Washington and the American Republic Part 31

To add to the confusion, Bond, the British _charge des affaires_, had intimated, that if the house of representatives, refused the necessary appropriation to carry the treaty into effect, the western posts would not be given up at the stipulated time, now near at hand. He also took that occasion to insist upon an explanatory article concerning a clause in Wayne's treaty with the Indians, by which they had agreed to allow no trader to reside among them, unless licensed by the authorities of the United States; for it seemed to be in contradiction with the provisions of the treaty under consideration, a mutual free-trade with the Indian tribes being guarantied thereby. This menace and this demand created much irritation; yet it did not in the least affect the tide of popular sentiment in favor of the treaty which was continually rising. This fact was clearly discerned by both parties, and the friends of the treaty protracted the debate, in order that, before the vote should be taken, public opinion might be so expressed, as to have an omnipotent effect in its favor.

At this moment, when the debate had been going on for several days and the spirit of the opposition began to flag, Albert Gallatin came to the support of his party, in a speech which at once gave him the position of republican leader in the house, the honor of which had been divided between Madison and Giles, of Virginia. Gallatin was a native of Geneva, in Switzerland, and then only thirty years of age. He had been only eleven years in the country, two of which he had served the people of his adoption in a military capacity. After the Revolution he established himself on the Monongahela, in western Pennsylvania, where his talents soon caused him to be called into public life. He was engaged, as we have seen, in the Whiskey Insurrection, but with patriotic intentions, as he alleged; and by a large popular vote he was elected to a seat in the house of representatives. Although a foreign accent was plainly visible when he spoke, he was so fluent in language, so earnest in manner, and so logical in argument, that his youth and foreign birth were forgotten for the moment, and he was listened to with the greatest pleasure.

Gallatin had heard the speeches on both sides with marked attention, and was prepared to take new ground in his own. Quoting from Vattel on the law of nations, he went on to show that slaves, being real estate, were not a subject of booty, but, on the restoration of peace, fell back to their former owners, like the soil to which they were attached. He attempted to excite, evidently for party purposes, sectional hatred by declaring that while the rights of the South and West had been sacrificed by the treaty, in respect to negroes, the Indian trade, and the navigation of the Mississippi, means had been found to protect the commercial interests of the North. With the same breath, however, he denounced the commercial articles of the treaty as utterly worthless, and adroitly charged the senate, by insinuation, with ignorance respecting the East Indian trade, falsely a.s.suming that because the treaty did not, by express provisions, secure the East Indian coasting trade, and the direct voyage from India to Europe by American vessels, that these privileges had been relinquished.

Like Madison, he regarded the provision respecting neutrals as yielding everything to the semi-piratical policy of Great Britain. He contended strenuously for the dishonest measure of sequestration of private debts due to British subjects, as a means of coercion, and condemned that most just provision of the treaty, bearing upon that subject, without stint.

While we have promised full indemnity to England, he said, for every possible claim against us, we had abandoned every claim of a doubtful nature, and agreed to receive the western posts under the most degrading restrictions concerning the trade with the Indians. We had gained nothing, he said, by the arrangements respecting trade and navigation, while we had parted with "every pledge in our hands, every power of restriction, every weapon of self-defence."

He admitted that if this treaty should be rejected, another as favorable might not be obtained; but he argued, that while the United States would lose the western posts and the indemnity for spoliations, they would be pecuniary gainers by escaping the payment of the British debts. He did not wish, nor did his party, an utter rejection of the treaty, but a suspension or postponement of it, until the British should cease their encroachments, and reparations for such wrongs might be obtained. He scouted as utterly chimerical, the idea that war would necessarily follow such postponement, or even a positive rejection; and he treated the menaces of the dissolution of the Union with scorn. He significantly asked, Who will dissolve the government? The opposition majority had no motive for doing it, and he did not believe that the federalists would, at the first failure of their power, revenge themselves by overthrowing the government. He expressed his belief that the people, from one end of the Union to the other, were strongly attached to the const.i.tution, and that they would punish any party or set of men who should attempt to subvert it. He rested in full security on the people, against any endeavor to destroy the Union or the government. He regarded the cry of disunion and of war as designed only to work upon the fears of Congress, and force an acquiescence in the treaty. "It was the fear of being involved in a war," he said, "that the negotiations with Great Britain had originated; under the impression of fear the treaty had been negotiated and signed; fear had promoted its ratification; and now, every imaginary mischief was conjured up to frighten the house, to deprive it of that discretion which it had the right to exercise, to force it to carry this treaty into effect." He also charged the merchants of Philadelphia and other seaports[94] with having formed a combination to produce alarm, and to make their efforts more effectual, had also combined to cease insuring vessels, purchasing produce, or transacting any business, to induce the people to join in the attempt to force the house to pa.s.s laws for carrying the treaty into effect.

