Oliver Ellsworth and Federation

NOTHING in recent history is more interesting or dramatic than the steady, irresistible movement of races and peoples toward individual freedom through national union. Thus arose the Dominion of Canada in 1867, the German Empire in 1870, and the closer union of Switzerland in 1874. The first day of the twentieth century, upon the opposite side of the earth, six colonies or states, a people equal in number to the thirteen colonies in 1776, and in area to the United States, in America, became one nation, the Commonwealth of Australia. Greater Britain, spurred by the common peril and sacrifice of the Boer war, is fast approaching a more compact, interdependent, world-wide union, and Cuba and the Philippines, assisted by the United States but impatient of control, are groping with varying fortunes toward a national life.

In these national dramas the dénouement is the same. It is a federation, a union, for the protection and control of general and external interests, of several communities or states of contiguous borders and of common blood, origin, or civilization, each within its own limits and over its own affairs reserving exclusive control. And for all, in different degrees, there has been a common model, — the government of the United States, the strongest federation the world has ever seen.

It was during the closing years of the eighteenth century that the United States devised, inaugurated, and tested their federation, maintaining it against disintegrating, centrifugal forces from within, and against selfish, insidious aggression from without, and, incidentally, formulated and asserted a national policy toward foreign nations, throwing off the entangling alliance with France, into which they had been drawn in their struggle for independence. This is the great constructive era in our history. It had to do with the primary rights of individuals and of communities, and with the bonds that unite them. Hence it is the period from which, during the past century, other peoples have gained inspiration and guidance in their progress toward well-ordered democracy, and to which, at the present time, we ourselves must turn, as we are compelled by the war with Spain to readjust our political and commercial relations with Europe and Asia, and to adapt republican government to Cuba, Porto Rico, and the Philippines.

Fortunately, there is one man in whose public services is embraced that whole constructive era, and in whose character and career that great movement toward federation is clearly reflected, and this is Oliver Ellsworth. His name is almost unknown to the present generation. Yet he may well be called one of the fathers of American federation.

In creating a federal union the chief question is to-day what it was in 1787 : Can a form of union be devised that will be acceptable to the states that are to compose it ? In the convention of 1787 it was early and generally admitted that any form, to be practicable, must be made up of the essential elements of republican government that had been developed, as it were, by civic evolution in the separate states. There the people had come to govern themselves, as a rule, through representatives, chosen directly or indirectly by themselves, and acting in three groups or classes, each more or less independent of and a check upon the others, — the legislative making the laws, the judiciary interpreting them, and the executive enforcing them ; and the legislative body was usually composed of two branches, a Senate and a House of Representatives. To the want of some of these features was attributed to a great extent the failure of preceding efforts toward union, and their incorporation now into the new scheme was approved, with but a single exception. In the several states the representatives in number and influence had generally and approximately been apportioned to population. But as the states varied in population, from puny Delaware to large Pennsylvania, to apportion representation in the federal government to population would lodge the control of the union in the large states at the expense of the small. It would lead, also, the latter feared, to their absorption by the large states and to the loss of their own state governments. To these governments their people were devoted : under them they had lived and traded in freedom and security ; in them they reposed their sentiment and hope. It was not strange, then, that the small states insisted upon an equality with the large, in the new political system.

In the main this policy had the sympathy of Ellsworth, a delegate from a small state, and, as its champion in debate, he was supported by precedents. Hitherto, in continental assemblies, the states had exercised an equality of suffrage irrespective of their inequality in population and wealth. A similar rule had been adopted for the Constitutional Convention itself, though against the wishes of the large states. Even the credentials of delegates presupposed this equality, and Delaware had gone so far as to instruct her delegates, if it were questioned, to withdraw from the convention.

None the less did the representatives of the large states — especially their leaders, James Wilson, James Madison, and Rufus King — insist on proportional representation. To them, equality of suffrage among the states in the general government would introduce a far - reaching if not fatal defect. It would violate the fundamental principle of republican government, —— the rule of the majority. As the weeks passed into months the debate increased in intensity and bitterness. It gradually involved and divided the whole convention, and finally, blocking all progress, it led almost to despair. That an agreement was reached at last, and a continental union thereby made possible, was chiefly due to the moderation and influence of Oliver Ellsworth.

