University of Virginia Library

A very judicious encomiast on the “greatest man in America,” in an elegant puff, published, and republished in almost every democratic Newspaper in the United States, has among other dashing matters, drawn a flaming comparison between Messrs. Jefferson and Jupiter. These two deities seem to share the universe between them, and to hurl about their thunder and lightning at an astonishing rate. Perhaps there never was a comparison, which, as rhetoricians express themselves, went more completely on all fours, than this to which we allude. We think, however, that our Mr. Jupiter jun. whenever he condescends to put on the terrible, is much the most august of these two personages.

Butler, speaking, doubtless of a demagogue, says that he was,

A man may lie not only with impunity but with applause, provided his falshoods have a tendency to further the views of the hypocritical demagogues of the day. See note 12, p. 8. vol. 1.

Although we have not yet received official intelligence of this most extraordinary phenomenon, yet, the silence which Mr. Jefferson has of late observed on the subject of this stupendous curiosity, warrants the conclusion which we here take the liberty to draw, of its absolute fusion.

It is a fact well known to every one in the least conversant in the history of the French Revolution, that religious homage, with a great number of blasphemous ceremonies was rendered by the chief actors in that scene of desolation to a common harlot. The object of their adoration was tricked out with characteristic tawdriness, and personated Reason at that time the idol of those atrocious infidels.

We have ever greatly admired the wonderful political pliancy of some of our clerical characters, in supporting with so much ardour, a man who has ever been hostile to the christian religion. But these gentlemen no doubt suppose, that the reports of Mr. Jefferson's infidelity are all federal lies. We will however furnish them with a few facts and arguments with which the federalists fortify their assertions, not doubting in the least that these candid and learned divines will contrive to muster arguments to prove, that Mr. Jefferson is a very pious and orthodox sort of a man; and though perhaps they would not go so far as to assert with a certain itinerant holder-forth in Massachusetts, that Mr. Jefferson is the sixth angel mentioned in the revelation, yet, they will probably maintain, that he has as much political piety as Oliver Cromwell, of genuine republican memory.

Mr. Jefferson's invitation to Tom Paine, has somewhat the appearance of no great regard to religion. But doubtless it was supposed, that the claims of the latter as a politician were such, as to entitle him to the very extraordinary attention of the former, especially, as Paine had written a letter against General Washington, an opponent to Mr. Jefferson's party, which teemed with the most unqualified abuse.

Mr. Jefferson says, in his Notes on Virginia, “It does me no injury for my neighbour to say, there are twenty Gods, or no God; it neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg; if it be said, his testimony in a court of justice cannot be relied on, reject it then, and be the stigma on him;” and speaking of the state of religion in Pennsylvania and New-York, he says, “religion there is well supported, of different kinds indeed, but all good enough; all sufficient to preserve peace and order.”

Now, although federal clergymen might be induced to adopt the language of Mr. Smith, and exclaim, “which ought we to be most shocked at, the levity or impiety of these remarks?” yet, democratic clergymen will, if they would be consistent, declare all this to be a federal lie, and that those passages in the Notes on Virginia which we have quoted, are federal interpolations, intended to traduce the fair fame of the “greatest man in America.”

But there is an astonishing charge lately made by a writer in the United States Gazette, that demands a refutation, which we, although the professed eulogist of Mr. Jefferson, are sorry to confess, are unable to furnish; but we hope our fellow-labourers in the vineyard of democracy will supply us weapons, wherewith to knock down this impudent adversary of our immortal chieftain.

“The most gentle temper,” says this anti-Jeffersonian scribbler, “may be urged until it becomes impatient, and this, I confess, was the case with myself, when on the road between Baltimore and Philadelphia, I heard a minister of the gospel declare, that the report of Mr. Jefferson's infidelity was “a Federal lie.” To counteract an imputation so ungenerous and unjust, and for the information of those, who are not so entirely hoodwinked as not to see any thing, however obvious and palpable it may appear, I have thought proper to subjoin the following statement, and if Mr. Jefferson will deny its truth, he shall be immediately informed of the name of the person who made it.

“B. Hawkins Esq. (don't start Mr. Jefferson) once a member of congress, and now high in trust and presidential favour, wrote a pamphlet in vindication of the doctrines of the Illuminati, and among others, of the doctrines of chance and materialism. He sent one copy of this pamphlet, yet in manuscript, to Mr. Jefferson, and another copy to Mr. Macon, speaker of the house of representatives. I say he sent those copies, and I ask Mr. Jefferson to deny it.

“Mr. Jefferson, in order to elude the curiosity of the Post-Office, sent him an answer in LATIN, in which he has recourse to that unintelligible slang which marks his public messages, but in which he does unequivocally express his approbation of every sentiment contained in the work, and does request Mr. Hawkins to cause it to be published, in order to enlighten the minds of the people of America. I say he did send this letter, and I beseech the President to deny it. The answer of Mr. Macon was not in latin; Mr. Macon does not write latin.”

This impudent federalist, who thus slanders the chief magistrate of a christian country, certainly deserves to be indicted, and not allowed to give the truth in evidence.

Some of our good democrats, as it behoveth them, have strenously denied the fact of Mr. Jefferson's masterly retreat from Charlottesville to Carter's Mountain. Now, although we propose to proceed at least to the end of the Canto, stating “false facts” in favour of the subject of our present eulogy, yet we propose to lie with somewhat more caution than Mr. Jefferson's advocates have generally done. We therefore will state what some of the wicked federalists have asserted, and leave it to some of our fellow-labourers in the vineyard of democracy, to lie down such opposition.

Mr. Smith of South Carolina, in his impudent pamphlet, to which we have referred before (see pages 105 and 110, vol. 1.) has the following allegations against Mr. Jefferson:

“Mr. Jefferson has generally sacrificed the civil rights of his countrymen to his own personal safety. We are told in a public address, by Mr. Charles Simms, of Virginia, who must have been well acquainted with the circumstances, “that Mr. Jefferson, when governor of Virginia, abandoned the trust with which he was charged, at the moment of an invasion by the enemy, by which, great confusion, loss and distress, accrued to the state, in the destruction of public records and vouchers for general expenditures.

“Now, here was a period of public danger, when Mr. Jefferson's attachment to the civil rights of his countrymen, might have shone very conspicuously, by facing and averting the danger; here would have been a fine opportunity for him to have displayed his public spirit, in bravely rallying round the standard of liberty and civil rights; but, though in times of safety, he could rally round the standard of his friend, Tom Paine, yet, when real danger appeared, the governor of the ancient dominion dwindled into the poor, timid philosopher; and instead of rallying his brave countrymen, he fled for safety from a few light-horsemen, and shamefully abandoned his trust.

There is likewise one Thomas Turner, Esq. of Virginia, a gentleman of very respectable character, &c. &c. but we are somewhat apprehensive that he is a federalist, and as such, in our capacity of Eulogist to Mr. Jefferson, we shall most assuredly take the liberty to be very severe upon him, for stating the following most abominable TRUTHS (for, “the greater the truth, the greater the libel”) against Mr. Jefferson.

