FOOTNOTES:

But Marshall's support was not wholly influenced by the prudence and Nationalism of the measure. He wished to protect the Indians from the frontiersmen. He believed, with Henry, in encouraging friendly relations with them, even by white and red amalgamation. He earnestly supported Henry's bill for subsidizing marriages of natives and whites[743]and was disappointed by its defeat.

"We have rejected some bills," writes Marshall, "which in my conception would have been advantageous to the country. Among these, I rank the bill for encouraging intermarriages with the Indians. Our prejudices however, oppose themselves to our interests, and operate too powerfully for them."[744]

During the period between 1784 and 1787 when Marshall was out of the Legislature, the absolute need of a central Government that would enable the American people to act as a Nation became ever more urgent; but the dislike for such a Government also crystallized. The framing of the Constitution by the Federal Convention at Philadelphia in 1787 never could have been brought about by any abstract notions of National honor and National power, nor by any of those high and rational ideas of government which it has become traditional toascribe as the only source and cause of our fundamental law.

The people at large were in no frame of mind for any kind of government that meant power, taxes, and the restrictions which accompany orderly society. The determination of commercial and financial interests to get some plan adopted under which business could be transacted, was the most effective force that brought about the historic Convention at Philadelphia in 1787. Indeed, when that body met it was authorized only to amend the Articles of Confederation and chiefly as concerned the National regulation of commerce.[745]

Virginia delayed acting upon the Constitution until most of the other States had ratified it. The Old Dominion, which had led in the Revolution, was one of the last Commonwealths to call her Convention to consider the "new plan" of a National Government. The opposition to the proposed fundamental law was, as we shall see, general and determined; and the foes of the Constitution, fiercely resisting its ratification, were striving to call a second general Convention to frame another scheme of government or merely to amend the Articles of Confederation.

To help to put Virginia in line for the Constitution, John Marshall, for the third time, sought election to the Legislature. His views about government had now developed maturely into a broad, well-defined Nationalism; and he did not need the spur of the wrathful words which Washington had beenflinging as far as he could against the existing chaos and against everybody who opposed a strong National Government.

If Marshall had required such counsel and action from his old commander, both were at hand; for in all his volcanic life that Vesuvius of a man never poured forth such lava of appeal and denunciation as during the period of his retirement at Mount Vernon after the war was over and before the Constitution was adopted.[746]

But Marshall was as hot a Nationalist as Washington himself. He was calmer in temperament, more moderate in language and method, than his great leader; but he was just as determined, steady, and fearless. And so, when he was elected to the Legislature in the early fall of 1787, he had at heart and in mind but one great purpose. Army life, legislative experience, and general observation had modified his youthful democratic ideals, while strengthening and confirming that Nationalism taught him from childhood. Marshall himself afterwards described his state of mind at this period and the causes that produced it.

"When I recollect," said he, "the wild and enthusiastic notions with which my political opinions of that day were tinctured, I am disposed to ascribe my devotion to the Union and to a government competent to its preservation, at least as much to casualcircumstances as to judgment. I had grown up at a time when the love of the Union, and the resistance to the claims of Great Britain were the inseparable inmates of the same bosom; when patriotism and a strong fellow-feeling with our suffering fellow-citizens of Boston were identical; when the maxim, 'United we stand, divided we fall,' was the maxim of every orthodox American.

"And I had imbibed these sentiments so thoroughly that they constituted a part of my being. I carried them with me into the army, where I found myself associated with brave men from different States, who were risking life and everything valuable in a common cause, believed by all to be most precious; and where I was confirmed in the habit of considering America as my country, and Congress as my government.... My immediate entrance into the State Legislature opened to my view the causes which had been chiefly instrumental in augmenting those sufferings [of the army]; and the general tendency of State politics convinced me that no safe and permanent remedy could be found but in a more efficient and better organized General Government."[747]

On the third day of the fall session of the Virginia Legislature of 1787, the debate began on the question of calling a State Convention to ratify the proposed National Constitution.[748]On October 25 the debate came to a head and a resolution for calling a State Convention passed the House.[749]The debatewas over the question as to whether the proposed Convention should have authority either to ratify or reject the proposed scheme of government entirely; or to accept it upon the condition that it be altered and amended.

Francis Corbin, a youthful member from Middlesex, proposed a flat-footed resolution that the State Convention be called either to accept or reject the "new plan." He then opened the debate with a forthright speech for a Convention to ratify the new Constitution as it stood. Patrick Henry instantly was on his feet. He was for the Convention, he said: "No man was more truly federal than himself." But, under Corbin's resolution, the Convention could not propose amendments to the Constitution. There were "errors and defects" in that paper, said Henry. He proposed that Corbin's resolution should be changed so that the State Convention might propose amendments[750]as a condition of ratification.

The debate waxed hot. George Nicholas, one of the ablest men in the country, warmly attacked Henry's idea. It would, declared Nicholas, "give the impression" that Virginia was not for the Constitution, whereas "there was, he believed, a decided majority in its favor." Henry's plan, said Nicholas, would throw cold water on the movement to ratify the Constitution in States that had not yet acted.

George Mason made a fervid and effective speech for Henry's resolution. This eminent, wealthy, and cultivated man had been a member of the Philadelphia Convention that had framed the Constitution; but he had refused to sign it. He was against it for the reasons which he afterwards gave at great length in the Virginia Convention of 1788.[751]He had "deeply and maturely weighed every article of the new Constitution," avowed Mason, and if he had signed it, he "might have been justly regarded as a traitor to my country. I would have lost this hand before it should have marked my name to the new government."[752]

At this juncture, Marshall intervened with a compromise. The Constitutionalists were uncertain whether they could carry through Corbin's resolution. They feared that Henry's plan of proposing amendments to the Constitution might pass the House. The effect of such an Anti-Constitutional victory in Virginia, which was the largest and most populous State in the Union, would be a blow to the cause of the Constitution from which it surely could not recover. For the movement was making headway in various States for a second Federal Convention that should devise another system of government to take the place of the one which the first Federal Convention, after much quarreling and dissension, finally patched up in Philadelphia.[753]

So Marshall was against both Corbin's resolution and Henry's amendment to it; and also he was for the ideas of each of these gentlemen. It was plain, said Marshall, that Mr. Corbin's resolution was open to the criticism made by Mr. Henry. To be sure, theVirginia Convention should not be confined to a straight-out acceptance or rejection of the new Constitution; but, on the other hand, it would never do for the word to go out to the other States that Virginia in no event would accept the Constitution unless she could propose amendments to it. He agreed with Nicholas entirely on that point.