For this service he was well fitted by training, temperament, and experience. Born at Windsor, Connecticut, April 29, 1745, he was a product of the purest New England democracy. Settled in 1635 by some of the choicest English immigrants, Windsor had steadily pursued those ideals of freedom, civil and religious, for which its founders had forsaken England. Here had been developed a pure democracy, guided by a succession of able freemen, like the Newberrys, Wolcotts, and Ellsworths. The family last named had occupied the same farmstead since 1665. The father of Oliver, Captain David Ellsworth, was not only a prosperous farmer, but also led a company of militia at the siege of Louisburg, and was a selectman of Windsor for many years. Intending Oliver for the ministry, he gave him the best education the times afforded. Prepared for college by the celebrated Dr. Bellamy, of Bethlehem, Connecticut, with whom subsequently Aaron Burr prepared for the ministry, Oliver Ellsworth entered Yale in 1762. After two or three years he transferred his residence to Nassau Hall, now Princeton University,— then under the presidency of the eloquent Dr. Finley, who had assisted Whitefield in the great revival,— and he was there graduated in 1766. At the request of his father he studied theology for a year under Dr. Smalley, a learned Connecticut clergyman. But his own preference was for the law, and finally, with his father’s consent, he pursued this study under the first Governor Griswold, and then under Jesse Root, of Coventry, later chief justice of Connecticut. His textbooks were Bacon’s Abridgment and Jacob’s Law Dictionary. He was admitted to the Bar of Hartford County in 1771.

The independence and resolution shown in the choice of profession were characteristic. Having incurred debt during his course of study, he determined to discharge it before entering the practice of law. For this purpose he tried to dispose of the timber standing on a small tract that he owned on the Connecticut River, and finding no purchaser he became a woodman himself. With his own hands he cut the wood, and, conveying it down the river, sold it at Hartford. Shortly afterwards, though without a competence or a law practice, he married Miss Abigail Wolcott, granddaughter of Governor Roger Wolcott, of East Windsor ; and hiring of his father a small farm in the neighboring parish of Wiltonbury, he made a start, now splitting rails to inclose a field, and now walking ten miles to Hartford to attend court. At first, evidently, the former occupation was more profitable than the latter : for three years his professional income was but three pounds Connecticut money. But his superior education, talent, and character soon told. Chosen state’s attorney in 1777, he removed to Hartford, and soon acquired a large clientage. Scarce an important case was tried in which he was not retained, and his docket would contain as many as a thousand cases a year.

From absorption in his profession he was soon drawn into continental politics. Sent to Congress in 1778, he was placed on the important committees of Marine and Appeals, — the former having general charge of naval affairs, and the latter determining appeals from local admiralty courts. With short intervals, he remained in Congress during the five trying and eventful years that preceded the conclusion of peace, with constantly increasing usefulness and influence. In 1783 he returned to his native state, to become a member of the governor’s council and a judge of the Superior Court. He declined, in 1784, the appointment of commissioner of the Treasury, tendered by Congress, and did not again participate in continental affairs till he was sent, with Roger Sherman and Dr. William Samuel Johnson, to represent Connecticut in the convention of 1787.

In this body, though loyal to Connecticut — a small state — he avoided partisanship. Early in the debate, unlike his colleague, Roger Sherman, he favored proportional representation in the lower house of the national legislature, the House of Representatives. Hence with the better grace and the more force he was able to urge an equality of suffrage in the Senate. As reported by Madison, he said : “ Over so great an extent of country, . . . the only chance of supporting a general government lies in grafting it on those of the individual states ; . . . we were partly national, partly federal. The proportional representation in the first branch was conformable to the national principle, and would secure the large states against the small. An equality of voices was conformable to the federal principle, and was necessary to secure the small states against the large. . . . Let a strong executive, a judiciary and legislative power be created ; but let not too much be attempted, by which all may be lost.” This compromise, “ The Connecticut Proposal, ” he urged persistently, answering with calmness and moderation the learned and logical arguments of Madison and Wilson. He united upon it all the states’ rights men except the irreconcilables, and several of the more moderate nationalists, like Caleb Strong and George Mason. He finally secured its adoption by the majority of a single state.

