The only fair way for you to judge of the President's conduct relative to the treaty negotiated with Great Britain, and the one proposed by France, is, to draw a comparison between your present situation, and the situation in which you would have now been, had he followed a different conduct. As the tree is known by its fruit, so are the measures of the statesman by their effects. Look round you, and observe well the spectacle that the United States present at this moment. Imagine its reverse, and you have an idea of what would have been your situation, had the President yielded to the proposals of citizen Genet, or those of the war party in Congress. The produce of the country would have been at about one-third of its present price, while every imported article would have risen in a like proportion. The farmer must have sold his wheat at four shillings a bushel in place of fourteen, and in place of giving four dollars a yard for cloth, he must have given ten or twelve. Houses and lands, instead of being risen to triple their former value, as they now are, would have fallen to one-third of that value, and must, at the same time, have been taxed to nearly half their rent. In short, you would have been in the same situation as you were in 1777, and without the same means of extricating yourself from it. However, such a situation might, perhaps, be a desirable one to you. Habit does great things. People who were revolution mad, might look back with regret to the epoch just mentioned, and might even view with envy the effects of the French Revolution. If so, it is by no means too late yet; the President has only to refuse his ratification of the treaty with Great Britain, and adopt the measures proposed by the honest and incorruptible friends of the French Republic, and you may soon have your fill of what you desire. If you have wished to enjoy once more the charms of change, and taste the sweets of war and anarchy (for I look upon them as inseparable in this country), then the President may merit an impeachment at your hands; but, if you have desired to live in peace and plenty, while the rest of the world has been ravaged and desolated, to accuse the President now, is to resemble the crew of ungrateful buccaniers, who, having safely arrived in port, cut the throat of their pilot.

A NEW-YEAR'S GIFT TO THE
DEMOCRATS;

Or, Observations on a Pamphlet entitled, "A Vindication of
Mr. Randolph's Resignation."

"For gold defiles by frequent touch;
"There's nothing fouls the hand so much.
"But as his paws he strove to scower,
"He washed away the chemic power;
"And Midas now neglected stands,
"With ass's ears and dirty hands."

NOTE BY THE EDITORS.-THE pamphlet now before us relates to the detection of a corrupt Secretary of State, to whom we have alluded in the Preface, and also in the note preceding the "Little Plain English;" but there is a circumstance connected with it that we must explain to the reader.

H

He will see a constant reference to the "Western Insurrection," and, as that does not explain itself, we must do it here. Late in 1794, four of the western counties of Pennsylvania broke out into open revolt in consequence of an excise on spirits which was levied within them. It became so alarming that an army was raised to quell it; but WASHINGTON'S Government was foiled in its attempts to raise the militia for the purpose. They would not come out. MIFFLIN, the Governor of Pennsylvania, and DALLAS, his Secretary, were thought to be supine in their duties; but it remained for the discovery on which "the New Year's Gift" is a commentary to show precisely why they were so. The insurrection was quelled without fighting; but, at the outbreak of it, the secretary of state, RANDOLPH, made overtures to the French Minister, which amounted to a treasonable conspiracy to overthrow the Government; it involved others as well as himself, and it was discovered by one of those miracles which bring treachery to light, and was made known to WASHINGTON on the 11th August 1795. The discovery was made just in the heat of the conflict of parties concerning the British Treaty. It gave a blow to the French party, and great strength to the President and the friends of England, and, indeed, the adoption of the Treaty was attributed to this affair. RANDOLPH retired instantly on the discovery, but was suffered to go unpunisned into retirement. The "New-Year's Gift" is an answer to a pamphlet in which he attempted a vindication of himself. It is so clear and convincing an exposure of fallacies, and is so good a picture of the difficulties which surrounded WASHINGTON'S Government; it is so clear a proof that its author was not, as is represented by foolish and malignant men, an insane" Royalist, libelling the Federal Government and its founders," but, rather, that he supported that Government and upheld its founders against a band of traitors; this is so clear, that we place it in our Selections. At the time of writing it, Mr. Cobbett was still unknown, but he says (Porc. vol. 4, p. 122), "Bradford (his publisher) told me he had read some pages of the New Year's Gift' to two of the Senators, who were mightily pleased with it and laughed heartily; and he related a conversation that had "taken place between him and Mr. WoLcor, the present Secretary of the Treasury, who assured him, that some of the officers of Government did intend to "write an answer to Randolph's Vindication, but that my New-Year's Gift had "done its business so completely that nothing further was necessary. He added "that they were all exceedingly delighted with my productions." In our note to "Plain English," we said that RANDOLPH was suggested to the President for the Secretaryship by JEFFERSON. This we gather from the Anas, in the fourth volume of the Life of Jefferson, p. 506, where he gives a conversation between the President and himself, upon his retiring from the office of Secretary, in these words: "I asked him whether some person could not take my office par interim, "till he should make an appointment; as Mr. RANDOLPH for instance. Yes,' says he, but there you would raise an expectation of keeping it, and I "do not know that he is fit for it, nor what is thought of Mr. Randolph.' I "avoided noticing the last observation, and he put the question to me directly. "Then I told him, I went into society so little as to be unable to answer it: "I knew that the embarrassment in his private affairs had obliged him "to use expedients which had injured him with the merchants and shop"keepers, and affected his character of independence." JEFFERSON remained some time after in office and then retired, when RANDOLPH was appointed. The surprising thing is, that JEFFERSON Could not think of a fitter man in all America to succeed him than RANDOLPH appears to have been; but it is very evident that he bore ill-will towards WASHINGTON. In a letter to Mr. GILES (Life &c. vol. 3, p. 325), he observes on the address and answer at the opening of Congress in 1795, "I remark, in the reply of the President, a small "travestie of the sentiment contained in the answer of the representatives. "They acknowledge that he has contributed a great share to the national happi66 ness by his services. He thanks them for ascribing to his agency a great "share of those benefits. The former keeps in view the co-operation of others "towards the public good. The latter presents to view his sole agency:" a piece of hypercriticism that shows what jealousies were at work within him; for really, if one examines it, WASHINGTON's answer was a modest echo of the address. It says he had contributed a great share (by-the-by, JEFFERSON is guilty of worse than travestie, for the words of the address are" contributed a very great share"); that is, he had been a great contributor, whereas he only

