If they are not errors, he can explain and justify the motives of his actions.

At a distance from the theatre of action, truth is not always related without embellishment, and sometimes is entirely perverted, from a misconception of the causes which produce the effects that are the subjects of censure. This leads me to think, that the system, which I found it indispensably necessary to adopt on my first coming to this city, might have undergone severe strictures, and have had motives, very foreign from those that govern me, assigned as causes thereof. I mean, first, returning no visits; secondly, appointing certain days to receive them generally, not to the exclusion however of visits on any other days under particular circumstances; and, thirdly, at first entertaining no company, and afterwards (until I was unable to entertain any at all) confining it to official characters. A few days evinced the necessity of the two first in so clear a point of view, that, had I not adopted it, I should have been unable to attend to any sort of business, unless I had applied the hours allotted to rest and refreshment to this purpose; for by the time I had done breakfast, and thence till dinner, and afterwards til bed-time, I could not get relieved from the ceremony of one visit, before I had to attend to another. In a word, I had no leisure to read or to answer the despatches, that were pouring in upon me from all quarters.

With respect to the third matter, I early received information through very respectable channels, that the adoption thereof was not less essential, than that of the other two, if the President was to preserve the dignity and respect, that were due to the first magistrate. For a contrary conduct had involved the late presidents of Congress in insuperable difficulties, and the office,

in this respect, in perfect contempt; for the table was considered as a public one, and every person, who could get introduced, conceived that he had a right to be invited to it. This, although the table was always crowded (and with mixed company, and the President considered in no better light than as a maître d'hôtel), was in its nature impracticable, and as many offences given as if no table had been kept.

The citizens of this place were well acquainted with this fact, and the principal members of Congress in both Houses were so well convinced of the impropriety and degrading situation of their President, that it was the general opinion, that the President of the United States should neither give nor receive invitations; some from a belief, independent of the circumstances I have mentioned, that this was fundamentally right in order to acquire respect. But to this I had two objections, both powerful in my mind; first, the novelty of it I knew would be considered as an ostentatious mimicry of sovereignty; and, secondly, that so great a seclusion would have stopped the avenues to useful information from the many, and made me more dependent on that of the few. But to hit on a discriminating medium was found more difficult, than it appeared to be at first view; for, if the citizens at large were begun with, no line could be drawn; all, of decent appearance, would expect to be invited, and I should have been plunged at once into the evil I was endeavouring to avoid. Upon the whole, it was thought best to confine my invitations to official characters and strangers of distinction. This line I have hitherto pursued. Whether it may be found best to adhere to it, or depart from it, must in some measure be the result of experience and information.

So strongly had the citizens of this place imbibed an idea of the impropriety of my accepting invitations

to dinner, that I have not received one from any family (though they are remarkable for hospitality, and though I have received every civility and attention possible from them) since I came to the city, except to dine with the governor on the day of my arrival; so that, if this should be adduced as an article of impeachment, there can be at least one good reason adduced for my not dining out; to wit, never having been asked to do so.

One of the gentlemen, whose name is mentioned in your letter, though high-toned, has never, I believe, appeared with more than two horses in his carriage; * but it is to be lamented, that he and some others have stirred a question, which has given rise to so much animadversion, and which I confess has given me much uneasiness, lest it should be supposed by some, unacquainted with facts, that the object they had in view was not displeasing to me. The truth is, the question was moved before I arrived, without any privity or knowledge of it on my part, and urged, after I was apprized of it, contrary to my opinion; for I foresaw and predicted the reception it has met with, and the use that would be made of it by the adversaries of the government. Happily this matter is now done with, I hope never to be revived.†

* A report had gone abroad, that the Vice-President never appeared publicly except with a coach and six horses, which Dr. Stuart said was creating much excitement in Virginia, and was put forward by the opponents of the constitution as a proof of the monarchical tendency of the government.

This paragraph relates to a scheme, which had lately been before Congress, respecting the titles by which the high officers of government should be addressed. "Nothing could equal the ferment and disquietude," said Dr. Stuart, "occasioned by the proposition respecting titles. As it is believed to have originated with Mr. Adams and Mr. Lee, they are unpopular to an extreme." The history of the proceedings on this subject is briefly as follows.