"To listen calmly to this denunciation of Washington and Jay," says Hildreth, "as having pusillanimously surrendered the honor of their country--Washington in setting on foot and in ratifying, and Jay in having negotiated, the treaty--coming as it did from the mouth of one whose evident youth and foreign accent might alone serve to betray him as an adventurer, whose arrival in the country could hardly have been long anterior to the termination of the Revolutionary struggle, was somewhat too much for human nature to bear. There was also something a little provoking in the denunciation of the merchants as having conspired to terrify the house, coming from a man who had first obtained general notoriety, it was now hardly four years since, by the publication of his name at the bottom of a series of resolutions, of which the avowed object was to frighten public officers from the discharge of their duty by threats of a social interdict and non-intercourse--a method of proceeding which had ended in violent resistance to the laws and armed insurrection. Nor is it very surprising, all things considered, that many of the federalists were inclined to look on Gallatin as a foreign emissary, a tool of France, and employed and paid to make mischief."[95]

Tracy, of Connecticut, replied to the most prominent points of Gallatin's speech. He denied that Vattel gave any such opinion as to slaves, as set forth by Gallatin; and called attention to the fact that the British did not refuse to restore them as booty, but because they were men set free by having joined the British standard, that freedom being the chief inducement held out to them. Other points he commented upon with equal force. He warmed with his theme, and at length became severely personal. The opposition, he said, ask, with an air of triumphant complacency, How is there to be war, if we are not disposed to fight, and Great Britain has no motive for hostilities? "But look at the probable state of things," he continued: "Great Britain is to retain the western posts, and with them, the confidence of the Indians; she makes no compensation for the millions spoliated from our commerce, but adds new millions to our already heavy losses. Would Americans quietly see their government strut, look big, call hard names, repudiate treaties, and then tamely put up with new and aggravated injuries?

Whatever might be the case in other parts of the Union, his const.i.tuents were not of a temper to dance round a whiskey-pole one day, cursing the government, and to sneak, the next day, into a swamp, on hearing that a military force was marching against them. They knew their rights, and, if the government were unable, or unwilling, to give them protection, they would find other means to secure it. He could not feel thankful to any gentleman for coming all the way from Geneva to accuse Americans of pusillanimity."

This allusion to Gallatin elicited cries of order from many of the opposition, and for awhile the excitement in the house was intense. The chairman decided that Mr. Tracy was in order, and desired him to go on.

He disclaimed any intention to be personal, asked pardon for any improprieties of which he might have been guilty in the heat of debate, and excused himself with the plea, that such charges against the American government and people, from such a source, were naturally very offensive.

Fourteen days had now been occupied with this debate, when Fisher Ames, of Ma.s.sachusetts, whose feebleness of health had kept him away from the house a part of the session, and made him a quiet spectator until now, arose in his place, and addressed the a.s.semblage on the great subject.

It was known that he was to speak on that day (twenty-eighth of April), and the house was crowded with an audience eager to hear the orator. He was pale, tottering, hardly able to stand on his feet, when he first arose, but as he became warmed with the subject, his whole being seemed to gather strength every moment, and he delivered a speech which was never forgotten by those who heard it. It was the great speech of the session, exhibiting a wonderful comprehension of human nature and the springs of political action; logic the most profound; the most biting ridicule, and pathetic eloquence. His speech exhibits such a summary, in its allusions, to the scope of the arguments of the opposition, and throws such light upon the growth and state of parties, that we make long extracts from it.

