Читать книгу Complete Works - Hamilton Alexander - Страница 7

Table of Contents

Hamilton's literary activity suffered no interruption from the time he wrote his well-known account of the hurricane in his West Indian home until his death. Not only was it his keen pleasure to write, but his pen was always at the service of others who appealed to him, the result being the production of an enormous amount of general correspondence, political and other essays, and even occasional verse. Laurens, in December, 1776, regarding General Lee's "Infamous Publication," and the fitness of Hamilton's answer, playfully wrote to the latter: "The ancient Secretary is the Recueil of modern history and anecdotes, and will give them to us with candour, elegance and perspicacity. The pen of Junius is in your hand and I think you will, without difficulty, expose in his defence letters and last productions, such a tissue of falsehood and inconsistency as will satisfy the world, and put him forever to silence." The part he played throughout the Revolution, as the secretary and aide-de-camp of Washington, was one requiring a great amount of literary work, his duties being ever of an onerous kind, and his writings of the most diversified nature. The collection of military papers that remain and are now at the Congressional Library show that most of Washington's orders in the field were largely Hamilton's work, and it is to be presumed from their nature that he had most to do with their preparation.

All of them are singularly free from correction, and are legibly and carefully written. This power of prolific creation seems to have increased until his death, and while his correspondence was not as voluminous as that of Jefferson, who is said to have written twenty-five thousand letters, Hamilton's facility for expressing himself on paper led him to write upon every occasion, and the newspapers of the day are a veritable repository of articles upon every conceivable political subject. Worthington C. Ford, in a personal letter, says in this connection: "Think of the man who writes himself hundreds of letters required of him when organizing the provisional army in 17981 It makes the modern General of Industry seem insignificant with his small following of typewriters and a highly organized system of red tape." In the twelve volumes that constitute Lodge's works, most of Hamilton's important reports, speeches, pamphlets, and letters are reproduced, and the list is by no means complete. His communications upon Foreign Relations were thirty-three in number, on Finance and the National Bank thirty-nine, on Commercial Relations twenty-seven, and on Manufacturing and the Whiskey Rebellion seventeen each. His published military letters number seventy-six, his other papers on Coinage, the Mint, Taxation, and the Fisheries seven; and there are no less than thirty-two speeches presented in this work alone. Other miscellaneous papers, relating to the Jefferson and the Adams controversy and the Reynolds affair, numbered seventeen. Of the eighty-five articles in The Federalist it is believed that he wrote sixty-three unaided, and three in collaboration with Madison.

In this collection we, therefore, find over three hundred and twenty-eight important productions brought forth in a period of less than thirty years. If we are to include the various other papers and letters contained in Hamilton's works, edited by his son, or reproduced elsewhere, the number would be very great. From time to time, as in the life and correspondence of McHenry, valuable and hitherto unpublished letters have been unearthed in the last few years. The writer's collection contains many papers relating to both public and legal matters, and that at Washington is still, to some degree, untouched by the historian.

As was the custom of the eighteenth century, Hamilton wrote under various pseudonyms, and these include the well-known James Montague, Phocion Continentalist Pericles, An American Citizen, A Plain Honest Many Pacificus, Tully, No Jacobin, Americanus, Horatius, Civis, Titus Manlius, Observer, Anti-Defamer Cato and Publius, the last having been made use of in the production of The Federalist. With Rufus King he adopted Camillus in writing in defence of Jay's treaty with Great Britain and many other matters. King is said to have written eight of this series. The first important communication of Hamilton was the well-known letter to Robert Morris in regard to the establishment of a national bank, which his modesty forbade him signing. This was in 1780,' at the time he was attached to Washington's staff, and but twenty-three years of age, and probably marked the first exhibition of his pent-up desires to identify himself with national affairs. The history of the subsequent action of Morris, who availed himself of Hamilton's suggestions, is too well known to need more than passing reference, but he promptly suggested the latter for the Treasury. Previous to this, as early as 1774, he wrote his remarkable pamphlet entitled "The Full Vindication," which was an answer to the "Westchester Farmer." The writer of the latter, who was believed to be Bishop Samuel Seabury, had indulged in offensive criticism of the Continental Congress. Upon the title-page of Hamilton's paper, which was printed by James Rivington, the printer and bookseller, who in later years became one of his clients, appears the motto, "Veritas magna est et prevalebit," and the sub-title "Sophistry is Exposed, his Cavils confuted, his Artifice detected, and his Wit is ridiculed," is appended. A reply to Hamilton appeared later, and the second answer prepared by him and entitled, "The Farmer Refuted," was still more drastic and convincing. As Lodge says: "These two productions in patriotic interest excited much attention were widely read, and were attributed by Dr. Myles Cooper, the President of King's College, to Jay. Few suspected that they would prove to be the work of a college boy, and all were amazed when the true author was known. These two pamphlets are the first important efforts of Hamilton's pen. They are, however, little short of wonderful when we remember they are the work of a boy not yet eighteen years old." He was ever a contributor to the newspapers and periodicals, among them the United States Gazette edited by his friend John Fenno, who had come from Boston. Even before this he had written an article for Holt's Gazette in defence of the destruction of tea in 1774. According to Hudson, the United States Gazette was started in New York, its original name being The Gazette of the United States, and it was first issued in New York, which was then the seat of the National Government, but afterward was transferred to Philadelphia when it became the capital, in 1790. It was always the organ of the Federalists and never lost an occasion to attack the Jacobins, as the Democratic sympathizers with the French Revolutionists were called. For this reason it was opposed to the Aurora and the Daily Advertisery edited by William Duane and Philip Freneau, which were the organs of Jefferson and his friends. Fenno died of yellow fever in 1798, and his son George Ward Fenno succeeded him, conducting the paper until it ceased to exist in 1820/ These papers conveyed to the Jays, Kings, Churches, and other Americans abroad the only information regarding the progress of events in their native country. Not only was such news delayed many months, on account of the slow progress of packets, but all manner of interruptions, which are strangely in contrast to the news gathering in the twentieth century, are evident in the New York newspapers of the day. The presses were even often stopped to publish fresh material that had come by stage-coach two days later than that printed by their contemporaries.

