The Enquirer

THE ENQUIRER.

RICHMOND. APRIL 26, 1808.

To the Metaphorical Barrister, who signs himself--

"ONE OF THE PEOPLE."

"On us, when such men are satyric,
"We take it for a panegyric."

In return for the very polite and courteous attention which you have lately thought proper to bestow on the Protesters against the Washington caucus, I, as one of the number, will now take the liberty of thanking you for the whole of us. The obligations which you have conferred on us, by the very candid and liberal view taken both of our conduct and characters, would sooner have been repaid, if leisure had permitted.

You are certainly welcome to any argument, which can be drawn against us, from the cause and manner of "the Parliamentary Protests in England, resisting in behalf of the People, the corrupt policy and bold encroachments of the minister." For what other purpose than to shew your reading, this comparison could have been introduced, I am entirely at a loss to perceive. If our Protest had been directed against similar objects, then such an analysis of it as you have attempted to make, might have furnished you the opportunity of displaying your talents for criticism, and a proof of its inferiority to the Parliamentary Protest might have been the result. But how would this shew that the object of our Protest was not a laudable one? Has your profession (for we know what it is) made you so much the slave of Precedent, that unless, like the Parliamentary Protesters, we had a corrupt minister to oppose, you believe no other topic can legitimately form a proper subject for a Protest? Yet this is the amount of your argument. Stripped of all its flourishes, it would stand thus--"our Protest not being like those of the members of the British parliament, directed against a corrupt minister--being much inferior too, to theirs, in the unity and simplicity of truth--the energy of argument--and not being crowned (with a triplicate) of light--order and dignity of eloquence," why, therefore, it must be unworthy of public attention.

This, for aught I know may be logic worthy of a priggish attorney, but surely very unbecoming a gentleman, who aspires to the high character of one of the American classics. The sole object of our Protest, was, the proceedings of the Washington caucus---although for purposes best known to yourself, you have with too little disguise to admit of concealment, labored to persuade the public, that our only design was to vilify the measures of the government, by an electioneering squib. If this was not your intention, to what possible end could you give us such a laboured eulogium on "the general course of the present administration," the correctness of which we have no where attempted to question? There is not a line or sentence in our protest, that by any construction, however tortured, would bear such an explanation. The assertion on your part, that we are opposed to the administration, can never justify the conclusion, that our Protest was designed to injure them, and unless something of this sort can be pointed out in the instrument itself, your insinuation, sir, cannot be sustained. I would even agree that you should apply to it the doctrine of constructive treason, and with all your predisposition to believe us capable of the worst motives, I defy you to shew any thing to substantiate a charge of any such design. Your criticisms on the comparative style & composition of the English Protests and ours, is truly worthy of one, who seems from the whole tenor of his publications, to attach much more importance to sounding epithets, than to facts. Although truth may often be adorned by eloquence, we humbly apprehend there is no more necessary connexion between the two, than there appears to be between them and "One of the People"--

Truth will never, we believe, be the less acceptable to the citizens of the United States, because sometimes presented to them in a plain and homely dress. It is for those who wish to administer political or moral poison, to seek disguises for their nefarious purposes, in a studied and harmonious jingle of words, and if this be eloquence, your production, we are ready to confess, has an ample share of it. You have certainly mistaken the character of the American People, if you imagine that like Bees, they are to be led about by the musical ringing of--Brass.

