lected to provide for any method of choosing electors, and when it met in November, 1800, the deadlock between the Republican house of representatives and the Federalist senate, which had prevented earlier action, continued. By that time, it was too late to provide for election by the people, so the question was the method of choice by the assembly. The final outcome was the choice of eight Republican and seven Federalist electors, although this did not accurately represent the ratio between the two parties. The Aurora reckoned this as being eleven to four instead of eight to seven.83

The columns of the Aurora during November and December, 1800, fairly teemed with editorials and communications in which the villainy of the Federalist majority in the senate was emphasized. Cooper did not get into the fight until the end of December, and then he attacked not the action of the state senate primarily, but the constitution of that body. The Aurora on the first day of the new year published an address of about fifty inhabitants of Northumberland County to their neighbors and fellowcitizens in regard to the senate of Pennsylvania, and a form of petition addressed to the two houses of the legislature. Cooper's name was first on the list of signers, and the address, which bears many marks of his views and style, was later acknowledged by him as his composition. It began, after an introductory paragraph, by propounding the question, "In the legislative system of Pennsylvania, of what use is the senate?" This inquiry had been suggested by the obstinate opposition of that body to the known wishes of the majority of the people. Two members had successfully resisted and checked the popular desire. Doubt of the usefulness of the senate, it was 83 Nov. 15, 17, 1800.

84

84 The senate had rejected by a vote of 13 to 11 the proposal of the house that electors be chosen by joint-ballot. House Journal, 1800-01, p. 22; list of yeas and nays in Aurora, Nov. 15, 1800.

85

said, had long been felt by the signers—it would probably have been accurate to say, by Cooper; the rest of the group were doubtless much more exercised over the immediate controversy than over the general question. "We have for some time had reason to doubt whether the machine of government (to use the metaphor of the illustrious Franklin) can proceed more efficaciously, for having one horse to draw before, and two to drag behind.'"" The greatest objection to the senate, according to Cooper, was its unresponsiveness to changes in public sentiment because of the length of the term of office, which was four years, a fourth of the body being elected each year. He felt that experience had "added more facts in support of that grand result of all political history— the basis of all republican government-that power entrusted for too long a period will certainly be abused." He did not deny that a second deliberative assembly might sometimes be of use, but he could see no reason why the senate should have an absolute negative upon the acts of the representatives-perhaps he favored a suspensive veto or why senators should be elected for four years instead of one. He deplored the American propensity to imitate and adopt the complex forms and antirepublican maxims of the corrupt system of Great Britain. Perhaps his experiences in conjunction with Duane were responsible for the intimation that the United States senate might be used by analogy to strengthen the argument. He felt that the senatorial doctrine of privilege was derived from the impure source of British aristocracy and was at open hostility with freedom of speech and trial by jury.

It was suggested in the address that citizens of the county hold meetings and sign and transmit to the legislature petitions similar to the one attached. In the peti

85 House.

86 Senate and governor.

tion the recent misunderstanding between the two houses was deplored, and the length of the senatorial term was assigned as one of its chief causes. Annual election was recommended, and the assembly was requested to take constitutional measures to remedy the evil.

The chief significance of Cooper's action in this matter lies in the fact that later, after he had become a judge, he opposed the calling of a constitutional convention for the purpose of changing the manner of electing state senators and limiting the powers of the upper house. The senate was at that time a bulwark against the violent attacks of the more extreme Democrats upon the judiciary. Cooper's identification with the more conservative faction laid him open to the charge of inconsistency, and his unfortunate address of 1800 was produced in justification of the charge.87

Throughout the campaign of 1800, however, he was a consistent Democratic-Republican, a member of the opposition, clamoring for freedom of speech and the responsibility of public servants. By his political writings, his association with Duane against the United States senate, his own martyrdom for the cause of the party, and his energetic actions after his release from prison, he made himself a conspicuous figure. By the Federalists he was regarded and described as an infamous demagogue, by the Republicans he was hailed as martyr and apostle. Few Republicans did so much to set forth the political philosophy of the party, and if the rank and file could not appreciate the extraordinary intellectual endowments of the man as their leaders came in due time to do, they liked to speak of him as a man of science and learning and to claim him as their own.

His high standing among his fellow Republicans was indicated by various toasts offered to him at party gath

87 See below, ch. VI.

erings. Thus at a festival held in Philadelphia early in January, in celebration of the favorable commencement of the century and the success of Republican efforts, Dr. Reynolds in the chair, a volunteer was offered to "Thomas Cooper of Northumberland-May his talents, his services and his sufferings, be long and gratefully remembered.''88 At the various dinners on March 4, in celebration of the inauguration of Jefferson, toasts were drunk to him and to other sufferers under the Sedition Act." He was coupled with Lyon, Callender, and Duane, to all of whom he was far superior, and apparently his sufferings under this law served most to arouse sympathy and enthusiasm for him. Another toast coupled his name with that of Priestley, and intimated that his greatest service had been with his pen."0

The one-time English reformer may not have been fully appreciated even by his co-laborers, but he had run true to form, and in some part through his efforts the party of opposition had been able to secure the reins of government. With his party, he was shortly to come into a position of responsibility with large opportunities for constructive service. It remained to be seen whether he was to prove a constructive force, who had hitherto been essentially critical and destructive, whether he was to remain true to his democratic principles when confronted with the practical problems of government.

88 Jan. 3, 1801, Aurora, Jan. 6. 90 Ibid., March 9, 1801.

89 Ibid., March 10, 12, 1801.

CHAPTER V

THE LUZERNE CLAIMS, 1801-1804

THE years between the accession of Jefferson to the presidency and the removal of Cooper to a new field of labor in South Carolina in 1820, were the most conservative of his entire career. The inauguration of a Republican president brought no immediate break, however, in the life and activities of one who had hitherto been ever a member of the party of democracy. One writer has attributed Cooper's subsequent alienation from the more radical of his former associates to his dissatisfaction with the political rewards which came to him.1 At this time, however, he sought no federal office, but expressed contentment with a promised appointment to the state judiciary. For reasons which will appear, this appointment did not come as soon as had been expected, but within a few months he was made a member of the very important Luzerne commission, upon which he was to do genuinely constructive public service, and his loyalty to the Republican cause in Pennsylvania was not for some years called into question.

During the spring of 1801, he gave clear indication of his continued political intimacy with William Duane by serving as counsel for the editor of the Aurora several times in April and May.3 Associated with him in the first

1 Wharton, State Trials, p. 681.

2 Cooper to Jefferson, March 17, 1801, Jefferson Papers, CX.

3 Seven men charged with an assault on Duane, May 15, 1799, were