Chapter XIII: Part 13

A particular instance, of a similar kind, occurred within the
knowledge of the Memorialist. Mr. Peter Getz was, lately, a
self-taught mechanic of singular ingenuity, in the borough of
Lancaster; where he many years exercised the trade of a silver-smith
and jeweller, and was remarkable for the extraordinary accuracy,
elegance, and beauty of the workmanship he executed. This person was a
candidate for the place of chief coiner or engraver in the mint; and,
on that occasion, he offered to present to Dr. Rittenhouse, in the
summer of 1792, a small pair of scales—such as are commonly called
gold-scales—of exquisite workmanship as well as great exactness, as a
specimen of his skill as an artist. The Director conceived, that an
instrument equally well suited to the use for which this was designed,
though less ornamental, could be procured for the mint, if desirable,
for less money than this was worth as a matter of curiosity; he would
not, therefore, purchase it for the mint: but being determined not to
accept it as a present, and desirous at the same time to make
compensation to the artist for his work, he insisted on his receiving
twenty dollars for the instrument; on payment of which, he retained it
himself.

-----

When Dr. Rittenhouse resigned the Directorship of the Mint, in June 1792, he was succeeded in that office by Henry William De Saussure, Esq. of South Carolina, a gentleman of distinguished talents and respectability. But Mr. De Saussure did not long hold the appointment: Some invidious and illiberal, as well as ill-founded insinuations, were soon cast upon the establishment and the manner in which it was conducted, by certain persons in the government, who had very early evinced an hostility to the institution itself; and it is not improbable, that some of this description were also influenced in their inimical views towards it, by personal considerations. Mr. De Saussure, disgusted with such unworthy conduct, retired from the Directorship, after having held that office only a few months; during which short period, he executed his trust in such a manner, as to obtain the approbation of President Washington, and entitle him to the public esteem.

The following letter, which was addressed by Mr. De Saussure to the editors of the Charleston City Gazette, and published in that paper, soon after his resignation, will serve to elucidate this subject: as a vindication of that gentleman, and also of his predecessor, from the injurious aspersions so unjustly thrown out against the institution of the Mint by its enemies, that publication is entitled to a place in the Memoirs of Rittenhouse; it shall now close the narrative of Dr. Rittenhouse’s connexion with the Mint.

“Messrs. Freneau and Payne,

“I was filled with no less indignation than surprise, on reading the
debates in the house of representatives of the United States, on
Tuesday the 19th of January, respecting the Mint, to find that a good
deal of censure had been thrown out by some of the members against the
management of that establishment, in such general and indiscriminating
terms as might be deemed to implicate me, during the short time I was
in the Directorship.

“Several members spoke in hasty and unguarded terms; and one member,
whose name the printer had not given, passed all the bounds of
moderation. He is represented as having said, “that the institution is
a bad one, and is badly conducted: it had been most scandalously
carried on, and with very little advantage to the public. If the
institution is not better carried on than it has been, it ought to be
thrown aside.”—If I could tamely endure these imputations, which in
their generality may be supposed to reach me, I should be unworthy the
esteem of my fellow-citizens.

“It ought, perhaps, to be sufficient for me to produce to the public
eye the entire approbation which the President of the United States
was pleased to express of my conduct, when quitting the office of the
Director. I laid before him a full and exact state of the situation of
the Mint, and of the coinage prior to, and during my being in office.
His approbation is contained in a letter which he wrote me at the
moment of my leaving Philadelphia,—dated the 1st of Nov. 1795; from
which these words are an extract—“I cannot, at this moment of your
departure, but express my regret, that it was not accordant with your
views to remain in the Directorship of the Mint: Permit me to add
thereto, that your conduct therein gave entire satisfaction; and to
wish you a pleasant voyage, and a happy meeting with your friends in
South Carolina.”

“To those who know the President of the United States well,—who know
the caution with which he is accustomed to speak, and that he
possesses the talent of correctly estimating, as well as vigorously
overcoming, the difficulties which present themselves in every
circumstance of business,—this would rescue any character from the
unqualified censure of the members of the house of representatives.
But I will go further, and will shew the grounds on which the
President formed his judgment, so that every man may form his own
opinion.”

The Writer then proceeds with some details, respecting the condition of the Mint on his coming into office, and at the time he left it; in the course of which he states some difficulties, and unavoidable obstructions to the progress of the coinage, which existed in the time of his predecessor, and some of which could not be obviated while he remained in the direction: and to this statement he annexes a table, exhibiting an account of the gold and silver coinage at the Mint, from its establishment to the close of October, 1795; at the foot of which he remarks, that “there never was any period at which the Mint was supplied with bullion, in a state for coinage, sufficient to keep it regularly and fully employed for any considerable time; except,” continues the writer, “near the close of my direction; to wit, from the 1st to the 24th of October.” Mr. De Saussure thus concludes his very satisfactory letter on this subject:

“Whilst I am vindicating myself from the censure, indiscriminately
thrown upon the management of the Mint, I do by no means concede that
the censure is justly applicable to my respectable predecessor. The
solid talents of Mr. Rittenhouse will be remembered with pride, and
his mild virtue recollected with tenderness, by his countrymen, when
many of his censors will be forgotten in the silent dust. His lofty
and correct mind, capable alike of ascending to the sublimest heights
of science, and of condescending to regulate the minute movements of
mechanical machinery, organized the Mint, and created the workmen and
the apparatus; amidst the complicated difficulties from which the most
persevering minds might have shrunk without dishonour. A very long and
debilitating state of ill health prevented him from giving the
establishment all the activity of which it was susceptible; and he
long wished to retire before he was permitted. His country suffered
him to retire, without remembering, that it was the duty of a liberal
nation to provide an independent retreat in his old age, for one of
the noblest of her Philosophers; and to this neglect, it is attempted
to add unmerited obloquy.

