Answer of both houses of congress to the speech.
In their answer to this speech, the senate say: "The unanimous suffrage of the elective body in your favour, is peculiarly expressive of the gratitude, confidence, and affection of the citizens of America, and is the highest testimonial at once of your merit, and their esteem. We are sensible, sir, that nothing but the voice of your fellow citizens could have called you from a retreat, chosen with the fondest predilection, endeared by habit, and consecrated to the repose of declining years. We rejoice, and with us all America, that, in obedience to the call of our common country, you have returned once more to public life. In you all parties confide; in you all interests unite; and we have no doubt that your past services, great as they have been, will be equalled by your future exertions; and that your prudence and sagacity, as a statesman, will tend to avert the dangers to which we were exposed, to give stability to the present government, and dignity and splendour to that country, which your skill and valour as a soldier, so eminently contributed to raise to independence and to empire."
The affection for the person and character of the President with which the answer of the house of representatives glowed, promised that between this branch of the legislature also and the executive, the most harmonious co-operation in the public service might be expected.
"The representatives of the people of the United States," says this address, "present their congratulations on the event by which your fellow citizens have attested the pre-eminence of your merit. You have long held the first place in their esteem. You have often received tokens of their affection. You now possess the only proof that remained of their gratitude for your services, of their reverence for your wisdom, and of their confidence in your virtues. You enjoy the highest, because the truest honour, of being the first magistrate, by the unanimous choice of the freest people on the face of the earth."
After noticing the several communications made in the speech, intense of deep felt respect and affection, the answer concludes thus:
"Such are the sentiments with which we have thought fit to address you. They flow from our own hearts, and we verily believe that among the millions we represent, there is not a virtuous citizen whose heart will disown them.
"All that remains is, that we join in your fervent supplications for the blessing of heaven on our country; and that we add our own for the choicest of these blessings on the most beloved of her citizens."
Situation of the United States at this period in their domestic and foreign relations.
A perfect knowledge of the antecedent state of things being essential to a due administration of the executive department, its attainment engaged the immediate attention of the President; and he required the temporary heads of departments to prepare and lay before him such statements and documents as would give this information.
But in the full view which it was useful to take of the interior, many objects were to be contemplated, the documents respecting which were not to be found in official records. The progress which had been made in assuaging the bitter animosities engendered in the sharp contest respecting the adoption of the constitution, and the means which might be used for conciliating the affections of all good men to the new government, without enfeebling its essential principles, were subjects of the most interesting inquiry.
The agitation had been too great to be suddenly calmed; and for the active opponents of the system to become suddenly its friends, or even indifferent to its fate, would have been a victory of reason over passion, or a surrender of individual judgment to the decision of a majority, examples of which are rarely given in the progress of human affairs.
In some of the states, a disposition to acquiesce in the decision which had been made, and to await the issue of a fair experiment of the constitution, was avowed by the minority. In others, the chagrin of defeat seemed to increase the original hostility to the instrument; and serious fears were entertained by its friends, that a second general convention might pluck from it the most essential of its powers, before their value, and the safety with which they might be confided where they were placed, could be ascertained by experience.
From the same cause, exerting itself in a different direction, the friends of the new system had been still more alarmed. In all those states where the opposition was sufficiently formidable to inspire a hope of success, the effort was made to fill the legislature with the declared enemies of the government, and thus to commit it, in its infancy, to the custody of its foes. Their fears were quieted for the present. In both branches of the legislature, the federalists, an appellation at that time distinguishing those who had supported the constitution, formed the majority; and it soon appeared that a new convention was too bold an experiment to be applied for by the requisite number of states. The condition of individuals too, was visibly becoming more generally eligible. Industry, notwithstanding the causes which had diminished its profits, was gradually improving their affairs; and the new course of thinking, inspired by the adoption of a constitution prohibiting all laws impairing the obligation of contracts, had, in a great measure, restored that confidence which is essential to the internal prosperity of nations. From these, or from other causes, the crisis of the pressure on individuals seemed to be passing away, and brighter prospects to be opening on them.
But, two states still remained out of the pale of the union; and a mass of ill humour existed among those who were included within it, which increased the necessity of circumspection in those who administered the government.
To the western parts of the continent, the attention of the executive was attracted by discontents which were displayed with some violence, and which originated in circumstances, and in interests, peculiar to that country.
