In the light of these facts it is not strange that we find Adams, Lee and others turning their eyes to procedures of the Old World for guidance in the matter of titles. To be sure, the Constitution not only declared that no titles of nobility shall be granted by the United States but that employès of the Government, of whatever degree, shall not accept them from any foreign potentate. Yet there was a large question as to what kind of title might have been meant; whether a patent of nobility with landed estates to be handed down from generation to generation—which, undoubtedly, was the “evil” aimed at by the framers of the Constitution—or a mere title of courtesy as “Mister” or “Mr.” or “Sir” used in ordinary correspondence. Congress had met to put the Constitution in operation and had the power to construe doubtful passages. Broader interpretations of the articles have been made than those proposed by the titleists. Adams had spent much time in Europe and had been impressed with the effect of formalities, titles, wigs, gowns, etc., on the “common” people. That he was correct, in some degree, in his advocacy of these forms is attested by the fact that gowns have come more and more into use in the administration of the judiciary of some states and in the Supreme Court of the United States while, in the general run of commerce, liveries—the insignia of station or rank—are getting to be the rule rather than the exception. V. FORCING THE FIGHT ON TITLES. Acting with his usual energy, Adams forced the fighting on titles from the start. He arrived in New York on Monday, April 20, and by Thursday, April 23, he had the Title Committee appointed; and the discussion of titles occupied most of the time of the Senate from then until May 14, when it was finally disposed of. Pending the inaugural, April 30, the subject lay in abeyance. On the morning following, May 1, the Senate met at 11 o’clock. At the conclusion of “prayers” was the reading of the minutes and almost the first words were “His Most Gracious Speech”—referring to Washington’s inaugural address. Adams frankly admitted that these words had been inserted at his instance by Samuel Otis, the secretary of the Senate. Maclay records: “I looked all around the Senate. Every countenance seemed to wear a blank. The Secretary was going on. I must speak or nobody would. ‘Mr. President, we have lately had a hard struggle for our liberty against kingly authority. The minds of men are still heated; everything related to that species of government is odious to the people. The words prefixed to the President’s speech are the same that are usually placed before the speech of his Britannic Majesty. I know they will give offense. I consider them improper. I, therefore, move that they be struck out and that it stand simply address or speech as may be adjudged most suitable.’