Imágenes de páginas

measures for amending such portions of the Constitution as gave authority for this opinion of the chief-justice, and at the ensuing session of Congress the amendment was agreed to.

There can be little doubt that the decision of Mr. Jay was not only consistent with the existing provisions of the Constitution, but was founded on strict justice. That the general government should, by an amendment of the Constitution, remove the ground for popular clamour, was perhaps politic and expedient, but the strength of the Union has been manifestly impaired by the decision. It is within the limits of probability that acts may be committed by some one state against the citizens of another, which, if there be no tribunal possessed of power to afford redress, may lead to reprisals and involve actual hostilities. We might, however, have expected that, on this occasion, the chief-justice would have emancipated himself at once from the shackles of the old feudal doctrine that "the king can do no wrong." Had he boldly declared that the government of the United States itself could be made the defendant in a civil action, in consequence of the source of power having passed from a monarch to the people, he would have met the difficulty in its very origin, and would have removed at once the only legal oppression to which the citizens of the United States are now subjected.

It seems an anomaly, that, in a government founded upon the principle of popular sovereignty, the individual members of the ruling body should have no legal remedy for the oppression of their own servants, no means of obtaining a judicial decision in respect to disputed accounts.

The time seems to be at hand when the necessity of affording to the public creditor, whether of the state or of the general government, a remedy by law, and to those stigmatized as defaulters the means of proving their purity in open court, cannot be gainsaid. We may therefore hope for a legislative action on this subject by Congress, which will allow the general government to be impleaded as a defendant in a suit at law, and that this will be imitated by the state legislatures.


Question of Neutrality in the War between France and England.-Washington's Proclamation.Arrival of Genet. — Attempt at fitting out French Privateers.-Jay's Charge to the Grand Jury at Richmond. Aggressions of Great Britain. Washington determines to send a special Minister to England, and selects Jay for the purpose.-Jay proceeds to London.-His Negotiations with Lord Grenville.-He concludes a Treaty.-Loud Dissatisfaction expressed by the anti-Federal Party.-Treaty ratified by the President and Senate.—Its Provisions approved by the House of Representatives.—Merits of Jay's Treaty, and comparison of it with that negotiated by Mr. Monroe.

OUR foreign relations now began to excite great attention. It became necessary for the government of the United States to decide upon its course with regard to neutrality with all, or a war with some of the powers in Europe. The French king had been dethroned, and republican France appealed strongly to the sympathies of America. If the latter assisted France, she must have warred against England; and many would have appro

ved of such a measure, impelled by ancient animosity against the latter country, and hating her, not only for this reason, but because she had not fulfilled some of the obligations imposed upon her by the late treaty. A strong French party was formed, and Washington found it necessary to issue his celebrated proclamation of neutrality. When his opinions were thus publicly declared, his decision was arraigned, the purity of his motives was questioned by that party which had, as anti-Federalists, been opposed to him, and who now arrayed themselves on the side of France." These dissensions were fomented, these hostilities to government encouraged, by the arrival in the country of Genet, who was openly the minister of France, secretly an agent to stir up this country to a war with England. This man, on his arrival at Charleston, distributed French commissions; and when he reached Philadelphia, with utter disregard of the laws, and in despite of the president's proclamation, proceeded to fit out French privateers at various ports, thus proving by what a strong party he was supported. Mr. Jay, in his charge to the grand-jury of the Circuit Court of the United States then assembled at Richmond, alludes to these troubles, and declares it to be their duty to present for prosecution those who violated the national neutrality. When Mr. Genet, the French minister, was informed that force would

be used, if necessary, to prevent a privateer he had equipped from proceeding to sea, he declared his intentions of appealing from the president to the people, and thus of executing his intentions by violence. Some of the papers defended this course, and encouraged this insult to the Father of his Country. Mr. Jay and Rufus King published a communication in one of the papers, stating that Mr. Genet had avowed such intentions; they were, in consequence, bitterly assailed by those who sided with the French interest.

These dissensions were increased by the acts of England; and, to the animosity already excited against her, she added fresh force by her vexatious interference with American commerce. She issued an order, by which it was rendered lawful for all vessels carrying grain to France to be seized and carried to England, where the cargoes might be purchased for the use of government. This order was followed by one authorizing the capture of all vessels carrying supplies to French colonies. Both these edicts fell heavily on the commerce of the United States. The right of searching American vessels, and impressing from them seamen called English, was insisted upon and practised. Congress viewed these measures with alarm and distrust; a portion of the nation protested against them in terms equally disrespectful to their own government and that of England; meas

[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »