The debate was closed for the Federalists, who supported the President, by Fisher Ames, a man of great oratorical powers. The Vice-President, John Adams, in a letter to his wife, reports the impression made on him and his companion, one of the justices of the Supreme Court: "Judge Iredell and I happened to sit together. Our feelings beat in unison. My God! how great he is,' says Iredell. . . . 'Noble!' said I. After some time, Iredell broke out, 'Bless my stars! I never heard anything so great since I was born.' 'Divine!' said I; and thus we went on with our interjections, not to say tears, to the end."

The opposition were not content to have the vote taken after such a speech, and an adjournment was had, but the necessary appropriation was made, by the close vote, however, of 51 to 48. For the time the question was settled, but it has several times arisen in Congress in later years, as we shall see in succeeding chapters. Mr. Jefferson, when Secretary of State, had given an opinion to the President that a treaty, without any further action of Congress, operated to modify duties on imports, as the supreme law of the land. But on the present question he reversed this opinion, and held, with his party friends, that when a treaty "included matter confided by the Constitution to the three branches of the legislature, an act of legislation will be requisite to confirm these articles; that the House of Representatives, as one branch of the legislature, is perfectly free to pass the act or refuse it.”1 In a very intemperate letter to Madison during the

17 Writings of Jefferson, 67.

debate, he said he could not see "much harm in annihilating the whole treaty-making power, except as to making peace;" and, expressing his strong condemnation of the conduct of President Washington respecting the treaty, he adds: "I wish that his honesty and his political errors may not furnish a second occasion to exclaim, Curse on his virtues, they have undone his country.

Jefferson held the pen of a ready writer, and his multifarious correspondence not infrequently brought him into trouble. A private letter written during the heat of the debate on the Jay treaty to an Italian friend, Mazzei,2 found its way, unexpectedly to its author, into the press, like the letter to Paine, and caused him abundant embarrassment. It went through various transformations of a translation for an Italian newspaper, was reproduced in French in the Paris Official Journal, and, translated from the French, it appeared in an opposition newspaper in New York in 1797, by which it was denounced as treasonable and damnable, and the Vice-President was called upon to pronounce upon its authenticity. The letter mainly related to private affairs, but concluded with a violently partisan and gloomy review of the condition of the country, charging the, executive, the Senate, and the judiciary with aristocratic and monarchical tendencies and as wholly under British influence. The following sentence will indicate the spirit of the epistle: "It would give you a fever were I to name to you the apostates who have gone over to these heresies; men 1 7 Writings of Jefferson, 68.

2 Ib. 72.

who were Samsons in the field and Solomons in the council, but who have had their heads shorn by the harlot England."

2

Although challenged to declare whether he was the author of the letter, Jefferson held his peace. Writing to Madison, he gave as a reason for his silence that if he made any statement he feared it would bring about a personal difference with Washington.' It is said, however, that it did cause a breach between them that was never healed. In his old age the story was revived by Timothy Pickering, and Jefferson, in a letter to Van Buren in 1824, denied it; but the latest and most careful editor of his correspondence says his denial is disingenuous and not sustained by the facts. In a note to the Mazzei letter, Mr. Ford, the editor, says: "Washington himself took the reference so wholly to himself that from the publication of this letter he ceased all correspondence and intercourse with his former secretary. In a letter written a few months after the publication of the Italian epistle, Washington plainly indicated to John Nicholas his belief in the insincerity of Jefferson's friendship.*

3

Randolph was succeeded in the State Department by Timothy Pickering, who was transferred from the War Department, and he was continued as Secretary of State by President Adams upon the retirement of Washington. Pickering passed through an experience as tumultuous politically and unfortunate personally as his predecessor. The Jay treaty saved us from war

17 Writings of Jefferson, 166.
413 Writings of Washington, 449.

2 10 Ib. 307. 8 7 Ib. 77.

with England, but we were confronted with an equally threatening danger from France. Gouverneur Morris had become a persona non grata to the French government, and his recall had been requested. Soon after Jay's nomination to London, the name of James Monroe was sent to the Senate as minister to France. This selection proved to be even more unfortunate than that of Jay. At the time he was a senator from Virginia, and a strong opponent of the President and his foreign policy, arrayed against the British special mission and the neutrality proclamation. He was known to be an ardent partisan of France, and the President felt that he might exert a more salutary influence on the French government than a person strongly in sympathy with the administration. He was warmly welcomed in Paris, received in public audience by the National Convention, the presiding officer, amid the cheers of the members, giving him the fraternal embrace (accolade) and imprinting upon his cheek a kiss in the name of France, with tragic effect. This ceremony was preceded by an address by the President, concluding with these words: "You see here the effusion of soul, that accompanies this simple and touching ceremony. I am impatient to give you the fraternal embrace, which I am ordered to give in the name of the French people. Come and receive it in the name of the American people, and let this spectacle complete the annihilation of an impious coalition of tyrants.'

"1

1 Hildreth's History U. S. 652.

Mr. Washburne, minister to France, in 1876 sent to the Department of State a copy of the Journal of the National Convention giving an account

Mr. Monroe in his reception address failed to follow his instructions, for which he was severely censured by his government. In doing this Secretary Randolph wrote him that it was supposed his reception would have taken place in private and not with the public display attending it; that his instructions did not impose "the extreme glow of some parts of" Monroe's address; and that it was his duty "to cultivate the French Republic with zeal, but without any unnecessary éclat." 1

the

During his residence he was more the representative of his party (then in opposition to the administration) than of his government. His public conduct and his correspondence at the time make this clear, but the later writings of the French historians of the period bring out this fact in a clear light. I quote only from M. Thiers. He writes: "In the French government there were persons in favor of a rupture with the United States. Monroe, who was ambassador, gave Directory the most prudent advice on this occasion. 'War with France,' said he, 'will force the American government to throw itself into the arms of England, and submit to her influence; aristocracy will gain complete control in the United States, and liberty will be compromised. By patiently enduring, on the contrary, the wrongs of the present President, you will leave him without excuse, you will enlighten the Americans, and of the ceremony of Monroe's reception, for the first time published. Mr. Washburne accompanied it with a statement of his own experience, showing that in his day the accolade was a part of the official ceremonies of France. (See Foreign Relations U. S. 1876, 129.)

1 1 Foreign Relations U. S. (folio) 689.