University of Virginia Library

We do not wish to be satirical in our remarks on the once famous Salem witchcrafts. Hutchinson says that “The great noise, which the New-England witchcraft made throughout the English dominions proceeded more from the general panick, with which all sorts of persons were seized, and an expectation that the contagion would spread to all parts of the country, than from the number of persons who were executed; more having been put to death in a single county in England, in a short space of time, than have suffered in all New-England.”

But the allusion is opposite to our subject in a philosophical as well as poetical point of view. It shews how liable mankind are to be seized with mental epidemicks and to run mad in concert. The crusade mania, the witchcraft mania, but worst of all the Gallic-democratic-Tom-Pain mania have been terrible diseases, and the last mentioned in particular much more destructive in its consequences than the yellow fever or even the plague itself.

The conduct of the female Bacchantes, who demolished the Thracian band (see Ovid's Metamorphoses, Lib. xi. Fab. i.) has been far exceeded by the French Revolutionary female fiends at Paris. Mad with jacobinic fury, the beautiful, the tender sex with the most savage fury actually gnawed the amputated limbs of their wretched countrymen, whom the mob had butchered in the cause of liberty and equality. Such is the spirit of democracy. Even the fair sex without the restraints of religion and government, become more ferocious than tigers, and man the most savage animal in existence.

The reception which the arch democrat met with on his return from that expedition which brought “death into the world,” and his Metempsychosis on that occasion are thus described by the first of poets.

That these serpents were democrats is plain, first from the testimony of Butler, who says,

Secondly, we have the declaration of democrats vs. democrats, to be found in a semi-weekly electioneering handbill printed in New-York, entitled “The Corrector,” in which the Burrites, good democrats, have drawn the Clintonians, likewise good democrats, as large as life and hung them up in what they very properly called “The Pandemonian Gallery.” Some however, have very plausibly maintained that, although these paintings may be correct copies of the originals who appear to have sat for their pictures, yet in comparing them to the devils of Milton, they have caricatured the latter beyond all comparison.

The 4th of July 1805, was celebrated in a “genuine republican” stile by a number of the jolly sons of St. Patrick, collected for that purpose on the Battery in New-York. These brawny democrats undertook, by pugilistical demonstration to make it evident that fresh imported Irishmen were the only real American soldiers, and “genuine” patriots of seventy-six. Those who had the hardihood to dissent from this doctrine were sure to be knocked down in a very convincing manner. These Hibernian logicians, finding however that there were two sides to the question even as they argued it, were at length obliged to yield to the more impressive reasons of their opponents assisted by the ultima ratio of the city police. On this great occasion the Declaration of Independence was with singular propriety read by an Irishman who had been lately imported.

The following account of a feté of the Boston democratic party, we extract from “Remarks on the Jacobiniad,” an extremely well written publication, which appeared in Boston at the time that Americans were running into some of the French revolutionary excesses.

“Though the adventures of the ox's head are well known in this metropolis, a short account of them may not prove unacceptable to such as have not the happiness of being our fellow citizens. We beg leave then to inform them, that on the retreat of the Duke of Brunswick, and the successes of our Gallic friends under Dumourier, a Civic Feast was given in honor of these illustrious events. The subscription was liberal; a handsome entertainment was provided for the lovers of equality, in Faneuil Hall, whilst their “Majesties the Mob,” were regaled with an ox roasted whole in the street. The supposition that more than 6000 persons of all ages, sexes and descriptions, would quietly set down and wait till they were helped, was benevolent in the extreme; but their majesties very uncivilly disappointed the expectations of their patrons; for, unrestrained by the ties of gratitude, for the money expended for their amusement, they destroyed the benches provided for their accomodation, tore the poor ox piece-meal, broke the plates, and scattered the mingled fragments of beef and earthern ware in every direction, to the destruction of the neighbouring windows, and to the great annoyance of dogs, women, children, selectmen, &c. who were inactive spectators of this very interesting scene. The head of the animal was then fixed, in grinning majesty, on the pole of Liberty, and consecrated to that goddess, amidst the thunder of a tremendous swivel. In this state it remained until the fate of the unfortunate Louis was announced, when it was seen in mourning for that melancholy event. This was conceived very dangerous to the French cause by some political fanatics, and the head was in consequence, ignominiously stripped of its “suit of solemn black.” In revenge for this insult, those who had furnished the mourning, levelled the sacred tree of Liberty to the ground, and with it fell the innocent cause of the contest. The pole was put up and down .... and up again .... to the no small amusement of all unconcerned; whilst the head, if we are rightly informed, being found, on examination of jacobinical strength and capaciousness, was converted into a punch-bowl, (the two horns serving admirably for handles) and is now used as the receptacle of grog and flip, by the Democratic Society, in this our enlightened metropolis.”

“Religion is well supported,” (to wit, in Pennsylvania and New-York) “of various kinds indeed, but all good enough.”

One among the many wonders which democracy has achieved in favour of the liberties of the people has been, to elevate to high and responsible situations, certain convicts, most generally foreigners. The part which Mr. Gallatin took in the Pittsburgh insurrection, which cost the United States a million of dollars, is well known, and it is probable that his present elevation, is a reward for his patriotic services on that occasion. But more of this gentleman hereafter.

It is impossible to imagine a greater burlesque on the idea of a representative republic than the farcical conduct of our democratic societies, who by virtue of no authority whatever, except that of their own good will and pleasure, seated themselves in the magisterial chair, assumed the appellation of “We the people,” and had the impudence to dictate and control the affairs of our national government.

And Eusden eke out Blackmoore's endless line.

We allude here to the practice of our good democratic managers of newspapers, who by virtue of what Cheetham calls, “the arts of able editors,” publish matter as original which they have stolen from some other paper. This trick has been exposed by the editor of the New-York Evening Post, whose exertions in bringing to light the scoundrelism of the faction, entitle him to the gratitude of every friend to the prosperity of his country.

The nature and operation of the causes, which led to the rebellion in Massachusetts, are explained in a lucid and masterly manner, in the history of George Richards Minot; the style of which might rank its author as the Sallust of America. According to that writer, the commonwealth of Massachusetts was in debt, upwards of 1,350,000l. private state debt, exclusive of the federal debt, which amounted to above one million and an half of the same money. And in addition to that, every town was embarrassed by advances they had made to comply with repeated requisitions for men and supplies to support the army, and which had been done upon their own particular credit. The people, he informs us, “had been laudably employed, during the nine years in which this debt had been accumulating, in the defence of their liberties; but though their contest had instructed them in the nobler science of the rights of mankind, yet it gave them no proportionable insight into the mazes of finance. Their honest prejudices were averse to duties of impost and excise, which were at that time supposed to be anti-republican, by many judicious and influential characters.

“The consequences of the public debt did not at first appear among the citizens at large. The bulk of mankind are too much engaged in private concerns, to anticipate the operation of national causes. The men of landed interest, soon began to speak plainly against trade, as the source of luxury, and the cause of losing the circulating medium,” &c.

“Commercial men, on the other hand, defended themselves by insisting that the fault was only in the regulations which the trade happened to be under,” &c.

The writer then proceeds to point out other causes which contributed to lead the people astray; and his history exhibits abundant proof, that the people at large are not always correct judges of what political measures may best subserve their own prosperity.

The jealousy of republicans against delegating power, has most generally been the cause of their destruction. No community can long subsist without authority to coerce and punish; but such authority ought to be marked by legal and well defined boundaries, and entrusted to such men only as have their characters established for integrity as well as abilities. The only method which can be devised to prevent the assumption, by unprincipled men, of that power, which is tyranny in effect, whatever may be its name or disguise, is to delegate legal power without too much jealousy or reserve, o men, who will be a “terror to evil doers.”

