Page images
PDF
EPUB

THE ILLUMINATI; NATHAN ROBBINS.

which would be found in the false bottoms of two tubs. It was stated that they had sailed in the Minerva bound for Charleston. When that vessel arrived, the collector and the naval officer of the port boarded her, arrested four men and a woman, knocked out the false bottoms of the tubs and carried off the supposed state papers; but the whole affair turned out to be absurd, as it was ascertained that the men were not conspirators nor the woman a spy, and the documents were merely papers of a private nature regarding a suit the woman intended to institute in this country.* A similar hoax was perpetrated in Philadelphia, where it was ascertained that the French had ordered sufficient military uniforms for an army; but investigation proved that these uniforms were for the negro soldiers in the army of Toussaint L'Ouverture.†

A new reason was'now advanced for hating and fearing the French. The French were accused of forming secret societies, called the Societies of Illuminati or Illuminers, to despoil, imprison and banish the clergy of America. A counter charge was made that the clergymen themselves were illuminated and that the rapid growth of the ministers' clubs, recently formed, had concentrated such power and influence in their hands as to enable them to foist their own opinions and politics upon New England. These were the true despoilers of the

* McMaster, vol. ii., p. 441. Ibid, vol. ii., p. 442.

451

clergy and the destroyers of the principles of free government. But it was alleged that the British raised up issues of conspiracy, etc., to hide the purposes of this latter class and that, while the people's attention was directed to the Illuminati, the English were filling the country with emissaries. The government was accused of being an appendage of Parliament and its officers of being British pensioners.*

An event now occurred out of which the Republicans made much political capital. In 1797 a mutiny had occurred aboard the British frigate Hermoine, in which one Nathan Robbins (or Thomas (or Thomas Nash, as the British claimed) was suspected of being concerned. In 1799 Robbins was haled by the British consul at Charleston before Judge Bee of the district court so that he might be sent to Jamaica for trial, in accordance with article xxvii of Jay's treaty, which provided for the extradition of persons guilty of murder and forgery. Judge Bee was in doubt as to the propriety of allowing the extradition, but the British minister, Mr. Liston, applied to the Secretary of State, and Pickering sent to Judge Bee the President's" advice and request" that Robbins be delivered to the British authorities. Counsel for Nathan Robbins, alias Thomas Nash, produced in court a certificate dated New York, May 20, 1795, to the effect that one Jonathan Robbins was a citi

[blocks in formation]

452

THE CASE OF NATHAN ROBBINS.

zen of the United States; and the fellow in question -as Jonathan, not Nathan, Robbins swore that he was a native of Danbury, Connecticut; that he had been pressed on board the Betsy of New York two years previously, and chanced to be on the Hermione at the time of the mutiny, to which, however, he denied having given any assistance. Nash (or Robbins) was delivered to the British authorities, taken to Jamaica, tried by court-martial and executed - before his execution confessing to being an Irishman*

With a view to making political capital of this incident, the Republican leaders in Congress passed a resolution on February 4, 1800, requesting the President to submit the papers relating to the Robbins case. Adams submitted the papers without delay, and, to the surprise of the Republicans, it appeared that two certificates had been received from the Danbury authorities stating that no Jonathan or Nathan Robbins, nor any one else of the name of Robbins, had ever been known at that place. Two extracts of letters from Sir Hyde Parker were given stating that, before his execution, Nash had acknowledged his British citizenship and had confessed that he had been transferred to the Hermione in 1793.†

* McMaster, vol. ii., pp. 446-447. See also J. B. Thayer, Life of John Marshall, pp. 40-51.

The documents are in American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. ii., pp. 284-285; Annals of Congress, 6th Congress, 1st session, pp. 515518.

Resolutions of censure were moved on February 20 and debated with great vehemence, but on March 6 John Marshall delivered a speech which, as Story says, Story says," silenced opposition and settled then and forever the points of national law upon which the controversy hinged." The motion was lost by a vote of 62 to 35. *

"This incident," says Sullivan, "is strongly illustrative of the times. It is well remembered, that the impression sought to be made on the public mind was, that the president had delivered up one of his own countrymen, in obedience to British requisition, to be hung; notwithstanding the accused citizen had done no more than he lawfully might do, to escape from the tyrannical impressment of the mistress of the seas. It is not surprising that any administration should be overthrown, when such calumnies were received as truths."