“I quit the ungrateful theme with disgust. I am consoled by the
approbation of _him_, by whom to be approved, will gladden the heart
through a long life. I rejoice that I quitted an office which subjects
its holder to such unjust censure, by the advice of my friends, who in
prophetic spirit told me, ‘that such offices were suited to men who
could bear up against censure, though they did not deserve it,’ which
they did not believe me formed to endure.”

“HENRY WM. DE SAUSSURE.

Charleston, S. C. Feb. 5. 1796.”

---

A national coin having been always considered as a proper, if not an absolutely necessary, attribute of the sovereignty of a state,[272] the establishment of a Mint, for the United States, was pretty early contemplated. A plan for that purpose was brought into the view of congress, in the last year of the war; although no national coinage was instituted until ten years afterwards. The early part of the year 1780 was extremely disastrous to the affairs of the United States. The fall of Charleston, S. C. depressed the spirits of the country: and the almost total failure of public credit, accompanied by a want of money, and other means of carrying on the war, about that period, paralyzed the measures of the government. Such was the apathy of the public mind, in regard to the perilous condition of the country at that crisis, that many members of the general assembly of Pennsylvania, which was convened on the 10th of May, in that year, came thither with petitions from their constituents, praying to be exempt from the payment of taxes.

-----

Footnote 272:

“Coinage is peculiarly an attribute of sovereignty: to transfer its
exercise into another country, is to submit it to another sovereign.”
See a Report made to congress, in the year 1790, by Thomas Jefferson,
Esq. then secretary of state, on certain Proposals for supplying the
United States with Copper Coinage, offered by Mr. John H. Mitchell, a
foreign artist.

-----

But while this assembly were in session, a letter was received from General Washington by the Supreme Executive Council of the state, and by them confidentially communicated to the legislative body, in which the distressed condition of the army was faithfully described. Among other things the General stated, that, notwithstanding his confidence in the attachment of the army to the cause of their country, the distresses of the soldiery, arising from a destitution of those necessaries which were indispensable, had become extreme; insomuch, that appearances of mutiny were so strongly marked on the countenances of the army, as to occasion in his mind hourly apprehensions of the event.

This appalling information, and from such a source, elicited some latent sparks of public spirit. Voluntary contributions were immediately begun; and Robert Morris, Esq. a merchant of the highest credit—as well as a man whose patriotism, talents and enterprize, inspired confidence—contributed two hundred pounds, Pennsylvania currency, in (what was then called) _hard money_. This subscription commenced the 8th of June, 1780: but it amounted, in the whole to only 200_l._ hard money, and 101,360_l._ in the public bills of credit, or paper-money, denominated _continental_.

On the 17th of the same month, however, a meeting of the contributors to this fund (which was intended as a donation, towards carrying on the recruiting service,) and of others, was convened in Philadelphia: with a view to promote the object more extensively. At this meeting it was resolved—“to open a security-subscription, to the amount of 300,000_l._ in real money; the subscribers to execute bonds to the amount of their subscription, and to form a Bank thereon, for supplying the army.”

This was the origin of the “Bank of North-America,” which thus took its rise from an association of “a number of patriotic persons” in the city of Philadelphia. The plan they formed for the purpose was communicated to congress by the secretary at war, on the 20th of June; and the next day they were honoured with a vote of thanks.

On the 20th of February, 1781, Mr. Morris was unanimously elected by congress to the office of Superintendant of Finance, then first created. This gentleman arranged, in the spring following[273], the system of the present Bank of North-America; whereupon, many of the subscribers to the first-formed bank transferred their subscriptions to this institution. These were incorporated by an ordinance of congress[274], passed the 31st of December, 1781; and in the beginning of the succeeding year, this Bank commenced its operations in Philadelphia. By the incorporating ordinance, the following gentlemen were nominated by congress to be the president and directors of the institution, until a choice of a new direction should be made by the stockholders; namely, Thomas Willing, Thomas Fitzsimons, John Maxwell Nesbitt, James Wilson, Henry Hill, Samuel Osgood, Cadwalader Morris, Andrew Caldwell, Samuel Inglis, Samuel Meredith, William Bingham, and Timothy Matlack, Esquires. Mr. Willing, a merchant of high credit and respectability, was president of the board.

-----

Footnote 273:

The plan of the Bank of North-America, which was submitted to congress
by their order, was approved by them on the 26th of May, 1781.

Footnote 274:

When the question, respecting the incorporation of the Bank of
North-America was taken in congress, twenty members voted in the
affirmative and only four in the negative. But the votes were then
taken by states; and of these, the delegates from New-York and
Delaware were absent, Pennsylvania (having only two members of her
delegation present) was divided, Massachusetts (having also but two
members present) voted in the negative: all the southern states were
in the affirmative, with the single exception of Mr. Madison’s vote,
his three colleagues (from Virginia) being on the affirmative side of
the question.

-----

Some doubts having arisen, respecting the right of congress, under the then existing confederation, to exercise the power of erecting any corporate body, an act was passed by the general assembly of Pennsylvania, the 1st of April, 1782, to incorporate this Bank, in order to obviate such doubts. That act was repealed, the 13th of September, 1785; but on the 18th of March, 1787, the charter was renewed for the term of fourteen years, and has been since further continued.

