tending camps-Federalist and Anti-federalist. Nothing but the absolute necessity of a national government gave us our present Federal Constitution.

Once in operation, there was so far a suspension of party organization (but never of fundamental difference of opinion) that Washington was the unanimous choice of the people as their first president. Hardly, however, had his administration begun--the first administration of the Federalists—before an opposition party asserted itself. The French Revolution had just overthrown monarchy and set up a republic. The American people were at once touched with sympathy with this new cause of freedom and shocked at the atrocities that marked its career. As one or the other sentiment predominated, so did it array our people on one side or the other. Wisely refraining from interference with the quarrels in which the French Republic was engaged with its neighbors, Washington and his cabinet arrayed the Federalists upon the neutral ground which has since then been the American policy as to European complications. On the other hand, Jefferson, leaning towards French radicalism, was gathering those who sympathized with the French movement around the banner of popular democracy with which he was then and thenceforth identified, and under which he began to marshal the great party that has from that time looked to him as its founder.

Washington issued a proclamation announcing that the United States government would remain neutral in the wars then going on in Europe. This document roused the anger of the Anti-federalists, who seized upon the occasion to organize a systematic and general opposition to the administration, but especially to the policy of neutrality. Then followed the formation of a series of clubs, modeled after the radical Jacobin Clubs of Paris; the object of the latter being to oppose the existing government of that city by secret measures and intrigues. The "Democratic Society" was formed in Philadelphia, at that time the seat of the National Government. Similar clubs were organized extensively in Pennsylvania and in other States. Meanwhile these associations attracted the attention of the Parisians, and one, "the Society of Charleston,

South Carolina, on its own application was recognized by the
Jacobin Club in Paris as an affiliated branch."
There was some

difficulty in adopting a party name. The first used was Democratic-Republican; but the latter word, though preferred by Jefferson, was after some time dropped, and the simple designation "Democratic" retained.

Immediately after the adoption of the Constitution differences of opinion arose as to its proper interpretation. The original Anti-federalists wished to have it interpreted "strictly," while the Federalists believed that the Constitution should be so interpreted as to make the operation of its principles most effectual in national development. Alexander Hamilton emphasized the "implied powers of the Constitution ”—meaning that if the Constitution authorizes a certain thing to be done, it impliedly authorizes the use of the appropriate means to do it. The former class of expounders were known in the phrases of the times as "strict constructionists," and the latter as "loose or broad constructionists."

The doctrine of the implied powers of the Constitution has become the settled policy of the land; to this result the strict constructionists themselves have materially aided. For instance: The Constitution authorizes Congress "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers," meaning those expressly given it by the Constitution. Among these is authority "to regulate commerce among the several States." As trade cannot be carried on properly without facilities for exchange, Congress chartered a "National Bank for twenty years, with the privilege to establish branches in the States" (1789). This bank was established at the suggestion of Hamilton. The strict constructionists bitterly opposed the proposition. They took special umbrage at the last clause, which permitted branches to be organized within the States. They thus discouraged a measure that would seem to have the effect of uniting the States in a bond of Union. The chief opposition in this case came from. the Virginia school of constructionists. At this early day we see cropping out the theory that afterwards developed into the extreme States-right doctrine.

Akin to this was the question of Internal Improvements. Congress, for example, is authorized by the Constitution "to establish post-offices and post-roads." It was very important to make the valley of the Ohio more accessible to the Atlantic slope by means of a suitable road across the Alleghany Mountains. In consequence the famous National or Cumberland road was proposed to be built by the National Government. The "strict constructionists" proclaimed the project unconstitutional, yet when in authority they voted appropriations for it till it was finished (1806-1820). The road was too important to permit fine-spun theories of interpretation to frustrate the work.

The Constitution says: "New States may be admitted by Congress into the Union." The authority is given and Congress is at liberty to devise the means; neither is there any restriction as to how the proposed territory shall be obtained. Here is an occasion wherein the "implied powers" can be utilized. The important question as to the purchase of Louisiana presented itself, and President Jefferson, the chief of the strict constructionists, was put to the test of his own theories. Of course he yielded, and made the purchase (1803), but apologized for the act by characterizing it as extra-constitutional.

These inconsistencies of the prominent strict constructionists did much to neutralize the influence of their theory, and cause that of the "implied powers" to become the policy of the Nation. The power of Congress to charter National banks, or to make appropriations for internal improvements, has long since been unquestioned; while Congress is untrammeled in obtaining territories, and in due time, as the case may be, admitting them as States.

The Federal party was in power during the administration of Washington, and that of John Adams. During this time its policy was subjected to the continual and unscrupulous assaults of the opposition, whose leaders resisted nearly every measure proposed in Congress by the Federalists.

The "clubs" being modeled after those of Paris, partook of the traits of the latter, and the turbulent and violent men of the times found in them congenial elements. Says Prof. Sum.