CHAPTER VII.

Mr. Jefferson's Second Election. Aliens. Difficulties with Spain and with Great Britain, continued. Charges against Colonel Burr. His Trial. Chief Justice Marshall accused of Partiality. Attack on Chesapeake. Impressments. Special Envoy from England. Disputes with France. Conduct of Buonaparte. Embargo. Objections to Embargo, as it was Unlimited, and Injurious to Commerce. Supposed French Influence. British Orders in Council. Difficulty of avoiding the Displeasure of those Nations. Complaints against the President, for Partiality to France.

MR. JEFFERSON was re-elected President, in March, 1805, for another term of four years. And George Clinton, some time Governor of the State of New York, was chosen Vice President, in the place of Mr. Burr, who was not supported by either party.* The majority for Mr. Jefferson was very large, being one hundred and sixty-two votes in one hundred and seventy-six. But the change in public opinion' was not so great as this single fact might seem to indicate. In the House of Representatives, the majority in support of the administration was as seventy-five to forty: In the Senate it was not so great. The prosecution of Judge Chase alarmed many, and the administration lost some supporters by the measure. The aversion of the President to a navy, which many believed, was another consideration with a portion of the people for not generally supporting his policy. Had a more efficient naval force been ordered into the Mediterranean, it would have enabled the brave and gallant officers of the American squadron there, to have wholly suppressed the Barbary cruisers. They behaved with great spirit and resolution, and effected all the benefits which could be expected of them.†

It is not surprising, perhaps, that they who had approved of the general policy pursued for the twelve first years of the federal government, should oppose many of the leading measures adopted by those now in power. The latter had

* The friends of Mr. Jefferson considered Burr as the rival of their favorite candidate; and the political opponents of Mr. Jefferson became dissatisfied with his conduct on various accounts; especially with his treatment of General Alexander Hamilton, whom he had challenged and killed in a duel.

† Among the most distinguished of these were Preble, Decatur, Somers, Stewart, Chauncy, Hull, and Morris.

condemned the proceedings of the two former Administrations, and entered on a course of policy very different, in many respects, from that before pursued. To attempt to detect the real motives and views of the leading characters of either party, might be alike uncandid and unavailing. Great men often differ in opinion, and are equally honest; and yet candor does not require that all men be estimated alike for their good intentions, or upright principles. Nor does the ephemeral popularity, which some public characters enjoy, afford a just criterion of their patriotism or moral worth. In all such cases, the people must determine in whom they will repose confidence; and if a full development of character does not justify their high estimation, they must suffer the unhappy consequences of self-delusion. At the session of Congress, which closed on the third of March, 1805, two important laws were passed, intended to prevent the hostile and predatory acts of persons on board of foreign vessels in the harbors and ports of the United States, or in the waters within their jurisdiction; and to regulate the clearance of armed American merchant vessels. By the former, persons were liable to be arrested, on warrant from any Judge or Justice of a Court of the United States; who was authorized, if necessary, to call on the militia in the vicinity to assist the marshal in the execution of his duty, in serving the warrant wherever the offender might be. The offences enumerated in the law were treason, felony, misprision of treason or of felony, and misdemeanors, as breach of the peace or of the revenue laws of the United States. The latter prescribed the mode and form of clearing merchant vessels of the United States, which were to be armed on their voyages; requiring a bond to be given, both by the owners and masters, that the arms on board said vessel should not be used for any unlawful purposes, but merely for resistance and defence, if attacked: and that the guns and arms belonging to the vessel should not be sold in the West Indies, &c. These were prudential measures, designed to maintain the neutral character of the United States; to prevent unnecessary attacks by American armed merchantmen, on British, French, or Spanish vessels; and to check the insolence of the commanders of foreign armed ships, on the coasts, towards the vessels of the United States. Events had then previously occurred, which rendered these laws wise and proper. Safety required the merchantmen to be armed, but sometimes the masters had made unwarrantable and unnecessary attacks on the vessels of other nations.

The favor shown to foreigners by the new naturalization law, and other marks of encouragement, were inducements to the natives of Europe to immigrate to the United States, and here take up their permanent residence. And And many of these were of the less worthy class of the population of the countries from which they came. They were the discontented, the unstable, the indolent, and such as had imbibed revolutionary or visionary principles: though there were some honorable exceptions. They had not just notions of a republican government, such as were maintained in most of the States. Their sentiments concerning civil liberty were impracticable, or inconsistent with the peace and order of government. Their cry was for liberty, but as for law and civil authority, they expected to be in a great measure free from their restraints. The character of the American population was thus gradually changed; and in many places, aliens, united with the discontented in the country, and outnumbered and outvoted the native citizens of property and stability. Those who professed to be the friends of the people and of liberty, and who were ambitious of office, frequently succeeded, when in competition with more worthy and patriotic characters.