Marshall also pointed out that the people of Virginia ought not to be given to understand that their own Legislature was against the proposed Constitution before the people themselves had even elected a Convention to pass upon that instrument. The whole question ought to go to the people without prejudice; and so Marshall proposed a resolution of his own "that a Convention should be called and that the new Constitution should be laid before them for their free and ample discussion."[754]

Marshall's idea captured the House. It placated Henry, it pleased Mason; and, of course, it was more than acceptable to Corbin and Nicholas, with whom Marshall was working hand in glove, as, indeed, was the case with all the Constitutionalists. In fact, Marshall's tactics appeared to let every man have his own way and succeeded in getting the Convention definitely called. And it did let the contending factions have their own way for the time being; for, at that juncture, the friends of the new National Constitution had no doubt that they would be able to carry it through the State Convention unmarred by amendments, and its enemies were equally certain that they would be able to defeat or alter it.

Marshall's resolution, therefore, passed the House "unanimously."[755]Other resolutions to carry Marshall's resolution into effect also passed without opposition, and it was "ordered that two hundred copies of these resolutions be printed and dispersed by members of the general assembly among their constituents; and that the Executive should send a copy of them to Congress and to the Legislature and Executive of the respective states."[756]But the third month of the session was half spent before the Senate passed the bill.[757]Not until January 8 of the following year did it become a law.[758]

In addition, however, to defining the privileges of the members and providing money for its expenses, the bill also authorized the Convention to send representatives "to any of the sister states or the conventions thereof which may be then met," in order to gather the views of the country "concerning the great and important change of government which hath been proposed by the federal convention."[759]Thus the advocates of a second general Convention to amend the Articles of Confederation or frame another Constitution scored their point.

So ended the first skirmish of the historic battle soon to be fought out in Virginia, which would determine whether the American people should begin their career as a Nation. Just as John Marshall was among the first in the field with rifle,tomahawk, and scalping-knife, to fight for Independence, so, now, he was among those first in the field with arguments, influence, and political activities, fighting for Nationalism.

