for the people of Kentucky, principally taken from the bosom of his native state, recommended it to his heart. It is certain that it determined the designation of Mr. Pinckney as minister to Madrid.

The strenuous exertions of this citizen in the old congress, in promoting the free navigation of the Mississippi, were not forgotten. It has been said that it was eminently owing to them that the occlusion of the river for a long period was frustrated. What was done at Madrid does not distinctly appear. That a negociation was commenced at an early period is certain; and that this negociation rendered the minds of that cabinet and that of France familiar with the subject is extremely probable. About this period the king of Spain ceded Louisiana to France, under a secret treaty. This circumstance attending the cession has been variously interpreted; and in the period of alarm has been construed as evidence of an intention on the part of the French government to disturb the peace of the United States through the means of Spain, who still retained possession of the country. But neither facts nor considerations of policy favor the existence of such a motive. Abundant reason for secrecy is found in the inability of France to preserve the colony from British seizure; and hence it was wisely determined by France not to declare it hers until the peace with England should be better consolidated, or the French marine re-established.

In this state of things on the 17th of October, 1802, the right of deposit at New-Orleans was suspended by the Spanish Intendant.

Two alternatives were presented to us; war, or negociation. For on one point there was no difference. of opinion. The government and the nation were equally impressed with the necessity of immediate measures for restoring our violated rights.

The administration clearly perceived the path of duty, and instantly pursued it. The suspension of the right of deposit occurred during the recess of the legislature. The constitution, in the distribution of the powers conferred upon the various departments of the government, gives to congress exclusively the right of declaring war, while it devolves on the President the duty of executing the laws. There are certain acts of one nation towards another that necessarily constitute a state of war between them; but it is not pretended that the suspension of the right of deposit was of the number. Notwithstanding, therefore, that act, the pre-existing state of peace continued. An event may be said to have occurred leading to a state of war; but that essentially differs from war; one is the cause, and the other an effect, which may, or may not occur, and no reasonable mind ever thought of confounding things so essentially different.

It was the duty of the executive to preserve peace, which always exists when there is no war actually declared or waged. This conclusion is sustained by high federal authority, whose orthodoxy will not be disputed. Mr. Hamilton, in defending the proclamation of neutrality, expressly says, "If the legislature have a right to make war on the one hand, it is, on the other, the duty of the executive to preserve peace till war is declared." Again, in the same defence, we find this principle laid down: "While, therefore, the legislature can alone declare war, can alone transfer the nation from a state of peace to a state of war, it belongs to the executive power to do whatever else the law of nations, co-operating with the treaties of the country, enjoin in the intercourse of the United States with foreign powers. In this distribution of powers, the wisdom of our constitution is manifested. It is the province and duty of the executive to pre

serve to the nation the blessings of peace. The legislature alone can interrupt those blessings, by placing the nation in a state of war."

Peace is and always has been the predominant desire of the American people; and so solicitous is the constitution to guard it, and so fearful of its being hazarded by the ambition or mistaken policy of any one man, that while it gives to congress exclusively the power of declaring war, it likewise vests them exclusively with all those powers without which war could not be carried on. To them alone is confided the powers

To raise and support armies, with the prohibition to appropriate money for that purpose for more than two years.

To lay and collect taxes, and borrow money, without which armies could not be maintained.

To provide for calling forth the militia; for what? for the sole purposes of executing the laws of the union, suppressing insurrections, and repelling invasions.

And for all these ends no money can be drawn from the treasury, but on appropriation made by law.

Well then may we affirm, that no President, without a shameful and criminal violation of his oath" to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution," would have dared to usurp the legislative power, and have carried the nation into a state of war. The salutary terrors of an impeachment would have been dead had they not hurled the usurper from his throne.

But he had other duties arising from the obligation "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." In the language of Mr. Hamilton, it was his duty to do what "the law of nations, co-operating with the treaties of the country, enjoin in the intercourse of the United States with foreign

Q

powers."

What were the constitutional means reposed in him for the accomplishment of these ends? None other than negociation. And this was instantly resorted to.

So far then the conduct of the executive is as clear as day-light, as straight as a sun-beam. What he did, the constitution required; that from which he abstained, it prohibited.

At the ensuing session of congress it devolved on congress as the constitutional organ of the government to decide on such measures as were required by the crisis of affairs. The conduct of the Spanish intendant had in the mean time become the subject of explanation between the executive and the agents of the Spanish and French governments; and although there was undoubtedly no adequate motive apparent for his conduct, the strongest assurances were received from the Spanish minister and the French charge des affairs, that it was altogether unauthorised by either the government of Spain or France.

Under these circumstances, and during the pendency of a negociation, the federal side of congress made a vehement attempt to produce a state of war between the United States and Spain, with the prospect of extending it to France. They declared that the dignity of the government and the interests of the people demanded a resort to force; that this would give us immediate possession of our violated rights; that it would be the only effectual mean of their restoration, It was affirmed that the measure was the act of France, whose purpose was to embroil the United States, and who would pursue her purpose with a will as inexorable as fate; that the First Consul had fixed his eyes on Louisiana as the happy theatre of a new career of conquest; and that once possessed of it, he would apply it as a lever to destroy the government, the

liberty and the independence of the United States. Hence it was affirmed, that it became our duty to be before hand with him; and instantly to seize New-Orleans, and plant a strong army there for its defence. Louisiana was painted as a paradise; and its fertile soil, and commanding position in relation to the West-Indies and the Spanish settlements, were held forth as allurements to national cupidity. It was said that nature having decreed to make it ours, it became not a feeble and pusillanimous administration impotently to attempt to over-rule her fiat; that the spirit of our countrymen would possess it, and that a wise policy ought to seize the present as the auspicious moment for gaining it. Its possession would shew the world, that America would not suffer her rights to be violated with impunity; and once posseseed it would insure peace with European nations for many years! All this was said, not in the cool style of a dipassionate mind, but decked out with all the fervid eloquence of overwhelming passion.

But the friends of the administration stood on the rock of justice. With the Roman sage, they might exclaim, fiat justitia ruit coelum! They too cordially abhorred the preference of policy to right to listen for a moment to the meretricious allurements of iniquity. Their political creed had not taught them the policy of injustice as the best instrument of interest. They were not unmindful of the parting advice of an eminently good man.*

"Observe, says he, good faith and justice to all nations, cultivate peace and harmony with all; religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be that good policy does not enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the mag

* Washington.