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.