“At the time Petersburgh was occupied by the British troops, under command of Generals Philips and Arnold, Mr. Jefferson, who was then governor of the state, did participate in the partial consternation excited by the situation of the British army, and did abandon the seat of government, at a period, and with an awkward precipitation, indicative of timidity, unwarranted by any immediate movement of the enemy, and forbidden by a regard to those duties, which belong to the station he held. This fact is well recollected, and can be proved by many of the oldest and most respectable inhabitants of the city of Richmond, and I believe would not be denied by the candid supporters of Mr. Jefferson himself.

“The sequel of his conduct, after the assembly returned to Charlottesville, and on the approach of Colonel Tarleton, to that place, stands attested by thousands of witnesses, and can never be forgotten by those of his countrymen, who respect the character of a firm and virtuous public officer, and who abhor that of the dastardly traitor to the trust reposed in him. His retreat, or rather his flight from Monticello, on the information that Tarleton had penetrated the country, and was advancing to Charlottesville, was effected with such hurried abruptness, as to produce a fall from his horse, and a dislocation of the shoulder. In this situation he proceeded about sixty miles south, to the country of Bedford, whence he forwarded his resignation to the assembly (who had in the mean time removed to Staunton, and) who thereupon elected General Nelson governor. The circumstances are substantially and literally true; nay, the abdication of the government must be a matter of record.”

Mr. Leven Powell, of Virginia, also states, in his public address, “That when Tarleton, with a few lighthorse, pursued the assembly to Charlottesvile, Mr. Jefferson discovered such a want of firmness, as shewed he was not fit to fill the first executive office; for, instead of using his talents, in directing the necessary operations of defence, he quitted his government by resigning HIS OFFICE; this too, at a time which tried men's souls; at a time when the affairs of America stood in doubtful suspense, and required the exertions of all.” The Governor of Virginia, during the invasion of the state, by a small British force, instead of defending the commonwealth at that alarming juncture, voluntarily and suddenly surrendered his office, and at a crisis, his country was required to choose another Governor! Is there any security he would not act in like manner again, in like circumstances?

This charge has been attempted to be got rid of, by producing a vote of the assembly of Virginia, after an inquiry into his conduct, acknowledging his ability and integrity, are altogether silent on his want of firmness, which had been the cause of his flight.

“It was natural for his friends in the assembly to varnish over this business as well as they could; and the danger being past, there being no prospect of his being again exposed in that station, and his flight proceeding not from any criminality, but from a constitutional weakness of nerves, it was no diffcult matter to get such a vote from the assembly; more especially, as the character of the state was no less implicated in the business than that of the governor.”

The very respectable editor of the Aurora, as well as his compeers; Mr. Richie of the Richmond Enquirer, Mr. Paine and other democratic writers, have shown wonderful adroitness in parrying the thrusts which have been made at Mr. Jefferson's character. Some have said that the accusations, provided they were all true, amounted to nothing. Others have undertaken to prove the whole a parcel of federal lies. But the Aurora-man has attacked the character of Mr. Turner, in order to invalidate his testimony with so much vigour, that the same Mr. Turner will never be able to show his head among honest men. He has told a comical, and, what is wonderful, in part, a true story, how one Tom Turner stole a cloak from a member of congress from Virginia. But the editor of the Evening Post has spoiled the whole, by the following explanation:

“The truth is, the cloak in question belonged to Mr. William Hillhouse, member of congress from Connecticut, and it was taken from him by one Mr. Thomas Turner, or as Duane has it, Tom Turner; but Tom Turner, instead of the repectable Virginia planter, who wrote the letter to Dr. Park, was a man of the same name, who belonged to the Philosophical Society of Philadelphia, of which Mr. Jefferson was President; and what is more, he was like pillory-Nichols, of Boston, and Callender, one of Mr. Jefferson's confidential CORRESPONDENTS.”

This line contains, we think, what Edmund Burke would call “high matter.” Indeed, we are far from being positive, that we are not in this place somewhat beyond our own comprehension; an error of which, we are the more apprehensive, as we have observed it to be a common fault among those writers who advocate democratic politics. We think, therefore, that it will be most judicious for us to leave it to our commentators to decide, whether, by the term Sally, we mean an attack upon an enemy, or dalliance with a friend.

The preponderance which Virginia has already obtained in the scale of representation, will enable her to proceed to increase the privileges of her black population. In this she will be governed by the strict rules of republican propriety, which always consults the greatest good of the greatest number.

This is a duty, which has been proposed, and probably will at some future period, be adopted in the southern states, to prevent the importation of slaves. It is surprising, that, among all the calculations which have distinguished our penny-saving administration, this pleasant scheme has not been adopted more generally. But a word to the wise will not be thrown away. Our southern nabobs will improve on this hint: sable nabobbesses will be all the rage; and establishments for the manufacturing of slaves, will be as common as those for gin or whiskey.

In the Mercury, a democratic newspaper, was re-published from the National Intelligencer, a paper, under the immediate patronage of Mr. Jefferson, a precious paragraph, prettily prefaced as follows:

“The course of events will likewise inevitably lead to a mixture of the whites and blacks; and as the former are about five times as numerous as the latter, the blacks will ultimately be merged in the whites. This, indeed, appears to be the great provision made by nature, and, viewing the subject in its political aspects, we cannot feel too much satisfaction at there being an ultimate issue, however remote, independent of the exertions of statesmen, which, notwithstanding its repugnance to our reason, as well as prejudice, will arrive.”

No doubt, Mr. Mercury-man!—a most happy expedient truly!—“notwithstanding its repugnance to our reason”!—And what mortal can sufficiently admire thy wonderful magnanimity, O thou! the GREAT MAN, whom we are humbly attempting to eulogize, in the being one of the first to put in practice this philantrophic plan, by virtue of which, “the blacks will ultimately be merged in the whites.”!

What say you, O ye fair daughters of Columbia! (we mean the white ones) will ye be pleased with a hymeneal lottery, for the purposes aforesaid, in which every fifth lady-adventurer shall draw the delectable prize of a black paramour?

But as this notable scheme is of democratic origin, it would be the heighth of impudence for your old-fashioned, un-philosophical federalists, to interfere in the least. No—the benefits which may result from ths motley mixture, and scheme aforesaid, ought to be shared exclusively among genuine democrats. Those alone will be found worthy to walk in

To prove what a prodigiously benevolent sort of a gentleman we have taken the liberty to eulogize; and to furnish our readers with a most delightful specimen of close, accurate, and invincible logic, we will oblige them with some extracts of a letter from Mr. Jefferson to Sir John Sinclair, President of the Board of Agriculture at London, dated March 23, 1798, but lately republished in the democratic papers, by way of applauding the passive obedience and non-resistance measures of our creeping administration.

