>, ^ ^^ ^*\ \\' CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY BEQUEST JAMES McCALL Class of 1885 1944 E301 .867°™*" ""'*'*'■*">' '■''"•ary \Sii'&JSJt}.f....^MX Of the constitution olin 3 1924 032 749 651 The original of tiiis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924032749651 A GUIDE TO THE ^'y STUDY OF THE Constitutional & Political History OF THE United States, 1789-1860. INTENDED AS THE BASIS OF A COURSE OF LECTURES OR OF A COURSE OF PRIVATE STUDY. By FREEMAN SNOW, Ph.D. Instructor at Harvard Uni-uersity, CAMBRIDGE: \V. H. Wheei.er, Publisher i Pkintek. 1882-83. Copyright by Freeman Snow, Ph.D. OUTLINE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES CHAPTER I. Introductory Pertod, 17fi3-17M9. /. Causes tvhicli. led to the Revolution . In order to better understand the Constitution and the con- ditions under which it was formed and had its development, it is necessarj' to take a brief view of the period preceding its adop- tion. This will properly embrace the causes which led to the war of the Revolution, the revolutionary period, and the confeder- ation and formation of the Constitution. In considering the causes which led the colonies, first to remon- strate, and then to declare war against the mother countrj', it must be recognized as a fundamental fact, that the colonists were, with few exceptions, of the Anglo-Saxon race — a race first and most persistent in the assertion of the freedom and rights of the people. As British subjects, the colonists claimed all the rights ever granted to British subjects from the Magna Charta in 1215 to the Bill of Rights in 1689. The common law too, the great bulwark of English liberty, was with some modifications the law of the colonies. Far removed from the direct control of the home goveruTnent, and qften neglected by it, the colonists had been from the earliest times accustomed to' administer their own local affairs. In the town meetings and the colonial assemblies thej' had learned the principles of self-government, and through ' these had imbibed the spirit of independence, which in anj' case would, sooner or later, have brought about a separation from the mother country. The three forms of government in the colonies, provincial, proprietary, and charter, were all modeled on the form of the English government, of king, lords, and commons : in the colo- t OUTLINE niSTOKV OF THE UNITED STATES. nies, a governor, council, and representatives. The popular branches of these colonial assemblies, like their prototype, the House of Commons, early asserted their rights as British subjects not to be taxed without their consent. Not being represented in the British Parliament, the colonists denied the right of that body to ievy taxes in the colonies. The attempt of Parliament to do this was the immediate cause of the Revolution of 1776. To the navigation laws and to duties for the purpose of regu- lating commerce the colonies had always submitted, but when in 1763 the British government entered upon a system of taxing them for the purpose of raising a revenue, the colonies made the most strenuous objection. This policy was really inaugurated by the writs of assistance in 1761 for the stricter enforcement of the navigation laws. Then followed the "sugar act" of 1764, the "stamp act" of 1765 (repealed in 1766, but the right of tax- ation reaffirmed) (Pitkin, I. 433), the tariff bill of 1767, and the tea act of 1773 (Pitkin, I. 262-4). In opposition to these measures a congress of nine of the col- onies met at New York, at the call of Massachusetts, in October 1765, and drew up the "Declaration of Rights and Grievances,'' asserting the right to trial by jury, and the right to freedom from taxation, except by the colonial assemblies, admitting, however, the right of Parliament to legislate generally and to regulate trade. (Pitkin, I. 446). In 1770 the riot and attack upon British troops in Boston took place (in opposition to the "■ quartering act" of 1765), in December 1773, the destruction of tea, principally in Boston harbor. (Hildreth, III. 27-32.) In retaliation for this act of the colonists a series of bills were passed by Parliament in the spring of 1774, known as the "Boston Port Bill" (March 31st), closing the port of Boston and removing the seat of government to Salem ; a bill changing the charter of Massachusetts (May 20) , placing nearly all powers in the Jiands of the crown, and prohibiting town meetings except for elections ; a bill to remove to another colony, or to England, trials of officers charged with murder in support of the government (May 3d) ; at about the same time a bill for quartering troops in America, and the "Quebec Act," extending the boundaries of that prov- ence to include what later became the Northwest Territory. (Bancroft, V7. 511-528 ; Hildreth, III. 32-4.) THE. BKVOLUTIONAliV PERIOD. O This hasty legislation of the British Parliament gave the final impetus to colonial resistance and colonial union in America. In the colonies there were many diflferences, as differences in religious belief, in manners, customs, and occupations, which tended to keep them apart. But the similarities which drew them together, common race, traditions, laws, political education, and interests, were more fundamental in character, and it required only outward pressure to weld the colonies into one nation. The wars in which the colonies had been engaged had already tended toward this result; the oppression of Great Britain was the final means. The principal authorities on this period (1763-1774) are, for brief histories: Story's Coinmentaries on the Constitution, I. §§ 159-197 ; Hildreth's History of the United States, II. 514-563 ; Pitkin's History of the United States, I. 155-281 ; Tucker's His- tory of the United States, I. 75-102. More extended histories : Bancroft's History of the United States, Volumes V. and VI. ; and the biographies of leading men, particularlj' Tudor's Life of James Otis ; Wells' Life of Samuel Adams ; Wirt's Life of Pat- rick Henry ; Life of John Adams, Vols. I. and V. Lodge's History of the English Colonies in America is important as giving an insight into the life, habits, thoughts and manners of the col- onists at the commencement of the Revolution. Chapter II. is typical of the life in the South, and Chapter XXII. of that in New England. IT. The Revohitionary Period. The measures taken by Great Britain against the colonies in 1774 alarmed the colonists. A second congress of all the colonies, except Georgia, met at Philadelphia on the 5th of September, 1774 "to consult upon the state of the colonies," and to obtain a redress of grievances. This congress, known as the "First Continental Congress," organized as a deliberative body, electing officers and adopting rules of proceeding, each colony having one vote in the assembly. The important work of this congress was the adoption of a "Declaration of Colonial Rights," based upon the "laws of nature, the principles of the English constitution, and the several charters." (Pitkin, I. 285; for a resume, Hildreth, III. 43.)- This declaration, though similar to the first (1765), was more 6 OUTLINE I1IST(JKY OF THE UNITED STATES'. forcible from the fact that it was accompanied by the adoption of measures of resistance to be emploj'ed if no redress were granted. This congress did not assume the powers of a government ; col- onial independence was not yet determined upon. On adjourning, however, in October, it recommended the meeting of another congress in the following May, if in the meantime no redress were had. No redress having been obtained, the second "Continental Congress" met at Philadelphia on the 10th May, 1775. In this body the delegates were principally chosen by conventions of the people, and came clothed with authority to take measures to re- cover and establish American rights, not, however, with full powers of government. In the mean time the battle of Lexington had taken place, Great Britain was making warlike preparations, and some of the colonies, preparations for resistance. In this emer- gency the congress immediately assumed all the sovereign powers of government : organized an armj', established a post-office and a treasury department, issued bills of credit, established prize courts, and issued letters of marque and reprisal. These are acts of sovereignt}', yet this congTess, prior to the Declaration of Independence, was not a legal, but only a revolutionarj- govern- ment, and its acts were valid onl}' so far as they were ratified, expresslj' or tacitly, bj^ the people of the colonies. When patriotic ardor had somewhat cooled Congress found difficulty in enforcing its measures. The course of the war and the rejection by England of all measures of conciliation brought about the Declaration of Inde- pendence (July 4, 1776). (Pitkin, I. 365, and appendix to this volume.) In addition to this declaration of the congress of all the colonies, nearly all the individual colonies declared themselves independent bj- separate acts. The question afterward arose, whether the Declaration of Independence created one independent state, or thirteen separate independent states. The better opinion woukl seem to be that the colonies became, by that declaration, individ- ually independent, and that the union of the colonies at that time rested only on the voluntary consent of the separate members, revocable at their pleasure. This was the opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Ware vs. Hylton (III. Dallas Repts. 199), also that of Senator Edmunds (North Am. Rev., Oct. 1881). THK GONPEDEKATIUN AND CAUSES OF ITS FAILUKE. 7 The colonies acted as one government in opposition to Englisli aggression, and tlie Continental Congress assumed tlie powers of a sovereign state ; but Congress could onlj' recommend measures which were subject to the adoption or rejection of the several colonies. When it had been determined to declare the colonies indepen- dent, there immediately arose the question of a permanent union and of a regularly organized government to take the place of the temporary government of the Continental Congress. On July 12th, 1776, a committee, appointed for the purpose, reported to Congress the draft of articles of confederation. With various amendments these articles were accepted by Congress on November 15, 1777, and recommended to the several states for their adoption. The smaller states insisted, as a condition precedent to the ratification of the articles, that certain states should cede to the confederacy the vast western territory claimed by them. After much contro- versy this was done, and the Articles of Confederation were flnallj' ratified by the last of the states, Marjiand, on March 1,1781, at which time the confederation went into operation. (See appendix for text of Articles of Confederation.) In the mean time the Continental Congress had continued to act as the organ of the United States in prosecuting the war. In 1778 a treaty was made with France, through whose aid the war was brought to a success- ful termination in 1783. III. The Confederation (inrl Causes of its Failure. The Confederation was a league of states, in which each state retained its ' 'sovereignty, freedom, and independence." In the for- mation of a permanent government the . colonists showed their distrust of all political power not held immediately in their own hands. As in forming their state constitutions they were careful to insert a bill of riglits for the securitj- of individual liberty, so in the confederation of states they were careful to reserve to the states a controlling influence. There was as yet little feeling of loyalty for a, general government new and untried. The Articles of Confederation conferred upon Congress sovereign powers, but on the other hand they created limitations to those powers which rendered them almost nugatory. In this attempt to confer sover- eign powers upon the Confederation, and yet to make the exercise of them dependent upon the will of the several states, ther created 8 OUTLINE niSTOBl' OF THE UNITEFI STATES. what Senator Edmunds says was neither legally nor philosophically a government. The powers of the general government were vested in a single representative body, called a congress, possessing both legislative and executive functions. Each state was to maintain its own delegates, and to have one vote in Congress. The great defect of this government was in the want of authority in Congress to enforce its measures, which, in the most essential matters, could therefore be only in the nature of recommendations. Thus, Congress could make treaties, but could only recommend the observance of them ;, could borrow money on the faith of the Union, but could not, of itself, pay a dollar, not having tiae power to levy taxes ; could declare war, but could not raise an army. For troops and money Congress could only make requisitions upon the states to furnish their respective quotas and amounts. The powers of regulating commerce, levying customs-duties, and excises, and the general judieiarj' authority, rested with the states. The immediate cause of the collapse of the Confederation was the neglect or refusal of the states to respond to the requisitions for money made upon them by Congress. From the 1 st January, 1781, to the 1st June, 1786, less than two and a half millions of dollars were received from requisitions amounting to more than ten millions. To remedy this defect. Congress proposed a revenue plan in 1783, bj^ which the states were to grant to the general government, for a period of twentj'-five j'ears, the authority to levy a duty of five per cent on imported merchandise. This plan, not being accepted by all the states, failed. The public debt, and even the interest upon it remained unpaid ; the national treasurj' was empty, and foreign nations refused to make further loans to so uncertain a government, or even to enter into treaties of amitj' and commerce with it. In this emergency leading statesmen saw the necessity either of amending the Articles of Confederation, giving to Congress adequate powers, or of adopting at once a national government with supreme executive, legislative, and judi- cial authority. Briefly summed up, the chief causes of the feebleness of the Confederation were : an utter want of coercive authoritj^ ; a total lack of power to levy and collect taxes, or to raise revenue ; no right to regulate foreign or domestic commerce. Moreover, there was no separate executive, and no federal judiciary power, except THE CONFEDERATION AND CAUSES OP ITS FAILURE. 9 in the arbitration of disputes between states. The Federal Gov- ernment dealt with states only, and could in no way reach the individual. For these reasons the Confederation failed utterly to accomplish the ends for which it was created, and necessarily gave place to a national government in which all these defects were remedied. Literature of the period (1774-1787). From a constitutional point of view Curtis' History of the Constitution Vol. I., and Story's Commentaries, Vol. I. §§ 198-271, are perhaps the best and most convenient authorities to consult. As a commentary upon the histoiy of this period Von Hoist's Constitutional History, Vol. I. 1-46, should be read. For general histories': Hildreth, III. 1-481 ; Pitkin, I. 282-422, and II. 1-223. Important documents are found also in the appendices of Pitkin's volumes. Tucker, I. 103-347. On the Confederation, Bancroft's History of the Constitution, Vol. I. The most important biogra- phies of this period are those of Madison by Wm. P. Rives, Vols. I. and II. to page 207. Morse's Life of Hamilton, Vol. I. Mar- shall's Life of Washington, abridged edition, Vols. I. and II. to page 105. IV. The Formation and Adoption of the Constitution. . The proceedings which led to the formation of the Constitution of the United States began in Virginia. In March, 1785, commis- sioners appointed bj' Virginia and Maryland met at Alexandria for the purpose of regulating the navigation and commerce upon the waters of the Potomac River and Chesapeake Bay. Upon the proposal of Mar}'land to invite the states of Pennsylvania and Deleware to join in the arrangement, Mr. Madison thought he saw a chance Jor a more general regulation of commerce, and to this end, proposed, in the legislature of Virginia, a convention of all the states to take into consideration the commerce of the United States. Pursuant to the terms of this resolution, which was adopted by the legislature of Virginia, a convention met at Annapolis in September, 1786. But as only five states were represented the convention deemed it inexpedient to take anj' action in regard to commerce, but merely recommended to the several states and to Congress the appointment of commissioners from all the states to meet at Philadelphia in the following May "to devise such further provisions, as shall appear to them necessarj^, to render the con- 10 OUTLINE insTORi' OF THE INITBD STATES. stitntiou of the Federal Government adequate to the exigencies ol" the Union." On the 21st February, 17.S7, Congress passed a reso- lution recommending such convention to meet in the ensuing May "for the purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, — in order to render the Federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union." Accordingly, commissioners of all the states, except Rhode Island, met at Phil- adelphia in May, 1787, but not till the 25th were a sufficient number present to begin work. Almost without exception the best men of the nation were sent to this convention ; statesmen of experience, who had been leaders in the Revolution and who were fully aware of the defects in the Articles of Confederation. Yet there was a difference of opinion as to the measures to be adopted. It was thought by many that there was no authority in the convention to form a neiv and different government, but only to revise the Articles of Confederation (see the last article of that instrumfent) . Others, especially Hamilton and Madison, believed that no revision of the then existing gov- ernment could be adequate to the requirements of a great state, and were resolved, notwithstanding technical objections, to form a national government to replace the Confederation. This last- named opinion prevailing in the convention the next question which arose was as to the form and powers of the new govern- ment. Here again those chiefly who had favored a confederation in which the states were the principal factors now attempted to restrict the "national," or "consolidated," government within the narrowest possible limits. In a great man_y details the result was a compromise between these parties, though the nation.alist view prevailed in the main features. The Constitution was based upon the system already existing in the states, and in form was like the English government, but with essential differences in practice. With the Confederation it was in radical contrast. Some of the more important differences were the following : — The Constitution was a government representing the people as well as the states, instead of the states alone, thus creating " a more perfect Union." There were three separate and independent departments of government : executive, legislative, and judicial, instead of one representing all three, as under the Confederation. In the Constitution all sovereign powers are not only expressly FOKMATION AND ADOPTION OF THE Cl>NSTITUTION. 11 granted to the United States, and prohibited to the states, but all the machinery of government necessarj- to enforce the laws and compel obedience is therein provided. The Confederation had no coercive powers. Even had it possessed them it is doubtful if a government acting onlj- npon collective communities could for a long time succeed in enforcing their obedience. The history of past confederacies would seem to bear out this view. Under the Constitution, again, the federal government was given the exclusive right of levying imposts upon imported mer- chandize, and of regul.ating commerce with foreign nations and among the states ; also the right to levy and collect excises and direct taxes, thus rendering the federal treasury independent of the states, and establishing uniform rules of commerce and navi- gation. Under the Confederation the states had possessed these functions to the exclusion of the general government. Other powers vested in the Federal Government by the Constitu- tion, not possessed bj- the Confederation, were the authority to call out the militia of the states and the exclusive right to coin monej\ One of the most important changes was the creation of a fed- eral judiciary. It is the function of the Supreme Court of the United States to interpret the Constitution and to guard it from the encroachments of both national and state legislation. In the performance of this dutj' it has acted as a balance wheel to the whole governmental system. Finally, it should be borne in mind that the new government was a mixed system, neither wholly federal nor wholly national, but partaking of both those principles. Thus, in the legislature, consisting of two coordinate bodies, the Senate is based upon the federal, and the House of Representatives upon the national principle. The Constitution having been adopted by the convention on the 1 7th of September, 17.S7, Congress resolved, on the 28th of the same imonth, to submit it " io a convention of delegates chosen in each state by the people thereof" in conformity to there solution of the convention. (See appendix for the text of the Constitution.) Eleven of the states having ratified the Constitution, Congress on the 18th of Septeml)er, 1788, by resolution, appointed the first Wednesday in Janury, 1789, for the choice of electors of presi- dent, and the first Wednesday in March following the time for commencing, at New York, proceedings under the Constitution. 12 OUTLINE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES. According to these instructions, George Washington was elected President, and John Adams, Vice-President. Senators and repre- sentatives having been chosen, the government went into full operation on the 30th of April, 1789. North Carolina adopted the Constitution in November, 1789, and Rhode Island in May, 1790. Authorities on this subject : — Story, I. §§ 272-305 ; Hildreth, III. 482-539 ; Pitkin, II. 224- 291 ; Tucker, I. 348-383 ; Von Hoist, I. 43-63 ; Life of Madison, II. 91-657 ; Morse's Life of Hamilton, I. 155-275 ; Bancroft's History of the Constitution, Vol. II. On the proceedings of the convention, "The Madison Papers," Volumes II. and III. ; Volume V. of Elliot's " Debates ;" and also the " Notes" of Yates. For the debates in the state conventions for the ratification of the Constitution, Elliot's "Debates." For a contemporary commen- tary on the Constitution, the "Federalist," written by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, is of the highest importance. Later commen- taries are those of Story ; Kent's ' ' Commentaries on American Law," Vol. I. part II. ; Curtis, Vol. II. : and Cooley's "Principles of Constitutional Law,'' an excellent and convenient volume. CHAPTER II. Administrations of Washington and John Adams, 1789-1801. /. Organization of the Government under the Constitution. 1. Cowgf?-ess. — According to a resolution of the old Congress (Sept. 13, 1788) the legal date on which the Constitution went into effect was the first Wednesday of March, 1789, the time fixed for the meeting of Congress at New York. But quorums neces- sary to transact business were not present in both houses until April 6, on which day the electoral votes for President and Vice- President were counted. The House of Representatives, having a quorum on March 30, organized on April 1st by the election of Frederic H. Muhlenburg of Philadelphia as Speaker. The number of representatives from each state until after the first census (1790) was specified in the Constitution, amounting in all to 65 members, including those of North Carolina and Rhode-Island. (Art. I. Sect. 2.) ^ The states differed in the ,method of choosing representatives. Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, Maryland, and South Caro- lina elected them by districts ; but New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Georgia, by general ticket. Again, in the South, as a rule, the choice by pluralities was adopted, whilst in New England a majority of all the votes was necessary to elect. This latter method, often necessitating second elections or long vacan- cies, has given place to the plurality system. (Hildreth, IV. 46 ; Schouler I. 65, note 1.) By a Jaw of Feb. 2, 1872, representatives " shall be elected hy districts composed of contiguous territorj^" (Revised Statutes, Sect. 23.) By the same law (Ibid., Sect. 25) a uniform time for the election of representatives in all the states and territories was prescribed, namely, "The Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every second year," beginning with the said day in 1876. This law was modified by a subsequent 1 See appendix, p. 39, for subsequent apportionments under the several censuses. 14 ORGANIZATION OP THE GOVERNMENT. [1789 act "so as not to apply to any state that has not j-et changed its day of election, and whose constitution must be amended to effect a change in the day of the election of state officers in such state." (Supplement to Revised Statutes, 1882, Sect. 6.) The House chooses its officers ; but the appointment of com- mittees, in accordance with the rules of the House, rests with the spealjer. At this time there was but one standing committee provided for, that on elections, and measures were thoroughly discussed in committee of the whole house before being submitted in the form of bills. These standing committees have now increased to forty-three in number, and exercise almost com- plete control over the business of the House, propositions being referred to them without 'discussion. (Benton, Debates I. 23, note 2.) The previous question, too, as a means of stopping de- bate, scarcely known in the early congresses, has come to be almost a regular method of procedure. (Hildreth, IV. 50-51 ; Cooper's "American Politics," VI. 26.) The Senate. — By a law of Congress (July 25, 1866) the method of electing senators is prescribed : ' 'The legislature of each state which is chosen next preceding the expiration of the time for which any senator was elected .... shall, on the second Tuesday after the meeting and organization thereof, proceed to elect a senator in Congress" etc. (Revised Statutes, Sections 14-19; Cooley, p. 47.) The Senate, not having a presiding ofiicer of its own selec- tion, elected not only its other officers, but also its cornmittees, by ballot. The use of formal committees of the whole was not adopted, but bills, on their second reading, were freely discussed, '■'■as if in committee of the luhole." (Hildreth, IV. 51.) Besides its legislative function, the Senate has a voice in making treaties and in the appointments to office. At first the clause in the Con- stitution (Art. II. Sec. 2) conferring upon the Senate this right was interpreted to mean that " the advice and consent" should be obtained beforehand. This practice, adopted by Washington, was, however, dispensed with on account of its inconvenience. (Ben- ton's "Abridgment of the Congressional Debates," I. 17, note.) Until the 20th of February, 1794, the Senate sat with closed doors, and there is therefore no published debates of that body previous to that time. Extracts of its journal are found in Benton, Vol. I. 2. Organization of the Executive Departments. — The Consti- tution did not provide for the executive departments, and ftientions l'^9] EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS. 15 them only incidentally (Art. II. Sect. 2). The Congress of the Confederation had conferred subordinate executive authority upon certain bureaus, namely, a bureau of foreign affairs and a bureau of war, each with a secretary ; also a treasury board consisting of three commissioners. (From 1781-84 this board was superseded by a superintendent of finance.) There was also a postmaster- general. This plan, though greatly modified, was made the basis of the new sj'stem. The House took up this subject on May 19, 1789, and after de- bate determined upon the establishment of three departments : those of foreign affairs, treasury, and war ; a fourth, the home department, was proposed by Vining of Delaware.^ (Benton's Debates, I. 85 and 94.) The first of the departments to be established was that of For- eign Affairs (July 27, 1789. Stat, at L., I. 28.) Later in the same session (Sept. 15) this department was enlarged so as to embrace certain domestic affairs, and the name changed to Depart- ment of State. (Stat, at L., I. 68.) In addition to diplomatic affairs, the Secretary of State now had charge of the great seal, and of the preserving and promulgating the laws of each session. He is considered the first officer of the cabinet, and is more directly the representative of the President. (Hildreth, IV. 102 ; Schouler, I. 94 ; Benton's Deb., I. 85, 86, 108.) The Department of War was reorganized (Aug. 7) nearly on the old footing, the Secretary to'have, moreover, the superintend- ence of naval affairs.^ The military establishment consisted of a regiment of infantry and a battalion of artillery ; of the old navy not &. ship remained afloat. (Stat, at L., I. 49 ; Hild. IV. 104 ; Schouler, I. 94.) The first and most important duty of the new Congress was that of establishing the credit of the nation. The Treasury Depart- ment was to be the agent through which this was to be effected. By the Act of Sept. 2, 1789, establishing this department, the following important duties were entrusted to the Secretary of the Treasur}' : "To digest and prepare plans for the improvement and management of the revenue, and for the support of public credit ; to prepare and report estimates of the public revenue, and 1. In 1849 a home department was established under the name of Interior Department. •i. A separate naval department was established on April 30, 1798. (Stat, at L., I. 553.) 16 ORGANIZATION OF THE GOVERNMENT. TEEASURr. [1789 the public expenditures ; to superintend the collection of the revenue ; to decide on the forms of keeping and stating accounts and making returns, and to grant under the limitations herein provided, aU warrants for monej-s to be issued from the treasury, in pursuance of appropriations bj' law ; to execute such services relative to the sale of public lands as may be bj' law required of him ; to malie report, and give information to either branch of the legislature, in person or m writing (as may be required) , respecting all matters referred to him by the Senate or House of Represen- tatives, or which shall appertain to his office ; and generally to perform all such services relative to the finances as he shall be directed to perform." The Secretary was allowed an assistant, ap- pointed by himself. There was also to be a comptroller, an auditor, a treasurer, and a register. (Stat, at L., I. 6.5.) By this sj'stem of checks and counter-checks no money could be paid out except under an appropriation made by Congress, on a claim certified to b}' the auditor and on a warrant signed by the Secretary of the Treas- ury, countersigned by the comptroller and recorded hy the register. This system, extended hj the appointment of additional officers, still remains in force very much as originally establislied . (Hil- dreth, IV. 102-3 ; Bent. Deb. I. 90-4.) The office of assistant to the Secretary was abolished in 1792, but restored in 1849. An act of March 3, 1857, took the appointment of the assistant from the Secretary and put it in the hands of the President. March 3, 1817, a second comptroller was appointed, and four additional auditors, and a sixth auditor, July 2, 1836. The Act of May 29, 1830 (Stat, at L., IV. 414) created the office of Solicitor of the Treasury — the legal officer of the Treasury; that of March 3,. 1849, a Commissioner of Customs ; that of .July 1, 1862, a Com- missioner of Internal Revenue. In the debate upon tlie bill of September 2, 1789, it was asserted that "to allow the Secretary to digest and prepare plans for the improvement and management of the revenue, and for the support of public credit " would be "a dangerous innovation upon the constitutional privilege of this House." (Benton, Deb., I. 109.) Art. I. § 7, of the Constitution provides that "All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." It would "establish a precedent which might be extended until we admitted all the ministers of the government on the floor .... thus laying a foundation for an aristocracy or a detestable monarchy." (Ibid.) The above provision, however, was retained, and, later, was 1780] EXF.CUTIVE DEPARTMETJTS JUDICIARY. 17 one of the causes of hostility between Hamilton and Jefferson ; fox Hamilton, as Secretary of the Treasury, was repeatedly called npon to perform this duty ; and mainly through the jealousy of Jefferson — Secretary of State— it was detiarmined that the Secretary of the Treasury should communicate to Congress in writing, and not in person.' Another long debate arose mainly in connection with the estab- lishment of the Depai-tment of State. The Constitution provided that the President "by and with the advice and consent of the Sen- ate" should make appointments to office. On the one side it was held that such advice and consent was necessary (by implication) also for remncah from office ; 'but on the other, it was maintained that such a requisition would hamper the President and would ren- der impossible removals during a recess of the Senate. (Benton, Deb., I. 102-4 ; Schouler, I. 96 ; Hildreth, IV. 104-108. The latter view prevailed.^ ) The Post-Office Dopintment was established by the' Acts of Con- gress of September 22, 1789, and May 8, 1794, but the Postmaster- General did not become a cabinet officer until 1829 ; and then only on account of the immense jDatronage within his gift. The ofHce of Attorney-General was created bj' the 35th section of the judiciary act of September 24, 1789, and as an adjunct to the judiciary (Stat, at L., I. 93). But as the legal adviser of the President and the heads of departments the Attorney-General soon became a regular member of the cabinet as head of the De- partment of Justice. As general counsel for the United States the Attornej'-General is intrusted with the management of its interest in suits pending before the Supreme Court, and, to aid him in this and other duties, a Solicitor-General, three assistant attornej'S-general, a Solicitor of the Treasuiy, a Solicitor of Inter- nal Revenue, and a naval Solicitor are provided. (Revised Stat., p. 59 ; Schouler, I. 97.) 3. The Federal Judiciary : — The bill for the establishment of the judiciaiy originated in the Senate, and became a law Septem- ber 24, 1789.. The Supreme Court of the United States was to consist of a Chief Justice and five associate justices, to hold two r. But in Andrew Johnson's administration, the President being in general opposed to Congress, the " Tenure of OfiBce Act"*was passed, taking from the President the sole right of removal in tlie case of all civil officers whose appointment required the consent of the Senate. (Cooper, Bk. V. lo, and Revised Stat., Sects. 17(50-3 and 1767-75.) 18 ORGANIZATION OF THE GOVERNMENT — APPOINTMENTS. [1789 sessions annuallj'- at the seat of government.-^ (Stat, at L., I. 73.) Congress also established by the same act inferior tribunals : a District Court in each federal district, whose limits corresponded in the main with those of the states. These districts were grouped into three circuits, in each of which was established a Circuit Court. There were no separate circuit judges provided for, these courts being held by the district judges, presided over by a justice of the Supreme Court. ^ The "district courts were to have both civil and criminal juris- diction, and original cognizance of admiralty " and prize causes. In criminal matters the jurisdiction of the circuit courts was to be concurrent with that of the district courts, and exclusive as to all higher crimes. (Schouler, I. 96, 97; Hildreth, IV. 109-111 ; Revised Stat., Sec. 629-657.) In each district there are the following officers of court : a dis- trict attorney, the prosecuting officer of the general government ; a marshall, corresponding to the sheriff in the state system ; and a clerk of the court. (Hildreth, IV. 3.) 4. Executive apiwintnients. — President Washington's first cab- inet was constituted as follows : Thomas Jeiferson, Secretary of State ; Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury ; John Knox, Secretary of War ; and Edmund Randolph, Attorney- General. Of these, Hamilton and Knox were Federalists, and Jefferson and Randolph were Anti-P'ederalists. In thus calling into his cabinet men of opposite opinions, Washington atterppted to reconcile the two parties. The Chief Justiceship was given to John Jay of New York, who had been at the head of Foreign Affairs. The associate jus- tices were William Cushing, Chief Justice of Massachusetts ; James Wilson, of Pennsylvania ; John Blair, a Virginia judge ; John 1. The present number is a Chief Justice and eight associate justices, holdings one annual session, beginning December I. ■£. An act of March 2, 1869, provided that " for each circuit there shall be appointed* a circuit judge," equal with the Supreme Court justice in powers and jurisdiction : that cir- cuits shall be held by the circuit justice, or the circuit judge of the circuit, or by the district judge sitting alone-, or by any two of the said judges sitting together," and that each Supreme Court justice should attend in each district of his circuit at least once in two years. (Revised Stat., Sect. 605-612.) The number of justices of the Supreme Court, and of district judges, and the boundaries of circuits and districts, have varied from time to time. Since 1869 the number of justices has been a Chief Justice and eight associate justices, and nine circuits. At present there are fifty-nine districts and fifty-three district judges. 1789] POLITICAL PARTIES TEMPORARY REVENUE. 19 Rutledge, of South Carolina ; and James Iredell, of North Caro- lina, all eminent lawyers or judges. " Local distinction in the legal profession was carefully regarded in filling the district judge- ships. In selecting marshals and customs oificers Washington showed much favor to gallant Revolutionary comrades, some of whom were now in straitened circumstances." But where the duties of the office required peculiar qualifications, Washington made impartial and fitting selections. (Schouler, I. 108, HI ; Hildreth, IV. 131.) In order to gain time for establishing treatj- relations with foreign nations, the appointment of foreign ministers was delaj'ed. Samuel Osgood, of Massachusetts, was appointed Postmaster- General. 5. Political Parties in 17S9. — Although party lines were not yet strictly drawn in. 1789, nevertheless the elements existed, as shown in the debates upon the adoption of the Constitution, for two sharply defined political parties divided on the general issue of a strong central government. The party which had carried through the Constitution to its final adoption naturally came into power under the new government, and assumed the name of Fed- eralists. Those who had opposed the Constitution previously to its adoption now changed their ground of opposition, and in order to prevent an extension of the powers granted to the general government, attempted to limit those powers to the narrowest possible limits. They thus became known as the party of strict construction, under the title of Anti-Federalists, and gradually assumed the role of obstructionists. These parties, moreover, showed a sectional bias, New England and the North in general being Federalist, Virginia and the South, Anti-Federalist. But these diff'erences did not appear until brought out by the bold measures of the Secretary of the Treasury in 1790. 6. Temporary Revenue. — As a revenue was one of the most pressing needs of the new government, as it had been of the old, it was this subject which first occupied the attention of the House of Representatives. The very general prejudice against excise taxes led Congress to turn its attention towards customs duties as the source of revenue. On the 8th of April Mr. Madison pro- posed a temporary system of imposts, to be based upon the Rev- enue Plan of 1783, to which all the states except New York had recentlv given their assent. Upon spirituous liquors, wines, tea, coffee, sugar, molasses, and pepper, it was proposed to levy specific "20 ORGANIZATION OF THE GOVERNMENT TARIFF. [17S9 duties ; upon all other imported articles, an ad valorem duty. (Benton, Deb., I. 22, 23.) This tariff was priraaril}^ for rev- enue, but during the discussion which followed, the advocates of various interests urged the protection of their particular industries until finally the measure became a moderately protective tariff. Mr. Fitzsimmons of Pennsylvania advocated at once the addition of more than fifty articles to the enumerated list (i. e. hst of articles for which protection was demanded) principally for the purpose of "encouraging the productions of our own country, and to protect our infant manufactures.'' Mr. Hartley, of the same state, urged a general policy of protection to home manu- factures. He thought it "both politic and just that the fostering hand of the general government should extend to all those manu- factures which will tend to national utility." (Benton, Deb. I. 25; Young, Customs-Tariff Legislation, p. 6.) Mr. Madison believed in the general principle of freedom of commerce. " I own myself," he said, " the friend of a very free system of commerce, and hold it as a truth that commercial shack- les are generallj- unjust, oppressive, and impolitic. It is also a truth that if industry and labor are left to take their own course they will generalljr be directed to those objects which are most productive, and that in a manner more certain and direct than the wisdom of the most enlightened legislature could point out ; nor do I believe that the national interest is more promoted bj- such legislative restrictions, than that the interest of individuals would be promoted by legislative interference directing the particular application of its industry." (Annals of Congress, I. 112; Tariff Legislation, p. 7.) Mr. Madison, with others, believed that in America protection would be more properly accorded to agriculture than to manufac- tures. He admitted however that there were exceptions to the general rule of Jixedom of commerce ; and for this reason, and in deference to the opinions of others, accepted the various amend- ments increasing the number of specified articles. (Benton, Deb. I. 26.) In the mean time petitions were coming in from mechanics and manufacturers praying for protection against foreign competition. Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, particularly, wished protection for the various manufactures which had sprung up in those states. While the agricultural states, more especially of the South, were opposed to high duties except upon articles of luxury, and those 1790] TARIFF FINANCIAL POLIf'Y. 21 not produced in the United Statep. In the discussion of the details of the bill, the debates soon showed the strong local interests which sought protection. These interests combined succeeded in increasing the number of enumerated articles to eighty or upward ; upon about half of these there were to be ad valorem duties, on the others specific duties. The ad valorems ranged from 7 J per cent to 12J per cent (only in one case, that of carriages, was there a higher tax, 15 per cent). The specific duties were generally mod- erate. On all unenumerated articles the duty was to be 5 per cent ad valorem. These low rates could give but little protection, and was meant to do so only incidentally, yet the principle contended for was the same as that evinced in all the great debates upon this question at later periods in our history ; and therefore this first tariff discussion is worthy of careful study. The bill, which became a law on July 4, 1789, has the following preamble : "Whereas it is necessary for the support of the gov- ernment, for the discharge of the debts of the United States, and the encouragement and protection of manufactures, that duties be laid, etc." (Stat, at L., I. 24.) Upon the recommendation of the Secretary of the Treasury (Report to House Januarj^ 14, 1790) the duties under this tariff were increased on the average about 2^ per cent, by an act of August 10, 1790. Massachusetts now opposed higher duties. (Benton, Deb. I. 22-44, 57-64, 69-84 ; Tariff Leg. 4-17 ; Schouler, I. 86-92 ; Hildreth, IV. 65-101.) The tonnage duties, proposed by Mr. Madison at the same time with those of- customs, were adopted by a separate act Julj' 20, 1789. (Stat, at L., I. 27.) An attempt was here made, led by Mr. Madison, to discriminate very decidedly against England ; but this object was defeated in the Senate. (Schouler, I. 90-92 ; Hildreth, IV. 77-83.) A motion to amend the Tariff Act by imposing a duty of ten dollars on each slavfe imported was lost after considerable debate. (Hildreth, IV. 91-96 ; Benton, Deb. I. 73-76.) II. Hamilton's Financial Policy. On September 21, 1789, the House of Representatives resolved, " that an adequate provision for the support of the public credit is a matter of high importance to the honor and prosperity of the United States, and directed the Secretary of the Treasury to pre- 9'> Hamilton's financial policy. [1790 pare a plan for that purpose, and to report the same to the House at its next meeting." Pursuant to this resolution, Mr. Hamilton prepared his report on the inihlic credit, and submitted it to the TloviSQ, in writing , on January 14, 1790. He recoinmended : (1) the funding of the national debt, (a) the foreign debt including back interest, amounting to $11,700,000, (&) the domestic debt, about $42,400,000 ; (2) the assumption of the debts of the states, estimated at $25,000,000. Hamiltou's whole financial scheme, as later developed, embraced the creation of a national bank, and the levying of excise taxes. In scope it was much more than a mere iinaneial scheme ; it was rather a far reaching political policy, which was to affect the whole future existence of the nevvr government. Hamilton wished a strong federal or central government ; a system in which the states should take a subordinate place. The Constitution was interpreted by the Federalists to intend such a government, and it ivas their policy now to put the real power into its hands. " It is certain," says Von Hoist, "that no other measure of the federal government contributed in even an approximate degree to the actual consolidation of the Union." (I. 83-4.) In the funding of the foreign debt it was Mr. Hamilton's inten- tion to restore the credit of the nation in the eyes of foreign gov- ernments ; in the case of the domestic debt, and the assumption of the debts of the states, to cause the creditors to look to the general government rather than to those of the states, and thus to create among the people a feeling of interest and sympathy for the welfare of the Union. (Von Hoist, I. 84, 85 ; Schouler, I. 130-32 ; Hildreth, IV 152-160 ; Marshall, Life of Washington, V. 255 ; Van Buren, Political Part., 144-8.) The Anti-Federalists saw , the political significance of these measures, and violently opposed them. (Von Hoist, 1. 83 ; Mar- shall, Life of Washington, V. 241.) In addition to the benefits of a sound puftlic credit which his policy promised, Hamilton ftiaintained that the funded debt would answer most of the purposes of money ; transfers of stock or public debt being equivalent to payments in, specie. Hence it would increase the loanable capital and therefore trade would be extended, agriculture and manufactures would be promoted, while the interest of money would be lowered. (See the Report in Hamilton's Works, III. 1-45.) It was a part of Hamilton's scheme to provide 1790] FUNDING THE DEBT ASSUMPTION. 23 by permanent taxes in some form for the interest on every dollar of the public debt, and that a certain revenue should be set aside for the gradual extinction of the principal. To the funding of the foreign debt there vras little objection, and that to the principle of a funded debt in general ; but there was serious opposition to the payment in full of the present holders of the domestic debt, and to the assumption of the state debts. On the 8th of February the debate was opened by Mr. Smith, of South Carolina (one of the few southern Federalists) , in a speech in favor of the Secretary's views, followed on the same side bj^ Boudinot, Fitzsimmons, Ames, Sedgwick, Hartley, Gerry, and others ; the principal speakers in opposition were Scott, Livermore, Tucker, and Jackson. (Benton, Deb., I. 190-201, 205-228 ; Hildreth, IV. 152-174; Tucker, I. 416-430; Schouler, I. 130-136; Morse's Life of Hamilton, I. 287-332.) Mr. Madison proposed to discriminate between the public cred- itors, paj'ing the present holders of public securities the highest price it had borne in the market, and giving the residue to the person with whom the debt was originally contracted. (Benton, Deb., I. 205, 206.) Hamilton and the Federalists asserted that any discrimination in these debts would be unconstitutional, unjust, and dishonest. The United States, as a partj^ to the contract, could take no equitable view of it. After a long debate Madison's amend- ment was defeated. Still greater opposition was made to the assumption of the debts of the states. In general those states having the greatest debts, especiaUj' Massachusetts and South Carolina, favored assumption. Other states (e.~ g. Virginia) had, by means of taxation, largely paid up their indebtedness ; these opposed the measure. The strongest argument in its support was that these debts were mostly contracted in the general cause. It was objected that too much power would thus be concentrated in the general government ; moreover that the Constitution did not expressly confer upon Congress the power of assuming the state debts — the beginning of the movement against a liberal construc- tion of the Constitution. The bill, after once having passed the House (March 9) was finally defeated, 29 to 31, the members from North Carolina having in the mean time taken their seats, and voting against it. The discussion of the bill caused great excitement, eastern members even threatening the dissolution of the Union. 24 Hamilton's financial tolicy. [1790 A compromise was finally effected. There had been before Congress for some time a bill for fixing the permanent seat of the government. The Eastern and Middle States desired the Capital to be located either upon the Delaware or Susquehanna, while tne Southern States contended for a site on the Potomac. It was agreed among the party leaders (Hamilton, Jefferson, and others) that the North should yield as to the seat of government, and the South, on the Assumption Bill. Accordingly a bill passed, July 16, to fix the Capital on the Potomac after the year 1800, the tem- porary seat of government to be at Philadelphia. (Stat, at L., I. 1.30.) The assumption bill was then taken up and passed, together with the funding bill, August 4, 1790. (Stat, at L., I. 138 ; Benton, Deb., I. 250 note.) " The whole compromise" says Von Hoist, " was a bargain be- tween the North and the South. The 'geographical' and 'sectional' character of the parties was a matter of frequent mention and lament. (I. 86, 87.) The amount of state debts assumed bj' the Federal government was $21,500,000, specific sums being assigned to each state. (Stat, at L., I. 142 ; Hildreth, IV. 215 and 210-216 ; Schouler, I. 136-142.) Hamilton's report had also included the jDroposal to levj' an ex- cise tax upon spirits distilled within the country, as the customs duties would not be sufficient to meet the expenses of the govern- ment. But this first excise bill was rejected by the House, June 21, 1790. The next year, however, on Hamilton's recommendation, another bill was introduced and passed May 3, 1791, by the provisions of which an excise tax was imposed on liquors distilled within the United States.- (Stat, at *L., I. 203.) The dissatisfaction pro- duced by this measure was widespread, and led to the ' 'Whiskey Rebellion" of 1794. (Hildreth, IV. 253-5; Von Hoist, I. 94, 95 ; Benton, Deb., I. 262 and 270.) The First National Bank. — In Hamilton's, second report, be- sides the excise mentioned above, he recommended the creation of a National Bank. The advantages of the bank were chiefly three, namely : it would supply a uniform currency, would in- crease the active capital of the country, and would give greater 1791] , THK, HANK. 25 facilities to the general government in conducting its monetar}' transactions and exchanges, and in negotiating temporary loans. ^ The act to incorporate the bank, originating in the Senate, be- came a law February 25, 1791. (Stat, at L., I. 191.) "The expediency of establishing a national bank was at that time a very different question from its expediency now." The great need then was a stable national currency, if not coin, then the best substitute, redeemable paper. Hamilton opposed the emission of paper bj' the National Government. He believed that in spirit Art. I. Sect. 10 applied to the General, as well as to the state governments. He thought that the power of emit- ting paper was so liable to abuse that the Government ought not to trust itself to emploj- it. Its use was inconsisteht with the reg- ular and prosperous course of political economy. For government paper, he continues, there could be no measure of the quantity needed for circulation ; but for the issue of bank paper the demand was a reliable standard. (Morse, Life>of Hamilton, I. 335-6.) As to the plan of the bank, Hamilton' insisted that " it must be directed by individuals, and subject to the guidance of individual interest, not of public policy" ; that it should, from time to time, ask from the Government a renewal of its charter ; that the Govern- ment should be a shareholder, though not of the principal part of the stock ; and should have the privilege of frequently inspecting the accounts of the bank, though with no power of control. "The capital stock was set at $10,000,000, divided into 25,000 shares of $400 each. The subscriptions were receivable, one-quarter in gold and silver coin, three-quarters in the 6 per cent certifi- cates of the national debt — a provision that brought government bonds up to par, and gave the bank an interest in sustaining the credit of the United States. No one person or corporation could hold more than 1000 shares. (Morse, I. 339.) "The whole prop- erty which the bank could hold, capital included, was limited to fifteen millions of dollars, nor were its debts exclusive of deposits ever to exceed ten millions. . . . The bank might sell, but could not purchase, the stocks of the United States. Its general busi- ness was therefore restricted to dealing in bills of exchange, and gold and silver. The interest it might take was limited to 6 per cent. No loan could be made to the United States exceed- t For a brief history of the currency previous to 1789, see Hildreth, IV. 356-260; Sum. ncr, " History of American Currency," 1-59. 2G Hamilton's finaxoial por.icv. [1791 ing $100,000, nor to any particular state, exceeding $50,000, nor to any foreign potentate to any amount unless specially autlior- izecl by act of Congress." The bank was to be established in Philadelphia, bnt the directors could establish and supervise branches within the United States, but only for discount and de- posit. The affairs of the bank were to be arranged by a board of 25 directors, chosen annually by the stockholders from among themselves. It was to be a bank of deposit and discount ; and its bills were to be payable in specie, and receivable in all pay- ments to the United States. "The charter was to continue 20 years, and no other bank was to be established by Congress within that period." (Hildreth, IV. 262-7.) Hamilton's Report on the National Bank (Works, III. 106-46) was submitted to Congress Dec. 14, 1790. "A bill in almost precise conformity with that submitted by Hamilton passed the Senate very easily Feb. 1, 1791. But when it came to the House it encountered a vigorous opposition. Anti-Federalists saw in it a dangerous extension of the dreaded Secretary's pernicious schemes for strengthening and perpetuating the government. . . . The administration was to be placed in such a relation toward capitalists and the mercantile community as to be sure of their united and zealons support." (Morse, I. 340.) The general utility of the banking system was not admitted and the merits of this bill in particular were questioned. " But the great strength of the argument was directed (says Marshall, V. 294) against the constitutional authoritj- of Congress to pass an act for incorporating a national bank." As to the clauses of the Consti- tution (Art. I.,§ 8) giving Congress the power to provide for the "general welfare of the United States" and to make all laws which shall be '■'■necessary and proper to carry into execution the foregoing powers," it was said : (1) that the banking system was not especially adapted to secure the general welfare ; (2) all powers given to Congress could be executed without the aid of a bank, and hence this measure was not necessary (hence unconstitutional) . Moreover, the convenience of a bank was questioned. The augmentation of the circulating medium was considered a demerit. In the transportation of monej^ bills of exchange and treasury drafts would supply the place of bank bills. Besides, the state banks would make loans to the government. Such a bank as the one proposed would swallow up the state banks, and, especially, would it tend to consolidate the government. (Marshall, V., Ap- I'iSl] BANK REPORT ON MANX'PACTURES. 27 pendix, note 3. ) The bill was finally passed by 39 to 20, the divi- sion being one between the North and South. Only one man from the North voted against the bill ; and only two from the South, for it. Being in doubt about the constitutionality of the bill, Washing- ton requested the written ojjinion of the members of his cabinet. The Attorney-General and Secretary of State deemed the bill unconstitutional ; while the other two officers considered it consti- tutional. The long argument of Hamilton, submitted to the Pres- ident, nearly coincides with the view taken nearly twent}"^ years later bj' Chief Justice Marshall in the case of McCulloch vs. the State of Maryland. (Writings of Marshall, 160.) Although the stock of the bank was quickly taken up, temporary speculation resulted from the execution of the bank and funding measures. Still as a permanent effect, the public credit rose to such an extent that abroad the United States could obtain loans at a lower rate of interest than most European States. The greater part of the benefits which Hamilton had predicted were realized, and in many cases beyond his expectations. Confidence was restored, and with it came an active revival in every branch of industry : agriculture, manufactures, commerce and navigation. (Hildreth, IV. 274-6.) On .the Bank: (Hildreth, IV. 261-267 ; Schouler, I. 1.59-162; Van Buren, Polit. Parties, 136 et seq. ; Morse's Life of Hamilton, I. 333-347; Benton, Deb. — speech of Madison, 274-278, and 306-308 — speec/i of Boudinot, 287-291 — speech of Ames, 278-282 — other speeches, from p. 272 to 308 ; Von Hoist, I. 104-106.) 3. Hamilton's Repoit on Manufactures. — (Hamilton's Works, III. 192). This report, one of the author's ablest State papers, must be considered as the foundation, so far as the theory is con- cerned, of the American sj'stem of protection to home manufac- tures. The Revenue Bill of 1789, which gave a partially protective tariff, received the favor of a majority of the House ; but the above report is the first full exposition of the doctrine. The opening paragraph thus announces the protective principle : — "The expediency of encouraging manufactures in the United States which was, not long since, deemed very questionable, ap- pears at this time to be pretty generally admitted. The embarrass- ments which have obstructed the progress of our external trade have led to serious reflections on the necessity of enlarging the 28 FINANCIAL POLICY PROTECTION. [1791 sphere of our domestic commerce. The restrictive regulations which, in foreign markets, abridge the vent of the increasing sur- plus of our agricultural produce, serve to beget an earnest desire that a more extensive demand for that surplus may be created at home, and the complete success which has rewarded manufacturing enterprise in some valuable branches, conspiring with the promis- ing symptoms which attend some less mature essays in others, justify a hope that the obstacles to the growth of this species of industry are less formidable than they were apprehended to be ; and that it is not difficult to find, in its further extension, a full indemnification for external disadvantages which are or maj' be experienced, as well as an occasion of resources favorable to national independence and safetj^.'' Yet it is not correct to suppose that Hamilton favored the ab- stract principle of protection ; he had to consider the actual state of commercial affairs. Other countries, and especiallj' Great Britain, imposed restrictions upon foreign commerce which had to be met by counter restrictions.-' Once convinced of the expediency of the policy, Hamilton put all the powers of his vigorous mind to the task of showing the advantages which might be derived from it. He, therefore, urged manj' reasons of a domestic nature : — Protection primarily fosters the growth of manufacturing estab- lishments, and through these the following benefits are to be ex- pected : (1) The division of labor; (2) The extension of the use of machinery ; (3) The additional emploj-ment to that class of the community not ordinarilj' employed ; (4) The promotion of immigration from foreign countries ; (5) Greater scope for the various talents and dispositions of men ; (6) A more ample and varied field for enterprise ; ( 7) The creation of a more certain and steady demand for the surplus products of the soil. In considering the methods by which manufactures might be en- couraged, he advises the exemption from dutj- of the raw materials of manufacture, the allowance of drawbacks on such materials and the giving of pecuniary bounties. Mr. Hamilton enumerates seventeen manufacturing industries already established, so as fairly to supply the home market ; among these were iron, leather, flax, brass, carriages, sugars, gunpowder, pottery, etc. I. See Pitki:>'s Statistics, pp. 1-18, for an account of the British restrictions upon manufac- tures in the colonies. 1792] LEADING STATKSMEN HAMILTON. 29 There were strong objections to this scheme from the agricul- tural states, and it went over for the time without action. But later in the session the pressing Indian troubles induced Congress to pass an act (March 2, 1792) increasing the tariff, and which incidentallj- favored some of the industries Hamilton had mentioned. The average increase was 2 J per cent and the average rate under this law, sa^'s Mr. Edward Young, was equivalent to an ad valorum duty of 13J per cent. (Tariff Leg., p. 2-3 ; Stat, at L., I. 259). (Hildreth, IV. 807-309 ; Schouler, I. 186-187 ; Morse, Life of Hamilton, I. 3.57-369 ; Tariff, Leg. 18-23.) The Report on the Establishment of a Hint. Jan. 28, 1791 (Ham- ilton, Works, III. 149), was the basis of the Act of April 2, 1792 (Stat, at L., I. 246), establishing a Umted States Mint, and fixiug the ratio of gold to silver at 1.5 to 1. (Hildreth, IV. 315-319.) ///. Political Parties and Leading /Statesmen. Hamilton's reports and the debates thereon had fully set forth the Federalist policy. The Anti- Federalists, too, had gradually united into a compact party of opposition, under the leadership of Mr. Jefferson, the Secretary of State. Mr. Hamilton, the Secretary of the Treasury, was the acknowledged leader of the Federalists. In view of the important role played by these two men during the early period of our history, it is deemed best to give here a brief sketch of their lives up to the time when thej- became the leaders of the two great political parties. Alexander Hamilton was born in the Island of Nevis, British West Indies, on the 11th daj' of January, 1757. His father was a Scotchman, and his mother of French-Huguenot descent. At the age of twelve he was put into a counting house at Santa Cruz ; at the age of fourteen he had shown such a remarkable business capacity that he was left in charge of the whole business in the absence of his employer. But the event which changed the course of his life was the writing of an article for a local newspaper de- scribing a hurricane which had swept over the Island. This was regarded as showing such great ability in a youth of fifteen that his friends determined to give him the opportunitj' of acquiring a liberal education. For this purpose young Hamilton went to New York in 1772, and studied for a year in a grammar school in Eliza- bethtown, N. J., and then entered King's College. While yet in College, 1774, he began to write, and to speak in public, on the 30 LEAUIXO STATESMEN HAMILTON. [1792 rights of the colonies, and with such marked abilit}- that he was immediatelj' brought into general public notice. Even at this time he displayed "a power of reasoning, a sarcasm, a knowledge of the principles of government and of the English Constitution, and a grasp of the merits of the whole controversy, that would have done honor to any man of any age. (Curtis, Hist, of the Const., I. 408.) In 1776, he entered the army as a captain of artillerj- ; from 1777 to 1782 he was aid-de-camp to General Washington. While holding this position he had an excellent opportunity for observing the Course of not only military affairs but civil as well. The fail- ures of the Continental Government were only too painfully known to the General of the Army and to his coniidential aid-de-camp. He wrote two letters to Robert Morris, the Superintendent of Finance, which attracted general notice, and in 1780 he sketched the outline of a national government which in the main features resembled the one adopted in 1787. Resigning his commission in 1782, he began the study of the law ; in the same year he was elected a Member of Congress from New York. Plere again Hamilton was brought face to face with the fatal defects of the government of the Confederation ; and was one of the authors of the revenue S3-stem proposed in 1788. In 1786 he was a member of the New York legislature, and in 1787 was sent as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. He presented to the Convention a plan of government embodying his views, which were in favor of a decidedly strong central authority and the subordination of the states. But accepting the Constitu- tion, when adopted, as the best that could be introduced, iio one did more than he to secure its ratification. The fift3--one articles of the "Federalist," written by Hamilton, attest for all time the important part he took. The remainder of Hamilton's career, which came to an abrupt end, may be given here : 1789-92 . . Secretary of the Treasury. 1795 .... Engaged in the practice of the law in New York. 1798 .... Appointed second in command of the provisional army. 1804 .... Killed in a duel with Aaron Burr. Hamilton was married (1780) to a daughter of General Philip Schuyler. 1792] LEADING STATESMEN JEFFERSON. 