Part 26

The great tribune was eminently social in his nature and many stories are existent which illustrate this trait. One of these relates to the famous collation given by Lloyd Dulany at his private residence at Annapolis, now part of the City Hotel, a few days after the burning of the Peggy Stewart, at which function Mr. Carroll was one of the guests. At this collation there was used a punch bowl which had been brought over from England in the Peggy Stewart, and Mr. Dulany explained how he had come into the possession of the article, which had been sent to him as a present. The Captain, he stated, said to him that the bowl was not a part of the cargo of the Peggy Stewart, as it was not on the manifest. The Captain had placed the bowl in his cabin with his private property and had delivered it in person to him. To this observation Mr. Carroll is said to have smilingly observed: “We accept your explanation, provided the bowl is always used to draw the same kind of tea.” As is well known, the Peggy Stewart was destroyed because she had a cargo aboard of the obnoxious stamp burdened tea, but the bowl was full no doubt of that superior kind of punch which the Marylanders of that day so well knew how to brew. This bowl stood for years on the counter of the City Hotel at Annapolis, and thousands of Marylanders have drank the same kind of “tea” out of it since the time when Mr. Carroll made his famous expression. This function, it may be well observed, was held in the abode of an Irish American Lloyd Dulany, who was a connection of the celebrated Daniel Dulany. Mr. Carroll was also connected in a way with the famous episode of the burning of the Peggy Stewart at Annapolis and the destruction of her cargo of tea by men disguised as Indians. It was he who interceded with the mob at Annapolis in behalf of the owner of the Peggy, Mr. Anthony Stewart, and he harangued the crowd from the steps of Mr. Stewart’s residence and thus prevailed on them not to do violence to the merchant, whose pro-English proclivities were well known. He was the one to suggest that Mr. Stewart himself would destroy the vessel, and its offensive cargo of “tea,” a suggestion which the mob accepted with delight, and which no doubt saved Stewart’s residence from destruction. Mr. Carroll accompanied the frightened and shaking merchant, as a protector, on that eventful day, when he went down to Windmill Point, where the Peggy lay, and himself applied the torch to the brig and her cargo.

Mr. Carroll in those days lived in Annapolis and maintained the life of a wealthy Maryland gentleman. He dwelt in a spacious mansion on what was known as the “Spa,” in the ancient City, a quarter which was then the fashionable one at the State Capitol, and had been the same during the Colonial Government and was known far and wide throughout the Colonies, as the most elegant locality in Annapolis, then termed “The Athens of America.” His terraced garden sloped down to the brink of the lovely “Spa” and was held in by a pavilion with sandstone walls and ornamented by a pavilion where the owner and his guests could sit on a warm afternoon and enjoy the cool breezes from the water. It was here that he wrote his famous “First Citizen” letters attacking the proclamation of Governor Eden (Colonial), imposing an extra tax on the people by increasing official fees and by raising the special assessments on the clergy from 30 to 40 pounds of tobacco per annum. Mr. Carroll, as has been stated, took up the popular side and defended the people, being antagonized by Mr. Daniel Dulany, whose nom de plume was “Antillon.” In a reply as to whom the “First Citizen” was, Mr. Carroll wrote: “Who is the citizen? A man, in the prosperity of his country, a friend to liberty, a settled enemy to lawless prerogatives.” It was in this controversy that Mr. Dulany threw the taunt to Mr. Carroll that he was a disfranchised English citizen and could not vote. All of which was true, for, while he could not vote, he was at that time the richest man in the Colonies and worth at least two million pounds.

CHARLES CARROLL, BARRISTER.

Charles Carroll, termed “The Barrister,” to distinguish him from his eminent namesake, Charles Carroll of Carrollton, with whom he is often confounded, was of Irish descent and was descended from the elder branch of the Carroll family, in Maryland, thus being derived from the family of Ely O’Carroll of Ireland. About 1681 the estates of the O’Carrolls in Ireland were confiscated to the Crown, the family being accused of being royalists. This confiscation was the cause of the emigration of the first ancestor of Charles Carroll, Barrister, also a Charles Carroll, to Maryland. He accumulated a large landed estate, having friends at Court, in the Calverts, which consisted of large tracts on the Eastern Shore, in Frederick County, in Anne Arundel County, in and near the site of the City of Baltimore, on Carroll’s Island, at Mount Clare near Baltimore’s original site; and at other points. The Plains, an estate near Annapolis, Claremont, for many years the residence of Hon. Carroll Spence, later Minister of Turkey, and The Caves, an estate owned for generations by the Carrolls and last held by Gen. John Carroll, which was located in Baltimore County, were also included in the possessions of this thrifty Gael. This Carroll was in religion a Protestant, as were all of his descendants, including The Barrister, which gave him great advantages politically as well as commercially, under the Colonial Government. He was a Physician by profession and was known as Dr. Charles Carroll. He married Dorothy Blake, daughter of Charles Blake, of an ancient English family and had by her several children, who were Charles Carroll, Barrister, Mary Clare Carroll, ancestress of Gen. John Carroll of “The Cave” and John Henry Carroll, who died without issue.

