Adams Family Correspondence, volume 15
th:January 1803.
I lately enclosed you a prospectus of the Revd Doctor Smith’s works accompanied by a print of the Author, which I sent rather
as a specimen of good American Engraving, than on any other account; although as a
subscriber to the work, which will ere long be published, you might wish to posses so
striking a likeness of the Author. I sent the print and prospectus without any knowledge
of Mr: Smith, but on being informed of it, by his printer,
he expressed much gratification, and then gave the information of your being a
Subscriber, of which I was before ignorant.1 If I can procure you a print of another eminent personage here, with whom you have been long
acquainted, I will send it as a curiosity, merely. It is taken from a portrait of our
Governor Thomas Mc:Kean, painted by Stewart, and in addition
to its being a correct likeness, it is so profusely decorated with the symbols of
nobility and the emblems badges of Royalty, that I
think every genuine Democrat in the Country, should take it as a model for his own
resemblance. There is the enamelled Eagle pendent at the
button-hole, which rivals any Star at the breast of a King, and at the foot of the print
is an Escutcheon designating family arms whether of the McKean’s or not I am unable to say. The motto is “Mens sana in corpore sano.” How
apt the interpretation of this motto may be, I leave others to judge, having long since
made up my own opinion respecting its nonapplication to the Governor of Pennsylvania.
The Crest presents the figures of a Dove & a Serpent, emblematic of harmlessness and wisdom, I
presume; a Crescent in the middle of two Stars, on Cross, crosslets, but what this can mean I must confess is
beyond my depth in Heraldry. Whether the 258 interpretation would
be best effected, “Militiæ aut domi,” I need not enquire.2
I have within a few days gained a cause of considerable importance,
which I have twice once argued, in Bank, before the
judges of our Supreme Court, and once before the high Court of Errors and appeals, of
which Mr: Chew is Chief Justice. The Cause has been
depending nearly five years, and was one of the first, in which my old Master associated
me as his Co-adjutor. Upwards of a twelvemonth ago, we obtained judgment on argument
before the Supreme Court, and the Cause was removed by writ of Error, so that we had the
whole ground to travel over again, but had the good fortune, eventually to succeed
completely.3 Your old friend Jonathan
Williams, who was a voluntary Guardian to three young ladies of this City, finding his
pretty wards in distressed circumstances, in consequence of the sudden death of their
father who left but little property for their support, bethought himself of a Will,
which had been made by a person, who was betrothed to one of the daughters of his
friend, and died before marriage, in which a pecuniary legacy of £500 was bequeathed to
his intended wife, and in case of her death, to be equally divided among her three
Sisters. The lady, who was the object of the Testator’s affections and intended bounty,
died not long after him, and the legacy became vested in the three surviving Sisters.
There was a preliminary clause in the will, ordering testator’s debts and funeral
expences to be paid, but silent as to legacies. All the personal estate was exhausted in
the payment of debts, and no assetts were found in the hands of the Executors, to pay
the legacies. There was however a sweeping clause, whereby testator bequeathed and
devised all the Rest and Residue of his estate, real & personal to his brothers and
Sisters, as tenants in common, with a proviso that one of his Sisters should keep the whole, in her possession during her widowhood or until
her death. The suit, for the pecuniary legacy was brought against the residuary
devisees, and the question which was made in favor of the latter, was whether the
residuary fund, consisting altogether of real estate, should not be exonerated from the
payment of the monied legacies? And if the Court should be of opinion that they were a
lien upon the lands, whether the Sister of testator had not a life estate in the
premises or during her widohood?
The first argument of this Cause consumed two days in the Supreme
Court, and the whole law of legacies and devises was amply 259 discussed. When the Court however, came to give judgment, it was expressed in four
words. “Judgment for the Plffs.” The second argument took up nearly as much time as the
first, and in consequence of Mr: Chew’s infirm health, Court
was held at his chambers, in his own house, and the same brevity prevailed in the
judgment rendered here, as in the first instance. The judgment of the Court below was
unanimously affirmed, which gave our fair Clients the opinion of eight learned and grave
judges in favor of their claim.