It is possible that this agreement might not have been reached but for favorable circumstances. From Wilson’s standpoint it was an unjust victory of a minority gained through the convention rule of equality of suffrage. The population of the states voting for it was much smaller than that of the states voting against it. Moreover, to some extent fear superseded argument. The convention was on the verge of dissolution in failure, a result that would almost inevitably end republican government and independence in the United States. No other compromise stood the least chance of acceptance. Nevertheless, the credit is due chiefly to Ellsworth. It was little short of genius to comprehend and measure the conditions of the problem, to appreciate the patriotism and different points of view of the opposing factions, to discern and combine the most important and acceptable elements in the two plans, and with dignity, moderation, and steadiness to advocate the compromise till its acceptance was unavoidable.

At any rate, this agreement tided the convention past its critical stage, and became the basis upon which the Constitution as a whole was constructed. It made our continental union a mixed one, — mainly national, as Wilson and Madison planned, so far as its several departments spring from, respond to, and act upon the individual citizen ; but also materially federal, as intended by Ellsworth and Patterson, in so far as those departments, through the Senate, are influenced by the states as individual political communities. The equality of the states in representation and suffrage in the Senate has done much to confirm and establish the dignity and integrity of local self-government, and thus to fix definite check and limit to the powerful drift toward centralization observable in other republics. In this respect it has distinctly contributed to the freedom and security of the individual. It was doubtless suggested by the equality enjoyed by the towns in Connecticut in the lower branch of the state legislature ; and though the Connecticut usage has led to great abuse, and is now being reconsidered, its application to the Senate of the United States has been much admired and imitated. In the Australian federation, just consummated, the six states have an equality of suffrage in the Senate, or higher branch of the federal legislature.

The prominence Ellsworth had shown in outlining the Constitution gave him an important part also in completing its details. With Rutledge, Randolph, Gorham, and Wilson, he was on the committee on detail that draughted and reported the Constitution, in accordance with the resolutions of the convention. Because of an illness he could not sign it, but it received none the less his hearty support. In the Connecticut convention to which it was submitted his speeches in its favor were the principal influence in securing its prompt and enthusiastic ratification. When, soon, the time came to organize and establish the new government, he was chosen, with Dr. William Samuel Johnson, to represent Connecticut in the first Senate of the United States.

This work of putting the new federation into effect fell mainly upon the men who had framed it. They did not shrink. Washington, as the first President, assumed chief direction, and Hamilton, as Secretary of the Treasury, undertook to create credit and stimulate industry. In Congress the first need was to elaborate the instruments of government which had been only outlined in the convention. Among the most important was the judiciary. The Constitution barely prescribed the jurisdiction of the United States courts. What and how many these courts should be, and what should be their respective limits and duties, the Senate now undertook to define. Early in its first session it appointed a committee to consider this whole subject and report a comprehensive plan, and made Ellsworth chairman. This was a significant tribute. Among his associates were some of the ablest lawyers and jurists in the country, like William Grayson, George Read, Rufus King, William Patterson, and Caleb Strong. When the bill was reported, these men brought to its discussion all their learning and acumen ; and in its defense Ellsworth was compelled to exhaust English and colonial precedents, and to employ all his resources as a debater. In the end he was able to satisfy professional criticism, though he could not overcome sectional prejudice. As the courts of the United States were made supreme over those of the states, the bill was claimed by the opposition to contain “the gunpowder plot of the Constitution.” But by distinguished lawyers out of Congress, to whom it was submitted, like James Wilson and the attorney - general and chief justice of Pennsylvania, it was heartily approved. It finally passed both houses substantially in the form written by Ellsworth, and, with some amendment, has since remained the charter of the United States courts. Evidently Ellsworth was passing to a new stage of growth. The Constitutional Convention had been a fork in the road. Some members of that body, confirmed in their fears and prejudices, as were Elbridge Gerry and George Mason, thenceforth refused to approve, and strove to defeat, its work. But Ellsworth grew in hope and in breadth of view. During that momentous intellectual contest he came to see in the Constitution a splendid design of a continental republic, strong in its own functions and powers, under the protection of which the citizen would enjoy freedom and happiness, and the states would occupy undisturbed their proper spheres. He was no longer a states’ rights man, but a nationalist. He therefore earnestly supported Hamilton’s measures to invigorate, dignify, and establish the general government. And such was the confidence that he inspired that he became the administration leader in the Senate. At the same time he initiated measures of his own. By pushing through the Senate a bill preventing imports from Rhode Island, he forced that state finally to join the Union. “The Constitution is now adopted,” he wrote to a friend, “by all the states, and I have much satisfaction, and perhaps some vanity, in seeing, at length, a great work finished, for which I have long labored incessantly. ”

At the outset the Senate became a weighty and efficient body. Nearly half its members had attended the Constitutional Convention. These men now strove to realize the lofty ideal they had conceived. They imposed secrecy and enforced dignity and deliberation. “The Senators,” says Schouler, “never more than thirty-two at Philadelphia, appeared, well powdered and in rich dress, and if any loud whisper disturbed the member who had the floor Vice President Adams would restore order by gently tapping with his silver pencil case upon the little mahogany table which stood in front of him.”

