repealing the late act, and depriving the incumbents appointed by Adams of the office.* In the House of Representatives, the great champions in debate on this bill were William B. Giles, of Virginia, who boldly and ably advocated the repeal; and James A. Bayard, the leader, and most accomplished debater of the Federal party. In the Senate, G. Morris sustained with great zeal the law of the last session creating the courts; yet he was successfully and ably met by S. T. Mason, who warmly advocated the destruction of those supernumerary courts. John Randolph, that bright yet erratic star, lent the full lustre of his genius to break up this last refuge of the broken-down party hacks of the late Administration. It was contended by the advocates of the law creating these courts, that the increasing trade and commerce and population of the country would likewise increase the judicial business, and that public necessity required them. It was also contended that it would be unconstitutional to deprive the incumbents of their office, which was to be held during good behavior; and that it was equally, if not a greater violation of the Constitution, for the legislative branch of the Government to encroach upon the independence of the Judiciary. In reference to the first argument, experience has shown that the extensive addition to the Judiciary was not needed. The second and strongest defence was unsound. It did not violate the Constitution by making the Judiciary submissive to the legislative branch of the Government. The offices were abolished because they were useless. The Federalists charged that the object in repealing the law was to get rid of the incumbents. The Republicans exhibited no such purpose. In the language of Randolph, the chairman of the committee, by whom the law for the abolition of the courts was reported, it was admitted that such purpose would be against the spirit of the Constitution. "I am free to declare," said Randolph, "that if the extent of this bill is to get rid of the judges, it is a perversion of your power to a bad purpose; it is an unconstitutional act. If, on the contrary, it aims not at displacing one set of men from whom you differ in political opinion, with a view to introduce others, but for the general good, by abolishing useless offices, it is a constitutional act. But we are told that this is to declare the Judiciary, which the Constitution has attempted to fortify against * Sixteen judges were deprived of office by the repeal. the other branches of Government, dependent on the will of the Legislature, whose discretion alone is to limit their encroachments. Whilst I contend that the Legislature possesses this discretion, I am sensible of the delicacy with which it is to be used. It is like the power of impeachment or the declaring of war, to be used under a high responsibility." It is obvious that the Republican party was actuated by the purest motives; nor can it be doubted that Congress possessed the constitutional power to abate a useless office. During this session of Congress the representation was apportioned according to the census of 1800, the ratio being continued at one representative for every 33,000 inhabitants. The Military Academy at West Point was likewise established; objections were raised to its establishment, but universal approbation now sustains it as among the first scientific, literary, and military schools in the world; whilst the high renown and brilliant service of the officers it has afforded our army, show its practical utility, and it is now considered by general consent indispensable to the safety of our country. 1802. The attention of Congress during the remainder of this session was chiefly occupied with the passage of certain laws for the protection of American commerce, and our seamen against Tripolitan cruisers, by whom some of our vessels had been captured. The acts discontinuing the several acts for internal taxes on stills, distilled spirits, refined sugars, carriages, stamped paper, licenses to retailers, and sales at auction, were passed at this time. A law was passed for the redemption of the public debt, appropriating annually seven millions three hundred thousand dollars to the sinking fund. April 26. At this time, and a few days before the close of the session, the President communicated to Congress the treaty between the United States and the State of Georgia, embracing that portion of territory lying between the Mississippi and Chattahoochee, which had been made between the commissioners of that State and the United States, the latter consisting of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Attorney-General. Georgia ceded to the United States all her claim to the territory west of her present boundary, which extended to the Mississippi River, embracing nearly four degrees of latitude, and now constitutes the States of Alabama and Mississippi, placing in the hands of the General Government about one hundred thousand square miles.* This act of the General Government cannot be considered in the light of the acquisition of territory, or even an extension of the territory of the United States; yet it was the first effort the United States Government had made towards the acquisition of territory for its sole governance, since the cession of Kentucky and the Northwest Territory. The transfer of this territory, as in all other instances, has operated to the great advantage of the territory transferred, as well as to the grandeur of the Union. This territory was received on the terms and conditions of the ordinance of 1787, except the prohibition of slavery.