no good, the Senate standing to its former position. The House finally yielded by a vote of 31 to 29, almost geogra phical; the North in favor of a concurrence with the Senate, the South opposing it. This bill was sent to Washington, who vetoed it, Jefferson and Randolph being opposed to the bill, while Hamilton and Knox advised the President to sign it. A third bill was then introduced into the House, which apportioned the representation at the ratio of thirty-three thousand, which gave 105 members.

It is worthy of observation that, according to the census, slavery existed throughout the Union, except in Massachusetts and Maine, Maine being at that time a part of Massachusetts.

The struggle commenced at this time for a predominance of power between the Northern and Southern parts of this Union, which has often been agitated with the utmost violence. In reference to an increased number of Representatives, the idea was favored by Northern men with a view to increase the taxation on slaves, the Southern States being much more extensively slave-holding.

The first administration of Washington is interesting and instructive, not only on account of the management of our financial and domestic affairs, the high, neutral, and conservative policy manifested in reference to the wars that raged in Europe at the time, but the light and wisdom thrown upon questions of deep and vital constitutional interest by those who had imbibed its spirit by watching and assisting at its formation and first operation.

1793.

In March, Washington was inaugurated for the second term. In December of the same year, the Third Congress assembled. The friends of the Administration endeavored to elect Sedgwick Speaker, but by a combination of parties, anti-Federal in tone and character, Muhlenburg was chosen by a majority of ten votes. The Fifth Annual Message was communicated to Congress the first day of its session; the most important feature of which was the allusion to the proclamation of strict neutrality which had been issued, in April preceding, in reference to the wars then raging in Europe,-heavy penalties being visitable 1793. upon all American citizens who violated this principle of neutrality, fundamental to the well-being of our Government, and established at this early period as the fixed policy of the nation. The attention of Congress was chiefly

occupied with the commercial affairs of the country, and our relations with France. Congress on the 23d of February, 1791, passed a resolution calling on the Secretary of State for information in reference to our commerce. The report was sent in on December the 16th, 1793. On the 30th of December he made an additional report, communicating certain documents from foreign governments.*

This report, for fullness and accuracy, presenting with logical clearness the interest and duties of the United States, was justly celebrated as one of the ablest efforts of that talented and distinguished statesman, Thomas Jefferson. On the next day he retired from the cabinet. He had lost the influence he once exercised on the political friends and associates of the President, while Washington had begun to suspect him of treachery. It was obviously the duty, as well as the interest of Jefferson, that he should retire. Hamilton and Knox represented the views of the President; while Jefferson and Randolph were the warm advocates and strenuous friends of the Republican party, which they were striving to excite into life and action upon the overthrow of the Administration, and, in some respects, the political principles of Washington.

The limited resources of the country and the arduous difficulties through which our commerce struggled, are exhibited by the report of Jefferson. But, at the same time, all must be struck with the masterly policy that brightly shone over every effort of the Administration in reference to our foreign relations. The countries with which the United States had their chief commercial intercourse were Spain, Portugal, France, Great Britain, the United Netherlands, Denmark, and Sweden. The articles of export which constituted the basis of our commerce, with their respective amounts, were—

Tobacco

.$4,349,887 | Horses and mules......... $339,753

* American State Papers, vol. i. p. 422; Stat. Man., vol. i., p. 85.

The proportion of our exports which went to the nations before mentioned were in the following ratio:

Due imports from the same countries were as follows:

The casting up of the above table, will exhibit the heavy disadvantages that pressed us down; the disparity between our exports and imports, and that at a time, as is here exhibited, when a heavy debt rested like an incubus upon our tender and youthful bosom.

This report exhibited to Congress for the first time the many and heavy restrictions that existed upon our commerce, and urged the President and cabinet to the negotiation of treaties with all the countries named above; which gave not only more importance to the diplomatic negotiations at Washington, but invested them with an interest and feeling that have attended no subsequent Administration. Upon all the articles alluded to in the foregoing table, each country mentioned had some prohibitory or highly-restrictive duty.