Angelica Church wrote to her sister from Lrondon, June the 4th, 1793:

My dear Eliza: I am returned from our ambassadors very much edifyed by reading Fenno's paper, for it speaks of my Brother, as he deserves, and as I and all who dare to know him think.

We are going to our country house. Mrs. Pinckney passes the week with me, and whilst we admire the taste and elegance of Great Britain, we shall still more regret the society, the pleasures, and friendships of America. Ah my dear Sister after all, nothing repays us for a separation from those we have been long attached to. Mr. and Mrs. Bache are to be at Mr. Morris's Villa, which is not far from Down Place. I shall visite her to see it; but request of her to tell you what she has seen, but as she does not like chit chat it will be difEcult to prevail on her. They are soon to return to America. Why am I not to be of the party I It is an age since we arrived, and if I had not seen Mr. Fenno's paper my impatience would have been extreme. Adieu my dear Betsy.

And again on June 5, 1793.

My dear: The packet is arrived, and you are well, this is however not all I wish to know; but it is a great pleasure yet relief to get a letter from you; my love to Alexander the good, and the amiable. Shall I tell you a secret? I have more and better hopes within these days than ever of crossing the Atlantic.

Philip Freneau was an exceedingly cultivated man, and an early American poet of some ability, and the Daily Advertisery which he edited, had a long and apparently prosperous career. Freneau was bom in 1752, and was graduated from Princeton in 1771. It is said that he lost his life in 1832 from exposure, having gone astray in a bog-meadow on returning home from Freehold, New Jersey. His attacks upon the Federalists were mild in comparison with those that he subsequently published in the National Gazette. This journal was established October 31, 1791, and was bitter in its abuse of and opposition to Hamilton and the others. Freneau was clever and witty, and did so much to please Jefferson that the latter made him a salaried interpreter in the State Department, which led to much scandal at the time. The new sheet contained numerous scurrilous articles, some of them attacking Hamilton who was then Secretary of the Treasury, and in Fenno's paper, over the signature of "The American," the latter charged Jefferson with the part he had played in providing Freneau with the sinews of war, and extending to him his patronage. Jefferson's explanation was extremely lame. He acknowledged that "he had heard with pleasure of the publication which promised to administer an antidote to the aristocratical and monarchical doses lately given by the unknown writer of the 'Discourses on Davila' and which also would probably reproduce, at his request, certain extracts from the Leyden Gazette concerning French politics. Subscriptions he admitted to have solicited from a charitable desire to aid his clerk, whom he thought to be a man of good parts. He protested in the presence of heaven that he had made no effort to control the conduct or sentiments of the paper."

In Philadelphia, journalistic controversies were most disorderly, especially when a certain amount of public sympathy was extended to the representatives of the French Republic. It is quite conceivable how Hamilton must have raged internally against the blackguardly abuse of the Aurora and the daily attacks of Bache; but although public opinion of the right kind was finally aroused, Hamilton appears to have, meanwhile, kept silent. So inexcusable were the attacks of the anti-Federalistic journals that the editors were constantly in trouble with the authorities. Even when Washington retired to Mount Vernon the abuse was so disgraceful that a company of veterans known as the Spring Garden Butchers, who had fought directly under the latter in the war, went to the office of the Aurora and looted and demolished the premises. On the 9th of May, 1798, the intolerance of the sane public made itself especially manifest in a demonstration of violence. This day had been appointed as one of fasting and prayer, and the attitude of those who openly fraternized with the French representatives, and who were obsessed with the unhealthy doctrines of the republic, could no longer be tolerated. Declarations were made against the "Jacobins, philosophers, freemasons, and the illuminati," and a political riot marked the limit of patriot endurance. The office of the Aurora was again attacked, where Bache had intrenched himself with a number of friends, who were armed to the teeth. After doing what damage they could, the rioters—many among them being Federalists— broke the windows and plastered the statue of Franklin, who was Bache's uncle, with mud. After Bache's death, from yellow fever, the paper was edited by William Duane, a still more vehement partisan of the Jacobins. In November, 1799, Hamilton was the plaintiff in a libel case against a New York newspaper called the Argus. In its issue of October 6 appears the following excerpt from the Philadelphia publication:

An effort has been recently made to suppress the Aurora, and Alexander Hamilton was at the bottom of it. Mrs. Bache was offered $6,000 down in presence of several persons in part payment, the valuation to be left to two impartial persons, and the remainder paid immediately on giving up the paper, but she pointedly refused it, and declared she would never dishonour her husband's memory, nor her children's future fame by such baseness; when she parted with her paper it should be to Republicans only.

On November 21 David Frothingham, the foreman of the office, was indicted on complaint of General Hamilton. The case was brought to trial before Judge Harrison, the recorder, and the mayor of the city of New York. Cadwallader Colden and Alexander Hamilton were sworn. The former, who was assistant attorney, testified that Frothingham had been called upon and said he supposed he was liable, but saw no criminality as the letter was copied from another paper. Hamilton then testified that he was innocent of the conduct imputed to him. This testimony was objected to by Brockholst Livingston, the defendant's counsel, and the objection was sustained. Hamilton was then asked to explain certain innuendoes in the indictment respecting speculations, etc. This having been done he was interrogated as to what was generally understood by secret service money. He replied it meant money appropriated by a government generally for corrupt purposes, and in support of the government which gave it. On being asked if he considered the Aurora as hostile to the United States, he replied in the affirmative. In defence Livingston tried to prove that Frothingham was not responsible, and that the editor should have been arrested instead. Ogden Hoffman, who appeared for Hamilton, replied that even every journeyman was liable to prosecution, and Frothingham, as fore-man, was especially so. The jury rendered a verdict of guilty with a recommendation to mercy, and the defendant was fined one hundred dollars, and given four months in Bridewell.