Those members who had labored steadily for the creation and ratification of the Constitution now naturally united to support the administration. Hence arose what was called “the Court Party.” Its chief support came from New England. As Chauncey Goodrich wrote in 1796, “The government still rests on New England prudence and firmness.” In the Senate it included with others Rufus King, Caleb Strong, George Cabot, William Patterson, Robert Morris, and Oliver Ellsworth. Of this party Ellsworth was facile princeps. He is one of the ablest politicians or party leaders in our history, and as such his salient traits crop out in the racy diary of his associate and opponent, Senator Maclay. “All-powerful and eloquent in debate, ” he would “batter down all his antagonist had said.” “Economy is all his cry.” Aggressive, “with strong traits of obstinacy, ” industrious, learned, persuasive, and conciliatory, he united the Federalists, by his rare tact and wisdom, into a compact, efficient group. Nevertheless, this success was gained by a narrow margin. The party in opposition, known as Anti-Federalists or Republicans, aroused by the Judiciary bill, grew with the unfolding of Federal policy. It soon found subtle, skillful leadership, strange to say, in Madison, hitherto a nationalist, and in Jefferson, though still a member of Washington’s Cabinet. And the serious affection of states’ rights from which they had steadily suffered was now complicated by a dangerous attack of what George Cabot called “the French disease.”

In 1778, to gain aid against England, the American colonies had made a treaty with France, by which the latter had recognized the independence of the former, granting money and men, and the colonies had undertaken to guarantee the dominions of France on the American continent. This support was both timely and generous. It left a deep feeling of gratitude and obligation in the American people. Many years had passed, and the French Revolution had intervened. In its violent progress France had declared war on England, and, the treaty being still in force, appealed in her turn to the United States for aid. Doubting a ready compliance from our government, she promptly, with supreme insolence, dispatched an emissary to appeal directly to the people. Both the object and the method of these advances were encouraged by the Anti-Federalists. The latter draughted congratulatory addresses, and packed public meetings and fêtes. The people were stirred by sympathy with France and hatred of England. For much of this feeling England was herself at fault. Having failed to collect her prerevolutionary debts in America, partly from the inefficiency of the local courts and partly from the weakness of the general government, she had retaliated by retaining the western forts and by seizing American commerce under arbitrary orders in council.

This was the gravest crisis of Washington’s administration, and it was met with great courage, wisdom, and patriotism. He believed that, in the existing weakness and immaturity of the general government, war with either England or France would inevitably result in the loss of the independence, or in the destruction of the government, of the United States. He therefore declared and enforced strict neutrality, checked the French propaganda, and steadily sought an understanding with both countries.

It is safe to say that without the support of the Senate this policy could not have prevailed. In the Senate the Federal leaders were able to hold a firm hand, but in the House they had less power. Here upon the popular tide the opposition had ridden into control, and to embarrass the administration they introduced a resolution in effect to impose restrictions and duties on English commerce and navigation. If this were adopted, accommodation with England might be impossible. Hence, to anticipate it, after a conference between Ellsworth, King, Strong, and Cabot, and upon their advice, with Ellsworth as their spokesman, Washington appointed Jay to negotiate an agreement with England. As a result the Jay treaty was made, and war with England was averted.

Had this treaty come for ratification before the people rather than the President and the Senate, doubtless it would have failed. But as it was, by a sharp, bitter struggle, the very men who had initiated the negotiation, again under Ellsworth’s lead,secured its acceptance. The Senate thus early gave a striking example of its exalted duty and power to conserve the government, even if need be against the popular will.

