But against whom were these charges brought? They were levelled at the Executive power. But against whom were they personally brought? Were they intended against the late President, or the present? Both were implicated in the accusation. He would not attempt to sketch the whole praises of the former; but he would mention a few traits of his character, which must repel these charges. They would go to his disinterestedness, and show that he had never been actuated by a love of power.

For his disinterestedness, it was enough to say, that he had spent forty years in the public service without reward, and in doing it, he had diminished an ample fortune. With respect to his love of power, it was enough to say, that he had twice retired from the most elevated station to the walks of private life-there he hoped he would long live surrounded with comforts unalloyed by the enmity of any man.

With respect to the present Chief Magistrate, hc asked whether there was anything in the life of this man, which had shown a deviation from strict and honorable conduct, in his way to promotion and office? His honor and his offices were of the hard-earned kind. He had never gone into devious paths to seek for them. He had acquired his elevated station by doing his duty in a firm and independent manner.

Here nothing looked like a love of power. He would next ask gentlemen against whom their attacks were made in that House? For, they may say what they please, the American people would never admit of a charge of corruption where no corruption exists. They might say they did not mean to include in their charge gentlemen who had acted with the President; but their charge was that the patronage of the President had found its way into that House, and produced majorities there. He regretted that a sentiment so degrading to the American character had been advanced by a citizen of this country. The way to produce worth was not to place men in a degraded state. If it were wished to form an assembly of vile men, tell them they are made of such kind of stuff that they must become so. If they looked into history this sentiment would be confirmed.

What was it that made the Roman character ? Was it not a high sense of public and private virtue? Yes; it was this that carried that country to its greatness. But here our citizens were said to be composed of such corruptible materials, that they cannot withstand the temptations held out to them by our offices; whilst there, every thing tended to elevate human nature, and it was this which led to Roman greatness. Different principles and different manners were now adopted; and what was the character of the people who now inhabited the clime formerly possessed by the ancient Romans? Behold the modern Italian, dark, cunning, and mischievous.

These charges were, then, founded in slander, and ought to be repelled. His colleague had been astonished from whence these suspicions came, and charged them upon the gentleman's own

(JANUARY, 1798.

heart. His friend was mistaken; there were no such materials there. None were to be found there so base. The charge must have proceeded from a distempered mind, produced, perhaps, by being foiled in a favorite choice of an Executive Magistrate; or from a concurrence of circumstances which had thrown over the gentleman's mind a cloud of suspicion and jealousy.

But it was said that the only saviour of the country now consisted of a feeble minority, which was to stem the torrent of corruption. It was true, and it was to be regretted, that there was party in this country. Not that he would be understood that the most strict scrutiny into public measures was a blameable conduct; on the contrary, he believed it was for the happiness of the country that public measures should be scrutinized; but an organized spirit of party was always dangerous in a country.

In speaking upon this subject, it must occur to every member that it was not a party over a particular district of country which was spoken of; it could not escape the patriotic mind, that this party was spread over the whole Union. This being the case, the subject assumed an importance very different from what would be the case were it a subject of mere private discontent.

Mr. G. addressed himself to gentlemen who acknowledged themselves in a minority, and he did it with that degree of earnestness which the situation of our country demanded. We were at this time, said he, in a state of anxiety; we were apprehensive of an eventful crisis, when all the patriotic virtues, if not the active energies of the country, will be necessary. He asked whether, at a time when Government could hardly move upon its wheels; when we were surrounded with difficulties; when our affairs in the western country were in a very critical state; when the business of the Legislature was full of perplexity; it was proper to add to all this, a still more difficult and perplexing state of things? If this opposition were determined to obstruct the measures of Government, how was it to move? For he did not pretend to say that the opposition was confined to the gentlemen in that House; he supposed they fairly represented the sense of their constituents. In this state of things, how was Government to proceed? If gentlemen would come forward and say expressly what they wanted, if their discontents were well founded, they might be removed. But, on this occasion, all that had been said had been mere general clamor. The gentleman from Virginia complained of the funding system, of this and of that; but he did not now expect to reverse these systems; and, therefore, he could not think it was either prudent or patriotic, in the present state of things, to introduce them. Had it not a tendency to increase our divisions, and did gentlemen expect that the country could rise above these evils? When every support of Government was necessary, was this the time to sow discontents? These were serious questions. Mr. G. said he would go further, and say, if there was anything which he could do, and it were proposed how it could be effected, for producing harmo

ny in the House, he would do every thing but rob the Government of its powers. He could not consider this amendment as a single, unconnected measure; it was connected with others, and intended to clog the wheels of Government.