"The suggestion a few days ago," he said, "that the house manifested symptoms of heat and irritation, was made and retorted as if the charge ought to create surprise, and would convey reproach. Let us be more just to ourselves and the occasion. Let us not effect to deny the existence and the intrusion of some portion of prejudice and feeling into the debate, when, from the very structure of our own nature, we ought to antic.i.p.ate the circ.u.mstance as a probability; and when we are admonished by the evidence of our senses that it is a fact, how can we make professions for ourselves, and offer exhortations to the house, that no influence should be felt but that of duty, and no guide respected but that of the understanding, while the peal to rally every pa.s.sion of man is continually ringing in our ears? Our understandings have been addressed, it is true, and with ability and effect; but, I demand, has any corner of the heart been unexplored? It has been ransacked to find auxiliary arguments; and, when that attempt failed, to awaken the sensibility that would require none. Every prejudice and feeling has been summoned to listen to some peculiar style of address; and yet we seem to believe and to consider a doubt as an affront, that we are strangers to any influence but that of unbia.s.sed reason.... It is very unfairly pretended, that the const.i.tutional right of this house is at stake, and to be a.s.serted and preserved only by a vote in the negative.

We hear it said, that this is a struggle for liberty, a manly resistance against the design to nullify the existence of this a.s.sembly, and to make it a cypher in the government; that the president and senate, the numerous meetings in the cities, and the influence of the general alarm of the country, are the agents and instruments of a scheme of coercion and terror, and in spite of the clearest convictions of duty and conscience.

"It is necessary to pause here, and inquire whether suggestions of this kind be not unfair in their very texture and fabric, and pernicious in all their influences. They oppose an obstacle in the path of inquiry, not simply discouraging, but absolutely insurmountable. They will not yield to argument; for, as they were not reasoned up, they can not be reasoned down. They are higher than a Chinese wall in truth's way, and built of materials that are indestructible. While this remains, it is vain to say to this mountain, be thou cast into the sea. For I ask of the men of knowledge of the world, whether they would not hold him for a blockhead, that should hope to prevail in an argument, whose scope and object is to mortify the self-love of the expected proselyte? I ask further, when such attempts have been made, whether they have not failed of success? The indignant heart repels the conviction that is believed to debase it.... Let me expostulate with gentlemen to admit, if it be only by way of supposition, and for a moment, that it is barely possible they have yielded too suddenly to their own alarms for the powers of this house; that the addresses which have been made with such variety of forms, and with so great dexterity in some of them, to all that is prejudice and pa.s.sion in the heart, are either the effects or the instruments of artifice and deception, and then let them see the subject once more in its singleness and simplicity....

"The doctrine has been avowed, that the treaty, though formally ratified by the executive power of both nations, though published as a law for our own by the president's proclamation, is still a mere proposition submitted to this a.s.sembly, no way distinguishable, in point of authority or obligation, from a motion for leave to bring in a bill, or any other original act of ordinary legislation. This doctrine, so novel in our country, yet so dear to many precisely for the reason, that in the contention for power, victory is always dear, is obviously repugnant to the very terms, as well as the fair interpretation of our own resolution (Mr.

Blount's). We declare, that the treaty-making power is exclusively vested in the president and senate, and not in the house. Need I say that we fly in the face of that resolution, when we pretend that the acts of that power are not valid until we have concurred in them. It would be nonsense, or worse, to use the language of the most glaring contradiction, and to claim a share in a power which we at the same time disclaim, as exclusively vested in other departments. What can be more strange than to say, that the compacts of the president and senate with foreign nations are treaties without our agency, and yet, that those compacts want all power and obligation until they are sanctioned by our concurrence.

It is not my design, in this place, if at all, to go into a discussion of this part of the subject. I will, at least for the present, take it for granted that this monstrous opinion stands in little need of remark, and, if it does, lies almost out of the reach of refutation."

After discussing the subject of bad faith on the part of the United States, in refusing to execute the treaty, with a clear and comprehensive view of the obligations of nations, Mr. Ames continued:--

"I shall be asked, why a treaty so good in some articles, and so harmless in others, has met with such unrelenting opposition? and how the clamors against it, from New Hampshire to Georgia, can be accounted for? The apprehensions so extensively diffused on its first publication, will be vouched as proof that the treaty is bad, and that the people held it in abhorrence.

