had fewer ships and fewer manufactures to be benefited. Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, said: "Gentlemen have endeavored to persuade us that a high tonnage duty will be beneficial to the Union; but I would as soon be persuaded to throw myself out of a two-story window, as to believe that a high tonnage will be favorable to South Carolina." And in respect to duties on imports, Mr. MADISON remarked, "If there is a disposition represented to complain of the oppression of government, have not the citizens of the Southern States more just ground of complaint than others?" "The system can only be acceptable to them, because it is, essentially, necessary to be adopted for the public good."

And yet, on another occasion Mr. MADISON said, in reference to the same subject, "I believe every gentleman who hears the observations from the different quarters of this House, discovers great reason for every friend of the United States to congratulate himself upon the evident disposition which has been displayed to conduct business with harmony and concert." And Mr. AMES said, "The gentlemen from the southward who suppose their States most likely to be affected by a discrimination in the tonnage duty, have concluded their arguments with a candor which does honor to their patriotism."

It is very evident that on this subject there was a spirit of conciliation on the part of leading men, and especially on the part of Southern gentlemen, who consented to sacrifice the interests of their States for the public good. The Northern States had wished for the establishment of the Constitution, chiefly, for the protection of their commercial interests. This legislation of the first Congress under the Constitution secured to them this protection. The South patiently, or rather cheerfully, acquiesced in bearing the burdens imposed by this legislation. "If," said Mr. AMES, "I may judge of the feelings of the people by those of their representatives on this floor, I may venture to say that there never was less reason to apprehend envy and discord than at this time. I believe the fact is so, because I feel it." He was conscious of a patriotic regard for the whole country. "I look," said he, " with an equal eye upon the success of every State through the whole extent of United America. I wish their interests to be equally consulted." Thus were the com

mercial sacrifices of the South appreciated, and their patriotism, which made them submit to the sacrifices, reciprocated by a representative man of the North. In this contest the South yielded to the North for the general good of the country.

SECTIONAL DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY.

In the Constitutional Convention, the Southern States had obtained provisions which secured to them their property in slaves, and the right to import slaves for twenty years. But in Congress, Feb. 11, 1790, "The Address of the Quaker Meeting," from certain Northern States, was presented against the continuance of the African slave trade, which was permitted by the Constitution, until 1808. And Feb. 11, 1790, "The Memorial of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society " was presented, praying for the abolition of slavery in the United States, which, by the Constitution, was left under the States.

These two memorials were received in one spirit by Southern members, and in another and different spirit by Northern members. The former saw clearly that the petitioners were aiming a blow at their pecuniary and their social interests, by urging Congress to pass unconstitutional laws on the subject of slavery, and by holding slaveholders up to the moral abhorrence of the world; as if Congress had the power to legislate for the promotion of morals and religion.

The Northern members, some of them, seemed to give a warm welcome to the petitions, as if they were glad to ventilate their abhorrence of slave-trading and slaveholding.

In this contest the Southern States retained, indeed, their constitutional rights, but they had to struggle earnestly for them. The temper of Northern members shown on this occasion was manifested at times afterwards. Thus, Jan. 1795, Mr. DEXTER, of Massachusetts, moved, as an amendment to a motion for naturalizing foreigners, "that each man naturalized should renounce the possession of slaves," and, as an amendment to this. amendment, Mr. THATCHER, of Massachusetts, moved, “and he never would possess slaves."

Mr. MADISON, in reply to Messrs. DEXTER and THATCHER,

said "that the mention of such a thing would have a very bad effect on that species of property."

Mr. W. SMITH, of South Carolina, a distinguished member, in the course of the discussion on slavery, said "that the Southern States never would have entered into the Confederation unless their property (in slaves) had been guarantied to them."

Mr. BOUDINOT, of New Jersey, said: "There is a wide difference between justifying the ungenerous traffic, and supporting a claim to property vested at the time of the formation of the Constitution, and guarantied thereby."

The effect of the motions of Messrs. DEXTER and THATCHER, if they had prevailed, would have been to lessen emigration to the slave States, and thus to lessen their political power.

BANK OF THE UNITED STATES.

The Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. HAMILTON, had advocated the establishment of a National Bank, on the ground that it would promote the prosperous administration of the finances, and help to support the public credit. When a bill in conformity to his plan was, in 1791, sent down from the Senate, it was suffered to pass to its third reading without opposition. On the final question a powerful opposition was made to its passage by Mr. MADISON and others.

It was asserted by them that the powers of the Government of the United States which it might legitimately exercise, were enumerated in the Constitution. In this enumeration, the power to charter a bank was not to be found. They, moreover, insisted that it could not be implied from the powers that were given to the Government, and that, by any fair construction, no clause in the Constitution could be understood to imply so important a power as that of creating a corporation.

On the other side, in favor of the establishment of a bank, it was asserted, that incidental as well as express powers must, necessarily, belong to every government, and that when a power is delegated to effect particular objects, all the known and usual means of effecting them must pass also, and after taking a comprehensive view of the powers given to the General Government,

it was contended that a bank was a known and usual instrument, by which several of them were exercised. Taking into consid eration the utility of a bank in managing the finances, and supporting public credit, the bill was passed in the House by a majority of nineteen voices. In the cabinet, the Attorney-General, Mr. RANDOLPH, and the Secretary of State, Mr. JEFFERSON, were opposed to it on constitutional grounds, while the Secretary of the Treasury was in favor of it, and the President added his signature to the bill.

While the bill was under debate, Mr. TUCKER, of Georgia, remarked, "That a gentleman from Virginia has well observed that we appear to be divided by a geographical line; not a gentleman North of that line is opposed to the bill; and where is the gentleman to the Southward that is in favor of it?" The Northern States won the victory over the Southern, if not over the Constitution.

THE EXCISE LAW.

The Excise law, by which a duty was laid on spirits distilled within the United States, was opposed, very strongly, by a majority of the members of Southern and Southwestern States, on the ground that it would operate very unequally and against the interests of their constituents, who used foreign distilled liquor to a very inconsiderable amount. The bill was passed by Northern members, influenced, it was said, by the fact that the commercial States depended chiefly on foreign spirits. The whiskey insurrection grew chiefly out of the opposition to this law. The law, thus operating unequally, was wisely repealed.

THE ASSUMPTION OF STATE 'DEBTS.

On the 9th of January, 1790, Mr. HAMILTON, Secretary of the Treasury, gave notice to the House of Representatives that he was ready to make his report on public credit, which he had prepared in obedience to the resolution of the 21st of Sept., 1789. In that celebrated report he proposed the Assumption of State debts, and to fund them in common with that which constituted the proper debt of the Union.

This proposal was opposed by Southern members, on the ground that it would give undue influence to the General Government, and would thus weaken the State Governments; that it would not be justified by the Constitution, the powers of that instrument being specified, and this was not among them; that it was unjust, because it would make no discrimination between those States which had taxed themselves to discharge the claims against them, and those which had not made the same exertions.

In favor of the measure it was asserted by Northern members, that the debts contracted by the States were not contracted for the benefit of the individual States, but for the common good of the Union, in the war against the common enemy; that the measure would put an end to speculation, by fixing the value of the securities; that it would restore public confidence.

A large amount of these securities were owned at the North, where they were obtained in the course of trade. Many of them had been purchased at very low rates, as was said, for a song.

After a very heated debate, highly irritating to the parties, the resolution failed to pass, by a majority of two against it.

LOCATION OF THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT.

July 9, 1790. Mr. GOODHUE, of Massachusetts, moved in the House: "That the permanent seat of the General Government ought to be at some convenient place, on the east bank of the river Susquehanna, in the State of Pennsylvania." In 'support of his motion, he prefaced it with the following remark: "The Eastern members, with the members from New York, have agreed to fix on a place upon national principles, without regard to their own convenience, and have turned their minds to the Susquehanna." The place contemplated was Wright's Ferry, about 35 miles from navigable water.

This sectional movement on the part of Eastern and Northern members, in favor of a place which had not a great deal to recommend it, awakened very strong sectional feelings on the part of the Southern members, who were in favor of the bank of the Potomac, as an appropriate place. To this place the Northern members were strongly opposed, proposing, instead of it, if not Wright's Ferry, Germantown and Baltimore.