The counting of the electoral vote was for the first time a matter of previous agreement between the two Houses of Congress, and the system pursued in 1793 was, with occasional slight but sometimes significant modifications, that which was followed for a great many years. The House of Representatives proposed, February 5, 1793, the appointment of a joint committee "to ascertain and report the mode of examining the votes for President and Vice-President, and of notifying the persons who shall be elected of their election, and to regulate the time, place, and manner of administering the oath of office to the President." The Senate agreed, and the committee reported to the two Houses, February 11:

That the two Houses shall assemble in the Senate Chamber on Wednesday next at twelve o'clock; that one person shall be appointed a teller on the part of the Senate (two on the part of the House), to make a list of the votes as they shall be declared; that the result shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall announce the state of the vote, and the persons elected, to both Houses, assembled as aforesaid, which shall be deemed a declaration of the persons elected President and Vice-President, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses.

This mode was observed.

The two Houses having accordingly assembled, the certificates of the electors of the fifteen States of the Union, which came by express, were, by the Vice-President, opened, read, and delivered to the tellers appointed for the purpose, who, having examined and ascertained the votes, presented a list of them to the Vice-President, which list was read to the two Houses, and is as follows: [Here follows the above table.]

Whereupon

The Vice-President declared George Washington unanimously elected President of the United States for the period of four years to commence with the 4th of March next; and

John Adams elected, by a plurality of votes, Vice-President of the United States for the same period, to commence with the 4th of March next.

It will be observed that in this case the Vice-President both opened and read the certificates, and that the tellers did no more than verify and tabulate the returns. The exclusive power

of the Vice-President to count the votes was thus asserted and exercised in a marked manner. On the next occasion,

as we shall see, the use of this power might have been a matter of some importance.

The inauguration of Washington at the beginning of his second term was almost scandalously unceremonious, yet not so informal as it came near to being. The mad passion against outward show, an importation from France, led to frequent criticisms in the Republican newspapers of the semi-regal state in which the President was supposed to live. Adams, of course, was not spared. He too was denounced for the luxury of his mode of life, and the shafts aimed at him took effect. He gave up his house in Philadelphia, sent his wife home to Massachusetts to manage the farm, and himself went to reside in lodgings. When the day upon which the oath of office was to be taken a second time by the President elect drew near, the time and place of the ceremony became the subject of discussion in the cabinet. Jefferson proposed that General Washington take the oath privately in his own house and send a certificate thereof to Congress. Hamilton fell in with this proposition; but the other members of the cabinet objected, and the plan was not adopted. At noon, precisely, on the 4th of March, Washington unattended entered the Senate Chamber, where were gathered many of the senators, some of the representatives who lingered after the adjournment of Congress, certain public officers, and "a number of private citizens." He took the oath of office, delivered his inaugural address, and then retired as quietly as he had come.

IV

JOHN ADAMS

DURING Washington's first administration, domestic questions occupied the government chiefly and gave rise to party conflicts: the funding system and the excise law before all others. The first, which reduced the chaos of national finance to order, and restored the credit of the United States, nevertheless had necessarily some features which seemed a justification of the accusation that it was devised for the relief of the well-to-do. Accordingly it aroused the antagonism of the same class which, in modern times, denounces measures for the payment of national obligations in good faith, in order to maintain the credit of the country, as designed for the sole benefit of the bondholders. The excise law was passed in 1791, after violent opposition in Congress. Its execution

was resisted more or less from the beginning; but it was not until 1794 that the situation became so acute that a large armed force became necessary to quell what has passed into history as the "Whiskey Insurrection." At that time occurred the first serious collision between federal and state authority. Governor Mifflin, of Pennsylvania, a Republican partisan, refused to take the initiative, and Washington called out the militia on the certificate of a federal judge that an insurrection existed. Little more than a display of force was required to put down the insurrection. The whole affair resulted, not a little to the surprise of both parties, in strengthening the government and making it popular. The people realized for the first time that they had created a power which was capable of making itself respected at home.