Later we find Hamilton constantly writing for the many journals that appeared from time to time in the interest of the Federalist cause. There is no doubt that he worked in conjunction with William Cobbett, whose caustic pen made every one uncomfortable. Cobbett was an English subject who, though he lived among those who had just gained their independence, was ever loyal to the English king. He had been a private soldier in New Brunswick, and when he came to Philadelphia, supported himself by giving English lessons to the French émigrés who flocked from Santo Domingo, and by these he earned from four to five hundred pounds per annum. He first took a shop in Philadelphia, publishing a number of clever but stinging pamphlets, one being an attack upon Dr. Priestley, who was driven out of England in June, 1794," and another entitled " A Bone to Gnaw for the Democrats." He also wrote "A Little Plain English and a New Year's Gift to the Democrats."

Urged by Hamilton he, from 1794 to 1801, published a paper called the Weekly Political Register which remained in existence from 1794 to 1800, when he returned to England by way of New York, and died there in 1835. Under the pseudonym of Peter Porcupine, he bitterly attacked the French and their American sympathizers, and warmly defended Washington, Hamilton, and others of the Federal party. His stay in Philadelphia was not entirely free from turmoil and embarrassment, for upon several occasions he narrowly escaped personal violence from those he had attacked. During the yellow fever outbreak he severely criticized Dr. Benjamin Rush, who was a popular idol, sneering at his treatment of the plague by large doses of mercury and bleeding. He went further, and called Rush a Sangrado, for which offence suit was brought for libel, and after two years judgment was recorded against Cobbett for five thousand dollars. This was too much for the journal, which succumbed, and its editor transferred his activities to a new field.

William Duane vied with Callender and Freneau in bitterness of invective, which was directed against the administrations of Washington and Adams, Hamilton always coming in for his share. Duane's libels were so virulent that he was prosecuted under the Sedition Act, but the suit was allowed to drop.

In November, 1801, several prominent Federalists, among them Hamilton, Troup, Richard Varick, Archibald Gracie, Samuel Boyd, and William Woolsey, established the New York Evening Post, which has remained in existence ever since. They were fortunate enough to command the services of William Coleman, a Bostonian and a clever and successful lawyer, who, for a short time, was a partner of Aaron Burr. So close was Hamilton's connection with the Post that pretty much everything in it relating to politics was ascribed to him, for it mercilessly attacked the Jeffersonians. Its columns were filled, not only with signed letters, but unsigned editorials and communications covering every political situation, and Coleman and Hamilton were ever on the outlook for the tricks of the other side. As illustrating the deliberation of their methods Hudson in his valuable work refers to the delay between the receipt of Thomas Jefferson's annual message in December, 1801, and its critical discussion five days later. After it had been digested it was gravely and forcibly torn to pieces in a letter signed Lucius Crassus, which was probably written by Hamilton.

Coleman was a pugnacious and witty adversary, and more than a match for Duane or Cheetham, both of whom were journalistic rivals, and upon one occasion expressed himself in the manner of the day as follows:

Lie on, Duane, lie for pay.

And Cheetham lie thou too.

More against truth you cannot say

Than truth can say 'gainst you."

This, or some other galling squib, led to the serious consequence of a challenge by Cheetham, the actual duel, however, being averted, as both antagonists were arrested by order of Judge Brockholst Livingston, but allowed to go free upon their promise to abandon the encounter. However, within a few days, a Captain Thompson accused Coleman of cowardice in the Cheetham matter, was challenged by the latter, and a duel was fought in Love Lane, which is now Twenty-first Street, with the result that Thompson was mortally wounded, and his antagonist returned to the Evening Post office "and got out the paper in good style, although half an hour late."

Coleman frankly admitted the influence of Hamilton in the conduct of the Post Hilliard says "Jeremiah Mason asked him (Coleman) who wrote or aided in the preparation of certain articles; Coleman replied that he made no secret of the fact that his paper was set up under the auspices of General Hamilton. I then asked him,' Does he write in your paper?' 'Never a word.' 'How, then, does he assist?' His answer was, 'Whenever anything occurs on which I feel the want of information I state matter to him, sometimes in a note; he appoints a time when I may see him, usually a late hour of the evening. He always keeps himself minutely informed on all political matters. As soon as I see him he begins in a deliberate manner to dictate and I to note down in shorthand; when he stops, my article is completed."'

The bitterness of invective indulged in by the rival journals of both parties has never been approached since. From May, 1803, to shortly before the duel with Burr the papers were filled with venomous attacks upon every one, including Hamilton and Burr. In an issue of the Portfolio, a Federalist sheet, June 5, 1804, appears the following: "Wanted, for the Aurora service, three fellows without ears, two with backs flagrant from the beadle, one traitor, and a couple of Deists, none need apply but who can come well recommended from Newgate, or their last place. N. B. Any young imp of sedition who would make a tolerable devil may have everything found him except his washing."

Angelica Church's continued unvarying interest in Hamilton's work is again shown in a letter written to her sister.

Angelica Church to Elizabeth Hamilton.

London, April 25, 1788.

At last my dear Eliza I have the best grounded hopes that we shall pass the remainder of our lives in the same city, how many happy evenings have I already past! from dwelling on my future happiness!

Colonel Beckwith tells me that our dear Hamilton writes too much and takes no exercise, and grows too fat. I hate both the word and the thing, and I desire you will take care of his health and his good looks, why I shall find him on my return a dull, heavy fellow!