Before I notice that part of your performance, which I presume you design should pass upon the public for argument--suffer me to put you right in one point, which I am persuaded you have intentionally misstated. You call our protest, a Congressional protest. But there is nothing in or about it, which would authorize this caption, (a word, which perceiving your fondness for law terms, I adopt for your sake.) -- it was our intention to exercise the right of addressing the public as individuals, a right, which I trust, even you with all your legal and political lore, are not prepared to deny us, either collectively, or each for himself. We carefully avoided therefore, any reference to, or mention of the relation in which we at present stand towards the people as a part of their representatives. What is your publication, but a Protest against a Protest? We have done nothing more therefore, collectively--than you--Atticus--Franklin and a swarm of other such stingless drones have done individually. We have all addressed the public, but there is this all-important difference between the Protesters and their assailants. We have offered our opinions upon an occurrence of great national importance, and have given our names, having no desire to evade by fictitious signatures, the responsibility due to the People for sentiments such as we have expressed. Whilst you have been all laboring in the very honorable vocation of propagating anonymous slander both against public and private character. Suppose you--Atticus and Franklin had thought proper to club your wits, and form a triumvirate for the circulation of your calumnies, instead of attempting one at a time to annoy us, by way of making your stock go the farther--can you imagine, that any one would deny your right to do so? Certainly not, sir--and as long as the public have a corresponding right of discrediting and despising every thing which comes before them in such a questionable shape, you shall have our entire approbation to give free scope to every passion of your hearts, whether ambitious--malignant or avaricious. Far be it from us to wish to deprive the laborer of his hire, or to impose any sort of restraint upon the right of man to choose, as best suits his taste--character and talents, either an honorable or flagitious occupation.

To your insinuations against our motives, I shall say little, except to give a summary of them in your own words, & then request those who know us, or not knowing, may chuse to trace us, as far as the obscurity which you have (very justly I acknowledge, with respect to myself,) ascribed to a majority of us, will enable them—Let them follow us through public and private life, for you have attacked both, and if they can see a shadow of cause to justify such insinuations, we shall acquiesce. But we shall still take the liberty of asserting—the logic and eloquence of "One of the People," to the contrary notwithstanding, that the merit of our Protest, as it regards the public, cannot possibly be affected by our motives, let them be what they may: We ask no thanks, neither do we claim any merit for endeavoring to expose the impropriety of the late Washington caucus. The tendency of that, be it remembered, can neither be diminished nor augmented by the secret intentions of those who attempt to represent it to the people in the way which it deserves. But let me give the promised specimen of your ingenuity and talents, at discovering and inventing motives for others. Your own stock of these articles cannot be very scanty, if we are at liberty to form any conjectures about it, from your present profusion. Your insinuations against us are—“weakness or wickedness, (1) in a situation which anarchy cannot make worse—anarchy against some man of prominent merit; who stands in the way of our designs, and who is too firmly fixed to be removed by any other means than a (2) popular storm—being so perfectly eclipsed in the plain road of virtuous and honest policy, that we find it necessary to fly off into an excentrick tract (3) to catch the public eye—a preference to be regarded as baneful (4) meteors, rather than salutary planets of inferior magnitude & splendour—men baulked in the (5) obtention of some favorite appointment (6) writhing under the pangs of disappointed ambition and rancorous revenge—panting for the guilty glory of heading a bold and turbulent (7) faction—personal convenience, (8) envy—resentment—a clan of subaltern characters to whose private and personal attachment to a (9) restless and ambitious chieftain, it would administer delight."

I apprehend, if the arguments against the Washington caucus and the charges against Mr. Madison, are well founded, it will be of very little importance to the public, nor will it be matter of enquiry, whether they are exhibited by obscure or illustrious men, or whether those men are actuated by good or bad motives. These arguments and these charges I propose soon to examine. On the score of our own intentions, if "One of the People" will allow us to know any thing about them—let it suffice to say, that we thought we had good cause to address the public. If after fair examination the people shall think as we do, we shall have rendered them an acceptable service—If, on the contrary, they differ from us, we shall have discharged what we believed to be a duty: and we can see no possible injury that can follow to any one. Your policy in pursuing the course you have done, cannot be mistaken; and if you can succeed in turning the public attention from the important facts which we have endeavored to present to their view, by arraigning our motives, you will certainly deserve well of those whose cause you have so warmly espoused. Should you be disappointed of the reward due to such extraordinary and meritorious services, your fate will be peculiarly hard. But you should have recollected that your old trade of trying to discredit witnesses was rather out of place, when attempted to be exercised in an affair of this sort. Our Protest is founded upon facts and records, the truth of which cannot possibly be affected by any stigma which either your malice or ingenuity can devise against us. It would have been worthy of your attention too, whilst you were so busy in inventing designs for others, to have been more careful, if not in the examination of your own, at least in their concealment. It would have been well to ask yourself if the caucuses in which you were engaged for a seat in the legislature of Virginia had no share in stimulating your exertions on this occasion. And above all, the Vicar of Bray policy, to which you seem to have devoted yourself, should have taught you to beware, lest in the eagerness of your zeal to be amongst the first worshippers of the rising Sun, you should mistake who is to personate that sun.