The gentleman from Virginia had said that this country ought only to be considered as a vender of its produce and purchaser of what was brought to it. Did he suppose that such an assertion would produce content? Did he suppose, for instance, that the State of Massachusetts would destroy all its vessels, and revert back to a state of society long since passed?

Notwithstanding the charges which had been brought against the Government, its friends had a source of satisfaction in the good sense of their countrymen; he believed they would adopt a firm and decisive language; and he doubted not they would recollect and be persuaded of the truth of the maxim, that "united we stand, but divided we fall."

Mr. SEWALL, after a few prefatory remarks, observed that the gentleman from Virginia had avowed that his amendment, and the manner in which he had introduced it, was an attack upon the Executive of the United States. The occasion of the attack, or the propriety of it at this moment, he left him to justify to his constituents and to the people of the United States. He seemed to despise what might be said by gentlemen here. He avowed he did not speak so much to the Representatives of the people of the United States within these walls, as to the people without them, whom he wished to bring to consider the danger of their present situation, and to induce them to join him in measures unfavorable to the happiness and prosperity of the country.

It would be difficult to go over all the observations of the gentleman, and to answer them singly. Such a procedure would not fail to tire the committee. He would, therefore, bring them into a sort of arrangement or division. And the first thing which he should notice was, what he called his violent attack-an attack upon the principles which the gentleman acknowledged had no connexion with the question, with a design of raising discontents in the people of the United States against their Executive-not with respect to this question, but with respect to the danger to be apprehended from Executive patronage in general. This he called a violent attack, because it was not produced by anything under the view of the committee. He did not mean, however, to account for this conduct, but to make some observations upon it.

In another point of view he considered what had fallen from the gentleman from Virginia as a civil attack upon the Executive authority, attempting to deny certain rights as belonging to the Executive, by assuming an authority unknown in the practice of the House, and unknown to the Constitution.

In the first place he would refer to what he had said. He called upon the people of the United States to confederate with him against the Executive. He was not contented with this appeal; he

[H. OF R.

had endeavored to raise an interested passion, not in the people at large, but in those who may have been disappointed in their applications for offices to the President, and to all those who have partialities elsewhere, to consider the Executive of the United States in a degraded point of light, from having joined a certain party, and from hav ing determined to choose no person to office but persons of a certain opinion; thereby degrading the Executive of the United States, by representing him as the head of a party.

He called another part of the people to come around him, from a consideration of their liberties being in danger, from the excess of patronage in the Executive; to these classes might also be added the mere seekers for office. In this manner were the people of the United States to be arrayed and marshalled out, and in this manner this Constitution, and these laws, were to be endangered, by an attack, which appeared as if it were intended to be the forerunner of a more serious attack from abroad.

Nor was the gentleman contented by drawing around him all the discontented of the community, but he also made an attempt upon that part of the people who were generally in favor of Executive measures, by saying they were flatterers, mere devotees of the Executive, and seekers for office, as in fact already corrupted. In this manner was the Executive to see not only the discontented part of the people, but his friends arrayed against him. In the latter attempt, the gentleman would fail. He believed there were those who could support charges of this nature-who could console themselves with having done their duty, by having supported the laws and Constitution of their country, and defy and despise his representations.

And here he would observe that the gentleman threw strong censure upon those who are certainly the most deserving part of the community-those who are contented with the measures of the Executive-satisfied with the measures of the General Government. Mr. S. believed persons of this description to be in the natural state of society-that state which the Constitution supposes; yet these were called upon to renounce their confidence in the Executive. Surely, said he, we might retort upon gentlemen, by saying that those who oppose the measures of the Executive, who take the part of a foreign country against their own, are in an unnatural and criminal state. They might say we will avoid you; your conduct is already disagreeable to us; the Executive avoids you, and we approve his conduct; you are disreputable to society; you are the enemies of Government. But he would avoid allegations of this sort. He was convinced that there were few people in the United States-he hoped none in that House—who would answer to this charge. He hoped none were guilty of it; but it was hard upon gentlemen who were in favor of Constitutional measures, that they should be called upon to defend themselves against charges of this kind.

Gentlemen who professed themselves satisfied with the measures of the Government here, were charged with the want of attention to the interests

of the people, because they did not alarm their constituents, on their return home, on the subject of Government abuses; because they did not do this, they were charged with administering soporifics at home.