I have entered into this detail, which you may think tediously
minute, for the purpose of informing you that I am doing something, in my profession, and that successfully, in some instances at least,
though this may not be so material. I have however, never lost a cause, where property
was concerned, since I have been in practice, but I claim no merit on this score,
because it may be looked upon as accident or good fortune. Yet, one would think, it
might be a recommendation to more business, than I have hitherto been employed in. I may
flatter myself, that my business has increased considerably, within three or four
months, but so imperceptibly as to leave me still in a state of uncertainty as to its
yielding a comfortable livelihood. A seven year’s probation seems to be the only
possible introduction for a young man, at this bar; for a Stranger, unassuming and
wan[ting] brazin lungs as well as features, it requires more; but notwithstanding
[these] considerations, I am fully persuaded, that time will operate an ameliorating]
condition here. It will never be heard of abroad until I feel it myself, and […] further
out of my power to calculate when it will arrive.
I have now gone through every grade of Courts from the lowest to the highest, and though I felt very ill at ease in speaking before a private audience, where my own voice terrified me, by its novelty of sound in such a confined apartment, I find, that no peculiarity or novelty of situation, has been able to awe me into silence, though I have been always confused at the outset, in the arrangement of my thoughts and sometimes hesitating in expression.
Our judges are so superanuated, indolent or careless of reputation as men of profound research, that they give the go by, to every point in a cause, which is not essential to decide the question before them. This contributes very much to “the glorious uncertainty of the law,” and adds to the number of almost endless arguments, which obstruct the streams of justice, in this State.4
Asking pardon for this disquisition, and referring to the letters
of 260 Pliny Junr: as my
precursor and model in this style of writing, I subscribe with filial duty / and
affection / Your Son
RC (Adams
Papers); addressed: “John Adams Esqr: / Quincy”;
internal address: “John Adams Esqr:”; endorsed: “T. B.
Adams / 18 Jan. Ansd 28. 1803.” Some loss of text where
the seal was removed.
TBA sent JA a 62-page prospectus titled
The Works of William Smith, D.D., … with an Elegant
Engraving of the Author’s Head, Phila., 1802, Shaw-Shoemaker, No. 3086, advertising a forthcoming
two-volume edition of the writings of Rev. William Smith (1727–1803), the first
provost of the University of Pennsylvania. The prospectus included a rough print of a
portrait of Smith engraved by David Edwin after Gilbert Stuart that was slated to be
reproduced in high quality in The Works of William Smith,
D.D., Late Provost of the College and Academy of Philadelphia, 2 vols., Phila.,
1803, Shaw-Shoemaker, No. 5074. Hugh
Maxwell (1777–1860), an Irish immigrant, printed the prospectus and the 1803 edition,
the second volume of which is in JA’s library at MB (JA, Papers
, 3:56; J. I. Mombert, An Authentic
History of Lancaster County, Lancaster, Penn., 1869, p. 399;
Catalogue of JA’s
Library
).
“In Peace or in War” (Cicero, Oration
against Piso, transl. William Duncan, London, 1765, Oration XI, sect. i). For
Edwin’s engraving of Thomas McKean, see Descriptive List of Illustrations, No. 2, above.
TBA and Jared Ingersoll originally argued Tucker et
al. v. Hassenclever et al. before the Penn. Supreme Court
in Dec. 1801. The case involved the contested will of Isaac Melcher (1748–1790).
Melcher had been engaged to Eleanor Clifton (d. 1791), a daughter of William Clifton
(d. 1798), and had bequeathed her £500, to be paid to her sisters Elizabeth Clifton
Tucker, Mary Clifton Wharton (d. 1813), and Frances Clifton (d. 1807) in the event of
Eleanor’s death. Melcher left the residue of his estate to his siblings Adam Melcher
(ca. 1755–1812), Jacob Melcher (1764–1790), and Elizabeth Melcher Shallus (ca.
1753–1818), with a proviso that his sister Maria Melcher Hassenclever (ca. 1751–1813)
“keep the whole in her possession, during her widowhood.” TBA and
Ingersoll represented the Clifton sisters, who after their father’s death were under
the guardianship of JA’s friend Jonathan Williams Jr., arguing that “on
the face of the will it appears that the testator intended the devisee of the residue should take nothing until the pecuniary legacies
were paid.” The court ruled in favor of TBA’s clients, and in Jan. 1803
the Penn. High Court of Errors and Appeals under president Benjamin Chew Sr. affirmed
the judgment (vol 13:515; Reports of Cases
Adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 4 vols., Phila., 1817–1819,
3:294–300; Washington, Papers, Revolutionary War Series
, 3:392; Anne H.
Wharton, “The Wharton Family,”
PMHB
, 2:55 [1878]; Philadelphia Gazette of the United States, 3 Dec. 1798; Philadelphia United States'
Gazette
Pennsylvania
German Roots across the Ocean, Phila., 2000, p. 45; Philadelphia American Daily Advertiser, 29 May 1812, 12 July 1813).
TBA was quoting a 1756 toast made in support of
legal reforms championed by William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield, in his capacity as
Lord Chief Justice of England (E. Cobham Brewer, Dictionary of
Phrase and Fable, Phila., 1898, p. 525;
DNB
).
th:January 1803
I do not intend to write you very often, though I find it
impossible to refrain altogether. Your last, is of the 10th:
instt: but a subsequent enclosure has been received, which
gave great joy to our trusty and well-beloved O.O.
1 A second sheet is wished, before the
publication commences, lest the thread should be broken. As yet you will not 261
262 expect any very brilliant account of success,
though it is a satisfaction, that notwithstanding all irregularities, very few have
dropped off the list of patrons. More have been added since the year commenced, than
have declined.
I was gratified by your remarks upon those articles, which appeared
to you meritorious; so was our friend, and an occasional review of the same kind would
be useful, as encouragement; my contributions have hitherto been small in quantity,
though uninterrupted, since the 45th: or perhaps an earlier
number of the last year. You will require no index to point out where abouts I am.2 The toil is
irksome, as I anticipated, and the constant interruptions to which I am exposed,
interfere with any regular application to writing. You will see, that Mr: Blake the Egis-man has been a little vexed—3 I hope he will find it necessary to shorten his
rope, ere long. I think myself callous enough to any retort, he can make. Of all the fawning tribe, he appears most deserving of notice,
being a native, a Schollar, and a New Englandman. He shall never provoke us into a
personal war-fare of the quill, but he yields more matter for comment than all the herd
of place-men put together.
I enclose a letter for Mr: Oliver,
which you may put in the post Office, as it relates to our business.
your’s faithfully
RC (Adams Papers).
JQA in his 10 Jan. letter to TBA (Adams Papers) noted that “the spirit of the
Port-Folio appears to have revived.” He also announced plans to send a review of
William Sotheby’s recent translation of Virgil’s Georgics: “It will consist principally of extracts, from the book, and will fill
a page or more, for four numbers.” The review was published in the Port Folio, 3:43–44, 50–51, 58–59, 66–68 (5, 12, 19, 26
Feb.). JQA also enclosed an epigram, which was attributed to Batisto when
it was published in the Port Folio 3:48 (5 Feb.). The
rhyme depicts a couple’s reaction to the arrival of “a bouncing boy” four months after
their marriage: “The husband frowns, and bites his nails; / The wife, her sad
mischance bewails” (Kerber and Morris, “The
Adams Family and the Port Folio,” p. 455–456,
470).
From late 1802 to early 1803 TBA contributed several
pieces to the Port Folio. The most significant was a
five-part series as “The Examiner” responding to Thomas Paine’s “Letters to the
Citizens of the United States.” Soon after Thomas Jefferson took office he invited
Paine to return after fifteen years in Europe where he had joined the French
revolutionary government and, after being imprisoned, wrote polemics against religion
and the Washington administration. Just over two weeks after his 30 Oct. 1802 return,
Paine began publishing his series of eight letters, the first four of which were
published in the Washington, D.C., National Intelligencer
in November and December, launching blistering attacks on JA and
Washington and calling each of their administrations a “reign of terror.” Paine
characterized JA as “a man of paradoxical heresies, and consequently of a
bewildered mind.” In the “Examiner” series, TBA suggested that
Jefferson’s falling out with James Thomson Callender prompted him to bring Paine back
to the United States to serve as an alternate mouthpiece. Paine and Jefferson’s shared
abhorrence of religion and dislike of Washington, TBA argued, were a
natural basis for an 263 alliance “between the present chief magistrate of
the American States (United they are not, but in name) and that creeping-thing called Thomas Paine.”
