John Jay and Rufus King “To the Public,” 26 November 1793
John Jay and Rufus King “To the Public”
New-York, Nov. 26, 1793.
For the DAILY ADVERTISER.
TO THE PUBLIC.
Although well constituted free Governments only, can give and preserve to men the Enjoyment of rational liberty, yet no government can liberate individuals from the impulse, and domination of their passions. Hence it is that the excesses of these passions so frequently produce Parties in all communities, and that personal motives, are so often found to be masked by patriotic professions.
While the People continue enlightened, and watchful, they may experience inconveniences from such parties; but most alarming are the mischiefs they cause, whenever they become seduced, infected and inflamed, by foreign Influence.
The history of mankind has in all ages declared and proved, that foreign influence is the1 most subtle and false Poison, that can be communicated to a nation; for very numerous and melancholy are the instances of great, and powerful, and once happy States, who under its operation2 have either expired in violent convulsions, or been reduced to a deplorable state of debility and insignificance.
When at Philadelphia, in July3 last, we frequently heard that Mr. Genet the French minister, had on a certain occasion said “that he would appeal from the President to the People”— An appeal by a foreign minister from the President to the people, appeared to us to be a serious, and alarming measure: That a foreign minister finding it impossible to bend the government to his purposes, should turn from it with disdain, to the Citizens at large, and before them impeach the wisdom or Virtue of the administration, would be a proceeding unprecedented and unpermitted in every well policed State; it would be a proceeding evidently and necessarily, productive of parties, practices, and intrigues, highly detrimental to the peace and independence of the country; and in a variety of respects, offensive to the dignity and sovereignty of the nation, as well as humiliating and injurious to the constituted authorities.4
We left that city well convinced that Mr. Genet had made such a declaration. On our return to New York, we found5 a report of that declaration had preceded us, and that it had made the same impression upon others, that it had made upon us: We were asked whether it was true? We answered that it was. To many, a declaration so extraordinary did not appear probable, and our having asserted it to be true was questioned. We were called upon in the public papers to admit. or deny, that we had made such an assertion.6 That call merited attention, and we thereupon made the following publication.
[Here appeared a copy of the text of John Jay and Rufus King to Messrs. Printers,
For the Diary, 12 Aug. 1793, above]
Of the time, place, occasion, and other circumstances relative to the transaction, we omitted to give any account; although we found it necessary, for the reasons before mentioned, to avow our having mentioned that declaration as having really been made; yet we have no desire, or7 intention, to come forward as the prosecutors of the French Minister, before the tribunal of the Public.
In common with other free citizens of a sovereign and independent nation, we spoke our sentiments; but we were mindful, that to the government, and not to us belonged the task of taking such measures relative to that Minister, and his conduct, as the interest and honor of the nation might require:— Nor did we deem it necessary to detail and explain the evidence on which we rested our assertion; for while that assertion remained undenied and uncontradicted, by the Minister, such a step could neither be requisite nor proper— to anonymous writers8 on the subject in the public papers, we paid no attention; nor shall we in future pay any.
On the singular Letter written by the Minister to the President, and the answer through the Secretary of State,9 we restrain ourselves to this remark, that it only denies his having made such a Declaration to the President; and that it leaves the question whether he had made it at all, entirely out of sight— It seems that this did not escape the discernment of the President; for he very justly observed, “that whether the declaration was made to him, or others, was perhaps immaterial”— to whom the declaration was made was a question foreign to the inquiry, the true, and only question being, whether he had made such a declaration to any body— to this question the Minister gave no answer, and thereby left the credit of our assertion not only unimpeached but also strengthened by his silence, and by his endeavors to elude the force of it, by his letter to the President.
He now denies having made such a declaration;10 in what light this denial is to be viewed, will appear from the following statement of the evidence and circumstances relative to the transaction in question.11
The President having given instructions to the Governors of the several states relative to the fitting out of armed vessels in our ports, by any of the belligerent powers.12 On Saturday the 6th of July last, the warden of the port of Philadelphia reported to Governor Mifflin, that the brig Little Sarah, since called the Petit Democrat (an English merchant vessel, mounting from two to four guns, taken off our coast, and carried into that port by the French frigate the Ambuscade) had materially augmented her military equipments; having then fourteen iron cannon, and six swivels mounted; and it being understood, that her crew was to consist (including officers men and boys) of one hundred and twenty.
