There was more light than was acceptable to some of the members of Congress. A great diversity of opinion arose; and long and animated debate ensued. This highly interesting subject, at that time, was, and ever will be, one of deepest interest to this country, as the true basis of national credit, and of the national honor, then established. The discussion seriously agitated the country, and gave new vigor to party dissensions. There were two points of prominent interest, whether the state debts should be assumed by the nation, and whether the evidences of debt (called then public securities) should be "funded" for the benefit of the holders, at the nominal value, or at some depreciated value. They had long been in circulation, and sometimes as low as at one-eighth of the sum for which they issued. These securities had gathered in the hands of those who expected payment, if the constitution took effect; and this was among the causes of the deep interest which the conventional meeting excited. When "the funding system," on Hamilton's report, engaged the attention of Congress, "speculation" might be called a public distemper. At one time the securities rose above their nominal value. Fortunes were won and lost in a single hour. No one who can remember those days, needs to be reminded of the intense excitement which prevailed among speculators; nor of the sullen dissatisfaction manifested by individuals of the opposition. Doubtless the public debt was to be provided for; and, so far as can now be discerned, this was honorably and equitably done. But the effect was to strengthen opposition, and to furnish one more lever to pry up the administration. The greater part of the securities were held in the middle and eastern states. The wealth which was acquired in these parts of the Union, may have been among the early causes of the feelings which have been elsewhere manifested, since these times.

No two men could have been brought together more entirely opposed in opinion, and modes of action, than Jefferson and Hamilton. Their disagreement became an implacable hostility, so that Washington thought it indispensable to interpose, and

attempt reconciliation, in the most kind aud persuasive manner, but all in vain. Jefferson had the strongest partialities for France; Hamilton seemed to foresee and to feel a sense of horror for what was to be enacted in that country. Hamilton had a high regard for the stability and order of the English government. Jefferson appears to have entertained, at all times, the strongest dislike of it. It may be inferred from papers now of historical record, that Jefferson thought the President to have been unduly accommodating to Hamilton's opinions. This the President denied. Placed as these two men were, in the same cabinet, it is quite within the range of probability, that Mr. Jefferson's subsequeut political course may, in some degree, have taken its character from the feelings created, or strengthened, by these collisions.

In February, 1791, the bill establishing the Bank of the United States was considered in the cabinet, to decide whether it should have the President's approval. This institution was thought indispensable by Hamilton, in conducting the duties of his department. It had been thoroughly discussed in the House on the ground of expediency and constitutionality. Marshall says, (vol. v. p. 297,) "the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General," (when the subject was discussed in the cabinet,) "conceived, that Congress had clearly transcended their constitutional powers; while the Secretary of the Treasury, with equal clearness, maintained the opposite opinion." Written opinions were required of each; and the bill was approved. It does not appear from Marshall, that the Secretary at War had any part in this deliberation. From other sources of information, it is believed that he concurred with Hamilton. Persons, who considered themselves well informed, have been heard to say, that this discussion in the cabinet was a scene of intense interest. Whether the public will ever know its precise character, may be uncertain. This may depend on a biography of Hamilton, if such a work should ever be written. How much the personal feelings of the two secretaries may have affected this great public interest, may never be known. It is not

too late, it seems, to doubt and contend against expediency and constitutionality, all experience and precedent, notwithstanding.

LETTER XII.

MARCH 3, 1833.

CONGRESS were engaged in February, 1791, in further carrying into effect, by law, Hamilton's report on provision for the public debt, and maintaining the national credit. The subject then under consideration was the excise, or a tax on the distillation of ardent spirits. This was vehemently resisted by the opposition. They represented it to be, as it proved to be, an unwelcome exercise of power, though the very same opposition afterwards resorted to the same measure. It affected a numerous class of persons, especially in the interior of Pennsylvania, and was generally unpopular throughout the Union. The tax was resisted on many grounds, and among others, that it was unjust and unequal, and that any tax on property, income, lawyers, on written instruments, or on salaries, would be preferable. It affected persons who could feel the tax as an oppression, but who could not comprehend its expediency or necessity to maintain the public credit. We shall see its effect, when enforced, and under its operation, an open rebellion against the government.

