evidence to be taken before such person or persons as the president shall di rect, who are for that purpose hereby authorized to administer oaths, that no injury or danger to the United States will arise from suffering such alien to reside therein, the president may grant a license to such alien to remain with in the United States, for such time as he shall judge proper, and at such place as he may designate. And the president may also require of such alien to en ter into a bond to the United States, in such penal sum as he may direct, with one or more sufficient sureties to the satisfaction of the person authorized by the president to take the same, conditioned for the good behaviour of such alfen during his residence in the United States, and, not violating his license which license the president may revoke, whenever he shall think proper." July 6, 1798. The eight per cent. loan remains. It was united with, and increased the clamour against, the alien and sedition laws; and these obnoxious measures, as I have already observed, precipitated the federalists from power. Yet we have since found that their successors, the democrats, have themselves given about eight per cent. on their loans. This would afford a glorious triumph to federalism over her inveterate rival, democracy, were it not that the annals of the former can furnish many instances of similar frailty, and inconsistency, and -departure from professions. And it is a melancholly truth, that the histories of all the parties and factions that have, since government was first instituted, cursed and scourged mankind by their senseless, envenomed, and implacable hostilities, are replete with instances of errors equally disgraceful and dishonourable. A history of the madness, the folly, and the depravity of party and faction, is a grand desiderajum. Jay's Treaty. The violent opposition to this instrument, which pervaded the union, and greatly disturbed the administration of General Washington, was a highly factious procedure on the part of the democrats, who were led away by objections, plausible, but not substantial-hardly any of which have been realised. This affair evinces the danger of yielding to the sudden impulses of national feeling, which bear down every thing bebore them, and which wholly overpower the reason and un derstanding of even the wise and the good, who on such occasions, are only on a level with the most uninformed and uncultivated part of the community. Nearly all the predictions respecting this treaty have been the sooth-sayings of alfe prophets; of men, some led astray by their prejudicesothers by perturbed imaginations. Such of them as have been realised, have been more than counterbalanced by the solid advantages resulting from the adjustment of the differences between the two nations. CHAPTER III. Monroe and Pinkney's Treaty with England. Separation of the States. Treasonable Publications. Embargo. Nonin tercourse. Of the errors of Mr. Jefferson's administration, it is unne-cessary to mention more than three, denoting two very opposite extremes of character-the one highly bold and daring -the other displaying an equal degree of feebleness. Monroe and Pinkney's Treaty with England. * Two ministers appointed by Mr. Jefferson, had negociated a treaty with England, the best they could procure. It had been transmitted to him in due form. Without consulting the co-ordinate branch of the treaty-making power, he, on his own responsibility, rejected it, and transmitted to these ministers instructions to begin the negociation anew. This was a mighty and a fatal error." It may be doubted whether it were not a violation, at least of the spirit of the constitution. It was at all events a case that probably did not enter into the conceptions of the framers of that instrument. If it had, it is likely they would have provided against its occurrence. A calm reflection on this subject can hardly fail to convince the reader that probably to this source may be fairly traced nearly all our present difficulties. Had this treaty been, as it ought, laid before the senate, they would in all likelihood have ratified the chief parts of it, and, as had been the case with Jay's treaty, have referred the obnoxious clauses to a new discussion. Our disputes with England would have been thus compromised-and our party divisions could never have been excited to such a height as to endanger the peace and security of the country. It has been inferred from the rejection of this treaty, that it arose from Mr. Jefferson's desire of a cause of war with England. This is radically wrong. At no period since the commencement of the French revolution has there been a deficiency of a real cause of war with England, in the impressment of our seamen, and the violent proceedings against our commerce. But a pregnant proof of the fallacy of this charge *It has been attempted to justify this procedure, by the circumstance, that the negociators had violated one explicit item of Mr. Jefferson's instructions. to conclude no treaty without a specific article guarding against impressments. This is no justification. It is barely a palliation. arises out of the attack of the Leopard on the Chesapeake. This circumstance settles the question forever. Had Mr. Jefferson been desirous of war with England, nothing more was necessary than to have convened congress immediately after that event, during the extraordinary ebullition of the public mind which it created. All parties were then clamorous for, and would have heartily united in a war. And war would certainly have been declared by congress almost unanimously. But with a desire of peace, deserving of the highest praise and gratitude of his country, which he has never received, he deferred the convening of congress about four months, within which period the public ferment had subsided. This important fact has been wholly overlooked in the factious discussions that have taken place respecting his administration; so true it is, that in times of turbulence, reason raises her voice in vain. It is drowned in the obstreperous brawlings of noisy factionists.. The justice which leads to this vindication, compels me unqualifiedly to censure the very extraordinary and unprecedented measure of rejecting the treaty on his own responsibility. Besides the want of an explicit clause on the subject of impressment, the friends of Mr. Jefferson assign another plea to justify him for the rejection of this treaty. After it was agreed to by both parties, there was a rider annexed to it by the British commissioners, which was calculated to give the treaty-sanction to the celebrated orders in council, which, even then, it would appear, were in contemplation. To enable the reader to decide correctly, I annex the rider. NOTE Of the British Commissioners, accompanying Monroe and ́ Pinckney's Treaty. LONDON, DEC. 31, 1806. "The undersigned, Henry Richard Vassal, lord Holland, and William lord Auckland, plenipotentiaries of his Britannic majesty, have the honor to inform James Monroe and William Pinkney, commissioners extraordinary and plenipotentiaries of the United States of America, that they are now ready to proceed to the signature of the treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation, on