FOOTNOTES:[614]Richmond grew rapidly thereafter. The number of houses was trebled within a decade.[615]Schoepf, ii, 55-56.[616]Schoepf, ii, 55-56.[617]Ib.; and see Journals.[618]Ib., ii, 57.[619]Schoepf, 55-56.[620]Ib., 58.[621]Story, in Dillon, iii, 337. Marshall was a prime favorite of his old comrades all his life. (Ib.)[622]Journal, H.D. (Oct. Sess., 1782), 3-10.[623]The roads were so bad and few that traveling even on horseback was not only toilsome but dangerous. (Seeinfra, chap.VII.)[624]Journal, H.D. (Oct. Sess., 1782), 4-8.[625]Journal, H.D. (Oct. Sess., 1782.), 9-10.[626]Ib., 10.[627]Ib., 13-15.[628]Ib., 15.[629]Ib., 22; Hening, xi, 111. The "ayes" and "noes" were taken on this bill and Marshall's vote is, of course, without any importance except that it was his first and that it was a little straw showing his kindly and tolerant disposition. Also the fact that the "ayes" and "noes" were called for—something that was very rarely done—shows the popular feeling against Englishmen.[630]Journal, H.D. (Oct. Sess., 1782), 27-28. Marshall voted in favor of bringing in a bill for strengthening the credit account; and against postponing the consideration of the militia bill. (Ib., 45.)[631]Ib., 23, 25, 27, 36, 42, 45.[632]Ib., 23.[633]Hening, xi, 173-75.[634]Journal, H.D., 36.[635]"It greatly behoves the Assembly to revise several of our laws, and to abolish all such as are contrary to the fundamental principles of justice; and by a strict adherence to the distinctions between Right and Wrong for the future, to restore that confidence and reverence ... which has been so greatly impaired by a contrary conduct; and without which our laws can never be much more than a dead letter." (Mason to Henry, May 6,1783, as quoted in Henry, ii, 185.)[636]Writings: Hunt, ii, 397. This notable fact is worthy of repetition if we are to get an accurate view of the Virginia Legislature of that day. Yet that body contained many men of great ability.[637]Madison to Jefferson, July 3,1784;Writings: Hunt, ii, 62.[638]Madison to Washington, Dec. 14,1787;ib., v, 69-70.[639]Washington to Madison, Jan. 10, 1788;Writings: Ford, xi, 208.[640]Washington to Lafayette, April 28, 1788;ib., 254. Washington wrote bitterly of State antagonism. "One State passes a prohibitory law respecting some article, another State opens wide the avenue for its admission. One Assembly makes a system, another Assembly unmakes it." (Ib.)[641]Hening, xi, 299-306. This statement of Marshall's was grossly incorrect. This session of the Legislature passed several laws of the very greatest public consequence, such as the act to authorize Congress to pass retaliatory trade laws against Great Britain (ib., 313); an immigration and citizenship act (ib., 322-24); an act prohibiting British refugees from coming to Virginia; and a quarantine act (ib., 29-31). It was this session that passed the famous act to authorize Virginia's delegates in Congress to convey to the United States the Northwest Territory (ib., 326-28).This remarkable oversight of Marshall is hard to account for. An explanation is that this was the year of his marriage; and the year also in which he became a resident of Richmond, started in the practice of the law there, and set up his own home. In addition to these absorbing things, his duty as a member of the Council of State took his attention. Also, of course, it was the year when peace with Great Britain was declared. Still, these things do not excuse Marshall's strange misstatement. Perhaps he underestimated the importance of the work done at this particular session.[642]Hening, xi, 387-88. This bill became a law at the spring session of the following year. The impracticable part enforcing attendance of members was dropped. The bill as passed imposes a penalty of fifty pounds on any sheriff or other officer for failure to return certificates of elections; a forfeit of two hundred pounds upon any sheriff interfering in any election or showing any partiality toward candidates.[643]Marshall to Powell, Dec. 9, 1783;Branch Historical Papers, i, 130-31.[644]An act allowing one half of the taxes to be paid in tobacco, hemp, flour, or deerskins, and suspending distress for taxes until January, 1784. (Hening, xi, 289.) The scarcity of specie was so great and the people so poor that the collection of taxes was extremely difficult. In 1782 the partial payment of taxes in commutables—tobacco, hemp, flour, or deerskins—was introduced. This occasioned such loss to the treasury that in May, 1783, the Commutable Acts were repealed; but within five months the Legislature reversed itself again and passed the Commutable Bill which so disgusted Marshall.[645]Marshall to Monroe, Dec. 12, 1783; MS., Draper Collection, Wisconsin Historical Society; also printed inAmer. Hist. Rev., iii, 673. This letter is not addressed, but it has been assumed that it was written to Thomas Jefferson. This is incorrect; it was written to James Monroe.[646]Journal, H.D. (Oct. Sess., 1782), 27. It is almost certain that his father and Jacquelin Ambler were pushing him. The Speaker and other prominent members of the House had been colleagues of Thomas Marshall in the House of Burgesses and Ambler was popular with everybody. Still, Marshall's personality must have had much to do with this notable advancement. His membership in the Council cannot be overestimated in considering his great conflict with the Virginia political "machine" after he became Chief Justice. See volumeIIIof this work.[647]Journal of the Council of State, Nov. 20, 1782; MS., Va. St. Lib.[648]Pendleton to Madison, Nov. 25, 1782; quoted in Rives, i, 182.[649]Constitution of Virginia, 1776.[650]Dodd, inAmer. Hist. Rev., xii, 776.[651]Marshall participated in the appointment of General George Rogers Clark to the office of Surveyor of Officers' and Soldiers' lands. (Journal, Ex. Council, 1784, 57: MS., Va. St. Lib.)[652]Ib.[653]Binney, in Dillon, iii, 291-92. This story is repeated in almost all of the sketches of Marshall's life.[654]Marshall to Monroe, April 17, 1784; MS., N.Y. Pub. Lib.[655]His father, now in Kentucky, could no longer personally aid his son in his old home. Thus Marshall himself had to attend to his own political affairs.[656]Marshall did not try for the Legislature again until 1787 when he sought and secured election from Henrico. (Seeinfra.)[657]Journal, H.D. (Spring Sess., 1784), 5. A Robert Marshall was also a member of the House during 1784 as one of the representatives for Isle of Wight County. He was not related in any way to John Marshall.[658]Ib.[659]Ib.[660]Story, in Dillon, iii, 335-36.[661]As an example of the number and nature of these soldier petitions see Journal, H.D. (Spring Sess., 1784), 7, 9, 11, 16, 18, 44.[662]See chap,VIIIand footnote to p. 288.[663]Williamson was a Tory of the offensive type. He had committed hostile acts which embittered the people against him. (SeeCal. Va. St. Prs., ii. And see Eckenrode:R. V., chap, xi, for full account of this and similar cases.)[664]The gentle pastime of tarring and feathering unpopular persons and riding them on sharp rails appears to have been quite common in all parts of the country, for a long time before the Revolution. Men even burned their political opponents at the stake. (See instances in Belcher, i, 40-45.) Savage, however, as were the atrocities committed upon the Loyalists by the patriots, even more brutal treatment was dealt out to the latter by British officers and soldiers during the Revolution. (Seesupra, chap.IV, footnote to p. 116.)[665]Journal, H.D. (Spring Sess., 1784), 19.[666]Journal, H.D. (Spring Sess., 1784), 23, 27.[667]Ib., 45. For thorough examination of this incident see Eckenrode:R. V., chap. xi.[668]Journal, H.D. (Spring Sess., 1784), 57.[669]Ib., 14.[670]Hening, xi, 390.[671]Journal, H.D., 70-71.[672]Madison to Jefferson, July 3, 1794;Writings: Hunt, ii, 56-57. The Constitution of 1776 never was satisfactory to the western part of Virginia, which was under-represented. Representation was by counties and not population. Also suffrage was limited to white freeholders; and this restriction was made more onerous by the fact that county representation was based on slave as well as free population. Also, the Constitution made possible the perpetuation of the Virginia political machine, previously mentioned, which afterward played a part of such vast importance in National affairs. Yet extreme liberals like the accomplished and patriotic Mason were against the Legislature turning itself into a convention to make a new one. (Mason to Henry, May 6, 1783; Henry, ii, 185.)[673]Madison to Jefferson, Jan. 9, 1785;Writings: Hunt, ii, 104.[674]Hening, xi, 510-18. This law shows the chief articles of commerce at that time and the kind of money which might be received as tolls. The scale of equivalents in pounds sterling vividly displays the confused currency situation of the period. The table names Spanish milled pieces of eight, English milled crowns, French silver crowns, johannes, half johannes, moidores, English guineas, French guineas, doubloons, Spanish pistoles, French milled pistoles, Arabian sequins; the weight of each kind of money except Spanish pieces of eight and English and French milled crowns being carefully set out; and "other gold coin (German excepted) by the pennyweight." If any of this money should be reduced in value by lessening its weight or increasing its alloy it should be received at "its reduced value only." (Ib.)[675]Madison to Jefferson, Jan. 9, 1785;Writings: Hunt, ii, 102. Madison gives a very full history and description of this legislation.[676]Marshall's Account Book contains entries of many of these payments.[677]Journal, H.D. (Nov. 1787), 27-127.[678]Journal, H.D. (Nov. 1787), 70.[679]Ib., 27.[680]Hening, xii, 464-67. The preamble of the act recites that it is passed because under the existing law "justice is greatly delayed by the tedious forms of proceedings, suitors are therefore obliged to waste much time and expense to the impoverishment of themselves and the state, and decrees when obtained are with difficulty carried into execution." (Ib.)[681]Ib., ix, 389-99.[682]Ib., xi, 342-44.[683]See Jefferson's letter to Mazzei, explaining the difference between law and equity and the necessity for courts of chancery as well as courts of law. This is one of the best examples of Jefferson's calm, clear, simple style when writing on non-political subjects. (Jefferson to Mazzei, Nov., 1785;Works: Ford, iv, 473-80.)