declared how much he was for an efficient Government, how much he respected General Washington, and much of that kind.

I told him I would yield to no person in respect to General Washington; that our common friends would, perhaps, one day inform him that I was not wanting in respect to himself; that my wishes for an efficient Government were as high as any man's, and begged him to believe that I did myself great violence when I opposed him in the chair, and nothing but a sense of duty would force me to it. He got upon the subject of checks to Government and the balances of power. His tale was long-he seemed to expect some answer. I caught at the last word, and said, undoubtedly, without a balance there could be no equilibrium, and so I left him hanging in geometry. May 2. Attended Senate. This a day of no business whatever. Langdon came and shook hands very heartily with me. Some of the other New England men shy. Patterson only was at the Senate chamber before me. He passed censure on the conduct of the President; said he made himself too busy. He hinted as if some of the Senate would have taken notice of the gracious officer, if I had not. I told him I was no courtier, and had no occasion to trim; but said it was a most disagreeable thing to contend with the Chair, and I had already held that disagreeable post more than once.

Monday, 4th May. Went early to the post office. As I came back, met General St. Clair. He seemed desirous of speaking with me. Said he had been to my lodgings, and asked me what I thought of the President's new arrangements. It was the first I had heard of them.

He

The President is neither to entertain or receive invitations. is to have levee days on Tuesdays and Fridays, when only he is to

be seen.

I told the General, that General Washington stood on as difficult ground as he had ever done in his life. That to suffer himself to be run down, on the one hand, by a crowd of visitants, so as to engross his time, would never do, as it would render his doing business impracticable. But, on the other hand, for him to be seen only in public, on stated times, like an Eastern Lama, would be equally offensive. If he was not to be seen but in public, where nothing confidential could pass between him and any individual, business would, to all appearance, be done without him, and he could not escape the charge of favoritism; all court would be paid to the supposed favorite, weakness and insignificance would be considered as characteristic of the President, and he would not escape contempt; that it was not thus the General gained the universal plaudits of his

admiring fellow-citizens. I reiterated these ideas in every shape and in every different light I could place them, for nearly half an hour, that we walked in front of St. Paul's church. The General said he wished to collect men's sentiments, and the design was to communicate them to the General. I told him my late conduct in the Senate had been such as would render any opinion of mine very ungracious at court, and, perhaps, he had better never make mention of my name. Much more was said, but not worth committing to paper.

Washington to Hamilton.

NEW YORK, May 5, 1789. DEAR SIR: I beg you to accept my unfeigned thanks for your friendly communications of this date, and that you will permit me to entreat a continuation of them, as occasions may arise.

The manner chosen for doing it is most agreeable to me. It is my wish to act right; if I err, the head and not the heart shall, with justice, be chargeable.

With sentiments of sincere esteem and regard,

I am, dear sir,

Your obedient servant,

GEO. WASHINGTON.

In 4th Hamilton's works, p. 1, is the following letter of Hamilton to Washington:

.

NEW YORK, May 5, 1789. SIR: In conformity to the intimation you were pleased to honor me with on evening last, I have reflected upon the etiquette proper to be observed by the President, and now submit the ideas which have occurred to me on the subject. The public good requires, as a primary object, that the dignity of the office should be supported.

Whatever is essential, that ought to be pursued, though at the risk of partial or momentary dissatisfaction. But care will be necessary to avoid extensive disgust or discontent. Men's minds are prepared for a pretty high tone in the demeanor of the `executive, but I doubt whether for so high a tone as in the abstract might be desirable. The notions of equality are yet, in my opinion, too general and too strong to admit of such a distance being placed between the President and other branches of the Government as might even be consistent with a due proportion. The following plan will, I think, steer clear of extremes, and involve no very material inconveniences:

1. The President to have a levee day once a week for receiving

visits; an hour to be fixed at which it shall be understood that he will appear, and consequently that visitors are to be previously assembled.

The President to remain half an hour, in which time he may converse cursorily on indifferent subjects, with such persons as shall invite his attention, and at the end of that half hour disappear. Some regulation will be hereafter necessary to designate those who may visit.

A mode of introduction, through particular officers, will be indispensible. No visits to be returned.

2. The President to accept no invitations, and to give formal entertainments only twice or four times a year—the anniversaries of important events in the Revolution. If twice, the day of the declaration of independence and that of the inauguration of the President— which completed the organization of the Constitution-to be preferred. If four times, the day of the treaty of alliance with France, and that of the definitive treaty with Britain, to be added. The members of the two Houses of the Legislature, principal officers of the Government, foreign ministers, and other distingnished strangers only to be invited. The numbers form, in my mind, an objection; but there may be separate tables, in separate rooms. This is practiced in some European courts. I see no other method in which foreign ministers can, with propriety, be included in any attentions of the table, which the President may think fit to pay.