The Message of the President to Congress, in December, 1805, was in a higher tone and spirit than his former public addresses had been to that body. He referred to the interruptions and depredations still continued by the belligerent powers of Europe, on the American commerce; and to their occasional aggressions and insults, even within the waters of the United States' jurisdiction. To the injurious operation of the maritime policy of Great Britain, with respect to neutral vessels bound to the ports of the enemy of that nation-and to the omission on the part of the Spanish government to fulfil its former engagements of indemnity for spoliations on American commerce; and to other evidences of an unfriendly spirit in that nation towards the United States. There had then long been a misunderstanding with Spain, growing out of claims on that government for its depredations, and of their delay in surrendering their possessions in Louisiana, purchased of France, and previously ceded to the French by the Spanish government. The American envoys had been attempting to negotiate with Spain, on these accounts, for sometime; and a second, and even a third envoy had been sent to the Spanish Court. But no adjustment could be effected, consistently with the honor and interests of the United States. The hesitation and delay were attributed to an unwillingness or an inabil

ity to fulfil their engagements to the United States under a former treaty; or the influence of French policy, which then directed the affairs of Spain, and which appeared designed to injure the American commerce. The Spanish Court was also dissatisfied with the loss of Louisiana; and was disposed to yield as little as possible, by virtue of their cession to France. So evasive and unsatisfactory was the conduct of the Spanish rulers, that the American envoys left the court, without hope of forming a just and honorable treaty. The course pursued by the ministers of Spain were so manifestly unreasonable and injurious, that a great portion of the citizens of the United States declared that a war with that nation would be perfectly justifiable; but the President did not recommend that ultimate measure; and the majority were not fully prepared for it, either in Congress, or in the nation. The sentiments expressed by the President in his public communication to the national legislature, met with less animadversion than those contained in his previous addresses, had received: and all were ready to adopt efficient measures for the honor of the country and the protection of their maritime rights. In speaking of the official declarations of the British ministers, for interrupting the American navigation, as a neutral power, destined to the ports of their enemies, the President said, "they had made interpolations in the laws of nations relating to commerce, which required investigation." A committee was accordingly early appointed to take the subject into consideration.

What the President called an "interpolation in the laws of nations," was the revival and application of a principle in maritime policy, which, many years before, had been advanced and put in practice by European governments. One point was the monopoly of trade, by the parent government or nation in Europe, of its American colonies, (which was true of the French and the Dutch as well as of the English,) with special and occasional relaxation, as was supposed to be for the benefit of the parent State, or the relief of the colonies. But the chief objection was to the rule of 1756, as it was called; by which a right was assumed by the British to prohibit the trade of a neutral nation with France, its enemy, not only in warlike stores, but in provisions; and rendering the American merchant vessels liable to detention and search, on suspicion of having goods, belonging in fact, to citizens or subjects of France. Numerous valuable cargoes destined to French ports, in American ships, and ostensibly American property, were

really the property of merchants of France; and thus conveyed for the purpose of safety. The French contended that free or neutral bottoms determined the neutral character of the cargoes; and availed themselves of this doctrine to transport their goods in American vessels, when in their own ships, they were almost always captured, owing to the naval superiority of the British. The American government complained of this doctrine or rule, as injurious to its commerce, as unjust, and novel. It was not indeed entirely a new principle, for it had been asserted and followed fifty years before; and other nations, when policy and interest required it, had contended for it. The French government had, in fact, only a few years before, acted on the same principle, in some instances, where American vessels were conveying cargoes in the Mediterranean belonging to the British. It was sufficient, however, for the American administration to remonstrate against the principle, as it operated to the diminution and restriction of the navigation of the country; and as the rule had never received the full approbation or acquiesence of the maritime powers of Europe. It was the opinion of a portion of the American merchants, that the situation of Europe and the dangers which threatened England, furnished a reasonable apology for a revival of this principle; while others insisted, that the dangers of Great Britain could be no reason for such restrictions on the commerce of neutrals, and that the principle ought to be impugned by every independent and maritime nation. But the British administration adhered to the obnoxious rule, and gave orders to their vessels accordingly; which proved highly injurious, and excited strong feelings of dissatisfaction in the United States.

The measures of both the British and the Spanish governments were, at this period, indicative of no friendly dispositions toward America-and there was a portion of the citizens who contended that war would be justified against Spain; and another portion urged a suspension of commercial intercourse with England, in retaliation for her aggressions. This unsettled state of affairs continued for some time; and proved very embarrassing to commercial enterprise, and highly exciting to political parties. A declaration of war by the United States against either of these powers would not have been approved by the majority of the citizens. It would not have been good policy; and while there was any hope of success in negotiations, it was greater proof of wisdom to avoid open and general hostilities.

The controversy with Spain respecting the territory for