JAMES RENWICK, LL.D.

----------------------------------------

CHAPTER V.

----------------------------------------

Clinton is appointed Mayor of the City of New-York. – Important Duties of that Office. – His successive Reappointments and Removals. – Fluctuations of Party. – Causes of his Decline in Popularity. – His great Ability as a Criminal Judge. – The College Riot. – His Energy as Head of the Police. – Threatened Riots prevented by his Measures of Protection. – Aggressions of British Cruisers in the Waters of New-York. – Breaches of Neutrality attempted by the French. – Clinton’s Acts on these Occasions.

----------------------------------------

In 1803 Clinton was appointed mayor of the city of New-York. This office was at that time held by a commission from the executive of the state, exercised under the construction of the constitution to which we have referred by the council of appointment. It was of much greater importance than it has possessed of late years. The mayor presided in the meetings of the Common Council, not yet divided into two chambers, and in this body he had a vote and a deliberative voice. A great number of valuable offices were in his direct gift; he was also the chief judge of the common pleas and of the criminal court, as well as the actual head of the city police. Circumstances made one of the functions which are still exercised by the mayor of New-York of much greater importance than it has recently been. The city had been visited by the pestilence known as the yellow fever; and the mayor was ex officio chairman of the board to which, with almost absolute power, the care of the public health was intrusted.

The mayoralty of New-York was not only an office of high trust, but of considerable emolument. The old privileges granted by the royal charter were still in force; and the fees of office, although trifling in their items, had been swelled by the rapid growth of the population to large aggregate amount. The whole of these fees had been received by his predecessors in office, and had been in one instance almost the only basis of a princely fortune. The common council, however, had the power of lowering the fees, while the mayor possessed similar authority over certain of the dues of the corporation. As the source whence the perquisites of the mayor were drawn hardly appeared a public burden, the corporation, while anxious to reduce the compensation of the mayor, did not feel called upon to lessen the fees themselves. A compromise was therefore proposed, and acceded to by Clinton, by which more than half of the mayor’s receipts as clerk of the market went into the treasury of the city. It would appear that, in this arrangement, the emoluments of the office were reduced to a sum little more than has, in times professing a more rigid economy, been attached to that office in the form of a fixed salary.

Whatever were the emoluments of the mayoralty, they gave Clinton no accession of fortune. He felt that they were intended not to be hoarded for his private use, but to enable him to support the dignity of the office and the hospitalities of the city. In every part of his career, the mere accumulation of wealth was considered as an object unworthy of his attention. His expenditures exceeded the income of his office, and he retired from it far from affluent in his circumstances.

His first appointment as mayor bore date 11^th October, 1803, and the term of the office being annual, he was shortly reappointed for the year 1804, as he was, in due course, for 1805 and 1806.

In 1807, a split having taken place in the democratic party, he was removed from the mayoralty, and Smith Thompson named in his stead. This gentleman did not enter upon the duties of the office, and was superseded by the appointment of Colonel Willett.

Colonel Willett held the office only for one year, when he was replaced by Clinton, who was again reappointed in 1809. Jacob Radcliff obtained the appointment in 1810, and Clinton, replacing him in 1811, was continued in it until 6^th March 1815. During all this period, with the exception of the year 1810, when the federalists obtained a momentary ascendency, a party claiming to be democratic possessed the appointing power. Clinton, however, was successful in maintaining, up to 1813, what was admitted to be the true succession of the party, and, as often as it overwhelmed its opponents, was replaced in his important office.

This ascendency was not maintained without severe struggles, into which not only public motives, but personal feelings also, entered. Burr had been, up to the election of Jefferson, the favourite of the democratic party of New-York, and had, by the fascination of his manners, collected around him a knot of young men possessing talents, energy, and reckless courage beyond any which has ever been united in the support of any other politician. Although Burr had lost the confidence of the general administration, he still endeavoured to maintain his stand with the democratic party of the State of New-York. In this attempt he was met and frustrated by Clinton and his friends. A schism thus arising among individuals, many of whom had been in habits of the closest intimacy, both social and political, could not fail to be attended with mutual recriminations. These, in several cases, passed the limits of forbearance, and hostile meetings were the consequence. In these combats Clinton was compelled, by his position, to take his share. Public opinion had not been declared, as it has since so formally been, against the code of duelling. So far from its being the general sense that duels were improper, it would have been fatal to any politician had he refused, when called upon for any cause considered sufficient in the code of honour, to meet the aggrieved party, or had he submitted to a technical insult without demanding satisfaction. This state of public feeling was at once put an end to by the death of Hamilton, who fell by the hand of the leader of that band, with which Clinton and his friends had been previously engaged in similar conflicts.

