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.