Governor Mifflin, in consequence of this information, sent Mr. Secretary Dallas to Mr. Genet to endeavor to prevail upon him to enter into an arrangement for detaining the vessel in port, without the necessity of employing military force for that purpose.
Mr. Dallas reported to Governor Mifflin that Mr. Genet had absolutely refused to do what had been requested of him; that he had been angry, and intemperate; that he had complained of ill treatment from the government; and had declared “that he would appeal from the President to the People;”—and that he had also said, that he would not advise an attempt to take possession of the vessel, as it would be resisted.
The refusal was so peremptory that Governor Mifflin in consequence of it, ordered out one hundred and twenty men for the purpose of taking possession of the vessel.13
Mr. Dallas likewise communicated to Mr. Jefferson, that Mr. Genet had said, “That he would appeal from the President to the People.”14
On Sunday the seventh of July, Mr. Jefferson went to Mr. Genet to endeavor to prevail upon him to detain the Petit Democrat till the President (who was then absent) should return and decide upon the case; but he refused to give a promise, saying only that she would not probably be ready to depart before the succeeding Wednesday, the day of the President’s expected return. This was considered by Mr. Jefferson as an intimation that she would remain—15 the Petit Democrat instead of remaining as Mr. Jefferson had expected, fell down to Chester previous to the Wednesday referred to; and shortly after sailed out of the Delaware.
For the truth and accuracy of the statement we refer to Mr. Secretary Hamilton and Mr. Secretary Knox, from whom we derived the information, on which we relied, respecting the facts contained in it.16
We forbear enlarging this publication by any strictures, or remarks on the minister’s conduct; we will only add, that we sincerely wish all the blessings of peace, liberty, and good government to his country; and that we shall always deprecate, and oppose, the interference of foreign powers, or foreign agents, in the politics, and affairs of our own.17
John Jay.
Rufus King.
PtD, Daily Advertiser (New York), Supplement, 2 Dec. 1793. Dft, in the hand of JJ, SR, Kenneth W. Rendell Inc. (EJ: 12970). See also King, Life and Correspondence of Rugus King, 1: 459–61. Reprinted: Daily Advertiser, and the Diary (New York), both 3 Dec.; New-York Journal, 4 Dec.; Columbian Gazetteer (New York), and the Federal Gazette (Philadelphia), both 5 Dec.; General Advertiser (Philadelphia), 6 Dec.; Independent Gazetteer (Philadelphia), 7 Dec.; Supplement to the Connecticut Courant (Hartford), 9 Dec.; The Monitor (Litchfield, Conn.), 10 Dec.; Thomas’s Massachusetts Spy, Or, the Worcester Gazette (Worcester, Mass.), and the Connecticut Journal (New Haven), both 12 Dec.; Massachusetts Mercury (Boston), 13 Dec.; Delaware Gazette (Wilmington), Oracle of the Day (Portsmouth, N.H.), Middlesex Gazette (Middletown, Conn.), and Providence Gazette and Country Journal (Rhode Island), all 14 Dec.; Eastern Herald (Portland, Me.), 16 Dec.; Federal Spy (Springfield, Mass.), Newport Mercury (Newport, R.I.), Catskill Packet, Salem Gazette, and the Weekly Register (Norwich, Conn.), all 17 Dec.; Essex Journal and New-Hampshire Packet (Newburyport, Mass.), 18 Dec.; Greenfield Gazette (Greenfield, Mass.), the Virginia Herald (Fredericksburg), the Virginia Gazette (Dumphries), and the United States Chronicle (Providence, R.I.), all 19 Dec.; Impartial Herald (Newburyport, Mass.), 20 Dec.; State Gazette of South-Carolina (Charleston), Supplement, 21 Dec.; The Mirrour (Concord, N.H.), and The Medley, or New Bedford Marine Journal, both 23 Dec.; Western Star (Stockbridge, Mass.), 24 Dec.; North Carolina Journal (Halifax, N.C.), 25 Dec.; New Hampshire Journal, Or, the Farmers Weekly Museum (Walpole, N.H.), 27 Dec.; The Eagle, Or, Dartmouth Centinel (Hanover, N.H.), 30 Dec. 1793; Hough’s Concord Herald, 2 Jan. 1794; Georgia Gazette (Savannah), 9 Jan. 1794.
