The Life of John Marshall (Volume 2 of 4)

While the Senate was considering the bitter terms which Great Britain, with unsheathed sword, had forced upon us, Senator Stephen T. Mason of Virginia, in violation of the Senate rules, gave a copy of the treaty to the press.[322 - Marshall, ii, 362-64.] Instantly the whole land shook with a tornado of passionate protest.[323 - Ib., 366.] From one end of the country to the other, public meetings were held. Boston led off.[324 - The Boston men, it appears, had not even read the treaty, as was the case with other meetings which adopted resolutions of protest. (Marshall, ii, 365 et seq.) Thereupon the Boston satirists lampooned the hasty denunciators of the treaty as follows: —"I've never read it, but I say 'tis bad.If it goes down, I'll bet my ears and eyes,It will the people all unpopularize;Boobies may hear it read ere they decide,I move it quickly be unratified."On Dr. Jarvis's speech at Faneuil Hall against the Jay Treaty; Loring: Hundred Boston Orators, 232. The Republicans were equally sarcastic: "I say the treaty is a good one … for I do not think about it… What did we choose the Senate for … but to think for us… Let the people remember that it is their sacred right to submit and obey; and that all those who would persuade them that they have a right to think and speak on the sublime, mysterious, and to them incomprehensible affairs of government are factious Democrats and outrageous Jacobins." (Essay on Jacobinical Thinkers: American Remembrancer, i, 141.)] Washington was smothered with violent petitions that poured in upon him from every quarter praying, demanding, that he withhold his assent.[325 - See Marshall's vivid description of the popular reception of the treaty; Marshall, ii, 365-66.] As in the struggle for the Constitution and in the violent attacks on Neutrality, so now the strongest advocates of the Jay Treaty were the commercial interests. "The common opinion among men of business of all descriptions is," declares Hamilton, "that a disagreement would greatly shock and stagnate pecuniary plans and operations in general."[326 - Hamilton to King, June 20, 1795; Works: Lodge, x, 103.]

The printing presses belched pamphlets and lampoons, scurrilous, inflammatory, even indecent. An example of these was a Boston screed. This classic of vituperation, connecting the treaty with the financial measures of Washington's Administration, represented the Federalist leaders as servants of the Devil; Independence, after the death of his first wife, Virtue, married a foul creature, Vice, and finally himself expired in convulsions, leaving Speculation, Bribery, and Corruption as the base offspring of his second marriage.[327 - "An Emetic for Aristocrats… Also a History of the Life and Death of Independence; Boston, 1795." Copies of such attacks were scattered broadcast – "Emissaries flew through the country spreading alarm and discontent." (Camillus, no. 1; Works: Lodge, v, 189-99.)]

Everywhere Jay was burned in effigy. Hamilton was stoned in New York when he tried to speak to the mob; and with the blood pouring down his face went, with the few who were willing to listen to him, to the safety of a hall.[328 - McMaster, ii, 213-20; Gibbs, i, 207; and Hildreth, iv, 548.] Even Washington's granite resolution was shaken. Only once in our history have the American people so scourged a great public servant.[329 - Present-day detraction of our public men is gentle reproof contrasted with the savagery with which Washington was, thenceforth, assailed.] He was no statesman, raged the Republicans; everybody knew that he had been a failure as a soldier, they said; and now, having trampled on the Constitution and betrayed America, let him be impeached, screamed the infuriated opposition.[330 - Marshall, ii, 370. Of the innumerable accounts of the abuse of Washington, Weld may be cited as the most moderate. After testifying to Washington's unpopularity this acute traveler says: "It is the spirit of dissatisfaction which forms a leading trait in the character of the Americans as a people, which produces this malevolence [against Washington]; if their public affairs were regulated by a person sent from heaven, I firmly believe his acts, instead of meeting with universal approbation, would by many be considered as deceitful and flagitious." (Weld, i, 108-09.)] Seldom has any measure of our Government awakened such convulsions of popular feeling as did the Jay Treaty, which, surrendering our righteous and immediate demands, yet saved our future. Marshall, watching it all, prepared to defend the popularly abhorred compact; and thus he was to become its leading defender in the South.

