can or will be disputed. If any of them should be denied, it will be proved beyond the possibility of doubt.

1st. That the editor of the National Gazette is a clerk in the Department of State for foreign languages, and as such receives a salary of two hundred and fifty dollars a year.

2d. That he became so, antecedent to the establishment of his Gazette, having actually received his salary from the 17th August, 1791, and not having published the first number of his paper till the 31st of October following.

3d. That at the time he became so, there was another character, a clerk, in the same department, who understood the French language; and that the editor of the National Gazette is a translator of that language only.

4th. That the appointment was not made under any special provision, marking out a particular clerkship of the kind, its duties, or its emoluments; but, under a general authority to appoint clerks, and allow them salaries not exceeding the average of 500 dollars to each.

5th. That the editor of the National Gazette, immediately preceding the establishment of that paper, was the superintendent or conductor of a paper belonging to Childs and Swaine, printed at New-York.

These are the facts: the conclusion is irresistible. The secret intentions of men being in the repositories of their own breasts, it rarely happens, and is therefore not to be expected, that direct and positive proof of them can be adduced.

Presumptive facts and circumstances must afford the evidence; and when these are sufficiently strong they ought to decide.

We find the head of a department taking the editor of a Gazette into his employment, as a clerk, with a stated salary— not for any special purpose, which could not have been accomplished otherwise; for he had, at the time, in his department, a clerk who was capable of performing the very service required, and could without difficulty have procured others similarly qualified; nor from any particular necessity arising from a too limited allowance, or any other cause; for he had it in his power to allow an adequate compensation to a character who might have been regularly attached to the department.

The very existence of such a connection, then, is alone a sufficient foundation for believing that the design of the arrangement was to secure an influence over the paper, the editor of which was so employed. But the circumstances which attend it explain the nature of it beyond a doubt. That which has been just mentioned, namely, there having been previously a clerk in the department qualified to render the service, is a weighty one. The coming of a new printer, from another State, to institute a new paper, his having been appointed clerk in the department prior to his removal to this city-his having been compensated before he was even present, to satisfy the appearance of his rendering service; these circumstances give a point and energy to the language of the transaction which render it unequivocal. There perhaps never was a more flimsy covering for the pensioning of a printer. Some ostensible ground for giving him the public money was necessary to be contrived-the clerkship of foreign languages was deemed a plausible pretext. But no man acquainted with human nature, or with the ordinary rules of political intrigue, can be deceived by it.

The medium of negotiation between the Secretary of State and Mr. Freneau, in order to the institution of his paper, is known, and documents are possessed which ascertain the person, but they are at present withheld, from considerations of a particular nature. These are the more readily yielded to, because the facts which have been stated render it unnecessary to exhibit them. These facts prove, to the satisfaction of every impartial mind, that Mr. Jefferson is the Institutor and Patron of the National Gazette.

As to the complexion and tendency of that Gazette, a reference to itself is sufficient. No man, who loves the government, or is a friend to the public tranquillity, but must reprobate it as an incendiary and pernicious publication, and condemn the auspices under which it is supported.

In another paper, the charges which have occasioned so much umbrage to Aristides will be more correctly stated and enforced. The precise terms of the advice which was given by Mr. Jefferson to Congress, respecting the transfer of the French debt to a company of Hollanders, will be recited.

This characteristic trait in the political principles of that gentleman, will be submitted to the honest feelings not only of the great body of the yeomanry, to whom such affected appeals are so often made, but to honest men of whatsoever class and condition.

II.

CATULLUS.

Sept 19th, 1792.

The "American," to confirm the inferences resulting from the official connection between the Secretary of State and the editor of the National Gazette, appeals to a conformity of the political principles and views of that officer with those which are sedulously inculcated in that Gazette. If this conformity exists, it certainly affords a strong presumption, in aid of direct facts, of the operation of his influence on the complexion of that paper.

The circumstances of conformity alleged, fall under two heads; one, That the Secretary of State was in the origin opposed to that Constitution, which it is the evident object of the National Gazette to discredit: the other, That he has been, and is, opposed to those measures which it is the unremitted, and, it may be said, the avowed endeavor of that paper to censure and subvert.

