on those whom
nature has fitted for them. I join with you in thinking the treaty an
execrable thing. But both negotiators must have understood, that as
there were articles in it which could not be carried into execution
without the aid of the legislatures on both sides, therefore it must be
referred to them, and that these legislatures, being free agents, would
not give it their support if they disapproved of it. I trust the popular
branch of our legislature will disapprove of it, and thus rid us of this
infamous act, which is really nothing more than a treaty of alliance
between England and the Anglomen of this country, against the
legislature and people of the United States. I am, my dear friend, yours
affectionately,

Th: Jefferson.

LETTER CLXXXVIII.--TO WILLIAM B. GILES, December 31, 1795

TO WILLIAM B. GILES.

Monticello, December 31, 1795.

Dear Sir,

Your favors of December the 15th and 20th came to hand by the last post.
I am well pleased with the manner in which your House have testified
their sense of the treaty: while their refusal to pass the original
clause of the reported answer proved their condemnation of it, the
contrivance to let it disappear silently respected appearances in favor
of the President, who errs as other men do, but errs with integrity.
Randolph seems to have hit upon the true theory of our constitution;
that when a treaty is made, involving matters confided by the
constitution to the three branches of the legislature conjointly,
the Representatives are as free as the President and Senate were, to
consider whether the national interest requires or forbids their giving
the forms and force of law to the articles over which they have a power.
I thank you much for the pamphlet. His narrative is so straight and
plain, that even those who did not know him will acquit him of the
charge of bribery. Those who knew him had done it from the first. Though
he mistakes his own political character in the aggregate, yet he gives
it to you in the detail. Thus he supposes himself a man of no party
(page 57); that his opinions not containing any systematic adherence to
party, fell sometimes on one side and sometimes on the other (page 58).
Yet he gives you these facts, which show that they fall generally on
both sides, and are complete inconsistencies.

1. He never gave an opinion in the cabinet against the rights of
the people (page 97); yet he advised the denunciation of the popular
soci