The division in the party, which led to the removal of Clinton from the office of mayor in 1807, grew out of the course of Governor Lewis, who, strong in his fortune, family, and connexions, as well as in the remembrance of his revolutionary services, ventured to act independently. In order to replace him, the leaders of the party selected Daniel D. Tompkins, at that time the junior judge of the Supreme Court of the State. According to his opponents, he was selected because he possessed none of the attributes which had led Lewis to refuse to submit to dictation. If, however, Clinton and his friends had hoped to find in Tompkins a pliant and submissive tool, whom they might use for a time and discard at pleasure, they were mistaken. Tompkins, with no remarkable native powers of mind, and but little acquirement even as a lawyer, possessed, in a most eminent degree, the art of ingratiating himself with the people. He had the faculty, which is invaluable to him who seeks for public honours, of never forgetting the name or face of any person with whom he had once conversed; of becoming acquainted and appearing to take in interest in the concerns of their families; and of securing, by his affability and amiable address, the good opinion of the female sex, who, although possessed of no vote, often exercise a powerful indirect influence. Clinton, on the other hand, absorbed in lofty contemplations, was often absent in mind, was forgetful of persons and all but familiar faces, and could not condescend to know the secrets of families.

Delightful in his hours of relaxation and in the society of his intimate friends, he found it difficult to unbend himself with strangers, and set too high a value on his time to exchange the news of the day, or bandy jests with those transacting business with him as mayor. Such traits of character, although often inseparable from genius and learning, are unfortunate in one who seeks for popular favour. Clinton was thus rendered liable to the accusation of pride and haughtiness, when, in fact, only guilty of abstraction of mind and want of ease in his manners.

The time at last came when his influence, supported by mental superiority and honesty of purpose, was to yield to the popular talents of Tompkins. The administration of Madison resolved upon a war with Great Britain. For this, in the opinion of Clinton, there existed no new cause. He viewed with dismay the unprepared condition of the country, and the vast extent of exposed frontier of his native state. We may now consider it as one of the most fortunate occurrences which have even happened for the prosperity and character of the United States, that war was declared at this juncture against Great Britain. It was justifiable, not by any new occurrences, but by a long course of aggressions. The only true question was, whether Britain or France should be selected as an enemy, for both had been equally guilty.

On this point there had been a wide difference of opinion in the United States, and it had become the line of party demarcation. The federalists had been desirous that hostilities should be commenced against France, and had even, under the administration of John Adams, authorized the capture of French vessels. The democratic party, on the other hand, had desired that, if war must take place, it should be against England. With this party Clinton had uniformly acted, and had, in fact, led it in the State of New-York. His opinions on this point were unchanged, but he seems to have desired that the country should have been first put in a posture of preparation, which might have either extorted redress from Great Britain, or would have ensured success in the event of war. His views and acts in reference to this question will be considered more fully hereafter, and we shall find that he differed from the administration only in a desire that a greater degree of energy should be infused into its councils. The votes of his friends in Congress fully justify this view of the subject, as well as the recollections of his intimates. As, however, he was in opposition to the administration at the time war was declared, being actually nominated as a candidate for the Presidency in opposition to Madison, this fact was adroitly seized to injure him.

If he had even been opposed to the declaration of war, as were many of unquestioned patriotism at the time, he might have been fully justified. The fears which many entertained of danger arising from our exposed and unprepared position, were shown to be well founded by the events of the first campaigns. It is not by the acquisitions obtained in that war, either in territory or in the terms of the peace by which it was ended, that its consequences on our national character are to be measured. We added nothing to our former boundaries, and the principles on which Great Britain justified her aggressions on neutrals were not even a subject of discussion in the negotiations of Ghent; peace was in fact made without the formal acquisition of any one of the objects for which hostilities were commenced; but, on the other hand, our national honour was maintained; our reputation as first in maritime warfare, and the equals in courage of our British ancestors, established; while the more important result was obtained, that from that time, all feeling other than one purely American ceased to be entertained by our citizens. Up to the war of 1812, the leaven of the old disputes of the revolution was still working, and the most honest politicians could hardly avoid looking to international questions as partisans of either England or France; and, even if no such motive existed in their own minds, their political opponents were sure to charge them with it, and thus force them to defend a position they had not chosen. As an illustration of this state of things, we may refer to the debate which has already been cited upon the Mississippi question, where we find the two parties mutually accusing each other of subserviency to the belligerents of Europe; and fears of the ambition of Bonaparte on the one hand, or complaints of the tyranny of Great Britain on the other, taking the place of sound argument on American grounds.

