An anonymous call had also been sent out for a meeting of officers to consider the grievances of the army. The wonderful good sense and all-pervading influence of Washington were again evident. He balked the plans of the conspirators completely. He did not attempt to suppress the feeling among the soldiers, but he controlled it effectively. Instead of prohibiting the meeting so irregularly called, he simply postponed it a few days and appointed General Gates to preside. There may have been irony in the appointment. While the meeting was in progress Washington appeared and by means of a forcible and touching address turned the tide against the conspirators. He did not mince matters. His rhetorical arrows flew straight. His remarks upon the author of the address were peculiarly scathing. He referred to him as a man entitled to more credit "for the goodness of his pen" than "for the rectitude of his heart." He adroitly conjectured that the writer of the manifesto might have been an emissary from the British, whose purpose was to sow "seeds of discord and separation between the civil and military powers of the continent." The address was a telling one, and a little incident at the opening added to its effectiveness. Washington had never used glasses in public before that day, but he found it necessary to do so while reading his address. Colonel Cobb tells us that as he took the manuscript of his address from one pocket and his spectacles from another, he remarked: "Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray, but almost blind, in the service of my country." The scene was very affecting. Washington had given his services to his country without money and without price, and his simple remark went straight to the hearts of his hearers. "This little address," adds Colonel Cobb in his letter, "with the mode and manner of delivering it, drew tears from [many] of the officers." Washington had carried the day. A motion declaring confidence in the justice of Congress and expressing abhorrence at the infamous proposals of the manifesto was passed.

This crisis, then, was tided over by the influence and skill of the commander-in-chief. It illustrates, however, the critical nature of the period with which we are dealing.

The acts of the soldiers in these concluding days of the war were not always commendable in every respect, and as a result there was no little distrust of the army. This fact is exemplified by the storm of protest with which the organization of the "Cincinnati" was received.

Before finally disbanding in 1783, the officers of the army formed a society whose object was to further the friendly relations of the members and to preserve the memories of the Revolution. Washington was chosen president, and the society was to be perpetuated by the admission of the eldest. sons of the members. This provision added an aristocratic. feature to the already objectionable military one. There was also to be a class of members consisting of distinguished persons who had had no part in the war. The organization was patriotic and philanthropic in character and one to which we should not expect any serious objection. However, when the news of its organization was spread abroad, a protest long and loud was sent up from all parts of the country. Fears of a military despotism and of a hereditary aristocracy were expressed on all sides, and the new society was looked upon with marked disfavor. Even Samuel Adams was unduly alarmed. In a letter to Elbridge Gerry he expressed the fear that the members of the order of the Cincinnati might acquire large tracts of western lands and import peasants from Europe for the purpose of establishing the feudal system. To prevent such a calamity, Congress passed an act declaring that no person holding a hereditary title should be admitted to citizenship in any of the new States formed from the western territory.

Commerce was one of the most important and difficult subjects with which the new republic had to deal. It was also a subject which was handled in a most unskilful manner and one from which no end of difficulties arose. It has been already stated that Dickinson's draft of the Articles

of Confederation was based upon a plan of government submitted to Congress by Dr. Franklin in July, 1775. There are some important differences between the two documents, and it is interesting to note that in the matter of regulating commerce the draft by Franklin is far superior. Franklin's plan provided for the regulation of commerce by Congress, while that of Dickinson put the matter in the hands of the various States, except when such regulation interfered with any stipulations which might be made "in pursuance of any treaties already proposed by Congress to the courts of France and Spain." This provision made the negotiation of commercial treaties with European governments a very difficult if not impracticable task. A commission consisting of Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams was able to accomplish practically nothing in this respect. They opened negotiations with fifteen European States and succeeded in making one unimportant commercial treaty. The European nations saw clearly the impotence of our central government and knew that the States with their power to regulate commerce could nullify any treaty which might be made. They preferred not to play at treaty making. In fact, the representatives of Great Britain inquired very pertinently of our commissioners whether they had credentials from each of the thirteen States or only from Congress. Some of the European nations rejoiced at this state of affairs. They were pleased that they had a good excuse for not making treaties with the United States, as they could then prey upon American commerce unhampered by treaty obligations.

