To George Washington from Moore Furman, 6 August 1795
From Moore Furman
Trenton [N.J.] August 6: 1795.
Sir,
Agreably to the Request of a Respectable meeting of the Citizens of Trenton and its Vicinity, I have the honour to forward the Resolves of their meetings respecting a Treaty now pending between Great Brittain and the United States;1 Together with their Address to your Excellency, Praying that the said Treaty may not be Ratified as recommended by two thirds of the Senate.2 I am with the sincerest Respect and Veneration for your Excellency, and most ardent wishes for your health and hapiness, Your most Obedient Servant.
M. Furman
ALS, DLC:GW.
A petition and remonstrance against the Jay Treaty was created at Trenton on 8 July and circulated throughout the state for citizens to sign. In this document, the petitioners “without troubling” GW “with a detail of particular objections” suggested “as our opinion, That the said treaty does not afford to the citizens of these states, such terms as they ought to accept: and that, if finally ratified, it will be a source of many disadvantages to the commerce, agriculture, and national prosperity of the union, and of great discontent and uneasiness in the minds of the citizens thereof.” Believing this “to be the prevailing sentiment of the citizens of New Jersey, and, as far as information hath reached us, of the United States at large,” the petitioners, out of “a sincere respect and esteem” for GW “flowing from a recollection of numerous and eminent services, which gratitude hath indeliably engraven on our hearts” feel it is “incumbent on us to represent the same for your information, lest our silence on the occasion, might be construed into an approbation of the said treaty.” They “pray, that, so far as the same may be consistent with that discretion which we conceive is entirely vested in you by the constitution, your sanction may be withheld, until more equitable terms are acceded to on the part of Great-Britain” (LB, DLC:GW. A printed version of the address appeared in numerous newspapers, including The Argus, or Greenleaf’s New Daily Advertiser [New York], 14 July).
This effort produced at least one response from treaty supporters, as a meeting at Flemington, N.J., on 21 July passed resolutions in which they expressed support for John Jay, the Senate, and GW; complained that such petitions “have a tendency to stir up the minds of the people to anarchy, disorder and confusion”; and consigned the petition “to the element most figurative of the disposition of self-created societies patriots” (American Minerva and the NewYork Advertiser, 29 July).
1. On 29 July, citizens of Trenton gathered “pursuant to public Notice given ‘for the purpose of taking into consideration measures proper to be pursued upon the subject of the pending Treaty between Great Britain and The United States.’” Furman served as the chairman. Gershom Craft gave a speech about “the propriety and constitutionality of the meeting and on the right and duty of the people to express their sentiments upon all public measures, and more particularly upon the present important occasion.”
The treaty was then read and each article discussed. During the procedure, “No one pretended to offer any thing in favor of it.” Attendees then “Resolved (without a dissenting voice) That we entirely and religiously concur with our brethren of Philadelphia, ‘That it is the constitutional right and patriotic duty of the Citizens of the United States to express, on every important occasion, the public sense of public measures.[’]
“Resolved (without a dissenting voice) That it is at this time in a peculiar manner the bounden duty of every friend to his country to express the public opinion upon an instrument so extraordinary and so momentous in it’s nature as the Treaty … degrading to the national honour, dangerous to the public interest, and destructive of the agricultural and commercial views of the United States.
“Resolved (without a dissenting voice) That the Citizens of Trenton and its vicinity … disapprove of the said Treaty, and hope, by this public expression of their sentiments, to prevent, as far as possible, its ratification by our supreme executive.”
Participants agreed that since most state residents lived “in small towns and villages, or on farms at distance from each other, and cannot therefore without much inconvenience assemble in town-meetings or otherwise, in any considerable numbers, to express their sentiments on the important subject now under consideration, it was deemed highly proper and necessary that the said citizens should adopt the mode they have, of doing it by way of petition and remonstrance to the President.” They therefore “Resolved (with only three dissenting voices) That the Petition and Remonstrance originated in this City on the eighth day of July instant and since circulated through the State, was and is eligible, respectful, decent and proper, expressive of our sentiments and entitled to our entire approbation, set on foot, no doubt, with purest intentions and calculated to produce the most happy consequences,” and they approved the printing and distribution of an extra 200 petitions.
They then selected a fifteen-man committee to devise and report resolutions “containing the reasons which influence this meeting to disapprove and condemn the said Treaty” (copy [extract], DLC:GW; LB, DLC:GW). The extract contains only five resolutions, as directed at the following meeting on 1 Aug., while all seven resolutions presented on 29 July appear in the letter-book copy. The two remaining resolutions thanked the ten senators who voted against ratification and U.S. Sen. Stevens Thomson Mason of Virginia for making the text of the treaty public. The letter-book copy adds a statement that “The whole business of the meeting was conducted and concluded with the most perfect harmony, good order, and decorum.” A copy of the proceedings, with an additional resolution for the Trenton citizens to assemble on 1 Aug. to hear the committee report, was printed in The Philadelphia Gazette & Universal Daily Advertiser, 6 August.
The letter-book copyist also wrote “The same Answer was returned to the foregoing Resolutions as to the Select-men of Boston, August 14th, 1795” (see GW to Boston Selectmen, 28 July, and Edmund Randolph to GW, 31 July, n.1).
The committee presented its report to the adjourned meeting on 1 August. They had “compared the various Objections contained in the resolutions of the different Town Meetings which have been held upon this subject; and after the most mature consideration, do respectfully suggest it as our opinion, that the sense of this Meeting cannot be better expressed than in the words of the objection specified in the Memorial of the Citizens of Philadelphia, addressed to the President, & dated the 25th day of July, ult.—as stating in the most concise, clear and forcible point of view the manifold objectionable features of the said Treaty.” They proposed “that the above objections, together with the four first and the seventh resolutions of the Meeting of Wednesday last be transmitted by the chairman of the Meeting to the President of the United States without delay” (DS, DLC:GW).
After the report was read and discussed, the citizens unanimously agreed to a resolution that directed “that the same, together with the resolutions in the said report mentioned,” be transmitted by Furman to GW and continued with language echoing the petition and remonstrance of 8 July (DS, DLC:GW).
On 14 Aug. a number of Trenton citizens, “not having concurred in, and not approving of the said resolutions,” addressed the printer of the New-Jersey State Gazette (Trenton) to “publicly testify the same, and declare our entire satisfaction and co[n]fidence in the constituted authorities of our country, and our determination to acquiesce in such measures as have been, or may be finally adopted, relative to the said treaty, by such constituted authorities” (Greenleaf’s New York Journal, & Patriotic Register, 22 Aug.).
2. The enclosed address was apparently the petition and remonstrance of 8 July.