appointed to consider a title for the President. Concluding his record of the notable debate of this day, Maclay writes: “This whole silly business is the work of Mr. Adams and Mr. Lee. Izard follows Lee and the New England men ... follow Mr. Adams. Mr. [Charles] Thompson [Secretary of the old Congress] says this used to be the case in the old Congress. I had, to be sure, the greatest share in this debate and must now have completely sold (no, sold is a bad word for I have got nothing for it) every particle of court favor, for a court our House seems determined on, and to run into all the fooleries, fopperies, fineries and pomp of royal etiquette.”

When Maclay attended the Senate on the following day, Saturday, May 9, he notes: “I know not the motive but never was I received with more familiarity, nor quite so much, before by the members. Ellsworth, in particular, seemed to show a kind of fondness.”

XI.
Defeat of the Titleists.

After correcting the minutes, the Title Committee, appointed by the Senate on the day before, reported “His Highness, the President of the United States of America, and Protector of the Rights of the Same” for Washington. Senator William Few, of Georgia, spoke to Maclay, intimating his unwillingness to do anything hastily. He then addressed the Senate on the same lines, although he did not pointedly move for postponement. Meantime the clerk of the House of Representatives appeared at the bar and announced the adoption of the report of the Joint Committee, which rejected all titles.

At this point Maclay got up, said that what Few had said amounted to a motion for a postponement and asked leave to second him. “I then pointed out,” records Maclay, “the rupture that was likely to ensue with the other House; that this was a matter of very serious import and I thought it our indispensable duty to avoid any inconvenience of that kind; that by the arrangement between the Houses, in case of disagreement, a conference might be requested; that my intention was, if the postponement was carried, to move immediately for a Committee of Conference to be appointed on the differences between the Houses and I had hopes that by these means all subjects of debate would be done away.”

Now Reed moved that the report might be adopted but he was not seconded. Senator Caleb Strong [of Massachusetts] was in favor of the postponement but was interrupted by the Chair. Senator [Tristram] Dalton [of Massachusetts] also was in favor of it and Maclay records: “I could now see a visible anxiety in the Chair. Strong was up again and said among other things that he thought the other House would follow—but there was risk in it.”

Evidently the tide began to turn against titles, for Maclay records: “I had a fine, slack and easy time of it today. Friends seemed to rise in succession. Lee went over his old ground twice but owned, at last, that there was difficulty every way but said plainly that the best mode for the House was to adopt the [Senate] report—and then the other House would follow. He found, however, the current began to turn against him and he laid his head on his hands as if he would have slept.”

Finally Izard got up and said that he was in favor of a postponement. “I could see the Vice-President kindle at him,” records Maclay. “Izard had remarked that the House of Representatives had adopted the report rejecting titles but the Chair interrupted him, saying: ‘No, we had no right to know, nor could we know it until after the clerk had this morning official information.’ The members fixed themselves and the question was called for.”

XII.
“What Will the Common People Say.”

At this point Adams got up and for forty minutes addressed the Senate. Maclay writes: “He began first on the subject of order and found fault with everything almost; but down he came to particulars and pointedly blamed a member for disorderly behavior. The member had mentioned the appearance of a captious disposition in the other House. This was disorderly and he spoke with asperity. The member meant was Mr. Izard. All this was prefatory. On he got to his favorite topic of titles and over the old ground of the immense advantage of, the absolute necessity of them. When he had exhausted this subject he turned a new leaf, I believe, on the conviction that the postponement would be carried and, perhaps, the business lost by an attention to the other House.

“‘Gentlemen’ [said Adams], I must tell you that it is you and the President that have the making of titles. Suppose the President to have the appointment of Mr. Jefferson at the court of France. Mr. Jefferson is, in virtue of that appointment, the most illustrious, the most powerful and what not. But the President must be himself something that includes all the dignities of the diplomatic corps and something greater still. What will the common people of foreign countries, what will the sailors and the soldiers say, ‘George Washington, President of the United States?’ They will despise him to all eternity. This is all nonsense to the philosopher—but so is all government whatever.’

“The above I recollect with great precision; but he said fifty more things equally injudicious which I do not think worth minuting. It is evident that he begins to despair of getting the article of titles through the House of Representatives and has turned his eye to get it done solely by the Senate.”

XIII.
“High-Sounding Pompous Appellation.”

Maclay had intended saying not another word on this subject for this day, but some remarks in the Vice-President’s speech impelled the Pennsylvanian to rise. He said: “Mr. President, the Constitution of the United States has designated our Chief Magistrate by the appellation of the ‘President of the United States of America.’ This is his title of office; nor can we alter, add to or diminish it without infringing the Constitution. In like manner persons authorized to transact business with foreign powers are styled Ambassadors, Public Ministers, etc. To give them any other appellation would be an equal infringement. As to grades of order or titles of nobility, nothing of the kind can be established by Congress.