"I am not embarra.s.sed to find an answer to this insinuation.

Certainly a foresight of its pernicious operation could not have created all the fears that were felt or effected: the alarm spread faster than the publication of the treaty; there were more critics than readers. Besides, as the subject was examined, those fears have subsided. The movements of pa.s.sion are quicker than those of the understanding: we are to search for the causes of first impressions, not in the articles of this obnoxious and misrepresented instrument, but in the state of the public feeling.

"The fervor of the Revolutionary war had not entirely cooled, nor its controversies ceased, before the sensibility of our citizens was quickened with a tenfold vivacity, by a new and extraordinary subject of irritation. One of the two great nations of Europe underwent a change which has attracted all our wonder, and interested all our sympathy. Whatever they did, the zeal of many went with them, and often went to excess. These impression met with much to inflame, and nothing to restrain them. In our newspapers, in our feasts, and some of our elections, enthusiasm was admitted a merit, a test of patriotism; and that made it contagious. In the opinion of party, we could not love or hate enough. I dare say, in spite of all the obloquy it may provoke, we were extravagant in both. It is my right to avow, that pa.s.sions so impetuous, enthusiasm so wild, could not subsist without disturbing the sober exercise of reason, without putting at risk the peace and precious interests of our country. They were hazarded. It will not exhaust the little breath I have left, to say how much, nor by whom, or by what means they were rescued from the sacrifice. Shall I be called upon to offer my proofs? They are here. They are everywhere. No one has forgotten the proceedings of 1794. No one has forgotten the capture of our vessels, and the imminent danger of war. The nation thirsted, not only for reparation, but vengeance. Suffering such wrongs, and agitated by such resentments, was it in the power of any words of compact, or could any parchment, with its seals, prevail at once to tranquillize the people? It was impossible.

Treaties in England are seldom popular, and least of all, when the stipulations of amity succeed to the bitterness of hatred. Even the best treaty, though nothing be refused, will choke resentment, but not satisfy it. Every treaty is as sure to disappoint extravagant expectations, as to disarm extravagant pa.s.sions; of the latter, hatred is one that takes no bribes; they who are animated by a spirit of revenge, will not be quieted by the possibility of profit.

"Why do they complain that the West Indies are not laid open? Why do they lament that any restriction is stipulated on the commerce of the East Indies? Why do they pretend, that if they reject this, and insist upon more, more will be accomplished? Let us be explicit--more would not satisfy. If all was granted, would not a treaty of amity with Great Britain still be obnoxious? Have we not this instant heard it urged against our envoy, that he was not ardent enough in his hatred of Great Britain? A treaty of amity is condemned because it was not made by a foe, and in the spirit of one. The same gentleman, at the same instant, repeats a very prevailing objection, that no treaty should be made with the enemy of France. 'No treaty,' exclaim others, 'should be made with a monarch or a despot; there will be no naval security while those sea-robbers prevail on the ocean; their den must be destroyed; that nation must be extirpated.'

"I like this, sir, because it is sincerity. With feelings such as these we do not pant for treaties. Such pa.s.sions seek nothing, and will be content with nothing, but the destruction of their object.

If a treaty left King George his island it would not answer, not if he stipulated to pay rent for it. It has been said, the world ought to rejoice if Great Britain was sunk in the sea; if, where there are now men, and wealth, and laws, and liberty, there were no more than a sandbank, for the sea-monsters to fatten on--a s.p.a.ce for the storms of the ocean to mingle in conflict.

"I object nothing to the good sense or humanity of all this. I yield the point that this is a proof that the age of reason is in progress. Let it be philanthropy, let it be patriotism, if you will; but it is no indication that any treaty would be approved.

The difficulty is not to overcome the objections to the terms; it is to restrain the repugnance to any stipulations of amity with the party.

