exalting Washington to undervalue Adams-undervaluing Washington, to excuse, perhaps exalt, himself.

In answer to Jefferson,* he observed:

"Since my last I have received yours. There never was perhaps a greater contrast between two characters than between those of the present President and of his predecessor. The one, cool, considerate, and cautious. The other, headlong, and kindled into a flame by every spark that lights on his passions. The one, ever scrutinizing into the public opinion, and ready to follow what he could not lead. The other, insulting it by the most adverse sentiments and pursuits. Washington, a hero in the field, yet overweighing every danger in the Cabinet. Adams, without a single pretension to the character of soldier, a perfect Quixote as a statesman. The former Chief Magistrate pursuing peace everywhere with sincerity, though mistaking the means. The latter taking as much pains to get into war as the former took to keep out of it. The contrast might be pursued into a variety of other particulars. The policy of one, in shunning connections with the arrangements of Europe-of the other, in holding out the United States as a make-weight in the balance of power;-the avowed exultation of Washington in the progress of liberty everywhere, and his eulogy on the revolution and people of France, posterior even to the bloody state of Robespierre-the open denunciations by Adams of the smallest disturbance of the ancient discipline, order and tranquillity of despotism."

The public feeling had been roused against France, and it was the policy of the opposition to avoid all irritation. The Addresses of both Houses passed without debate.

Either to discontinue that, which they regarded as an irksome ceremony, or to wound the Executive by withholding this accustomed mark of respect, many of the minority voted to omit the practice of presenting an answer, and that a committee be appointed merely to an

February, 1798. The passage quoted may be seen in the original letter in the State department. It is omitted in the copy, also there, intended for publication.

nounce to the President their readiness to co-operate with him in all advisable measures. Of these the most urgent were those for the protection of commerce, and the defence of the country. The committee on this subject, in order to avoid a protracted discussion, asked leave to report by bill. The House was equally divided. The motion was carried by the casting vote of the Speaker, who had abandoned the opposition. The bill authorized merchant vessels to be armed for their defence. This was

opposed, as a measure hostile to France, and as interfering with the pending negotiation. "If the vessels acted offensively, it was war. If defensively, it might furnish a pretext for war." The danger of offence was denied by the Federalists. It was not to be anticipated, that a vessel engaged in peaceful traffic, not authorized to capture, would commence an attack for the mere desire of a contest. The Master would expose his person to a gibbet, and his vessel to condemnation. Is the right of defence to be restrained, lest it should give a pretext for hostilities? Is France in want of a pretext? Has she not defended her spoliations on the plea of imperious necessity-a plea to which she always can recur? Great as the urgency of this measure was, from the increasing captures, still, in the hope of a successful issue to the negotiation, the bill was postponed until that issue should be known. Much artifice had been used to induce the belief, that France was anxious for conciliation. A letter to that effect was received from Talleyrand by the French Consul at Philadelphia, at the opening of the session. A prospect was held out, that Commissioners would be sent from France. Their terms, it was suggested, by the opposition, would be indemnity for the captures made by her, on being indemnified for captures made by Great Britain in consequence of our abandonment of the modern

law of nations, which the Executive had proclaimed should be his guide ;--compensation for not having fulfilled the guarantee of the West Indies; stipulations that the commerce of France should be on the same footing with that of England; and that the United States would never enter into any treaty, unless free ships made free goods.*

Their proceedings on another subject indicated the temper of the House. A bill had passed, from adequate motives, to postpone the levying of the stamp duties for a period of six months. In this the Senate concurred. Regardless of the obstacles which had been overcome in the grant of this important source of revenue, and notwithstanding its probable necessity, the fear of offending popular prejudices induced the House to repeal the Stamp act. The Senate, of firmer purpose, rejected the proposition.

The sentiments of the Representatives were more fully disclosed in a debate on a bill providing the means of foreign intercourse. An act for this purpose, of a limited duration, had passed the first Congress, and had been renewed at different times. This act fixed the amounts of compensation, and appropriated a sum to be disbursed annually by the President for that object; but to be accounted for at the Treasury. The Diplomatic establishment had been recently enlarged by the mission of the son of the President to Berlin. A corresponding appropriation was proposed. The motive to this embassy not being very obvious, and it being regarded as an unbecoming act of favoritism, much animadversion followed. The opponents of the President found in it an occasion to excite the jealousy of the people. It was not forgotten, that during the struggles of the revolution, a charge

*The "Aurora."

had been made by him which was rejected, for the education of this son at the public expense, while the father was enjoying the dignity and emoluments of an embassy, and, looking back at his career, it would be asked, does he thus hope to advance him step by step to the highest station in the Government? The apprehension of an hereditary monarchy would be bruited forth; and this preference adduced as evidence of the near danger of such a result.

The despatches of that officer, while resident at the Hague, exposing the policy of France, had also given great umbrage. A strenuous opposition was resolved. Nicholas began the discussion. He moved an amendment, by which the grade of a minister plenipotentiary would have been excluded, the established annual compensation of nine thousand dollars would have been confined to the Ambassadors to the "French Republic or Great Britain," and that of all other ministers limited to half that sum. This amendment was in accordance with the policy early suggested by Jefferson. A short time after he took his seat in the Cabinet, he proposed to the President to adopt it as his system, that "excepting the Court of France," there should be no "higher grades in the Diplomatic line than Chargé des Affaires.”*

By seeming only to fix the grades and salaries, the Constitutional obstacle to this interference was sought to be kept out of view. In the course of this discussion, all the excited feelings of the parties were shown. The Democratic members enlarged much on the dangers of Executive patronage, and assimilated the office of the President to that of the King of England. His power was sustained by that patronage, which was the great

* Washington's Diary, March 23, 1790.

source of apprehension here. Thence corruption would flow in upon the State; and all history proved that Republican governments corrupted were worse than monarchies. Gallatin was conspicuous in support of this amendment. The necessity of diplomatic agents he more than questioned. "He believed, situated as we were, it was necessary to have some political intercourse, but he also believed it would be best by degrees to decline it altogether. The political relations of the country, he declared, were distinct from its commercial relations. These could be sufficiently attended to by Consuls. The present situation of the nation was not owing to its commercial intercourse, but to the operation of treaties and to its political connections. He contended, that the House had a right, by refusing an appropriation, to check this patronage. The raising and disbursing money, the Constitution had confided to Congress. It emphatically states, that all legislative powers shall be vested in Congress; that no money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations by law. Therefore Congress are judges of the propriety or impropriety of making a grant, and have a right to exercise their discretion therein. If there was any act which could not be done but by all the branches, each had its share in deciding upon the propriety of it. He also entertained a doubt, whether, although the President may appoint Ambassadors, a law may not be necessary to create the office, before an appointment takes place. The section of the Constitution empowering the President to appoint Ministers, recognizes only the possible existence of them; and does not create the office. The office to any foreign Court, where we have not had any before, is created by the President's appointment."

The advocates of the bill treated these alleged dan.