31 Thomas Jefferson was born in Albemarle County, Virginia, in 1743 ; studied two years at William and Mary College (1760-62), and afterward studied law and became a successful practitioner. Incited by the speech of Patrick Henry on the Stamp Act (1765), he threw his whole soul into the cause of the colonies. From 1769 to 1775 was a member of the Virginia legislature; in 1774 drew up his •' Summary View of the Rights- of British America" ; 1775, elected a delegate to the Continental Congress ; 1776, drew up the Declaration of Independence; 1779-81, Governor of Vir- ginia ; in 1782, re-elected to Congress; 1784, sent with Adams and Franklin to negotiate treaties with foreign powers ; 1785-89, Minister to France; 1789-93, Secretary of State; 1797-1801, Vice-President ; 1801-1809, President ; 1826, died at Monticello. Mr. Jefferson, though ranked among the aristocracy of Virginia, belonged rather to the 3'eomanry b}' nature and habits. He early showed an inclination to democratic principles. In the state leg- islature, as one of a commission for revising the laws of the state, he secured the passage of laws forbidding the importation of slaves ; for abolishing the law of primogeniture, and providing for the equal partition of inheritances ; for establishing religious freedom ; and for a system of general education. His "Summarj- View of the Rights of British America," gave him Colonial fame, and the Declaration of Independence extended this beyond these limits. While in Congress the second time, he induced that body to adopt the decimal system, and the dollar as the unit of currency. While in France, Jefferson found great pleasure in the society of literai-y and scientific men. As the author of the Declaration of Independence, he was warmly welcomed by the French Repub- licans. He saw clearly the abuses of monarchy which he believed to be the cause of the French Revolution. While observing the various European governments he became so opposed to monarchial systems that he found little fault with the excesses even of the French Revolution. In his opinion the great danger to liberty in America would come from the government, and particularly from the executive department. He was absent from the country during the most critical period of the Confederation, and therefore did not fully appreciate the necessity of a strong government, nor the difficulties of the framers of the Constitution. His principal objections to the Constitution were, that it contained no bill of 32 PARTIES JKFFKRSON HAMILTON. [1792 rights, and no provision securing rotation in office, particularly- that of President. (Letter to Madison, December 20, 1780.) He also objected to the establishment of the Supreme Court, especially the provision that the judges should be appointed by the President and hold office for life, and should be removable only bj' impeach- ment. "They (the judges) are then, in fact, the corps of sappers and miners, steadily working to undermine the independent rights of the states and to consolidate all power in the hands of the cen- tral government. Without the Supreme Court as now organized the Constitution is nothipg. I deem it indispensable to the con- tinuance of this government that they should be submitted to some practical and impartial control ; and that this, to be impartial, must be compounded of a mixture of state and federal authorities." Mr. Jefferson returned to the United States in November, 1789, and soon after accepted the office of Secretary of State. But Hamilton was at the head of the Treasury, "the natural point of control to be occupied by any statesman who aims at organization or reform, and conversely no organization or reform is likely to suc- ceed that does not begin with and is not guided b3' the Treasurj-. (Adams, Life of Gallatin, 67.) Hamilton proceeded to organize and consolidate the Government. In this he experienced the op- position of the Anti-Federalist party. To jjreserve, with a few amendments, the Constitution which they had so opposed in 1787-8 was now their special care. By restricting the interpretation to the express words of the instrument, they thought to prevent the dreaded consolidation of the Government. Still by the force of his argument, and by his influence with the party leaders, Hamilton was able to carry through Congress all of his great measures, though at times only by a small majority. Irritated by this, the Anti-Federalists accused him of using the public money in buying up votes-, and for the benefit of himself and of his friends, and jnoreover of having an undue influence with "Washington. Wash- ington had always acquiesced in Hamilton's measures, at times against the expressed wishes of Jefferson . The most serious charge against the Federalists was that they (especially Hamilton) were plotting to set up a monarchy ; and Jefferson went so far as to charge Washington with playing his part in the conspiracy. (Randall, II. 295.) Jefferson had kept a private journal — "Ana" — containing private convefsations that he had had with leading Federalists, in regard to the form of the new government ; and 1*^92] .IKFFERSOX AND IIAMILTOX. ?)." upon these was based the chai'ge of conspiracj'. These charges were frequentlj- brought np, especially in the House, and were finallj- reduced to the single one that he had violated Art. I. Sect. 9, clause 7, of the Constitution: "No money shall be drawn from the Treasury- but in consequence of appropriations made bj- law." The Secretary, it was asserted, had used for other purposes monej' appropi'iated by law for special objects. After a long de- bate the StCretarj' was exonerated by a vote of 37 to 7. (Benton, Deb., I. 418-440; Hildreth, IV. 393-404; Schouler, IV. 217-20.) During the first j'ears of the government all sorts of matters, even some not pertaining to his department, were referred to the Secretary of the Treasury. Jefferson complained that his own department was neglected, and affirmed that the influence and pati-onage already attached to the Treasury threatened to surpass that of the President himself. (Tucker, Life of Jefferson, I. 363 ; "Ana." February 28, 1792.) The subject of commerce having, therefore, been referred to Jefferson, he recommended in a report to Congress, December, 1793 (Works, Vol. VII.) a discrimination against England in favor of France. In the debate on Madison's resolutions, embody- ing this report, the Federalists opposed the discrimination (Jan. 1794). To the assertion that "there is no friendship in trade" Mr. Goodhue added that "there ought to be no hatred." (Benton, Deb., I. 472.) The English party favored England, the French partj- said, because the most of the commerce of the United States was with England. The fact was that with the return of peace our trade went back to England, not from friendship but in accordance with the laws of trade. The debate was finally postponed, no decision having been reached. These differences resulted in illjwill between Jefferson and Hamilton, and their disputes were transferred to the press. The Gazette of the United States represented Hamilton ; and the National Gazette, JefTerson. The appointment of Frenau— the editor of the latter paper — to a clerkship in the Department of State was much censured. Even Washington did not escape personal news- paper attacks. Hamilton, in his paper, defended his own conduct as opposed to that of Jefferson ; but the latter denied that he ever wrote for the National Gazette. Washington wrote to both of the Secretaries (August 22, 1792) vainly endeavoring to reconcile them. The differences grew more radical and bitter; and, Dec. 1793, Jefferson resigned his seat in the cabinet. 34 STATESMEN HAMILTON JEFFERSON. [1 792 Though at variance on nearlj- everj' political question, tlie fundamental difference was as to whether there should be a consolidated government or a loose confederation. Mr. Jetfer- son said, "I own I am not a friend to a verj- energetic govern- ment. It is always oppressive." He intended that the American s3-stem should be a democracy. Mr. Hamilton, on the contrary, " considered democracy a fatal curse, and meant to stop its prog- ress." (Adams, Life of Gallatin, 159.) On this ground the battle of political parties was fought, and was won by the Federalists. Mr. Curtis says of Hamilton : "The sagacity ^with which he comprehended all systems, and the tho- rough knowledge he possessed of the workings of all the freer institutions of ancient and modern times, united with a singular capacity to make the experience of the past bear on the actual state of society, rendered him one of the most useful statesmen that America has known. ... He understood America as thoroughly as the wisest of his contemporaries, and he comprehended Europe more completely than any other man of that age upon this continent." Prince TalljTand said of him : ' ' Hamilton avoit devind VEuroiie" (Curtis, I. 410-11, and note), and that of the three greatest men of the epoch — Napoleon, Fox and Hamilton — he considered Hamilton the greatest. (Shay, Hamilton, 33-4.) Professor Bluntschli of Heidelburg, in his lectures on politics, spoke of Hamilton alone among American statesmen, and considered him a greater statesman than Burke. Jefferson's abilitj' laj' in the field of diplomacy. He was inferior to Hamilton both in creative power and in debate, but a theorist of great ideas and noble aims. It is hardlj' probable, however, that his system would have succeeded, since a consolidated gov- ernment has barely withstood the storms of party and sectional strife ; still the opposition of the Anti-Federalists may have served to restrain the Federalists from a too liberal construction of the Constitution. Two other leading statesmen of the time were Washington and Madison. The virtues of Washington entitle him to the perpetual reverence and esteem of the American people. He had not the creative genius of Hamilton, nor the philosophic mind of Jefferson ; but he was surpassed by none in correctness of judgment. He could not have been, and never desired to be, a partisan ; his own conservative views and the logic of Hamilton induced him to ap- [1^792 MAinSOX POLITICAL PAHTIES. 3") prove the Federalist policj-. Though Hamilton was the control- ling mind of his administration, Washington's letters, state papers — especially his farewell address (Stat. Man., I. 31-78) — eonaparo favorably with those of any of our statesmen. Madison was really the working leader of the Anti-Federalist party, In power of debate he was second only to Hamilton. Through the Revolutionary struggle, in the Constitutional and ratifying con- ventions, these two men had worked together. To them mainlj- was due the adoption of the Constitution. Madison, indeed, was called the father of the Constitution ; with Hamilton and Jay, he wrote ''The Federalist" — a classic in our politics. In the debate over Hamilton's financial system, however, Madison first stood in opposition to Hamilton. His friends assert that he was unwilling to follow the Federalists in enlarging the actual powers vested in the. General Government by the Constitution. His opponents say -that he went over to Anti-Federalism, not from his own convictions, but because his state, Virginia, was strongly Anti-Federalist, and in order to escape removal from political service. Von Hoist says of him (I. 160) : "There was nothing of the demagogue, about him. He is a purely constituted character, spite of the fact that his moral principles did not so unconditionally govern him as to leave his judgment entirely uninfluenced by his desires." The Federalist party had the greater number of eminent states- men ; and got most of its support from the North. The South was mainly Anti-Federalist. The part}- lines had been drawn in regard to questions of forms of government and of domestic legislation ; but the Anti-Federalists had, however, condemned both the Constitution and Hamilton's financial measures as being copied from the English system of government ; and with the masses the hatred against England was still an active principle. On the other hand France, both on account of the assistance she had rendered the United States in the war of the Revolution, and on account of her present struggle for freedom, was an object of the warmest sympathy. The Federalists believed that the English Constitution, with the necessary modifications, was the best adapted to the traditions and habits of thought of the American people. They preferred Eng- lish methods, the result of centuries of experience, rather than to build a system of government upon a theoretical basis, of whose success in practice there could be no assurance. In fact, the Con- federation was such a government, and it was a complete failure. 36 PARTIES FOREIGN RELATIONS. [1792 As to the French revolution, the Federalists, in general looked upon the Republican atrocities with abhorrence, and saw in them the inherent tendencies to anarchj- in a government purelj- dem- ocratic. In this state of feeling, at the outbreak of war between England and France in 1793, the Anti-Federalists, or Republicans, as the^- now called themselves, were in favor of espousing the cause of France, and insisted upon the fulfilment ou the part of the United States of the stipulations of the treaty 6f 1778. The Federalists, and more particularly the Administration, resolved to follow a strictly neutral policy as between the two belligerents. For several years all domestic questions were subordinated to this one of foreign policy ; the parties even were known as the French and British parties. See on political parties and men at this period : Hildreth, IV. 331-372 ; Schouler, I. 165-178 and 200-212 ; Curtis' History of the Constitution (I. 393-432) gives a sketch of the characters of Washington, Hamilton, and Madison; Von Hoist, I. 106-112; Gibbs, Mem. of Walcott,Vol. I. ; Tucker, Hist, of United States, I. 485-492 and 501-503 ; Morse, Life of Hamilton, I. 370-425 ; Lodge, Life of Hamilton ; Tucker, Life of JeiTerson ; Rives, Life of Madison, Vol. III. ; Marshall, Life of Washington (abridged edition), II. 205-fi, and 227-235 ; Van Bui-en, Political Parties in the United States. V. Foreign Relations. Previous to the adoption of the Constitution, owing to the weak- ness of the Government, and its consequent discredit abroad, the United States had been able to contract but five treaties with foreign nations, namely, France (1778), Holland (1782), Sweden (1783), England (Treaty of Peace, 1783), Prussia (1785). 1. Relations with England. — The Treaty of Peace of Septem- ber 3, 1783, established the boundaries of the United States, and settled other questions of dispute. (Stat, at L., VIII. 80 ; U. S. Treaties, 314.) Art. II. of this treaty established the following boundary (Map— Part 1,- Blue Book, 1843, LXI. 170; Dominion Atlas, 28, 42, 48, 56). "From the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, vis. : that angle which is formed by a line drawn due north from the source of the St. Croix River to the Highlands; along the said Highlands which divide those rivers that empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic 1783] TREATY OF PEACE OP 1783. 37 ocean, to the north-westernmost head of the Connecticut River, thence down along the middle of that river to the 45° north latitude ; from thence by a line due west on said latitude, until it strikes the river Iroquois or Cataraqu}" ; . . . . from Lake Superior to the Long Lake ; through the Lake of the Woods to the most north- western point thereof, and thence on a line due west to the river Mississippi. (Map^Am. State Papers, I. 493.) The Mississippi was to be the western boundary, and the 31° north latitude the southern boundary. Art. III. gave the right of iishery in certain British American waters "where the inhabitants of both countries used at any time heretofore to fish," and of drj-ing fish on certain unsettled shores of the British possessions. Art. IV. that "creditors on either side should meet with no law- ful impediment to the recovery of the full value, in sterling money, of all bona fide debts heretofore contracted." Art. VII. The British armies and navies were to be withdrawn with all convenient speed, and without causing any destruction, or carrying away any negroes or other property, from every harbor, post, or place, etc. Art. VIII. The navigation of the Mississippi was to remain free to citizens of the United States. Disputes afterwards arose between the two countries as to the meaning of some parts of the treaty, notably, the language defining - the northern boundary, which will be mentioned in their proper places. The United States complained moreover of infractions of the treaty on the part of Great Britain, in that negroes had been car- ried awaj' contrary to the stipulation of Article VII ; and that the British troops had not been withdrawn from the western posts. On the other hand, Great Britain maintained that the negroes carried awaj- had been freed by British commandei-s during the war and did not come under the stipulations of Art. VII., and in regard to the withdrawal of troops, that it had been delayed because the Urfited States had not carried out the provisions of Article IV. in regard to British debts, the individual states having in many cases prevented their legal recovery. (Hildreth, IV. 136, 453 ; the case of Ware vs. Hj-lton (Dallas' Rep. III. 199) involves the question of these debts) . Other causes of complaint on the part of the United States were, that British officers incited the Indians to hostilities against 38 FOREIGN RELATIONS GREAT BRITAIN. [1791-4 the United States. The navigation law, excluding American ves- sels from the British West Indies, had been made perpetual b}- a late act of Parliament, and was now strictly enforced ; it seemed ' to be the policy of the British government to prevent the growth of American commerce. The impressment of American seamen by British commanders was another source of great irritation. Great Britain had refused to enter into commercial or diplomatic relations with the government of the Confederation. In 1791, however, Mr. Hammond was sent as minister to the United States. And at once there arose between Mr. Hammond and Mr. Jefferson, Secretary of State, a discussion of the points in dispute between the two countries. But the difference of opinion was so radical that no settlement of them seemed possible. In the mean time, hostilities having commenced between Great Britain and France, the first named pow^er, by the orders in coun- cil of June 8 and November 6, 1793, instructed its commanders to detain all vessels carrying corn, flour, and meal to France or anj- French colony, and to take possession of the cargoes on payment for the same. France retaliated ; and thus was begun a policy which eventually nearly annihilated the commerce of the United - States — commercially one of the most important neutral states. Congress retaliated by la5'ing an embargo for thirty daj-s (June 4', 1794. Stat, at L., I. 372), which was extended to sixty days. Propositions were made in the House to confiscate British debts ; and to resort to non-importation acts in regard to Great Britain. (Benton, Deb., I. 480-502.) Hamilton proposed an immediate increase of the army and navj'. Had these measures finally passed war would have been almost inevitable. It was about this time, too, (January 1794) that the debate on Madison's resolutions took place, proposing a discrimination in •duties against Great Britain. (Benton, Deb., I. 464-472.) In this critical state of affairs, Washington decided to make a last attempt at a peaceable solution of the difficulties. To this end he nominated Chief-Justice Jay as minister extraordinary to England for' the purpose of negotiating a treaty, April 19, 1794. (Von Hoist, I. 122-123 ; Schouler, I. 265-271 ; Hildreth, IV. 481t490.) As the result of Jay's mission, a treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation was negotiated with Great Britain on November 19, 1794. (Treaties, 318, 935 ; Stat, at L., VIII. 116.) l'^94] jay's treaty. 39 Art. II. British troops to be withdrawn from the western posts by the 1st of June, 1796. Art. IV. Provided for a survey of the sources of the Mississippi Eiver, and the regulation of the boundarj- in that quarter. Art. V. Provided for the appointment of a joint commission to decide what was the "St. Croix." Art. VI. Certain British creditors to be indemnified ; also American merchants who had lost property through British captures. Art. XII. Allowed vessels under 70 tons burthen to trade with the British West Indies, except in the following articles : molasses, sugar, coffee, cocoa, and cotton. (On account of these exceptions the 12th article of the treaty was rejected by the Senate.) Art. XIII. Secured reciprocal trade with the British East Indies, with certain exceptions. Art. XIV. Reciprocal trade with all British possessions in Europe. Art. XV. Equalized duties between the two countries as nearly as possible, and "no other or higher duties shall be paid by the ships or merchandise of the one party in the ports of the other, than such as are paid by the like vessels or merchandise of all other nations," (This is '■Hhe most favored nation" clause.) Art. XVIII. Enumerates the articles which shall be considered contraband of war ; among which are all arms and implements of war ; and also naval stores, and materials in general for building ships when destined for an enemy. And further, provisions were permitted to be bought up when in the predicament of contraband.^ Art. XXI. Citizens of neither state were to accept commissions or fit out vessels for a nation at war with the other. Art. XXVII. Provided for the extradition of criminals, but in cases of murder or forgery only. The first ten articles were to be permanent ; the others (in ref- erence to commerce) were limited in duration to twelve j'ears. The treaty was ratified by the Senate and proclaimed by the President, Febi-uary 29, 1796. Even before the true character of the treat3' became known, the suspicion that it favored England caused great opposition throughout the country. Public meetings were held and several mobs occurred. (Hildreth, IV. 547-565 ; Schouler, I. 295, 6.) I. France and other continental states have generally refused to consider naval stores as contraband, and provisions in no case whatever. 40 FOREIGN RELATIONS. [1794 In the House the merits of the treaty were reviewed in the dis- cussion of two propositions : (1) To call upon the President for all state papers concerning the treatj- ; (2) To appropriate the sum necessaiy to carry out the provisions of the treaty. The House claimed the right to judge the treaty, as it contained a regulation of commerce and also required an appropriation of money. Washington believed that the House did not possess this right in regard to treaties, and refused its demand. (Benton, Deb., I. 692, and note.) The vote — 51 to 48' — to appropriate the sum ($90,000) neces- sary to carry out the provisions of the treaty was passed then (as it has often been the case since) rather on the ground of expediency than because the, House withdrew its claim to the right both to discuss the merits of a treat}-, and, if it chose, to refuse, by appro- priation, to carry it out. On the one hand, it was said, that if the House had this right, it, in effect, participated with the President and the Senate in making treaties ; on the other hand, if the House muat appropriate funds necessary to carry out a treaty which shall have been ratified by the Senate and signed by the President, then the Senate and President are masters of the appropriating power. (Benton, Deb., I. 754, note.) "If (says Cooley, Const. Law, 103) by a treaty a sum of money is to be paid to a foreign nation it becomes the duty of Congress to make the necessary appropriation ; but in the nature of things this is a duty the per- formance of which cannot be coerced (i. e. can not be compelled by any process of execution). "That the House caii, without violating anj'^ express clause of the Constitution, refuse an appro- priation, is clear ; but that is far from proving the moral right of such a refusal." (Trescot, 123.) In the opinion of the Attorney- General, and of Washington, the House was bound to take such action. Congress, however, has never renounced the claim of discretionary power, and the same subject came up in the cases of the Gadsden Purchase of 1854, of Alaska in 1867, and of the Fisheries Awards in 1878. (Op. of Att.-Gen., VI. 296.) The debate lasted from March 7th to April 7th, 1796. The Opposition had a small majority, and it seemed probable that the House would refuse to vote the necessary appropriations, when Fisher Ames of Massachusetts, in a very e^loquent and patriotic speech (Benton, Deb., I. 743), induced the House to vote the ap- propriation. For, the inducements to let the Treaty stand as I'Sfi] THE JAY TREATY. 41 summed up by Marshall were : "If Congress refused to perform the Treat}' on the part of the United States, a compliance on the part of Great Britain could not be expected. The ports on the great lakes would still be occupied bj- British garrisons ; no com- pensation would be made for American vessels illegally captured ; the hostile dispositions which had been excited would be restored with increased aggravation ; and that these dispositions must infal- libly lead to war, was implicitly believed." (Benton, Deb., 754, N. and the whole debate, Ibid. 639-754 ; Speech of Gallatin, Ibid. 735 ; Hildreth, IV. 539-547, 584-618 ; Schouler, I. 289-297, 308- 314 ; Tucker, I. 569-593 ; Marshall, Life of Washington (abridged edition), II. 377-386 ; Von Hoist, I. 121-128.) It was said by the opponents of the treaty, mainly Anti-Fed- eralists, that it sacrificed American interests in regard to commerce and neutral rights, and left unsettled the question of impressment of American seamen, and abandoned the claim for indemnity for the negroes carried away. But probably the fact which excited the greatest enmity against it was that such a treaty with Great Britain would be a direct affront to France. Jefferson called the treaty "an alliance between England and Anglomen in this country.'' It is true that the treaty was not very favorable for the United States, and yet it is also true that it was a great beneiit to the country. It gave time, at least, for the country to acquire greater strength and firmness, to settle other foreign questions, and prob- ably it prevented a war with Great Britain.' 2. ReldVions with France. — The object of the alliance between France and the Colonies (1778) had been, according to Art. II., "to maintain effectually the liberty, sovereignty, and independence, absolute and unlimited, of the said United States, as well in mat- ters of government as of commerce." But most important in the Treat}- of Alliance is Art. XI.: "The two parties guarantee I As to the questions of boundary; a convention in 1803 fixed the boundary between the Lake of the Woods and the Mississippi ("the shortest line"). The commission on the question of the St. Croix met at Halifax, March 1798, determining upon the river, but left unsettled the place of its source. (Treaties, 334; Stat, at L., VI!I. 131.) Two mixed com- missions were instituted to settle the claims of creditors : one, in the case of the British creditors, met at Philadelphia; on account of a disagreement this commission was discon- tinued in 1798, and the matter was settled by convention, signed by Rufus King on January 8, 1S02, the United States agreeing to pay 600,000 pounds sterling. (Treaties, 336, 1014.) The commission to consider the claims of American merchants met at London, and fin- ished its work in 1804, having awarded in all, over 1,250,000 pounds sterling. (Ibid. 1015-16.) 42 FOREiaS RELATIONS FRAKCE. [1793 mutuall}' from the present time, and forever, against all other powers, to wit : The United States (to France its) .... present possessions . ... in America, as well as those which it may acquire by the future treatj- of peace; And (France) " to the United States their liberty, sovereignty, etc. , and their possessions and additions by conquest. Art. XII. declares that "in case of a rupture between France and England, the reciprocal guarantee, declared in said Art. (XI.), shall have its full force and effect the moment such war shall break out." (Treaties, 241.) By the " Consular Convention," 1788 (Stat, at L., VIII. 108 ; Treaties, 260), between the United States and France, Consuls were given extensive and extraordinary jurisdiction over their countrymen travelling in the country where they were stationed. The Convention gave them the power of appointing agents in various places, and of establishing a chancery as a place of deposit for consular proceedings, for obligations, and for other acts, by or between persons of their nation, and for legacies or property saved from shipwreck. In this chancery they exercised extensive powers and jurisdiction. On the outbreak of war between France and England in 1793, the Republicans of France, expecting the aid and sympathy of the United States, sent Citizen Genet as minister to this country for the purpose of organizing naval expeditions against England. On his arrival at Charleston, South Carolina, April 9, 1793, he was received with great enthusiasm by the people ; and began at once to enlist American citizens, to fit out privateers and to commission them to cruise against the enemies of France. He also authorized French consuls throughout the United States to erect themselves into prize courts in cases of vessels captured by French cruisers and brought into American ports. These proceedings did not fall within the stipulations of the treaties with France, unless the United States were to be considered an active ally in the war. The cruisers sent out by Genet captured several British vessels, one of them within the capes of Delaware Bay (American waters) , the restitution of whiph was demanded by the British minister. (Hil- dreth, IV. 416-420.) News of the French declaration of war against England excited the deepest anxiety in Washington and his Cabinet. By the treaty of commerce (Art. XVII.) French privateers and prizes were entitled to shelter in the American ports — a slielter not to be 1793] NEUTRAL POLICY. 43 extended to the enemies of France. By the Treat}' of Alliance the United States were bound, in express terms, to guarantee the French possessions in America. The President and the Federal leaders felt that, in the condition of the country, to join in a European war would endanger the very existence of Republican government in America. For, an insurrection was threatened in Western Pennsylvania, serious party dissensions existed, the fun- damental institutions of government were hardlj^ yet organized and settled, the debts of the country in proportion to its resources were very large, and Indian wars existed in the West. Washington being in doubt whether, in view of the treat}' stip- ulations, a neutral policy would be consistent with the duty of the government, submitted this and kindred subjects to his Cabinet (April 18, 1793) . It was unanimously agreed that a proclamation of neutrality should 'issue, that the new French minister should be received, and that a special session of Congress was not necessary. Upon other points there were differences of opinion. Hamilton, with whom Knox concurred, thought that the reception of Genet should be with an express reserve of the question as to the binding force of the treaties. (Hildreth, IV. 413.) France could change its government, but could not hold the United States to treaties made with a view to a different state of things. As to the effect of the guarantee, they held that it did not apply to an offensive war on the part of France (France had been the first to declare war). Jefferson, whom Randolph inclined to support, thought the treaties as binding in case of the republic as in case of the king. (On this point International Law agrees with Jefferson rather than with Hamilton.) As to the effect of the guarantee they declined to give any opinion^ it not being at present necessary, though they believed it binding. Yet, by agreeing to the proclamation of neutrality, they concurred in putting a limit to the binding force of the guarantee, rather difficult to reconcile with its existence at all. The Proclamation (Stat. Man., I. 46) was issued April 22, and announced that the United States would pursue a friendl}' and impartial conduct toward all the belligerent powers, a course alike required by their duty and their interest ; warned citizens to act accordingly ; and declared that the Government would not interfere on behalf of those who might expose themselves to punishment or forfeiture under the law of nations by aiding or abetting either of 44 FOREIGN RELATIONS FRANCE. [1793 the belligerents, and would cause all such acts done within the jurisdiction of the United States to be prosecuted in the proper courts. (Hildreth, IV. 415.) Though not containing the word neutral, the Proclamation was in effect one of neutralitJ^ As this was made a part}- question, Hamilton wrote in its defence seven letters under the name of "Paciflcus" ; on the other hand, Madison opposed it under the name "Helvidius" — pronounced bj- some his ablest work. (V. H., I. 114-15 ; Gideon's Edition of Federalist, 1818; Madison's Writings, I. 611-654.) To give legal force to the principles of this Proclamation, an act, since celebrated as the "Xeutralitj- Act" (Stat. atL., I. 381), was passed the next j'ear, June 5, 1794. This act made it punish- able, with fine and imprisonment: Sect. 1, for any citizen to "•accept and exercise a commission to serve a foreign prince or state in war by land or sea'' ; Sect. 2, to enlist to go bej'ond the jurisdiction of the United States with the intent to enter such ser- vice ; Sect. 3, to fit out or aid in fitting out ships of war in the waters of the United States to be commissioned in the service of a foreign state at peace with the United States ; Sect.- 4, to increase the force or armament of any ship of war in the service of a foreign state at war with a state friendly to the United States. Sect. 6 provided " that the district courts shall take cognizance of com- plaints .... in cases of captures made within the waters of the United States, or within a marine league of the coasts or shores thereof." The act was to be in force for two years ; it was contin- ued bj- the Act of 1797, and made permanent bj- the Act of 1800.^ The neutral policy of the United States in 1793, enforced by the above acts, vnt of Representatives under the first census was made April 14, 1792. (Stat, at L., I. 253, and see table in Appendix.) Presidential Elections. — By the Act of March 1, 1792 (Stat. -at L., I. 239) the electors of President and Vice-President were to be appointed in such manner as the state legislatures might prescribe, within thirty-four days preceding the first Wednesday in December ; changed by the Act of January 2.3, 1845, to the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November (except in the case of a vacancy) . (Revised Stat., Sections 131 and 147-49.) In the case of the removal for any reason of both the President and Vice-President, various suggestions were made as to the person to fill the vacancy temporarily : The Chief Justice, the President 56 WHISKEY INSURRECTION. [1794 pro tempore of the Senate, the Secretary of State, and Secretary of the Treasuiy , were named. The President pro tern, of the Sen- ate and in case there were none, the Speaker of the House, were fixed upon to act till the removal of the disability or a new election. In case of the necessity of such election, the Secretary of State shall notify the executives of the respective states, and " if there shall be the space of two months yet to ensue between the date of such notification and the first Wednesday in December then next ensuing, such notification shall specify that the electors shall be appointed or chosen within thirty-four days preceding such first Wednesday in December." If there be not two months, etc and the term of the President and Vice-President last in office will not expire on the third of March ensuing, then the electors shall be chosen, with the same conditions as to the time, the year next ensuing. If there be be not two months, etc as above men- tioned, and the term of the President and Vice-President last in office expire on the third of March next ensuing, then there shall be no new election. The act also fixed the 4th of March as the day on which the presidential term should begin. (Eevised Stat., 131-151 ; Cooley, 51 and note 4.) Electors at first were chosen in four ways : (1) By joint ballot of both houses (of the legislature) ; (2) By concurrent vote of both houses ; (3) Bj' the people voting a general ticket (the method now in use) ; (4) By the people voting by districts. The last method, at first adopted by Massachusetts and Virginia, the states having the largest population, though favoring a full expres- sion of public opinion, was abandoned by them in 1800, because it rendered the success of one party throughout the state almost impossible. "The theor}- of the Constitution is that there shall be chosen by each state a certain number of its citizens, .... who shall indep'-:ndently cast their suffrages for the President and Vice- President of the United States .... This theoiy was followed in the first three presidential elections. ... In practice (now), the persons to be voted for are selected liy popular conventions in advance of the choice of electors, and these officers act as mere automata in registering the will of those who selected them." (Cooley, Const. Law, 142; Hildreth, IV. 324-6.) The Wliiskey Insurrection of 1794. — Resistance to the excise on domestic spirits had beguu soon after the excise law was passed, chiefl3' in North Carolina and the four western counties of Penn- sjlvania. A convention was held at Pittsburg on August 21, 1796-8] REDEMPTION OF THE DEBT DIRECT TAXES. 57 1792, of wbicli Gallatin was secretary ; resolutions were drawn up denouncing the excise, and declaring the intention to persist in every ' ' legal measure " that might obstruct the collection of the tax. On September 29, the President issued a proclamation, ex- horting all persons to desist from unlawful combinations. But the opposition continued in Western Pennsylvania, so that it was im- possible to collect tlie tax. (Hiklreth, IV. 373-76 ; Schouler, I. 215, 16.) In July, 1794, active measures were taken for the enforcement of the law. The officers were assaulted by mobs ; and Anally the rioters collected an organized army of several thousand men. On August 7, Washington issued a proclamation to the opposers of the law to desist, and a requisition to the governors of Pennsj'lvania, New Jerse}', Maryland, and Virginia, for a body of 13,000 men, raised afterward to 15,000. The men, with some reluctance, marched against the malcontents September 24th, and the insurrection was quelled without bloodshed. At first some of the Anti-Federalist leaders encouraged the opposition to the excise tax ; and later were opposed to the em- ployment of the militia in the suppression of the rebellion. This first successful trial of strength of the new government tended to its credit both at home and abroad. (Von Hoist, I. 94-104 ; Hil,- dreth, IV. 498-516 ; Schouler, I. 275-280.) ' The Redemption of the Debt. —By the Act of April 28, 1796, "the management of the debt was taken from the Treasury Depart- ment and vested in commissioners of the sinking fund. The duties on imports were made permanent, and the temporary taxes con- tinued to March 1, 1801. From these sources the debt could be cancelled, it was estimated, within twentj'-three years. (Hiklreth, IV. 536-8.) The increased expenses on account of the hostilities with France (1797-1808) prevented, during the" administrations of Washington and Adams, the realization of this expectation. (See for other acts and plans for the creation of a sinking fund and payment of the debt: Stat, at L., I. 144, 186, 282-3, 214, 433-8, 458, 562 ; Hiklreth, IV. 219, 388-91, 537-8 ; Schouler, I. 286.) Direct Taxes. — By the Act of July 9, 1798, a tax was levied upon lands, houses, and slaves. (Stat, at L., I. 580; Hildreth, V. 224.)' I Similar acts were passed July 22, 1813, and Jan. 9, 1815. (Stat, at L., III. 22, 164.) The tax upon carriages levied by Congress in 1794 was held by the Supreme Court not to be a direct tax within the meaning of the Constitution. (The case of Hylton v. the United States : Marshall's Writings, 489; Cooley, 62; Kent, Commentaries, I. 256.) '58 IMPEACHMENT THE NAVY. [1798 Impeachment. — The first case of impeachment under the Con- stitution was that of William Blount, Senator from Tennessee (1798). Blount was expelled from the Senate for taking part in a conspiracy to invade the Spanish territory. The House presented articles of impeachment, and the trial came on in December, 1798. Blount's counsel filed a plea denying the jurisdiction of the im- peachment court on two points: (1) That Senators were not "civil officers" of the United States, liable, to impeachment. (Const., Art. II., Sect 4) ; (2) That Blount, having been expelled from the Senate was not n"ow triable, even as a Senator. The Senate sustained the plea, probably on the first point. (Story, §§ 789-791, and on the general subject of impeachment, §§ 741- 811; Hildreth, V. 88, 187, 281; Schouler, I. 364, 5; Cooley, 158, 9 ; see also an article in " The Nation" of August 10, 1882, on "What is an Officer.?") Bankruptcy. — The Act of April 4, 1800, established a uniform sj'stem of bankruptcy throughout the United States. It was ex- tended, however, only to merchants and traders. (Stat, at L., II. 19 ; Hildreth, V. 346, 7; Schouler, I. 456.) The states may legislate upon this subject in the absence of uniform regulations imposed by Congress. (Cooley, 78.) The Navy. — Congress provided by the Act of March 27, 1794, for the construction of four ships of war carrying fortj'-four guns and of two carrying thirty-six guns. (Stat, at L., I. 350 ; Hil- dreth. IV. 480.) These ships were not immediately constructed. A supplementary act, April 20, 1796, appropriated money for the completion of three frigates ; and as war with France seemed probable, the navy was soon increased to six frigates, twelve sloops of war, and six smaller vessels. Three of these frigates, the Constitution, United States, and Constellation, were launched early in 1798, and did good service. On account of the increasing importance of the navy, a separate executive department was created April 30, 1798, for naval affairs. The first Seeretarj- of the Navy was Benjamin Stoddard, of Mary- land. (Stat, at L., I. 553; Hildreth, V. 206, 222; Cooper, Naval History of the United States, Vol. I.) The Alien and Sedition Laws. — (1) The "Act concerning aliens" o^ Jan. 25, 1798 (Stat, at L., I. 570) provided " that it shall be lawful for the President of the United States .... to order all such aliens as he shall judge dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States, etc to den.qrt out of the territorv .... ^''98] ALIEN AND SEDITION LAWS. 59 within siioh time as shall be expressed withia such order." In case of non-compliance, an alien might be " imprisoned for a term not exceeding three years, and shall never after be admitted to become a citizen of the United States." The President was au- thorized to gTant licenses to aliens to remain within the territorj' of the United States on the conditions which he might exact. The President was also empowered to order the removal {i. e. , bj- force) of aliens imprisoned under this act, or those refusing to depart in accordance with orders. And should such aliens volun- tarily return "they shall be imprisoned so long as, in the opinion of the President, the, public safety may require." The Circuit and district courts were to have jurisdiction over offences against this act ; and marshals and other officers of the United States were to execute the orders of the President in res- pect to such offences. The Circuit Court decided that when once a rule of action had been established, in all similar cases marshals could act under an implied order from the President. This act referred to aliens in time of peace. An act respecting alien enemies in time of war, was passed Ally 6, 1798. (Stat, at L., I. 577.) In case of war or threatened invasion, the citizens or subjects of the hostile government were to be liable to appre- hension" and removal. Time was to be allowed for their departure, unless the public safety would be endangered thereby. ' The Sedition Act ^ declared it to be a public crime, punishable with fine (not exceeding $2,000) and imprisonment (not exceed- ing two years), for any persons to unlawfully combine and eon- spire together with intent to oppose any measure of the United States, or with such intent to aid in procuring anj- insurrection, or to write, print, utter, or publish, or to procure to be written anj' false, scandalous, and malicious writings against the Government of the United States, or either House of Congress, or the Presi- dent, with intent to defame them or to stir up sedition, or to organ- ize or aid in organizing resistance to any law, or to any lawful act of the President, or to aid any hostile designs of foreign nations against the United States. T This ^vas in accordance with the rule of the law of nations. The present custom is, not to molest alien enemies so long as they remain peaceable. A noted exception to this custom took place in the expulsion of the Germans from Paris in 1870. ■2 The Sedition Act was passed July 14, 179S (Stat, at L., I. 596), and was entitled an "Act in addition to the 'Act for the punishment of certain crimes against tlje United States.' " The act referred to (Ibid. I., 112, passed April 30, 1790) fixed the penalties for treason, &c. {Supra., p. 54.) -a 60 VIRGINIA AND KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS. [1798 Sect. 3 provided that a person accused under this law could "give, in evidence in his defence, the truth of the matter contained in the publication charged as libel." The act was to continue in force till March 3, 1801. Objection was made to the Alien Act that it was unconstitutional, in interfering with the trial hy jurj- and with the right of the states to admit, prior to 1808, foreigners with- out anj' restriction. In regard to the acts concerning aliens, the}' were never carried into efFect. (Hildreth, V. 216 ; Schouler, I. 394, 420; Benton, Deb., II. 280-6.) But it v^s considered as unwise to vest such unlimited and arbitrary power in the hands of the executive. As to the Sedition Act, the Anti-Federalists (Republicans) maintained that the Federal courts had no common law jurisdic- tion in criminal cases ; and not having tlie jurisdiction over sedi- tion and libel (common law offences) expressly granted to them by act of Congress, thej' therefore had none at all. Although the question did not immediately come before the Su- preme Court, the law was sustained by the Circuit Court in several cases ; and all the justices of the Supreme Court, except Chase, believed in the constitutionality of the law. (Hildreth, V. 230.) At a later time the Supreme Court decided, however, that the Federal Courts had no common law jurisdiction in criminal mat- ters. (Case of the United States v. Hudson & Goodwin, 7 Cranch, 32 ; Kent, I., 332-341 ; Cooley, 130-31.) Aside from the question of the constitutionalit}', this law "was certainly inexpedient, and contrary to the spirit if not the letter of the Constitution. The masses opposed it ; and mainly on this account the Federalist party was defeated in 1800. (Hildreth, V. 225-233 ; Schouler, I. 396-99 ; Cooley, 94, 95 ; Adams, Life of Gallatin, 203-209 ; Young, American Statesman, 170-72 ; Von Hoist, I. 142, 3 ; Tucker, II. 74 et seq.) The prosecutions under the Sedition Law are given in Whar- ton's State Trials. See also Hildreth, V. 247-50 (Trial of Mathew Lyon) , 365, 6, (Trial of Holt and Cooper) , 367, 8, (Trial of C'allen- der) ; Schouler I. 421, 449. These laws were the immediate incitement to the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798-9, passed by the legislatures of those states, respectively. The Virginia Resolutions mf Dec. 21, 1798 (Elliot's Deb., IV. 528; Writings of Ma.dison, IV. 506), drawn up bj' Madison, "after avowing a firm attachment to the Constitu- 1798] VIRGINIA AND KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS. 61 tion, and a determination to support it, declare that the legislature 'views the powers of the Federal Government as resulting from the compact to which the states are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact ; as no further valid than thej- are authorized by the grants enumer- ated in that compact ; and that, in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted by the said compact, the States, who are the parties thereto, have tlie right and are in duty bound to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits the author- ities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them.' " That the Alien and Sedition Acts were such infractions of the compact ; . . . . and finally that the state of Virginia declared those laws unconstitu- tional, and not laiv, hut utterly null, void, and of no effect, and appealed to the other states to join in this declaration. The above words in italics were struclt out in the house of delegates. Of the Kentuckj' Resolutions, drawn up by Jefferson, there were two sets : the first of which, November 10, 1798 (Elliott's Deb. IV. 540; Jefferson's Works, IX. 464), after declaring that the Con- stitution was a compact between the states and the government founded by it, proceeded to assert that "this government, created bj' this compact, was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers, but that, as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress"? The second, passed in the following year (November 14), declared "that a nullificalion hy the states of all unauthorized acts done under color of the Constitution is the rightful remedy." Jefferson's authorship of the Kentuekj- Resolutions was not gen- erally known till man}- j-ears afterward. In reply to Taylor of Virginia, who thought "that it was not unwise now to estimate the separate mass of Virginia and North Carolina with a view to their separate existence," Jefferson had written, June 1, 1798, "that it would not be wise to proceed immediately to a disruption of the Union when party passion was at such a height." "Considering these views it is not to be wondered at that, in consequence of the Alien and Sedition laws, Jefferson began to see the question in a new light." (Von Hoist, I. 14.3.) 62 VIRGINIA AND KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS. [1798 The Virginia Resolutions were sent to the legislatures of the other states, but met with no favorable response. (Elliot's Deb., IV.) It was because of this unfavorable reception that the Kentuckj- Resolutions were passed, and that Madison's Report (Feb. 1800) on the Virginia Resolutions was made to the legislature of Virginia. It is an able and exhaustive argument for the resolutions and indi- rectly for nulHfication (though this word is not employed in the report). It gave Calhoun in 1830, 2 the basis for his argument in defence of State rights. Madison examines mainly three ques- tions : (1) " Whtther indications have appeared of a design to expound certain general phrases (e. g., "of providing for the com- mon defence and general welfare") copied from the 'Articles of Confederation,' so as to destroy the effect of the particular enumer- ation explaining and limiting their meaning ; (2) Whether this exposition would, hy degrees, consolidate the states into one sov- ereignty ; (3) AVhether the tendency and result of this consolida- tion would be to transform the republican system of the United States into a monarch}'." (Writings of Madison, IV. 515-55 ; Elliott's Deb., IV. 546-80.) Mr. Madison strongly protested against the use made of his res- olution and reports (of 1798-1800) by the nullifiers of 1830-33 ; aud wrote a great number of letters to leading statesmen endeavor- ing to prove that the principle of nullification was not involved in the Virginia Resolutions of 1798. See especially his letter to Edward Everett, of August, 1830 (Writings, IV. 95 ; other letters in the same volume, pp. 166, 204, 225, 228, 231, 269, 335, 395, 425). On the early influence of these resolutions, see the speech of Hayne in the debate between him and, Webster; He quotes Jef- ferson as his "high aud imposing authority in support of the Carolina Doctrine." (C. K. Adams, Manual of Historical Litera- ture, p. 611.) Von Hoist has carefully considered the subject of these resolu- tions and the connection of Jefferson and Madison therewith in Volume I. pp. 143-167. See also : Hildreth, V. 272-77, 319, 20 ; Schouler, I. 422-425 and note to 424 ; Adams, Life of Gal- latin, 211-12 ; Tucker, Vol. II. ; Cooley, Constitutional Law, 95, 96. 1793-5] 1 CABINET CHANGES. 63 VI. Presidential Elections and Political Changes. In 1792, "Washington was for the second time unanimously chosen President. John Adams, receiving 77 votes, was elected Vice-President, in opposition to George Clinton, the Anti-Feder- alist candidate. (Appendix, p. 37.) Cabinet Changes. — Jefferson resigned Dec. 31, 1793, and was succeeded by Edmund Randolph, the Attorney-General, William Bradford of Pennsjdvania succeeding Randolph in the Depart- ment of Justice ; and on Bradford's death the next year this jDOsi- tion was given to Charles Lee of Virginia. . At the end of the year 1794 Hamilton resigned, and on his own recommendation was succeeded as Secretary of the Treasurj' by Oliver Wolcott, the Comptroller in that department. Knox re- tired from the AVar Office at about the same time, and was succeeded b}' Timotly Pickering, of Massachusetts, who had been Post- master-General since 1791. (Hildretli, IV. .538; Schouler, I. 286-88.) Randolph resigned in 1795, having been charged with using his influence against the Jaj' Treaty, and with an attempt to obtain money from the French Minister, Fauchet. (Von Hoist, I. 119, 120; Hildreth, IV. 556; Schouler, I. 296-301.) The office of Secretary of State having been declined by several gentlemen was flnallj- accepted by Timothy Pickering, the Secretary of War. The War Department was given to James McHenrj- of Marj'land. B.y these changes the Cabinet was reduced to statesmen of sec- ondary ability. (Schouler, I. 301-304; Hildreth, IV. 570,71.)' It was difficult to get the best men to serve in Congj'ess or in the Cabinet. Jefferson retired parti}- because his official acts were in the main opposed to his convictions, and partlj- because he de- sired more effectively to exercise the leadership of his party than was possible as a cabinet officer. Resigning soon after his brilliant correspondence with Genet, he retired with much Mat. Hamilton's retirement was due in part to the growing opposition to his measures, and in part to a desire to attend to his private affairs. " The Republican majority had questioned his integrity, and the custom had arisen of referring to committees all important questions of finance and government. The leading measures of this session (1794-5) — for the gradual redemption of the public (jebt — was based, though with many changes, upon Hamilton's 64 THE ELECTION OF 1796. [1796 Report. The management of the public debt was taken from the Treasury and vested in Commissioners of the Sinking Fund. The temporary duties were made permanent, and the excise tax was continued until 1801. (Hildreth, V. 536-8.) Claims of all sorts had been referred to the Treasury Depart- ment, though they did not properly belong there. Hamilton remonstrated against the practice, and a standing committee on claims was instituted (Nov. 1794). Gallatin "brought forward a resolution, Dec. 17, 1795, for the appointment of 'a committee to superintend the geyiercd operations of finance.' . . . This is the origin of the standing committee of Ways and Means, the want of which hitherto he ascribed, it seems, to Mr. Hamilton's jealousj' of legislative supervision. A commit- tee of fourteen was elected by the House." (Adams, Life of Gallatin, 157, 172.) The election of 1796 was closely contested and resulted in the election of John Adams as President and Thomas Jefferson as Vice-President. (Appendix, p. 37.) Many leading Federalists would have preferred the election of Jajr, or at least some other than Adams. They perceived him to be headstrong, and to follow his honest convictions regardless of party interests. But Adams' long public service and patriotic ardor had given him a strong hold upon the favor of the masses, whilst Jay was just at that time unpopular on account of his authorship of the British Treaty. The Federalist leaders adopted a plan Xiy which Thomas Pinck- ney, nominally selected. for Vice-President, was to be brought in ahead of Adams, by drawing to himself some Southern votes. This plan failed, but it caused Adams to withdraw his confidence from the Federalist leaders, and inaugurated those intrigues which hastened the downfall of the party. The sectional distribution of parties was quite marked ; Adams carried nearlj' all of the Northern States, while the South was mainly Republican. (Schouler, I. 327-8, 334, 5 ; Hildreth, IV 687-91 ; Von Hoist, I. 133-34.) Much fault was found with the method of election, bj' which it was possible that the President should be of one political partj- and the Vice-President of the other ; but no change was made until after the succeeding presidential election. Adams followed Washington's policy ; and continued the Cabinet nnebano-fid. CHildreth. V. 95-4--:> : Sphniilpr. T .S4.ia4. ^ 1798-9] FEDERALIST FEUDS. 65 Foreign relations — especially witli France — were the principal coueeru of this Administration. The rejection of Pinckney, and the X. Y. Z. correspondence, aroused great indignation against France, and brought about a reaction among the masses in favor of the Federalist administration. An increase of the army and navy was voted with little opposition. But feuds within the Fed- eralist party counteracted the effect of these movements. After the failure of the first mission to France and the ill-treat- ment which it received, Adams declared that no other commission would be sent until the French Government gave assurance that it would ibe received and negotiations be begun. Soon, however, Van Murray — the United States minister at the Hague — informed the President that France had given such assurance, and thereupon, though preparations for war were in progress, and without consult- ing his Cabinet or any one else, Adams determined to send another commission to France, and nominated Van Murray as minister plenipotentiary to that country. This aroused great indignation and opposition among the Federalists. They asserted that Adams had no authority to send a second commission, and that, after the insults received from France, further negotiations wonld be a humiliation to the United States. The Federalists were greatly incensed by this action of Adams, and the nomination was likely to be rejected by the Senate. But on the addition to the commis- sion of Chief-Justice Ellsworth and Governor Davie of North Carolina the nominations were confirmed. The members of the Cabinet felt grieved, however, at not being consulted in the matter, and thus the President and his advisers were no longer in accord. (Hildreth, V. .324; Schouler, I. 430-35.) The cabinet plot, however, which caused an open breach, occurred in regard to the selection of the leading officers of the provisional army, raised in view of a war with France. All were agreed in the selection of Washington for the chief command. For the sec- ond place (or first Major-General) , Adams favored Knox, but the Cabinet, especially Pickering, Wolcott, and McHenr}', favored Hamilton. In the absence of Adams, "Washington was induced to make the selection of Hamilton as second in command a condition to his own acceptance of the chief command. Adams was thus compelled to yield, and Knox and C. C. Pinckney were given the subordinate positions. Knox, a general of the Eevolution, declined to serve under Hamilton. 66 THE ELECTION OF 1800. [1800 After this affair Adams neglected as much as possible the army, and gave all his attention to the strengthening of the navj'. (Schouler, I. 404-411 ; Hildreth, V. 240-44.) In May, 1800, Adams dismissed Pickering and McHenry from his Cabinet, and appointed John Marshall Secretary of State, and Samuel Dexter, of Massachusetts, Secretary of War. At the end of the year Wolcott retired and Dexter was transferred to the Treasury Department. The War Office remained vacant during the rest of the presidential term. (Hildreth, V. 370 ; Schouler, I. 466.) In the presidential election of 1800 Adams and C. C. Pinckney were again the Federalist candidates ; Jefferson and Burr were the Republican candidates. The Federalist party had lost ground by its advocacy of the Alien and Sedition laws, as well as by the secret feuds of its leaders. A plan was again laid to defeat Adams, this time by securing an equal number of votes for Adams and Pinckney, and thus throwing the election into the House of Representatives. Adams, aware of these intrigues, strongly denounced his Federalist oppo- nents, under the name of the '■^Essex Junto "'^ as a faction devoted to England ; Hamilton wrote in reply a pamphlet to show up the defects of Adams' character. (Schouler, I. 471 ; Hildreth, V. 383.) The election was in favor of the Republicans (Appendex, 37), but Jefferson and Burr receiving the same number of electoral votes, the choice devolved upon the House, in which there were now sixteen states represented. As the Federalists could make a tie, and thus prevent an election, it was proposed by Pickering and other extreme Federalists to elect Burr. This would have defeated the will of the people, whose intent clearl}- had been that Jefferson should be President. Hamilton opposed this scheme, believing that the election of Burr would be a calamity to the country. He trusted Jefferson not to attempt radical changes in the Government, and advised that assurances be obtained from him : (1) To pre- serve the fiscal system ; (2) To adhere to the policy of neutralit}' ; (3) To continue the naval policy ; (4) To retain the Federalists in the subordinate offices. (Works, VI. 420 ; Von Hoist, I. 178 ; Schouler, I. 461-74, 480-88; Hildreth, V. 389-91, 402-8.) 1 For an account of the Essex Junto, see Lodge's Life of Cabot, 17-22; also Schopler, I. 469. At this time it was understood to include Parsons, Ames, Cabot, Higginson, Pick- ering, Lowell, and others. 1800] THE FALL OF THE FEDERALISTS. 67 After thirty-five ballots, the Federalists in caucus decided to allow the election of Jefferson (February 17, 1801). (Young, American Statesman, 188-9, 191-96.) Thus after twelve years of power the Federalists were super- seded by the Republicans. "That party had done its greatest and fittest work by the time it had accomplished its earliest, namelj', that of framing and establishing the more perfect Union, which, with later changes, has stood ever since secure." It had " estab- lished the public credit, developed the resources of a new nation, concluded peace with the Indians and European countries, and raised the United States to a respectable position before the world .... but now the time had come when political nurses could be dispensed with, and a healthy, robust public opinion allowed an opportunity to develop." (Schouler, I. 500-501.) ''From the first moment that party lines had been distinctly drawn the opposition had possessed a numerical majority, against which nothing but the superior energy, intelligence, and practical skill of the Federalists, backed by the great and venerable name and towering influence of Washington, had enabled them to main- tain for eight 3'ears past an arduous and doubtful struggle. The Federal party, with" Washington and Hamilton at its head, repre- sented the experience, the prudence, the practical wisdom, the discipline, the conservative reason and instincts of the country. The opposition, headed b^' .Jefferson, expressed its hopes, wishes, theories, many of them enthusiastic an4 unpracticable, more es- pecially its passions, its sympathies and antipathies, its impatience of restraint. The fall of the Federal party was hastened by its passage of the Alien and Sedition laws, by the increase of taxation • and by the treaty with France. " But though the Federal party thus fell never to rise again, it left behind it permanent monuments. The whole machinery of the Federal Government, as it now operates, must be considered as their own work." (Hildreth, V. 417-18; Von Hoist, I. 135-7, 177-82.) The Federalists found it difficult to accept defeat, and every possible effort was made to p?rpetuate the system of government established by them. As a principal means toward this end, the Federal judiciary was to be strengthened so as to act as a bulwark against Anti-Federalism. The judiciary act of February 13, 1801 (Stat, at L., II. 89), reduced (as fast as vacancies occurred) the number of justices of the Supreme Court to five, and released them ')!"! JUDICIARY ACT. [1801 IVom all circuit duty. It also increased the numlter of the district courts from fifteen to twenty-tliree. These were grouped into six circuits with three circuit judges in each (except the Gth). Adams, just before the close of his terra, appointed these new judges and all the subordinate officers oJ: the courts. As these judges held office for life, it was expected that Federalism would be preserved by them. (But the next year the act was repealed by the Republicans, and the judges were thus legislated out of office.) Ellsworth had resigned the Chief-Justiceship on account of ill- health, and the President had conferred that responsible post upon John Marshall (January 31, 1801). Marshall continued, notwith- standing his new office, to discharge the duties of kSecretar^- of State. (I-Iildreth, V. 402 ; Schouler, I. 489-90.) The appointment of Marshall as Chief-Justice was a fortunate event in the history of the United States. To the duty of inter- preting the Constitution he brought his great and just powers of reasoning, as well as those broad views of government, which, during the thirty-four j'ears of his judicial career, gave to the Constitution those liberal powers which were necessary to its dura- bility. "The Constitution," sa3-s Mr. Justice Story, " since its adoption owes more to him than to any other single mind, for its true interpretation and vindication." And "his proudest epitaph may be written in a line — '■Here lies the expounder of the Constitution of the United States.' " CHAPTER III. Administrations of Jefferson and Madison, 1801-1817. /. Jefferson's First Administration. The election of Jefferson did not produce so great a ctiange in domestic politics as most of the Federalists had anticipated. He substituted, in the Executive ofHce, Republican simplicity in place of the pomp and ceremony of his predecessors ; but as to his theories, many of them personal to himself, it -would have been impossible, if he had desired it, to put them into practice. "While in opposition, he had counselled the most extreme measures against the acts of the Federalist Congress. Once having attained, how- ever, to the highest office in the gift of the nation, he became more moderate in his political views. Thus in his inaugural he says : "All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be right- ful must be reasonable." .... "Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which libert}^ and even life itself are but dreary things." .... "We have called by different names brethren of the same principle, we are all Republicans, we are all Federalists." About to enter, he says, upon the exercise of the highest public duties, he expresses what he considers the essential principles of government. The most important of which are : "Equal justice to all, peace, commerce, and friendship, with all nations, entangling alliancies with none ; the support of the state governments in all their rights as the most competent administrators for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tenden- cies ; the preservation of the General Government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad ; a jealous care of the right of election by the people ; a mild and safe correction of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution when peaceable remedies are unprovided ; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority — the vital principle of republics, from which there is no appeal but to force, the vital 70 , jefb^ersok's policy. [1801 priDcipls and immediate parent of despotism ; a well-disciplined militia — our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them ; the supremacy of the civil over the military authority ; economy in the public expensd that labor may be lightly burdened ; the honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith ; encouragement of agricul- ture, and of commerce as its handmaid ; the diffusion of informa- tion and the arraignment of all abuses at the bar of public reason ; freedom of religion ; freedom of the press ; freedom of person under the protection of the habeas coijms; and trial by juries impartially selected. (Statesmen's Manual, I. 149-52 ; Jefferson's Works, IV. 364 ; Von Hoist, I. 177, 8 ; Young, Am. Statesman, 196-8.) In regard to the foreign policy of the government, he thought "that America, standing outside of the political movement of Europe, could afford to follow a political development of her own ; that she might safely disregard remote dangers ; that her armaments might be reduced to a point little above mere police necessities ; that she might rely on natural self-interest for her foreign com- merce ; that she might depend on average common sense for her internal prosperity and order ; and that her capital was safest in the hands of her own citizens. To establish these doctrines beyond the chance of overthrow was to make democratic government a success, while to defer the establishment of these doctrines was to incur tlie risk, if not the certainty, of following the career of England in debt, corruption and rottenness." (Adams, Life of Gallatin, 269.) The first and greatest object of Mr. Jefferson's policy was, however, the payment of the public debt. " The discharge of the debt,'' he wrote, "is vital to the destinies of our Government." And all else must be subordinate to this. To this object Mr. Jef- ferson and his Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Gallatin, devoted themselves, to the neglect of the proper defence of the country. The carrying of this laudable principle to extremes, was mainly the cause of the failure of their whole governmental policy. When Mr. Jefferson came into ofSee the country was at peace with all other nations, and for the success of his policj* a continuance of peace was neccjssarj' ; but it was a mistake not to make some pro- vision for other contingencies. (Adams, Life of Gallatin, 269- 274 ; Hildreth, V. 419-22 ; Schouler, II. 1-5.) 1801] APPOINTMENTS AND REMOVALS. 