cond party was not for the abolition of the State governments, nor for the introduction of a monarchical government in any form; but they wish to establish such a system as would give their own States undue power and influence in the government of the other States.

"A third party was what I consider truly Federal Republican (or Democratic.) This party was nearly equal in number with the other two."

The leader of the monarchical party was Alexander Hamilton. He introduced, for the consideration of the Convention, the draft of a Constitution which elected a President for life, and invested him with the power pointing the Governors of the States, with a veto on the legislative acts of the States, and many other similar

of ap

powers, which would have made the Federal Government a monarchy in everything but name.

This proposition had few advocates in the Convention, and no portion of Hamilton's draft was incorporated in the Constitution finally adopted by the Convention.

On this subject Colonel Humphreys wrote to General Washington, on the 20th of January, 1787: "They (the States) have a mortal reluctance to divest themselves of the smallest attribute of independent, separate sovereignties."

In every conceivable way did the consolidationists strive to incorporate their principles into the new Constitution, but in every case they were foiled by the vigilant friends of State sovereignty. So averse was the Convention to everything that implied consolidation, that it voted to expunge the words National Government from the Constitution, and insert in its place United States. In everything the Republican, or Democratic party, triumphed, and it was supposed that the

consolidationists, or the monarchist party, were silenced forever. The debates, in all the States, on the adoption of the Constitution, demonstrated that, had the instrument failed to preserve the independence and sovereignty of the States unimpaired, not a single State would have ratified it. But though defeated in everything, Hamilton never abandoned his admiration of the monarchical principle of government. He was ever the eulogist of the English, as "the best and wis est system of government on earth." Though defeated in the Convention that framed the Constitution, his party did not die. It did much to embarrass the administration of Washington with heresies of consolidation, by giving broad and unwarranted constructions to the Constitution, which they had failed to mould to their liking. Under such phrases as "implied powers," and "necessary powers," they vainly tried to twist the new Constitution into something like the instrument they wished to frame in the Convention. In this respect Washington's Cabinet was equally divided. Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury, and Gen. Knox, Secretary of War, were for the widest latitude in construing the Constitution; while Jefferson, Secretary of State, and Edmund Randolph, Attorney-General, were strict Constructionists. Hamilton and Knox seemed to regard only the powers which had been delegated to the Federal Government, and these they magnified in every conceivable manner, by the broadest latitude of construction, while Jefferson and Randolph held on to the powers reserved to the States, by a strict construction. Hamilton and Knox were military men, and they na

turally sought the utmost strength in the instrument of government; while Jefferson and Randolph were civilians, who interpreted that instrument with the same strict rules that an impartial judge expounds the law. And be sides, Randolph's plan of a Constitution had, in the main, been adopted by the Convention, and he, therefore, best understood its "powers." Among the people, Hamilton had a few followers in the New England and Middle States, while the statesmen and the people of the southern States were, with Jeffer son, for a strict interpretation of the Constitution, and for a Republican, or Democratic government.

Washington was a most cautious and conscientious executive, who adhered faithfully to what he believed to be the true intent of the Constitution; and, during his administration, the monarchical proclivities of Hamilton and his party were held in check. In reviewing the opinions of Hamil ton, thirty years after they were in Washington's cabinet together, Jeffer

son says:

"Hamilton was not only a monarchist, but for a monarchy bottomed on corruption. He was a most singular character. Of acute understanding, disinterested, honest in all private transactions, amiable in society, and duly valueing virtue in private life; yet, so bewitched and perverted by the British example, as to be under a thorough conviction that corruption was essential to the government of a nation."

Governor Sullivan, of Massachusetts, in his most valuable work enti tled, Public Characters and Public Events, from the Peace of 1783 to the Peace of 1815," gives the following interesting account of a conversation at a cabinet dinner, as narrated by Jef ferson:

"While Washington was absent, Jefferson invited the members of the cabinet, and Mr. Adams, to dine with him, to consult on Genet's movements. After dinner Mr. Adams said: Purge the British Constitution, and give to its popular branch equality of representation, and it would be the most perfect Constitution ever devised by the wit of man.' Hamilton said: 'Purge it of its corruption, and give to its popular branch equality of representation, and it would become an impractical government. As it stands at present, with all its supposed defects, it is the most perfect government that ever existed."

On the subject of Hamilton's admiration of monarchy, Mr. Jefferson says: "Mr. Butler tells me that he dined last winter in company with Hamilton and others Hamilton declared openly that there was no stability, no security, in any kind of government but a MONARCHY."

Again, under date of December 27, 1797, Jefferson says: "Finch Cox tells me that a little before Hamilton went out of office, (three years before,) Hamilton said: "For my part, 1 avow myself a monarchist; I have no objection to a trial being made of this thing called a republic, but," &c.

Mr. Hamilton never disguised these scutiments. He never let an occasion pass to praise the British monarchy as "the best government ever devised."

But while Washington was President the monarchist party were allow ed to make no headway in the councils of the Confederacy. No sooner, however, than John Adams was seated in the executive chair, than the cloven foot of monarchism, which the Convention that framed the Constitution supposed it had lopped off, made its appearance again On this subject Mr. Jefferson said:

“Mr. Adams had originally been a Republican (Democrat.) The glare of royalty and

nobility, during his mission in England, had made him believe their fascination to be a necessary ingredient in government. Kis book on the American Constitution had made known his political bias. He was taken up by the monarchical federalists in his absence, and on his return to the United States he was by them made to believe that the general disposition of our citizens was favorable to monarchy."

Under date of Dec. 26, Jefferson says: "Langdon tells me that Adams (in allusion to votes given for Clinton,) gritting his teeth, said: 'Damn 'em, damn 'em, you see that elective government won't do.'"