At an early age, young Carroll was sent to Portugal, where he was educated at a college in Lisbon under the immediate tuition of the Rev. Edward Jones. At ten years of age, his parents removed him to England, where he studied at Eton and matriculated at the University of Cambridge, where his education was completed. Mr. Carroll afterwards studied law at the Middle Temple, London. He returned to Maryland in 1746, where because of his thorough familiarity with general affairs both in Europe and in this country, he made an early entrance into public life. Thus he became one of the people’s trusty guides in the stormy days, before and during that Revolution which accomplished so much for the welfare of mankind. Being a talented speaker and writer as well, he was placed on all important committees and had occasion to prepare many public documents which were in their day influential and are therefore historic. One of these papers, the Declaration of Rights which was adopted by the Maryland Convention, November, 1776, was drawn by him and is a powerful as well as uncompromising elucidation of the rights of the people as well as arraignment of the English tyrant King George III. He was appointed one of the Committee on Correspondence of the Maryland Convention of 1774. The first Constitution and Laws of the State of Maryland was also drawn by him and in August, 1775, he was selected as one of the Committee of Safety. Mr. Carroll was also one of the members of the Maryland Convention which assembled at Annapolis in 1775 and served on a committee which on January 12, 1776, prepared instructions for the guidance of the first Maryland Deputies to the Continental Congress. In 1776, he was selected President of the Maryland convention held at Annapolis, on May 25th of that year, and was also elected a member of the committee of Safety of that year. At this Convention over which he presided the final acts of the separation of Maryland from England was accomplished, in the deposition of Governor Robert Eden and the notification of that personage that the public quiet and safety demanded, in the judgment of the Convention, that he leave the Province. Mr. Carroll was also an active member of the Convention which met at Annapolis on June 23, 1776, and which declared the Colonies free and independent States. At the Convention which assembled at Annapolis on August 17, 1776, he was also a prominent figure and was on August 18 chosen one of a committee to draft a Charter of Rights and a Constitution for Maryland.

On November 10, 1776, he was elected to Congress as the successor of his more famous relative Charles Carroll of Carrollton, by whom he was overshadowed in reputation but not in patriotism or abilities or in services to his country. When the State Government was formed he was appointed Chief Justice, but he declined the honor. He was then elected to the first Senate of Maryland, where he rendered distinguished service. Mr, Carroll was justly regarded as being next to Daniel Dulany, Jr., Maryland’s greatest lawyer. He was indirectly descended, as were all of the Carrolls of Maryland, from Daniel Carroll of Ely, who presented twenty sons all equipped and armed to the Earl of Ormond for service under Charles I. Mount Clare, his home, was a favorite resort of General Washington before and during the Revolution, and there is a copy of a picture extant, showing the illustrious patriot and Mr. Carroll going on a fishing excursion, from the latter’s mansion, their objective point being the waters of the Chesapeake, which were easily accessible from Mount Clare. This mansion is now incorporated in the limits of Carroll Park, in the southwestern section of Baltimore.

Mr. Carroll at his death left his estates to his nephews, Nicholas and James MacCubbin, the sons of his sister Mary Clare Carroll, on the condition that they took their mother’s maiden name, “Carroll,” and that only and use the coat of arms forever after. The will was dated August 7, 1781. The MacCubbins accepted the requirements of the will and their names were changed by special act of the Legislature of Maryland in 1783 and approved by the Governor William Paca. These Carroll-MacCubbins left a numerous progeny, which has intermarried and is connected with many of the leading families of the State. Among the men of this branch who have distinguished themselves in the public service may be mentioned Hon. James Carroll, who was a member of Congress and also ran for Governor against Governor Platt. He afterwards served as a Judge of the Orphans Court, and was a highly educated and accomplished man. Hon. Charles Carroll Spence of Baltimore was also a scion of the family, who became distinguished. He represented Baltimore in the Maryland Legislature in 1845 and was later appointed by President Buchanan to effect the ratification of a treaty between the United States and Persia. Subsequently he was sent as United States Minister to Turkey, filling the post with distinction. Gen. John Carroll of the Caves is also a scion of the family and is a well known citizen of Baltimore County. He was a member of the Maryland Legislature of 1860, when only 22 years of age and was Chief of Cavalry in Maryland, with the rank of Brigadier General in 1870.

DANIEL CARROLL.