"Having alluded to the rival of Great Britain, I am not unwilling to explain myself. I effect no concealment, and I have practised none. While those two great nations agitate all Europe with their quarrels, they will both equally endeavor to create an influence in America; each will exert all its arts to range its strength on its own side. How is this to be effected? Our government is a democratical republic; it will not be disposed to pursue a system of politics, in submission to either France or England, in opposition to the general wishes of the citizens; and if Congress should adopt such measures, they would not be pursued long, nor with much success. From the nature of our government, popularity is the instrument of foreign influence. Without it, all is labor and disappointment. With that auxiliary, foreign intrigue finds agents, not only volunteers, but compet.i.tors for employment, and anything like reluctance is understood to be a crime. Has Britain this means of influence? Certainly not. If her gold could buy adherents, their becoming such would deprive them of all political power and importance. They would not wield popularity as a weapon, but would fall under it. Britain has no influence, and, for reasons just given, can have none. She has enough; and G.o.d forbid she ever should have more. France, possessed of popular enthusiasm, of party attachments, has had, and still has, too much influence on our politics. Any foreign influence is too much, and ought to be destroyed. I detest the man, and disdain the spirit, that can bend to a mean subserviency to the views of any nation. It is enough to be American; that character comprehends our duties, and ought to engross our attachments.

"But I would not be misunderstood. I would not break the alliance with France. I would not have the connection between the two countries even a cold one. It should be cordial and sincere; but I would banish that influence, which, by acting on the pa.s.sions of the citizens, may acquire a power over the government."

The speaker then drew a picture of the national disgrace, in the eyes of the world, that would be caused by a breach of national faith; and he appealed with inexpressible power to the hearts and understandings of the members, on this all-important consideration. He probed, with keen and searching precision, the Jesuitical position a.s.sumed by the house, in disclaiming any partic.i.p.ation in the treaty-making power, and yet claiming the right to decide upon the merits of a treaty, and to defeat its execution. He then dwelt upon the evils that would accrue, in the form of a loss to the mercantile community, of five millions of dollars promised in payment for spoliations; and the renewal of Indian wars on the frontier, if the western posts should not be given up.

"On this theme," he said, "my emotions are unutterable. If I could find words for them, if my powers bore any proportion to my zeal, I would swell my voice to such a note of remonstrance, it should reach every log-house beyond the mountains. I would say to the inhabitants, wake from your false security--your cruel dangers; your more cruel apprehensions are soon to be torn open again. In the daytime your path through the woods will be ambushed; the darkness of midnight will glitter with the blaze of your dwellings. You are a father--the blood of your sons shall fatten your cornfields. You are a mother--the war-whoop shall waken the sleep of the cradle.

"On this subject you need not expect any deception on your feelings. It is a spectacle of horror which can not be overdrawn. If you have nature in your hearts, they will speak a language, compared with which, all I have said, or can say, will be poor and frigid.... By rejecting the posts, we light the savage fires--we bind the victims. This day we undertake to render account to the widows and orphans our decision will make--to the wretches that will be roasted at the stake--to our country--and I do not deem it too serious to say, to conscience and to G.o.d. We are answerable; and if duty be anything more than a word of imposture, if conscience be not a bugbear, we are preparing to make ourselves as wretched as our country....

"The idea of war has been treated as a bugbear. This levity is, at least, unseasonable, and, most of all, unbecoming some who resort to it.

Who has forgotten the philippics of 1794? The cry then was, reparation--no envoy--no treaty--no tedious delays. Now, it seems, the pa.s.sion subsides, or, at least, the hurry to satisfy it. Great Britain, they say, will not wage war upon us.

"In 1794, it was urged by those who now say, no war, that if we built frigates, or resisted the piracies of Algiers, we could not expect peace. Now they give excellent comfort truly. Great Britain has seized our vessels and cargoes to the amount of millions; she holds the posts; she interrupts our trade, say they, as a neutral nation; and these gentlemen, formerly so fierce for redress, a.s.sure us, in terms of the sweetest consolation, Great Britain will bear all this patiently. But let me ask the late champions of our rights, will our nation bear it?

Let others exult because the aggressor will let our wrongs sleep for ever. Will it add, it is my duty to ask, to the patience and quiet of our citizens, to see their rights abandoned? Will not the disappointment of their hopes, so long patronized by the government, now in the crisis of their being realized, convert all their pa.s.sions into fury and despair?...

