But a case less liable to be controverted may perhaps be stated. Debts may be incurred with a direct view to the interest of the unborn, as well as of the living. Such are debts for repelling a conquest, the evils of which descend through many generations. Debts may be incurred principally for the benefit of posterity; such, perhaps, is the debt incurred by the United States. In these instances, the debt might not be dischargeable within the term of 19 years.

There seems then to be some foundation in the nature of things, in the relation which one generation bears to another, for the descent of obligations from one to another. Equity may require it. Mutual good may be promoted by it; and all that seems indispensable in stating the account between the dead and the living, is to see that the debts against the latter do not exceed the advances made by the former. Few of the incumbrances entailed on nations by their predecessors, would bear a liquidation even on this principle.

3. Objections to the doctrine, as applied to the third class of acts, must be merely practical. But in that view alone they appear to be material.

Unless such temporary laws should be kept in force by acts regularly anticipating their expiration, all the rights depending on positive laws, that is, most of the rights of property, would become absolutely defunct, and the most violent struggles ensue between the parties interested in reviving, and those interested in reforming the antecedent state of property. Nor does it seem improbable that such an event might be suffered to take place. The checks and difficulties opposed to the passage of laws, which render the power of repeal inferior to an opportunity to reject, as a security against oppression, would have rendered the latter an insecure provision against anarchy. Add to this, that the very possibility of an event so hazardous to the rights of property could not but depreciate its value; that the approach of the crisis would increase the effect; that the frequent return of periods, superseding all the obligations depending on antecedent laws and usages must, by weakening the sense of them, coöperate with motives to licentiousness already too powerful; and that the general uncertainty and vicissitudes of such a state of things would, on one side, discourage every useful effort of steady industry, pursued under the sanction of existing laws, and on the other, give an immediate advantage to the more sagacious over the less sagacious part of society.

I can find no relief from such embarrassments but in the received doctrine that a tacit assent, may be given to established governments and laws, and that this assent is to be inferred from the omission of an express revocation. It seems more practicable to remedy by well constituted governments, the pestilent operation of this doctrine, in the unlimited sense in which it is at present received, than it is to find a remedy for the evils necessarily springing from an unlimited admission of the contrary doctrine.

Is it not doubtful whether it be possible to exclude wholly the idea of an implied or tacit assent, without subverting the very foundation of civil society?

On what principle is it that the voice of the majority binds the minority? It does not result, I conceive, from a law of nature, but from compact founded on utility.

A greater proportion might be required by the fundamental constitution of society, if under any particular circumstances it were judged eligible. Prior, therefore, to the establishment of this principle, unanimity was necessary; and rigid theory accordingly presupposes the assent of every individual to the rule which subjects the minority to the will of the majority. If this assent cannot be given tacitly, or be not implied where no positive evidence forbids, no person born in society VOL. III.-38

tude, let us suppose a whole generation of men to be born on the same day, to attain mature age on the same day, and to die on the same day, leaving a succeeding generation in the moment of attaining their mature age, all together. Let the ripe age be supposed of twenty-one years, and their period of life thirty-four years more, that being the average term given by the bills of mortality to persons of twenty-one years of age. Each successive generation would, in this way, come and go off the stage at a fixed moment, as individuals do now. Then I say, the earth belongs to each of these generations during its course, fully and in its own right. The second generation receives it clear of the debts and incumbrances of the first, the third of the second, and so on. For if the first could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not to the living generation. Then, no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence. At twenty-one years of age, they may bind themselves and their lands for thirtyfour years to come; at twenty-two, for thirty-three; at twenty-three, for thirty-two; and at fifty-four, for one year only; because these are the terms of life which remain to them at the respective epochs. But a material difference must be noted, between the succession of an individual and that of a whole generation. Individuals are parts only of a society, subject to the laws of the whole. These laws may appropriate the portion of land occupied by a decedent, to his creditor rather than to any other, or to his child, on condition he satisfies the creditor. But when a whole generation, that is, the whole society, dies, as in the case we have supposed, and another generation or society succeeds, this forms a whole, and there is no superior who can give their territory to a third society, who may have lent money to their predecessors, beyond their faculties of paying.