[684]For the best contemporaneous description of Virginia legislation during this period see Madison's letters to Jefferson when the latter was in Paris. (Writings: Hunt, i and ii.)[685]For a thorough account of the religious struggle in Virginia from the beginning see Eckenrode:S. of C. and S.On the particular phase of this subject dealt with while Marshall was a member of the Virginia Legislature seeib., chap. v.[686]Mason to Henry, May 6, 1783, as quoted in Rowland, ii, 44.[687]Meade, i, footnote to 142. And seeAtlantic Monthly, supra.[688]Eckenrode:S. of C. and S., 75. On this general subject see Meade, i, chaps. i and ii. "Infidelity became rife, in Virginia, perhaps, beyond any other portion of land. The Clergy, for the most part, were a laughing stock or objects of disgust." (Ib., 52.) Even several years later Bishop Meade says that "I was then taking part in the labours of the field, which in Virginia was emphaticallyservile labour." (Ib., 27.)"One sees not only a smaller number of houses of worship [in Virginia] than in other provinces, but what there are in a ruinous or ruined condition, and the clergy for the most part dead or driven away and their places unfilled." (Schoepf, ii, 62-63.)[689]Henry, ii, 199-206.[690]Eckenrode:S. of C. and S., 77.[691]Journal, H.D. (2d Sess., 1784), 19.[692]Ib., 27.[693]Ib., 82.[694]Ib.[695]Ib.[696]Ib., 97. For the incorporation law see Hening, xi, 532-37; for marriage law seeib., 532-35. Madison describes this law to Jefferson and excuses his vote for it by saying that "the necessity of some sort of incorporation for the purpose of holding & managing the property of the Church could not well be denied, nor a more harmless modification of it now be obtained. A negative of the bill, too, would have doubled the eagerness and the pretexts for a much greater evil, a general Assessment, which, there is good ground to believe, was parried by this partial gratification of its warmest votaries." (Madison to Jefferson, Jan. 9, 1785;Writings: Hunt, ii, 113.)[697]Story, in Dillon, iii, 338.[698]"Virginia certainly owed two millions sterling [$10,000,000] to Great Britain at the conclusion of the war. Some have conjectured the debt as high as three millions [$15,000,000].... These debts had become hereditary from father to son for many generations, so that the planters were a species of property annexed to certain mercantile houses in London.... I think that state owed near as much as all the rest put together." Jefferson's explanation of these obligations is extremely partial to the debtors, of whom he was one. (Jefferson to Meusnier, Jan. 24, 1786;Works: Ford, v, 28.)Most of Jefferson's earlier debts were contracted in the purchase of slaves. "I cannot decide to sell my lands.... nor would I willingly sell the slaves as long as there remains any prospect of paying my debts with their labor." This will "enable me to put them ultimately on an easier footing, which I will do the moment they have paid the [my] debts,... two thirds of which have been contracted by purchasing them." (Jefferson to Lewis, July 29, 1787;ib., 311.)[699]For Virginia legislation on this subject see Hening, ix, x, and xi, under index caption "British Debts."[700]Definitive Treaty of Peace, 1783, art. 4.[701]Journal, H.D. (1st Sess.), 1784, 41.[702]Ib., 54; 72-73. The Treaty required both.[703]Journal, H.D. (1st Sess., 1784), 74.[704]Ib., 74-75. Henry led the fight against repealing the anti-debt laws or, as he contended, against Great Britain's infraction of the Treaty.[705]Journal, H.D. (1st Sess., 1784), 25.[706]Madison to Jefferson, Jan. 9, 1785;Writings: Hunt, ii, 114.[707]See Madison's vivid description of this incident;ib., 116; also Henry, ii, 233.[708]Ib.[709]Marshall to Monroe, Dec. 2, 1784; MS., Monroe Papers, Lib. Cong.[710]Madison to Monroe, Dec. 24, 1785;Writings: Hunt, ii, 205."Being convinced myself that nothing can be now done that will not extremely dishonor us, and embarass Congṣmy wish is that the report may not be called for at all. In the course of the debates no pains were spared to disparage the Treaty by insinuations agṣṭCongṣ, the Eastern States, and the negociators of the Treaty, particularly J. Adams. These insinuations & artifices explain perhaps one of the motives from which the augmention of the foederal powers & respectability has been opposed." (Madison to Monroe, Dec. 30, 1785;ib., 211.)[711]Curiously enough, it fell to Jefferson as Secretary of State to report upon, explain, and defend the measures of Virginia and other States which violated the Treaty of Peace. (See Jefferson to the British Minister, May 29, 1792;Works: Ford, vii, 3-99.) This masterful statement is one of the finest argumentative products of Jefferson's brilliant mind.[712]Journal, H.D. (1787), 51.[713]Ib., 52.[714]Ib.James Monroe was a member of the House at this session and voted against the first amendment and for the second. On the contrary, Patrick Henry voted for the first and against the second amendment. George Mason voted against both amendments. So did Daniel Boone, who was, with Thomas Marshall, then a member of the Virginia Legislature from the District of Kentucky. On the passage of the resolution, James Monroe and Patrick Henry again swerved around, the former voting for and the latter against it.[715]Journal, H.D. (1787), 52.[716]Journal, H.D. (1787), 79.[717]"If we are now to pay the debts due to the British merchants, what have we been fighting for all this while?" was the question the people "sometimes" asked, testifies George Mason. (Henry, ii, 187.) But the fact is that this question generally was asked by the people. Nothing explains the struggle over this subject except that the people found it a bitter hardship to pay the debts, as, indeed, was the case; and the idea of not paying them at all grew into a hope and then a policy.[718]Journal, H.D. (1787), 80.[719]Hening, xii, 528. Richard Henry Lee thought that both countries were to blame. (Lee to Henry, Feb. 14, 1785; quoted in Henry, iii, 279.)[720]For an excellent statement regarding payment of British debts, see letter of George Mason to Patrick Henry, May 6, 1783, as quoted in Henry, ii, 186-87. But Mason came to put it on the ground that Great Britain would renew the war if these debts were not paid.[721]Story, in Dillon, iii, 338.[722]Hening, x, chaps. ii and ix, 409-51.[723]For a general review of the state of the country seeinfra, chaps.VIIandVIII.[724]Hening, xi, chap. xlii, 171.[725]Ib., chap. xxxi, 350.[726]Journal, H.D., 52.[727]In order to group subjects such as British debts, extradition, and so forth, it is, unfortunately, essential to bring widely separated dates under one head.[728]Journal, H.D. (1st Sess., 1784), 11-12.[729]Journal, H.D. (1st Sess., 1784), 37.[730]Ib., 81; also, Hening, xi, 388.[731]"The white people who inhabited the frontier, from the constant state of warfare in which they lived with the Indians, had imbibed much of their character; and learned to delight so highly in scenes of crafty, bloody, and desperate conflict, that they as often gave as they received the provocation to hostilities. Hunting, which was their occupation, became dull and tiresome, unless diversified occasionally by the more animated and piquant amusement of an Indian skirmish." (Wirt, 257.)[732]Madison to Jefferson, Jan. 9, 1785;Writings: Hunt, ii, 110-11.[733]Jay to Jefferson, Dec. 14, 1786;Jay: Johnston, iii, 224.[734]Hening, xi, 471; and Henry, ii, 217.[735]Madison to Jefferson, Jan. 9, 1785;Writings: Hunt, ii. 111.[736]ArticleVIII, Constitution of Virginia, 1776.[737]Madison to Jefferson, Jan. 9, 1785;Writings: Hunt, ii, 111.[738]Ib.[739]Journal, H.D. (2d Sess., 1784), 34-41.[740]"The measure was warmly patronized by Mr. Henry." (Madison to Jefferson, Jan. 9, 1785;Writings: Hunt, ii, 111.) The reason of Henry's support of this extradition bill was not its Nationalist spirit, but his friendship for the Indians and his pet plan to insure peace between the white man and the red and to produce a better race of human beings; all of which Henry thought could be done by intermarriages between the whites and the Indians. He presented this scheme to the House at this same session and actually carried it by the "irresistible earnestness and eloquence" with which he supported it. (Wirt, 258.)The bill provided that every white man who married an Indian woman should be paid ten pounds and five pounds more for each child born of such marriage; and that if any white woman marry an Indian they should be entitled to ten pounds with which the County Court should buy live stock for them; that once each year the Indian husband to this white woman should be entitled to three pounds with which the County Court should buy clothes for him; that every child born of this Indian man and white woman should be educated by the State between the age of ten and twenty-one years, etc., etc. (Ib.)This amazing bill actually passed the House on its first and second reading and there seems to be no doubt that it would have become a law had not Henry at that time been elected Governor, which took him "out of the way," to use Madison's curt phrase. John Marshall favored this bill.[741]Journal, H.D. (2d Sess., 1784), 41.[742]Ib.[743]See note 5, p. 239,ante.[744]Marshall to Monroe, Dec., 1784; MS. Monroe Papers, Lib. Cong.; also partly quoted in Henry, ii, 219.[745]Seeinfra, chap.IX.[746]One of the curious popular errors concerning our public men is that which pictures Washington as a calm person. On the contrary, he was hot-tempered and, at times, violent in speech and action. It was with the greatest difficulty that he trained himself to an appearance of calmness and reserve.[747]Story, in Dillon, iii, 338, 343.[748]Journal, H.D. (Oct. Sess., 1787), 7.[749]Ib., 11, 15.[750]Pennsylvania Packet, Nov. 10, 1787: Pa. Hist. Soc.[751]Infra, chaps.XIandXII.[752]Pennsylvania Packet, Nov. 10, 1787; also see in Rowland, ii, 176.[753]Infra, chaps.IX,XII; and also Washington to Lafayette, Feb. 7, 1788;Writings: Ford, xi, 220.[754]Pennsylvania Packet, Nov. 10, 1787; Pa. Hist. Soc.[755]Journal, H.D. (Oct. Sess., 1787), 15.[756]Ib.[757]Ib., 95.[758]Ib.(Dec., 1787), 143, 177.[759]Hening, xii, 462-63.