Some few parts of the gentleman's observations deserved more particular examination; and first, with respect to the danger arising from the power of appointing to office being placed in the Executive. On this occasion the excessive patronage of the Executive of the British Government was brought before the committee, and they were bid to beware of our Executive becoming like it. This charge was a vague one, as it would be difficult to show that there was any resemblance between the two Executives. The thing which gentlemen considered as of no weight-he meant the short period for which our Executive was elected, and that of England being permanent-he thought of material importance. Our Executive had no power but for four years, during which period he was liable to be impeached by that House for any flagrant abuse of duty; in which case he would be tried by the Senate, and acquitted or found guilty. In a Constitution like this, therefore, what need was there for all this alarm about Executive power? If there existed abuses in the Executive department, why not bring forward an impeachment at once? But the truth was, no proof of abuse existed. He trusted he should not be considered as wanting in respect to the people, if he considered them as an improper tribunal to be appealed to on this occasion. If abuse existed, he had pointed out the Constitutional way of having it rectified. He was further of opinion that any attempt to misinform the people on this subject, was a sort of treason against the peaceful enjoyment by the people of their liberty. It was necessary, therefore, that the people should be well assured of the truth of such a charge; for, if it had the effect which he had mentioned, and was not founded in fact, he should consider the man who made it, as a traitor to the people.

Liberty, he said, was security: destroy security, therefore, and you destroy liberty. He did not mean to attribute any intention of this kind to the gentleman from Virginia. He was only endeavoring to point out to him the extreme impropriety of the manner in which he had supported his proposition.

It was allowed that the Government was as liable to be destroyed by anarchy, as from excessive patronage in the Executive. It was upon the Executive we depended for the execution of the laws, and for general protection. It was in fact the eyes of the community. The Constitution had characterized his office; it was a part, and the cement of our Union. Would any single man in that House claim to himself that confidence from the people of the United States which the Executive had? They came from different districts, impressed with local views and interests, which they could not avoid, though it was the duty of every member to consider himself as the representative of the whole Union; but the President of the United States was elected by the whole, to preside

[JANUARY, 1798.

over the whole, and his future reward would depend upon the manner in which he filled the office at present, and the people would always be inclined to show him respect and regard, and would be slow in believing that he would do anything contrary to the interest of the United States.

He would refer to the particular charges which had been alleged against the Executive. He had been charged with having recommended a mission to Prussia, when there was no occasion for it. They were necessarily uninformed on this point. The gentleman from Virginia, indeed, had supposed that they had a right to bid the Executive to lay before them the motives for his conduct; but he believed he could not find any such authority in the Constitution. The power of appointing Ministers was in the Executive, and if he had nominated, and the Senate approved, there existed no Constitutional authority to call him to account, except manifest abuse appeared; and if this were the case, he had already pointed out the mode of redress. It was extremely hard upon gentlemen who wished to defend the Executive, to be obliged to say they were as ignorant with respect to its motives, as those who complained of it. It was a sufficient answer, however, to say, that the business was not within the care of this House.

The Executive had been charged with making appointments to office from the Legislature, with a view to influencing the members to a certain line of conduct. Particular reference had been had to foreign Ministers, and it had been said only one had been appointed but who had been taken from the Legislature. It was said that four others had been taken from the Legislature, the appointment to which might have had an influence upon it; if it could possibly have had any, it must have been so small as to be below calculation. Mr. S. enumerated all the Ministers we have in Europe, and whence they were appointed; the result of which enumeration was, that the influence complained of could not have produced any effect, except in the case of the Minister at Lisbon (Mr. W. SMITH.) It was true he was in the Legislature, and likely to remain in it; but, if gentlemen recurred to that gentleman's character, and his uniform support of Government, no one would suppose that his conduct was influenced by the expectation of his appointment. But are those members of the Legislature, who are in a natural state, the only commendable state in society, to be those who are to be suspected of being improperly influenced by the appointments to office, merely because the Executive declines appointing men to office who are in continual opposition to Government? If gentlemen possessing opinions of the latter kind, were suddenly to change them, there would, indeed, be some ground to suspect an improper influence. But there was no instance in which this would apply.

But it was considered as criminal in the Executive to appoint to important offices those men only who are friendly to the measures of Government. A gentleman from Virginia (Mr. BRENT) some days ago, mentioned several offices, to which it would be improper to confine appointments in the