“I am fixed with awe (says our Chieftain) at the mighty conflict, in which two great nations are advancing, and recoil with horror at the ferociousness of man. Will nations never devise a more rational umpire of differences than that of force? Are there no means of coercing injustice, more gratifying to our nature, than a waste of the blood of thousands, and the labour of millions of our fellow-creatures? We see numerous societies of men (the aboriginals of this country) living together without the acknowledgment of either laws or magistracy, yet they live in peace among themselves, and acts of violence and injury are as rare in their societies as in nations which keep the sword of the law in perpetual activity. Public reproach, a refusal of common offices, interdiction of the commerce and comforts of society are found as essential as the coarser instrument of force. Nations like these individuals stand towards each other only in the relations of natural right. Might they not like them be peaceably punished for violence and wrong?” &c. &c.

Now let us look at, and of course, as in duty bound, admire this stream of humanity issuing from the fountain of philanthropy. What a sublime idea is that of providing a “rational umpire of differences” between warring nations who shall “coerce injustice” by “means gratifying to our nature,” and teach them to

And because a parcel of American savages, sparsely scattered over immense wilds, “live without the acknowledgment of either laws or magistracy, in peace among themselves,” &c. how very logically follows the ergo the populous, ambitious, and powerful nations of the old world may be ruled by Mr. Jefferson's notions of “the relations of right,” and warring empires, as well as hostile individuals be peaceably punished by “public reproach, a refusal of common offices,” &c.

Now were we not absolutely and bona fide determined to be Mr. Jefferson's advocate, we should first pick a quarrel with his premises, and then proceed to knock down his conclusions. We should say that the aboriginals of this country have their Chiefs, who have the authority of magistrates; that they are far from always living at peace among themselves, but murder is among others, a common crime, and sometimes a whole tribe is extinguished in cold blooded revenge of accidental homicide; that their wars are as bloody as those of civilized nations, and that they generally torture and put their prisoners to death, with fiend-like malice and ingenuity.

All this indeed might be said by Mr. Jefferson's opponents. But we would by no means be guilty of such an ill-advised attack on such fine practical philosophy, and recommend to this great philanthropist, and his sagacious adherents to rely altogether on the perfectibility of human nature, and the probability of nations submitting to be peaceably punished without any force, in some way gratifying to our nature. And therefore we would have them set about destroying the remains of our navy, army, forts, arsenals, &c. &c. so that it may not be possible for us to engage in any of those “mighty conflicts,” which cause Mr. Jefferson such excess of trepidation.

We cannot but observe, that Mr. Jefferson's being so terribly terrified at the thoughts of shedding human blood, even in a “mighty conflict,” is a total departure from the principles of his sect of philosophers. The illuminati in general, and Mr. Godwin in particular, have no scruples of that sort.

See Note 53. p. 76. Vol. I.

This mode of subduing the refractory was probably invented by Mr. Gallatin, who in his whiskey insurrection concern, was chairman of a committee of insurgents, who resolved to have no intercourse nor dealings with the officers of government, to “withdraw from them every assistance, and withhold all the comforts of life,” &c.

Here we shall be obliged, once more, to be severe on the before-mentioned Thomas Turner, Esq. for having the temerity to tattle slander against the man, whom good democrats delight to honour.

“The father of Colonel John Walker (says this man, who thinks he can “tell truth and shame the devil”) was the guardian of Mr. Jefferson, and advanced a part of those funds, which were applied to the education of the latter; an education affording those talents, which have been so strangely perverted, which have been insidiously employed in the conception of schemes, foul, ungrateful, horrible. At a very early period of their lives, Colonel Walker and Mr. Jefferson contracted an attachment which grew up with their years and ripened into the closest intimacy. —Their professsions were mutual; their confidence unbounded. While things were in this situation, Mr. Jefferson was meditating the unnatural purpose of seducing the wife of his best friend, and to this end (taking advantage of the confidence of Colonel Walker, and availing himself of the timidity of the lady, whose affection for her husband prevented the disclosure of a transaction, which might lead to an exposure of his life) devoted himself for ten years, repeatedly and assiduously making attempts, which were as repeatedly, and with horror repelled. For ten years was this purpose pursued, and at last abandoned (as he himself acknowledges) from the inflexible virtue of the lady, and followed (as he also acknowledges) by the deepest and most heart-wounding remorse.”

All this I have seen: not in newspapers; not in extracts; not in copies of letters.—I have seen it in the original correspondence between Messrs. Walker and Jefferson, every letter of which bears the signature of the writer, or has been since acknowledged by him, under his own hand. In this correspondence Mr. Jefferson repeatedly and fervently confesses that the guilt is all his own; the innocence all Mrs. Walker's; and that he shall never cease to revere, and attest the purity of her character, and deprecate his unpardonable and unsuccessful attempt to destroy her. His contrition, his misery, are asserted in the warmest terms, and his acquittal of Mrs. Walker pronounced in the strongest language of his pen. Among other concessions he owns, that in order to cover the real cause of the separation between Colonel Walker and himself, he did FABRICATE a NOTE respecting an unsettled account which he said had produced the schism, and which he expressly acknowledges HAD NO FOUNDATION IN TRUTH. Let it not be forgotten that the attempts against the honour of Mrs. Walker were carried on during the life time of Mrs. Jefferson, than whom a better woman and better wife never existed.”

And must the head of a great nation, the idol of a free people, and the patron of Tom Paine, be lacerated and scarified in this manner? Surely not with impunity, for lo, Tom Paine hath taken up the gauntlet in his defence! and now it behoveth all who would not choose to be buried alive in the filth of obloquy, to sneak out of the scrape of opposition to Mr. Jefferson, with all possible celerity. The letter of Mr. Turner, says the author of the Age of Reason, and the enemy of Washington, and the friend of Mr. Jefferson, is a “putrid production,” but “having nothing else to do” he has “thrown away an hour or two,” in “examining its component parts.” Mr. Turner and Mr. Hurlburt, (the latter is the gentleman, who distinguished himself by a famous speech in the Legislature of Massachusetts, in the laudable attack made by the minority of that body on the liberty of the press) he politely stiles “two skunks who stink in concert.” This is succeeded by other arguments at least as convincing, and as delicately expressed, but somewhat too “lengthy” for insertion.

The reader will please to observe, that this remorse of Mr. Jefferson, so unworthy a philosophist, took place before his illumination.

C. C.

We have heard it reported by some vilifier of Mr. Jefferson, that he endeavoured to induce Mrs. Walker to compliance with his wishes, by putting in her way certain sentimental treatises, said to be proper on such occasions.

For some further illustration of this delectable doctrine, we would refer our reader to p. 57, Note 45. Vol. I.

The Boston Chronicle, and we believe many other democratic papers, declared that the report of Mr. Jefferson's having invited Paine to return to this country, was a falsehood of federal fabrication, invented on purpose to slander Mr. Jefferson. But, when Paine published the letter, with that accommodating versatility, which is no doubt absolutely necessary for the support of their party, they applauded the President for that very measure. The letter itself is couched in terms highly respectful, and is highly honorary to both parties in the correspondence. The following are extracts:

“Dear Sir,

“Your letters of Oct. 1st, 4th, 6th, 16th, came duly to hand, and the papers which they covered were, according to your permission, published in the newspapers, and under your own name. These papers contain precisely our principles, and I hope they will be generally recognised here.