About this time the French had made such progress in their revolution as to have established their National Assembly, and the "great nation" had already become the terror of Europe. The tree of liberty was to be planted throughout the earth. The progress of French principles was very grateful to the opposition in the United States; nor to them only. Many of the federal party were rejoiced to see the coming freedom of the people who had so essentially aided (from whatever motives) in securing that of their

own country. In the course of the year 1792 the French Revolution had been so far accomplished as to demand, it was thought, a public expression of joy by the Americans.

"A civic feast" was undertaken in Boston; such a one as no rational being would desire to see repeated. A whole ox, skinned and dressed, leaving the head and horns entire, and the eyes protruding from their sockets, was turned on a great wooden spit, before a furnace. When the animal was sufficiently roasted, he was placed on a sledge or carriage, and there properly supported and propped up, was drawn through the principal streets of the town, and was followed by two cart-loads of bread and two hogsheads of punch. An immense concourse of people attended; there was but one mind and heart, and there was no reference to political divisions. The procession terminated in State Street, where a table was laid from the eastern end of the City Hall to near Kilby Street; and on this table it was intended, that the friends of liberty should feast from the roasted ox. The scene soon changed; the cutting up and distribution of the animal became ridiculous; and soon riotous. The roasted fragments were thrown into the air, and hurled at female spectators who thronged the balconies, and crowded the windows. The end of this matter was, that a pole of fifty or sixty feet in length was raised in what was thence, Liberty Square, and surmounted with the horns of the ox, where they remained several years. It so happened that the civic feast occurred here on the same day that the head of Louis XVI was severed from his body by the guillotine. This unexpected event seemed to open the eyes of many Americans to the true character of the French Revolution. It struck some of them with astonishment and horror; while it was to others a matter of heartfelt pleasure. The latter, however, did not approve because they were gratified in destruction of the man, for the common feeling was, that America was greatly indebted to Louis; but because a king had fallen; and a triumphant advance had been made in the cause of liberty. It is probable that the leaders of the opposition in the United States, not only saw this

event in this light, but saw in it, also, new encouragement, that federal power might be demolished.

On the first application of the excise law, there were serious. discontents and popular movements in the western part of Pennsylvania; so much so, that the President issued a proclamation commanding obedience, and intimating that legal prosecutions would be enforced against all infractions of the laws. This system of taxation was revised by Congress in May, 1792, but the discontents continued.

The year 1793 was one of many important events. Parties had taken decided character in and out of Congress. The veneration for Washington shielded him from open attacks; but his secretary, Hamilton, was not spared. On the 27th of February, Mr. Giles, of Virginia, moved in the House of Representatives a series of resolutions, comprising several charges of official misconduct. These resolutions were debated with great acrimony until the close of the session, on the 3d of March. But not more than sixteen members voted to sustain any one of the resolutions. This was a period of excessive bitterness, as appears from the debates and newspapers of the day.

Hamilton was accused, in a paper called the "National Gazette," well known to be edited by a clerk in the office of Mr. Jefferson, with designs to introduce a monarchy, and to establish a government similar to that of Great Britain. All the measures recommended by him, from the commencement of his duties, were brought in proof of these accusations; particular expressions in his reports were selected as conclusive evidence. On the other hand, Mr. Jefferson was charged in the newspapers with the design of subverting the government, by rendering its officers odious; with being the partisan of France; and with availing himself of his official station to misrepresent the purposes of the executive. The motives of both these gentlemen may be left to the decision of times more distant from those in which they were acting, than the present; and to what may be then an impartial judgment. They are referred to now, to show how the views of Mr. Jefferson