71 Mr. Jefferson selected for his cabinet : — James Madison, Secretary of State; Albert Gallatin, Secretary of the Treasury ; Henry Dearborn, Secretary of "War ; Robert Smith, Secretary of the Navy ; Levi Lincoln, Attorney-General ; Gideon Granger, Postmaster-General. (Hildreth, V. 422, 3 ; Schouler, IL 12.) Appointments and Removals. — Rotation in office had been a principle put in practice during the Confederation, and advocated later by the Republicans. When Mr. Jefferson became President the pressure for sweeping removals was very great. In such cases there is always a certain amount of hatred engendered by seeing the enemy possessed of the vantage ground which the offices give. But a still more active sentiment in the breasts of the lower class of politicians is the "greed of office,'' for the sake either of the emoluments or the political power which they give. A president naturally finds it very difficult to make a stand against this pres- sure of his friends — men by whose aid he has triumphed over the opposite party. Mr. Jefferson thought it would not be politic for him to resort to sweeping removals, whatever may have been his private inclination in this respect. He preferred rather a con- ciliator^' policj' ; he wished to please the rank and file of the Federalists, and to draw them away from their allegiance to the Federalist leaders. This could not be done by a policy of "■ val victis" ! (Von Hoist, 1. 178.) "That some ought to be removed from office," says Mr. Jefferson (Works, IV. 380), "and that all ought not, all mankind will agree. But where to draw the line no two will agree." "Interference with elections, whether of a state or the Genei'al Government, by officers of the latter, should be deemed causes of removal." (Tucker, Life of Jefferson, II. 78, 91-94 ; Jefferson's Works, IV. 350.) It was further agreed, (1) That all appointments to civil offices during pleasure, made after the event of the election was certainly known to Mr. Adams, are considered as nullities ; (2) Officers who have been guilty of official mal-conduct are proper subjects of removal ; (3) Good men, to whom there is no objection but a difference of political principle, practised on only as far as the rights of a private citizen will justify, are not proper subjects of removal, except in the case of attorne3-s and marshals. The courts being so decidedly Federal and irremovable, it is believed that Republican attorneys and marshals, being the doors of entrance 72 APPOIXTMENTS AND REMOVALS. [1801 into the courts, are indispensably necessai-y as a shield to the Republican part of our fellow citizens .... the main body of the people." It was said that Adams continued to sign the commis- sions of court officers up to 9 o'clock of the night on which at 12 o'clock his term of office expired. Such officers were called "Mid- night Officials." Those appointed who did not have time to get their commissions of Adams were denied them by the new admin- istration. March 4, Jefferson wrote to Rush : "I will expunge the effects of Mr. Adams' indecent conduct, in crowding nominations after he knew they were not for himself. .... I know that in stopping thus short in the career of removal I shall give great offence to many of my friends. That torrent has been pressing me heavily, and will require all my force to bear up against." Again (Works, IV. 391) : '■'■The right of opinion shall suffer no invasion from me. Those who have acted well have nothing to fear, however they may have differed from me in opinion." Again (Ibid. 399) : "We are proceeding graduallj- in the regeneration of offices, and intro- ducing Republicans to some share in them." (Hildreth, V. 426- 30: Young, 199-201.) One of the' first cases of removal from office was that of Good- rich, the Collector of New Haven. His predecessor had died a short time before the expiration of Mr. Adams' term, and Goodrich had been immediatelj' appointed to fill his place. "The President thought this was a fit occasion to begin by giving the Republican party a share of the public offices, and accordingly bestowed this on Samuel Bishop, then Town Clerk, Major of the City of New Haven, and Chief Judge of the Court of Common Pleas By reason of the advanced age (77 years) of Bishop, and the popular- ity of Goodrich, this act of the Administration gave great offence to the merchants, who sent a vehement I'emonstrance to the President on the occasion." The President wrote in reply the famous New Haven Letter : " If a due participation of office is a matter of right, how are vacancies to be obtained ? Those by death are few, by resignation none. Can anj- other mode than that of removal be proposed ? This is a painful office. But it is made my duty It would have been to me a circumstance of great relief had I found a moderate participitation of office in the hands of the majority But their total exclusion calls for prompter correc- tions .... but that done, I will return with joy to that state of 1801] APPOINTMENTS AND KEMOVALS. 73 things when the only questions concerning a candidate shall be : Is he honest? Is he capable? Is he faithful to the Constitution? At another time he said: "That the Republicans would consent to a continuation of everything in Federal hands, was not to be expected, because neither just nor politic. On him (the President) then was to devolve the office of an executioner, that of lopping off. .... I am satisfied that the heaping abuse on me personallj^ has been with the design and the hope of provoking me to make a general sweep of all Federalists out of office." (Tucker, Life of Jefferson, II. 101-2.) " This, however, did not satisfj-. The Federalists enumerated (several) .... meritorious officers of the Revolution, and falling within none of Jefferson's rules, yet all removed to make room for political partisans, in one case for an old Tory." (Hildreth, V. 431.) The Republicans in reply called attention to the large ma- jority of offices still in the hands of Federalists. Gallatin from the first urged, as he said in his circular to col- lectors, "that the door of office be no longer shut against any man merely on account of his political opinions, but that .... integrity' and capacitj' suitable to the station be the only qualifications that shall direct our choice." Still he seems to have adhered to the , sentiment of the New Haven letter. The above circular was sent to Jefferson, but, he and Madison thinking that it was premature, it was never issued ; and "the time never came when thej^ thought it had reached maturity." (Adams, Life of Gallatin, 279.) But Gallatin continued to remonstrate : " It does not appear that less than what has been doi\e could have been done without injustice to the Republicans. But ought much more to be done .... those Republican principles of limitation of power and public economy .... should rest on the broad basis of the people, and not on a fluctuating party majority." Jefferson in reply wrote: "It (N. H. letter) has given more expectation to the sweeping Republicans than I thinlt its terms justify .... it was indispensaUy necessary in order to rally round one point all of the shades of Republicanism imd Federalism., exclusive of the monarchicd." , In the case of Rodgers, however, the naval officer in New York, said to have been a Tory of the Revolution, but an able and honest officer, Gallatin favored his removal ; but Jefferson out of distrust to Burr maintained the Federalist in office. " The candidate for his place was Mattliew L. Davis, Burr's right-hand-man, and sup- 74 Jefferson's policy. [1801 ported by Burr with all his energy." The latter, the leading Reijublican of New York, desired to control the patronage of the administration in that state. (Adams, Life of Gallatin, 282.) Another cause of difference between Jefferson and Gallatin was the conduct of Duane, editor of the Aurora. About the time of the removal of the seat of government to Washington, the office of the Secretary of the Treasury was burned with all the papers. Before this, Duane had obtained through Treasury clerks some manuscript, belonging to Gallatin and reflecting upon Duane, which he pub- lished. Gallatin's opposition to a system of general removals, advocated by the Aurora, secured for him Duane's enmitj'. This was the beginning of the party schisms in Penns3dvania. (Adams, Life of Gallatin, 277-286 ; Hildreth, V. 422, 3, 426-431 ; Schouler, II. 5-11 ; Young, 198-202 ; Jefferson's Works, IV. ; Tucker, Life of Jefferson, II. 100 et seq.) Jefferson's Policy. — The Seventh Congress, which had a Repub- lican majority in both houses, met at Washington December 7, 1801.^ Nathaniel Macon of North Carolina, was elected Speaker, and Abraham Baldwin of Georgia, President p?-o tern, of the Senate. John Randolph became the Republican leader in the House. (Schouler, II. 18-20 ; Hildreth, V. 435-8.) Instead of making his first communication to Congress (Stat. . Man., I. 152) by a speech in person, as had been the practice, Mr. Jefferson adopted the plan of sending a written message, to which no answer was expected. This fixed the rule which has been fol- lowed ever since. (Benton, Deb., II. 641, note; Stat. Man., I. 152.) The President stated in his message that all foreign complications except those with Tripoli had been satisfactorily arranged. He recommended the reduction of public expenditures. The number of offices had been, he thought, too greatly multiplied, and should be reduced ; he had already begun to reduce those dependent on executive discretion. (He had recalled Van Murray, Smith, and J. Q. Adams, ministers to Holland, Portugal, and Prussia, respect- ively, and had not appointed others in their places.) He advised, further, the repeal of the excise taxes ; and in order to secure a corresponding decrease of the expenses, he recom- mended a reduction of the civil list, and the army and navy. He 1 The first meeting of Congress at Washington was that of the second session of the Sixth Congress (November 17, i8oo). (Benton, Deb., II. 481.) 1801] FINANCES. 75 thought that agriculture, manufactures, commerce, and navigation, the four pillars of our prosperit}', were most thriving when left most free to individual enterprise (the principle of free' trade). He advised the revision of the judiciary system, and of the laws of naturalization.'^ The Federalists attacked the parts of the message referring to the reduction of the revenue, and of the army and navy, and the revision of the judicial system. (Tucker, Life of Jefferson, II. 107-8; Schouler, II. 21.) It devolved upon Mr. Gallatin to devise a plan for the readjust- ment of the finances, under the new policy of a rapid payment of the debt, and at the same time the reduction of taxes. To accom- plish this it would be necessar}' to cut down the expenditures. Mr. Gallatin's estimates as finally reported were as follows : — Revenue. Expendii tures. Import, etc., $9,500,000 Interest, etc.. $7,100,000 Lands and postage, 450,000 Civil expend.. 980,000 Military " 1,420,000 $9,950,000 Navy " 1,100,000 Internal Revenue, 650,000 Total, $10,600,000 $10,600,000 (Life of Gallatin, 292.) Mr. Gallatin had at first made lower estimates for the army and navy, but the Secretaries of those departments had objected to his arrangement. Seeing the difficulty of his task, Mr. Gallatin ad- vised the continuance of the internal taxes ; but their repeal was a necessary concession to the Eepublican party. It will be seen that his first care was to set aside annually $7,100,000 (ultimately $7,300,000) for the payment of the interest and principal of the debt, by which $38,000,000 of the principal would be paid off in eight years, and the whole debt by the year 1817. " This was his 'fundamental substantial measure/ which was intended to affirm and fix upon the Government the principle of paying its debt, &c." (Life, 295.) After providing for the pa3'ment of the debt, he proposed to make the other departments get on as best they could with the re- mainder of the estimated revenue. But these economies were X The Federalists had passed a naturalization law at the same time as the Alien Act, extending the time necessary to become a citizen to fourteen years. (Stat, at L., I, 566.) 76 LEGISLATION JUDICIARf. [1802 never realized, the departments costing on the average for the next ten years, $5,400,000 instead of $2,700,000, Mr. Gallatin's estimate, and he therefore succeeded in his scheme only from the fact that his estimates of the revenue were generally much below the actual receipts. In making the payment of the debt of such great importance, it was assumed, without any good ground, that Hamilton had intend- ed that the debt should never be paid. It was not eventually dis- ' charged until 1835 ; and it is by no means a certainty that Hamil- ton's more comprehensive and statesmanlike scheme would not have brought about its discharge at a much earlier date. On read- ing G-allatin's first report, Hamilton remarked that "Mr. Gallatin had not taken a large view of the subject.'' It was the view of a mere financier, but not of a statesman of the first order. The best authority on the subject of the finances during Mr. Jefferson's administration, is the Life of Gallatin by Henry Adams, and Gallatin's works, edited by Mr. Adams. On the general policy see : Life of Gallatin, 290-97 ; "Works, I. 24-74 ; also Jef- ferson's Works, IV. Legislation. — At the beginning of the Seventh Congress, \)j an addition to the rules, reporters were given seats within the bar of the House ; and the Senate for the first time admitted a steno- grapher on its flpor ; "but years were yet to elapse before anj- connected reports of its debates were published. (Benton, Deb. II., .545; Hildreth, V. 437.) 1. The anticipated attack upon tlie Judiciary Act of the last session was soon made. By the Act of March 8, 1802, the former act was repealed, and the system previously in practice revived. (Stat, at L., II. 132.) The Federalists strenuously opposed the repeal, seeing in it the removal of one of the bulwarks which they had erected agains^t Democratic changes. It was said that the appointment of the new judges, being for life, could not be set aside. Mr. Jefferson seems to have doubted ' ' whether the judges had not a freehold in their offices of which they could not constitutionallj- be deprived. But he did not hesitate to sign the act." (Hildreth, V. 441 ; Schouler, II. 23-25.) "The inferior courts exist at the will of Congress, and may be changed and modified at discretion, subject to the limitation that a judge cannot be legislated out of his office while the office itself remains." (Cooley, Const. Law, 52 and note 2 ; Constitution, Art. III. Sect. 1.) 1802] KKPEAL OF INTKRNAL TAXES. 77 An abridgment of the debates on this bill, in which both parties put forth their whole strength, may be found in Benton, Deb., II. ; Senate, 545-565 ; Hotise, 596-639. On April 29, following, an Act was passed amending the judiciary system, by which the terms of the Supreme Court were reduced to one annually, which a majority of the judges were authorized to hold. The number of circuits was increased to six (but Maine, Kentucky, aud Tennessee were not to be included as in the repealed act) . A single justice of the Supreme Court was to be assigned to each of these circuits, to hold semi-annual courts in each of his districts, with the district judge for an associate. (Stat, at L., II. 156 ; Hildreth, V. 442 ; Schouler, II. 25.) 2. Repeal of Internal Taxes. — The bill repealing internal taxes became a law April 6, 1802. (Stat, at L., II. 148.) By this law the taxes on dome.stic distilled spirits, on licenses to retail them, on stamps, on refined sugai-, on auction sales, and on pleas- ure carriages, were repealed. The gross amount of these taxes was about $1,000,000 annually ; but the cost of collection reduced the net revenue from them to about $600,000, of which $500,000 vvere derived from the tax bn distilled spirits. The objections to them were : (1) The expense of their collection in proportion to the product (the argument of Gallatin especially) ; (2) Their anti-republican character; (3) The system of espionage neces- sitated hx them ; and (4) Their superfluity. The argument in favor of their retention was : (1) Thej' are necessary ; (2) Any reduction, if necessary, should not be made on distilled spirits — a pernicious luxury — but on tea, coffee, sugar, and salt — articles of necessary consumption, now taxed fifty per cent on their foreign cost ; (3) Internal revenue is a sure income amid the fluctuations incidental to foreign trade ; (4) The complicated machinery for their collection, now in good order, should be kept up against the time of need, i. e. in case of war (realized ten years later). (Hildreth, V. 443-4; Benton, Deb., II. 579-81, y«7-96 ; Life of Gallatin, 295.) Notwithstanding this reduction of taxes, Congress, on Gallatin's recommendation, passed an act, April 29, 1802, to appropriate annually $7,300,000 for the redemption of the debt, a sum exceed- ing by over $1,000,000 the amount appropriated under Hamilton's policy. (Stat. atL., II. 167.) But the reduction of taxation was not of long duration. The war with Tripoli necessitated an increase of 2i per cent in the 78 REDDCTION OF THE ARMY AND NAVY. [1802 customs duties, March 26, 1804. (Stat, at L., II. 291.) This was called the "Mediterranean Fund" and was meant to be temporary ; but bj' subsequent acts it became permanent. So that the reduc- tion in internal taxes was more than balanced by the Increase in import duties. (Life of Gallatin, 295.) 3. Reduction of the Army. — By the Act of March 16, 1802 (Stat, at L., II. 132) the army was reduced to. the peace establish- ment of 1796, to consist of about 3000 men. A corps of engin- eers was to be stationed at West Point, there to constitute a mili- itarj^ academj-, with forty students for cadets. This was the beginning of the later more elaborate military school. The land had been bought by the United .States in 1790, and McHenry had drawn up, from notes furnished by Washington, an elaborate plan of such a school, which ultimateh'' became the basis of the present West Point Academy. ^ (Hildreth, V. 439.) 4. The Navy. — Before the- Republicans came into power, the Federalists, by Act of Congress of March 3, 1801 (Stat, at L., II. 110), had ordered the sale of all the ships of the navj- except thir- teen of the largest ; namely, the United States, Constitution, President, Constellation, Congress, Chesapeake, Philadelphia, New York, Essex, General Greene, Boston, Adams, and John Adams. Of these thirteen six were to be kept constantly in commission. Pursuant to the law of 1798 ordering the construction of six seventj'-fours, materials had been collected ; but the appropriation for this purpose (Stat, at L., II. 178) by the new Congress (Eepub- lican) not being adequate ($200,000), work upon them was dis- continued. (Cooper, History of the United States Navy, I. 264-74.) C)n account of the hostilities which had commenced with Trip- oli, Congress authorized the building of four additional ships of not over sixteen guns each, and fifteen gun-boats (February 8, 1803) ; and by Act of March 2, 1805, twenty-five more gun-boats. This was the beginning of Mr. Jefferson's famous gun-boat scheme, which he had hinted at in his first message. 5. Miscellaneous Acts. — The naturalization law of 1798 was repealed April 14, 1802 (Stat. atL., II. 153), and the period of of five years fixed as the time of residence for an alien to become a citizen. (This is the present requirement.) I In 1834 additional land was bought, and in 1826 New York ceded jurisdiction over it to the General Governpient. 1802-5] THE TRIl'OI-ITAN WAR. 79 By Act of Feb. 28, 1803, the importation of slaves was prohib- ited into any state "which by law has prohibited or shall prohibit the admission or importation of such" slaves. The Act of Apportionment of Representatives under the census of 1800 was passed Jan. 14, 1802. (Stat, at L., II. 128 ; Appen- dix to this volume, p. 39.) On Feb. 28, 1803, an Act was passed " for extending the exter- nal commerce of the United States." The sum of $2500 was appropriated for this purpose. The TripoUtan War. — The treaty witli Tripoli had been pur- chased by paying a gross sum down — an arrangement that did not suit the Bashaw when he compared his case with that of Algiers. Hence, as he threatened war against the United States, Commodore Dale was at once sent with four ships to the Mediterranean, to watch the Bashaw and repel anj' hostilities. On arriving at Gib- raltar, he found two Tripolitan cruisers lying in wait for American vessels, the Bashaw having already declai-ed war. Congress, having recognized the existence of war with Tripoli, authorized the fitting out of such a naval force as the President might see fit, Feb. 6, 1802. (Stat, at L., II. 129.) A squadron of six vessels in command of Morris was accordingly sent to relieve Dale. Morris returned in 1803 having accomplished little, and was summarily dismissed. A new squadron was sent out under Commodore Preble. Some of the notable events of the war were : the burning of the Philadelphia (which had run upon a rock and had been' captured by the Tripolitans) under the guns of the Tripolitan batteries by Stephen Decatur, Feb. 16, 1804; Bom- bardment of the town and attack upon the TripoUtan shipping, Aug. 3, 1804, repeated Aug. 7, 24, 28, 'and Sept. 3; and the unsuccessful attempt to burn the enemy's shfpping, Sept. 4, in which Captain Sommers, Lieutenant Wadsworth, and the crew who had volunteered for this service, lost their lives. (Hildreth, V. 448, 529 ; Schouler, II. 17, 18, 67 ; Cooper, Naval History, I. 310- 425 gives an interesting account of this war.) Though an additional force arrived two days later under Com- modore Barron, the lateness of the season prevented further operations, except the maintenance of the blockade, during the winter. « The next June (1805), Lear, consul of the United States at Algiers, concluded a treaty with Tripoli providing for an exchange 80 PURCIIASH OF LOUISIANA. [1803 of prisoners, man for man, as far as they would go. For a surplus of 200 prisoners held bj- the Bashaw $6000 was paid as a ransom. ' ' Thus terminated the war with Tripoli, after an existence of four years .... the United States would have retained in service sortie officers, and would have kept np a small force, had not this contest occurred ; but its influence on the fortunes and character of the navy was incalculable. It saved the first, in a degree at least, and it may be said to have formed the last." (Cooper, 220 ; Hildreth, V. 561 ; Schouler, II. 92.) This war served in part to prepare the navy for the War of 1812. The Purchase of the Louisiana Territory. — The most important measure of Jefferson's administration was the purchase of this territoiy (April 30, 1803). (See map.) The disputes with the Spanish Government respecting the south- western boundary' of the United States, and the right of navigating the Mississippi .... assumed a new aspect by the rumor received in the United States in 1802, that Spain, by a secret treaty in October, 1800, had ceded Louisiana to France. In October, 1802, the Spanish Intendant declared, by proclamation, that the right of deposit at New Orleans no longer existed. (Art. 22 of Treatj- of 1795.) This measure caused great excitement in the Mississippi valley and Congress was beset with complaints. It was wrongly under- stood that the Floridas either were included in the cession to France or would be added to it ; and Jefferson instructed Living- ston, our minister to France, to try to prevent the cession (but with no result) and to insist, at least, that New Orleans and the Floridas be ceded to the United States. (State Papers, II. 562 ; Stat. Man., I. 232.) It was thought to be iusutFerable that such a power as France then was should have possession of the mouth of the Mississippi. In Congress the right of navigating the Mississippi was asserted by both houses, a place of deposit insisted upon, and an act (Stat, at L., II. 241) was passed March 3„ 1803, authorizing "the Pres- ' ident to call upon the executives of such of the states as he might deem expedient, for a detachment of militia, not exceeding 80,000, or to accept the services of any corps of volunteers in lieu of militia, for a term of twelve :gionths. $25,000 was by the same act appropriated for the erection of arsenals on the western waters." 1*^03] PURCHASE OF LOI'ISIAXA. SI Januaiy 10, 1803, the President sent Monroe as minister pleni- potentiary to France, to act with Livingston in the purchase of New Orleans (thus securing the free navigation of the Mississippi) and the Floridas. Congress appropriated for tliis purpose $2,000,000. The cession of the whole Louisiana territory was not then a subject of discussion. But a new war between England and France was about to break out, and Napoleon, fearing that Louisiana would certainh' fall into the hands of England, and also being in need of money, proposed to cede the "whole colony without any reservation." This he thought would so strengthen the United States that they would become a maritime rival that would one day humble the pride of England. (U. S. Treaties, 1001.) But the Americans had been instructed onlj' in reference to the left bank of the Mississippi, including New Orleans, and had not the time to obtain more ample instructions from their government. For war between P^ngland and France, then imminent, would pre- vent negotiations. They, tlierefore, assumed the responsibility of negotiating for the purchase of the entire territory, stipulating to pay therefor $15,000,000, one-fourth of which sum, however, to be used to pay debts due by France to citizens of the United States, and those arising from requisitions, seizures, and captures of ships during peace. The assent of Spain was deemed neces- sary, as that power had reserved, by the treaty of Oct. 1, 1800, a right of preference in case of cession by France. But baste was imperative, and hence the Spanish Ministry was not informed of the negotiations until after the treaty was concluded. Spain com- plained bitterly of this,'and not till Feb. 10, 1804, did she assent to the transaction. The treaty was concluded April 30, 1803, and Napoleon hastened to ratify it May 22, the very day that hostilities began between France and England, and before it had been rati- fied by the United States. The treaty was ratified by the Senate October 20, 1803, by 24 votes to 7 (U. S. Treaties, 275, 1000) , and acts were passed, Oct. 31, and November 10, 1803, to carry the treaty into effect. Con- gress having been summoned by the President to meet on October 17 for this purpose. It was opposed by the Federalists generally, mainly on two grounds, namely : first that the territory of the United States was already large enough ; secondly, that the purchase of Louisiana 82 THE LOUISIANA TEREITOEY. [1803-4 was unconstitutional. The New England Federalists, moreover, feared that this accession of territory in the West would transl^er the balance of power from the original thirteen states to the new states of the West. But such Federalists as Hamilton and Gouv- erneur Morris approved of the measure. Mr. Jefferson himself believed that the purchase was within the powers granted by the Constitution, and relied upon an amend- ment to that instrument by way of indemnity ; and the ' ' Republi- cans in Congress, by supporting the treaty without such an amendment, seem to have admitted the old Federalist principle of authority by 'construction.'" (Life of Gallatin, 320 ; Von Hoist, I. 191, 92 ; and in general on the subject of the Louisiana pur- chase : Hildreth, V. 478-82 ; Schouler, II. 37-52 ; Life of Galla- tin, 317-21 ; Stat. Man., I. 232-40; Young, Am. Stat., 203-211 ; Von Hoist, I. 183-93; Benton, Deb., III. 61-77; Tucker, II. 492-98.) Man}- of the eastern Federalists thought it would be for the interest of New England, with New York, to separate tliemselves from the Union. (Von Hoist, I. 193-99.) An act (Stat, at L., I. 283) passed March 26, 1804, divided the Louisiana territory, bj' the 33d parallel of N. Lat., into two territories — that on the south to be called the Territory of Orleans, and that on the north, the District of Louisiana — and provided a government for the former with officers appointed by the Presi- dent. The District of Louisiana was for a year attached to the Territor^y of Indiana, and then itself made a separate territorj". (Benton, Deb., III. 40-43.) Meanwhile the question of boundary had arisen. (Maps: Col- ton's General Atlas, 26, 54, and map in this volume.) The treaty described the cession as including "the colony or province of Lou- isiana, with the same extent as it now has in the hands of Spain, and that it had when France possessed it. and such as it should be after the treaties subsequentlj- entered into between Spain and other States." This admitted the double interpretation that it was Louisiana as claimed and held bj' the French prior to 1763, or as that name had been understood subsequently to the Spanish pos- session. Livingston agi-eed with Jefferson (Benton, Deb., HI. and note) in holding to the former view, and advised the imme- diate occupation of the disputed territory as far as the Perdido. But Spain held to the latter view, and might refuse to give up the 1804] IMPEACHMENT OF JCDGES. 83 possession of New Orleans. "Jeffei-son was, therefore, content to accept the formal deliver}- of the island and city of Orleans, made by Citizen Lausat (Dec. 20, 1803), who had, as commis- sioner of France, received possession a few daj-s before from the Spanish authorities, leaving the east bank of the lakes and of ihe river above in possession of the Spaniards." The Americans thought that temporary silence would not injure their title to the remainder of the territorj', and therefore left the question to be settled in the future. (Hildreth, V. 491-2; Young, Am. Stat., 210-11.) Impeachment of Judges. — The Eepublicans had seen with much chagrin the Federal Bench occupied by Federalist Judges ; and on the first opportunity made an attack upon them (1804;). Justice Chase, of the Virginia and Marj-land circuit, had at first opposed the Constitution, but like many others had come to be its warm supporter. He had the habit, it was said, of bringing politics into his charges to juries (as in his charge to the Marjiand Grand- Jurj-, in which he condemned the repeal of the Judiciary Act). Mr. Hildreth says of him (V. 511) :■ " He was exceedingly able, and an object of terror as well as hatred to his opponents. They wished, therefore, to get rid of him." He had presided at most of the trials under the sedition act of 1798. Articles of impeachment were drawn up against him by the House on the charges of oppression and arbitrary conduct in the trial of Fries, and for displaying malignant and party feelings on several occasions, particularly in the trial of Callender, at Rich- mond, in his charge to a grand-jury, and in a political harangue at Baltimore. The trial came on January 2, 180.J. John Randolph, with Nicholson and Rodney, was manager on the part of the House. Chase had for counsel, Luther Martin, Charles Lee, and Harper, a trio against whom the prosecuting lawyei's were no match. Chase was acquitted on five of the eight counts by majorities of the Senate ; on the other three a majority of the Senate held him guilty, but not the necessary two-thirds, so that he was acquitted on all. The trial caused great excitemfnt throughout the country, being made a party question, and the failure of the impeachment was hailed with joy by the Federalists, and as bitterly lamented by the Republicans. Randolph was especially disappointed, and pro- 84 THE pcjBi.ir i^ands. [1802 posed ;ui amendment to the Constitution, making judges remov- able bjr the President on the joint address of Congress. Judge Peters, of the Pennsjivania district, had also been im- peaclied, but his trial was not prosecuted. At about the same time occurred the impeachment of three State Judges in Pennsylvania; but 'this also failed. "Thus, not per- haps without difficulty, was stayed the first rude irruption of a suc- cessful popular party upon our state and national judiciary ; a department which by this time was learning a lesson not altogether needless." (Schouler, II. 79.) These attacks had the effect to modifj' the bearing of judges inclined to the oppression and inso- lent demeanor on the bench, formerly quite common in England. (Hildretb, V. 511-14, 540-44; Schouler, 11. 54, 76-9; Benton, Deb., III. 173-284 ;> Tucker, Vol. II ; Cooley, Const. Law, 158, 9.) The Public Lands. — In the thirteen original states, and in those states carved out of their territor}', as Maine, Vermont, and Ken- tucky, the title to the public lauds is in the state governments, having been received hy charter from the British Ci'own. In all other states and territories the title to such lands remains in the General Government, as vested in it by gift, purchase, or con- quest. The state after admission has no control over the public lands within its limits. (Schouler, I. 98, 9.) The land sj'stem of the United States Government was created by the Act of Congress of May 18, 1790 (Stat, at L., I. 464), providing for the sale of lands in the territory northwest of the river Ohio. (Life of Gallatin, 167.) The lands were to be laid out in townships six miles square, and to be sold in sections, with certain reservations, the price to be not less $2.00 per acre. This system was further developed and fixed under the super- vision of Mr. Gallatin, as Secretary of the Treasury. Together with Mr. Madison and Mr. Lincoln, he applied himself to the set- tlement of the conflicting titles to lands in the Southwest ; and particularly the extinguishment of Indian titles to lands in that quarter, in order to make way for the development of the land- system. (Life of Gallatin, 297-8.) The Act of April 30, 1802, providing for the admission of Ohio (Stat, at L., II. 173), reserved to each township one section for the use of schools, and reserved one-twentieth of the net proceeds of the sale of lands to the building of roads from the Atlantic coast across Ohio. This was the origin of the once famous Cum- 1804] THE ELECTION OF 1804. ' 85 beiland road, " and the first step in tlie system of internal improve- ments." (Life of Gallatin, 298, 9 ; Writings of Gallatin, I. 76 ; Schouler, II. 74-76 ; Hildreth, V. 347-9, 445-48, 475.) The Indians. — Mr. Jefferson's policy towards the Indians was humane and conciliatory. Their "claims of occupancy were re- spected, and at the same time extinguished by fair purchase as rapidly as possible. Mr. Jefferson wished to civilize the Indians and assimilate them to the habits and pursuits of their white neigh- bors. (Schouler, II. 75, 6 ; Hildreth, V. 448, 482, 498, 656-57.) Official Ceremonies^ etc. — For an account of official ceremonies and "White-House etiquette" in Mr. .Jefferson's administration, see Schouler, II. 80-86. The Election of 1804. — Mr. Jefferson's first term of office was devoted mainly to domestic affairs ; and in the absence of foreign diflSculties, was very successful and popular. The country entered upon an era of prosperity. In anticipation of the election of 1804, a caucus of Republican members of Congress (a system continued till 1824) nominated Jefferson and George Clinton of New York to represent that party. The Federalists nominated C. C. Pinckney of South Carolina for President, and Rufus King of New York for Vice-President. The Federalists received but 14 votes — nine from Connecticut, three from Delaware, and two from Maryland — while the Repub- licans received 162, (Appendix, p. 37.) In this election also there was a party intrigue. As had been the case hitherto. Burr, the Vice-President, was expected, by the New England Republi- cans especially, to succeed Jefferson in the presidency. But de- feated in this bj' Jefferson, and, in his subsequent candidacy for the governorship of New York, by Hamilton, Burr was driven from political life. These troubles soon led to his duel with Ham- ilton, in which the latter was killed. (Hildreth, V. 516-29; Schouler, II. 60-67.) In his second inaugural address (March 4, 1805) Jefferson in the first place maintained the consistency of his past administra- tion with the principles of his first address. He spoke of the lib- eral principles pursued in foreign relations, and of their success. He exulted over the reduction of ta?:es, and the suppression of unnecessary offices, and yet with "a revenue which is levied on foreign luxuries and paid by wealthy consumers, is sufficient to defray the expenses of the rJovr-rnment, to fulfil contracts with 86 IN'TERNAT. IMPROVEMENTS. [180;) other governments and the Indians, and to afford a surplus suffi- cient to redeem the public debt in a short period." "The revenue, when thus liberated, maj-, bj' a just repartition among the States, and a correspondent amendment to the Constitution, be applied, in time of peace, to 'rivers, canals, roads, arts, manufactures, educa- tion, and other great objects, in each state, and in time of war, it may meet all the annual expenditures within the year.'" (Stat. Man., I. 245, 173.) The Cabinet was continued without change. Two of the mem- bers, Mr. Madison and Mr. Gallatin, formed with the President, says Mr. Henry Adams, a triumvirate that governed the countr}'' during the eight years of Mr. Jefferson's administration. In 1805, judging from the success of the past four years, they could well look forward to a great future for the nation under their guidance. The debt would soon be paid off, and the revenue could be employed in works of public improvements. //. Jeffemo'ii's Administration, Serond Term. The Presidential and Congressional elections of 1804 seemed to be an emphatic approval of the policy of Mr. Jefferson and the Republicans. With increased majorities in Congress, it was now proposed to develop still further that policy'. In his sixth annual message Mr. Jefferson, after referring to the probable extinction of the debt in the near future and the sur- plus revenue thus to be set free, proposes, instead of reducing the impost duty, to apply the revenue "to the great purposes of the ■public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of federal powers I suppose an amendment to the Constitution, by consent of the states, neces- sary, because the objects now recommended are not among those enumerated in the Constitution, and to which it permits the public moneys to be applied." (Stat. Man., I. 190, 91.) Mr. Gallatin, unlike- Jefferson and Madison, believed that the powers of Congress were sufficient without an amendment to the Constitution, and this was the view generally taken by Congress. Congress had already exercised this power by an Act of March . 29, 1806 (Stat, at L., II. 357), "to regulate the laying and making 1807-8] INTERNAI, I.MPROVKMENTS. 87 a road from Cumberland in the State of Maryland to the State of Ohio," connecting the Potomac and Ohio rivers. For this purpose the modest sum of $30,000 was appropriated ; but its ultimate cost, including repairs and its extension through Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, was about $7,000,000. For many years this turnpike road was the principal thoroughfare of emigration td the West. From this time on, until the introduc- tion of railways. Congress was constantlj- appropriating money for the construction of roads and canals. On February 10, 1807, Congress passed an act under which the coast survey was authorized, and appropriated $.50,000 to carry it into effect. (Stat, at L., II. 413.) A few weeks later a resolution was adopted by the Senate, di- recting the Secretarj- of the Treasury to prepare and report to the Senate a general scheme of internal improvement. (Life of Gal- latin, 350.) After a year's preparation Mr. Gallatin sent in his report, which recommended a grand scheme of internal improve- ments, classified as follows : 1. Those parallel with the sea-coast, including canals cutting Cape Cod, New Jerse}', Delaware, and North Carolina, and a great turnpike road from Maine to Georgia, at an estimated cost of $7,800,000 ; 2., The improvement of rivers and the construction of roads running east and west, etc., at a cost of $4,800,000 ; 3. Those to run north and northwest, namely, canals connecting the Hudson with Lakes Champlain and Ontario, and a canal around Niagara Falls, at a cost of $4,000,000 ; 4. Local improvements at a cost of $3,400,000. Thus making in all $20,000,000 ; the work to be completed in ten years, by appro- priating $2,000,000 a year. " Naturally the improvements thus contemplated were so laid out as to combine and satisfy local interests. The advantage which Mr. Gallatin proposed to gain was that of combining these inteirests in advance, so that they should co-operate in one great system instead of wasting the public resources in isolated eJbrts. .... By thus establishing a complete national system to be exe- cuted by degrees, the whole business of annual chaffering and log- rolling for local appropriations in Congress, and all its consequent corruptions and inconsistencies, were to be avoided." (Adams, Life of Gallatin, 351, 2.) Unforseen troubles prevented the execution of this great scheme ; and later, the party that now favored the policj- of internal im- 88 FOREIGN RELATIONS SPAIN. [1805-8 provements hj the General Government became its opponents. As j-et, however, it was not a party issue. Foreign Relations. — The leading feature of Mr. Jefferson's second term, as it had been that of John Adams, was the foreign complications growing out of the war in Europe. S2K(,in. — The relations with Spain maj- be dismissed for the present with a few words in explanation of their effect upon the policj' of the United States. Spain was not at all satisfied with the cession of Louisiana and New Orleans to the United States, and threw many obstacles in the way of their peaceful possession, particularly in the navigation of the rivers rising in the territory of the United States and flow- ing through the Floridas. Many collisions occurred between citizens and officials of the two countries. (Tucker, Life of Jef- erson, II. 186, 7.) Moreover the United States claimed West Florida as included in the Louisiana cession (to the Perdido), while Spain insisted on the boundary of the Iberville and lakes Maurepas and Pont- chartrain. The dispute having been referred to Tallej'rand, his decision was in favor of the Spanish claim. The United States refused to accept this decision ; and b}' proclamation , dated Octo- ber 27, 1810, President Madison ordered the military occupation of West Florida. (Stat, at L., II. 761; Hildreth, V. 223-26; Sehouler, II. 312, 13.) On the side of Mexico, the United States claimed to the Rio Grande, while the Spanish claim extended to the Mermeutan. The Sabine had been considered as a provisional boundary, but Span- ish troops had crossed that river. Orders were sent to General Wilkinson, Governor of the Louisiana Territory, to drive them back. To avoid war Mr. Jefferson proposed to purchase Florida, and Congress appropriated $2,000,000 for this purpose. Commissioners were sent to Spain to negotiate the purchase, but their mission failed ; and in 1808 all diplomatic relations with Spain were broken off, and were not resumed till 1815. (Hildreth, V 536-38, 568-72, 574-76, 646 ; Sehouler, II. 94-5, 99, 100.) These complications with Spain were the immediate cause, on the part of Mr. Jefferson, of urging forward his gun-boat scheme in a special message to Congress Fcbruarj' 10, 1807. (Stat. Man., I. 198.) He advised the building immediately of two hundred gun-boats. 180J5-9] GUN-BOATS — burr's conspiracy. 89 Mr, Gallatin tried in vain to disuade the President from this plan. "Mr. Jefferson was a gi-eat man, and like other great men he occa- sionally committed great follies, yet it may be doubted whether in the whole course of his life he ever wrote anything much more absurd than this letter.'' (Letter to Gallatin in defence of the gun-boat scheme, Februarj^ 9, 1807 ; Jefferson's Writings, V. 42.) Congress had already authorized the building of a large number of these boats. (Stat, at L., II. 3.S0, 402.) On December 18, 1807, r08 more were provided for. "In June, 1809, 176 gun-boats had been built, of which 24 only were in actual service. The aggregate expense to that date had been $1,700,000." "The gun-boats were in some respects posi- itivelj' mischievous, in others of very little use, and thej- were easily destroyed by the enemy whenever found. At the end of the war (1812-15) such of them as were not already captured, burned, wrecked, or decayed, were quietly broken up or sold." (Adams, Life of Gallatin, 352-4.) The Federalists averred that the money wasted on these boats would have been sufficient to complete the six ships of 74 guns ordered in the administration of Adams. (Hildreth, 11. 538, 579, 649, 651 ; III. 29, 30.) In connection with Spanish relations may be mentioned the "Miranda enterprise," an attempt made by private persons to revolutionize the Spanish American colonies, and looked upon with favor by some leading statesmen. First broached in 1798, this scheme took a new start in 1806, when hostilities with Spain seemed probable. Miranda landed on the coast of Caracas, but was defeated by the Spaniards. (Hildreth, II. 238, 9, 572-4; III. 223.) Burr's project may be mentioned here, as affecting Spanish territorj'. Bun- had lost the confidence of his party, and, on account of his' duel with Hamilton, was looked upon with aversion by a large part of the people. Defeated in politics, and broken in fortune, he conceived the bold but fanciful project of conquering Mexico and of setting up a monarchy there. The Western States, moreover, were to be detached from the Union. He drew into this conspiracy a number of men of influence. His plan was to seize New Orleans and make it the base of his operations. Believing he had secured 90 BURR RELATIONS WITH ENGLAND. [1806 General Wilkinson to his project, he proceeded down the Ohio and Mississippi with a flotilla, but mustering only 80 to 100 men (Dec. 1806 and Jan. and Feb. 1807). Wilkinson, however, turned against him, and Burr was thus forced to disband his expe- dition. He was taken prisoner on the Tombigbee, and sent to Richmond for trial. (Schouler, II. 118-122 ; Hildreth, V. 594-627.) The trial of Burr on the charge of treason came on before the Circuit Court at Richmond, August, 1807, Chief-Justice Marshall presiding ; and resulted in the acquittal of Burr, on the ground that it was not proved that there had been a military- array, etc. ; and even if such an array had been proved, it was not shown that Burr had anything to do with its assembling. A second trial, on the charge of setting on foot a militaiy expedition against Spanish territory, failed because evidence was excluded of all acts which had not occurred within the district of Virginia. (Hildreth, V. 668-673 ; Marshall's Writings, 53 ; Schouler, II. 122.) BoUman and Swartwout, two of Burr's accomplices, having been brought before the Supreme Court on a writ of habeas coijms (Feb. 21, 1807), were discharged from custodj' on the ground that the}^ had committed no overt act of treason. The Court gave in this case a careful definition of treason under the Constitution. (Ap- pendix, p. 31 ; Hildreth, V. 626 ; Constitution, Art. III. Sect. 3 ; Cooley, Const. Law, 91, 287, 8.) Relations with England. — During the twelve years of the dura- tion of the commercial articles of the Jay Treaty (1794-1806), the chief causes of complaint against Great Britain had been the alleged violation of neutral rights by the strict enforcement on the part of that power of the so-called '■'Rule of the War of 1756," which subjects to capture a neutral trade not open in time of peace.' A second cause of complaint was the impressment of American seamen. In 1806 the disputes with England assumed a more threatening aspect. The provisions of the Jay Treaty in regard to cornmerce were about to expire. To secure their renewal, and if possible the settlement of disputed questions, Mr. Monroe and William Pinck- ney of Maryland were appointed commissioners to England ; but they were expressly instructed to make no treaty which did not I Mr, Madison published in iSo6 an able refutation of this doctrine. (Writings, II. 227.) Great Britain has since abandoned the policy. 1806] ENGLAND TREATY OF 1806. 91 secure American vessels on the Wgh seas against the visitation and search by British cruisers. Tire British commissioners (Lords Auckland and Howie) refused to yield the right of arresting Brit- ish deserters and of impressing British subjects, even in American ships ; and according to English law the subject could not renounce his allegiance to the Crown by naturalization in a foreign country. (This is the doctrine of indellible allegiance.) So that American citizens bj- adoption, if they had been born in Great Britain, were claimed as British subjects. The American commissioners considering the advantages of a treaty except in this one particular, concluded, as Jay had done twelve years before, to assume the responsibility of continuing the negotiations. A treatj^ based upon that of Jay's, was signed December 31, 1806. It was accompanied, however, by a note from the British ministers reserving the right to abrogate the treaty if the United States submitted to the Berlin Decree. For the reason that the treaty contained no provision on the subject of impressment, Mr. Jefferson declined to submit it to the Senate for approval ; but sent it back for revision. In the mean time, however, Mr. Fox had died, and Mr. George Canning had become Secretary fqr foreign affairs. He refused to renew the negotiations. Mr. Jefferson's course in refusing to sign the treaty was loudly condemned by the Federalists and the commercial classes ; on the other hand he was generally supported by the Republicans, except INIr. Randolph and his faction, who had become hostile to the Administration. (See text of the treaty in Wait's State Papers, III. 352 ; note appended, lb. 362. On the general subject : Stat. Man., I. 250-53 ; Hildreth, V. 653-65 ; Sehouler, II. 135-44 ; Adams, Life of Gallatin, 355, 6.) Mr. Jefferson felt little concern at the failure of negotiations, for he believed " that it will ever be in our power to keep so even a stand between England and France as to inspire a wish in neither to throw us into the scale of his adversary." It had been a favor- ite theory with Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison that the commercial importance of the United States was so great that by restrictive regulations upon commerce and navigation, as, acts of non-inter- course, embargoes, and impost duties, foreign nations could be coerced without a resort to war. This was the policy advocated by them in 1794. (Hildreth, V. 577, 8.) 92 DECREES AND ORDERS IN COUNCIL. [1806-7 The fact was that the United States were not at that time a factor to be counted, in the case of war, by either of the leading bellig- erent powers. In view of the invasion of neutral rights on the part of England, Congress had, bj' the Act of April 18, 1806, prohibited the impor- tation of certain goods from Great Britain, to take effect on the 15th of November. (Stat, at L., II. 379 ; Hildreth, V. 577-582.) Pending the negotiations of 1806, this Act was suspended in December of that j'ear for six months. In the mean time events occurred which tended still more to vs'iden the breach between the two nations. By the orders in council of May 16, 1806, England had declared the coast from the Elbe to Brest in a partial state of blockade. Napoleon, since the battle of Trafalgar, despairing of holding the seas against England, began to develop his " continental sys- tem ;" a scheme by which England was to be isolated and reduced bj' starvation. He replied to the above orders in council by the celebrated "Berlin Decree" of November 21, 1806 (Wait's Stat. Papers, V. 478), by which: (1) The British islands were declared in a state of blockade; (2) All commerce and correspondence with those islands were prohibited ; (3) Trade in English mer- chandise belonging to England was declared illegal. England retaliated by the orders in council of January 7, and November 11, 1807 (Wait's Stat. Papers, VI. 62) , declaring all ports of France and her allies, and all ports from which British vessels w^re excluded, in a state of blockade, and all trade with those ports unlawful. These were followed by Napoleon's " Milan Decree" of Decem- ber 17, 1807 (Wait's Stat. Papers, VI. 470), declaring every ship which submitted to be searched by English cruisers to be denation- alized, and lawful prize. It is easy to see that these measures of England and France were entirely destructive of American commerce ; and this was what was intended by the English ministry. (Adams, Life of Gallatin, 865, note; Schouler, II. 151-56; Hildreth, V. 646-49; III. 31-6.) To add to the bitterness of feeling against England came the affair of the Chesapeake and Leopard (June 22, 1807). The commander of the British ship Leopard demanded permission to search the American ship of war Chesapeake, near the capes of 1*^07] ,IEFFp;RSf)N's EMBAKttO. 0"> Virginia; and on a refusal, fired into her, liilling several of the crew. Afterwards four sailors were taken from her as deserters, three of whom were American citizens. The fourth was hanged at Halifax. The American Government demanded reparation, but Mr. Jef- ferson coupled with this demand another for the relinquishment of the geneM right of impressment. The act of the British com- mander was disavowed bj- his government and reparation offered, but the general question of impressment remained as before. Mr. Jefferson assumed a lofty tone, but unfortunately there was no force with which to back it up. (Hildreth, V. 674-86 ; Life of Gallatin, 357, 364; Tucker, Life of Jefferson, II. 23.5-38; Schouler, II. 14.5-50; Von Hoist, I. 201-2.) In view of the orders in council and decrees of England and France resx)ectively, in regard to neutral commerce, Mr. Jefferson, in a special message of December 18, 1807 (Stat. Man., I. 204) recommended to Congress the laying of an embargo on all vessels of the United States. Four days later Congress passed an act (Stat, at L., II. 451, made more strict by Act of March 12, 1808) prohibiting the departure of vessels from American ports bound to foreign ports, etc., except foreign armed vessels and foreign mer- chant ships in ballast. (Hildreth, VI. 36-43; Schouler, II. 158- 65 ; Benton, Debates, III. 640-42 ; .Jefferson's Works, V 227, 252, 299, VII. 373 ; Life of Gallatin, 366-69.) This act has been called "Jefferson's embargo" ; it was the sec- ond in the history of the United States. It was " the engine by which England and France were to be forced to do our will." •' ^leanwhile, the effect of a permanent embargo was to carry out by the machinerj- of the United States Government precisely the policy which Mr. Canning had adopted for his own. American shipping ceased to exist, American commerce was annihilated, American seamen were forced to seek employment under the British flag ; and British ships and British commerce alone occupied tlie ocean." (Life of Gallatin, 367, 8.) Oppositirm to the Embargo. — The Federalists in general, and especially those of New England, opposed the embargo. First, on account of its economic effect. The New England states, being mostly employed in commerce and navigation, were the first to feel the effects of the embargo ; their industry was destroyed at one blow. The ultimnte effect upon the southern or agricultural states 94 OPPOSITION TO THE EMBAEOO. [1807-8 was not less severe ; while New England, forced into new pur- suits, became independent of the sea. (V.on Hoist, I. 209 ; Ben- ton, Deb., III. 692, 698-700; IV. 64; Lodge, Life of Cabot, 480, 481 ; Hildreth, III. 34, 110-12 ; Schouler, II. 164, 5, 173-78.) The Federalists in searching for arguments against the embargo, besides the ruinous policj- of the act, could find only that of its unconstitutionality. As the Constitution contained no express provision upon this subject. Congress claimed the right under its authority' to "regulate commerce." (Art. I. Sect. 8, CI. 3.) But the Federalists said that an unlimited embargo was not a regulation, but an annihila- tion, of commerce. The Federalists and Republicans had exactly changed places on the question of the constructive powers under the Constitution. (Life of Gallatin, 369-72.) The district courts enforced the measure ; and the Supreme Court seem to have been of the opinion that Congress had complete authority in the matter. (Gibbons v. Ogden, Marshall's Writings, 290-93. See also Appendix, p. 32.) " I have ever considered," says Mr. Story, "the embargo a measure which went to the utmost limit of constructive power under the Constitution .... an unlim- ited prohibition or suspension of foreign commerce." (Life and Letters of Joseph Story,!. 185-6.) "The power to levy embargoes," says Judge Cooley, " is a sovereign power, and therefore knows no limit." (Const. Law, p. 68.) See also Yon Hoist, I. 203-204 ; Hildreth, VI. 93. The embargo was evaded to a great extent, and finallj' even resisted. The Government therefore called for more ample powers for its enforcement. In response to this call. Congress passed tlie so-called "Enforcement Act," April 2y, 1808 (Stat, at L., II. 501), by the provisions of which the United States navy was to be turned into a police squadron to assist in destroying American commerce. "It was a terrible measure, and in comparison with its sweeping grants of arbitrary power all previous enactments of the United States Congress sank into comparative insignificance." (Life of Gallatin, 378-80 ; Hildreth, VI. 108-111.) The resistance to the embargo went so far that it was said that the New England Federalists were determined if it were persisted in to separate themselves from the Union. (Stat. Man., I. 263, note ; Adams, New England Federalism, 1800-1814 ; Von Hoist, I. 218-25; Schouler, II. 192-4.) 1808] EMBARGO ELECTION OF ISOR. 95 That the question of separating from the Union was broaehecl among the Federalist leaders there is little doubt ; but it is scarcelj- proved that there was any widespread sentiment among the masses favoring secession. Sir James Craig found this to be the case when he attempted in February, 1809, to encourage the supposed New England revolt. (Von Hoist, I. 221-3.) On account of the gi'owing opposition to the embargo, and be- cause it had not produced the desired effect. Congress passed the "Non-intercourse Law," March 1, 1809, to take effect March 15, repealing the embargo as to all nations except France and Great Britain, and interdicting with them all commercial intercourse whatever. (Stat, at L., II. 528.) As a measure for coercing foreign states the embargo had proved an entire failure ; it had no doubt affected adverselj' Eng- lish manufacturing industries, but on the other hand it had rather increased the English carrying trade and shipping ; while at home it had paralyzed almost every industry, and had caused to be lost to the United States a great amount of commerce, and of the car- rying trade, which went permanentlj- into other channels ; more- over it stopped importation, and hence destroyed the chief source of revenue upon which the Republicans had relied. On the subject of this embargo see : Hildreth, VI. 36-40, 69- 93, 96-138; Schouler, II. 158-66, 173-85, 194-6; Adams, Life of Gallatin, 366-73, 375-86 ; Von Hoist, I. 200-225 ; Tucker, II. ; Stat. Man., I. 255-9 ; Benton, Deb., III. and IV. The Election of 1808. — Although there had been some fear of the defeat of the Republicans, yet Mr. Madison and George Clin- ton were elected by a large majority. (Appendix, p. 37.) When the result of the election was known, Mr. Jefferson re- fused any longer to bear the responsibility of the presidential office. "I have thought it right," he wrote, "to take no part my- self in proposing measures the execution of which will devolve upon my successor. I am therefore chiefly an unmeddling listener to what others say." (Life of Gallatin, 377.) The necessity of carrying on the Government therefore devolved chiefly upon Mr. Madison and Mr. Gallatin. Mr. Jefferson's second term came to an end on the 4th day of March, 1804, in the midst of the most tr3'ing circumstan- ces, both at home and abroad. During the preceding eight years, says Mr. Henry Adams (Life of Gallatin, 269), the country was 96 RESULT OF .TfcFFERSClN's ADMINISTRATION. [1809 governed by three men — Jefferson, Madison, and Gallatin. Dur- ing this period, as during the administrations of Washington and Adams, the President and Cabinet were not only the executive branch of the Government, but they also shaped very largely the course of legislation. Thus the executive came to be looked upon as the government ; and it was thought the countrj- must go to ruin under a particular administration or policy. But the people were really governing themselves in the greater number of their affairs, in the State governments and local meet- ings ; and if not absolutel3' restricted by such laws as the embargo, or by the want of a uniformity of general laws, as under the Con- federation, would thrive independently of the General Government. So up to this time the country had, under all the administrations, increased rapidly in wealth and population. In 1807 the exports had risen to over $100,000,000 in value. In 1810 the population had increased to seven millions and a quarter. The great West was being opened up by ways of communication and by explora- tions and survey's. As to the condition of the eounti'y as a result of the embargo, a committee of the Massachusetts legislature reported in Januarj-, 1809, as follows : "Our agriculture is discouraged ; the fisheries abandoned ; navigation forbidden ; our commerce at home re- strained, if not annihilated; our commerce cut off; our navy sold, dismantled, or degraded to the service of cutters or gunboats ; the revenue extinguished ; the course of justice interrupted ; and the nation weakened by internal animosities and divisions, at the mo- ment when it is unnecessarily and improvidentl3- exposed to war with Great Britain, France, and Spain." But the friends of Jef- ferson set forth, as the good results from his administration, "First, the acquisition of Lousiana, by which more than a million of square miles were added to the national domain and the free navi- gation of the Mississippi secured ; which also settled a troublesome and threatening controversy with Spain, and removed the powerful and dangerous neighborhood of France ; Second, the survej's of the coast and the exploring expedition of Lewis and Clarke .... Third, the administration had done much to advance the Indians in the arts of civilized life, and had obtained their voluntarj- relin- quishment of their title to 96,000,000 of acres; it had also the merit of compelling the Barbary powers to respect the flag of -the United States." (Stat. .Alan., L 264.) 1809] Madison's first term. 97 Mr. Jefferson, when he saw his political theories of government one after anpther break down in practice — the sanguine hopes of a lifetime blotted out — was all at sea. He was unable to abandon his old theories and try others ; he therefore resigned his power into other hands and retired forever from political life. For Mr. Jefferson's character and political policy see : Schouler, II. 199-204 ; Hildreth, IV. 291-2, 297-8, 340-1 ; VI. 138 ; Adams, Life of Gallatin, 491-2 ; Lodge, Life of Cabot, 495 ; Stat. Man., I. 139-48, 265-6 ; Tucker, Life of Jefferson. III. Madison's Administration — First Term — 1809-13. To the close of Jefferson's administration the Government had been controlled by men who had been the chief actors in the Eev- olution. Madison and Monroe, it is true, had participated in that struggle, and continued still for some time at the head of the Gov- ernment. But their main services to the country had been done ; thej' had not the nerve or courage to deal with the questions now to be settled. Jefferson had "turned the responsibility and the burden of the war with Great Britain over to his successor, Mr. Madison, whom Gen. Jackson pronounced to be a President 'not fit for blood and carnage.'" (Wise, Seven Decades of the Union, 52.) "Under such conditions (says Von Hoist, I. 229) the field belongs, in a popular state, to those possessed of the courage to resolve and do. The homilies novi in Congress had this courage, and Madison became their tool." The ablest of these men, now in Congress for the first time (1811), were Henry Clay of Ken- tucky, William Lowndes and J. C. Calhoun of South Carolina, Felix Grundy of Tennessee, and W. H. Crawford of Georgia. (Hildreth, VI. 260.) For his Cabinet, Madison continued Gallatin in the Treasury, and Rodney as Attorney-General ; for the other places, he selected Robert Smith of Mar^-land, as Secretary of State, William Eustis of Massachusetts, Secretary of War, and Paul Hamilton of South Carolina, as Secretar}' of the Navy. The Cabinet was a poor one, and not calculated to be harmonious. Robert Smith was a brother of Senator Smith, who with Duane, editor of the Aurora, W. B. Giles and others, were very hostile to Gallatin, and later brought about his retirement from the Cabinet. (Hildreth, VI. 149-50 ; Schouler, II. 279-81; Life of Gallatin, 389-92; Stat. Man., I. .341.) 98 BERLIN AND MILAN DECREES REVOKED. [1810-11 Mr. Madison was unable to hold his party together in Congress, as that legislative body had become utterly demoralized. It could not be brought to do anything or to have any policy. It had re- pealed the embargo, but would not go to war. A period of stag- nation followed. (Life of Gallatin, 397-401.) The embargo had so affected the revenue that Mr. Gallatin had to report (December 8, 1809) a deficit. "The expenses of gov- ernment, exclusivelj' of the payments on account of the principal of the debt, have exceeded the actual receipts into- the Treasury by a sum of nearly 11,300,000." In case the military and naval expenditure were as heavy as in 1809, authority for a loan of $4,000,000 would be required. He urged Congress to adopt meas- ures to enforce the non-intercourse with England and France. (Life of Gallatin, 412.) Accordinglj', the Macon bill — a naviga- tion act of the most severe kind, meeting the orders in council and the French edicts on their own ground — was brought forward and put through the House, but was rejected by the Senate through tlie influence of Gallatin's enemies — Messrs. Smith, Giles, and Duane. (Ibid. 413-14.) Finally, a bill — Macon's No. 2 — was passed bj^ Congress, May 1, 1810, "which has strong claims to be considered the most dis- gracefulact on the American statute-book." (Ibid. 416.) It re- pealed the non-importation act, but put nothing in its place. It left the American shipping unprotected — precisel}' in the position in which it was before the embargo or non-intercourse act had been passed. In the last section of the act it was provided that if either Great Britain or France should revoke its edicts the United States would prohibit trade with the other. This act, weak as it was, had the effect to force Napoleon to revoke his Berlin and Milan decrees (to take effect November 1, 1810). The removal of home restrictions upon the commerce left him at a disadvantage, since he could not enforce his sj'stem while England was all-powerful at sea. The United States Government assuming the revocation of the Berlin and Milan decrees to be a sufficient fulfilment of the Macon Act, issued November 1, 1810, a proclamation removing restric- tions on French vessels. At the same time the Secretary of the Treasury sent a circular to collectors to the effect that, after Feb- ruary 2, 1811, all intercourse with Great Britain and her dependen- cies should cease. The last named power had refused to revoke 1811] NON-INTERCOURSE BANK. 99 its orders in council, alleging that Napoleon had not removed, in fact, his restrictions on American commerce. (The late Ram- bouillef decree, March 23, 1810, had not been repealed. This confiscated nearly eight millions in value of American shipping and cargoes.) The President announced by proclamation, November 1, 1810, that England would be accorded three months within which to re- voke her orders ; and on March 2, 1811, Congress passed an act reviving the non-intercourse with England in case those orders were not revoked. (Stat, at L., II. 651 ; Hildreth, VI. 196-207, 214-23, 232-6 ; Schouler, II. 293-97, 301-12 ; Life of Gallatin, 413-16, 419-27 ; Stat. Man., I. 343, 4 ; Young, Am. Stat., 234-47 ; Benton, Deb., IV ) The Federalists opposed this new non-intercourse act by all known parliamentary tactics ; and the bill was passed only by "the infuriated majority" ruling that the adoption of the "previous question" should stop debate. This was the beginning of a prac- tice which has since been adhered to in the debates of the House. (Hildreth, VI. 236; Schouler, II. 293.) In the meantime the dissentions in the Republican party brought on a Cabinet crisis. The feud was mainly kept alive by a senato- rial clique hostile to Mr. Gallatin, led by General Smith, a brother of the Secretary of State. Bank. — As the Bank charter would expire March 4, 1811, Mr. Gallatin recommended its renewal, believing the Bank to be essen- tial to the public safety. The bill for a re-charter, however, met with not onlj' the old prejudice against it, but also was weighed down by the personal hostility to the Secretary of the Treasury. After a long and able debate, ending in the House January 24, 1811, the bill was de- feated by a vote of 65 to 64, and in the Senate February 20, by the casting vote of the Vice-President, George Clinton. Among the ablest supporters of the bill was William H. Craw- ford, Senator from Georgia. In the House Henry Clay (afterwards the great champion of the Bank) , who had just taken his seat, opposed the charter. (Life of Gallatin, 426-35 ; Hildreth, VI. 211, 12, 228-31 ; Schouler, II. 316-18 ; Benton, Deb. IV. 266-351, 391, note.) Whatever may have been the merits of the policy of establishing the Bank in 1791, it was certainly not a favorable time to change 100 DECLARATION OF WAR. [1812 that policy suddenly, when there was no other adequate fiscal agent through which the Government could carry on its fina'ncial operations. (Benton, Deb., IV. 340.) The Constitutional question, too, brought forward by Mr. Clay, was supposed to have been set at rest by Mr. Jefferson's giving his assent to the establishment of branches in the territories. On account of the' hostility to him in Congress and in the Cabi- net, Mr. Gallatin tendered his resignation after the failure of the Banlf bill. Mr. Madison declined to accept it, but made other changes. In November, 1811, James Monroe superseded Robert Smith as Secretary of State ; and in December William Pinckney of Marj'land was appointed Attornej'-General in place of Cesar A. Rodney. (Life of Gallatin, 435-40 ; Schouler, II. 319-22.) ^ War with England Begun. — Several attempts had been made to settle the disputes with England, but these had all failed. See negotiations with Erskine and Jackson. (Hildreth, VI. 166-77, 183-95, 216, 17; Schouler, II. 282-93; Life of Gallatin, 381, 2, 392-6, 418.) Thus were the relations with England in an unsettled state when, on account of the refusal of England to revoke her orders in council. Congress passed, April 14, 1812, the third embargo act, to be in force for ninety days, with the intention to declare war at the end of that time if England persisted in her course. June 1, 1812, Madison in a confidential message (Stat. Man., I. 293) set forth the grievances of the United States against Eng- land : (1) The impressment of American seamen ; (2) The violation of neutral rights by British cruisers upon our coast ; (3) The system of illegal or "Paper Blockades" declared by Orders in Council ; (4) A tampering with the Indians. In the House this message was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, a majority of whom reported, June 3, a manifesto as the basis of a declaration of war. The bill passed both houses in a secret ses- sion, and became a law June 18. (Benton, Deb., IV. 418, 559- 60.) The next day appeared a proclamation embodying the act. The Federalists tried to have the act rejected, or at least its passage postponed for a month. Had this been done probably war would not have arisen ; for, June 23, England revoked her orders in council, which action confusion in her councils had hitherto de- layed. The Federalists said that a committee of leading Republi- can members of Congress waited on the President and informed 1812] THE wAn OF 1812. 