Home

The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: with a Life of the Author, Notes and Illustrations, by his Grandson Charles Francis Adams (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1856). 10 volumes. Vol. 9.

Author: John Adams
Editor: Charles Francis Adams

Part of: The Works of John Adams, 10 vols.

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.

Copyright information:

The text is in the public domain.

Fair use statement:

This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.

TO THE PRESIDENT.

Philadelphia, 13 January, 1800.

We have by the President’s direction considered Mr. Randolph’s letter,1 and we are of opinion that the public interest requires that the contemptuous language therein adopted requires a public censure.

If such addresses to the Chief Magistrate remain unnoticed, we are apprehensive that a precedent will be established, which must necessarily destroy the ancient, respectable, and urbane usages of this country.

Timothy Pickering.

Oliver Wolcott.

James McHenry.

Ben. Stoddert.

TO HENRY KNOX.

Philadelphia, 10 March, 1800.

Dear Sir,—

I have received the favor of your letter of the 27th of last month, and feel myself much interested in the subject of it. Mr. Stoddert had before shown me your letter to him, and to your son, and I had consented to the idea suggested in them. The navy, however, is a scene of momentous responsibility to me; and if a ship should be lost by any man for whom I shall have made myself thus exclusively answerable, you know what candid constructions will be put upon your old friend and humble servant,

John Adams.

TO BENJAMIN LINCOLN.

Philadelphia, 10 March, 1800.

My dear Friend,—

I have this morning received your favor of the 3d, and rejoice in the recovery of your usual health, and pray that it may continue many years.

When I came into office, it was my determination to make as few removals as possible—not one from personal motives, not one from party considerations. This resolution I have invariably observed. Conviction of infidelity to a trust cannot be resisted, and gross misconduct in office ought not to be overlooked. The representations to me of the daily language of several officers at Portsmouth, were so evincive of aversion, if not hostility, to the national Constitution and government, that I could not avoid making some changes. Mr. Whipple is represented as very artful in imputing individual misfortunes to measures of administration, and his whole influence to have been employed against the government, and Mr. Whipple must take a more decided part before he can get over the prejudices against him. I never regarded his conduct about the address; but his apology for it is a most miserable excuse. If the officers of government will not support it, who will? I have no ill will to Mr. Whipple, and no prejudice against him, but I still think his removal was right.

With great sincerity, &c.

John Adams.

TO B. STODDERT, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY.

Philadelphia, 31 March, 1800.

The President of the United States requests the Secretary of the Navy to employ some of his clerks in preparing a catalogue of books for the use of his office. It ought to consist of all the best writings in Dutch, Spanish, French, and especially in English, upon the theory and practice of naval architecture, navigation, gunnery, hydraulics, hydrostatics, and all branches of mathematics subservient to the profession of the sea. The lives of all the admirals, English, French, Dutch, or any other nation, who have distinguished themselves by the boldness and success of their navigation, or their gallantry and skill in naval combats. If there are no funds which can be legally applied by the Secretary to the purchase of such a library, application ought to be made to Congress for assistance.

31 March, 1800.

The President of the United States requests the Secretary of the Navy to take immediate measures for carrying into execution the resolution of Congress of the 29th, for presenting to Captain Thomas Truxtun a gold medal, emblematical of the late action between the United States frigate Constellation, of thirty-eight guns, and the French ship of war La Vengeance, of fifty-four, in testimony of the high sense entertained by Congress of his gallantry and good conduct in the above engagement, wherein an example was exhibited by the captain, officers, sailors, and mariners, honorable to the American name, and instructive to its rising navy.

John Adams.

TO J. McHENRY, SECRETARY OF WAR.

Philadelphia, 31 March, 1800.

The President of the United States requests the Secretary of War to send him, without delay, a list of the officers of the army, who were appointed during the last recess of the Senate of the United States, that the President may be enabled to make their nominations, as the Constitution requires.

31 March, 1800.

The President of the United States requests of the Secretary of War immediate information, whether the commissions have been sent to all the officers of the army or not, and if not, how many remain to be sent.

THOMAS JOHNSON TO JOHN ADAMS.

Georgetown, 8 April, 1800.

I shall make no excuse, my dear Sir, for writing to you with frankness. You may judge, from the resolution I have taken up of entering again the field of political contention, if I have credit enough to be carried there, that I am strongly impressed with the idea that we are at an awful crisis.

If our bark was gliding under a pleasant breeze, and the crew ready and disposed to join their efforts for a happy navigation, your age and services would entitle you to quit the tiller and take repose, which I dare say you would willingly do. But former services, in my opinion, lay you under new obligations, which cannot consistently be dispensed with, nor honorable means neglected which may continue you in a situation to be eminently useful. There is a great deal yet to be done to prevent our becoming a mere satellite of a mighty power.

Persuaded that your being in the city this summer, and as much as you well can, will strengthen and probably extend the favorable sentiment entertained of you, I entreat you at least to visit us. I feel something of selfishness in this request. A personal interview with you would be highly gratifying to me. The men of ’74 are grown scarce. How much, then, ought such a rarity to be valued, when recommended by intrinsic worth!

I am, &c.

Thomas Johnson.

TO THOMAS JOHNSON.

Philadelphia, 11 April, 1800.

Dear Sir,—

I received this morning your favor of the 8th from Georgetown, with all the pleasure that we usually receive from seeing the face of an old friend, long esteemed, respected, and beloved. I envy you, however, that vivacity of youth with which you write, and even that firm and steady hand, which appears in every character.

For my own part, I see no immediate prospect of an awful crisis more terrifying than I have constantly beheld for forty years. From the year 1760 to this moment has appeared one uniform state of doubt, uncertainty, and danger, to me.

Repose is desirable enough for me, but I have been so long a stranger to it, that I know not whether I should not find it a mortal enemy.

I know of nothing that would give me more pleasure than to meet you; but whether it will be possible for me to be in the city before November, I know not. If any services I can render will be useful, I neither want a disposition to render, nor, I hope, resolution to suffer under them. I am weary, and so are all men at my age, whether in public or private life. I agree perfectly with you, that a great deal is yet to be done to prevent our becoming a mere satellite to a mighty power. But I will candidly confess to you, I sometimes doubt which is that mighty power. I think there is danger from two. Nothing could give me more joy than your resolution to come again upon the stage, because I know your noble nature so well that it is impossible you should be the dupe of either. It will always give me pleasure to hear of your welfare, as I am, with great and sincere esteem, ancient and modern, your friend, &c.

John Adams.

TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE, AND HEADS OF DEPARTMENT.

Philadelphia, 23 April, 1800.

Gentlemen,—

The President of the United States proposes to the heads of department a subject, which, although at first view it may appear of inconsiderable moment, will upon more mature reflection be found to be of some difficulty, but of great importance to the honor, dignity, and consistency of the government.

In every government of Europe, I believe, there is a gazette in the service of the government, and a printer appointed, acknowledged, and avowed by it—in every regular government, at least. The Gazette of France, before the revolution, answered the same purpose with the London Gazette in England. Mr. Strahan is appointed the King’s printer by patent, and is the editor of the London Gazette. This Gazette is said by lawyers and judges to be primâ facie evidence in courts of justice, of matters of State and of public acts of the government. As it is published by the authority of the crown, it is the usual way of notifying such acts to the public, and therefore is entitled to credit in respect to such matters. It is a high misdemeanor to publish any thing as from royal authority which is not so. The Gazette is evidence of the King’s proclamations; even the articles of war, printed by the King’s printer, are good evidence of those articles. Addresses of the subjects, in bodies or otherwise, to the King, and his answers, are considered as matters of State when published in the Gazette, and are proved by it, primâ facie, in the King’s courts in Westminster Hall. The Gazette is said to be an authoritative means of proving all acts relating to the King and the State. Justice Buller asserts, that every thing which relates to the King, as King of Great Britain, &c., is in its nature public, and that a gazette which contains any thing done by his Majesty in his character of King, or which has passed through his Majesty’s hands, is admissible evidence in a court of law to prove such thing. Without running a parallel between the President of the United States and the King of England, it is certain that the honor, dignity, and consistency of government is of as much importance to the people in one case as the other. The President must issue proclamations, articles of war, articles of the navy, and must make appointments in the army, navy, revenue, and other branches of public service; and these ought all to be announced by authority in some acknowledged gazette. The laws ought to be published in the same. It is certain that a President’s printer must be restrained from publishing libels, and all paragraphs offensive to individuals, public bodies, or foreign nations; but need not be forbid advertisements. The gazette need not appear more than once or twice a week. Many other considerations will occur to the minds of the secretaries. The President requests their opinion,

1. Whether a printer can be appointed by the President, either with or without the advice and consent of the Senate?

2. Whether a printer can be obtained, without salary or fees, for the profit which might be made by such a gazette?

3. Where shall we find such a printer?

It is certain that the present desultory manner of publishing the laws, acts of the President, and proceedings of the Executive departments, is infinitely disgraceful to the government and nation, and in all events must be altered.1

J. McHENRY, SECRETARY OF WAR, TO JOHN ADAMS.

War Department, 6 May, 1800.