TBA also penned several unsigned pieces about the
president. Among them were “Stanzas to Thomas Jefferson” and “Certificate of Good
Character,” the latter of which condemned a resolution by the Va. House of Delegates
that threatened critics of the president. TBA urged continued Federalist
censure of Democratic-Republicans: “Their vices and their
follies, their hypocrisy
and their incapacity for Government, must and will be
blazoned to the Country.” Another criticized Jefferson’s 15 Dec. 1802 annual message
to Congress, calling it “a beggarly emaciated skeleton, which leaves the councils of
the nation still hungry for information.” TBA faulted the president for
failing to win peace with Tripoli, reversing course on tax policy, and engaging in
fractious relations with Native Americans. In other unsigned pieces over the previous
two months, TBA lampooned immigrant voter registration, commented on
JQA’s translation of Baron Dietrich Heinrich von Bülow’s Der Freistaat von Nordamerika in seinem neusten zustand,
compared London and Paris, and provided squibs on John Rutledge Jr., New York Evening Post editor William Coleman, and Rhode Island
senator Christopher Ellery (vols. 9:xiv, 12:413–141;
Kerber and Morris, “The Adams Family and
the Port Folio,” p. 472–473; Port Folio, 2:372, 379, 383, 386–387, 388, 394–395, 398,
405–406, 407, 412–413; 3:6, 15, 22–23 [27 Nov. 1802; 4, 11, 18, 25 Dec.; 1, 8, 15 Jan.
1803]; Washington, D.C., National Intelligencer, 15, 22,
29 Nov. 1802; 6 Dec.;
ANB
; Jefferson, Papers
, 38:634).
TBA was referring to a recent newspaper war between
the Port Folio and Francis Blake’s Worcester, Mass., National Aegis. On 15 Dec., the Aegis printed an editorial defending Paine and criticizing JA.
The piece contained “two facts” about JA “which (if admitted) will serve
to finish the climax of his political and private character.” One of these was
JA’s supposed “proposal to make the Government hereditary, in the
family of Lund Washington.” The other was
JA’s alleged role in a 1777 coalition that sought to remove George
Washington from the command of the army, for which see
JA to TBA, 2 April 1803,
and note 1, below. Blake lamented that while “Paine
is denounced for an open avowal of his enmity” toward Washington, JA,
“although he plotted secretly against him, is extolled for his steady and
disinterested friendship.” TBA responded with an unsigned piece in the
Port Folio, 3:14–15 (8 Jan.), lambasting Blake: “Of all
Paine’s disciples, Mr. Blake appears to be the most faithful.” TBA denied
that JA ever advocated for hereditary government and chastised Blake for
presenting “Paine’s own deduction” as fact, calling it “hear-say, and, except a fool, every body knows
that hear-say is no evidence, though Lawyer Blake may not know it.” The article also denied
JA’s involvement in the effort to remove Washington, noting that both
JA and Samuel Adams were delegates to the Continental Congress and
hinting that the Aegis had accused the wrong man. Blake
responded to TBA’s piece in the Aegis, 19
Jan., ridiculing its “most wonderful discovery—that ‘hearsay
is no evidence’—in a court of Law.” Blake reiterated the accusations Paine
leveled at JA, and, assuming that the unsigned piece was written by
Joseph Dennie Jr., declared of Dennie that while he “may hold a distinguished rank in
the Republic of letters … his tenets have degraded him, to the very lowest form, in the Republic,
which we are pledged to support” (Kerber
and Morris, “The Adams Family and the Port
Folio,” p. 461, 473).