There is nothing in which our democratic politicians are more profoundly absurd, than in their estimates of national economy. The penny-saving maxims of Dr. Franklin, injudiciously applied to affairs of national magnitude, are of very mischievous tendency. Money paid for public purposes, which is expended among the inhabitants of a country, does not impoverish such inhabitants. It is paid by the people to the government, and by the government distributed among the people. If it be so distributed as to be a reward to merit, and give a proper tone to industry, there is little danger of being too lavish. The whole body politic becomes invigorated by its circulation; the farmer and the mechanic finding a ready sale for their commodities are stimulated to that industry which constitutes the real wealth of a nation.

We have it from good authority that Mr. Jefferson actually became initiated, while in Paris, into the mysteries of Illuminism, and his writings and conduct, since his embassy to France, display “internal evidence” of his being infected with the poison of illuminated principles. “Condorcet, likewise (a well known Illuminatus) was a particular friend of our American philosopher.” His advocates, who would maintain that he imbibed no new principles in France, which smack of Illuminism, must be under the necessity of affirming, that honesty never was the policy of a certain great man .... that he never did scruple about the means, provided the end could be obtained. His advice to Congress, respecting the transfer of the debt due to France, to a company of Hollanders, is a proof in point. In stating this, I shall have recourse to the pamphlet of Mr. Smith, referred to above.

Mr. Jefferson, says that writer, after mentioning an offer which had been made by a company of Hollanders, for the purchase of the debt, concludes with these extraordinary expressions:

“If there is a danger of the public payments not being punctual, I submit, whether it may not be better, that the discontents which would then arise, should be transferred from a court, of whose good will we have so much need, to the breasts of a private company.”

“This letter was the subject of a report from the Board of Treasury, in February, 1787. The board treated the idea of transfer, proposed, as both UNJUST and IMPOLITIC; unjust, because the nation would contract an engagement, which there was no well grounded prospect of fulfilling; impolitic, because a failure in the payment of interest on this debt transferred (which was inevitable) would justly blast all hopes of credit with the citizens of the United Netherlands, in future pressing exigencies of the union; and the Board gave it as their opinion, that it would be advisable for Congress, without delay, to instruct their minister at the court of France, to forbear giving his sanction to any such transfer.

“Congress, agreeing in the ideas of the Board caused an instruction to that effect to be sent to Mr. Jefferson. Here there was a solemn act of government, condemning the principle as unjust and impolitic.

“If the sentiment contained in the extract which has been recited, can be vindicated from political profligacy, then is it necessary to unlearn all the ancient notions of justice, and to substitute some new fashioned scheme of morality in their stead.

“Here is no complicated problem, which sophistry may entangle or obscure; here is a plain question of moral feeling. A government is encouraged on the express condition of not having a prospect of making a due provision for a debt which it owes; to concur in a transfer of that debt from a nation, well able to bear the inconveniences of a failure or delay, to the individuals, whose total ruin might have been the consequence of it; and that, upon the interested consideration of having need of the good will of the creditor nation, and with the dishonorable motive, as is cleary implied, of having more to apprehend from the discontents of that nation, than from those of disappointed and betrayed individuals? Let every honest and impartial mind, consulting its own spontaneous emotions, pronounce for itself upon the rectitude of such a suggestion.

“An effort, scarcely plausible, has been heretofore made by the partizans of Mr. Jefferson, to explain away the turpitude of this advice. It was represented, that “A company of adventuring speculators, had offered to purchase the debt at a discount, foreseeing the delay of payment, calculating the probable loss, and willing to encounter the hazard.” But the terms employed by Mr. Jefferson, refute this species of apology. His words are, “If there is a danger of the public payments not being punctual, I submit, whether it may not be better, that the discontents which would then arise, should be transferred from a court, of whose good will we have so much need, to the breasts of a private company.”

He plainly takes it for granted, the discontents would arise, from the want of an adequate provision, and proposes that they should be transferred to the breasts of individuals. This he could not have taken for granted, if, in his conception, the purchasers had calculated on delay and loss.

Here we have the full effulgence of Godwinism bursting upon us! It was an attempt to implicate the government of America, in a sale of bad securities, the venders knowing them to be such. The “transfer,” of “discontents,” which Mr, Jefferson foresaw would arise from the French court, to the poor Hollanders, to the probable ruin of the latter, is somewhat similar in kind, to the justice which the author of Hudibras attributes to the first settlers of New-England.

See a pamphlet, written by William Smith, Esq. of South Carolina, with the signature of Phocion.

See Jefferson's attempted vindication, in Dunlap's Daily Advertiser, of October, 1792.

Mr. Jefferson's pretensions to the station he holds, have been frequently scanned by men, whose talents and opportunities have given them peculiar advantages for the investigation. The result has appeared to be somewhat unfavourable, unless for the purposes of the party now predominant, he should be thought better than a better man. But the principal traits in his character, are so well exhibited in the pamphlet of Mr. Smith, that we are tempted again to quote, from his production, the following summary of the wonderful qualifications of our chief magistrate.

“We shall now take leave of Mr. Jefferson and his pretensions, as a philosopher and politician. The candid and uprejudiced, who have read with attention the foregoing comments on his philosophical and political works, and on his public conduct, must now be convinced, however they may hitherto have been deceived by a plausible appearance and specious talents, or misled by artful partizans, that the reputation he has acquired is not bottomed on solid merit .... that his abilities have been more directed to the acquirement of literary fame, than to the substantial good of his country .... that his philosophical opinions have been capricious and wavering, often warped by the most frivolous circumstances .... that in his political conduct he has been timid inconsistent, and unsteady, generally favouring measures of a factious and disorganizing tendency, always leaning to those which would establish his popularity, however destructive of our peace and tranquility .... that his political principles are sometimes whimsical and visionary, at others, subversive of all regular and stable government .... that his writings have betrayed a disrespect for religion, and his partiality for the impious Paine, an enmity to christianity .... that his advice respecting the Dutch company, and his open countenance of an incendiary printer, and of the views of a faction, manifest a want of due regard for national faith and public credit .... that his abhorrence of one foreign nation, and enthusiastic devotion to another, have extinguished in him every germ of real national character; and, in short, that his elevation to the presidency, must eventuate either in the debasement of the American name, by a whimsical, inconsistent and feeble administration, or in the prostration of the United States at the feet of France, the subversion of our excellent constitution, and the consequent destruction of our present prosperity.”

Such is the character, who now presides in America, as drawn by a gentleman, who has held some of the most important offices in our government, and such the predictions, which we fear are beginning to be fulfilled in this country. The prostration of the Judiciary, and the sacrifice of the greater part of our navy, are alarming forerunners of the fulfilment of the prophecy.

We commenced the manufacture of this our poetical production, with a determination, which we think all candid critics will pronounce not a little laudable, to deduce, so far as convenient, our poetical and rhetorical flourishes from Cis-Atlantic sources. And here we think that our reviewers will do us the justice to acknowledge, that no poet's “eye in a fine frenzy rolling” ever glanced at a prettier comparison than this of a nest of those irascible insects with a commonwealth infested by turbulent demagogues.

It is a truth, which we think even democrats themselves will not have the effrontery to deny, that the leaders of their party are men whose moral characters will not bear examination. Is it not then astonishing, that Americans should trust their all important political interests, upon which depends the enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and property, to men with whom they would have no dealings in their private capacity? It is not too much to say, that many men who have the management of our public concerns, or are patronized and pensioned editors of newspapers, are known to be alike destitute of honour and honesty. The infamous character of Pasquin the right hand Chronicle man, is almost proverbial in England. The political career of a certain honorable duellist, has been remarkable for ****, but as this gentleman is an excellent shot, and in constant practice it may not be prudent to offend him. We wish, however, that our readers would candidly and coolly compare the qualifications of the federalists, with those of the democrats, and not give the preference to the latter, merely because they style themselves republicans.

It is notorious that the family of wit have ever been federalists. Most of the “half formed witlings,” who have occasionally dashed in democratic newspapers, like your Cheethams and your Pasquins, are beings beneath notice in a literary point of view.

Hence these poor creatures have generally passively submitted to the Federal lash, and pretended to despise their opponants like a blustering bully, who brags though he is beaten.

