for him to bear evidence against a declaration, which,
whether made to him or others, is perhaps immaterial; he therefore
declines interfering in the case."

Seldom has more conclusive testimony been offered of the ascendency
which, in the conflicts of party, the passions maintain over reason,
than was exhibited, on this occasion, by the zealous partisans of the
French minister. It might have been expected that, content with
questioning the fact, or with diverting the obloquy attending it from
the French nation, no American would have been found hardy enough to
justify it; and but few, to condemn those gentlemen by whose means it
had reached the public ear. Nothing could be farther removed from this
expectation, than the conduct that was actually observed. The censure
merited by the expressions themselves fell, not upon the person who
had used them, but upon those who had communicated them to the public.
Writers of considerable political eminence, charged them as being
members of a powerful faction who were desirous of separating America
from France, and connecting her with England, for the purpose of
introducing the British constitution.

As if no sin could equal the crime of disclosing to the people a truth
which, by inducing reflection, might check the flood of that passion
for France which was deemed the surest test of patriotism, the darkest
motives were assigned for the disclosure, and the reputation of those
who made it has scarcely been rescued by a lapse of years, and by a
change of the subjects of controversy, from the peculiar party odium
with which they were at the time overwhelmed.

Sentiments of a still more extraordinary nature were openly avowed. In
a republican country, it was said, the people alone were the basis of
government. All powers being derived from them, might, by them, be
withdrawn at pleasure. They alone were the authors of the law, and to
them alone, must the ultimate decision on the interpretation belong.
From these delicate and popular truths, it was inferred, that the
doctrine that the sovereignty of the nation resided in the departments
of government was incompatible with the principles of liberty; and
that, if Mr. Genet dissented from the interpretation given by the
President to existing treaties, he might rightfully appeal to the real
sovereign whose agent the President was, and to whom he was
responsible for his conduct. Is the President, it was asked, a
_consecrated_ character,