VIII. so much complained of; and they recommended calm CHAPTER deliberation and discussion, and a full attendance at the proposed meeting, in order that the true sense of the 1795. city might appear. At the time appointed, a great meeting assembled in July 18. front of the City Hall. The friends of the treaty appeared in strength, and succeeded in electing a chairman. A motion was then made to adjourn to some place more convenient for discussion; but this was opposed on the ground that, as the president might ratify the treaty at any moment, an instant decision was necessary. Such was the argument of Brockholst Livingston, son of the late Governor Livingston, of New Jersey, and brother-in-law of Jay, who now came forward as a Leader of the opposition. The whole of that influential family, with Chancellor Livingston at their head, out of enthusiasm for France, or for some more personal reasons, had recently joined that side in politics. Hamilton spoke in favor of adjournment. Already the meeting had become turbulent, when the confusion was increased by the arrival of an excited party, which had first burned the treaty on the Battery, and had then marched up Broadway, bearing the French and American flags. Stones were thrown at Hamilton, one of which struck him in the forehead, but glanced off without much injury. The question being taken on a motion to leave the decision on the treaty to the president and Senate, both sides claimed a majority. A motion was then made to appoint a committee of fifteen, to report two days after; and some one present, without any reference to the chairman, read off a list of names, which he pronounced to be carried. By this time the meeting had become so tumultuous that all the friends of peace and order thought it best to withdraw. CHAPTER At the adjourned meeting nobody attended except the enemies of the treaty. After attempting, by a new vote, 1795. to confirm their former irregular appointment, the com. July 21. mittee of fifteen, of which Brockholst Livingston was chairman, reported twenty-eight condemnatory resolutions, all of which were agreed to without opposition. These resolutions, while expressing great confidence in the president's wisdom, patriotism, and independence, were equally confident that his own "good sense" must induce him to reject the treaty, "as invading the Constitution and legislative authority of the country; as abandoning important and well-founded claims against the British government; as imposing unjust and impolitic restraints on commerce; as injurious to agriculture; as conceding, without an equivalent, important advantages to Great Britain; as hostile and ungrateful to France; as committing our peace with that great republic; as unequal toward America in every respect; as hazarding her internal peace and prosperity; and as derogatory from her sovereignty and independence." By way of offset to these proceedings, the New York July 22. Chamber of Commerce adopted counter resolutions, expressing their opinion that the treaty contained as many features of reciprocity as, all things considered, could be reasonably expected; and that the arrangements for the surrender of the Western posts, for the adjustment of British debts, for compensation for spoliations and their prevention in future, were wise and beneficial; whereas, if the treaty were rejected, war, with all its calamities, might reasonably be apprehended. Esteeming the ratification expedient, they were still content, however, to leave the decision, in full confidence, where the Constitution had placed it. VIII. The popular feeling in Philadelphia had been already CHAPTER foreshadowed in an attempt, on the fourth of July, which had come near producing a serious riot, to burn Jay 1795. and the ratifying senators in effigy. The public meetings in Boston and New York were soon followed up in July 24. that city also. The treaty was condemned in like summary manner, and a committee of fifteen was appointed, among whose members were Chief Justice McKean, Alexander J. Dallas, and Muhlenburg, the late speaker of the Federal House of Representatives, to convey the sentiments of the meeting in an address to the president. According to Wolcott's account, in a letter to Washing- July 26 ton, then at Mount Vernon, the adjourned meeting consisted of some fifteen hundred, not half of whom took any part in the proceedings, most of those who did so being of the ignorant and violent class. Among the leaders mounted upon a stage were M'Kean, Dallas, Muhlenburg, Swanwick, representative elect to Congress from the city of Philadelphia, and several other influential persons. The memorial was read twice, and agreed to without debate. The treaty was then thrown to the populace, who placed it on a pole, and proceeded to the house of the English minister, before which they burned it, with huzzas and acclamations, a ceremony repeated before several other houses. While these manifestations broke out at the north, the city of Charleston gave indications equally decisive of the state of feeling there. John Rutledge, chief justice of the state, denounced the treaty, at a public meeting, as totally destitute of a single article worthy of approval. He even went so far as to reproach Jay with stupidity, if not corruption, in having signed it. He was followed by Christopher Gadsden, another Revolutionary hero, very much in the same strain. A ballot CHAPTER was then opened for a committee of fifteen, to report at VIII. a subsequent meeting. Upon this committee, besides 1795. John Rutledge and Gadsden, were Edward Rutledge, Ramsey, Tucker and Burke, late representatives in Congress, and William Johnson, afterward a judge of the Supreme Court of the United States. Charles C. Pinckney was nominated upon it, but took no part in July 22. its proceedings. The committee reported, a few days after, with caustic criticism on most of the articles of the treaty, and recommended a memorial to the president not to ratify it. Charles Pinckney, always active in the opposition, though he had failed to be elected on the committee, took care to signalize his zeal in a vehement and abusive speech, winding up with a motion to request the president to take steps to have Jay impeached. While these more regular proceedings were going on, the populace performed their part by trailing the British flag through the streets, and burning it before the consul's door. What made John Rutledge's share in these proceedings the more embarrassing was that, on Jay's resignation of the post of chief justice, the president had tendered that place to him. He had agreed to accept it; and the official letter of the Secretary of State, announcing his appointment, arrived at Charleston two days after his violent speech. The example thus set in the principal towns of the Union was soon followed in every quarter. Many took part in these proceedings of whom such a course was Aug. 2. hardly to have been expected. A meeting, held at Wilmington, at which Cæsar Rodney made a violent speech against the treaty, was followed up by a report in the same spirit, presented by a committee, of which John Dickinson acted as chairman. In consequence of these violent demonstrations of feel VIII. ing, Washington resolved, though at great private incon- CHAPTER venience, to return immediately to Philadelphia, in order to have, in all steps to be taken, the advice and assist- 1795. ance of all his cabinet. "I view the opposition," so he wrote to Randolph in the letter announcing this intention, "which the treaty is receiving from the meetings in different parts of the Union in a very serious light; not because there is more weight in any of the objections which are made to it than was foreseen at first, for there is none in some of them, and gross misrepresentation in others; nor as respects myself personally, for this shall have no influence on my conduct, plainly perceiving, and I am accordingly preparing my mind for it, the obloquy which disappointment and malice are collecting to heap upon me. But I am alarmed at the effect it may have on, and the advantage the French government may be disposed to make of, the spirit which is at work to cherish a belief in them that the treaty is calculated to favor Great Britain at their expense. Whether they believe or disbelieve these tales, the effect it will have upon the nation will be nearly the same; for, while the animosity between the two nations exists, it will be their policy, no matter at whose expense, and it is to be feared will be their conduct, to prevent us from being on good terms with Great Britain, or her from deriving any advantage from our trade which they can hinder, however much we may ourselves thereby be benefited. To what length this policy and interest may carry them is problematical; but when they see the people of this country divided, and such a violent opposition given to the measures of their own government, pretendingly in their favor, it may be extremely embarrassing, to say no more of it. "I have never, since I have been in the administration of the government, seen a crisis which, in my judg |