338 JEFFERSON AND THE MAZZEI LETTER. despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty, British merchants and Americans trading on British capital, speculators and holders in the banks and public funds, a contrivance invented for the purpose of corruption, and for assimilating us in all things to the rotten as well as the sound parts of the British model. It would give you a fever were I to name to you the apostates who have gone over to these heresies, men who were Samsons in the field, and Solomons in the council, but who have had their heads shorn by the harlot England. In short, we are likely to preserve the liberty we have obtained, only by unremitting labors and perils. But we shall preserve them; and our mass of weight and wealth on the good side is so great, as to leave no danger that force will ever be attempted against us. We have only to wake and snap the Lilliputian cords with which they have been entangling us during the first sleep which succeeded our labors." * But when this letter reached the United States, its form was entirely different. Phrases had been changed, whole sentences rearranged, and new meanings given to words; in fact the letter was so garbled as to leave little semblance to the original.† Of course the Federalists knew nothing of this, and cared less, so long as it gave them a good pretext for renewing their attacks upon the French party in the United States. They were the more elated as the letter, containing expres * Ford's ed. of Jefferson's Writings, vol. vii., pp. 75-77. Mr. Tucker (vol. i., pp. 519-528) undertakes an elaborate and studied defence of the passage above quoted from the letter to Mazzei; with what success the student may judge by a careful perusal. (See also, vol. ii., p. 25.) On the other hand, Chief Justice Marshall, in a note at the end of his Life of Washington, bestows a searching and severe examination upon the Mazzei letter. See also Morse, Thomas Jefferson, pp. 182-187; Parton, Life of Thomas Jefferson, pp. 533–534. † See Jefferson's letter to Madison, August 3, 1797, in Ford's ed. of Jefferson's Writings, vol. vii., pp. 164-167. sions hostile to the government, had emanated from no less a personage than the Vice-President himself, perhaps the foremost champion of the French cause in America.* As a result, Jefferson was vigorously assailed in the Federalist press, and it was declared that if a private person had written such a libel on his country it might have been overlooked, but to have such a communication come from a Vice-President was treason, and that he ought to be impeached.† But Congress had other things to do, and the impeachment cry went unheeded. This letter raised considerable furor and was the subject of many editorials from Republican and Federalist editors, but it did not arouse nearly as much excitement as the publication of some of Hamilton's letters. Some years prior to this time, a man named Clingman had been arrested for attempting illegally to collect a debt due from the United States. He asked to see Speaker Muhlenberg, and told the latter that his partner, James Reynolds, and Alexander Hamilton were also implicated, and that Reynolds could still further damage Hamilton's reputation. Muhlenberg imparted this information to Abraham Venable, a Representative, and to Monroe, and the three promised Clingman freedom if he would tell all he knew. But on being set free, HAMILTON AND THE REYNOLDS SCANDAL. Clingman fled, leaving Monroe and Muhlenberg to obtain the information from Mrs. Reynolds, who produced two notes of a disagreeable nature. from Hamilton. The substance of these conversations was put into writing, signed by Clingman, and then laid before Hamilton. He confessed to be the author of the notes and admitted that for several months past he had carried on an amour with Mrs. Reynolds, with the husband's connivance, but he said the husband had blackmailed him out of hundreds of dollars, until at last he had refused to pay any more.* Reynolds then threatened to use his letters to revenge himself. Hamilton asked Monroe and the others for copies of the papers in their possession, and requested also that they be kept from their owners lest they be put to a malicious use. These copies were sent, Monroe promising that Hamilton's request would be "most strictly complied with." But in 1794, when Monroe went to France, he gave these letters into the possession of "a respectable character in Virginia," evidently for safe keeping. In 1797 a History of the United States for 1796 appeared, of which the author was James T. Callender. In numbers 5 and 6 of this History appeared copies of those documents which Monroe had promised Hamilton would never be put to a mischievous use, and which Monroe had given to the "respectable Virginian," who, McMaster says, was 339 undoubtedly Jefferson.