Sir,—

I have the honor to request that I may be permitted to resign the office of secretary of the department of war, and that my resignation be accepted, to take place on the first day of June next.

Explanations may be desired of some parts of the business of the war department, while under my direction, which I shall be very ready to give, and can more conveniently do so by continuing in an official situation until the period mentioned. I shall esteem myself particularly favored by your inquiries relative to any subject connected with my official duties, because I shall then have an opportunity to lay before you full information of what I have done or directed, together with the reasons and motives, known best to myself, which induced particular measures.

Having discharged the duties of Secretary of War for upwards of four years with fidelity, unremitting assiduity, and to the utmost of my abilities, I leave behind me all the records of the department, exhibiting the principles and manner of my official conduct, together with not a few difficulties I have had to encounter. To these written documents I cheerfully refer my reputation as an officer and a man.1

I have the honor to be, &c.

James McHenry.

TO T. PICKERING, SECRETARY OF STATE.

Philadelphia, 10 May, 1800.

Sir,—

As I perceive a necessity of introducing a change in the administration of the office of State, I think it proper to make this communication of it to the present Secretary of State, that he may have an opportunity of resigning, if he chooses. I should wish the day on which his resignation is to take place, to be named by himself. I wish for an answer to this letter, on or before Monday morning, because the nomination of a successor must be sent to the Senate as soon as they sit.

With esteem, I am, Sir, your most obedient and humble servant,

John Adams.

T. PICKERING, SECRETARY OF STATE, TO JOHN ADAMS.

Department of State, Philadelphia, 12 May, 1800.

Sir,—

I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter, dated last Saturday, stating that, “as you perceive a necessity of introducing a change in the administration of the office of State, you think it proper to make this communication of it to the present Secretary of State, that he may have an opportunity of resigning, if he chooses;” and that “you would wish the day on which his resignation is to take place to be named by himself.”

Several matters of importance in the office, in which my agency will be useful, will require my diligent attention until about the close of the present quarter. I had, indeed, contemplated a continuance in office until the 4th of March next; when, if Mr. Jefferson were elected President, (an event which, in your conversation with me last week, you considered as certain,) I expected to go out, of course. An apprehension of that event first led me to determine not to remove my family this year to the city of Washington; because to establish them there would oblige me to incur an extraordinary expense which I had not the means of defraying; whereas, by separating myself from my family, and living there eight or nine months with strict economy, I hoped to save enough to meet that expense, should the occasion occur. Or, if I then went out of office, that saving would enable me to subsist my family a few months longer, and perhaps aid me in transporting them into the woods, where I had land, though all wild and unproductive, and where, like my first ancestor in New England, I expected to commence a settlement on bare creation. I am happy that I now have this resource, and that those most dear to me have fortitude enough to look at the scene without dismay, and even without regret. Nevertheless, after deliberately reflecting on the overture you have been pleased to make to me, I do not feel it to be my duty to resign.

I have the honor to be, &c.

Timothy Pickering.

TO TIMOTHY PICKERING.

Philadelphia, 12 May, 1800.

Sir,—

Divers causes and considerations, essential to the administration of the government, in my judgment, requiring a change in the department of State, you are hereby discharged from any further service as Secretary of State.1

John Adams,
President of the United States.

TO J. McHENRY, SECRETARY OF WAR.

Philadelphia, 15 May, 1800.

Sir,—

I request you to transmit copies of the law for reducing the twelve regiments, which passed yesterday, to Major-Generals Hamilton and Pinckney, and also to the commandants of brigades, with orders to the major-generals to make immediate arrangements for reducing those regiments on the fourteenth day of June.

I pray you, also, in concert with the Secretary of the Treasury, to make seasonable preparation for punctual compliance with the other provision of the law, by advancing the three months’ pay to the officers and men.

TO THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, AND THE DISTRICT-ATTORNEY OF PENNSYLVANIA.

Philadelphia, 16 May, 1800.

I transmit you a copy of the resolution of the Senate of the United States, passed in Congress on the 14th of this month, by which I am requested to instruct the proper law officers to commence and carry on a prosecution against William Duane, editor of a newspaper called the Aurora, for certain false, defamatory, scandalous, and malicious publications in the said newspaper of the 19th of February last past, tending to defame the Senate of the United States, and to bring them into contempt and disrepute, and to excite against them the hatred of the good people of the United States. In compliance with this request, I now instruct you, gentlemen, to commence and carry on the prosecution accordingly.

With great esteem, &c.

John Adams.

TO O. WOLCOTT, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.

Philadelphia, 17 May, 1800.

Sir,—

I thank you for your report of the 16th of this month, and for your early attention to the important subject of the loan. I have subscribed, and send you herewith, an authorization to borrow to the amount of the law; but if the public exigencies can be satisfied with a part of it, your own public spirit of economy will induce you to confine yourself to such part.

The rate of interest is a subject of great anxiety to me. When I recollect that I borrowed for this country near a million sterling, at a rate of interest at from four and a half to six per cent., or thereabout, more than fifteen years ago, when this nation had not two thirds of its present population, when it had a very feeble government, no revenue, no taxes, by barely pledging the faith of the people, which faith has been most punctually and religiously kept, I cannot but suspect that some advantage is taken of this government by demanding exorbitant interest. As Great Britain, with her immense burdens, after so long and wasting a war, is able to borrow at a more moderate interest, I entertain a hope that we may at last abate somewhat of a former interest.

As I know your zeal for the interest of your country to be equal to my own, I have entire confidence in your exertions, that we may take up as little as possible of the sum, and at as low an interest as can be obtained.

TO THE HEADS OF DEPARTMENT.

Philadelphia, 20 May, 1800.

1. Among the three criminals under sentence of death, is there any discrimination in the essential circumstances of their cases, which would justify a determination to pardon or reprieve one or two, and execute the other?

2. Is the execution of one or more so indispensably demanded by public justice and by the security of the public peace, that mercy cannot be extended to all three, or any two, or one?

3. Will the national Constitution acquire more confidence in the minds of the American people by the execution than by the pardon of one or more of the offenders?

4. Is it clear beyond all reasonable doubt that the crime of which they stand convicted, amounts to a levying of war against the United States, or, in other words, to treason?

5. Is there any evidence of a secret correspondence or combination with other anti-federalists of any denomination in other States in the Union, or in other parts of this State, to rise in force against the execution of the law for taxing houses, &c., or for opposing the commissioners in general in the execution of their offices?

6. Quo animo was this insurrection? Was it a design of general resistance to all law, or any particular law? Or was it particular to the place and persons?

7. Was it any thing more than a riot, high-handed, aggravated, daring, and dangerous indeed, for the purpose of a rescue? This is a high crime, but can it strictly amount to treason?

8. Is there not great danger in establishing such a construction of treason, as may be applied to every sudden, ignorant, inconsiderate heat, among a part of the people, wrought up by political disputes, and personal or party animosities?

9. Will not a career of capital executions for treason, once opened, without actual bloodshed or hostility against any military force of government, inflict a deep wound in the minds of the people, inflame their animosities, and make them more desperate in sudden heats, and thoughtless riots in elections, and on other occasions where political disputes run high, and introduce a more sanguinary disposition among them?

10. Is not the tranquillity in the western counties, since the insurrection there, and the subsequent submission to law, a precedent in favor of clemency?

11. Is there any probability that a capital execution will have any tendency to change the political sentiments of the people?

