CHAPTER V

MEMBER OF CONGRESS

The first session of the fourth Congress began at Philadelphia on

Monday, December 7, 1795. Washington was president, John Adams

vice-president. No one of Washington's original constitutional advisers

remained in his cabinet. Jefferson retired from the State Department at

the beginning of the first session of the third Congress. Edmund

Randolph, appointed in his place, resigned in a cloud of obloquy on

August 19, 1795, and the portfolio was temporarily in charge of Timothy

Pickering, secretary of war. Hamilton resigned the department of the

Treasury on January 31, 1795, and Oliver Wolcott, Jr., succeeded him in

that most important of the early offices of the government. General

Henry Knox, the first secretary of war, pressed by his own private

affairs and the interests of a large family, withdrew on December 28,

1794, and Timothy Pickering, the postmaster-general, had been appointed

in his stead January 2, 1795. The Navy Department was not as yet

established (the act creating it was passed April 30, 1798), but the

affairs which concerned this branch of the public service were under

the direction of the secretary of war. The administration of Washington

was drawing to a close. In the lately reconstructed cabinet, honest,

patriotic, and thorough in administration, there was no man of shining

mark. The Senate was still in the hands of the Federal party. The bare

majority which rejected Gallatin in the previous Congress had increased

to a sufficient strength for party purposes, but neither in the ranks of

the administration nor the opposition was there in this august

assemblage one commanding figure.

The House was nearly equally divided. The post of speaker was warmly

contested. Frederick A. Muhlenberg of Pennsylvania, who had presided

over the House at the sessions of the first Congress, 1789-1791, and

again over the third, 1793-1795, was the candidate of the Federalists,

but was defeated by Jonathan Dayton of New Jersey, whose views in the

last session had drifted him into sympathy with the Republican

opposition. The House, when full, numbered one hundred and five members,

among whom were the ablest men in the country, veterans of debate versed

in parliamentary law and skilled in the niceties of party fence. In the

Federal ranks, active, conscious of their power, and proud of the great

party which gloried in Washington as their chief, were Robert Goodloe

Harper of South Carolina, Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts, Roger

Griswold and Uriah Tracy of Connecticut, who led the front and held the

wings of debate; while in reserve, broken in health but still in the

prime of life, the pride of his party and of the House, was Fisher Ames,

the orator of his day, whose magic tones held friend and foe in rapt

attention, while he mastered the reason or touched the heart. Upon these

men the Federal party relied for the vindication of their principles and

the maintenance of their power. Supporting them were William Vans Murray

of Maryland, Goodrich and Hillhouse of Connecticut, William Smith of

South Carolina, Sitgreaves of Pennsylvania, and in the ranks a

well-trained party. Opposed to this formidable array of Federal talent

was the Republican party, young, vigorous, and in majority, bold in

their ideas but as yet hesitating in purpose under the controlling if

not overruling influence of the name and popularity of Washington.

[Illustration: Rob. G. Harper]

Hamilton watched the shifting fortunes of his party from a distance, and

found time in the pressure of a large legal practice to aid each branch

of administration in turn with his advice. But though he still inspired

its councils, he no longer directed its course. In his Monticello home

Jefferson waited till the fruit was ripe for falling, occasionally

impatient that his followers did not more roughly shake the tree.

The open rupture of Jefferson with Hamilton was the first great break in

the Federal administration; the lukewarmness of Madison, whose leanings

were always towards Jefferson, followed.

At the head of the Republican opposition was Madison. Wise in council,

convincing in argument, an able and even adroit debater, he was an

admirable leader, but his tactics were rather of the closet than the

field. He was wanting in the personal vigor which, scorning defense,

delights in bold attack upon the central position of the enemy, and

carries opposition to the last limit of parliamentary aggression. With

this mildness of character, though recognized as the leader of his

party, he, as a habit, waived his control upon the floor of the House,

and, reserving his interference for occasions when questions of

constitutional interpretation arose, left the general direction of

debate to William B. Giles of Virginia, a skillful tactician and a ready

debater, keen, bold, and troubled by no scruples of modesty, respect, or

reverence for friend or foe. Of equal vigor, but of more reserve, was

John Nicholas of Virginia--a man of strong intellect, reliable temper,

and with the dignity of the old school. To these were now added Albert

Gallatin and Edward Livingston. Edward Livingston, from New York, was

young, and as yet inexperienced in debate, but of remarkable powers. He

was another example of that early intellectual maturity which was a

characteristic of the time.

When Congress met, the all-disturbing question was the foreign policy of

the United States. The influence of the French Revolution upon American

politics was great. The Federalists, conservative in their views, held

the new democratic doctrines in abhorrence, and used the terrible

excesses of the French Revolution with telling force against their

Republican adversaries. The need of a strong government was held up as

the only alternative to anarchy. In the struggle which now united Europe

against the French republic, the sympathies of the Federalists were with

England. Hence they were accused of a desire to establish a monarchy in

the United States, and were ignominiously called the British party.

Shays's Rebellion in Massachusetts and the Whiskey Insurrection in

Pennsylvania gave point to their arguments.

On the other side was the large and powerful party which, throughout the

war in the Continental Congress, under the confederation in the national

convention which framed and in the state conventions which ratified the

Constitution, had opposed the tendency to centralization, but had been

defeated by the yearning of the body of the plain people for a

government strong enough at least to secure them peace at home and

protection abroad. This natural craving being satisfied, the old

aversion to class distinctions returned. The dread of an aristocracy,

which did not exist even in name, threw many of the supporters of the

Constitution into the ranks of its opponents, who were democrats in name

and in fact. The proclamation of the rights of man awoke this latent

sentiment, and aroused an intense sympathy for the people of France.

This again was strengthened by the memory, still warm, of the services

of France in the cause of independence. Lafayette, who represented the

true French republican spirit, and held a place in the affections of the

American people second only to that of Washington, was languishing, a

prisoner to the coalition of sovereigns, in an Austrian dungeon.

Jefferson returned from France deeply imbued with the spirit of the

French Revolution. His views were warmly received by his political

friends, and the principles of the new school of politics were rapidly

spread by an eager band of acolytes, whose ranks were recruited until

the feeble opposition became a powerful party. Democratic societies,

organized on the plan of the French Jacobin clubs, extended French

influence, and no doubt were aided in a practical way by Genet, whose

recent marriage with the daughter of George Clinton, the head of the

Republican party in New York, was an additional link in the bond of

alliance.

During the second session of the third Congress Madison had led the

opposition in a mild manner; party lines were not yet strongly defined,

and the influence of Washington was paramount. In the interim between

its expiration and the meeting of the fourth Congress in December, the

country was wildly agitated by the Jay treaty. This document not

reaching America until after the adjournment of Congress in March,

Washington convened the Senate in extra and secret session on June 1,

and the treaty was ratified by barely two thirds majority. Imprudently

withheld for a time, it was at last made public by Senator Mason of

Virginia, one of the ten who voted against its ratification. It

disappointed the people, and was denounced as a weak and ignominious

surrender of American rights. The merchants of Boston, New York,

Philadelphia, and Charleston protested against it in public meetings. It

was burned, and the English flag was trailed in the dust before the

British minister's house at the capital. Jay was hung in effigy, and

Hamilton, who ventured to defend the treaty at a public meeting, was

stoned. To add to the popular indignation that the impressment of

American seamen had been ignored in the instrument, came the alarming

news that the British ministry had renewed their order to seize vessels

carrying provisions to France, whither a large part of the American

grain crop was destined. On the other hand, Randolph, the secretary of

state, had compromised the dignity of his official position in his

intercourse with Fauchet, the late French ambassador, whose

correspondence with his government, thrown overboard from a French

packet, had been fished up by a British man-of-war, and forwarded to

Grenville, by whom it was returned to America. Thus petard answered

petard, and the charge by the Republicans upon the Federalists of taking

British gold was returned with interest, and the accusation of receiving

bribe money was brought close home to Randolph, if not proved.

Hard names were not wanting either; Jefferson was ridiculed as a

_sans-culotte_ and red-legged Democrat. Nor was Washington spared. He

was charged with an assumption of royal airs, with political hypocrisy,

and even with being a public defaulter; a charge which no one dared to

father, and which was instantly shown to be false and malicious. It was

made by Bache in "The Aurora," a contemptible sheet after the fashion of

"L'Ami du Peuple," Marat's Paris organ.

Such was the temper of the people when the House of Representatives met

on December 7, 1795. The speaker, Dayton, was strongly anti-British in

feeling. He was a family connection of Burr, but there is no reason to

suppose that he was under the personal influence of that adroit and

unscrupulous partisan. On the 8th President Washington, according to his

custom, addressed both houses of Congress. This day for the first time

the gallery was thrown open to the public. When the reply of the Senate

came up for consideration, the purpose of the Republicans was at once

manifest. They would not consent to the approbation it expressed of the

conduct of the administration. They would not admit that the causes of

external discord had been extinguished "on terms consistent with our

national honor and safety," or indeed extinguished at all, and they

would not acknowledge that the efforts of the President to establish the

peace, freedom, and prosperity of the country had been "enlightened and

firm." Nevertheless the address was agreed to by a vote of 14 to 8.

In the House a resolution was moved that a respectful address ought to

be presented. The opposition immediately declared itself. Objection was

made to an address, and in its stead the appointment of a committee to

wait personally on the President was moved. The covert intent was

apparent through the thin veil of expediency, but the Republicans as a

body were unwilling to go this length in discourtesy, and did not

support the motion. Only eighteen members voted for it. Messrs. Madison,

Sedgwick, and Sitgreaves, the committee to report an address, brought in

a draft on the 14th which was ordered to be printed for the use of the

members. The next day the work of dissection was begun by an objection

to the words "probably unequaled spectacle of national happiness"

applied to the country, and the words "undiminished confidence" applied

to the President. The words "probably unequaled" were stricken out

without decided opposition by a vote of forty-three to thirty-nine.

Opinions were divided on that subject even in the ranks of the

Federalists. The cause of dissatisfaction was the Jay treaty. The

address was recommitted without a division. The next day Madison brought

in the address with a modification of the clause objected to. In its new

form the "very great share" of Washington's zealous and faithful

services in securing the national happiness was acknowledged. The

address thus amended was unanimously adopted. In this encounter nothing

was gained by the Republicans. The people would not have endured an open

declaration of want of confidence in Washington. But the entering wedge

of the new policy was driven. The treaty was to be assailed. It was,

however, the pretext, not the cause of the struggle, the real object of

which was to extend the powers of the House, and subordinate the

executive to its will. Before beginning the main attack the Republicans

developed their general plan in their treatment of secondary issues; of

these the principal was a tightening of the control of the House over

the Treasury Department.