How far the charges of "indiscretion—folly—petulance and inconsistency" in addition to those already enumerated, apply to us, the public will hereafter determine. The "tocsin of alarm" which you accuse us of having sounded, (your own flourishes about "flagitious crimes" excepted) is, that the Washington caucus acted in direct hostility to the principles of the constitution, and assumed power not delegated by the people. If we fail to prove these accusations, then brand us, sweet sir, as best suits your most prolific fancy—and ring the charges thro' all the inhibitions of the decalogue against us. You ask, how can we expect to be believed, when we have done, and are now doing the very things which we denounce. You will find it, I believe, no very easy matter to make this out. Annotations critical—metaphysical—and philosophical after the manner of a certain celebrated newspaper editor (1) What kind of situation can that be? It must be a very delectable one (2) Quere, is this a sort of storm which would please the people and therefore called popular; or is it one where men, women and children are to come from the Heavens instead of wind, rain and thunder, and if the latter, did one of the People ever witness such a one? (3) This is a public insult, to imagine the public are to be caught by excentricities, exhibited too, during a perfect eclipse, when a reasonable man would suppose it would be no very easy matter to see them. (4) Meteors and planets turned Legislators, is certainly a new idea! (5) Quære densatur? (6) One would imagine from the minuteness and accuracy with which this very figurative gentleman describes disappointed ambition and rancorous revenge, that he speaks experimentally—What a deal of learning—meta-physical—physiological and obstetrical in so short a sentence: we here learn not only that revenge may be rancorous, but that with the aid of disappointed ambition, it engenders base, which pang (mirabile dictu) have the singular power of making men writhe (7) This would well like poor old Cronker in the Dyestie to re-ins heats dilled with plots and conspiracies, that he snuffs one in every breeze. (8) He charged us with this once before. Ne quid nimis, dulcissime rerum (9) K reagan, the Catostaconspirator and La eid (Aaron Burr and his Partizans) n (hspy Lotabng the poor gentleman's iragi v...