It was by means of this establishment, that Mr. Morris, the superintendant of the finances, was enabled to support the public credit, and, in the words of Dr. Gordon, “to keep things in motion,” at a most critical period of the American affairs, and when the national credit was in the lowest possible state of depression.[275]

-----

Footnote 275:

Whatever failings (and these were of a venial nature) may have
appeared in the transactions of Mr. Morris, as a private citizen, in
the latter part of a life long devoted to honourable and useful
pursuits, yet the eminent services which he rendered to his country,
in times of her greatest peril, entitled him to the gratitude of his
compatriots; for, in his numerous and important official and other
public negotiations, his honour and integrity were alike
irreproachable. His merits ought not only to rescue his name from
oblivion, but they give him a just claim to be placed in the list of
American worthies; while his subsequent misfortunes —— —— —— —— ——
but,

“No further seek his merits to disclose,
Or draw his frailties from his dread abode,
(There they alike in trembling hope repose,)
The bosom of his Father and his God.”
_Gray._

Mr. Morris, who was long distinguished for his talents and his
services in this country, was a native of Lancashire, in England. He
died in Philadelphia on the 8th of May, 1806.

-----

The establishment of a Mint seems to be a necessary appendage to that of a national Bank. Accordingly, Mr. Morris, in his capacity of superintendant of the finances, addressed a letter to congress, on the 15th of January 1782, “touching the establishment of a Mint.” On the 21st of the succeeding month, they approved his proposal,—directing him, at the same time, “to prepare and report to congress a plan:” But nothing further appears to have been done in this business, until the 16th of October 1786, when congress passed “An Ordinance for the establishment of the Mint of the United States,” &c.

About two years, however, after the commencement of the present federal government (viz. March 3. 1791,) a resolution of congress was passed, concerning the establishing of a Mint, under such regulations as should be directed by law. Previously to this, the late Alexander Hamilton, Esq. had communicated to the house of representatives, by their order, the result of his enquiries and reflexions on the subject, in a diffuse and masterly official report. In his report, this able financier, alike distinguished as a statesman and a soldier,[276] remarked, that “the unequal values allowed in different parts of the Union to coins of the same intrinsic worth; the defective species of them, which embarrass the circulation of them in some of the states; and the dissimilarity in their several monies of account, are inconveniences, which if not to be ascribed to the want of a national coinage, will at least be most effectually remedied by the establishment of one; a measure that will at the same time give additional security against impositions, by counterfeit as well as by base currencies.”—“It was with great reason, therefore,” continues the Secretary, “that the attention of congress, under the late confederation, was repeatedly drawn to the establishment of a Mint; and it is with equal reason that the subject has been resumed; now that the favourable change which has taken place in the situation of public affairs, admits of its being carried into execution.”

-----

Footnote 276:

“The task of re-creating public credit,” (says Chief Justice Marshal,
in his _Life of Washington_,) “of drawing order and arrangement from
the chaotic confusion in which the finances of America were involved,
and of devising means which should render the revenue productive, and
commensurate with the demand, was justly classed among the most
arduous of the duties which devolved on the new government[276a]. In
discharging it, much aid was expected from the head of the treasury.
To Colonel Hamilton[276b] was assigned this important, and at that
time intricate department.

“This gentleman was a native of the island of St. Croix, and, at a
very early period of life, had been placed by his friends in New-York.
Possessing an ardent temper, he caught fire from the concussions of
the moment, and with all the enthusiasm of youth, engaged first his
pen, and afterwards his sword, in the stern contest between the
American colenies and their parent state. Among the first troops
raised by New-York was a corps of artillery, in which he was appointed
a captain. Soon after the war was transferred to the Hudson, his
superior endowments recommended him to the attention of the commander
in chief, into whose family, before completing his twenty-first year,
he was invited to enter. Equally brave and intelligent, he continued
in this situation to display a degree of firmness and capacity which
commanded the confidence and esteem of his general, and of the
principal officers in the army.

“After the capitulation at York-Town, the war languished throughout
the American continent, and the probability that its termination was
approaching daily increased.

“The critical circumstances of the existing government rendered the
events of the civil, more interesting than those of the military
department, and Colonel Hamilton accepted a seat in the congress of
the United States. In all the important acts of the day, he performed
a conspicuous part, and was greatly distinguished among those
distinguished characters whom the crisis had attracted to the councils
of their country. He had afterwards been active in promoting those
measures which led to the convention at Philadelphia, of which he was
a member, and had greatly contributed to the adoption of the
constitution by the state of New-York. In the distinguished part he
had performed, both in the military and civil transactions of his
country, he had acquired a great degree of well merited fame; and the
frankness of his manners, the openness of his temper, the warmth of
his feelings, and the sincerity of his heart, had secured him many
valuable friends.

“To talents of the highest grade, he united a patient industry, not
always the companion of genius, which fitted him in a peculiar manner
for the difficulties to be encountered by the man who should be placed
at the head of the American finances.”

The disastrous death of this celebrated man happened on the 12th day
of July, 1804, at the age of about forty-seven years.

Footnote 276a:

This was in the year 1789.

Footnote 276b:

Afterwards promoted to the rank of Major-General.

-----

The Mint has been continued in Philadelphia, ever since its establishment,—a great commercial city being very properly considered the most suitable situation for such an institution; its operations have been conducted, for many years past, with activity; and there are few coins superior in beauty, to those of the American Mint.