In contradiction to the first suggestion, Aristides cites an authority, which the American appears to have relied upon in support of his assertion; the speech of Mr. Pendleton in the Convention of Virginia. Let an analysis of this speech show whether it supports or contradicts the assertion.

Mr. Pendleton represents a certain letter of Mr. Jefferson as containing these particulars-a strong wish that the first nine conventions may accept the new Constitution because it would secure the good it contains, which is great and important. 2d. A wish that the four latest, whichever they should be, might refuse to accede to it till amendments were secured. 3d. A caution to take

care that no objection to the form of the government should produce a schism in the Union; which Mr. Jefferson admits to be an incurable evil.

From this it appears, that though Mr. Jefferson was of opinion that the Constitution contained "great and important. good," and was desirous that the first nine deliberating States should consent to it for the sake of preserving the existence of the Union, yet he had strong objections to the Constitution; so strong, that he was willing to risk an ultimate dismemberment in an experiment to obtain the alterations which he deemed necessary.

If the four last deliberating States (particularly if they had happened to be States in geographical contiguity, which was very possible) had refused to ratify the Constitution, what might not have been the consequence? Who knows whether the assenting States would have been willing to have been coerced into the amendments which the non-assenting States might have been disposed to dictate? Calculating the intrigues and machinations which were to have been expected to stand in the way, who can say, if even two-thirds of both houses of Congress should have been found willing to propose that three fourths of the legislatures, or conventions, in three-fourths of the States would have been brought to adopt the required amendments?

Could any thing but objections to the Constitution of the most serious kind have justified the hazarding an eventual schism in the UNION, in so great a degree as would have attended an adherence to the advice given by Mr. Jefferson? Can there be any perversion of truth in affirming that the person who entertained those objections was opposed to the Constitntion?

The opposition which was experienced in every part of the United States, acknowledged the necessity and utility of the Union; and, generally speaking, that the Constitution contained many valuable features; contending only that it wanted some essential alterations to render it upon the whole a safe and good government.

It may be satisfactory to review what was said in the same convention of Virginia by some other members on the subject of the letter in question.

Mr. Henry (p. 109 of the "Debates") replies thus to Mr. Pendleton:-"The honorable gentleman has endeavored to explain the opinion of Mr. Jefferson, our common friend, into an advice to adopt this new government. He wishes nine States to adopt, and that four States may be found somewhere to reject it. Now, sir, I say, if we pursue his advice, what are we to do? To prefer form to substance? for give me leave to ask, what is the substantial part of his counsel? It is, sir, that four States should reject. They tell us that, from the most authentic accounts, New Hampshire will adopt it. Where then will four States be found to reject, if we adopt it? If we do, the counsel of this worthy and enlightened countryman of ours will be thrown away,” &c. Whether this gentleman argued sincerely from his impression of the true import of the letter, or made an attempt "to pervert Mr. Jefferson's sentiments," as Aristides affirms, must be reserved to his own consciousness, and to the candid construction of an impartial public.

Mr. Madison, in reply to Mr. Henry (p. 122 of the same Debates), expresses himself thus:-"The honorable member, in order to influence our decision, has mentioned the opinion of a citizen, who is an ornament to this State. When the name of this distinguished character was introduced, I was much surprised. Is it come to this, then, that we are not to follow our own reason? Is it proper to adduce the opinions of respectable men, not within these walls? If the opinion of an important character were to weigh on this occasion, could we not adduce a character equally great on our side? Are we, who (in the honorable gentleman's opinion) are not to be guided by an erring world, now to submit to the opinion of a citizen beyond the Atlantic? I believe that were that gentleman now on this floor, he would be for the adoption of this Constitution. I wish his name had never been mentioned; I wish every thing spoken here relative to his opinion, may be suppressed, if our debates should be published. I know that the delicacy of his feelings will be wounded, when he will see in print what has and may be said concerning him on this occasion. I am in some measure acquainted with his sentiments on this subject. It is not right for me to un