In this Mr. Gallatin took the lead. His first measure was the

appointment of a standing Committee of Finance to superintend the

general operations of this nature,--an efficient aid to the Treasury

when there is accord between the administration and the House, an

annoying censor when the latter is in opposition. This was the beginning

of the Ways and Means Committee, which soon became and has since

continued to be the most important committee of the House. To it were to

be referred all reports from the Treasury Department, all propositions

relating to revenue, and it was to report on the state of the public

debt, revenue, and expenditures. The committee was appointed without

opposition. It consisted of fourteen members, William Smith, Sedgwick,

Madison, Baldwin, Gallatin, Bourne, Gilman, Murray, Buck, Gilbert,

Isaac Smith, Blount, Patten, and Hillhouse, and represented the strength

of both political parties. To this committee the estimates of

appropriations for the support of the government for the coming year

were referred. The next step was to bring to the knowledge of the House

the precise condition of the Treasury. To this end the secretary was

called upon to furnish comparative views of the commerce and tonnage of

the country for every year from the formation of the department in 1789,

with tables of the exports and imports, foreign and domestic, separately

stated, and with a division of the nationality of the carrying vessels.

Later, comparative views were demanded of the receipts and expenditures

for each year; the receipts under the heads of Loans, Revenue in its

various forms, and others in their several divisions; the expenditures,

also, to be classified under the heads of Civil List, Foreign

Intercourse, Military Establishment, Indian Department, Naval, etc.

Finally a call was made for a statement of the annual appropriations and

the applications of them by the Treasury. The object of Mr. Gallatin was

to establish the expenses of the government in each department of

service on a permanent footing for which annual appropriations should be

made, and for any extraordinary expenditure to insist on a special

appropriation for the stated object and none other. By keeping

constantly before the House this distinction between the permanent fund

and temporary exigencies, he accustomed it to take a practical business

view of its legislative duties, and the people to understand the

principles he endeavored to apply.

In a debate at the beginning of the session, on a bill for establishing

trading houses with the Indians, Mr. Gallatin showed his hand by

declaring that he would not consent to appropriate any part of the war

funds for the scheme; nor, in view of the need of additional permanent

funds for the discharge of the public debt, would he vote for the bill

at all, unless there was to be a reduction in the expense of the

military establishment; and he would not be diverted from his purpose

although Mr. Madison advocated the bill because of its extremely

benevolent object. The Federal leaders saw clearly to what this doctrine

would bring them, and met it in the beginning. The first struggle

occurred when the appropriations for the service of 1796 were brought

before the House. Beginning with a discussion upon the salaries of the

officers of the mint, the debate at once passed to the principle of

appropriations. The Federalists insisted that a discussion of the merits

of establishments was not in order when the appropriations were under

consideration; that the House ought not, by withholding appropriations,

to destroy establishments formed by the whole legislature, that is, by

the Senate and House; that the House should vote for the appropriations

agreeably to the laws already made. This view was sanctioned by

practice. Mr. Gallatin immediately opposed this as an alarming and

dangerous principle. He insisted that there was a certain discretionary

power in the House to appropriate or not to appropriate for any object

whatever, whether that object were authorized or not. It was a power

vested in the House for the purpose of checking the other branches of

government whenever necessary. He claimed that this power was shown in

the making of yearly instead of permanent appropriations for the civil

list and military establishments, yet when the House desired to

strengthen public credit it had rendered the appropriation for those

objects permanent and not yearly. It was, therefore, "contradictory to

suppose that the House was bound to do a certain act at the same time

that they were exercising the discretionary power of voting upon it."

The debate determined nothing, but it is of interest as the first

declaration in Congress of the supremacy of the House of

Representatives.

The great debate which, from the principles involved in it as well as

the argument and oratory with which they were discussed, made this

session of the House famous, was on the treaty with Great Britain. This

was the first foreign treaty made since the establishment of the

Constitution. The treaty was sent in to the House "for the information

of Congress," by the President, on March 1, with notice of its

ratification at London in October. The next day Mr. Edward Livingston

moved that the President be requested to send in a copy of the

instructions to the minister of the United States who negotiated the

treaty, together with the correspondence and other documents. A few days

later he amended his resolution by adding an exception of such of said

papers as any existing negotiations rendered improper to disclose. The

Senate in its ratification of the treaty suspended the operation of the

clause regulating the trade with the West Indies, on which Great Britain

still imposed the old colonial restriction, and recommended the

President to open negotiations on this subject; and in fact such

negotiations were in progress. The discussion was opened on the Federal

side by a request to the gentlemen in favor of the call to give their

reasons. Mr. Gallatin supported the resolution, and expressed surprise

at any objection, considering that the exception of the mover rendered

the resolution of itself unexceptionable. The President had not informed

the House of the reasons upon which the treaty was based. If he did not

think proper to give the information sought for, he would say so to

them. A question might arise whether the House should get at those

secrets even if the President refused the request, but that was not the

present question. In reply to Mr. Murray, who asserted that the treaty

was the supreme law of the land, and that there was no discretionary

power in the House except on the question of its constitutionality, Mr.

Gallatin said that Congress possessed the power of regulating

trade,--perhaps the treaty-making power clashed with that,--and

concluded by observing that the House was the grand inquest of the

nation, and that it had the right to call for papers on which to ground

an impeachment. At present he did not contemplate an exercise of that

right. Mr. Madison said it was now to be decided whether the general

power of making treaties supersedes the powers of the House of

Representatives, particularly specified in the Constitution, so as to

give to the executive all deliberative will and leave the House only an

executive and ministerial instrumental agency; and he proposed to amend

the resolution so as to read, "except so much of said papers as in his

(the President's) judgment it may be inconsistent with the interest of

the United States at this time to disclose." But his motion was defeated

by a vote of 47 nays to 37 yeas.

The discussion being resumed in committee of the whole, the expressions

of opinion were free on both sides, but so moderate that one of the

members made comment on the calmness and temper of the discussion.

Nicholas said that, if the treaty were not the law of the land, the

President should be impeached. But the parts of the treaty into which

the President had not the right to enter, he could not make law by

proclamation. Swanwick supported the call as one exercised by the House

of Commons. On the Federal side, Harper said that the papers were not

necessary, and, being unnecessary, the demand was an improper and

unconstitutional interference with the executive department. If he

thought them necessary, he would change the milk and water style of the

resolutions. In that case the House had a right to them and he had no

idea of requesting as a favor what should be demanded as a right.

Gallatin, he said, had declared that it was a request, but that in case

of refusal it might be considered whether demand should not be made, and

he charged that when, at the time the motion was made, the question had

been asked, what use was to be made of the papers, Gallatin did not and

could not reply. Mr. Gallatin answered that whether the House had a

discretionary power, or whether it was bound by the instrument, there

was no impropriety in calling for the papers. He hoped to have avoided

the constitutional question in the motion, but as the gentlemen had come

forward on that ground, he had no objection to rest the decision of the

constitutional power of Congress on the fate of the present question. He

would therefore state that the House had a right to ask for the papers.

The constitutional question being thus squarely introduced, Mr. Gallatin

made an elaborate speech, which, from its conciseness in statement,

strength of argument, and wealth of citations of authority, was, to say

the least, inferior to no other of those drawn out in this memorable

struggle. In its course he compared the opinion of those who had opposed

the resolution to the saying of an English bishop, that the people had

nothing to do with the law but to obey it, and likened their conduct to

the servile obedience of a Parliament of Paris under the old order of

things. He concluded with the hope that the dangerous doctrine, that the

representatives of the people have not the right to consult their

discretion when about exercising powers delegated by the Constitution,

would receive its death-blow. Griswold replied in what by common consent

was the strongest argument on the Federal side. The call, at first view

simple, had, he said, become a grave matter. The gist of his objection

to it was that the people in their Constitution had made the treaty

power paramount to the legislative, and had deposited that power with

the President and Senate.

Mr. Madison once more rose to the constitutional question. He said that,

if the passages of the Constitution be taken literally, they must clash.

The word _supreme_, as applied to treaties, meant as over the state

Constitutions, and not over the Constitution and laws of the United

States. He supported Mr. Gallatin's view of the congressional power as

coöperative with the treaty power. A construction which made the treaty

power omnipotent he thought utterly inadmissible in a constitution

marked throughout with limitations and checks.

Mr. Gallatin again claimed the attention of the House, as the original

question of a call for papers had resolved itself into a discussion on

the treaty-making power. In the treaty of peace of 1783 there were

three articles which might be supposed to interfere with the legislative

powers of the several States: 1st, that which related to the payment of

debts; 2d, the provision for no future confiscations; 3d, the

restitution of estates already confiscated. The first could not be

denied. "Those," he said, "might be branded with the epithet of

disorganizers, who threatened a dissolution of the Union in case the

measures they dictated were not obeyed; and he knew, although he did not

ascribe it to any member of the House, that men high in office and

reputation had industriously spread an alarm that the Union would be

dissolved if the present motion was carried." He took the ground that a

treaty is not valid, and does not bind the nation as such, till it has

received the sanction of the House of Representatives. Mr. Harper closed

the argument on the Federal side. On March 24 the resolution calling for

the papers was carried by a vote of yeas 62, nays 37, absent 5, the

speaker 1 (105). Livingston and Gallatin were appointed to present the

request to the President.

On March 30 the President returned answer to the effect that he

considered it a dangerous precedent to admit this right in the House;

that the assent of the House was not necessary to the validity of a

treaty; and he absolutely refused compliance with the request. The

letter of instructions to Jay would bear the closest examination, but

the cabinet scorned to take shelter behind it, and it was on their

recommendation that the President's refusal was explicit. This message,

in spite of the opposition of the Federalists, was referred, by a vote

of 55 yeas to 37 nays, to the committee of the whole. This reference

involved debate. In his opposition to this motion, Mr. Harper said that

the motives of the friends of the resolution had been avowed by the

"gentleman who led the business, from Pennsylvania;" whereby it appears

that Mr. Gallatin led the Republicans in the first debate. During this

his first session he shared this distinction with Mr. Madison. At the

next he became the acknowledged leader of the Republican party.

On April 3 the debate was resumed. This second debate was led by Mr.