In less than a year after Dr. Rittenhouse had engaged himself in the duties appertaining to the Directorship of the Mint, he was again called upon to assist his countrymen, by the aid of his talents, in effecting an important water-communication, inland, which was then contemplated. An association, called “The Conewago-Canal Company,” was formed in Philadelphia, in pursuance of a law enacted the 13th of April, 1791; by which the sum of fourteen thousand dollars was appropriated, for the purpose of improving the navigation of the river Susquehanna, between Wright’s Ferry (now the thriving town of Columbia) and the mouth of the Swatara. This company consisted of seventeen members, of whom Dr. Rittenhouse was one: and they were incorporated by an act of assembly, passed the 10th of April, 1793.

Just about this period, an occurrence took place at Philadelphia, then the seat of the national government, which excited much public feeling at the time, and—contrary to the expectations of some good men of sanguine dispositions—became the source of many political evils, afterwards. This was the formation of what was called the Democratic Society; a political association, produced by the effervescences of the French revolution, while that all-important event was yet viewed in a favourable light by free nations: and of this society, Dr. Rittenhouse was elected President.

That Dr. Rittenhouse should have been selected as the President of the Democratic Society, and chosen for that station, can be readily accounted for. This gentleman had evinced, from the commencement of the troubles between the American colonies of Great-Britain and the parent country, an ardent attachment to the cause of his native land. The benevolence of his disposition rendered him the well-wisher of all mankind: hence every thing that, in his view, bore the semblance of oppression, was odious to him. But the wrongs which the country of his nativity, more particularly, experienced, from the unconstitutional claims of the British Parliament, roused those feelings of patriotism, with which his virtuous breast was animated, at the beginning of the American discontents: he was, therefore, an early and decided Whig; and the same principles that induced him to become such, continued to actuate him throughout the contest between the two countries.

The benignity of his temper must, nevertheless, have induced him to be truly rejoiced at the return of peace. When that happy event took place, he had too much goodness of heart to remember past injuries, too much understanding to be influenced by unworthy and mischievous prejudices; he had not a particle of malignity in his nature. At the period of the Declaration of American Independence by Congress, he believed, with a great majority of his countrymen, that necessity justified the separation: and from that epocha, he was heartily disposed to hold the mother-country, as his compatriots then declared they did the rest of mankind,—“enemies in war, in peace friends.”

When the French revolution commenced, the benevolence of his feelings led him to believe, as almost every American then did, that it would meliorate the condition of a great nation, whose inhabitants constituted a large portion of the population of the European world;—a nation, which, by the rigourous policy of its government, under a long succession of ambitious and arbitrary monarchs, anterior to the one then on the tottering throne of that ill-fated country, had become extremely corrupt among the higher orders of the people; and in which, the inferior classes were subjected to great oppression. The American people having, on their separation from the mother-country, instituted for themselves, as an independent nation, a constitution wholly republican; they were disposed to attribute the vices of the French government, before the revolution, to the circumstance of its being a monarchy, and the sufferings of the people of France, as necessarily resulting from the monarchial system of rule over them. When, therefore, a republican form of government was erected in France on the ruins of the throne; the excesses, and even the atrocities of the people, which attended the demolition of the ancient government of that country, and the establishment of political institutions entirely new to its inhabitants, found palliatives in the dispositions of most good men among us: they were ascribed to the strong conflicting passions naturally produced between the great body of the people, on the one part, and their rulers on the other; excited by the long sufferings of the former, and an unwillingness to part with power, in the latter. Great enormities were considered as the inevitable consequences of these opposite interests, when brought into action amidst a population of many millions of men, whose national characteristic is that of levity of temper and vehement passions; and a conflict, wherein all the malign dispositions of the most depraved characters, actuated by motives the most flagitious, intermingled themselves with the designs of those who meant well. Such men, freed from all the restraints of government and law, and utterly disregarding all the obligations of either religious or moral duties, had then an opportunity of giving a full vent to their views, whether of ambition, avarice or personal resentments; and they did not fail to embrace it. While, on the one hand, demagogues fanned the popular flame by the vilest artifices; put on the semblance of patriotism, and by practising the most detestable hypocrisy, professed themselves to be the friends of the people, whom they were deluding into premeditated ruin. Even virtuous Frenchmen, and many of them possessing no inconsiderable share of discernment, soon fell victims to the machiavelian policy of these pretended patriots. These, in their turn, were sacrificed under the denunciations of their compeers, or other aspiring villains; and thus, others still in succession: until, finally, a fortunate military usurper, restored the monarchy in his own person, with absolute sway; and by substituting an horrible military despotism, in the place of a most sanguinary anarchy, confounded all ranks of his subjects in one vast mass of miserable slaves; who have been since employed in destroying the peace, freedom and happiness of their fellow-men, in other countries. Such have been, hitherto, the fruits of the French revolution; from which, at its commencement, myriads of good men fondly anticipated an issue precisely the reverse.[277]

-----

Footnote 277:

The deleterious, though—as it might almost be called—fascinating
influence, of the revolution undertaken by the people of France,
extended itself far and wide, prior to the murder of their king, even
in countries under the milder forms of government: many characters of
great worth were every where misled by the plausibility of the avowed
designs of its authors and supporters; and in no country was the
infatuation more general, than in the United States. In England
itself, it begat a kind of political frenzy; and, had not the wise and
salutary writings of the celebrated Burke arrested its progress, in
good time, the most fatal consequences must have ensued. Among the
literary and scientific men in Britain, who became deeply infected by
the revolution-mania of that day, was Dr. Erasmus Darwin, Miss Anna
Seward (one of his biographers) remarks, that the Doctor has
introduced into his _Botanic Garden_ an allegory, representing
_Liberty_ “as a great form, slumbering within the iron cage and marble
walls of the French Bastile, unconscious of his chains; till, touched
by the patriot flame, he rends his flimsy bonds, lifts his colossal
form, and rears his hundred arms over his foes; calls to the good and
brave of every country, with a voice that echoes like the thunder of
heaven to the polar extremities;

“Gives to the winds his banner broad, unfurl’d,
“And gathers in its shade the living world!”

