government in the Louisiana territory. His plans were early suspected, and many of his adherents and associates became alarmed, and declined to support him. Some of his correspondents were arrested at New Orleans, and conveyed, by the military, to Washington for examination; but his friends attempted to represent the affair as unimportant, and wholly disconnected with any treasonable project. Thus situated, Mr. Burr made no further attempts to accomplish his plan, whatever it might have been; but he was arrested, taken to Virginia, tried for treason, and acquitted. His real designs were probably revealed to very few, who faithfully kept his secrets. For nothing was proved to convict him legally of the charge alleged against him. In the opinion of some, who knew him, he was as destitute of moral principles as Benedict Arnold. He had less of bold daring and hardihood; but more talent for intrigue and concealment. His trial was before the Circuit Court of the United States, Chief Justice Marshall presiding. It continued several weeks; and the Court exhibited great impartiality, as well as legal ability.*

It is declared in the Constitution, "that the importation of such persons as any of the States then existing might think proper to admit, should not be prohibited by Congress prior to the year eighteen hundred and eight." This declaration or provision had reference to the importation of slaves from foreign States and countries; so that there could justly be no act on the subject to take effect before that period. In March, 1807, a law was passed to prevent such importation after the first day of January, 1808. There was no formidable opposition made to the passage of the law; for it had generally been supposed, that after the period limited as above mentioned, such prohibition would be imposed on the introduction of slaves from foreign countries. But a question has since been made, as to the precise meaning of the term migration, which is also used in the Constitution; and restricted in the same manner as that of importation. It has sometimes been contended, that Congress had power to prohibit the migration of slaves from one State, which allows of their residence, into a State which does not permit of slavery, so as to be there subject to the treatment of slaves by their owners; and as they might legally be in the former State. The subject has been already often pressed; and a great and alarming excite

*President Jefferson and his friends were not satisfied with the conduct or decision of the Court.

ment produced; good policy seems to require more moderation and forbearance in future.

An Act was passed about this time, which assumed a principle, or power in the national government, the constitutionality of which has been frequently since denied or questioned. This is the subject of internal improvements; and it has often been denied that Congress had a constitutional right to expend the public monies for such a purpose. Some have denied such a right in all cases; others have admitted, that on great works of a national character and for the benefit of all the States, and especially, when relating to defence, expenditures might justly be incurred; while a few have doubted the right in all cases. The prevailing opinion seems to have been, that works, not confined in their advantages to a single State, but of general utility and adding to the general improvement and prosperity of the Union, may justly be undertaken at the expense of the national treasury. And the question usually has been, whether a plan, or a work projected, was of that nature. Canals near the sea, to facilitate the means of conveyance from one part of the Union to another, in time of war, are evidently important in a national view. The Act of Congress at this time was for the survey, and preparing for travel, a public road from the north bank in the Potomac, to the river Ohio, near Wheeling; with a view to facilitate the intercourse between the country on and near the Atlantic, and the settlements in the valley of the Mississippi, and the northwestern territory. It was chiefly in the State of Virginia; but it would not be for the exclusive benefit of the people of that State, but for those of the other States on the Atlantic, and for those in the western parts of the Union; and would also render the public lands in the northwest far more valuable. The political friends of the administration which approved of the measure, have generally, in all cases of a similar nature since, opposed the right of making appropriations for internal improvements. The road has proved to be of great public benefit to a large portion of the Union; but the sum first voted was not the one hundredth part of the amount afterwards granted to finish and repair the road.

In 1807, Congress also made a law, for the punishment of all frauds, which should be committed on the National Bank. The penalty was not death, which, in European governments is inflicted for such a crime; but it was very severe, rendering the persons convicted liable to several years imprisonment, and to a heavy fine. This was not

a party question. It was approved by all classes of citizens, and considered necessary for the security of individuals and the government.

Negotiations had now been pursued for some time, for forming a treaty between the United States and England, on the subject of neutral rights, which the British government was charged with having violated; particularly in the seizure of American vessels trading to any country with which it was at war; and in taking men by force from vessels of the United States, under the pretence of their being British subjects. These questions had long been agitated, and the claims set up by Great Britain were highly injurious to the commercial interests of the United States. Two Envoys were sent to London in 1806, to enter into negotiations relating to these important points. After much discussion and delay, a treaty was signed by the American and British ministers, and forwarded to the President early in 1807. But as there was no definite and explicit agreement, on the part of the British, to relinquish their claim of taking their own seamen wherever they might find them; which the American Envoys had been. instructed not to recognize, especially as to public vessels; and as an article was appended to the treaty after signing, by which the British government might require of the United States-in case of an invasion or blockage of England by the French, which was then threatened-a variation from the stipulations of the treaty, favorable to Great Britain, the President chose not to submit it to the Senate. The additional article, however, it was said might be rejected or declined, without danger to the other parts of the treaty, which had been deliberately adopted by the ministers of both nations. And it was therefore believed that circumstances would not justify a rejection of the whole treaty. The article respecting the impressment of seamen, was modified and rendered less objectionable, by an agreement that the British ships of war should be forbidden to take any men except English subjects; and to do this not by violence or in such manner as to give offence. But the President considered the additional article, to which he would not in any sense assent, as furnishing an objection to the treaty itself; and he was also dissatis

