had actually stolen in this way $4,750.  Such being the case, the “Calm Observer” very naturally inquired:  “What will posterity say of the man who has done this thing?  Will it not say that the mask of political hypocrisy has been worn by Caesar, by Cromwell, and by Washington?” Another patriot, also of the Democratic party, declared that the President had been false to a republican government.  He said that Washington maintained the seclusion of a monk and the supercilious distance of a tyrant; and that the concealing carriage drawn by supernumerary horses expressed the will of the President, and defined the loyal duty of the people.

The support of Genet, the democratic societies, and now this concerted and bitter opposition to the Jay treaty, convinced Washington, if conviction were needed, that he could carry on his administration only by the help of those who were thoroughly in sympathy with his policy and purposes.  When Jefferson left the State Department, the President promoted Randolph, and put Bradford, a Federalist, in the place of Attorney-General.  When Hamilton left the Treasury, Oliver Wolcott, Hamilton’s right-hand man, and the staunchest of party men, was given the position thus left vacant.  If Randolph had remained in the cabinet, he would have become a Federalist.  Like all men disposed to turn, when he was compelled to jump he sprang far, as was shown by his signing the treaty and memorial, both of which he strongly disapproved.  He was quite ready to fall in with the rest of the cabinet, but on account of the Fauchet dispatch he resigned.  Then Washington, after offering the portfolio to several persons known to be in hearty sympathy with him, took the risk of giving it to Timothy Pickering, who was by no means a safe leader, rather than take any chance of getting another adviser who was not entirely of his own way of thinking.  At the same time he gave the secretaryship of war to James McHenry, a most devoted personal friend and follower.  He still held back from calling himself a party chief, but he had discovered, as William of Orange discovered, that he could not, even with his iron will and lofty intent, overcome the impossible, alter human nature, or carry on a successful government under a representative system, without the assistance of a party.  He stated his conclusion with his wonted plainness in a letter to Pickering written in September, 1795, in the midst of the struggle over the treaty.  “I shall not,” he said, “whilst I have the honor to administer the government, bring a man into any office of consequence knowingly, whose political tenets are adverse to the measures which the general government are pursuing; for this, in my opinion, would be a sort of political suicide.  That it would embarrass its movements is most certain.”  A terser statement of the doctrine of party government it would be difficult to find, and in the conduct of Monroe and the course of the opposition journals Washington had ample proofs of the soundness of his theory.