We still know aged men who firmly believe that all the federal party were identical with the Tories of the revolution, and others who associate their democratic opponents with the Jacobins of France. The war of 1812 put an end to this state of things. In the contests of party, no question is now debated except on the ground of its bearings on the interests of our own country, and the accusation of being subservient to foreign influence is no longer urged against an adversary, not because the weapon of misrepresentation has ceased to be employed in politics, but because such charges could no longer receive belief.

Clinton filled the office of mayor and performed its functions highly to his own credit and to the advantage of the community. His conduct in presiding over the deliberations of the common council was marked with dignity, decision, and impartiality, warranting the support of his political friends, and conciliating the suffrages of his adversaries. As presiding judge of the criminal court, he secured the respect of the bar for his legal learning and ability; he was prompt in the despatch of business, yet patient in listening to the criminal’s defence; while the poor and friendless found in their judge a counsel, the rich and powerfully connected derived from the social advantages no immunity from merited punishment. The latter attribute he had an opportunity of exhibiting in a memorable instance.

At the Commencement of Columbia College in 1811, a disturbance occurred in the church where the ceremony was performed. A student who had been refused his degree in a public manner, found a supporter in one of the audience, who mounted the stage, and appealed to the assemblage from the acts of the provost, Dr. Mason. Others speedily joined in the clamour. The provost, in attempting to restore order, was driven from the stage; and the proceedings of the day, although finished, for form’s sake, from the pulpit by the president, were drowned by noise and clamour.

The acts of several of the parties were thought by a grand jury to warrant an indictment for riot, and the accused were tried before Clinton. The cause was defended on the ground of resistance to oppression; and the parties were of such standing and promise – a promise in several of them confirmed by their subsequent brilliant career – as to excite the greatest interest in their behalf. Fears were even entertained by those who knew not his stern principles of rectitude, that the judge, from his known respect for the popular voice, or under the influence of private friendship, might have failed in seeing the cause in a true light. Such fears were groundless. While the trial was conducted in such a manner as to allow the accused every means of defence, the charge to the jury pointed out in such clear and convincing terms the character of the offence, that no hesitation was felt in convicting them. In awarding the punishment, Clinton is said to have long hesitated whether he were not called upon by regard to justice to inflict the disgrace of imprisonment as a part. Mature reflection satisfied him that every desirable end could be attained by the imposition of a fine; but this was imposed in an address conveying such severe, merited, and pointed reprimand, as was well calculated to prevent the recurrence of a similar offence by any parties possessed of the feelings of honour and of the lofty intelligence which marked those who had thus become the subjects of his censure.

The most important legal question which came before him as judge of the criminal court, was one having regard to liberty of conscience. A Roman Catholic priest was called upon disclose what had been communicated to him under the seal of confession. Clinton on this occasion sustained, in opposition to British decisions, the sanctity of that sacrament, as it is held to be by that church, and was subsequently mainly instrumental in doing away, by legislative action, the disabilities to which professors of the Catholic faith were still subjected by laws and practices arising from British statutes which lay unrepealed.

Clinton, as chief of the police of a large and populous city, appeared to no less advantage than as a criminal judge. At fires, and all unusual assemblages where order might be apprehended, he was to be found, not to repress riots actually begun, but in time to prevent their occurrence. When the mere majesty of the law appeared to be likely to be insufficient, he took early and prompt measures to have at his disposal a sufficient civic force, and for calling on the uniformed companies as a reinforcement in case of need.

