It may be readily supposed, that such of its members as meant well, would be desirous of placing at the head of that body, a man of unimpeachable patriotism and integrity; and it is equally reasonable to conclude, that, had there been a majority of its members, whose secret designs were inimical to the true interest of the country or the well-being of the government,—even these would wish to disguise their intentions, under the nominal auspices of a character universally respected and esteemed. Such a man was Dr. Rittenhouse; and therefore was he selected by the Philadelphia Democratic Society, as their President. At the time of his election to that station, he held the highly important office of Director of the Mint, under a commission from President Washington; for whose public and private character he always entertained the most exalted respect, besides the personal regard, which the writer of these Memoirs knows to have subsisted between them. It is not presumable, taking all considerations into view, that Dr. Rittenhouse suffered any serious diminution in the esteem of that virtuous and discerning statesman, by the circumstance of the Doctor being placed at the head of the Democratic Society: for he not only continued to hold the Directorship of the Mint, but, when he offered his resignation of that high trust, two years afterwards, the President’s reluctance to accept it yielded only to the Doctor’s urgent solicitation to decline a further continuance in the office. Whatever, therefore, may have been the real views and intentions of some of the members of the Democratic Society which was formed in Philadelphia, in 1793,—even if those of a majority of their number were highly unjustifiable,—no imputation, unfavourable to Dr. Rittenhouse’s character, either as a good citizen or an upright man, could in the smallest degree be attached to him, by reason of his having been chosen a President of that body, at the time of its organization.[279] ----- Footnote 279: Many months after the death of Dr. Rittenhouse, the same licentious writer who publicly charged him with being an Atheist, declared, in the same public manner, what was equally untrue. He asserted, not only that Mr. Rittenhouse “volunteered as president of the Democratic Society, in Philadelphia,” but that “he himself signed the inflammatory resolves against the excise-law, which encouraged the malecontents to rise in open rebellion.” The fact is, that the “inflammatory resolves” referred to, were entered into by that body, on the 8th of May, 1794; and were not signed by Mr. Rittenhouse, but by another person, as “President pro tem.” -----