Spain, in possession of the mouth of the Mississippi, had refused to permit the citizens of the United States to follow its waters into the ocean; and had occasionally tolerated or interdicted their commerce to New Orleans, as had been suggested by the supposed interest or caprice of the Spanish government, or of its representatives in America. The eyes of the inhabitants adjacent to the waters which emptied into that river, were turned down it, as the only channel through which the surplus produce of their luxuriant soil could be conveyed to the markets of the world. Believing that the future wealth and prosperity of their country depended on the use of that river, they gave some evidence of a disposition to drop from the confederacy, if this valuable acquisition could not otherwise be made. This temper could not fail to be viewed with interest by the neighbouring powers, who had been encouraged by it, and by the imbecility of the government, to enter into intrigues of an alarming nature.
Previous to his departure from Mount Vernon, the President had received intelligence, too authentic to be disregarded, of private machinations by real or pretended agents both of Spain and Great Britain, which were extremely hostile to the peace, and to the integrity of the union.
Spain had intimated that the navigation of the Mississippi could never be conceded, while the inhabitants of the western country remained connected with the Atlantic states, but might be freely granted to them, if they should form an independent empire.
On the other hand, a gentleman from Canada, whose ostensible business was to repossess himself of some lands on the Ohio which had been formerly granted to him, frequently discussed the vital importance of the navigation of the Mississippi, and privately assured several individuals of great influence, that if they were disposed to assert their rights, he was authorized by Lord Dorchester, the governor of Canada, to say, that they might rely confidently on his assistance. With the aid it was in his power to give, they might seize New Orleans, fortify the Balise at the mouth of the Mississippi, and maintain themselves in that place against the utmost efforts of Spain.
The probability of failing in any attempt to hold the mouth of the Mississippi by force, and the resentments against Great Britain which prevailed generally throughout the western country, diminished the danger to be apprehended from any machinations of that power; but against those of Spain, the same security did not exist.
In contemplating the situation of the United States in their relations not purely domestic, the object demanding most immediate consideration was the hostility of several tribes of Indians. The military strength of the nations who inhabited the country between the lakes, the Mississippi, and the Ohio, was computed at five thousand men, of whom about fifteen hundred were at open war with the United States. Treaties had been concluded with the residue; but the attachment of young savages to war, and the provocation given by the undistinguishing vengeance which had been taken by the whites in their expeditions into the Indian country, furnished reasons for apprehending that these treaties would soon be broken.
In the south, the Creeks, who could bring into the field six thousand fighting men, were at war with Georgia. In the mind of their leader, the son of a white man, some irritation had been produced by the confiscation of the lands of his father, who had resided in that state; and several other refugees whose property had also been confiscated, contributed still further to exasperate the nation. But the immediate point in contest between them was a tract of land on the Oconee, which the state of Georgia claimed under a purchase, the validity of which was denied by the Indians.
The regular force of the United States was less than six hundred men.
Not only the policy of accommodating differences by negotiation which the government was in no condition to terminate by the sword; but a real respect for the rights of the natives, and a regard for the claims of justice and humanity, disposed the President to endeavour, in the first instance, to remove every cause of quarrel by a treaty; and his message to congress on this subject evidenced his preference of pacific measures.
Possessing many valuable articles of commerce for which the best market was often found on the coast of the Mediterranean, struggling to export them in their own bottoms, and unable to afford a single gun for their protection, the Americans could not view with unconcern the dispositions which were manifested towards them by the Barbary powers. A treaty had been formed with the emperor of Morocco; but from Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli, peace had not been purchased; and those regencies consider all as enemies to whom they have not sold their friendship. The unprotected vessels of America presented a tempting object to their rapacity; and their hostility was the more terrible, because by their public law, prisoners became slaves.
The United States were at peace with all the powers of Europe; but controversies of a delicate nature existed with some of them, the adjustment of which required a degree of moderation and firmness, which there was reason to fear, might not, in every instance, be exhibited.