There were commercial difficulties at home as well as abroad. The folly of allowing the States to regulate commerce was made evident in a commercial warfare which sprang up among them. Each State enacted tariff laws adapted to its own local conditions. In a short space of time each was attempting to gain an advantage over its neighbors, and a series of retaliatory measures followed. Three New England States closed their harbors to English ships; and Connecticut invited commerce by a free trade policy in

respect to England, while it imposed a tariff on goods coming from Massachusetts. New York was particularly aggressive and mercenary. Its commercial warfare with Connecticut and New Jersey is a case in point. New York City was being supplied at the time with wood from Connecticut and with farm produce of various kinds from New Jersey. It occurred to George Clinton and his followers that a large amount of money was being taken out of the city, without adequate return, by the woodmen and farmers of the adjacent States. The result was a protective law and a navigation act directed at these obnoxious neighbors. Entrance fees and duties were exacted from the Connecticut and New Jersey men who wished to sell their goods in the New York market. A spirit of anger and retaliation was at once aroused. Connecticut merchants agreed to suspend all commercial dealing with their sister State for a year, and a fine of $250 was imposed for breaking the agreement. New Jersey also retaliated. New York had recently built a lighthouse on Sandy Hook. Sandy Hook was in New Jersey, and the lighthouse was immediately taxed £30 per month. These are examples of the manner in which the States regulated commerce. However, they clung tenaciously to their prerogative in this respect. In 1781 Congress proposed that the general government be allowed to levy a duty of five per cent on imports to aid in the payment of the war debt, the duty to cease when the debt was liquidated. This seemed to be a very reasonable proposition, but obstreperous little Rhode Island voted against it, and Virginia withdrew its assent after once voting in its favor. The proposition accordingly failed, as a unanimous vote was necessary for its success.

Not a little embarrassment ensued from the failure of the United States to comply with the provisions of the treaty of peace with Great Britain. The faith of the people was pledged to the payment of the debts due to British creditors, and compensation to the Loyalists was recommended. But the debts were not being paid and the confiscated estates

of the Loyalists were not being returned. Because of the obstructive policy of the States, Congress found it impossible to carry out the provisions of the treaty in these respects. At least seven of the States passed acts making it impossible to collect money for this purpose. This action was excused on the ground that the British had carried away slaves from this country at the close of the war and had not paid for them. Richard Henry Lee urged the repeal of these obstructive laws, but Patrick Henry declared that he would not assent to such a step until the British had paid for the slaves which they had carried away. It is undoubtedly true that some slaves were taken to England at the close of the war, but the grievance was by no means so great as it was represented to be. However, because the debts were not being paid, Great Britain refused to surrender the western posts. This retaliation was both expensive and humiliating. It encouraged the Indians to make attacks upon the frontier settlements and deprive the Americans of the Indian fur trade, which was very profitable at this time. It is said that in 1787 $1,200,000 worth of furs was sold in London. The London merchants were very desirous of retaining this profitable business. The refusal of the Americans to pay the British debts according to the stipulations of the treaty furnished an excellent pretext for the retention of the posts and the enjoyment of the lucrative fur trade.

The weakness of the government was also painfully illustrated in its dealings with the Barbary States. The States of northern Africa had long been noted for their robbery, piracy, murder, and blackmail. While uttering fair words. they were committing foul deeds. In the days of the Confederation, they turned their attention to the commerce of the American States. American vessels were seized and plundered, and American citizens were exposed for sale in African slave markets. All this, too, was done with impunity, as the American government was too weak to protect ⚫ either the persons or the property of its citizens. In 1785