the articles of which they have mutually agreed. "But at the same time they have it in command from his majesty, to call the attention of the commissioners of the United States, to some_extraordinary proceedings which have lately taken place on the continent of Europe, and to communicate to them officially the sentiments of his majesty's government thereupon. "The proceedings alluded to are certain declarations and orders of the French government issued at Berlin, on the 21st of November last. t: In those orders, the French government seeks to justify or palliate its own unjust pretensions, by imputing to Great Britain principles, which she never professed, and practices which never existed. His majesty is accused of a systematic and general disregard of the law of nations, recognized by civilized states, and more particularly of an unwarrantable extension of the right of blockade. Whereas his majesty may confidently appeal to the world on his uniform respect to neutral rights, and his general and scrupulous adherence to the law of nations, without condescending to contrast his conduct in these particulars with that of his enemy; and with regard to the only specified charge, it is notorious that he has never declared any ports to be in a state of blockade, without allotting to that object a force sufficient to make the entrance into them manifestly dangerous By such allegations, unfounded as they are, the enemy attempts to justify his pretensions of confiscating as lawful prize, all produce of English industry or manufacture, though it be the property of neutrals; of excluding from his harbours every neutral vessel, which has touched at any port of his majesty's dominions, though employed in an innocent commerce; and of declaring Great Britain to be in a state of blockade, though his own naval ports and arsenals are actually blockaded! and he is unable to station any naval force whatever, before any port of the united kingdom. "Such principles are in themselves extravagant and repugnant to the law of nations, and the pretensions founded on them, though professedly directed solely against Great Britain, tend to alter the practice of war among civilized nations, and utterly to subvert the rights and independence of neutral powers. The undersigned cannot, therefore, believe that the enemy will ever seriously attempt to enforce such a system. If he should, they are confident that the good sense of the American government will perceive the fatal consequences of such pretensions to neutral commerce; and that its spirit and regard to national honour will prevent its acquiescence in such palpable violations of its rights and injurious encroachments on its interests. "If, however, the enemy should carry these threats into execution; and if neutral nations, contrary to all expectations, should acquiesce in such usurpations; his majesty might probably be compelled, however reluctantly, to retaliate in his just defence, and to adopt, in regard to the commerce of neutral nations with his enemies, the same measures which those nations shall have permitted to be enforced against their commerce with his subjects. The cominissioners of the United States will therefore feel, that at a moment when his mjesty and all neutral nations are threatened with such an extension of the belligerent pretensions of his enemies. he cannot enter into the stipulations of the present treaty, without explanation from the United States of their intentions, or a reservation on the part of his majesty in the case above mentioned, if it should ever occur. 'The undersigned, considering that the distance of the American government, readers any immediate explanation on this subject impossible, and animated by a desire of forwarding the beneficial work in which they are engaged, are authorized by his majesty to conclude the treaty without delay. They proceed to the signature under the full persuasion that before the treaty shall be returned from America with the ratification of the United States, the enemy will either have formally abandoned or tacitly relinquished his unjust pretensions; or that the government of the United States, by its conduct or as surances, will have given security to his majesty that it will not submit to such innovations in the established system of maritime law; and the undersigned have presented this note from an anxious wish that it should be clearly understood on both sides, that without such an abandonment on the part of the onemy, or such conduct on the part of the United States, HIS MAJESTY WILL NOT CONSIDER HIMSELF FOUND, BY THE PRESENT SIGNATURE OF HIS COMMISSIONERS, TO RATIFY THIS TREATY, OR PRECLUDED FROM ADOPTING SUCH MEASURES AS MAY SEEM NECESSARY FOR COUNTERACTING THE DESIGNS OF HIS ENEMY. "The undersigned cannot conclude, without expressing their satisfaction on the prospect of accomplishing an object so important to the interests and friend ly connection of both nations, and their just sense of the conciliatory disposition, manifested by the commissioners of the United States, during the whole course of the negociation. (Signed) TO JAMES MONROE, &C. &C. &c. VASSAL HOLLAND, However exceptionable the terms of this note may be, I cannot persuade myself that it justifies the rejection of the treaty without consulting the senate. Men of powerful minds defend the procedure. Their arguments have never convinced me. To the readers's judgment I submit the subject. Separation of the States. The next error of Mr. Jefferson's administration, involves very great neglect of duty. During nearly the whole of that period, the insurrectional and treasonable doctrine of a separation of the states, was publicly advocated in some of the gazettes to the eastward, and, wonderful and shameful to tell, preached from the pulpit. These publications and sermons, having a direct tendency to the destruction of social order, and the introduction of civil war, demanded the severe animadversion of the law officers of the government. It was the incumbent duty of the President to have had the laws put in force, to repress the offences, and to punish the offenders. And if there were no law to reach the offence, he ought to have submitted the ease to congress, for the purpose of supplying the defect. A re-enactment and enforcement of the sedition law were imperiously required. And the good sense of the nation would have supported a measure which the public welfare rendered so necessary. It may be fairly averred that there is no country in the world but the United States, in which an open attempt to subvert the government, and tear down the pillars of society, would have escaped condign punishment. Every society ought to possess within itself, and to exercise whenever occasion calls for it, the fundamental principle of self-preservation. It is impossible to censure too highly the error here adverted to. The jeopardy in which the nation was lately pla ced, when the nearest and dearest interests were in the mest imminent danger, may be fairly ascribed to this most fatal and pernicious misconduct. In every science there are some great, leading truths which cannot be controverted. And in political economy there is no maxim more indubitable than |