Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

 Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow TO EZEKIEL PRICE, THOMAS WALLEY, WILLIAM BOARDMAN, EBENEZER SEAVER, THOMAS CRAFTS, THOMAS EDWARDS, WILLIAM LITTLE, WILLIAM SCOLLAY, AND JESSE PUTNAM, SELECTMEN OF THE TOWN OF BOSTON. - The Writings of George Washington, vol. XIII (1794-1798)

Return to Title Page for The Writings of George Washington, vol. XIII (1794-1798)

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

Subject Area: Political Theory
Topic: The American Revolution and Constitution

TO EZEKIEL PRICE, THOMAS WALLEY, WILLIAM BOARDMAN, EBENEZER SEAVER, THOMAS CRAFTS, THOMAS EDWARDS, WILLIAM LITTLE, WILLIAM SCOLLAY, AND JESSE PUTNAM, SELECTMEN OF THE TOWN OF BOSTON. - George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, vol. XIII (1794-1798) [1892]

Edition used:

The Writings of George Washington, collected and edited by Worthington Chauncey Ford (New York and London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1890). Vol. XIII (1794-1798).

Part of: The Writings of George Washington, 14 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.


TO EZEKIEL PRICE, THOMAS WALLEY, WILLIAM BOARDMAN, EBENEZER SEAVER, THOMAS CRAFTS, THOMAS EDWARDS, WILLIAM LITTLE, WILLIAM SCOLLAY, AND JESSE PUTNAM, SELECTMEN OF THE TOWN OF BOSTON.

United States, 28 July, 1795.

Gentlemen,

In every act of my administration, I have sought the happiness of my fellow citizens. My system for the attainment of this object has uniformly been to overlook all personal, local, and partial considerations; to contemplate the United States as one great whole; to confide, that sudden impressions, when erroneous, would yield to candid reflection; and to consult only the substantial and permanent interests of our country.

Nor have I departed from this line of conduct, on the occasion which has produced the resolutions contained in your letter of the 13th instant.

Without a predilection for my own judgment, I have weighed with attention every argument, which has at any time been brought into view. But the constitution is the guide, which I never can abandon. It has assigned to the President the power of making treaties, with the advice and consent of the Senate. It was doubtless supposed that these two branches of government would combine, without passion, and with the best means of information, those facts and principles upon which the success of our foreign relations will always depend; that they ought not to substitute for their own conviction the opinions of others, or to seek truth through any channel but that of a temperate and well-informed investigation.

Under this persuasion, I have resolved on the manner of executing the duty before me. To the high responsibility attached to it, I freely submit; and you, Gentlemen, are at liberty to make these sentiments known as the grounds of my procedure. While I feel the most lively gratitude for the many instances of approbation from my country, I can no otherwise deserve it, than by obeying the dictates of my conscience. With due respect, I am, Gentlemen, &c.1

[1 ]The same letter, in substance, was sent in reply to several addresses similar to that from the selectmen of Boston.

“Not willing to lose a post day, I hasten to send these resolutions above alluded to, late as it is, to Alexandria, to go on to-morrow, with a request similar to the one made from Baltimore. A day or two more will, I presume, bring to me the result of the meeting proposed to be held in Philadelphia, which probably will be followed by one from Baltimore and other towns; although I have no advice thereof further than the papers contained, as being in agitation at Baltimore before I left Philadelphia. If one comes from the last mentioned place, and is immediately published, as the others have been, before delivery, let an answer thereto, if answers are advisable, follow it without waiting for my request. I have no time to add more, than that the commercial part of the treaty, as far as my information goes, is generally disliked.”—Washington to Randolph, 27 July, 1795.

There had lately been a public meeting in Philadelphia for the purpose of passing resolves against the treaty. After the business of the meeting was closed, a copy of the treaty was suspended on a pole and carried about the streets by a company of people, who at length stopped in front of the British minister’s house, and there burnt the treaty, and also before the door of the British consul, amidst the huzzas and acclamations of the multitude. Mr. Hammond, the British minister, complained of this indignity to the Secretary of State. “I have sent this representation,” said Mr. Randolph, in a letter to the President, “for the opinion of the attorney-general. But I am convinced, that neither law nor expediency will support any movement of the government. Indeed, in the conversation which I had with him, he was very calm, and appeared to concur in the impossibility of a public measure in relation to the event.” He had written two days previously: “Mr. Hammond yesterday received his letters of recall. He came over to state to me, that he had several things to communicate by order, relative to the treaty, on the supposition of its being ratified, and that he would impart them to me in a few days; as he expects to be ready for his departure in about a fortnight or three weeks. We entered into some conversation on the occurrences at Charleston, upon which he spoke with moderation, and declared that he should represent, when he returned to England, the sincerity of this government in the business of the treaty.”—July 29th.—Sparks.