The election of Mr. Adams to the Presidency, or the accession to power of the monarchist party, which was so signally baffled in the Federal Constitutional Convention, was the destruction of liberty in America for the time being. During the whole of Mr. Adams' administration a complete reign of terror afflicted the whole land. The "Alien laws" put every American in the United States completely at the mercy or whim of the President, and the "Sedition Act" put the liberty and personal safety of every Democrat at the disposal of his caprice or malice. Democrats were mercilessly thrown into dungeons, or knocked down in the public streets with impunity. Their printing offices were destroyed; their editors were seized and imprisoned for uttering the slightest syllable against the despotic acts of the President. The extent to which this despotism was carried may be understood when we mention the fact that Gen. Sumpter was knocked down in a theatre in Philadelphia, with a cane in the hand of one of the satraps and spies of the federal administration, because he did not rise and take off

his hat when it was announced that the President was coming in. Gen. Sumpter was an old man, as ripe with honors won in the service of his country as with years. But age, and virtue, and patriotism, commanded no respect, unless they bowed to the regal march of monarchy-a king President. The following letter is a specimen of the adulation and subserviency with which his followers addressed him :

States:

We should believe such stupidity impossible, were we not made familiar with similar disgusting events at the present moment. The author above quoted says further: "Those addresses which were not couched in the most submissive terms, were treated with the greatest contempt. One of this nature was transmitted in June, 1798, by some officers and soldiers of the Jersey militia. They said that they did not acknowledge an implicit ap

"We, the subscribers. inhabitants and citizens of Boston, in the State of Massachusetts, deeply impressed with the situation of

of uniting with firmness at this interesting orisis, beg leave to express to you, the chief magistrate and supreme ruler over the United States, our fullest approbation of all the measures, external and internal, you have pleased to adopt, under direction of divine authority.

"We beg leave also to express the high and elevated opinion we entertain of your talents, your virtue, your wisdom, and your prudence; and our fixed resolution to support, at the risk of our lives and fortunes, such measures as you may determine upon to be necessary for promoting and securing the honor and happiness of America.

"Boston, 1st May, 1768."

The "alarming situation of our country," referred to in this letter to the supreme ruler, was only the popular indignation at the despotic measures of the President and the party then in power. All the excitement there was, was of their own creation.

aversion to an English alliance and a French war; they ascribed the calamitous situation of the United States to the influence of interested commercial characters, and of the internal faction that had formerly resisted the American Revolution; they wanted Mr. Adams to beware of surrounding flatterers, and of men who panted to speculate in the spoils of war. Mr. Adams returned them an answer censuring them in severe terms for presuming to call a government of their own choice a party."

Speaking of the "British faction" in America of that day, the same intelligent and impartial historian says: "These factions admired John Adams, because John Adams admired the British Constitution, and cursed the French Republic. They bestowed unbounded panegyrics upon Alexander Hamilton for the same reason. They thought the administration and the government ought to be confounded and identified; that the administration was the government, and the govern ment the administration; aud that the

people ought to bow in tame submission to its whims and caprice." It does not need one to come from the dead to tell us that we have the same party now in power again in the United States. The secret of all John Adams' mis-administration was that, like Hamilton, he really despised the Democratic nature of the Constitution of the United States. He had a great contempt for the simplicity of RepubHican governments. John Langdon, in a letter to Samuel Ringold, dated at Portsmouth, October 10th, 1800, says: "In a conversation between Mr. Adams, Mr. Taylor, and myself, Mr. Adams certainly expressed himself, as far as my memory serves me, in the very words mentioned in your letter, viz., that he hoped, or expected to see the day when Mr. Taylor and his friend Mr. Giles, would be convinced that the people of America would not be happy without an hereditary chief magistrate and senate, or at least for life." The partizans of Adams and Hamilton, as late as the 9th day of May, 1798, at a public occasion in Philadelphia, made the night ring with such songs as "Rule Britania" and "God save the King."

In a letter of Mr. Adams to Timothy Pickering, purporting to give a short history of the writing of the Declaration of Independence, and complaining of certain phrases in it, he said: "There were other expressions which I would not have inserted if I had drawn it up, particularly that which called the King a tyrant." It is not surprising that Mr. Adams should think so; for, if John Adams was not a tyrant, King George may well escape that ignominy. The suf fering of the Hon. Mathew Lyon, Re

presentative from the State of Vermont, under Adams' administration, was only one of many similar cases. The charge against Mr. Lyon was, "writing a letter to Mr. Spooner, printer of the Windsor paper, containing artful and indirect accusations against the President of the United States, imputing corruption in his appointment of men to office, and insinuating that he is devoted to a fondness for ridiculous pomp and idle parade." For this offence Mr. Lyon was arraigned. The judge and jury were the tools of the President. Lyon was found "guilty." Judge Patterson, after expatiating upon the heinous crime of ridiculing the President, passed sentence in the following language:

"Matthew Lyon, it is the pleasure of this Court that you be imprisoned four months, pay costs, and a fine of one thousand dollars, and stand committed until the judgment be complied with."

Col. Lyon was then conducted out of Court, and thrown into a dungeon six feet square, where he was allowed to starve almost to death during a ri gorous winter.

No monarch in Europe of that day assumed such power over the person of the people as this king-aping President and his party. The Congress was his tool; so were the judges and the courts. As in a day, the Republic seemed to have fallen, and a monarchy and despotism taken its place. And there is no doubt that just before the expiration of the Adams' term a plot was thoroughly matured to overthrow the government for the kind of monarchy which the Hamilton party had tried to set up in 1787. While the balloting was going on in the Con