The early apprehensions with which Spain had contemplated the future strength of the United States, and the consequent disposition of the house of Bourbon to restrict them to narrow limits, have been already noticed. After the conclusion of the war, the attempt to form a treaty with that power had been repeated; but no advance towards an agreement on the points of difference between the two governments had been made. A long and intricate negotiation between the secretary of foreign affairs, and Don Guardoqui, the minister of his Catholic majesty, had terminated with the old government; and the result was an inflexible adherence on the part of Mr. Guardoqui to the exclusion of the citizens of the United States from navigating the Mississippi below their southern boundary. On this point there was much reason to fear that the cabinet of Madrid would remain immoveable. The violence with which the discontents of the western people were expressed, furnished Spain with additional motives for perpetuating the evil of which they complained. Aware of the embarrassments which this display of restlessness must occasion, and sensible of the increased difficulty and delay with which a removal of its primary cause must be attended, the executive perceived in this critical state of things, abundant cause for the exercise of its watchfulness, and of its prudence. With Spain, there was also a contest respecting boundaries. The treaty of peace had extended the limits of the United States to the thirty-first degree of north latitude, but the pretensions of the Catholic King were carried north of that line, to an undefined extent. He claimed as far as he had conquered from Britain, but the precise limits of his conquest were not ascertained.
The circumstances attending the points of difference with Great Britain, were still more serious; because, in their progress, a temper unfavourable to accommodation had been uniformly displayed.
The resentments produced by the various calamities war had occasioned, were not terminated with their cause. The idea that Great Britain was the natural enemy of America had become habitual. Believing it impossible for that nation to have relinquished its views of conquest, many found it difficult to bury their animosities, and to act upon the sentiment contained in the declaration of independence, "to hold them as the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends." In addition to the complaints respecting the violation of the treaty of peace, events were continually supplying this temper with fresh aliment. The disinclination which the cabinet of London had discovered to a commercial treaty with the United States was not attributed exclusively to the cause which had been assigned for it. It was in part ascribed to that jealousy with which Britain was supposed to view the growing trade of America.
The general restrictions on commerce by which every maritime power sought to promote its own navigation, and that part of the European system in particular, by which each aimed at a monopoly of the trade of its colonies, were felt with peculiar keenness when enforced by England. The people of America were perhaps the more sensible to the British resolutions on this subject, because, having composed a part of that empire, they had grown up in the habit of a free intercourse with all its ports; and, without accurately appreciating the cause to which a change of this usage was to be ascribed, they attributed it to a jealousy of their prosperity, and to an inclination to diminish the value of their independence. In this suspicious temper, almost every unfavourable event which occurred was traced up to British hostility.
That an attempt to form a commercial treaty with Portugal had failed, was attributed to the influence of the cabinet of London; and to the machinations of the same power were also ascribed the danger from the corsairs of Barbary, and the bloody incursions of the Indians. The resentment excited by these causes was felt by a large proportion of the American people; and the expression of it was common and public. That correspondent dispositions existed in England is by no means improbable, and the necessary effect of this temper was to increase the difficulty of adjusting the differences between the two nations.
With France, the most perfect harmony subsisted. Those attachments which originated in the signal services received from his most Christian Majesty during the war of the revolution, had sustained no diminution. Yet, from causes which it was found difficult to counteract, the commercial intercourse between the two nations was not so extensive as had been expected. It was the interest, and of consequence the policy of France, to avail herself of the misunderstandings between the United States and Great Britain, in order to obtain such regulations as might gradually divert the increasing trade of the American continent from those channels in which it had been accustomed to flow; and a disposition was felt throughout the United States to co-operate with her, in enabling her merchants, by legislative encouragements, to rival those of Britain in the American market.
A great revolution had commenced in that country, the first stage of which was completed by limiting the powers of the monarch, and by the establishment of a popular assembly. In no part of the globe was this revolution hailed with more joy than in America. The influence it would have on the affairs of the world was not then distinctly foreseen: and the philanthropist, without becoming a political partisan, rejoiced in the event. On this subject, therefore, but one sentiment existed.
The relations of the United States with the other powers of Europe, did not require particular attention. Their dispositions were rather friendly than otherwise; and an inclination was generally manifested to participate in the advantages, which the erection of an independent empire on the western shores of the Atlantic, held forth to the commercial world.
By the ministers of foreign powers in America, it would readily be supposed, that the first steps taken by the new government would, not only be indicative of its present system, but would probably affect its foreign relations permanently, and that the influence of the President would be felt in the legislature. Scarcely was the exercise of his executive functions commenced, when the President received an application from the Count de Moustiers, the minister of France, requesting a private conference. On being told that the department of foreign affairs was the channel through which all official business should pass, the Count replied that the interview he requested was, not for the purpose of actual business, but rather as preparatory to its future transaction.