12. Will not clemency have a greater tendency to correct their errors?

13. Are not the fines and imprisonments, imposed and suffered, a sufficient discouragement, for the present, of such crimes?

John Adams.

May not the long imprisonment of Fries, the two solemn, awful trials, his acknowledgment of the justice of his sentence, his professions of deep repentance, and promises of obedience, be accepted, and turned more to the advantage of government and the public peace, than his execution?

THE HEADS OF DEPARTMENT TO THE PRESIDENT.

Philadelphia, 20 May, 1800.

Having considered the questions proposed by the President for our consideration, we respectfully submit the following opinions.

That the intent of the insurgents in Pennsylvania, in 1798, was to prevent the execution of the law, directing the valuation of houses and lands, and the enumeration of slaves, in the particular district of country where they resided. That we know of no combination in other States, and presume that no combination, pervading the whole State of Pennsylvania, was actually formed. We believe, however, that if the government had not adopted prompt measures, the spirit of insurrection would have rapidly extended.

We are of opinion that the crime committed by Fries, Heyney, and Getman, amounted to treason, and that no danger can arise to the community from the precedents already established by the judges upon this subject. We cannot form a certain judgment of the effect upon public opinion, of suffering the law to have its course, but we think it must be beneficial, by inspiring the well disposed with confidence in the government, and the malevolent and factious with terror.

The Attorney-General and the Secretary of the Navy, however, believe that the execution of one will be enough to show the power of the laws to punish, and may be enough for example, the great end of punishment, and that Fries deserves most to suffer; because, though all are guilty, and all have forfeited their lives to the justice of their country, he was the most distinguished in the commission of the crime. The Secretary of the Treasury perceives no good ground for any distinction in the three cases, and he believes that a discrimination, instead of being viewed as an act of mercy, would too much resemble a sentence against an unfortunate individual. He also believes that the mercy of government has been sufficiently manifested by the proceedings of the Attorney of the United States, and that the cause of humanity will be most effectually promoted by impressing an opinion that those who are brought to trial, and convicted of treason, will not be pardoned.

Charles Lee,

Oliver Wolcott.

Ben. Stoddert.

The Attorney-General and Secretary of the Navy beg leave to add, as their opinion, that it will be more just and more wise that all should suffer the sentence of the law, than that all should be pardoned.

Ben. Stoddert.

Charles Lee.

TO C. LEE, SECRETARY OF STATE, PRO TEM.

Philadelphia, 21 May, 1800.

Sir,—

I received yesterday the opinion of yourself, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of the Navy, on the case of the prisoners under sentence of death for treason, formed, as I doubt not, under the full exercise of integrity and humanity. Nevertheless, as I differ in opinion, I must take on myself alone the responsibility of one more appeal to the humane and generous natures of the American people.

I pray you, therefore, to prepare for my signature, this morning, a pardon for each of the criminals, John Fries, Frederic Heyney, and John Getman.1

I pray you, also, to prepare the form of a proclamation of a general pardon of all treasons, and conspiracies to commit treasons, heretofore committed in the three offending counties, in opposition to the law laying taxes on houses, &c., that tranquillity may be restored to the minds of those people, if possible.

I have one request more; that you would consult the judge, and the late and present attorneys of this district, concerning the circumstances of guilt and punishment of those now under sentence for fines and imprisonment, and report to me a list of the names of such, if there are any, as may be proper objects of the clemency of government.

With great esteem, I am, &c.

John Adams.

TO ALEXANDER HAMILTON.

Sir,—

The itinerant life I have led1 has prevented me from acknowledging the receipt of your favor of May 24th till this time. Your sentiments are very satisfactory to me, and will be duly attended to. I anticipate criticism in every thing which relates to Colonel Smith; but criticism, now criticized so long, I regard no more than “Great George’s birth-day song.” Colonel Smith served through the war with high applause of his superiors. He has served, abroad in the diplomatic corps, at home as marshal and supervisor, and now as commandant of a brigade. These are services of his own, not mine. His claims are his own. I see no reason or justice in excluding him from all service, while his comrades are all ambassadors or generals, merely because he married my daughter.2 I am, &c.

John Adams.

TO J. MARSHALL, SECRETARY OF STATE.

Quincy, 11 July, 1800.

Dear Sir,—

I received only last night your favor of the 30th June. There is no part of the administration of our government which has given me so much discontent as the negotiation in the Mediterranean, our ill success in which I attribute to the diffidence of the agents and ministers employed in them, in soliciting aid from the English and the French and the Prussians. M. D’Engestrom has too much reason to reproach us, or to commiserate us, for paying the triple of the sums given by Sweden and Denmark. As, however, the promises of the United States, although made to their hurt, ought to be fulfilled with good faith, I know not how far we can accede to the proposition of uniting with Sweden and Denmark, or appointing, in concert with them and others, convoys for their and our trade. Convoys for our own trade I suppose we may appoint at any time, and in any seas, to protect our commerce, according to our treaties and the law of nations. If, indeed, the Barbary powers, or any of them, should break their treaties with us, and recommence hostilities on our trade, we may then be at liberty to make any reasonable arrangement with Sweden or Denmark. You will be at no loss to instruct Mr. Adams to give a polite and respectful answer to Mr. D’Engestrom, according to these principles, if you approve them.1

TO B. STODDERT, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY.

Quincy, 23 July, 1800.

Dear Sir,—

I received this morning your favor of the 12th, and thank you for the summary of the stations and destinations of the navy. At the same time I received your other letter of the same date, and have read all its inclosures, which I return with this. Nothing affects me so much as to see complaints against officers who have distinguished themselves by their vigilance, activity, and bravery in the service, as Maley has done; but the complaints must not be rejected without inquiry. I leave this business to your wisdom, as well as the other complaints against other officers.

The transgression of the British captain in opening the letters of Dr. Stevens to Captain Talbot, can be redressed only by a representation to the court of St. James, where so many circumstances of justification, or excuse, or palliation will occur, that I doubt whether it is expedient to take any trouble about it. If you think otherwise, you may furnish the Secretary of State with copies, and he may instruct Mr. King to acquaint the ministry with them. It is not worth while to make any vehement representation about it.1

With great respect, &c.

John Adams.

TO S. DEXTER, SECRETARY OF WAR.

Quincy, 25 July, 1800.

I received last night, and read with great pleasure, your letter of the 16th of July. I am very much pleased with your plan for executing the existing laws for the instruction of the artillerists and engineers. I am very ready to appoint the whole number of cadets provided for by law, namely, two for each company, or sixty-four in all, as soon as proper candidates present themselves; and the whole of the four teachers and two engineers, if you are prepared to recommend suitable persons. It is my desire that you take the earliest measures for providing all the necessary books, instruments, and apparatus, authorized by law, for the use and benefit of the artillerists and engineers. I think with you that it will be prudent to begin by appointing two teachers and an engineer, and I pray you to make inquiry for proper characters, and to take measures to induce young men to enter the service as cadets, collect them together, and form a regular school, and cause the battalions to be instructed in rotation at some regular stations. You may assure the cadets, that, in future, officers will be taken from the most deserving of their members, if any should be found fit for an appointment.

I agree with the Secretary of the Navy, that it would be highly useful to the navy, that midshipmen be admitted into the school by courtesy. Yet there ought to be a school on board every frigate. Thirty persons have been taught navigation, and other sciences connected with the naval service, on board the Boston during her first cruise.

I wish you may easily find teachers. What think you of Captain Barron for one? Every one speaks well of Mr. Bureau de Pusy. But I have an invincible aversion to the appointment of foreigners, if it can be avoided. It mortifies the honest pride of our officers, and damps their ardor and ambition. I had rather appoint the teachers, and form the schools, and take time to consider of an engineer.1

TO J. MARSHALL, SECRETARY OF STATE.

Quincy, 30 July, 1800.

I have received your favor of the 21st, and have read the respectable recommendations inclosed, in favor of Mr. Lloyd Beal and Mr. Bent Bowlings to be marshal of Maryland. I return all these letters to you in this. With the advantages of Mr. Thomas Chase, in the opportunity to consult his father and Mr. Martin, I still think that his appointment is as likely to benefit the public as that of any of the respectable candidates would be. Your knowledge of persons, characters, and circumstances, are so much better than mine, and my confidence in your judgment and impartiality so entire, that I pray you, if Mr. Chase should not appear the most eligible candidate to you, that you would give the commission to him whom you may prefer.