The article required, that the American government should adopt the same rule towards one belligerent, (England) as it had towards the other, (France.) Or, in other words, the British ministers reserved the right of refusing to ratify the treaty, if France did not abandon its (unjust) pretensions; or should the United States submit to them.

fied with the conduct of his ministers, in consenting to a treaty, which did not bind the British to relinquish entirely their claim to search American vessels for their seamen. The abuses to which this claim gave occasion were numerous, and highly injurious, as well to merchant vessels as to public ships. For with the pretence of their being native British subjects on board of American vessels, they were all liable to be detained, and searched, and citizens of the United States taken from them and forced into the service of England.

It was insisted by a portion of the people, that the President ought to have laid the treaty before the Senate; and if they approved, to adopt it, as it was, or to propose some modification of it, as was done in the case of the treaty made with France in 1801. The American envoys had signed the treaty, and they were the political friends of the President; and it was believed one more favorable to the United States could not be obtained; and that it was to be preferred to open war, or entire non-intercourse with Great Britain, for which some then contended as the best policy. A rejection of the treaty, it was feared, might lead to immediate hostilities; and a system of non-intercourse would greatly diminish American commerce and navigation, and also provoke Great Britain to retaliate by increased depredations, under color of exercising her belligerent rights, as necessary to her own safety against the novel policy of France, her powerful rival and enemy.

Another portion of the citizens fully justified the President in his conduct on this occasion. They insisted that the advice of the Senate could not bind him, and ought not to prevail against his opinion. That it was a matter of discretion and prerogative with him to submit it to the Senate or not; and that if in great doubt himself, he might lay the subject before that body, and if they advised to its adoption, to give it his consent, and place the responsibility on them. This might have been the most prudent course; but if he was decidedly opposed to the treaty, as injurious and dishonorable, he ought, as chief magistrate, to have the power to withhold it. The adoption of the treaty, without the additional note or article, would have been more consistent with good policy, in a neutral government, as that of the United States then was; and would have manifested a sincere desire to conciliate Great Britain, whose good will towards America was highly important. The rejection or suspension of the treaty with England had an unfavorable influence with the British government and their naval com

manders. They thought they saw in it an unwillingness. on the part of the President to conciliate that nation, or to preserve friendly relations between the two countries. They had long complained of partiality in the American government for France, and a readiness to submit to commercial obstructions and interruptions from the latter, which it denounced as unjust in the former. They had also some reason, perhaps, to complain of American commanders shipping British subjects, with a full knowledge or a suspicion of their being such. Had the British commanders gone no farther than to take the subjects of the king of England from merchant vessels lying in harbors, the practice might have been tolerated, rather than to risk hostilities with that nation, to the great injury of the American navigation.But to allow the public ships of the United States to be searched, could not justly be expected of an independent nation. Nor were the people willing to submit to the great inconvenience of having even merchant vessels detained and searched on the high seas. The British minister at Washington asserted that French armed ships had forcibly taken men from American vessels, on the belief or pretences of their being natural subjects of France; and that no great complaint or excitement followed on such occurrence. And it was also expressly offered, by the British government, when it asserted a right to take their own subjects, where ever found, after requesting their surrender of the commander of the vessel to which they then belonged, that their ships of war should give up any American citizens on board, on request and proof that they were such. One point of dispute on this subject was, that native British subjects, being naturalized by the laws of the United States, were considered Americans by the federal government, as fully as if they had been born within the United States; while the doctrine of the English administration was, and long had been, that its native citizens could not expatriate themselves, so as not to be obliged to serve in defence of their own country. And the time was one of great danger to England, when it was threatened with invasion by a powerful neighboring nation, and its ancient maritime rights and claims expressly impugned.

While negotiations were pending in England, between that government and the United States, on the subject of impressing seamen, by the British commanders, from American vessels, an unhappy and unexpected event occurred which excited direct and uncommon attention to this vexed question, and produced strong feelings of indignation in the