He will be unable to Flirt as Robert Morris; pray, Betsey, make him walk, and ride, and be amused. You will see by some of Church's letters which have caused me to shed the most delicious tears of joy and gratitude, that it will not be long before we return to America.

Embrace poor dear Hamilton for me, it is impossible to know him, and not to wish him health and pleasure, and then I am really so proud of his merit and abilities, that even you, Eliza, might envy my feelings.

Adieu my dear friends, be happy.

And again later:

I am my dear Sister, extremely delighted with the hopes of seeing America happy, if the new constitution is acceded to we will enjoy it. I shall then have the prospect that my children will at least be happily settled in a country it has cost me so much to give up. Will you send me the newspapers regularly instead of sending me fruit, for it is generally spoiled, and the trouble getting it thro the custom house is immense, but the papers must be those that contain your husband's writings. Adieu my dear, embrace your master for me, and tell him that I envy you the fame of so clever a husband, one who writes so well; God bless him, and may he long continue to be the friend and the brother of your affectionate

Angelica.

Hamilton was an omnivorous reader, for everywhere among his papers long lists of books of reference are to be found of the most varied nature, ranging from the classics to the novels of the day, and it is certain that they all played a part in much that he did and wrote. In the library left by him are to be found these books, amongst others: Hume's "Essays," "The Letters of Pliny," "Œuvres Posthumes de Frédéric, Roi de Prusse," "Traité Générale du Commerce," "CEuvres de Moliére," "Histoire de Turenne," "Gil Bias," "De la Felicité Publique," Diderot and D'Alemberts "Encyclopédie Methodique," La Rochefoucauld-Lian-court's "Travels," Journal des Etats Généraux, "Plutarch's Lives," Hampton's "Polybius," Lord Chesterfield's "Letters," Voltaire, Winn's "History of America," Cicero's "Morals," Bacon's "Essays," Ralt's "Dictionary of Trade and Commerce," Montaigne's "Essays," Cudworth's "Intellectual System," "The Orations of Demosthenes," Hobbes's "Dialogues," Robertson's "Charles V," and Enticle's "History of the Late War", "The Works of Laurence Sterne," "The Works of Edward Gibbon," "The Connois-seur," Walpole's "Anecdotes," "Works of Sir Thomas Browne," Goldsmith's "Essays," "Hudibras," "The Works of St. Anselmo," "The Letters of Socrates and Rutherfurd's "Institutes."

His studious tastes and habits drew forth the famous comment of Talleyrand, who one night passed Hamilton's window and found him at work, and later wrote, " I have," he said, "seen a man who made the fortune of a nation, laboring all night to support his family."

He managed to devote a great deal of time to the study of the languages. Even as late as 1794 he further perfected himself in French with the aid of a Mr. Dornat, a Philadelphia teacher, although this seems a superfluity, for he always used this tongue in his talks with Volney, de Noailles, and the many other clever men who were driven from France, and who contributed to the charm of Philadelphia society. He subscribed for, and assiduously read. La Chronique Mensuelle, Le Trône Mensuel, and the Journal Etoile.

The Churches, who were in England, were ever on the lookout for literature that might be of use to him, and Mrs. Church, in writing to her sister from London, February 4, 1790, says: "I shall send by the first ships every well-written book that I can procure on the subject of finance. I cannot help being diverted at the avidity I express to whatever relates to this subject." She sent him Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations," and it is somewhat curious to find Sumner saying, that Hamilton did not seem to have been guided by the works of Adam Smith, although the "best-known book of this writer" was in his library, nor does he seem to have read Hume's economic writings, nor the financial essayists of the French. Though "he refers contemptuously to Turgot and Condorcet," who committed suicide by poison rather than go to the guillotine, he actually was influenced, according to one of his biographers, by John Law, who was an able but unscrupulous financier, the originator of the Mississippi Bubble, and responsible for much of the ruin of France during the reign of Louis XIV, When he wrote of John Law he was only twenty-two years old, but he recognized him then in a letter to James Duane as a person of more penetration than integrity." Had he seen the Dutch caricatures of the Rue Quimquempoix or read Saint Simon's memoirs, it is doubtful if he would have taken John Law seriously.

Even Callender, one of his bitterest antagonists, admitted that "as a political writer Alexander Hamilton holds the same rank in America that Burke enjoys in England." Apart from the intrinsic merit of what he wrote his literary style was perfect, and did not partake of the florid and grandiloquent character of the productions of the latter part of the eighteenth century, and in many respects was quite his own. It was free from redundant verbiage, exceedingly direct, and he never was at a loss for words to clothe his new ideas. Sumner, whose praise is sometimes faint and often patronizing, says: "Hamilton was industrious. He wrote in a clear Style although prolix." In reference to his work while at head-quarters during the Revolution he says that "he was capable of taking the General's orders and composing a letter, to publish them which would rank as of very high literary merit among the writings of those days."

Oliver, whose insight into Hamilton's character is unusual for a foreigner, but is also valuable from the intelligence and knowledge of men displayed, says: " There is in all Hamilton's work—writings and speeches—the Intense seriousness of youth. The qualities that made him a great statesman and a terrible combatant were force, lucidity, and conviction. His confidence in himself and in his ideas is amazing, amounting almost to fanaticism. If we seek for a complete presentment of the man in what he wrote and spoke we shall not find it. He treats his public ceremoniously and with reserve. An excessive gravity is the rule. Anger is the only passion which is permitted to appear; not a beam of humor, or a flash of wit. The whole procedure is stately and tense. This, also, is in accordance with the nature of youth." While to some extent this is true, and possibly Oliver has never had access to Hamilton's intimate correspondence, there are a few letters in existence that show the lighter vein in which he indulged. Among them are the breezy epistles to his wife, to her sister, and to the two or three French officers with whom he was on intimate terms. No better illustration of the occasional exercise of his graceful wit can be found than a letter to Miss Kitty Livingston, who seems to have been a rather light-headed and casual person. On one occasion, when she sought to secure his aid to enable certain friends to pass through the lines when the army was at Morristown, he replied:

Alexander Hamilton to Kitty Livingston.