101 him that, unless he would "accede to a declaration of war with Great Britain, neither his nomination nor his re-election to the Presidencj- could be relied on. Thus situated, Mr. Madison con- cluded to waive his own objections to the course determined on by his political friends, and to do all he could for the prosecution of a war for which he had no taste ; and he pretended to no knowledge of war as a science or profession." (Hildreth, VI. 302-6, 313-34, 346-7 ; Schouler, II. 348-66 ; Life of GaUatin, 456-9 ; Stat. Man., I. 353-56 ; Von Hoist, I. 230-4.) For the war thus hastily declared there was no doubt sufficient cause, but it would have been better policj- perhaps to have begun it five years earlier, before the finances of the nation had been paralyzed by restrictions upon commerce, and before the ardor of a large portion of the people had been cooled by Ave years of stag- nation. Moreover no preparation had been made for the war ; the Re- publicans had continued to despise the navy, and now placed no reliance upon it. It was said afterwards, on the authority of Commodores Stewart and Bainbridge, that the President and Cab- inet had the design to lay up the ships to save expense, and pre- vent them from being captured. (Hildreth, VI. 365 ; Schouler, II. 362.) This charge was denied by Gallatin ; and Mr. Henry Adams shows that it was not plausible. (Life of Gallatin, 4 62 ; Gallatin's Works, IL 611.) The main dependence was upon the army, which, saj's Mr. Hil- dreth (VI. 308), consisted at the commencement of the war of 10,000 men, of whom one-half were raw recruits. By the Act of June 26, 1812, the regular army was to consist of 36,700 men ; volunteers, to be organized on the model of the regular army, were "to form the chief resource for active operations." The President, too, was authorized to call out the militja. Ample provision was made for officers ; but for the most part they "were indebted for their present appointments rather to poli- tical than to military considerations." Hildreth, VI. 308-10.) Henry Dearborn, late Secretary of War, and since Madison's ac- cession. Collector of the port of Boston, was appointed first Major-General, with the conmiand of the Northern Department. Thomas Pinckney of South Carolina, was appointed second Major- General, with the command of the Southern Department. Briga- dier-General Hull, Governor of the Michigan Territory, commanded 102 WAR OF 1812 FINANCES. [1812 in the Northwest, from which quarter the first attack was to be made. England was to be reached bj' depriving her of her Canadian provinces, which, it was confidently expected, would fall an easy prey to the armies of the Union. The sequel showed that the only effective victories in this quar- ter were those won on Lakes Erie and Champlain by the despised nav3'. As to the condition of Canada at this time see : Hildreth, VI. 335, 6. The Financial Condition of the Country at the Outbreak of War. — Between the years 1801 and 1811, the customs duties had sufficed, besides paying the ordinary expenses of the Government, to pay annually the interest on the national debt $2,200,000, and over $4,000,000 of the principal, leaving unpaid about $45,000,000. The embargo and non-intercourse acts had caused the annual revenue from customs duties to fall from $15,000,000 to about $6,000,000. Gallatin in his report of Novenlber, 1811, estimated the revenue for the ensuing year, under existing circumstances, at $6,600,000 ; the expenditure at $9,200,000. "To provide for the deficiency an addition of 50 per cent to the existing duties on imports would be required and was preferable to an internal tax." (Life of Gal- latin, 446.) "In case of war," continues Mr. Gallatin, "the United States must relj^ solelj- on their own resources." If the United States wished to borrow money thej- must paj- for it. "It may be expected that legal interest will not be sufficient to obtain the sums required. In that case the most simple and direct is also the cheapest and safest mode. It appears much more eligible to pay at once the difference, either by a premium in lands or by allowing a higher rate of interest, than to increase the amount of stock created, or to attempt any operation which might injuriously affect the circulating medium of the country." (Life of Gallatin, 447-9.) When it became certain that war would be declared, the Com- mittee of Ways and Means asked Mr. Gallatin for war estimates, which he gave in a letter to the chairman of that committee. (Jan- uary 10, 1812; Gallatin's Writings, I. 501-17; Life of Gallatin, 460-55.) "After doubling the imposts and reimposing the dutj' on salt, he could promise a net revenue of only $6,000,000 for war times. The committee assumed that annual loans of $10,000,000 would be required during the war, which left an annual deficiency to be provided for by taxation, amounting to $5,000,000, calculat- 1812] WAR INVASION OF CANADA. 103 ed to cover the interest of the first two loans onlj-, after which ad- ditional taxes must be imposed to provide for the interest of future loans." Of the $5,000,000 to be raised by internal taxes Gallatin proposed to obtain S3, 000,000 by a direct tax, and $2,000,000 by excise, stamps, licenses, and duties on refined sugar and on car- riages. (Life of Gallatin, 452.) The proposal to reimpose inter- nal taxes met great opposition, especially from the old Kepubli- cans, or Democrats as they were now called, among whom were manj' of Gallatin's personal friends. Wright of Maryland said, March 2, 1812, "A system of taxes is presented truly odious .... to the people, to disgust them with their representatives and to chill the war spirit .... Is there anything of originality in his system ? No ! It is treading in the muddy footsteps of his oflScial predecessors." (Ibid. 453.) Nevertheless Congress had to fol- low Gallatin's advice in the end. March 14, 1812, an act author- ized a loan of $11,000,000 (though it did not provide for the extra interest necessitated thereby.) (Stat, at L., 11.694.) On June 30 an issue of $5,000,000 of interest-bearing Treasury notes were auth6rized, and on July 1 the customs duties were doubled. (Stat, at L., II. 766, 768.) The question of internal taxes went over for the present. (Hildreth, VI. 281-4 ; Schouler, II. 344, 5 ; Life of Gallatin, 452-5.) In the absence of a United States bank it was found difficult to place the loan, as Mr. Gallatin had predicted. The enlistments, too, went on very slowl^', and no naval force had been put on the lakes. I War Begun. — The first military operations'were miserably disas- trous. July 12, 1804, Hull crossed the Detroit River intending to take Fort Maiden. But he was anticipated by the enemj', and after •some slight skirmishes was compelled to retreat to Detroit, which place, a month later, August 16, he surrendered at discretion to General Brock, Governor of Upper Canada. "Brock, in de- manding surrender, had declared he could not restrain his allies, the Indians, from rapine and murder in case the place should be carried by assault. Hull did not believe he could depend upon the militia for an}' serious, much less for any desperate, fighting .... the popular clamor demanded a victim for the loss, not only of Detroit, but of the whole Northwest Territory, and the failure to invade Canada. Hull was tried by court-martial and condemned to be shot .... he was nevertheless pardoned by Madison in con. 104 THE WAR- — NAVY. [1812 sideration of his past services." The Government had not suit- ably re-enforced Hull, and hence was partly to blame for the re- sult. (Hildreth, VI. 336-43 ; Schouler, II. 357, 8.) In October and November 1812, another attempt at the invasion of Canada, on the Niagara frontier, ended about as disastrously as the first. (Schouler, II. 359-62.) At the same time an expedi- tion in command of Dearborn in person marched by way of Lake Champlain, but accomplished nothing. (Hildreth, VI. 354-64 ; Schouler, II. 359 ; Ingersoll, History of the War of 1812.) In the mean time the little navy had been doing wonders at sea. August 19, the Constitution, 44 guns, in command of Captain Isaac Hull, captured the British frigate Cruerriere, 38 guns ; Oc- tober 18, the Wasp, 18 guns, Captain Jones, captured the Frolic, 20 guns (retaken by the Poictiers, 74 guns) ; October 25, the United States, 44, Captain Decatur, captured the Macedonian, 38 ; December 29, the Constitution, Captain Bainbridge, destroyed the Java. 38. The news of these victories were received in England with amazement and alarm. It was the first time a British frigate had been forced to strike to a foreigner. It awakened a respect for the United States irf the breasts of Englishmen, which all former peace measures had been powerless to effect. During this year, moreover, American privateers had captured over 300 prizes. (Schouler, II. 362-5; Hildreth, VI, 365-72; Cooper, Naval History, Vol. II.) Election of 1812. — In spite of weakness shown by the Govern- ment, and of the disaffection of the Eastern States in regard to the war, the elections of this year sustained the war policj-. Mr. Madison was re-elected b}' a good majority, with Elbridge - Gerry as Vice-President. (Appendix, p. 37 ; Schouler, II. 36'8-71 ; Hildreth, VI. 375-7. IV. Aclministration of Madison, Second Term. Cabinet Changes. — Clay "and his war friends," says Mr. Hil- dreth, "had been able to force a peace Cabinet unwillingly into war ; but the conduct of the war still remained in the hands of the same peace Cabinet, not one of whose members was at all adapted, either by enterprise, energy, knowledge, or enthusiasm, for its successful prosecution." (VI. 385.) 1*^13] CABINET CIIAXGKS THE WAR. 105 Mainly for this reason, Eustis, Secretary of War, was iuduced to resign, and was replaced by General Armstrong, January 13, 1813 ; and Paul Hamilton was superseded by WiUiam Jones, Jan- uary 12, 1813. The personal hostility to Gallatiu had destroyed his usefulness ; he was appointed, with Bayard and J. Q. Adams, to go on a peace mission to Kussia, Still nominally retaining the Treasury portfolio. But his successor, George W. Campbell, was finally appointed, February 9, 1814. (Life of Gallatin, 477- 91.) Campbell proving inefficient, ga\e way October 6, 1814, to Alexander J. Dallas of Pennsylvania ; Dallas resigned, and was succeeded b}- William H. Crawford of Georgia, October 22, 1816. Crawford had been Secretary of War from August 1, 1815. Arm- strong had retired, September, 1814. and Munroe had performed the duties of the war office ad interim. Jones, Secretar3- of the Navy, gave place to B. W. Crowninshield, December 19, 1814; and Pinckney, Attorney-General, to Richard Rush, February 10, 1814. Also R. J. Meigs succeeded Gideon Granger as Postmaster- General, March 17, 1814. (Hildreth, VI. 385, 6, 401, 413, 415, 16 ; Schouler, II. 374, 77, 403, 413. Congress. — "The 13th, or, as it is sometimes called, the War Congress, convened on the appointed daj*. The new apportion- ment had increased the number of members to one hundred and eight}--two. Politically, Congress was constituted of Federalists, sixty-eight ; Democrats, one hundred and twelve. Henry Clay was elected Speaker b3- a majority of thirtj--five votes. The Fed- eralists were also strengthened hy the addition of men afterwards eminent in their country's history. Among these were Daniel Webster, Cyrus King, and Thomas P. Grosvenor." "The Senate stood twent^'-seven Democrats, to nine Federalists. The Demo- cratic strength was weakened by the defection of a strong faction led b}' Messrs. Giles, Lieb, and Smith, which frequently coalescing with the opposition, defeated the measures of the Administration. This Congress was mainly occupied with war measures. (Holmes, Parties and their Principles, 74.) The Course of the War. — (1) As to the militar3- operations on the northern frontier. By Hull's surrender the Michigan Territory had been lost. Wil- iam Hemy Harrison, Governor of the Indiana Territory, was now appointed to the command of the armies in the West. He was very popular in that region on account of his late victory over 106 THE WAR OF 1812. [1813-14 the Indians at Tippecanoe, November 7, 1811. (Schouler, II. 331- 35 ; Hildreth, VI. 251-9.) Harrison's attempts to retrieve Hull's disaster at first proved failures. (Hildreth, VI. 359-62, 392-96, 408-10 ; Schouler, II. 358-9, 382, 3.) Perry's victory on Lake Erie, September 10, 1813, cleared that lake of the enem}', and gave Harrison the means of invading Canada ; which resulted in the defeat of the British and Indians on the river Thames, October 5, 1813. (Schouler, II. 382-6 ; Hildreth, VI. 433-8.) The second invasion of Canada, made on the Niagara frontier, resulted more seriously than the first. General Van Rensselaer, in command there, October 13, sent several small columns across the river under General John E. Wool and Colonel Winfleld Scott, who were compelled to surren- der. The American loss was about 1000 men. Meanwhile little was done on the northern frontier of New York, and Dearborn soon retired about as much damaged in reputation as Hull had been the year before. General Wilkinson, his succes- sor, made no better success ; and he was finally recalled and tried by court martial. The Secretary of War, General Armstrong, persisted in the plan of invading Canada. A force was again sent over the Niag- ara frontier, which fought, under Generals Brown and Scott, the brilliant battles of Chippewa, July 5, 1814, and Lundy's Lane, July 15 ; but these battles had no practical result. (Schouler, II. 386-8, 403-6 ; Hildreth, VI. 439-45, 489-90, 492-9, 520, 537.) Instead of conquering Canada, the American army was called upon to repel a serious invasion by waj' of Lake Champlain. Here the navy again performed most excellent service. McDonough's victory on Lake Champlain, September 11, 1814, forced the British army to retire. (Hildreth, VI. 518-20 ; Schouler, II. 406.) (2) Military operations on the Southern borders. — The war in the South was at first confined to the Indians. Under the in- fluence of Tecumseh (killed at the battle of the Thames) , and his brother, the Prophet, the Creek Indians of Georgia and Alabama, as did the Indians of the Northwest, took sides against the United States. The massacre at Fort Mimms, in Southern Alabama, of over 300 whites, August 30, 1813, was the signal for war. There- upon a vigorous invasion of the Creek country took place. Of the commanders. General Andrew Jackson became the most promi- 1813-U] THE WAR OP 1812. 107 neut. The Creeks suffered a final defeat at the Great Bend ; and by the treaty of E'ort Jackson, August 9, 1814, ceded over three- fourths of their territory, comprising the greater part of what is now Alabama. (Stat, at L., VII. 120; Hildreth, VI. 446-51, 477-81 ; Schouler, II. 388-92.) In November, Jackson having taken Pensacola and handed it over to the Spanish authorities, hastened to New Orleans to repel an expected attack. On Jhe 8th of January-, 1815, the British army under General Pakenham, was repulsed before New Orleans with a loss of over 2000 killed and wounded. This most brilliant exploit of the war took place after the signing of the treaty of peace in Europe. (Schouler, II. 438-44 ; Hildreth, VI. 539, 557- 65 ; Parton, Life of Jackson, II.) (3) War on the seabord. — Commencing with a few of the principal ports. Great Britain gradually extended the blockade of the coast from Montauk Point to the mouth of the Mississippi. (November, 1813.) As yet New England had been spared, except New London, on account of her opposition to the war ; but in the spring of 1814, the principal New England ports were also block- aded, and several towns were captured. (Hildreth, VI. 402, 422- 26, 451, 484-6, 515 ; Schouler, II. 394-5.) In the summer of 1814, a descent was made upon Eastport, which caused general alarm throughout New England. At the same time a large British squadron in command of Admiral Coch- rane entered the Chesapeake. Troops were landed, August 19-20, who marched upon Washington, defeated an American force at Bladensburg, August 24, 1814, and the next ^ay entered the city and burnt all the public buildings and property, in retaliation, it was said, for the burning of the Parliament House at York (Tor- onto) by the Americans, April 27, 1813. The fleet in the mean time captured Forts AVashington and Alexandria on the Potomac. Retiring again fo the Baj', an attack was made upon Baltimore and Fort McHenry September 13, which was bravely met and re- pulsed. (Hildreth, VI. 499-518 ; Schouler, II. 407-12.) (4) The Navy. This branch of the service, although having made a brilliant record in the first year of the war, found the odds against it too great. The ships as thej- came into port for repairs were one after another shut up by the blockade, until, in October, 1814, there was not one at sea. Even on Lake Erie the British had again got the ascendency. Individual vessels, however, oceas- 108 TPIE WAR FINANOES. [1813-15 ioually got to sea, and generally- did good service. (Hildreth, VI. 399-400, 403, 421-2, 430-2, 485-8, 523, 655, 56, 572, 3 ; Schouler, II. 392-4 ; Cooper, Naval History, II.) Jefferson's gun-boats were of no practical service during the war, and those that were left were ordered to be sold at its close. (Hildreth, VI. 500, 504, 572.) Privateers, authoized by the Act of June 26, 1812, did much "damage to British commerce. (Hildreth, 416, 573 ; Schouler, II. 455.) (5) Finances during the war. — Finally after a year's delay, Congress passed an act for the levying of direct taxes and internal duties ; July 22, 1813. (Stat, at L., III. 22 ; IngersoU, History of the War of 1812-15, I. 218-22 ; Hildreth, III. 415-16.) From time to time additional articles vi^ere made subject to internal duties ; the average duration of these taxes was three years, being repealed soon after the close of the war. Before this system could ha got into operation, however, there was pressing need of money, which was provided by the issue of treasury notes, and by loans. The issue of such notes during the course of the war amounted to $40,000,000, and the}" depreciated at times to 17 per cent below par. The loans contracted were : 1812, $5,000,000 ; 1813, $23, 000,000; 1814, $34,000,000 ; 1815, $24,000,000 ; in all, $98,000, 000 ; which increased the debt to 123,000,000. The bonds fell to 30 per cent below par. (On the subject of taxation during the period of the war, see: IngersoU, pp. 218-58, and especially tables, pp. 239, 25G.) Of the Government loans contracted during the war the Eastern States (because opposed to the war) furnished onl}- $2,900,000 ; the Western and Southern States, 2,320,000 ; and the Central States — mainly the cities of New York, Philadelphia,, Baltimore, and Washington— $35,790,000. (Writings of Gallatin, III. 284.) The Government found great difficulty in borrowing monej" ; one- reason of which was the discontinuance of the Bank of the United States on the eve of the war, and the consequent confused state of the currency. A great number of State banks were chartered, many more in fact than were wanted. The following table shows the effect upon the number, the capi- tal, the notes, and the specie, of the expiration of the charter of the U. S. Bank. 1812-15] FINANCKS BANKS. 109 Year. No. OP Banksi Capital. Notes. Specie. 1811, Jan. 1, 1811, Jan. 1, Bank of U. S. 88 State banks. Total, 208 State banks. 246 State banks. $10,000,000 42,600,000 $5,400,000 22,700,000 $5,800,000 9,600,000 1815, Jan. 1, 1816, Jan. I, 52,600,000 82,200,000 89,000,000 28,100,000 46,300,000 68,000,000 15,400,000 17,000,000 19,000,000 At the expiration of the charter the notes of the bank were withdrawn from circulation ; but in 1814, the state banks, except those of New England, suspended specie paj-ments, and by Jan- uarj- 1, 1816, the number of state banks had increased from 208 to 246, and their circulating notes from $46,300,000 to $68,000, 000. In 1819, at the return to specie pajments, the circulating notes declined to $45,000,000 — about the normal amount. (For a different estimate see Gouge on Paper Money, p. 220.) The heavy drain from the banks of the Centi'al States in loans to the Government, together with the loss of $7,000,000 in gold of for- eign capital caused by the winding up of the United States Bank, caused a too great enlargement of their issues of circulating notes and their consequent depreciation. Hence, the specie in part was driven from the country, and in part was drawn to New England to supply the needs of commerce increased through the temporary exception of the New England coast from the general blockade. The specie in the Massachusetts banks increased from $1,709,000 in 1811 to $7,326,000 in 1814. The specie was necessary to the New England banks, under the Suffolk Bank system, to main- tain their specie payments. This system was adopted by the New England States, after the crisis of 1809, under the Banking" Law of 1812 requiring all banks to redeem their notes on demand. In 1813 the New England Bank was chartered in Boston as a central office for the redemption of the notes of all banks. This system, though unpopular at first, kept the notes at par, and was after- wards adopted by other States. (Sumner, History of American Currency, 61-70 ; Gallatin's Writings, III. 278-89 ; Ingersoll, II. 249-52; Schouler, II. 415-17.) When Mr. Dallas became Secretary of the Treasury (October 5, 1814) one of his first acts was to recommend, as a means of supplying a uniform circulating medium, and a resource in the way of loans, a national bank with a capital of $50,000,000. After a 110 BANK — OPPOSITION TO THE WAR. [1812-15 long and obstinate debate a Bank Bill was passed conforming in the main to the plan of Dallas (Januaiy 20, 1815) ; but it was vetoed by the President on the ground, not of its unconstitution- ality, but because of the inadequacy of the proposed bank to ac- complish the ends intended. (Hildreth, VI. 541-3 ; Young, Am. Statesman, 273 ; Ingersoll, 258-63 ; Tucker, III. 123-6 ; Benton, Deb., V. 362-86, 401-13.) The Bank project succeeded the next year. (April 10, 1816.) A bank was established nearlj' on Dallas' plan ; the capital to be $35,000,000, one-fifth to be subscribed by the Government. There were to be 25 directors, of whom the Government should appoint five. The Bank must establish an office of discount and deposit in the District of Columbia on demand of the Government, and in any state in which 2000 shares of stock should be held, on application of the state and the requisition of Congress. The Banit should be entitled to the deposit of the public moneys unless the Secretary of the Treasury, on reasons to be at once laid before Congress, should otherwise direct. (Hildreth, VI. 588-91 ; Stat, at L., III. 266-; Schouler, II. 446-9 ; Ingersoll, II. 263, 4; Sum- ner, 73 ; Gallatin's Essaj- on Currency and Banking, Writings, III. 235 et seq.) 6. Federalist Opposition to the War. — When the war was de- clared, ' ' Thirtj'-four representatives of the minority published a vigorous protest, in the form of an address to their constituents, both against the war and the manner in which the declaration of war was brought about " ; thej- would have no share in the misfor- tunes of the war, nor would they help to give ' ' implied validity to so flagrant an abuse of power." (Niles' Eegister, II. 309-15 ; Von Hoist, I. 235.) The Federalists declared that the war was a party and not a national war, and that it was not their duty to support it in any way. They looked upon a war with England with great abhorrence, both as suicidal in regard to our own inter- ests, and as immoral, inasmuch as it was the " taking sides with a t3'rant hostile alike to the rights of nations and the rights of men." (Hildreth, II. 324 ; also lb. 313-25 ; Schouler, II. 255-6 ; Von Hoist, I. 234-44 ; Curtis, Life of Webster, I. 117, 8.) Previously to the declaration of war, April 10, 1812, Congress had authorized the President to call upon the executives of the several states to hold in readiness their respective quotas of the 100,000 militia provided for; also "to call into actual service anj' 1812] THE NEW KNOI.AND MILITIA. Ill part, or the whole, of said detachment in all the exigencies pro- vided for bj' the Constitution," — that is to saj-: to execute the laws of the Union, to suppress insurrections, and to repel invasions. (Stat, at L., II. 705 ; Constitution, Art. I. Sect. 8, CI. 15, 16.) Under the authority of this act and of the Constitution the President through the Secretary of "War called upon the Governors of Connecticut and Massachusetts to order into the service of the United IStates, on tlie requisition of Major General Dearborn, such part of the quota of militia .... as he may deem necessary for the defence of the sea-coast." (Dwight's Hartford Convention, 238.) The forty-one companies required from Massachusetts ' ' were ordered to diflerent places in that state and in Rhode Island. Two Lieutenant-Col6nels were called for from the militia ; but no officer of a higher grade." No officers of any description were in the call for fiye companies from Connecticut. They were to be placed under the command of officers of the United States armj-, at different points along the sea-coast. The governors of those states refused to call out the militia, and for two reasons : (1) That the militia could not be called out upon the requisition of the General Government except in a case declared and founded upon the existence of one of the special exigencies mentioned in the Constitution ; that none of those exigencies existed in the opinion of the Governors of Connecticut and Massa- chusetts ; (2) That when called out the militia could not be taken from the command of the officers appointed over them by the states, or commanded by any other officer except the President of the United States. (Constitution, Art. II. Sect. 2, CI. 1 ; Kent, I., 262 ; Story, III. §§ 1194-1210 ; Dwight, History of the Hart- • ford Convention, 234 et seq.) The Governor of Massachusetts referred the question to the Supreme Court of that state ; who were of opinion that it belonged to the governors of the several states to determine when any of the exigencies contemplated by the Constitution existed ; that such power was not expressly granted to the President, and hence it was reserved to the states. On the other hand, President Madison, in a message to Congress, November 4, 1812, said : " If the authority of the United States ]to call into service and command the militia for the public defence can be thus frustrated even in a state of declared war, and of course under apprehension of invasion preceding war, they are not one nation for the purpose most of all requiring it." (Stat. Man., I. .300.) 112 THE HARTFORD CONVENTION. [1814 In 1827, the Supreme Court, in Martin vs. Mott, were of opinion that the President is the exclusive judge of the existence of the exigencies contemplated by the Constitution. (Appendix, p. 34.) Moreover, that the President may make his requisition directly upon the executive of the state, or upon the militia officers. And the militia when " called into the service of the United States are subject not only to the orders of the President as ,commander-in chief, but also to those of any officer outranking their own who may, under the authority of the commander-in-chief, be placed over them." (Cooley, Const. Law, 88, 89 ; Militia Act of 1795, Supra, p. 55 ; Kent, I. 264-5.) On account of the refusal of Massachusetts and Connecticut to place their militia at the disposal of the General Government, the executive withheld all assistance from those states when in 1814 they were obliged to repel an actual invasion. The support of their own militia, together with the federal taxes, made a heavy burden for them. It was largely owing to New England disaffection, and her re- fusal to aid in carrying on the war by either monej' or men, that the attempts to invade Canada were such lamentable failures. (Schouler, II. 417-23; Ingersoll, I. 59-73, 482-90; II. 65; Hil- dreth, VI. 378-86, 426-30.) The Hartford Convention. — On account of the danger of inva- sion in 1814, the Legislature of Massachusetts received memorials from many towns praying that the}' would protect the citizens in their constitutional rights, and suggesting that delegates be ap- pointed " to meet delegates from such other states as might think proper to appoint them, for the purpose of devising proper meas- ures to procure the united efforts of the commercial states, to obtain such amendments and explanations of the Constitution as will secure them from further evils." A joint committee to which these memorials had been submitted reported February 4, 1814, that thej' recognized the right of acting in concert with other states, but thought the exercise of this right at present inexpe- dient. (Niles' Register, VII. 151.) But on October 16 the Massachusetts House of Representatives resolved, " That twelve persons be appointed as delegates .... to meet and confer with delegates from the other New England states, or anj' other, upon the subject of the public grievances and concerns ; and upon the best means of preserving our resources, of defence against the 1J^14] TI[E IIARTFOKI) CoNVEXllOX. 113 enemy ; and to devise and suggest for adoption by those respective states such measures as they may deem expedient ; and also to take measures, if they shall think it proper, for procuring a con- vention of delegates from all the United States, in order to revise the Constitution thereof, and more effectually to secure the support and attachment of all the people, bj- placing all upon the basis of fair representation." October 18 the Legislature elected the dele- gates by a vote of 226 to 67 ; and copies of their proceedings were sent to the other states. (Dwight, 342.) Thereupon the Connecticut Legislature resolved, " That seven persons be appointed delegates to meet the delegates of the Com- monwealth of Massachusetts, and of any other of the New England states, at Hartford, on December 15, and confer with them on the subjects proposed .... an may consist with our obligations as mem- bers of the National Union." (Niles' Register, VIL 158.) The convention assembled at the appointed time and place. Massa- chusetts sent twelve delegates ; Rhode Island four ; Connecticut seven ; New Hampshire sent three, and Vermont one, who were chosen by count}- conventions. George Cabot of Massachusetts was chosen president, and Theodore Dwight, secretary. President Madison, fearing that the Eastern States might deter- mine to withdraw from the Union, and separately make peace with Great Britain, stationed Major Jessup with his regiment at Hart- ford, nominally as a recruiting agent, but reallj' to watch tlie convention. The convention adjourned after a secret session of three weeks, having embodied their views in a report to the legislatures which they represented. (Dwight, History of the Hartford Convention, 352-79.) In this document are detailed the causes of the evils then existing, and the proper remedies therefor. "Should it ap- pear," they say, "that the existing calamities grew out of implac- able combinations of individuals or states to monopolize power, and to trample on the rights and interests of the commercial section of the Union, then indeed, a separation by equitable ar- rangement would be preferable to an alliance by constraint between nominal friends, but real enemies." But separation, especially in time of war, would be justifiable only in the case of absolute necessity. (lb. 355.) "In cases, however, of deliberate, danger- ous, and palpable infractions of the Constitution, affecting the sovereio-nt}' of a state and the liberties of the people, it was not 114 THE HARTFORD CONVENTION. [1814 only the right, but the duty also, of the state to interpose its au- thority for their protection."' (lb. 361.) Again, "when emergen- cies occur which are beyond the reach of the judiciary tribunals, or too pressing to admit of the delaj^ incident to their forms, states which have no common imnpire, must be their own judges, and execute their own decisions. It will thus be proper for the several states to await the ultimate disposal of the obnoxious measures recommended by the Secretary of War, or pending before Con- gress, and so to use their power according to the character these measures shall finally assume, as effectually to protect their own sovereignty and the rights and liberties of their citizens." (lb. 361, 2.) The chief causes of complaint were : "The pretensions advanced, and the authority exercised over the militia, by the executive and legislative departments of the National Government. Also, the destitution of the means of defence in which the Eastern States were left." (lb. 356.) The views of the constitutionality of the authority of the General Government over the militia, as previously asserted by Massachusetts and Connecticut, were re-aflSrmed. (lb. 356-61.) In the first of the resolutions appended to the report, it is recommended to the New England States to adopt measures to protect their citizens from the operation and effects of all acts of Congress, subjecting the militia to forcibledrafts, concriptions, or impressments, not authorized by the Constitution of the United States. (lb. 376.) Here was set forth principles of nullification, as plainly stated as it was bj' South Carolina a few years later. This, coupled with the statement in the report that, not the Supreme Court, but the State, was to be the judge, in certain cases, of infractions of the Constitution, embodied the whole doctrine of State sovereignty. As to means of defence, " it would be impossible, in the ruin- ous state of their commerce, for the New England States to defend themselves, except by the appropriation to that purpose of a reasonable portion of the heavy taxes levied on them liy a govern- ment bound to protect them, but failing to do so." To secure such appropriation the states were advised to send a Committee to Washington. Several amendments to the Constitution were I This was the exact argument used by Madison in the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, {Supra p. 61.) 1*^14] THE ITARTFOKD CONVliNTIOX. ll'l proposed : ' ' The basing representation on free popiilation ; making the President ineligible for a second term ; disqualifying persons of foreign birth to hold office ; limiting embargoes to sixtj- daj-s ; requiring a two-thirds vote in Congress to admit new States, to interdict commercial intercourse, to declare war, or to authorize hostilities, except in cases of invasion." In the event of failure of the petition for appropriation of revenue, or of no change otherwise for the better, a new convention should meet in Boston in June ; and in an emergency, meanwhile, the officers of the con- vention could re-assemble it. (lb. 376-8). This report having been accepted by the legislatures of Massa- chusetts and Connecticut, commissioners were sent to Washington to lay before Congress the proposed arrangement as to taxes. But while on their way to Washington news was received of the Battle of New Orleans and of the conclusion of the Treaty of Ghent ; and this left the commissioners nothing to do but to return home. Amidst the general rejoicing over the advent of peace the doings of the Hartford convention fell into contempt, and the leaders in the movement had to defend themselves against the charge of treasonable intent. It was maintained, too, that the proceedings were in direct contravention of Art, I, Sect. 10, of the Constitution : "No state shall enter into any treatj-, alliance, or confederation." And "no state shall, without the con- sent of Congress, enter into any agreement or compact with another state." (Appendix, p. 20.) As no action was taken to carry into effect the resolutions of the convention, the whole question resulted merely in a war of words. The History of the convention by Theodore Dwight, its secre- tary, published in 183.3, is a full, but not impartial, account of the proceedings of the convention and the causes which led to it, going back to the beginning of Mr. Jefferson's administration. Mr Henry Cabot Lodge gives also a favorable view (Life of George Cabot, 410-526, .5-27-63.) An adverse account of the convention is given 'by Mr. J. Q. Adams (New England Federal- ism, 1800-1815, pp. ). In the appendix to this volume Mr. Henry Adams, the editor, publishes letters bearing upon this sub- ject, written by leading Federalists, particulaly those of Timothy Pickering. The secret journal of the Hartford convention maj' be found in Dwight's History, p. 383. 116 THE THEAXY OF (iHENT. [1814 Upon the general subject, see also: Hildreth, VI, 472-3, 532, 3, 545-53; Schouler, II. 424-30; Niles' Register, VII. 151, 158, 180, 2(i9, 70, 305 ; Von Hoist, I. 244-72, notes important. The Treaty of Ghent. — The treaty of peace with England was signed Dec. 14, 1814 — a fact not known iu this country till Jan. 1815. It was ratified Feb. 17, 1815. The commissioners of the United States were J. Q. Adams, Henry C'lay, James K. Bayard, Jonathan Russell and Albert Gallatin ; those of England were Lord Gambler, Henry Goulburn and William Adams. The treat}' makes no mention of the great questions — especially impressment — in which the war originated; for the Americans were extremely desirous of peace, and England had had enough of war. Still, among other extravagant demands, England proposed that its Indian allies should be allowed a neutral region between the territories of England and those of the United States. This the United States would not listen to. Art. IV. provided for a commission to settle the location of the "Highlands" and of the Northeastern head of the Connecticut River, and to survey- the boundary from the source of the St. Croix to the Iroquois or Cataraquy (St. Lawrence). This article pro- vides that if the commissioners could not agree the question should be referred to a friendly power. It was referred to the King of the Netherlands, but his decision was not accepted and the boundarj' was not settled till 1842. There was no agreement in regard to fisheries.^ England main- tained that the war had abrogated all former treaties, thus annulling the right of citizens of the United States to fish on British shores. Art. X. stipulated that both parties should endeavor to secure the entire abolition of the slave trade (which was abolished in the United States in 1808 and in England in 1807). (United States Treaties, 336, 1020-24 ; Hildreth, VI. 566-9 ; Schouler, II. 431-8 ; Life of Gallatin, 519-46; Diary of J. Q. Adams, III; Morse, Life of J. Q. Adams. 77-98.) The treaty of peace in 1815 closes the first period of our his- tory under the Constitution — the formative period. During the early years of the Constitution no man could say positivelj' that the experiment of a Federal Republic would be a success. Many were skeptical from the first, others were sa^nguine of success if ^ A convention in 1818 settled the question of tlie fisheries. If^lo] RESUI.TS OF THE WAR. 117 onlj- the Government could be organized in accordance with their own ideas. In the struggle for the supremacy of its policy each party believed that the policy of its opponents would lead to the overthrow of the Republic and the destruction of the liberties of the people. In view of such a catastrophe it was not uncommon to hear mentioned the question of a separation by a state, or a number of states, from the Union. At the end of the war of 1812-15, however, this spirit of state or local pride began to give way to a feeling of national loyalty ; the victories of the navj', and that at New Orleans, touched the national heart ; even New England forgot past evils and was carried along with the tide of enthusiasm. Party leaders could no longer hold the masses together on mere questions of forms of government. The war had brought about the final extinction of party lines, and the nation stood, for the first time, united and ready to work out its destiny, free from foreign complications or domestic disputes. The war had an economic effect, the discussion of which belongs to the next period. CHAPTER IV. Administrations of Monroe and J. Q. Adams — 1817-1829. /. Monroe's Administration — First Term. Cabinet Officers : Secretarj- of State, J. Q. Adams. Secretary of the Treasury, Wm. H. Crawford. Secretaiy of War, J. C. Calhoun. o J- ^ 4.1, -NT ' ( B. W. Crownin shield. Secretary of the Navy, { ■' \ Nov. 9, 1818, Smith Thompson. Attorney-General, William Wirt. Mr. Monroe was elected President in 1816, and Daniel D. Tompkins Vice-President, with little opposition. (Appendix, p. 37.) Except in New England, the Federalist strength was entirely broken ; party lines were becoming obliterated. But the new men, of whom Claj' and Calhoun were the leading spirits, adopted all the old Federalist doctrines, and Monroe, although of the old school, fell in with the new ideas. So we find him advising, in his first address, adequate naval and military forces, sea-coast defenses, a protective tariff, and internal improvements. (Stat. Man., I. 393-5.) The war had demonstrated the wealcness of the Jeffersonian policy, at least as regarded onr foreign relations. Mr. Monroe was considered to be the best equipped, hy his long and varied experience, of the men of his time : his cabinet, too, compares favorably with anj" before or since his administration. (Hildreth, VI. 620-23 ; Schouler, II. 458-63 ; Tucker, III. 196-9 ; Sargent, "Public Men and Events," 1. 17-19.) The party issues of the past were mostlj' dead ; the great ques- tions now to be settled related to the general interests of the country — economic questions of internal policy: such as the tariff, internal improvements, the chartering of a national bank, etc., which found supporters in both the old political parties. Manufactures. — The embargo and non-intercourse acts of 1807-1812 had nearly annihilated the commerce of the United 1S^5] MANUPACTURKS. 119 States. And for the same reason had greatly stimulated the growth of home manufactures, and especially of the great staples, cotton, wool, and iron, which had been largely imported from England. At the breaking out of the war the doubling of the duties (making them average about 30 per cent) created a strong protective tariff, which gave another impetus to the erection of manufacturies. In 1810 the value of manufactures was estimated at about $170,- 000,000. Manufactures of cotton, wool and flax reached the sum of about $40,000,000 ; of iron, $14,000,000 ; of hides and skins, $18,000,000; of liquors, $16,500,000; of wood, $5,500,000. At that time Pennsylvania was the leading manufacturing state, fol- lowed by Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, Maryland, Connect- icut, North Carolina. (Bishop, History of American Manu- factures, IL 161-3.) These statistics were based upon Gallatin's report on the census of 1810. In the general estimate is included the product of house- hold manufactures, which formed a very large percentage, — in the ease of clothing, hosiery, and linen, about two-thirds. In 1813 Mr, Teuch Coxe estimated that the annual value of the manufac- tures of the United States had increased 20 per cent over that of 1810. (Bishop, 11. 191.) The increase was still more rapid during the remaining years of the war bj' reason of the war duties and the great demand for war purposes, and the consequent high prices. (Sumner on Protection, 35.) Thus by merely incidental circumstances, manufactures had, in the period from 1807-15, grown to proportions only second in importance to agriculture and commerce. But the return of peace would remove the conditions upon which their growth had depended. It would reduce the duties by one- half,-' at the same time that the ports would be opened to the influx of English goods. Further, the return of peace would materially reduce the demand for many kinds of goods. In other words, things would return to their normal condition. But this would destroy the manufacturing industries which the war had nourished. " It was necessary, therefore, to secure a continuance of the cir- cumstances which had brought these industries into existence, in I The act of i8i2i doubling the duties was to be continued in force till one year after the close of the war. The Act of February 5, 1816, continued the double duties until July I ; but they were superseded by the Tariff Act of April 27, 1816. 120 MANUFACTURES. [1815 order to secure them from destruction." (Sumuer, on Protection, 36.) "Immense cargoes of foreign manufactures were already crowding the portals of the nation before peace had thrown open the gates of commerce, and several petitions had gone up to con- gress to avert the danger which was impending. Many branches of the domestic industry were yet new and imperfectly established, and few of the more recent enterprises had yet reimbursed the heavy expenses incidental to first undertakings on a large scale." (Bishop, 11. 211.) During the first three-quarters of the year following the peace the value of foreign goods imported amounted to over eighty-three millions of dollars ; and during the next ensuing j'ear, to one hundred and fifty-five and a quarter of millions. (Ibid.) In order to break down the formidable rivalship of growing manufactures in America, English merchants made heavy con- signments of goods to this countrj- to be disposed of at auction, and upon the most liberal credits. Mr. Brougham said in Parlia- ment that " it was even worth while to incur a loss upon the first exportations, in order b}- the glut to stifle in the cradle these rising manufactures of the United States, which the war had forced into existence, contrary to the natural course of things." (Bishop, II. 211-12.) American merchants were not averse to these transactions ; and the greatest life and activitj- were given to all the avenues of trade ; ship-yards were set at work, banks extended their credits to an unlimited amount, "and thereby stimulated all classes to seek their fortunes in mercantile operations and the largest ven- tures." (Ibid. 212 and note 1.) But to the manufacturers the enormous importations at the return of peace had the most disastrous consequences. Man^' were obliged to close their factories, others continued at a loss, often ending in total bankruptcy. Large numbers of workmen were obliged to seek other employment. In the case of cotton manufactures, another adverse element was the rise in the price of raw cotton, caused by the revival of the foreign demand, from 13 cents in 1814 to 20 cents in 1815, and 27 cents in 1816. This industry was saved from total destruction onlj' bj' the opportune introduction of new and improved machinery, partic- ularly the power loom. According to a report of the committee' of commerce and manufactures (1816), the capital invested in 181 G] TARIFF OF 1816. 121 cotton manufactures in 1815 amounted to $40,000,000, and the value of the pi-oduction to $24,300,000. (Bent. Deb., V. 588.) The woolen manufactures represented a capital of $12,000,000, and the goods manufactured, $19,000,000. These industries would be imperilled b}' the return to the normal conditions of trade existing before the war ; it was natural, therefore, that those interested in them should apply to Congress to save them by means of prohibitory or protective duties. (Bishop, II. 223-5 ; Hildreth, VI. 586.) In his seventh annual message (December 5, 1815) President Madison urged upon Congress the necessity of encouraging man- ufactures, but as an exception to the general rule ;^ "experience teaches that so many circumstances must concur in introducing and maturing manufacturing establishments, especially of the more complicated kinds, that a country may remain long without them, although sufficiently advanced, and in some respects even pecul- iarly flttod for carrying them on with success." (Stat. Man., I. 331 ; Bishop, II. 214-15.) Mr. Jefferson, too, had changed his opinion upon this subject : '■We must now place the manufacturer by the side of the agricul- turist." "Experience has taught me, that manufactures are now as necessary- to our independence as to our comfort." (Letter to Benjamin Austin, Jan. 9, 1816 ; Bishop, II. 221.) Tariff of 1816. — On February 13, 1816, Mr. Dallas, the Sec- retarj' of the Treasurj', sent to the House an elaborate report on the subject of a tariff. The annual revenue required, as estimated by the Committee of Wa3rs and Means, was about $24,000,000, of which sum $7,000,000 were proposed to be raised by direct taxes and internal duties, and $17,000,000, by customs duties. (Bishop, II. ■2->-2.) Mr. Dallas divided important articles subject to duty into three classes : (1) Those of which the home supply equalled the demand. This class comprised manufactures of wood, carriages, cables, hats, iron castings and Are arms, window-glass, leather paper, printing types. (2) Manufactures, which being but partially established did not suppl}' the domestic demand, but which might be made to do I Compare Madison's opinion on protection in 1789 (supra, p. 20.) 122 TARIFF OF 1816. [1816 so. These embraced cotton and woolen goods of the coarser kinds, iron manufactures of the larger kinds, pewter, tin, copper, spirits and beer. (3) Those produced at home very slightly or not at all. These comprised the finer kinds of cotton and woolen goods, the manu- factures of flax, hemp, and silk, hardware and cutlery. Upon the first class Mr. Dallas proposed duties nearly or quite prohibitory, leaving it to domestic competition to keep down the price. Upon the second class, an average duty of 20 per cent, which would still allow of foreign competition. Cotton and woolen goods were, however, to be rated somewhat higher, the former 33 1-3 per cent, and the latter 28 per cent. Upon the third class the rate of duty could be adjusted with reference to revenue merely. On the 12th of March, 1816, Mr. Lowndes, chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, reported to the House a bill based on Dallas' report, to regulate the duties on imports and tonnage, with a primary view to the encouragement of domestic manufac- tures, particularly those of cotton and wool. On the 20th of the same month, the House entered upon the consideration of the subject. Mr. Clay was in favor of "a decided protection to home man- ufactures by ample duties." He moved an amendment to increase the duty on cotton from 2.5 to 33 1-3 per cent. (Annals of Con- gress, 1st Session, 14th Congress, p. 1237-8.) Mr. Ingham, of Pennsylvania, supported Mr. Clay's motion, and said that "the revenue was onlj' an incidental consideration, and ought not to have any influence in the decision upon the proposition before the committee." (Benton, Deb., V. 628.) There was a prettj' general concurrence of opinion as to the necessity of a protective tariff, but a difference as to the degree of protection proper to be granted to manufactures. "A portion of the commercial and landed interests which had suffered from the causes that created and sustained manufactures, now felt them- selves entitled to be relieved from all unnecessar}- burthens in support of an industry which had thriven during their embarrass- ments. They were disposed to limit the duties to such rates and duration as was compatible with the object which all were disposed to cherish." (Bishop, II. 226.) The warmest supporters of the bill were from the Middle and Southern States. Mr. Calhoun believed the security of the country 1810] TARIFF OF 1816. 123 depended upon the establishment of home manufactures ; since, in case of wai-, the foreign markets might be closed to us, and both commerce and agriculture depended largely upon them. (Benton, Deb., V. 640-43 ; Young, Tariff Legislation, p. 38.) Mr. Randolph opposed the bill, objecting to the principle of protection — "the levying of an immense tax on one portion of the communitj- to put money into the pockets of another." (Ibid. 640, 45.) The minimum principle was introduced for the first time in this bill, in connection with low-priced cottons: "That all cotton cloths etc., .... (excepting nankeens imported directly from China) , the original cost of which at the place whence imported, [with the addition of the usual 20 and 10 per cent] shall be less than twenty-flve cents per square yard, shall, with such addition, be taken and deemed to have cost twent3^-five cents per square yard, and shall be charged with duty accordingly." The same principle was applied to certain cotton yarns costing sixty and sevent3'-five cents per pound, respectively. (Stat, at L., III. 311.) The object of this was to exclude the coarse, low-priced India cottons, then imported in large quantities to the prejudice of the American manufacturer and cotton grower. (Bishop, II. 226.) Mr. Webster, who was in favor of a moderatelj" protective tariff which should be permanent, opposed, in behalf of the commercial interests, this minimum principle, which would destroj- the India trade then employing fortj- ships. (Ibid. 227.) The ad valorem duties, as finally fixed, ranged from 7J to 30 per cent. But there was a great increase in the number of articles charged with a specific dutj'. The manufacturing industries most interested in the tariflT were those of cotton, wool, iron, and the sugar growers. (See Appen- dix, p. 40, for the rate of duty on a few leading articles.) The dutj' on cotton and woolen goods was to be 25 per cent for three years and thereafter 20 per cent. By act of Congress of April 20, 1818, the duty of 25 per cent was to continue till 1826. The bill became a law April 27, 1816. (Stat, at L., III. 310 ; Young, Tariff Leg., 37-40 ; Hildreth, VI. 585-8 ; Bishop, History of Manufactures, II. 225-9 ; Sumner, Lectures on Protection, pp. 36-9; Benton. Deb., V. 628, 632, 636-45; Curtis, Life of Web- ster, I. 152, 3.) "Thus was inaugurated," says Mr. Benton (Deb. V. 645, note) "a new policy with respect to the imposition of duties on imports. l--t THE FINAN'CES. [1816-17 Before the war of 1812, revenue had been the object of these duties, and protection to manufactnres the incident. Now this policy' was reversed. Protection became the object, and revenue the incident, often disregarding revenue altogether.'' This tariff did not wholly satisfy the more ardent friends of pro- tection ; yet it was a very considerable advance upon the duties before the war. "It doubtless averted the speedy ruin which would otherwise have overtaken several branches of manufac- tures, and probably destroyed that of cotton altogether. (Bishop, II. 229.) But the benefits expected from it increased the com- petition, and this added to the increased enterprise in foreign manufa'ctures, and the resumption of specie pa3'ments, brought the greatest disasters upon the manufacturing classes. (Ibid.) During the following years manufacturers continued to clamor for higher duties. Congress took action so far as to pass an act April 20, 1818, increasing the dutj- on pig iron to $10 per ton, and iron in bar not rolled, to $16 per ton. (Stat, at L., III. Bishop, II. 242.) At this time, too, for the greater strictness in the collection of duties, the custom-house appraisement was adopted. An act was also passed closing the ports of the United States against British vessels coming from anj^ British colonial port from which American vessels were excluded. (Bishop, II. 241.) The Finances. — As a result of the higher duties and the large importations the revenue from customs was greatly increased — to upwards of $36,000,000 in 1816. In view of the favorable treasury balance it was proposed to abolish all the remaining internal taxes, which was accordingly done December 23, 1817, except as to the duty on salt. Lowndes and some others who were in favor of internal improvements at the expense of the General Government, would have retained the internal taxes to be applied to this purpose, but the popular cry for repeal was too strong. (Hildretl), VI. 630.) The condition of the national industry did not correspond with the prosperity of the finances. Manufactures were greatly embarrassed ; and the great inflation of irredeemable bank paper, in consequence of the sus- pension of specie payments in 1814, had caused speculation and wild trading, increased by the abundance of foreign goods thrown upon the market at the close of the war. The Bank, chartered in 1816, got into working order early in 1817, and forced the state banks to resume specie payments. By 1817-19] BANK TI40rBLES CRISIS. 125 a resolution of Congress, paper money was not receivable for gov- ernment dues after the 20th of February, 1817, the day on which the New York branch went into operation. But the balance of trade was largely against the United States, and the drain of specie to pay this balance greatly embarrassed trade, and finally "forced the banks to contract, and many of them to break, involving an immense depreciation of property and entailing bank- ruptcy upon many individuals and companies." (Bishop, II. 235.) The Second National Bank was organized at Philadelphia, with branches at Baltimore, New York, and Boston ; branches in other states were established not long after. The mismanagement and peculations of the president (Wm. Jones, late Secretary of the Navy) and directors had brought the bank to the verge of stoppage in 1818. In December of that year Congress ordered an investi- gation of its affairs. The committee of the House appointed for this purpose made a report January 16, 1819, charging the board of directors with violating the bank charter in several instances. And on February 1 the same gentlemen presented a resolution to the effect that, if the corporation did not provide better regulations for the management of their affairs, then the Secretary of the Treasury should be instructed to ivithdraw from the bank the government deposits, and the Attorney-General should be required to sue out a writ of scire facias, calling upon the corporation to show cause why its charter should not be declared forfeited. These resolutions were afterward withdrawn. But the}- caused Mr. Jones to resign ; and Mr. Langdon Cheeves was appointed to his place. (Tucker, III. 239-49 ; Hildreth, VI. 650-4.) The energetic measures of Mr. Cheeves saved the bank, and specie payments were maintained at the principal centers of commerce, but the currency out of New England was left in a verj- dilapidated condition. (Hildreth, VI. 679-81.) It was during the same time that some of the states hostile to the bank attempted to tax the branches within their limits out of existence. In 1819 the Supreme Court in the case of M'Culloch vs. the State of Maryland (Appendix, p. 32) decided that Congress had power to incorporate a bank, and that the bank and branches were exempt from taxation Ijj- a state. For an account of these proceedings in the states of Marj'land and Ohio, see Young, American Statesman, 305-8. The Financial Crisis of 1819. — The various causes detailed above : the reduction of the war duties ; the sudden importation 126 FINANCIAL CRISIS INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. [1819 of great quantities of foreign goods ; the inflation of the irre- deemable paper currencj', and the great extension of bank credits ; the consequent speculation and over trading ; lastly, the violent contraction of the currency, and the consequent rapid decline in the prices of commodities (in breadstuffs and cotton as much as 60 per cent) ; brought on the severe financial crisis of 1819, which affected all branches of industry. New England felt the shock less perhaps than other parts of the Union, because she had kept a sound currency throughout, and her industries were more varied, and established on a sounder basis. (Hildreth, VI. 681, 2; Bishop, II. 248-51 ; Benton, Thirty Years' View, I. 5.) The manufacturers ascribed their distress to the want of adequate protection to home industry against the "cheap production, fraud- ulent invoices, long credit and unlimited sales at auction, whereby the country had been deluged with foreign merchandise, to the ruin alike of the farmer, the importer, and the maniifacturer." (Bishop, II. 257.) The farmers, too, began to look to a home market for their produce. Conventions of manufacturers were held, and petitions sent to Congress praying for the abolition of credits on impost duties, and an increase of the duties. A bill for the increase in the duties passed the House April 28, 1820, by a vote of 90 to 69, but it was lost in the Senate, 22 to 21. Mr. Clay came out strongly in favor of the bill. (Works, V. 461; Benton, Deb., "601-51 ; Hildreth, VI. 698, 9; Bishop, II. 257, 8.) Internal Improvements. — The question of internal improve- ments, which had fallen in the general wreck of .letferson's polic}', took a new start after the war. The want of ways of communi- cation and facilities of transportation had been acutely felt during the war. In his eighth annual message, Mr. Madison had advised an amendment of the Constitution, if necessary, in order to give Congress the power "to effectuate a comprehensive system of roads and canals such as will have the effect of drawing more closely together every part of our country by promoting intercourse and improvements." (Stat. Man., I. 335.) Mr. Calhoun, in furtherance of the liberal policy advocated by the new generation of Democrats, reported a bill, December 23, 1816, appropriating to internal improvements the bonus and the 1816-17] INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. 127 dividends received from the United States Bank, and the following February he advocated the measure in a strong speech. (Benton, Deb., V. 704.) He held that roads and canals were expedient and necessary for the transportation of troops, etc., in time of war. They would effect the unity of all sections, he thought. " Let us then bind the republic together by a perfect system of roads and canals." (Ibid. 707.) For this he believed the powers of Congress to be ample. The Constitution should be construed with plain good sense. Congress could construct roads and canals as a means for the general welfare. In like manner had the pur- chase of Louisiana and the construction of the Cumberland Road been justiiied.^ (Von Hoist, Life of Calhoun, 36-7.) Timothy Pickering, objecting to Calhoun's view, said (Benton, Deb., V. 708) : "If Congress had the power to make roads and canals, it must necessarily be an implied powei', and under the express power ' to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.' " Other speakers held that the construction by the General Government of roads through the states would necessitate the control of such roads by the General Government, and hence would infringe upon the rights of the states. Clay, who closed the debate in the House, became later the champion of internal improvements. He favored the bill in an able speech. (Ibid. 709 ; Clay's Works, V. 356.) The bill passed the House by 86 to 84, March 3, 1817 ; also the Senate. But it was vetoed by President Madison on the ground that it demanded of Congress the exercise of unconstitutional powers. (Benton, V. 721.) Still, believing the policy to be expe- dient, he advised an amendment to the Constitution. May 4, 1822, Monroe vetoed a bill for the extension and re- pair of the Cumberland Road. (Stat. Man. II. 558 ; Young, 311-12.) His reasons were substantially the same as those of Madison. The power to establish and operate roads, 'he said, "is a complete right of jurisdiction and sovereignty for all the purposes of internal improvement, and not merely the right of applying money, under the power vested in Congress to make appropria- I In 1828-33, however, he was a strict constructionist; and in 1838 he declared that one of the most essential steps to be taken was to restore our Government to its original purity, and that the great and sole object of his life was to put a stop to internal improvements by Congress. 128 THE SEMINOLE WAR. [1817-18 tions, under "which power, with the consent of the states, through which this road passes, the work was original!}- commenced, and has been so far executed." (Stat. Man., I. 491.) The comple- tion of the Erie Canal in New York ("Clinton's Ditch," as it was called bj' its opponents) in 1825, mainly through the exertions of Governor De Witt Clinton, increased the general desire for such improvements. Still no amendment to the Constitution was brought forward. After the era of good feeling, the question of internal improve- ments, like that of the tariff, became a party question — at first favored and finally opposed by the South. The Clay-Adams party in 1824-8, later the Whig party, and the Republican party, in turn, have favored internal improvements by the General Government ; but the Jaclcson-Crawford combination in 1824-8, and the later Democratic party, have generally opposed that policy. (Hildreth, VI. 616, 17 ; Young, Am. Stat., 309-12 ; Benton, View, I. 21-7; Von Hoist, I. 388-96; Tucl^er, III. 201^10.) The Seminole War. —By the 9th article of the treatj' of Ghent, the United States stipulated to restore to the Indian tribes all the possessions which had belonged to them prior to the year 1811. This stipulation was considered not to apply to the Creeks who had ceded their lands by the treaty of Fort Jackson in 1814. {S'tip7-a, p. 107.) Manj' members of this tribe, dissatisfied with the treat}' of Fort Jackson, had withdrawn to Florida and joined the Seminoles, and after the joeace claimed their ceded lands under the 9th article of the treaty of Ghent. Two British subjects, Arbuthnot and Ambrister, were supposed to have incited the Indians to make the claim. Moreover a fort had been built on the Appalachicola Eiver in Florida which after the close of the war became a refuge for runaway slaves from the state of Georgia. Hostilities having broken out in 1817 on the Florida frontier. General Jackson was ordered to take command in Georgia. Without waiting for instructions, Jackson ventured on his own authority to do two very grave acts, namely, the invasion of Flor- i(ja — a foreign state, and secondly, the summary execution of two citizens of another state. Great Britain, either of which might involve the country in war. Jackson took possession of the two Spanish forts, St. Marks and Pensacola, April and May, 1818, which, however, he restored to the Spanish authorities on the urgent request of the Government. 