The part taken by Ellsworth in the Jay treaty, while perhaps the most arduous, was his last service in the Senate. March 4, 1796, he was appointed Chief Justice of the United States. In accepting this office he evidently thought none too well of his qualifications. Though nearly fifty-one years of age, he immediately began and incessantly continued an exhaustive study of jurisprudence. It was his lifelong habit thoroughly to prepare for each duty as it came. To others, however, he must have seemed amply qualified. In early life he had attained distinction at the Bar and had served with credit on the Connecticut Bench, and since then he had enjoyed wide study and experience in continental affairs. In fact, it was peculiarly fitting that the man who had done most to create the judicial system should now, in his ripe manhood, be called to administer it. He possessed appropriate legal learning and a judicial temperament. Impressive in height and manner, he was uniformly patient and courteous. He was a worthy successor of John Jay, and would have made a great jurist had the opportunity been given him. As yet the duties of the office taxed the body more than the mind. As presiding judge on the circuit, he was obliged to spend much of his time in tedious journeys, over crude roads or by slow boats, between widely separated parts of the Union. His associate, William Cushing, is said to have traveled usually, accompanied by his wife, in a four-wheeled phaeton, drawn by two horses and driven by himself, ingeniously packed with books, groceries, and other comforts ; the colored servant following behind with the baggage in a one-horse vehicle. But comparatively few cases were heard. It was not till the time of John Marshall, his successor, that this court was called upon to render those far-reaching decisions involving the Constitution which have made their author famous.

For Ellsworth the opportunity was in politics. His appointment to the Bench had not terminated his service to his party. In the Federal councils his opinion was constantly sought, and was never more needed. The party, by strange fatuity, had lost its ablest leaders. Rufus King had been sent as minister to England, and Caleb Strong and George Cabot had resigned. In fact, the perplexity of the party soon became so great that Ellsworth felt obliged to return to its active service.

The Jay treaty had indeed averted war with England, but it seemed to entail war with France. The latter country had deeply resented the maintenance of neutrality, but by the Jay treaty she was exasperated. Deeming the treaty of 1778 thereby nullified, she ordered, in disregard of its terms, the seizure of English property and provisions destined for England when found on American ships, made American commerce lawful prey to French cruisers, and treated American seamen found on English ships as pirates. Even the recall, by the United States, of James Monroe, her minister at Paris, was regarded by France as unfriendly, and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, sent in his place, was not only denied a reception, but was summarily dismissed from French territory. When, notwithstanding, President Adams, as a last effort at accommodation, sent John Marshall, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, and Elbridge Gerry as an extraordinary embassy, these men not only were denied public recognition, but were even invited to pay a bribe as a condition of negotiation.

When these successive indignities, increasing in harshness, became known in the United States, public indignation and resentment swelled into a mighty tide. Congress, summoned in extraordinary session, prepared for war. With other measures, it authorized the construction of new ships, created a Navy Department, empowered the President to raise an army, suspended all commercial relations with France, and authorized armed vessels of the United States to resist and capture French cruisers preying on American commerce. The people showed equal spirit. “Millions for defense, ” was the popular cry, “ but not one cent for tribute! ” No such upheaval of patriotism had been seen since the war for independence.

At this point occurred one of the great surprises and enigmas of our political history. Without consulting or even warning his party, President Adams nominated as minister to France William Vans Murray, then minister of the United States at the Hague. It transpired that Talleyrand, French Minister of Foreign Affairs, unwilling after all to go to war with the United States while deeply involved with Europe, had given assurances through Vans Murray that if yet another minister were sent he would be properly received, and President Adams had jumped at the chance. The Federal leaders were dumbfounded. The step seemed to contravene the very policy which the President himself had directed. They distrusted Talleyrand, and deprecated the ill-timed confusion and discord in the party. Nevertheless, they were obliged to accept the new situation. A committee of the Senate, waiting on the President, suggested the appointment of three men instead of one, as more appropriate to the importance of the mission ; and thereupon Oliver Ellsworth, Patrick Henry, and William Vans Murray were named.

The commission thus constituted was readily confirmed. To put the Chief Justice at its head not only followed the precedent set when Chief Justice Jay was sent to England, but it also avoided the party quarrel. From his letters to Pickering, then Secretary of State, it is evident that Ellsworth doubted the good faith of Talleyrand, questioned the propriety of sending another mission after so many rebuffs, and regretted the inconsiderate conduct of the President. Yet his utterances had been guarded, and in his exalted office he was free from the imputation of partisanship. No Federalist could command such general confidence and respect. In fact, it was not his confirmation but his acceptance that might well have been in doubt. The new office could add no honor. As Chief Justice he was already next if not equal to the President in dignity, and his duties, though onerous, were regular and congenial. His reputation was assured, his future secure. To accept the offer would involve serious sacrifice and perplexity. It would involve an absence of unknown duration from his home and family, to which he was deeply attached. It would compel an uncomfortable voyage in the winter season, with serious hazard of his health, already enfeebled. It would lead him into a tedious, doubtful struggle in diplomacy, for which he had no special training or experience, in a distant country, whose language and customs were not familiar, and whose people and government were in the midst of a mad career of domestic revolution and foreign conquest. It would impose upon him mainly the momentous responsibility of deciding between peace and war.