In consequence of Darwin’s use of this grossly misapplied figure;—as
the issue of the French revolution too fatally proves it to have
been,—Miss Seward offers the following apology for the subject of her
friendly pen:

“This sublime sally of a too-confiding imagination, has made the poet
and his work countless foes. They triumphed over him,” says his fair
biographer, “on a result so contrary,—on the mortal wounds given by
French crimes to real Liberty. They forget, or choose to forget, that
this part of the poem (though published after the other) appeared in
1791, antecedent to the dire regicide, and to all those unprecedented
scenes of sanguinary cruelty inflicted on France, by three of her
republican tyrants; compared to whom, the most remorseless of her
monarchs was mild and merciful.”

-----

Notwithstanding the criminal excesses committed by many of the French revolutionists, before the institution of their short lived and turbulent republic, it was hoped by most true Americans, attached by fidelity as well as principle to that system of government, which was then the legitimate one in their own country, that its ultimate establishment in France would produce permanent benefits, to that country at least, which would infinitely overbalance what were considered, by zealous republicans, as temporary and partial evils, such as seemed to be unavoidable, in bringing about a radical change in the fundamental institutions of a great and powerful empire. Many Americans were not, indeed, so sanguine in their expectations: but such were, nevertheless, the prevailing sentiments of the citizens of the United States,—even among the best-informed men.

The deliberative and cautionary proceedings (as they purported to be) of the more prominent revolutionary characters in France, in their minor popular assemblies, prior to the establishment of their national constitutional form of government, were judged of, in the United States, with respect to their objects and utility, as similar assemblies, under the denominations of councils of safety, committees of safety, &c. were considered by their own citizens, at the commencement of the American revolution: they were deemed to be necessary agents of the people in each country, respectively, during the interregnum which succeeded the abandonment of their ancient governments.

The Jacobin Club of Paris was one of these political engines of the French revolution, for some time after its commencement; and, perhaps, that assembly contained many worthy members, originally, although it afterwards became notoriously infamous, by the monstrous enormity of the crimes it countenanced and produced.

Chief Justice Marshall has observed (in his _Life of Washington_,) that “soon after the arrival of Mr. Genet,[278] a Democratic Society was formed in Philadelphia, which seems to have taken for its model the Jacobin Club of Paris:”—“Its organization,” continues the historian, “appears to have been completed on the 30th of May, 1793.”

-----

Footnote 278:

Mr. Genet arrived in Philadelphia the 16th of May, 1793; and in the
evening of the same day a meeting of the citizens was held at the
state-house, when a committee was appointed to draw up an address to
this minister from the republic of France: Mr. Rittenhouse was the
first named on that committee. At a meeting of the citizens held the
next day, he, as chairman of that committee, reported an address
accordingly; which, being adopted by the persons then assembled, was
presented to the new minister, the ensuing morning.

The president’s proclamation of neutrality had then been issued
between three and four weeks:[278a] the addressers therefore say,
keeping this in their view; “Earnestly giving to the national
exertions (of France) our wishes and our prayers, we cannot resist the
pleasing hope, that although America is not a party in the existing
war, she may still be able, in a state of peace, to demonstrate the
sincerity of her friendship, by affording very useful assistance to
her sister republic.”—The “useful assistance,” here alluded to, and
which it was supposed France might derive from this country, “in a
state of peace,” did not contemplate any infringement of the
neutrality of the United States: Nor could Mr. Genet, himself,
consider the language of the address in any other than its true sense;
for, in his extempore answer, (a written one was also returned,) he
says, “From the remote situation of America, and other circumstances,
France does not expect that America should become a party in the war;
but remembering that she has already combated for your liberties, (and
if it was necessary, and she had the power, would cheerfully again
enlist in your cause,) we hope, (and every thing I hear and see
assures me our hope will be realized,) that her citizens will be
treated as brothers, in danger and distress.” This declaration of the
French minister, made immediately after his arrival at the seat of the
American government, forbad the addressers to believe, that either he
or any other agent of the French government would afterwards undertake
to violate the neutrality of the United States.

Footnote 278a:

It is dated the 22d of April, 1793.

-----

It will nevertheless be recollected, that, about that period, the shock given to the humane feelings of the American people, by the murder of Louis XVI. their benefactor during the war in this country, and by the death and sufferings of his queen and family, had mostly subsided. The great American public still continued warmly and sincerely attached to what was then viewed as the cause of the French people: and therefore, whatever may have been the real design of setting up a Democratic Society in Philadelphia, at that point of time—a design only known to its founders,—it is certain, that many highly estimable and meritorious citizens, and firm friends of the existing government, were elected members of that society, without any previous intimation being given to them of such an intention: some of those persons never attended any of the meetings of the society; and others soon discontinued their attendance. If it were actually formed on the model of the Jacobin Club of Paris, by some of those with whom the scheme originated, it cannot be rationally presumed that men of great purity of reputation, in public as well as private life, would either seek admission into such an assembly, knowing it had any criminal views; nor would they, if chosen members of it without their knowledge and consent, participate in its proceedings, should these be found to be unconstitutional, illegal, or dishonourable. Yet it is a matter of notoriety, that persons of such characters were in some instances enrolled among the members of the Democratic Society in Philadelphia, at its commencement and soon after its organization, in the spring of 1793.