ter, to persuade the public how you came at a knowledge of the past conduct of seventeen persons living in various and distant parts of our very extensive continent, entirely obscure too, as you say we are, and still harder will you find it to shew how you were enabled to divine our present occupations. Yet you roundly assert, that we "have done and are now doing the very things which we denounce." How this declaration of yours would square with the definition of a falsehood, I must leave to others to decide. Suffer me to tell you once more, sir, that the greater part of us were never at a caucus But assuming the fact—is it possible that you, who have been almost your whole life working at the trade of wire-drawing distinctions can fail to perceive the very obvious difference between the proceedings of a meeting professed to consist of members of congress, convened by solemn summons, undertaking to tell the people of the United States who shall be President and Vice-President; and a paper signed by as many persons as chose to sign it, protesting against such proceedings? Did we have any meeting in the night or day either, convened by summons? Have we any where attempted to recommend to the people, men to fill the first offices in the government? Have we in our Protest done more than exercise the right which every news-paper in the country will demonstrate that all men think a common right—You dare us to deny that we have been members of former caucuses—I do deny it—and I assert that a very small portion of our number ever attended any such meeting. Those who have attended former caucuses, say nothing more than that the necessity of the case, which necessity cannot possibly be shewn now to exist, might perhaps have palliated those acts—they do not attempt their justification. I confess I do not well comprehend what you can mean by the following sentence: "When it was found that there was an equal division in the electoral votes between Mr. Jefferson and A. Burr, were you not frequently, nay, almost perpetually in caucus, for the purpose of devising means to ensure the ultimate (what was the penultimate) election of him whom you believed the choice of the people" Can you offer such an insult to the public understanding, as to suppose they will view such meetings, admitting that they happened, as at all similar to one for recommending a President and Vice-President? Or do you mean they should infer that congress had no right at that time to deliberate upon the best means of carrying into effect their constitutional privilege to elect, after the mode first pointed out by the constitution had failed? And yet this is your statement of the case. In reply to your request of "no shuffling in the ranks, gentlemen," (which, whether you borrowed from the Virginia legion camp, the gambling table, or the dancing school, I shall not stop to enquire) I must again remind you, that the accusation of doing what we condemn, cannot possibly apply to the greater part of us. And with respect to those who have been members of former caucuses—before you can shew their inconsistency—it is incumbent on you to prove not only that the same necessity for a caucus existed at the present session, as on every former occasion of the kind but that those members were themselves sensible of such necessity. Let the worst that you can say, be admitted, your whole argument against these gentlemen amounts to nothing more than this—if a man once does wrong, he must never after retract, nor even venture to blame others for doing what he once did, lest they might say, you have done the same. This may be a very good retort among the parties, who are the agents, but 'tis no justification of the act, as it regards the nation. In your next paragraph, you give us so much both of law and scripture, that being neither a divine nor a lawyer, I find it somewhat difficult to understand you. The whole however seems to be predicated upon the assumed fact, that we have all been members of former caucuses. This you have so often asserted already, that 'tis time to abandon a reply by periphrasis, and to tell you in plain English—'tis false. Your assertion, that our protest is made in "our official and sworn characters as members of congress," is equally untrue. As ill as you compel me to think of your principles, I have a better opinion of your understanding, than to believe it possible, you could assert this, without a deliberate, and clear conviction, of its being utterly unfounded. It would be as rational to contend that every letter we write to our friends or relatives was written in our "official and sworn character, as members of congress." But you were aware, sir, that without some such assumed premises, all your very fine logical induction about "the violation of official oaths, and turning state's evidence" would at once be pronounced absurd and ridiculous. But before you committed this argument to the public, prudence should have taught you to examine how it would apply to those whose conduct you undertake to defend. For it is to little purpose that you say "it does not appear that they deem a caucus, a breach of the constitution." As long as Mr. Giles's exculpatory resolution, shewing those persons to be members of Congress, (lest I presume the public should be ignorant of that fact) forms a part of the proceedings of the Washington caucus, all the sophistry that you are master of, and I am willing to acknowledge your stock is by no means small, can never persuade any man in his senses to believe, that the members of that caucus were not conscious of doing wrong. If you demonstrate that some of us have acted improperly on former occasions, the objection applies equally to them, with this embarrassing addition to their culpability, that they still continue, knowingly to err, as they have heretofore done. Consistency, 'tis true, is no small praise in these times—but the consistency of always doing wrong, is a merit of which none of us are at all ambitious. Before you undertake, most accurate sir, to contradict others, as to a matter of fact, you should make care to be somewhat better provided with facts yourself, unless indeed you have been so long in the habit of mistaking them, as to think it of little consequence