“Can, then, the President and Senate do that which is prohibited to the United States at large? Certainly not. Let us read the Constitution. ‘No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States.’ The Constitution goes further. The servants of the public are prohibited from accepting them from any foreign state, king or prince. So that the appellation and terms given to nobility in the Old World are contraband language in the United States; nor can we apply them to our citizens consistent with the Constitution. As to what the common people, soldiers and sailors of foreign countries may think of us, I do not think it imports us much. Perhaps, the less they think or have occasion to think of us, the better.

“But suppose this is a desirable point; how is it to be gained? The English excepted, foreigners do not understand our language. We must use Hohen Mogende to a Dutchman, Beylerbey to a Turk or Algerine and so of the rest. From the English, indeed, we may borrow terms that would not be wholly unintelligible to our own citizens. But will they thank us for the compliment? Would not the plagiarism be more likely to be attended with contempt than respect among all of them? It has been admitted that all this is nonsense to the philosopher. I am ready to admit that every high-sounding, pompous appellation, descriptive of qualities which the object does not possess, must appear bombastic nonsense in the eye of every wise man. But I cannot admit such an idea with respect to government itself. Philosophers have admitted not the utility but the necessity of it and their labors have been directed to correct the vices and expose the follies which have been engrafted upon it and to reduce the practice of it to the principles of common sense, such as we see exemplified by the merchant, the mechanic and the farmer whose every act or operation tends to a productive or beneficial effect; and, above all, to illustrate this fact that government was instituted for the benefit of the people and that no act of government is justifiable that has not this for its object. Such has been the labor of philosophers with respect to government and sorry indeed would I be if their labors should be in vain.”

XIV.
“Affectation of Simplicity.”

Vice-President Adams now put the question and the postponement was carried; immediately after which Maclay offered a resolution for a conference between the two Houses. It was carried and the committee appointed. But now Ellsworth drew up another resolution in which the differences between the two Houses were to be kept out of sight and to proceed de novo on a title for the President. “I did not enter into the debate,” records Maclay, “but expressed my fear that the House of Representatives would be irritated and would not meet us on that ground. And, as if they meant to provoke the other House, they insisted that the minute of rejection should go down with the appointment of the committee. Little good can come of it thus circumstanced, more especially as the old committee were reappointed,” namely, Ellsworth, Johnson and Lee.

Monday, May 11, on motion of Lee, the subject of titles was postponed to the following day, but under date of May 12 Maclay records: “The business of considering the title, which was laid on the table, was postponed to see what would be the result of the conference of the Joint Committee on that subject.” Adams’s solicitude for titles was evident, for when the Senate met, May 13, he reminded the members that the report for the President’s title lay on the table. The Senate was informed by Lee that the committee on titles had met in the Senate chamber but were interrupted by the assembling of that body and had agreed to meet on the following morning. Again, on May 14, the Vice-President “reminded us of the title report” but the committee was out on it. In a short time, however, they reported that the Lower House “had adhered in the strictest manner to their former resolution,” which was against the granting of titles of any kind.

This, indeed, was a heavy blow for the advocates of titles. Catching at the last straw, Lee now moved that the Senate de novo committee’s report in favor of titles be taken from the table and entered on the files of the House. The spirit of his motion was that attention should be paid to the usages of civilized nations in order to keep up a proper respect to the President; that “affectation of simplicity would be injurious”; that the Senate had decided in favor of titles but, in deference to the expressed feelings of the Lower House, the Senate, “for the present,” should address the President without title.

XV.
“Your Highness of the Senate.”

On the day preceding this debate the Speaker Muhlenberg of the House of Representatives had accosted Maclay as “Your Highness of the Senate,” saying that Congressman Henry Wynkoop, of Pennsylvania, had been christened by them “His Highness of the Lower House.” As the question of titles was gone all over again, Maclay records that he determined to try what ridicule would do. He said: “Mr. President, if all men were of one stature, there would be neither high nor low. Highness, when applied to an individual, must naturally denote the excess of stature which he possesses over other men. An honorable member [Ellsworth] told us the other day of a certain king [Saul] who was a head and shoulders taller than anybody else. This, more especially when he was gloriously greased with a great horn of oil, must have rendered him highly conspicuous. History, too, if I mistake not, will furnish us with an example where a great Thracian obtained the empire of the world from no other circumstance. But, if this antiquated principle is to be adopted, give us fair play. Let America be searched and it is most probable that the honor will be found to belong to some huge Patagonian. This is indeed putting one sadly over the head of another. True, but Nature has done it and men should see where she leads before they adopt her as a guide.