Headquarters, March 18, 1779.

I can hardly forgive an application to my humanity to induce me to exert my influence in an affair in which ladies are concerned, and especially when you are of the party. Had you appealed to my friendship or to my gallantry, it would have been irresistible. I should have thought myself bound to have set prudence and policy at defiance, and even to have attacked wind-mills in your ladyship's service. I am not sure but my imagination would have gone so far as to have fancied New York an enchanted castle—the three ladies so many fair damsels ravished from their friends and held in captivity by the spells of some wicked magician—General Clinton, a huge giant, placed as keeper of the gates—and myself, a valorous knight, destined to be their champion and deliverer.

But when, instead of availing yourself of so much better titles, you appealed to the cold, general principle of humanity, I confess I felt myself mortified, and determined, by way of revenge, to mortify you in turn. I resolved to show you that all the eloquence of your fine pen could not tempt our Fabius to do wrong; and, avoiding any representation of my own, I put your letter into his hands and let it speak for itself. I knew, indeed, this would expose his resolution to a severer trial than it could experience in any other way, and I was not without my fears for the event, but if it should decide against you, I anticipated the triumph of letting you see your influence had failed. I congratulated myself on the success of my scheme; for, though there was a harder struggle upon the occasion between inclination and duty, than it would be for his honor to tell; yet he at last had the courage to determine that, as he could not indulge the ladies with consistency and propriety, he would not run the risk of being charged with a breach of both. This he desired me to tell you, though, to be sure, it was done in a different manner, interlaced with many assurances of his great desire to oblige you, and of his regret that he could not do it in the present case, with a deal of stuff of the same kind, which I have too good an opinion of your understanding to repeat. I shall, therefore, only tell you that whether the Governor and the General are more honest or more perverse than other people, they have a very odd knack of thinking alike; and it happens in the present case that they both equally disapprove the intercourse you mention, and have taken pains to discourage it. I shall leave you to make your own reflections upon this, with only one more observation, which is that the ladies for whom you apply would have every claim to be gratified, were it not that it would operate as a bad precedent. But, before I conclude, it will be necessary to explain one point. This refusal supposes that the ladies mean only to make a visit and return to New York. If it should be their intention to remain with us, the case will be altered. There will be no rule against their coming out, and they will be an acquisition. But this is subject to two provisos—1st that they are not found guilty of treason or any misdemeanor punishable by the laws of the State, in which case the General can have no power to protect them; and 2dly, that the ladies on our side do not apprehend any inconvenience from increasing their number. Trifling apart, there is nothing could give me greater pleasure than to have been able to serve Miss Livingston and her friends on this occasion, but circumstances really did not permit it. I am persuaded she has too just an opinion of the General's politeness not to be convinced that he would be happy to do anything which his public character would justify in an affair so interesting to the tender feelings of so many ladies. The delicacy of her own ideas will easily comprehend the delicacy of his situation;—she knows the esteem of her friend.

A. Hamilton.

The General and Mrs. Washington present their compliments.

Hamilton was a busy letter writer, and many of the products of his pen remain as examples of the lost art of correspondence. His chirography was artistic, graceful, and quite characteristic of the man, while his pithy and well-turned phrases remind one of the perfect English of Addison. Hawthorne thus commented upon one of his letters in his analysis of a book of autographs:

We turn another leaf, and find a memorial of Hamilton. It is but a letter of introduction, addressed to Governor Jay in favor of Mr. Davies, of Kentucky; but it gives an impression of high breeding and courtesy, as little to be mistaken as if we could see the writer's manner and hear his cultivated accents, while personally making one gentleman known to another. There is likewise a rare vigor of expression and pregnancy of meaning, such as only a man of habitual energy of thought could have conveyed into so commonplace a thing as an introductory letter.

His autograph is a graceful one, with an easy and picturesque flourish beneath the signature, symbolical of a courteous bow at the conclusion of the social ceremony so admirably performed.

Hamilton might well be the leader and idol of the Federalists; for he was pre-eminent in all the high qualities that characterized the great men of that party, and which should make even a Democrat feel proud that his country had produced such a noble old band of aristocrats; and he shared all the distrust of the people, which so inevitably and so righteously brought about dieir ruin.

It is almost superfluous to say that Hamilton's greatest literary work was done in writing the major part of The Federalist, and as years have rolled by the full credit has been accorded him. "It has," says one of his biographers, "long since been acknowledged to be the ablest treatise on our Constitution which has ever been or is ever likely to be written; and no person interested in such topics fails to become familiar with it or admire it." Hamilton's contributions were made at a trying time, when he was giving himself body and soul to the formation for, and adoption of, a Constitution by discontented patriots. Incidentally he went hither and thither to try his cases. These productions were composed under the most uncomfortable circumstances—in the cabin of a small Hudson River sloop; by the light of a dim candle in a country inn; in fact, they were regarded by their author only as essays for suggestive and contemporary use. That there existed with Hamilton and his associates Madison and Jay some degree of uncertainty as to how far they should go is shown by the introduction.

