their rights, or to lay light burdens on them; but the character of the President was too pure and lofty to be assailed by prejudice or party spirit. And yet strange to relate, soon after this period, such was the malignity, or the envy, or the ambition of a very few men, that Washington was insidiously censured, as wanting in republican sentiments, or in firmness sufficient to oppose the plans of the Secretary of finance.

When General Washington appeared in the Senate chamber to take the oath of office,* required by the Constitution, on the fourth of March, 1793, he observed, "I am again called upon, by the voice of my country, to execute the functions of its chief magistrate. When the occasion proper for it shall arrive, I shall endeavor to express the high sense I entertain of this distinguished honor, and of the confidence which has been reposed in me by the people of the United States. Previous to the execution of any official act of the President, the Constitution requires an oath of office. This oath I am now about to take, and in your presence, that if it shall be found, during my administration of the government, I have in any instance violated, willingly or knowingly, the injunctions thereof, I may, besides incurring constitutional punishment, be subject to the upbraidings of all who are now witnesses of the present solemn ceremony."

The office of the President for the first four years, imposed many arduous duties, and no little care and anxiety, in giving a proper direction to the measures and policy of the new government; but the satisfaction of having performed this patriotic service was a sufficient reward for such a man as George Washington. The period, however, had arrived, or was approaching, when the misrepresentations of party was such, as induced many in the country, more or less publicly, to censure the official conduct of that illustrious patriot; and thus to give great disquiet to one who deserved nothing but gratitude and confidence, and who had as keen sensibility of personal honor and reputation, as of moral rectitude, in his public duties. And what greatly imbittered the cup, now given him to drink, was a belief that one of the principal officers in his political family, was not displeased with, but probably encouraged, those unjust and cruel aspersions. Thus, with party disputes,

The oath was administered by William Cushing, of Massachusetts, an associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, who was then in Philadelphia, Chief Justice Jay not being present. John Langdon of New Hampshire, was then President pro tem. of the Senate, and many members of Congress, which closed on the third of March, 1793, were also present.

among citizens of the United States, and hostile aggressions or threats from two great foreign nations, occasions occurred for the exercise of all his firmness and decision, in a wise and patriotic administration of the government.

Hostilities with the Indian tribes on and northwest of the Ohio river, were, indeed, happily suspended in 1793; those tribes nearest to the settlements by the citizens of the United States having entered into friendly and amicable treaties with the national rulers. But the spirit of insuborordination, and of opposition to the excise laws continued in the interior of Pennsylvania, with unabated indiscretion, and some acts of violence, which required both prudence and energy in the chief magistrate; and the conduct both of Great Britain and France, towards the United States, was in several instances such as to demand the utmost caution and wisdom, as well as a correct knowledge of European politics, at that most interesting period.

The government of England was watching to take advantage of any error in our commercial system, for the benefit of that nation, and was disposed to assert all those principles of monopoly and exclusion, which it had long previously maintained in Europe. And in France a political revolution, commencing in 1789-90, with some favorable auspices, as if liberty was the sole object, and thus securing the sympathies of the republican citizens of the United States, was now raging with great violence, attended by various acts of oppression, injustice, and personal cruelty, so as to unsettle the foundation of society and good government; and this dangerous spirit of misrule, this rage for innovation, had an influence with the leaders of that nation, in their conduct towards all other governments. They insisted on the favor and aid of the United States, in the contest in which they were engaged with other European nations. They pleaded their own assistance, formerly granted to America, in the war for liberty and independence against England; and declared that the American citizens were bound to make common cause with France, then engaged in war with the despots of Europe, as they said all the monarchs in that quarter of the world ought to be considered. Had there been but one voice in the United States, both of the people and of their legislators, and that voice in harmony with the chief magistrate of the Union, dictated alike by patriotism, intelligence, and sound discretion, far less would have been apprehended, and far less the real danger to the liberties and peace of the country.

France and England had long been rival kingdoms, and

so frequent the wars between them for several centuries, that they were considered as natural enemies to each other. In the third and fourth years of the French revolution, which began in 1789, the factions which rapidly succeeded one another, the outrages and cruelties committed, under the sacred name of liberty, and the threats of that nation to spread their wild political opinions in other kingdoms of Europe, not only alarmed Great Britain, but led her to arm, for the purpose of checking the revolution, and of restoring, if possible, a monarchical government to that distracted country. In their hostility towards each other, the French and British rulers disregarded and violated neutral rights; and while the former insisted on the United States making common cause with them against monarchy, and especially against the British nation, the latter, supposing an undue partiality for France, in the Americans, committed depredations on their commerce, either to deter the United States from showing any favor to the French people, or to injure that nation, by preventing their receiving supplies from America.

