eties (page 67).

2. He would not neglect the overtures of a commercial treaty with France
(page 79); yet he always opposed it while Attorney General, and never
seems to have proposed it while Secretary of State.

3. He concurs in resorting to the militia to quell the pretended
insurrections in the west (page 81), and proposes an augmentation from
twelve thousand five hundred to fifteen thousand, to march against men
at their ploughs (page 80); yet on the 5th of August he is against their
marching (pages 83, 101), and on the 25th of August he is for it (page
84).

4. He concurs in the measure of a mission extraordinary to London (as is
inferred from page 58), but objects to the men, to wit, Hamilton and Jay
(page 50).

5. He was against granting commercial powers to Mr. Jay (page 58); yet
he besieged the doors of the Senate to procure their advice to ratify.

6. He advises the President to a ratification on the merits of the
treaty (page 97), but to a suspension till the provision order is
repealed (page 98). The fact is, that he has generally given his
principles to the one party, and his practice to the other; the oyster
to one, the shell to the other. Unfortunately, the shell was generally
the lot of his friends, the French and republicans, and the oyster of
their antagonists. Had he been firm to the principles he professes
in the year 1793, the President would have been kept from an habitual
concert with the British and anti-republican party. But at that time,
I do not know which R. feared most, a British fleet, or French
disorganizers. Whether his conduct is to be ascribed to a superior
view of things, and adherence to right without regard to party, as he
pretends, or to an anxiety to trim between both, those who know his
character and capacity will decide. Were parties here divided merely by
a greediness for office, as in England, to take a part with either would
be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man. But where the principle of
difference is as substantial, and as strongly pronounced, as between the
republicans and the monocrats of our country, I hold it as honorable to
take a firm and decided part, and as immoral to pursue a middle line, as
between the parties of honest men and rogues, into which every country
is divided.

A copy of the pamphlet came by this post to Charlottesville. I suppose
we shall be able to judge soon what kind of impression it is likely to
make. It has been a great treat to me, as