When, finally, Washington reluctantly approved its ratification by the Senate,[331 - Washington almost determined to withhold ratification. (Marshall, ii, 362.) The treaty was signed November 19, 1794; received by the President, March 7, 1795; submitted to the Senate June 8, 1795; ratified by the Senate June 24; and signed by Washington August 12, 1795. (Ib., 360, 361, 368.)] many of his friends deserted him.[332 - "Washington now defies the whole Sovereign that made him what he is – and can unmake him again. Better his hand had been cut off when his glory was at its height before he blasted all his Laurels!" (Dr. Nathaniel Ames's Diary, Aug. 14, 1795; Dedham (Mass.) Historical Register, vii, 33.) Of Washington's reply to the address of the merchants and traders of Philadelphia "An Old Soldier of '76," wrote: "Has adulation … so bewildered his senses, that relinquishing even common decency, he tells 408 merchants and traders of Philadelphia that they are more immediately concerned than any other class of his fellow citizens?" (American Remembrancer, ii, 280-81.)] "The trouble and perplexities … have worn away my mind," wrote the abused and distracted President.[333 - Washington to Jay, May 8, 1796; Writings: Ford, xiii, 189.] Mercer County, Kentucky, denounced Senator Humphrey Marshall for voting for ratification and demanded a constitutional amendment empowering State Legislatures to recall Senators at will.[334 - American Remembrancer, ii, 265.] The Legislature of Virginia actually passed a resolution for an amendment of the National Constitution to make the House of Representatives a part of the treaty-making power.[335 - Journal, H.D. (1795), 54-55; and see Anderson, 43.] The Lexington, Kentucky, resolutions branded the treaty as "shameful to the American name."[336 - American Remembrancer, ii, 269.] It was reported that at a dinner in Virginia this toast was drunk: "A speedy death to General Washington."[337 - Ames to Gore, Jan. 10, 1795; Works: Ames, i, 161.] Orators exhausted invective; poets wrote in the ink of gall.[338 - "This treaty in one page confines,The sad result of base designs;The wretched purchase here beholdOf Traitors – who their country sold.Here, in their proper shape and mien,Fraud, perjury, and guilt are seen."(Freneau, iii, 133.)]

Jefferson, in harmony, of course, with the public temper, was against the treaty. "So general a burst of dissatisfaction," he declared, "never before appeared against any transaction… The whole body of the people … have taken a greater interest in this transaction than they were ever known to do in any other."[339 - Jefferson to Monroe, Sept. 6, 1795; Works: Ford, viii, 187-88.] The Republican chieftain carefully observed the effect of the popular commotion on his own and the opposite party. "It has in my opinion completely demolished the monarchical party here[340 - Ib.] [Virginia]." Jefferson thought the treaty itself so bad that it nearly turned him against all treaties. "I am not satisfied," said he, "we should not be better without treaties with any nation. But I am satisfied we should be better without such as this."[341 - Jefferson to Tazewell, Sept. 13, 1795; Works: Ford, viii, 191. The Jay Treaty and Neutrality must be considered together, if the temper of the times is to be understood. "If our neutrality be still preserved, it will be due to the President alone," writes the younger Adams from Europe. "Nothing but his weight of character and reputation, combined with his firmness and political intrepidity could have stood against the torrent that is still tumbling with a fury that resounds even across the Atlantic… If his system of administration now prevails, ten years more will place the United States among the most powerful and opulent nations on earth… Now, when a powerful party at home and a mighty influence from abroad, are joining all their forces to assail his reputation, and his character I think it my duty as an American to avow my sentiments." (J. Q. Adams to Bourne, Dec. 24, 1795; Writings, J. Q. A.: Ford, i, 467.)]

The deadliest charge against the treaty was the now familiar one of "unconstitutionality." Many urged that the President had no power to begin negotiations without the assent of the Senate;[342 - Charles Pinckney's Speech; American Remembrancer, i, 7.] and all opponents agreed that it flagrantly violated the Constitution in several respects, especially in regulating trade, to do which was the exclusive province of Congress.[343 - Marshall, ii, 378. The Republicans insisted that the assent of the House of Representatives is necessary to the ratification of any treaty that affects commerce, requires appropriation of money, or where any act of Congress whatever may be necessary to carry a treaty into effect. (Ib.; and see Livingston's resolutions and debate; Annals, 4th Cong., 1st Sess., 1795, 426; 628.)] Once more, avowed the Jeffersonians, it was the National Government which had brought upon America this disgrace. "Not one in a thousand would have resisted Great Britain … in the beginning of the Revolution" if the vile conduct of Washington had been foreseen; and it was plain, at this late day, that "either the Federal or State governments must fall" – so wrote Republican pamphleteers, so spoke Republican orators.[344 - "Priestly's Emigration," printed in Cobbett, i, 196, quoting "Agricola."]