TO J. MARSHALL, SECRETARY OF STATE.

Quincy, 31 July, 1800.

In the night of the 29th, your favor of the 21st was left at my house. Mr. King’s letters shall be soon considered. At present I shall confine myself to the despatch from our envoys in France. The impression made upon me by these communications is the same with that which they appear by your letter to have made on you. There are not sufficient grounds on which to form any decisive opinion of the result of the mission. But there are reasons to conjecture that the French government may be inclined to explore all the resources of their diplomatic skill, to protract the negotiation. The campaign in Europe may have some weight, but the progress of the election in America may have much more. There is reason to believe that the communications between the friends of France in Europe and America are more frequent and constant, as well as more secret, than ours; and there is no reason to doubt that the French government is flattered with full assurances of a change at the next election, which will be more favorable to their views. McNeil, it appears, was arrived at Havre the latter part of May. Our envoys will probably insist on definitive and categorical answers, and come home, according to their instructions, either with or without a treaty. On this supposition, we need say no more upon this subject.

Another supposition is, however, possible, and, in order to guard against that, I shall propose to your consideration, and that of the heads of department, the propriety of writing to our envoys, by the way of Holland, and England or Hamburg, or any other more expeditious and certain conveyance. The question is, what we shall write. There are but two points, which appear to me to deserve a further attention, and indeed their present instructions are sufficient upon these heads. I always expected that our envoys would be hard pressed to revive the old treaty, to save its anteriority, as they say they shall be. I cannot see, however, that we can relax the instruction on that head. Perhaps it may be necessary to repeat and confirm it. The other point relates to a discontinuance of our naval protection of our commerce, and to opening our commerce with France. But we have no official or other authentic information that the French have done any thing to justify or excuse us in the smallest relaxation. And, indeed, nothing they can do, short of a treaty, would justify me in taking one step. I therefore think that our envoys may be instructed to be as explicit as decency and delicacy will admit, in rejecting all propositions of the kind.

I return you all the papers relative to this subject.

TO J. MARSHALL, SECRETARY OF STATE.

Quincy, 31 July, 1800.

Last night the consul of Spain, Mr. Stoughton, came out to Quincy upon the important errand of delivering to me in my own hand, according to his own account of his orders, the inclosed letter, demanding of the government a fulfilment of the 5th article of our treaty with Spain.1 Although I see no sufficient reason in this case for deviating from the ordinary course of business, I shall take no exception to this proceeding on that account, but I desire you to communicate this letter to the Secretary at War, and concert with him the proper measures to be taken. Orders, I think, should be sent to Mr. Hawkins and to General Wilkinson, to employ every means in their power to preserve the good faith according to the stipulation in this 5th article of the treaty with Spain. And I also desire you would write a civil and respectful answer to this letter of the Chevalier, still the minister of the King of Spain, assuring him of the sincere friendship of the government, for the Spanish government and nation, and of our determination to fulfil with perfect good faith the stipulations in the treaty, and informing him that orders have been given, or shall be immediately given, to the officers of the United States, civil or military, to take all the measures in their power for that purpose.

TO J. MARSHALL, SECRETARY OF STATE.

Quincy, 1 August, 1800.

Dear Sir,—

I have twice read the despatch of Mr. King, No. 67, inclosed in your favor of the 21st of July. I am glad to see that Lord Grenville expressed his opinion, that the new board ought to proceed in a different manner from their predecessors, by deciding cases singly, one after another, instead of attempting to decide by general resolves and in classes.

The idea of paying a gross sum to the British government in lieu of, and in satisfaction for, the claims of the British creditors, seems to me to merit attention and mature deliberation. There will be great difficulties attending it, no doubt. How can we form an estimate that will satisfy the American government and the British government? How shall the claims of British creditors be extinguished or barred from recovery in our courts of law? Shall the claim of the creditor be transferred to our government, and how? or shall it be a total extinguishment of debt and credit between the parties? How will the British government apportion the sum among the British creditors? This, however, is their affair. You ask an important question, whether such an arrangement can afford just cause of discontent to France. But I think it must be answered in the negative. Our citizens are in debt to British subjects. We surely have a right to pay our honest debts in the manner least inconvenient to ourselves, and no foreign power has any thing to do with it. I think I should not hesitate on this account. The difficulty of agreeing upon a sum is the greatest; but I am inclined to think this may be overcome. If nothing of this kind can be agreed on, and the British government refuse all explanations, I think that good faith will oblige us to try another board; and I have so little objection to the modes of appointing a new board, suggested to Mr. King by our government or by the British government, that I am content to leave it to Mr. King to do the best he can. I shall keep the copy of Mr. King’s despatch, No. 67, presuming that you have the original.

TO J. MARSHALL, SECRETARY OF STATE.

Quincy, 2 August, 1800.

Dear Sir,—

Last night I received your favor of the 24th of July. The letter to Mr. Adams, dated the 24th of July, I have read, and as I see no reason to desire any alteration in it, I shall give it to General Lincoln, the collector at Boston, to be by him sent to Hamburg or Amsterdam by the first good opportunity.1 The duplicate and triplicate you may send by such opportunities as may be presented to you. Mr. King’s despatches, Nos. 71 and 72, I have read, and, if you think proper, you may authorize Mr. King, if he thinks it proper, to communicate to the court, in any manner he thinks most decent, the congratulations of his government, and, if he pleases, of the President, on the King’s fortunate escape from the attempt of an assassin.

The mighty bubble, it seems, is burst, of a projected combination of all the north of Europe against France. This mighty design, which was held up in terror before my eyes to intimidate me from sending envoys to France, is evaporated in smoke. Indeed, I never could hear it urged against the mission to France without laughter.

The jewels for Tunis are a more serious object. When I read over all the despatches from the Barbary States, I remember your predecessor consulted me concerning these jewels. His opinion was, that it was best to make the present, rather than to hazard a rupture. After the expenditure of such great sums, I thought with him that it would be imprudent to hazard an interruption of the peace on account of these jewels, and I presume he wrote to Mr. Eaton or Mr. Smith accordingly. I am still of the same opinion.

I see no objection against requesting Mr. Smith, and all the consuls in the Barbary States, to keep Mr. King informed of the general state of affairs. It will be of service to the public that our minister at London should know as much information as possible concerning our affairs in those countries. I return Mr. King’s despatches, 71 and 72.

TO B. STODDERT, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY.

Quincy, 3 August, 1800.

Dear Sir,—

I know not whether the inclosed letter from Lady Catherine Duer has not excited too much tenderness in my feelings, but I cannot refrain from inclosing it to you, and recommending it to your serious consideration. If it is possible, without material injury to the discipline of the navy, to accept of the resignation of this unhappy youth, I pray you to do it. I had almost said that this letter, at first reading, excited as much of a temporary indignation against the captain, for suffering these dinners at St. Kitts, as it has of a permanent pity for an unfortunate family. Captain Little has returned without the loss of a man by sickness, and with a ship in perfect health, only by keeping always at sea.

TO O. WOLCOTT, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.

Quincy, 6 August, 1800.

Dear Sir,—

In answer to your letter of the 26th of July, I have to inform you that although you omitted to inclose to me the letter from John Cowper, Esquire, as you intended, yet as there are no candidates for the office, that I know of, that ought to excite any hesitation, I am well satisfied that you should apply to the Secretary of State for commissions for Mr. Claude Thompson, to be collector of the customs, for the district of Brunswick in Georgia, and inspector of the revenue for said port, provided you are satisfied with Mr. Cowper’s recommendation.

To show you the passions that are continually excited by the appointments and dismissions we are so often obliged to make, I inclose a letter I received last night from Mr. Jabez Bowen at Augusta. Such are the reproaches to which the most upright actions of our lives are liable!1

TO J. MARSHALL, SECRETARY OF STATE.

Quincy, 7 August, 1800.

I have just received your favor of July 29th. The merit of Judge Chase, of which I have been a witness at times for six and twenty years, are very great in my estimation, and if his sons are as well qualified as others, it is quite consistent with my principles to consider the sacrifices and services of a father in weighing the pretensions of a son. The old gentleman will not last very long, and it can hardly be called accumulating offices in a family to appoint the son of a judge of the United States marshal of a particular State. However, I have so much deference for the opinion of Mr. Stoddert, especially in an appointment in his own State, that I will wave my own inclination in favor of his judgment, and consent to the appointment of Major David Hopkins.