It may be readily supposed, that such of its members as meant well, would be desirous of placing at the head of that body, a man of unimpeachable patriotism and integrity; and it is equally reasonable to conclude, that, had there been a majority of its members, whose secret designs were inimical to the true interest of the country or the well-being of the government,—even these would wish to disguise their intentions, under the nominal auspices of a character universally respected and esteemed. Such a man was Dr. Rittenhouse; and therefore was he selected by the Philadelphia Democratic Society, as their President. At the time of his election to that station, he held the highly important office of Director of the Mint, under a commission from President Washington; for whose public and private character he always entertained the most exalted respect, besides the personal regard, which the writer of these Memoirs knows to have subsisted between them. It is not presumable, taking all considerations into view, that Dr. Rittenhouse suffered any serious diminution in the esteem of that virtuous and discerning statesman, by the circumstance of the Doctor being placed at the head of the Democratic Society: for he not only continued to hold the Directorship of the Mint, but, when he offered his resignation of that high trust, two years afterwards, the President’s reluctance to accept it yielded only to the Doctor’s urgent solicitation to decline a further continuance in the office.

Whatever, therefore, may have been the real views and intentions of some of the members of the Democratic Society which was formed in Philadelphia, in 1793,—even if those of a majority of their number were highly unjustifiable,—no imputation, unfavourable to Dr. Rittenhouse’s character, either as a good citizen or an upright man, could in the smallest degree be attached to him, by reason of his having been chosen a President of that body, at the time of its organization.[279]

-----

Footnote 279:

Many months after the death of Dr. Rittenhouse, the same licentious
writer who publicly charged him with being an Atheist, declared, in
the same public manner, what was equally untrue. He asserted, not only
that Mr. Rittenhouse “volunteered as president of the Democratic
Society, in Philadelphia,” but that “he himself signed the
inflammatory resolves against the excise-law, which encouraged the
malecontents to rise in open rebellion.” The fact is, that the
“inflammatory resolves” referred to, were entered into by that body,
on the 8th of May, 1794; and were not signed by Mr. Rittenhouse, but
by another person, as “President pro tem.”

-----

That Dr. Rittenhouse was a zealous advocate for the liberties of mankind, is unquestionable: but, much as he abhorred slavery and oppression of every kind, did he deprecate turbulence and licentiousness in the people, and wars of ambition, avarice or injustice, undertaken by their rulers. He was decidedly friendly to those measures of civil government, which are best calculated to maintain order, tranquillity, and safety in the state, on just and honourable principles. It can scarcely be doubted by any one, intimately acquainted with his character, that he must have concurred in sentiments similar to those attributed by the biographer of Washington to that great man, or this subject,—in the following observation: “Between a balanced republic and a democracy the difference is like that between order and chaos. Real liberty, he thought, was to be secured only by preserving the authority of the laws, and maintaining the energy of government. Scarcely did society present two characters which, in his opinion, less resembled each other, than a patriot and a demagogue.”

Mr. Rittenhouse, it must be rationally supposed, was less acquainted with mankind, than General Washington was known to be: he had much fewer and more limited opportunities of studying human nature; and professions of pretended patriots were, therefore, more likely to impose on the unsuspecting honesty of his nature. He may even have been deceived, for a while, and ere the plausible fallacies of theorists in matters of civil polity, emanating from the philosophy of the French school, had yet been manifested to the world. A practical philosopher himself, he must have contemplated with pity, if not with indignation, the doctrines of the followers of Pyrrho: with whom it was a fundamental principle, that there is nothing that can be denominated true or false, right or wrong, honest or dishonest, just or unjust; or, in other words, that there is no standard beyond law or custom; and that uncertainty and doubt are attached to all things. Nevertheless, on these doctrines of the sceptical philosophers of antiquity are founded that monstrous and wicked tenet of most of the modern sceptics, that _the end justifies the means_!—a principle destructive of all the foundations of religion and morals. Well might the Abbé le Blanc exclaim, when noticing this mischievous sect of philosophers, seventy years ago,—“Is it not surprising, that men should endeavour to acquire the esteem of the public, by striving to break the most sacred band of all societies; in declaring their opinion to others, that there is neither virtue nor vice, truth nor doubt.”—“Our modern philosophers,”[280] says the learned Abbé in another place, “have been _too confident_.”

-----

Footnote 280:

The Abbé le Blanc (or the writer who assumed that appellation) names,
of this metaphysical tribe, Hobbes, Lord Shaftesbury, Tindal and
Collins, all Englishmen; though his own country has long been the
superlatively prolific soil of infidelity in religion, and chimerical
theories in every department of science: such philosophers abound in
France. He observes very justly, however, that “there is nothing so
improperly made use of, as the name philosopher.” See _Le Blanc’s
Letters on the English and French Nations_.

