KDA V S By JOHH FEN NO, No. 34, NOP CH FIFTH-STREET, ~ "
[No. 5> of Vol. IV.] Saturday, December 22, 175,2.
Fe, tkeG.ilf.rtc. oj the UW'IXLD STatcS.
I" F perseverance can fnpply the want of
JL judgment, Mr. Jeflfcrfon has an excellent
advocate in the writer ofhis " Vindicatioh."'
But I if bis last attempt 11 not fouud
■to involve lliil more deeply the character he
wishes to extricate.
To repel the- imputation on Mr. Jtft'.-iTon,
arifuig from the advirt* which he gave toCon
jrrefs refp4ftingthe debt to France; he not only
lajors to (hew, that taken in all its circqm
ftances it is not of the exceptionable com
plexion ar:rlc•- which it has been represented,
but endeavors to infufe a belief, that the
finfe of the extract originally communicated,
has been altered by the interpolation of cer
tain words as well as by the fuppreUion of a,
part of the paragraph, from which the extraTt
is derived.
Tt will flrike the moll careless observer, as
not a little extraordinary that a person (who
bn un lertakins to state the contents of a let
ith precise accuracy, and even to detest
jte verbal deviation, mult be under
o have access to the original)—Tiould,
ntnJujf tn-t-lu public eye a itct
mfcript of that original, content liim
ith giving his own paraphrase of it, and
I expect that this would be accepted, up
ftrength of his afTurance, that it ex
hibits the genuine contents of the letter, on
the point in dispute contained in one para
graph only—" That the arrangement of the idea
is the fame, and that in fubjiance, nothing has
been added to, or taken from it," thus mo
■deftly offering his own con/lruflion of fubjiance,
the very thing in question, for the thing it
•feif.
That the extract, as given by me, is tor
reft in every materia/ expression, is proved by
the statement in the vindication. That it
is literally correct, I must continue to believe,
until something more to lie depended upon
than coujlruQhc fubjiance,is offered in lien of it.
The information I pollefs, is drawn from
two sources; one a memorandum in the band
writing of a friend, which was given to me as
an exact tranfeript of the words of the letter,
and which was copied verbatim, in the second
of these papers;—the other, a document of
mqucftio .able authenticity.notj o.ng since con
sulted, wh.ch ffates the contents of Mr. Jei»
ferfon's letter in the'following form :—
Mr. Jefierfon suggests that " if there is a dan
ger of the public payments not being punctual,
whether it might not be better that the discon
tents which would then arise, should be trans
ferred from a court, of whose good will we
have so Diacb need to the breasts of a private
' company."
- " That the credit of the United States is
found in Holland, and that it would probably
not- be difficult to borrow iw that country the
whole sum of money due to the court of
France ; and to discharge that debt without
any deduction, thereby doing what would be
grateful to the court, and eftablifiling with
them a confidence in our honor."
This statement in the document alluded to,
serves to confirm the memorandum, in form
as well as substance. Speaking in the third
person, it represents Mr. Jefferfon as fuggejt
ing, " whether it might rot be better, )kc."
whence it is natural to infer, that speaking in
the firft person in the letter, the terms are,
< 4 1 submit whether it may not be better, &C.'*
The form of conveying the idea by way of
question, is common to both vouchers; and
the word u whether", which is also common
to both, p efuppofes the words u I fugged,"
or " I submit," the last being the most accu
rate, and in that view the most likely to have
been used.
It is observable, also, that the fame state
ment difconne&s the two proportions, and
gives them a diftin<sl ar>d independent afpe<st.
The conjunction " But," which is alledged to
be in the original, does not appear in that
statement.
It is poflible, never thelefs, that some imma
terial departures from literal preciflon, may
have found their way into the transcripts,
which are relied upon. But while this con
cefllon, as a hare poflibility is made, it is not
intended as an escape from a rigorous refpon
/ibility for the eflential accuracv of the diJ
clofure. If there be in what has been com
municated as a literal extradl, any expreflion
the leajl matei-a/ i tending to the crimination of
Mr. JefJerlou, which is not to be found in the
original, it is admitted to be inexcufabtp.—
But not having been podTefled of the original,
as has been several times stated, any acciden
tal variation of exprelijon, not affecting at
aH the sense of the quotation, or not affecting
it diiadvar.ta; poufly to Mr.JefFerfo'?,cannot be
admitted to be of moment; in regard either
to the merits wftned fcuffion,or to the fairnefs
oi- procedure. To press such a variance, as
an objedti' n, is to cavil, aud to betray a con
icioufnefs ot weakuefs.