You will find, gentle reader, by turning to “Terrible Tractoration,” p. 64, New-York edition, a notable instance of sensibility, expressed by a felon who had been executed for murder, who being somewhat “oppugnated” by a meddling philosopher, with his Galvanic stimulants, clenched his right hand, and exhibited other menacing symptoms of his being alive to the affront. But our democrats, though spitted with the arrows of satire, by the merciless wits of the age, and roasted before the slow fire of public indignation, appear to possess as little feeling as the “passive ox,” that graced the democratic fete in Boston, held in honor of the French revolution.

This petty piece of an apostrophe we hereby acknowledge to have taken verbatim et literatim from one of Moore's songs. We consider this Confession as a very proper proceeding on our part; for having in our last edition inadvertently hit on one of Butler's rhymes, a democratic scribbler in the Baltimore Evening Post the tertium quid paper of that place has raised a hue and cry against us, forsooth for plagiarism. As well might the booby affirm that we had stolen our poetry from Cicero's Orations, because we make use of the Roman alphabet. This would-be critic has an undoubted right in a free government, to be a fool, but if he has set up for a wit, his best way, as Swift has it, is to set down again.

The famous spitting affray, and the consequent cudgelling in Congress hall, where

are well known to every body. An appeal to the right of the strongest, became in that instance justifiable, if not unavoidable, in consequence of the obstinacy of the party whose political sentiments agreed with the gentleman, who in that rencounter had the honor to be the cudgellee. It is to be feared, however, that the most forcible arguments of this kind, will not always be sufficiently powerful to make a lasting impression on the headstrong demagogues of this faction. Some political partizans, have shown themselves to be so wilfully blind, obstinate, and ignorant, that the means which we have mentioned in “Terrible Tractoration.”

seem to be the only practicable mode by which they can be enlightened. But this method will not be adopted by the federalists. The more violent demagogues of the now ruling party, it is to be feared, will be the first to sacrifice their leaders, while the latter, like Fayette in France, and like M'Kean in America, strive in vain to hush the hurricane of their own exciting.

The falsehoods, which Callender and others have been paid for propagating, the torrents of abuse which have been poured upon Washington and other patriots, are now, happily for the public, pretty generally traced to their filthy sources. The characters of the men who have been vilified by the scoundrel-gang of Mr. J---n's hirelings, are found to be such as do honor to our country. But their calumniators .... who are they? Cheethams, Pasquins, Duanes .... men who (to talk like an Irishman) had they lived in their native country till this time would have been hung, years ago.

It is a truth which the political history of America makes abundantly manifest, that the principal disturbances which have convulsed the United States, have originated in the intrigues of “imported patriots.” This is a circumstance, which is by no means remarkable, when we consider the habits, attachments, and situations of such foreigners in their native country. Few men are disposed to migrate from the land of their nativity, who are not thereto induced by misconduct, or a turbulent and aspiring disposition. The principle which is denominated patriotism, modern philosophers notwithstanding, is implanted in man by the hand of nature, and he who has divested himself of that principle, either by philosophizing, or by any other still less justifiable means, must have rooted out those moral feelings which are the best security of society. Besides, foreigners who leave their native countries, with a determination to settle in America, are, generally, men who have been accustomed to be governed themselves, and to the amount of their powers, to govern others with a strong arm .... have either themselves been hard pressed by the heavy hand of government, or have been, as members of such government, active in imposing a heavy hand on others. They have, generally, no definite ideas of that temperate liberty, which is as remote from licentiousness as it is from despotism.

All nations, except the American, have found it necessary to lay aliens under certain restrictions, disadvantages and liabilities, which, though they may appear to operate as an hardship on the individuals subjected thereto, are imperiously demanded for the purpose of securing the best interests of the communities in which such aliens reside. If such regulations are necessary in other nations, they will be found pre-eminently requisite in that of America, where, such is the want of power in our rulers, and so delicate is the mechanism of the government, that a single Gallatin may impede, if not stop its wheels. But this subject has been ably discussed in Congress, in the debates respecting the repeal of the Alien Law.

Freedonia is a cant phrase, which certain small poets or prosaic scribblers, we forget which, would have us adopt as an appellative to designate the United States of America. At a time like this, when misrule and licentiousness are the order of the day, there can be but little propriety in coining new phrases to enrich the vocabulary of sedition.

There always is something “rotten in the state of Denmark,” if men of the first abilities are decried by demagogues, and pointed out as proper objects for the jealousy of the people. That the principal talents in America are now in disgrace because they are federalists, none but the most brazen faced partizans will deny. If by talents, however, we are to understand

we must allow the dominant party are far from being deficient. But wisdom and cunning are very distinct attributes, although by many absurdly blended. The former qualifies its possessors to aggrandize society, at the same time that it promotes the interests of all its individuals. The latter is of no consequence to any person but its possessor, and is by him usually employed to exalt himself at the expense of society, or of individuals. Wisdom was well exemplified in Washington, cunning in Jefferson.

Your half wits are, by nature, formed for Democracy. Leaden pated gentlemen, who vainly aspire to eminence in the learned professions, quack-doctors, illiterate clergymen, and blundering lawyers, are the Democracy of nature, and their opposites are, sometimes, styled the Aristrocracy of nature. Between these two sorts of candidates for eminence, there will always exist a covert or an open war. Those who belong to that class in society, which nature intended should move in a subordinate and limited sphere, are rarely contented with their condition, but by means of the little arts of little minds, elevate themselves to an artificial consequence, which terminates in their disgrace and the public detriment.

The impossibility of realizing all these anticipations, must create divisions and subdivisions among the now triumphant demagogues. Those who have been honestly led astray, it is to be hoped, will unite heart and hand with those who have constantly trod the path of Federal rectitude, and form a union of upright and intelligent men, who may yet preserve the nation from the “abhorred gulf” of Democratic tyranny.

Dean Swift, in some of his writings, informs us, that the word Patriot, originated from one Pat-Ryot, a turbulent Irishman who was hung for rebellion, and as we are particularly fond of etymological deduction we have here restored the word to its original orthography.

It is fresh in the recollection of every person, who is in the smallest degree acquainted with the political history of the United States, that Washington did not escape the abuse of the faction now in power. He was said to have been partial to British interests, and reviled in the most unqualified terms, by the Aurora patriots.

No measure of the federal administration, has called forth more abuse from their political opponents, than the raising of a standing army. But many who reprobate that step, and suppose that it led to that step in deep designs of domination, may, perhaps, be convinced that the motives from which it originated were pure, when they peruse the following letter from our beloved and immortal chief, by which he signified his acceptance of the command of this army, which, say the Democrats, was destined to destroy our liberties.

“DEAR SIR,

“I had the honor, on the evening of the 11th instant, to receive from the hand of the secretary of war, your favour of the 7th, announcing that you had, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appointed me “Lieutenant-General, and Commander in Chief of all the armies raised, or to be raised, for the service of the United States.”

“I cannot express how greatly affected I am at this new proof of public confidence, and the highly flattering manner in which you have been pleased to make the communication. At the same time, I must not conceal from you my earnest wish that the choice had fallen on a man, less declined in years, and better qualified to encounter the usual vicissitudes of war.

“You know, sir, what calculation I had made, relative to the probable course of events, on my retiring from office, and the determination I had consoled myself with, of closing the remnant of my days in my present peaceful abode; you will therefore be at no loss to conceive and appreciate the sensation I must have experienced, to bring myself to any conclusion that would pledge me, at so late a period of my life, to leave scenes I sincerely love, to enter upon the boundless field of action, incessant trouble, and high responsibility.

“It is not possible for me to remain ignorant of, or indifferent to recent transactions.

“The conduct of the directory of France towards our country; their insidious hostility to its government; their various practices to withdraw the affections of the people from it; the evident tendency of their acts, and those of their agents, to countenance and invigorate opposition; their disregard of solemn treaties and laws of nations; their war upon our defenceless commerce; their treatment of our ministers of peace; and their demands, amounting to tribute, could not fail to excite in me corresponding sentiments with those my countrymen have so generally expressed in their affectionate addresses to you. Believe me sir, no one can more cordially approve of the wise and prudent measures of your administration. They ought to inspire universal confidence; and will no doubt, combined with the state of things, call from Congress such laws, and means, as will enable you to meet the full extent of the crisis.