Meanwhile party spirit was running strong in Congress, and the war party was suffering the loss of vote after vote. When Congress convened the change in the political atmosphere was most noticeable in the House. Though there was a decided Federalist majority in both Houses, the ma

* See Benton, Abridgment of Debates, vol. ii., pp. 444-469; Annals of Congress, 6th Congress, 1st session pp. 511, 526, 531-532, 541-578, 583-621. “The opposition," says Tucker (vol. ii., p. 68), "seemed about to triumph, when General Marshall made an argument of so much power and skill as to turn the current the other way. He even attained the rare success of convincing some of his opponents, and of silencing those whom he could not covince."

PARTY DIVISIONS; ADAMS' MESSAGE.

jority in the House appeared more like its old self than it had been for the past seven or eight years, many of the prominent Federalists of former years-men like Otis and Sewall, of Massachusetts, and Griswold and Goodrich, of Connecticut resuming their seats. Bayard, of Delaware, returned, as did also Harper and Thomas Pinckney, of South Carolina. But from the South came

a number of new men of moderate principles, who were not pledged to the system of the late Congress. From the Middle States came a number of anti-administration members. Livingston and Gallatin returned, and likewise Samuel Smith, of Maryland, so that in the face of the approaching Presidential election the Federalists in the House were not likely to have an easy time of it. On the other hand, the Senate still retained its two-thirds majority favoring the harshest measures passed by the preceding Congress. There were some new accessions, notably Samuel Dexter, of Massachusetts; Dayton, formerly Speaker of the House; Gouverneur Morris, of New York; Baldwin, of Georgia; and Charles Pinckney, of South Carolina. Probably the most unique character in either House was John Randolph, of Roanoke - a politician hitherto unknown to fame, but destined, by his eccentric manners and his strangely fascinating style of oratory, to enliven the proceedings of Congress for the next twenty-five years. The House

453

organized by choosing as Speaker Theodore Sedgwick, of Massachusetts, who had left the Senate that he might resume his seat in the lower House. His opponent, Nathaniel Macon, of North Carolina, received but six votes less.* On December 3, 1799, Adams delivered his annual speech.† In it he spoke of the Fries insurrection; recommended that the judiciary system be revised and amended; spoke of the relations with France, Great Britain and St. Domingo; and concluded by pointing out the wisdom and necessity of persevering" in a system of national defense as the means of maintaining our just rights, for," said he, remotely as we are placed from the belligerent nations, and desirous as we are, by doing justice to all, to avoid offense to any, nothing short of the power of repelling aggressions will secure to our country a rational prospect of escaping the calamities of war or national degredation."

66

66

The answers were full and by no means deficient in cordiality.‡

A resolution had been introduced by Nicholas on January 1, 1800, for the repeal of those sections of the acts

* Schouler, United States, vol. i., pp. 464-467. † Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. i., pp. 289-292; Annals of Congress, 6th Congress, 1st session, pp. 188-190; Benton, Abridgment, vol. ii., pp. 400–401. "The speech is quite short, but in dignity and simplicity it holds its rank with all the other public papers of this administration." John Adams, Works, vol. i., p. 560.

Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. i., pp. 292-296; Annals of Congress, 6th Congress. 1st session, pp. 193–196; Benton, Abridgment of Debates, vol. ii., pp. 431-432.

454

RANDOLPH'S HUMILIATION.

of July 16, 1798, and March 3, 1799, which authorized the enlistment of new regiments and the appointment of new.generals.* A protracted debate followed, in which John Randolph played a prominent part. He supported the resolution because he thought a standing army unconstitutional, dangerous, costly, and, above all, useless; for the people could not trust the defense of their liberties and rights to "mercenary armies " and to "a handful of ragamuffins." When it became necessary for the citizens to fight, they could and would do SO willingly, but they could not stand for having a body of loungers living on the public while there was nothing in the fighting line to be donet Two days after this speech Randolph was subjected to a somewhat humiliating experience at a theatre, where a naval officer made some remarks connected with his speech intended to be overheard by Randolph. The latter immediately wrote Adams regarding it, saying that some punishment should be provided to guard against further occurrences of this sort, and the President referred the letter to the House, who sent it to a committee. The committee examined witnesses and reported that

*Annals of Congress, 6th Congress, 1st session, pp. 227-228.

Adams, John Randolph, p. 41. Speech of January 9, Annals, pp. 296–300. For the entire debate, see pp. 247-369, 389-404.