A committee was appointed by the Senate, April 23d, "to consider

The opposition of the Senate to the discrimination in the tonnage bill was so adverse to my ideas of justice and policy, that I should have suffered it to pass silently into a law without my signature, had I not been assured by some members of the Senate, that they were preparing another bill, which would answer the purpose more effectually without being liable to the objections and to the consequences, which they feared would have attended the discrimination, which was proposed in the tonnage law. Why they keep their

and report what style or titles it will be proper to annex to the offices of President and Vice-President of the United States." Richard Henry Lee was chairman. The next day a committee was appointed by the House of Representatives to confer with the committee of the Senate

• Madison, 480

on the same subject. This joint committee reported, "That it is im-Madison, 471 proper to annex any style or title to the respective styles or titles of office expressed in the constitution." The report was unanimously adopted by the IIouso, but was not agreed to by the Senate. The question was then taken in that body, whether the President of the United States should be addressed by the title of His Excellency, which passed in the negative, and the subject was referred to another committee, of which Mr. Lee was again chairman.

A proposal to the House of Representatives to confer with this second committee brought on a debate, which was conducted with considerable warmth, and was stopped by the previous question, which set the subject aside, and it was never again brought forward in that House. The committee of the Senate reported, however, that it was proper to style the President, His Highness the President of the United States of America, and Protector of their Liberties. In the mean time the House of Representatives had addressed the President, in reply to his inaugural speech, as President of the United States; and the Senate, for the purpose of preserving harmony with the other House, resolved to follow its example in an address about to be made to the President, and postponed the report of their committee; agreeing at the same time in the resolve, that, "From a decent respect for the opinion and practice of civilized nations, whether under monarchical or republican forms of government, whose custom is to annex titles of respectability to the office of their chief magistrate, and that, in intercourse with foreign nations, a due respect for the majesty of the people of the United States may not be hazarded by an appearance of singularity, the Senate have been induced to be of opinion, that it would be proper to annex a respectable title to the office of the President of the United States." With this

doors shut, when acting in a legislative capacity, I am unable to inform you, unless it is because they think there is too much speaking to the gallery in the other House, and business thereby retarded.

Nothing would give me more pleasure, than to serve any of the descendants of General Nelson, of whose merits, when living, no man could entertain a higher opinion than I did. At the same time I must confess, there are few persons of whom I have no personal knowledge, or good information, that I would take into

declaration of their opinion the Senate allowed the matter to rest, and it was never afterwards revived.

While the subject was thus solemnly treated by Congress, it caused much excitement throughout the country. It was discussed in the gazettes, but the advocates of titles found few supporters. By these it was affirmed, however, that titles were as harmless as they were necessary, and that the President, as representing the majesty of the people, might even be styled His Majesty without reasonable offence to republican ears. Others said that His Excellency was not a proper title, because it was applied to officers below him, particularly in the diplomatic department. In some of the newspapers the President was called "His Highness the President-General." The Senate was denominated Most Honorable, and the same epithet was applied to the members of that body. For instance, it was published, that the Most Honorable Rufus King, and the Most Honorable Philip Schuyler were appointed Senators. And when Mrs. Washington came to New York, she was accompanied by the “ Lady of the Most Honorable Robert Morris." The Representatives, and even the secretaries of the executive departments, were favored with no higher title than Honorable. In the debates on the subject, Mr. Clymer said, that, "as soon as a man is selected for the public service, his fellow citizens with a liberal hand showered down titles upon him, either excellency or honorable; he would venture to affirm there were more Honorable Esquires in the United States than in all the world besides." There appears not to have been a single member of the House of Representatives in favor of titles. The habit of bestowing them gradually subsided. It would be ludicrous at the present day to affix the superlative epithet to a senator's name, and not less so to use the anticlimax Honorable Esquire, which prevailed during the revolution. General Washington was scrupulous to give every man his official appellation, but was opposed to all titles as marks of rank in a republican government. A person sent to him a manuscript treatise on heraldry, the publication of which was suppressed by his advice, as he thought its tendency would be hostile to the sentiments of the people, and unfavorable to liberty.