“Satisfied therefore that you have sincerely wished and endeavoured to avert war, and exhausted to the last drop, the cup of reconciliation, we can with pure hearts appeal to Heaven for the justice of our cause, and may confidently trust the final result to that kind Providence, who has heretofore, and so often, signally favoured the people of the United States.

“Thinking in this manner, and feeling how incumbent it is upon every person, of every description, to contribute at all times to his country's welfare, especially in a moment like the present, when every thing we hold dear and sacred, is so seriously threatened; I have finally determined to accept the commission of Commander in Chief of the armies of the United States, with this reserve only, that I shall not be called into the field until the army is in a situation to require my presence, or it becomes indispensible by the urgency of circumstances.

“In making this reservation, I beg it may be understood, that I do not mean to withhold any assistance to arrange and organize the army, which you think I can afford. I take the liberty also to mention, that I must decline having my acceptance considered as drawing after it any immediate charge upon the public, or that I can receive any emoluments annexed to the appointment, before entering into a situation to incur expense.

“The Secretary of War being anxious to return to the seat of government, I have detained him no longer than was necessary to a full communication upon the several points he had in charge.

The infamous Callender, a tool and hireling of Mr. Jefferson, thus expresses himself in “The Prospect Before Us:”

“This hoary-headed incendiary (Adams) bawls out, to arms!” “Alas, he is not an object of envy, but of compassion and .... of horror!” Again, “John Adams ... that scourge, that scorn, that outcast of America.”

“We have been governed by one of the most execrable of all SCOUNDRELS. He is, in private life, one of the most egregious fools on the continent.”

“He (the future historian) will inquire by what species of madness, America submitted to accept as her President, a person without abilities, and without virtue; being alike incapable of attaching either tenderness or esteem.” &c.

Democrats have so declared, but as the author of the Pursuits of Literature and some other writers of eminence are involved in a similar charge, we shall not attempt to refute the accusation, but plead the custom of authors in the Court of Criticism in our own justification.

Among other malicious manœuvres of the faction, who have supplanted the friends and followers of Washington, may be numbered the mean attempt to stigmatize Col. Pickering, by corrupting a clerk in one of the public offices. Anthony Campbell, the tool of the party on this occasion, was in 1800 a recording clerk in the office of the Auditor of the Treasury, all accounts having been previously audited and examined by the principal clerk, were registered in the books then entrusted to Campbell. The monies drawn by the Secretary of State were charged to him in those books, but the credits for the application not entered till vouchers were produced of the manner in which the sums were disbursed. Months and sometimes years necessarily expired before vouchers and receipts relative to the expenditures of money destined to the payment of our Ambassadors, and other public purposes in Europe, could be procured from the persons to whom they were transmitted.

Campbell informed some of the deep ones among the democrats, that the books of his department exhibited a large unexpended balance in the hands of Mr. Pickering. Campbell, together with one Gardner, was prevailed upon to become an instrument in the hands of the faction, and give Colonel Pickering's political opponents a view of the books. For this purpose under the pretext of personal accommodation he obtained leave to sleep in the office. A meeting of pure patriots was held at Israel Israel's, corner of Third and Chesnut streets, Philadelphia, among whom were Gallatin, Smilie, Duane, and some others amounting to eight or ten. The books of the Treasury were taken by night to Israel's, the accounts afterwards published in the Aurora transcribed by these scriveners, and the books returned before day light.

The remarks which appeared in the Washington Federalist of April 21, 1802, accompanying a developement of this dark transaction, are so pertinent to the subject that we cannot resist the temptation of transcribing them.

“Can it be supposed that Gallatin, and many others, when they examined these accounts did not know their unsettled state, and the imperfect view which they gave of the disbursement of the public money? And when Mr. Wolcott in his letter dated 23d day of June 1800, in answer to the charge in the Aurora, explained the nature of these accounts, could any one have doubted a moment that the statements so published were imperfect? And yet we find the Aurora with matchless impudence repeating, those charges. Towards Campbell we feel pity and contempt, that he should so far forget his duty as to violate the most sacred obligations of honor and perjure himself to become the tool of a party. But what emotions does the conduct of those excite who instigated him to such infamous practices, who could not only resort to means so base to obtain those documents, but likewise employ them in the manner they did, knowing them to be imperfect. If they were convinced that the charges were just, why did they not at once bring forward an impeachment against Mr. Pickering, or appoint a committee to examine into his accounts? Because they knew the result would be what every subsequent investigation has been, a fair and honorable acquittal. .... They knew what an effect a bold publication of it would have on the honest and unsuspecting yeomanry; men brought up in the simple manners of the country, unpractised in intrigue and unacquainted with the depravity of human nature.”

Gardner the accomplice of Campbell in this underhanded transaction, was rewarded by being appointed consul to Demarara. Campbell attempted to take advantage of his treachery, but Gallatin was too cunning for him, and he received nothing, till threatening a disclosure of the whole affair, an ensigncy at length stopped his mouth.

A committee of the House of Representatives was afterwards appointed for the purpose of examing the account of the late secretaries; consisting of Messrs. Nicholas, Nicholson, Stone, Otis, Griswold, Waln, and Craik, the three first of whom were democrats.

This committee, after a laborious scrutiny, by their report entirely exculpated Mr. Pickering; and Gallatin himself acknowledged that “the whole of the money received by Mr. Pickering, had been applied to public purposes. It likewise appeared that Mr. Pickering not only had not embezzled one single dollar of the public money, but that he had saved to the United States 14,588 dollars, by a purchase of bills of exchange on London, which, with the new school-conscience, he might very conveniently have appropriated to his own use.

Notwithstanding such was the purity of Pickering, the venal Aurora, whose unprincipled editor has done much, very much towards clamouring down every man of merit in the community, published a number or articles, with the title of “Public Plunder,” which contributed not a little to the election of Mr. Jefferson and the establishment of Duane's importance as an editor. In one of these, Duane asserted, that on The 18th of April 1800, Mr. Pickering had drawn upon the treasury for fifty thousand dollars; and that at the time when he drew for this sum he had in his hands three hundred thousand dollars unaccounted for. Duane, likewise declared that Mr. Pickering held in his hands nearly double the amount of both these sums, intimating that he then was delinquent in the enormous sum of seven hundred thousand dollars.

This is one instance, among the many which might be adduced, proving the base means to which certain men have resorted, for the purpose of tarnishing the reputation of those heroes and statesmen to whose exertions we are chiefly indebted for our national prosperity. The falsehoods by which democrats have achieved the purpose of elevating themselves, and disgracing the nation, are thrown aside as soon as by their instrumentality these precious objects are attained. Thus it was said that the war office buildings were purposely set on fire by Mr. Wolcott. Thus Hamilton and M'Henry, with a number of other federal patriots, have been accused of peculation and other crimes, by their political adversaries, but not a single proof of improper conduct in office, has ever been adduced. The effect of these falsehoods, however, has been to stigmatize their characters in the opinion of many of their fellow-citizens, and to put a period to their political existence. If such are to be the rewards of patriotism in America, it is to be feared, it will soon be a plant of rare growth.

The untimely fall of Gen. Hamilton excites emotions, which we shall not attempt in this place to express. Few writers are equal to the task of pourtraying in just colours, the character of that great man, and we cannot forbear entering our critical caveat against the style and manner of some of the eulogies which we have seen in commemoration of his untimely decease. In many of these productions we have observed a strained elevation, a redundancy of rhetorical flourishes, which appear rather to emanate from an ambition to display the talents of the orator, than from feelings of affection for the deceased, or a wish to commemorate his virtues. The expressions of grief are simply pathetic. The fancy never makes wild excursions, when the heart is wrung with anguish. The eulogies, however, of Messrs. Morris, Otis, and some few others, are pure and correct; the effusions of genius, chastened by judgment and taste. From the latter of these performances. I am happy to present the following extract, as it is happily illustrative of that magnanimity and greatness of soul, which distinguishes the real hero, from the bold and aspiring demagogue.

