against 128 given to DeWitt Clinton, who had been nominated by a part of the Republicans and supported b the Federalists.

The war began with disaster on land and glory on the sea. For a time it seemed as if we might lose the Northwest territory. The government was afraid to tax and could not borrow. In 1815 government loans were at a discount of 40%. The majority of the banks suspended specie payments. New England was generally against the war; its militia refused to go outside of their respective states and some of the governors refused to furnish militia at all. The more discontented of the Federalists met at the Hartford convention and broke the old principles of the party by favoring state sovereignty (1814).

The victories on Lake Erie and Lake Champlain and at New Orleans closed the war with the moral result in favor of the United States.

Monroe in 1816 received 187 electoral votes against 34 given by the remnant of the Federalists to Rufus King, and in 1820 was reelected without an opposing candidate. In 1819 Florida was purchased, and in 1823 Monroe served notice to the world that America was no longer a field for European colonization.

In the meantime the Republican party itself was beginning to break up into sections. Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams became the leaders of the so-called "American policy" of internal improvement and a higher protective tariff to growing manufactures. The Southern Republicans who represented the older section of the party rallied around Crawford until his paralysis in 1823, then for a time joined forces with Andrew Jackson and finally turned to Calhoun.

About 1820 the question of slavery came to be of some importance. Hitherto in admitting new states into the Union a close balance had been kept between the Northern and Southern states, but in 1820 both Maine and Missouri were ready for admission. Maine was, of course, to be a free state; Missouri was mostly above the point where the Ohio joined the Mississippi and might also well be made a free state. The invention of the cotton gin vastly increased the value of cotton land and slave labor and made the extension of slavery important to the South. Henry Clay, who became the embodiment of the spirit of compromise, settled the difficulty for a time by getting passed the compromise of 1820, admitting Missouri as a slave state, but henceforth forbidding slavery north of the southern boundary of Missouri.

The principal candidates for the presidency in 1824 were Adams

and Clay of the New Republicans, Crawford of the Old Republicans, nominated by a congressional caucus, and Andrew Jackson, nominated by the state legislature of Tennessee. Jackson had 99 votes, Adams 84, Crawford 41, and Clay 37. This threw the election into the House and the Clay men, voting for Adams, elected him.

The fact that Jackson had had the greatest number of electoral votes immediately gave him great prominence. He became the leader of the common people. Among his lieutenants were Benton and Van Buren. One mark of the growing popularization of power was his successful attacks against the choice of presidential electors by the state legislatures. His growing popularity gave him 178 electoral votes in 1828, against 83 for Adams. Calhoun had been Vice-President with Adams and was re-elected with Jackson.

Jackson swept out the office-holders in the civil service and appointed his own adherents. The influence of the new democracy brought in county, district and state conventions. The president vetoed the bill to recharter the National bank and bills favoring protection and internal improvements. He quarreled with Calhoun and estranged the southern element of his party. In 1832 the National Republicans nominated Clay, but the New Democratic Republicans re-elected Jackson.

The high tariff of 1828 aroused intense dissatisfaction in the South. Hayne and Calhoun developed the old Jeffersonian idea that a state could interpose its veto to nullify an act of Congress within its borders. Marshall in the Supreme Court and Webster in the Senate strengthened the foundation for the supremacy of the general government by developing the idea that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of all questions between two states or a state and the nation. South Carolina passed the ordinance of nullification November 19th, 1832, but Jackson, although he was no friend of the tariff or internal improvement, and although he was supposed to belong to a strict construction party, immediately gave warning that he would enforce the laws with all of the National power. The nullification ordinance was suspended by an unofficial meeting of leading nullifiers and the South was pacified by the compromise tariff of 1833. We must leave the further development of political ideas in the United States to the following volume.

ALEXANDER HAMILTON

ALEXANDER HAMILTON was born on the island of Nevis, in the West Indies, January 11th, 1757. In 1772 he came to New York and the next year entered King's college. Although not yet twenty, his pamphlets in favor of the rights of the colonies attracted considerable attention. At the opening of the war he studied military tactics and was appointed a captain of artillery. In 1777 Washington made him his aide-de-camp. At Yorktown at the head of a battalion he took one of the redoubts by assault.

From 1783 to 1787 he was busy practicing law in New York. In the latter year he went as a delegate to the Federal convention. He would have preferred a president and senators elected for life, but so much strength was infused into the new Constitution that he gave it his hearty support in the articles written by him for "The Federalist," and before the New York convention.