TO J. MARSHALL, SECRETARY OF STATE.

Quincy, 7 August, 1800.

Dear Sir,—

I inclose to you a letter from Governor Trumbull, of Connecticut, a petition for a pardon from Isaac Williams, in prison at Hartford, for privateering under French colors. His petition is seconded by a number of very respectable people. I inclose many other papers relative to the subject, put into my hands yesterday by a young gentleman from Norwich, his nephew. The man’s generosity to American prisoners, his refusal to act, and resigning his command, when he was ordered to capture American vessels, his present poverty and great distress, are arguments in favor of a pardon, and I own I feel somewhat inclined to grant it. But I will not venture on that measure without your advice and that of your colleagues. I pray you to take the opinions of the heads of department upon these papers, and if they advise to a pardon, you may send me one.1

With high esteem, &c.

John Adams.

TO J. MARSHALL, SECRETARY OF STATE.

Quincy, 11 August, 1800.

On Saturday I received your favor of the 26th ultimo. The German letter proposing to introduce into this country a company of schoolmasters, painters, poets, &c., all of them disciples of Mr. Thomas Paine, will require no answer. I had rather countenance the introduction of Ariel and Caliban, with a troop of spirits the most mischievous from fairy land. The direction to deliver the Sandwich1 to the Spanish minister, on the requisition of the King of Spain, as the case is stated, no doubt accurately, in your letter, I believe was right; and it was better to do it promptly, than to wait for my particular orders in a case so plain. Respecting Bowles, I wrote you on the 31st of July, that I thought General Wilkinson and Mr. Hawkins should be written to. I now add that I think the governors of Georgia, Tennessee, and the Mississippi territory should be written to, to employ all the means in their power to preserve the good faith of the United States, according to the fifth article of the treaty with Spain. How far it will be proper to order General Wilkinson to coöperate with the Spanish government or military forces, it will be proper for the heads of department to consider. I can see no objection against ordering them to join in an expedition against Bowles, wherever he may be, in concert with the Spanish forces, at their request. The only danger would arise from misunderstandings and disagreements between the officers or men. In my letter of the 31st ultimo I also requested you to give a civil answer to the Chevalier, assuring him of our sincere friendship for the Spanish government and nation, and of our resolution to fulfil the treaty with good faith. This letter I hope you received.

On the 1st of August I wrote you on the subject of a sum in gross to be paid, instead of going through all the chicanery, which may be practicable under the treaty.2 I most perfectly agree with you and the heads of department, that the proposition merits serious attention. My only objection to it is one that cannot be seriously mentioned. I am afraid that, as soon as this point of dispute is removed, such is their habitual delight in wrangling with us, they will invent some other. Some pretext or other of venting their spleen and ill humor against us they will always find. This, however, cannot be gravely urged as a reason against settling this quarrel. I am willing you should write to Mr. King instructions on this head. Take the opinions, however, of the heads of department on the letter, before you send it. If they are unanimous with you for going as far as a million, in the latitude to be given to Mr. King in the negotiation, I will agree to it.1

TO JOHN TRUMBULL.

Quincy, 12 August, 1800.

Dear Sir,—

A letter from my old friend Trumbull is always so cheering a cordial to my spirits, that I could almost rejoice in the cause which produced yours of the 6th. The gentleman you allude to did, it is true, make me a visit at New Haven. It was not unexpected, for it was not the first or second mark of attention that I have received from him, at the same place. On this occasion his deportment was polite, and his conversation easy, sensible, and agreeable. I understood from him, what I well knew before and always expected, that there had been some uneasiness and some severe criticisms in Connecticut on account of the late removal of the late Secretary of State; but he mentioned no names, nor alluded to persons or places. No such insinuations concerning Hartford, as you have heard, escaped his lips.2 I had for many years had it in contemplation to take the road of the sea coast, and I believe that for many years I have never stopped at New Haven, without making some inquiries concerning the roads and inns. The gentleman in question had just returned from New London, and assured me the road was good, the accommodations at the public houses not bad, and the passage of the ferry neither dangerous nor inconvenient to any but the ferrymen. He added, that he had heard people at several places on that route observe, that I had never seen it, that they wished to see me that way, and that the distance to my own house in Quincy was ten or twelve miles less, than the other. An economy of a dozen miles to an old man, who was already weary with a journey of six or seven hundred miles, was an object of attention, and that way I took. I never entertained nor conceived a suspicion, that I should not meet the same cordial reception at Hartford as usual. There was some conversation concerning constitutions and administration, rather free, but very cool and decent, without any personal or party allusions, which gave me an opinion of the correctness of his judgment, which I had not before. But as these were private conversations, I do not think it necessary, if it could be justifiable, to mention them. Who is it says, in the Old Testament, I will go out and be a lying spirit among them?2

With affectionate esteem, dear Sir, your much pained friend,

TO BARNABAS BIDWELL.

Quincy, 27 August, 1800.

Sir,—

I have received your favor of the 16th, and thank you for the information it contains.1 A very little reflection, I think, must convince a gentleman of your information, that it would be altogether improper for me to enter into any conversation or correspondence relative to the changes in administration. If a President of the United States has not authority enough to change his own secretaries, he is no longer fit for his office. If he must enter into a controversy in pamphlets and newspapers, in vindication of his measures, he would have employment enough for his whole life, and must neglect the duties and business of his station. Let those who have renounced, all of a sudden, that system of neutrality for which they contended for ten years, justify themselves, if they can.

I hope, as you do, that the resistance to the execution of the judgment of the courts of the United States in Kentucky, as represented by Judge Harry Innes, exists no longer. I return you all the papers.

Mountflorence’s information was, that our envoys “were ready to depart for Havre de Grace, where they intended to embark for the Hague.” This was, probably, given out by the French to conceal something from the public. What that something was, you may conjecture as well as I. They would not be anxious to conceal settlement to mutual satisfaction.1

I agree with you that very serious, though friendly remonstrances ought to be made to Spain. I can even go as far as you, and demand compensation for every American vessel condemned by the French consular courts in the dominions of Spain. I return all the papers relative to this subject.

TO J. MARSHALL, SECRETARY OF STATE.

Quincy, 9 September, 1800.

Dear Sir,—

Mr. Stevens’s letter, inclosed in yours of the 30th, seems to require a proclamation to open the trade between the United States and the ports of St. Domingo, which were lately in the possession of Rigaud, and I am ready to agree to it whenever you and the heads of department shall be satisfied.

Washington, 8 November, 1800.

Sir,—

I have, after due reflection, considered it a duty which I owe to myself and family, to retire from the office of Secretary of the Treasury; and accordingly I take the liberty to request that the President would be pleased to accept my resignation, to take effect, if agreeable to him, only at the close of the present year.1

In thus suggesting my wishes, I am influenced by a desire of affording to the President suitable time to designate my successor, and also of reserving to myself an opportunity to transfer the business of the department without injury to the public service.

I have the honor to be, &c.

Oliver Wolcott.

TO OLIVER WOLCOTT, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.

Washington, 10 November, 1800.

Dear Sir,—

I have received your letter of the 8th of this month, and am sorry to find that you judge it necessary to retire from office. Although I shall part with your services as Secretary of the Treasury with reluctance and regret, I am nevertheless sensible that you are the best and the only judge of the expediency of your resignation.

If you persist in your resolution, your own time shall be mine. I should wish to know whether, by the close of the present year, you mean the last of December, or the fourth of March. If the first, it is so near at hand that no time is to be lost in considering of a successor.

I am, &c.

John Adams.

JOHN JAY TO JOHN ADAMS.

(Private.)

Albany, 10 November, 1800.

Dear Sir,—

Still pressed by public business, occasioned by the late session, I take up my pen to write you a few lines before the mail closes. It very unexpectedly happened that the anti-federal party succeeded in the last election at the city of New York, and acquired a decided majority in the Assembly. Well knowing their views and temper, it was not advisable that the speech should contain any matter respecting national officers or measures, which would afford them an opportunity of indulging their propensity to do injustice to both in their answer.