Madison, who considered two points: 1st, the application for papers; 2d,

the constitutional rights of Congress. His argument was of course calm

and dispassionate after his usual manner. The contest ended on April 7,

with the adoption of two resolutions: 1st, that the power of making

treaties is exclusively with the President and Senate, and the House do

not claim an agency in making them, or ratifying them when made; 2d,

that when made a treaty must depend for the execution of its

stipulations on a law or laws to be passed by Congress; and the House

have a right to deliberate and determine the expediency or inexpediency

of carrying treaties into effect. These resolutions were carried by a

vote of 63 to 27.

There was now a truce of a few days. In the meanwhile the country was

agitated to an extent which, if words mean anything, really threatened

an attempt at dissolution of the Union, if not civil war itself. The

objections on the part of the Republicans were to the treaty as a whole.

Their sympathies were with France in her struggle for liberty and

democratic institutions and against England, and their real and proper

ground of antipathy to the instrument lay in its concession of the right

of capture of French property in American vessels, whilst the treaty

with France forbade her to seize British property in American vessels.

The objections in detail had been formulated at the Boston public

meeting the year before. The commercial cities were disturbed by the

interference with the carrying trade; the entire coast, by the search of

vessels and the impressment of seamen; the agricultural regions, by the

closing of the outlet for their surplus product; the upland districts,

by the stoppage of the export of timber. But the country was without a

navy, was ill prepared for war, and the security of the frontier was

involved in the restoration of the posts still held by the British.

The political situation was uncertain if not absolutely menacing. The

threats of disunion were by no means vague. The Pendleton Society in

Virginia had passed secession resolutions, and a similar disposition

appeared in other States. While the treaty was condemned in the United

States, British statesmen were not of one opinion as to the advantages

they had gained by Grenville's diplomacy. Jay's desire, expressed to

Randolph, "to manage so that in case of wars our people should be united

and those of England divided," was not wholly disappointed. And there is

on record the expression of Lord Sheffield, when he heard of the rupture

in 1812, "We have now a complete opportunity of getting rid of that most

impolitic treaty of 1794, when Lord Grenville was so perfectly duped by

Jay."[4] Washington's ratification of the treaty went far to correct the

hasty judgment of the people, and to reconcile them to it as a choice of

evils. Supported by this modified tone of public opinion, the

Federalists determined to press the necessary appropriation bills for

carrying the treaties into effect. Besides the Jay treaty there were

also before the House the Wayne treaty with the Indians, the Pinckney

treaty with Spain, and the treaty with Algiers. With these three the

House was entirely content, and the country was impatient for their

immediate operation. Wayne's treaty satisfied the inhabitants on the

frontier. The settlers along the Ohio, among whom was Gallatin's

constituency, were eager to avail themselves of the privileges granted

by that of Pinckney, which was a triumph of diplomacy; and all America,

while ready to beard the British lion, seems to have been in terror of

the Dey of Algiers. Mr. Sedgwick offered a resolution providing for the

execution of the four treaties. Mr. Gallatin insisted on and received a

separate consideration of each. That with Great Britain was reserved

till the rest were disposed of. It was taken up on April 14. Mr. Madison

opened the debate. He objected to the treaty as wanting in real

reciprocity; 2d, in insufficiency of its provisions as to the rights of

neutrals; 3d, because of its commercial restrictions. Other Republican

leaders followed, making strong points of the position in which the

treaty placed the United States with regard to France, to whom it was

bound by a treaty of commercial alliance, which was a part of the

contract of aid in the Revolutionary War; and also of the possible

injustice which would befall American claimants in the British courts of

admiralty.

The Federalists clung to their ground, defended the treaty as the best

attainable, and held up as the alternative a war, for which the refusal

of the Republicans to support the military establishment and build up a

navy left the country unprepared. In justice to Jay, his significant

words to Randolph, while doubtful of success in his negotiation, should

be remembered: "Let us hope for the best and prepare for the worst." To

the red flag which the Federalists held up, Mr. Gallatin replied,

accepting the consequences of war if it should come, and gave voice to

the extreme dissatisfaction of the Virginia radicals with Jay and the

negotiation. He charged that the cry of war and threats of a

dissolution of the government were designed for an impression on the

timidity of the House. "It was through the fear of being involved in a

war that the negotiation with Great Britain had originated; under the

impression of fear the treaty had been negotiated and signed; a fear of

the same danger, that of war, had promoted its ratification; and now

every imaginary mischief which could alarm our fears was conjured up in

order to deprive us of that discretion which this House thought they had

a right to exercise, and in order to force us to carry the treaty into

effect." He insisted on the important principle that 'free ships make

free goods,' and complained of its abandonment by the negotiators.

In a reply to this attack upon Jay, whose whole life was a refutation of

the charge of personal or moral timidity, Mr. Tracy passed the limits of

parliamentary courtesy. "The people," he said, "where he was most

acquainted, whatever might be the character of other parts of the Union,

were not of the stamp to cry hosannah to-day and crucify to-morrow; they

will not dance around a whiskey pole to-day and curse their government,

and upon hearing of a military force sneak into a swamp. No," said he,

"my immediate constituents, whom I very well know, understand their

rights and will defend them, and if they find the government will not

protect them, they will attempt at least to protect themselves;" and he

concluded, "I cannot be thankful to that gentleman for coming all the

way from Geneva to give Americans a character for pusillanimity." He

held it madness to suppose that if the treaty were defeated war could be

avoided. Called to order, he said that he might have been too personal,

and asked pardon of the gentleman and of the House.

The brilliant crown of the debate was the impassioned speech of Fisher

Ames, the impression of which upon the House and the crowded gallery is

one of the traditions of American oratory. The scene, as it has been

handed down to us, resembles, in all save its close, that which

Parliament presented when Chatham made his last and dying appeal. Like

the great earl, Ames rose pale and trembling from illness to address a

House angry and divided. Defending himself and the Federal party against

the charge of being in English interest, he said, "Britain has no

influence, and can have none. She has enough--and God forbid she ever

should have more. France, possessed of popular enthusiasm, of party

attachments, has had and still has _too much influence_ on our

politics,--any foreign influence is too much and ought to be destroyed.

I detest the man and disdain the spirit that can ever bend to a mean

subserviency to the views of any nation. It is enough to be American.

That character comprehends our duties and ought to engross our

attachments." Considering the probable influence on the Indian tribes of

the rejection of the treaty, he said, "By rejecting the Posts we light

the savage fires, we bind the victims.... I can fancy that I listen to

the yells of savage vengeance and shrieks of torture. Already they seem

to sigh in the west wind,--already they mingle with every echo from the

mountains." His closing words again bring Chatham to mind. "Yet I have

perhaps as little personal interest in the event as any one here. There

is, I believe, no member who will not think his chance to be a witness

of the consequences greater than mine. If, however, the vote should pass

to reject, and a spirit should rise, as rise it will, with the public

disorders to make confusion worse confounded, even I, slender and almost

broken as my hold upon life is, may outlive the government and

Constitution of my country." This appeal, supported by the petitions and

letters which poured in upon the House, left no doubt of the result. An

adjournment was carried, but the speech was decisive. The next day,

April 29, it was resolved to be expedient to make the necessary

appropriations to carry the treaty into effect. The vote stood 49 ayes

to 49 nays, and was decided in the affirmative by Muhlenberg, who was in

the chair. But the House would not be satisfied without an expression of

condemnation of the instrument. On April 30 it was resolved that in the

opinion of the House the treaty was objectionable.

While Mr. Gallatin in this debate rose to the highest rank of

statesmanship, he showed an equal mastery of other important subjects

which engaged the attention of the House during the session. He was

earnest for the protection of the frontier, but had no good opinion of

the Indians. "Twelve years had passed," he said, "since the peace of

1783; ever since that time he had lived on the frontier of Pennsylvania.

Not a year of this period had passed, whether at war or peace, that some

murders had not been committed by the Indians, and yet not an act of

invasion or provocation by the inhabitants." In the matter of

impressment of American seamen, he urged the lodging of sufficient power

in the executive. Men had been impressed, and he held it to be the duty

of the House to take notice of it by war or negotiation. In the

establishment of land offices for the sale of the western lands he

brought to bear upon legislation his practical experience. He urged that

the tracts for sale be divided, and distinctions be made between large

purchasers and actual settlers--proposing that the large tracts be

sold at the seat of government, and the small on the territory itself.

He instanced the fact that in 1792 all the land west of the Ohio was

disposed of at 1_s_. 6_d_. the acre, and a week afterwards was resold at

$1.50, so that the money which should have gone into the treasury went

to the pockets of speculators. He also suggested that the proceeds of

the sales should be a fund to pay the public debt, and that the public

stock should always be received at its value in payment for land; a plan

by which the land would be brought directly to the payment of the debt,

as foreigners would gladly exchange the money obligations of the

government for land. On the question of taxation he declared himself in

favor of direct taxes, and held that a tax on houses and lands could be

levied without difficulty. He would satisfy the people that it was to

pay off the public debt, which he held to be a public curse. He

supported the excise duty on stills under regulations which would avoid

the watching of persons and houses and inspection by officers, and

proposed that licenses be granted for the time applied for.

The military establishment he opposed in every way, attacked the

principle on which it was based, and fought every appropriation in

detail, from the pay of a major-general to the cost of uniforms for the

private soldiers. He was not afraid of the army, he said, but did not

think that it was necessary for the support of the government or

dangerous to the liberties of the people; moreover, it cost six hundred

thousand dollars a year, which was a sum of consequence in the condition

of the finances.

The navy found no more favor in his eyes. He denied that fleets were

necessary to protect commerce. He challenged its friends to show, from

the history of any nation in Europe as from our own, that commerce and

the navy had gone hand in hand. There was no nation except Great

Britain, he said, whose navy had any connection with commerce. Navies

were instruments of power more calculated to annoy the trade of other

nations than to protect that of the nations to which they belonged. The

price England had paid for her navy was a debt of three hundred millions

of pounds sterling. He opposed appropriations even for the three

frigates, United States, Constitution, and Constellation,--the

construction of which had been ordered,--the germs of that navy which

was later to set his theory at naught, redeem the honor of the flag,

protect our commerce, and release the country and the civilized world

from ignominious tribute to the Mediterranean pirates, who were

propitiated in this very session only at the cost of a million of

dollars to the Treasury of the United States, and by the gift of a

frigate.

