days or weeks after the events recorded; but they grew more exact in substance and date, as their author became more inimical to Hamilton or more convinced that his designs were nefarious. A proof of the purpose of the "Anas" may be found in the fact that they virtually ceased with Hamilton's death. Jefferson himself carefully reviewed them in 1818, and wrote a long and vigorous preface to them, embodying knowledge acquired since their writing; and the whole was left among his important papers with the evident intention that they should be given to the world. That such questionable material should be given to the world after every pretext for its publication had passed away, raised a cry of indignation which the best efforts of Jefferson's most partial biographers have not succeeded in silencing.

Another reason which kept Jefferson and Hamilton within the bounds of personal decorum was the profound reverence which each felt for the President,* and this continued operative long after each had come to know the real feelings of the other. In July, 1792, however, after more than two years of intercourse, a matter arose involving the direct issue of personal veracity. In its origin the trouble was ostensibly of an official character. A peculiar train of circumstances had led up to it. Early in 1791 Jefferson had offered to Philip Freneau, the leading Republican editor of the country, the post of clerk for foreign languages in the office of the Secretary of State. Jefferson was at the time personally unacquainted with him, but he knew his power as a publicist and wanted the influence of his pen for campaign purposes. That Jefferson from the beginning contemplated Freneau's editing a paper is shown by the language of the letter offering him the appointment. "The salary, indeed, is very low, being but two hundred and fifty dollars, but also it gives so little to do as not to interfere with any calling the person may choose which would not absent him from the seat of government." And again, his personal interest in Freneau's acceptance was candidly stated in a letter to Madison. Jefferson

*See Washington, page 421.

was under the impression that Freneau had declined. "I am sincerely sorry. I should have given him the perusal of all my letters of foreign intelligence and all foreign newspapers, the publication of all proclamations and other public notices within my department, and the printing of the laws which, added to his salary, would have been a considerable aid."

Freneau* did, however, finally accept, though not without hesitation, and coming to Philadelphia, then the seat of government, established his paper, the National Gazette. He devoted himself to lashing unmercifully Hamilton's policy of finance and the monarchical and aristocratic tendencies of the ultra-Federalist school. It is truly remarkable that Hamilton should so long have refrained from replying. In July, 1792, however, he could no longer restrain himself. Over an assumed signature, he assailed Freneau in the Federalist organ, Fenno's Gazette of the United States.

While the assault was in formal terms directed against Freneau, it was but too evident that its real animus was against Jefferson. The first of the attacks was a short article asking, in all pretended innocence, whether the editor of the National Gazette received a salary for translation or for publications, “the design of which was to vilify those to whom the voice of the people had committed the administration of our public affairs, to oppose the measures of government and by false insinuations to disturb the public peace." The second article was more bold and charged explicitly that Freneau's clerkship was merely a subterfuge, that not only had Jefferson employed the patronage of public office to the end above hinted at, but that he himself frequently contributed to the paper articles of a virulent character. The assaults upon Freneau were instantly answered by eager partisans, though, strange to say, in the columns of his own paper they were practically ignored. He contented himself with taking an affidavit before the Mayor of Philadelphia to the effect that not a line was ever directly or indirectly written,

*See Freneau, page 228.

dictated or composed for the National Gazette by Mr. Jefferson, and that the latter had no interest of any kind in the paper. Hamilton totally disregarded the oath but could produce no proof whatever for his charges, and he was driven to the generality that "presumptive facts and circumstances must afford the evidence."

As for the portions of the attack that concerned Jefferson, it was not until September that he took any public notice of them, for he was in Virginia while they continued, probably designing geometrical wheel-barrows and mould-boards of least resistance.

When he did finally take notice of them it was in answer to an appeal from the President himself, who at the same time. forwarded an appeal of like tenor to Hamilton. To both parties Washington emphasized the disastrous results both at home and abroad of dissensions in his Cabinet, and he implored that there might be "mutual forbearance and temporizing yielding on all sides." Jefferson replied in a letter of great length and vigor, setting forth his "opinions against the views of Colonel Hamilton," and entering minutely into a discussion of Hamilton's charges against him. These Jefferson arranged under three heads: "First, with having written letters from Europe to my friends to oppose the present constitution while depending. Second, with a desire of not paying the public debt. Third, with setting up a paper to decry and slander the government." He emphatically denied each charge; but to the third he devoted the bulk of the letter, solemnly protesting that he had nothing to do with the management of Freneau's paper.