It is said that Hamilton, with Jay and others, at this very time suppressed the Doctor's Mob, which took place on April 13, 1787, on the occasion of the exposure of a part of a human body in one of the windows of the New York Hospital by young medical students who were engaged in dissection, and this riot was the culmination of great popular indignation that had been caused by body snatching. It is related by Lossing that Hamilton had already been engaged on The Federalist and had written the fifth essay, but was so badly injured by the rioters that he was laid up for a long period. Though some of the Madison papers which he contributed to The Federalist were published in the New York Packet and Daily Advertiser, the bulk of them appeared, eventually, in the Independent Journal and afterward in the other papers.

The Independent Journal was published by J. and A. McLean of Hanover Square who, in 1788, collected the essays and printed the book as a whole.

The original edition was in two volumes, sometimes bound together, but there is nothing in it to indicate the authorship of the many essays.

Despite the evident importance of the work it did not at first have a large sale, although published at the moderate price of six shillings; yet since its appearance it has gone through many editions, has been translated into many languages, and a copy of the original first edition within a year or two has brought at auction the sum of one hundred and twenty dollars.

In this connection the following letter from the printers, who, apparently, found the venture anything but profitable, may be reproduced:

From Arch. McLean to Robert Troup

New York, Oct. 11th, 1788.

Sir: The inclosed Account is my charge for printing and binding The Federalist. When Coll. Hamilton, or the Gentlemen of the Committee examine the Work, they will find the charge exceeding low, considering the bulk of it.

When I engaged to do the work, it was to consist of twenty Numbers, or at the utmost twenty-five, which I agreed to print for thirty pounds, five hundred copies. I made my calculations accordingly and issued proposals, each Subscriber to pay six shillings.

The Work increased from 25 numbers to 85, so that instead of giving the subscribers one VoUume containing 200 pages for six shillings, I was obliged to give them two voUumes containing upwards of 600 pages.

The money expended for Printing, Paper, Journeyman's Wages and Binding was upwards of two hundred and twenty Pounds; of which sum I have charged Coll. Hamilton with 144 pounds, which is not three shillings per Vol; I have several hundred copies remaining on hand, and even allowing they were all sold at the low price I am obliged to sell them at, I would not clear five pounds on the whole impression. However I must abide by the consequances, nor could I expect the Grentlemen would make up a loss, which was sustained, in a great measure, by my own voluntary aid.

The many obligations. Sir, I lay under to you and Coll. Hamilton will ever be remembered, and I hope the amount will meet with the approbation of that Honorable Gentlemen.

I am. Sir, with the utmost respect your obliged, humble servant

Arch. McLean,

Robert Troup.

There is no doubt that its influence in the affairs of other nations and our own has been far-reaching and of the greatest importance. The Baron Kaneko, one of the most learned and advanced Japanese, who has had much to do with the renaissance of his native land, told me that when the Japanese Constitution was framed, reference was frequently made to The Federalist; which was considered by them to be the greatest authority upon constitutional subjects extant. It was of the greatest use to those who recently brought about the unification of the South African Colonies, and I am in receipt of a letter from Sir Walter Hely-Hutchinson, who had always had so much to do with the reconciliation of Boor and Britain. Certainly with us to-day, especially in the United States Courts, it is of valuable assistance to many jurists. The opinions of competent critics are all in accord, and Oliver speaks of this book as "one of the most remarkable of human documents. . . . The crowning merit of these papers, which were produced under great pressure—often while the printer's boy was waiting in the office—is that they succeeded in accomplishing what they set out to accomplish. They were the greatest forces that worked on men's minds to make them consent to the adoption of the Constitution."

Despite the assertion that Hamilton was lukewarm in regard to this instrument, Oliver' very properly says: "When he signed it he became its champion, and afterward labored to perfect it and make it possible, and to teach his fellow citizens what he really meant."

Much controversial discussion has arisen as to the authorship of the different articles in this great work, and this has often been acrimonious.

Henry B. Dawson, one of the greatest and most exact students of American history, in his edition of The Federalist has presented the different tables of contents, using the data in Hamilton's own handwriting given to Egbert Benson, that given to Chancellor Kent by Hamilton, the entries in the copies of the book left by Madison, which is now in the Congressional Library, and strangely enough bears the autograph of Mrs. Hamilton as well as that of Madison, and a list by Rush. He also had access to Kent's manuscript notes and Mr. Jay's "Recollections." There seems to be no dispute about the authorship of the first sixteen articles, but as to the others, there is some difference of opinion. As to these, the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth are claimed by Madison to be entirely his own, while joint authorship was asserted on all occasions by Hamilton, and this claim was held by Ames, who knew much about the preparation of the book. All agree that the articles from twenty to thirty-seven, and from fifty-four to eighty-five inclusive, were from Hamilton's pen. Much unnecessary speculation has been indulged in as to what part Hamilton took in the preparation of Washington's Farewell Address, and as to the qualifications of the two men. Some of the many who have discussed the matter have declared that it was wholly Hamilton's work, while others, among them John Jay, who were equally positive, have insisted that no other hand than that of the first President could have composed it. Jay, in writing to Judge Richard Peters early in 1811, takes this position. Richard Peters wrote to Jay in February, 1811, stating that a copy of the Farewell Address in Hamilton's handwriting had been found among the latter's papers, and that another copy had been found in the possession of "a certain gentleman" in the same handwriting. To this Jay replied, that "this intelligence is unpleasant and unexpected," and went on to say that it may be presumed from these facts that General Hamilton was the real and the President only the reputed author. This he doubts, for the reason that Washington was "a character not blown up into transient splendour by his great and memorable deeds, but stands, and will forever stand, a glorious monument of human excellence." He then proceeds to argue further that "it was impossible for the President, because of his very greatness and the excellence of all his virtues and his familiarity with all the public affairs, to be anything else than the author of the document. But his ability to write well need not be proved by the application of maxims (which he quotes); it is established by facts. We are told to judge a tree by its fruit; let us, in like manner, judge of his pen by its performance." After this he proceeds to give the history as it was known to him, to wit: Some time before the address appeared Colonel Hamilton told Jay he had received a letter from Washington, with a draft of a farewell address which the latter had prepared, and on which was required an opinion. An appointment was made and kept, and Hamilton told Jay that he had read the address, and the "easiest and best" way was to leave the draft untouched and in its fair state, and to write the whole over with such amendments, alterations, and corrections as he thought were advisable, and that he had done so. It was read over and agreed to by both and met with " mutual approbation." There was one provision that did not meet with Jay's approval, and he hints at it in a letter to the President. Binney has reviewed the whole matter of the authorship, and Ford has published nearly all the correspondence. James A. Hamilton has produced copies of letters from Washington to Hamilton, and vice versa, which certainly prove that the major part of the final adopted address was the work of Hamilton. Oliver who, it must be admitted, is a capable, historical scholar, goes so far as to say, "In September, 1796, Washington issued his Farewell Address, one of the most famous documents in American history, and this also was from Hamilton's pen." Binney says Washington was undoubtedly the original designer of the Farewell Address. The fundamental thought and principles were his, but he was not the composer or writer of the paper.