The next day, at one in the afternoon, was named for the interview. The Count commenced the conversation with declarations of his personal regard for America, the manifestations of which, he said, had been early and uniform. His nation too was well disposed to be upon terms of amity with the United States: but at his public reception, there were occurrences which he thought indicative of coolness in the secretary of foreign affairs, who had, he feared, while in Europe, imbibed prejudices not only against Spain, but against France also. If this conjecture should be right, the present head of that department could not be an agreeable organ of intercourse with the President. He then took a view of the modern usages of European courts, which, he said, favoured the practice he recommended of permitting foreign ministers to make their communications directly to the chief of the executive. "He then presented a letter," says the President in his private journal, "which he termed confidential, and to be considered as addressed to me in my private character, which was too strongly marked with an intention, as well as a wish, to have no person between the Minister and President, in the transaction of business between the two nations."
In reply to these observations, the President gave the most explicit assurances that, judging from his own feelings, and from the public sentiment, there existed in America a reciprocal disposition to be on the best terms with France. That whatever former difficulties might have occurred, he was persuaded the secretary of foreign affairs had offered no intentional disrespect, either to the minister, or to his nation. Without undertaking to know the private opinions of Mr. Jay, he would declare that he had never heard that officer express, directly or indirectly, any sentiment unfavourable to either.
Reason and usage, he added, must direct the mode of treating national and official business. If rules had been established, they must be conformed to. If they were yet to be framed, it was hoped that they would be convenient and proper. So far as ease could be made to comport with regularity, and with necessary forms, it ought to be consulted; but custom, and the dignity of office, were not to be disregarded. The conversation continued upwards of an hour, but no change was made in the resolution of the President.
The subjects which pressed for immediate attention on the first legislature assembled under the new government, were numerous and important. Much was to be created, and much to be reformed.
The subject of revenue, as constituting the vital spring without which the action of government could not long be continued, was taken up in the house of representatives, as soon as it could be introduced. The qualification of the members was succeeded by a motion for the house to resolve itself into a committee of the whole on the state of the union; and in that committee, a resolution was moved by Mr. Madison, declaring the opinion that certain duties ought to be levied on goods, wares, and merchandise, imported into the United States; and on the tonnage of vessels.
As it was deemed important to complete a temporary system in time to embrace the spring importations, Mr. Madison presented the scheme of impost which had been recommended by the former congress, and had already received the approbation of a majority of the states; to which he added a general proposition for a duty on tonnage. By this scheme specific duties were imposed on certain enumerated articles; and an ad-valorem duty on those not enumerated. Mr. Fitzsimmons, of Pennsylvania, moved an amendment, enlarging the catalogue of enumerated articles.
Debates on the impost and tonnage bills.
Mr. Madison having consented to subjoin the amendment proposed by Mr. Fitzsimmons to the original resolution, it was received by the committee; but in proceeding to fill up the blanks with the sum taxable on each article, it was soon perceived that gentlemen had viewed the subject in very different lights. The tax on many articles was believed to press more heavily on some states than on others; and apprehensions were expressed that, in the form of protecting duties, the industry of one part of the union would be encouraged by premiums charged on the labour of another part. On the discrimination between the duty on the tonnage of foreign and American bottoms, a great degree of sensibility was discovered. The citizens of the United States not owning a sufficient number of vessels to export all the produce of the country, it was said that the increased tonnage on foreign bottoms operated as a tax on agriculture, and a premium to navigation. This discrimination, it was therefore contended, ought to be very small.
In answer to these arguments, Mr. Madison said, "If it is expedient for America to have vessels employed in commerce at all, it will be proper that she have enough to answer all the purposes intended; to form a school for seamen; to lay the foundation of a navy: and to be able to support itself against the interference of foreigners. I do not think there is much weight in the observations that the duty we are about to lay in favour of American vessels is a burden on the community, and particularly oppressive to some parts. But if there were, it may be a burden of that kind which will ultimately save us from one that is greater.
"I consider an acquisition of maritime strength essential to this country; should we ever be so unfortunate as to be engaged in war, what but this can defend our towns and cities upon the sea coast? Or what but this can enable us to repel an invading enemy? Those parts which are said to bear an undue proportion of the burden of the additional duty on foreign shipping, are those which will be most exposed to the operations of a predatory war, and will require the greatest exertions of the union in their defence. If therefore some little sacrifice be made by them to obtain this important object, they will be peculiarly rewarded for it in the hour of danger. Granting a preference to our own navigation will insensibly bring it forward to that perfection so essential to American safety; and though it may produce some little inequality at first, it will soon ascertain its level, and become uniform throughout the union."