“You expressed a wish to get a passage to this country in a public vessel. Mr. Dawson is charged with orders to the captain of the Maryland to receive and accommodate you back, if you can be ready to depart at such a short warning.

“That you may long live to continue your useful labours, and to reap the reward in the thankfulness of nations, is my sincere prayer. Accept assurances of my high esteem and affectionate attachment.”

Paine has given us a specimen, in one of his letters to the citizens of the United States, of the success of his labours in the cause of liberty in that genuine republican country. Robespierre seized him, together with many other eminent patriots, and imprisoned him eleven months, proposed to requite his revolutionary services with the guillotine. The downfal of the tyrant, however, prevented this termination to Paine's political labour, and the arch Infidel has come, not to infect this country with the poison of his seditious and blasphemous publication, but, as Mr. Jefferson says, to “continue his useful labours among us.”

But it somehow unfortunately happens, that Tom Paine's merits are not fully appreciated by certain of Mr. Jefferson's admirers. In a newspaper entitled the Freeman's Journal, established under the auspices of Governor M'Kean & Co. at Philadelphia, we find Mr. Tom Paine's quondam friends attacking him in a most merciless manner. We will give a short paragraph as a specimen of the unmerited abuse which is lavished on this almost a martyr, in the cause of licentiousness and infidelity.

“Had this polluted monster remained in France, he would have conferred a particular favour on this country. Infamous and execrated, he might have “gone to his own place,” unheeded and unregarded, like any other outcast from society. But, as if the measure of his iniquity was not yet full, this foe to God and man has come hither to plague us.”

But let Mr. Tom Paine never seem to mind a little quid abuse, for he has received “assurances of” Mr. Jefferson's “high esteem and affectionate attachment.”

A specimen or two of delicate invective, taken from Paine's letter to George Washington, President of the United States, dated Paris, July 30th, 1796, and printed by Benjamin Franklin Bache, the worthy predecessor of William Duane, the present editor of the Aurora, will doubtless very much oblige our good democratic readers and show what a well qualified champion Mr. Jefferson has enlisted in his defence.

“I declare myself opposed to almost the whole of your administration; for I know it to be deceitful, if not even perfidious.”

“Injustice was acted under pretence of faith; and the Chief of the army became the patron of the fraud.”

“Meanness and ingratitude have nothing equivocal in their character. There is not a trait in them that renders them doubtful. They are so original vices, that they are generated in the dung of other vices, and crawl into existence with the filth upon their back. The fugitives have found protection in you, and the levee room is the place of their rendezvous.”

“The character which Mr. Washington has attempted to act in the world, is a sort of non-describable, camelion coloured thing, called prudence.”

“As to you, Sir, treacherous in private friendship, and a hypocrite in public life, the world will be puzzled to decide whether you are an apostate, or an impostor; whether you have abandoned good principles, or whether you ever had any,” &c. &c.

Mr. Jefferson's writings, both political and philosophical, have been so often the subject of the very just encomiums of his party, and have on the contrary been so often bandied to and fro as the footballs of federal raillery, that it would be difficult to excite public attention to a critical canvass of their merits. His pretensions to meritorious authorship appear to be founded, principally on his “Notes of Virginia,” a work which few village schoolmasters could not have executed better. We will however compare some of his tenets as displayed in that work, with some later productions of the distinguished author, for the purpose of showing his consistency as a politician.

Speaking of the population of America, Mr. Jefferson remarks, that “the present desire of America is to produce rapid population, by as great importation of foreigners as possible. But is this founded in good policy? Are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage to be expected from a multiplication of numbers, by the importation of foreigners? It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possible in matters which they must of necessity transact together. Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent. Every species of government has its specific principles: Ours, perhaps, are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the first principles of the English Constitution with others, derived from natural right and reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet from such we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the government they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or if able to throw them off, it will be an exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing as usual from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. Their principles with their language they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us in the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass. I may appeal to experience, during the present contest, for a verification of these conjectures; but if they be not certain in the event, are they not possible, are they not probable? Is it not safer to wait with patience for the attainment of any degree of population desired or expected? May not our government be more homogeneous, more peaceable, more durable? Suppose twenty millions of republican Americans, thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom? If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong; we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners, to our present number, would produce a similar effect here.”

Now for the display of that convenient versatility, which is one of the most essential characteristics of a great statesman. In the President's message of December, 1801, we are told that “a denial of citizenship under a residence of 14 years, is a denial to a great proportion of those who ask it, and controls a policy pursued from the first settlement, by many of these states, and still believed of consequence to their prosperity. And shall we refuse to the unhappy fugitives from distress that hospitality, which the savages of the wilderness extended to our fathers arriving in this land? Shall oppressed humanity find no assylum on this globe? Might not the general character and capabilities of a citizen be safely communicated to every one manifesting a bona fide purpose of embarking his life and fortune permanently with us?”

In the Notes on Virginia we also learn, “That the political economists of Europe have established it as a principle, that every state should manufacture for itself: and the principle like many others we transfer to America, without calculating the different circumstances, which should often produce a different result. In Europe, the lands are either cultivated, or locked up against the cultivation. Manufacture must, therefore, be resorted to of necessity, not of choice, to support the surplus of their people. But we have an immensity of land, courting the industry of the husbandman. Is it best, then, that all our citizens should be employed in its improvement, or, that one half should be called off from that, to exercise manufacture and handicrafts for the other? Those who labour in the earth are the chosen people of God, if ever he had a chosen people; whose breasts he has made the peculiar deposit for substantial and genuine virtue.—It is the focus in which he keeps alive that sacred fire, which otherwise might escape from the earth. Corruption of morals in the mass of cultivators is a phenomenon of which no age nor nation has furnished an example. It is the mark set on those who, not looking up to heaven, to their own soil and to industry, as does the husbandman, for their subsistence, depend for it on the casualties and caprice of customers. Dependence begets subservience and venality; suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition. This, the natural progress and consequence of the arts has sometimes perhaps been retarded by accidental circumstances: but generally speaking, the proportion which the aggregate of the other classes of the citizens bears, in any state, to that of its husbandmen, is the proportion of its unsound to its healthy parts, and is a good enough barometer, whereby to measure its degree of corruption. While we have land to labour let us never wish to see our citizens occupied at a work-bench or twirling a distaff. Carpenters and smiths are wanting in husbandry: but for the general operation of manufacture, let our workshops remain in Europe. It is better to carry provisions and materials to workmen there, than bring them to the provisions and materials, and with them their manners and principles. The loss, by the transportation of commodities across the atlantic will be made up in happiness and permanence of government. The mobs of great cities add just so much to the support of pure government, as sores do to the strength of the human body.”