He was the best representative of the Federalist party. His organization of the new government showed a statesmanship that has seldom been equaled. He brought forth strength out of weakness, unity out of disintegration, credit out of bankruptcy, industrial growth out of stagnation, and confidence out of despair. He inaugurated protection, a National bank, and assumed the confederate and state debts.

In 1795 Hamilton resigned from the cabinet to again practice law, but in 1798 was made second to Washington in command of the army organized in expectation of war with France, and the next year commander-in-chief.

Hamilton's opposition to the sending of an embassy to France by President Adams in 1799 occasioned a break in the Federalist party that helped let in the Republicans in 1800. When the election was thrown into the House Hamilton urged the choice of Jefferson as against the other Republican candidate, Aaron Burr. Again in 1804 he opposed Burr for the governorship of New York on the ground that Burr was not a safe man. This brought upon Hamilton Burr's deadly

hatred. Burr challenged him to a duel and Hamilton was killed at Weehawken July 12, 1804.

Though he was not as close to the people as either Jefferson or Lincoln, he is probably the greatest constructive genius among the American statesmen.

THE POWERS OF THE SUPREME COURT

A further view of the judicial department, in relation to the extent of its powers.

To judge with accuracy of the due extent of the federal judicature, it will be necessary to consider, in the first place, what are its proper objects.

It seems scarcely to admit of controversy, that the judiciary authority of the union ought to extend to these several descriptions of cases: Ist. To all those which arise out of the laws of the United States, passed in pursuance of their just and constitutional powers of legislation: 2d. To all those which concern the execution of the provisions expressly contained in the articles of union: 3d. To all those in which the United States are a party: 4th. To all those which involve the peace of the confederacy, whether they relate to the intercourse between the United States and foreign nations, or to that between the states themselves: 5th. To all those which originate on the high seas, and are of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction: and, lastly, to all those in which the state tribunals cannot be supposed to be impartial and unbiased.

The first point depends upon this obvious consideration, that there ought always to be a constitutional method of giving efficacy to constitutional provisions. What, for instance, would avail restrictions on the authority of the state legislatures, without some constitutional mode of enforcing the observance of them? The states, by the plan of the convention, are prohibited from doing a variety of things; some of which are incompatible with the interests of the union; others, with the principles of good government. The imposition of duties on imported articles, and the emission of paper money, are specimens of each kind. No man of sense will believe, that such prohibitions would be scrupulously regarded, without some effectual power in the government to restrain or correct the infractions of them. This power must either be a direct negative on the state laws, or an authority in the federal courts

to overrule such as might be in manifest contravention of the articles of union. There is no third course that I can imagine. The latter appears to have been thought by the convention preferable to the former, and, I presume, will be most agreeable to the states.

As to the second point, it is impossible, by any argument or comment, to make it clearer than it is in itself. If there are such things as political axioms, the propriety of the judicial power of a government being coextensive with its legislative, may be ranked among the number. The mere necessity of uniformity in the interpretation of the national laws, decides the question. Thirteen independent courts of final jurisdiction over the same causes, arising upon the same laws, is a hydra in government, from which nothing but contradiction and confusion can proceed.

Still less need be said in regard to the third point. Controversies between the nation and its members, or citizens, can only be properly referred to the national tribunals. Any other plan would be contrary to reason, to precedent, and to decorum.

The fourth point rests on this plain proposition, that the peace of the whole ought not to be left at the disposal of a part. The union will undoubtedly be answerable to foreign powers for the conduct of its members. And the responsibility for an injury ought ever to be accompanied with the faculty of preventing it. As the denial or perversion of justice by the sentences of courts, is with reason classed among the just causes of war, it will follow, that the federal judiciary ought to have cognizance of all causes in which the citizens of other countries are concerned. This is not less essential to the preservation of the public faith, than to the security of the public tranquility. A distinction may perhaps be imagined, between cases arising upon treaties and the laws of nations, and those which may stand merely on the footing of the municipal law. The former kind may be supposed proper for the federal jurisdiction; the latter for that of the states. But it is at least problematical, whether an unjust sentence against a foreigner, where the subject of controversy was wholly relative to the lex loci, would not, if unredressed, be an aggression upon his sovereign, as well as one which violated the stipulations of a treaty, or the general law of nations. And a still greater objection to the distinction would result from the immense difficulty, if not impossibility, of a practical discrimination between the cases of one complexion and those of the other. So great a proportion of the controversies in which foreigners are parties involve