In the debate over the payment of the sum of five millions, which the

United States Bank had demanded from the government, the greatest part

of which had been advanced on account of appropriations, he lamented the

necessity, but urged the liquidation. This was the occasion of another

personal encounter. In reply to a charge of Gallatin that the

Federalists were in favor of debt, Sedgwick alluded to Gallatin's part

in the Whiskey Insurrection, and said that none of those gentlemen whom

Gallatin had charged with "an object to perpetuate and increase the

public debt" had been known to have combined "in every measure which

might obstruct the operation of law," nor had declared to the world

"that the men who would accept of the offices to perform the necessary

functions of government were lost to every sense of virtue;" "that from

them was to be withheld every comfort of life which depended on those

duties which as men and fellow-citizens we owe to each other. If," he

said, "the gentlemen had been guilty of such nefarious practices, there

would have been a sound foundation for the charge brought against them."

Gallatin made no reply. This was the one political sin he had

acknowledged. His silence was his expiation.

The Treasury Department and its control, past and present, was the

object of his unceasing criticism. In April, 1796, he said, "The

situation of the gentleman at the head of the department [Wolcott] was

doubtless delicate and unpleasant; it was the more so when compared with

that of his predecessor [Hamilton]. Both indeed had the same power to

borrow money when necessary; but that power, which was efficient in the

hands of the late secretary and liberally enough used by him, was become

useless at present. He wished the present secretary to be extricated

from his present difficulty. Nothing could be more painful than to be at

the head of that department with an empty treasury, a revenue inadequate

to the expenses, and no means to borrow." Nevertheless he feared that if

it were declared that the payment of the debt incurred by themselves

were to be postponed till the present generation were over, it might

well be expected that the principle thus adopted by them would be

cherished, that succeeding legislatures and administrations would follow

in their steps, and that they were laying the foundations of that

national curse,--a growing and perpetual debt.

On the last day of the session W. Smith had challenged the correctness

of Gallatin's charge that there had been an increase of the public debt

by five millions under the present administration, and claimed that

there were errors in Gallatin's statement of more than four and a half

millions. Gallatin defended his figures. At this day it is impossible to

determine the merits of this dispute.

One incident of this session deserves mention as showing the distaste of

Gallatin for anything like personal compliment, stimulated in this

instance, perhaps, by his sense of Washington's dislike to himself. It

had been the habit of the House since the commencement of the government

to adjourn for a time on February 22, Washington's birthday, that

members might pay their respects to the President. When the motion was

made that the House adjourn for _half an hour_, the Republicans

objected, and Gallatin, nothing loath to "bell the cat," moved that the

words "half an hour" be struck out. His amendment was lost without a

division. The motion to adjourn was then put and lost by a vote of 50

nays to 38 ayes. The House waited on the President at the close of the

business of the day. On June 1 closed this long and memorable session,

in which the assaults of the Republicans upon the administration were so

persistent and embarrassing as to justify Wolcott's private note to

Hamilton, April 29, 1796, that "unless a radical change of opinion can

be effected in the Southern States, the existing establishments will not

last eighteen months. The influence of Messrs. Gallatin, Madison, and

Jefferson must be diminished, or the public affairs will be brought to a

stand." Here is found an early recognition of the political

"triumvirate," and Gallatin is the first named.

Gallatin seems to have had some doubts as to his reëlection to Congress.

As he did not reside in the Washington and Allegheny district, his name

was not mentioned as a candidate, and, to use his own words, he expected

to "be gently dropped without the parade of a resignation." In his

distaste at separation from his wife, the desire to abandon public life

grew upon him. But personal abuse of him in the newspapers exasperating

his friends, he was taken up again in October, and he arrived on the

scene, he says, too late to prevent it. He had no hope, however, of

success, and was resolved to resign a seat to which he was in every way

indifferent. "Ambition, love of power," he wrote to his wife on October

16, he had never felt, and he added, if vanity ever made one of the

ingredients which impelled him to take an active part in public life, it

had for many years altogether vanished away. He was nevertheless

reëlected by the district he had represented.

* * * * *

The second session of the fourth Congress began on December 5, 1796. At

the beginning of this session Mr. Gallatin took the reins of the

Republican party, and held them till its close. The position of the

Federalists had been strengthened before the country by the energy of

Washington, who, impatient of the delays which Great Britain opposed to

the evacuation of the posts, marched troops to the frontier and obtained

their surrender. Adet, the new French minister, had dashed the feeling

of attachment for France by his impudent notice to the President that

the dissatisfaction of France would last until the executive of the

United States should return to sentiments and measures more conformable

to the interests and friendships of the two nations. In September

Washington issued his Farewell Address, in which he gave the famous

warning against foreign complications, which, approved by the country,

has since remained its policy; but neither the prospect of his final

withdrawal from the political and official field, nor the advice of

Jefferson to moderate their zeal, availed to calm the bitterness of the

ultra Republicans in the House.

The struggle over the answer to the President's message, which Fisher

Ames on this occasion reported, was again renewed. An effort was made to

strike out the passages complimentary to Washington and expressing

regret at his approaching retirement. Giles, who made the motion, went

so far as to say that he 'wished him to retire, and that this was the

moment for his retirement, that the government could do very well

without him, and that he would enjoy more happiness in his retirement

than he possibly could in his present situation.' For his part he did

not consider Washington's administration either "wise or firm," as the

address said. Gallatin made a distinction between the administration and

the legislature, and in lieu of the words, wise, firm, and patriotic

administration, proposed to address the compliment directly to the

wisdom, firmness, and patriotism of Washington. But Ames defended his

report, and it was adopted by a vote of 67 to 12. Gallatin voted with

the majority, but Livingston, Giles, and Macon held out with the small

band of disaffected, among whom it is amusing also to find Andrew

Jackson, who took his seat at this Congress to represent Tennessee,

which had been admitted as a State at the last session.[5]

The indebtedness of the States to the general government, in the old

balance sheet, on the payment of which Gallatin insisted, was a subject

of difference between the Senate and the House. Gallatin was appointed

chairman of the committee of conference on the part of the House. The

reduction of the military establishment, which he wished to bring down

to the footing of 1792, was again insisted upon. Gallatin here

ingeniously argued against the necessity for the number of men

proposed, that it was a mere matter of opinion, and if it was a matter

of opinion, it was not strictly necessary, because if necessary it was

no longer a matter of opinion. Naval appropriations were also opposed,

on the ground that a navy was prejudicial to commerce. Taxation, direct

and indirect, and compensation to public officers were also subjects of

debate at this session. On the subject of appropriations, general or

special, he was uncompromising. He charged upon the Treasury Department

that notwithstanding the distribution of the appropriations they thought

themselves at liberty to take money from an item where there was a

surplus and apply it to another where it was wanted. To check such

irregularity, he secured the passage of a resolution ordering that "the

several sums shall be solely applied to the objects for which they are

respectively appropriated," and tacked it to the appropriation bill. The

Senate added an amendment removing the restriction, but Gallatin and

Nicholas insisting on its retention, the House supported them by a vote

of 52 to 36, and the Senate receded.

Notwithstanding the apparent enthusiasm of the House in the early part

of the session, when the tricolor of France, a present from the French

government to the United States, was sent by Washington to Congress, to

be deposited with the archives of the nation, French influence was on

the wane. The common sense of the country got the better of its

passion. In the reaction the Federalists regained the popular favor for

a season.

Whatever latent sympathy the French people may have had for America as

the nation which set the example of resistance to arbitrary rule, the

French government certainly was moved by no enthusiasm for abstract

rights. Its only object was to check the power of their ancient enemy,

and deprive it of its empire beyond the seas. Nevertheless, France did

contribute materially to American success. The American government and

people acknowledged the value of her assistance, and, in spite of the

prejudices of race, there was a strong bond of sympathy between the two

nations; and when, in her turn, France, in 1789, threw off the feudal

yoke, she expected and she received the sympathy of America. Beyond this

the government and the people of the United States could not and would

not go. The position of France in the winter of 1796-97 was peculiar.

She was at war with the two most formidable powers of Europe,--Austria

and England, the one the mistress of Central Europe, the other supreme

ruler of the seas. The United States was the only maritime power which

could be opposed to Great Britain. The French government determined to

secure American aid by persuasion, if possible, otherwise by threat. The

Directory indiscreetly appealed from the American government to the

American people, forgetting that in representative governments these are

one. Nor was the precedent cited in defense of this unusual

proceeding--namely, the appeal of the American colonists to the people

of England, Ireland, and Canada to take part in the struggle against the

British government--pertinent; for that was an appeal to sufferers under

a common yoke.

The enthusiasm awakened in France by the dramatic reception of the

American flag, presented by Monroe to the French Convention, was

somewhat dampened by the cooler manner with which Congress received the

tricolor, and was entirely dashed by the moderation of the reply of the

House to Washington's message. The consent of the House to the

appropriations to carry out the Jay Treaty decided the French Directory

to suspend diplomatic relations with the United States. The marvelous

successes of Bonaparte in Italy over the Austrian army encouraged Barras

to bolder measures. The Directory not only refused to receive Charles C.

Pinckney, the new American minister, but gave him formal notice to

retire from French territory, and even threatened him with subjection to

police jurisdiction. In view of this alarming situation, President Adams

convened Congress.

The first session of the fifth Congress began at Philadelphia on Monday,

May 15, 1797. Jonathan Dayton was reëlected speaker of the House. Some

new men now appeared on the field of national debate: Samuel Sewall and

Harrison Gray Otis from Massachusetts, James A. Bayard from Delaware,

and John Rutledge, Jr., from South Carolina. Madison and Fisher Ames did

not return, and their loss was serious to their respective parties.