-----

This is certainly correct, in one point of view; although the assertion seems to imply a contradiction in terms, so far as it applies to the metaphysical scepticism of many, assuming the honourable appellation of Philosophers, without being entitled to the true character. What were the sentiments of Dr. Rittenhouse, concerning the tenets of men of this description, may be fairly inferred, not only from the manner in which he has introduced the names of Berkeley and Hume into the Oration which he pronounced before the Philosophical Society, in the year 1775, but from other observations and reflexions contained in that discourse, as well as from the general tenure of opinions expressed by him on various occasions.

At an early period of the French revolution, a circumstance occurred, which, from its connexion in some particulars with the life of our Philosopher, is here entitled to notice.

On the 7th of August 1783, and after peace had been proclaimed, congress unanimously passed a resolution in the following words——“Resolved, That an equestrian statue of General Washington be erected at the place where the residence of Congress shall be established;—that the statue be of bronze: the General to be represented in a Roman dress, holding a truncheon in his right hand, and his head, encircled with a laurel wreath. The Statue to be supported by a marble pedestal, on which are to be represented, in _basso relievo_, the following principal events of the war, in which General Washington commanded in person: the evacuation of Boston;—the capture of the Hessions, at Trenton;—the battle of Princeton;—the action of Monmouth;—and the surrender of York.—On the upper part of the front of the pedestal, to be engraved as follows: “The United States in Congress assembled ordered this Statue to be erected, in the year of our Lord 1783, in honour of GEORGE WASHINGTON, the illustrious Commander in Chief of the Armies of the United States of America, during the war which vindicated and secured their Liberty, Sovereignty and Independence.”[281]

-----

Footnote 281:

The legislature of Virginia, in their first session after the
resignation of the Commander in Chief, passed the following
resolution:—

“Resolved, that the executive be requested to take measures for
procuring a Statue of General Washington, to be of the finest marble
and best workmanship, with the following inscription on its pedestal.

“The general assembly of the commonwealth of Virginia have caused this
statue to be erected as a monument of affection and gratitude to
GEORGE WASHINGTON, who, uniting to the endowments of the HERO, the
virtues of the PATRIOT, and exerting both in establishing the
Liberties of his Country, has rendered his name dear to his
fellow-citizens, and given the world an immortal example of true
glory.”

This resolution was afterwards carried into effect: the statue which
it decreed was executed by Houdon, and occupies a conspicuous place,
in a spacious area in the centre of the capital at Richmond, in
Virginia.

-----

This was an honourable testimony of the gratitude and affectionate respect of the nation, towards the Hero and Patriot, who so eminently merited both; and it was a sincere effusion of the heart, in the representatives of the American people, while the transcendent virtues of a WASHINGTON, and his then recent services in his country’s cause, yet inspired every generous breast with a faithful remembrance of his worth: It was a laudable proof of the patriotism that actuated the public mind, at a period, when, in the words of an enlightened historian,[282] “the glow of expression in which the high sense universally entertained of his services was conveyed, manifested a warmth of feeling seldom equalled in the history of man.”

-----

Footnote 282:

Chief-Justice Marshall, in his _Life of George Washington_.

-----

The fascination which the revolution of France spread over a large portion of Europe and America, for some time after its commencement, and during the time it yet bore the semblance of a virtuous cause,—while it seemed to enchant the true friends of freedom every where; and the oft-resounded and captivating _name_ of “Liberty,” produced in men of ardent tempers, and speculative notions, ideas of its _reality_ of the most extravagant nature, and in numerous instances of very mischievous tendency.

Among those of the latter description was Joseph Ceracchi, an Italian artist of celebrity. Mr. Ceracchi was a statuary, of great eminence in his profession; and to the manners and accomplishments of a gentleman, he united much genius and taste. Though born and bred in the dominions of the papal see, he fostered the principles of a republican. Conceiving that the genius of a free government comported with these alone, he became an enthusiastic admirer of the French _republic_. Finding the turbulent state of France, at the beginning of her troubles, unfavourable to the exercise of his art, in that country; and believing as he did, that the tranquil and prosperous condition of the United States would afford full employment for his talents, in a manner congenial to his inclinations, as well as beneficial to his private interest; he arrived, with his wife—a German lady of some distinction—at Philadelphia, then the seat of the national government, sometime (it is supposed) in the year 1793.

The great equestrian statue, which congress had, ten years before, decreed to be erected in honour of General Washington, had not yet been executed; and Mr. Ceracchi imagined that the gratitude of the American republic would furnish, besides this primary work, ample scope for the exercise of his talents, in erecting honorary memorials of some of the more illustrious characters, which the American revolution had produced. The aptitude, beauty and magnificence, which the artist designed to display in some great public monuments of this kind, were exhibited in models which he executed, for the purpose of testifying his abilities in the art he professed: these were universally admired, as the productions of superior genius, taste and skill. Yet Mr. Ceracchi remained unemployed: the national council did not, even at that late day, avail themselves of so favourable an opportunity of engaging him to erect the statue _decreed_ to WASHINGTON,—a work which continues unexecuted at the present moment[283]! and the talents of that eminent artist were, not long afterwards, for ever lost to the country.