Nevertheless, his acceptance was evidently a necessity both to his party and to his country. No other Federalist sufficiently prominent and acceptable was available. If he declined, an AntiFederalist might be appointed, with whom the policy and reputation of his party and the welfare of the country might not be safe.

November 3, 1799, Ellsworth, with Governor William R. Davie, of North Carolina, who had been appointed upon the declination of Patrick Henry, sailed for France in the frigate United States. Touching at Lisbon, after a stormy passage, they learned of the overthrow of the Directory — “Monsieur Five-Heads, ” as Fisher Ames called it — and of the ascent of Napoleon to the chief power as First Consul. Though in doubt whether they would be received by the new government, they determined to proceed. Sailing for L’Orient, they met a terrible gale. Driven out of their course, they put in at Corunna, Spain, and proceeded by land over the Pyrenees to Paris, enduring great privation and exposure in a journey of seven weeks. They were received with courtesy and respect, and a commission, headed by Joseph Bonaparte, brother of the First Consul, was named to represent France.

On behalf of the United States the discussion was conducted mainly by Ellsworth, and it taxed severely his temper and intellect. His instructions required that no treaty be made unless it secured compensation to citizens of the United States for all losses from the illegal capture or condemnation of their vessels or other property under authority from the French Republic. But it soon became evident that it was this very payment of indemnity that the French were resolved to avoid. For, shrewdly divining that the Americans were determined also to be rid of the old treaty imposing the alliance, they made the revival of the old treaty in all respects an absolute condition of the payment of indemnity. A deadlock ensued. Meanwhile Napoleon was on the full tide of military conquest. He had led his army over the Great St. Bernard, had captured Milan, and had won the victory of Marengo. Apparently he would soon have Europe at his feet, and would then have ample leisure and power to deal with the United States. It seemed wise to Ellsworth, therefore, though unable to make a comprehensive treaty, at least to conclude a modus vivendi. A convention was signed, limited in scope but not in duration. It provided for the mutual restoration of vessels and property not already condemned, contained a liberal definition of neutral rights, and otherwise regulated the relations of the two countries, but postponed to a future settlement the question of indemnities ; the treaty of alliance, meanwhile, to have no operation. Though France had the best of the bargain, it secured to the United States peace, with a permanent separation from Europe. As Bancroft has pointed out, it also paved the way for the purchase, a short time later, of the Louisiana Territory.

But to many in the United States, counting the losses rather than the gains, the result was a great disappoint - ment. Wolcott, then Secretary of the Treasury, and an old friend and party associate of Ellsworth, with Pickering’s approval, imputed the outcome, rather unfeelingly, to a decline in Ellsworth’s intellect. Hamilton’s vision was clearer. “As to indemnification, ” he wrote to Gouverneur Morris, “ that was rather to be wished than to be expected while France is laying the whole world under contribution. . . . The least evil is to ratify. The contrary would finish the ruin of the Federal party and endanger our internal tranquillity.”

One of the earliest and most beneficial results of the convention was the restoration of good will on the part of France. A splendid fête was given by Joseph Bonaparte, at his château at Marfontaine, to the American envoys, as they journeyed to Havre-de-Grâce to embark. Oliver Ellsworth, Jr., the companion and private secretary of his father, has left an interesting account of the incident. Arriving at two o’clock, the envoys found in attendance many French magistrates. During the afternoon all enjoyed the park belonging to the château, laid out in English style, with a canal, a natural pond, islands, and rocky hills surmounted by an ancient tower. At four o’clock the First Consul arrived, being received by music of bands and firing of cannon. In the evening, at eight o’clock, the convention, being first signed by the French and American commissioners, was ratified by the First Consul, cannon announcing the event. At nine o’clock, the guests, over one hundred, were conducted to a banquet spread in three large halls, splendidly illuminated and decorated. The principal one, called the Hall of Union, was hung with wreaths, interspersed with inscriptions commemorating the Declaration of Independence and other celebrated events connected with the American Revolution, and with the letters F. and A., representing France and America, intertwined. In the second hall, the Hall of Washington, was a bust of Washington, with the French and American flags interlaced. The third, the Hall of Franklin, contained a bust of the philosopher. After the banquet there were brilliant fireworks, followed by a concert and a play by famous performers brought from Paris.