Now, it happen?, that the variance, which
is alledged to exist, it" it has any influence up
on tie mean in 5 of the piA'age, has one favor
able to Mr. Jetferfon; taking it for granted,
that his Apologist has given a true account of
it. This will be seen by carefully contrail ins
the phraseology in the two cases.
The extra ft, as stated by me, is in these
words—" 1) there is a danger of the pui/ic pa<t
vur.ts not being punctual, I submit whether it may
not be better, that the dijcentents winch would then
prije.jiould be transferredjrom a Court, of whcfr
good mil w have fomuct need, to the breajls or *
m ivate company."
Theftatement in the vindication represents,
that Mr. Jefferfon, Having stated the pro
fofition as abave (referring to the propofitiou
for the purchase of tiie debt) obfeives further
upon it, in its relation to this country, that if
/here be a danger our payments may net be puticlua/,
it might be belter, that the d'Jcontents ivktch would
then arije, fhcald be transferred from a court, of
XL'kofegoed will we hnefo much need, to the breafis
fff aptivate company."
All tiie material and exceptionable phrases
are the fame in the two statements—The on
fydm, f s ffet in 1.-ff
Mr. Jefferlbn is made to fuimit in the mode*
formofa "whether it might not be better."
the identicalfenti.r.ent or advice, which, in the
lalt, he is made to convey in the affirmative
tone of an observation, that " it might be bet
ter"—The la ft mode of expression is certainlv
stronger than the firft, and if the feiitiniant
conveyed be, as it undoubtedly is, an impro.
per one, the censure due to it is entreated by
the greater degree ofdeciiion with which it
is exprefied, as being an indication of a more
decided state of mind concerning it—This re
mark, which might otherwise appear nice and
critical, is naturally drawn forth by the at
tempt to have it undo/flood, that the words
" I fuimit whether," which are said to have
been interpolated, have an influence upon the
sense of the clause injurious to Mr. jefferlbn.*
The result i". that the alteration of terms
said to have been mad#, if real, inuft hare
been casual, because ic either does not vary
the sense, or varies it favorably to Mr. Jfcf
ferfon and confequentlv that the charge
which has been brought, rests upon him in its
primitive force, unmitigated by the alledged
change of terms.
In like manner admitting the statement of
whafc-is said to follow as a part of the fame
paragraph, to be truly represented in the vin
dication—it either corresponds with the view
I have heretofore given of the matter, or it
implicates Mr.Jefferfbn in greater reprehenfi
bility than lias been yet charged upon him—lt
either presents an alternative proportion pre
dicated upon the supposition of a Jlate of things
differentf rom that which is the basis of the fir ft,
namely, the danger of a deficiency of means
for pundlual payment, and in that cafe does
not derogate from the firft or proceeding
upon the supposition of the fame [late of things,
it contains advice to Congress to avail them
fclves of the yet found state of their credit in
Holland, treacherously to induce individuals
upon the invitation of the government to lend
their money on the ordinary terms, for the pur
pose of making full payment to France, in
order to guard her from loss, and preserve
her confidence, in direst contemplation of not
being able to render the stipulated justice to
those individuals. If this was the advice of
Mr.Jefferfon,it leaves his condufl without e
ven chose flight extenuations which have been
supposed to afford a semblance of apology.
It takes away the feeble pretexts deduced
from the offer having originated with the
Company, and from their gaining a considera
ble boon in the firft purchase.
The last, I acknowledge, is the construc
tion best warranted by the ftrudhire of the pa
ragraph as delineated in the vindication.—
This, as it there Hands,would be the most ob
vious and natural reading.—lf there be a
danger that our payments may not be punc
tual, it may be better that the dificontents
which would then arise (houJd be transferred
from a Court of whose good will we have J"o
much need to the breasts of a private compa-
ny. But still it has occurred to me that we
may do what is preferable to accepting the
proposition of" the Dutch Company. VV - J may
find occafton to do what wouid be grateful to
the Court of France, and establish with them
a confidence in our honor. Our credit is good
in Holland— .:ay it not be poflible then to
borrow there the four and twenty millions
due to Franc?, and pay them the n-hole debt at
once. This, belides transferring the d.fcon
tents, to be fexpefted from the want of punc
tual payments, from the Court of France, to
the breads of individuals would ha\e the fur-
ther advantage of laving that court from any
loss on our account. It is in this sense only,
that the firft suggestion can be considered as
over-ruled bv, or absorbed in the lad, and
that Mr. Jefferfon can be said to have dis
countenanced the proportion made by the
Dutch Company. If tins be the meaning in
* The zvords u might not be better," are also
said to have been interpolated—though all but the
not" are in the quotation made by the Vindi
cator ) a ffecjmen of his accuracy.