-----

Footnote 283:

“If the example of all the republics that have preceded us did not
authorize the hope, that history will not find us guilty of
ingratitude, but only of delay, the national neglect of the memory of
Washington would be sufficient to repress every sentiment of
patriotism and public spirit. Of this neglect, aggravated by the
solemn steps taken by congress to obtain a right to remove the body of
the Founder of our Liberties to a place of public and honourable
sepulture, and the abandonment of that right when obtained, it is
painful to speak—nor is it necessary. There is not wanting a general
sentiment of the disgrace which the nation suffers, while the body of
Washington rests upon a trussle, crouded into a damp and narrow vault,
in which the rapid decay of the wooden support must in a few years
mingle his ashes with those of his worthy but unknown relations.
Exertions not altogether worthy of the object, but such as the present
fashion of finance authorizes, are made, to give to his memory that
honour in other cities, which is denied him in the metropolis of the
Union.” [See the _Ann. Oration delivered before the Society of
Artists, in Philadelphia, in May, 1811, by B. H. Latrobe, Esq._]

-----

Among the gentlemen with whom Mr. Ceracchi became acquainted, in Philadelphia, were some members of the Philosophical Society in that city; and, on their recommendation of him, he was, himself, soon associated with this institution.

In this body, as the Writer believes, Dr. Rittenhouse acquired a knowledge of Mr. Ceracchi’s person and character. Both Dr. and Mrs. Rittenhouse, from their kind and unceasing attentions to this gentleman and his wife, appear to have considered them as persons of merit: the Doctor, particularly, by his friendly deportment towards the husband, during the time he continued his residence in this country, testified the esteem he had conceived for this ingenious foreigner; heightened too, perhaps, by a delicate sensibility towards him, on account of the disappointment in his expectations of public patronage in his profession, which he experienced while here. For it is known to the Memorialist, that when, in consequence of such disappointment, Mr. Ceracchi became embarrassed in his pecuniary affairs, Dr. Rittenhouse contributed liberally to his relief.

Some time in the summer of the year 1794 (if the Writer’s recollection be correct,) our benevolent philosopher having occasion to view the canal, intended to form a communication between the waters of the Delaware and the Schuylkill, invited Mr. Ceracchi to accompany him, for the purpose of examining the quality of the marble in the great quarries of that material, situated near the margin of the latter river, in the vicinity of the western end of the canal. The Memorialist joined in this little excursion, during which, Dr. Rittenhouse was, as usual, communicative, cheerful and instructive.

On inspecting the quarries just mentioned—so far as time then permitted an examination of them,—Mr. Ceracchi seemed to think they contained only laminated strata of stone; not massy blocks, without fissures or veins, like the marbles of Carrara, and those in some other parts of Europe: that, although this Schuylkill marble was generally of a good quality and of a whiteness sufficiently pure, it could not be obtained in masses thick enough for the larger subjects of fine statuary. Yet this artist observed, that a large proportion of the slabs appeared to be of dimensions suitable for various subjects of sculpture; and more especially, that they furnished an excellent material for many purposes, ornamental as well as useful, in public edifices and other structures[284]. No other quarries of marble were viewed, on this excursion: but it is probable Mr. Ceracchi would have found the marbles of Hitner’s and Henderson’s quarries—which are at nearly the same distance from Philadelphia, though not situated very near the river Schuylkill—much better adapted in every respect, to the uses he contemplated. This unfortunate man appeared to have possessed, in addition to genius and fine professional talents, the exalted virtue of gratitude. Dr. Rittenhouse was his benefactor; and the Philosophical Society had elected him a member of their body: a fine bust of the Philosopher in the antique style, was executed by Ceracchi in white marble, and by him presented to the Society, on the 6th of February, 1795. It is supposed that he left America about twelve months after this date; and it is said, that he afterwards perished on a scaffold, in Paris, in consequence of its being alleged, that he was engaged in a conspiracy against the life of Bonaparte.

Footnote 284:

Mr. B. H. Latrobe, in speaking of the great improvement in
architecture recently manifested in Philadelphia, notices the peculiar
advantages derived to that city, from the valuable marbles in its
vicinity. “The beautiful marble,” says he, “with which this
neighbourhood abounds, and the excellence of all other building
materials, give to Philadelphia great advantages in this branch of the
fine arts.” (See Mr. Latrobe’s _Annual Oration_, delivered before the
_Society of Artists, in Philadelphia_, May 8th, 1811.) The correct
taste and superior skill of this gentleman, as an Architect and Civil
Engineer, are well known in the United States. In Philadelphia, _the
Bank of Pennsylvania_ will, more especially, remain a lasting monument
of his talents in architectural science, as well as of the excellent
quality of the marble (for such purposes) of which that edifice is
constructed.

-----

In the spring of the year 1794, the Earl of Buchan, P. S. S. A. and James Anderson, LL. D. both distinguished characters in Scotland, were elected members of the American Philosophical Society, at Philadelphia: and it appears probable, from a note addressed to Dr. Rittenhouse by President Washington, that they had been put in nomination, or, at least, that their election had been advocated by the former, at the instance of the latter; the note is in these words—

“The President presents his compliments to Mr. Rittenhouse, and thanks
him for the attention he has given to the case of Mr. Anderson and the
Earl of Buchan.

“Sunday afternoon, 20th April, 1794.”

At the commencement of the following year, Lord Buchan[285] wrote to Dr. Rittenhouse the following letter:

“_Dryburgh Abbey, Jan. 12, 1795._

“Sir,

“My worthy friend, Mr. John Miller, son of the eminent professor, John
Miller, of Glasgow, whom I recommend to your attention, has charged
himself with this letter, and will deliver to you a Writing-Box, which
I dedicate to your use, as President of the Philosophical Society at
Philadelphia, and to your successors in office, as a testimony of my
high esteem for your literary character and for that of the Society
over which you preside.

“This Box is made of Yew, of Black Cherry tree, and Acacia and
Barberry, and veneered with Holly; all the growth of my garden at this
place, and joined, fitted and finished, by my own joiner, in this
house.