assumes to have been an agent in the work of bestowing benefits on his country. The general meaning of the word agency is, acting in behalf of another; so that WASHINGTON assumed a lower station than the address ascribed to him. In the same letter, which is dated 31st December 1795, he speaks of RANDOLPH, and of his pamphlet, which he had just received from his correspondent, in these extraordinary terms: "I thank you much for the pamphlet. His narra"tive is so straight and plain, that even those who did not know him will acquit "him of the charge of bribery. Those who knew him had done it from the "first." No man who reads the following pamphlet can think as Mr. JEFFERSON did of this offender, and indeed it is hardly to be believed that RANDOLPH'S pamphlet could have imposed any such belief upon his mind. It is curious, too, to observe the discrepancy between the passage just quoted and that which we take from the Anas. In the latter, it is clear that WASHINGTON suspected RANDOLPH, and that he sounded JEFFERSON to find if he did not. JEFFERSON says that he avoided the question; and on being pressed more home upon it, he goes" so little into society as to be unable to answer it;" and yet only about a twelvemonth afterwards, on receiving RANDOLPH's pamphlet, he vouches that "those who knew him had acquitted him from the first," leaving his correspondent to suppose, that, if he did not know RANDOLPH himself, he at any rate knew all those who did, and could rely upon their opinions.

AMONG the means employed by the anarchical assemblies of France, in the propagation of their detestable principles, that of corruption may be regarded as one of the most powerful, and, accordingly, it has ever shared a principal part of their attention. If we take a survey of their confiscations, proscriptions and assassinations, from the seizure of the property of the ecclesiastics, by the constituent assembly, down to the horrid butcheries of Carrier, we shall find that this has often been a leading motive for the perpetrating of those deeds, which will blacken the French name as long as honesty and humanity shall be esteemed amongst men. It is, at least, an object of which they have never lost sight, and which they have spared nothing to accomplish. They have ransacked the coffers of the rich, stripped poverty of its very rags, robbed the infant of its birth-right, wrenched the crutch from the hand of tottering old age, and, joining sacrilege to burglary, have plundered even the altars of God, in order to possess themselves of the means of corrupting degenerate foreigners.

That their plans of seduction have been but too successful they themselves avow. Like the gang of highwaymen in the subterraneous cave, each mounts the polluted tribune in his turn, and tells his tale of corruption. According to their own acknowledgments, they have expended millions upon millions in this commerce of consciences, since they have called their country a Republic; and, which is well worthy of remark, these immense sums have all been expended, with a trifling exception, in the Republican States that have condescended to fraternize with them. The patriots of Geneva and Holland, of Genoa and Switzerland, have been bought with the treasures extorted from the unhappy French. The two former states are, in every political point of view, annihilated, and the two latter exist as a proof, that states, as well as individuals may sometimes triumph in successful baseness and vanity.*

The people of the United States of America had not the mortification to see their country included in the dark catalogue; and though it was

This was written before the revolutions either in Genoa or in Switzerland were heard of in America,

evident to every discerning man, that some such influence began to prevail, in different parts of the Union, soon after the arrival of citizen Genet; though it was impossible to account for the foundation of the democratic clubs, and for the countenance they received from many persons of weight and authority (particularly in the State of Pennsylvania, where the Secretary of the State was at the head of the mother club) upon any other principle; though people were daily seen acting in direct opposition to their apparent interests; and though the partisans of France did not hesitate openly to declare their enmity to the President of the United States and to the Government he had been chosen to administer; notwithstanding all these striking and well-known facts, the great body of the people would have regarded any one as a slanderer of their national character, who should have insinuated, that the secrets of their Government, and their most important interests, were the price of that sudden exaltation that every where appeared among the persons devoted to the will of the French Minister. The people might have remained in this delusive confidence, till their constitution had been subverted, and till they had been plunged into a calamitous foreign war, or driven to the dire necessity of shedding each other's blood, had it not been for the accidental interception of the letter, that has led to the vindication on which I have here undertaken to make a few observations.