[614]Richmond grew rapidly thereafter. The number of houses was trebled within a decade.

[615]Schoepf, ii, 55-56.

[616]Schoepf, ii, 55-56.

[617]Ib.; and see Journals.

[618]Ib., ii, 57.

[619]Schoepf, 55-56.

[620]Ib., 58.

[621]Story, in Dillon, iii, 337. Marshall was a prime favorite of his old comrades all his life. (Ib.)

[622]Journal, H.D. (Oct. Sess., 1782), 3-10.

[623]The roads were so bad and few that traveling even on horseback was not only toilsome but dangerous. (Seeinfra, chap.VII.)

[624]Journal, H.D. (Oct. Sess., 1782), 4-8.

[625]Journal, H.D. (Oct. Sess., 1782.), 9-10.

[626]Ib., 10.

[627]Ib., 13-15.

[628]Ib., 15.

[629]Ib., 22; Hening, xi, 111. The "ayes" and "noes" were taken on this bill and Marshall's vote is, of course, without any importance except that it was his first and that it was a little straw showing his kindly and tolerant disposition. Also the fact that the "ayes" and "noes" were called for—something that was very rarely done—shows the popular feeling against Englishmen.

[630]Journal, H.D. (Oct. Sess., 1782), 27-28. Marshall voted in favor of bringing in a bill for strengthening the credit account; and against postponing the consideration of the militia bill. (Ib., 45.)

[631]Ib., 23, 25, 27, 36, 42, 45.

[632]Ib., 23.

[633]Hening, xi, 173-75.

[634]Journal, H.D., 36.

[635]"It greatly behoves the Assembly to revise several of our laws, and to abolish all such as are contrary to the fundamental principles of justice; and by a strict adherence to the distinctions between Right and Wrong for the future, to restore that confidence and reverence ... which has been so greatly impaired by a contrary conduct; and without which our laws can never be much more than a dead letter." (Mason to Henry, May 6,1783, as quoted in Henry, ii, 185.)

[636]Writings: Hunt, ii, 397. This notable fact is worthy of repetition if we are to get an accurate view of the Virginia Legislature of that day. Yet that body contained many men of great ability.

[637]Madison to Jefferson, July 3,1784;Writings: Hunt, ii, 62.

[638]Madison to Washington, Dec. 14,1787;ib., v, 69-70.

[639]Washington to Madison, Jan. 10, 1788;Writings: Ford, xi, 208.

[640]Washington to Lafayette, April 28, 1788;ib., 254. Washington wrote bitterly of State antagonism. "One State passes a prohibitory law respecting some article, another State opens wide the avenue for its admission. One Assembly makes a system, another Assembly unmakes it." (Ib.)

[641]Hening, xi, 299-306. This statement of Marshall's was grossly incorrect. This session of the Legislature passed several laws of the very greatest public consequence, such as the act to authorize Congress to pass retaliatory trade laws against Great Britain (ib., 313); an immigration and citizenship act (ib., 322-24); an act prohibiting British refugees from coming to Virginia; and a quarantine act (ib., 29-31). It was this session that passed the famous act to authorize Virginia's delegates in Congress to convey to the United States the Northwest Territory (ib., 326-28).This remarkable oversight of Marshall is hard to account for. An explanation is that this was the year of his marriage; and the year also in which he became a resident of Richmond, started in the practice of the law there, and set up his own home. In addition to these absorbing things, his duty as a member of the Council of State took his attention. Also, of course, it was the year when peace with Great Britain was declared. Still, these things do not excuse Marshall's strange misstatement. Perhaps he underestimated the importance of the work done at this particular session.