To Ellsworth these festivities brought little pleasure. The malady with which he was afflicted before he left the United States was greatly aggravated by the hardships on sea and land, and by the protracted, perplexing negotiations through which he had passed. Forbidden by his physician to venture again upon a winter voyage, he decided to spend the approaching winter in the south of France, after a short sojourn in England to try the waters at Bath. He accordingly sent his resignation of the office of Chief Justice by his son, who with Governor Davie soon returned to the United States.

In England Ellsworth received marked attention from the Court, the Bench, and the Bar. Owing to his eminent station in his own country and to his conduct of the negotiation at Paris, he was the most distinguished representative of the United States that had yet visited England. At the law courts he met the leaders at the Bar, and was invited to a seat beside Lord Kenyon on the King’s Bench. Giving up a return to France, he spent the winter in England. In the spring, having received but temporary relief, he returned to the United States, intending to retire from public life. But his native state again called him to service. Being elected to the governor’s council, he remained upon it the rest of his life, incidentally serving on the Connecticut Court of Appeals and as a fellow of Yale College. Upon the reorganization of the state judiciary in 1807, he was appointed chief justice of Connecticut. But the acceptance which he had sent he was obliged to withdraw by a sharp return of his illness. He died November 26, 1807.

Oliver Ellsworth was an excellent specimen of the New England character of his time. He was rooted in the soil. True to his early training, he retained through life the farmer’s instincts and aptitude. It is said that while on the southern circuit he assisted so efficiently in repairing an unfortunate stagecoach that a bystander inquired, “Who is that gentleman who understands everything and is eloquent about a coach wheel ? ” He was one of the first to point out the value of gypsum and of broadcloth, and he aided in starting the manufacture of the latter near his home. This was but one of the many ways in which he repaid the debt he owed his native town. In beautiful, historic Windsor, on the banks of the Connecticut, his affections centred and his mind relaxed. On quaint, straggling Windsor Street, perhaps a mile north from the ancient Palisado Green, upon the estate occupied by his ancestors for several generations, he built his house, supervising himself with tender care the details of its design and construction. He placed it upon a slight eminence, partly screened from the street by a grove of tall elms. Of ample proportions and of dignified aspect, the roof at one corner supported by stately columns forming a quaint porch, it stands to-day but little changed by man, though seared and hoary from the elements. It is still the most imposing and beautiful house in Windsor. Under this generous roof he reared a large family, one of his sons subsequently becoming governor of Connecticut and member of Congress. Here, too, he dispensed hospitality. He entertained President Washington in 1789, and President Adams in 1799. And here he zealously guarded and promoted the common welfare, social, religious, and political. Now, as magistrate, he would grant a permit to travel on the Sabbath to some privileged person. Now, as citizen, he would urge a stricter enforcement of order by the tithingman, and now he would settle some long-standing dispute. In 1793, largely through his influence, a union was effected of the First and Fourth societies, which, by reconciling conflicting interests, gave to the town a church edifice, an academy building, two highways, and a causeway. On the bank of the Rivulet, at the corner of the Palisado Green, may still be seen the church, erected under his supervision, in which with the united congregations he worshiped ; and just behind it, among the trees in the ancient cemetery, beneath a modest stone, lies his grave. It is not surprising that in Windsor a life so righteous and beneficent has left a memory both enduring and fragrant.

Not only with his town but with his whole state Ellsworth was upon terms of mutual confidence and respect. The faithful servant of the public, both at home and in continental affairs, from his youth through his manhood, he certainly deserved to be what Noah Webster curiously called him, one of the “Three Mighties of Connecticut.”