Again Hamilton brought into action the artillery of his astounding intellect. In a series of public letters under the signature of "Camillus," he vindicated every feature of the treaty, evading nothing, conceding nothing. These papers were his last great constructive work. In numbers three, six, thirty-seven, and thirty-eight of "Camillus," he expounded the Constitution on the treaty-making power; demonstrated the exclusive right of the President to negotiate, and, with the Senate, to conclude, treaties; and proved, not only that the House should not be consulted, but that it is bound by the Constitution itself to pass all laws necessary to carry treaties into effect.[345 - "Camillus"; Works: Lodge, v and vi. It is impossible to give a satisfactory condensation of these monumental papers. Struck off in haste and under greatest pressure, they equal if not surpass Hamilton's "First Report on the Public Credit," his "Opinion as to the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States," or his "Report on Manufactures." As an intellectual performance, the "Letters of Camillus" come near being Hamilton's masterpiece.]

Fearless, indeed, and void of political ambition were those who dared to face the tempest. "The cry against the Treaty is like that against a mad-dog," wrote Washington from Mount Vernon.[346 - Washington to Hamilton, July 29, 1795; Writings: Ford, xiii, 76.] Particularly was this true of Virginia, where it raged ungovernably.[347 - The whole country was against the treaty on general grounds; but Virginia was especially hostile because of the sore question of runaway slaves and the British debts.] A meeting of Richmond citizens "have outdone all that has gone before them" in the resolutions passed,[348 - Washington to Randolph, Aug. 4, 1795; Writings: Ford, xiii, footnote to 86. See Resolutions, which were comparatively mild; American Remembrancer, i, 133-34; and see Richmond and Manchester Advertiser, of July 30, and Aug. 6, 1795.] bitterly complained Washington. Virginians, testified Jefferson, "were never more unanimous. 4. or 5. individuals of Richmond, distinguished however, by their talents as by their devotion to all the sacred acts of the government, & the town of Alexandria constitute the whole support of that instrument [Jay Treaty] here."[349 - Jefferson to Coxe, Sept. 10, 1795; Works: Ford, vii, 29.] These four or five devoted ones, said Jefferson, were "Marshall, Carrington, Harvey, Bushrod Washington, Doctor Stewart."[350 - Jefferson to Monroe, Sept. 6, 1795; ib., 27.] But, as we are now to see, Marshall made up in boldness and ability what the Virginia friends of the Administration lacked in numbers.

CHAPTER IV

WASHINGTON'S DEFENDER

His [Marshall's] lax, lounging manners have made him popular. (Jefferson.)

Having a high opinion of General Marshall's honor, prudence, and judgment, consult him. (Washington.)

The man [Washington] who is the source of all the misfortunes of our country is no longer possessed of the power to multiply evils on the United States. (The Aurora on Washington's retirement from the Presidency.)

Jefferson properly named Marshall as the first of Washington's friends in Virginia. For, by now, he had become the leader of the Virginia Federalists. His lucid common sense, his level poise, his steady courage, his rock-like reliability – these qualities, together with his almost uncanny influence over his constituents, had made him chief in the Virginia Federalist councils.

So high had Marshall risen in Washington's esteem and confidence that the President urged him to become a member of the Cabinet.

"The office of Attorney Gen

of the United States has become vacant by the death of Will Bradford, Esq.[351 - When Jefferson resigned, Randolph succeeded him as Secretary of State, and continued in that office until driven out of public life by the famous Fauchet disclosure. William Bradford of Pennsylvania succeeded Randolph as Attorney-General.] I take the earliest opportunity of asking if you will accept the appointment? The salary annexed thereto, and the prospects of lucrative practice in this city [Philadelphia] – the present seat of the Gen

Government, must be as well known to you, perhaps better, than they are to me, and therefore I shall say nothing concerning them.

"If your answer is in the affirmative, it will readily occur to you that no unnecessary time should be lost in repairing to this place. If, on the contrary, it should be the negative (which would give me concern) it might be as well to say nothing of this offer. But in either case, I pray you to give me an answer as promptly as you can."[352 - Washington to Marshall, Aug. 26, 1795; Washington MSS., Lib. Cong.]