1817-19] JACKSON AND THE SEMINOLE WAK. 129 In the mean time, Arbuthnot and Ambrister, having been taken prisoners, were tried b}- a court martial, on the charges of inciting the Indians to war and giving tliem aid, and were found guilt}'. But the case of Ambrister was reconsidered and his seiitence changed to fifty stripes anfl confinement for twelve months. Jack- son disapproved of this reconsideration and ordered the execution of both men. Tlie evidence against them was not only slight, but wholly failed to prove the charges. The questions involved in these proceedings of Jackson were more serious than that of the original Indian war. The govern- ments of Spain and Great Britain immediately demanded expla- nations. In a cabinet council Calhoun proposed to bring Jackson to' trial ; but Adams justified Jackson's conduct in full. The de- cision of ' the cabinet was a compromise : (1) General Jackson should be justified and applauded ; (2) His taking of the Spanish posts should be declared Ids act — just and necesssarj', but unauth- orized by the Government ; (8) Pensacola should be restored unconditionallj- ; (4) St. Mark's should be restored to a Spanish force competent to hold it and to protect the frontiers. Adams' state paper endeavoring to justify Jackson's conduct is called by Parton (Life of Jackson, II. 513) "the most flagrant piece of special pleading to be found in the diplomatic records of the United States. Some essential facts of the case it omits ; others it misstates ; others it perverts." Adams believed with Jackson that those acts were necessary in order to terminate the Indian war; "that an imaginary air-line of the 31° of latitude could not afford protection to our frontier while the Indians had a safe refuge in Florida ; but he owned to the cabinet that, to come to this conclusion, the reasoning on his principles must be carried to the utmost extent. (Ibid. 511.) The execution of Ambrister and Arbuthnot caused great ebc- citement in England, and but for the firmness of the ministrj" war might have ensued. Lord Castlereagh, the English minister, and the Spanish court, however, seemed satisfied with Adams' explanation. In the House, the debate on the conduct of Jackson in the Seminole war exclusively engaged the attention of that body for 27 days (January 12 to February 8, 1819). The Committee on Military Affairs, to whom the matter had been referred, recom- 130 THE FLORIDA TREATY. [1819 mended that the House disapprove the proceedings in the case of Arbuthnot and Ambrister. As these men were neither outlaws nor pirates in relation to the United States, but were British sub- jects, they were not within the jurisdiction of a military- court of the United States. Moreover their execution was unnecessary, as the war was already over ; and the revision of the sentence once given was contrary to army usages. Henry Clay and W. H. Harrison spoke in favor of the report, and Richard M. Johnson against it. The committee of the whole, however, sustained the action of Jackson upon every point. (Benton, Deb., VI. 22.5- 333 ; Parton, II. 506-34.) With the masses these events sei-ved only to increase the favor in which Jackson had been held since his victory at New Orleans. On the other hand, Jackson was led to look to the people for support. To those statesmen who had opposed him in any way he was ever after the bitter enemy. (Hildreth, VI. 641-6, 655-8 ; Young, Am. Stat., 289-99 ; Sumner, Life of Jackson, 48-67 ; Von Hoist, I. 337-9.) The Spanish Treaty of 18] 9. — As we have seen (supra, p. 88), diplomatic relations with S^ain were broken off in 1808, and in ' 1810 the United States took forcible possession of West Florida (except Mobile). (Hildreth, VI. 224-6.) By the act of April 14, 1812 (Stat, at L., II. 708), the part of West Florida west of the Pearl River was annexed to the Territorj' of Orleans. The remaining part, as far as the Perdido (except Mobile), was annexed. May 14, to the Mississippi Territorj'. Mobile fell into the hands of General Wilkinson April 15, 1813. East Florida, which had been invaded by United States troops under Jackson in 1814, was at length evacuated by them. (Hildreth, VI. 539 ; Sumner, Life of Jackson, 36-8.) In 1815 diplomatic relations with Spain were resumed. Mean- while other events had complicated our differences with that countr3'. From 1810 on, the Spanish-American colonies had been in revolt. " The undoubted sympathy with this movement in different parts of the United States, and the aid which was surrep- titiously afforded from some places in violation of law, and in spite of the vigilance of the Government, induced reclamations on the part of Spain in 1815 when diplomatic relations were re- sumed." (U. S. Treaties, 1075.) These lawless proceedings of American citizens led to the Act of Congress of 1818 amending and making more strict the Neutrality Act of 1794. (Stat, at 1819] THE FLORIDA TEEATY. 131 L., III. 447; Hildreth, VI. 610-11.) Moreover, Jackson's un- authorized seizure of Pensacola and St. Mark's in 1818, in order to bring to a close the Seminole War, still further complicated the relations between the United States and Spaiu. After a long correspondence between J. Q. Adams and the Spanish ministei; at Washington, the treaty of 1819, settling all disputes between the two countries, was concluded in that city. (Treaties, 785.) At first the King of Spain refused to ratifj- the treaty unless the United States would agree not to recognize the independence of the Spanish- American colonies. To this the United States would not agree. Finally, Oct. 24, 1820, the treaty was ratified by Spain. (Hildreth, VI. 633-4, 646-7, 686, 712, 13.) By Art. II., Spain ceded to the United States "all the territories .... situated to the eastward of the Mississippi, known by the name of East and West Florida," the adjacent islands, and all the public property in the said provinces. By Art. III. , the boundary line between the tv/o countries west of the Mississippi ran from the mouth of the Sabine north on the western bank to the 32° north latitude ; thence due north to the Eed River ; west along this river to the 100° west longitude, thence, crossing the Red River, north to the Arkansas ; thence along the southern bank of the Arkansas to its source in the 42° north latitude ; and thence along this parallel to the South Sea (Pacific). The islands in the Sabine, the Red, and the Arkansas rivers should belong to the United States ; but the navigation of these rivers should be open to both nations. The United States had claimed the territory to the Rio Grande ; Spain, to a point near the Miss- issippi. The compromise, it seems, was upon the Sabine. Art. V. provided that " the inhabitants of the ceded territories shall be secured in the free exercise of their religion," and for the free exportation of the effects of those desiring to remove to the Spanish dominions. By Art. VI., the inhabitants of the ceded territories "shall be incorporated into the Union .... as soon as may be consistent with the principles of the Federal Constitution." By Art. IX., the two countries reciprocally renounced their claims upon each other for damages. By Art. XI., the United States, in consideration of the cession of Florida, engaged to satisfy the claims of their citizens against Spain, to an amount not exceeding $5,000,000. To ascertain the 132 SLAVERY. [1770 extent and validity of these claims a commission of three citizens of the United States was to be appointed bj- the Pi-esident to sit at Washington. ' By Art. XII., the treaty of li'mits and navigation of 1795 was confirmed so far as not modified bj'this treatj'. There was some opposition to this treat}' in the United States. It was said that the claim to Texas had been abandoned unneces- sarily, and even without warrant of law ; since territory could be alienated only by act of Congress. Hence arose afterwards the fiction of the re-annexation of Texas. (Hildreth, VI. 686, 7, Benton, Deb., VI. 574-97 ; Colton, Life of Clay, I. 237-9 ; Ben- ton, View, I. 14-18.) But the treatj' was ratified and became the act of the country and the law of the land, Clay's resolution not passing the House. See also on this treaty : Morse, Life of J. Q. Adams, 109-28 ; Young, Am. Stat., 299-304. Slavery and the Jlissouri CoTnipromise. — In the case of Somerset, 1772, Lord Chief Justice Mansfield decided that slavery could not legallj' exist in England. And for the same reason slavery should have been illegal in all English colonies in which the common law prevailed. (Goodell, Slavery and Anti-Slaverj', 47-52 ; Von Hoist, I. 277.) In fact the Superior Court of Massachusetts had taken the same stand two years previously to the decision of Lord Mansfield, and substantiallj- upon the same grounds as those upon which that decision was based. (James vs. Leehmere ; Goodell, 112, note.) Notwithstanding this decision slaves continued to be held in Massachusetts ; and it was subsequently held b}- the courts that slavery was abolished in that state by the bill of rights in the constitution of 1780, "all men are born free and equal." (Good- ell, III.) In the New Hampshire constitution, adopted in 1783, a declara- tion similar to that in the Massachusetts constitution was said likewise to have abolished slavery in that state. In Rhode Island the Assembly enacted that after March, 1784, all blacks born in that state should be free. In Connecticut a law providing for the gradual abolition of slavery was passed in 1814. Vermont ex- pressly prohibited slavery in her bill of rights. In 1799 New York passed an act for the gradual abolition of slavery ; and in 1817 another act declared that all slaves in New York should be l!820] SLAVERY. 133 free in 1827, and on the 4th of July, 1827, the act took effect, ten thousand, slaves being set free. New Jersey enacted in 1820 that all slaves born after 1805 should be free at the age of 25. Still, in 1846 it appeared necessary, to pass a law ostensibly abolishing slaves. Pennsjivania in 1780 passed an act for the gradual emancipation of slaves. (Goodell, 112-17.) The census of 1 790 shows that slavery still prevailed even in states where it had been previously prohibited, Massachusetts excepted. North. New Hampshire 158 Vermont 17 Rhode Island 952 Connecticut 2,759 Massachusetts . ... None New York . . . . . 21,324 New Jersey 11,42 3' Pennsylvania 3.737 South Delaware Maryland . . Virginia . North Carolina South Carolina Georgia Kentucky Tennessee . . 8,887 103,036 293.427 100,572 ,107,094 129,264 11,830 3,417 Total 40,370 Total, 657,527 (Greeley, I. 33-7.) Even in 1840, of the so-called non-slaveholding states, only Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont, and Michigan had no slaves ; and in that class of states 1129 slaves were then held. But the number of slaves in the South had increased from 657,527 in 1790 to 2,486,626 in 1840. This division of the country on the basis of slavery was largely due to the difference of climate and of agricultural products. At first these influences , were not appreciated. Jefferson and many other Southern leaders, both before and at the adoption of the Constitution, desired the gradual abolition of slavery ; they thought, if the slave trade was abolished, slavery would die out of itself, hence they did not realize the importance of recognizing slavery in the Constitution. But even had the}' realized this, it was a question of slavery or no Union, since South Carolina and Georgia refused to enter the Union on an 3' other conditions. Congress prohibited the importation of slaves into any state contrary to the laws of such state, and this too on the remonstrance of South Carolina. And on March 2, 1807, the general prohibition of the slave trade was passed, to take effect Januarj' 1, 1808. (Stat, at L., II. 426 ; Von Hoist, I. 317.) 134 SLAVERY AND BALANCE OP POWER. [1820 There were early signs of differences between the North and South, as appeared in the debates of Congress ; and although the subject of slavery was for the most part kept out of the discus- sions, 3'et there was a constant rivalry between the two sections for power in the General Government. After the invention of the cotton-gin, slavery may be said to have been fixed upon the South. Then hj the acquisition of Louisiana there was opened to this slaveholding interest the opportunity of almost unlimited expansion. For this very reason the North opposed the Louisiana purchase. But the North had also its opportunity to expand toward the west, and the result shows that the South was outstripped in the race. The system of slave labor could not hold its own, on equal terms, with the system of free labor. The increase of population was much more rapid in the non-slaveholding states than in the slaveholding states. The population of the two sections according to the first four censuses was as follows : iSio. 1S20. 3,758,820 ,5. 132-372 3,480,994 . 4,522,224 The representation of the two sections in the House varied pro- portionately, and is shown as follows : Before 1st Census. 1790- North . . 35 57 South ... 30 53 The South was therefore obliged, if it would secure its suprem- acy, by the admission of a sufficient number of new and slave states, to keep control of the Senate. For in this body represen- tation was independent of population. This struggle for the balance of power is seen from the adoption of the Constitution. Then the North comprised seven states, and the South six. To the North Vermont was added in 1791 ; to the South Kentucky in 1792 and Tennessee in 1796, thus giving eight states to each section. The North secured Ohio in 1802, but the South Louisiana in 1812. To the North was added Indiana in 1816 and Illinois in 1818, but to the South Mississippi in 1817 and Alabama in 1819 ; each section at that time, therefore, comprised eleven states. (Appendix, p. 35 ; Von Hoist, I. 356.) 1790. 1800. North . . • 1,968.455 2,684,625 South 1,961,327 2,621,360 1800. 1810. 1820. 77 104 133 65 79 90 (Von Hoist, I. 354-50 1820] THE MISSOURI coMPROinsE. 135 The desire to maintain the balance of power or to incline it in its own favor explains "the stubborn tenacity and passionate energy with which the South for three years fought out the Mis- souri struggle and all the later contests in behalf of the extension of slave teiTitory. (Vou Hoist, I. 356.) In February, 1819, during the discussion of a bill in the House of Representatives for the admission of Missouri into the Union as a state, Mr. Talmage of New York moved an amendment, that the admission should be made dependent upon two conditions : prohibition of the further introduction of slaves into Missouri, and the emancipation of all slave children born after the admission as soon as they reached the age of 25. The House adopted the amendment, 87 to 76, but the Senate rejected it. At the next session Maine having applied for admission, the Senate coupled the two territories together in one bill, February 16, 1820, with an amendment, proposed by Thomas of Illinois, to prohibit slavery in the territory of the Louisiana Purchase north of 36° 30' north latitude, except in Missouri. The House rejected the Senate amendments, and sent up to the Senate a new Missouri bill, Feb- ruary 29, 1820, containing the clause restricting slavery. The Senate again struck out the restrictive clause and inserted Thomas' Territorial provision, as above, March 2. The House at first refused to recede from' its stand. The ques- tion was referred to a committee of conference, who reported in favor of striking out the clause of the bill restricting slavery in Missouri, and of substituting the Senate amendment. (The Thomas Compromise.) With the compromise in view the House then voted, 90 to 87, to strike out the restrictive clause. This was the test vote. Of the votes in favor of striking out, 76 were from slave states and 14 from free states ; of those opposed, all were from free states. The vote on the compromise (to prohibit slavery in the Louisiana Purchase north of 36° 30', except in Missouri) the vote stood 134 to 42. Five northern and 35 southern members voted in the neg- ative ; about 41 southern and 95 or 96 northern members in the affirmative. (Hildreth, VI. 690, 91 ; Von Hoist, I. 374.) " Randolph, the leader of the ultra-southern party, indignantly denounced this compromise as a 'dirty bargain,' and the northern men, by wjiose co-operation it had been carried, as 'dough-faces.'" (Hildreth, VI. 691.) 136 THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE. [1820 Yet the compromise was a southern measure, as is shown by the action of the Senate and bj' the fact that the President and Cab- inet favored it. (Benton, View, I. 8-10.) But it would appear that Monroe, and all the members of the Cabinet except John Quincy Adams, understood the word "forever" (in the clause de- claring that slavery should be forever prohibited, etc.) to apply only to the territory, and not to the state after admission. An interpretation evidently not intended by those who had favored the restriction of slavery in Missouri. (Hildreth, VI. 692, 3.) Slavery gained the immediate victory in this first great struggle between the North and the South. But if this had been the final settlement of the slavery question as between the two sections, the North would have had the advantage in the struggle for the balance of power. The larger part of the Louisiana cession would have been secured to free labor (see map). The South soon rec- ognized this fact, and made new attempts to extend her territory. She finally got Texas and a large part of Mexico, and then re- pealed the Missouri Compromise. The first proposal to fix a dividing line between freedom and slavery came from John W. Taylor of New York, as an amend- ment to a bill to organize Arkansas as a territory, February 18, 1819. (Hildreth, VI. 662.) Missouri, having adopted a Constitution, after some new opposi- tion in Congress, finally became a state August 19, 1821 ; Maine on March 15, 1820. During the debates on the Missouri bill, the excitement was great throughout the country, north and south. The whole ques- tion of slavery, in all its bearings, moral and legal, was hotl}^ dis- cussed. The North prettj- generally condemned slavery as a great evil, but no one as yet maintained that it was illegal in the orig- inal states or that it should, be abolished there ; the North de- manded only its exclusion from the new territoiy. Abolitionism was of later origin. On the other hand the South began to maintain that slaverj- was an unmixed good, sanctioned bj' morality and religion. For the present both parties accepted the compromise as a set- tlement of the dispute, and resisted all further agiiation of the subject of slavery. Authorities on this subject: Hildreth, VI. 661-76, 682-98, 703, 706-12 ; Greeley, American Conflict, I. 74- 80 ; Von Hoist, I. 356-81 ; Benton, View, I. 8 ; Wilson, I. 135-52 ; 1816-20] COLONIZATION ARMY AND NAVY. 137 Tucker, III. 263-86, 298-306 ; Young, Stat. Man., 313-19 ; Ben- ton, Deb. VI. Miscellaneous Legislation and Events. — 1. Colonization Society. — The initial organization of the American Colonization Society took place at Princeton, N. J., in the autumn of 1816, the final or- ganization at Washington January 1,1817. Its first President was Bushrod Washington ; subsequently this office was held .by Charles Carroll, James Madison, and Henry Clay. The primary object of the society seems to have been to get rid of the class of free negroes, and it was hoped by many philanthropic persons that this would lead to the gradual emancipation of the slaves. But the Abolitionists became suspicious of the movement, and its success was never great. Actual colonization began in 1820 on Sherbro Island, afterwards (Dec. 15, 1821) transferred to the main land of the African coast, at Cape Mesurado. About eight thousand colored people emigrated to that country. They founded the city of Monrovia, and in 1847 the colon}' declared its independence under the name of Liberia. (Greeley, I. 71-4 ; Hildreth, VI. 614-16 ; Wilson, 208-22 ; Von Hoist, I. '329-33 ; Goodell, 341-52.) 2. Navigation Act, March 1, 1817 (Stat, at L., III. 351) copied from the English navigation act, limited importation in foreign ships to the produce of their respective countries, but only to apply to countries having similar regulations. Moreover the coasting, trade was restricted to American vessels. An act of May 15, 1820, closed the ports of the United States against British vessels coming from certain British colonial ports in America. (Stat, at L. III. 602.) This led to the opening of the West India ports to American vessels. (Hildreth, VI. 611.) 8. The Navy. — The navy had acquitted itself so well in the War of 1812, that on the return of peace it was generally agreed to not only retain the present force but to gradually augment it. By the Act of April 25, 1816, $1,000,000 were to be annually appropriated for eight years. There were to be built 9 ships carrying 74 gnns each, and 12, of 44 guns each. (Stat, at L., III. 321 ; Benton, Deb., V. 645, 6, and note; Schouler, II. 454.) 4. The Army was reduced to a peace establishment of 10,000 men. (Schouler, II. 454 ; Hildreth, VI. 571.) 5. Reduction of Expenses. — The financial crisis of 1819 had so reduced the revenue that a curtailment of the expenses of the Government became necessary. This was loudly called for by the anti-tariff party. In March, 1821, the annual appropriation for 138 PUBLIC LANDS TENURE OF OFFICE. [1820 the increase of the navy was reduced to half a million ; the army was cut down to 6000 men, (Stat, at L., III. 615) ; a large reduc- tion was made in the appropriations for fortifications ; and the list of Revolutionarj- pensioners was cut down about one-half. Pensions were restricted to those who appeared to be absolutelj' indigent. (Stat, at L., III. 569 ; Hildreth, VI. 700, 705 ; Benton, View, I. 11.) ISJ^otwithstanding this retrenchment it was found necessary to authorize a loan of $5,000,000 to meet the obligations of the Gov- ernment. (Hildreth, VI. 704, 5.) 6. Public Lands. — By the early laws regulating the sale of public lands (Siqyra, p. 84), the purchaser was allowed a credit for a year on half the purchase mone}'. During the period of inflated currencj' and the extension of credits, 1816-19, speculation in public lands went on to an enormous extent. The debt to the Government on this account had accumulated to about $23,000,000, for which the purchasers had "obtained repeated extensions." To stop this evil the system of credit sales was abolished, the price of land reduced from $2.00 to $1.25 per acre, lands to be purchas- able in half-quarter sections (80 acres), and the debtors were allowed to consolidate their payments, made on different tracts, on anj- particular one, relinquishing the rest. "A debt of $23,- 000,000 was quietly got rid of" and purchasers were enabled to "save their homes and flelds." (Benton, View, I. 11-12; Hil- dreth, VI. 700; Stat, at L., III. 555, 566, 612.) 7. Act limiting the Term of certain Civil Officers. — "Bj' way of check upon the inferior executive officers," says Mr. Hildreth (VI. 700), "among whom many defalcations had recently- occurred, their term of service was limited to four jears, at the end of which a re-appointment became necessar}-, the President, of course, re- taining his right of discretionary removal." The date of this act is May 15, 1820, and the' officers to whom it applied were the following: district attorney's, collectors of customs, naval officers and surveyors of the customs, navj* agents, receivers of public moneys for lands, registers of the land offices, paymasters in the army, the apothecarj'-general, and the commis- sary-general of purchases. Commissions of the above named ofRcera dated prior to October 1, 1814, were to expire on the day and month of their dates next ensuing after the 30th da}^ of September, 1820 ; those dated be- tween October 1, 1814, and October 1,. 1816, to cease, as above 1816] THE PREVIOUS QUESTION. 139 described, on the date uext ensuing after tlie 30th daj' of Septem- ber, 1821 ; "and all other such commissions shall cease and expire at the expiration of the term of four years from their respective dates." (Stat, at L., III. 582.) 8. The Previous Question. — The previous question, as adopted and hitherto in use in the House of Commons, was for the pur- pose of postponing the consideration of a question ; and members resorting to it, that is moving the previous question, voted in the negative. But before it was put from the chair the debate on the . main question went on as long as anj- member wished to speak. If the previous question was then passed in the negative, the main question was postponed, if in the affirmative, then the main ques- tion was to be put without further debate. According to the practice of the House of Representatives, by rules adopted at the first session of Congress, 1789, if the previous question passed in the affirmative, the debate on the main question was still in order. Decisions by the speaker to the contrary were twice overruled by the House (Dec. 15, 1807, and Dec. 1, 1808). (Benton, Deb. V. 557.) But on the 27th of February, 1811, the House ruled the other way, contrary to its own practice, so that if the previous question passed in the affirmative, the main question was to be infmediately voted on without debate. (Supra, p. 99.) Since that time the previous question has been resorted to in the House as a means of stopping debate, and the mover, contrarj' to the English practice, votes in the affirmative. In January, 1816, a determined effort was made in the House to rid the previous question of this new feature. (Benton, Deb., V. 549.). Mr. Randolph made a powerful speech against the use made of the previous question. A better name, he said, would be the gag law. Mr. Clay endeavored to justify the pre- vious question. He said it was not resorted to until the abuse of debate rendered it expedient.^ (Ibid. 549-51.) Mr. Gaston gave a full history of the previous question both in the House of Com- mons and in the House of Representatives. (Ibid. 551-9.) Mr. Tucker of Virginia believed the rule an essential one, "however cautious the House should be in the exercise of it." When the question came to a vote, there appeared not to be a I In 1841 Mr. Clay attempted to introduce the use of the previous question into the Senate. In 1789 tlie Senate adopted the previous question as used in the House of Com- mons, but discarded it in 1806. 140 ELECTION OP 1820 — "era of good feeling." [1820 quorum in the House, and the subject was allowed to drop. (Benton, Deb., V. 633, 4; Gushing, Law and Practice of Legis- lative Assemblies, pp. 549-61 ; Barcla}^, Manual, p. 193.) Election of 1820. — There was a general acquiescence in the re-election of Mr. Monroe and Mr. Tompkins. Candidates were not presented bj' the Federalists ; thej- could hardly be said to exist as a party. Many of the New England Federalists expressed themselves satisfied with what they termed the Washington- Monroe policy ; while some of the old school Democrats com- plained that the administration had become thoroughly Federal. "While old party distinctions had thus disappeared, no new ones, as yet, had been definitely formed." (Hildreth, VI. 701, 2.) "With the re-anhexation of Florida to the Anglo-American dominion, the recognized extension of that dominion to the shores of the Pacific, and the partition of these new acquisitions between slavery and freedom, closed Monroe's first term of office ; and with it a marked historical era. All the old landmarks of party, up- rooted as they had been, first by the embargo and the war with England, and then bj- peace in Europe, had since, by the bank question, the internal improvement question, and the tariff ques- tion, been completely superseded and almost wholly swept awaj'. At the Ithureal touch of the Missouri discussion, the sSave interest, hitherto hardlj' recognized as a distinct element in the American social system, had started up portentous and dilated." It is from this point that later American politics take their departure. (Hil- dreth, VI. 713.) II. Monroe's Administration — Second^ Term, 1821-5. Although Mr. Monroe's administration has been called "the era of good feeling" so far as party disputes were concerned, yet the personal rivalry among the leaders within the Democratic partj* at this time laid the foundation of new party divisions. During the period from 1811-20 many able young men had come forward to contest the leadership of the party, each with his local or personal following, and each aspiring to the Presidencj'. These were the second generation of American statesmen, superseding the states- men of the Revolution and the formative period of the Government in the control of the state. They continued for about forty j-ears, as leaders of the various parties, to guide the affairs of state, till 1821-5] LEADING STATESMEN. 141 they in turn were left behind in the march of ideas, and gave place to the Sumners, the Sewards, the Chases, the Davises. John Quincy Adams : 1767 . . . Born in Boston, Mass. 1787 . . Was graduated at Harvard College. 1794-1801 . Minister of the United States in turn to Holland, England, Sweden, and Prussia. 1803-8 . . . Senator from Mass. i8o8 . . . Resigned his seat in the Senate. 1809 . . . Minister to Russia, and later, one of the commissioners who negotiated the Treaty of Ghent. 1817 .... Secretary of State. 1825 . . Elected President by the House of Representatives. 1831-48 . Member of Congress from Mass. 1848 . . . Died. Up to the time Mr. Adams became Secretary of State in 1817, the greater part of his life had been spent in the diplomatic ser- vice. As a member of Congress, he was one of the first to advo- cate the anti-slavery cause in that body. (W. H. Seward, Life of J. Q. Adams ; John T. Morse, Life of J. Q. Adams.) Henky Clay : 1777 .... Born in Virginia. Admitted to the bar of Kentucky, to which state he had moved. He had merely a common school education. 1803 . In the State legislature. 1806 . . Appointed to the United States Senate to fill a vacancy. 1807 . . Re-elected to the state assembly and chosen speaker. i8og . . . Appointed a second time to a vacancy in the United States Senate. 181 1-25 . . Member of Congress, and with two or three short intervals speaker of the House during that time. 1825 .... Secretary of State under J. Q^ Adams. 1831-42 . . United States Senator. 1842 . Resigned his seat in the Senate. 1849 ■ • • • Again elected Senator. „ 1852 . . . Died. Clay first came prominently forward as the advocate of the war of 1812. Later he supported the United States Bank, Internal Improvements, and especially the Protective Tariff, in connection with which he is called the founder of the American system. He was the author or promoter of the three great compromises between 142 LEADING STATESMEN. [1821-5 the North and the South — the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the Tariff Compromise of 1833, and the Compromise of 1850. He was a candidate for the Presidency in 1824 as a Democrat, and in 1832 and 1844 as a A\^hig, of which party he was the leader till his death. (Calvin Colton, Complete Works of Henry Claj' ; Brief Life by Horace Greek}- ; also Life by Carl Schurz, in preparation.) John C. Calhodn : 1782 . . Born in South Carolina of Irish parents. 1804 . . . Was graduated at Yale College. 1804-7 Studied Law. 1811-17 Member of Congress. 1817-25 . . Secretary of War. 1825-31 Vice-President. 1S31 . . Resigned in order to enter the United States Senate. 1843 .... Secretary of State under Tyler. 1845 . . Again United States Senator. 1850 Died. From the time he entered Congress till the tariff' controversj' of 1828-33, Calhoun's principles were those of the old Federalist school, liberal construction of the Constitution. He favored in- ternal improvements, a national bank, a protective tariff, and an increase of the navy. He afterwards turned his back upon these principles, and became the leader of the states rights party and the champion of slavery, and the author of nullification in 1830-3. (R. K. Creele, Works of Calhoun ; Von Hoist, Life of Calhoun.) William Lowtndes, of South Carolina : Mr. Lowndes was said to be " one of the wisest, most prudent, and judicious legislators who had occupied a seat in Congress." " He was the moderator as well as the leader of the House." He was the leading advocate of the Tariff bill of 1816 ; and on all questions his influence was felt. Had he lived it is probable that Calhoun's career would have been a very cliiJerent one, but he died in 1822. (Sargent, Public Men and Events, I. 31 ; Benton, View, I. 18.) William Pinckney, of Maryland, was another of the leading statesmen who died in the same year with Mr. Lowndes (1822). He had held many important diplomatic positions, was ranked first at the bar of the Supreme Court, and was considered the first of American orators. He was a member of the United States Senate at the time of his death. (Life of William Pinckney by Henry Wheaton ; Benton, View, I. 19 ; Sargent, I. 33.) 1821-5] LEADING STATESMEN. 143 William H. Ceawfoed, of Georgia, was born in 1772. He en- tered the United States Senate in 1807, and became, saj's Mr. Sargent, "the political Mentor of that galasj' of young men who then appeared in Congress and soon became eminent as statesmen and orators." In 1811 he was the chief supporter of the Bank bill. He was minister to France in 1813, and Secretary of the Treasury, 1817-25. In 1816 he was the rival of Monroe for the nomination as presidential candidate, and in 1824 he was one of the four candidates. (Sketch of his life in National Portrait Gallery; and Memoir in Bench and Bar of Georgia; Sargent, I. 82.) Anukew Jackson : 1767 . . Born in North Carolina. 1781 .... Joined the Continental Armj. 1790 . Appointed United States District Attorney by Washington, having been admitted to the bar. 1796 . . Member of Congress. 1797-8 . . . United States Senator. 1798-180^ . Judge of the Supreme Court of Tenn. 1804-14 Major-General of militia. 1814 . . Appointed to the same rank in the regular army. Elected to the United States Senate. The people's candidate for the Presidency. President of the United States. Died. 1823 . 1824 . . 1829-36 1845 . Jackson came first prominently into notice at New Orleans, whither he was ordered in 1814, after the treaty of Fort Jackson {Supra, p. 107) was concluded, to repel an anticipated British attack. He found the city in confusion and unprepared ; and, the legislature refusing to declare martial law, Jackson did so on his own responsibility. Suspecting that the legislature would capitu- late in order to save the city, he stationed a guard at their doors and thus broke up their session ; and he ordered the registration of all the male inhabitants. Even after news of the signing of the treaty was unofficially announced, martial law was kept up ; and a member of the legislatui'e, who complained of this through a newspaper, was put in jail and ordered to be tried for his life. Moreover Judge Hall, of the United States District Court, having granted the prisoner a writ of habeas corpus, was himself arrested and sent out of the city, as was also the District Attorney who endeavored to secure a similar writ for Judge Hall. Finally, upon 144 LEADING STATESMEN. [1821-5 receiving official information of peace, Jackson withdrew martial law. Thereupon he was summoned before Hall for contempt of court, a writ of attachment was issued against him, and he was fined $1000, which he immediately paid. In 1.S43 Congress re- funded the amount of the fine with the interest thereon. Art. I., § 9, cl. 2, of the Constitution provides that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. The suspension of the writ is a power of the legislature (either state or national), and the President can not exercise it except as authorized by law. The suspension does not legalize acts done while it continues. It would seem that the emergencj' justified Jackson in declaring martial law in the city of New Orleans, which was within the lim- its of his army, but that he erred in continuing that law in force after he knew that peace had been declared. Jackson was a great favorite with the masses. His energetic acts in emergencies, though sometimes harsh and arbitrary, were in strong contrast with the inactivity and inefficiency of other generals of his time. He assumed to be a law unto himself, inde- pendent of the Legislature or Judiciary ; responsible to the people only. His administration of the Government on this principle formed a dangerous precedent, (Parton, Life of Jackson ; Sar- gent, I. 36 ; Sumner, Life of Jackson.) Daniel Webster : . 1782 .... Born in New Hampshire. 1801 . ■ . Was graduated at Dartmouth College. 1805 . . . Admitted to the Bar. 1812-16 Member of Congress from New Hampshire, making his first speech, June 10, 1813, on the Berlin and Milan decrees. 1816-22 Practised Law in Boston. 1822-8 . • Member of Congress from the Boston district. 1828-40 . . United States Senator. 1841-3 . . . Secretary of State under Harrison and later under Tyler. 1845-50 . United States Senator. 1850 .... Secretary of State under Fillmore. 1852 .... Died. Mr. Webster was the chief supporter of John Quincy Adams' administration ; and afterwards as one of the Whig leaders, was the champion of the North against Southern aggression, and the 1821-5] LEADING STATESMEN. 145 most eminent supporter of the Whig doctrines. (Life bj^ George Tichnor Curtis ; In preparation, Life by Henry Cabot Lodge.) Martin Van Buren : 1782 . . Born in New York. 1808-20 . . In various state offices — a member of the "Albany Regency." 1821-9 . . . United States Senator. 1829 .... Governor of New York, but resigned to become Secretary of State under Jackson. 1833-7 • • Vice-President. 1837-41 . . President. 1848 . . . Free Soil candidate for the Presidency. 1862 . . . Died. (Life, by William McKenzie.) Thomas H. Benton was born in 1782 in North Carolina. He removed to Missouri, which state he represented in the Senate of tlie United States from 1820 to 1861. He was the main supporter of Jackson's and Van Buren's administrations. In the election of 1824 there were four candidates for the Presi- dency, all of the Democratic party and each with a strong personal following. Of the whole number of electoral votes — 261, Jackson received 99, Adams 84, Crawford 41, and Clay 37 ; and as 131 were neces- sary for a choice the election was thrown into the House. Though Jackson had received a plurality of the popular and electoral vote, as the voting in the House was by states the influence of Clay secured the election of Adams. There was great public indigna- tion at this result, and the representatives' who voted for Adams almost invariably lost their seats at the next election. (Benton, View, I. 47 ; Von Hoist, II. 1-10.) The election of 1824 closed the era of good feeling, though party divisions were not strongly drawn until 1829. In the administra- , tion of Adams the elements of opposition were developed, mainly by the efforts of Mr. Calhoun and his friends, and Mr. Randolph and Colonel Benton. Others who joined this combination were, Hayne, McDufHe, and Hamilton of South Carolina, Forsyth and Berrien of Georgia, Livingston of Louisiana, R. M. Johnson of Kentucky, King of Alabama, Van Buren and Cambreling of New York, Buchanan and Ingham of Pennsylvania, Woodbury and Hill of New Hampshire, and others, including all those who had supported General Jackson at the preceding election. (Sar- gent, I. 106.) 146 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. [1823 In 1824 the congressional caucus for the purpose of nominating the presidential candidate was resorted to for the last time. Tlae first regular Republican caucus of the members of Congress was held in 1804 ; this custom was followed until 1820, when there was no opposition to Mr. Monroe. In 1824 Mr. Crawford was the caucus nominee, but the system had become so odious that this fact damaged his prospects. (Holmes, Parties and their Princi- ples, pp. 64, 67, 80, 107-10; Young, Am. Stat., 341-3; Niles' Register, XXV. 224, 2fi8.) The Monroe Doctrine.- — The neutral policy of the United States in 1793-4 was rather one of necessity than of choice. The nation began its existence with an "entangling alliance" — the treaty of 1778 with France — from the effects of which it was not wholly free till 1815. {Supra, pp. 41 et seq.) In view of the difficulties growing out of that alliance, it is not strange that the people of the United States became suspicious of all such relations with Europe. Washington, in his Farewell Address, strongly enjoins upon the American people to keep aloof from foreign political connections : "It is our policj' to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world." Our detached and distant situation enabled us to stand aloof from the interests and quarrels of Europe. (Stat. Man., I. 77.) At a later period in our history this neutral policy of Washington was held to include the converse as a necessarj^ corollar3' ;, that is to say, we would not interfere or mingle in European politics, and Europe, on the other hand, should not interfere or mingle with American politics, either in North America or South America. As early as 1810 the American colonies of Spain began to revolt, and, following the example of the United States, began to wage wars to maintain their independence. In 1816 Buenos Ajres declared her independence. Chili in 1818, Columbia in 1819, Mexico in 1821. The people of the United States sympathized with this move- ment, and privately rendered great aid to the revolted colonies, in ships and other supplies, and also in seamen ; to so great an extent, indeed, that it became necessary in 1818 to amend the neutrality laws in order to prevent these hostile acts on the ,part of citizens of the United States. (Act of April 20, 1818, Stat, at L., III. 447.) Up to this time the aid had been private and illegal ; but there began a movement in 1818, led by Mr. Clay for the public and [1823 SPANISH AMEKICAN STATES. 147 official recognition bj- Congress of tlie Spanish- American colonies as independent republics. ("Works of Clay, V. 377, 404, 446, 481 ; Benton, Deb., VI. 138-69.) The House was ilot yet ready to support this policy, though commissioners were sent to South America to report on the condi- tion of the colonies. In 1821 Mr. Clay renewed his resolution to provide for sending ministers "to any government of South America, which has established and is maintaining its independence of Spain." (Ben- ton, Deb., VII. 93.) By this time it was a well established fa^t that Spain had not the power to reconquer her provinces ; that they had established and maintained cle facto governments, the only government recognized by international law. This resolution passed the House by a vote of 87 to 68. (Ibid., VII. 99.) In a special message to Congress of March 8, 1822 (Ibid., VII. 275), Mr. Monroe urges upon that body substantially the same policy. Both Houses passed favoring resolutions ; and by the act of May 4, 1822, an appropriation was made for the support of diplomatic relations with such " independent nations on the Amer- ican continent, as the President maj- deem proper." (Ibid., VII. 204, 5, 287, 297-309, 319, 20.) In the niean time there had been formed, after the peace of 1815, an association of certain European powers, under the name of the "Holy Alliance," for the purpose of "preserving peace, justice, and •religion in the name of the gospel." (Martens et Cussy, Treaties, III. 202.) The real object was to prevent rebellions. The alli- ance at first was composed of Russia, Austria, and Prussia, but France and England afterward joined it. The allied sovereigns had several meetings, notably those at Troppau, Laybach, Verona, and Aix-la-Chapelle. In pursuance of their policy, an insurrection in Naples was put down by Austrian troops. In 1823 a French army entered Spain b}- authority of the alliance, and suppressed the constitutional government which the Cortes had established. England, however, refused to sanction these acts. And now came rumors of a determination on the part of this " Holy Alliance" to aid Spain in reconquering her American col- olies ; also that France expected to set up a kingdom in Buenos Ayres ; that the island of Cuba was to be given to France. Also a rumor that England would take possession of Cuba by force. 148 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. [1823 Mr. George Canning, Secretarj- for Foreign Affairs, disavowed any such intention on the part of England ; but really alarmed at the rumored intentions of the continental powers, he proposed to the United States to come to an agreement with England to thwart the plans of the Holy Alliance. England feared that her commer- cial interests in South America and the West Indies would suffer. In August and September, 182,3, Mr. Canning urged upon Mr. Rush, the United States minister, a combined declaration bj' Great Britain and 'the United States to the effect that they would not obstruct the reconquest by Spain, but they would not permit inter- vention by any foreign power, or the transfer to such power of any of those colonies. Mr. Rush insisted that England should first acknowledge the independence of the South American states. This Mr. Canning refused to do ;^ but these proposals wei'e communicated by Mr. Rush to the United States Government. Without waiting for an}- further action on the partof England (perhaps somewhat jealous of an English alliance) the President in his annual message, December 2, 1823, made the celebrated declaration, known as the "Monroe Doctrine." After speaking of the movements then going on in Spain and Portugal, Mr. Monroe continues: "The citizens of the United States cherish sentiments the most friendly in favor of tlie liberty and happiness of their fellow-men on that side of the Atlantic. In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken any part, nor* does it comport with our policy so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced, that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defence. With the movements in this hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. The political system of the allied powers is essentially different in this respect from that of America. This difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective governments. And to the defence of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens, and' under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. We owe it, therefore, to candor, and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers, to declare that voe should I In 1S24-6 England acknowledged the independence of Mexico and the South American Republics. 1823] THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 149 consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we ham not interfered^ and shall not interfere ; hut with the govern- ments who have declared their independence, and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknoivledged, we loould not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power, in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States. (Stat. Man., I. 460.) There was a fear in the United States that the allied powers, hostile as the}' were to democracy, would not limit themselves to the Spanish- American states, but would turn upon the United States. Even Mr. Canning dreaded the republican influence of the Western Continent. He would have liked a monarchy in Mexico and Brazil to balance the Republic, "to cure the evils of universal democracy, and prevent the drawing of the line of dem- ocracy which I most dread — America versus Europe." (Staple- ton's Life of Canning, 394, 5.) A congress of the allied powers had been summoned to consider the affairs of South America. But when Mr. Monroe's message arrived in Europe, its decided language had the eiFect, coupled with the known hostilitj' of England to their project, to prevent the meeting of the congress, and to stop all further movements toward intervention in South America. Mr. Monroe re]3eated in substance this declaration in his next annual message. And on Januarj- 20, 1824, Mr. Clay offered a resolution in the House of Representatives embodying the princi- ples of Mr. Monroe's declaration. But the resolution was never acted upon, perhaps because the danger was past. It would ap- pear, however, that Congress did not approve of adopting a gen- eral policy of this kind, in the absence of any specific cause. Thus the Monroe Doctrine did not become the policy of the country ; it remained, as it always has remained, a temporary policy of the executive only. ' ' This branch of the Monroe Doctrine " says Mr. J. C. Welling (North Am. Rev., April, 1856), "is not a living and substantial principle of our government policy. In case, however, of any emergency similar to that which promoted the declaration of Mr. Monroe, it would be competent for Congress 150 THE PANAMA MISSION^ 1825] to resuscitate and enforce the principle he announced, not because it was the doctrine of Mr. Monroe, but because it might be deemed wise and expedient at the time." Mr. Monroe's seventh annual message contains another declara- tion, which has generally been considered as fonning a part of the Monroe Doctrine. This was in connection with the unsettled boundaries in the Northwest. After the cession of Louisiana to the United States, and the successful revolutions in Mexico and South America, Kussia and Great Britain were the onlj^ European powers who possessed any part of the American continent. In 1821 Russia asserted a claim to the Pacific coast as far south as the 51° Korth latitude. This claim was disputed hy both England and the United States, and led to the declaration, introduced into the President's message \>y John Quincj" Adams in 1823, '■Hhat the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and main- tained, are henceforth not to he considered as subjects for future colo- nization by any European power." (Stat. Man., I. 452, 3.) No European nation would admit the truth of this declaration, and it was particularly objectionable to England and Russia, who claimed a large part of the territorj- in dispute. The Spanish American states appeared to understand the declar- ation of President Monroe as a pledge on the part of the United States to support the other American states against European aggression. They thought to further this policy by a, general alliance of American states. The Panama Mission. — Accordingly the United States were invited to send delegates to a congress of American states to meet at Panama, for the purpose of forming an alliance for self defence, and "to take into consideration the means of making effectual the declaration of the President of the United States respecting any ulterior designs of a foreign power to colonize any portion of this continent, and also the means of resisting all interference from abroad with the domestic concerns of the American governments." Other objects were the maintenance of peace, and to settle some principles of public law to govern their relation with each other. The President and Secretary of State received these overtures with favor; and on December 26, 1825, Mr. Adams sent to the vSenate a confidential message stating his reasons for accepting the invitation, and nominating two commissioners to the congress. 1826] THE PANAMA MISSION. 151 But Mr. Adams explains that part of Mr. Monroe's declaration referring to colonization (of which he was the author) so as to relieve the United States of all responsibility. He says in the above message, "An agreement between all the parties represen- ted at the meeting, that each will guard, by its own means, against the establishment of any future European colony within its borders, may be found advisable. This was, more than two years since, announced by my predecessor to the world, as a principle result- ing from the emancipation of both the American continents." The message encountered strong opposition in the Senate. The Committee of Foreign Affairs, to whom it was referred, reported, adversely (January 16, 1826), that it was not expedient to send commissioners to the congi-ess.^ The committee express good will toward the young republics, but object to "entangling connections" or internal interference with any state. (Benton, View, I. 68-9.) After an excited debate the nominations were confirmed March 14, 1826. The bill to appropriate money to carry the mission into effect was hotly opposed in the House, but here again the admin- tration was sustained, though a clause was added, "that such ministers should in no way make any compact or engagement with the Spanish- American states, in regard either to any threatened intervention or any future colonization by the European powers on the American continents." (Benton, Deb., VIII. 637-75.) The congress met as proposed, June 22, 1826, but on account of the death of one comff'ssioner and tlie delay of the other, the United States were not represented. The next j'ear commissioners from the United States proceeded to attend an adjourned meeting of the congress near the city of Mexico, but the other commission- ers failed to appear. Thus the first attempt to make the Monroe Doctrine a permanent policy of the United States failed, as such attempts always have failed since that time. "Public opinion may be considered as settled on the point that the action of the nation, in any case that may arise, must be unembarrassed hy pledge or compact." (R. H. Dana, note to Wheaton, p. 111.) I It was said by the friends of Mr. Adams that the Vice-President, Mr. Calhoun, had so constituted the important committees, that a majority in eacli was hostile to the administra. tion. "And the inconvenience of this state of things induced the Senate, at the latter part of the session, to take from the Vice-President the power of appointing the committees." (Stat. Man., I. 657.) 152 , THE TARIIT OF 1824. [18^4 On several subsequent occasions the executive branch of the Government has appealed to the Monroe Doctrine, but it has re- mained a doctrine, Congress refusing to make it the policj- of the nation. One of the best authorities on this question is Mr. R. H. Dana's note 36 to AVheaton's Intern atio a al Law, p. 97. See also : North Am. Eev., April, 1856 ; and May, 1880 ; Young, Am. Stat., 352- 61 ; Benton, Deb., VII. 470, note; Benton, View, I. 65-9 ; Am. State Pap., VI. 8.34-910 ; Webster's Works, III. 178. The Tariff of 1824.—Attev the defeat of the Tariff' Bill of 1820 (supra, p. 126) there was an annual attempt in Congress to in- crease the duties on imports, but without success until 1824, in which j-ear a new tariff act with higher duties passed both houses and became a law Maj' 22. Mr. Monroe had continued to advocate a protective policy in his messages to Congress, and the manufacturing class resorted to public meetings and petitions to further the same policy. On the other hand, the commercial and agricultural citizens of various parts of the country remonstrated against anj- further encourage- ment to manufactures by legislative interference. (Bishop, II. 266-7.) In the House debate on the Tariff" Bill of 1824, which lasted from February 10 till April 16, the views of the various interests were fully set forth. The vague notions in regard to the true ef- fects of a tariff" which prevailed in 1816, had, hj eight years of agitation of the subject, given place to definite ideas as to what was wanted by those representing different industries. The leading speakers in favor of the bill were, Mr. Clay, Mr. Tod, Mr. Ingham, Mr. Buchanan, and others ; and those opposed, Mr. Webster, Mr. Hamilton, Mr. P. P. Barbour, Mr. Forsyth, and others. On the general principles of the bill, the speeches of Mr. Cia}' and Mr. AVebster are most noteworthj'. Mr. Clay advocated protection, not to favor local interests or special industries, but as a general system which would render the United States independent of foreign nations. "The greatest want of civilized society is a market for its surplus products of labor. Both a foreign and home market were desirable, but the latter was most important. The object of the bill was to create the latter, and to lay the foundation of a genuine American policy." (Young, Am. Statesman, 324.) Mr. Clay ascribed the financial 1824] THE TARIFF OF 1824. 153 crisis of 1819 and the distress following it, to the want of adequate protection to home industrj-. He answered at length the objections to a protective policy. This speech, delivered March 31, may be found in full in Niles' Register, XXVI. 378 ; Clay's Works, V. 496 ; see also, Benton, Deb., VII. 707 ; Young, Am. Statesman, 323-31. Webster replied, April 2, that the industrial depression was not due to the condition of the tariff, but to the fact that the strong foreign demand for American products, especially those of agri- culture, caused V)j- the European wars, had ceased, and our markets were glutted with home and foreign products. Moreover, the excessive issues of bank paper and its consequent depreciation in value had raised prices to a fictitious level ; but with the crisis of 1819 there came a collapse in prices, and the country had not yet recovered .from the shock. Other industries as well as manufac- tures had suffered, and to protect the latter alone would be unjust to the former. Not all the provisions of this bill would tend to produce a home market. Protection was losing its prestige in England. It was destructive of commerce. Free trade was the general principle, and protection the exception. To the question : What nations have become eminent without encouraging manufac- tures ? Webster replied by asking : What nations have received a like prosperity without promoting foreign trade? Webster plead particularly for the shipping interest, with which New Eng- land was greatly concerned. (Niles, XXVI. 409 ; Webster's Works, III. 94; Benton, VII. 712; Young, 331-40.) The principle of this bill was distinctly protective ; as explained by Mr. Tod, chairman of the committee on manufactures, the duties proposed were to be laid upon two distinct classes of arti- cles, one embracing silks, linens, cutlery, spices, and others of ' less importance, which did not interfere with anj^ home production or manufacture for which the country was prepared. Upon these the duties Were to be laid with reference to revenue onlj^ The other class embraced iron, hemp, lead, glass, wool, woolen goods, etc., upon which the duties were to be laid with reference to the protection of home manufactures. For the details of the act see Stat, at L., IV. 25; Young, Tariff Leg., 48-50; Bishop, II. 291-2; Benton, Deb., VII. 666 et seq.; see further, on the subject. Young, Tariff Leg., 41-8; Benton, View, I. 32-4 ; Clay's Works, II. 305 ; Niles, XXVI. 3, (;5, 113,' 161, 374-8, 404.) 154 WOOLENS BILL — HAERISBURG CONVENTION. [1827 The duties under this tariff averaged about 40 per cent ad valorem. The duty on woolen goods was increased from 25 per cent to 33^ per cent (after 1825). But this act was followed in Great Britain hj a reduction of the dutj' on foreign wool from sixpence to one halfpenny per pound, and the British manufacturer could still undersell the American manufacturer. With the expectation of being protected against foreign competition, a large amount of capital had been put into woolen manufactures ($50,000,000 in 1827) , and a corresponding increase in the production of wool had taken place. Both these interests became greath' depressed. This led to the introduction of a bill in Congress, January 27, 1827, known as the "Woolens Bill." It was proposed not to increase the duties, but to apply the minimum principle to woolens, as had been done in the case of coarse cottons ; manufactures of wool, whose value at the place whence imported was less than forty cents, between forty cents and $2.50, or between $2.50 and $4.00 per square j'ard, respectively, were to be deemed and taken to have cost those prices. This bill passed the House, 106 to 95, but was defeated in the Senate by the casting vote of the Vice-President. (Young, Am. Statesman, 403 ; Bishop, II. 314-15.) The failure of this bill was followed by efforts on the part of manufacturers to secure combined and systematic action to effect the legislation required. A convention of delegates from thirteen states met at Harrisburg, Pa., July 30, 1827. A memorial to Congress was drawn up, which had much influence in bringing about the revision of the tariff at the next session, 1828. (Young, Am. Statesman, 412-14.) The repeated discussions of the principle of protection to man- ufactures had by this time begun to draw the party lines in regard to this question, and had greatly embittered the extreme advo- cates of the opposing policies. "The hostility of the planting interests of the South to an increase of duties on imports, with a view to encouraging manufactures, .... had gathered strength at each attempt to remodel the tariff since 1816." (Bishop, II. 321.) But the continued distress of the woolen manufacturers, and also the depression in the iron interests, induced the House, at its next session, to attempt a revision of the tarifl". (Ibid., 321.) This action resulted in the Tariff Act of May 19, 1828. (Stat. at L., IV. 270.) 1828] TARIFF OF 1828. 155 The increase of duties were not confined to the manufactures of wool and iron, but was general in its effect. The increase of the tariff on woolens from 33^ to 45 and 50 per cent (after 1829), with the adoption of the minimum principle in regard to them, with some incongruous features, gave to this act the name of the "tariff of abominations." After the passage of the Tariff Act of 1824, New England, ac- cepting the policy of protection, invested a large amount of capi- tal in manufactures. On this ground Mr. Webster, and the New England members generally, justified their new position, in this debate, as protectionists. (Webster's Works, III. 228.) But Webster now appeared the advocate of protection to special interests 'rather than the advocate of the general principle. Still the support of New England was partly alienated from the bill because western farmers demanded in it an increased duty on molasses (an article of general use among the people, and largely distilled in New England) as a protection to their manufacture of liquors from grain. Hodges of Massachusetts thought that this provision would "transfer the capital of the New England states to other states in the Union." The South complained that not one of its interests would be benefitted by the bill. As England had reduced to a nominal sum duties on the raw materials, especially wool and cotton, which supplied the great manufactures, the South had to sell cotton in a free market and buy manufactures m a protected market. The South, therefore, contrary to its former position, appeared as the violent opponent of protection, and endeavored by all means to make the bill obnoxious even to protectionists. Though this suc- ceeded with New England, the Northwest and Southwest were so strongly attached to protection that the House passed the bill by 105 to 94, and the Senate also, after slight amendments. (Young, Am. Statesman, 403-18; Young, Tariff L., 50-68; Bishop, II. 321-4; Benton, View, I. 95-102; Benton, Deb., IX. 589; X. 34 etseq.; Niles, XXXIV. 105, 220, 395.) III. Adminifitration of J. Q. Arhmi.s, 1825-29. The election of 1824 resulted in the choice of John Quiney Adams by the House of Representatives the 9th of February following. (Supra, p. 145.) Mr. Calhoun received 182 electoral votes, and was thus elected Vice-President. 156 CHARGES AGAINST ADAMS AND CLAY. [1824-7 Mr. Adams selected as his cabinet officers : Henry Clay, Secre- tary of State ; Richard' Rush, Secretary of the Treasury ; James Barbour, Secretary of "War ; Samuel L. Southard, Secretary of the Navy (continued in office) ; William Wirt, Attorney-General (continued) ; John M'Lean was retained as Postmaster-General. The charge had been made previous to the election bj' the House that Mr. Clay had made a bargain with Mr. Adams, by the terms of whicli Mr. Clay was to use his influence in favor of the election of Mr. Adams, and in return was to be appointed Secretary of State. The fact that Mr. Clay did support Mr. Adams, and that he was afterward appointed Secretary of State, seemed to bear out the truth of the previous charge. Mr. Clay indignantly denied the existence of anj' such transaction between himself and Mr. Adams. In 1827 General Jaclison published a' statement that he had been approached by the friends of Claj-, previously to the election by the House, with a proposition to malse a similar bargain. This charge was based upon an interview with Mr. Buchanan Decem- ber 30, 1824. This last-named gentlemen published a letter, August 8, 1827, denying that he had any authority to speak for Mr. Clay in 1824 ; but the letter was so ambiguous that the friends of Jackson insisted that it proved General Jaclcson's charge. Mr. Sargent (Public Men and Events, I. 143) saj-s that Mr. Buchanan "was a moral coward, and afraid of offending General Jackson ; he there- fore kept silent and allowed the friends of the General all the benefit tliey could derive from proclaiming that the charge had been proved by his, Mr. Buchanan's, testimony. In this affair, however, he lost the confidence of the General." Mr. Clay procured the testimony of members of Congress and other public men, and issued an address to the people of the United States accompanied with such a mass of proof to show that the charge was unfounded that it carried conviction to all impartial minds. Mr. Webster said, "The statement is clear and the evi- dence irresistible." In 1829, after Mr. Adams had retired from the presidency, he also denounced the charge of "bargain and corruption." (Ibid., 145.) And yet General Jackson continued to reiterate the charge, and the crowd of politicians who followed the fortunes of Jackson found it a convenient party weapon. (Sargent, Public Men and Events, I. 68-74, 141-6 ; Young, Am. Statesman, 345-7 ; Benton, View, 48 ; Works of Clay, I. 287-427 ; Works of J. Q. Adams, VI. 509, 513, 515.) 1825-6] OPPOSITION PARTY FORMED. 157 Opposition party formed. — The first session of the 19th Con- gress commeuced December 5, 1825. In the Senate the adminis- istration had a majority, but in the House the numbers were nearly evenly divided between the friends of the administration" and the opposition, composed mainly of the friends of the disappointed candidates, Jackson and Crawford ; for as yet there were no dis; tinct issues upon which to base party divisions. (Sargent, I. 106-U.) The attack upon the administration began immediately, the first object being the "Panama Mission" {supra, p. 150; Sargent, 1. 115). While the discussion of this question was going on in the Senate, the House was as warmly debating a proposal to amend the Constitution, so as to elect the President and Vice-President by the direct vote of the people in districts, and to restrict the tenure of the presidential oflace to one term. It was said that the late election in the House was a fraud on the people, and the proposed amendments were to prevent the possibility of such an occurrence in future. A similar proposal was discussed in the Senate. (Benton, View, I. 78.) It was also moved in the Senate that the committee who had in charge the subject of the above amendments, should "be charged with an inquiry into the expe- diency of reducing executive patronage, in cases in which it could be done by law consistently with the Constitution, and without impairing the eflficiency of the Government." The committee of which Mr. Benton was chairman made a report accompanied by six bills (May 4, 1826). The bills were as follows: 1. To reg- ulate the publication of the laws of the United States, and of the public advertisements. 2. To secure in office the faithful col- lectors and disbursers of the revenue, and to displace defaulters. 3, 4, and 5. Bills to regulate the appointment of postmasters, cadets and midshipmen. 