But no part of the system was discussed with more animation than that which proposed to make discriminations in favour of those nations with whom the United States had formed commercial treaties. In the debate on this subject, opinions and feelings with respect to foreign powers were disclosed, which, strengthening with circumstances, afterwards agitated the whole American continent.
While the resolutions on which the bills were to be framed were under debate, Mr. Benson rose to inquire on what principle the proposed discriminations between foreign nations was founded? "It was certainly proper," he said, "to comply with existing treaties. But those treaties stipulated no such preference. Congress then was at liberty to consult the interests of the United States. If those interests would be promoted by the measure, he should be willing to adopt it, but he wished its policy to be shown."
The resolutions, as reported, were supported by Mr. Madison, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Mr. Clymer, Mr. Page, and Mr. Jackson.
They relied much upon the public sentiment which had, they said, been unequivocally expressed through the several state legislatures and otherwise, against placing foreign nations generally, on a footing with the allies of the United States. So strong was this sentiment, that to its operation the existing constitution was principally to be ascribed. They thought it important to prove to those nations who had declined forming commercial treaties with them, that the United States possessed and would exercise the power of retaliating any regulations unfavourable to their trade, and they insisted strongly on the advantages of America in a war of commercial regulation, should this measure produce one.
The disposition France had lately shown to relax with regard to the United States, the rigid policy by which her counsels had generally been guided, ought to be cultivated. The evidence of this disposition was an edict by which American built ships purchased by French subjects became naturalized. There was reason to believe that the person charged with the affairs of the United States at that court, had made some favourable impressions, which the conduct of the American government ought not to efface.
With great earnestness it was urged, that from artificial or adventitious causes, the commerce between the United States and Great Britain had exceeded its natural boundary. It was wise to give such political advantages to other nations as would enable them to acquire their due share of the direct trade. It was also wise to impart some benefits to nations that had formed commercial treaties with the United States, and thereby to impress on those powers which had hitherto neglected to form such treaties, the idea that some advantages were to be gained by a reciprocity of friendship.
That France had claims on the gratitude of the American people which ought not to be overlooked, was an additional argument in favour of the principle for which they contended.
The discrimination was opposed by Mr. Benson, Mr. Lawrence, Mr. Wadsworth, and Mr. Sherman.
They did not admit that the public sentiment had been unequivocally expressed; nor did they admit that such benefits had flowed from commercial treaties as to justify a sacrifice of interest to obtain them. There was a commercial treaty with France; but neither that treaty, nor the favours shown to that nation, had produced any correspondent advantages. The license to sell ships could not be of this description, since it was well known that the merchants of the United States did not own vessels enough for the transportation of the produce of the country, and only two, as was believed, had been sold since the license had been granted. The trade with Great Britain, viewed in all its parts, was upon a footing as beneficial to the United States as that with France.
That the latter power had claims upon the gratitude of America was admitted, but that these claims would justify premiums for the encouragement of French commerce and navigation, to be drawn from the pockets of the American people, was not conceded. The state of the revenue, it was said, would not admit of these experiments.
The observation founded on the extensiveness of the trade between the United States and Great Britain was answered by saying, that this was not a subject proper for legislative interposition. It was one of which the merchants were the best judges. They would consult their interest as individuals; and this was a case in which the interest of the nation and of individuals was the same.
At length, the bills passed the house of representatives, and were carried to the senate, where they were amended by expunging the discrimination made in favour of the tonnage and distilled spirits of those nations which had formed commercial treaties with the United States.
These amendments were disagreed to; and each house insisting on its opinion, a conference took place, after which the point was reluctantly yielded by the house of representatives. The proceedings of the senate being at that time conducted with closed doors, the course of reasoning on which this important principle was rejected can not be stated.
This debate on the impost and tonnage bills was succeeded by one on a subject which was believed to involve principles of still greater interest.
On the President's power of removal from office.
In organizing the departments of the executive, the question in what manner the high officers who filled them should be removeable, came on to be discussed. Believing that the decision of this question would materially influence the character of the new government, the members supported their respective opinions with a degree of earnestness proportioned to the importance they attributed to the measure. In a committee of the whole house on the bill "to establish an executive department to be denominated the[42]department of foreign affairs," Mr. White moved to strike out the clause which declared the secretary to be removeable by the President. The power of removal, where no express provision existed, was, he said, in the nature of things, incidental to that of appointment. And as the senate was, by the constitution, associated with the President in making appointments, that body must, in the same degree, participate in the power of removing from office.