“The principles professed by the first leaders of that (the French) revolution, were so congenial to those of the American people; their pretences of aiming merely at the reformation of abuses were so plausible; the spectacle of a great people struggling to recover their “long-lost liberties” was so imposing and august; while that of a combination of tyrants to conquer and subjugate, was so revolting; the services received from one of the belligerent powers, and the injuries inflicted by the other, were so recent in our minds, that the sensibility of the nation was excited to the most exquisite pitch. To this disposition, so favourable to the wishes of France, every appeal was made, which intrigue, corruption, flattery, and threats could dictate. At this dangerous and dazzling crisis, there were but few men entirely exempt from the general delirium. Among the few was Hamilton. His penetrating eye discerned, and his prophetic voice foretold, the tendency and consequence of the first revolutionary movements. He was assured that every people which should espouse the cause of France would pass under her yoke, and that the people of France, like every nation which surrenders its reason to the mercy of demagogues, would be driven by the storms of anarchy upon the shores of despotism. All this he knew was conformable to the invariable law of nature and experience of mankind. From the reach of this desolation he was anxious to save his country, and in the pursuit of his purpose, he breasted the assaults of calumny and prejudice. “The torrent roared, and he did buffet it.” Appreciating the advantages of a neutral position, he co-operated with Washington, Adams, and the other patriots of that day, in the means best adapted to maintain it. The rights and duties of neutrality proclaimed by the president, were explained and enforced by Hamilton in the character of Pacificus. The attempts to corrupt and intimidate were resisted. The British treaty was justified and defended as an honorable compact with our natural friends, and pregnant with advantages, which have since been realized and acknowledged by its opponents.

“By this pacific and vigorous policy, in the whole course of which the genius and activity of Hamilton were conspicuous, time and information were afforded to the American nation, and correct views were acquired of our situation and interests. We beheld the republics of Europe, march in procession to the funeral of their own liberties by the lurid light of the revolutionary torch. The tumult of the passions subsided, the wisdom of the administration was perceived, and America now remains a solitary monument in the desolated plains of liberty.

“Having remained at the head of the treasury several years, and filled its coffers; having developed the sources of ample revenue, and tested the advantages of his own system by his own experience; and having expended his private fortune; he found it necessary to retire from public employment and to devote his attention to the claims of a large and dear family. What brighter instance of disinterested honor has ever been exhibited to an admiring world! That a man, upon whom devolved the task of originating a system of revenue for a nation; of devising the checks in his own department; to provide for the collections of sums, the amount of which was conjectural; that a man, who anticipated the effects of a funding system, yet a secret in his own bosom, and who was thus enabled to have secured a princely fortune, consistently with principles esteemed fair by the world; that such a man by no means addicted to an expensive or extravagant style of living, should have retired from an office destitute of means adequate to the wants of mediocrity, and have resorted to professional labour for the means of decent support, are facts which must instruct and astonish those, who, in countries habituated to corruption and venality are more attentive to the gains than to the duties of an official station. .... Yet Hamilton was that man. It was a fact always known to his friends, and it is now evident from his testament, made under a deep presentiment of his approaching fate. Blush then, ministers and warriors of imperial France, who have deluded your nation by pretensions to a disinterested regard for its liberties and rights! Disgorge the riches extorted from your fellow-citizens, and the spoils amassed from confiscation and blood! Restore to the impoverished nation the price paid by them for the privilege of slavery, and now appropriated to the refinement of luxury! Approach the tomb of Hamilton, and compare the insignificance of your gorgeous palaces with the awful majesty of this tenement of clay!

“We again accompany our friend in the walks of private life, and in the assiduous pursuit of his profession, until the aggressions of France compelled the nation to assume the attitude of defence. He was now invited by the great and enlightened statesman who had succeeded to the presidency, and at the express request of the Commander in Chief, to accept of the second rank in the army. Though no man had manifested a greater desire to avoid war, yet it is freely confessed that when war appeared to be inevitable, his heart exulted in “the tented field,” and he loved the life and occupation of a soldier. His early habits were formed amid the fascinations of the camp. And though the pacific policy of Adams once more rescued us from war, and shortened the existence of the army establishment, yet its duration was sufficient to ensure to him the love and confidence of officers and men, to enable him to display the talents and qualities of a great general, and to justify the most favourable prognostics of his prowess in the field.

“Once more this excellent man unloosed the helmet from his brow, and returned to the duties of the forum. From this time he persisted in a firm resolution to decline all civil honors and promotion, and to live a private citizen, unless again summoned to the defence of his country. He became more than ever assiduous in his practice at the bar, and intent upon his plans of domestic happiness, until a nice and mistaken estimate of the claims of honor, impelled him to the fatal act which terminated his life.”

Since quoting the above I have perused the oration of J. M. Mason, D. D. commemorative of the virtues and talents of this illustrious man. It is a splendid effort of genius which would have done credit to the pen of a Burke, and appears to have been inspired by a spirit akin to that of the hero it celebrates. We should think the style of the eulogy somewhat too highly encomiastic, were not the subject a Hamilton; but it is scarcely possible to employ too bold a pencil in giving characteristic scketches of such a man.

Some traits of General Hamilton, published in the Boston Repertory, and said to have been drawn up by the Hon. Fisher Ames, are eminently beautiful. The pencil of S. Cullen Carpenter, editor of the Charleston Courier, whose literary productions have acquired him a highly deserved celebrity, has pourtrayed, in letters of light, the principal features in this most distinguished character; indeed the portrait of Hamilton, as drawn by the hands of the writers we have mentioned, ought to be in the possession of every American of taste and sensibillty.

The incessant torrents of calumny, which have been poured on that truly great man, since the fatal rencontre which terminated his existence, exhibits a lamentable proof of democratic depravity. The conduct of a Chronicle scribbler in Boston in particular (said to be the late candidate for governor, Mr. Sullivan) has often called to our recollection the following lines from Churchill:

We would refer our readers to “A Collection of Facts and Documents relative to the death of Gen. Hamilton,” by the editor of the Evening Post.

We have here adorned our poetry with a very judicious rhetorical flourish, quoted from the declarations of the dashing nabobs of the south, who first signalized themselves by their opposition to that instrument. The virulent, and unqualified abuse, which has been heaped upon General Washington. Mr. Jay, and the whole federal party for having given origin to a treaty, which in all probability prevented our participating in the crimes and horrors of the French revolution is scarcely to be paralleled in the annals of political contests. Nothing short of the prudence of a Washington could have stemmed the tide of democratic depravity on this occasion. None, however, of the evils anticipated from this deprecated treaty have taken place, and it is abundantly manifest on investigating the causes of Virginian virulence that self interest was the real motive of the leaders in exciting this alarm.

It appears that the claims of British creditors against Virginia, only as exhibited by their commissioners, appointed under the 6th article of Mr. Jay's treaty, amounted to 8,500,000 dollars, but those against the whole of the New-England states were but a little rising of 100,000 dollars. These claims, although not positive evidences of debts due to their whole amount, yet furnish a clue for a proportional estimate of the debts due from Virginia, and from the New-England states.

No doubt the easiest way for Virginia to pay this debt was, to use the expressions of some of their leaders to “kick the treaty to h---ll.” This they might do, in the course of their proceedings without going out of their way.

It ought not, however, to be forgotten that this obnoxious treaty, and the hostilities committed by England on our commerce in the year 1793, were the consequence of Virginia delinquency and aggression. The legislature of Virginia, in October 1783, passed an act to absolve British debtors from the payment of money, even after their debts had been ascertained by judgments in courts of law. On the other hand the British refused to relinquish the possession of the northern posts. In December 1787, in consequence of an earnest requisition of congress the assembly of Virginia passed an act apparently to repeal all such acts of that state as had prevented, or might prevent the recovery of debts due to British subjects, according to the true intent of the treaty. But took care in a proviso to this act to suspend the repeal, and thereby render it entirely null, under the pretence of infractions on the part of the British, thus arrogating to themselves power, which of right belonged to the general government, and making a mere farce of their own proceedings.