Madison was incontestably the finest reasoning power, and Ames, as an

orator, had no equal in our history until Webster appeared to dwarf all

other fame beside his matchless eloquence. Parties were nicely balanced,

the nominal majority being on the Federal side. Harper and Griswold

retained the lead of the administration party. Giles still led the

Republican opposition, but Gallatin was its main stay, always ready,

always informed, and already known to be in the confidence of Jefferson,

its moving spirit. The President's message was, as usual, the touchstone

of party. The debate upon it unmasked opinions. It was to all intents a

war message, since it asked provision for war. The action of France left

no alternative. The Republicans recognized this as well as the

Federalists. They must either respond heartily to the appeal of the

executive to maintain the national honor, or come under the charge they

had brought against the Federalists of sympathy with an enemy. At first

they sought a middle ground. Admitting that the rejection of our

minister and the manner of it, if followed by a refusal of all

negotiation on the subject of mutual complaints, would put an end to

every friendly relation between the two countries, they still hoped that

it was only a suspension of diplomatic intercourse. Hence, in response

to the assurance in the message that an attempt at negotiation would

first be made, Nicholas moved an amendment in this vein. The Federalists

opposed all interference with the executive, but the Republicans took

advantage of the debate to clear themselves of any taint of unpatriotic

motives in their semi-opposition. The Federalists, repudiating the

charge of British influence, held up Genet to condemnation, as making an

appeal to the people, Fauchet as fomenting an insurrection, and Adet as

insulting the government. The Republicans retorted upon them Grenville's

proposition to Mr. Pinckney, to support the American government against

the dangerous Jacobin factions which sought to overturn it. Gallatin

deprecated bringing the conduct of foreign relations into debate, and

hoped that the majority would resist the rashness which would drive the

country into war; he claimed that a disposition should be shown to put

France on an equal footing with other nations. He would offer an

ultimatum to France. Harper closed the debate in a powerful and

brilliant speech, opposing the amendment because he was for peace, and

because peace could only be maintained by showing France that we were

preparing for war. So the rival leaders based their opposite action on a

common ground. Dayton, the speaker, now embodied Gallatin's idea in

another form, and introduced a paragraph to the effect that "the House

receive with the utmost satisfaction the information of the President

that a fresh attempt at negotiation will be instituted, and cherish the

hope that a mutual spirit of conciliation and a disposition on the part

of the United States to place France on grounds as favorable as other

countries will produce an accommodation compatible with the engagements,

rights, and honor of our nation."

Kittera, who was one of the committee on the address, then moved to add

after "mutual spirit of conciliation" the clause, "to compensate for any

injury done to our neutral rights," etc. This both Harper and Gallatin

opposed. Gallatin objected to being forced to this choice. To vote in

its favor was a threat, if compensation were refused; to vote against it

was an abandonment of the claim. But he should oppose it, if forced to a

choice. The Federal leaders insisted; the previous question was ordered,

51 to 48. Here Mr. Gallatin showed himself the leader of his party. He

stated that, the majority having determined the question, it was now a

choice of evils, and he should vote for the amendment, and it was

adopted, 78 ayes to 21 nays. Among the nays were Harper, the Federalist

leader, Giles, the nominal chief of the Republicans, and Nicholas, high

in rank in that party. But the last word was not yet said. Edward

Livingston, who day by day asserted himself more positively, denied that

the conduct of the executive had been "just and impartial to foreign

nations," and moved to strike out the statement; Gallatin was more

moderate. Though he did not believe that in every instance the

government had been just and impartial, yet, generally speaking, it had

been so. He did not approve the British treaty, though he attributed no

bad motives to its makers; but he did not think that the laws respecting

the subordinate departments of the executive and judiciary had been

fairly executed. He therefore would not consent to the sentence in the

answer to the address, that the House did not hesitate to declare that

"they would give their most cordial support to principles so

deliberately and uprightly established."

What, he asked, were these principles? Otis denounced this as an artful

attempt to cast a censure, not only on the executive, but on all the

departments of government, and Allen of Connecticut declared "that there

was American blood enough in the House to approve this clause and

American accent enough to pronounce it." The rough prejudice of the

Saxon against the Latin race showed itself in this language, and

expressed the antagonism which Mr. Gallatin found to increase with his

political progress. Both the resolution and the amendment were defeated,

53 nays to 45 yeas. But when the final vote came upon the address, Mr.

Gallatin, with that practical sense which made him the sheet anchor of

his party in boisterous weather, voted with the Federalists and carried

the moderate Republicans with him. The vote was 62 to 36. Among the

irreconcilables the name of Edward Livingston is recorded.

The answer of the President was a model of good sense. "No event can

afford me so much cordial satisfaction as to conduct a negotiation with

the French Republic to a removal of prejudices, a correction of errors,

a dissipation of umbrages, an accommodation of all differences, and a

restoration of harmony and affection to the mutual satisfaction of both

nations."

This was the leading debate of the session. The situation was too grave

for trifling. On June 5, two days after the President's reply,

resolutions were introduced to put the country in a state of defense.

Gallatin struggled hard to keep down the appropriations, and opposed the

employment of the three frigates, which as yet had not been equipped or

manned. If they got to sea, the President would have no option except to

enforce the disputed articles of the French treaty. Gallatin laid down

also the law of search in accordance with the law of nations, and

pointed out that resistance to search or capture by merchantmen would

not only lead to war, but was war. In the remaining acts of the session

he was in favor of the defense of ports and harbors, with no preference

as to fortification on government territory; in favor of a prohibition

of the export of arms; against raising an additional corps of artillery;

against expatriation of persons who took service under foreign

governments. He opposed the duty on salt as unequal and unnecessary, and

sought to have the loan, which became necessary, cut down to the exact

sum of the deficiency in the appropriations; and finally, on the

impeachment of William Blount, Senator of the United States, charged

with having conspired with the British government to attack the

Spaniards of St. Augustine, he pointed out the true method of procedure

in the preparation of the bill of impeachment and the arraignment of the

offender.

The House adjourned on July 10. Jefferson complained of the weakness and

wavering of this Congress, the majority of which shifted with the breeze

of "panic or prowess." This was, however, a very narrow view; for at

this session the House fairly represented the prevailing sentiment of

the country, which was friendly to France as a nation, but indignant

with the insolence of her rulers. Gallatin, in the middle of the

session, wrote to his wife that the Republicans "were beating and beaten

by turns." He supposed that her father, Commodore Nicholson, 'thought

him too moderate and about to trim,' and then declared, 'Moderation and

firmness hath ever been, and ever will be, my motto.' Gallatin tells a

story of his colleague from Pennsylvania, the old Anti-Federalist, Blair

McClanachan, which shows the warmth of party feeling. They were both

dining with President Adams, who entertained the members of Congress in

turn. "McClanachan told the President that, by God, he would rather see

the world annihilated than this country united with Great Britain; that

there would not remain a single king in Europe within six months, etc.,

all in the loudest and most decisive tone."

Jefferson, who, as vice-president, presided over the debates in the

Senate, had no cause to complain of any hesitation in that body, in

which the Federalists had regained a clear working majority, giving him

no chance of a deciding vote.

* * * * *

The second session of the fifth Congress began on November 13, 1797. The

words of the President's address, "We are met together at a most

interesting period, the situation of the powers of Europe is singular

and portentous," was not an idle phrase. The star of Bonaparte already

dominated the political firmament. Europe lay prostrate at the feet of

the armies of the Directory. England, who was supposed to be the next

object of attack, was staggering under the load of debt; and the sailors

of her channel fleet had risen in mutiny. Even the Federalists, the

aristocrats as Mr. Gallatin delighted to call them, believed that she

was gone beyond recovery. But the admirers of France were no better

satisfied with the threatening attitude of the Directory towards

America, and eagerly waited news of the reception given to the envoys

extraordinary, Gerry, Pinckney, and Marshall, whom Adams with the

consent of the Senate dispatched to Paris in the summer. Even Jefferson

lost his taste for a French alliance, and almost wished there were "an

ocean of fire between the new and the old world."

The tone of the President's address was considered wise on all sides,

and it was agreed that the answer should be general and not a subject

of contention. One of the members asked to be excused from going with

the House to the President, but Gallatin showed that, as there was no

power to compel attendance, no formal excuse was necessary. When the

motion was put as to whether they should go in a body as usual to

present their answer, Mr. Gallatin voted in the negative. He

nevertheless accompanied the members, who were received pleasantly by

President Adams and "treated to cake and wine."

Harper was made the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. Though of

high talents and a fine speaker, Gallatin found him a "great bungler" in

the business of the House, a large share of which fell upon his own

shoulders as well as the direction of the Republicans, of whom,

notwithstanding the jealousy of Giles, he now was the acknowledged

leader. As a member for Pennsylvania, Mr. Gallatin presented a memorial

from the Quakers with regard to the arrest of fugitive slaves on her

soil; the law of Pennsylvania declaring all men to be free who set foot

in that State except only servants of members of Congress. There was

already an opposition to hearing any petition with regard to slaves, but

Gallatin insisted on the memorial taking the usual course of reference

to a committee. He directed the House also in the correct path in its

legislation as to foreign coins. It was proposed to take from them the

quality of legal tender; but he showed that it was policy not to

discriminate against such coins until the mint could supply a

sufficiency for the use of the country. In this argument he estimated

the entire amount of specie in the United States at eight millions of

dollars. At this early period in his political career he was acquiring

that precise knowledge of the facts of American finance which later

served to establish the principles upon which it is based.

This session was noteworthy by reason of the first personal encounter on

the floor of the House. It was between two Northern members, Lyon of

Vermont and Griswold of Connecticut. Gallatin stood by Lyon, who was of

his party, and showed that the House could not expel him, since it was

not at the time in organized session. As the Federalists would not

consent to censure Griswold, both offenders escaped even a formal

reproof. The general bitterness of feeling which marked the summer

session was greatly modified in the expectant state of foreign politics;

but the occasion for display of political divergence was not long

delayed.

On January 18, 1798, Mr. Harper, who led the business of the House,

moved the appropriation for foreign intercourse. This was seized upon by

the opposition to advance still further their line of attack by a

limitation of the constitutional prerogative of the President. In

addition to the usual salaries of the envoys to Great Britain and

France, appropriations were asked for the posts at Madrid, Lisbon, and

Berlin, which last Mr. Adams had designated as a first-class mission.

The discussion on the powers of the President, and the extent to which

they might be controlled by paring down the appropriations, lifted the

debate from the narrow ground of economy in administration to the

higher plane of constitutional powers. Nicholas opened on the

Republican side by announcing that it was seasonable to bring back the

establishment of the diplomatic corps to the footing it had been on

until the year 1796. In all governments like our own he declared that

there was a tendency to a union and consolidation of all its parts into

the executive, and the limitation and annexion of the parts with each

other as settled by the Constitution would be destroyed by this

influence unless there were a constant attention on the part of the

legislature to resist it. The appointment of a minister plenipotentiary

to Prussia, with which we had little or no commercial intercourse,

offered an opportunity to determine this limitation. Harper said that

this was a renewal of the old charge that foreign intercourse was

unnecessary, and the old suggestion that our commerce ought to be given

up or left to shift for itself. Mr. Gallatin laid down extreme theories

which have never yet found practical application. He took the question

at once from party or personal ground by admitting that the government

was essentially pure, its patronage not extensive, or its effect upon

the legislative or any other branch of the government as yet material.