What is true of generations succeeding one another at fixed epochs, as has been supposed for clearer conception, is true for those renewed daily, as in the actual course of nature. As a majority of the contracting generation will continue in being thirty-four years, and a new majority will then come into possession, the former may extend their engagements to that term, and no longer. The conclusion, then, is, that neither the representatives of a nation, nor the whole nation itself assembled, can validly engage debts beyond what they may pay in their own time, that is to say, within thirty-four years from the date of the engagement.

To render this conclusion palpable, suppose that Louis the XIV. and XV. had contracted debts in the name of the French nation, to the amount of ten thousand milliards, and that the whole had been contracted in Holland. The interest of this sum would be five hundred milliards, which is the whole rent-roll or net proceeds of the territory of France. Must the present generation of men have retired from the territory in which nature produces them, and ceded it to the Dutch creditors? No; they have the same rights over the soil on which they were produced, as the preceding generations had. They derive these rights not from them, but from nature. They, then, and their soil are, by nature, clear of the debts of their predecessors. To present this in another point of view, suppose Louis XV. and his cotemporary generation, had said to the money-lenders of Holland, "Give us money, that we may eat, drink, and be merry in our day; and on condition you will demard no interest till the end of thirty-four years, you shall then, forever after, receive an annual interest of fifteen per cent." The money is lent on these conditions, is divided among the people, eaten, drunk, and squandered. Would the present generation be obliged to apply the produce of the earth and of their labor, to replace their dissipations? Not at all.

I suppose that the received opinion, that the public debts of one generation de

ceed from the error of confounding together his first speech and his second. The first, I reported at length. It was a very able and methodical one, containing a lucid exposition of his views: views which he made no secret of at the time or subse-` quently, particularly with persons on a footing of the ordinary confidence among gentlemen thrown into political relations with each other on subjects of great moment. The second speech was little else than a repetition of the other, or parts of the other, with amplifications. That I did not report, for the reason just stated, and because he had told me of his intention to write it out himself, and had promised me a copy. The promised copy he never gave me; whether he ever executed his intention to write it out, even, I don't know. Yates has blended these two speeches together in his account of the proceedings.'

"I (N. P. T.) here reminded Mr. Madison of his having given me, some years ago, an account of these speeches, and those of others (of which I made a memorandum at the time, which is among my papers in Washington), and his having told me that he read to Colonel Hamilton and to Governeur Morris his reports of their speeches. That Col. H. acknowledged the accuracy of his, suggesting only one or two verbal alterations, and that G. M. laughed and said ‘yes, it is all right.'

"Mr. M., 'Yes, Governeur Morris's speech was a very extravagant one. It displayed his usual talent, and also, in a striking degree, his usual fondness for saying things and advancing doctrines that no one else would. At the moment, he was not perhaps himself conscious how far he went; and when the thing stared him in the face (this was Mr. M.'s exact expression), as written down by me, it caused him to laugh, while he acknowledged its truth.'

"Mr. M., 'As to the other branch of the subject, I deserted Colonel Hamilton, or rather Colonel H. deserted me; in a word, the divergence between us took place -from his wishing to administration, or rather to administer the Government (these were Mr. M.'s very words), into what he thought it ought to be; while, on my part, I endeavored to make it conform to the Constitution as understood by the Convention that produced and recommended it, and particularly by the State conventions that adopted it.'"

APPENDIX NO. X.-VOL. II., p. 114.

Thomas Jefferson to Francis Eppes, Esq., Eppington.

PHILADELPHIA, Apr. 7th, 1798.

DEAR SIR: According to the information contained in my letter of March 17th, Jack now sets out for Virginia. The circumstances which have determined the moment of his departure have been the commencement of a term at William & Mary, should you accede to the proposition of his going there, and my relinquishing my house here and retiring to a small one in the country with only three rooms, and from whence I shall hold myself in readiness to take my departure for Monticello the first moment I can do it with due respect to myself. I can give you the most consoling assurances as to Jack's temper, prudence, and excellent dispositions. On these points I can say with truth everything a parent would wish to hear. As far, too, as his backwardness would ever give me an opportunity of judging, I can pronounce a

very favorable verdict on his talents, in which I have been entirely confirmed by those who have had better opportunities of judging as having had better opportunities of unreserved conversations with him. After all, the talent for speaking is yet untried, and can only be tried at the moot courts at the college, which I propose for his next object.