"Look again at this state of things. On the seacoast, vast losses uncompensated; on the frontier, Indian war and actual encroachment on our territory; everywhere discontent; resentments tenfold more fierce because they will be more impotent and humbled; national discord and abas.e.m.e.nt. The disputes of the old treaty of 1783, being left to rankle, will revive the almost extinguished animosities of that period. Wars in all countries, and most of all in such as are free, arise from the impetuosity of the public feelings. The despotism of Turkey is often obliged by clamor to unsheathe the sword. War might, perhaps, be delayed, but could not be prevented. The causes of it would remain, would be aggravated, would be multiplied, and soon become intolerable. More captures, more impressments would swell the list of our wrongs, and the current of our rage. I make no calculation of the arts of those whose employment it has been, on former occasions, to fan the fire; I say nothing of the foreign money and emissaries that might foment the spirit of hostility, because this state of things will naturally run to violence. With less than their former exertion they would be successful.

"Will our government be able to temper and restrain the turbulence of such a crisis? The government, alas! will be in no capacity to govern. A divided people, and divided councils! Shall we cherish the spirit of peace, or show the energies of war? Shall we make our adversary afraid of our strength, or dispose him, by the measures of resentment and broken faith, to respect our rights? Do gentlemen rely on the state of peace because both nations will be more disposed to keep it? because injuries and insults still harder to endure, will be mutually offered?...

"Is there anything in the prospect of the interior state of the country, to encourage us to aggravate the dangers of a war? Would not the shock of that evil produce another, and shake down the feeble and then unbraced structure of our government? Is this a chimera? Is it going off the ground of matter of fact to say, the rejection of the appropriation proceeds upon the doctrine of a civil war of the departments? Two branches have ratified a treaty, and we are going to set it aside. How is this disorder in the machine to be rectified? While it exists its movements must stop; and when we talk of a remedy, is that any other than the formidable one of a revolutionary interposition of the people? And is this, in the judgment even of my opposers, to execute, to preserve the const.i.tution, and the public order? Is this the state of hazard, if not of convulsion, which they can have the courage to contemplate and to praise; or beyond which their penetration can reach and see the issue? They seem to believe, and they act as if they believed, that our union, our peace, our liberty, are invulnerable and immortal; as if our happy state was not to be disturbed by our dissentions, and that we are not capable of falling from it by our unworthiness. Some of them have, no doubt, better nerves and better discernment than mine. They can see the bright aspects and happy consequences of all this array of horrors. They can see intestine discords, our government disorganized, our wrongs aggravated, multiplied, and un-redressed, peace with dishonor, or war without justice, union, or resources, in 'the calm lights of mild philosophy....'

"Let me cheer the mind, weary, no doubt, and ready to despond on this prospect, by presenting another which it is in our power to realize. Is it possible for a real American to look at the prosperity of this country without some desire for its continuance, without some respect for the measures which, many will say, produced, and all will confess, have preserved it? Will he not feel some dread that a change of system will reverse the scene? The well-grounded fears of our citizens, in 1794, were removed by the treaty, but are not forgotten. Then they deemed war nearly inevitable, and would not this adjustment have been considered, at that day, as a happy escape from the calamity? The great interest and the general desire of our people was to enjoy the advantages of neutrality. This instrument, however misrepresented, affords Americans that inestimable security. The cause of our disputes are either cut up by the roots, or referred to a new negotiation after the end of the European war. This was gaining everything. This, alone, would justify the engagements of the government. For, when the fiery vapors of war lowered in the skirts of our horizon, all our wishes were concentrated in this one, that we might escape the desolation of the storm. This treaty, like a rainbow on the edge of the cloud, marked to our eyes the s.p.a.ce where it was raging, and afforded, at the same time, the sure prognostic of fair weather. If we reject it the vivid colors will grow pale; it will be a baleful meteor, portending tempest and war.