Before I enter on the vindication itself, two circumstances present themselves as subjects of preliminary observation; the time and the manner of its being introduced to the public.

Mr. Randolph informs us that he gave in his resignation on the 19th of August, in consequence of his having been interrogated on the contents of an intercepted letter of the French minister, citizen Fauchet; and we all know that his Vindication, if vindication it must be, did not appear till the 18th of December, a space of exactly four months, wanting one day. When he had given in his resignation, he did not remain at Philadelphia to court the inquiry that he talks so much of, but flew away to Rhode-Island, in order to overtake Mr. Fauchet, by whose very letter he stood accused, and to obtain from him a certificate of his innocence and morality. We shall see by-and-by how he was employed during his stay at Rhode-Island; at present we must follow him back to Philadelphia, where we find him arrived on the 21st of September, thirty-three days after his departure, and writing to the President of the United States, to inform him that he is preparing his vindication with all imaginable dispatch; and of this he had taken care to inform the public several days before. After this notification, it was impossible that the people should not hourly expect to see in the public papers an elucidation of the whole affair. What then must be their astonishment, when after having waited with the utmost impatience for three long weeks, they were given to understand that the boasting vindicator could not close his laborious performance without having access to certain other papers of a confidential nature? The request for these papers, all evasive and malicious as it was, was at once granted by the President. Hence the idle tales of a British faction.

It was probable, too, that by delaying the publication till after the meeting of Congress, it might be brought out at a moment when some decision of that body respecting the treaty might irritate the feelings of the people against the President's conduct; and by directing their attention to that part of the vindication intended to criminate him, might turn the shaft of their censure from the vindicator himself,

Nor shall we find that the manner of his introducing his vindication to the public speaks more in his favour.

In this letter of resignation, he says to the President :

"I am satisfied, sir, that you will acknowledge one piece of justice on this "occasion, which is, that until an inquiry can be made, the affair shall continue in "secrecy under your injunction."

But after his return from Rhode-Island, knowing that the President could not lay an injunction for the time past, and knowing also that a copy of the dreadful dispatch was in the hands of Mr. Bond, on whom the President could lay no injunction at all, he suspected the affair had got abroad, which was indeed the case; it was then, and not before, that, making a virtue of necessity, he informed the public, by publishing a letter he had written to the President, that he would prepare a vindication of his conduct.

After this he suffered the matter to rest for some time, and then published an extract from another letter to the President, dated the 8th of October, in the following words :

"You must be sensible, sir, that I am inevitably driven into the discussion o "many confidential and delicate points. I could with safety immediately appeal "to the people of the United States, who can be of no party. But I shall wait for your answer to this letter, so far as it respects the paper desired, before I for"ward to you my general letter, which is delayed for no other cause. I shall "also rely that you will consent to the whole of this affair, howsoever confidential "and delicate, being exhibited to the world. At the same time, I prescribe to "myself this condition, not to mingle any thing which I do not sincerely conceive "to belong to the subject."

By this stroke, our vindicator imagined he had reduced the President to a dilemma from which he would be unable to extricate him. He thought that the President's circumspect disposition would lead him to refuse the communication of the paper demanded; and in that case he would have impressed on the public mind an idea of its containing something at once capable of acquitting himself, and of criminating the President. And should the paper be granted, he hoped that he should be able to make such comments on it as would at least render the chief of the executive as odious as himself.

The President did not balance a moment on the course he should take. "It is not difficult," says he in the answer, "to perceive what your objects are; "but that you may have no cause to complain of the withholding any paper (how"ever private and confidential) which you shall think necessary in a case of so "serious a nature, I have directed that you should have the inspection of my letter "of the 22nd of July, agreeably to your request; and you are at full liberty to "publish, without reserve, any and every private and confidential letter I ever "wrote you; nay, more, every word I ever uttered to or in your presence, from "whence you can derive any advantage in your justification."

I am sorry that the bounds within which I propose to confine myself do not permit me to give the reader the whole of this noble letter; here, however, is sufficient to prove the generous deportment of the writer. These extracts most eminently depict the minds of the parties: in one we hear the bold, the undaunted language of conscious integrity, and in the other the faltering accents of guilt.

Baffled in this project of recrimination, the vindicator had recourse to others, if possible, still more unmanly. A paragraph appeared in the

* One of the English legation at Philadelphia.