“It may be said that this business is metaphorical and the high station of the President entitled him to it. Nothing can be true metaphorically which is not so naturally, and under this view of the proposed title it belongs with more propriety to the man in the moon than anybody else as his station (when we have the honor of seeing him) is certainly the most exalted of any we know of. Gentlemen may say this is fanciful. Would they wish to see the subject in the most serious point of view that it is possible to place it? Rome, after being benighted for ages in the darkest gloom of ecclesiastical and aristocratic tyranny, beheld a reformer [Rienzi] in the fourteenth century who, preaching from stocks and stones and the busts and fragments of ancient heroes, lighted up the lamp of liberty to meridium splendor. Intoxicated with success, he assumed a string of titles, none of which, in my recollection, was equally absurd with the one before you; in consequence of which and of his aping some other symbols of nobility and royalty, he fell and pulled down the whole republican structure along with him; marking particularly the subject of titles as one of the principal rocks on which he was shipwrecked. As to the latter part of the title, I would only observe that the power of war is the organ of protection. This is placed in Congress by the Constitution. Any attempt to divest them of it, even with George Washington, is treason against the United States or, at least, a violation of the Constitution.”

XVI.
Senate Favors Titles.

With a view to “cutting up the whole matter by the roots” the anti-titleists moved a general postponement of the Senate report on titles—and the motion was carried. But with a tenacity worthy of a better cause, Lee insisted on placing the report on the files of the House as indicating that the Senate was in favor of titles. Carroll opposed this on the ground that an imperfect resolution should not be filed. He was seconded by Maclay as the filing carried with it the idea of adoption. This part of the motion was lost by a general postponement.

Even after the subject had been postponed, the Senators persisted in the discussion. Morris rose and said that he disliked the title “Highness and Protector of the Rights of America” as protection lay with Congress. He was told that the question of postponement had been carried. Then Carroll rose, said he disliked the first part of the motion which stated the acts of the Senate to be in favor of titles. But, as a matter of fact, no such resolution had been passed in the Senate.

Maclay then rose and moved a division on the motion and was seconded by Carroll. This precipitated another long debate on titles. Ellsworth went over the field again; Johnson “spoke much more to the point, Paterson said that a division should take place at the word ‘Senate’ and on this point he was supported by Morris and Maclay, the latter withdrawing his motion and seconding Paterson’s for a division at the word ‘Senate.’ The division was full enough to answer all purposes which they avowed, taking it at this place.” It was apparent, however, that the titleists still clung to their hope and even went so far as to charge the Lower House with affecting simplicity.

Carroll declared that it was well known that all the Senators were not for titles, yet the idea held forth was that the Senate favored titles. He wished to have the yeas and nays placed on record and “let the world judge.” Senator Few said that it was too late for the yeas and nays as they should have been called for when the report against titles was rejected. Finally the question was put and it stood “eight with us; ten against us. Mr. Carroll called for the yeas and nays.” None rose with him except Senator John Henry of Maryland and Maclay “and for want of another man we lost them”—Rule 15 of the Senate holding that the yeas and nays can be placed on the journal of the House only when called for by one-fifth of the senators present.

XVII.
Washington’s Attitude.

It will be interesting to note Washington’s bearing on the subject of titles while it was under debate in Congress. His position was most embarrassing and called for tact and equanimity as the first title considered was that for the President. On its fate depended the granting of titles for the lesser officers of the government. That Washington conducted himself with his usual fortitude, impartiality and broad-mindedness is fully attested by the following entry in Maclay’s journal: “Through the whole of this base business [granting titles] I have endeavored to mark the conduct of General Washington. I have no clew that will fairly lead me to any just conclusion as to his sentiments. I think it scarce possible but he must have dropped something on a subject which has excited so much warmth. If he did, it was not on our side or I would have heard it. But no matter. I have, by plowing with the heifer of the other House, completely defeated them.”

XVIII.
No Titles “for the Present.”

And so ended the momentous debate in the first United States Senate on the subject of titles which, in one form or another, “engaged almost the whole time of the Senate from the 23d of April, the day that our Vice-President began it,” until May 14 when the Senate, by a vote of ten to eight decided that they, “for the present,” would not press the subject of titles but so arranged the records as to give the impression that they sanctioned them. When it came to reading the minutes on the following day, Friday, May 15, Few moved that the minute on the division of Lee’s motion be struck out because, as it stood, it had the appearance of unanimity. Lee opposed. Few was supported by Carroll, Ellsworth and Maclay—but the minute stood.

One hundred and eighteen years have lapsed since this debate on a title for the President of the United States—and the consequent “ennobling” of the lesser officials of the “new” government—took place. That debate left the situation as follows: the House of Representatives rejected titles of any kind most positively. The Senate, finding that it could not bring the whole Congress to the point of giving titles, fell back to the position that the President and the Senate were the only fountain heads of titles and that, merely as a matter of accommodation, “for the present” they waived the question but put themselves on record—by placing on the files of the Senate a resolution which never was passed—as being in favor of appellations of nobility.