The Constitution had placed the patronage in the executive. There he

thought it was wisely placed. The legislature would be more corrupt

than the executive were it placed with them. While not willing at once

to give up political foreign intercourse, he thought that it should by

degrees be altogether declined. To it he ascribed the critical situation

of the country. Commercial intercourse could be protected by the

consular system. He then argued that the power to provide for expenses

was the check intended by the Constitution. To this Griswold answered

that this doctrine of checks contained more mischief than Pandora's box;

Bayard, that the checks were all directed to the executive, and that

they would check and counter-check until they _stopped the wheels of

government_.[6] When the President was manacled and at the mercy of the

House they would be satisfied. He held the executive to be the weakest

branch of the government, because its powers are defined; but the limits

of the House are undefined.

As the debate advanced, Nicholas declared that the purpose of the

Republicans was to define the executive power and to put an end to its

extension through their power over appropriations. Later he would bring

in a motion to do away with all foreign intercourse. Goodrich answered

that the office of foreign minister was created by the Constitution

itself, and the power of appointment was placed in the President. The

House might speculate upon the propriety of doing away with all

intercourse with foreign powers, but could not decide on it, for

political intercourse did not depend on the sending of ministers abroad.

Foreign ministers would come here and the Constitution required their

reception. The idea that we should have no foreign intercourse was taken

from Washington's Farewell Address, but his words applied only to

alliances offensive and defensive. If ministers were abandoned, envoys

extraordinary must be sent, a much more dangerous practice; the only

choice was between ministers and spies. In conclusion he accused the

Republicans of making one continuous attack upon the administration, and

charged that the opposition to the appropriation bill was not a single

measure, but connected with others, and intended to clog the wheels of

government.

The purpose of the Republicans being thus declared by Nicholas and

squarely met by the friends of the administration, Mr. Gallatin, March

1, 1798, summed up the opposition arguments in an elaborate speech three

hours and a quarter in length. He denied the novel doctrine that each

department had checks within itself, but none upon others; he claimed

that the principle of checks is admitted in all mixed governments.

Commercial intercourse, he said, is regulated by the law of nations, by

the municipal law of respective countries and by treaties of commerce,

the application of which is the province of consuls. What advantages, he

asked, had our commercial treaties given us, either that with France or

that with England? He excepted that part of the treaty with Great

Britain which arranged our difference with that power, as foreign to the

discussion. He claimed that the restriction which we had laid upon

ourselves by our commercial treaties had been attended with political

consequences fatal to our tranquillity. Washington had advised a

separation of our political from our commercial relations. The message

of President Adams intimated a different policy and alluded to the

balance of power in Europe as not to be forgotten or neglected.

Interesting as that balance may be to Europe, how does it concern us? We

shall never throw our weight into the scale. Passing from this to the

danger of the absorption of powers by the executive, he cited the

examples of the Córtes of Spain, the États Généraux of France, the Diets

of Denmark. In all these countries the executive is in possession of

legislative, of absolute powers. The fate of the European republics was

similar. Venice, Switzerland, and Holland had shown the legislative

powers merging into the executive. The object of the Constitution of the

United States is to divide and distribute the powers of government. With

uncontrolled command over the purse of the people the executive tends to

prodigality, to taxes, and to wars. He closed with a hope that a fixed

determination to prevent the increase of the national expenditure, and

to detach the country from any connection with European politics, would

tend to reconcile parties, promote the happiness of America, and

conciliate the affection of every part of the Union. No such admirable

exposition of the true American doctrine of non-interference with

European politics had at that time been heard in Congress.

In reply, Harper insisted on the admission that the purpose of the

amendment of Nicholas was to restrain the President; that it was a

question of power, not of money. Mr. Gallatin admitted the right of

appointment, but denied that the House was bound to appropriate. Harper

rejoined that the offices did not originate with the President but with

the Constitution, and that they could not be destroyed by the action of

the House, and, leaving the general ground of debate, made a brilliant

attack upon the Republicans as revolutionists, whom he divided into

three classes: the philosophers, the Jacobins, and the _sans-culottes_.

The philosophers are most to be dreaded. "They declaim with warmth on

the miseries of mankind, the abuses of government, and the vices of

rulers; all which they engage to remove, providing their theories should

once be adopted. They talk of the perfectibility of man and of the

dignity of his nature; and, entirely forgetting what he is, declaim

perpetually about what he should be." Of Jacobins there are plenty. They

profit by the labors of others; tyrants in power, demagogues when not.

Fortunately for America there are few or no _sans-culottes_ among her

inhabitants. Jefferson, he said, returned from France a missionary to

convert Americans to the new faith, and he charged that the system of

French alliance and war with Great Britain by the United States was a

part of the scheme of the French revolutionists, and was imported into

this country. Gallatin and his friends he regarded in the light of an

enemy who has commenced a siege against the fortress of the

Constitution.

The restricting amendment was lost, and the bill passed by a vote of 52

yeas to 43 nays. Nor is it easy to see how the theory of Mr. Gallatin

with regard to diplomatic relations could have been applied successfully

with the existing channels of intercourse. Now that the ocean cable

brings governments into direct relation with each other, there is a

tendency to restrict the authority of ambassadors, for whom there is no

longer need, and the entire system will no doubt soon disappear. Mr.

Gallatin's speech was the delight of his party and his friends. He was

called upon to write it out, and two thousand copies of it were

circulated as the best exposition of Republican doctrine.

Early in February the President informed Congress of certain captures

and outrages committed by a French privateer within the limits of the

United States, including the burning of an English merchantman in the

harbor of Charleston. On March 19, in a further special message, he

communicated dispatches from the American envoys in France, and also

informed Congress that he should withdraw his order forbidding merchant

vessels to sail in an armed condition. A collision might, therefore,

occur at any moment.

On March 27, 1798, a resolution was introduced that it is not now

expedient for the United States to resort to war against the French

Republic; a second, to restrict the arming of merchant vessels; and a

third, to provide for the protection of the seacoast and the internal

defense of the country. Speaking to the first resolution, Mr. Gallatin

said that the United States had arrived at a crisis at which a stand

must be made, when the House must say whether it will resort to war or

preserve peace. If to war, the expense and its evils must be met; if

peace continue, then the country must submit: in either case American

vessels would be taken. It was a mere matter of calculation which course

would best serve the interest and happiness of the country. If he could

separate defensive from offensive war, he should be in favor of it; but

he could not make the distinction, and therefore he should be in favor

of measures of peace. The act of the President was a war measure.

Members of the House so designated it in letters to their constituents.

On April 2 the President was requested to communicate the instructions

and dispatches from the envoys extraordinary, mention of which he had

made in his message of March 19. Gallatin supported the call. He said

that the President was not afraid of communicating information, as he

had shown in the preceding session, and that to withhold it would

endanger the safety of our commerce, or prevent the happy issue of

negotiation. On April 3 Mr. Gallatin presented a petition against

hazarding the neutrality and peace of the nation by authorizing private

citizens to arm and equip vessels. This was signed by forty members of

the Pennsylvania legislature. Protests of a similar character were

presented from other parts of the country. On the same day the President

sent in the famous X Y Z dispatches, in confidence. These letters

represented the names of Hottinguer, Bellamy, and Hauteval, the agents

of Talleyrand, the foreign minister of the First Consul, which were

withheld by the President. The mysterious negotiations contained a

distinct demand by Talleyrand of a douceur of 1,200,000 livres to the

French officials as a condition of peace. The effect was immediately to

strengthen the administration, Dayton, the speaker, passing to the ranks

of the Federalists.

On the 18th the Senate sent down a bill authorizing the President to

procure sixteen armed vessels to act as convoys. Gallatin still held

firm. He admitted that from the beginning of the European contest the

belligerent powers had disregarded the law of nations and the

stipulations of treaties, but he still opposed the granting of armed

convoys, which would lead to a collision. Let us not, he said, act on

speculative grounds; if our present situation is better than war, let us

keep it. Better even, he said, suffer the French to go on with their

depredations than to take any step which may lead to war.

Allen of Connecticut read a passage from the dispatches which envenomed

the debate. By it one of the French agents appears to have warned the

American envoys that they were mistaken in supposing that an exposition

of the unreasonable demands of France would unite the people of the

United States. He said, "You should know that the _diplomatic skill_ of

France and the _means_ she possesses in your country are sufficient to

enable her, with the _French party_ in America, to throw the blame which

will attend the rupture of the negotiations on the _Federalists_, as you

term yourselves, but on the _British party_, as France terms you, and

you may assure yourselves this will be done." Allen then charged upon

Gallatin that his language was that of a foreign agent. Gallatin replied

that the representatives of the French Republic in this country had

shown themselves to be the worst diplomatists that had ever been sent to

it, and he asked why the gentlemen who did not come forward with a

declaration of war (though they were willing to go to war without the

declaration) charge their adversaries with meaning to submit to France.

France might declare war or give an order to seize American vessels, but

as long as she did not, some hope remained that the state of peace might

not be broken; and he said in conclusion "that, notwithstanding all the

violent charges and personal abuse which had been made against him, it

would produce no difference in his manner of acting, neither prevent him

from speaking against every measure which he thought injurious to the

public interest, nor, on the other hand, inflame his mind so as to

induce him to oppose measures which he might heretofore have thought

proper."

The war feeling ran high in the country; "Millions for defense, but not

one cent for tribute,"[7] was the popular cry. On May 28 Mr. Harper

introduced a bill to suspend commercial intercourse with France.

Gallatin thought this a doubtful measure. Its avowed purpose was to

distress France in the West Indies, but he said that in six months that

entire trade would be by neutral vessels. In the discussion on the bill

to regulate the arming of merchant vessels, he showed that it was the

practice of neutral European nations to allow such vessels to arm, but

not to regulate their conduct. Bonds are required in cases of letter of

marque, and the merchant who arms is bound not to break the laws of

nations or the agreements of treaties. Restriction was therefore

unnecessary. Government should not interfere. Commercial intercourse

with France was suspended June 13.