Marshall decided instantly; he could not possibly afford to accept a place yielding only fifteen hundred dollars annually, the salary of the Attorney-General at that period,[353 - Act of 1789, Annals, 1st Cong., 1st Sess., Appendix, 2238.] and the duties of which permitted little time for private practice which was then allowable.[354 - For Randolph's pathetic account of his struggles to subsist as Attorney-General, see Conway, chap. xv.] So Marshall, in a "few minutes" declined Washington's offer in a letter which is a model of good taste.

"I had the honor of receiving a few minutes past your letter of the 26th inst.

"While the business I have undertaken to complete in Richmond,[355 - The Fairfax purchase. See infra, chap. v.] forbids me to change my situation tho for one infinitely more eligible, permit me Sir to express my sincere acknowledgments for the offer your letter contains & the real pride & gratification I feel at the favorable opinion it indicates.

"I respect too highly the offices of the present government of the United States to permit it to be suspected that I have declined one of them."[356 - Marshall to Washington, Aug. 31, 1795; Washington MSS., Lib. Cong.]

When he refused the office of Attorney-General, Washington, sorely perplexed, wrote Marshall's brother-in-law,[357 - See infra, chap. v.] Edward Carrington, United States Marshal and Collector of Internal Revenue for the District of Virginia,[358 - Executive Journal, U.S. Senate, i, 81, 82. And see Washington's Diary: Lossing, 166. Carrington held both of these offices at the same time.] a letter, "the whole" of which "is perfectly confidential, written, perhaps, with more candor than prudence," concerning Innes or Henry for the place; but, says the President, "having a high opinion of General[359 - Referring to Marshall's title as General of Virginia Militia. He was called "General" from that time until he became Chief Justice of the United States.] Marshall's honor, prudence, and judgment," Carrington must consult him.[360 - Washington to Carrington, Oct. 9, 1795; Writings: Ford, xiii, 116.]

The harassed President had now come to lean heavily on Marshall in Virginia affairs; indeed, it may be said that he was Washington's political agent at the State Capital. Carrington's answer is typical of his reports to the President: "The inquiry [concerning the selection of an Attorney-General] which you have been pleased to submit to Gen

Marshall and myself demands & receives our most serious attention – On his [Marshall's] aid I rely for giving you accurate information."[361 - Carrington to Washington, Oct. 2, 1795; MS., Lib. Cong.]

John Marshall

From a painting by Rembrandt Peale

Later Carrington advises Washington that Marshall "wishes an opportunity of conversing with Col. Innes before he decides."[362 - Ib.] Innes was absent at Williamsburg; and although the matter was urgent, Marshall and Carrington did not write Innes, because, to do so, would involve a decisive offer from Washington which "Gen

Marshall does not think advisable."[363 - Carrington to Washington, Oct. 8, 1795; MS., Lib. Cong.]

When Washington's second letter, suggesting Patrick Henry, was received by Carrington, he "immediately consulted Gen

Marshall thereon"; and was guided by his opinion. Marshall thought that Washington's letter should be forwarded to Henry because "his nonacceptance, from domestic considerations, may be calculated on"; the offer "must tend to soften" Henry "if he has any asperities"; and the whole affair would make Henry "active on the side of Government & order."[364 - Ib., Oct. 13, 1795; MS., Lib. Cong.]

Marshall argued that, if Henry should accept, his friendship for the Administration could be counted on. But Marshall's strongest reason for trying to induce Henry to become a member of the Cabinet was, says Carrington, that "we are fully persuaded that a more deadly blow could not be given to the Faction [Republican party] in Virginia, & perhaps elsewhere, than that Gentleman's acceptance of the" Attorney-Generalship. "So much have the opposers of the Government held him [Henry] up as their oracle, even since he has ceased to respond to them, that any event demonstrating his active support to Government, could not but give the [Republican] party a severe shock."[365 - Ib. A passage in this letter clearly shows the Federalist opinion of the young Republican Party and suggests the economic line dividing it from the Federalists. "In the present crisis Mr. H.[enry] may reasonably be calculated on as taking the side of Government, even though he may retain his old prejudices against the Constitution. He has indubitably an abhorrence of Anarchy… We know too that he is improving his fortune fast, which must additionally attach him to the existing Government & order, the only Guarantees of property. Add to all this, that he has no affection for the present leaders of the opposition in Virg

." (Carrington to Washington, Oct. 13, 1795; MS., Lib. Cong.)]