whether a pleader enlists himself on the side of truth or falsehood. Let the public listen to some of your facts, and then take the facts from the records of congress, and see how they correspond. You say, "in the election of 1804, it was not necessary to hold a caucus, to prevent the federalists placing, by intrigue, a federal Vice-President in the Presidential chair, because the amendment to the constitution which guards against that danger, had then taken place?" There was no Caucus in 1804 The Records say, it was on the 25th of February 1804, one month before the passage of a law which came from the Senate on the 16th of March, the object of which law was to provide in what way the electors in the several states might vote, in the event of its not being known at the time of voting; that the amendment to the constitution had been adopted by a sufficient number of states to make it a part of the constitution. It was not until some time after the adjournment of congress, that the sanction of the necessary number of states was obtained to this amendment. and without it, I suppose you need not be told, that it formed no part of the constitution. At the time, therefore, of the above caucus, it could not possibly be predicted, without more intuition than even you possess, whether the states would accept the amendment or not. The difference then, (and it would in the opinion of most people, be thought by no means a small one,) between your statement and the fact, is, that the amendment was subsequent instead of previous to the caucus. Whether like the Senator, who summoned the Washington caucus, you have usurped a power never vested in you, I shall not undertake to say, but I confess, I should like to know the authority by which you undertake to address us in the plural number, and sometimes as if you were the mouth-piece of the nation, threaten us with their resentment. From the applause of "One of the People," we have nothing to desire: and be assured, sir, still less to dread from his menaced indignation. Falstaff turned bully, is a new character. and one which you are very illy qualified to sustain. Our accusations against the members of the caucus for attempting to produce "an undue bias on the presidential election, by the sanction of congressional names," I am prepared to support. Their meeting was professedly one consisting of members of congress, and the publication of the meeting as well as Mr. Bradley's summons will prove it. We had no meeting, but such republicans as chose to sign the Protest after reading it, did so. Nor is there any part of it, from which any one will be authorised to assert, that we designed, or wished to be understood, that we were acting in our official characters. If any Editor who published that Protest, has described it as the act of members of Congress, using their names as such, with a view to give it any additional influence, he had no authority from us for so doing. The National Intelligencer, in which it first appeared, has certainly not mentioned it as a Congressional Protest. The members of the Washington caucus, undertook to recommend a President and Vice-President of the United States, at the same time taking care to make it known that the recommendation came from members of Congress; and if this circumstance was not intended and expected to produce some bias, it would be difficult to shew any possible purpose for which the caucus could be held. — The Protesters had no caucus, neither did they undertake to recommend any persons whatever. The public are certainly very much indebted to you for your minute detail of all the preliminary occurrences to a presidential election. It is as novel as 'tis interesting. for without you I presume no man in the nation would have had sagacity enough to discover that "a presidential election prevailing topic of conversation in every quarter of the Union, for a considerable time before it takes place—the pretensions of the candidates are every where publicly and freely discussed." This is news indeed, Mr. Attorney! As to the object of a caucus, according to your description, it may indeed be of no little importance. To ascertain who has the best chance of being made president—which chance by the way, may be made good or bad, as best suits the views of this caucus, may be very convenient to the individuals composing such a meeting; but how the nation is to be benefited by calculations over which they have no control, and into the fairness of which, they can never examine, I am yet to learn. In reply to somebody's note (whether yours or the Editor's, I do not know) relative to the contest of the Vice-Presidency, at the caucus before the last, I must inform you, that Mr. Breckenridge disclaimed all pretensions to it, by a publication in the news-papers, and that the particular danger against which it was attempted to guard, was the re-election of Aaron Burr to the Vice-Presidency. This fact is notorious. In answer to the other note on Mr. Bradley's card, I can only say, that not having the same taste for what Mr. Bradley's friend calls fun, nor a similar faculty with his annotator of discerning it in others, I cannot for the life of me, see where the joke lies. But that this new species of wit may not be lost to the world. I must again beg leave to publish this Card. "In pursuance of the power vested in me as President of the late convention of the Republican members of both Houses of Congress, I deem it expedient, for the purpose of nominating suitable and proper characters, for President and Vice President of the United States, for the next Presidential election, to call a convention of the said Republican members, to meet at the Senate Chamber, on Saturday the 23d inst. at 6 o'clock, P. M. at which time and place your personal attendance is requested, to aid the meeting with your influence, information and talents. S. R. BRADLEY. Dated at Washington, 19th Jan A. D. 1808." Admitting the above text to warrant the comment in your note, I cannot easily perceive, how on so solemn an occasion, either Mr. Bradley could be justified in practising a stroke of buffoonery upon the members of the national legislature, or the members themselves in suffering it to be practised on them. Such an excuse is