It will be seen that many of these conclusions were not based upon facts but impressions, and the actual conversation between Hamilton and Washington certainly favors the assumption that Hamilton's part was the chief one, even if documentary evidence of another kind is lacking. After his father's death, James A. Hamilton diligently sought confirmation from those who had known him, and were conversant with the circumstances.

George Cabot, of Boston, wrote to the latter: "When that address was published, it was understood among your father's friends that it was written by him. It was, however, considered important that it should have the influence of Washington's name and character, and I must advise that until it has ceased to do Its work, the question of the authorship should not be discussed."

William Coleman, the editor of the New York Evening Post, in a letter to the same person written October 21, 1824, says:

"Colonel Troup told me that on entering your father's office one morning he found him earnestly engaged in preparing a composition which he told me was the Farewell Address; that it was nearly finished; that he actually read the MSS. or heard it read, and that it was the original of what afterward appeared in print under the name of 'Washington's Farewell Address.'"

Some extracts from letters that passed between Washington and Hamilton, and collected by James A. Hamilton, may be reproduced. These, after Hamilton's death, remained in possession of Rufus King, and came into my uncle's hands only after the threat of a lawsuit. Why they should have been withheld can only be accounted for by the supposition that it had been determined by a coterie of friends to give Washington the full credit for the address. They certainly show that there was collaboration at least, and probably that much of the original material, and many of the suggestions, originated with Hamilton.

Hamilton to Washington July 30, 1796

I have the pleasure to send you a certain draft which I have made as perfect as my time and engagement would permit. It has been my object to render this act importantly and lastingly useful, and avoiding all cause of present exception to embrace such reflections and sentiments as will wear well, progress In approbation with time, and redound to future reputation. How far I have succeeded you will judge. If you should intend to take the draft now sent, and after perusing, and noting anything you wish changed, send it to me, I will with pleasure shape it as you desire. This may also put it in my power to improve the expression, and perhaps in some instances condense.

Washington to Hamilton, August 10, 1796

The principal design of this letter, is to inform you that your favor of the 30th ult, with its enclosure, came safely to hand by the last post, and that the latter shall have the most attentive consideration I am able to give it. A cursory reading it has had, and the sentiments therein contained are exceedingly just and such as ought to be inculcated.

Washington to Hamilton, August 26, 1796

I have given the paper herein enclosed, several serious and attentive readings, and prefer it greatly to the other drafts, [his own included] being more copious on material points, more dignified on the whole, and with less egotism; of course less exposed to criticism, and better calculated to meet the eye of discerning readers, and foreigners particularly, whose curiosity I have no doubt will lead them to inspect it attentively, and to pronounce their opinions on the performance.

Washington to Hamilton, September 1, 1796

About the middle of last week I wrote to you, and that it might escape the eye of the inquisitive, (for some of my letters have lately been pried into), I took the liberty of putting it under cover to Mr. Jay. Since then revolving over the paper that was enclosed therein on the various matters it contained, and on the just expression of the advice or recommendation which was given in it, I have regretted that another subject, (which in my estimation is of interesting concern to the well being of the country) was not touched upon also. I mean Education generally as one of the surest means of enlightening and giving just ways of thinking to our citizens; but particularly the establishment of a University.

Hamilton's Reply

The idea of the University is one of those which I think will be most properly reserved for your speech at the opening of the session.

Washington to Hamiltony, September 6, 1796

If you think the idea of a University had better be reserved for a speech at the opening of the session, I am content to defer the communication of it until that period, but even in that case I could pray you as soon as convenient to make a draft for the occasion.

Washington to Hamilton

The draft now sent comprehends the most if not all these matters, is better expressed, and I am persuaded goes as far as it ought with respect to any personal mention of myself.

I should have seen no occasion myself for its undergoing a revision, but as your letter of the 30th ult., which accompanied it, intimates a wish to do this, and knowing that it can be more correctly done after a writing has been out of sight for some time than while it is in the hands of its author, I send it in conformity thereto. ... If change or alteration takes place in the draft let them be so clearly interlined, erased, or referred to in the margin, that no mistake may be made in copying it for the press.

To what editor in this city do you think it had best be sent for publication? Will it be proper to accompany it with a note to him expressing ... or if you think the first not eligible let me ask you to sketch such a note as you may judge applicable to the occasion.