But the next morning after the delivery of the speech, and before they proceeded to the appointment of the electors, I sent them a message (and it is not usual to return any answers to such messages,) in which I expressed sentiments which leave no room for your political enemies to draw improper inferences from the reserve observable in the speech. The respect due to myself, as well as to you, forbade me to remain silent on a subject and on an occasion so highly interesting; and I flatter myself it will be agreeable to you to perceive from these circumstances, and to be assured, that I still remain, and will remain, dear Sir, your sincere and faithful friend,

John Jay.

Just on closing this letter, a newspaper, which I inclose, came in. It contains a copy of the Message.

O. WOLCOTT, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, TO JOHN ADAMS.

Washington, 11 November, 1800.

Sir,—

I have the honor to acknowledge with thanks the President’s obliging letter of yesterday. The time contemplated by myself for retiring from office is the last day of December next. It will, however, be necessary for me to remain here several weeks after my resignation takes place, whenever that event may happen, for the purpose of completing the business which will have been by me previously commenced. Notwithstanding my resignation will take place, agreeable to the President’s permission, on the last day of December, any services, which I can afterwards render, while here, will be at the disposal of my successor or the government.

I have the honor, &c.

Oliver Wolcott.

TO JOHN JAY.

Washington, 24 November, 1800.

Dear Sir,—

I received last week your friendly private letter of the 10th. The assurance of the continuance of your friendship was unnecessary for me, because I have never had a doubt of it. But others invent and report as they please. They have preserved hitherto, however, more delicacy towards the friendship between you and me than any other.

The last mission to France, and the consequent dismission of the twelve regiments, although an essential branch of my system of policy, has been to those who have been intriguing and laboring for an army of fifty thousand men, an unpardonable fault. If by their folly they have thrown themselves on their backs, and jacobins should walk over their bellies, as military gentlemen express promotions over their heads, whom should they blame but themselves?

Among the very few truths, in a late pamphlet,1 there is one which I shall ever acknowledge with pleasure, namely, that the principal merit of the negotiation for peace was Mr. Jay’s. I wish you would permit our Historical Society to print the papers you drew up on that occasion. I often say, that, when my confidence in Mr. Jay shall cease, I must give up the cause of confidence, and renounce it with all men.

With great truth and regard, I am now, and ever shall be, your friend and servant,

John Adams.

TO JOHN JAY.

Washington, 19 December, 1800.

Dear Sir,—

Mr. Ellsworth, afflicted with the gravel and the gout, and intending to pass the winter in the south of France, after a few weeks in England, has resigned his office of Chief Justice, and I have nominated you to your old station. This is as independent of the inconstancy of the people, as it is of the will of a President. In the future administration of our country, the firmest security we can have against the effects of visionary schemes or fluctuating theories, will be in a solid judiciary; and nothing will cheer the hopes of the best men so much as your acceptance of this appointment. You have now a great opportunity to render a most signal service to your country. I therefore pray you most earnestly to consider of it seriously, and accept it. You may very properly resign the short remainder of your gubernatorial period, and Mr. Van Rensselaer may discharge the duties. I had no permission from you to take this step, but it appeared to me that Providence had thrown in my way an opportunity, not only of marking to the public the spot where, in my opinion, the greatest mass of worth remained collected in one individual, but of furnishing my country with the best security its inhabitants afforded against the increasing dissolution of morals.

With unabated friendship, and the highest esteem and respect, I am, &c.

John Adams.

P. S. Your commission will soon follow this letter.1

[1 ]Mr. John Randolph’s letter to the President, attempting to make him responsible for certain alleged insults received by him at the Theatre from officers of the marine corps, was the first act which gave him any notoriety in the country. The Attorney-General, who did not sign the above opinion, seems to have furnished the draught of the message finally sent to the House of Representatives, simply referring the letter, as a question of privilege, to that body.

[1 ]The only reply to these questions found among Mr. Adams’s papers, is from Mr. McHenry. Whilst he favors the idea that a public printer should be appointed, he doubts the power of the President to establish any such officer with a fixed compensation. All that can be done by the government, would be to allow some private printer to call himself printer to the President, and to give him from the several departments such work as belonged to each, at the established prices. “A better plan, particularly in view of the proposed removal to the new seat of government, the city of Washington, where no printer is understood to reside, would be that a law should be passed authorizing the President to appoint from time to time some fit, trusty, and discreet person, as printer to the United States, whose duty it should be to print the laws, &c., to be paid either by a fixed compensation, or according to the work done.”

The want of such an organ has been felt by the government from that day to this, but none has ever yet been formally established.

[1 ]Much has been said respecting the causes of Mr. McHenry’s involuntary resignation. That he expected a dismission six months sooner, is tolerably clear from his own letter printed in Mr. Gibbs’s work, vol. ii. p. 282. That he had merited it much earlier, is now proved by the concurring testimony of those who cried out the most loudly against it, when it happened. So early as July, 1798, Mr. Hamilton described him as “wholly insufficient for his place, with the additional misfortune of not having the least suspicion of the fact.” Hamilton’s Works, vol. vi. p. 333. In April preceding, Mr. R. G. Harper had prevailed upon the President to consent to invite Mr. Hamilton himself to occupy the post. “The army, under proper direction, will put arms into the hands of all our friends.” Hamilton’s Works, vol. vi. p. 282. Mr. Hamilton’s answer is not given, but, in the letter to General Washington already quoted, he admits that Mr. McHenry owed his place to Mr. Adams’s forbearance.

“The insufficiency is so great as to leave no probability that the business of the war department can make any tolerable progress in his hands. This has been long observed, and has been more than mentioned to the President by members of Congress. He is not insensible, I believe, that the execution of the department does not produce the expected results; but the case is of course delicate and embarrassing.”

General Washington in reply says:

“Your opinion respecting the unfitness of a certain gentleman for the office he holds, accords with mine; and it is to be regretted, sorely, at this time, that these opinions are so well founded. I early discovered, after he entered upon the duties of his office, that his talents were unequal to great exertions or deep resources. In truth they were not expected; for the fact is, it was a Hobson’s choice.” Hamilton’s Works, vol. vi. p. 337.

This letter is not found in Mr. Sparks’s collection, for the reason given in a note to vol. xi. p. 285.

Mr. Wolcott is not a whit more equivocal in his opinion. See two letters in Gibbs’s Memoirs of the Federal Administrations, vol. ii. pp. 101, 315, and another more decided still, not printed by Mr. Gibbs, in Hamilton’s Works, vol. vi. p. 406.

The propriety of the removal being thus established by the evidence of those claiming to be Mr. McHenry’s best friends, and independently of a still more serious question touching his abuse of his confidential relation with the President, the only matter remaining to be considered is the secondary one of the mode in which it was done. Mr. Hamilton has already explained the difficulty attending Mr. McHenry’s utter unconsciousness of his insufficiency; an unconsciousness strikingly visible in his letters after his dismission. It is clear that he was a man who could not take a hint. In all probability this it was, that gradually brought on the personal harshness which terminated his career. It must be admitted that Mr. Adams was neither so considerate nor so dignified in his case as he was in that of Mr. Pickering. But the object once effected, he seems to have been the first to regret that it had not been more gently done. To this Mr. Wolcott, with all his secret malevolence to Mr. Adams, unequivocally testifies. Whilst, in a secret letter to Mr. McHenry, he instigates him to disclose to Mr. Hamilton, for use in his projected pamphlet against Mr. Adams, the details of the private conversation during the conference that led to the dismissal, in another letter to him of the same day, designed for public use, to protect him in case he was attacked on the score of incompetency, he says:—

“Soon after your intended retirement from the department of war was made known to me, I waited on the President of the United States on business relating to the treasury, when the subject of your resignation was voluntarily mentioned by him.

“The President said that he considered you a gentleman of agreeable manners, of extensive information, and great industry; that he verily believed your hands were pure, meaning thereby, as I understood him, that he reposed entire confidence in your integrity; that he was happy in understanding that your circumstances were affluent, and that the loss of your late office would not distress your family; and that if any suitable office should become vacant, he should with pleasure confer it on you.” Gibbs’s Federal Administrations, vol. ii. p. 410.