The above was written in 1782. In the year 1793, Mr. Jefferson, then Secretary of State, having occasion to fall out with Great Britain, in a report relative to commercial restrictions of other nations, and the measures which the United States ought to pursue to counteract them, recommends the imposition of heavy duties, or excluding such foreign manufactures as we take in greatest quantities, for “Such duties (he observes) having the effect of indirect encouragement to domestic manufactures of the same kind may, induce the manufacturer to come himself into these States; and here it would be in the power of the State governments to cooperate essentially, by opening the resources of encouragement which are under their controul, extending them liberally to artists in those particular branches of manufactures for which their soil, climate, population, and other circumstances have matured them, and fostering the precious efforts and progress of household manufacture, by some patronage suited to the nature of its objects, guided by the local information they possess, and guarded against abuse by their presence and attention. The oppressions on our agriculture in foreign parts would thus be made the occasion of relieving it from a dependence on the councils and conduct of others, and promoting arts, manufactures and population at home.”

Mr. Jefferson's Message contained the first proposition for an attack on the judiciary, and he is well known to have gone hand in hand with his estimable party, in the courageous and successful inroad made on the aristocratic constitution of the United States, by putting down the federal judges by the dozen. That in this respect he has made great improvements in the theory of liberty, since writing his Notes on Virginia, will abundantly appear from the following quotation from that work, so highly celebrated by the admirers of genuine freedom.

Speaking of the government of Virginia, he remarks, that “All the powers of government, legislative, executive and judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. One hundred and twenty-three despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes to the republic of Venice. As little will it avail us that they are chosen by ourselves. An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one should transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others. For this reason, that convention which passed the ordinance of government, laid its foundation on this basis, that the legislative, executive and judiciary departments should be separate and distinct, so that no person should exercise the powers of more than one of them at the same time. But no barrier was provided between these several powers. The judiciary and executive members were left dependent on the legislative for their subsistence in office, and some of them for their continuance in it. If therefore, the legislature assumes executive and judiciary powers, no opposition is likely to be made, nor if made, can be effectual; because in that case they may put their proceedings into the form of an act of assembly, which will render them obligatory on the other branches. They have accordingly, in many instances, decided rights which should have been left to judiciary controversy; and the direction of the executive, during the whole time of their session, is becoming habitual and familiar.”

One more specimen of Mr. Jefferson's openness to conviction, and the facility with which he relinquishes an error of opinion the moment he discovers it, we shall furnish from his philosophical disquisition on the colour and other properties of negroes. Our philosopher, after stating certain modes by which the evil of slavery in Virginia might be annihilated, such as that the black slaves “should continue with their parents to a certain age, then be brought up, at the public expense, to tillage, arts or sciences, according to their geniusses, till the females should be eighteen, and the males twenty-one years of age, when they should be colonized to such place, as the circumstances of the time should render most proper sending vessels at the same time to the other parts of the world for an equal number of white inhabitants,” proceeds with the following profound observation: “It will probably be asked, why not retain and incorporate the blacks in this state? I answer, deep-rooted prejudices entertained by the whites, ten thousand recollections by the blacks of the injuries they have sustained, new provocations, the real distinction which nature has made, and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions, which will never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race. To these objections, which are political, may be added others, which are physical and moral. The first difference which strikes us, is that of colour; whether the black of the negro resides in the reticular membrane, between the skin and the scarf-skin, or in the skin itself; whether it proceeds from the colour of the blood, or the colour of the bile, or from that of some other secretion, the difference is fixed in nature, and is as real as if its seat and cause were better known to us. And is this difference of no importance? Is it not the foundation of a greater or less share of beauty in the two races? Are not the fine mixture of red and white, the expressions of every passion, by the greater or less suffusion of colour in the one, preferable to the eternal monotony, which reigns in the countenances of the other race? Add to these, flowing hair, a more elegant symmetry of form, their own judgment in favour of the whites, declared by their preference of them, as uniformly as is the preference of the ourang-outang for the black women over those of his own species. Besides those of colour, figure, and hair, there are other physical distinctions proving a different race; they have less hair on the face and body; they secrete less by the kidnies, and more by the glands of the skin, which gives them a very strong and disagreeable odour.”

“They are in reason much inferior to the whites. It is not against experience to suppose, that different species of the same genus, or varieties of the same species may possess different qualifications. Will not a lover of natural history, then, one who views the gradations in all the races of animals, with the eye of philosophy, excuse an effort to keep those in the department of man as distinct as nature has formed them.”

He afterwards observes, “that the improvement of the blacks in body and mind, in the first instance of their mixture with the whites, is observed by every one, and proves that their inferiority is not the effect merely of their condition in life. Among the Romans, their slaves were often their rarest artists; they excelled too in science, insomuch as to be employed as tutors to their masters' children. Epictetus, Terence and Phoedrus, were slaves; but they were of the race of whites. It is not their condition, then, but NATURE, which has produced the distinction.”

Mr. Jefferson doubtless wrote these observations previous to his having obtained an intimate acquaintance with the good qualities of the blacks. But some subsequent investigations, could not but lead a man of his penetration, to reject any pre-conceived opinion, unfavorable to this “race of animals.” And instead of keeping those in the department of man as distinct as possible, he now not only maintains, that the “true path to national glory,” leads to a mixture of the whites and blacks, (See note 11, p. 22, Vol. II.) but has condescended to add example to precept, to teach us by his own experiments the soundness of his philosophy.

It is probable that the new light, which he obtained by the only true mode of philosophising, led him to the candid confessions contained in a congratulatory letter to his worthy and learned brother, Benjamin Banneker, said to be, the author of an almanack, &c. In this last production, he declared in the teeth of his former theory, that “he rejoiced to find that Nature had given to his black brethren talents equal to those of other colours, and that the appearance of a want of them, was owing merely to the degraded condition of their existence, both in Africa and America.”

There is a philosopher of pliability for you! none of your rigid personages who will remain obstinate in error against the light of reason, and his own and other men's experiments. This whirling to the left about, in consequence of the wonderful phenomenon of a Negro Almanack, (probably enough made by a white man) was as masterly a manœuvre, in a political, as the retreat to Carter's mountain, in a military point of view.

Mr. Jefferson's report on weights and measures has been highly celebrated by his party, but the mischief making Federalists have made many unmerciful strictures on its defects. To show with what kind of logick Mr. Jefferson, has been assailed we shall again have recourse to the pamphlet of Mr. Smith, in which Mr. Jefferson and his pretensions are so roughly handled.

Mr. Jefferson was required “to report to the House a proper plan for establishing uniformity in the currency of weights and measures of the United States.”

“The object of a plain, sensible man, more anxious to render solid services to the country, than to acquire reputation by a pedantick display of science, would naturally have been, to ascertain the existing currency, weights and measures in the United States, and to establish such a standard, as would be most conformable to the general use, and attended with the least innovation and distress.

“In respect to uniformity in measures, nothing more would have been requisite than to have proposed that some determined standard should be made and lodged in some public depository, to which access might be had, when necessary.

“Instead of this, Mr. Jefferson proposes a system, which professes extreme minuteness, precision and accuracy, and yet, when examined, is found to leave every thing to the skill and accuracy of a Watchmaker; a system, depending on criteria, which he considered as important, and yet, which are not defined in such manner as to admit of an application of them.