worse, if possible, than any accusation which has been, or can be made against the summons. For if the Electors of our Presidents and Vice-Presidents are to effect their objects by the same means, as the Clowns to Showmen attain theirs—the American nation has indeed come to a fine pass. I will now, sir, endeavour to explain to you, why this exquisite piece of fun was called a private notice. It was not published either by Mr. Bradley, or any of his friends, previous to the caucus, but was sent to several Printers by one who thought the public ought to see how some of their agents, were going on here. With regard to your Subpoena ad testificandum, I must once more beg that you will give us a little less law, and more argument; but perhaps the circumstance of your head's being so bothered lately (if you will pardon a very vulgar term) with this and other kinds of subpoenas, may be some excuse for your dealing so much in phrases peculiar to your profession Our objection to one of the delegates from the territory attending that caucus, and having the same influence in balloting, as a member of Congress, is not removed, by your telling us that the "object of the caucus was neither to elect a president, nor to pass a law. but to collate, and compare the sentiments of the people in the different parts of the union ; and that the delegate was as capable of reporting the sentiments of his constituents, as if he had had a suffrage in elections, or a vote in legislation." You really make so many notable discoveries, that I am quite at a loss for appropriate terms in which to express my admiration.— I am very far from disputing, nor have any of us ever questioned the capacity of the delegate to make such a report, but I should be gratified to learn, for what possible purpose such a report could be essential, when neither he nor his constituents can have any share in the election of President until the Territory becomes a State? And although the caucus was not absolutely to elect a President, with what propriety could a man situated as the delegates are, contribute by his ballot to the quantum of influence intended to be produced on the election by this caucus? Whether your idea of caucuses or caucusses be most correct, must be left to future decision In another number I propose to point out more fully their pernicious tendency, their unfounded pretensions, and the vast corruption which they may produce. You assert "that against the conclusions of a corrupt caucus, the people would not fail to vindicate their rights." I have no doubt of the fact, provided you will shew me how the people are to ascertain this corruption— You can scarcely suppose the men who would be guilty of it, would be fools enough to inform against themselves, and without such a ridiculous supposition, I think it will not be very easy to shew how the people can come at the fact. If it was consistent either with practice or possibility, for the millions who constitute the nation to assemble en masse, and compare notes, after one of these caucuses, they might discern, 'tis true, whether they differed in opinion from the caucus or not; but certainly, although every man in the country should possess even your extraordinary sagacity. it could not possibly be known how far the nomination of the caucus was influenced either by good or bad motives. Darkness and secrecy are not very favorable under any circumstances, to the discovery of intrigue, & as the recommendations of these caucuses are acknowledged to be founded on nothing better than conjecture, how easy would it be for any or all its members to plead erroneous calculation, without the possibility of detection, when pecuniary emolument and cupidity for office might be the real and operative cause. Without the smallest disposition to impute corruptibility to the present congress, as you would seem to insinuate, it will be sufficient for my purpose to assert, what you cannot deny—and that is, if caucuses are permitted, the inducements to corruption are very great, and its existence in any congress very far from being improbable. If I can demonstrate, & I pledge myself to do it, that the evils likely to result from caucuses, are infinitely greater than any possible benefits which can flow from them, they must inevitably fall under the indignant censure of the people. "The independence of the American character," which you accuse us either with misunderstanding or impugning—is the tribunal before which we are perfectly willing to be tried. Their sentence will shew who has manifested towards it, most attachment—most confidence—most respect. In reply to your hypothetical question about "the most prominent character amongst us," I shall only remark, that the permission which you solicit to ask, is granted, with as many more as you may chuse to propound.— It seems, however, that you have thought proper to dispense with an answer from us, as you have undertaken to answer it yourself. The question and reply being both of your own fabrication, and in your own hands, you must have been a miserable Driveller indeed, if you could not manufacture them, at least to please yourself. If they do not, we hope at least one act of justice from your beneficence and that is, to acquit us of any share of the blame. But between ourselves, Mr. Metaphor, I think I have the key to your enigmatical rancour against the gentleman to whom you allude, & the public, in due time, shall be put in possession of it. The picture which you have drawn of the men, who ought to be our next President and Vice-President, I admire very much, and entirely approve As a proof of my sincerity I will exhibit it again in your own words. Here they are! "Men whom we have tried for upwards of thirty years—men who sat at the helm through the storms of our revolutionary war—men whom we have ever found faithful and vigilant—men as profound in policy, as they are upright in their views; men who have never had an object, but their country's good ; men compared to whom we are but boys of yesterday!" Produce these men, most eloquent gentleman; point out the resemblance of the picture in all its parts, and we pledge ourselves to support them, heart and soul. You shall hear from me again in due time.

ONE OF THE PROTESTERS.