In the pride of their new triumph and the intensity of their personal

feeling the Federalists overleaped their mark, and began a series of

measures which ultimately cost them the possession of the government

and their political existence. The first of these was the Sedition Bill,

which Jefferson believed to be aimed at Gallatin in person. Mr. Gallatin

met it at its inception with a statement of the constitutional

objections, viz., 1st, that there was no power to make such a law, and

2d, the special provision in the Constitution that the writ of _habeas

corpus_ shall not be suspended except in cases of rebellion and

invasion. There was neither. The second, the Alien Bill, gave the

President power to expel from the country all aliens. Over this measure

Gallatin and Harper had hot words. Gallatin charged upon Harper not only

a misrepresentation of the arguments of his opponents, but an

arraignment of the motives of others, while claiming all purity for his

own. Harper answered in words which show that Gallatin, for once, had

met warmth with warmth, and anger with anger. When, Harper said, a

gentleman, who is usually so cool, all at once assumes such a tone of

passion as to forget all decorum of language, it would seem as if the

observation had been properly applied. On the vote to strike out the

obnoxious sections, the Federalists defeated their antagonists, and on

June 21 the bill itself was passed with all its odious features by 46 to

40.

On June 21 President Adams sent in a message with letters from Gerry,

who had remained at Paris after the return of Marshall and Pinckney, on

the subject of a loan. They contained an intimation from Talleyrand that

he was ready to resume negotiations. In this message Adams said, "I

will never send another minister to France without assurances that he

will be received, respected, and honored as the representative of a

great, free, powerful, and independent nation." On the 25th an act was

passed authorizing the commanders of merchant vessels to defend

themselves against search and seizure under regulations by the

President. On June 30 a further act authorized the purchase and

equipment of twelve vessels as an addition to the naval armament. To all

intents and purposes a state of war between the two countries already

existed.

The 4th of July (1798) was celebrated with unusual enthusiasm all over

the United States, and the black cockade was generally worn. This was

the distinctive badge of the Federalists, and a response to the tricolor

which Adet had recommended all French citizens to wear in 1794.

On July 5 a resolution was moved to appoint a committee to consider the

expediency of declaring, by legislative act, the state of relations

between the United States and the French Republic. Mr. Gallatin asked if

a declaration of war could not be moved as an amendment, but the

speaker, Mr. Dayton, made no reply. Mr. Gallatin objected that Congress

could not declare a state of facts by a legislative act. But this view,

if tenable then, has long since been abandoned. In witness of which it

is only necessary to name the celebrated resolution of the Congress of

1865 with regard to the recognition of a monarchy in Mexico. July 6 the

House went into committee of the whole on the state of the Union to

consider a bill sent down by the Senate abrogating the treaty with

France. The bill was passed on the 16th by a vote of 47 ayes to 37 nays,

Gallatin voting in the negative. The House adjourned the same day.

While thus engaged in debates which called into exercise his varied

information and displayed not only the extent of his learning but his

remarkable powers of reasoning and statement, Mr. Gallatin never lost

sight of reform in the administration of the finances of the government.

To the success of his efforts to hold the Treasury Department to a

strict conformity with his theory of administration, Mr. Wolcott, the

secretary, gave ample if unwilling testimony. To Hamilton he wrote on

April 5, 1798, "The management of the Treasury becomes more and more

difficult. The legislature will not pass laws in gross; their

appropriations are minute. Gallatin, to whom they yield, is evidently

intending to break down this department by charging it with an

impracticable detail."

During these warm discussions Gallatin rarely lost his self-control.

Writing to his old friend Lesdernier at this period, he said, "You may

remember I am blessed with a very even temper; it has not been altered

by time or politics."

* * * * *

The third session of the fifth Congress opened on December 3, 1798. On

the 8th, when the President was expected, Lieutenant-General Washington

and Generals Pinckney and Hamilton entered the hall and took their

places on the right of the speaker's chair. They had been recently

appointed to command the army of defense.

The President's speech announced no change in the situation. "Nothing,"

he said, "is discoverable in the conduct of France which ought to change

or relax our measures for defense. On the contrary, to extend and

invigorate them is our true policy. An efficient preparation for war can

alone insure peace. It must be left to France, if she is indeed desirous

of accommodation, to take the requisite steps. The United States will

steadily observe the maxims by which they have hitherto been governed."

The reply to this patriotic sentiment was unanimously agreed to, and was

most grateful to Adams, who thanked the House for it as "consonant to

the characters of representatives of a great and free people."

On December 27 a peculiar resolution was introduced to punish the

usurpation of the executive authority of the government of the United

States in carrying on correspondence with the government of any foreign

prince or state. Gallatin thought this resolution covered too much

ground. The criminality of such acts did not lie in their being

usurpations, but in the nature of the crime committed. There was no

authority in the Constitution for a grant of such a power to the

President. To afford aid and comfort to the enemy was treason, but

there was no war, and therefore no enemy. He claimed the right to

himself and others to do all in his power to secure a peace, even by

correspondence abroad, and he would not admit that the ground taken by

the friends of the measure was a proper foundation for a general law. A

committee was, however, appointed, in spite of this remonstrance, to

consider the propriety of including in the general act all persons who

should commence or carry on a correspondence, by a vote of 65 to 23. A

bill was reported on January 9, when Gallatin endeavored to attach a

proviso that the law should not operate upon persons seeking justice or

redress from foreign governments; but his motion was defeated by a vote

of 48 to 37. Later, however, a resolution of Mr. Parker, that nothing in

the act should be construed to abridge the rights of any citizen to

apply for such redress, was adopted by a vote of 69 yeas to 27 nays. On

this vote Harper voted yea. Griswold, Otis, Bayard, and Goodrich were

found among the nays. Gallatin succeeded in carrying an amendment

defining the bill, after which it was passed by a vote of 58 to 36.

Towards the close of January, 1799, a bill was brought in authorizing

the President to discontinue the restraints of the act suspending

intercourse with the French West India Islands, whenever any persons in

authority or command should so request. This was to invite a secession

of the French colonies from the mother country. Gallatin deprecated any

action which might induce rebellion against authority, or lead to

self-government among the people of the islands who were unfit for it.

Moreover, such action would remove still further every expectation of an

accommodation with France. The bill was passed by a vote of 55 to 37. He

objected to the bill to authorize the President to suspend intercourse

with Spanish and Dutch ports which should harbor French privateers, as

placing an unlimited power to interdict commerce in the hands of the

executive. The bill was carried by 55 to 37. On the question of the

augmentation of the navy he opposed the building of the seventy-fours.

In February Edward Livingston presented a petition from aliens, natives

of Ireland, against the Alien and Sedition laws. Numerous similar

petitions followed; one was signed by 18,000 persons in Pennsylvania

alone. To postpone consideration of the subject, the Federalists sent

these papers to a select committee, against the protests of Livingston

and Gallatin. This course was the more peculiar because of the reference

of petitions of a similar character in the month previous to the

committee of the whole. The Federalists were abusing their majority, and

precipitating their unexpected but certain ruin. One more effort was

made to repeal the offensive penal act; the constitutional objection was

again pleaded, but the repeal was defeated by a vote of 52 in the

affirmative. Mr. Gallatin opposed these laws in all their stages, but,

failing in this, persistently endeavored to make them as good as

possible before they passed. Jefferson later said that nothing could

obliterate from the recollection of those who were witnesses of it the

courage of Gallatin in the "Days of Terror."[8] The vote of thanks to

Mr. Dayton, the speaker, was carried by a vote of 40 to 22. On March 3,

1800, this Congress adjourned.

* * * * *

The sixth Congress met at Philadelphia on December 2, 1799. The

Federalists were returned in full majority. Among the new members of the

House, John Marshall and John Randolph appeared for Virginia. Theodore

Sedgwick was chosen speaker. President Adams came down to the House on

the 3d and made the usual speech. The address in reply, reported by a

committee of which Marshall was chairman, was agreed to without

amendment. Adams was again delighted with the very respectful terms

adopted at the "first assembly after a fresh election, under the strong

impression of the public opinion and national sense at this interesting

and singular crisis." At this session it was the sad privilege of

Marshall to announce the death of Washington, "the Hero, the Sage, and

the Patriot of America." In the shadow of this great grief, party

passion was hushed for a while.

Gallatin again led the Republican opposition; Nicholas and Macon were

his able lieutenants. The line of attack of the Republicans was clear.

If war could be avoided, the growing unpopularity of the Alien and

Sedition laws would surely bring them to power. The foreign-born voter

was already a factor in American politics. In January the law providing

for an addition to the army was suspended. Macon then moved the repeal

of the Sedition Law. He took the ground that it was a measure of

defense. Bayard adroitly proposed as an amendment that "the offenses

therein specified shall remain punishable as at common law, provided

that upon any prosecution it shall be lawful for the defendant to give

as his defense the truth of the matter charged as a libel." Gallatin

called upon the chair to declare the amendment out of order, as intended

to destroy the resolution, but the speaker declined, and the amendment

was carried by a vote of 51 to 47. The resolution thus amended was then

defeated by a vote of 87 to 1. The Republicans preferred the odious act

in its original form rather than accept the Federal interpretation of

it.

On February 11, 1800, a bill was introduced into Congress further to

suspend commercial intercourse with France. It passed the House after a

short debate by a vote of 68 yeas to 28 nays. On this bill the

Republican leaders were divided. Nicholas, Macon, and Randolph opposed

it; but Gallatin, separating from his friends, carried enough of his

party with him to secure its passage. Returned by the Senate with

amendments, it was again objected to by Macon as fatal to the interests

of the Southern States, but the House resolved to concur by a vote of 50

to 36.

In March the country was greatly excited by the news of an engagement on

the 1st of February, off Guadaloupe, between the United States frigate

Constellation, thirty-eight guns, and a French national frigate, La

Vengeance, fifty-four guns. The House of Representatives called on the

secretary of the navy for information, and, by 84 yeas to 4 nays, voted

a gold medal to Captain Truxton, who commanded the American ship. John

Randolph's name is recorded in the negative.

Notwithstanding this collision, the relations of the United States and

France were gradually assuming a kindlier phase. The Directory had

sought to drive the American government into active measures against

England. Bonaparte, chosen First Consul, at once adopted a conciliatory

tone. Preparing for a great continental struggle, he was concentrating

the energies and the powers of France. In May Mr. Parker called the

attention of the House to this change of conduct in the French

government and offered a resolution instructing the Committee on

Commerce to inquire if any amendments to the Foreign Intercourse Act

were necessary. Macon moved to amend so that the inquiry should be

whether it were not expedient to repeal the act. Gallatin opposed the

resolution on the ground that it was highly improper to take any

measures at the present time which would change the defensive system of

the country. The resolution was negatived,--43 nays to 40 yeas.

