In this matter Washington proceeded with great prudence and caution. He felt indignant at the great outrage thus offered to the government, but was unwilling to employ force while more peaceful measures were left untried. "I have no doubt," he said, "the proclamation will undergo many strictures; and, as the effect proposed may not be answered by it, it will be necessary to look forward in time to ulterior arrangements:" that is to say, the employment of regular troops as a last resort.
As Washington intimated it might not, the proclamation produced no salutary effect. Too many of the civil magistrates themselves were concerned in the insurrectionary movements, and the few who were not were totally incapable of maintaining the sovereignty of the laws. With moderation the government instituted legal proceedings against the offenders; liquors distilled in the rebellious counties were seized on their way to market by revenue officers; and the agents of the army were directed to purchase only those spirits upon which a duty had been paid. Having their interests thus touched, the manufacturers of liquors would gladly have complied with the laws, but the people would not allow them. Subsequently, more serious defiance of the laws in western Pennsylvania compelled the president to order a military force into that region. This we will consider hereafter.
At the middle of October, Washington made another and last effort to restore peace to his cabinet. Jefferson had recently returned to Philadelphia, and his first care was to forward to the president extracts from his letter written while the adoption of the constitution was pending, Washington wrote to him on the eighteenth, and said: "I did not require the evidence of the extracts, which you enclosed to me, to convince me of your attachment to the constitution of the United States, or of your disposition to promote the general welfare of this country: but I regret, deeply regret, the difference in opinions which have divided you and another principal officer of the government, and I wish devoutly there would be an accommodation of them by mutual yieldings.
"A measure of this sort would produce harmony and consequent good in our public councils. The contrary will inevitably introduce confusion and serious mischiefs--and for what? Because mankind can not think alike, but would adopt different means to attain the same end. For I will frankly and solemnly declare, that I believe the views of both of you to be pure and well meant, and that experience only will decide with respect to the salutariness of the measures which are the subjects of dispute. Why, then, when some of the best citizens in the United States--men of discernment, uniform and tried patriots, who have no sinister views to promote, but are chaste in their ways of thinking and acting--are to be found some on one side and some on the other of the questions which have caused these agitations, should either of you be so tenacious of your opinions as to make no allowances for those of the other? I could, and indeed was about to, add more on this interesting subject, but will forbear, at least for the present, after expressing a wish that the cup which has been presented to us may not be snatched from our lips by a discordance of action, when I am persuaded there is no discordance in your views. I have a great, a sincere esteem and regard for you both, and ardently wish that some line may be marked out by which both of you could walk."