233
} ~
tended to be contended for, no pains will be
taken to dispute it j and the comment will be
left to Mr. Jetfcrlon's molt partial admirers.
• rT Wl 'lter.of the vindication continues to
inlift,that Mr.Jefferfon was only the vehicle of
communication, afligning as reasons for this
afiei tion that the tranfaftion had taken place
between t!ie parties, before any mention was
made ot it to him, and that in communicat
ing it to Congress he only made known to that
f body the desire both of the company and of th e
'rench Court ; That the opimon which he gave
rose out ef the proportion, aim in furthering of the
views oj tt.t parties, and that in fact no ilea [ton
fould be formed on it, either by the Congress
or himfeif, without a comparifun of the par
ties as creditors of the United States. But
these reasons do not prove ihat Mr. Jeflerfon
was onlv the vehicle of communication ; they
prove th« contrary ; that he was both the ve
hicle of communication, and the patron, though
iiot the author of the proportion. The precise
difference betweeu being the mere vehicle, and
heiii" both the vehicle and the patron of a propo
rtion coniifts in this ; that in the tirfi cafe
th» rtaci.iwthing mo-" c«rJ;->ani
pi'wpofition—in the lait he gives an o
frnion arijinv out of it; in furtherance of the views
of the proposers; which is exactly, what is ac
knowledged to have been done byMr.Jeflerfon.
The plea that there could be no immorality
or indelicacy, in efpoultng a proposition coming
from the parties interested, amounts to no
thing. Tbe charge is not, that advice was
given to accede to the proposition ; but that
advice was given to accede to it upon a ground
whick was dijhonorable and unjujl. It is the con
dition upon which tile acceptance is advised,
that constitutes the culpability.
In No. 4 of the vindication, the attack up
on Mr.Jeflerfon is said to proceed {ram private
revenge. In No. sit changes its nature, aid
becomes an attack upon printiples ; a monarchi
cal plot against the republican character of tbe
community. How long, and how often are
the people of America to beinfulted with this
hypocritical rant ? When will these political
phapifees learn, that their countrymen have
too much dHcernment to be the dupes of their
holtjtw andoftentatious pretentions ? Tliat the
citizens of the United States know how to
tliftUjgaifli the men wtio fervt theirs, fucntt
thofd to ho only flatter them, the men who
have substantial claims to their confidence,
from those who study to conceal the want of
qualities, really solid and uleful, under the
malic of extraordinary and exclusive patriot
ism and purity ?
It is curious to observe the pathetic wail
ings which have been produced by the an'u
madverfions in these papers. It would seem
as if a certain party considered themselves as
the sole and rightful censors of* the Republic ;
and every attempt to bestow praise or blame
not originating with them, as an usurpation
of their prerogative, every ftri&ure on any of
their immaculate band as a { bieach of their
privilege. They appear to think themselves
authorized to deal out anathemas, without
measure, or mercy, against all who dare to
swerve from their standard of political ortho
doxy, which are to be borne without retali
ation or murmur. And if any symptom of
either lliews itfelf, they are sure to raise the
dilmal cry of persecution ; themselves the
firft to a flail, and the firil to complain. But
what is not permitted to men who have so
clearly established a title, little less than di
vine, to a monopoly of ali the patriotic vir
tues !
The onlyanfwer, which is due to the feint
of offering to enter into arrangements, for
ascertaining whether the writer of thele pa
pers has in the instance under coniideratton
been guilty of milreprefentation—and the
breach of an official duty—is to remind the
public that in my firlt paper I declared my
felf willing to be known on proper terms to
tlie officer concerned. To this I adhere, in
the spirit of the original intimation, but I
deem a personal disclosure to any subaltern
of his, improper ; nor do I perceive that it is
in the present cafe necelTary to an investiga
tion of fadts. The writer of the vindica
tion admits in fubllance what is aliedged, and
as to his collateral statements, it has been
shewn that they imply more blame on the
character meant to be exculpated, than was
originally charged. I forbear any comment
on the ii decency of naming upon conje&ure
the peri on who has been named as the author
of the e papers, or upon the palpable artifice
of nviking an avowal of them, by that parti
cular jjc'i son, the condition of a disclosure of
the name of the writer of the vindication.—
Indecency and artifice are the proper wea
pons of such adversaries.
