The number of seamen impressed, though never actually ascertained, must have been great. More than 6,000 cases were recorded in the State Department; but probably a much greater number were impressed. No arrangement for a suspension of hostilities being practicable, the war was prosecuted by both parties.

In November, 1812, Mr. Madison was reelected President. He was known to have been reluctant to engage in a war; and his nomination had been delayed, as the war party were unwilling to support him, unless he should determine to favor the war. Notwithstanding his nomination, De Witt Clinton, a more zealous friend of the war, was nominated by the Republican members of the New York Legislature. The Federalists, having made no nomination, supported Mr. Clinton, who received 89 electoral votes, and Mr. Madison 128.

Brief, and necessarily imperfect, as is this sketch of the controversy which terminated in the war of 1812, more space has been given to it than was intended. But as our difficulties with Great Britain and France were so long a subject of contention between the two political parties, it was deemed proper to give the reader an intelligible view of the question.

Commission

The war continued until February, 1815. ers had been appointed by both Governments, who met at Ghent, in Belgium, and concluded a treaty of peace in 1814, which was received at Washington in February following, ratified by the British Government. After the news of the abdication of Napoleon had been received, new instructions were sent to our Commissioners, authorizing them, if peace could not otherwise be had, to waive the question of impressment, and leave it for future negotiation. So this question remained unsettled. The treaty was ratified the 17th of February, 1815.

Among the measures of Mr. Madison's administration which deserve notice, is the incorporation of the second. Bank of the United States. The establishment of the first, in 1791, was a part of the financial policy of Mr. Hamilton, and was opposed by Mr. Madison and other opponents of Washington's administration.

In 1810, the year before the expiration of the charter,

application was made for its renewal; and a favorable report was made by Mr. Gallatin, Secretary of the Treasury, but at too late a period of the session to be acted upon. The application was renewed the next year; and a bill was introduced into each House; but both bills were lost; that of the House having been indefinitely postponed, 65 to 64; and that of the Senate having had its enacting clause struck out by the casting vote of the Vice-President, George Clinton, on the ground of its supposed unconstitutionality. Among the prominent Republicans who supported it, were Mr. Crawford and Mr. Giles-Mr. Clay opposed it.

At the session of 1814-1815, Secretary Dallas reported a plan of a Bank. It was supported mainly by Republicans. It was opposed, however, by some Republicans, among whom was Mr. Calhoun, who proposed a counter project, which allowed the Government no control in the direction of the Bank, nor a right to demand loans from it. The Federalists supporting this plan, it was carried by a large majority. Secretary Dallas having, at the request of the House, given his opinion as to the effect of Mr. Calhoun's project, the bill, on the question being taken on its third reading, was lost, 45 to 107; the Federalists now voting against it. A bill on Mr. Dallas' plan was then introduced in the Senate, and passed. The vote in the House stood, 81 in its favor, and 80 against it, without the vote of the Speaker, who, after giving his reasons for opposing the bill, voted against it, producing a tie; and then declared the bill to be lost. A reconsideration was carried, and a compromise bill was reported and adopted, but was vetoed by the President, not because he considered it unconstitutional; its constitutionality "having been recognized by the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches of the Government, accompanied by the concurrence of the general will of the nation" but because it did not appear to him to be calculated to answer the purposes for which it was desired.

Still another bill, on the principles of Mr. Dallas' plan, was originated in the Senate, and passed that body, but was indefinitely postponed in the House, by a majority of one vote.

2

The next year, 1816, a bank bill was passed, and approved by the President. Mr. Clay, who, with many other leading statesmen, had changed his views since 1811, now a member of the House, and its Speaker, made an able speech in its favor. It was believed that a Bank was necessary to restore a healthy currency, and to facilitate the financial operations of the Government. It passed the House, 80 to 71. Its capital was $35,000,000; one-fifth to be subscribed by the Government, and one-fifth to be paid in specie. It was entitled to the deposit of the public moneys, and was required to disburse them in any part of the Union without charge to the Government. It was also to pay $1,500,000 as a bonus for its charter. Of the twenty-five directors, five were to be appointed by the President and Senate. The deposits were removable by the Secretary of the Treasury for sufficient reasons, to be laid before Congress.

At the same session, (1816,) was passed a new tariff act. The European wars, which had existed during most of the time since the organization of our Government, had furnished a good market for agricultural products, with which our people had been enabled to procure supplies of manufactured goods. Hence, high duties for the encouragement of manufactures were comparatively unnecessary. The interruption of our trade with Great Britain during our war with that country, and the double duties on imported goods imposed at the commencement of the war, which were to continue until its close, and for a year_thereafter, had given an impetus to home manufactures. But on the return of peace, large importations of foreign goods were again male, to the injury of our manufactures; and as the double duties were about to cease, and as the foreign market for our bread-stuffs would also cease, or be greatly diminished, in consequence of the return of those composing the vast armies of Europe to their usual employments in home production, it now became necessary to adapt our tariff of duties to a state of peace. Provision must be made to pay the public debt; and the war had shown the importance of being independent of foreign nations for necessaries.