The English, however, not being disposed to relish this kind of treatment, appealed to their ultiam ratio, commenced a war on our commerce, and thus collected their demands by virtue of the authority of their cannon. The immense losses which of consequence fell upon the merchants of the eastern and middle states in the year 1793, by British captures, will not soon be forgotten.

But this was not all. Mr. King in pursuance of instructions of the federal administration, negociated for the payment, at the treasury of the United States, of 600,000l. sterling, nearly three millions of dollars, for losses sustained by British subjects, by legal impediments to prevent the collection of their demands chiefly against these Virginia debtors.

Thus Virginian delinquency cost the United States nearly 3,000,000 dollars, subjected us to those depredations on our commerce in 1793, by which the country sustained immense losses, and laid the foundation for Mr. Jay's treaty, which has [illeg.] so much clamour among our precious patriots against the federal administration.

The standing army, the funding system, and the land tax have each furnished most fruitful topics of democratic declamation, and the party in power by artfully attaching to the federalists the odium, which the mere mention of these bug-bear measures, has never failed to excite, have succeeded in accomplishing their political destruction. We have already shown on what occasion the army was raised. The funding system, the theme of never ceasing clamour, from those who have uniformly opposed every public measure, which had a tendency to promote the honor and happiness of our country, met the unequivocal approbation of one of the greatest giants of the dominant faction. Gallatin in his treatise on the finances of the United States, after finding all the fault he decently could with the measures of the federal administration, has the following remarks.

“Let it not be supposed that any of those reflections are intended to convey any censure on that part of the funding system, which provided for the payment of the interest of the proper debt of the United States. They are designed merely to show that the propriety of that measure must depend solely on its justice. Whether the debt had been funded on the plan of discrimination in favour of the original holders, or those who had performed the services, or, as has been the case in favour of the purchasers of certificates, the general effects would have been nearly the same; and unless the American government had chosen to forfeit every claim to common honesty it must necessarily provide for discharging the principal, or paying the interest to one or the other of two descriptions of persons.”

It is likewise a fact that the land tax “was a measure to which the federalists had been urged for years by their political opponents because they foresaw in it the ruin of their power.” See Bayard's speech on the Judiciary Bill.

Here is displayed a little of this gentleman's sort of cunning. In the name of common sense how was it possible for the government to establish a fund in favour of some individuals, who might hold these securities to the prejudice of other individuals, who might hold the same sort of securities. Shall a promissory note payable to A. or bearer, and purchased by B. not be collected by the latter, because he paid less than its nominal value, and run the risk of the failure of the drawer?

It cannot be forgotten that such was the cry of the demagogue papers from one end of the United States to the other. A committee, however, being appointed to enquire into the causes of the fires, these gentlemen were honorably exculpated, and democrats were under the necessity of inventing new falsehoods to answer the purposes of the party. It happened very providentially, that all the papers which were necessary to show the perfect integrity, not only of Mr. Wolcott, but of the whole Federal administration in fiscal concerns, were saved.

The lie about Robbins the British pirate, so often affirmed by democrats to have been an American citizen, and born in Danbury in Connecticut, has been repeated times without number by the democratic newspapers.

This tale was propagated with an intention to throw odium on Mr. Adams for having directed the criminal to be surrendered to justice. It appears that his letter to Judge Bee, and which has been the ground of all the clamour of Robbins' sympathizing friends, merely directed him to be delivered up if proved to be a British subject and a pirate and a murderer. The man previous to his execution acknowledged himself to be a British subject, and owned that the sentence by which he suffered was just. But Mr. Carleton would not agree to this. This tender hearted gentleman, editor of the Salem Register, and his brethren in iniquity, declared that Robbins was a good man, and an American citizen, and Adams a tyrant, who had been instrumental in his destruction. Indeed it is not very marvellous that a good democrat should feel an interest in the sufferings of one whose life and conversation declared him to be a member of their fraternity.

Carleton has been indicted, found guilty, and punished with fine and imprisonment for publishing a false and malicious libel on Mr. Pickering.

I do not mean to assert that Mr. Jefferson hung, burnt, or guillotined his opponents. But perhaps the means by which the federalists have been “oppugnated,” have been but little less destructive to the sufferers, and but little more honorable on the part of those who have adopted such means. Starving a man and his family, is doubtless, an effectual method of dispatching him.

Most of the federalists, who held offices under the Washington and Adams administrations, had devoted much time and expense to qualify themselves for such offices, and in many instances had relinquished lucrative professions and branches of business, that they might the better perform the duties of those offices. These have been displaced for young and ignorant persons, and in many instances foreigners, whose sole recommendation has been their Jeffersonian politics, while the war-worn veteran who had fought the battles of our Independence, and grown, not only old, but poor, in active services for his country, is prohibited from tasting the fruits of his labours, by the faction which is now dominant, and seems willing “to owe their greatness to their country's ruin.”

To give a catalogue of all the worthies, who have adorned Mr. Jefferson's Proscription list, would be to name almost every honest man who held any office under government, at the time Mr. Jefferson was elected.

The following is a list of a few, who were removed from office, for no other reason than their being obnoxious on account of their political opinions:

John Wilkes Kittera, Attorney for the Eastern District, Pennsylvania; John Hall, Marshal of the same District; Samuel Hogdon, Superintendant of Public Stores at Philadelphia; John Harris, Store Keeper at the same place; Henry Miller, Supervisor of the Revenue of the District of Pennsylvania; J. M. Lingan, Attorney for the District of Columbia; Thomas Iwan, Attorney; John Pierce, Commissioner of Loans for the State of Newhampshire; Thomas Martin, Collector of the District of Portsmouth, in the same state; Jacob Sheaffe, Navy Agent at Portsmouth; Richard Harrison, Attorney for the District of New-York; Aquila Giles, Marshal of the same District; James Watson, Navy Agent for New-York; Joshua Sands, Collector of the Port of New-York; Nicholas Fish, Supervisor of the District of New-York; William Smith, Minister Plenipotentiary to the Court of Portugal; William Vans Murray, Minister Resident to the Batavian Republic; David Humphreys, Minister Plenipotentiary to the Court of Madrid; Elizur Goodrich, Collector of New-Haven, John Chester, Supervisor of the District of Connecticut; Ray Greene, Judge of Rhode-Island District; Winthrop Sargeant, Governor of the Missisippi Territory; David Hopkins, Marshal of the District of Maryland; Andrew Bell, Collector of the Port of Amboy; Aaron Dunham, Supervisor of the District of New-Jersey; James Dole, Marshal of the District of Albany; Robert Hamilton, Marshal of the District of Delaware; Harrison G. Otis, Attorney for the District of Massachusetts; Chauncey Whittlesey, Collector of Middletown, Connecticut; Amos Marsh, Attorney for the District of Vermont; Jabez Fitch, Marshal for the same District; Samuel Bradford, Marshal of the District of Massachusetts; Thomas Perkins, Commissioner of Loans for the State of Massachusetts; cum multis aliis, all good men and true; and we believe that their successors in office have been men, whose talents, reputation, or pretensions to public patronage, could in no way entitle them to take the precedence of the gentlemen who were displaced, had not the spirit of party turned the “world upside down.”

Well might Mr. Bayard observe of such management by the party in power “It is in this path we see the real victims of stern, uncharitable, unrelenting power. It is here, we see THE SOLDIER WHO FOUGHT THE BATTLES OF THE REVOLUTION; who spilt his blood, and wasted his strength to establish the Independence of his country; deprived of the reward of his services, and left to pine in penury and wretchedness. It is along this path that you may see helpless children crying for bread, and gray hairs sinking in sorrow to the grave! It is here that no innocence, no merit, no truth, no services can save the unhappy sectary, who does not believe in the creed of those in power.”

