dissented from Mr. Morris, from the federalists, and from the administration. It is not contended that Mr. Morris's opinions were at all obligatory on Mr. Ross, but it is very clear, that he was deemed an aged and experienced friend of the government and constitution, a firm and intelligent federalist, friendly to the administration, and particularly so to General Washington; yet we see Mr. Ross, a young man, in his maiden session, very generally disagreeing from Mr. Morris, from the federal party, and from the administration of General Washington. Yet deceived and uninformed, we call him a firm supporter of the administration, and a steady man in federal politics. It may be asked then, why so many of the federalists liked and confided in him. The answer is, that they did not before know his conduct: and that Mr. Ross managed to trim his movements very dexterously, and to talk federalism out of doors, while he opposed it within the Senate. We see he is generally in small minorities in his FIRST session, in the year 1794, and those often what were called anti-federal, and anti-administration. Whenever his good management required, he knew how to make the finesse complete-by a sudden absence. We shall see by-and-by, that he played this game of absence from FEDERAL questions, in the most important session this government has EVER seen, for more than NINETEEN weeks. AN ELECTOR. To the Citizens of Pennsylvania.-It has been pretended by some that Mr. Ross never did interfere improperly in the business of the Excise. Yet it has been openly stated in "The History of the Western Insurrection," published in 1796, with the author's name, that Mr. Ross engaged, at the 1 2 Fayette court of 1794, in a plan and agreement for the removal of the Inspector, General Neville, and the collectors throughout the whole Western survey. This was a singular act for a friend to the adminis tration, and its monstrous impropriety is made manifest by this fact, that all the officers were contitinued in their offices, by General Washington, or restored to them after the insurrection, which had frightened one, or two, into resignations. Mr. Ross did make an application for the removal of one or more of these officers, but none were removed, nor was any appointed, except unfortunately one, for his own county of Washington, who has since gone off with the public money. [See History of the Insurrection, 1796, page 64.] It is well known, that it was extremely difficult in many places to prevail on persons to accept the excise offices. In other places it was impossible to prevail on them to keep those offices. Some, who were tenants, were refused the use of rented houses for offices. In one instance, a federal military officer (in Mr. Ross's own county) was forced to withhold an house he had rented for an excise-office. Yet Mr. Ross, who had viewed that riot, who is a lawyer, knowing his legal tether, and a person claiming a very high federal character, attended to form an agreement at Fayette, and contributed to that agreement by which a whole set of federal civil officers, in five large counties, were to be removed without crime or neglect. The reason suggested by Mr. Ross was, that the people could not confide in them. At the head of them was General John Neville, a man not second to Mr. Ross either in character, property, morals, or public service. Federal Citizens, take care of this young politician, who has clambered into posts of honour and emolument by such means. If you regard steady and and candid politics, safe property, and orderly conduct, take care of such a man. It was a matter of certainty, that the people would not submit to officers so marked out for popular odium and sacrifice by a FEDERAL SENATOR`; and as the people found those officers were not removed when Mr. Ross returned from the Senate in 1794, it is the less wonder that they fired upon one, and burnt the house of another, and thus began the insurrection in the following month. The proposition for this removal of the constituted authorities, was brought forward by Mr. Ross to Mr. Findley, who declined it. Mr. Findley was represented as an enemy to the constitution, to the excise, and to the administration. What must his enemies say and think of Mr. Ross? Is not such a clandestine agreement to remove all revenue officers, under whose jurisdiction Mr. Ross himself was, a most clear assumption of executive authority," and an anarchic proceeding? Was Mr. Ross, alone, a better judge than President Washington, with the Senate's advice, and the secondary executive officers, with whose department the revenue officers were connected?-When the commissioners (Messrs. Yates, W. Bradford, and Ross) made their report, not one complaint was preferred against the officers. It is said that some were made against Mr. Ross. Let him deny it if he can.-It is understood that David Bradford was at Fayette, and participated in this scheme for the removal of the officers. Judge Addison certainly did. But to sum up all in one short, clear view-Does it not plainly appear, that Mr. Ross, instead of acting the part of a faithful, orderly citizen in support of the Western constituted authorities; and the part of a dignified and faithful member of the govern 1 3 ment' ment (a Senator,) was hanging up all the officers to be hated and to be sacrificed. Persons to whose knowledge these things have come will not cease to be influenced by them against Mr. Ross, whe→ ther friends or foes to the excise system. In the year 1795, we find Mr. Ross first voting to prevent the destruction of the bill for securing a portion of land to the French inhabitants of Galliopolis; and on the very next day voting against the bill on its final passage. The first vote was consistent with the interests of his constituents, and of his estate, but what induced the latter inconsistent vote, we cannot say. He knew he might safely vote so, because he would be in a very small minority, It is only mentioned to shew his unsteadi ness. And again; Mr. Ross, after voting in an amendment to protect the Indians, which was much objected to by the Western people, absented himself from the question on the final passage of the bill. It would so appear that he was not present when this bill, so unpleasant to them was passed. Mr. Ross was in the Senate on the same day, and voted upon other questions. It would not be right, perhaps, to lay so much stress upon these single facts of absence and finesse, but that they happened often, and in the last session but one (importantasit was) Mr. Ross's absences from the Senate were extended to almost twenty weeks! In that session, it was well known, that a variety and number of very important bills and laws were to be considered and passed. They required an openness, firmness, and decision, which Mr. Ross appears to have thought might operate against him in his election as governor. Attention or neglect of the militia, consent to or refusal of a regular army, ships of the line, frigates, and other vessels of war, British questions, French questions, and American ques questions, were to be voted on. The trials of this country were truly serious: its prospects truly alarming-and Mr. Ross was absent five weeks with leave, and almost fifteen weeks without leave! Yet he is called a firm, faithful, and steady man. He sees and approves what the federalists see and upprove. But in his first session, he voted, as we have shewn, almost always against them. In the important session before the last, when the Senate had to act upon the dispatches of Messrs. Pinckney, Marshall, and Gerry, he flew the way, and was absent from the most serious duties that could fall on a senator, for almost twenty weeks! A more palpable and unjustifiable great stroke of political finesse and manœuvre was never shewn by any man. The Journals of the Senate prove these facts. It is deceiving their party for his partisans to pretend, that he is firm and steady. No good can be expected in moments of trial from a person, who will thus manage and manœuvre to get into the office of governor. The people will be imprudent indeed, to overlook it. They will remember it is the same man who acted so unwarrantably, as we have shewn, just before, in the excise business. If even party friends would make a cool and candid examination, it would clearly appear to themselves that Mr. Ross has behaved very exceptionably in the office of senator on trying questions, and in trying times. He will naturally have other objects of ambition and interest, if he should become governor, and we may justly expect and fear, that he will manage that office to procure them, just as we see he has managed his senatorship.* AN ELECTOR. * Another address against Ross has the following passage : "Mr. Ross voted in the convention of Pennsylvania, on the 3d of February, 1790, to strike out of the constitutional regula tions 14 |