* Monroe was then asked to explain matters, which he declined to do; and as one of these letters intimated that Hamilton was guilty of misconduct in a high place of trust, Hamilton caused his correspondence with Mrs. Reynolds to be published with a plain statement of his crime. Undoubtedly this mortifying disclosure struck like cold steel at Hamilton's proud spirit, and all the more so because he could not confess without condemning himself" for the pang he had inflicted on a bosom eminently entitled to all his gratitude, fidelity and love." Though the Federalist idol, long ranked with Washington for spotlessness of life, had now been hurled from his pedestal, yet the public, like her who had suffered most, readily condoned the offence, and even Hamilton's opponents soon dropped the story.‡ This caused great joy to the Republicans, but they were soon cast into gloom by the disclosures regarding a conspiracy on the part of a Republican Senator. On July 3, 1797, President Adams sent a mes * McMaster, vol. ii., pp. 336-338. Hildreth (History of the United States, vol. v., p. 111) also suspects Jefferson. † Bassett, Federalist System, pp. 216-217. This pamphlet by Hamilton, known as the " Reynolds pamphlet," is called Observations on Certain Documents, Contained in The History, etc., in which the Charge is Fully Refuted, Written by Himself (Philadelphia, 1797). It was reprinted by the Hamilton Club in 1865 and is included in Lodge's ed. of Hamilton's Works. Callender replied with more virulence than ever in Sketches of the History of America (Philadelphia, 1798). Schouler, United States, vol. i., pp. 375-376. 340 PROPOSED INVASION OF SPANISH TERRITORY. sage to Congress* in which he transmitted some reports and documents from the Secretary of State and the Secretary of War, showing that certain citizens of the United States planned to invade Spanish territory.† A man by the name of Chisholm had proposed to Robert Liston, the English minister to the United States, that an expedition be sent against the Floridas, but Liston objected, on the ground that it would violate the neutral rights of the United States. Chisholm finally obtained permission to go to England to lay the matter before the British Government, and was furnished with letters to the authorities of that nation. But he could not keep the secret, and, before sailing, explained the whole matter to James Carey, of Tennessee, an interpreter to the Cherokee Indians. Carey mentiond the matter to Senator William Blount, of Tennessee, who at first made light of the matter. But on April 21, 1797, he wrote to Carey saying that the expedition would probably take place in the fall, and, if the Indians would aid, it would be attended with success. Blount said that in all likelihood he himself would lead a part of the British forces. He cautioned Carey, however, against allowing the matter to become public. * Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. i., p. 248; John Adams, Works, vol. ix., p. 154. These documents will be found in American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. ii., pp. 6677. The letter in full is in Annals of Congress, 5th Congress, 1st session, vol. i., pp. 41-43. But Carey consulted his friends, who persuaded him that it was his duty to the country to lay the facts before the public. Accordingly he sent copies of the letter to the newspapers, also laying the matter before the Secretary of War and the Secretary of State.* Liston being then requested to explain, he made an evasive reply, which, while admitting the essential facts in the case, failed to mention any names. He said that not only had he discouraged the plot, but the home government had discountenanced it as unfriendly to American neutrality.† The following day copies of these various letters, as has already been stated, were laid before Congress by President Adams, and immediately a committee was appointed by the Senate to investigate Blount's conduct and report as to the proper measures for dealing with the situation. On July 6 a messenger (Sitgreaves) came from the House with the information that the Attorney-General had rendered an opinion that the Carey letter constituted a crime, under which the writer, if he were Blount, was liable to impeachment.‡ The Republicans, under the leadership of Gallatin, claimed that the House could not impeach a Senator on the ground that he was neither the President, Vice-President, nor a civil officer of the United States, as provided McMaster, vol. ii., 339-341. a Schouler, United States, vol. i., p. 378. Annals of Congress, 5th Congress, 1st session, vol. i., p. 449. THE BLOUNT IMPEACHMENT; YELLOW FEVER. by the fourth section of the second article of the Constitution. Moreover, his offence was not committed in the line of his official duty.* The Federalists maintained, however, that under such an interpretation the Supreme Court justices could not be removed for making war on the United States, because they were not civil officers and war was not in the line of their official duties. After much debate, the House impeached Blount of high crimes and misdemeanors. On July 8 the Senate acquiescing in his impeachment, Blount was expelled. He was then placed under heavy bond and was released pending trial.t The case was not tried until nearly a year had elapsed, and it was not until February 7, 1798, that the House managers presented the impeachment papers to the Senate. When the case was called in December, 1798, Blount did not appear, but his counsel, Jared Ingersoll and A. J. Dallas, entered a plea that the Senate had no jurisdiction because Blount was not a "civil officer," contending, also, that as Blount had been expelled, he was no longer a Senator, and therefore could not be punished after he was out of office for acts committed while in See Gallatin's speech in Annals of Congress, 5th Congress, 1st session, vol. i., pp. 450–452. † Annals of Congress, 5th Congress, 1st session, vol. i., pp. 39-44, 463-460. 