6. To prevent military and naval officers from being dismissed the service at the pleasure of the President. Mr. Benton reported also (March 1, 1826) in favor of amending the Constitution, making members of Congress ineligible to any civil office under the General Government during the presidential term in which thoy shall have served. Mr. Clay and several other members of Congress had been appointed to important offices by Mr. Adams, and the printing of the laws had been withdrawn from certain newspapers opposed to the administration, and given to others that supported it. 158 ATTACK ON THE ADMINISTRATION. {1826-7 The committee, in their report, say "they have only touched, in four places, the vast and pervading system of federal executive patronage: the press — the post-offlee — the armed force — and the appointing power. They are few, compared to the whole number of points which the system presents ; but they are points vital to the liberties of the country. The press is put foremost, because it is the moving power of human action ; the post-offlce is the handmaid of the press ; the armed force its executor ; and the appointing power the directress of the whole. If the appoint- ing power was itself an emanation of the popular will — if the President was himself the officer and the organ of the people — there would be less dangers in leaving to his will the sole direc- tion of all these arbiters of human fate. But things must be talcen as they are ; statesmen must act for the country they live in, and not for the island of Utopia ; they must act upon th^ state of facts in that country, and not upon the visions of fancy. In the country for which the committee act, the press, with some exceptions, the post-office, the armed force, and the appointing power, are in the hands of the President, and the Piesident him- self is not in the hands of the people. The President may, and in the current of human affairs, will be, against the people ; and, in his hands, the arbiters of human- fate must be against them also. This will not do. " The j)0ssibilitj' of it must be avoided. The safetj' of the people is the 'supreme law' ; and to insure that safety these arbiters of human fate must change position, and take post on the side of the people." By the first of these bills, the selection of newspapers to publish the laws, then made by the Secretary of State, was to be made in each state by its senators and representatives in Congress. The second required the President to give his reasons for the removal of an officer on nominating to the Senate his successor. These bills never got bej'ond the second reading. (Young, American Statesman, 348-52, 381-2; Benton, Deb., VIII. 688-722; IX. 1-88; Benton, View, I. 78-87; Sargent, I. 117-123, 132-34.) The opposition continued to grow more united and cohesive. The 20th Congress, which began its first session December 3, 1827, had an opposition majority in both houses. The direct attack upon the administration was renewed in the House in the discussion of certain resolutions introduced by Mr. Chilton, of Kentucky, advocating retrenchment in the expendi- l'^2.")-8] THE OPPOSITION. 159 tures of the Government. The only result of the debate was to widen the breach between the parties. (Benton, Deb., IX. 669 ; Young, American Statesman, 421-28.) The origin of the opposition to Mr. Adams is to be found largely in the disppointment of the other candidates and their friends, although Mr. Benton declares that Mr. Adams' inaugural address furnished a topic against him, and "went to the reconstruction of parties on the old line of strict, or latitudinous, construction of the Constitution. It was the topic of internal national imjjrove- ment by the Federal G-overnment." (Benton, View, I. 54.) Mr. Adams favored such works, but so had Mr. Calhoun and others of the new opposition leaders. It may be seen, too, from the division of parties, that during these years the South began to draw more and more closely together, as if fearing for the future of the slaveholding interests, instinctively feeling that the President and his supporters were hostile to slaver}'. This fact is noticeable in the debate on the Panama Mission, on the Tariff Bill of 1828, and, at that time, on the question of internal improvements. The presidential canvass had begun soon after the inauguration of Mr. Adams by the nomination of General Jackson by the legislature of Tennessee, as the candidate for President in 1828 (October, 1825). (Young, American Statesman, 391-95.) It was said that the will of the people had been tlawarted in the election of Mr. Adams, and that this must be vindicated in 1828 by the election of General Jackson. "These events in the election of 1824 played so great a part in the electoral campaign of 1828 that Senator Benton rightly designated its issue as 'the victory of the Demos Krateo principle over the theorj- of the Constitution.' The question of the merits of the Adams administration, and of the relative statesmanlike worth or worthlessness of the two candidates, was thrown completely into the shade." (Von Hoist, II. 9.) The election of 1828 resulted in the choice of General Jackson by a majority of more than two to one in the electoral college. (Appendix, p. 37 ; Von Hoist, II. 1-10 : Benton, View, I. 111-14 ; Parton, Life of Jackson, III. 137-53.) Mif!r,ellaneous Measures and Eventa. Removal of the Indians. — Soon after the acquisition of Louis- iana Mr. Jefferson proposed this territory as the future residence / REMOVAL OK THE INBIANS. [1825-8 of all the Indian tribes east of the Mississippi. Verj' little was clone, however, towards carrying out this plan until the presidency of Mr. Monroe. In 1825 the President reconamended this policy (Stat. Man., I. 536), and it was adopted by Congress; several treaties were made with Indian tribes and their removal commenced. (Benton, View, I. 27.) In the case of the tribes within the state of Georgia much diffi- culty was encountered, which led to a conflict between the General Government and the state of Georgia. In 1802, when Georgia ceded her western lands to the General Government, the latter agreed to extinguish the title of the Cherokee and Creek Indians to lands within the State of Georgia. This was not done, and in 1819 Georgia demanded the fulfilment of the agreement. Bj' the treaty of Indian Springs, February 12, 1825, the Creeks ceded to the General Government all their lands in Georgia and agreed to move be3-ond the Mississippi. But the Creek nation repudiated the treaty, and killed the chiefs who negotiated it. Georgia on her part determined to execute the treaty b^- taking possession of the ceded territory. The Indians were subjected to state authority and a survey of the lands ordered. President Adams, convinced that- the treaty had been made without due authority, interfered to prevent its execution by the State of Georgia. He forbade the survej', and sent General Gaines with federal troops to the con- fines of the state. Governor Troup, on the other hand, advised the legislature to stand to their arms, and gave orders to the militia looking towards resistance. On seeing the determination of the President to sustain the federal authority. Governor Troup modi- fied somewhat his bearing ; and in the meantime a new treaty was made with the Indians by which they ceded all but a small part of their lands in Georgia, and promised to go beyond the Mississippi where new lands were given them. This settled the matter in regard to the Creeks, but the Cherokees still remained a cause for trouble in the future. (Young, Am. Statesman, 361 ; Benton, View, I. 58; Von Hoist, I. 432-48; Niles, XXVIII. 240, 371, 398.) The Anti-Masonic Party. — In 1826 William Morgan, a Mason of Batavia, N. Y., threatened to publish a book revealing the secrets of the Masonic order. Morgan was immediately arrested, on some pretended criminal charge, and taken to Canandaigua. Being acquitted on this charge, he was again arrested for debt, 1825-9] ANTI-MASONS — Adam's administration. 161 and put in jail in order to keep possession of him until arrange- ments could be made for Anally disposing of him. He was then discharged from jail, but was immediately seized, thrust into a carriage and driven rapidly to Fort Niagara, at the head of Lake Ontario. It appears that the first intention was to send him to a remote part of Canada ; but, as later revelations show, other counsels prevailed, and Morgan was taken to the middle of Niagara river in a boat and drowned. (See the statement of the late Thurlow Weed.) The disappearance of Morgan and the mj'stery surrounding his fate, combined with the suspicion that he had been murdered bj- the Masons, caused the most intense excitement. Soon after this event, an organization was set on foot at Buffalo, based on hostilitj' to Masonry. In March, 1828, a convention at Le Roy, N. Y., representing twelve counties, inaugurated the Anti-Masonic movement in politics. The party thus formed be- came powerful in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Vermont and Massachusetts. (Young, Am. Statesman, 463 ; Sargent, I. 139.) Result of Mr. Adams' Administratiofi. — The policy of the admin- istration of Mr. J. Q. Adams was the continuance of the vigorous and liberal policy inaugurated by the Democratic leaders at the close of the war of 1812-15. The development of the country was considered as an object of national care. In pursuance of this policy, liberal expenditures were made for lighthouse estab- lishments ; fortification of the seacoast ; arsenals, barracks, and armories ; the naval establishment ; public buildings ; and internal improvements. The public debt was reduced by the sum of $30,000,000, besides paying the annual interest. But the opposition party in Congress were able to obstruct very greatly the plans of the administration, without having any definite policy of its own. The administration party, chiefly the adherents of Mr. Adams and Mr. Clay, began now to call themselves the National Repub- lican party, while the opposition were generally known as the Jacksonians. CHAPTEK V. Administeations of Jackson and Van Buren, 1829-1841. /. Administration of Jackson, 1829-37 . General Jackson entered the White House on March 4, 1829, and with him went the "Demos." The people looked upon Jack- son as one of themselves, and there was a strong class feeling mingled with the victorJ^ Jacltson, on the other hand, considered himself tlie special representative of the people ; to them he looked as the source of his authorit}' as executive, and it was natural that they should talie part with him in the honors of the presiden- tial office. "The President," says an ej'e-witness, "was literally pursued by a motley concourse of people, riding, running helter- skelter, striving who should first gain admittance into the execu- tive mansion, where it was understood refreshments were to be distributed." Another saj'S, "It was mortifying to see men, with boots heavy with mud, standing on the damask-satin-covered chairs and sofas " Judge Story says, "The reign of King Mob seemed triumphant." Mr. Webster remarks, "I never saw such a crowd here before. Persons have come five hundred miles to see General Jackson, and they really seem to think that the country is rescued from some dreadful danger.'' Another says, " The West and South seemed to have precipitated themselves upon the North and overwhelmed it. . . . You might tell a Jackson man as far as you could see ttm ; his every motion seemed to cry out 'victory.'" Every Jackson editor in the country, it was thought, was on the spot. They formed "an expectant host, a sort of Praetorian band, which, having borne in upon their shields their idolized leader, claimed the reward of the hard-fought contest. It was scarcely possible " to restrain the eagerness of the multi- tude, every man of whom seemed bent on the glory of shaking the President's hand." (Parton, Life of Jackson, III. 169-71 ; Sar- gent, I. 163 ; Sumner, Life of Jackson, 136-39.) 1829] .TAPKSOX'S PdLICY. 163 Jackson's first Cabinet was composed as follows : Martin Van Buren, New York, Secretary of State ; Samuel D. Ingham, Penn- sylvania, Secretarj' of the Treasury ; John H. Eaton, Tennessee, Secretar}' of War ; John Branch, North Carolina, Secretarj' of the Navj' ; John M. BeiTien, Georgia, Attorney-General ; "William T. Barry, Kentuckj-, Postmaster-General. This cabinet was a weak one, and had little influence on the policy of the Government. Jackson did not propose to share with his ministers the responsibility of the executive office. For advice he relied rather upon a number of his intimate friends, who came to be called the " Kitchen Cabinet," the members of which were William B. Lewis, Second Auditor ; Amos Kendal, Fourth Auditor, later Postmaster-General ; Duff Green, editor of the Telegraph, the ' ' organ " of the administration ; Isaac Hill, second Comptrol- ler of the Treasury. These men, with perhaps Eaton and Van Buren, were the confidential advisers of the President and had most to do in shaping the policy of the Government. Jackson's inaugural address revived the charges against the last administration, made so often, in and out of Congress, during the pas|; four years. " The recent demonstration of public sentiment inscribes on the list of executive duties, in characters too legible to be overlooked, the task of reform; which will require, partic- ularly, the correction of those abuses that have brought the Federal Government into conflict with the freedom of elections, and the counteraction of those causes which have disturbed the rightful course of appointment, and have placed or continued power in unfaithful or incompetent hands." (Stat. Manual, I. 595.) The implied charges in the above sentence are, that the lapt administration nad interfered with elections, that it had disturbed the rightful course of appointments, and had placed or continued power in unfaithful or incompetent hands. There is not the shadow of truth in any of these charges. Mr. Adams was partic- ularly fortunate in his selection of competent and even superior men for the offices he filled. "Whatever might be said or believed then, we know now that his administration was one of the purest, ablest, and most economical we have ever had. Even Washington's was not more so." (Sargent, I. 163.) Mr. Adams refused to make places for political adherents, even keeping in office those who were openly hostile to him. Mr. Hammond writes (Political History of New York, I. 429), "JohnQuincy Adams attempted to 164 APPOINTMENTS AND REMOVALS. [1829 repudiate the maxim : to the victor belong the spoils, and was soon politically prostrated." (Von Hoist, II. 20, 25.), Appointments and Removals of Civil Officers. — In 1816 Jack- son had written to Monroe in regard to the selection of his "min- istry, advising him to avoid " partj' and party feelings." " Now is the time to exterminate that monster called party spirit the chief magistrate of a great and powerful nation should never indulge in party feelings." (Niles, XXVI. 164-5 ; Von Hoist, II. 1.3.) When Tennessee, in 1825, nominated him as a candidate for 1828, he resigned his senatorship, because he might be open to the suspicion of promoting, as United States Senator, his own candidacj'. He also recommended an amendment to the Constitu- tion excluding members of Congress from federal offices, excepting judges, during the term for which they were elected and two years after its termination. (Von Hoist, II. 13.) It was verj' soon seen that he had modified his views on this subject. Of his first cabinet, three were members of the Senate, and one of the House ; and Mr. Van Buren had been a Senator up to the first of Januarj^ preceding. Many other members of Congress received important appointments. During the first six , months of General Jackson's administration more federal appoint- ments devolved upon members of Congress than had before fallen to their lot from tlie commencement of the Government, in 1789, down to the 4th of March, 1829 — forty years." (Sargent, I. 164 ; Annual Register, V. 20.) As to the policy of proscription of political opponents, entered upon, in this country, for the first time under this administration, it is not to be ascribed wholly to Jackson as its originator. The course of the opposition during the previous four j'ears led inev- itably to such a policy. Party capital had been made by means of personal slander and general charges of corruption. It was said that Adams and Clay had corrupted the whole civil service, and many honest men believed it, probably Jackson himself. Add to this the fact that some of the President's intimate advisers were schooled in the principle of the " spoils system." That principle had been acted upon in New York since 1801, and Van Buren knew well its methods. Mr. William L. Marcy, senator from New York, said, " It may be that the politicians of New York are not so fastidious as some gentlemen are as to disclosing the principles on which they act. They boldly preach what they practice. When 1829] APPOINTMEKTS AND REMOVALS. 1 GT) they are contending for victory, they avow their intention of en- joying the fruits of it. If they are defeated they expect to retire from office. If thej' are successful, they claim, as a matter of right, the advantages of success. They see nothing wrong in the rule that to the victor belong the spoils of the enemy." General Jackson was doubtless somewhat influenced by the feeling of revenge towards his opponents, in addition to the task of reform he had set himself, which was to rid the civil service of corruption. And so the proscription began. During tlie first j'ear of Jackson's presidency, about 690 officers were removed. The subordinate officers removed by these 690 swelled the number of those who lost their positions to about 2000. The total number of removals by all former presidents was 74, distributed as follows : Washington, 9 ; John Adams, 10 ; Jeffer- son, 39 ; Madison, 5 ; Monroe, 9 ; J. Q. Adams, 2. Mr. Benton is an apologist for Jackson in this matter, alleging that but 491 postmasters were removed out of 8000 ; but^ he does not mention the fact that these 491 possessed all the offices worth having, nor the fact that the removal of postmasters in the large cities brought about the removal of many hundreds of clerks and carriers. (Parton, Life of Jackson, III. 210.) Up to that time the subordinate officials of the departments had never been removed except for incompetency or unfaithfulness. But now "a sweep was to be made'' said the Secretary of State, "of all in the depart- ments and elsewhere, who did not ' belong to the household of the faith.' " In 1835 Clay said in the Senate : "But I would ask the senator [Wright] what has been the effect of this tremendous power of dismission upon the classes of officers to which it has been ap- plied? Upon the post-office, land-office, and the custom house? They constitute so many corps d'armde, ready to further, on all occasions, the executive views and wishes. They take the lead in primary assemblies whenever it is deemed expedient to applaud or sound the praises of the administration, or to carry out its pur- poses in relation to the succession." (Clay's Speeches, II. 272.) Calhoun said: "When it comes to be once understood that politics is a game ; that those who are engaged in it but act a part ; that they make this or that profession, not from honest conviction or an intent to fulfil them, but as a means of deluding the people ; 166 TENURE OF OFFICE. [1829 and through that delusion to acquire power — when such profes- sions are to be entirely forgotten — the people will lose all confi- dence in public men ; all will be regarded as mere jugglers — the honest and patriotic as well as the cunning and profligate ; and the people will become indifferent and passive to the grossest abuses of power, on the ground that those whom they maj' elevate under whatever pledges, instead of reforming, will but imitate the exam- ple of those whom the}- have expelled." (Calhoun's Works, II. 441; Von Hoist, II. 25.) See in general on this subject. Von Hoist, II. 11-31 ; Parton, Life of Jackson, III. 206-27 ; Sumner, Life of Jackson, 140-49 ; Benton, View, I. 159 ; Young, Am. Statesman, 478-81 ; Hammond, Political History of New York, I. 429. In his first annual message General Jackson recommended an amendment to the Constitution, by which the electoral college would be dispensed with, and the vote for President and Vice- President would be direct ; also restricting the service of the chief magistrate to a single term of four or six years ; prohibiting the appointment of members of Congress to civil office by the Presi- dent, in whose election they may have been oflficiallj- concerned ; and suggesting a general extension of the law which limits appoint- ments to four j'ears. {Supra, p. 138.) None of these suggestions were acted upon except the last. In regard to this, Jackson says : " There are perhaps few men who can for any great length of time enjoy office and power, without being more or less under the infiuence of fedlings unfavorable to a faithful discharge of their public duties Office is considered as a species of property, and government rather as a means of promoting individual interests, than as an instrument created solely for the service of the people The duties of all public ofl3cers are, or at least admit of being made, so plain and simple that men of intelligence may readily qualifj' themselves for their performance ; and I cannot but believe that more is lost by the long continuance of men in office than is generally to be gained by their experience. I submit therefore to your consideration whether the efiSciency of the government would not be promoted, and offi- cial industry and .integrity better secured, by a general extension of the law which limits appointments to four j-ears." .... "He who is removed has the same means of obtaining a living that are en- joyed by the millions who never held office. The proposed limita- 1829] POLICY OF THE JACKSONIAN PARTY. 167 tion would destroy the idea of property, now so generally connected with ofHcial station ; and although individual distress may be sometimes produced, it would, by promoting that rotation which constitutes a leading principle in the republican creed, give health- ful action to the system." (Stat. Man., I. 702-3.) In 1836 (July 2) Congress passed a law fixing the term of post- masters whose salaries exceeded $1000 at four years unless sooner removed by the President. (Stat. atL., V. 84.) By the law of June 8, 1872, this provision is retained. Postmasters whose salary is less than $1000 are appointed and removable by the Postmaster- General. (Revised Stat., Sec. 3830.) Jackson also advised retrenchment in the expenses of govern- ment, and the abolition of all unnecessary offices. The charter of the bank would expire in 1836, j'et he took this early opportunity to enter a protest against its recharter. As to the controversy with Georgia, he took the side of that state, and advised the removal of the Indians. The surplus revenue which would accu- mulate in the Treasury, after the extinction of the debt, he thought should be apportioned among the several states, according to their ratio of representation In regard to the subjects of internal improvements, and the tariff, the language of the message was vague, doubtless purposel3' so, in order not to alienate the support of the extreme south, which was violently opposed to protection. (Stat. Man., 1. 703, 705, 709.) In the 21st Congress, which met for the first time, December 7, 1829, little attention was given to the recommendations of the President in regard to "retrenchment and reform" and the amend- ments to the Constitution. This would seem to show that the cry for reform had been made for partj- purposes only. In regard to the question of the recharter of the Bank, commit- tees in both Houses reported, in direct opposition to Jackson's advice, in favor of the renewal of the charter. An active wax upon the tariff of 1828 was begun during this session. On this question the North and South were rapidly dividing into two hostile camps ; when this was finally accomplished nearly all public questions were made to turn upon the interests or supposed interests of slaverj'. The first great debate since that on the Missouri Compromise, involving this growing sectional difference, was brought on upon a resolution in regard to the sale of public lands. December 29, 168 foot's resolution. [1829-30 1829, Foot, of Connecticut, offered in the Senate a resolution "that the committee on public lands be instructed to inquire and report the quantity of public lands remaining unsold within each state or territory ; and whether it be expedient to limit, for a certain period, the sales of the public lands to such lands only as have heretofore been offered for sale, and art subject to entry at the minimum price ; and also, whether the ofHce of Surveyor-General, and some of tlie land offices, may not be abolished without detriment to the public interest ; or whether it be expedient to adopt measures to hasten the sales, and extend more rapidly the surveys of the public lands." It was said by those who favored this motion (mainly from the eastern states) that there was sufficient land survej'ed and in the marltet (72,000,000 acres) , and that it would be a needless expense to continue the rapid survej' of lands. The resolution was opposed by the West and South on the ground that the result of its opera- tion would be to check emigration to the new states and territories and limit their settlement. The eastern states were charged, not without some reason, with a design to impede the settlement of the new states. The people, it was said, were to be kept in the East to work in factories. It was for the interest of manufacturers to keep wages low, which could not be done if the wages class were continually emigrating westward, and thus causing a scarcity of laborers in the east and consequently high wages. Considering the resolution in this light, the South opposed it, as being a part of the system of protection. Colonel Hayne of South Carolina, the leading exponent, in the Senate of extreme southern views, thought that after the public debt should have been paid the public lands should be handed over to the states. He distrusted the policy of creating a great national treasury and of distributing the excess among the states. It would form a corruption fund, fatal to the independence of the states. He believed the very life of our system was the independence of the states, and no evil was more to be deprecated than the consolidation of the Government. (Benton, Deb., X. 418-21,) This was going back to the arguments of the Anti-Federalists of the Jeffersonian school. Mr. Webster answered them rather sharply, and defended New England's course in reference to the tariff and public lands. (Ibid., 421-23.) Webster's speech brought on tlie "great debate," which had no reference to the public lands, but was a general discussion of the 1828-30] THE SOUTH AND THE TARIFF. 169 nature of the Union and the relative powers of the Federal and State governments. The great champions in this debate were Ha^-ne and Webster. Colonel Hayne asserted the right of nullification by a state of laws of the United States, and based his arguments in favor of this assertion upon the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions of 1798-9, and Madison's report of 1800, quoting largely from them. (Benton, Deb., X. 423-8, 438-47.) Mr. Webster answered, January 27, 1830, in the most famous and, perhaps, the ablest of his speeches ; certainly, as an exposi- tion of the nature of the Union and a defence of the Constitution, it has not its equal. (Ibid., 428-38, 447-9 ; Webster's Works, III. 317-42 ; Young, Am. Statesman, 487-500; Benton, View, I. 130-43; Von Hoist, I. 470.) This debate was but an episode in the movement, of which John C. Calhoun was the leading spirit, to consolidate the slaveholding interests ags^inst the "American system" and anti-slavery ten- dencies of the North. Calhoun had commenced his career as a statesman of liberal views on all the great questions involving the powers of the Gen- eral Government. Ambitious, however, to occupy the presidential chair, he found it necessary to advocate the interests of the South, and the South, since 1820, had become radically hostile to the policy of protection to manufactures and of internal improvements by the General Government. These were questions at issue in the election of 1828. The South had supported Jackson as a free-trader, the West and Middle States as a protectionist (so ambiguous had been his ex- pressions) . But Jackson's first message disappointed the extreme anti-protectionists ; and Calhoun began to perceive that his chances of political preferment would not be increased by following Jack- son's lead. He began therefore to cool in his friendship towards Jackson. Martin Van Buren, moreover, had wormed his way into the good graces of Jackson and was likely to be preferred by him as his successor. Calhoun's wishes, too, in regard to certain ap- pointments, had been disregarded. After the passage of the Tariff Act of 1828, the legislatures of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, North Carolina, and Virginia drew up vigorous protests against that act ; and in some cases hinted at nullification. (Young, Am. Statesman, 470-2 ; Bishop, 170 JACKSON AND CALHOUN. [1830 II. 333-4.) The language used in the press and at public meetings was very violent, and threats of forcible resistance were common. The debate in the Senate between Hayne and Webster was an outburst of the pent up feelings of the time. (Von Hoist, I. 406-8.) Jackson finally became aroused by the open talk of nullification. At a dinner given on the occasion of Jefferson's birthday (April 13, 1830) the regular toasts all pointed to nullification. Jackson being called upon for a toast, gave, ' ' Our Federal Union : it must be preserved." Calhoun followed with "The Union : next to lib- ert}' the most dear : may we all remember that it can only be pre- served by respecting the rights of the states and distributing equally the benefit and burden of the Union." These sentiments foreshadowed the future action of the men. (Sargent, I. 174-6 ; Benton, View, I. 148.) Soon after this event Jackson learned that Calhoun, as Secretary of War in 1818, had advised that General Jackson be tried by court martial for his conduct in the Seminole War. {Supra, p. 129.) Upon Jackson's request to know the truth of this statement Calhoun acknowledged it and proceeded to justify his course. From that moment Jackson was his most bitter enemy, and on the other hand Calhoun threw himself with his whole soul into the nuUiflcation movement. (Parton, Life of Jackson, III. 309-33 ; Young, Am. Statesman, 536-47 ; Benton, View, I. 167-80 ; Von Hoist, Life of Calhoun, 87-96.) Colonel Benton saj's (View, I. 180), "From the rupture between General Jackson and Mr. Cal- houn dates calamitous events to this countrj'." On the other hand, Von Hoist thinks Calhoun's subsequent course was not due to disappointed ambition, but rather to his sense of the duty of defending slavery. (Life, 96.) Change, of Cabinet. — The quarrel with Calhoun brought other complications. The friends of Calhoun must be got rid of. In the Cabinet, Ingham, Branch, and Berrien were favorable to Cal- houn. The Cabinet was therefore reconstructed. The Eaton scandal was probably made use of by Jackson as an excuse for this change. (Parton, Life of Jackson, III. 184-205, 287-302 ; Sargent, I. 180-84.) The members of the new Cabinet were : Edward Livingston, of Louisiana, Secretary of State ; Louis McLane, of Delaware, Sec- retary of the Treasury; Lewis Cass, of Michigan, Secretary 1830-31] NEW CABINET NDLLIFICATION. 171 of War; Levi Woodbury, of New Hampshire, Secretary of the Navy ; Roger B. Taney, of Maryland, Attorney-General ; Amos Kendall, of Kentucky, Postmaster-General. ^ In the Kitchen Cabinet, Duff Green, a friend of Calhoun, was replaced by Francis P. Blair, who was put , in charge of the "Globe," an administration newspaper established a't this time. Blair and Kendall "were the leading spirits in the government of the country until 1840." (Sumner, Life of Jackson, 160.) Mr. Van Bureu was appointed minister to England, but was not confl;-med by the Senate. Major Eaton was appointed Governor of Florida, and Mr. Barry, minister to Spain. (Young, Am. Statesman, 547-54 ; Benton, View, I. 180-2 ; Sumner, Life of Jackson, 160-63 ; Parton, Life of Jackson, III. 344-71.) Nullification. — Soon after the final break with Jackson, Calhoun put himself at the head of the nullification movement of South Carolina. "Calhoun had now given up all hope that the protec- tive system could be destroyed with Jackson's help in the regular parliamentary waj' He held that the time had come for a de- cisive step." (Von Hoist, I. 465.) In 1828, as author of "the South Carolina Exposition" (Works, VI. 1; Von Hoist, Life of Calhoun, 76-83), Calhoun had drawn an economic contrast between the southern or "staple states" and the rest of the Union, arriving at the conclusion that there was a permanent conflict of interest between them, and that each state had the right to veto a federal law which is deemed unconstitutional. July 26, 1831, he began action toward nullification by an address on "the relation between state and general governments (Works, VI. 59), which was embodied in an address to the people of South Carolina from the legislature. (Ibid., 124-44.) He adopts as the basis of his argument the doctrine of the resolutions of 1798, and says : " The right of interposition thus solemnly' asserted bj- the state of Virginia, be it called as it may — state-ilght, veto, nullifi- cation, or by any other name — I conceive to be the fundamental principle of our system." (Ibid., 61.) He then discusses the dissimilaritj' of interests in our country, and concludes that they are so great "that they can not be subjected to the unchecked will of a majority of the whole without defeating the great end of I The Postmaster-General was made a member of the Cabinet on Jackson's accession to office. (Sargent, I. 165.) ' 172 NULLIFICATION. [1832 government justice. The North and South are as much opposed in interests as though distinct nations." (Ibid., 134.) He denies the authority of the Supreme Court, because the United States Government in all its departments is merelj' an agent of the states, which they have entrusted with the execution of certain provisions of the compact made by them. The right of nullification by a state is asserted as the rightful remedy for usurpation on the part of the Federal Government. According to Mr. Calhoun this remedy was in some way to be a peaceful one. (Von Hoist, I. 467-70; Parton, III. 433-5.) In a letter to Governor Hamilton of South Carolina, of August 28, 1832, Calhoun elaborates still further his doctrine. (Works, VI. 144-93 ; Von Hoist, I. 471-5.) Calhoun here asserts that "so far from the Constitution being the work of the American people eollectivelj', no such political body, either now or ever, did exist." "That there is no direct and imme- diate connection between the individual citizens of a state and the General Government." This was the very " connection" that the framers of the Constitution avowedly purposed to establish. In 1835, in reiterating the doctrine of state rights, he asserted that the states were so far independent of one another that the law of nations was in force among them. (Benton, Deb., XII. 582.) The Tariff Act of July 14, 1832 {Infra, p. 182); though ostensibly a reduction of the duties, in reality retained the protective prin- ciple. Eegarding this act as indicative of the settled policy of the country, the senators and representatives from South Carolina issued an address to the people, announcing that it remained with the sovereign ]power of the state to decide what course to pursue. The Legislature of South Carolina called a convention (October 24) to devise means of redress for the " unconstitutional" tariff laws. (Von Hoist, I. 476.) The convention reported (November 24, 1832) a Nullification- Ordinance. (Benton, View, I. 297; Benton, Deb., XII. 30; Niles, XLIII. 219.) It declared that the tariff laws of 1828 and July 14, 1832, were "unauthorized by the Constitution of the United States, and violate the true meaning and intent thereof, and are null and void, and no law, nor binding upon this state, its officers, or citizens, etc." It was declared unlawful to enforce the payment of the duties within the limits of the state ; and the 1832] SOUTH CAROLINA AND NULLIFICATION. 173 Legislature was instructed to pass acts to give force to the ordinance after the first of February, 1833. It forbade an appeal to the Supreme Court on questions concerning the ordinance. Addresses were issued to the people of the state, calling upon them to pre- pare for the crisis ; and to the people of the United States, explain- , ing the causes of these proceedings. (Von Hoist, I. 476-7.) The right to withdraw from the Union was also asserted. The Legislature which met November 27 responded to all the requirements of the "Ordinance." An act of replevin was passed, and an act to empower the Governor to employ the naval and mil- itary forces of the state. "South Carolina had legislated the Federal Government out of the state." (Von Hoist, I. 477-8.) The demands of South Carolina in regard to the tariif were, that " the whole list of protected articles should be imported free of all duty, and that the revenue derived from impost duties should be raised exclusively upon the unprotected articles." (Bishop, II. 368-9.) Colonel Hayne was elected Governor of South Carolina in the autumn of 1832, resigning his seat in the United States Senate. Mr. Calhoun at once resigned the Vice-Presidency in order to take the vacant seat in the Senate. On hearing of the passage of the Ordinance, President Jackson issued his nullification proclamation, December 11, 1832. (Stat. Man., II. 794.) In this he refuted the doctrine of state rights and nullification, set forth the national theory of the Government, and declared his resolution to execute the laws of the United States. (Von Hoist, I. 478.) "A clearer, and .... a more correct exposition of the nature and powers of the General Government is hardly to be found in anj"- public document." (Young, Am. Statesman, 577.) Edward Livingston, Secretary of State, was the author of the document as a whole, although the spirit and . perhaps some of the language belong to Jackson. (Von Hoist, I. 479, N. ; Parton, III. 466 ; Benton, View, I. 299.) On December 81, 1832, Governor Hayne issued a counter proc- lamation (Niles, 43, p. 308), and active preparations for war were hastened at Charleston. (Von Hoist, I. 481.) January 16, 1833, Jackson issued his nullification message (Stat. Man., II. 808), asking additional powers, on the ground that South Carolina had not, since the issuing of his proclamation, desisted from illegal acts, and was even organizing forces against 174 SOUTH CAROLINA AND NULLIFICATION. [1833 the United States. He stated that he had ordered the removal, for safety, of the Charleston custom-house to Castle Pinckney. (Ben- ton, View, I. 303.) In accordance with Jackson's wishes, Wilkins of Pennsylvania introduced the "Force Bill," January 21, 1833. It authorized the President to remove the custom-houses to places of safety ; required the payment of duties in cash ; authorized the President to call out troops to protect customs officers ; authorized United States courts to hear causes arising under a state court, without a copy of the record of such cases from that court ; directed the President by proclamation to call out a strong military force ; provided jails for those sentenced under the revenue laws ; and extended habeas corpus before the United States courts to those confined for break- ing the United States laws. (Benton, Deb., XII. 37; Niles, Reg., XL. 354 ; Von Hoist, I. 487-8.) In the debate on this bill, Wilkins having shown that South Carolina was determined at everj- hazard to enforce its Ordinance, added : "They stop with nullification, but one step farther on the part of the Government brings down secession and revolution." Interrupting him, Calhoun said : "It is not intended to use force except against force. We shall not stop the proceedings of the United States courts, but maintain the authority of our own judi- ciary." (Von Hoist, I. 489.) The debate dragged on, neither party wishing to force the final issue. South Carolina had postponed the commencement of the Ordinance, to await the action of Congress on the Verplank bill. Verplank of New York, from the Committee of Waj^s and Means, had introduced in the House a bill, Dec. 27, 1832, to re- duce and otherwise alter the duties on imports. (Benton, Deb., XII. 133 ; View, I. 308-12.) This bill was modelled on the tariff of 1816. Practically it reduced the duties from 60 to 20 per cent. The President used his influence in favor of this bill, but the protectionists opposed it. (I. 485.) During a long debate it was so amended as to be reduced to the basis of protection. Meanwhile, the day after the nullification message was issued, Calhoun introduced in the Senate his three resolutions embodying his whole state rights doctrine, coinciding mainly with that of the Kentuckj' and Virginia Resolutions, and with that of his previous utterances on the subject. (Benton, View, I. 334; Deb., XII. 23-4 ; Von Hoist, I. 487.) 1833] THE COMPROMISE TARIFF. 175 % In this state of affairs, to prevent civil strife, Clay introduced in the Senate his famous compromise tariff bill, February 12, 1833. {Infra, p. 183.) Clay prefeired a reduction in the duties on imports to the risk of the entire destruction of his ''American System." Calhoun supported the compromise, induced, it was said, by hearing that Jackson desired no negotiation and was determined to have him tried for high treason. (Von Hoist, 492 ; Young, 584.) February 25, Fletcher, in the House, moved the substitution of the compromise bQl for the Verplank bill. This was finally done in the form of an amendment, thus conforming to the rule that appropriation bills must originate in the House. The bill then passed, the same day, by 118 to 84. (Benton, View, I. 309-10; Young, 585.) Meanwhile the Force Bill had passed the Senate by 32 to 1. Eight days later, Februarj' 28, it passed the House by 136 to 34. Finallj', the Compromise Bill passed the Senate March 1, by 29 to 16. (Voa Hoist, I. 497 ; Young, 585.) The President signed both bills March 2. On the one side South Carolina claimed the victory on the ground that she did not renounce state-rights ; still, the compromise did not secure complete free trade ; on the other hand it was said the General Government did not give up its right to employ force. Under the " Secret History of the Compromise of 1838" (View, I. 342) Benton says that this bill was forced through Congress by J. M. Claj-ton of Delaware, a personal friend of Jackson's, because the President was weary of the delay and was about sum- marily to proceed with Calhoun. Thus the storm was allayed. South Carolina was doubtless more willing to accept the compromise, as she found none of the other southern states ready to go with her. Calhoun continued, however, to advocate his state-rights doctrine. See on the general subject of nullification proceedings : Young, Am. Statesman, 676-87 ; Von Hoist. I. 492-505 ; Young, Tariff Leg., 86.) Public Questions in Jackson's Administration : 1 . Georgia and the Oherokees. — Another question involving the principle of state rights arose in regard to the Cherokee Indians in Georgia. At the time of the trouble with the Creeks {Supra, p. 159) Georgia had extended the state laws over the Cherokees (a tribe fewer in num- bers, but more civilized than the Creeks) . An unavailing protest 176 GEORGIA AND THE CHEKOKEES. [1829-35 « was sent to the General Government in 1829. General Jackson's sympathy was with the state of Georgia ; and he advised the Indians either to submit or to moA^e west, because, as he said, a separate government within a state could not be allowed. (Niles, XXXVI. 231, 258-9 ; Stat. Man., II. 709.) The Cherokees then brought their case before the Supreme Court, retaining William Wirt as their counsel. The court held (1831) that it had not jurisdiction over such a question. (Appendix, p. 33 : The Cher- okee Nation vs. the State of Georgia.) The remedy, said the Court, was political rather than judicial. It belonged to the Executive to enforce the provisions of the treaties with the Indians. But the President had refused to do so. On the contrarj-. President Jackson, on the request of the Governor of Georgia, had withdrawn the federal troops, and left Georgia to deal with the Indians. Georgia had determined not to admit the authoritj" of the Su- preme Court. In a trial before a state court for a murder com- mitted in the Cherokee countrj^, Judge Clayton disregarded the writ of error issued b}' the Supreme Court, and the legislature of Georgia ordered Governor Gilmer to resist by force anj- attempt to interfere with the criminal law of the state (1830). (Niles, XXXIX. 99, 338 ; Benton, View, 1. 166.) In 1832 two missionaries sent out by a Boston society were arrested for residing in the Cherokee country without licenses, required by a state law. They were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for four years. On a writ of error, the Supreme Court held that the law under which thcj' were convicted was unconstitutional, and the men were ordered to be released. (Ap- pendix, p. 33 : Worcester vs. the State of Georgia.) The state of Georgia refused to obey the decree of the Supreme Court, and the President of the United States refused to execute it ; it never was executed. The President asserted that, as Executive, he was not bound by the decision of the Supreme Court ; that he was bound to support the Constitution and laws as he understood them, not as any court understood them. This doctrine is further elaborated in the Bank controversy. In the coming election, moreover, he would submit his conduct to the people, who would show their approval or disapproval of it. By a treaty, December 29, 1835, the Cherokees consented to remove from Georgia, in consideration of the sum of $5,600,000. 1829-30] THE BANK CONTEOVERST. 177 This ended the difficulty. (Von Hoist, I. 448-58 ; Young, Am. Statesman, 555-9 ; Sumner, Life of Jackson, 174-83 ; Sargent, I. 209-11 ; Benton, View, I. 624-6.) 2. The Bank Controversy. —In his first annual message (Stat. Man., II. 713-14), Jackson said, "The charter of the Bank of the United States expires in 1836, and its stockholders will most prob- ably apply for a renewal of their privileges." {Supra, pp. 110, 125.) In order to avoid the evils of precijDitancy "I feel that I cannot too soon present it (question of renewal) to the deliberate consideration of the legislature and the people." " But the con- stitutionalitj- and the expediency of the law creating this bank are well questioned by a large portion of our fellow-citizens ; and it must be admitted by all that it has failed in the great end of estab- lishing a uniform and sound currency." If such an institution were considered essential to the iiscal operations of the Goverment, he would advise "a national one, founded upon the credit of the Government and its revenues .... which would avoid all the constitutional difficulties, and at the same time secure all the advantages of the present bank." In his second annual message (Stat. Man., II. 753) the Presi- dent expressed the opinion that it would be practicable to organize such a bank as '■•a branch of the Treasury Department, haaed on the public and individual deposits," etc. On account of the trouble which arose between the administra- tion and the bank in regard to the Portsmouth branch, the Presi- dent began a determined war upon the bank. Jeremiah Mason, a National Republican, a friend of Mr. Webster and Mr. Adams, had been appointed president of the branch in New Hampshire. This was distasteful to Isaac Hill of that state. This, Mr. Par- ton thinks, was the cause of General Jackson's hostility to the bank. (Parton, III. 255-69.) In 1 830 a resolution in the House that the bank should not be re-chartered was tabled. (Benton, Deb., XI. 72.) Benton, in February, 1831, asked leave to introduce a similar joint resolution into the Senate, supporting it in an able speech. (Benton, View, I. 187-205 ; Deb., XI. 143-61.) He did not discuss the constitu- tionality of the charter, nor the alleged mismanagement of the bank, but set forth its dangerous powers and privileges, intending thus to arouse the people against the bank. He succeeded in this ; but the resolution was lost by 23 to 20. 178 THE BANK CONTKOVEKSY. [1832 In his third annual message (Stat. Man., II. 764-66) Jackson, much in the same strain, again called the attention of Congress to the Bank. Having failed to impress his policy regarding it upon Congress he now said : "I leave it for the present to the investi- gation of an enlightened people and their representatives." This was an appeal to the people in view of the approaching election. Though he had in his three annual messages recommended a one- term amendment to the Constitution, the National Republicans believed and predicted that Jackson would accept a second term. Still, they thought Jackson's popularity on the wane, and were only too willing to stake the election on the bank issue. They precipitated this issue by introducing into the Senate, January 9, 1832, a petition from the Bank for a renewal of its charter, on the ground that the system was so closely connected with the interests of the country that the question of its continu- ance should be settled at once. (Benton, Deb., XI. 357-8.) After a long debate, in which Dallas, Webster, and others supported the measure and Benton opposed it, the bill to renew the charter passed by 28 to 20. It passed the House, without much debate, by 107 to 84. (Benton, Deb., XI. 364-80, 460-88, 753.) July 10 the bill was returned to the Senate with a veto message. (Stat. Man., II. 767-80; Niles, XLII. 365-8.) The proposed charter, Jackson says, is not "compatible with justice, sound policy, or the Constitution All the objectionable principles of the existing corporation, and most of its odious features are re; tained." Through dividends paid to foreign stockholders specie is drawn from the countrj'. The great influence of the Bank maj- be used in elections. To the conclusion that the constitutionality of the Bank is settled by precedent and b}' the decision of the Supreme Court, '■^I cannot assent." While Congress in 1791 and in 1816 voted for a bank, in 1811 and in 1815 they voted against it. "The opinion of the Supreme Court (Appendix, p. 32) ought not to control the co-ordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself he guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer, when he takes an oath to support the Constitution, swears that he wiU support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. The House, the Senate, and the President, must each de- cide on the constitutionality of a measure, brought before them for passage or approval, as well as must the Supreme Court when that 1833] THE BANK CONTROVERSY. 179 measure demands their judicial decision. "The Bank is profes- sedlj' established as an agent of the executive branches of the Government. Neither upon the propriety of the present action nor upon the provisions of this act was the Executive consulted." Thus the President declared unconstitutional past legislation, and that, too, which had been declared constitutional by the Su- preme Court. Von Hoist (II. 49) sajs : " If the Constitution does not make it the duty of the federal executive and the federal legislative powers to recognize the judgment of the federal Supreme Court as final in constitutional questions, then there is no consti- tutional law of the Union." Webster, speaking on the veto, ad- mitted that the President and Congress must consider whether a measure is constitutional before taking action upon it. " But when a law has been passed by Congress and approved by the President it is no longer in the power of the same President or of his successors to say whether the law is constitutional or not In the courts that question might be raised, argued and adjudged .... nowhere else . . - ., otherwise .... the President [might] exe- cute or not execute the laws .... No President and no public man ever before advanced such doctrines." (Works, III. 416-47; Benton, Deb., XI. 513-23.) The people believed the Bank was a monied monopoly and cared little for the constitutional question, and, as the Bank was one of the main issues in the election of 1832, they approved Jackson's policy by re-electing him by 219 votes to 67 for all other candidates. Considering himself thus sustained by the peojyle, Jackson took still higher ground in his fourth annual message. He recommended " that provision be made to dispose of all stocks now held by it (the General Government) in corporations (meaning the $7,000,- 000 of United States bank stock) .... and placing the proceeds in the Treasury." The Secretary of the Treasury is inquiring as to the safety of the public deposits in that institution. Congress should investigate the matter. (Von Hoist, II. 50-2.) On the report of a second Committee of Investigation, March 2, 1833, the House resolved that the deposits might safely be continued in the Bank of the United States. (Ibid., 109-46.) Jackson thereupon resolved to remove the deposits from the Bank on his own responsibility. As McLane, Secretary of the Treasury, did not favor the President's plan, Duane of Pennsyl- vania was appointed in his place. But Duane refusing also, he 180 BANK — REMOVAL OF THE DEPOSITS. [1833 was superseded by Attorney-General Taney, who at once ordered the removal of the deposits. The President then sent Amos Ken- dall to negotiate with the State banks with a view to their receiving these funds. After some hesitation they accepted the deposits. In his fifth annual message (Stat. Man., II. 828-41) the Presi- dent said: "I concur with him (Taney) entirely in the view he has taken." "I should feel myself called .... to order a scire facias against the Bank with a view to put to an end the chartered rights it has so palpablj' violated, were it not that the charter itself will expire soon .... it will be for those in whose behalf we all act {the people) to decide whether the executive department /)f the government has been found in the line of duty.'' On the assembling of Congress Taney submitted his reasons for transferring the deposits (Niles, Reg., XL. 258-64.) The original act, he said, had given him authority to order and direct a change in the place of deposit. The Secretarj^ of the Treasury being a subordinate officer, must, in the performance of his duties be sub- ject to the chief executive. "I have always regarded the result of the last election of the President of the United States as the declaration of the majoritj' of the people, that the charter ought not to be renewed." "Yet no steps were taken to prepare for its approaching end." Judge Story (Life and Letters, II. 155-8) wrote to Webster that "the only check upon the Secretary's discretion is that he must assign the reasons to Congress, who, of course, are then placed in a situation to revise or renew the decision if they please. But it is a purely personal trust in the Secretary." "It was understood," he said, "that the deposits should not be removed except for . . . unexpected emergencies .... where the action of Congress could not be obtained until after it was necessar}- to act. Congress could not remove the deposits without his consent, but .... may require them to be restored without his consent." The SecretJlry cannot bind the Government to any arrangement he may make with the state banks. An attack upon Jackson was made in the Senate, led by Clay and Calhoun. The President was requested to send to the Senate a copy of the paper read to the Cabinet, dated September 18, 1833. (Benton, View, I. 376; Deb., XII. 205.) In that paper Jackson says that he ' ' considers his re-election as a decision of the people against the Bank." " He was sustained by a just peo- ple, and he desires to evince his gratitude by carrjang into effect 1833] THE BANK CONTROVERSY. 181 tlieir decision, so far as it depends upon him." He severely criti- cised the Bank, and proposed that the deposits be withdrawn by October 1 . The President assumes all the responsibility for the act, "as necessary to preserve the morals of the people, the free- dom of the press, and the puritj- of the elective franchise." The members of the Cabinet are considered as mere aids, or agents of the President, for whose acts he alone is responsible. The paper was refused by Jackson in a special message December 12. (Ben- ton, Deb., XII. 207.) On the motion of Mr. Clay the following resolutions were passed after a ygtj long debate : 1. That the President in causing the removal of the deposits "has assumed upon himself authority and power not conferred by the Constitution and laws, but in derogation of both." (This was the famous resolution of censure which was afterwards expunged at the instance of Colonel Benton.) 2. That the reasons assigned for the removal by the Secretary of the Treasury "are unsatisfactory and insufficient." In the debate, the assumption of Jackson that the President is responsible for all acts of the heads of departments, was emphati- caUy denied. (Benton, Deb., XII. 208, 225, 246 ; View, I. 402- 15 ; Speeches of Clay, Calhoun and Ewing.) The departments were established by law, and the duties of the heads of departments are prescribed by law. The Supreme Court were of opinion that the legislature ma3- impose duties upon a Secretary for the performance of which he is personally responsi- ble. (Marbury vs. Madison ; Von Hoist, II. 64, note.) See also the case of Amos Kendall vs. the United States. (12 Howard; Sargent, I. 211 ; Webster's Works, IV. 144.) Benton defended the action of the President. (Deb., XII, 216.) He "felt an emotion of the moral sublime at beholding such an instance of civic heroism." (View, I. 379.) In answer to the resolutions, Jackson sent a protest to the Sen- ate, requesting that it be entered upon the journal. (Stat. Man., II. 843 ; Benton, Deb., XII. 308-18.) See for the whole subject of the Bank controversy, Von Hoist, II. 31-69. See also: Sargent, I. 213-29, 253-61, 268-73'; Sum- ner, Life of Jackson, 291-321 ; Young, Am. Statesman, 566-75, 591-615 ; Parton, Life of Jackson, IIL 372-416 ; 493-561.) It is to be noted that the House, although not taking an active part in the bank war, yet supported Jackson against the bank. (Sumner, Life of Jackson, 314.) 182 THE TARIFF OP 1832. [1832 The effect of the transfer of the government deposits from the National bank to state banks was to force the former to curtail its loans ; which again caused a stringency in the money market, and brought on a financial panic in 1834. Petitions for relief came from all parts of the country. But the administration charged the whole trouble to Biddle and the bank. (Sumner, Life of Jackson, 31.5-17; History of American Currency, 102.) The number of state banks selected as banks of deposit was 23. "The chance for favoritism was speedily perceived." Tlie whole matter depended upon the will of the executive. "The chief argu- ment brought to support an application for a share of the deposits, or other favor, was devotion to Jackson and hatred of the bank of the United States It is conclusively proven that the deposits were used by Jacksoai's administration .... to reward adherents and to win supporters." (Sumner, Life of Jackson, 305-6.) Jackson's charge against the bank was that it had been "turned into an electioneering engine." (Ibid., 308.) (5) The Tariff of J552. — The opposition at the South to the tariff of 1828, as well as the wish on the part of the extreme protectionists to still further increase the duties, kept the subject constantly' before Congress. President Jackson recommended a reduction of the tariff duties in his third annual message. (Stat. Man., II. 763.) January 19, 1832, the House of Representatives, by resolution, called upon the Secretar3- of the Treasury to furnish information in regard to the manufactures of wool, cotton, hemp, iron, sugar, salt, and other articles manufactured to a considerable extent ; and to prepare a tariff of duties. Accordingly Mr. McLane made the necessary inquiries, and recommended a tariff of duties, which would reduce the total revenue from customs $10,000,000, and that arising on protected articles about $3,000,000 ; and the average rate of duty from about forty- five to twenty-seven per cent. This proposal was unsatisfactory to both parties. A number of bills were introduced in Congress. That reported by John Quincy Adams, chairman of the Commit- tee on Manufactures, May 23, was finally adopted with some amendments. It was based upon the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, but more favorable to protection. It made additions of some 200 articles to the free list, enlarging it to about 270 articles, including wool costing less than eight cents a pound, teas, and others not competing with domestic productions. 1833] THE COMPROMISE TARIFF. 183 It reduced the duties on a large number of articles and increased them on a few. (Bishop, II. 367.) On the protected manufactures of most importance the reduction was slight ; on woolen manufac- tures it was increased. The distinctive protective character was retained. The reduction in the revenue derived from customs was about $5,000,000. (Young, Tariff Leg., Appendix, 10-39.) The whole question was reargued in the Senate and House at great length. The bill finally became a law July 14, 1832, to go into effect March 3, 1833. But it never went into effect, being superseded by the compromise tariff act. Its importance in his- tory is owing to its political effect. The tariff was made a party issue, among other things, in the election of 1832. And this act was the immediate cause of the nullification proceedings in South Carolina, already di'seussed. (Bishop, II. 365-8 ; Young, Tariff Leg., 72-83 ; Sumiier, Life of Jackson, 220-23 ; History of Pro- tection, 49-50; Benton, Deb., XL; Clay's Works, VI. 1-65— Speech in defence of the American System.) The Compromise Tariff Act. — In view of the attitude of South Carolina, and the possibility of civil war, Mr. Clay introduced his celebrated compromise bill, February 12, 1833, as he declared, to prevent the destruction of the protective system, and to arrest civil war and restore peace and tranquillity to the nation. In his fourth annual message, December 4, 1832, President Jackson recommended a reduction of the tariff to correspond to the needs of the revenue. " Those who take an enlarged view of the condition of our country, must be satisfied that the policy of protection must be ultimately limited to those articles of domestic manufacture which are indispensable to our safety in time of war." (Stat. Man., II. 786.) In some sections of the country the influ- ence of protection, said Jackson, "is deprecated as tending to concentrate wealth into a few hands, and as creating those germs of dependence and vice which in other countries have character- ized the existence of monopolies, and proved so destructive of liberty and the general good." The compromise bill, which was substituted for the Verplanck bill in the House, became a law March 2, 1832, haviilg passed the House by a vote of 118 to 84, and the Senate, 29 to 16. (Stat. at L., IV. 629.) The first section enacts that from and after the 31st day of December, 1833, in all cases where duties imposed on foreign im- ports shall exceed twenty per cent on the value thereof, one-tenth 184 INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. [1824 part of such excess shall be deducted ; a further deduction of oue- tenth after December 81, of each alternate j-ear (i. e. 1835, 1837, 1839) till 1839; after December 31, 1841, one-half of the residue of such excess (three-tenths) shall be deducted ; after the 30th day of June, 1842, the other half of the residue to be deducted. After June 30, 1842, therefore, there would be a horizontal tariff, with 20 per cent as the rate of duty. Section 3 provides that from and after the 31st of December, 1842, all duties upon imports shall be collected in ready money, and all credits abolished. Said duties to be assessed upon the value of said goods at the port where the same shall be entered. A number of articles was added to the free list, and articles paying a less rate of duty than 20 per cent before June 30, 1842, and articles now admitted free, after that date may be admitted at such rate not exceeding 20 per cent ad valorem, as shall be provided for by law. By this act discrimination in favor of domestic industry was practically abandoned, but a sudden overthrow of the sj'stem was prevented. It was passed as an act of conciliation, and was after- ward regarded by the opponents of protection as a compromise between the North and South, and therefore not subject to change on mere economic grounds. (Bishop, II. 372-5 ; Young, Am. States- man, 583-5 ; Young, Tariff Leg., 84-6 ; Sumner, History of Pro- tection, 50-51 ; Life of Jackson, 288-91 ; Benton, View, I. 344.) (4) Internal Improvements. — It has been seen (Supra, p. 126-8) that both Mr. Madison and Mr. Monroe considered a sys- tem of internal improvements by the General Government unau- thorized hj the Constitution, and hence vetoed bills appropriating money for this purpose. See Monroe's exhaustive treatment of the subject in his special message of May 4, 1822. (Stat. Man., I. 492-534 ; Benton, View, I. 21-27.) At the time of the election of 1824, Mr. Adams, Mr. Clay, and Mr. Calhoun were in "favor of a national system of internal improvements ; Mr. Crawford and General Jackson, under limita- tions and qualifications." (Benton, View, I. 22.) An act was passed April 4, 1824, intended to be annual and permanent, appropriating $30,000 for preparation by the engineer corps of surveys, plans and estimates of such roads and canals as the President may deem of national importance, in a commercial or military point of view, or necessary for the transportation of the mail. (Stat, at L., IV. 22.) In 1827-28 the whole subject 18l'5-37] internal improvkments. 185 came up again on the question of passing this annual appropriation of $30,000. "The question of internal improvements then first took on a partj^ character." (Sumner, Life of Jackson, 112.) In his inaugural address Mr. Adams strongly urged a sj'stem of national internal improvements. This declared policy furnished, says Mr. Benton, a ground of opposition to his administration. (Stat. Man., I. .579.) In the South a sectional opposition to the whole system devel- oped itself very strongly in the course of time. (Von Hoist, I. 394-5.) The hopes of the opponents of the system were raised by Jack- son's veto of the Maysville and Lexington road bill. May 27, 1830. (Stat. Man., I. 719.) "To justify an appropriation of monej- for internal improvements, the object must be one of com- mon defense, and of a general and national and not a local or state benefit." He criticised the policj- of the last administration in this respect. At this time, says Mr. Benton (View, I. 167), internal improve- ment had become a point of partj^ division, and a part of the American system, and concerted action had created for it a degree of popularity. President Jackson did not continue to be consistent with his views expressed in the >eto of the above named bill. He vetoed several bills of the same nature, but gave his assent to others, not more national in their scope. He made it a question of expediency on which he considered his judgment better than that of the major- ity of Congress. On the whole, however, Jackson exerted a good influence against the evil of special legislation and the tendency in Congress to mutually favor local interests. (Sumner, Life of Jackson, 191-94 ; Young, Am. Statesman, 506-9 ; Holmes, Parties and their Principles, 131-32; Niles, XL. 146-49, 207-16; Von Hoist, I. 388-96.) Mr. Holmes gives a table of the amounts appropriated for roads and harbors under each administration, from Mr. Jefferson's to Mr. Tyler's. (Holmes, 223.) Under Mr. JefFerson . • • $48,400 Mr. Madison . . 250,800 Mr. Monroe . . ... 707,621 Mr. J. Q^ Adams .... 2,310,475 Gen. Jackson . . . • 10.582,882 Mr. Van Buren . . . . 2,222,544 Mr. Tyler . . . . ... 