His wide experience and dominant influence in his own state brought him respect and reputation in interstate affairs, and as the calls to service in the latter sphere increased they received from him a ready response. He did not share the indifference to public responsibility prevalent in his time. Doubtless his willing acceptance of office was partly due to his rare adaptability to public affairs. John Adams, who in the Senate and in the presidency had the best opportunity to judge, said, “Mr. Ellsworth is so great a master of business.” This power found its fullest scope during his seven years in the Senate. As Alexander Johnson has tersely said, “The first two Congresses [1789— 93] marked out the lines which the subsequent development of the country has followed.” Ellsworth’s great experience and reputation in the Continental Congress, upon the Bench of his own state, and in the Constitutional Convention gave him authority and efficiency. At the same time he became the representative of the administration and the exponent of the Federal policy. It is best that the credit for the Federal achievements should be equitably apportioned. Doubtless they were largely due to Hamilton’s bold, original, and fertile mind. But in the arts of leadership Hamilton was deficient. He did not possess that moderate and conciliatory temper which reconciles conflicting interests and attracts support. It was here that Ellsworth excelled. “He wishes, ” wrote Maclay, “ to reconcile the Secretary’s policy to the public opinion and welfare.” The task was a difficult one ; for the Senate was so evenly divided that its decision often depended upon the Vice President. Yet it was accomplished, largely through the tact with which Ellsworth united his followers, and the power with which he answered his opponents.

Though a party man, he was never fettered by party. He did not share the gloom with which many Federalists regarded the election of Jefferson. In 1801 he wrote King : “He [Jefferson] dare not run the ship aground, nor essentially deviate from that course which has hitherto rendered her voyage so prosperous.” Whatever he said or did was stamped with earnestness and sincerity. Indeed, it was the elevation and strength of his moral character that most impressed his contemporaries. Dr. Timothy Dwight, president of Yale College, a personal friend, said : “The purity and excellence of his character are rare in any station, and in the higher walks of life are almost unknown. . . . There was probably no man, when Washington was not present, who would be more readily acknowledged to hold the first character.”

Men of such endowments are fitted for great crises in history, and at least two such came to Ellsworth. One was in the Constitutional Convention, when the delegates, divided into two parties, of equal conscientiousness and patriotism, but of different training and associations, found themselves, after weeks of discussion, diametrically opposed upon the very basis of a continental union, and almost in despair of agreement. The compromise that the union be half national, half federal, brought forward and patiently, adroitly pressed mainly by the Connecticut men, has indeed given us a curious result, — a government that is neither a nation nor a federation, a republic in which more and more the minority rule. But it was the only agreement possible ; the only alternative was anarchy. Thus far, in the main it has proved practicable. Whatever changes in the constitution of the Senate may be made necessary, either by its own arrogance or aggression, or by the negligence or partisanship of its constituent state legislatures, the credit due to Ellsworth is none the less.

The second crisis was in the negotiation at Paris in 1800, when in her pride and power France, as the condition of a treaty, made upon the American envoys demands utterly inconsistent with their instructions. Upon their decision hung war between the United States, weak and undeveloped in resources, distracted with party strife, exposed to attack and without allies, on the one hand, and on the other a great, compact, military power, led by a military genius fast becoming the conqueror of Europe. A man of less courage, less self-reliance, less patriotism, would have adhered to his instructions, and left the responsibility with the government that had imposed them. Ellsworth saw his duty and did it, with characteristic adroitness and foresight. Deferring the settlement of the more obstinate but really less important differences to a favorable season, he secured at once the essential objects of his mission. He maintained peace and restored good will with France, and by abrogating the alliance disentangled the United States from Europe. He thus took the last, indispensable step for the establishment of the American federation, contemplated by Federal policy and inculcated by Washington’s Farewell Address.

Why is it, then, that Oliver Ellsworth has received so little attention from biographers and historians? He was not born in Massachusetts or in Virginia. In Connecticut, as in Pennsylvania, the historic held has been meagrely tilled. Moreover, the dramatic and opportune quality of his work has been perceived only through the perspective of multiplying years. To negotiate an unpopular convention for a party just retiring from office in defeat and ignominy is not conducive to immediate fame. Nevertheless, he has not been wholly overlooked by subsequent statesmen. Webster said of him : “For strength of reason, for sagacity, wisdom, and sound good sense in the conduct of affairs, for moderation of temper and general ability, it may be doubted if New England has yet produced his superior.” What Ellsworth said, as Chief Justice of the United States, to the grand jury at Savannah in 1796 was the aim of his whole life : “ So let us rear an empire sacred to the rights of men, and commend a government of reason to the nations of the earth.”

Frank Gaylord Cook.