1. Here, in the dft, JJ excised: “strongest” and interlined “most subtle & fatal”.
2. Here, in the dft, JJ excised: “of that dreadful Disaster”.
3. “August” in dft. The “card” had not specified when JJ and RK heard the report in Philadelphia. RK did not accompany JJ when he returned to Philadelphia in August. See the editorial note “John Jay and the Genet Affair,” above.
4. Here, in the dft, JJ excised: “such Conduct on the Part of a foreign minister appeared to us to be important and alarming, as it indicated Dangers ^(by creating a Party against the President)^ that would not be friendly to the Peace and Welfare ^Independence^ of our Country.” JJ then wrote the remainder of this paragraph in the margin and marked it for inclusion preceding the excised text.
5. Here, in the dft, JJ excised: “that circumstances had been reported there”.
6. See “A Mechanic,” 10 Aug., above.
7. Here, in the dft, JJ excised: “Design”.
8. On the anonymous writers who commented on the 12 Aug. notice, see the editorial note “John Jay and the Genet Affair,” above.
9. See Genet to GW, 13 Aug., and TJ to Genet, 16 Aug., , 13: 436–38, both widely printed in the newspapers.
10. See Genet to ER, 14 Nov 1793, printed in the Diary, 22 Nov.
11. This statement is derived from AH to RK, 13 Aug. 1793, , 15: 239–42, in which AH stated that he had given RK a detailed account, but could not allow him to make use of all of it. “All that part however which is scored or underlined, he said, could be freely made use of.”
12. The quote from AH’s letter begins here. In his letter to AH, 26 Nov. 1793, RK commented that AH would notice that the statement he and JJ published was an “exact Transcript” of AH’s letter of 13 Aug.
13. The quote from AH’s letter ends here.
14. The quote, with slight variations, from AH’s letter resumes here.
15. The quote from AH’s letter ends here. Omitted from AH’s letter was the sentence: “Mr Jefferson also informed that Mr Genet had been very unreasonable and intemperate in his conversation (though he did not descend to particulars) and that Dallas had likewise told him, Mr Jefferson, that Genet had declared he would appeal from the President to the People.”
16. Here, in the dft, JJ wrote “With respect to the fact that Mr. Genet said that “he would appeal from the President to the People” we are positive. We believe the other particulars to be correctly and candidly stated but if in any instance they are inaccurate, we request those gentlemen to make the necessary corrections.”
The certificate of AH and HK of 29 Nov. 1793, printed in the Daily Advertiser (New York), 2 Dec. 1793, along with this text, and widely reprinted, stated:
We the subscribers, certify that we did severally communicate to the abovementioned John Jay and Rufus King, the particulars contained in the foregoing statement. That such of them as are therein mentioned to have been reported to Governor Mifflin by Mr. Dallas, were communicated by the Governor to each of us, as having been received by him from Mr. Dallas. That such of them as respect Mr. Jefferson, including the information to him from Mr. Dallas of Mr. Genet’s having said ‘that he would appeal from the President to the People,’ were communicated to us by Mr. Jefferson.
17. For responses to this publication, see “A Republican” in the Daily Advertiser (New York), 3 Dec.; an unsigned essay by “A friend to the French nation and its Minister,” in the Diary, 4 Dec.; “Cato,” in the Daily Advertiser (New York), 7 Dec.; “Stephen” in the Boston Gazette, and the Country Journal, 16 Dec.; “Junius” in the Independent Chronicle (Boston), 16 Dec.; “Junius” to John Jay and Rufus King, Esqrs., in the Diary, 16 Dec.; the unsigned “Communications” in the Independent Chronicle, 19 Dec.; the unsigned piece from the Independent Chronicle, which noted that no one could imagine how “Judge Jay, who ought to know the force of evidence, would attempt to deceive the public with hear-say evidence;” and the “mountain” bringing forth a “MOUSE” essay from the Boston Gazette, both reprinted in the Eastern Herald (Portland, Me.), 23 Dec.; a letter from Genet dated 16 Dec. and published in the Gazette of the United States, 24 Dec.; “Ben” in the Federal Spy (Springfield, Mass.), 24 Dec. 1793. For a satirical reference to JJ as an “illiterate Fellow, a comical kind of a man, hated by the Americans,” and a depiction of Genet as someone who had done more than anyone else to “injure the French cause in America,” see “MARAT, jun.” in the Mercury (Boston), 3 Dec. 1793.