One singular opposition of Gallatin is recorded towards the close of the

session; the Committee on the Treasury Department reported an amendment

to the act of establishment, providing that the secretary of the

treasury shall lay before Congress, at the commencement of every

session, a report on finance with plans for the support of credit, etc.

Gallatin and Nicholas opposed this bill, because it came down from the

Senate, which had no constitutional right to originate a money bill; but

Griswold and Harper at once took the correct ground that it was not a

bill, but a report on the state of the finances, in which the Senate had

an equal share with the House. The bill was passed by a vote of 43 to

39. It is worthy of note that the first report on the state of the

finances communicated under this act was by Mr. Gallatin himself the

next year, and that it was sent in to the Senate. The House adjourned on

May 14, 1800.

* * * * *

The second session of the sixth Congress was held at the city of

Washington, to which the seat of government had been removed in the

summer interval. After two southerly migrations they were now

definitively established at a national capital. The session opened on

November 17, 1800. On the 22d President Adams congratulated Congress on

"the prospect of a residence not to be changed." The address of the

House in reply was adopted by a close vote.

The situation of foreign relations was changed. The First Consul

received the American envoys cordially, and a commercial convention was

made but secured ratification by the Senate only after the elimination

of an article and a limitation of its duration to eight years. While the

bill was pending in the Senate, Mr. Samuel Smith moved to continue the

act to suspend commercial intercourse with France. Mr. Gallatin opposed

this motion; at the last session he had voted for this bill because

there was only the appearance of a treaty. Now that the precise state of

negotiation was known, why should the House longer leave this matter to

the discretion of the President? The House decided to reject the

indiscreet bill by a vote of 59 to 37. An effort was also made to repeal

a part of the Sedition Law, and continue the rest in force, but the

House refused to order the engrossing of the bill, taking wise counsel

of Dawson, who said that, supported by the justice and policy of their

measures, the approaching administration would not need the aid of

either the alien, sedition, or common law. The opponents of the bill

would not consent to any modification. The last scenes of the session

were of exciting interest.

Freed from the menace of immediate war, the people of plain common sense

recognized that the friendship of Great Britain was more dangerous than

the enmity of France. They dreaded the fixed power of an organized

aristocracy far more than the ephemeral anarchy of an ill-ordered

democracy; they were more averse to class distinctions protected by law

than even to military despotism which destroyed all distinctions, and

they preferred, as man always has preferred and always will prefer,

personal to political equality. The Alien and Sedition laws had borne

their legitimate fruit. The foreign-born population held the balance of

power; a general vote would have shown a large Republican or, it is more

correct to say, anti-Federalist majority. But the popular will could not

be thus expressed. Under the old system each elector in the electoral

college cast his ballot for president and vice-president without

designation of his preference as to who should fill the first place. New

England was solid for Adams, who, however, had little strength beyond

the limits of this Federal stronghold. New York and the Southern States

with inconsiderable exceptions were Republican. Pennsylvania was so

divided in the legislature that her entire vote would have been lost but

for a compromise which gave to the Republicans one vote more than to the

Federalists. Adams being out of the question, the election to the first

place lay between Jefferson and Burr, both Republicans. The Federalists,

therefore, had their option between the two Republican candidates, and

the result was within the reach of that most detestable of combinations,

a political bargain. Mr. Gallatin's position in this condition of

affairs was controlling. His loyalty to Jefferson was unquestioned,

while Burr was the favorite of the large Republican party in New York

whose leaders were Mr. Gallatin's immediate friends and warm supporters.

Both Jefferson and Burr were accused of bargaining to secure enough of

the Federalist vote to turn the scale. That Mr. Jefferson did make some

sacrifice of his independence is now believed. Whether Mr. Gallatin was

aware of any such compromise is uncertain. If such bargain were made,

General Samuel Smith was the channel of arrangement, and in view of the

inexplicable and ignominious deference of Jefferson and Madison to his

political demands, there is little doubt that he held a secret power

which they dared not resist. Gallatin felt it, suffered from it,

protested against it, but submitted to it.

The fear was that Congress might adjourn without a conclusion. To meet

this emergency Mr. Gallatin devised a plan of balloting in the House,

which he communicated to Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Nicholas. It stated the

objects of the Federalists to be, 1st, to elect Burr; 2d, to defeat the

present election and order a new one; 3d, to assume _executive_ power

during the interregnum. These he considers, and suggests alternative

action in case of submission or resistance on the part of the

Republicans. The Federalists, holding three branches of government,

viz., the presidency, a majority in the Senate, and a majority in the

House, might pass a law declaring that one of the great officers

designated by the Constitution should act as president pro tempore,

which would be constitutional. But while Mr. Gallatin in this paragraph

admitted such a law to be constitutional, in the next he argued that the

act of the person designated by law, or of the president pro tempore,

assuming the power is clearly "unconstitutional." By this ingenious

process of reasoning, to which the strict constructionists have always

been partial, it might be unconstitutional to carry out constitutional

law. The assumption of such power was therefore, Mr. Gallatin held,

usurpation, to be resisted in one of two ways; by declaring the interval

till the next session of Congress an interregnum, allowing all laws not

immediately connected with presidential powers to take their course, and

opposing a silent resistance to all others; or by the Republicans

assuming the executive power by a joint act of the two candidates, or by

the relinquishment of all claims by one of them. On the other hand, the

proposed outlines of Republican conduct were, 1st, to persevere in

voting for Mr. Jefferson; 2d, to use every endeavor to defeat any law on

the subject; 3d, to try to persuade Mr. Adams to refuse his consent to

any such law and not to call the Senate on any account if there should

be no choice by the House.

In a letter written in 1848 Mr. Gallatin said that a provision by law,

that if there should be no election the executive power be placed in the

hands of some public officer, was a revolutionary act of usurpation

which would have been put down by force if necessary. It was threatened

that, if any man should be thus appointed President he should instantly

be put to death, and bodies of men were said to be organized, in

Maryland and Virginia, ready to march to Washington on March 4 for that

purpose. The fears of violence were so great that to Governor McKean of

Pennsylvania was submitted the propriety of having a body of militia in

readiness to reach the capital in time to prevent civil war. From this

letter of Mr. Gallatin, then the last surviving witness of the election,

only one conclusion can be drawn: that the Republicans would have

preferred violent resistance to temporary submission, even though the

officer exercising executive powers was appointed in accordance with

law. Fortunately for the young country there was enough good sense and

patriotism in the ranks of the Federalists to avert the danger.

On the suggestion of Mr. Bayard it was agreed by a committee of sixteen

members, one from each State, that if it should appear that the two

persons highest on the list, Jefferson and Burr, had an equal number of

votes, the House should immediately proceed in their own chamber to

choose the president by ballot, and should not adjourn until an

election should have been made. On the first ballot there was a tie

between Jefferson and Burr; the deadlock continued until February 17,

when the Federalists abandoned the contest, and Mr. Jefferson received

the requisite number of votes. Burr, having the second number, became

vice-president.

Mr. Gallatin's third congressional term closed with this Congress. In

his first term he asserted his power and took his place in the councils

of the party. In his second, he became its acknowledged chief. In the

third, he led its forces to final victory. But for his opposition, war

would have been declared against France, and the Republican party would

have disappeared in the political chasm. But for his admirable

management, Mr. Jefferson would have been relegated to the study of

theoretical government on his Monticello farm, or to play second fiddle

at the Capitol to the music of Aaron Burr.

In the foregoing analysis of the debates and resolutions of Congress,

and the recital of the part taken in them by Mr. Gallatin, attention has

only been paid to such of the proceedings as concerned the

interpretation of the Constitution or the forms of administration with

which Mr. Gallatin interested himself. From the day of his first

appearance he commanded the attention and the respect of his fellows.

The leadership of his party fell to him as of course. It was not grasped

by him. He was never a partisan. He never waived his entire

independence of judgment. His ingenuity and adroitness never tempted him

to untenable positions. Hence his party followed him with implicit

confidence. Yet while the debates of Congress, imperfectly reported as

they seem to be in its annals, show the deference paid to him by the

Republican leaders, and display the great share he took in the

definition of powers and of administration as now understood, his name

is hardly mentioned in history. Jefferson and Madison became presidents

of the United States. They, with Gallatin, formed the triumvirate which

ruled the country for sixteen years. Gallatin was the youngest of the

three.[9] To this political combination Gallatin brought a knowledge of

constitutional law equal to their own, a knowledge of international law

superior to that of either, and a habit of practical administration of

which they had no conception. The Republican party lost its chief when

Gallatin left the House; from that day it floundered to its close.

In the balance of opinion there are no certain weights and measures. The

preponderance of causes cannot be precisely ascertained. The freedom

which the people of the United States enjoy to-day is not the work of

any one party. Those who are descended from its original stock, and

those whom its free institutions have since invited to full membership,

owe that freedom to two causes: the one, formulated by Hamilton, a

strong, central power, which, deriving its force from the people,

maintains its authority at home and secures respect abroad; the other,

the spirit of liberty which found expression in the famous declaration

of the rights of man. This influence Jefferson represented. It taught

the equality of man; not equality before the law alone, nor yet

political equality, but that absolute freedom from class distinction

which is true social equality; in a word, mutual respect. But for

Hamilton we might be a handful of petty States, in discordant

confederation or perpetual war; but for Jefferson, a prey to the class

jealousy which unsettles the social relations and threatens the

political existence of European States.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 4: Lord Sheffield to Mr. Abbott, November 6, 1812.

_Correspondence of Lord Colchester_, ii. 409.]

[Footnote 5: Gallatin later described Jackson as he first saw him in his

seat in the House: "A tall, lank, uncouth looking individual, with long

locks of hair hanging over his brows and face, while a queue hung down

his back tied in an eelskin. The dress of this individual was singular,

his manners and deportment that of a backwoodsman." Bartlett's

_Reminiscences of Gallatin_.]

[Footnote 6: The phrase "stop the wheels of government" originated with

"Peter Porcupine" (William Cobbett) and was on every tongue.]

[Footnote 7: Charles C. Pinckney, when ambassador to France, 1796.]

[Footnote 8: Jefferson to William Duane, March 28, 1811. Jefferson's

_Works_, vol. v. p. 574.]

[Footnote 9: Jefferson was born in 1743, Madison in 1751, Gallatin in

1761.]