As an instance of his promptitude in such cases, the riot in James-street may be cited. This had begun in boarding-houses for seamen; and that brave, but thoughtless and turbulent race, had beaten and put to flight the police. On receiving intelligence of the fact, Clinton, after making provision for calling out the troops, hurried to the spot attended by such civil officers as he could muster. On his way through Chatham-street he met some officers of the fourth regiment of the militia, which had paraded that afternoon at Corlaer’s Hook, and had just been dismissed. Collecting these to the number of about a dozen, he formed them in a line across the street, placed the band which had attended the regiment behind them, and, ordering it to play a charge, led the way to the scene of the riot. The mob, aware of his presence, and deceived by the judicious exhibition of force when there was in reality none, dispersed without resistance, and the leaders were captured. A few minutes’ delay would probably have rendered it necessary to have recourse to bloodshed. As it was, he gallantly exposed himself to no little personal risk.

As the probability of a war with Great Britain increased, whose, who recollected the tumultuous scenes of the breaking out of the Revolution, when law was for a time suspended; who had heard threats of personal violence uttered against obnoxious persons, which threats were not always vain; and particularly those who had themselves suffered from the cruelty of the partisans of the British government, began to speak openly of taking the opportunity of the breaking out of hostilities to gratify their long-suppressed revenge. Obnoxious persons were publicly named, and their houses marked out for pillage. In this juncture, Clinton had a difficult part to play. He was a candidate for the presidency in opposition to Madison, while the leaders of the democratic party in the city had espoused the cause of that gentleman. He saw in those who uttered threats his old associates in the democratic party, and among them those who had influence sufficient either to denounce him or secure him its support.

The persons thus threatened were those of the old Tory faction, who had never joined themselves to the democratic party. To such as had, free immunity was granted. By the slightest neglect of precautionary measures, Clinton therefore had it in his power to conciliate old friends and prevent a rupture with them, as well as to punish some his most active political opponents. Clinton, however, had too high a regard for his duty to slumber at his post. No sooner had the slightest symptoms of popular commotion appeared, than he took the most prompt measures to preserve the public peace. These were successful; but they had the effect of utterly estranging from him the managers of the party with which, from his earliest manhood, he had been associated, and of which he had for years been the acknowledged leader. As he could not be openly blamed for preserving the quiet of the city, he was accused of giving rise to a groundless alarm; and the very persons who pointed out by name the objects of their attack, were now heard declaring that no intention of violence or pillage had ever been entertained.

In the earliest years of his mayoralty, Clinton found himself compelled to exercise the duties of a diplomatist in addition to the various duties with which he was loaded. The renewal of the war between Great Britain and France, if it did not give rise to intrigues, as on the former occasion, for the purpose of drawing the United States into the contest as a party, placed the country under the necessity of asserting, by steady and impartial measures, its neutral character. The French had, at the breaking out of hostilities, an army and a fleet in St. Domingo. In attempting to withdraw this force in the face of the superior power of Great Britain, single vessels and squadrons touched at the port of New-York. Among the rest, two fine frigates anchored in the bay, among whose officers was Jerome Bonaparte, the brother of the first consul, and subsequently King of Westphalia. The cupidity of the British officers on the Halifax station was increased by the hopes of this rich prize, and a squadron actually entered into the bay in pursuit of them. For a moment, apprehensions were entertained that our waters would have been the scene of a hostile attack, such as the British afterward made the Bay of Valparaiso. Clinton permitted the French vessels to anchor under the guns of Fort Jay; and, to prevent the breach of neutrality consequent on the French vessels being followed out, required from the British commanders a promise not to sail until 24 hours after the French vessels should have proceeded to sea. On this being refused, he issued orders to the pilots not to carry them to sea. In consequence of these decisive measures, the British squadron left the anchorage at the quarantine-ground, and blockaded the harbour. The French vessels subsequently made their escape through the Sound; and here again Clinton was compelled to interfere, by directing the commander of Fort Jay to allow them to enter the East River. Numerous other aggressions were committed by British cruisers, which, on more than one occasion, threatened to lead to popular tumults, retaliating on British residents the offensive acts of their countrymen. Among other instances, an American seaman was killed within the jurisdiction of the United States by a shot from the Leander.

On the other hand, the French officers exhibited a spirit as little consistent with regard for neutral rights as the English, although they had less power to carry it into effect. Clinton was thus involved in correspondence with the commercial agents of the two belligerant nations; compelled to adopt measures of military opposition to their aggressions, and, at the same time, to restrain the popular feeling. His course on this occasion is marked with dignity and decision, and his correspondence exhibits his accustomed ability.

----------------------------------------

Transcribed from the original text and html prepared by Bill Carr, last updated 12/10/99.