My papers being packed for removal, I am not able to look to your last letter; but I think you say in it that, instead of money, we are to receive from Cary's executor only bonds of 6, 9, and 12 months. This being the case of an execution, I do not well understand it: however I will solicit your attention to it, on my behalf, to avail me of this resource for any sum of money which it may yield, and as early as it can be yielded (I mean my proportion only), for a disappointment from another quarter in Virginia has so far abridged the provision I had made for winding up my affairs here, as that it will fall considerably short, and will really distress me, and perhaps subject me to mortification. We may now give credit to the information that war is declared between France and England. If you have not sold your wheat, the moment will be favorable, but it should not be overpassed, as the purchases will of course cease as soon as the chance ceases of getting them to Europe before their harvest. I hope they will let us work in peace to feed them during the continuance of their follies. Present me most affectionately to Mrs. Eppes and the family, as also to our friends at Hors du Monde, when an occasion offers, and believe me to be most sincerely, dear sir,

Your friend and servant,

TH. JEFFERSON.

APPENDIX NO. XI.-VOL. II. p. 201.

Giuseppe Ceracchi, Washington's Bust, etc.

Ceracchi made a characteristic exit from a scene where he had met little besides buffets. He entered with fiery vehemence into the project of an Italian Republic in 1799. Compelled to leave his country, he went to Paris, and there received a commission to execute a bust of the first Consul, Bonaparte. Among the young artists of the French capital, he soon formed political affiliations, which induced him to enter into a conspiracy to take away the life of the Consul, whom he regarded as the oppressor of Italy. He was arrested and interposed no defence before the court which tried him, answering the questions put to him only in monosyllables. In February, 1801, he marched undauntedly to the guillotine. In respect to the further history of Washington's bust, Mrs. Randolph's manuscript contains the following:

"Mr. Madison thought it had been bought by Messrs. Viar and Jaudennes, the Spanish commissioners, and by them carried to [Spain ?]; but Burrows, who executed the monument for the General's mother in Fredericksburg, says that a son of Mr. Howard, of Baltimore, bought it, and that Mr. Howard gave it to Burrows upon condition that he would place it upon the top of the old lady's monument. told Mr. Madison that he had it, and meant of course to place it there."

He

Whether General Washington was displeased with the bust as a work of art, as a

likeness, or because Ceracchi offered it to him (as in the case of Jefferson) as a gift, or because it was executed, and a price affixed to it, without previous order, we are wholly unable to say, and can but dimly conjecture.

In 1792, Cerracchi addressed duplicate letters to Governor George Clinton, of New York, a bass-relief of whom was to be placed on the National Monument. Both of the letters are before us. We present a copy, in the writer's very imperfect English and spelling, thinking it will possess a melancholy interest to lovers of art.

EXCELLENCY,

Give me live to testify my recollection for the honor I had to be acquainted with your Excellency, and beg the favor to send me your bust in clay I had the pleasure to model, in order to introduce your portrait in the basso rilievos of the National Monument, which according to the decree of Congress, in the year 1783, is to be expressed five military deeds in which General Washington was present, and with Genl. Washington other eminent caracters most naturaly be introduced.

Congress will probably in this session take up again this business, and carry a resolution in favor of it, but in this case I am in nead of your valuable influence in persuading som of your friends, members of the State of New York, which are contrary to this monument because Gen'. Washington is yet alive. The greatest ancient nations erected monuments to their Heros while living in order to produce emulation.

Congress at that time when passed the decree show the [word illegible—looks like "true"] intention of erecting directeley the monument, but the skarsety of mony prevented it then (to be brought in execution; now this difficulty is over, and hope the Hon. gentlemen will be persuaded that the honor to which are gelos was gaged in the 1783). 1

1

If your Excellency shall be pleased to honor me with an order, I beg to be directed to Mr. Alexorphius, in Amsterdam, and he will send it to me at Rome, where I shall be in October.

I beg live to present my respectful compliments to your Lady and Docters, while with a perfect estime and respect, I am

of your Excellency,

The most ob. ser.

J. CERACCHI.2

APPENDIX NO. XII.-VOL. II. p. 219.

Ceremonials practised in the first Administration.

Colonel Hamilton proposed what we believe constituted the basis of the more important official ceremonials which were adopted. The following was his communication to President Washington on the subject:

1 The words in parenthesis in duplicate but not in draft. There are other disagreements in language and spelling.

In both copies, he gives the initial as J. (for Joseph) instead of the initial of the Italian Giuseppe.