This remarkable oversight of Marshall is hard to account for. An explanation is that this was the year of his marriage; and the year also in which he became a resident of Richmond, started in the practice of the law there, and set up his own home. In addition to these absorbing things, his duty as a member of the Council of State took his attention. Also, of course, it was the year when peace with Great Britain was declared. Still, these things do not excuse Marshall's strange misstatement. Perhaps he underestimated the importance of the work done at this particular session.

[642]Hening, xi, 387-88. This bill became a law at the spring session of the following year. The impracticable part enforcing attendance of members was dropped. The bill as passed imposes a penalty of fifty pounds on any sheriff or other officer for failure to return certificates of elections; a forfeit of two hundred pounds upon any sheriff interfering in any election or showing any partiality toward candidates.

[643]Marshall to Powell, Dec. 9, 1783;Branch Historical Papers, i, 130-31.

[644]An act allowing one half of the taxes to be paid in tobacco, hemp, flour, or deerskins, and suspending distress for taxes until January, 1784. (Hening, xi, 289.) The scarcity of specie was so great and the people so poor that the collection of taxes was extremely difficult. In 1782 the partial payment of taxes in commutables—tobacco, hemp, flour, or deerskins—was introduced. This occasioned such loss to the treasury that in May, 1783, the Commutable Acts were repealed; but within five months the Legislature reversed itself again and passed the Commutable Bill which so disgusted Marshall.

[645]Marshall to Monroe, Dec. 12, 1783; MS., Draper Collection, Wisconsin Historical Society; also printed inAmer. Hist. Rev., iii, 673. This letter is not addressed, but it has been assumed that it was written to Thomas Jefferson. This is incorrect; it was written to James Monroe.

[646]Journal, H.D. (Oct. Sess., 1782), 27. It is almost certain that his father and Jacquelin Ambler were pushing him. The Speaker and other prominent members of the House had been colleagues of Thomas Marshall in the House of Burgesses and Ambler was popular with everybody. Still, Marshall's personality must have had much to do with this notable advancement. His membership in the Council cannot be overestimated in considering his great conflict with the Virginia political "machine" after he became Chief Justice. See volumeIIIof this work.

[647]Journal of the Council of State, Nov. 20, 1782; MS., Va. St. Lib.

[648]Pendleton to Madison, Nov. 25, 1782; quoted in Rives, i, 182.

[649]Constitution of Virginia, 1776.

[650]Dodd, inAmer. Hist. Rev., xii, 776.

[651]Marshall participated in the appointment of General George Rogers Clark to the office of Surveyor of Officers' and Soldiers' lands. (Journal, Ex. Council, 1784, 57: MS., Va. St. Lib.)

[652]Ib.

[653]Binney, in Dillon, iii, 291-92. This story is repeated in almost all of the sketches of Marshall's life.

[654]Marshall to Monroe, April 17, 1784; MS., N.Y. Pub. Lib.

[655]His father, now in Kentucky, could no longer personally aid his son in his old home. Thus Marshall himself had to attend to his own political affairs.

[656]Marshall did not try for the Legislature again until 1787 when he sought and secured election from Henrico. (Seeinfra.)

[657]Journal, H.D. (Spring Sess., 1784), 5. A Robert Marshall was also a member of the House during 1784 as one of the representatives for Isle of Wight County. He was not related in any way to John Marshall.

[658]Ib.

[659]Ib.

[660]Story, in Dillon, iii, 335-36.

[661]As an example of the number and nature of these soldier petitions see Journal, H.D. (Spring Sess., 1784), 7, 9, 11, 16, 18, 44.

[662]See chap,VIIIand footnote to p. 288.

[663]Williamson was a Tory of the offensive type. He had committed hostile acts which embittered the people against him. (SeeCal. Va. St. Prs., ii. And see Eckenrode:R. V., chap, xi, for full account of this and similar cases.)

[664]The gentle pastime of tarring and feathering unpopular persons and riding them on sharp rails appears to have been quite common in all parts of the country, for a long time before the Revolution. Men even burned their political opponents at the stake. (See instances in Belcher, i, 40-45.) Savage, however, as were the atrocities committed upon the Loyalists by the patriots, even more brutal treatment was dealt out to the latter by British officers and soldiers during the Revolution. (Seesupra, chap.IV, footnote to p. 116.)

[665]Journal, H.D. (Spring Sess., 1784), 19.

[666]Journal, H.D. (Spring Sess., 1784), 23, 27.

[667]Ib., 45. For thorough examination of this incident see Eckenrode:R. V., chap. xi.

[668]Journal, H.D. (Spring Sess., 1784), 57.

[669]Ib., 14.

[670]Hening, xi, 390.

[671]Journal, H.D., 70-71.

[672]Madison to Jefferson, July 3, 1794;Writings: Hunt, ii, 56-57. The Constitution of 1776 never was satisfactory to the western part of Virginia, which was under-represented. Representation was by counties and not population. Also suffrage was limited to white freeholders; and this restriction was made more onerous by the fact that county representation was based on slave as well as free population. Also, the Constitution made possible the perpetuation of the Virginia political machine, previously mentioned, which afterward played a part of such vast importance in National affairs. Yet extreme liberals like the accomplished and patriotic Mason were against the Legislature turning itself into a convention to make a new one. (Mason to Henry, May 6, 1783; Henry, ii, 185.)

[673]Madison to Jefferson, Jan. 9, 1785;Writings: Hunt, ii, 104.

[674]Hening, xi, 510-18. This law shows the chief articles of commerce at that time and the kind of money which might be received as tolls. The scale of equivalents in pounds sterling vividly displays the confused currency situation of the period. The table names Spanish milled pieces of eight, English milled crowns, French silver crowns, johannes, half johannes, moidores, English guineas, French guineas, doubloons, Spanish pistoles, French milled pistoles, Arabian sequins; the weight of each kind of money except Spanish pieces of eight and English and French milled crowns being carefully set out; and "other gold coin (German excepted) by the pennyweight." If any of this money should be reduced in value by lessening its weight or increasing its alloy it should be received at "its reduced value only." (Ib.)

[675]Madison to Jefferson, Jan. 9, 1785;Writings: Hunt, ii, 102. Madison gives a very full history and description of this legislation.

[676]Marshall's Account Book contains entries of many of these payments.

[677]Journal, H.D. (Nov. 1787), 27-127.

[678]Journal, H.D. (Nov. 1787), 70.