It is to be regretted that Hamilton made a great mistake when he wrote his letter censuring John Adams. Not only was the act a foolish one, but it can hardly be realized how a man possessing, ordinarily, such good judgment could make what was almost a hysterical attack upon another public character, no matter how great the provocation. The pamphlet appeared in 1800, and created great excitement among his brother Federalists who, upon its appearance, quickly advised him to suppress it. This he tried to do, but Burr, securing a copy, immediately flooded the market with others bearing upon the title-page "Re-printed Pro-Bono-Public." It was an abusive attack upon Adams, which was tactless in the extreme, and gave his enemies an opportunity to unmercifully gore him. The inconsistency of abusing Adams, and then, in a half-hearted way, advising the Federalists to vote for him, was a glaring political error, and can only be explained by a state of mind largely induced by his own private sorrows, and the growing desperation which was the outgrowth, not only of the dissensions in his own party, but a gain in the strength of the anti-Federalists, whose arrows were, anew, dipped in venom. The most irritating of his critics were Callendar and Cheetham. In an "answer" from the latter it is suggested to Hamilton that his dislike of Adams arose from the fact that he had not been appointed Commander-in-Chief. "Have you dreamt," said Callendar, "that you possessed the martial qualities of a Frederick and a Marlborough, a Turenne and a martial Saxe? Let the hour of vigilance inform you, that your imagination must have been intoxicated by the most delirious vanity." This was especially unjust and untruthful, as Washington's only insistence in reorganizing the army was that Hamilton should be senior of the three major-generals, though Adams objected. Hamilton never aspired to be Commander-in-Chief) and there is nothing on record to even support this claim. Even after Hamilton's death the attacks upon him did not cease, and within three months after the fateful eleventh of July some doggerel verse called the "Hamiltoniad" was published, which viciously ridiculed him as well as his friends.

The tendency to versification so general in the eighteenth century was shared by Hamilton, a few of whose fragmentary productions remain. One of these possesses a certain interest from the fact that he was but fifteen years old when the verses were written. It appears that he sat up with the young child of his friend and adviser, Elias Boudinot, during its fatal illness, and after its death prepared the following for the sorrowing mother. Only as an example of a precocious effusion are they presented.

For the sweet babe, my doating heart

Did all a Mother's fondness feel;

Carefull to act each tender part

And guard from every threatening ill.

But what alas availed my care?

The unrelenting hand of death,

Regardless of a parent's prayr

Has stopped my lovely Infant's breath.

With rapture number o'er thy charms

While on thy harmless sports intent

[Illegihle]

Or pratling in my happy arms.

No more thyself Important tale

Some embryo meaning shall convey

Whilst, should th' imperfect accents fail

Thy speaking looks would still d'play.

Thou'rt gone, forever gone—yet where;

Oh! pleasing thought; to endless bliss.

Then why Indulge the rising tear

Cans't thou, fond heart, lament for this?

Little babe thou enteredst the world weeping while all around you smiled; continue so to live, that you may depart in smiles while all around you weep.

His interest in educational institutions is well known, and in 1792, with others, he founded an Indian school at Oneida, and his name headed the list of trustees. This has since become Hamilton College. His public services were appreciated by many universities which have since become famous. As early as 1788 Columbia College, empowered by act of Legislature, made him a Doctor of Laws, while the same honor was conferred by Dartmouth in 1790. In the archives of this college is an autograph letter written from Philadelphia and dated January 18, 179I9 sending thanks to Dr. Wheelock, then the president, for this compliment. In 1791 the College of New Jersey, now Princeton, gave him this degree, and in 1792 both Harvard and Brown Universities followed the example of the other institutions. In reply to the president, the Reverend Joseph Willard, of Harvard, Hamilton wrote from Philadelphia, September 6,1792: "The honour which has been done me by the Overseers of the antient and justly celebrated institution, over which you preside, is appreciated by me, as it merits, and receives my most cordial acknowledgement. Among the many painful circumstances, that surround a station like mine—this flattering mark of the esteem of a body—so respectable—is a source both of satisfaction and consolation." At a meeting of the American Philosophical Society, the oldest scientific body in America, held January 21, 1791, "The U. S. Secretary & Treasurer, Alexander Hamilton, was elected a member of this Society." At the same meeting Attorney-General Randolph, Alexander Addison, Albert Gallatin, and others became members.

At a meeting held April 4, 1800, the Rev. Dr. Collier made a statement of the sums received by him to aid Michaux's projected expedition. That he had received April 13, 1793, a donation of $12.50 from Alexander Hamilton, George Washington $25, Robert Morris $20, Thomas Jefferson $12.50, etc."

As a public speaker Hamilton was regarded by all his contemporaries in the same way—and no praise seems to have been too great.

A person who was very familiar with Hamilton's methods in this respect was Chancellor James Kent. Though he was Hamilton's junior by seven years, they were always close and intimate friends. "Hamilton," said Kent, "generally spoke with great earnestness and energy, and with considerable and sometimes vehement gesture. His language was clear, nervous and classical. He went to the foundation and reason of every doctrine which he examined, and he brought to the debate a mind richly adorned with all the learning that was applicable/'

Lodge writes: "There was certainly no one who was in active public life during the same period, unless it be John Adams, or Fisher Ames on one memorable occasion, who could compare with him as an orator"; and again: "It is very plain, too, that Hamilton's success in this direction was by no means wholly due to what he said or to his power of reasoning and of lucid and forcible statement. The man was impressive."

There is little information as to how Hamilton actually looked and spoke, if we may except what James Kent has said. It is certain from such knowledge as we possess that that he was eminently fair in his arguments, and always fully presented both sides of the question—his trial notes show this. He was always explanatory, and did not cloud the issue by a flow of turgid or high-flown rhetoric. It would appear that his appeals and his statement of any case had the effect of a great narration, and then after drawing his conclusion there was often an impassioned burst of eloquence. As Morse says, "When he closed he left upon his hearers the impression, generally correct, that they had been over the whole ground—not over selected parts .y Though slight and of comparatively small stature, he was forceful and impressive, and had the full powers of suggestion and fascination. In fact he made his hearers believe as he did."