The Life of John Marshall (Volume 2 of 4). Beveridge Albert Jeremiah
Чтение книги онлайн.

Читать онлайн книгу The Life of John Marshall (Volume 2 of 4) - Beveridge Albert Jeremiah страница 21

СКАЧАТЬ in the house of representatives and which proclaims itself in servile addresses to our supreme executive, in dangerous appointments, in monstrous accumulations of debt, in violation of the constitution, in proscriptions of democrats, and, to complete the climax of political infamy, in this treaty."

      Concerning the refusal to observe the principle that "free bottoms make free goods," our yielding the point rendered us, avowed Thompson, "a cowardly confederate … of … ruthless despots, who march to desolate France, to restore the altars of barbarous superstition and to extinguish the celestial light which has burst upon the human mind. O my countrymen, when you are capable of such monstrous baseness, even the patriot will invoke upon you the contempt of ages." This humiliation had been thrust upon us as a natural result of Washington's Neutrality proclamation – "a sullen neutrality between freemen and despots."

      Thompson's searching, if boyish, rhetoric truly expressed the feeling in the hearts of the people; it was a frenzied sentiment with which Marshall had to contend. Notwithstanding his blazing language, Thompson analyzed the treaty with ability. In common with opponents of the treaty everywhere, he laid strongest emphasis on its unconstitutionality and the "usurpation" by the President and Senate of the rights and powers of the House of Representatives.

      But Thompson also mentioned one point that touched Marshall closely. "The ninth article," said he, "invades the rights of this commonwealth, by contemplating the case of Denny Fairfax."368 Marshall and his brother were now the owners of this estate;369 and the Jay Treaty confirmed all transfers of British property and authorized British subjects to grant, sell, or devise lands held in America in the same manner as if they were citizens of the United States. In Congress a few months later, Giles, who, declared Ames, "has no scruples and certainly less sense,"370 touched lightly on this same chord.371 So did Heath, who was from that part of Virginia lying within the Fairfax grant.372

      Such was the public temper in Virginia, as accurately if bombastically expressed by the youthful Thompson, when the elections for the Legislature of 1795 were held. It was certain that the General Assembly would take drastic and hostile action against the treaty; and, perhaps, against Washington himself, in case the Republicans secured a majority in that body. The Federalists were in terror and justly so; for the Republicans, their strength much increased by the treaty, were aggressive and confident.

      The Federalist candidate in Richmond was the member of the Legislature whom the Federalists had succeeded in electing after Marshall's retirement three years before. He was Marshall's intimate friend and a stanch supporter of Washington's Administration. But it appears that in the present crisis his popularity was not sufficient to secure his election, nor his courage robust enough for the stern fight that was certain to develop in the General Assembly.

      The polls were open and the voting in progress. Marshall was among the first to arrive; and he announced his choice.373 Upon his appearance "a gentleman demanded that a poll be opened for Mr. Marshall."374 Marshall, of course, indignantly refused; he had promised to support his friend, he avowed, and now to become a candidate was against "his wishes and feeling and honor." But Marshall promised that he would stand for the Legislature the following year.

      Thereupon Marshall left the polls and went to the court-house to make an argument in a case then pending. No sooner had he departed than a poll was opened for him in spite of his objections;375 he was elected; and in the evening was told of the undesired honor with which the freeholders of Richmond had crowned him.

      Washington was apprehensive of the newly elected Legislature. He anxiously questioned Carrington "as to the temper of our Assembly." The latter reported that he did not "expect an extravagant conduct during the session."376 He thought that "the spirit of dissatisfaction is considerably abated abroad" (throughout Virginia and away from Richmond), because recent attempts to hold county and district meetings "for the avowed purpose of condemning the Administration & the Treaty" had been "abortive." It seemed to him, however, that "there is a very general impression unfavorable to the Treaty, owing to the greater industry of those who revile, over the supporters of it."377

      Still, Carrington was not sure about the Legislature itself; for, as he said, "it has every year for several past been observable, that, at meeting [of the Legislature] but few hot heads were to be seen, while the great body were rational; but in the course of the session it has seldom happened otherwise than that the spirit of party has been communicated so as to infect a majority. In the present instance I verily believe a question put on this day [the first day of the session] for making the Treaty a subject of consideration would be negatived – yet sundry members are here who will attempt every injury to both the Administration & the Treaty. The party will want ability in their leaders… General Lee, C. Lee, Gen Marshall & Mr. Andrews will act with ability on the defensive."378