1,076,500 186 ruBLin lands — judiciaey. [1832-37 (5) PiMic Lands — Surplus Revenue. — Down to 1832, the public lands had been a source of expense rather than of revenue. Thej' had cost $49,700,000, and the revenue received had amounted to $38,300,000. During Jackson's administration there was much discussion about the disposal of the lands. Jackson vetoed a bill, in 1832, allowing to the new states twelve and a half per cent of the net proceeds of the sales of lands within their limits, to be applied to internal improvements or education. Repeated efforts were made to effect the passage of a bill for the distribution of the proceeds of the sales of lands among the states. (Benton, Deb., X. 583 ; XI. 446 ; XII. 12 : View, I. 275, 362.) Finally a bill was introduced for the distribution of the swylus revemie among the states ; this included the income from the lands, and it became a law June 23, 1836. (Stat, at L., V 55.) By this act the money in the treasury on the first day of January, 1837, reserving the sum of $5,000,000, was to be deposited with the several states, in proportion to their representation in Congress, but subject to recall by the Secretary of the Treasury. To be deposited in four quarterly instalments. Three of these instalments, amounting to $2is,000,000, were divided among the states ; on account of the financial crisis of 1837, the fourth was postponed, and was never paid. On the other hand, no part of the money paid to the states has ever been recalled ; it was mostly squandered to little useful purpose. This was called a high-tariff measure, because it was advocated by the protectionists in order to get rid of the surplus revenue (the debt having been paid off) without necessitating a reduction of the duties. Webster opposed distribution, believing that taxes must be re- duced even at the risk of injuring some industries. (Curtis, Life of Webster, I. 537; Sumner, Life of Jackson, 186-91, 325-31; Young, Am. Statesman, 559-60, 654-56 ; Benton, View, I. 649, 707-12.) (6) The Federal Judiciary. — The death of Chief-Justice Mar- shall (1835) marks a turning point in the Supreme Court. Down to that time the Supreme Court, under the lead of Marshall and Story, had upheld the authority of the Federal Government against the docti'ine of state-sovereignty and a strict construction of the Constitution ; and in the domain of private rights, the obligation of contracts had been strictly maintained against the legislation 1^35] THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY. 187 Of the states. (Appendix, pp. 31-4 ; Sumner, Life of Jackson, 119-36.) With the appointment of Roger B. Taney to succeed Marshall as Chief- Justice, the tendency of the Supreme Court was in the opposite direction. The opposition party known as the Jacksonians — afterwards Democrats — like the Jeffersonian Democrats, chafed under the restraint imposed by the decisions of the federal courts ; and sev- eral attempts were made to restrict the jurisdiction of these courts. In other cases . their decisions were disregarded by the states as well as by the Chief Executive. (Sumner, 171-74.) President Jackson, during his administration, had the appoint- ment of five judges of the Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice.' Thereafter the decisions on constitutional questions show a marked change. The first important case was that of Briscoe vs. the Bank of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, which involved the question of the issue by a state of "bills of credit." The decision, which was awaited with much interest, was in favor of the Kentucky law, and in direct conflict, as Story thought, with the former decision in Craig vs. the State of Missouri. Another decision of about the same date, which it was thought conflicted with that of Gibbons vs. Ogden, was in the City of New York vs. Miln. A third, and the most important, was the celebrated case of Charles River Bridge vs. Warren Bridge, which was in direct conflict with the decision in the Dartmouth College case and others, involving the clause of the Constitution prohibiting states from impairing the obligation of contracts. (Van Santvoord, Lives of the Chief Justices, 566-7.5 ; Sumner, Life of Jackson, 359-64.) Mr. Sumner believes that in Briscoe's case "the Court broke the line of its decisions, and made the prohibition of bills of credit nugatory." Under this decision the wild-cat banking of 1837-60 became possible, and the legal-tender notes of 1862. These decisions caused much apprehension on the part of the opponents of states' rights. Judge Story wrote: "I have been long convinced that the doctrines and opinions of the old Court were daily losing ground, and especially those on great constitu- tional questions The old constitutional doctrines are fast 1 In 1807 the number of associate justices was increased to six ; increased to eiglit by act of March 3, 1837 ; increased td nine by act of March 3, 1863 ; decreased to six by act of July 23, 1866; increased to eight by act of April 10, 1869. 188 FRENCH INDEMNITY — GOLD CUEHENCY. [1831-30 fading awaj^, and a change has come over the public mind, from which I augur little good." (Life and Letters, II. 527.) Chan- cellor Kent said, '' I have lost my confidence and hopes in the constitutional guardianship and protection of the Supreme Court." (Ibid., 270.) For other cases see Van Santvoord, 576-612.) The climax of this new teudenc}- of the Supreme Court was reached in the Dred Scott case (1857). Chief Justice Taney died in 1864, and time has modified the harsh judgment formed of him by the people of the North. (See an article in the "Century" of December, 1882, b}' E. V. Smalley.) (7) Miscellaneous — French Indemnity. — The spoliations against American citizens under the Berlin and Milan decrees {Supra, p. 92) were made the subject of claims against France after the close of the war in 1815. Negotiations went on without anj' result until the accession of Louis Philippe in 1830. A treaty was finall}^ made, Julj' 4, 1831, bj' which France agreed to pay 25,000,000 francs and the United States 1,500,000 francs, in settlement of claims of citizens of either nation against the Government of the other. (U. S. Treaties, 289 ; Life of Gallatin, 567-8.) The French Chambers refused to appropriate the monej' to carry out the provisions of the treat}'. In his annual message, December 2, 1834, President Jackson assumed a decided tone, and advised reprisals against France if the indemnity were not immediately paid. (Stat. Man., II. 870- 73.) The French considered this message an affront, and now refused to fulfil the stipulations of the treaty unless the President should apologize. In January, 1836, diplomatic relations were broken off. But the President had modified his tone in the mes- sage of 1835, which France finally made an excuse for receding from her position. The money was voted and friendly relations between the two countries re-established. (U. S. Treaties, 1003-6 ; Sumner, Life of Jackson, 170-71, 343-48; Young, Am. States- man, 630-35 ; Benton, View, I. 588-603.) Attempt to introduce a Metallic Currency. — An attempt was made in 1834 to change from a paper to a gold currency. Under the coinage laws of 1792 and 1793, making the ratio of gold to silver 1 to 15, the average market ratio of the two metals down to 1833 had been about 1 to 15.6. Thus gold was at a premium, being- undervalued in the coinage, and could not be kept in circulation. It was proposed, therefore, to change the ratio of the two metals. 1836] THE SPECIE CIECTTLAR. 189 giving gold the advantage of over-valuation. Bj- the act of June 28, 1834, the ratio was fixed at 1 to 16, although the real ratio was about 1 to 15.6. The silver coinage remained unchanged, but the gold coins were reduced in weight, so that the money of ac- count (gold having replaced silver as the standai-d of prices and contracts) was really depreciated about 2J per cent. It was proposed to abolish small notes in order to keep silver in circulation. This plan failed of its object, and by act of January 18, 1837, the gold coins were slight^ increased in weight, making the ratio 1 to 15.988. "As soon as the crisis broke out in 1837 all specie disappeared, and notes and tickets for the smallest denominations came into use." (Snmner, History of Am. Currency, 103-112 ; Life of Jackson, 332-35 ; Benton. View, I. 469 ; Deb., XII. 496, 508-15.) The Specie Circular. — To assist in the movement towards a coin currency, the President issued, July 11, 1836, his famous "Specie Circular," by which he ordered the agents for the sale of public lands to take in payment only specie. It was based on the law of 1816 (Stat, at L., III. 343) ordering the Secretary of the Treasury to receive only specie, or Treasury notes, or notes of specie-paying banks. The object of the circular was to arrest the excessive speculation in lands which was filling the Treasurj^ with worthless paper. The completion of the Erie canal in 1825, and its enlargement in 1835, stimulated the speculation in western lands till it becatoe a mania, which is shown bj- the returns of sales of public lands. 1833 $3,900,000 1834 . . .... . . . . . 4,800,000 1835 . .... . . 14,700,000 1836 . . . 24,800,000 1837 .... ... .... . . 6,700,000 1838 . . 3,000.000 (Sumner, Hist, of Currency, 119.) A bill to annul the specie circular was passed near the close of the session, in the Senate by a vote of 41 to 5, in, the House, 143 to 59. Jackson, fearing that Congress would pass the bill over a veto, resorted to the method he had used before: the "pocket veto." He was thus able to defeat the will of Congress by what would seem a stretch of executive power. But on the other hand Jackson's policy was probably the only safe one, if it had been 190 EXPUNGING RESOLUTION — SLAVERY. [1837 more carefuUj^ put in practice. (Von Hoist, II. 188-94 ; Sumner, Life of Jackson, 335-37; Currency, 130-31, 157; Benton, View, I. 676-78, 685-86, 694-757.) '■'■Expunging Besolution. — Soon after the Senate's resolution of censure of the President in the bank controversy, Mr. Benton gave notice that he would offer a resolution to expunge the resolu- tion of censure from the journal, at every session "until he should succeed in the effort, or terminate his political life." (View, I. 428.) He persevered in this course, and finall}' succeeded in get- ting an expunging resolution passed, January 16, 1837. (Benton, Deb., XIII. 111-158 ; View, I. 528, 645. 719 ; Von Hoist, II. 69 ; Sargent, I. 332-44 ; Wise, Seven Decades, 137-44 ; Sumner, Life of Jackson, 313-14.) The "right of instruction " to representatives is well illustrated in these proceedings. Several states instructed their senators to vote for the expunging resolution. Some senators refused to obej- instructions ; others, either obeyed or resigned. One of these was Mr. John Tyler of Virginia. In 1811 he had introduced in the Virginia legislature a resolution of censure against Senator Brent, for refusing to obey the instruction of that body. As he could not consistently vote for the expunging resolution, he therefore resigned. This circumstance, with his report on the bank, made him Vice-President in 1840. (Young, Am. Statesman, 986-89 ; Wise, 137-41 ; Sumner, Life of Jackson, 313.) (7) Slavery and Anti-Slavery Agitation. — After the passage of the Missouri Compromise the North opposed further agitation of the slaverj' question, and for the following reasons: (1) A dislike to reopen a troublesome question — they thought slavery deflnitelj' limited by the "compromise" line. (2) A reverence for the Constitution, which recognized slavery in the United States. (3) A lack of appreciation of the injustice and immoral- ity of slavery. The Anti-Slavery movement was begun by a few individuals. The pioneer in this respect was Benjamin Lundj', a native of New Jersey. In 1821 he began, at Mt. Pleasant, Ohio, the publication of the " Genius of Universal Emancipation." Later he moved to East Tennessee, and in 1824 to Baltimore, where he began, Octo- ber 10, the fourth volume of the " Genius." He travelled exten- sively through the United States and Canada, lecturing and organizing anti-slaverj' societies. He died in 1838, in Illinois. (Greeley, American Conflict, I. 111-15.) 1831-7 ANTI-SLAVKKY. 191 "William Lloyd Garrison, born at Newburyport, Massachusetts, was educated as a printer. In 1829 he joined Lundy at Baltimore in the publication of the " Genius." More radical than Lundy, he insisted on immediate and unconditional emancipation as the right of the slave and the duty of the master. In 1831 Garrison began tlie publication of the "Liberator," which proclaimed unrelenting war against slavery: " No union with slaveholders. The Constitution is a covenant with death and an agreement with hell," said Garrison. (Ibid., 115-17.) In 1832 the New England Anti-Slavery Society was formed, and in 1833 the American, and the New Yorls: Anti-Slavery Societies, all disclaiming illegal proceedings toward abolition. (Goodell, Slavery and Anti-Slavery, 392-99.) The emancipation movement was in progress in other countries also. The anti-slaverj- movement in England, begun at the end of the last century bj' Clarkson and Wilberforce, had its influence here. ' The slave trade was abolished there in 1807 ; and August 1, 1834, an act prohibiting slavery in the British West Indies and for the compensation of masters, took effect. English publications and English speakers were sent hither, and Garrison went to England for consultation. At about this time (1829) Mexico abolished slaver3-. The anti-slavery movement met with determined opposition at the North, as w.ell as at the South. In 1834 (July 7-11) occurred the New York riot, in which much property- was destroyed. It began in a struggle between blacks and whites for the possession of a church on Chatham street. Other riots, incited by the ex- pression of anti-slavery opinions, occurred : at Philadelphia, August 13, 1834 ; at Worcester, Massachusetts, August 10, 1835 ; at Concord, New Hampshire, on the same day ; at Northfield, New Hampshire, December 4, 1835 ; at Boston, October 21, 1835, when " a large and most respectable mob " broke up a meeting of the female anti-slavery society. Garrison was dragged through the streets with a rope around his body, and finally lodged in jail by the mayor for protection. The same daj-, at Dtica, New York, a meeting called to form an anti-slavery society was broken up by a "respectable" committee of citizens. The office of a newspaper favoring abolition was assailed and its press de- stroyed. In 1837, at Alton, Illinois, a mob destroyed the printing press of Elijah P. Lovejoy, the publisher of an anti-slavery paper, and 192 SLAVERY AGITATION. [1832-7 killed Lovejoy. At a meeting in Boston to consider the fate of Lovejoj', Wendell Phillips first appeared as an abolitionist. In many parts of the North the education of colored persons was not permitted. Thus at New Haven ; at Canterbury, Con- necticut ; and at Canaan, New Hampshire. (Greeley, I. 125-28; Goodell, Slavery and Anti-Slavery, 404-7 ; Wilson, Kise and Fall of the Slave Power, I. 165-88 ; Bryant and Gay, IV. 316 et seq. ; Von Hoist, II. 80-110.) The slave owners took alarm and became furious against the abolitionists. In 1831 Georgia offered a reward of $5000 for bringing Garrison before its courts. In 1835 a grand jury in Alabama indicted Williams, the editor of the " Emancipator," in New York, for the dissemination of seditious papers ; and the Governor of the State demanded of Governor Marcy, of New York, the extradition of Williams for trial in Alabama. The South demanded that the North, besides the zeal shown against anti-slavery agitation, should pass psnal laws against the abolitionists and suppress the anti-slaver}* societies and publica- tions. Such laws were recommended by the Governor of Massa- chusetts — Edward Everett, and the Governor of New York — W. L. Marcy, but none were passed. (Von Hoist, II. 111-15.) In the mean time abolition publications were going through the mails. At Charleston, South Carolina, July 29, 1835, pursuant to a resolution of a public meeting, the mail was rifled and aboli- tion papers burned. Amos Kendall, the Postmaster-General, being appealed to, wrote : " That the Postmaster-General has no legal authority .... to exclude from the mails any species of newspapers, etc." But he adds, " If I were situated as you are, I would do as you have done." In a letter to the postmaster of Charleston he saj's, "We owe an obligation to the laws, but a higher one to the communities in which we live ; and if the former be perverted to destroy the latter, it is patriotism to disregard them." (Von Hoist, II. 121-27 ; Greeley, I. 128-29.) In his message of December 2, 1835, President Jackson recom- mended the passage of a law prohibiting, "under severe penalties, the circulation in the Southern States, through the mails, of incen- diary publications intended to instigate slaves to insurrection." (Stat. Man., II. 1018, 19 ; Von Hoist, II. 128.) "At this session," says Benton (Deb. XII. 705, note), "the slavery question became installed in Congress and has too unhap- pily kept its place ever since." 1835] THE 1JI6IIT OF PETITION. 193 Calhoun, cliairman of the committee to which the above part of the President's message was referred, drew up a report reiterating the doctrine of state sovereigntj". At the same time he introduced a bill providing that each state should determine for itself what publications it would consider incendiary, and that Congress should then prohibit such matter to be sent to that state. The President's message proposed that Congress should have the regulation of the matter. (Gieelej-, I. 129.) Webster said the proposed law was unconstitutional, because it interfered with the freedom of the press and of speech. (First amendment, Appendix, p. 26.) The bill was finally defeated by a majority of six. (Von Hoist, II. 128-39 ; Benton, View, I. 580-88.) Calhoun had attempted to unite the South on the subject of the tariff. Failing in this, he now fell back upon the slaverj' ques- tion, in regard to which the anti-slavery agitation offered a favorable opportunity. This was nullification " in a new guise." In an article in the Charleston Mercury, 1835, entitled the "Crisis," supposed to have been inspired by Calhoun, it was pro- posed to hold a convention of the slave-holding states to claim a redress of grievances. But the first attempt in this new direction was a failure. (Benton, View, I. 609-10 ; Von Hoist, II. 131-39.) The Right of Petition. , — The first amendment to the Constitu- tion secures to the people the right of petition. (Appendix, p. 26.) The long and bitter discussion of this subject began on the presentation of two petitions in the Senate, by Mr. Morris of Ohio, January 7, 1836, praying for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. It was claimed under Art. I. Section 8, clauses 17 and 18 (Appendix, p. 19), that Congress had full authority in the matter. (Benton, Deb., XII. 705-10.) Calhoun moved to reject the petitions. This attack upon the sacred right of petition, aroused the North, and greatly strengthened the anti-slavery cause. Mr. Buchanan said (Ibid., 733), " Let it once be understood that the sacred right of petition and the cause of the abolitionists must rise or must fall together, and the consequences may be fatal. I would warn, therefore, southern gentlemen to reflect seriously in what situation they place their friends to the North by insisting that this petition shall not be received." The general desire in Congress was to quiet the agitation. But petitions kept pouring in, and the question was constantly arising 194 POLITICAL PAKTIES. [1832 as to what to do with them. Calhoun proposed to reject them ; others to table them ; others to refer them in the regular way. Calhoun introduced, December 27, 1837, six resolutions defining the limits of federal authority over the institution of slavery and providing for the annexation of Texas. (Benton, Deb., XIII. 567-68 ; View, II. 134-40 ; Von Hoist, II. 272-84.) Similar petitions, presented in the House, were met by the five "Gag Resohitions." (Greeley, I. 144-47), the first, May 26, 1836, and the last, January 18, 1840. (Von Hoist, II. 283-91 ; Benton, View, I. 615-23; Holmes, 179-92; Young, Am. Statesman, 640-54.) On September 20, 1837, William Slade of Vermont, in present- ing certain petitions, proceeded to make the first great attack on slavery in Congress. (Von Hoist, II. 263-66.) This caused the "great secession," — the withdrawal of the members from the slave states. (Benton, Deb., XIII. 565, notes, and 566.) The effect of the "gag resolutions" and the discussion upon them was favorable to the abolition cause. Though with the help of a few northern men ("northern men with southern principles"), the South had gained the ascendancy in Congress. But throughout the North, opposition to slavery gained ground. Petitions against slaverj' increased, and several state legislatures passed resolutions declaring the "gag resolutions" unconstitutional. (Wilson, I. 366 ; Von Hoist, II. 284.) (S) Political Parties and Changes. — The Jackson men pro- fessed to go back to the principles of the Jeffersonian Democracy, from which the Democratic-Republican party had departed during the administrations of Madison, Monroe, and J. Q. Adams. Still there was gi-eat diversity of opinion in the party, which was held together rather by the personality of Jackson, than by adhesion to a definite policy. In 1832 Jackson was elected, nominally on the issues of the bank, internal improvements, and the tariff; but Congress sup- ported all these measures, and Jackson supplied the want of a party majority in Congress by the use of the veto power. In 1832 the opposition to Jackson was not united, and therefore was powerless. The National Republicans nominated Cla}' and Sergeant, rely- ing mainly upon the bank issue. 1836] PARTIES ELECTION OF 1836. 193 The Anti-Masons, who had become strong in the middle states, were equally' hostile to the Administration, but would not unite with the other party. Theii- nominees were William Wirt and Amos Ellmaker. The friends of Calhoun, aliena,ted from the administration, could not join the opposition. Jackson and Van Buren were the Democratic candidates. The nominations for this election were made for the first time by national conventioris, in j;lace of the congressional caucus. (Sumner, Life of Jackson, 254-5, 258, 273, 375, 378 ; Young, Am. Statesman, 564-5 ; Von Ilolst, II. 38-44.) Jackspn and Van Buren were elected by a large majority of the electoral vote, but by a diniinished popular majority-. (Appendix, p. 38 ; Sumner, 250-70 ; Benton, View, I. 282-3 ; Sargent, I. 247-49.) In 1836 the party divisions were mainly narrowed down to two — the Democratic, or Jackson party, and the Whig party. Still there were minor party divisions. The National-Republicans had assumed the name of the Whig party iii 1834-36, and the Anti- Masons had for the most part coalesced with them. But the partj' was unable to unite upon a single candidate, the sectional differ- ences between the North apd South beginning to exercise an influence upon party lines. The northern Whigs voted for Hani- son and Webster, the southern, for Hugh L. White, of Tennessee. In New York the Democratic partj- was torn by dissensions from 1834-36, by the secession of the "Equal-rights party," who found it necessarj- to again "return to the Jeffersonian fountain'' of pure democracy. They became known as " Loco-Focos," a term applied afterwards to the regular Democratic party. The Democratic convention met at Baltimore, May 20, 1835, and having adopted the two-thirds rule, chose as candidates Martin Van Buren and Richard M. Johnson. For President, Van Buren received 170 electoral votes; Harri- son, 73 ; White, 26 ; Webster, 14 (Massachusetts) ; Mangum, 11 (South Carolina). The popular vote for Van Buren was 761,549 ; all others, 736,656. For Vice-President, Johnson had 147 votes ; Francis Granger, supported by the friends of Harrison, 77 ; John Tyler, indorsed by the supporters of White, 47 ; William Smith, 23. As no one had a majority, the Senate elected Johnson. (Sumner, Life of Jackson, 374-82 ; Benton, View, I. 683 ; Sar- gent, I. 2!)6.) 19fi JACKSON AS PRESIDENT. General Jackson as President, continued to be Jackson the General, and assumed to himself the power of a dictator, upon whom the people had conferred the task of seeing that no harm should befall the republic. In the performance of this task he came into frequent collision with the other departments of the Government, but particularly the Senate and the Supreme Court. The Senate could retaliate for the exercise of the veto power by refusing to confirm the President's nominations to oflHce. In 1831 the nomination of Van Buran as minister to England was rejected by the Senate, as was that of Taney as Secretary of the Treasury and as an associate Justice of the Supreme Court. But in both cases Jackson triumphed, for Van Buren was made Vice- President and then President, and Taney, Chief Justice. In many cases, as we have seen, the President set his judgment above that of Congress, and used all his personal and official influence to carry his point. In some cases history has vindicated the views of Jackson, if not his methods ; in other cases he was certainly in the wrong. He performed many praiseworthy deeds. But it was not intended by the framers of the Constitution to create an Executive who should be above the law, and who could ignore the other departments of government. Jackson's admin- istration tended to a personal government, in which all opposition was crushed out by the iron will of one man, and he a man moved b}'' passions and prejudice. "Representative institutions, says Professor Sumner, are degraded on the Jacksonian theory, just as they are on the divine-right theory, or on the theory of the demo- cratic empire. There is not a worse perversion of the American 8}'stem of government conceivable than to regard the President as the tribune of the people, endowed by his election with prerog- ative to check, warn, correct, guide and watch the representatives of the nation in Congress assembled." (Life of Jackson, 277-81 ; Von Hoist, II. 71-79 ; Benton, View, I. 735-39 ; Sargent, I. 345-49.) II. Administration of Van Buren. Van Buren, the heir adopted by Jackson to succeed him, was to carry out the policy of his great patron. As set forth in his in- augural address, Van Buren's general policy was to be : 1. A close observance of the Constitution as writte7i, and no latitude in its interpretation. 2. No employment of doubtful powers. 3. A 1837] FINANCIAL CRISIS OF 1837. 197 faithful adherence to the compromises on the subject of slavery. No bill conflicting with them could receive his sanction. This was a pledge to quiet the fears of the South. (Stat. Man., III. 1049 ; Benton, View, II. 7-9 ; Von Hoist, II. 219-21.) Upon the economic questions which wrecked his administration Mr. Van Buren had nothing to say. Tlie Financial Crisis of 1837. — The general causes of this crisis were in the main the same as those of the crisis of 1819 — excessive extension of credits and the over-issue of paper money. There had been a long period of prosperity, both in England and America, and consequently a great accumulation of capital, which was now seeking investment. Western lands and the devel- opment of the West were considered as promising good returns. But legitimate bounds were soon over-stripped, and a period of wild speculation set in. There was a demand for more money and credit than could be supplied, as the United States bank, on the withdrawal of the deposits, had contracted its loans. In view of the expiration of .the charter of this bank in 1836 and the demand for money, a great number of state banks sprang into existence, and began the issue of notes and the lending of their credit. This added fuel to the flame of speculation. The paper was practically irredeemable, "but the enhanced prices and ex- panded credit continually absorbed the new issues, and no depre- ciation occurred until a shock to credit and prices from outside causes produced a collapse." (Sumner, Currency, 122-27; Von Hoist, II. 174-75 ; Condy Raguet, 143, 146, 174, 176.) Jackson's treatment of economic questions no doubt hastened the crisis. Thus the transfer of the deposits and the specie circular, as well as the acts of Congress changing the ratio of the gold and silver coins, and the distribution of the surplus revenue, were causes affecting more or less the cuiTency and course of exchanges, and therefore helped to burst the bubble of excessive credits and wild speculation. From 1831 on the imports had been greatly in excess of the ex- ports, the excess being paid for with credit, instead of coin. In 1838 Mr. Webster estimated that $100,000,000 of European capital had been loaned, in the United States, to states, corpora- tions, and individuals, to be used in internal improvements. (Von Hoist, II. 183.) In 1839 Mr. Van Buren estimated the amount at $200,000,000. (Stat. Man., III. 1244.) 198 CRISIS SUB-TKEASIXRY. [1837 The crisis began in England by the failure of three houses doing a large business with America. There was a break in the price of cotton from about 17 to 10 cents, and by March, 1837, several houses in New Orleans were in trouble. Next the pressure was felt in New York, and by April the crisis was general throughout the country. Prices fell from 25 to 50 per cent. May 10, the New York banks suspended specie payments, a law being passed by the legislature to allow them to suspend for one year. The other banks followed the example of the New York banks. (Sumner, Currency, 139-40.) The opposition laid the blame upon the Administration and demanded the rescinding of the specie circular, and other measures of relief. Mr. Van Buren did not accede to these demands, but he called an extra session of Congress for the 4th of September, 1837. (Von Hoist, II. 198-99) The President in his message gave a pretty clear and correct statement of the causes of the crisis (Stat. Man., II, 1053-55) ; and denied the authority of the Government to give direct relief. The crisis had to run its course until all the artificial wealth had been swept away, and a great deal besides ; then the tide turned, trade slowly revived, and with the exception of the bank crisis in 1839, prosperity was again reached. On the subject in general, see Von Hoist, II. 192-218; Sumner, Currency, 132-61; Benton, View, II. 9-28 ; Walker, "On Money," 498-508 ; Sargent, II. 10-15.) The Sub-Treasury. — The most important part of Van Buren's message of Sept. 4, 1837, is that recommending the separation of the ' ' fiscal concerns of the Government from those of individuals or corporations." The state banks had proved to be unsafe depos- itories of the public moneys, and a national bank was also unsat- isfactory : he would, therefore, sever the "connection between the Government and the banks of issue," and let the Treasury take the care of its own deposits and exchanges. (Ibid., 1055-62; Von Hoist, II. 200-203.) The fiscal arrangement thus proposed by Mr. Van Buren has since been known as the Independent Treas- ury or Sub-Treasury. The originator of this plan was not Van Buren, but Mr. William F. Gordon, of Virginia, who'proposed tt in the House as an amendment to the " local bank deposit regula- tion bill, June 20, 1834, and made a speech in advocacy of it. (Benton, Deb., XII. 506, 507 ; XIII. 403.) 1837-40] SUB-TEEASURT BANK CEISIS. 199 A bill to establish the sub-treasury was reported to the Senate by Mr. Wright, chairman of the Committee on Finance. It met with strong opposition from the Whig leaders, Clay, Webster, and others, and also from a section of the Democratic party who opposed the war upon the state banks and credit system.^ But Calhoun, who had generally acted with the Whigs since 1833, now gave his support to the administration. The Sub-Treasury bill, or " bill imposing additional duties as depositaries, in certain cases, on public officers," passed the Senate, 26 to 20. (Benton, Deb., XIII. 374-448 ; Webster's Speech, 414 ; Webster's Works, IV. 334 ; Clay's Speech, Deb., 401 ; Clay's Works, VI. 310.) The bill was defeated in the House, 120 to 107. (Benton, Deb., XIII. 520-43; Young, Am. Statesman, 679-80.) Brought up again in the regular session, the bill was again defeated (Young, Am. Statesman, 689 ; Benton, View, II. 124), but passed finally in 1840, and became a law July 4 of that year. (Benton, Deb., XIII. 620-55; XIV. 41-42; Stat, at L., 385 ; Sumner, Currency, 161-62. )2 At the special session of Congress of 1837, bills were passed, postponing until January 1, 1839, the deposit with the states of the fourth instalment of the surplus revenue ; authorizing the issue of $10,000,000 in treasury notes, for the immediate wants of the Government; appropriating $1,600,000 for the expenses of the Seminole war, and providing for adjusting the claims upon the late deposit banks. When the time for the payment of the fourth instalment came the treasury had a deficit and could not pay it, and it was never paid. The New York banks resumed specie payments May 10, 1838, as required by law, and the other banks followed. (Sumner, Cur- rency, 143-46 ; Benton, View, II. 83-91 ; Von Hoist, 11. 212-14.) The New York legislature passed a law in the same year (1838) requiring banks to give security for their notes by " a pledge of public stocks and real estate." (Condy Raguet, History of Bank- ing, 212, and Appendix, 252 ; Walker on Money, 498-508.) In 1839 the banks were again embarrassed, and those of the South and West suspended. (Von Hoist, II. 215-17; Sumner, 148-54.) 1 These persons became known as the "Conservatives," and acted generally with the Whigs. 2 The act was repealed August lo, 1841 ; and re-enacted in 1846. 200 CABINET — ELECTION OF 1840. [1837-40 Miscellaneous Measures and Events — (i) The Seminole War, begun in December, was the last of the struggles to get possession of the Indian lands in the South. (Von Hoist, II. 293-311 ; Ben- ton, View, II. 70-82.) (2) The Canadian Rebellion took place in 1837-38, in which an attempt was made bj' citizens of the United States to aid the rebels. (Young, Am. Statesman, 712-15) (5) The contest for the New Jersey seats. (Young, Am. States- man, 728-32 ; Von Hoist, II. 336-40 ; Sargent, II. 96.) (4) Swartvjout' s defalcation in the New York custom house came to light in 1838 ; and was laid hold of hy the opposition as a proof of the charges of corruption made against the administra- tions of Jackson and Van Buren. (Von Hoist, II. 350-61.) Van Buren's Cabinet. — As at first constituted, the cabinet con- sisted of the following men : John Forsyth, of Georgia, Secretarj- of State ; Levi Woodburj- , of New Hampshire, Secretarj' of the Treasury; Joel R. Poinsett, of South Carolina, Secretary of War; Mahlon Dickerson, of New York, Secretary of the Navy ; Amos Kendall, of Kentucky, Postmaster-General ; Benjamin F. Butler, of New York, Attorney-General. All of these, except Poinsett, were continued from Jackson's cabinet. Slight changes occurred : in 1838 James K. Paulding, Secretary of the Navy, in place of Dickerson, resigned ; Feelix Grundy, Attornej'-General, and in 1840, Henry D. Gilpin, in place of B. F. Butler ; 1838, John M. Niles, Connecticut, Postmaster-General, in place of Amos Kendall. , The Election of 1840. — The Whigs passed over their great leaders, and selected as a candidate a military hero. General Har- rison. John Tyler, a conservative Democrat, was nominated for the Vice-Presidency. (Von Hoist, II. 361-75, 383-92.) Van Buren and R. M. Johnson were the Democratic candidates. The anti-slavery men had now decided to enter the field of politics as a separate party, and nominated at Warsaw, New York (November, 1839), James G. Birney as their candidate for President. The electoral campaign of 1840 marks a new departure in such proceedings. It inaugurated mass meetings, campaign songs, etc. (Von Hoist, II. 392-96; Sargent, II. 107-111; Young, 735-38; Benton, View, II. 203.) For the result of the election see Appendix, p. 38) CHAPTER VI. Administrations of Harrison, Tyler, Polk, Tatloe, Fillmore, Peirce and Buchanan, 1841-1861. /. Administrations of Harrison and 'Tyler, 1841-1845. General Harrison selected as members of his Cabinet : Daniel Webster, Massachusetts, Secretary of State. Thomas Ewing, Ohio, Secretary of the Treasury. John Bell, Tennesee, Secretary of War. George E. Badger, North Carolina, Secretary of the Navy. Francis Granger, New York, Postmaster-General. John J. Crittenden, Kentucky, Attorney-General. Harrison's inaugural address was a general protest against the executive policy of Jackson and Van Buren ; and he promised, so far as it lay in his power, to reform the abuses. He believed much harm would be prevented by making the President ineligible for a second term. (Von Hoist, 11. 377 ; Stat. Man., HI. 1199.) He criticised the use made of the executive patronage, and prom- ised to institute a reform in this respect. (Stat. Man., III. 1202-4.) The President was invested with the veto power to prevent hasty legislation and protect the minority, but not to make the executive a part of the legislature. (Ibid., 1201.) In accordance with this policy, Mr. Webster, Secretary of State, issued a circular to the heads of departments, March 20, 1841, stating "that partisan interference in popular elections, whether of State officers, or of officers of this Government, and for whomso- ever or against whomsoever it may be exercised, or the payment of any contribution or assessment on salaries or official compensa- tion for party or election purposes, will be regarded by him (the President) as cause of removal Persons employed under the Government, and paid for their services out of the public treasury, are not expected to take an active or officious part in attempts to influence the minds or votes of others." (Sargent, II. 116-20; Niles, LX. 51-52.) 202 JOHN TYLER WHIG POLICY. [1841 This policy was displeasing to tlie politicians and office-seekers, and was difficult to put in practice. (Von Hoist, II. 407-8 ; Autobiograph}^ of Amos Kendall, 432-34.) Having called an extra session of Congress for May 31, Mr. Harrison died, April 4, 1841, and for the first time in the history of the country the Vice-President became President. The Whigs had not counted upon such a contingency in nominating Mr. Tj'ler, and were now verj' much concerned as to the policy he would pursue. The principal dates and events in the life of John Ttlee are as follows : 1790 .... Born in Charles City County, Virginia. 1807 .... Graduated from William and Mary College. 1807 . . . Admitted to the bar. 181 1 .... Elected to the legislature of Virginia by the Democrats. 1816-21 . . Member of the House of Representatives. 1823-25 . . Member of the legislature of Virginia. 1825-27 . . Governor of Virginia. 1827-36 . . United States Senator. 1838 .... Elected to the state legislature by the Whigs. 1839 • • • ■ Delegate to the Whig Convention at Harrisburg. 1841 . . . Vice-President. 1841-45 . . President. 1862 .... Died at Richmond, a member of the Confederate Congress. (Biographical Sketch of Tyler; Stat. Man., 11. 1210-28; Von Hoist, n. 383-89-) Tyler continued in office the Cabinet of Harrison, and intimated in his address that he would pursue the general policy of Harrison. Congress met in extra session. May 31, 1841, having a Whig majority in both houses. And Claj', anxious for a "clean sweep," announced June 7 a plan of reform, the chief points of which were as follows : (1) The repeal of the Sub-Treasury. (2) The incorporation of a national bank. (3) The provision of an adequate revenue by the imposition of duties, and including an authority to contract a temporary loan to pay the public debt created by the last adminis- tration. (4) The prospective distribution of the proceeds of the public lands. (Benton, Deb., XIV. 291-92; Von Hoist, II. 410-16.) In accordance with this programme a bill for the repeal of the Sub-Treasury was passed by the Senate, June 12 ; by the House, August 9, and was signed by the President August 17. (Benton, 1841] ^ BANK BILLS. 203 View, II. 219-29.) This was a measure preliminary to the estab- lishment of a bank. Bank Bills. — The Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Ewing, re- ported, June 12, a plan for the incorporation of a "Fiscal Bank of the United States," which he supposed to be free from the old constitutional objections. It differed from the former bank in two essential points : (1) It was to be incorporated in the District of Columbia, where Congress had the power of a state legislature ; (2) Branches could only be established with the assent of the states. A bill, based essentially upon the Secretary's report, was reported by Mr. Clay, June 21, and was finally passed by Congress, August 6 ; but it was returned on the 16th with the President's veto, as being unconstitutional. (Stat. Man., III. 1400-1406; Young, Am. Statesman, 747-49 ; Benton, View, II. 317-31 ; Von Hoist, II. 425-26.) The Whigs were in great consternation, A new bill was drawn up and submitted to the President for his approval ; and under the title of " Fiscal Corporation of the United States" was passed by Congress, September 3. In the mean time, Tyler having decided to assent to no bank bill, returned it-with his veto, September 9. He was doubtless influenced by the Botts letter of August 16. (Stat. Man., III. 1406-15; Young, 749-54; Sargent, II. 132-36; Von Hoist, II. 427-33 ; Benton, View, II. 331-53.) Upon the receipt of the second veto all the members of the Cabinet except Webster resigned, basing their reasons upon the "want of uprightness which Tyler had shown during these transac- tions." Webster was induced to remain for the purpose of settling the differences with England, then in a critical state. (Von Hoist, II. 434-35 ; Benton, View, II. 353-57.) The new members of the Cabinet were : Walter Forward, Sec- retary of the Treasury ; John C. Spencer, Secretary of War ; Abel P. Upsher, Secretary of the Navy ; Charles A. WicklifFe, Post- master-General ; Hugh S. Legard, Attorney-General. On the last day of the extra session, September 13, the Whig members issued a manifesto, declaring the complete separation of the Whig party from Tyler. But the Whigs were divided among themselves, the more moderate men believing it better to temporize. (Von Hoist, II. 435-39.) Finances. — The Secretary of the Treasury reported, June 1, 1841, a deficit for the year of $11,000,000. As a temporary relief 204 DISTRIBUTION TARIFF OF 1842. [1842 Congress authorized a loan of $12,000,000, August 10. Notwith- standing this condition of the Treasur}' the Whigs carried through a bill, September 4, 1841, ordering the division among the states of the net proceeds of the sales of public lands. The anti-tariff men were able to have the following proviso inserted : that if dur- ing the existence of this act there should be an imposition of duties inconsistent with the act of March 2, 1833, and beyond the rate of duty fixed by that act — 20 per cent — the distribution provided by this act should be suspended, until this cause was removed. (Von Hoist, II. 440-47.) The passage of a bankrupt bill was a part of the bargain by which the above bill was passed. (Ibid., 448-50.) Congress also passed, September 11, 1841, a temporary tariff act laying duties on certain articles of the free list and Raising to 20 per cent the duty on others which had paid a lower rate. (Ben- ton, View, li. 311-15.) The Tariff of 1842. — The temporary measures were not ade- quate to the relief of the Treasury, and at the next session of Congress the subject of taxation again came up. The Whigs proposed to increase the duties above 20 per cent, notwithstanding the compromise of 1833. That act would take effect on July 1, 1842, with its ad valorem rate of 20 per cent, home valuation, arid no credit. Mr. Fillmore, from the Committee of Ways and Means, reported a tariff bill, June 3, 1842. But as this could not be got through before the iirst of July, a provisional tariff bill was reported, June 7, which might be passed before that time. By this bill the duties exceeded 20 per cen£ : it therefore violated the compromise act, and rendered the distribution act of September 4, 1841 , inoperative. But a clause was introduced annulling the proviso of the distribu- tion act. For this reason the bill was vetoed by the President, June 29, 1842. The general tariff bill containing the distribution clause was passed August 5, and vetoed August 9. A third tariff bill, without the distribution clause, was now passed, in the House by 105 to 103, in the Senate by 24 to 23, and approved by the President August 30, 1842. (Stat, at L., V. 548.) This tariff, although primarily for revenue, was made distinc- tively protective. The average rate upon dutiable goods was about 33 per cent. (Young, Am. Statesman, 756-84 ; Young, . Tariff 1842] ENGLAND TREATY OP 1842. 205 Leg., 88-92; Benton, View, II. 413-17; Von Hoist, II. 451-63; Sumner, Tariff, 52-54.) Relations with England. — Besides the questions left unsettled by the treaty of peace of 1814, other causes of dispute had arisen, until the relations between the two countries had become very delicate. By the convention of October 20, 1818, a settlement was made in regard to the fisheries ; the boundary between the two countries from the Lake of the Woods to the Stony (Rocky) Mountains was fixed upon the 49° of north latitude ; and the country west of those mountains (claimed by both parties) should be free to both for the term of ten years. (Treaties, 349, 1024.) As to the northeastern boundary (Supra, p. 36), G-reat Britain contended that the "highlands," mentioned in the treaty of 1783, were south of the river St. John, while the United States insisted that the highlands meant were those north of that river. In 1827 the subject in dispute was referred to the King of the Netherlands ; but his award was rejected by both parties. Negotiations were resumed from time to time, but with no result until 1842, when Mr. Webster took the matter up, and concluded at Washington with Lord Ashburton the treaty of August 9, 1842. By this treaty the conflicting claims in regard to the northeastern boundary were settled by a compromise. The boundary line was to extend from the source of the St. Croix north to the St. John, up the St. John to the river St. Francis, up this river to Lake Pohenegamook, thence southwest along the Highlands to the 45° of north latitude, and west to the St. Lawrence. (Article I. Treaties, 370 ; Benton, Deb., XIV. 534-39 ; View, II. 438-41.) Article II. describes the boundary west to the Lake of the Woods. The navigation of the St. John was to be free. By Article VIII. each party agrees to keep a naval force in ser- vice on the coast of Africa for the suppression of the slave trade. Article X. stipulates for the extradition of persons charged with the crime of murder, piracy, arson, robbery or forgery. The question of the violation of neutral territory by the burning of the steamer Caroline in 1838 by a detachment of Canadian militia was not mentioned in the treaty. But it was settled by correspondence between Mr. Webster and Lord Ashburton, on the showing by the English envoy that the act was done in self de- 206 OREGON — ANNEXATION OP TEXAS. [1845-6 fense. (Webster's Works, VI. 296-301 ; Dana's Wheaton, 526-27.) As to the question of impressment no agreement could be. had. But Mr. Webster's vigorous statement, '■'that in every regularly documented American mercJiant-vessel, the crew who navigate it will find their protection in the fi,ag whicJi is over them,'' was considered as fixing the principle upon which the United States were prepared to act in future.^ (Webster's Works, V. 145-46 ; VI. 326-28.) The question of the Northwestern, or Oregon boundary was left unsettled, the two countries remaining in joint occupation of the disputed territory. On the general subject of the treaty : (Curtis, Life of -Webster, II. 94-125 ; Young, Am. Statesman, 785 ; Ben- ton, View, II. 420-52.) Oregon Bou7idary. — By the treaty of June 15, 1846, the con- flicting claims in regard to the territory west of the Rocky Moun- tains were settled by fixing upon the 49th parallel as the boundary between the British and United States territory. The United States had claimed the territory as far as the parallel of 54° 40'. On the other hand England had claimed the line of the Columbia river. (Treaties, 375 ; Young, Am. Statesman, 849-65 ; Benton, View, II. 667-79 ; Dana's Wheaton, 172-74.) A question afterwards arose as to the position of boundary in the channel and straits which separate Vancouver's Island from the main land. By the 34th article of the treaty of Washington of 1871, the matter was referred to the Emperor of Germany, who decided, October 21, 1872, in favor of the claim of the United States Government. (Treaties, 426, 1025.) The Annexation of Texas. — In 1823 the Mexican Government made a grant of land in Texas to Stephen Austin, who founded there the first American colony. From 1832 on, Samuel Houston, a native of Virginia, was the leading person in Texas. On March 2, 1836, Texas declared her independence from Mexico. A constitution was formed, and a provisional govern- ment organized. Houston was made commander-in-chief of the army, and in September, President of the Republic. Santa Anna, the President of Mexico, having marched against Houston, was defeated at San Jacinto, April 21, and captured. I In 1870 Parliament passed an act " providing that a British subject on becoming; natura_ lized in a foreign state shall lose his British national character, unless he makes a declaration within two years stating his wish to remain a subject." (W. E. Hall, International Law, 191-93.) 1846] THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 207 Santa Anna signed a treaty May 14, 1836, acknowledging the independence of Texas. But this treaty was not ratified by Mexico. (Greeley, I. 147-51.) In the United States, southern statesmen had for many years looked with longing eyes upon Texas. On receipt of the news of the battle of San Jacinto a discussion ensued upon the question of recognizing the independence of Texas. Mr. Calhoun was in favor of immediate annexation. In March, 1837, Texan independence was acknowledged. (Benton, View, I. 665-76 ; Young, Am. Statesman, 661-65 ; Von Hoist, II. 548-92.) In August, 1837, Texas made a proposal for the annexation of that country to the United States, which was declined by Mr. Van Buren. (Greeley, I. 151 ; Von Hoist, II. 599-601.) At the same time grievances against Mexico had been accumu- lating, and demands for reparation were now pressed. (Von Hoist, II. 592-99 ; William Jay, Review of the war with Mexico, 31-52.) For the same reason which led the slave-holders to favor the annexation of Texas, the abolitionists were opposed to it, and they coupled this subject with their petitions to Congress praying the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. (Von Hoist, II. 601-4 : Channing's Works, II. 183-260 ; Young, Am. Statesman, 703-12.) In 1844 (April 12) Calhoun, who had become Secretary of State, concluded a treaty of annexation with Texas, which, however, was rejected by the Senate. (Stat. Man., III. 1423-24 ; Benton, View, II. 599, 600; Deb., XV. 142; Sargent, II. 218; Von Hoist, II. 634-36.) Annexation was one of the chief issues in the elections of 1844, and Tyler, assuming that the election of Polk had been an approval of annexation, stroflgly advised Congress to accomplish that object. (Stat. Man., III. 1377.) Von Hoist believes the popular majority was against it. (II. 701.) The next year a joint resolution was passed by Congress, and approved by the President March 2, 1845, providing for the annex- ation of Texas. An amendment was added at the instance of Mr. Walker of Wisconsin, to the effect that the President might, if he deemed it best, proceed by way of negotiation, instead of under the joint resolution. But the President, on the last day of his term, sent a messenger to secure the assent of Texas under the resolution. (Greeley, I. 171-74 ; Young, Am. Statesman, 816-28 ; 208 ELECTION OF 1844 CABINET CHANGES. [1844-5 Benton, View, II. 631-38 ; Sargent, II. 259-63 ; Von Hoist, II. 702-14.) The Mection of 1844. — The Whigs had been so demoralized by their contests with Tyler, that as early as 1842 they had lost their majoritj' in the House of Representatives. The people were losing their interest in the old issues. It was thought that Tyler was attempting to form a new partj' ; but he lost the confidence of the Whigs without gaining that of the Democrats, and could draw from the old parties no following. (Benton, View, II. 629-30.) Mr. Tyler towards the end of his term adopted the "spoils system." (Sargent, II. 188-91.) Mr. Webster finally I'esigned in May, 1843, and was succeeded as Secretary of State by Abel P. Upsher. In February, 1844, Upsher and Gilmer (Secretary of the Navj') were killed on the Princeton, and Calhoun became Secretary of State, and John Y. Mason, Secretary of the Navy. In 1844 the Democrats insisted upon the acquisition of Texas, and a reduction of the tariff. The Whigs opposed annexation because of the evils of the extension of slavery ; and Clay lost northern votes because he was a slave-holder. In the State of New York the votes given to Birnej', had thej' been cast for Clay, would have given him that state and ensured his election. (See Appendix, p. 38, for the result of this election ; Young, 799-814 ; Benton, View, II. 625-26.) //. Administration of James K. Polk, 1845-49. James Knox Polk was born in North Carolina in 1795 and re- inoved to Tennessee in 1806. He studied law and was admitted to the bar in 1820. 1823-25 . . Member of the Legislature. 1825-39 . . Member of Congress. 1835-39 . . Speaker of the House. 1839 ■ • • • Governor of Tennessee. ' 1845-49 . . President. Mr. Polk selected as his Cabinet : James Buchanan, of Penn- sylvania, Secretary of State ; Eobert J. Walker, of Mississippi, Secretary of the Treasury ; William L. Marcy, of New York, Secretary of War ; George Bancroft, of Massachusetts, Secretary of the Navy ; Cave Johnson, of Tennessee, Postmaster-General ; and John Y. Mason, of Virginia, Attorney-General. (Von Hoist, III. 1-28.) 1846] TARIFF OF 1846. 209 The Spoils System was adopted by President Polk with great zeal. (Von Hoist, IH. 143-56.) The 29th Congress, which met in its first session December 2, 1845, had a Democratic majority in both houses. The Tariff of 1846. — President Polk recommended in his mes- sage the reduction of the duties to a strict revenue basis, the abolition of the minimum principle, and of specific duties. (Stat. Man., III. 1462-65.) The President's message was sustained by the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Walker. " The reports of Mr. Secretary Walker, says Mr. Edward Young, "may be regarded as holding the same conspicuous relation to the free-trade side of this question as that of Mr. Hamilton does to the opposite side." (Tariff Leg., 93.) In his first report (December 3, 1845), Mr. Walker lays down the following general principles : (1) That no more money should be collected than is necessary for the wants of the Government, economically administered. (2) No duty should be imposed on any article above the lowest rate which will yield the largest amount of revenue. (3) Below such rate discrimination may be made, descending in the scale of duties. (4) The maximum revenue duty should be imposed on luxuries. (5) All minimums and all specific duties should be abolished, and od valorem duties substituted in their place. (6) The duties should be so imposed as to operate as equallj' as possible through- out the Union, and upon the different classes. (Young, Tariff Leg., 93-95 ; Young, Am. Statesman, 865-71.) In accordance with these recommendations the Committee of Ways and Means reported a bill to the House, April 14, 1846, which was passed by a vote of 114 to 94 ; and in the Senate by the casting vote of the Vice-President, Mr. Dallas, and became a law July 30. (Stat, at L., IX. 42 ;. Young, Tariff Leg., 95-106 ; Young, Am. Statesman, 871-74.) Under this tariff the duties were arranged in nine schedules, ranging from 100 per cent to 5 per cent ad yalorem, with a small free list. The greater number of important articles were subject to duties of 20 and 30 per the passage of the tariff act of March 2, 1861, after a number of the Southern States had seceded. By this act, which was only in force four months, the duties were raised about one-third. The subsequent tariff acts were war measures. (Young, Tariff Leg., 114-21 ; Sumner, 56.) "The period from 1846 to 1860," says Mr. Sumner (p. 54), "was our period of comparative free trade It was a period of verj' great and very solid prosperity The manufactures did not perish, [nor did they] gain sudden and exorbitant profits. They made steady and genuine progress.'' The increase in the value of manufactures during the ten years from 1850 to 1860 is estimated by Mr. J. Leander Bishop (History of American Manufactures, II. 483-503) at over 86 per cent. The increase in particular branches is as follows : Agricultural implements . 160.1 per cent Pig iron . 44.4 " Bar and rolled iron 39.5 " Production of iron foundries . . 42 " Cotton goods . 76 " Woolen goods .... 51 " Leather goods 67 " Malt liquors 175 " Jewelry and watches 64 " The Sub-Treasury. — The failure to pass the bank bills of 1842 left the Government without a fiscal agent, and the state banks were again resorted to. In 1846 the Democrats re-established the Sub-Treasury, August 6, 1846. (Stat, at L., IX. 59.) The mint at Philadelphia and the branch mint at New Orleans were made places of deposit, and sub-treasuries established at New York, Boston, Charleston, and St. Louis, with an assistant treasurer for each. 1845-6] SDB-TREASURT MEXICAN WAR. 211 By this act all taxes and other moneys accruing to the United States " shall be paid in gold and silver coin only, or in treasury notes issued under the authority of the United States ; and all dis- bursements on account of the United States shall be paid in gold and silver coin, or in treasury notes if the creditor agree to receive'" them. This act is still in force. (Revised Stat., Sections 3591-95.) The act of February 25, 1863, provided for the establishment of National Banks which should issue a national currency secured by the deposit, with the Treasurer gf the United States, of Gov- ernment bonds. (Stat, at L., XII. 665 ; Young, Am. Statesman, 874; Benton, View, II. 726 ; Deb., XV. 442, 631.) For a brief sketch of the financial history of the United States from 1850 to 1860 see Sumner, History of Am. Currency, 169-94.) The Mexican War. — Texas accepted, July 4, 1845, the proposal of annexation. In December of that year General Taylor was ordered to occupy Texas with his troops, and in January, 1846, to advance to the Rio Grande. Mexico considered this an invasion of her territory, and ordered an army to cross the Rio Grande. On the 24th of April, 1846, occurred the first confiict of arms, in which sixteen Americans were killed. May 1 1 Congress received from the President a message (Stat. Man., III. 1485-90), "announcing a state of war," which he said had been commenced by Mexico, who had invaded our territory, and shed the blood of our fellow-citizens on our own soil. A bill providing for an army (50,000) and appropriating $10,000,000, was immediately reported and passed the House, 142 to 14, and the Senate (the next day), 40 to 2 ; and on the 13th the President issued a war proclamation. The vote on the passage of the bill was not an exact expression of the sentiment of either House on the general question of the war, but only as to-the course to be pursued under the existing circumstances. A large number of the Whigs believed the war to be unjust on the part of the United States ; and the President's method of beginning it unconstitutional., It was objected that a state of war did not exist ; and if it did exist, it was not by the act of Mexico. This last objection depended upon the question whether the Rio Grande or the Nueces was the southwestern boun- dary of Texas. (Young, Am. Statesman, 833-49 ; Greeley, I. 185-87 ; Benton, View, II. 677-79 ; Jay, Review of the Mexican War, 121-43 ; Von Hoist, III. 79-115, 216-55.) 212 MEXICAN WAR — TEEATY. [1846-8 The war once begun, the following plan of operations against Mexico was adopted : An army of the West, under Colonel S. W. Kearney, was to march from Fort Leavenworth against New Mex- ico, and then west to California ; an army of the centre, under General Wool, was to invade Coahuila and Chihuahua ; but the main column, under General Taylor, was to penetrate into the interior and reach the City of Mexico if possible. The fleet was to co-operate on the Pacific coast with Colonel John C. Fremont (in charge of an exploring expedition) in the occupation of California. This plan was carried out in the main. Taylor advanced and fought several important battles ; but this line of invasion was thought too difficult, and Taylor was virtually superseded by Gen- eral Scott, who landed with an army at Vera Cruz, and marched directly upon the capital ; and after a number of brilliant victories occupied the City of Mexico, September 14, 1847. From May to August Fremont and others got possession of Cal- ifornia. New Mexico fell into the hands of Kearnej- August 18. The expedition under General Wool accomplished little of im- portance. The best complete history of the Mexican War is that of R. S. Ripley. There is also a history of the war by Brooks ; a re\'iew of the war by William Jay ; '' War with Mexico reviewed," by Livermore ; a Mexican history of the war, translated by A. C. Ramsey ; of general histories the following give brief accounts : . Bryant and Gay, IV. 369-86 ; Cassel's History of the United States, III. 63-76 ; Spencer's History of the United States, III. 425-470, containing text of the treatj'; Young, Am. Statesman, 816-36 ; Von Hoist, III. ; for special questions connected with the war. Von Hoist, Vol. III. A treaty of peace was concluded February 2, 1848, at Guadalupe, Hidalgo by N. P. Trist. (United States Treaties, 562, 1047-48 ; Benton, View, II. 709-11.) By this treaty Mexico not only yielded her claim to Texas, but ceded besides a large part of her territory in the North — California and New Mexico. The acquisition of territory, including Texas (376,163 square miles), amounted to 921,916 square miles. The boundary was as follows : The Rio Grande to the southern boundary of New Mexico ; thence along that boundary to its western termination ; thence north to the first branch of the river 1850] CLATTON-BULWEE TREATY. 213 Gila ; thence down said branch and said river until it empties into the Rio Colorado ; thence across that river, following the division line between Upper and Lower California, to the Pacific Ocean. In consideration of this cession of territory the United States were to pay to Mexico the sum of $15,000,000 ; also the claims of United States citizens against Mexico, about $5,000,000. On account of difficulties in fixing the boundary, the United States purchased from Mexico in 1853 the MesiHa valley, lying south of the Gila (the Gadsden Purchase), and comprising 45,535 square miles of territory. The sum paid was $10,000,000. (Trea- ties, 675, 1048 ; Spencer, III. 601.) The Glayton-Bulwer Treaty. — "The acquisition of California, the easiest approaches to which, at that time, were through the various isthmus passages from Tehuantepec to Darien, raised new questions with Great Britain." (Treaties, 1025.) England laid claim to the eastern coast of Nicaragua, occupied by the Mosquito Indians, which was considered to be the best position for the eastern terminus of an isthmus canal. In view of this circum- stance, the United States hastened to contract a treaty with Eng- land (April 19, 1860) , stipulating for a joint protectorate over any canal that should be made across the isthmus. (Treaties, 377, 1026; Stat. Man., IV. 1737; Dana's Wheaton, 105, note; Con- gressional Globe, 34th Congress, 107, 283-5, 663, 1205-7, 1419-22 ; also the ofiicial correspondence of Secretary Blaine, 1881,) Miscellaneous. — (1) In August, 1845, the United States Naval Academy was established at Annapolis, Maryland, by George Bancroft, Secretary of the Navy. (J. R. Soley, History of the Naval Academy, 51-61.) (2) In 1849 (March 2) the Department of the Interior was established. To this department were transferred from other departments : The Patent Office and the Census Bureau, from the State department ; The Land Office, and accounts of Marshalls, etc., from the Treasury Department ; Indian afi'airs, from the War Department ; and the Pension Bureau, from the Navy Department. (Stat. atL., IX. 395.) The Election of 1848. — In the North a large class of people saw in the Mexican war a movement for the extension of slave territory. The " Wilmot Proviso" of 1846 was a protest against this. (Greeley, I. 189 ; Benton, View, II. 694.) As the "Whigs would not make the extension of slavery a party issue, a new party was formed in 1848 under the name of " Free 214 COMPROMISE OF 1850. [1850 Soil" party, with whom the Libertj* party coalesced. Their can- didates were Van Buren and Charles Francis Adams. The Democratic party was somewhat divided on the question of slavery, and hence lost the election. (Appendix, p. 38.) The divisions of the Democratic party caused the election, to the United States Senate, of WiUiam H. Seward, of New York, and Salmon P. Chase, of Ohio, and later, Charles Sumner, from Massachusetts, all of the Free Soil partj-. These men, with others alreadj- in the House, attacked slavery with increased energy, and forced on the "irrepressible conflict." III. Administrations of Taylor, Fillmore, Peirce, and Buchanan, 1849-61. Zachakt Taylor, elected as a military hero, proclaimed the Whig policy of harmony. His Cabinet was weak, containing only a few men of note. Among others were : J. M. Clayton, Thomas Ewing, and Eeverdy Johnson. The period from 1849 to 1860, although quiet and prosperous in other respects, was one of a continual strnggle about the extension of slavery. It had been gathering head since 1835. It broke out on the question of Clay's compromise of 1850, intended to settle all points in dispute in regard to slavery. (Young, Am. Statesman, 894-95 ; Greeley, I. 203.) The compromise measures, after a long debate, were finally passed as separate bills, August, 1850 : (1) For the organization of Utah and New Mexico into territories without reference to slavery ; (2) for the admission of California as a free state ; (3) for the payment to Texas of $10,000,000 for her claim to New . Mexico ; (4) for the return of persons escaping from the service of their masters (the famous fugitive-slave act) ; (5) abolishing the slave trade in the District of Columbia. (Houghton, 24; Young, 892-937 ; Von Hoist, III. 456-562 ; Benton, View, II. 749, 768-80 ; Bryant and Gay, IV. 387-401.) The northern Whigs who assisted in passing these measures, and particularly Mr. Webster, were much censured for the part they took. In his famous 7th of March speech, Webster was thought to have yielded those principles, in the struggle for which he had been the great champion of the North. (Webster's Works, V. 334 ; Mr. Curtis vindicates the course of Mr. Webster, Life, II. 381-450 ; Von Hoist, III. 497-508.) 1854] REPEAL OF MISSOURI COMPROMISE. 215 Webster, Clay, and Calhoim disappeared from the political scene soon after this conflict, and a new race of statesmen took their places. General Taylor died July 9, 1850, and Fillmore became Presi- dent, and like Tj^er, disappointed the Whigs. After the election of 1852, the Whigs ceased to exist as a party, and the members joined other parties. The greater number went to form the new Republican party, organized in 1854, based on the non-extension of slavery. But the South, with aid from the North, were still strong enough to elect their candidate. And in 1860, when Lin- coln, the candidate of the Republican party, was elected, the South seceded from the Union. (Appendix, p. 38 ; Houghton, 25-27.) Some of the more important events of this period are the fol- lowing : (1) The repeal of the Missouri Compromise, May 30, 1854, in connection with the act to organize the territorial government of Kansas and Nebraska. (Young, 937-62 ; Greeley, I. 210-50 ; Wilson, I. 360-477 ; Sargent, II. 357-98.) The struggle was transferred from Congress to the new territo- ries, and civil war raged there for a time between the pro-slavery and free-state settlers. (2) The Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court, March 4, 1857. (Greeley, I. 252-64 ; Tyler, Life of Taney, 359-438 ; Bry- ant and Gay, IV. 425.) For general histories of this period see : Bryant and Gay, IV. 387-434 ; Cassell, III. 82-206 ; Greeley, L 198-327.) Literature of the Period 1789 to i86o> General Histories : Hildreth, second series, 3 Vols., 1789-1820 (Feder- alist); Schouler, 2 Vols., 1789-1817 (Anti-Federalist); Tucker, 4 Vols., 1776-1841 (the view of a Virginian, but quite impartial) ; Von Hoist, 3 Vols., 1789-1850 (the criticism of a foreigner; valuable in references); Young, A. W., "The American Statesman," a political history from 1776- 1854; Bryant and Gay, Vol. IV. (a popular history); Spencer, Vols. II. and III., 1776-1857 (a careful compilation). Special Histories and Biographies: Gibbs, ' 'Administrations of Wash- ington and Adams"; The lives and works of the leading statesmen : Ben- ton, "Thirty Years in the United States Senate," 2 Vols., 1820-1850; Sargent, "Public Men and Events," 2 Vols., 1817-1853; Niles' "Weekly Register," 50 Vols., 1811-36 ; Cooper (Thomas V.), "American Politics," is a valuable collection, containing a History of Political Parties; Party Platforms ; Jefferson's Manual ; the existing Political Laws ; the Federal Blue Book; and nearly 100 tables of statistics. Military and Naval ; Cooper (J. F.), History of the American Navy; IngersoU (C. J.), History of the War of 1812 ; Ripley (R. S.), History of the Mexican War. Political Parties : Cooper, "American Politics," Books I. -II. ; Hough- ton, "Conspectus of Parties "; Holmes, "Parties and their Principles." Finances: "History of National Loans," Cooper, Am. Politics, Book I. p. 245 and Book VII. ; BoUes, "Financial History of the United States," since 1789 (in preparation). Foreign Relations: American State Papers (Folio Edition), I.-VI., 1789-1828; Wait's State Papers to 1817; United States Treaties. La-ms of Congress : United States Statutes at Large ; Revised Statutes, (1878) ; Brightley's Digest, 1789-1869.) The Debates of Congress: The Annals of Congress, 42 Vols., 1789- 1824; the "Register of Debates," 29 Vols., 1824-37; the "Congressional Globe," 1833-72; the "Congressional Record" since 1872; Benton's Abridgement of the Debates, 15 Vols., 1789-1850 (the most useful). Constitutional Law : The Commentaries of Story and Kent; and Coo- ley's "Constitutional Law." More special references will be found in connection with the various subjects mentioned. See also "The Manual of Historical Literature," by C. K. Adams. 1 For the literature of the introductory.period see pages 5, 9, and 12. APPENDIX. