網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

The federalists charged Mr. Jefferson and his friends, who had been advocates for a strict interpretation of the constitution, with being “ultra latitudinarian in construing it when it suited their purpose.” (Tucker, vol. ii. p. 112.)

Removal of Judges. “A proposition, which had been made at the preceding session, [1805,] to amend the constitution so that any judge of a federal court might be removed by the President, on the joint application of the two houses of Congress, was renewed at the present session, [1806,] and after the disagreement to the proposition in committee of the whole, the motion to postpone it indefinitely was rejected by a large majority.” Nothing more was attempted. (Tucker, vol. ii. p. 200.)

Dependence of Judges. (Ibid., pp. 376, 377.)

"He denies that the judges have any right to decide constitutional questions for the Executive, more than the Executive has to decide for them." (Tucker, voi. ii. p. 167.)

Mr. Jefferson's opinion about the interference of the officers of the federal government in the elections, in his reply to a letter on the subject from Governor McKean of Pennsylvania, dated February 2, 1801, just before he entered upon the duties of President:

“ Mr. Jefferson expresses a principle which he afterwards acted on, that 'interferences with elections, whether of the State or General Government, by officers of the latter, should be deemed causes of removal; because the constitutional remedy by the elective principle becomes nothing, if it may be smothered by the enormous patronage of the general government.""

Again, in a letter to Mr. Gerry, February, 1801, he says: "The right of opinion shall suffer no invasion from me. Those who have acted well have nothing to fear, however they may have differed from me in opinion: those who have done ill, however, have nothing to hope; nor shall I fail to do justice, lest it should be ascribed to that difference of opinion.” (Tucker's Life of Jefferson, vol. ii. pp. 98, 167.)

"Both of our political parties, at least the honest part of them, agree conscientiously in the same object, the public good; but they differ essentially in what they deem the means of promoting that good.” (Letter to Mrs. Adams. Tucker, vol. ii. p. 167.)

See Madison Papers, vol. iii. pp. 1576, 1577. “Mr. Madison suggested an enlargement of the motion, [then sub judice,] into a power 'to grant charters of incorporation where the interest of the United States might require, and the legislative provisions of individual States

܂ ܕܕ

may be incompetent."" "Mr. [Rufus] King thought the power unnecessary.' “Mr. Wilson: It is necessary to prevent a State from obstructing the general welfare." In reply, "Mr. King: The States will be prejudiced and divided into parties by it. In Philadelphia and New York, it will be referred to the establishment of a bank, which has been a subject of contention in those cities. In other places it will be referred to mercantile monopolies." In reply, Mr. Wilson again: "As to banks, he did not think with Mr. King, that the power in that point of view would excite the prejudices and parties apprehended. As to mercantile monopolies, they are already included in the power to regulate trade."

It would seem that Mr. Madison's motion failed, from a conviction that Congress would possess the power without any explicit grantif not explicitly denied.

Mr. King probably alluded to the commercial rivalry existing between Philadelphia and New York: and to the apprehensions of the latter lest the former should be preferred as the site of any contemplated national bank.

Again : "Mr. Madison and Mr. Pinckney moved to insert, in the list of powers vested in Congress, a power 'to establish an University, in which no preferences or distinctions should be allowed on account of religion.'" "Mr. Wilson supported the motion." "Mr. Gouverneur Morris: It is not necessary. The exclusive power at the seat of government will reach the object.” This case is introduced to illustrate the mode of arguing and disposing of such and similar questions. They seem to have assumed that the power would vest in Congress, when not with held or refused. See also Madison Papers, vol. iii. pp. 1343–46, for debates about bills of credit. “Mr. G. Morris moved to strike out, and emit bills on the credit of the United States.

"Mr. Langdou had rather reject the whole plan, than retain the three words, and emit bills."" Nine States voted to strike out. Two, not.

Mr. Elbridge Gerry declared, when the proposition to charter the United States Bank was before Congress, “that Congress had as perfect a right to incorporate a bank as to adjourn from day to day.” He had been a member of the Convention, and was a member of Congress from 1789 to 1793. He was a Jeffersonian democrat of the first water.