Mr. White was supported by Mr. Smith of South Carolina, Mr. Page, Mr. Stone, and Mr. Jackson.
Those gentlemen contended that the clause was either unnecessary or improper. If the constitution gave the power to the President, a repetition of the grant in an act of congress was nugatory: if the constitution did not give it, the attempt to confer it by law was improper. If it belonged conjointly to the President and senate, the house of representatives should not attempt to abridge the constitutional prerogative of the other branch of the legislature. However this might be, they were clearly of opinion that it was not placed in the President alone. In the power over all the executive officers which the bill proposed to confer upon the President, the most alarming dangers to liberty were perceived. It was in the nature of monarchical prerogative, and would convert them into the mere tools and creatures of his will. A dependence so servile on one individual, would deter men of high and honourable minds from engaging in the public service; and if, contrary to expectation, such men should be brought into office, they would be reduced to the necessity of sacrificing every principle of independence to the will of the chief magistrate, or of exposing themselves to the disgrace of being removed from office, and that too at a time when it might be no longer in their power to engage in other pursuits.
Gentlemen they feared were too much dazzled with the splendour of the virtues which adorned the actual President, to be able to look into futurity. But the framers of the constitution had not confined their views to the person who would most probably first fill the presidential chair. The house of representatives ought to follow their example, and to contemplate this power in the hands of an ambitious man, who might apply it to dangerous purposes; who might from caprice remove the most worthy men from office.
Federal Hall
View of the Old City or Federal Hall, New York, in 1789On the balcony of this building, the site of which is now occupied by the United States Sub-Treasury, at the corner of Broad and Wall Streets, George Washington took the oath of office as First President of the United States, April 30, 1789. In the near distance, at the intersection of Wall and Broadway, may be seen the original Trinity Church structure which was completed in 1697. It was replaced by the present edifice in 1846. President Washington, who was an Episcopalian, did not attend Trinity, but maintained a pew in St. Paul's Chapel, Broadway and Vesey Street, which remains as it was when he worshipped there.
View of the Old City or Federal Hall, New York, in 1789
On the balcony of this building, the site of which is now occupied by the United States Sub-Treasury, at the corner of Broad and Wall Streets, George Washington took the oath of office as First President of the United States, April 30, 1789. In the near distance, at the intersection of Wall and Broadway, may be seen the original Trinity Church structure which was completed in 1697. It was replaced by the present edifice in 1846. President Washington, who was an Episcopalian, did not attend Trinity, but maintained a pew in St. Paul's Chapel, Broadway and Vesey Street, which remains as it was when he worshipped there.
By the friends of the original bill, the amendment was opposed with arguments of great force drawn from the constitution and from general convenience. On several parts of the constitution, and especially on that which vests the executive power in the President, they relied confidently to support the position, that, in conformity with that instrument, the power in question could reside only with the chief magistrate: no power, it was said, could be more completely executive in its nature than that of removal from office.
But if it was a case on which the constitution was silent, the clearest principles of political expediency required that neither branch of the legislature should participate in it.
The danger that a President could ever be found who would remove good men from office, was treated as imaginary. It was not by the splendour attached to the character of the present chief magistrate alone that this opinion was to be defended. It was founded on the structure of the office. The man in whose favour a majority of the people of this continent would unite, had probability at least in favour of his principles; in addition to which, the public odium that would inevitably attach to such conduct, would be an effectual security against it.
After an ardent discussion which consumed several days, the committee divided: and the amendment was negatived by a majority of thirty-four to twenty. The opinion thus expressed by the house of representatives did not explicitly convey their sense of the constitution. Indeed the express grant of the power to the President, rather implied a right in the legislature to give or withhold it at their discretion. To obviate any misunderstanding of the principle on which the question had been 'decided, Mr. Benson moved in the house, when the report of the committee of the whole was taken up, to amend the second clause in the bill so as clearly to imply the power of removal to be solely in the President. He gave notice that if he should succeed in this, he would move to strike out the words which had been the subject of debate. If those words continued, he said the power of removal by the President might hereafter appear to be exercised by virtue of a legislative grant only, and consequently be subjected to legislative instability; when he was well satisfied in his own mind, that it was by fair construction, fixed in the constitution. The motion was seconded by Mr. Madison, and both amendments were adopted. As the bill passed into a law, it has ever been considered as a full expression of the sense of the legislature on this important part of the American constitution.