Recent disclosures clearly prove that Mr. McHenry had not merited this generosity. He certainly was one, though the least important, of the three cabinet ministers who were untrue to him, and who betrayed his confidence. Neither does this testimony of Mr. Wolcott seem to have softened his rancor. He furnished Mr. Hamilton with a part of the confidential matter used by him in his pamphlet, and he entered warmly into the cabal to defeat Mr. Adams’s reëlection. It is, however, no more than due to him to add that, of all the parties to it, his letters betray the most profound sense of the degrading measures they resorted to. He designates their conduct as “tremulous, timid, feeble, deceptive, and cowardly. They write private letters. To whom? To each other.” . . . . . “They meditate in private. Can good come out of such a system? If the party recovers its pristine energy and splendor, shall I ascribe it to such cunning, paltry, indecisive, back-door conduct?”

For the evidence to sustain all these views, drawn exclusively from the parties implicated, see O. Wolcott’s private letter to J. McHenry, 26 August, 1800, in Mr. Gibbs’s work, vol. ii. p. 409. Also his public letter of the same date, inclosed in the other, p. 410, which must also be compared with the letter to Hamilton, p. 416. Also McHenry to Wolcott, in the same work, vol. ii. pp. 384-385, 413.

[1 ]This letter closes the official relations of Mr. Pickering to the President. Construing his duty as a cabinet officer as consistent with a singular latitude in secretly counteracting the policy and betraying the purposes of his chief, he seems at the same time, by his refusal to resign, and his complaints afterwards, to have overlooked the doctrine which he himself laid down less than three years before. In his letter to Mr. Monroe, of the 24th July, 1797, he says, among many other things quite applicable to his own case;—

“Again, the want of confidence, from whatever cause it may arise, is a good reason for changing a diplomatic agent. If he is found on experience to be deficient in judgment, skill, or diligence, or if circumstances inspire a reasonable doubt of the sincerity of his views, he cannot with prudence be continued, for it is essential that there should be full confidence in him.”

Much was said in many of the writings of the time, and Mr. Jefferson alludes to it often in his letters, of the want of system of Mr. Adams’s administration. The cause of much of this difficulty is now clearly to be traced to these cabinet officers, who were never really disposed to coöperate with the chief, but were constantly acting under an opposite influence from without. The accession of Messrs. Marshall and Dexter to the cabinet marks a restoration of system and harmonious action.

Many years after this removal of Mr. Pickering, that gentleman, in undertaking to account for the act, labored to prove the existence of unworthy motives for it in Mr. Adams. And Mr. Gibbs, in his late partisan work, though manifestly betraying his own disbelief of them, has not abstained from recording them. “As charges,” he says, “they are at any rate matter of history.” What sort of history that would be, which is made up of unfounded charges against public men anywhere, and especially in America, it is easy to comprehend. In the present instance, the whole of them are swept away by the letter of Mr. Stoddert, 27th October, 1811, giving many particulars respecting the causes assigned for the removal, and by those of Robert and of Samuel Smith, the parties implicated by Mr. Pickering, 30th November, 1st December, 1811, which are inserted in their places in the tenth volume. Gibbs’s Federal Administrations, vol. ii. p. 353.

[1 ]“Fries, it is said, opened a tin-ware store in Philadelphia, where, profiting by the custom his notoriety drew to him, he acquired a respectable fortune, and a respectable character.” Wharton’s State Trials, &c., p. 648, note.

For the pardon of Fries, Mr. Adams was attacked by Mr. Hamilton and his friends as guilty of “a virtual dereliction of the friends of the government.” Posterity may perhaps judge that it was more wise, as well as humane, to save the criminal for a respectable life, selling tin-ware, than to make of him a political martyr, and a precedent for vindictive retribution.

[1 ]A letter to the same purport was sent to the Secretary of War.

Mr. Hamilton’s answer is found in the collection of his works, vol. v. p. 430. Colonel Smith had solicited to be appointed to the command of the second regiment of artillerists and engineers, and to be allowed the selection of a major and full battalion of men from his actual command, to complete the regiment.

[1 ]Mr. McHenry doubted the power of the President to make the appointment, for the reasons expressed in a former letter. Moreover, although speaking highly of Colonel Smith, as an officer of infantry, he questioned the fitness of transferring him to the command of a corps of artillery. This last argument seems to have decided the point. See vol. viii. pp. 632, 647.

[1 ]Mr. Adams had been on a visit to Washington, the proposed seat of government.

[2 ]Colonel Smith was soon afterwards appointed surveyor and inspector for the port of New York. The propriety of embracing or of excluding relatives in the consideration of appointments to office, opens questions upon which persons may honestly differ in opinion. One rule has been adopted by some, and another by others, of the Presidents. Mr. Adams followed one, and his son the other. There can be no doubt in cases of the selection of unworthy or incompetent persons. And every President who assumes the responsibility of appointing a relation, subjects the fitness of his choice to a severe scrutiny. Considered in this light, Mr. Adams is responsible for the transfer of his son, John Quincy Adams, from one diplomatic mission to another, for the appointments given to Colonel Smith, and for the selection of his wife’s nephew, William Cranch, to be chief justice of the Circuit Court of the district of Columbia.

[1 ]This proposition to unite with Sweden and Denmark in keeping a naval force in the Mediterranean for the protection of the trade of the three nations, had been made by Count d’Engestrom, through Mr. J. Q. Adams, at Berlin.

[1 ]Mr. Stoddert had expressed the opinion that this act of the British Captain “appeared one of those things, difficult to condemn, and still more difficult to justify.” “His letters did not show him to be a man of much understanding.”

[1 ]This is the foundation of the military academy at West Point.

[1 ]For the protection of the Spanish territory from the incursions of the Indians.

[1 ]Mr. Marshall had expressed a desire that it should take this course. But he says;—

“I transmit it to you, because there are in it some sentiments further than those contained in your letter. Should you wish any change, be pleased to note it, and return the letter.”

[1 ]Just at this time, the officer to whom this letter was addressed, was engaging in the preparation of the materials for the use of Mr. Hamilton in the deliberate attack he was meditating upon Mr. Adams. Mr. Hamilton’s letter inviting him to execute this task, and his reply, disclose the motives of the actors not less than their sense of the moral obstacles in their way. They also establish the fact that the shape of the attack was the result of cool and concerted hostility, rather than the impulse of self-defence under which it is declared to have been made. Gibbs’s Federal Administrations, vol. ii. pp. 397, 416.

[1 ]The trial of Isaac Williams is found in Wharton’s State Trials, &c., pp. 652-658, with a carefully prepared note touching the difficult question of expatriation, which can scarcely yet be pronounced settled in America. Mr. Marshall, in his reply to the above letter, dated the 16th, says;—

“The petition of Isaac Williams, with the accompanying documents, was, in conformity with your direction, laid before the heads of department, and by their unanimous opinion the fines are remitted. I have inclosed his pardon to the marshal for the district of Connecticut.”

[1 ]A vessel captured by Captain Talbot in a Spanish port of St. Domingo.

[2 ]The claims of British subjects under the sixth article of the British treaty.

[1 ]Mr. Marshall in his reply, dated the 23d, writes;—

“I understand your opinion to be that the explanatory articles, if attainable, are preferred to any other mode of accommodating the differences which produced the dissolution of the board lately sitting at Philadelphia; and that the most eligible mode is the substitution of a sum in gross as a compensation for the claims of the creditors of the United States. On this idea the letter to Mr. King is drawn. For many reasons I am myself decidedly of the same opinion, and I believe there is with respect to it no difference among the heads of department.”

[2 ]Mr. Trumbull had written to know whether the stories in circulation were true, that Mr. Adams had been induced to change his course from Hartford to New London by reason of the representations made by the gentleman referred to, of the hostility felt to him at the former place. In this connection Mr. T. says;—

“In fact, had you given Hartford the honor of a visit, you would have been met from all parties with more than usual marks of attention and respect. Many were desirous of convincing you that they did not consider the President’s exertion of his constitutional right of displacing a subordinate executive officer, as a matter of national concern; that while they felt no dissatisfaction at the conduct of administration in public and consequential measures, no minute clamors could shake their confidence; and that of the propriety or necessity of the measure, they pretended not at that time to be possessed of the evidence, or the right, which could enable them to judge or decide.”