† April 30, 1802. A new and important step was taken at this session of Congress, which, as the result of a political principle established in the Constitution, was for the first time to be brought into practical operation. The first fruits of the expansive principle of the Government of the Union was now to be realized, and every succeeding effort to enlarge the area over which our Republican Constitution spreads its benign influence has demonstrated the true philosophy and philanthropy of this principle in the Government of the United States. The territory northwest of the Ohio River, by the late census, contained a population sufficient to entitle it to admission into the Union as one of the United States. act was accordingly passed in obedience to the Constitution, authorizing the people of the eastern division of the territory northwest of the Ohio River to form a constitution and organize a State government, which was done in convention, begun and held at Chillicothe on the 1st of November, 1802. An The eastern division of the Northwestern Territory, which constituted the State of Ohio, contained about 40,000 square miles, lying in a compact form nearly in the shape of a square, with a geographical position and fertility of soil, that accounts for the rapid development of its resources and unparalleled increase of population. Its commercial intercourse with the States is eminently favored by its access to the Ohio River, which forms its south and southeast boundary, and Lake Erie, which forms more than one half of its northern boundary. The remainder of the territory was to be annexed to Indiana. * Hild. Hist. of the U. S., vol. ii. p. 447. In consideration of an act passed by the State, exempting from taxation for four years all lands newly purchased of the General Government, Congress proposed in return to grant one township in each section of land for the support of schools, which amounted to one thirty-sixth part of the lands in the State, besides five per cent. of the proceeds of all lands sold to be laid out for the construction of roads; three per cent. of it, by a subsequent act, to be expended within the State, and two per cent. upon roads leading to the State from the eastward. The progressive population of the State of Ohio is an unmatched phenomenon in the history of colonization. In 1783, the area it now embraces was a wild waste, and untrod wilderness; its immeasurable forest echoed only to howling beasts, whilst Ohio's giant tide rolled onward to the ocean, its restless surface scarce ploughed by the light canoe of the savage Indian. In 1790, only 3000 civilized inhabitants were found within its boundaries; in 1800, the population had increased to 42,156; in 1810, it was 227,813; in 1820, it contained 275,965; in 1830, it had swollen to 479,713; in 1840, it numbered upon its generous soil 775,360 inhabitants. The banks of its majestic river, but a few years back lonely and desolate, save the noble forest that waved in melancholy grandeur over its swelling tide, is now studded with thriving towns and cities, and its mighty waters are daily bearing its commerce and its wealth to the remotest inhabitants of the earth. In 1850, according to the report of the last census, it presented a population of 1,980,408. The progress of the State of Ohio presents a beautiful picture of the enterprise, intelligence, and success of the American citizen, (as would be the case with mankind,) left free to shape his destiny and struggle for fortune and fame, even against the pinchings of poverty, under the administration of laws spurning a systematic favoritism like that of the Old World, instead of extending, as does our own Government, the power and influence that belongs to it, to nurture, cherish, and protect every interest, and uphold the rights of every being, leaving the industrious, the virtuous, and the talented, to win for themselves such distinction and privilege as they alone can achieve and maintain. At this session an effort was made to discontinue the coinage of metals and abolish the mint, because its maintenance was considered too expensive. A bill for that purpose passed the House of Representatives, but was defeated in the Senate. A proposition was made before the close of this session, which had nearly expired, to abolish the Navy Department and place its concerns under the Secretary of War, but it signally failed. This effort was probably suggested with a view to meet the approbation of the President, whose opinions were several times variant upon the subject of the navy, though during the first administration of the Government, Jefferson had been a warm advocate of the navy. Jefferson, in answer to a letter from John Adams making certain inquiries in reference to the navy, and in which Adams gives his own name as authority, that Washington was adverse to a navy, the proof of which he had from his own lips in many different conversations, wrote, "Your recollections on that subject are certainly corroborated by his known anxieties for a close connection with Great Britain, to which he might apprehend danger from collisions between their vessels and ours. Randolph was then Attorney-General, but his opinion on the question I also entirely forget." Jefferson had advocated the building of vessels to be sent to the Mediterranean, which had been done. "I thought," he says afterwards, "that the public safety might require some additional vessels of strength, to be prepared and in readiness for the first moment of war, provided they could be preserved against the decay which is unavoidable if kept in the water, and clear of the expense of officers and men. With this view I proposed they should be built in dry docks, above the level of the tidewaters, and covered with roofs. I further advised that places. for these docks should be selected where there was a command of water on a high level, as that of the Tiber at Washington, by which the vessels might be floated out on the principle of a lock. But the majority of the Legislature was against any addition to the navy, and the minority, although for it in judgment, voted against it on a principle of opposition. * * * Yet a navy is a very expensive engine. It is admitted that in ten or twelve years a vessel goes to entire decay, or if kept in repair, costs as much as would build a new one; and that a nation who could count on twelve or fifteen years of peace, would gain by burning its navy and building a new one in time. Its extent, therefore, must be governed by circum stances."* This, it appears, is the last written evidence of Jefferson's * Jefferson's Correspondence, vol. iv. p. 356. |