Daniel Carroll was a brother of the great Archbishop and is of a consequence somewhat overshadowed by his name and fame, and yet he was a man who achieved considerable distinction in his day and was a worthy member of his distinguished family. He was born in 1730 at Upper Marlboro and was a man of high character and attainments. As soon as the shackles placed upon the Catholics in Maryland were stricken off by the Revolution and they were given free participation in public affairs, Mr. Carroll was elected a member of the Maryland State Senate and was constantly in public life, either as a member of the Senate or as a Delegate to the Continental Congress, a representative to Congress prior to the adoption of the Federal Constitution, or as a delegate to the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787. He was also appointed by Washington a member of the commission to select the site of the National Capitol, serving with Governor Johnson of Maryland and Dr. David Stewart of Virginia. He died in May, 1796, aged 66 years. Mr. Carroll was a man of great wealth, possessing in addition to his own share of his father’s property, also that renounced by his brother Archbishop Carroll when he became a Jesuit. He owned considerable real estate in the District of Columbia and in the present boundaries of Washington, D. C., including the site of the Capitol, and also had large real estate holdings within the corporate limits of the City of Baltimore. In fact, with Charles Carroll of Carrollton, he owned practically all of the original site of Baltimore.

HOW IT BECAME PLAIN “MR. PRESIDENT”[20]—DETERMINED OPPOSITION OF AN IRISH-AMERICAN DEFEATED THE EFFORTS OF THE TITLE SEEKERS IN THE EARLY HISTORY OF OUR REPUBLIC.

BY MR. EDGAR STANTON MACLAY.

I. MANY FAVORED MONARCHIAL FORMS.

So far as the writer has been able to ascertain the United States Senate never has officially repudiated a resolution placed on its files, May 14, 1789, to the effect that it favored a title for the President and, inferentially, titles of commensurate degrees for the members of the Cabinet, Congress and other Government officials down to the Sergeant-at-arms of the Senate whom Vice-President John Adams wished to style “Usher of the Black Rod.” It was even suggested that a “canopied throne” be erected in the Senate chamber for Washington’s use.

Among the titles seriously considered for Washington were “His Elective Majesty,” “His Highness, the President of the United States of America and Protector of the Rights of the Same,” “His Elective Highness,” etc.; while his inaugural address was referred to in the minutes of the Senate as “His Most Gracious Speech.”

It is of record that Senators were addressed as “Your Highness of the Senate” and Representatives as “Your Highness of the Lower House,” while it was solemnly suggested that the proper manner for the Senate to receive the Clerk of the House of Representatives was for the Sergeant-at-arms or “Usher of the Black Rod,” with the mace on his shoulder, to meet the Clerk at the door. In view of the ire aroused between the two Houses at that time, a mallet in the hands of the “Usher of the Black Rod,” when he met the Clerk of the House of Representatives at the door, would have carried out the feelings of some of the Senators better than a mace.

These are some of the apings of royalty that were seriously considered by Congress and, on May 14, 1789, endorsed in the Senate by the very respectable vote of ten to eight. When the British burned some of the Federal buildings in Washington, 1814, many public records were destroyed, so there is difficulty in determining if this endorsement of monarchial forms was rescinded at any time from 1789 to 1814. Still, though one hundred and eighteen years have lapsed since 1789, it is not yet too late for the Senate to purge itself of this “dreadful” contempt of the great American people on this subject of titles.

For some reason, best known to themselves, the members of the first Senate decided that their session should be held behind closed doors. House rule No. 11, as inscribed on the cover of William Maclay’s journal, reads: “Inviolable secrecy shall be observed with respect to all matters transacted in the Senate while the doors are shut or as often as the same is enjoined from the chair.” The result has been that for more than a century afterward this important chapter in our history has remained almost a blank. Fortunate it was that Maclay, who with Robert Morris represented Pennsylvania in the first Senate, kept a daily record of the doings of the Upper House for the two years he was Senator.

It appears from this journal that the first great question that confronted Congress when it held its initial session in New York, April, 1789, was whether or not this “experiment” in government was to assume monarchial forms. Under date of May 1, 1789, Maclay records: “That the motives of the actors in the late Revolution were various cannot be doubted. The abolishing of royalty, the extinguishment of patronage and dependencies attached to that form of government, were the exalted motives of many revolutionists and these were the improvements meant by them to be made of the war which was forced on us by British aggression—in fine, the amelioration of government and bettering the condition of mankind. These ends and none other were publicly avowed and all our constitutions and public acts were formed in this spirit.

“Yet there were not wanting a party whose motives were different. They wished for the loaves and fishes of government and cared for nothing else but a translation of the diadem from London to Boston, New York or Philadelphia, or, in other words, the creation of a new monarchy in America and to form niches for themselves in the temple of royalty. This spirit manifested itself strongly among the officers at the close of the war and I have been afraid the army would not have been disbanded if the common soldiers could have been kept together. This spirit they developed in the Order of Cincinnati, where I trust it will expend itself in a harmless flame and soon become extinguished.”