A week later Carrington reports that Henry's "conduct & sentiments generally both as to government & yourself [Washington] are such as we [Marshall and Carrington] calculated on … which assure us of his discountenancing calumny of every description & disorder,"[366 - Carrington to Washington, Oct. 20, 1795; MS., Lib. Cong. Carrington's correspondence shows that everything was done on Marshall's judgment and that Marshall himself personally handled most of the negotiations. (See ib., Oct. 28; Oct. 30, 1795.)] meaning that Henry was hostile to the Republicans.

In the rancorous assaults upon the Jay Treaty in Virginia, Marshall, of course, promptly took his position by Washington's side, and stoutly defended the President and even the hated compact itself. Little cared Marshall for the effect of his stand upon his popularity. Not at all did he fear or hesitate to take that stand. And high courage was required to resist the almost universal denunciation of the treaty in Virginia. Nor was this confined to the masses of the people; it was expressed also by most of the leading men in the various communities. At every meeting of protest, well-drawn and apparently convincing resolutions were adopted, and able, albeit extravagant, speeches were made against the treaty and the Administration.

Typical of these was the address of John Thompson at Petersburg, August 1, 1795.[367 - American Remembrancer, i, 21 et seq. John Thompson was nineteen years old when he delivered this address. His extravagant rhetoric rather than his solid argument is quoted in the text as better illustrating the public temper and prevailing style of oratory. (See sketch of this remarkable young Virginian, infra, chap. x.)[368] (#x_7_i22) A favorite Republican charge was that the treaty would separate us from France and tie us to Great Britain: "A treaty which children cannot read without discovering that it tends to disunite us from our present ally, and unite us to a government which we abhor, detest and despise." ("An Old Soldier of '76"; American Remembrancer, ii, 281.)] With whom, asked Thompson, was the treaty made? With the British King "who had sworn eternal enmity to republics"; that hateful monarch who was trying "to stifle the liberty of France" and "to starve thirty millions of men" by "intercepting the correspondence and plundering the commerce of neutral nations," especially that of the United States. The British, declared Thompson, sought "the destruction of our rising commerce; the annihilation of our growing navigation," and were pursuing that object "with all the … oppression which rapacity can practice."

Sequestration of British debts and other justifiable measures of retaliation would, said he, have stopped Great Britain's lawless practices. But the Administration preferred to treat with that malign Power; and our envoy, Jay, instead of "preserving the attitude of dignity and speaking the language of truth … basely apostatizing from republican principles, stooped to offer the incense of flattery to a tyrant, the scourge of his country, the foe of mankind… Yes!" exclaimed the radical orator, "we hesitated to offend a proud King, who had captured our vessels, enslaved our fellow-citizens, ruined our merchants, invaded our territory and trampled on our sovereignty." In spite of these wrongs and insults, "we prostrated ourselves before him, smiled in his face, flattered, and obtained this treaty."

The treaty thus negotiated was, declared Thompson, the climax of the Funding system which had "organized a great aristocracy … usurped the dominion of the senate … often preponderated in the house of representatives and which proclaims itself in servile addresses to our supreme executive, in dangerous appointments, in monstrous accumulations of debt, in violation of the constitution, in proscriptions of democrats, and, to complete the climax of political infamy, in this treaty."

Concerning the refusal to observe the principle that "free bottoms make free goods," our yielding the point rendered us, avowed Thompson, "a cowardly confederate … of … ruthless despots, who march to desolate France, to restore the altars of barbarous superstition and to extinguish the celestial light which has burst upon the human mind. O my countrymen, when you are capable of such monstrous baseness, even the patriot will invoke upon you the contempt of ages." This humiliation had been thrust upon us as a natural result of Washington's Neutrality proclamation – "a sullen neutrality between freemen and despots."

Thompson's searching, if boyish, rhetoric truly expressed the feeling in the hearts of the people; it was a frenzied sentiment with which Marshall had to contend. Notwithstanding his blazing language, Thompson analyzed the treaty with ability. In common with opponents of the treaty everywhere, he laid strongest emphasis on its unconstitutionality and the "usurpation" by the President and Senate of the rights and powers of the House of Representatives.

But Thompson also mentioned one point that touched Marshall closely. "The ninth article," said he, "invades the rights of this commonwealth, by contemplating the case of Denny Fairfax."[368 - American Remembrancer, i, 27.] Marshall and his brother were now the owners of this estate;[369 - See infra, chap. v.] and the Jay Treaty confirmed all transfers of British property and authorized British subjects to grant, sell, or devise lands held in America in the same manner as if they were citizens of the United States. In Congress a few months later, Giles, who, declared Ames, "has no scruples and certainly less sense,"[370 - Ames to Gore, March 11, 1796; Works: Ames, i, 189.] touched lightly on this same chord.[371 - Annals, 4th Cong., 1st Sess., 1033-34.] So did Heath, who was from that part of Virginia lying within the Fairfax grant.[372 - Ib., 1063. See Anderson, 41-43. As one of the purchasers of the Fairfax estate, Marshall had a personal interest in the Jay Treaty, though it does not appear that this influenced him in his support of it.]