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. A Declaration by the Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled. When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessarj- for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature, and of nature's God, entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires, that thej- should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident : that all men are created equal ; that they are endowed, by their Creator, with cei'tain unal- ienable rights ; that among these, are li'fe, libertj', and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments are in- stituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ; that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its founda- tion on such principles, and organizing its powers in such foim, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happi- ness. Prudence, indeed, vvrill dictate, that governments, long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes ; and, accordingly, all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are suff'erable, than to right themselves, by abolishing the forms to which they are accus- tomed. But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pur- suing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these 2 APPENDIX. Colonies ; and such is now the necessit}' which constrains them to alter their former sj-stems of government. The historj- of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having, in direct object, the establishment of an absolute tyranny- over these States. To prove this, let facts.be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his assent to laws the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and, when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature : a right inestimable to them, and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depositor3' of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved representative houses, repeatedly, for oppos- ing, with manly firmness, his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused, for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected ; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exer- cise ; the State remaining, in the meantime, exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States ; for that purpose, obstructing the laws for naturalization of for- eigners, refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands. He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers. He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms Of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in time of peace, standing armies, with- out the consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the military independent of, and superior to, the civil power. DECLAKATIOX OF IXDKPKXDEXCE. 3 He has combined, with others, to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our coustitntion, and unacknowledged by our laws ; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation : For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us : For protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment, for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these States : For cutting oft' our trade with all parts of the world : For imposing taxes on us, without our consent : For depriving us, in many eases, of the benefits of trial by jury : For transporting us beyond seas, to be tried for pretended offences : For abolishing the free sj'stem of English laws in a neighboring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries, so as to render it, at once, an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies : For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering, fundamentally, the forms of our governments : For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us, in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicted government here, by declaring us out of his protection, and waging war against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is, at this time, transporting large armies of foreign merce- naries, to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow-citizens, taken captive on the high seas, to bear arms against their countrj', to become the exe- cutioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the mer- ciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undis- tinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these oppressions, we have petitioned for * APPENDIX. redress in the most humble terms : Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose charac- ter is thus 'marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have we been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them, from time to time, of attempts, by their legislature, to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them, by the ties of our com- mon kindred, to disavow these usurpations, which would inevi- tably interrupt our connexions and correspondence. They too, have been deaf to the voice of justice and consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, ene- mies in war, in peace, friends. We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Jiadge of the World, for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnl}' publish and declare. That these United Colo- nies are, and of right ought to be. Free and Independent States ; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown, and that all political connexion between them and the state of G-reat Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved ; and that, as Free and Independent States, thej' have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Piiovidence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. ARTICLES OF C0NFEDP:RATI0N And perpetual union, between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. ARTICLE I. The style of this confederacy shall be, " The United States OP America." ARTICLE II. Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and everj- power, jurisdiction and right, which is not, by this Con- federation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled. ARTICLE III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defence, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare ; binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to, or attacks made upon, them, or anj' of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever. ARTICLE IV. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and inter- course among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice, excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States ; and the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State ; and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions, as the inhabitants thereof respectively ; provided, that such restriction shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of propertj' imported into any State, to any other State O APPENDIX. of which the owner is an inhabitant ; provided also, that no impo- sition, duties, or restriction, shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United States, or either of them. If any person guilty of, or charged with, treason, felony, or other high misdemeanor, in any >State, shall flee from justice, and be found in any of the United States, he shall, upon demand of the governor or executive power of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, and removed to the State having jurisdiction of his offence. Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these States to the records, acts and judicial proceedings, of the courts and mag- istrates of every other State. ARTICLE V. For the more convenient management of the general interests of the United States, delegates shall be annually appointed in such manner as the legislature of each State shall direct, to meet in Congress on the first Monday in November, in every year, with a power reserved to each State to recall its delegates, or anj- of them, at any time within the year, and send others in their stead, for the remainder of the year. No State shall be repj'esented in Congress by less than two, nor by more than seven, members ; and no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years ; nor shall any person, being a delegate, be capable of hold- ing any office under the United States, for which he, or another for his benefit, receives an}' salary, fees, or emolument of any kind. Each State shall maintain its own delegates in a meeting of the States, and while the}' act as members of the committee of the States. In determining questions in the United States in Congress assembled, each state shall have one vote. Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be im- peached or questioned, in any court or place out of Congress ; and the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests and imprisonment, during the time of their going to, and from, and attendance on. Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace. ARTICLE VI. No State, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION. from, or enter Into any conference, agreement, alliance, or treaty, with any king, prince, or state ; nor shall any person, holding any office of profit, or trust, under the United States, or any of them, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state ; nor shall the United States in Congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility. No two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confederation, or alliance whatever, between them, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for which the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall continue. No State shall laj- an}- imposts or duties which may interfere with any stipulations in treaties entered into, by the United States in Congress assembled, with anj- king, prince, or state, in pur- suance of any treaties, ah-eady proposed by Congress to the courts of France and Spain. No vessels of war shall be kept up, in time of peace, hj any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary, by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defence of such State, or its trade ; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State, in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgment of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defence of such State ; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutred ; and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field-pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition, and camp equipage. No State shall engage in any war, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, unless such State be actually invaded by enemies, or shall have received certain advice of a res- olution being formed by some nation of Indians to invade such State, and the danger is so imminent as not to admit of a delay, till the United States in Congress assembled can be consulted ; nor shall any State grant commissions to any ship or vessels of war, nor letters of marque or reprisal, except it be after a declaration of war by the United States in Congress assembled ; and then only against the kingdom or state, and the subjects thereof, against which war has been so declared, and under such regulations as o APPKNDIX. shall be established by the United States in Congress assembled ; unless such State be infested bj^ pirates, in which vessels of war may be fitted out for that occasion, and kept so long as the danger shall continue, or until the United States in Congress assembled shall determine otherwise. AETICLE VII. When land forces are raised bj- anj' State for the common de- fence, all ofHcers of, or under, the rank of colonel, shall be ap- pointed by the legislature of each State, respectively, by whom such forces shall be raised, or in such manner as such State shall direct ; and all vacancies shall be filled up by the State which first made the appointment. ARTICLE VIII. All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defence, or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all land within each State, granted to, or surveyed for, any person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated, according to such mode as the United States in Congress assembled shall, from time to time, direct and appoint. The taxes for paying that proportion, shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legis- latures of the several States, within the time agreed upon by the United States in Congress assembled. ARTICLE IX. The United States in Congress assembled, shall , have the sole and exclusive right and power, of determining on peace and war, except in the cases, mentioned in the sixth article : Of sending and receiving ambassadors : Entering into treaties and alliances ; provided that no treaty of commerce shall be made, wherebj' the legislative power of the respective States shall be restrained from imposing such imposts and duties on foreigners as their own people are subjected to, or from prohibiting the exportation or importation of anv species of goods or commodities whatever : Of establishing rules for deciding, in all cases, what captures on land or water shall be legal ; and in what manner prizes, taken by land or naval forces, in the service of the United States, shall be divided or ARTICLES OF ('(.)XFKDF.RATI()X. t) appropriated: (_)f granting letters of marque and reprisal in times of peace : Appointing courts for the trial of piracies and felonies, committed on the high seas ; and establishing courts, for receiving and determining, finally, appeals in all cases of captures ; provi- ded, that no member of Congress shall be appointed a judge of an}- of the said courts. The United States in Congress assembled sliall also be the last resort, on appeal, in all disputes and differences now subsisting, or that hereafter ma^- arise, between two or more States, concerning boundarj-, jurisdiction, or any other cause whatever ; which author- ity shall always be exercised in the manner following : Whenever the legislative or executive authority, .or lawful agent, of any State, in controversy with another, shall present a petition to Congress, stating the matter in question, and praying for a hearing, notice thereof shall be given, b}' order of Congress, to the legislative or executive authority of the other State in controversy ; and a day assigned for the appearance of the parties bj- their lawful agents, who shall then be directed to appoint, by joint consent, commis- sioners or judges, to constitute a court for hearing and determining the matter in question : but if they cannot agree. Congress shall name three persons, out of each of the United States ; and from the list of such persons each part}' shall alternately strike out one, the petitioners beginning, until the number shall be reduced to thirteen ; and from that number, not less than seven, nor more than nine, names, as Congress shall direct, shall, in the presence of Congress, be drawn out, by lot ; and the persons whose names shall be so drawn, or any five of them, shall be commissioners or judges, to hear and finally determine the controvers}', so alwa3-s as a major part of the judges, who shall hear the cause, shall agree in the determination. And if either part}' shall neglect to attend at the day appointed, without showing reasons which Congress shall judge sufficient, or being present shall refuse to strike, the Congress shall proceed to nominate three persons out of each State ; and the Secretary of Congress shall strike in behalf of such party absent or refusing ; and the judgment and sentence of the court, to be appointed in the manner before prescribed, shall be final and conclusive. And if any of the parties shall refuse to submit to the authority of such court, or to appear, or defend their claim or cause, the court shall, nevertheless, proceed to pronounce sentence or judgment, which shall in like manner be final and 10 APPENDIX. decisive ; tlie judgment, or sentence, and other proceedings, being, in either case, transmitted to Congress, and lodged among the acts of Congress, for the securitj' of the parties concerned : Provided, that every commissioner, before he sits in judgment, shall take an oath, to be administered bj^ one of the judges of the supreme oV superior court of the State, where the cause shall be tried, 'Well and trulj- to hear and determine the matter in question, according to the best of his judgment, without favor, affection, or hope of reward' : Provided, also, that no State shall be deprived of teni- torj' for the benefit of the United States. AU controversies concerning the private right of soil claimed under different grants of two or more States, whose jurisdictions, as they may respect such lands, and the States which passed such grants are adjusted, the said grants or either of them being at the same time claimed to have originated antecedent to such settle- ment of jurisdiction, shall, on the petition of either partj' to the Congress of the United States, be finally determined, as near as may be, in the same manner as is before prescribed for deciding disputes respecting territorial jurisdiction between different States. The United States, in Congress assembled, shall also have the sole and exclusive right and power of regulating the alloy and value of coin struck by their own authority, or by that of the respective States : Fixing the standard of weights and measures throughout the United States ; Regulating the trade and managing all affairs with the Indians, not members of any of the' States ; provided that the legislative right of any State, within its own limits, be not infringed or violated : Establishing and regulating post-offices from one State to another, throughout all the United States, and exacting such postage on the papers passing through the same as may be requisite to defray the expenses of the said office : Appointing all officers of tlie land forces in the service of the United States, excepting regimental officers : Appointing all the officers of the naval forces, and commissioning all officers whatever in the service of the United States : Making rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces, and di- recting their operations. The United States in Congress assembled shall have authority to appoint a committee, to sit in the recess of Congress, to be denomin3,ted a committee of the states, and to consist of one delegate from each State ; and to appoint such other committees AUTIOLKS OF CONFKDERATIOX. 11 and civil officers as may be neoessarv for managing the general affairs of the United States under their direction : To appoint one of their number to preside ; provided, that no person be allowed to serve in the office of President more than one year in any term of three years. To ascertain the necessary sums of money to be raised for the service of the United States, and to appropriate and apply the same for defraying the public expenses : To bon-ow money, or emit bills on the credit of the United States, transmit- ting every half year to the respective States an account of the sums of money so borrowed or emitted : To bUild and equip a navy : To agree upon the number of land forces, and to make requisitions from each State for its quota, in proportion to the number of white inhabitants in such State, which requisition shall be binding ; and thereupon the legislature of each State shall ap- point the regimental officers, raise the men, and clothe, arm, and equip them, in a soldierlike manner, at the expense of the United States ; and the officers and men so clothed, armed, and equipped, shall march to the place appointed, and within the time agreed on, bj- the United States in CongTess assembled : but if the United States in Congress assembled shall, on consideration of circum- stances, judge proper that any State should not raise men, or should raise a smaller number than its quota, and that anj' other State should raise a greater number of men than its quota thereof, such extra number shall be raised, officered, clothed, armed, and equipped, in the same manner as the quota of such State ; unless the legislature of such State shall judge that such extra number cannot be safely spared out of the same ; in which case they shall raise, officer, clothe, arm, and equip, as many of such extra num- ber as they jijdge can be safely spared ; and the officers and men so clothed, armed, and equipped, shall march to the place appoint- ed, and within the time agreed on, by the United States in Congress assembled. The United States in Congress assembled shall never engage in a war ; nor grant letters of marque and reprisal in time of peace, nor enter into any treaties or alliances, nor coin money, nor regu- late the value thereof, nor ascertain the sums and expenses neces- sary for the defense and welfare of the United States, or any of them, nor emit bills, nor borrow money on the credit of the United States, nor appropriate money, nor agree upon the numbers of ves- sels of war to be built or purchased, or the number of laud or sea 1- APPENDIX. forces to be raised, nor appoint a commander-in-cliief of the army or navy, unless nine States assent to the same ; nor shall a question on any other point, except for adjourning from day to day, be de- termined, unless by the votes of a majority of the United States in Congress assembled. The Congress of the United States shall have power to adjourn to anj' time within the j'ear, and to anj^ place within the United States, so that no period of adjournment be for a longer duration than the space of sis months, and shall publish the journal of their proceedings monthlj', except such parts thereof relating to treaties, alliances, or military operations as in their judgment require se- crecy- ; and the yeas and nays of the delegates of each State, on any question, shall be entered on the journal, when it is desired by any delegate ; and the delegates of a State, or any of them, at his or their request, shall be furnished with a transcript of the said journal, except such parts as are above excepted, to lay before the legislatures of the several States. ARTICLE X. The committee of the States, or anj- nine of them, shall be authorized to execute, in the recess of Congress, such of the pow- ers of Congress as the United States in Congress assembled, by the consent of nine States, shall, from time to time, think expedient to vest them with ; provided that no power be delegated to the said committee, for the exercise of which, bj' the Articles of Confed- eration, the voice of nine States, in the Congress of the United States assembled, is requisite. ARTICLE xr. , Canada, acceding to this Confederation, and joining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into and entitled to all the advantages of this Union ; but n© other colony shall be admitted into the same unless such admission be agreed to by nine States. ARTICLE XII. All bills of credit emitted, moneys borrowed, and debts con- tracted by or under the authority of Congress, before the assem- bline of the United States, in pursuance of' the present Confedera- tion, shall be deemed and considered as a charge against the ARTICi.KS OK fOXFEDKRAiroN. ] ."i United .States, for pa3-ment and satisfaction wliereof tlie said United States and tlie public faitii are Iiereby solemnly pledged. ARTICLE xiu. Every State shall abide by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which, by this Confederation, are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State ; and the Union shall be perpetual. Nor shall anj- alteration at any time hereafter be made in anj^ of them, unless such alteration be agreed to, in a Congress of the United States, and be afterward confirmed by the legislatures of every State. And whereas, it hath pleased the great Governor of the world to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize ns to ratify, the said Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union : Know Ye, That we, the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do, by these presents, in the name, and in behalf, of our respective constit- uents, full}' and entirely ratif}- and confirm each and every of the said Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained. And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions, which, by the said Confederation, are submitted to them ; and that the arti- cles thereof shall be inviolablj' observed by the States we respec- tivelj' represent ; and that the Union shall be perpetual. In witness whereof, we have hereunto set our hands in Congress. Done at Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania, the ninth day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-eight, and in the third year of the Independence of America. CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF A:\IERTC'A. We, the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, pro- vide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. ARTICLE I. Section 1. 1. All Legislative powers herein granted,, shalj be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives. Section 2. 1 . The House of Representatives shall be composed of mem- bers chosen every second year by the people of the several States, and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requi- site for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legis- lature. 2. No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty-five years, and been seven j'ears a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen. 3. Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which maybe included within this Union, according to their respective numbers., which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons. The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty TITUTl()N OF THE I.NITEI) STATE>. ] /) thousand, Vmt each State shall have at least one Representative ; and until such enumeration shall lie made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to choose three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five. New York six. New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, Nf)rth Carolina five. South Caro- lina five, and Georgia three. 4. When vacancies happen in the representation from anj^ State, the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies. .5. The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other officers ; and shall have the sole power of impeachment. Section 3. 1 . The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years ; and each Senator shall have one vote. 2. Immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the first election, they shall be divided, as equally as may be, Into three classes. The seats of the Senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of the second year ; of the sec- ond class, at the expiration of the fourth year ; and of the third class, at the expiration of the sixth year ; so that one-third may be chosen every second year ; and if vacancies happen by resigna- tion, or otherwise, during the recess of the legislature of any State, the executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies. 3. No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be -an inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen. 4. The Vice-President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided. .5. The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a Pres- ident ^jro tempore, in the absence of the Vice-President, or when he shall exercise the office of President, of the United States. 6. The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeach- ments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or ir, APPENDIX. affirmation. When the President of the United (States is tried, the Cliief Justice shall preside, and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present. 7. Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy anj' office of honor, trust. Or profit, under the United States ; but the party convicted shall, nevertheless, be liable and subject to in- dictment, trial, judgment, and punishment, according to law. Sf.ction 4. 1. The times, places, and manner, of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof ; but the Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators. 2. The Congi'ess shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall be on the first Monda}' in December, un- less they shall by law appoint a different da}-. Section r>. 1. Eacli House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications, of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business ; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties, as each House may provide. 2. Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings,' punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concur- rence of two-thirds, expel a member. 3. Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and, from time to time, publish the same, excepting such parts as maj' in their judgment, require secrecj- ; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House, on any question, shall, at the desire of one-fifth of those present, be entered on the journal. 4. Neither house, during the session of Congress, shall, with- out the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to ahy other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting. Sec'I'ion Ci. 1 . The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensa- tion for their services, to he ascertained by law, and paid out of f (rN,-.TITUTI()X l)K THE IXITKl) STATES. 17 the Treasury of the United States. They shall, in all cases, ex- cept treason, felony, and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to, and returning from, the same ; and for any speech or debate in either Honse, they shall not be questioned in anj- other place. 2. No S(;uator or liepreseutative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased, during such time ; and no person, holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office. Section , 7. 1. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives ; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills. i. Every bill which shall have passed the House of Represen- tatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President of the United States ; if he approve, he shall sign it, but if not, he shall return it, with his objections, to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large in their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved h\ two-thirds of that House it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of ))oth Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House, respectively. If any bill shall not be returned b3' the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Con- gress, by their adjournment, prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law. 3. Every order, resolutions or vote, to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment), shall be presented to the President oif thia United States ; and before the same shall take '•■^ APPENDIX. effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by hiin. shall be re-passed by two-thirds of the Senate and House of Rep- resentatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill. Section .S. The Congress shall have power, — 1. To laj' and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare, of the United States ; bnt all duties, imposts, and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States : 2. To borrow money on the credit of the United States : 3. To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes : 4. To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies, throughout the United States : 5i To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures : 6. To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the secu- rities and current coin of the United States : 7. To establish post-ofHees and post-roads : 8. To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by se- curing, for limited times, to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries : 9. To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court: 10. To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations : 11. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water : 12. To raise and support armies ; but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years : 13. To provide and maintain a navy • 14. To make rules for the government and regulation of ihe land and naval forces : 15. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions : 16. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States, respec- tively, the appointment of the officers, and the anthoritj' of train- ing the militia, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress : I'oNsriTl'TKlX ol' TIIK rXITKD >TATES. 19 17. To exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over sucli district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places, purchased bv the consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other need- ful buildings : And, — 18. To make all laws which sliall be necessary aud proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. Section 9. 1 . The migration or importation of such persons, as an}- of the States, now existing, shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight ; but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person. 2. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be sus- pended, unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it. 3. No bill of attainder, or ex post facto law, shall be passed. 4. No capitation or other direct tax. shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration, hereinbefore directed to be taken. 5. No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State. No preference shall be given by any regulation of com- merce or revenue, to the ports of one State over those of another, nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties, in another. 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury but in conse- quence of appropriations made by law, and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time. 7. No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States ; and no person, holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state. •20 AI'PEXmX. SlCUTIOK 10. 1. Xo kState shall enter into auy treaty, alliance, or confeder- ation ; grant letters of marque and reprisal ; coin money ; emit bills of credit ; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts ; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto la^Y, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility. 2. Xo State shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what maj' be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws ; and the net produce of all duties and imposts laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States ; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress. No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. ARTICLE II. SiccridN 1. 1. The Executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and together with the Vice-President, chosen for the same term, be elected as follows : — ■>. Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the Legisla- ture thereof may direct, a number of Electors, equal to the whole number of .Senatoi-s and Representatives to which tlie State maj' be entitled in the Congress ; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. Clause s ^"^ been superseded by the Xllth Article of Amendments^ given under head of Amendmetits. [3. The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each ; which list they shall sign and certify, and trans- mit, sealed, to the seat of the government of the United States. CONSTITOTKlN OF Tllp; UNITED STATES. 21 directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Repre- sentatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole num- ber of Electors appointed ; and if there be more than one who have such majoritj', and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose, by ballot, one of them for President ; and if no person have a majority, then, from the live highest on the list, the said House shall, in like man- .ner, choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one vote ; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of, the States, and a majority of all the States shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the Electors shall be the Vice-Presi- dent. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them, by ballot, the Vice- President. J 4. The Congress may determine the time of choosing the Electors, and the day on which thej- shall give their votes ; which day shall be the same throughout the United States. 5. No person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President ; neither shall any per- son be eligible to that ofHce who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five j^ears, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States. 6. In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said ofiSce, the same shall devolve on the Vice-Presi- dent, and the Congress may bj'law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation, or inabilitj-, both of the President and Vice- President, declaring what ofHcer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability he removed, or a President shall be elected. 7. The President shall, at stated times, receive for his ser- vices a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor dimin- ished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and APPENDIX. he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States or any of them. 8. Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation : — "I do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend, the Consti- tion of the United States. vSection 2. 1. The President shall be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States ; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in eacla of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. 2. He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Sena- tors present concur ; and he shall nominate, and bj- alid with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be estab- lished by law ; but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior otficers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of Departments. 3. The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen, during the recess of the Senate, by granting com- missions, which shall expire at the end of their next session. Section S. He shall, from time to .time, give to the CNmgress informa- tion of the state of the Union, and recommend to their considera- tion such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient ; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either or them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper ; he shall receive ambassadors and other pub- lic ministers ; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully exe- cuted, and shall commission all. the officers of the United States. constitltion ol-' thk united states. 28 Section 4. The President, Vice-President, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. ARTICLE III. Section 1 . The Judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish. The judges, both of the Supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their ser- vices a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. Section 2.' 2. The Judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority ; to all cases affecting embassadors, other public minis- ters, and consuls ; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdic- tion ; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party ; to controversies between two or more States, between a State and citizens of another State, between citizens of different States, between citizens of the same State claiming lands under grants of different States, and between a State, or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens, or subjects. 2. In all cases affecting embassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party, the Su- preme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as the Congress shall make. 3. The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury ; and such trial shall be held in the State where the said crimes shall have been committed ; but when not commit- ted within any State, the trial shall be at such place, or places, as the Congress may by law have directed. 24 APPKNBIX. SecTroN 8. 1. Treason against the United States shall consist only in levy- ing war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. 2. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted. ARTICLE IV. Section 1 . Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. Section 2. 1 . The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States. 2. A person charged in any State with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another State, shall, on demand of the Executive authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having jurisdiction of the crime.. 3. No person held Lo service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be disehai'ged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the part}' to whom such ser- vice or labor may be due. Section 3. 1. New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union ; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State ; nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress. CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITKIJ STATES. 25 2. The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular State. Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion ; and, on application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic violence. ARTICLE V. The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either case, shall he valid to all intents and purposes as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress : Provided, that no Amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article ; and that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. ARTICLE VI. 1. All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution as under the Confederation. i. This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land ; and the judges in everj' State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrarj' notwithstanding. 3. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several State legislatures, and all executive 26 APPENDIX. aud judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound bj' oath, or affirmation, to support this Con- stitution ; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualifi- cation to any office or public trust under the United States. ARTICLE VII. The ratification of the Convention of nine States shall be suffi- cient for the establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same. AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION. ARTICLE I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press ; or the right of the people peaceablj' to assemble an£l to petition the Government for a re- dress of grievances. ARTICLE II. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. ARTICLE III. No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner ; nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. ARTICLE IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon proba- ble cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly de- scribing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. ARTICLE v. No persons shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand AMKNUMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION. 27 jury, except in cases arising in tlie land or naval forces, or in the militia when in actual service in time of war or public danger ; nor shall anj- person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb ; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself ; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. ARTICLE VI. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedj' and public trial, b}' an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which dis- trict shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation ; to be con- fronted with the witnesses against him ; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assis- tance of counsel for his defense. ARTICLE VII. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jurj' shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United State.s than according to the rules of the com- mon law. ARTICLE VIII. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. ARTICLE IX. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ARTICLE X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitu- tion, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ARTICLE XI. The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign State. "2S APPENDIX. ARTICLE XII. The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same State with themselves ; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as Presi'dent, and in distinct' ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Repre- sentatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted ; the person having the greatest number of votes for President shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed ; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers, not exceeding three, on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each State having one vote ; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the States, and a majority of all the States shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Repre- sentatives shall not choose a President, whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list the Senate shall choose the Vice-President ; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Sena- tors, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION. 29 ARTICLE XIII. 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a pun- ishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly con- victed, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appro- priate legislation. ARTICLE XIV. 1 . All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or en- force any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ; nor shall any State deprive any per- son of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of Electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representa- tives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis of represen- tation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citi- izens twenty-one years of age in such State. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or Elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State leg- islature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to sup- port the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two- thirds of each House, remove.snch disability. 30 APPENDIX. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, author- ized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave ; but all such debts, obligations, and claims shall be held illegal and void. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. AKTICLE XV. 1 . The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce t^iis article by appropriate legislation. SUPREME COURT DECISIUNS. 31 DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT ON CONSTI- TUTIONAL QUESTIONS. (Marshall's Writings.) Marhury v. Madison {1803), page 1. When a commission lias been signed by the President, the ap- pointment of the officer commissioned is made ; and the commis- sion is complete when the seal of the United States has been af- fixed bj the Secretary of State. To withhold a commission thus complete is a violation of a vested legal right. The Supreme Court of the United States has no authoritj' to issue a writ of mandamus, commanding the Secretary of State to deliver a paper ; original jurisdiction in such cases not having been given by the Constitution, and the Act of Congress, confer- ring that authority on this Court, not being constitutional. A law repugnant to the Constitution is void. * BoUman and Swariwout (1807) , p. 33. The Supreme Court may gi'ant a writ of habeus corpus in order to examine into the cause of a commitment made by another court having power to commit and to bail. Definition of Treason, in the sense of the Constitution. Sturges v. Orowninshield {1819), page 147. A State may pass a bankrupt or insolvent law, provided such law does not "impair the obligation of contracts." The power given to Congress by the Constitution of the United States, "t(j establish uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies," does not, until Congress exercises that power, take from the States the right to pass bankrupt laws. The insolvent act of New York (passed April 3, 1811), so far as it attempts to discharge a debtor from liabilities incurred prior to its enactment, is contrary to the Constitution of the United States. 32 APPENDIX. M'Gidloch V. the State of Maryland {1819), p. 160. The Constitution of the United States, and the laws made in pursuance thereof, are supreme ; they control the constitutions and the laws of the respective states, and cannot be controlled by them. The Act of Congress (passed 1816), incorporating the Bank of the United States, is a law made in pursuance of the Constitution, and is a part of the supreme law of the land. The states have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control, the operation of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress to earrj' into execution the powers of the general government. A law passed by the legislature of Maryland, imposing a tax on the Bank of the United States, is unconstitutional and void. Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819), p. 188. The act incorporating the trustees of Dartmouth College, and the acceptance of that act, or charter, bj' the persons incorporated, constitute a contract within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States. The acts of the legislature of New Hampshire, increasing the number of the trustees of that college, and taking from them the right of filling vacancies in their own number, impaired the obliga- tion of this contract, and, therefore, were unconstitutional and void. Gibbons v. Ogden {3824), page 287. The Constitution of the United States contains an enumeration of the powers expressly granted by the people to their government. There is no known rule which requires that these powers should be construed strictly. The words of the Constitution are to be construed in their natural sense. " Congress shall have power to regulate commerce." The word commerce here comprehends navigation. Carrying passengers is a part of the coasting business ; and vessels licensed as coasting vessels may be employed in carrying passengers. A steamboat may be licensed pursuant to an Act of Congress "for the enrolling and licensing of steamboats'' ; and an act of a SUPREME COURT DECISIONS. 33 state, inhibiting the use of steam to any vessel having license, comes in direct collision with that act, and, of course, is void. Brown v. the State of Maryland {1827), p. 358. The act of the legislature of Maryland requiring importers of foreign articles, before selling the same, to take out a license, is repugnant to that article of the Constitution of the United States which declares that "no State shall lay any imposts, or duties, on imports or exports" ; and also to that clause in the Constitution which empowers Congress "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states." Tlie Cherokee Nation v. the State of Georgia (1831) p. 412. An Indian tribe or nation within the United States is not a foreign state in the sense in which that term is used in the Con- stitution, and cannot maintain an action in the courts of the tJnited States. Worcester v. the State of Georgia {1832), p. 419. The Act of the legislature of Georgia, prohibiting white persons to reside within the limits of the Cherokee nation without a li- cense, and having taken an oath of a prescribed form, is repug- nant to the treaties made between the United States and the Cherokees, as well as the Acts of Congress for giving effect to those treaties, and for regulating the intercourse of the citizens of the United States with the Cherokees, and therefore void ; and the judgment against the plaintiff in error, on the trial of an in- dictment under this act, is a nullity, it having been pronounced under color of law which is repugnant to the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. The mere passing of this act was an assertion o/ a claim, on the part of Georgia, to jurisdiction over the Cherokee Nation. But the Cherokee Nation is a distinct community occupying its own territory, in which the laws of Georgia can have no force. Hyltnn v. the United States {1796), p. 480. The Act of Congress, passed in 1794, laying a duty on carriages for the conveyance of persons, was a constitutional act. The duty was not a direct tax. ■■u APPENDIX. Anderson v. Dunn (lS21),p- 603. The United States House of Representatives has authority to punish, for contempt, persons who are not members of that house. Martin v. Mott {1827), ij. 611. The Constitution of the United States declares that Congress shall have power "to provide for calling forth the militia," etc. The Act of Congress of 1795 provides that it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia, etc., in certain specified cases. The Act of Congress of 1795 is constitutional. The President has the sole authority to decide whether or not the exigencj' has arisen which justifies his calling out the militia. The officer appointing a court martial for the trial of a militia man who has disobeyed the call of the President, has a discre- tionary authority as to the number of which the court shall con- sist, and in this matter he is to proceed according to the general usage of military service. The jurisdiction of a court martial to trj' such offences does not depend upon the fact of war or peace. APPENDIX. 35 THE STATES AND TERRITORIES — WHEN ADMITTED OR ORGANIZED — WITH AREA AND POPULATION. STATES. 1 First tliirtecn admitted on ratifying Constitution— all others admitted _ by Acts of Cong^ress.] Delaware Pennsylvania New Jersey Georg-ia Connecticut Massachusetts Maryland , South Carolina , New Hampshire Virg-inia New York North Carolina Rhode Island Kentucky Tennessee Ohio . Louisiana Indiana Mississippi Illinois Alabama Maine Missouri -TtrKSnsirs . Michigan Florida Iowa . Texas . Wisconsin . California . Minnesota . Oregon Kansas West Virginia Nevada Nebraska Colorado Date when admitted December 7, December 12, Decembe, Januai-y January February April May Jime June July November 21, May 29, March 4 , June I, June 1, November 29, April 30, December 11, December 10, December 3, December 14, March 15, August 19, June 15, January 26, ^arch 3, December 28, December 29, May 29, September 9, May 1 1 , February January June October March August H. 17S7 1787 1787 1788 178S 178S 178S 1788 1788 178S 17SS 1789 1790 1791 1792 1796 1S02 1812 1816 1817 181S 1819 1820 1821 1837 184s [846 184s 1848 1850 1858 1859 1 861 1863 1864 1867 1876 Area in squ're miles at time of admission. 2,050 45.215 7,815 59.475 4.990 8.315 12,210 30,570 9.305 42.450 49.170 52,250 1.250 9.565 40,400 42,050 41,060 48,720 36,350 46,810 56,650 52,250 33.040 69.415 53,85-) 5S,9>S 58,680 56,025 265,780 56,040 158,360 83,365 96,030 82,080 24,780 110,700 76,855 103,925 Population nearest census to date of admission. Population. Year. 59,096 434,373 1S4.139 82,548 237.496 378.787 319.72S 249.033 141,885 747,610 340,120 393,751 68,825 85,339 73.077 77,202 41.9'S 76.556 63,805 75.512 34,620 127,901 298,269 66,586 52,240 2:2,267 54.477 81,920 212,592 305,391 92,597 172,023 52,465 107,206 442,014 40,000 00,000 150,000 1790 1790 1790 1790 1790 1790 1790 1790 1790 1790 1790 1790 1790 1791 1792 1796 1802 1812 1816 1817 1818 1820 1820 1821 1S36 1840 184s 1S46 1850 1S50 1850 1S60 1S59 i860 1870 1S64 1867 1876 TERRITORIES. Dates of organizat'n Present area, square miles. Population. Census of Utah ... New Mexico Washington Dakota Arizona Idaho .... Montana Wvoming . Inclian Alaska September 9, 1S50 September 9, 1850 March 2, 1853 March 2, 1S61 February 24, 1863 March 3, 1863 May 26, 1864 July 25, 1868 82,090 122,580 69,180 149,100 113,020 84,800 146,080 07,890 64,690 Unsurveyed 143.963 119.565 75.116 135.177 40,440 32,610 39.159 20,789 18S0 1S80 1880 1S80 1880 1S80 1880 iSSo 86 APPENDIX. STATEMENT of Outstanding Principal of the Public Debt of the United States on the ist of January of each year from 1791 to 1843, inclusive, and on the ist of July of each year from 1844 to 1881, inclusive. Year. Amount. Year. Amount. Jan. I, 1791 . . . $7S>463>476 52 Jan. I, 1837 . . . 336,957 83 1792 ... 77,227,924 66 1838 . . . 3,308,12407 1793 80,352,634 04 1839 • • ■ 10,434,221 14 1794 . . . 78,427,404 77 1840 . . . 3,573,343 82 1795 • • 80,747.587 39 1841 . . . 5,250,875 54 1796 . . . 83,762,172 07 1842 . . . 13,594,480 73 1797 . . 82,064,479 33 1843 • • • 20,601,226 28 1798 . . . 79,228,529 12 July I, 1843 . . . 32,742,922 00 1799 . . . 78,408,669 77 1844 . 23,461,652 50 1800 82,976,29435 1845 . . . 15,925.303 01 1 801 83,038,050 80 1846 . 15,550,202 97 1802 . . 80,712,632 25 1847 . 38,826,534 77 1803 . . 77,054,686 30 1848 . . . 47,044,862 23 1804 . . 86,427,12088 1849 63,061,858 69 i8o"; . . 82,312,15050 1850 . . . 63,452,773 55 1806 75.723.27066 1851 . 68,304,796 02 1807 . . 69,218,398 64 1852 . . 66,199,341 71 1808 . . . 65,196,31797 1853 ■ 59,803,11770 1809 57.023,192 09 1854 . 42,242,222 42 1810 . ,53.173.217 52 1855 ■ • • 35,586,956 56 1811 . . . 48,005,587 76 1856 . . . 31,972,53790 1812 . 45.209,737 90 1857 . . 28,699,831 85 1813 . . . 55,962,827 57 1858 . . . 44,911,881 03 1814 . . . 81,487,84624 1859 ■ ■■ • , 58,496,837 88 iSii; . 99,833,660 15 i860 . . 64,842,287 88 1816 . . 127.334.933 74 1861 . . 90,580,873 72 1817 123,491,965 16 1862 524,176,412 13 1818 103,466,633 83 1863 . . . 1,119,772,13863 1819 . 95,529,648 28 1864 . . 1,815,784,37057 1820 . 91,015,566 15 1865 . . . 2,680,647,86974 1S21 . . 89,987,427 66 1866 . . 2,773,236,17369 1822 . 93,546,676 98 1867 . 2,678,126,10387 1823 . . . 90.875,877 28 1868 . . 2,611,687,851 19 1824 90,269,777 77 1869 . . . 2,588,452,21394 182s . . . 83,788,432 71 1870 . . 2,480,672,42781 1826 . 81,054,05999 1871 . . . 2,353,211,33232 1827 . . 73.987.357 20 1872 . 2,253,251,32878 182S . . . 67.475.043 87 1873 . . . *2, 234,482,993 20 1S29 . . . 58,421,413 67 1874 . . . *2, 25 1, 690, 468 43 1830 . . 48,565,406 50 1875 . "2.232,284,53195 1831 . 39,123,191 68 1876 . . . *2, 180,395,067 15 1832 . . . 24,322,235 18 1877 . . . *2, 205, 301, 392 10 1833 • 7,001,698 S3 1878 . . . *2,256,20S,892 53 1834 • • • 4,760,082 18 1879 . . *2, 349,567,482 04 183.S • 37.733 25 1880 . *2, 120,41 5,370 63 1S36 . 37.513 05 1881 . . *2,o69,oi3,569 58 * In the amount here stated as the outstanding principal of the public c he certificates of deposit outstanding- on the 30th of June, issued under act : debt are included the certificates of deposit outstanding on the 30th ot June, issued under act of June 8, 1872, for which a like amount in United States notes was on special deposit in the Treasury for their redemption, and added to the cash balance in the Treasury. These certificates as a mat- ter of accounts, are treated as a part of the public debt, but, being offset by notes held on de- posit for their redemption, shoufd properly be deducted from the principal of the public debt in making comparison with former years. Apri:NDix 37 SUMMARY OF POPULAR AND ELECTORAL VOTES IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS, 1789-1880. Total Year. No. of States. Elect'l Vote. Party. Candidates. States. Popular Elect'l Vote. V ote. 1789 10 73 George VVashingftou. 6 John Adams. 34 John Jay. R. R. Harrison. i |ohn Rutledge. 6 John Hancock. 4 George Clinton. 3 Samuel Huntington. 2 John Milton. z Benjamin Lincoln, I James Armstrong. I Edward Telfair. I Vacancies. 4 1792 '5 135 Federalist. Federalist. Republican. Republican. Republican. George Washington. John Adams. George Clinton. Thomas Jefferson. Aaron Burr. Vacancies. 133 77 50 4 1 3 1796 16 138 Federalist. Republican. Federalist. John Adams. Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Pinckney. S 59 Republican. Aaron Bun- Scattering. 3S 48 1800 16 138 Republican, Republican. Federalist. Thomas Jefferson. Aaron Burr. 73 73 John Adams. 65 Federalist. Charles C. Pinckney. 64 Federalist. John Jay. 1 >< 1*1 II 31 W 176 Party. For President. 1 03 Popular Vote. > w For Vice-Presidt nt. 1 tj 1804 Repub'can. Federalist. Thomas Jefferson. "15" 162 George Clinton. 162 Chas. C. Pinckney. 2 H Rufus King. 14 1808 17 176 Repub'can. Repub'can. Federalist. James Madison. George Clinton. 12 122 6 George Clinton. James Madison. 113 3 Chas. C. Pinckney. s 47 Rufus King. 47 John Langdon. James Munroe. 9 ' 3 Vacancy. I 1 ISI2 18 218 Repub'can. Federalist. James Madison. De Witt Clinton. Vacancy. 11 128 Elbridge Gerry. 13' 7 89 I Jared Ingersoll. 86 1 1816 19 221 Repub'can. Federalist. James Monroe Rufus King-. 16 '83 D.D. Tompkins 183 3 34 John E. Howard 22 Scattering. 16 Vacancies. 4 1820 24 23s Repub'can. James Munroe. 24 231 D. D. Tompkins Rich. Stockton. 218 John Q. Adams. 1 8 Daniel Rodney. 4 Robt. G. Harper I Richard Rush. 1 Vacancies. 3 3 1824 24 261 Repub'can. Andrew Jackson. 10 ■55.872 99 John C. Calhoun 182 Repub'can. John C^ Adams, S 105,321 84 Nathan Sanford. .30 Repub'can. VVm. H. Crawford. 3 4^,282 46,587 41 Nathaniel Macoi 1. 24 Repub'can. Henry Clay. 3 37 Andrew J'ackson M. Van Buren. >3 9 Henry Clay. 2 >,■ Vacancy. I J828 24 261 Democratic. Andrew Jackson. IS 647,231 t John C. Calhoun Richard Rush. 171 Nat. Rep. John Q^ Adams. 9 509.097 83 William Smith. 7 38 APPENDIX. SUMMARY OF POPULAR AND ELECTORAL VOTES {Continued). > 1I 24 „ |> .4j' 5 288 Party. For President. 0) Popular Vote. > .M For Vice-President. > OJ H ^ Democratic Nat. Repub. Anti-Mason. Andrew Jackson. Henry Clay. William Wirt. John Floyd. Vacancies. IS 7 I I 687,502 530,189 33,108 219 49 7 II 2 M. Van Buren. John Serefcant. Amos Ellmaker. I-Ienry Lee. William Wilkins. 189 49 7 11 30 2 1836 26 294 Democratic. WhiK. Martin Van Buren. Wm. H. Harrison. Scattering. IS 7 4 761,549 170 73 R. M. Johnson. Francis Granger. Others. 147 77 70 1840 26 294 Whig". Democratic. Liberty. Wm. H. Harrison. Martin Van Buren. James G. Birney. 19 7 I 27j,oi7 1 128,702 7.059 ^1^ John Tyler. R. M. Johnson. E. W. Tazewell. James K. Polk. 11 I IS44 26 275 Democratic. Whig-. Liberty. James K. Polk. Henry Clay. James G. Birney. IS II > 337.243 1299,068 63,30c 170 105 Geo. M. Dallas. T. Frelinghuysen. 170 105 1848 30 290 Whig. Democratic. Free Soil. Zachary Taylor. Lewis Cass. Martin Van Buren. IS IS 1 360,101 1 220,044 291,263 163 127 Millard Fillmore. Wm. 0. Butler. Chas. F. Adams. 163 127 1852 31 296 Democratic. Whig. Free Dem, Franklin Pierce. Winfield Scott. John P. Hale. 27 4 1601,474 1386,57s 156,149 254 42 Wm. R. King. Wm. A. Graham. Geo. W. Julian. 354 43 1856 31 296 Democratic. Republican. American. Tames Buchanan. John C. Fremdnt. Millard Fillm^. 19 II I 1838,169 1341,264 874.534 174 '1 J. C. Breckinridge. Wm. L. Dayton. A.J. Donelson. '74 '1 1S60 33 303 Republican, Democratic. Democratic. "Const. Un." Abraham Lincoln. J. C. Breckinridpfe- S. A. Douglas. John Bell. 17 11 2 3 1 866,352 845,763 1375.157 589.581 180 72 12 39 Hannibal Hamlin, Joseph Lane. H. V.Johnson. Edward Everett. 180 72 12 39 1864 36 314 Republican. Democratic. Abraham Lincoln. Geo. B. McClellan. Vacancies.* 22 II 2216,067 1 808,725 212 21 81 Andrew Johnson. Geo. H. Pendleton. 213 21 81 186S 37 317 Republican. Democratic. Ulysses S. Grant. Horatio Seymour. Vacancies.! 26 8 3 301S.071 2709,613 214 80 23 Schuyler Colfax. F. P. Blair, Jr. 214 80 23 1872 37 366 Republican. D. &Lib. R. Democratic. Temperance. Ulysses S. Grant. Horace Greeley, Chas. O'Conor. James Black. Scattering. Not counted.! ^6 3597.070 2834,079 386 63 17 Henry Wilson. B. Gratz Brown. John Q. Adams. A. H. Colquite. Scattering. 286 47 5 14 IS76 38 369 Republican. Democratic. 'Greenback.' Prohibition-' R. B. Hayes. S;j. Tilden. Peter Cooper. Green C. Smith. 21 17 4033,950 4284,885 81,740 9.522 185 1S4 Wm. A. Wheeler. T. A. Hendricks. S. F. Cary. R. T. Stewart. ■85 184 I8S0 38 369 Republican. Democratic. 'Greenback.' James A. Garfield. W.S.Hancock. James B. Weaver. .'scattering-. 19 19 4442.950 4442.o.!5 306,867 12,576 214 155 Chester A. Arthur. Wm. H. English. B. J. Chambers. 214 15s * Not voting — Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Car, olina, Soutli Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia, t Not voting; — Mississippi, Texas, and Virg-inia. t Seventeen votes rejected, viz. ; 3 from Georg-ia for Horace Greeley (dead), and 8 from Louisiana, and 6 from Arkansas for U. S. Grant. APPENDIX. 39 RATIO OF REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE REPRESENTATIVES. 1789-1882. OF From 1789 to 1792, according to the Constitution. 1792 to 1803, based on the ist cem 1803 to l8l2 1812 to 1823 1823 to 1832 1832 to 1843 1S43 to 1852 1852 to 1863 1863 to 1872 1872 to 1882 1882 to 2d 3d 4th Sth 6th 7 th 8th 9th loth No. of Rep resentativcs on. 65 1790, 33.000, 105 1800, 33.000, 141 1810, 3S.OOO, i8i 1820, 40,000, 213 1830, 47.700, 240 1840, 70,680, 223 1850, 93.423. 234 i860, 127,381, 243 1870, 131.425. 293 1880, 154.325. 325 TABLE OF VOTES, BY STATES, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRE- SENTATIVES, ON GENERAL TARIFFS FROM 1816 TO 1861. 1816 1820 1824 1828 1832 1833 1842 1846 1857 1861 States. ri >-i a >i ^ ts >^ ca >^ rt I^ 03 >-. ij c^ (U cs (U C3 dj rt a> « ,a ±1-^ ;>> c ±1 = >-, c >^ c >-. s ;>> c !>, C !^ C Maine* I 6 7 6 I 6 I 4 2 I 6 6 3 Massachusetts 7 4 10 6 I II 2 II 4 8 13 10 X 9 9 9 New Hampshire I 3 5 I 5 4 2 S 4 I 4 3 I 2 I 2 Vermont S I I 2 5 5 3 5 4 2 3 3 Connecticut 2 2 6 I 5 I 4 2 2 3 6 6 I 4 4 4 Rhode Island 2 2 2 I I 2 2 2 2 I I 2 New York 20 2 25 26 8 27 6 27 2 II 19 23 8 15 14 15 10 18 6 New Jersey 5 6 6 5 3 3 6 6 6 2 I 4 Pennsylvania 17 3 22 I 24 I 23 14 12 4 21 20 2 23 3 IS 22 Delaware 2 I I I I I I I Maryland 2 S I 5 3 6 I 5 8 9 4 2 I I 4 I 2 Virginia 7 13 I 15 I 21 3 15 II 8 20 I 3 17 13 I 13 8 North Carolina II I II 13 13 8 4 13 10 7 3 6 I 6 South Carolina 4 3 1 6 9 8 3 6 9 5 7 4 Georgia 3 3 5 7 7 I 6 6 I 7 S 2 4 Kentucky 6 I 5 3 II 12 9 3 12 4 8 4 6 7 2 4 I Tennessee 3 2 6 2 7 9 9 8 I 13 5 6 7 2 6 Ohio 4 6 14 13 13 7 6 8 6 II 8 5 y 13 Indiana I 2 3 3 2 I 3 3 5 2 3 8 5 3 Illinois I I I I I I 2 5 3 4 3 3 Louisiana I I 3 3 I 2 3 2 I 3 I 4 Mississippi I I I I I 3 4 I 4 Alabama I 3 3 2 I 3 4 7 7 Missouri I I I I 2 5 3 5 Michigan I 3 I 3 3 California 2 I * The Tariffs of 1816, 1820, 1834, 1828, 1832, 1842, were protective tariffs; those of 1833 1846, and 18571 were reductions of the tariff to a revenue basis. 40 APPENDIX. o o Di en w -1 o < Q < O I— < o o W O Q S > W 1-1 w 1— I Q w H O X w w m < 1 en '""--■•'''' &;;= = " = = = = o u 222^S'K>S=ag,2SaS'?SaaS,5-8 iJ ^1 o g ft . . a . . S 2 'S tS, o c ft J .; J o .^.... o^/lo»o»r)OooOT^i ftciex 3 S C. o M iOlOJ>.OmiOi0^iOO OtOOstOVixoO^ 1 c i g a = d _ _ , "^ rO CO ff) JJ +J *J jJ +j" . o tOXOVOt^rO,';?r<3rorQfOO.'2 O "^.-^ - m w Q s 2 faD lo m o G "a d tj : " ■ ll ft§, ^d- ■ ■ - o a S o NOP WOOOxoOOCeOlO-^hPIWCOCO 1 i :2 i o ro CO CO coixco(>D>oiojoxf)0 xn iTi o XT) O a - ^ ir * M- ^ ^^^ - ft o r^K* -; ^ ^ £ ft o ft +J tt I Q •I ■ i:2| • • ■ ^ • • ■ ' '■z^.^ ■ ' '1 . : : . s £-1 - 2 "2 ^ 1 . a J, o- " ^« ■: ^ 1 g s APPENDIX. 41 STATISTICS OF THE STATES. Term of Judiciary. Sessions of Governor uegislature. Term. Alabama . 2 years. 1 Elected by the people. 6 years. Biennial. Arkansas . 2 " " 8 " " California . 4 (( ti it 12 11 Colorado . 2 (t (t It 9 " " Connecticut 2 " by Legislature. 8 " Annual. Delaware . 4 Appointed by Governor. Life. Biennial. Florida . 4 ti It u (( " Georgia 2 Elected by Legislature. 4 years. Annual. Illinois . . 4 " by the people. 9 " Biennial. Indiana 4 " 6 " " Iowa . . 2 (I /( (( 6 " 11 Kansas . . 2 (f ti ti 4 " 11 Kentucky . 4 C( tt t( 8 " 11 Louisiana . 4 Appointed by Governor. S " 11 Maine . 2 u u 157. 192- Polk, James K., 208 ; administration of, 208-14. Previous Question, 99, 139. Representation, ratio of, in House of Representatives, Appendix, 39. Revenue, 1789, 19. " Surplus, 186. Seminole War, the ist, 128; the 2d, 200. Slavery, 52, 54, 132-34, 190, 214. Spain, see Foreign Relations. Specie Circular, the, 189. Sub-Treasury, the, 198, 202, 210. Taney, R. B., 187. Tariff, 1816, 121; 1820, 126; 1824, 152; 1828, 154; 1832, 182; 1833, 183; 1842, 204; 1846, 209; 1857, 210; 1861 (March 2), 210. Taxes, Internal, 24, 77, 108. Direct, 57, 108. Tenure of OfBce, see Civil Service. Texas, annexation of, 206. Treaties, France, 41, 48; Great Britain, 37, 38, 91, 116, 205, 206; Spain, 49, 130. Tripolitan War, 79. Tyler, John, 202 ; administration of, 202-8. Van Buren, 145; administration of, 196-200. Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, 60. War with Tripoli, 79; with Eng- land, 100, 105; with Mexico, 211. Webster, Daniel, 144. Whiskey Insurrection, 56. ERRATA. Page l8, line i8, after Hildreth IV., read iii instead of 3. 18, note I, read 2d Monday in October instead of Dec. 1. 33, line 4, read clause 6 instead of clause 7. 34, " 23, read Heidleberg instead of Heidleburg. 50, " 9 from bottom, read 1792 instead of 1791. 58, " 4 from bottom, read June 25 instead of Jan. 25. 66, " II, the word again should be omitted. 67, " 2 from bottom, after reduced, read when a vacancy should occur instead of clause in parentheses. 23, read vae, instead of val. 6, after was read not. 23, after Hildreth read VI. instead of V. 7, indelible with one 1. 28, read VI. 353 instead of III. 352, and after lb. 366. 3 from bottom, read 1809 instead of 1804. 5, after Dec. read 24 instead of 14. Election of 1804, number of states is 17 instead of 21. 71. 82, 88, 91. 91. 95. 1x6, Appendix, p. 37. >l.„^y