“He begins the report with observing, “that there exists not in nature a single subject, or species of subject accessible to man, which permits one constant and uniform dimension.” The causes of this variation of dimension are stated to be expansion and contraction, occasioned by change of temperature. Iron is stated to be the least expansible of metals, and the degree of expansion of a pendulum of 58. 7, inches is said to be from 200 to 300 parts of an inch.

Mr. Jefferson, however, says, “that the globe of the earth might be considered as invariable in all its dimensions, and that its circumference would furnish an invariable measure.” But if a small portion of the least expansible metal, iron, is so affected by temperature, how can it be true, that the globe would furnish an invariable measure? Is not the whole earth, composed as it is of various elements, all more expansible than iron, liable to be affected by changes of temperature? Are not different sides of the earth presented to the sun, at different seasons of the year? Is not the whole globe nearer to the sun in some parts of its orbit, than at others? Is it not, of course, more susceptible of heat, and more affected by attraction, both of which operate to affect the dimensions of our globe? Is it likely that earth, water, and other elements, are so equally distributed through our globe, as that the degrees of expansion and contraction, occasioned by changes of seasons, exactly counter-balance each other? Was it not known to Mr. Jefferson, that no two of the great circles of our globe are of equal circumference, and that this rendered his position, at least doubtful?

“Mr. Jefferson says, “that no one circle of the globe is accessible to admeasurement in all its parts, and that the trials to measure portions have been of such various result, as to shew that there is no dependence on that operation for certainty. If this be true, what were the data upon which it was asserted, that the whole circumference would furnish an invariable measure? The French philosophers now say the contrary, and they have lately actually taken a section of the earth for their standard. Who is to decide between these doctors, or are they all aiming to puzzle plain people, by an affectation of accuracy, which is unattainable?

“Mr. Jefferson's standard is “a uniform cylindrical rod of iron, of such length, as in latitude 45 degrees, in the level of the ocean, and in a cellar or other place, the temperature of which does not vary throughout the year, shall perform its vibrations, in small and equal arcs, in one second of mean time.”

“The degree of 45 degrees is assumed, because it was proposed by France, and because it was the northern boundary of the United States. He says, “let the completion of the 45 degrees then give the standard for our union, with the hope, he facetiously adds, that it may become a line of union, with the rest of the world;” a pleasant conceit! it was kind in this profound philosopher to emerge from the depth of his experimental cellar, to enliven this scientific and abstruse subject with a pun.

“But our philosopher's hope of a line of union with the rest of the world is already defeated; the French, have, since his report, taken a section of a meridional line for their standard . Their pendulum for 45 degrees is to vibrate 100,000 seconds, while Mr. Jefferson's is vibrating 86,400.

“The French have outdone even Mr. Jefferson in innovation; thus illusory has the expectation proved, that the hobby-horse of one philosopher will be respected by another.

“But why this attempt at absolute accuracy? He admits that the pendulum of 45 degrees differs from the pendulum of 31 degrees, only 1–679 part of its whole length, and that this difference is so minute that it might be neglected, as insensible for the common purposes of life. There was some reason for the attempt beyond a display of learning, or there was not; if perfect exactness was desirable, why where the following causes of uncertainty and error unnoticed?

“1st. The experiment, he says, must be made in the level of the ocean, to prevent that increment to the radius of the earth and consequent diminution of the length of the pendulum, which a higher situation would produce: what is the level of the ocean? the tide rises in 45 degrees about fifteen feet, and there are levels of the ocean at high-water, low-water, and at all points between these extremes. Perfect exactness required that the expression, level of the ocean, should have been defined: this omission has since been rectified in a bill which passed the House of Representatives last session.

“2d. The experiment, says the report, must be made in a cellar or other place, the temperature of which does not vary throughout the year. This is important, or it is not: if important, why not define the temperature, that it might be ascertained by a thermometer. There are few or no natural caves or cellars, in which the temperature does no vary: variations are frequently noticed in the deepest caves and mines: various causes may affect the temperature: Mr. Jefferson admits this, in his Notes, p. 21, where he allows that “chymical agents may produce in subterraneous cavities, a factitious heat;” and these may more or less, affect the temperature in most caves or cellars.

“The pendulum is, however, admitted by Mr. Jefferson, to be liable to uncertainties, for which he offers no remedies: how does it appear that these uncertainties are not more important than the causes of error, to which his attention has been directed?

“3d. Machinery (says the report, page 8,) and a power are necessary, which may exert a small but constant effort to renew the waste of motion, but so that they shall neither retard nor accelerate the vibrations.”

“But it adds, in the next page, “to estimate and obviate this difficulty is the artist's province.” What is this, but to say, that the standard of the United States shall be the pendulum of some clock, made by Mr. Leslie, or some other artist, thus discarding at once all reliance upon the principles before advanced. The difficulty of ascertaining the centre of oscillation, (which he admits to be impossible, unless in a rod, of which the diameter is “infinitely small,”) he thinks however can be obviated by Mr. Leslie, the watchmaker.

“Mr. Jefferson then proceeds to apply his standard,

“1st. To measures of capacity. These he proposes should be four-sided, with rectangular sides and bottom, for which he gives the following reasons: “cylindrical measures have the advantage of superior strength; but square ones have the greater advantage of enabling every one, who has a rule in his pocket, to verify their contents, by measuring them.” Did it not occur to this profound mathematician, that a man with a rule in his pocket, could as easily measure the diameter and depth of a cylindrical half bushel as the sides and depth of a square box?

“2d. To weights. The standard of weights is proposed to be a definite portion of rain water, weighed always in the same temperature. “It will be necessary, says he, to refer these weights to a determinate mass of substance, the specifick gravity of which is invariable; rain water is such a substance, and may be referred to every where, and through all time.” But the temperature is not defined; rain water is varied by several causes; dust, insects, &c. will create a difference in its weight. The French, in their late plan, have outdone Mr. Jefferson; their standard is distilled water, ascertained by a defined temperature.”

Such is the cruel manner in which the federal rogues cut up a genuine philosopher.

“Report, p. 3. “In order to avoid the uncertainties which respect the centre of oscillation, it has been proposed by Mr. Leslie, an ingenious artist of Philadelphia, to substitute for the pendulum, an uniform cylindrical rod, without a bob.”

Notwithstanding this friendly hope, the French have treated our philosopher very cavalierly, by altogether disregarding, in their late system, his learned labors. Though he was so ready to adopt whatever they proposed, they have not even condescended to take the least notice of his report. Even Fauchet, in his letter to the secretary of state, communicating the French standard of weights and measures, seems not to have even heard of the secretary's report; for he says, “France was the first to place those researches among the cares of government. America, if I mistake not, has since followed the example, for I think I have heard that the present government were engaging in the same changes, and even waited the result of the operation made in France on this subject, for the purpose of commencing their return.”

That bill directs, that “the experiments shall be made in the latitude of Philadelphia, at any place between the rivers Delaware and Schuylkill, at a known height above the level of common high water in the Delaware, and in a known temperature of the atmosphere, according to Farenheit's thermometer.