[2 ]Mr. Adams was not fated to have his own measure meted to him by others. A specimen of the manner in which he was treated, in this very instance, is disclosed in a letter of Chauncey Goodrich to Oliver Wolcott, still Secretary of the Treasury. The writer warns his correspondent, that the person to whom this letter is addressed, described as “our friend Trumbull, remains as firmly as everattached to his old master.” Noah Webster, too, is not well affected to the cabal. Gibbs’s Memoirs of the Federal Administrations, vol. ii. p. 411.

[1 ]To negotiate with the Southern Indians for some land.

[2 ]An Indian chief, whose evidence had been quoted in this case against Mr. Sevier.

[3 ]It is a singular fact that Mr. McHenry’s name does not appear in Mr. Dexter’s letter, among those recommended. The idea of giving him an appointment, mentioned by Mr. Wolcott as at first entertained by the President, seems to have been still cherished. In the meantime that gentleman was stimulating Mr. Wolcott to buckle on his armor, and complaining of everybody in any way attached to Mr. Adams. Gibbs’s Federal Administrations, vol. ii. p. 408.

[1 ]Judge Samuel Chase. It is curious to notice the bitterness of the feeling indulged in by Mr. McHenry against him and his friends on account of their preference of Mr. Adams to Mr. Pinckney. Gibbs’s Federal Administrations, vol. ii. pp. 408, 419.

The omission to make this appointment was supplied in another form twenty-seven years afterwards by his son John Quincy Adams, whilst President.

[1 ]Mr. Bidwell had written a letter, requesting an explanation of the grounds of dismission of Mr. Pickering, “not for his own satisfaction,” he said, “but for the sake of counteracting injurious impressions.”

[1 ]To request their aid in keeping the peace among the Indians on the Spanish border.

[2 ]Bonaparte.

[1 ]Mr. Marshall, in his letter, says:—

“The state of the negotiation on the 17th of May, considered in connection with the subsequent military operations of the armies, and with the impression which will probably be made by the New York election, gives the appearance of truth to the intelligence in the papers from St. Sebastian’s. We ought not to be surprised, if we see our envoys in the course of the next month, without a treaty. This produces a critical state of things, which ought to be contemplated in time. The question, whether hostilities against France, with the exception of their West India privateers, ought to be continued, if on their part a change of conduct shall be manifest, is of serious and interesting magnitude, and is to be viewed in a variety of aspects.”

Mr. Wolcott’s tone on this subject may be gathered from his very remarkable letter of the 3d September to Alexander Hamilton. Gibbs’s Memoirs of the Federal Administrations, vol. ii. p. 417.

[1 ]This was a false report. Mr. Wolcott’s hopes peep even through his doubts. See his letter to J. McHenry. Gibbs’s Federal Administrations, vol. ii. p. 410.

[1 ]This clear and statesmanlike despatch proposed the settlement of the questions under the sixth article of the British treaty by the payment of a gross sum.

[2 ]That constituted under the seventh article of the same treaty.

[1 ]Mr. Marshall had written as follows:—

“It is certainly wise to contemplate the event of our envoys returning without a treaty, but it will very much depend on the intelligence and assurances they may bring, what course sound policy will direct the United States to pursue. I am greatly disposed to think that the present government is much inclined to correct, at least in part, the follies of the past. Of these, perhaps, none were more conspicuous, or more injurious to the French nation, than their haughty and hostile conduct to neutrals. Considerable retrograde steps in this respect have already been taken, and I expect the same course will be continued. Should this expectation not be disappointed, there will be security, at least a reasonable prospect of it, for the future, and there will exist no cause of war, but to obtain compensation for past injuries. This, I am persuaded, will not be deemed a sufficient motive for such a measure.”

Mr. Wolcott, at this time, was very differently engaged. Gibbs’s Memoirs of the Federal Administrations, vol. ii. p. 430. Hamilton’s Works, vol. vi. p. 471.

[1 ]Mr. Marshall had said of this letter,—

“If you conceive that no such letter should be sent, it may at once be suppressed. If you wish any changes in that now transmitted, I will, on receiving your wish, immediately obey it. If the letter, as sent, is satisfactory to you, I must ask the favor of you to let Mr. Shaw forward it to Mr. King.”

[1 ]Mr. Wolcott seems not to have been entirely easy in his mind touching his secret occupations during the preceding two months. His mode of compounding with his conscience is curiously set forth in his letter to Alexander Hamilton of the 3d of September. Gibbs’s Memoirs, &c., vol. ii. p. 416. See also the letter of the 3d October, given in Gibbs, with omissions which are nearly all supplied in Hamilton’s Works, vol. vi. p. 471. The idea of giving the President, whom he was doing his best to eject from office after the 3d of March, time to select a successor for two months, is only one degree less singular than that suggested by his biographer, that his decision was postponed until after he had become satisfied that the last hope of his continuance, through the secret movement for Mr. Pinckney, must fail. See Gibbs’s Memoirs, &c., vol. ii. pp. 443.

In the meantime, Mr. Adams had not the remotest suspicion of what was going on. Not altogether unfitly does Mr. Wolcott himself remark: “It appears to me that certain federalists are in danger of losing character in point of sincerity!” Gibbs, vol. ii. p. 431.

[1 ]Mr. Hamilton’s attack upon him.

[1 ]“Governor Jay’s determination to retire from public life had been formed with too much deliberation and sincerity to be shaken by the honor now tendered to him, and the appointment was promptly and unequivocally declined.” Jay’s Life of J. Jay, vol. i. p. 422.

Mr. Jay, in his answer, assigns the state of his health as the deciding reason, which removed every doubt from his mind.

Home

The Forum

Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

The Library

Return to Title Page for The Works of John Adams, vol. 9 (Letters and State Papers 1799-1811)

The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

13 Jan, 1800: TO THE PRESIDENT. - John Adams, The Works of John Adams, vol. 9 (Letters and State Papers 1799-1811) [1854]

Edition used:

Part of: The Works of John Adams, 10 vols.

About Liberty Fund:

Copyright information:

Fair use statement:

TO THE PRESIDENT.

TO HENRY KNOX.

Dear Sir,—

TO BENJAMIN LINCOLN.

My dear Friend,—

With great sincerity, &c.

TO B. STODDERT, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY.

TO J. McHENRY, SECRETARY OF WAR.

THOMAS JOHNSON TO JOHN ADAMS.

I am, &c.

TO THOMAS JOHNSON.

Dear Sir,—

TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE, AND HEADS OF DEPARTMENT.

Gentlemen,—

J. McHENRY, SECRETARY OF WAR, TO JOHN ADAMS.

Sir,—

I have the honor to be, &c.

TO T. PICKERING, SECRETARY OF STATE.

Sir,—

T. PICKERING, SECRETARY OF STATE, TO JOHN ADAMS.

Sir,—

I have the honor to be, &c.

TO TIMOTHY PICKERING.

Sir,—

TO J. McHENRY, SECRETARY OF WAR.

Sir,—

TO THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, AND THE DISTRICT-ATTORNEY OF PENNSYLVANIA.

With great esteem, &c.

TO O. WOLCOTT, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.

Sir,—

TO THE HEADS OF DEPARTMENT.

THE HEADS OF DEPARTMENT TO THE PRESIDENT.

TO C. LEE, SECRETARY OF STATE, PRO TEM.

Sir,—

With great esteem, I am, &c.

TO ALEXANDER HAMILTON.

I am, &c.

TO W. S. SMITH.

Dear Sir,—

TO BENJAMIN STODDERT.

Sir,—

I am, &c.

B. STODDERT TO JOHN ADAMS.

Sir,—

I have the honor to be &c., &c.

TO ALEXANDER HAMILTON.

Sir,—

TO J. MARSHALL, SECRETARY OF STATE.

Dear Sir,—

TO B. STODDERT, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY.

Dear Sir,—

With great respect, &c.

TO S. DEXTER, SECRETARY OF WAR.

TO J. MARSHALL, SECRETARY OF STATE.

TO J. MARSHALL, SECRETARY OF STATE.

TO J. MARSHALL, SECRETARY OF STATE.

TO J. MARSHALL, SECRETARY OF STATE.

Dear Sir,—

TO J. MARSHALL, SECRETARY OF STATE.

Dear Sir,—

TO B. STODDERT, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY.

Dear Sir,—

TO O. WOLCOTT, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.

JOHN JAY TO JOHN ADAMS.

(Private.)