A new minister was sent to the United States in 1793, to remind the people of their obligations to the French nation, and to demand gratitude and assistance on account of benefits received from that country in the war of the Revolution; and he treated the President with great disrespect, if not with insolence, by presuming to dictate what measures he should adopt to favor the views of France. And when he learnt the true character of Washington, who was resolved to discharge his duty to the country, rather than compromit the peace of the nation, he had the presumption to appeal to the people at large, and to demand their aid. There was but one step more to be taken to degrade and dishonor the national character; and that was taken by a certain portion or class of the people, in justifying the insolent interference of this foreign agent.

War had now taken place between France and England; and while many in the United States were disposed to take part with France, from motives of partiality to that nation, or considerations of policy, or a love of republican liberty, the greater portion of the best informed and most prudent were desirous of avoiding a close alliance with either of those nations, and for maintaining a neutral position. This was the decided opinion of President Washington; and, after consulting with the members of his Cabinet, and some other confidential friends, he issued a proclamation, prohibiting all interference by the citizens of the United States,

especially that of arming by sea or land, in aid of either. nation against the other. The immediate cause of the proclamation was the arming of vessels, in some of the southern ports, belonging to the United States, with commissions from the French government and its agents, to commit depredations on the commerce of Great Britain.

M. Genet, then recently arrived as Envoy from the French government, to reside in the United States, authorized and encouraged these proceedings, so inconsistent with the character and policy of the federal administration, which had resolved to maintain neutral ground at that time. M. Ternan, the immediate predecessor of Genet, had conducted with great prudence and discretion, in his official acts and communications towards the American government. The present minister manifested a very different spirit. He brought with him from France, all the enthusiasm for liberty and revolutions, which then prevailed in that nation, and which would allow no intercourse with monarchical governments, but denounced them all as oppressive and tyrannical. Like the extravagant revolutionists in that nation, he demanded that all the friends of civil liberty should unite in war, on the side of France, and that the people of the United States, especially were bound to assist his nation. He could not brook opposition to this dangerous opinion, nor wait for the proper consent and sanction of the federal rulers; but assumed the right to dictate measures such as he wished; and when his plans were disapproved and declared improper by the President, he attempted, though in vain, to excite the people against the government. Happily, for the peace and honor of the United States, with all their love of liberty, the people had a just regard for civil order and legitimate authority; and they gave their approving voice to the course pursued by the executive, in frowning upon this presumptuous foreign agent.

On this difficult occasion, the President, with his characteristic prudence, sought the opinion of his Cabinet, to whom he submitted the following inquiries, in April, 1793,— "Shall a proclamation be issued for the purpose of preventing the interference of citizens of the United States in the war between France and Great Britain? Shall it contain a declaration of neutrality? What shall it contain? Shall a minister from France be received? and, if received, shall it be absolutely, or with qualification? And with what qualifications, if any? Are the United States obliged in good faith to consider the treaties before made with

France, as applying to the present situation of the parties? May they renounce them, or hold them suspended, till the government of France is established? If they have the right, is it expedient to do either; and which? If they have an option, would it be a breach of neutrality to consider the treaties in operation? If the treaties are now to be considered as in operation, is the guarantee in the treaty of alliance applicable to a defensive war only, or to war either defensive or offensive? Does the war in which France is now engaged appear to be offensive, or defensive, on her part? or of a mixed and equivocal character? If, of a mixed and equivocal character, does the guarantee, in any event, apply to such a war? What is the effect of a guarantee, such as that in the treaty of alliance (1778) between the United States and France? Should a future regent of France send a minister to the United States, ought he to be received? Is it advisable to call Congress together, with a view to the present posture of European affairs?"

These questions fully manifest the attention and anxiety of the provident mind of Washington, at this very critical period. He was sensible of the delicacy of his situation, as chief magistrate; and while he must have been aware that he was to give the tone to public measures, he was desirous of obtaining further light from others, than that which he found in his own reflections. The difference of opinion in his Cabinet was particularly unfortunate, in a situation so full of difficulty and doubt. Still he had the firmness to pursue such a course as he deemed just and proper, and at the same time such as promised to be most favorable to the interest and welfare of the country. He well knew, that clamors would be made, and censures heaped on his official character, for adopting a neutral policy; as indications had already been given in various parts of the country, in favor of uniting the destinies of the United States with those of the French nation, and of rushing into war with England, at every hazard.*

66

*The following toast was given at a festival in Philadelphia, in July, 1793, which was attended by respectable citizens, and the Governor of Pennsylvania was a guest. May the sister republics of France and America be as incorporate, as light and heat; and the man who endeavors to disunite them, be viewed as the Arnold of his country. May honor and probity be the principles, by which the connections of free nations shall be determined; and no Machiavelian commentaries explain the text of treaties. The treaty of alliance with France, may they who would violate or evade it, be deemed traitors, and consigned to infamy. May remorse attend that man who would think of opposing the French, while they war for the rights of man. A dagger to the bosom of that man who makes patriotism a cover to his ambition."