341 office. The Senate then decided that "this Court ought not to hold jurisdiction of the said impeachment, and that the said impeachment is dismissed." Thereupon Blount was discharged.* Shortly after Congress adjourned in July, 1797, Philadelphia was again afflicted with a yellow fever epidemic. Governor Mifflin attempted to confine the disease to one section of the city by barricading the streets, cutting off communication between the wharves and the houses of the infected district, ordering yellow flags to be hung from houses harboring stricken persons, etc. Large fines were to be imposed on those disobeying the orders contained in this proclamation. Half of the fine imposed was to be given to the informer. The medical inspectors became all powerful, and those who refused to admit them or hindered their putting up flags, or those who took down these flags, could be sent for thirty days to the hospital on State Island. Thus the inspectors were possessed of an instrument for satisfying private grudges or of extorting money from the wealthy, with the result that hundreds of citizens fled to the country. Meanwhile the doctors began to wrangle over the causes of the epidemic. One school, led by William Currie, claiming that the fever was imported and con The articles of impeachment are in Annals of tagious, but another, led by Ben Congress, 5th Congress, 2d session, vol. i., pp. 498-502, 948-951. For the debate in the House in connection with their preparation and presentation, see Annals, pp. 672-679, 809-810, 820-821, 837-839, 953-955, 969, 1143 and vol. ii., p. 1376. * Wharton, State Trials, pp. 200–321; Annals of Congress, 5th Congress, 3d session, vol. ii., pp. 2244-2415. 342 PORCUPINE'S ATTACK ON YRUJO. jamin Rush, declared it was not, and that it came chiefly from filthy streets and loathsome alleys. While the doctors were wrangling, the fever patients perished. In September the death rate rose to 68 in two days. The city was almost deserted, the public offices were closed, no church services were held, and many business houses moved to other cities. Cool weather, however, checked the disease, and in November it had disappeared.* Before the fever had subsided, Peter Porcupine was engaged in a newspaper quarrel with the doctors, but he soon dropped this dispute in order to devote his entire attention to another with a personage of no small importance. The Spanish court had sent over one Don Carlos Martinez de Yrujo as minister to the United States, the purpose of his mission being to protest against the treaty with Great Britain, chiefly because the goods of belligerents would not be covered with a neutral flag; because hemp, cordage, rosin and tar, sails, ship timber and copper in sheets were contraband of war; and because the treaty gave England the right to navigate the Mississippi. It was evident that these complaints were instigated by the French Directory, and news from Natchez seemed to confirm the suspicion. Governor Gayoso began to place obstacles in the way of determining the boundary line; he would * McMaster, vol. ii., pp. 344-350. not surrender the posts north of 31° north latitude, in February had strengthened the Natchez and Walnut Hills garrisons, had fortified St. Louis early in March, and sent armed companies above the mouth of the Ohio. Pickering made a report on this Spanish demonstration, which the House printed. To offset this, Yrujo claimed that the British still entertained similar designs. He took exception also to the partial and undiplomatic manner in which Pickering had questioned Liston and to the crude accusations made against Spain by Pickering in his official report. This reply was published in the newspapers by the Republicans, but Pickering retorted upon Yrujo, going to the press (as Yrujo had done) and sending copies of his letters to his political friends that they might enjoy with him the gratification he felt in thus belaboring the Spanish ambassador. Yrujo's reply was now attacked by Porcupine in his Gazette. The latter said the Spanish king was a degenerate who lacked the common virtues of a man, and that his minister in America was of the same character. The latter was called also a frivolous half Don and half Sans Culotte. This was more than Yrujo could stand, and he complained of these slanderous articles to the Secretary of State. Por cupine was then held for trial in the Federal District Court before Judge Peters, but Yrujo later induced the Pennsylvania authorities to institute proceedings against Porcupine, so |