Such was the public temper in Virginia, as accurately if bombastically expressed by the youthful Thompson, when the elections for the Legislature of 1795 were held. It was certain that the General Assembly would take drastic and hostile action against the treaty; and, perhaps, against Washington himself, in case the Republicans secured a majority in that body. The Federalists were in terror and justly so; for the Republicans, their strength much increased by the treaty, were aggressive and confident.

The Federalist candidate in Richmond was the member of the Legislature whom the Federalists had succeeded in electing after Marshall's retirement three years before. He was Marshall's intimate friend and a stanch supporter of Washington's Administration. But it appears that in the present crisis his popularity was not sufficient to secure his election, nor his courage robust enough for the stern fight that was certain to develop in the General Assembly.

The polls were open and the voting in progress. Marshall was among the first to arrive; and he announced his choice.[373 - The voting was viva voce. See infra, chap. x.] Upon his appearance "a gentleman demanded that a poll be opened for Mr. Marshall."[374 - Undoubtedly this gentleman was one of the perturbed Federalist managers.] Marshall, of course, indignantly refused; he had promised to support his friend, he avowed, and now to become a candidate was against "his wishes and feeling and honor." But Marshall promised that he would stand for the Legislature the following year.

Thereupon Marshall left the polls and went to the court-house to make an argument in a case then pending. No sooner had he departed than a poll was opened for him in spite of his objections;[375 - North American Review, xxvi, 22. While this story seems improbable, no evidence has appeared which throws doubt upon it. At any rate, it serves to illustrate Marshall's astonishing popularity.] he was elected; and in the evening was told of the undesired honor with which the freeholders of Richmond had crowned him.

Washington was apprehensive of the newly elected Legislature. He anxiously questioned Carrington "as to the temper of our Assembly." The latter reported that he did not "expect an extravagant conduct during the session."[376 - Carrington's reports to Washington were often absurd in their optimistic inaccuracy. They are typical of those which faithful office-holding politicians habitually make to the appointing power. For instance, Carrington told Washington in 1791 that, after traveling all over Virginia as United States Marshal and Collector of Internal Revenue, he was sure the people were content with Assumption and the whiskey tax (Washington's Diary: Lossing, footnote to 166), when, as a matter of fact, the State was boiling with opposition to those very measures.] He thought that "the spirit of dissatisfaction is considerably abated abroad" (throughout Virginia and away from Richmond), because recent attempts to hold county and district meetings "for the avowed purpose of condemning the Administration & the Treaty" had been "abortive." It seemed to him, however, that "there is a very general impression unfavorable to the Treaty, owing to the greater industry of those who revile, over the supporters of it."[377 - The mingling, in the Republican mind, of the Jay Treaty, Neutrality, unfriendliness to France, and the Federalist Party is illustrated in a toast at a dinner in Lexington, Virginia, to Senator Brown, who had voted against the treaty: "The French Republic – May every power or party who would attempt to throw any obstacle in the way of its independence or happiness receive the reward due to corruption." (Richmond and Manchester Advertiser, Oct. 15, 1795.)]

Still, Carrington was not sure about the Legislature itself; for, as he said, "it has every year for several past been observable, that, at meeting [of the Legislature] but few hot heads were to be seen, while the great body were rational; but in the course of the session it has seldom happened otherwise than that the spirit of party has been communicated so as to infect a majority. In the present instance I verily believe a question put on this day [the first day of the session] for making the Treaty a subject of consideration would be negatived – yet sundry members are here who will attempt every injury to both the Administration & the Treaty. The party will want ability in their leaders… General Lee, C. Lee, Gen

Marshall & Mr. Andrews will act with ability on the defensive."[378 - Carrington to Washington, Nov. 10, 1795; MS., Lib. Cong.]

Three days later the buoyant official advised the President that the Republicans doubted their own strength and, at worst, would delay their attack "in order that, as usual, a heat may be generated." Marshall was still busy searching for a properly qualified person to appoint to the unfilled vacancy in the office of Attorney-General; and Carrington tells Washington that "Gen