Accordingly, Mr. Madison, in his Message, recommended

tariff on manufactures," and urged it for the purposes, both of revenue, and of making us "safe against competitions from abroad.” A tariff of duties on imports was reported to Congress by Secretary Dallas, and, with some modifications, became a law. Mr. Calhoun was one of its most zealous advocates. It was supported by Mr. Clay also, and opposed by Mr. Webster. The bill passed the

House, 88 to 54; the Senate, 15 to 11.

A protective tariff was not at this time, nor was it for many years after, a party question. It was supported and opposed according to its supposed effects upon the leading industrial interests of the States respectively. Nor was its constitutionality to any great extent, if at all, disputed. The tariff of 1816, was voted for by a majority of the members of the House from the New England States, where manufactures had made considerable progress. From the agricultural States, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, &c., the vote was nearly unanimous in its favor, protection to manufactures being deemed equally favorable to the agricultural interest. Its strongest opposition was from the planting States, though it was proportionably less than later tariffs have received from those States.

From the protection afforded by this tariff, manufactures of several kinds were greatly promoted, of which the principal was that of coarse cotton cloths. In the main, however, it proved inadequate; and the prosperity of the country was for a long time retarded. Foreign goods were imported in large quantities; and the country was drained of its money to pay for them, our agricultural products, especially bread-stuffs, being, to any considerable extent, no longer wanted in exchange; the industry of the country was prostrated; and general distress prevailed. Several attempts were made in Congress to revise the tariff, but without success, until 1824. A bill passed the House in 1820, 91 to 78; but it was defeated in the Senate, 22 to 21. Of the votes in the House from the New England States, 18 were for, and 17 against the bill. New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware, were unanimous in favor of it, except 1 in Penn. The Southern States proper, or planting States, were nearly unanimous against it. The Western States, with Louisiana, were unanimous in its favor. Kentucky, in favor of it, 5; against it, 3.

In 1824, after a most arduous effort, a bill for a general revision of the tariff was passed. On this bill, Mr. Clay was opposed by Mr. Webster, both being then members of the House. The bill was passed to a third reading, 105 to 102. The votes of the several States were as follows:

Maine: Yea, 1; nays, 6. New Hampshire: Yea, 1; nays, 5. Massachusetts: Yea, 1; nays, 11. Rhode Island: Yeas, 2. Connecticut : Yeas, 5; nay, 1. Vermont: Yeas, 5. New York: Yeas, 26; nays, 8. New Jersey: Yeas, 6. Pennsylvania: Yeas, 24; nay, 1. Delaware: Yea, 1. Maryland: Yeas, 3; nays, 6. Virginia: Yea, 1; nays, 21. North Carolina: Yeas, 13. South Carolina: Nays, 9. Georgia: Nays, 7. Kentucky: Yeas, 11. Tennessee: Yeas, 2; nays, 7. Ohio: Yeas, 14. Indiana: Yeas, 2. Illinois: Yea, 1. Louisiana: Nays, 3. Mississippi: Nay, 1. Alabama: Nays, 3. Missouri : Yea, 1.

From this record of votes, it appears, that Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts, which were fishing and navigating States, were almost unanimous against the tariff. Rhode Island and Connecticut, manufacturing States, were in favor of it, one from the latter excepted. Also the grain producing States, Vermont, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri, were nearly three to one in favor of protection, from its supposed benefit to agriculture. The planting States generally, having an unfailing market abroad for their great staples, were united with the shipping and fishing States against the tariff. By this act, Eastern capital was directed more to manufactures; and since that time, the Eastern and Southern States have taken opposite sides on this question.

In the Senate, the vote was 25 to 21, as follows:

Vermont:

Maine: Yeas, 2. New Hampshire: Yea, 1; nay, 1. Massachusetts : Nays, 2. Rhode Island: Yeas, 2. Connecticut: Yeas, 2. Yeas, 2. New York: Yea, 1; nay, 1. New Jersey: Yeas, 2. Pennsylvania: Yeas, 2. Delaware: Nays, 2. Maryland: Nay, 1. Virginia: Nays, 2. North Carolina: Nays, 2. South Carolina: Nays, 2. Georgia: Nays, 2. Kentucky: Yeas, 2. Tennessee: Yeas, 2. Ohio : Yeas, 2. Indiana: Yeas, 2. Illinois: Yea, 1. Louisiana: Nays, 2. Mississippi: Nays, 2. Alabama: Yeas, 2. Missouri: Yeas, 2.

By the restoration of peace, the asperity of party feeling was greatly mitigated. Many of the Federalists no longer kept up their opposition to the administration. Mr. Mon