[679]Ib., 27.

[680]Hening, xii, 464-67. The preamble of the act recites that it is passed because under the existing law "justice is greatly delayed by the tedious forms of proceedings, suitors are therefore obliged to waste much time and expense to the impoverishment of themselves and the state, and decrees when obtained are with difficulty carried into execution." (Ib.)

[681]Ib., ix, 389-99.

[682]Ib., xi, 342-44.

[683]See Jefferson's letter to Mazzei, explaining the difference between law and equity and the necessity for courts of chancery as well as courts of law. This is one of the best examples of Jefferson's calm, clear, simple style when writing on non-political subjects. (Jefferson to Mazzei, Nov., 1785;Works: Ford, iv, 473-80.)

[684]For the best contemporaneous description of Virginia legislation during this period see Madison's letters to Jefferson when the latter was in Paris. (Writings: Hunt, i and ii.)

[685]For a thorough account of the religious struggle in Virginia from the beginning see Eckenrode:S. of C. and S.On the particular phase of this subject dealt with while Marshall was a member of the Virginia Legislature seeib., chap. v.

[686]Mason to Henry, May 6, 1783, as quoted in Rowland, ii, 44.

[687]Meade, i, footnote to 142. And seeAtlantic Monthly, supra.

[688]Eckenrode:S. of C. and S., 75. On this general subject see Meade, i, chaps. i and ii. "Infidelity became rife, in Virginia, perhaps, beyond any other portion of land. The Clergy, for the most part, were a laughing stock or objects of disgust." (Ib., 52.) Even several years later Bishop Meade says that "I was then taking part in the labours of the field, which in Virginia was emphaticallyservile labour." (Ib., 27.)"One sees not only a smaller number of houses of worship [in Virginia] than in other provinces, but what there are in a ruinous or ruined condition, and the clergy for the most part dead or driven away and their places unfilled." (Schoepf, ii, 62-63.)

"One sees not only a smaller number of houses of worship [in Virginia] than in other provinces, but what there are in a ruinous or ruined condition, and the clergy for the most part dead or driven away and their places unfilled." (Schoepf, ii, 62-63.)

[689]Henry, ii, 199-206.

[690]Eckenrode:S. of C. and S., 77.

[691]Journal, H.D. (2d Sess., 1784), 19.

[692]Ib., 27.

[693]Ib., 82.

[694]Ib.

[695]Ib.

[696]Ib., 97. For the incorporation law see Hening, xi, 532-37; for marriage law seeib., 532-35. Madison describes this law to Jefferson and excuses his vote for it by saying that "the necessity of some sort of incorporation for the purpose of holding & managing the property of the Church could not well be denied, nor a more harmless modification of it now be obtained. A negative of the bill, too, would have doubled the eagerness and the pretexts for a much greater evil, a general Assessment, which, there is good ground to believe, was parried by this partial gratification of its warmest votaries." (Madison to Jefferson, Jan. 9, 1785;Writings: Hunt, ii, 113.)

[697]Story, in Dillon, iii, 338.

[698]"Virginia certainly owed two millions sterling [$10,000,000] to Great Britain at the conclusion of the war. Some have conjectured the debt as high as three millions [$15,000,000].... These debts had become hereditary from father to son for many generations, so that the planters were a species of property annexed to certain mercantile houses in London.... I think that state owed near as much as all the rest put together." Jefferson's explanation of these obligations is extremely partial to the debtors, of whom he was one. (Jefferson to Meusnier, Jan. 24, 1786;Works: Ford, v, 28.)Most of Jefferson's earlier debts were contracted in the purchase of slaves. "I cannot decide to sell my lands.... nor would I willingly sell the slaves as long as there remains any prospect of paying my debts with their labor." This will "enable me to put them ultimately on an easier footing, which I will do the moment they have paid the [my] debts,... two thirds of which have been contracted by purchasing them." (Jefferson to Lewis, July 29, 1787;ib., 311.)

Most of Jefferson's earlier debts were contracted in the purchase of slaves. "I cannot decide to sell my lands.... nor would I willingly sell the slaves as long as there remains any prospect of paying my debts with their labor." This will "enable me to put them ultimately on an easier footing, which I will do the moment they have paid the [my] debts,... two thirds of which have been contracted by purchasing them." (Jefferson to Lewis, July 29, 1787;ib., 311.)

[699]For Virginia legislation on this subject see Hening, ix, x, and xi, under index caption "British Debts."

[700]Definitive Treaty of Peace, 1783, art. 4.

[701]Journal, H.D. (1st Sess.), 1784, 41.

[702]Ib., 54; 72-73. The Treaty required both.

[703]Journal, H.D. (1st Sess., 1784), 74.

[704]Ib., 74-75. Henry led the fight against repealing the anti-debt laws or, as he contended, against Great Britain's infraction of the Treaty.

[705]Journal, H.D. (1st Sess., 1784), 25.

[706]Madison to Jefferson, Jan. 9, 1785;Writings: Hunt, ii, 114.

[707]See Madison's vivid description of this incident;ib., 116; also Henry, ii, 233.

[708]Ib.

[709]Marshall to Monroe, Dec. 2, 1784; MS., Monroe Papers, Lib. Cong.

[710]Madison to Monroe, Dec. 24, 1785;Writings: Hunt, ii, 205."Being convinced myself that nothing can be now done that will not extremely dishonor us, and embarass Congṣmy wish is that the report may not be called for at all. In the course of the debates no pains were spared to disparage the Treaty by insinuations agṣṭCongṣ, the Eastern States, and the negociators of the Treaty, particularly J. Adams. These insinuations & artifices explain perhaps one of the motives from which the augmention of the foederal powers & respectability has been opposed." (Madison to Monroe, Dec. 30, 1785;ib., 211.)

[710]Madison to Monroe, Dec. 24, 1785;Writings: Hunt, ii, 205.

"Being convinced myself that nothing can be now done that will not extremely dishonor us, and embarass Congṣmy wish is that the report may not be called for at all. In the course of the debates no pains were spared to disparage the Treaty by insinuations agṣṭCongṣ, the Eastern States, and the negociators of the Treaty, particularly J. Adams. These insinuations & artifices explain perhaps one of the motives from which the augmention of the foederal powers & respectability has been opposed." (Madison to Monroe, Dec. 30, 1785;ib., 211.)