Meantime two most serious questions of foreign policy had been raised, and both of them had an important influence upon the elections which determined who should be the second President. The arrival, reception, and conduct of "Citizen" Genet, the French minister sent over by the Girondist government, excited the most bitter party controversy

these were This is not the time and

the country had known. Although Jefferson himself, as Secretary of State, wrote and signed the account of Genet's diplomatic impertinences, and demanded his recall, yet his political attitude toward the agitation and his strong sympathy for the French rendered it impossible that he should remain in the cabinet as a loyal supporter of the administration. The appointment of Jay, the Chief Justice, to negotiate a treaty with England, aroused but little public feeling. The treaty which he negotiated was ratified by the Senate, by exactly the constitutional two-thirds majority, before its terms were made public. But when it was published there arose such a storm of opposition to its promulgation by the President as no Executive since Washington has had to encounter. Public meetings at which the most violent language was used, riots, burning the treaty and the effigy of Jay, every-day incidents in all parts of the country. the place to do more than refer to the events of indicate their bearing upon the ensuing election. The details must be left to the general historian. It is sufficient to say that the firmness of Washington was proof against the popular clamor, against the personal abuse to which he was subjected, even against the determination of a great majority of the House of Representatives, as expressed in a resolution calling upon him for a copy of the instructions to Jay, with a view to the impeachment of the ambassador. He promulgated the treaty, he remained calm and silent under vituperation, he returned a respectful but unflinching refusal to the demand for Jay's instructions. In the end, too, the House itself, by the narrowest of majorities, agreed to pass the measures necessary for carrying the treaty into effect. It is not to be supposed that the sentiments of the American people were expressed in the noisy outcries of the opposition. Events proved that it was a minority only that displayed such violence of hostility toward measures which were greatly to the benefit of the United States during the next ten years. But the apparent strength of the democratic societies not only inspired the opposition party with a hope of capturing the government, but caused apprehension and anxiety throughout the ranks of the Federalists.

It was made known by Washington to his closest intimates, early in the year 1796, that he intended to decline a reëlection. His purpose was rumored, but not definitely made public, early

in September. Those who had been aware of his intention had already canvassed the subject and were agreed upon their candidates. Several names were considered for the presidency. Hamilton was eligible, and he was the undoubted leader of his party. But he had made many enemies, and his candidacy would surely have aroused intense antagonism. There was a stain upon his private character; and a threat had been made that should he come forward as a candidate, certain papers alleged to be damaging to his integrity would be published. There is no evidence worthy to be regarded either that a truthful accusation against his financial honor could have been brought, or that a fear of exposure deterred him from becoming a candidate. He was rather a king-maker than a candidate

for the throne.

If Hamilton were not to seek the office, the two most prominent candidates were Adams and Jay. It seems to have been universally felt that although Jay's talents fitted him for the office, his negotiation of the treaty with England would cost him enough votes to endanger his election. Adams was directly in the line of promotion; his services to the country during a long public life had given him as good title as any statesman had to the gratitude of his country; and his conduct in the Vice-President's chair had been fully acceptable to the Federal party. Accordingly it was agreed at a conference of Federalist members of Congress that Mr. Adams should be the candidate for President; and Thomas Pinckney of South Carolina was chosen as the candidate for Vice-President. The date of the nominations is not known. The time is fixed vaguely in a letter from Oliver Wolcott to Henry W. Edwards, quoted by Gibbs (vol. ii. p. 488), as the summer of 1796.

At about the same time, as we learn from the same authority, Jefferson and Burr were agreed upon by a conference of Republican members of Congress, as the candidates of their party. The Republicans seem to have arrived at a tacit understanding that Mr. Jefferson was to be their candidate, before the conference was held. Jefferson had been the leader and organizer of the party while still in Washington's cabinet. From his retirement at Monticello he had conducted a copious correspondence with the chief men of the party, full of com ment on passing events and of advice as to their course of action. He was now the natural, and, indeed, the inevitable candidate. Republican opinion, in the North at all events,