On the 30th of April, shortly after his arrival at New York, Washington took the oath of office. There were vast crowds in the city to witness the inaugural ceremonies, and services were held in the churches in the forenoon. At twelve o'clock Washington went to Federal Hall, on the corner of Wall and Broad Streets, where the oath of office was administered by Chancellor Livingston, of New York. The ceremony, which was one of simple but impressive and stately dignity, took place in the balcony of the building, in full view of an immense throng of people. At its conclusion, Mr. Livingston stepped forward and cried out:

Long live George Washington, President of the United States!" This was the signal for a mighty shout from thousands of throats. The flag was run up and the battery guns rang out the first salute.

In his inaugural address Washington sought to impress upon Congress the seriousness of the situation. He would have that body appreciate the importance of the experiment upon which it was entering, but wisely refrained from anything like dictation. He also strengthened his position by announcing that he would receive no compensation for his services aside from his necessary expenses. This first inaugural address left a deep impression upon those to whom it was addressed. "It seemed to me," said Fisher Ames, "an allegory in which Virtue was personified as addressing those whom she would make her votaries. Her power over the heart was never greater, and the illustration of her doctrine by her own example was never more perfect.” Washington was described as "kingly yet unkingly in his bearing." "It was a very touching scene," writes another witness," and quite of the solemn kind. His aspect, grave almost to sadness; his modesty actually shaking; his voice deep, a little tremulous, and so low as to call for deep attention; added to the series of objects presented to the mind and, overwhelming, produced emotions of the most affecting kind upon the members." The two houses, following the British practice, made addresses in reply to the

This useless custom was soon discon

inaugural speech.
tinued. It served no good purpose.

"I walk on untrodden ground." These words were penned by Washington shortly after his inauguration. They showed his appreciation of the situation. He had no direct. and positive precedent to guide his course. When he assumed the duties of his office on the 30th of April there was almost nothing to begin on. The old form of government had ceased to exist and the new one was not yet organized. The President and Congress were ready to begin their work, but all departments of the government had to be formed anew. Some questions of the most vital importance and others of a very trivial character were pressing for solution. Should the president be styled "His Highness the President of the United States and Protector of their Liberties," or simply "The President of the United States"? Would it help matters, asked Jackson, of Georgia, to address him as "Your Serene Highness"? Should the president receive and return calls? Whom, if anyone, should he ask to dine with him? What should be the etiquette of his formal receptions? Should the persons thus received take seats or remain standing? Should democratic simplicity or the pomp and ceremony so common at European courts at the time prevail? Should the president hold himself aloof from the people or should he mingle familiarly with them? These and other questions of a similar character, trivial, but perplexing nevertheless, had to be decided at the very outset. The president, with his customary tact and good sense, decided upon a moderate policy in these matters and avoided extremes.

There were other matters, however, of more significance than mere questions of etiquette. The attitude of the new republic toward European powers was of the highest importance. The French minister, for obvious reasons, thought his country entitled to special privileges; but he was soon made to understand that no nation would be the recipient of special favor. A policy of neutrality was wisely

decided upon. The new republic was hardly strong enough to venture upon a course of favoritism or vindictiveness. The matter of appointments was also significant; but here, too, favoritism found no place. It was also decided that the Senate should choose its committees by ballot, and that its members should be divided into the classes by lot. The House, after the first session, decided to allow the speaker to appoint its committees. While the president's message was presented to the two houses orally, it was decided that all executive communications to the Senate should be submitted in writing. Some of the senators wanted the president to appear in the Senate in person and to remain until a ballot in ratification had been taken, but this idea did not prevail.

It

The formation of the Cabinet was one of the most important matters in connection with the organization of the government; Congress provided for three executive departments, that of foreign affairs, the treasury, and war. was the duty of the president to appoint the heads of these departments; and these three department heads, in connection with the attorney-general, became the advisory body of the executive. The appointments were made with good judgment. Thomas Jefferson was made secretary of foreign affairs. He had had a long experience in the diplomatic service, and was therefore conversant with international affairs. In addition to this he was a man of influence and popularity at home and was looked upon as a friend of the new form of government, although he had taken no part in its formation. Washington and Jefferson were both Virginians, but their relations had never been confidential and hardly sympathetic. They were utterly unlike both in temperament and abilities, and the appointment was made, not on personal grounds, but on the basis of merit.

Hamilton was placed in charge of the treasury department. The appointment was a bold one. Washington passed over the entire treasury board and appointed the brilliant young West Indian at the age of thirty-two "to unravel the tangled skein of Continental finances." No better selection could

possibly be made. Hamilton must be accorded first place in the list of American financiers. As his duties were the most arduous, so were they the most successfully accomplished. It is not too much to say that the very life of the republic depended upon the management of this department. The finances of the Confederation had been woefully mismanaged since the retirement of Robert Morris. The affairs of the department were in a deplorable condition. There was ample opportunity for Hamilton to display that brilliant constructive statesmanship for which he was so justly noted. If Alexander Hamilton had done nothing else but lay the foundation of our national credit, he would deserve a high place among American statesmen. As it is, he stands second only to Washington among the men of his time.

Henry Knox, a distinguished soldier of the Revolution, was appointed to preside over the war department. Knox was honest, able, and loyal, and an element of strength to the new Cabinet.

Edmund Randolph, the proposer of the Virginia Plan in the Constitutional Convention, was made attorney-general. The department of justice was not established as a separate executive department until a later time, but Randolph was included by Washington in his advisory body.

Such, then, was the personnel of Washington's first Cabinet. Although the members were still young men,—Hamilton was thirty-two; Randolph, thirty-six; Knox, thirty-nine; and Jefferson, forty-six,-they were all well known on both sides of the Atlantic, and, taken collectively, this first presidential Cabinet has never been excelled in ability.

There were, however, other matters pertaining to the Cabinet besides the appointment of the members which demanded attention. It was definitely specified in the Constitution that the president's appointments should be approved by the Senate. The question now arose: Can the president remove the members of his Cabinet upon his own authority, or is the concurrence of the Senate necessary? Madison contended in Congress that the president should

1

have the sole power to remove a Cabinet officer, and his view prevailed. If it had not, a Cabinet officer might cultivate a following in the Senate and thus remain in office against the wishes of the president and to the embarrassment of the executive department. Vice-president John Adams is entitled to credit in this connection, as it was by his casting vote in the Senate that the necessary authority was granted to the president.

It was also necessary to determine the relations which should exist between the president and his Cabinet. The matter was not definitely set forth in the Constitution. In fact, there was no specific reference to a Cabinet at all. The proposition to constitute an advisory council for the executive was defeated in the Convention, and the Constitution makes only a vague reference to an advisory body when it says that the president "may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices." This clause would not necessarily imply a Cabinet such as now exists, and Washington interpreted it in its most obvious meaning. He usually took the advice of each member separately and never convened the Cabinet as a whole except on extraordinary occasions. Having procured the advice of each individual member, he decided the point in question as it seemed best to him. During the administration of John Adams the functions of the Cabinet were more fully developed, and that body was inclined to insist somewhat upon being consulted. During Jefferson's administration the Cabinet practically assumed the position which it now holds. Jefferson was accustomed to submit important matters to his advisory body for discussion and decision. He himself voted with the rest and usually looked upon the decision thus obtained as final. He always held that he had a constitutional right to reverse the decision of his Cabinet, but, as a matter of fact, rarely did so.

It was also necessary to determine the relationship and mode of communication which should exist between the