On the policy of the secretary of the treasury reporting plans for the management of the revenue.
The bill to establish the treasury department, contained a clause making it the duty of the secretary "to digest and report plans for the improvement and management of the revenue, and for the support of public credit."
Mr. Page moved to strike out these words, observing, that to permit the secretary to go further than to prepare estimates would be a dangerous innovation on the constitutional privilege of that house. It would create an undue influence within those walls, because members might be led by the deference commonly paid to men of abilities, who gave an opinion in a case they have thoroughly considered, to support the plan of the minister even against their own judgment. Nor would the mischief stop there. A precedent would be established which might be extended until ministers of the government should be admitted on that floor, to explain and support the plans they had digested and reported, thereby laying a foundation for an aristocracy, or a detestable monarchy.
Mr. Tucker seconded the motion of Mr. Page, and observed, that the authority contained in the bill to prepare and report plans would create an interference of the executive with the legislative powers, and would abridge the particular privilege of that house to originate all bills for raising a revenue. How could the business originate in that house, if it was reported to them by the minister of finance? All the information that could be required might be called for without adopting a clause that might undermine the authority of the house, and the security of the people. The constitution has pointed out the proper method of communication between the executive and legislative departments. It is made the duty of the President to give from time to time information to congress of the state of the union, and to recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient. If revenue plans are to be prepared and reported to congress, he is the proper person to perform this service. He is responsible to the people for what he recommends, and will be more cautious than any other person to whom a less degree of responsibility was attached.
He hoped the house was not already weary of executing and sustaining the powers vested in them by the constitution; and yet the adoption of this clause would argue that they thought themselves less adequate than an individual, to determine what burdens their constituents were able to bear. This was not answering the high expectation that had been formed of their exertions for the general good, or of their vigilance in guarding their own and the people's rights.
The arguments of Mr. Page and Mr. Tucker were enforced and enlarged by Mr. Livermore and Mr. Gerry. The latter gentleman said, "that he had no objection to obtaining information, but he could not help observing the great degree of importance gentlemen were giving to this and the other executive officers. If the doctrine of having prime and great ministers of state was once well established, he did not doubt but he should soon see them distinguished by a green or red ribbon, insignia of court favour and patronage."
It was contended that the plans of the secretary, being digested, would be received entire. Members would be informed that each part was necessary to the whole, and that nothing could be touched without injuring the system. Establish this doctrine, and congress would become a useless burden.
The amendment was opposed by Mr. Benson, Mr. Goodhue, Mr. Ames, Mr. Sedgewick, Mr. Boudinot, Mr. Lawrence, Mr. Madison, Mr. Stone, Mr. Sherman, and Mr. Baldwin. It was insisted that to prepare and report plans for the improvement of the revenue, and support of public credit, constituted the most important service which could be rendered by the officer who should be placed at the head of the department of finance. When the circumstances under which the members of that house were assembled, and the various objects for which they were convened were considered, it was no imputation upon them to suppose that they might receive useful information from a person whose peculiar duty it was to direct his attention to systems of finance, and who would be in some measure selected on account of his fitness for that object. It was denied that the privileges of the house would be infringed by the measure. The plans of the secretary could not be termed bills, nor would they even be reported in that form. They would only constitute information which would be valuable, and which could not be received in a more eligible mode. "Certainly," said Mr. Goodhue, "we carry our dignity to the extreme, when we refuse to receive information from any but ourselves."
"If we consider the present situation of our finances," said Mr. Ames, "owing to a variety of causes, we shall no doubt perceive a great though unavoidable confusion throughout the whole scene. It presents to the imagination a deep, dark, and dreary chaos, impossible to be reduced to order, unless the mind of the architect be clear and capacious, and his power commensurate to the object. He must not be the flitting creature of the day; he must have time given him competent to the successful exercise of his authority. It is with the intention of letting a little sunshine into the business, that the present arrangement is proposed."
It was not admitted that the plans of the secretary would possess an influence to which their intrinsic value would not give them a just claim. There would always be sufficient intelligence in that house to detect, and independence to expose any oppressive or injurious scheme which might be prepared for them. Nor would a plan openly and officially reported possess more influence on the mind of any member, than if given privately at the secretary's office.