In order to please, if possible, those of our readers who are fond of the “mazes of metaphorical confusion” we have here jumbled together narrative and metaphor in a delightful manner. The Cacus to whom we allude was a sturdy democrat who stole some cattle and hid them in a cave, (very like Mr. Jefferson's.) He was found out however and destroyed by Hercules, and

Mr. Harrison was displaced from the office of District Attorney for having, like Washington, Adams and other Antijacobins, been guilty of the heinous crime of federalism, and Ned Livingstone appointed by virtue of his mighty merits as a democrat. Mr. Harrison, the obnoxious federalist discharged the duties of his office, as his political opponents acknowledge, with ability and fidelity, and was never even suspected of having applied to his own use the people's money. But Mr. Ned took the liberty to appropriate to his own private purposes the trifling sum of one hundred thousand dollars as appears by a judgment obtained against him in the District Court of the United States, and is now living on the people's money, in a stile of genuine extravagance at New-Orleans. If one feels a disposition to be a rogue, what a fine affair it is to be a good democrat!

It is very remarkable that with all the clamour against Messrs. Pickering and Wolcott for pretended defalcations, misappropriations and other malconduct in office, that our good democratic committees, &c. should be so careful to forget to mention the deficiency of Mr. patriot Randolph, former Secretary of State.

Mr. Senator Bidwell the subject of the present eulogium, exhibited the germ of those talents, which have since budded, and blossomed and bloomed in the rankest luxuriance of democracy, in a juvenile production of most astonishing ingenuity, “intitled and called THE MERCENARY MATCH.” From some specimens of that performance with which we have been favoured by the Editor of the Boston Repertory, we are led to suppose that the good goddess of dullness could never boast of a more hopeful pupil. A small calf may make a large bullock, and a stupid and conceited boy is often matured to a very knowing demagogue.

We ought, perhaps, to apologise to our readers for troubling them with remarks on such an insipid thing as the harangue in question. But as this production of Mr. Bidwell may serve as a specimen of the general tenor of the democratic Fourth of July speeches which have fallen within our notice, we hope that our remarks may be of service to such of our young gentlemen of the New School as may be called hereafter to exhibit oratorical talents on any similar occasion.

“By the Declaration of Independence, which has just been read, a Nation was politically born in a day.”

The story of our Nation's being born on the Fourth of July, 1776, has been told us in prose and in poetry, times without number. Mr. Bidwell has added an important appendage of circumstances; and we have taken the liberty to enlarge further on the phenomena attending this birth. In the first place, we learn by Mr. B. that our nation was born very suddenly. Secondly, that in this wonderful birth, the Declaration of Independence acted as accoucheur. Thirdly, that this was a political birth. Fourthly, that all this was done in a day. Fifthly, that this important instrument, or agent, or accoucheur, had just been read. Sixthly, we have taken the liberty to add, that in such a busy season of the year, genuine republican economy should have directed all these operations to have been performed in the night, which, besides a saving of time, would have superadded the advantages of all the silence and solemnity of a Virginian caucus.

“The revolutionary war,” quoth Mr. Bidwell, “occupied a little more than seven years and a half, from the battle of Lexington, on the 19th of April 1775, to the signing provincial articles of peace on the 30th of November, 1782. Highly IMPORTANT!

“The British troops commenced actual hostilities in April, 1775. An army was raised for defence, and George Washington of Virginia was appointed commander in chief.” Surprising intelligence!

The following extract of a letter from General Washington to Charles Carrol of Maryland, dated Mount Vernon, August 2, 1798, several months after passing all those laws, which seem so obnoxious to the party now in power, will show what right they have to claim any advantage from the popularity of his name.

“Although,” says Gen. Washington “I highly approve of the measures taken by government, to place this country in a posture of defence, and even wish they had been more energetic, and shall be ready to obey its call under the reservations I have made, whenever it is made: yet I am not without hope, mad and intoxicated as the French are, that they will pause, before they take the last step. That they have been deceived in their calculations on the division of the people and the powerful support they expect from their party is reduced to a certainty, though it is somewhat equivocal still, whether THAT PARTY who have been THE CURSE OF THIS COUNTRY, and the SOURCE OF THE EXPENCES WE HAVE TO ENCOUNTER, may not be able to continue THEIR DELUSION. What pity it is the expence could not be taxed upon them.”

“With halters about their necks, the signers of the Declaration of Independence set their names to an instrument, which in case of failure, they knew must be their death warrant. Yes, my friend, had the revolution been crushed, they would have been distinguished from common rebels, and signally executed, or exiled.” Very true Mr. Bidwell, but we shall see presently where your party will land with this kind of reasoning.

I would not be understood as intending to satirize the tories as such. There were, undoubtedly, many tories, who were honest men and true friends to their country, but who supposed that opposition to Great Britain was, wrong in principle, and impossible in practice. But since our democrats are stigmatizing the federalists, with this among other unpopular epithets, it becomes necessary to repel the charge as often as it is made or insinuated. I believe it will be found difficult to find any among the native Americans, who took an active part during the revolutionary war against their country, who have not since been induced, by the same kind of time-serving policy, and want of principle to become democrats, and who, like Talleyrand, or the Vicar of Bray are not willing to become any thing and every thing, which interest dictates. See note 19, p. 12.

Mr. Bidwell affirms that the amendment of the constitution, which declared a state not suable by a private citizen, and that which made it necessary to designate by electoral votes the distinct candidates for President and Vice President were republican. If Mr. Bidwell will give the same meaning to the term republican that Buonaparte has ever done, we shall not dispute with him. The republicanism of the latter is but despotism in disguise, and that of the former with a proper analysis will be found to be substantially the same.

The legislature of the state of Georgia, under shelter of its inviolability has been guilty of a flagrant breach of contract—has burnt its records and shaken the pillars of society by striking at the right of property. Similar cases may again happen, and according to Mr. Bidwell's republican amendment, there can no responsibility attach to the violation of a principle, which forms the basis of civilized society. The other republican amendment opens a wide door for intrigue and corruption, takes away a powerful check which the smaller states possessed over the larger, and flies directly in the face of the constitution as it originally stood.

The reasoning of Mr. Tracy respecting this amendment, (falsely so called) one would suppose was irresistible; and indeed we do not pretend to so much charity as not to be induced to impeach the motives of those State cobblers, who by this and other similar proceedings, have frittered away our Constitution, and broken down those barriers which, by the wisdom of its framers, were designed to give stability to society.

The following extract, quoted from Mr. Tracy's speech in the Senate of the United States upon this subject, contains arguments and facts, which ought to have been conclusive against this mischievous innovation.

“The constitution, is nicely balanced with the Federative and the popular principles; the Senate are the guardians of the former, and any pretence to destroy this balance, under whatever specious names or pretences they may be mentioned should be watched with a jealous eye. Perhaps a fair definition of the constitutional power of amending is that you may, upon experiment, so modify the constitution, in its practice and operation as to give it in its own principles a more complete effect. But this is an attack upon a fundamental principle, established after long deliberation, and by material concession: a principle of essential importance to the instrument itself, and an attempt to wrest from the small states a vested right; and by it to increase the power and influence of the large States.”

“Nothing can be more obvious than the intention of the plan, adopted by our constitution for choosing a President. The Electors are to nominate two persons, of whom they cannot know which will be the President, This circumstance not only induces them to select both from the best men; but gives a direct advantage into the hands of the small states, even in the Electoral choice; for they can always elect from the two candidates, set up by the Electors of large states, by throwing their votes upon their favorite; and of course giving him a majority, or if the Electors of the large states should prevent this effect they can scatter their votes for one candidate, then the Electors of the small states would have it in their power to elect a Vice President. So that in any event the small states will have a considerable agency in the election. But if the discriminating or designating principle is carried, as contained in this resolution, the whole agency of the small states, in the Electoral choice of Chief Magistrate is destroyed, and their chance of obtaining a federative choice, by states, if not destroyed is very much diminished.”