"Let us not hesitate, then, to agree to this appropriation to carry it into faithful execution. Thus we shall save the faith of our nation, secure its peace, and diffuse the spirit of confidence and enterprise that will augment its prosperity. The progress of wealth and improvement is wonderful, and some will think, too rapid. The field for exertion is fruitful and vast; and if peace and good government should be preserved, the acquisitions of our citizens are not so pleasing as the proofs of their industry, as the instruments of their future success. The rewards of exertion go to augment its power. Profit is every hour becoming capital. The vast crop of our neutrality is all seed-wheat, and is sown again, to swell, almost beyond calculation, the future harvest of prosperity. In this progress what seems to be fiction is found to fall short of experience.... When I come to the moment of deciding the vote, I start back with dread from the edge of the pit into which we are plunging. In my view, even the minutes I have spent in expostulation, have their value, because they protract the crisis, and the short period in which alone we may resolve to escape it.

"I have thus been led by my feelings to speak more at length than I had intended. Yet I have, perhaps, as little personal interest in the event as any one here. There is, I believe, no member who will not think his chance to be a witness of the consequences greater than mine. If, however, the vote should pa.s.s to reject, and a spirit should rise, as it will, with the public disorders, to make 'confusion worse confounded,'

even I, slender and almost broken as my hold upon life is, may outlive the government and const.i.tution of my country."

With this touching peroration Mr. Ames closed his remarkable speech, and sat down. For a brief moment there was perfect silence in the house.

"Judge Iredell and I happened to sit together," wrote Vice-President Adams, describing the scene. "Our feelings beat in unison. 'My G.o.d! how great he is,' says Iredell; 'how great he has been!'--'n.o.ble!' said I.

After some time Iredell breaks out, 'Bless my stars! I never heard anything so great since I was born.'--'Divine!' said I; and thus we went on with our interjections, not to say tears, to the end. Tears enough were shed. Not a dry eye, I believe, in the house, except some of the jacka.s.ses who had occasioned the necessity of the oratory. These attempted to laugh, but their visages 'grinned horribly ghastly smiles.'

They smiled like Foulon's son-in-law when they made him kiss his father's dead and bleeding hand. Perhaps the speech may not read as well. The situation of the man excited compa.s.sion, and interested all hearts in his favor. The ladies wished his soul had a better body."[96]

The vote was about to be taken, immediately after the conclusion of Ames's speech, when the opposition, alarmed on account of the effect it had probably produced, carried an adjournment. There was a little speaking upon the subject the next day, but no one dared to attempt an answer to Ames's words, or a.s.sail his positions. The vote stood forty-nine to forty-nine, when General Muhlenburg, chairman of the committee of the whole, decided the matter by casting his vote for the resolution. It was reported to the house on the thirteenth of May, and, after some delay, the resolution, unamended, declaring that it was expedient to pa.s.s laws necessary for carrying the treaty into effect, was adopted, fifty-one to forty-eight, the northern members voting for and the southern against it.

FOOTNOTES:

[91] Life of Washington.

[92] He referred to Livingston, the author of the resolutions before the house, who was one of the leaders of the populace in New York when Hamilton and King were stoned, while speaking in favor of the treaty, at a public meeting.

[93] The following is a copy of Washington's message to the house of representatives on the thirtieth of March, 1796, a.s.signing his reasons for not complying with their resolution of the twenty-fourth:--

"With the utmost attention I have considered your resolution of the twenty-fourth instant, requiring me to lay before your house a copy of the instructions to the minister of the United States who negotiated the treaty with the king of Great Britain, together with a correspondence and other doc.u.ments relative to that treaty, excepting such of the said papers as any existing negotiation may render improper to be disclosed.

"In deliberating upon this subject, it was impossible to lose sight of the principle, which some have avowed in its discussion, or to avoid extending my views to the consequences which must flow from the admission of that principle.

"I trust that no part of my conduct has ever indicated a disposition to withhold any information which the const.i.tution has enjoined upon the president as a duty to give, or which could be required of him by either house of Congress as a right; and with truth I affirm that it has been, as it will continue to be while I have the honor to preside in the government, my constant endeavor to harmonize with the other branches thereof, so far as the trust delegated to me by the people of the United States, and my sense of the obligation it imposes to 'preserve, protect, and defend the const.i.tution,' will permit.