Mr. Madison said, the words of the bill were precisely those used by the former congress on two occasions. The same power had been annexed to the office of superintendent of the finances; and he had never heard that any inconvenience had been experienced from the regulation. Perhaps if the power had been more fully and more frequently exercised, it might have contributed more to the public good. "There is," continued this gentleman, "a small probability, though it is but small, that an officer may derive weight from this circumstance, and have some degree of influence upon the deliberations of the legislature. But compare the danger likely to result from this cause, with the danger and inconvenience of not having well formed and digested plans, and we shall find infinitely more to apprehend from the latter. Inconsistent, unproductive, and expensive schemes, will produce greater injury to our constituents, than is to be apprehended from any undue influence which the well digested plans of a well informed officer can have. From a bad administration of the government, more detriment will arise than from any other source. Want of information has occasioned much inconvenience, and many unnecessary burdens in some of the state governments. Let it be our care to avoid those rocks and shoals in our political voyage which have injured, and nearly proved fatal to many of our contemporary navigators."
The amendment was rejected.
On the style by which the president should be addressed.
Among the interesting points which were settled in the first congress, was the question by what style the President and Vice President should be addressed. Mr. Benson, from the committee appointed to confer with a committee of the senate on this subject reported, "that it is not proper to annex any style or title to the respective styles or titles of office expressed in the constitution;" and this report was, without opposition, agreed to in the house of representatives. In the senate, the report was disapproved, and a resolution passed requesting the house of representatives to appoint another committee, again to confer with one from the senate, on the same subject. This message being taken up in the house of representatives, a resolution was moved by Mr. Parker, seconded by Mr. Page, declaring that it would be improper to accede to the request of the senate. Several members were in favour of this motion; but others who were opposed to receding from the ground already taken, seemed inclined to appoint a committee as a measure properly respectful to the other branch of the legislature.
After a warm debate, the resolution proposed by Mr. Parker was set aside by the previous question, and a committee of conference was appointed. They could not agree upon a report, in consequence of which the subject was permitted to rest; and the senate, conforming to the precedent given by the house of representatives, addressed the President in their answer to his speech by the terms used in the constitution.
While the representatives were preparing bills for organizing the great executive departments, the senate was occupied with digesting the system of a national judiciary. This complex and extensive subject was taken up in the commencement of the session, and was completed towards its close.
Amendment to the constitution proposed by congress and ratified by the states.
In the course of this session Mr. Madison brought forward a proposition for recommending to the consideration and adoption of the states, several new articles to be added to the constitution.
Many of those objections to it which had been urged with all the vehemence of conviction, and which, in the opinion of some of its advocates, were entitled to serious consideration, were believed by the most intelligent to derive their sole support from erroneous construction of the instrument. Others were upon points on which the objectors might be gratified without injury to the system. To conciliate the affections of their brethren to the government, was an object greatly desired by its friends. Disposed to respect, what they deemed, the errors of their opponents, where that respect could be manifested without a sacrifice of essential principles, they were anxious to annex to the constitution those explanations and barriers against the possible encroachments of rulers on the liberties of the people, which had been loudly demanded, however unfounded, in their judgments, might be the fears by which those demands were suggested. These dispositions were perhaps, in some measure, stimulated to exertion by motives of the soundest policy. The formidable minorities in several of the conventions, which in the legislatures of some powerful states had become majorities, and the refusal of two states to complete the union, were admonitions not to be disregarded, of the necessity of removing jealousies, however misplaced, which operated on so large a portion of society. Among the most zealous friends of the constitution therefore, were found some of the first and warmest advocates for amendments.
To meet the various ideas expressed by the several conventions; to select from the mass of alterations which they had proposed those which might be adopted without stripping the government of its necessary powers; to condense them into a form and compass which would be acceptable to persons disposed to indulge the caprice, and to adopt the language of their particular states; were labours not easily to be accomplished. But the greatest difficulty to be surmounted was, the disposition to make those alterations which would enfeeble, and materially injure, the future operations of the government. At length, ten articles in addition to and amendment of the constitution, were assented to by two-thirds of both houses of congress, and proposed to the legislatures of the several states. Although the necessity of these amendments had been urged by the enemies of the constitution, and denied by its friends, they encountered scarcely any other opposition in the state legislatures, than was given by the leaders of the anti-federal party. Admitting the articles to be good and necessary, it was contended that they were not sufficient for the security of liberty; and the apprehension was avowed that their adoption would quiet the fears of the people, and check the pursuit of those radical alterations which would afford a safe and adequate protection to their rights. They were at length ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states, and probably contributed, in some degree, to diminish the jealousies which had been imbibed against the constitution.