Among the sophisms and misrepresentations with which this harrangue is teeming, those respecting our federal judges are not the least mischievous. Mr. Bidwell informs us that “the office of an English judge is and always has been repeatable by an act of the Legislature.” To this we shall oppose the conclusive reasoning of General Hamilton, taken from his “Examination of the President's Message at the opening of Congress December 7, 1801, than which a more able political tract never fell from the pen of a statesman.

“One more defence of this formidable claim” (to wit, of abolishing the offices of the Federal Judges) “is attempted to be drawn from the example of the Judiciary establishment of Great Britain. It is observed, that this establishment, the theme of copious eulogy on account of the Independence of the Judges, places these officers on a footing far less firm than will be that of the Judges of the United States, even admitting the right of Congress to abolish their offices, by abolishing the Courts of which they are members: and as one proof of the assertion, it is mentioned that the English Judges are removable by the King, on the address of the two houses of Parliament.

“All this might be very true, and yet would prove nothing as to what is, or ought to be the construction of our Constitution on this point. It is plain from the provision respecting compensation that the framers of that Constitution intended to prop the independence of the Judges beyond the precautions which have been adopted in England in respect to the Judges of that country; and the intention apparent in this particular, is an argument, that the same spirit may have governed other provisions. Cogent reasons have been assigned, applicable to our system, and not applicable to the British system, for securing the independence of our Judges against the Legislature, as well as against the Executive power.

“It is alleged that the statute of Great Britain of the 13 of William III. was the model from which the framers of our constitution copied the provisions for the independence of the Judiciary. It is certainly true, that the idea of the tenure of office during good behaviour, found in several of our constitutions, is borrowed from that source. But it is evident that the framers of our federal system did not mean to confine themselves to that model.—Hence the restraint of the legislative discretion, as to compensation; hence the omission of the provision for the removal of the judges by the executive, on the application of the two branches of the legislature; a provision, which has been imitated in some of the state governments.” See No. 17 of a series of essays with the signature of Lucius Crassus, originally published in the Evening Post, and afterwards printed in a pamphlet.

Again, says the learned orator Bidwell, “The very act creating the circuit courts expressly abolished pre-existing courts. Yet it was afterwards contended that the courts created by that act could not be constitutionally abolished.”

The truth, however, is, that that act did not abolish pre-existing courts in such a way as to affect the dignity or emoluments of the judges who held offices under the first establishment. The number of the judges of the supreme court was to have been reduced from six to five, and the acreduction was deferred to the happening of a vacancy. But an extract from Mr. Morris' speech will exhibit the fallacy of Mr. Bidwell's reasoning in a point of view which cannot but be conclusive against him.

“It is said, that by this law, the district judges in Tennessee and Kentucky are removed from office, by making them circuit judges. And again, that you have by law appointed two new offices, those of the circuit judges, and filled them by law, instead of pursuing the modes of appointment prescribed by the constitution. It does indeed put down the district courts, but is so far from destroying the offices of district judges, that it declares the persons filling those offices shall perform the duty of holding circuit courts; and so far is it form appointing circuit judges, that it declares the circuit courts shall be held by the district judges.”

Mr. Bidwell in the next place is pleased to inform us, that judges are annually elected in Connecticut. But he does not say that such annual election is brought about by violating the constitution; neither does he say that an independent judiciary would not be a desideratum in that state.

Mr. Bidwell rails at the federalists for levying direct taxes, complains of the permanent offices (contingent he should say) thereby created; and among others, the land tax is an object of his particular animadversion. The act, however, which imposed this terrible tax, was not altogether of federal origin; and if there is any odium to be attached to that measure, (which I deny) our democrats ought, in due degree, to suffer. This will appear from the following statement, every word of which can be abundantly proved from public documents:

“A committee of ways and means, consisting of one member of each state, were appointed for the purpose of devising the best method of raising a tax. The democratic gentlemen, with Mr. Maddison at their head, proposed, and (this having become the opinion of the majority) reported in favour of a land tax, and in consequence Mr. Wolcott was directed to frame a report for that purpose, and present it at the next session of congress, when a report was accepted in favour of the land tax. Mr. Maddison, whose measure it was considered to be, was the man who particularly appeared on the floor as its defender and supporter. It is likewise a fact, that Mr. Gallatin, in his book of finances, has expressly recommended a land tax to the administration.” New-York Evening Post, July 15, 1803.

Nothing can prove more effectually the influence of names, abstracted from the things which they represent, than the circumstance of the federal stamp act having been obnoxious to the middling, and lower classes of the American people. Farmers and mechanics, who perhaps would not be liable to pay a cent a year, were prevailed upon by demagogues to be very much alarmed at the idea of this tax being something dreadful in its nature and tendency,—something like the old British stamp act, in which, not the tax itself, but the right to impose it was the object of dispute. Too many well meaning men were prodigiously frighted at the idea of the stamp act being the harbinger of Federal Monarchy, or some other sort of incomprehensible tyranny. They therefore opposed this terrible measure, and were indulged with taxes on brown sugar, salt and bohea tea, in its stead, by which a revenue is derived altogether from the middling and lower classes. This looks as if it might be possible for the people to be “their own worst enemies.”

We shall not fatigue our readers, with a repetition of those queries. They are in substance merely inquiries whether the people of the United States would be pleased with the re-adoption of the same measures which formerly characterised the federal administration? Whether a land tax, excise law, a standing army, &c. &c. would be again submitted to by the citizens of the United States?

To this we might answer in a word: Similar circumstances might render similar measures not only advisable, but indispensable to preserve our independence as a nation. If a Gallatin should organize an insurrection; if a Gallo-American faction should form a league with Buonaparte, or a French ambassador, aided by wrong-headed and treacherous Americans, should attempt to prostrate our country at the foot of France; if Great-Britain or France should find leisure from their own disputes to commit depredations on our commerce, we shall be under the necessity of again recurring to federal men, and federal measures, or resign our honour, our respectability, and probably, our independence as a nation.

One of the proprietors, and the principal writer in the Boston Chronicle, assumes the signature of Honestus.

This loan which has occasioned so much clamour among our demagogues, was rendered necessary by the dangers which threatened us from France, and from the expences of Gallatin's insurrection. A committee of congress, who were, no doubt, nearly as competent to judge of this business as Mr. Honestus, with the concurrence of Mr. Nicholson, and other democrats, unanimously reported that they saw “no reason to doubt that these loans were negociated on the best terms which could be procured, and with a laudable view to the public interest.”

In proof of this assertion, we would refer to General Washington's letter to Mr. Carrol. See page 163.

Pre-eminently hard is the fate of federalism, and sad is the destiny of the followers of Washington, in being stigmatized with the crimes of their opponents, and criminated for the misfortunes and expenses which were the necessary result of the conduct of their political adversaries. Virginian delinquency caused great depredations on our commerce, and this was imputed to federalism. Democrats organized a whiskey insurrection, which caused great national expenses, these too were said to be the consequence of federalism. The domineering views of France, aided by the French faction in this country, in the opinion of Washington, Adams, and the other sages and patriots who at that time directed our councils, rendered a provisional army necessary. This too was the sin of federalism. But

It is well known that the faction, which has built itself up on the ruins of the Washington and Adams' administrations, have been clamorous in their complaints against the federalists, for their pretended predilection to monarchy. Treatises written expressly in favour of the American government, and of the republican constitutions of the several states have been tortured into meanings quite foreign from the ideas of their authors, in order to suit the nefarious purposes of unprincipled partizans. Private conversation, uttered in moments of conviviality, has been reported and misrepresented, with all the artifice of the most malicious ingenuity. Still we are not informed of any thing more having escaped the lips of any of the leading federal characters than general expressions of apprehension, lest this government should degenerate through anarchy to despotism; and the hon. Fisher Ames, who stands among the most prominent of these pretended monarchy-loving men, has declared in substance, that if monarchy should ever be established in this country, it will be the work of the jacobins.