Ford's ed. of Jefferson's Writings, vol. vii., p. 404. The two letters are in Annals of Congress, pp. 372-373.

there was nothing in the affair at the theatre to call for interference by the House on the ground of breach of privilege, and that Randolph had acted improperly in complaining to the President instead of to the House.* Five days were spent in debating this report. In vain did Randolph deny that he had committed a breach of privilege and declare that he had written the President only in his military capacity. The majority had him in a position where it could punish him, and on January 29 the report was adopted by a large majority. This was considered to be an example of the evils of a standing army and the tyranny of the President. This experience, however, did Randolph some good, for he was more cautious, talked less about ragamuffins and hirelings, and was more amenable to good advice after that.‡

During this session Congress passed few noteworthy acts. In January of 1800 the report of the Secretary of War urging the establishment of a military academy was transmitted to Congress, but led to no definite action. The Committee of Ways and Means took under consideration the state of the finances and reported to the

The testimony is in American State Papers, Miscellaneous, vol. i., pp. 195-202; Annals, pp. 377-388.

† McMaster, vol. ii., pp. 459-461. For the debate, see Annals, pp. 426–507.

Adams, John Randolph, p. 44; Schouler, United States, vol. i., pp. 466-467. The act as passed was approved May 14. See Annals, pp. 1530-1531.

ACTS OF CONGRESS; CABINET CHANGES.

House. Because there was a pros-
pect of soon settling the differences
with France, it was deemed inexpe-
dient to press the measures relating
to national defense. Accordingly, a re-
duction of about $1,600,000 was made
in the estimates of the army and navy
departments.*
This left about $3,
500,000 to be provided for by loan,
which was authorized late in the ses-
sion. Among other acts were the sus-
pension of commercial intercourse
with France and its dependencies; the
laying of additional duties on sugar,
molasses and wines; provision that
the second census take place in August
of 1800; a bill for establishing a uni-
form system of bankruptcy, etc. The
session terminated May 14, and was
the last occasion on which Congress
assembled at Philadelphia. Writing
to Madison on May 12 respecting the
session, Jefferson spoke as follows:

"On the whole the federalists have not been able to carry a single strong measure in the lower house [during] the whole session. When they met, it was believed they had a majority of 20; but many of these were new & moderate men & soon saw the true character of the party to which they had been well disposed while at a distance. The tide, too, of public opinion, set so strongly against the federal proceedings, that this melted off their majority, & dismayed the heroes of the party. The Senate alone remained undismayed to

* For a full account of this matter of the finances, the report of the Committee of Ways and Means, etc., see Gibbs, Administrations of Washington and Adams, vol. ii., pp. 325-338. See also American State Papers, Finance, vol. i., pp. 642656.

Schouler, United States, vol. i., pp. 468–469. For debates, see Annals of Congress, 6th Congress, 1st session; Benton, Abridgment of Debates, vol. ii.

VOL. IV-30

455

the last. Firm in their purposes, regardless of public opinion, and more disposed to coërce than to court it, not a man of the majority gave way in the least." *

Mr. Adams had already broken with the extreme wing of the Federalists, and the campaign had hardly got under way when he threw a bomb into the Federalist camp. The ill-feeling

that had existed for several months between the President and Secretaries Pickering and McHenry had not been allayed. Early in May of 1800 the President had an interview with Mc

Henry, as a result of which the latter was requested to resign his post as Secretary of War. He complied and, to his surprise, on May 6 the resignation was accepted.† Adams then wrote to Pickering that he wished to change his constitutional advisers and requested him to withdraw, but Pickering refused, whereupon Adams, with scant courtesy, removed him from office May 12.|| The unctuous Wolcott, who had intrigued as treacherously as

* Ford's ed. of Jefferson's Writings, vol. vii., pp. 446-447; Tucker, Life of Jefferson, vol. ii., p. 68.

John Adams, Works, vol. ix., pp. 51-54; Hamilton's ed. of Hamilton's Works, vol. vi., p. 442; Morse, John Adams, pp. 313-314.

John Adams, Works, vol. ix., pp. 54-55.

|| Mr. Gibbs (vol. ii., pp. 348-359) severely reviews this measure on the part of the President, and condemns it as wholly unjustifiable, so far as the ability, integrity and uprightness of the secretaries are concerned. Mr. C. F. Adams (Life and Works of John Adams, vol. i., pp. 566–569) on the other hand, justifies the course pursued by his grandfather, on the ground of McHenry's incompetency, and Colonel Pickering's dishonorable use of his official position for the purpose of counteracting and defeating the plans of the President. See also Morse, John Adams, p. 314.

« PreviousContinue »