The report of Jefferson recommends, as the best manner in which our commercial difficulties might be "removed, modified, or restricted,"-first, "by friendly arrangements with the several nations with whom these restrictions exist;" or, secondly, "by separate acts of our legislatures for countervailing their effects." He expresses the decided opinion that the better mode would be the former, and that countervailing restrictions would embarrass our commerce "under piles of regulating laws, duties, and prohibitions." At times he seemed to indulge in the theory of unlimited and unrestricted commerce with the world, but afterwards it received from his hands the most unqualified rebuke. Indeed, it appears in the latter part of this very elaborate and uncommonly able

document, that he had considerable doubt about its beneficial operation; wherein he says,-"But should any nation, contrary to our wishes, suppose it may better find its advantage by continuing its system of prohibitions, duties, and regulations, it behooves us to protect our citizens in their commerce and navigation by counter prohibitions, duties, and regulations also."

He exemplified in his latter years the truth of this remark, and found it impossible to practice a theory which bore the condemnation of the world, however cherished it may have been by statesmen of the Jeffersonian school. "Free commerce and navigation are not to be given in exchange 1794. for restrictions and vexations, nor are they likely to produce a relaxation of them."

Whatever may have been Jefferson's theoretic predilections for free-trade, it cannot be doubted that he abandoned them to some extent, and that our tariff policy received an early introduction into the practical operations of the Government at this time, and from this report.

The very restrictive system adopted by Europe fell with dreadful blight upon our budding commerce. Great Britain. had inflicted upon it great injury, with her eight or nine hundred vessels of nearly 40,000 tons burden. This was more than our country could bear, and our remedy was alone to be found in the lex talionis.

On the 4th of January, Madison introduced into the House a series of resolutions in reference to our commercial affairs; they were somewhat in conformity with Jefferson's report. They proposed to lay specific duties on different branches of manufactures; to lay additional tonnage duties on vessels of those nations who had no commercial treaty with the United States; to reduce the duties on the vessels of those who had such treaties; to retaliate all the restrictions which were imposed by other nations, whether on the commerce or the navigation of the United States, either by the like restrictions or a tonnage duty; and lastly, to reimburse the citizens of the United States for the losses they had sustained by the illegal procedures of other nations, out of the additional duties laid on the product and shipping of such nation.*

These resolutions were indefinitely postponed, yet the prin

* Tucker's Life of Jefferson, vol. i. p. 475; Marshall's Life of Washington, vol. ii. p. 292.

ciples they inculcated, immortal as the memory of their author, were ultimately destined to triumph.

They gave rise, however, to a protracted debate, in which the two great parties of the country occupied widely different positions. They were advocated by Madison, Nicholas, Giles, Findley, and others, on the one hand; and opposed by Ames, Boudinot, Hillhouse, Smith, of Maryland, Smith, of South Carolina, and others, of the Federal school.

The Federalists endeavored to show that the commercial policy of Great Britain was more favorable to the United States than was that of France. The large amount of our imports from England, of which some complained, was also an evidence that we could purchase of her better fabrics, or on cheaper terms, than from other countries; that to discourage the trade with Great Britain by high duties, for the sake of bringing her to the level of other nations, was to tax ourselves for their benefit; that as to our navigation, it was admitted to be on a more favorable footing in the French than the English West Indies.

The resolutions were supported on the ground that most of the injuries which the United States received from Great Britain proceeded from her unceasing efforts to extend her commerce, and could only be countervailed by an appeal to the same regard to her interest. Its advocates were of opinion that the propositions before the committee were the strongest weapons America possessed, and would, more probably than any other, restore her to all her political and commercial rights. They professed themselves the friends of free-trade, and declared the opinion that it would be to the general advantage if all commerce was free. But this rule was not without its exceptions. The Navigation Act of Great Britain was a proof of the effect of one exception on the prosperity of national commerce.

The idea was in existence too at this day, that there was another exception to the advantages of a free-trade, where the situation of a country is such with respect to another that by duties on the commodities of that other it will not only invigorate its own means of rivalship, but draw from that other the hands employed in the production of those commodities.* It may be said that the most efficient reasons

* Marshall, vol. ii. p. 303; Tucker's Life of Jefferson, vol. i. p. 477; Hild. Hist. of U. S., second series, vol. i. p. 459; Elliott's Debates, vol. iv. p. 442.