      Three days later the buoyant official advised the President that the Republicans doubted their own strength and, at worst, would delay their attack "in order that, as usual, a heat may be generated." Marshall was still busy searching for a properly qualified person to appoint to the unfilled vacancy in the office of Attorney-General; and Carrington tells Washington that "Gen Marshall and myself have had a private consultation" on that subject and had decided to recommend Judge Blain. But, he adds, "The suggestion rests entirely with Gen M[arshall] & myself & will there expire, should you, for any consideration, forbear to adopt it." His real message of joy, however, was the happy frame of mind of the Legislature.379

Alas for this prophecy of optimism! The Legislature had not been in session a week before the anti-Administration Banquo's ghost showed its grim visage. The Republicans offered a resolution approving the vote of Virginia Senators against the Jay Treaty. For three days the debate raged. Marshall led the Federalist forces. "The support of the Treaty has fallen altogether on Gen Marshall and Mr. Chas. Lee," Carrington reports to Washington.380

      Among the many objections to the treaty the principal one, as we have seen, was that it violated the Constitution. The treaty regulated commerce; the Constitution gave that power to Congress, which included the House of Representatives; yet the House had not been consulted. The treaty involved naturalization, the punishment of piracies, the laying of imposts and the expenditure of money – all of these subjects were expressly placed under the control of Congress and one of them381 (the raising and expending of public money) must originate in the House; yet that popular branch of the Government had been ignored. The treaty provided for a quasi-judicial commission to settle the question of the British debts; yet "all the power of the Federal government with respect to debts is given [Congress] by a concise article of the Constitution… What article of the Constitution authorizes President and Senate to establish a judiciary colossus which is to stand with one foot on America and the other on Britain, and drag the reluctant governments of those countries to the altar of justice?"382

      Thus the question was raised whether a commercial treaty, or an international compact requiring an appropriation of money, or, indeed, any treaty whatever in the execution of which any action of any kind on the part of the House of Representatives was necessary, could be made without the concurrence of the House as well as the Senate. On this, the only vital and enduring question involved, Marshall's views were clear and unshakable.

      The defense of the constitutional power of the President and СКАЧАТЬ



<p>368</p>

American Remembrancer, i, 27.

<p>369</p>

See infra, chap. v.

<p>370</p>

Ames to Gore, March 11, 1796; Works: Ames, i, 189.

<p>371</p>

Annals, 4th Cong., 1st Sess., 1033-34.

<p>372</p>

Ib., 1063. See Anderson, 41-43. As one of the purchasers of the Fairfax estate, Marshall had a personal interest in the Jay Treaty, though it does not appear that this influenced him in his support of it.

<p>373</p>

The voting was viva voce. See infra, chap. x.

<p>374</p>

Undoubtedly this gentleman was one of the perturbed Federalist managers.

<p>375</p>

North American Review, xxvi, 22. While this story seems improbable, no evidence has appeared which throws doubt upon it. At any rate, it serves to illustrate Marshall's astonishing popularity.

<p>376</p>

Carrington's reports to Washington were often absurd in their optimistic inaccuracy. They are typical of those which faithful office-holding politicians habitually make to the appointing power. For instance, Carrington told Washington in 1791 that, after traveling all over Virginia as United States Marshal and Collector of Internal Revenue, he was sure the people were content with Assumption and the whiskey tax (Washington's Diary: Lossing, footnote to 166), when, as a matter of fact, the State was boiling with opposition to those very measures.

<p>377</p>

The mingling, in the Republican mind, of the Jay Treaty, Neutrality, unfriendliness to France, and the Federalist Party is illustrated in a toast at a dinner in Lexington, Virginia, to Senator Brown, who had voted against the treaty: "The French Republic – May every power or party who would attempt to throw any obstacle in the way of its independence or happiness receive the reward due to corruption." (Richmond and Manchester Advertiser, Oct. 15, 1795.)

<p>378</p>

Carrington to Washington, Nov. 10, 1795; MS., Lib. Cong.

<p>379</p>

Ib., Nov. 13, 1795; MS.; Lib. Cong.

[381] The resolution "was warmly agitated three whole days." (Randolph to Jefferson, Nov. 22, 1795; Works: Ford, viii, footnote to 197.)

<p>380</p>

Carrington to Washington, Nov. 20, 1795; MS., Lib. Cong.

<p>381</p>

See debates; Annals, 4th Cong., 1st Sess., 423-1291; also see Petersburg Resolutions; American Remembrancer, i, 102-07.

<p>382</p>

Thompson's address, Aug. 1, 1795, at Petersburg; ib., 21 et seq.