Jasper County Democrat, Volume 22, Number 47, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 10 September 1919 — ROWS OVER TREATIES IN WASHINGTON’S DAY [ARTICLE]

ROWS OVER TREATIES IN WASHINGTON’S DAY

First President Clashed With Hostile Congress Cabinet Divided. Rows over treaties are almost as old *s the country itself. And the bitterness of expression whleh has accompanied the controversy over the treaty of Versailles, has been eclipsed in earlier years. History Invites to the second term of George Washington’s administration. It will be found, strange as it may seem La the present day, that our first president at that time urged upon the country a foreign policy and a treaty with an European country which split the infant republic Into two wildly hostile camps, caused him to face three belligerent sessions of congress and a divided cabinet, brought the most abusive and stinging maledictions upon his head, not only In his own nation, but In Burope as well, and all but resulted In a complete loss of his popularity and prestige. Whdn France declared war on •Great Britain In 1793, Washington, fearing the effects of another war on the Infant union, on April 19, called his cabinet and issued a proclamation calling for strict neutrality. The reception of the proclamation is described by Washington Irving in his “Life of George Washington.” “The measure, however,” says Irving, “was at variance with the enthusiastic feelings and excited passions of a large portion of the citizens. They treated It for a time with some forbearance, out of long cherished reverence for Washington’s name; but his popularity, hitherto unlimited, was not proof against the Inflamed state of public feeling.” Washington not only faced the opposition of his countrymen, but a difference of private opinion in his cabinet as well. How he bore this change of sentiment toward him Is told by Irving, who says: “Washington saw that a deadly blow was aimed at his influence and his administration and that both were at hazard; but he was convinced that neutrality was the true national policy and he resolved to maintain It whatever anight be the loss of his popular favor.*’ Congress assembled December 2, 1793. The hostility to, Washington among members of both houses was "widespread, it is related, although the senate was more largely Ln favor of his neutrality attitude than was the house. Washington previously had Informally protested to Britain, against her actions on lhe high seas, and, despite the unfavorable attitude of his countrymen, decided to send an emissary to London to negotiate, which, if possible, would guarantee protection for America. He chose that eminent jurist, John Jay, for this -mission. Incensed at this action, the congress drafted a resolution providing that all intercourse with Great Britain should be out off. The resolution actually ipassed the house and only failed in the senate j£hen the vice-president, John Adams, voted against it, thereby dissolving a tie.

Another divided and unmanageable congress convened November 19, 1794, and the attacks on Washington continued. This congress adjourned March 3, 1795, just four days before the treaty which had been effected by Judge lay in London, arrived in this country. Washington, it is declared, liked some clauses of the treaty. Others displeased him. It is related, however, that he realized that such a treaty would be agreed upon only after a game of “give and take” —a game practiced in negotiating the majority of treaties. The senate was convened in p special session -June 8. On June" ?4 two-thirds of that body, the constitutional majority, voted to ratify the pact on condition that Washington ireopen negotiations for the purpose of amending the objectionable article—the then famous article 12. ' This Washington consented to, and prepared to sign the treaty. Intense resentment toward the president followed his decision to put his signature upon a document of this nature before it was fully completed. A Mr. Mason, senatoi from Virginia, had the full text, up to that time held in secret by the president and the senate, published in an anti-federalist Philadelphia paper, thus instigating the first treaty "leak” in the country’s history. "The whole country,” it is chomtcled, "was immediately in a blaze. Besides the opposition party a portion of the cabinet was against ratification. The assailants seemed determined to carry their point by storm. Meetings to oppose the ratification were held La Boston,

New York, Philadelphia and Charleston. In New York a copy of the treaty was burned before the governor’s house. In Philadelphia it was suspended on a pole, carried about the streets and finally burned Ln front of the British minister's house, amid the shoutings of the populace.” Marshall’s “History of Washington” declares that the president was attacked venomously. “His military and political character,” It is related, “was attacked with equal violence, and it was averreu that *he was totally destitute of merit, either as a soldier or a statesman.” Washington, however, signed the treaty August 18, 1795, his signature, of course, being conditional on Britain’s ratification of article 12. Congress had adjourned when this action was taken. The next congress, however—that which convened In December, 1795 —was even more discordant and belligerent than its predecessors. In February of 1796 Washington i again received the treaty from Britain finally amended and ratified as the senate had* desired. The last of March the president again signed it and proclaimed It the law of the land. The tempest did not cease. The house of representatives denied Washington the right to ratify a treaty by senate action alone. The house, by resolution, demanded that all papers relative to the Instrument be placed before It. Washington, at this juncture, established an historic precedent. He flnmly believed that treaty action should be accomplished in secret and in the senate. He accordingly refused the request of the house. The house retaliated by threatening to refuse legislation of an enabling character and thus block firmly the necessary action to put the pact In full effect. The country again was In an uproar, but sentiment gradually was shifting to the president and public feeling seemed with the minority of the house, whlcli favored the necessary enabling laws. The public will finally prevailed, and on April 30, 1796, by the close vote of 51 to 48, the needed legislation passed the house and the treaty was history. Feeling continued against Washington, both In America and France, but at the last session of congress with which he was to be identified as a public servant, that which convened in December or 1796, he had regained much of his personal popularity, in the opinion of our most cautious historians. It is true that there was a faction in the house, headed by the notorious Mr. Giles of Virginia, which refused to concur in resolutions of regret when Washington’s farewell address served as public announcement that he would not stand for a third term. But for the most part the country was again with him.—Kansas City Star.