I more than doubt the wisdom or expediency of ever creating a corporation by either the General or State Governments, for the mere purpose of pecuniary emolument to individuals. Experience has de

[ocr errors]

monstrated that this species of legalized monopoly is ever liable to the grossest abuses. It is odious, partial, fraudulent, oppressive, irresponsible, anti-democratic. It has proved delusive and ruinous to honest confiding stockholders; and is auspicious only to gambling, adventurous, reckless speculators. Let our existing banks run out their appointed course—or run away, as many of them have done and are doing. And let us never grant another charter for money-makingor for swindling. Leave the occupation of banking, as you do that of pin-making, to the enterprise, prudence, skill, inclination and responsibility of individuals here, in this free Republic, as it is, and ever has been, in all other countries. An act of incorporation for the benefit of private or associated money-lenders, is no more necessary or proper, than would be a similar act for mercantile or mechanical firms or copartnerships.

Who were.the popularity hunters and agitators in the army of the revolution ? Conway, Gates, etc. Who, at the close of the war, plotted treason among the officers; and tempted Washington with the insidious offer of a crown, only to secure its reversion to the aching head of a very different individual ? Who wrote the famous “Newburgh letters ?” Who sought to inflame the minds of the unpaid soldiery to sedition, insurrection, rebellion ?-to the establishment of a military reign under such chief as they might select ? Not Hamilton, Knox, Greene, Schuyler, Putnam......General John Armstrong [then a Major] has told us. He, too, was a popular democrat then, and thenceforth, to the end of the chapter. Colonel Burr was among the earliest and most cherished leaders of the democracy; and for several years was second only to Jefferson. And the.“hero of Chepachet” [Dorr] is decidedly the greatest democratic lion of the day, [1842.]

No man can be certain, before trial, what he will become when in office. "And Hazael said, But what ! is thy servant a dog, that he should do this great thing? And Elisha answered, The Lord hath showed me that thou shalt be king over Syria.” (2 Kings, viii. 13.)

Old Federalism. What is it? Whence did it spring? What was the origin of the name? How did Washington administer the government? How did Adams ? Why denounce Adams as the sole author of every odious or unpopular measure during his reign? of the alien and sedition laws, stamp act, standing army, etc. ? when all these are chargeable to Congress, that is, were the acts of a majority of the people; namely, of our honoured sires--who were neither fools nor traitors ?

VOL. III.--23

AMERICAN DEMOCRACY.

PART THIRD.

II. What can the government do for the people? I answer, a vast deal; both negatively and positively. “ The world is governed too much.” And excess is always an evil. To this evil we are extremely obnoxious. We must try to diminish it. This is the first step in the remedial process.

Legislation may be directly, positively, purposely, pernicious, unjust, oppressive. It may aim at good, and yet be evil in its tendency. It may indirectly occasion much injury. It may operate insidiously, speciously, deceptively. Now all legislation ought at least to intend good: and it should, moreover, be so wisely ordered as to produce good, and only good. Every system or act of legislation, tending directly or indirectly to the relaxation of moral principle, or to the encouragement of immoral conduct, is bad. This is done in many ways: As when industry is impeded or discountenanced. When temptations are held forth to fraud, evasion, concealment, venality, perjury, embezzlement, breaches of trust, official corruption or malversation - in order to any selfish, avaricious or ambitious end. The morals of a people are more dependent on legislation than is generally imagined. And where the morals are depraved, there can be no safety and no happiness.

The character of any government may be fairly tested by the condition and character of the people. Where the mass of the people are most virtuous, contented, peaceful, industrious, frugal, enlightened, and secure in the enjoyment of personal, religious and political freedomthere the government is of the best character. And a contrary state of things would argue the existence of a very bad government—no matter by what technical name the government may be designated. Every form of government may be deplorably vicious and oppressive, if corruptly administered.

Our own country exhibits, at this moment, [1842,] a sorry, repulsive, disordered, unhealthy, cheerless aspect. Something is wrong. Without war, famine or pestilence, the whole land is filled with murmuring and complaint, with poverty, wretchedness and crime.— With frauds, forgeries, defalcations, bankruptcies, robberies, murders, arsons, suicides, and profligacy of all sorts and degrees.With a spirit of the most reckless gambling and specula tion: of the most degrading avarice, the most desperate ambition, the most fiendlike violence, the most revolting disregard of all human ties and obligations—a spirit which contemns, repudiates and laughs to scorn every principle of morality, of patriotism, of honour, of law, and of religion.

The Union is in debt; the States are in debt; the cities and banks and other corporations are in debt; honest men and rogues are in debt; and none can pay. We are destitute of credit, at home and abroad. We have no confidence in one another. Enterprise and in

« 上一頁繼續 »