[711]Curiously enough, it fell to Jefferson as Secretary of State to report upon, explain, and defend the measures of Virginia and other States which violated the Treaty of Peace. (See Jefferson to the British Minister, May 29, 1792;Works: Ford, vii, 3-99.) This masterful statement is one of the finest argumentative products of Jefferson's brilliant mind.

[712]Journal, H.D. (1787), 51.

[713]Ib., 52.

[714]Ib.James Monroe was a member of the House at this session and voted against the first amendment and for the second. On the contrary, Patrick Henry voted for the first and against the second amendment. George Mason voted against both amendments. So did Daniel Boone, who was, with Thomas Marshall, then a member of the Virginia Legislature from the District of Kentucky. On the passage of the resolution, James Monroe and Patrick Henry again swerved around, the former voting for and the latter against it.

[715]Journal, H.D. (1787), 52.

[716]Journal, H.D. (1787), 79.

[717]"If we are now to pay the debts due to the British merchants, what have we been fighting for all this while?" was the question the people "sometimes" asked, testifies George Mason. (Henry, ii, 187.) But the fact is that this question generally was asked by the people. Nothing explains the struggle over this subject except that the people found it a bitter hardship to pay the debts, as, indeed, was the case; and the idea of not paying them at all grew into a hope and then a policy.

[718]Journal, H.D. (1787), 80.

[719]Hening, xii, 528. Richard Henry Lee thought that both countries were to blame. (Lee to Henry, Feb. 14, 1785; quoted in Henry, iii, 279.)

[720]For an excellent statement regarding payment of British debts, see letter of George Mason to Patrick Henry, May 6, 1783, as quoted in Henry, ii, 186-87. But Mason came to put it on the ground that Great Britain would renew the war if these debts were not paid.

[721]Story, in Dillon, iii, 338.

[722]Hening, x, chaps. ii and ix, 409-51.

[723]For a general review of the state of the country seeinfra, chaps.VIIandVIII.

[724]Hening, xi, chap. xlii, 171.

[725]Ib., chap. xxxi, 350.

[726]Journal, H.D., 52.

[727]In order to group subjects such as British debts, extradition, and so forth, it is, unfortunately, essential to bring widely separated dates under one head.

[728]Journal, H.D. (1st Sess., 1784), 11-12.

[729]Journal, H.D. (1st Sess., 1784), 37.

[730]Ib., 81; also, Hening, xi, 388.

[731]"The white people who inhabited the frontier, from the constant state of warfare in which they lived with the Indians, had imbibed much of their character; and learned to delight so highly in scenes of crafty, bloody, and desperate conflict, that they as often gave as they received the provocation to hostilities. Hunting, which was their occupation, became dull and tiresome, unless diversified occasionally by the more animated and piquant amusement of an Indian skirmish." (Wirt, 257.)

[732]Madison to Jefferson, Jan. 9, 1785;Writings: Hunt, ii, 110-11.

[733]Jay to Jefferson, Dec. 14, 1786;Jay: Johnston, iii, 224.

[734]Hening, xi, 471; and Henry, ii, 217.

[735]Madison to Jefferson, Jan. 9, 1785;Writings: Hunt, ii. 111.

[736]ArticleVIII, Constitution of Virginia, 1776.

[737]Madison to Jefferson, Jan. 9, 1785;Writings: Hunt, ii, 111.

[738]Ib.

[739]Journal, H.D. (2d Sess., 1784), 34-41.

[740]"The measure was warmly patronized by Mr. Henry." (Madison to Jefferson, Jan. 9, 1785;Writings: Hunt, ii, 111.) The reason of Henry's support of this extradition bill was not its Nationalist spirit, but his friendship for the Indians and his pet plan to insure peace between the white man and the red and to produce a better race of human beings; all of which Henry thought could be done by intermarriages between the whites and the Indians. He presented this scheme to the House at this same session and actually carried it by the "irresistible earnestness and eloquence" with which he supported it. (Wirt, 258.)The bill provided that every white man who married an Indian woman should be paid ten pounds and five pounds more for each child born of such marriage; and that if any white woman marry an Indian they should be entitled to ten pounds with which the County Court should buy live stock for them; that once each year the Indian husband to this white woman should be entitled to three pounds with which the County Court should buy clothes for him; that every child born of this Indian man and white woman should be educated by the State between the age of ten and twenty-one years, etc., etc. (Ib.)This amazing bill actually passed the House on its first and second reading and there seems to be no doubt that it would have become a law had not Henry at that time been elected Governor, which took him "out of the way," to use Madison's curt phrase. John Marshall favored this bill.

The bill provided that every white man who married an Indian woman should be paid ten pounds and five pounds more for each child born of such marriage; and that if any white woman marry an Indian they should be entitled to ten pounds with which the County Court should buy live stock for them; that once each year the Indian husband to this white woman should be entitled to three pounds with which the County Court should buy clothes for him; that every child born of this Indian man and white woman should be educated by the State between the age of ten and twenty-one years, etc., etc. (Ib.)

This amazing bill actually passed the House on its first and second reading and there seems to be no doubt that it would have become a law had not Henry at that time been elected Governor, which took him "out of the way," to use Madison's curt phrase. John Marshall favored this bill.

[741]Journal, H.D. (2d Sess., 1784), 41.

[742]Ib.

[743]See note 5, p. 239,ante.

[744]Marshall to Monroe, Dec., 1784; MS. Monroe Papers, Lib. Cong.; also partly quoted in Henry, ii, 219.

[745]Seeinfra, chap.IX.

[746]One of the curious popular errors concerning our public men is that which pictures Washington as a calm person. On the contrary, he was hot-tempered and, at times, violent in speech and action. It was with the greatest difficulty that he trained himself to an appearance of calmness and reserve.

[747]Story, in Dillon, iii, 338, 343.

[748]Journal, H.D. (Oct. Sess., 1787), 7.

[749]Ib., 11, 15.

[750]Pennsylvania Packet, Nov. 10, 1787: Pa. Hist. Soc.

[751]Infra, chaps.XIandXII.

[752]Pennsylvania Packet, Nov. 10, 1787; also see in Rowland, ii, 176.

[753]Infra, chaps.IX,XII; and also Washington to Lafayette, Feb. 7, 1788;Writings: Ford, xi, 220.

[754]Pennsylvania Packet, Nov. 10, 1787; Pa. Hist. Soc.

[755]Journal, H.D. (Oct. Sess., 1787), 15.

[756]Ib.

[757]Ib., 95.

[758]Ib.(Dec., 1787), 143, 177.

[759]Hening, xii, 462-63.

Back to Index Next