A part of Mr. Jefferson's report on weights and measures, was founded on ideas taken from a volume of the society of Arts and Agriculture, published in Europe. The fluxional calculations are the work of a Professor in Columbia College.

There is a great affinity between that obliquity of intellect, which leads a man to think incorrectly, and that depravity of heart, which tends to immoral conduct. A wrong-headed enthusiast, who is addicted to an incorrect and whimsical mode of reasoning and thinking, may easily allay the qualms of conscience by the opiate of sophism, and even become what Godwin calls an “honest assassin.” Perhaps there have been but few crimes of magnitude committed, in which the perpetrators have not been able to persuade themselves, that they were justifiable, if not commendable. Religious, political and philosophical enthusiasm have, each in their turn, impelled mankind to deeds of horror, from which the most abandoned would revolt with abhorrence, if they did not believe that they were actuated by motives which are praise-worthy.

The dexterity with which our knight-errants in sedition reconcile their conduct to the dictates of their reason, is well exemplified by Butler, in the character of Hudibras, who thus justifies the breaking of his oath:

But these being grave old-school reflections, it would be very improper to indulge them in a canto, set apart like this, for celebrating an illuminatus.

It is well known that Mr. Jefferson made a very pretty and suitable parade of grief at the tomb of General Washington. And as remarked by a poet in the Utica Patriot,

The federal editor of the New-York Evening Post, in his aristocratical way thus remarks upon this subject:

“Will the reader once accompany us to the saddened groves of Mount-Vernon. Behold this same Thomas Jefferson at the tomb of Washington! See him approach the hallowed spot, surrounded by spectators!—he kneels before the sacred dust!—he weeps outright at the irreparable loss of this greatest, best, and most beloved of men!—sobs choak his utterance! he clasps his hands in token of pious resignation to the will of heaven, and retires in silence amidst the blessings of those whose sympathy he had beguiled by “presenting his profession of sorrow.”

Though the circumstance of Mr. Jefferson's having paid Callender for his services in abuse of the Federal Constitution, Washington, Adams, and many others of our revolutionary patriots, is proved by letters written with his own hand, yet democrats, with that laudable pertinacity, which is the soul of their party, would never believe a word about the matter.

The intelligent and indefatigable editor of the Boston Repertory, makes the following plaint on the occasion:

“How often have we been stigmatised as infamous slanderers, for asserting that Mr. Jefferson patronised Callender in his virulent abuse of the Federal Constitution, Washington and Adams. It was a federal lie, and no democrat would yield credit to a circumstance, which, if true, would exhibit Mr. Jefferson in the blackest colours of political hypocrisy, and allied to that demon of slander, for the purpose of lying down his betters. We now offer irresistible proof—Mr. Jefferson's letters to Callender, in his own hand writing. One democrat, and one only, has called to satisfy himself!”

Now this is as it should be. Stick to your party, genuine republicans! right or wrong.

Our good democrats, with the greatest propriety, as it adds to their popularity, are always fond of uniting the names of Washington and Jefferson. That Mr. Jefferson was friendly to General Washington, and his administration, will appear from the following elegant extracts, taken from the “Prospect before Us,” at that time patronised and its specimen sheets inspected by Mr. Jefferson:

Speaking of General Washington, Mr. Jefferson's editor says, “He could not have committed a more pure and net violation of his oath to preserve the constitution, and of his official trust; or a grosser personal insult on the representatives.”

“By his own account, Mr. Washington was twice a TRAITOR. He first renounced the king of England, and thereafter the old confederation. His farewell paper contains a variety of mischievous sentiments.”

“Under the old confederation matters never were nor could have been conducted so wretchedly, as they actually are under the successive monarchs of Braintree and Mount Vernon.”

“Mr. Adams has only completed the scene of ignominy, which Mr. Washington had begun.”

“The republicans were extremely well satisfied at the demise of the general. They felt and feared his weight in the scale of aristocracy; but they found it necessary to save appearances with the multitude by presenting a profession of sorrow. It is a real farce to see the manner in which the citizens at large were treated, in this instance, by both parties. The second burial! But it is impossible to proceed with gravity; or to comprehend by what means Adams and congress kept from laughing in each other's faces, when they past their unanimous resolution to recommend the delivery of suitable orations, discourses and public prayers.”

Callender having thus handsomely handled Gen. Washington, attacks Mr. Adams in a manner equally masterly. But by further quotations we may perhaps, by the weight of our notes, break the peg of our poetry, and fall into the merciless fangs of the criticks. Good democrats, however, with their usual ingenuity, have attempted to wipe away every stain from Mr. Jefferson's immaculate character.

In the first place they contended that the report of Mr. Jefferson's having been concerned in the Prospect before us was a “federal lie.” Mr. Jefferson's letters however put them down on that point.

They then affirmed that Mr. Jefferson paid Callender one hundred dollars after having read the specimen sheets of “the Prospect” out of charity. Finding this ground untenable they pretend that Mr. Jefferson knew nothing of the contents. But it appeared that Mr. Jefferson paid Callender fifty dollars, in part, after Callender had been convicted of sedition for publishing “the Prospect,” and of course Mr. Jefferson must have been acquainted with the contents of the work, and that Mr. Jefferson moreover remitted Callender's fine of 200 dollars, when the contents of the Prospect had long been known.

The editor of the Boston Repertory declared that he was possessed of a paragraph in Mr. Jefferson's handwriting, which was incorporated with Mr. Jefferson's own slander in the body of the Prospect “without marks of quotation.” The Enquirer (a man hired to vindicate Mr. Jefferson) admits that Mr. Jefferson wrote a short and harmless paragraph and but one, in the whole book. Unfortunately, however, for Mr. Jefferson's advocate the paragraph which he acknowledges was written by Mr. Jefferson is totally different from that mentioned by the editor of the Repertory. But this Enquirer-man is doubtless well versed in what Cheetham calls the “arts of able editors.”

Genet was privately encouraged by Mr. Jefferson in his projects to prostrate America at the feet of France, but opposed officially in his capacity of Secretary of State. Genet complained that Mr. Jefferson had treacherously become the instrument of his recall, after having persuaded him that he was his friend, and initiated him into the mysteries of state. And declared “if I have shown my firmness (in opposing the President,) it is because it is not in my character to speak as many people do in one way and act in another, to have an official language and a language confidential.”

When Mr. Jefferson entered on the duties of his office as Vice-President he eulogised Mr. Adams, then President, in the following terms, “No man more sincerely prays that no accident may call me to the higher and more important functions; (the presidency) they have been justly confided to the eminent character, which has preceded me here, whose talents and integrity have been known and revered by me through a long course of years, and I devoutly pray he may be long preserved for the government, the happiness, and the prosperity of our common country.”

This was a masterly stroke of policy, more especially, when it is considered that Mr. Jefferson, at the time of uttering this solemn petition was employing his purse, pen and influence, in ruining the reputation, and destroying the influence of Mr. Adams.

