Papers of John Adams, volume 20

To Benjamin Rush

From James Lovell

57 To John Adams from Theophilus Parsons, 8 July 1789 Parsons, Theophilus Adams, John
From Theophilus Parsons
My dear Sir— Newbury Port July 8th. 1789

Conscious of the persecutions you would meet with, by applications for your influence in the appointment to offices, I had determined not to increase the number of them; but being just informed, that the President proposes to nominate as officers, for the collection of the national revenue, those persons who hold the like offices in the collection of the state revenues, unless complaint was made against them, I am compelled to trouble you on the subject. If such was openly known to be the presidents intentions, there would not be wanting well founded complaints against Messrs. Titcomb and Cross, the naval-officer, and collector of excise for this port— I must sollicit your patience, while I give a short history of the manner, in which those gentlemen came into those offices, and of their conduct afterwards—

Michael Hodge Esq., a gentleman of this town, of undoubted integrity and capacity, and of pure public principles, was, upon the first erection of the naval office, appointed to fill it; he continued in it a number of years, while the fees were receivable in paper-money, but soon after, the office being then deemed lucrative, Mr Titcomb, availing himself of his influence as a representative, procured the place for himself, to the exclusion of Mr Hodge—1 He continued in that office two or three years until, for his misdemeanors in permitting an entry of vessels while at sea, to evade our lumber acts, he lost his election, and Mr Hodge was rechosen— Tumults arose in our governments soon after— Mr Titcomb was elected a representative and, by the influence of the malcontent party, to which he always adhered as much as he dared, he was rechosen as Naval-Officer— When the rebellion arose, he took every method, in his power, to render the government odious, and the conduct of the rebels unexceptionable, and his tools, in this town, were in a flame, when the legislature declared that a rebellion existed. Soon after that rebellion was crushed, the federal government came upon the carpet, and it was not judged expedient to attempt his removal, as it was supposed that, upon the adoption of that government, he would drop of course.

I might add, that altho’, when one of our delegates in convention, the spirit of the men he was with, compelled him to the adoption of the constitution, yet, at the same time, his principles were hostile to 58 every federal measure, & all his out-door connections were railing at the new government. Judge then my dear Sir, what must be the sentiments and feelings of people here, to see that man carefully provided for, under a government to which he is not friendly, and who has opposed every honest measure proposed in our own state government; and a man who has really, in my opinion, no moral principles to guide him in any department. Nor can the fear of loosing his property, influence him to right conduct, as that is all gone, and the house, he now lives in, has lately been taken by execution over his head.

As to Mr Cross, he obtained the Excise in the same unworthy manner— Mr Saml. Tufts, a brother of the Hon. Cotton Tufts, was the excise-officer, until Mr Cross, going representative, availed himself of the influence of that place, to procure himself chosen in his room.—2 As to our own government, he has always been opposed to every measure, calculated to support, either it’s credit, or it’s energy, and has been heartily in favour of the insurgents— But to the federal government he has been openly and avowedly it’s opponent—and was he an officer under it, instead of feeling grateful for the favour, he would use that very office, to create or forment an uneasiness among the people, to justify his former opposition—such is this man’s temper— Besides, as he is a Collector of Our Excise, there can be no great propriety in his collecting the national revenues at the same time— It may be said, that he may resign the former office, but he will not do it, if he can hold both; and why should such a man, acquiring an office in the manner he did, still have his election to hold a lucrative and influential place under a government to which he was openly hostile—

From this view of these two men, which in my opinion is quite a just one, the good people here would feel exceedingly sore at their appointment to office—and did they conceive any information to the president, upon this subject, proper, it would be given him, signed by very respectable names— I conceive the energy of the federal government will depend much on the principles of the men, who are first appointed to Office— Our own Government has been ruined, for want of attention to this point.

Whenever men, disesteemed by the respectable part of the Community, or antifederal in their principles, are designated to Offices, the people will soon have no respect for the government— They will reason, and reason very naturally, that a government which will take 59 it’s enemies into it’s bosom, and neglect it’s friends, who have supported it in trying times, does not wish to have friends, or to secure to itself the public attachment— I think these sentiments are in some degree just—and if they are, I trust our beloved president will feel the influence of them— He can, with the most perfect propriety, act agreably to them— He is not obliged to court friends—and he has a weight of character, that will support him firm as Atlas— Had I the honour of his notice, I would intreat him, from my knowledge of the people in this place, and from the principles and characters of Messrs. Titcomb & Cross, to pass them by, & to nominate other characters— I would, with great humility & sincerity, tell him, that I had no personal interest depending, but that I was influenced only, by a devout attachment to a firm, energetic, federal government—

Perhaps you may ask me who are suitable men for the three offices in Newbury Port— I will give you the opinions of the respectable people here upon that subject— Mr Hodge, as the Naval Officer, they all agree in, from a sense of his merits, and from the ill-treatment he has received— Mr Tufts would make an honest, faithful, and disinterested collector of the revenues, and so would Ebenezer March Esq; and probably, no man would make a better surveyor, than Mr David Moody—3 To speak my own ardent wishes—I hope Mr Hodge may be provided for at all events—

I have a great reliance on your good nature, when I expect your excuse for troubling you on this tedious subject— I will quit it, & take one more agreable to you— Your son is indefatigable in the office—too much so I fear; and his whole conduct gives me the greatest pleasure— May it be my fortune, to have reason to think so well of a son of mine, as I do of yours—

My particular regards wait on Mrs Adams who, I hear, is with you, and believe me to be, notwithstanding all this trouble, / Yours most affectionately

Theop Parsons

RC (Adams Papers); internal address: “His Excy Mr Adams”; endorsed: “Mr Parsons / July 8. ans    1789.”

1.

Gen. Jonathan Titcomb (1727–1817), Stephen Cross (1731–1809), and Capt. Michael Hodge (1743–1816) had all held various positions in town government since the 1770s. On 3 Aug. 1789, George Washington made the following nominations for Newburyport, which were confirmed by the Senate on the same day: Cross as collector of customs, Titcomb as naval officer, and Hodge as surveyor (John A. Schutz, Legislators of the Massachusetts General Court 1691–1780: A Biographical Dictionary, Boston, 1997; Doc. Hist. Ratif. Const. , 5:708; U.S. Senate, Exec. Jour. , 1st Cong., 1st sess., p. 9, 12).

2.

Newburyport merchant Samuel Tufts (1735–1799) was Cotton Tufts’ younger brother and the former collector of duties and excise for Essex County. AA lobbied 60 fruitlessly on her cousin’s behalf, writing to JA on 7 June: “I think Sir I have never petitioned for any office, for any Relation of mine. mr Samll Tufts of Newburry port was formerly in an office which he discharged with fidelity to the publick . . . his character as an honest industrous capable man will not be disputed, and perhaps it may not be thought amiss to bring him forward again” ( AFC , 2:197; 8:370; 9:195).

3.

Neither Ebenezer (March) Marsh (1745–1827) nor David Moody (b. 1735), both of Newbury, earned a federal post (Schutz, Legislators of the Massachusetts General Court 1691–1780; Noreen C. Pramberg, Four Generations of the Descendants of William Moody of Newbury, Massachusetts in 1635, Newburyport, 1986, p. 46).