II. A COMMITTEE ON TITLES.

Congress was to have met March 4, 1789, but a quorum of the House of Representatives was not had until April 1 and in the Senate not until four days later. From this time until the arrival of President Washington, April 23—Vice-President John Adams arriving only three days before—the attention of Congress was taken up with preliminary matters such as providing a home for the Executive, framing rules for themselves, considering details of the inauguration, etc.

On April 23 Senators Oliver Ellsworth, William S. Johnson (both of Connecticut) and Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, at the instance of Adams, were appointed a committee to confer with the House of Representatives on titles—and thus began one of the fiercest debates in the history of the first United States Senate. On its outcome hinged the question whether the new government was to be monarchial in its forms or strictly plebeian.

As a preliminary skirmish Lee, on April 23, produced a copy of the resolution for appointing the Title Committee and moved that it be transmitted to the House of Representatives. This was opposed by Maclay, who records that Lee knew “the giving of titles would hurt us. I showed the absurdity of his motion, plain enough, but it seems to me that by getting a division of the resolution I could perhaps throw out the part about titles altogether. Mr. [Charles] Carroll of Maryland showed that he was against titles.” The motion, notwithstanding, was carried.

But now Adams precipitated matters by asking how he should direct a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and called on the Senators for enlightenment. There was a manifest disinclination to interfere, but the Vice-President persisted until the question was pointedly put as to whether the Speaker should be styled “Honorable.” It was passed in the negative and the first victory against titles was scored.

It was only a few days after this, May 16, that a letter was received in the Senate addressed “His Excellency, the Vice-President.” Adams said that he supposed that it was intended for him but was improperly directed. “He asked the opinion of the Senate, laughingly, and concluded it was against all rule. I [Maclay] said that until we had a rule obliging people to be regular we must submit to their irregularities, more especially of this kind. Mr. Morris said the majesty of the people would do as they pleased. All this I considered as sportive. But Adams put a serious question: Should the letter, so directed, be read? John Langdon [Senator from New Hampshire] and sundry others said yes, and read it was. It proved to be from Loudon, the printer, offering to print for the Senate.”

III. POWERFUL LEADERS SUPPORT TITLES.

That Adams was honest in his belief in titles, insignia of rank and outward exhibitions of authority, and that he took a leading part in the effort to establish them in the new government, is more than probable. In 1829 John Randolph of Virginia recorded: “I was in New York when John Adams took his seat as Vice-President. I recollect that I was a school boy at the time, attending the lobby of Congress when I ought to have been at school. I remember the manner in which my brother was spurned by the coachman of the then Vice-President for coming too near the ‘scutcheon of the viceregal carriage.’” In a letter to [James] Madison, Jefferson wrote that the question of titles had become serious in the two Houses. “J. Adams espoused the cause of titles with great earnestness. His friend, R. H. Lee, although elected as a Republican enemy to an aristocratic Constitution, was a most zealous second.... Had the project succeeded, it would have subjected the President to a serious dilemma and given a deep wound to our infant Government.”

Under date of June 12, 1789, Senator William Grayson of Virginia wrote to Patrick Henry: “Is it not still stranger that John Adams should be for titles and dignities and preëminences, and should despise the herd and the ill-bred? It is said he was the _primum nobile_ in the Senate for titles for the President.” “Even Roger Sherman” [Congressman from Connecticut], wrote John Armstrong to General Gates, April 7, 1789, “has set his head at work to devise some style of address more novel and dignified than ‘Excellency.’ Yet, in the midst of this admiration, there are skeptics who doubt its propriety and wits who amuse themselves at its expense. The first will grumble and the last will laugh, and the President should be prepared to meet the attacks of both with firmness and good nature.”

That there existed a strong sentiment against titles can be surmised from a caricature that appeared in New York about the time of Washington’s inauguration. It was entitled “The Entry” and was “full of very disloyal and profane allusions.” Washington was depicted riding on a donkey. Colonel David Humphreys [Washington’s aide-de-camp] was represented as leading the animal and “chanting hosannas and birthday odes.” In the background the devil is represented as saying:

“The glorious time has come to pass When David shall conduct an ass.”

IV. PRECEDENTS FAVOR TITLES.

It should not be forgotten, however, that Adams, Lee and other advocates of titles were powerfully supported in their position by precedents. It was shown that in almost every other detail Americans had adopted English and German—then the dominating races in the thirteen colonies—methods of procedure. The postal service was based on imported lines, our dollar was copied from the Bohemian “thaler,” colonial jurisprudence had its main inspiration in British law. Churches and custom-houses were conducted much the same as in the old countries.