Here again the party lines of 1777 are distinctly marked. Melancton
Smith, Jonathan Lawrence, &c., were of the Clinton party, while Mr.
Duane and Mr. Varick were attached to the Schuyler interest.
In October, 1784, the case of Rutgers vs. Waddington was brought before the legislature, and on the 27th of that month the assembly
Resolved, That this adjudication is subversive of all law and good order; because, if a court instituted for the benefit and government of a corporation may take upon themselves to dispense with a law of the state, all other courts may do the like: therefore,
Resolved, That it be recommended to the honourable the Council of Appointment, at their next session, to appoint such persons to be mayor and recorder of the city of New-York as will govern themselves by the known laws of the land.
Subsequently Waddington compromised the claim against him; but the law in similar cases became operative, and remained so until its repeal by the legislature. In the following session, March, 1785, an unsuccessful attempt was made to repeal the act of 1781, disqualifying tory counsellors and attorneys; some modification, however, of other laws of a similar character was effected. In April, 1786, the repealing act passed; and the restriction on the tory lawyers being removed, they were permitted to practise in the several courts of the state. During the same month, "an act for the payment of certain sums of money" was amended by adding a clause, "restoring to the rights of citizenship, on taking the oath of abjuration and allegiance," all such persons as had been disfranchised by the third clause of the act entitled "An act to preserve the freedom and independence of this state," passed the 12th of May, 1784. During this session the Schuyler party had the ascendence, and on all questions having a political aspect the names of Alexander Hamilton, Richard Varick, C. Livingston, Nicholas Bayard, David Brooks, James Livingston, &c., will be found on the same side.
On the 10th of March, 1787, Mr. Hamilton asked leave, which was granted, to bring in a bill to repeal the act entitled "An act for granting relief in case of certain trespasses." This was the act under which the suit had been commenced against Waddington, and which case produced so much excitement in the summer and autumn of 1784. Mr. Hamilton's bill passed; but, lest there should be some forgotten statute that might restrict or limit the political privileges of the tories, it was deemed expedient, on the 13th of April, to introduce and pass an act under the imposing title of "An act to repeal all laws of this state inconsistent with the treaty of peace." As its provisions met every possible case, the tories were now placed on a footing with the whigs. All they wanted was leaders. The rank and file they already possessed.
The Schuyler party sought allies. The tories were numerous, especially in the Southern District. The Clinton party, designated by Chancellor Livingston, in his letter to John Jay, as the "violent whigs," were uncompromising on the question of banishing the tories from the state. It seemed probable, therefore, that, sooner or later, if restored to citizenship, they would amalgamate with that class of whigs who wished to suppress "all violence, and to soften the rigour of the laws against the royalists."
The effect of these legislative measures on the tories was anticipated by both friends and foes. Chancellor Livingston, in January, 1784, had said that there were three parties in the state:—
First. The tories.
Second. The violent whigs.