Mr. Jefferson is one of the principal patrons of the Aurora, and was the institutor and patron of the National Gazette, which abounded with abuse against the federal administration, with Washington at its head.

Of thirty-four armed ships, our administration have sacrificed, at the shrine of economy (sold for one-fourth part of their cost) all but thirteen, and some of those which remain are rotting in philosophical dry docks. But economy is the order of the day, and a wasteful economy, is a contradiction in terms.

Depredations on our commerce are committed daily, by the Spaniards and other nations of Europe (Sept. 1805.) Mr. Jefferson however, has said, that “history bears witness to the fact, that a just nation is trusted at its bare word, when recourse is had to armaments and wars to bridle others.” It is to be lamented that these depredators should spoil the president's fine theory.

The federalists are accused by their political opponents of having been sparing of their eulogies on the heroes who distinguished themselves at Tripoli. This, if true, evinces the folly and stupidiy of that party; for those men, who have been most distinguished by their exploits against those pirates, were federalists, and most of them commissioned by Washington and Adams.

To show to what an amount the impudence of some federal newspaper editors will carry them, we will make one or two extracts from remarks of the editor of the New-York Evening Post, on Mr. Jefferson's inaugural speech No. 2.

Mr. Jefferson, having reference to some tough libellous truths, which have appeared in the federal newspapers against him, observed in his speech, that “the artillery of the press has been levelled against us, charged with whatsoever its licentiousness could devise or dare,” and that “he who has time, renders a service to public morals and public tranquillity, in reforming these abuses by the salutary coercions of law.” Coleman, supposing, no doubt, that nobody could ever find “time” for attending to these “salutary coercions,” makes, perhaps very true, but very libellous remarks.

Mr. Jefferson in his speech had observed, “I fear not that motives of interest may lead me astray; I am sensible of no passion which could seduce me knowingly from the path of justice.” Mr. Coleman comments as follows: “He, who with the bribery of office has corrupted the integrity of the nation, has demoralized the American people for the purpose of personal aggrandizement, now boasts that no motives of interest can lead him astray. He, who in a publick address to the senate of the United States, solemnly declared that Mr. John Adams was an eminent character, whose talents and integrity had been long known and revered by him (Mr. Jefferson) through a long course of years, and had been the foundation of a cordial and uninterrupted friendship between them; and concluded with “devoutly (his own word) devoutly praying,” that the same Mr. Adams “might be long preserved for the government, the happiness, and prosperity of our common country,” went away and hired a mercenary rascal to make it his business to traduce this very Mr. Adams, in the most violent language that his invention could supply. Yes, he feasted his eyes with the perusal of the manuscript, in which the man with whom he had so long, as he told the senate, “maintained a cordial and uninterrupted friendship,” was spoken of as the lowest of wretches, where he was denominated the most execrable of SCOUNDRELS, the scourge, the scorn, the outcast of America, without abilities, and without virtue, and then returned it with the most unqualified approbation, saying, that “such papers could not fail to produce the best effect,” and as a part recompence, sent him an order for fifty dollars on account of previous work. Need any thing more be added? yes, one tale shall be added, and in very explicit language, so that if the Attorney General of the United States can “find time,” and Mr. Jefferson should still remain of opinion, after seeing the article, (and I know he honours the Evening Post with his perusal) that it will be rendering a “service to publick morals and publick tranquillity,” to resort to the “salutary coercion of law,” and prosecute the editor for a libel, matter may not be wanting on which to found the indictment. I only stipulate for the privilege of giving the truth in evidence. Then be it known, that he who now holds himself up to the world as a man incapable of being seduced by passion from the path of rectitude, stole to the chamber of his absent friend by night, and attempted to violate his bed. [OMITTED]

“As it generally happens, that when once the devil gets hold of a man he seldom lets him go with a single crime on his head, so this man, to the baseness of his first attempt, added a second. As a cover to the abrupt disconnection of intercourse that followed the disclosure of the secret to the husband, he told a base and slanderous lie, and said, that his intimacy with Mr. Walker had been broken off by Mr. Walker's unhandsome conduct in the settlement of an estate, which he had in charge; all which now stands on record, being very handsomely engrossed with his own hand. Now let Mr. Jefferson, if he pleases, call this a “false and defamatory publication,” and recommend a prosecution accordingly.”

What a daring fellow this, but nobody can “find time” to prosecute him. Moreover, Mr. Jefferson's vindicator in the “Richmond Enquirer,” has made this appear to be a very trivial affair, for he says,

If the tale of Mrs. Walker was rehearsed to a nation of Anchorites, they would smile at its absurdity; that an individual should be abused, censured, and threatened with exposure in the publick prints, for having, forty years since, felt an improper passion: at a time when youth, (exemption from matrimonial obligations,) and the force of feeling might be pleaded with justice!!!

The Essex Junto is one of the bugbears, with which the Boston Chronicle scribblers frighten the babes and old women of democracy. But this, like many other gun-powder plots against the peace and dignity of the sovereign people, is a phantom which they have conjured up for the purpose of deception. The men whom they would designate as an Essex Junto, are as much interested in the preservation of a Republican government, as any men in the community, and would, by the introduction of a Monarchical government, dig a pit for their own destruction.

So say the Federalists, but they are Monarchy-men notwithstanding, and wish to make John Adams king.

The curious system of Mr. Jefferson, for creating a naval force adequate to the defence of our commerce, by gun-boats, No's. 1, 2, &c. up, perhaps, to 5 or 6, is thus described in the New Year's Message, from the carriers of the Boston Palladium. Although gun-boat number one, as there exhibited, may appear to be somewhat too consequential to be introduced by way of comment on our political text, yet, as it appears to have some connection with our simile, we give it a place.

The wisdom of our democratick members of Congress was never more abundantly manifested, than in the affair of their condescending to remain silent, when they had nothing to say for themselves. There is, unquestionably, no small share of prudence and self-denial necessary, for an individual to curb that unruly member, the tongue. How great then must have been the prudence and resolution of our good democrats, in congress assembled, who, for the sake of expediting publick business, could sit mute, and endure to be pelted by arguments which they could not answer.

Mr. Dana's eulogy upon the “dumb legislature,” will remain a monumentum ævi of the wonderful wisdom which was manifested by the majority on that occasion.

See debates of congress, 1802.

This beautiful simile we have borrowed from Butler. That author applies it as descriptive of the democracy of the body natural of his hero, Hudibras; but we think it happily illustrative of the present organization of the body politick of our country. If the reader, however, better likes the following simile, from the same author, Butler, it is much at his service.

The appointment of a Mr. Hunt to be governor of a district in Louisiana, exhibits wonderful proof of Mr. Jefferson's solicitude to reward merit, and long tried and faithful services. It is true, that this gentleman is yet a boy in years, to say nothing of his intellect; but his exertions in favor of Mr. Jefferson, have been to the full amount of—his abilities. Only those who are best acquainted with his excellency, governor Hunt, can appreciate the stupendous degree of discernment, which Mr. Jefferson has displayed in his appointment.