For the GAZETTE oj the UNITED STATES.
ON THEATRICAL AMUSEMENTS.
SUMPTUARY laws, or Jaws to regulate
the expences of t;:e citizens, are justly
condemned. They are tyrannical and odious
in their nature; and generally fail in the ex
ecution., They may k© expe&ed to languiih
between life and death for a time-am! then
as they are repugnant. to tatioiial Irbeitv,
drop into negleft.-»Do&or Franklin l-ai uj?.dc-
KMne very jtift remarks, fuewing how ih^de
fire of pofieffing certain finery inert* r v . ( | t | ie
teniale labor that was to pavi'urit. Kis ideas
ave been publiflied in inoft of o»,r (ijzetln
and need not be repeated. When a mantakes'
tne pains to earn money, he seems to have the
best right to fay how. lie will spend it—or if
he chnfes to lock it up, and not ijiend it at all
lie has the exclusive right to do it. '
What then aie we to fay to laws prohibiting
the Tneatre ? It is a law to prevent expence
m ainuiements.—Why Ihould not other amule
ments be prevented for the fame reafoo. They
all cost money. And as to morality, borfe
racing, or a militia review, or a feaft to cele
brate the 4th of July, do not probably cost less.
or aid morality mo re, than a tr»gedy or a co
medy. Y e t it would be thought rather an
alarming exercise <Jf pov.it to retrain us by
' ;iw ' rnm going to places *lief«,jt is probable
bets may be laid, or merry, perhaps ludeoerft
songs, may be sung, or labor mav hedrav.-n oif
for a whejr {Vy to lfare a: a cro'wl. or ro de.
" r "y its vigor hy er» elfivedrinkilig, 'file pi in»
ciple that umufements which may produce
immorality are to fee prohibited, will carry
the government that adopti it to ury Jrcat;
lengths. Yet this principle is coatendtd frr
bv very sober ami worthy persons, in rigsrd
to the theatre, who would be ft*rtled *t i|j
beißg carried as far as it will bear. * •
Is it not better therefore to leave.people at
liberty to fp«nd their money as t JC7 chulfc,—
Tiiey *ill lears prudence—or if they (houid
not, their imprudence will afford awarning to
others. But if that Qiould fail to warn them,
prudence is a Quality of the mind, and is not
t« be provided by law. If the liberty which
as free agents the citizens are entitled to e*'-
ercife in the disposal of their meney, ihould
produce breaqhej of the peace, w any other ,
violations of law, there are ast» enough jind
magistrates to apprehend, try And puniA the
offenders. Either let the lit*« against the
Theatre be repealed, or let the system of pro
hibition be carried thro', so as to break iiji ail;
amusements which are liable to any alu e-
Mr. Russeli,
IN Mr. Kreneau's National Gazette,
there is an indirect, but lufiici
ently intelligible infitiuatioß, that
the old republican fpiric of Ameri
ca, has been rather obfmred for
some time palt in the Ncvi-Enpland
States.
The persons throughout the uni
on who liill feel and reverence the
old republican spirit are not a few.
—It is evidently the delign of the
writer of the paragraph alluded to,
to create a jealousy against the New-
England principles, and, to effect
that, it is endeavored to ftigniatife
them as anti-republican.
Polfibly local prejudices, (which
alas ! are not quite dead, though
dying,) may alfift the currency of
this infinuatiou, and parties without
believing may not blufli to afFec't to
believe it. Therefore some nntice
of the slander seems properfrom cit -
cumrtances, though none is due to
it from its weight. Such as examine
afiertions with care may be easily
convinced, and such as do not, ate
not worth the convincing.
Men of inqniry will search for the
anti-republican spirit of the New-
England dates in their constitutions
and laws, their institutions, or their
manners and cuftgms. If this evil
spirit should not appear in auy of
these, where does it lurk ? This is
bed known to the malignant para
graph-writer who ltigmatifes a dif
trift of country containing more
than a million of people, all free.
Anti-republican principles mult
be supposed to intend such as are
oppolite to a jlift equality of rights
and of power.
The constitutions of the New-En
gland states breathe the fpixit--of
pure repubiicaii--eqtiairryrE;ie<fti
ons are ires—are freqnenc, and th«
right of fufFrage is not confined to
landholders, as in Virginia, but is
extended to almost all the citizen*.
of full age, who also may be chosen
to office. The laws divide eitafes
without even favoringthe eldest son
—they protedt no rich or greMnia»
CATULLUS.
[Whole No. 581.1
FROM TO& LVLVMB.'/Hf IHMIXSZ.