Hamilton's answer to Washington, of the same date as Jefferson's, was couched in more peaceful language, but in six days from that time he began upon Jefferson a second series of attacks, and continued them for four succeeding months. These attacks were direct and did not involve Freneau at all. His failure, however, to overthrow Freneau rendered totally impotent the attack upon Jefferson, and when Freneau brought out the fact that Hamilton himself was doing precisely what he had accused Jefferson of doing-namely, supporting a partisan

paper by means of the patronage of his department-the rest of Hamilton's charges fell harmless to the ground.

The question of the ethics involved in Jefferson's connection with Freneau may safely be left an open one; but it may be remarked that, from that day to the present, many influential editors have fared much better in the matter of Federal appointments than did Freneau. However, it may be questioned if any editor since Freneau has ever established a paper at the instigation of a Cabinet official. It is perhaps significant that we look in vain in Jefferson's "Anas" for any mention of overtures to Freneau or of this controversy.

The ultimate effect of the quarrel upon the prestige of Hamilton, both personally and politically, was fatal. "He lost," says Parton, "something which is of no value to an anonymous writer in a Presidential campaign, but it is of immense value to a public man-weight." Apart from the effect upon Hamilton, the effect upon the future of our country was of the greatest importance. The triumph of Hamilton meant a strong central government administered in the English spirit, while that of Jefferson meant a light and easy central government that would respond readily to the will of the populace; and the Freneau matter is of the utmost importance as it led the way to a decisive struggle before the tribunal of popular opinion

Jefferson's Cabinet opinions and his recommendations and reports submitted to the House of Representatives concerned both domestic and foreign affairs and embraced a large range of subjects. The "Report on the Privileges and Restrictions of the Commerce of the United States in Foreign Countries" deserves especial notice. It was an elaboration of a tabulated statement previously made of commercial relations with the British and French dominions. It enters clearly but succinctly into the subject of our imports from Spain, Portugal, France, Great Britain, the United Netherlands, Denmark, and Sweden. It sets forth what commercial articles of ours were received by them, and on what terms. Universal free trade, Jefferson held, is as a principle most advantageous; but so long as foreign restrictions on our commerce and carrying trade continued,

+

they might best be counteracted by a policy of liberal reciprocity. In case any nation should refuse to enter into this policy, he proposes various methods of retaliation for discriminating restrictions. Throughout the paper he loses no opportunity+ of emphasizing Great Britain's rigorous attitude towards our commerce in contrast with the fair and equal principles of trade proposed by France. This paper contained the germs of all subsequent party discussion and divisions on the tariff

To Jefferson and his contemporaries foreign relations were of superlative importance. And this is not strange. The young nation was just taking its place among hostile, or, at best, indifferent rivals. The diplomatic problems and issues of that day— even those which seemed most difficult and threatening-have passed completely away and left but little trace on our present national life. But the student of Jefferson's political activity must attempt at least to give them that prominence which they held in his mind. They were the more intense for being narrowed down to three countries alone-Spain, England and France.

Jefferson's business with Spain took the form of instructions to our Commissioners at Madrid. These discussed the troubles with the Indian tribes on the southern frontier, due largely to Spanish instigation, and the disputes over the boundaries and commerce. From this period dates the beginning of the agitation for the free navigation of the Mississippi. All these subjects were destined later to figure extensively in the negotiations connected with the Louisiana purchase.

Since the ratification of the Treaty of Peace, England's* attitude towards her former colonies had been uniformly indifferent, even contemptuous. Her unwillingness to show a conciliatory spirit on any point at issue became more and more marked until, in November, 1790, certain representations from Mr. Morris, our agent in England, rendered it, in Jefferson's opinion, "dishonorable to the United States, useless and even injurious, to renew the proposition for a treaty of commerce, or for the

*See England, page 202.