3. The President, on the levee days, either by himself or some gentleman of his household, to give informal invitations to family dinners on the days of invitation. Not more than six or eight to be invited at a time, and the matter to be confined essentially to members of the Legislature and other official characters. The Pres✔ident never to remain long at table.

I think it probable that the last article will not correspond with the ideas of most of those with whom your Excellency may converse; but, on further mature reflection, I believe it will be necessary to remove the idea of too immense an inequality, which, I fear, would excite dissatisfaction and cabal. The thing may be so managed as neither to occasion much waste of time nor to infringe on dignity.

It is an important point to consider what persons may have access to your Excellency on business. The heads of departments will, of course, have this privilege. Foreign ministers of some descriptions will also be entitled to it. In Europe, I am informed, ambassadors only have direct access to the chief magistrate. Something very near what prevails there would, in my opinion, be right.

The distinction of rank between diplomatic characters requires attention, and the door of access ought not to be too wide to that class of persons. I have thought that the members of the Senate should also have a right of individual access on matters relative to the public administration. In England and France, peers of the realm have this right. We have none such in this country, but I believe that it will be satisfactory to the people to know that there is some body of men in the State who have a right of continual communication with the President. It will be considered a safe-guard against secret combination to deceive him.

I have also asked myself, will not the Representatives expect the same privilege, and be offended if they are not allowed to participate with the Senate? There is sufficient danger of this to merit consideration, but there is a reason for the distinction in the Constitution. The Senate are coupled with the President in certain executive functions, treaties, and appointments. This makes them in a degree his constitutional counselors, and gives them a peculiar claim to the right of access. On the whole, I think the discrimination will be proper, and may be hazarded.

I have chosen this method of communication, because I understood your Excellency that it would be most convenient to you. The unstudied and uncermonious manner of it will, I hope, not render it less acceptable. And if, in the execution of your commands, at any time, I consult frankness and simplicity more than ceremony or profession, I flatter myself you will not, on that account, distrust the sincerity of my cordial wishes for your personal happiness, and the success of your administration.

I have the honor to be, with the highest respect,

Your Excellency's most obedient and humble servant,

Though out of order, as to date, the letter of President Washington to John Adams, and the reply of Mr. Adams, is here given :

17th May, 1789.

The President of the United States wishes to avail himself of your sentiments on the following points:

1. Whether a line of conduct equally distant from an association with all kinds of company on the one hand, and from a total seclusion from society on the other, ought to be adopted by him? in that case, how is it to be done?

2. What will be the least exceptionable method of bringing any system which may be adopted on this subject before the public and into use?

3. Whether, after a little time, one day in every week will not be sufficient for receiving visits of compliment?

4. Whether it would tend to prompt impertinent applications, and involve disagreeable consequences, to have it known that the President will, every morning, at eight o'clock, be at leisure to give audience to persons who may have business with him?

5. Whether, when it shall have been understood that the President is not to give general entertainments, in the manner the Presidents of Congress have formerly done, it will be practicable to draw such a line of discrimination, in regard to persons, as that six, eight, or ten official characters, including in rotation the members of both Houses of Congress, may be invited, personally or otherwise, to dine with him on the day fixed for receiving company, without exciting clamors in the rest of the community?

6. Whether it would be satisfactory to the public for the President to make about four great entertainments in a year, on such great occasions as the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, the alliance with France, the peace with Great Britain, the organization of the General Government; and whether arrangements of these two last kinds could be in danger of diverting too much of the President's time from business, or of producing the evils which it was intended to avoid by his living more recluse than the Presidents of Congress have hitherto lived?

7. Whether there would be any impropriety in the President's making informal visits; that is to say, in his calling upon his acquaintances or public characters, for the purpose of sociability or civility? And what as to the form of doing it, might evince these visits to have been made in his private character, so as that they may not be construed into visits from the President of the United States? And in what light would his visits rarely at tea-parties be considered?

8. Whether, during the recess of Congress, it would not be advantageous to the interests of the Union for the President to make the tour of the United States, in order to become better acquainted with their principal characters and internal circumstances, as well as to be more accessible to numbers of well-informed persons who might give him useful information and advice on political subjects?

9. If there is a probability that either of the arrangements may take place, which will eventually cause additional expenses, whether it would not be proper that these ideas should come into contemplation at the time when Congress shall make a permanent provision for the support of the Executive ?