Part 2 (1/2)

Half a century later it became the habit of statesmen of the nationalist school to speak of the Const.i.tution as the work of the people of the United States. John Marshall declared the Const.i.tution to be ”an expression of the clear and deliberate will of the whole people.” As a matter of fact, no direct popular vote was taken at any stage in its evolution. The delegates to the Philadelphia Convention were chosen by the state legislatures; their work was ratified by conventions of delegates in the several States; and these delegates were chosen in every State but one on a carefully limited suffrage. New York alone provided that delegates to the convention should be elected on the basis of manhood suffrage. Elsewhere property qualifications were imposed which disfranchised probably about one third of the adult male population. In all the States a considerable proportion of the voters abstained from voting. In Boston, where twenty-seven hundred were qualified to vote, only seven hundred and sixty took the trouble to vote for delegates to the state convention. A recent writer hazards the guess that ”not more than one fourth or one fifth of the adult white males took part in the election of delegates to the state conventions.”

If this be true, the Const.i.tution expressed something less than the will of the whole people and perhaps not even of a majority. The making of the Const.i.tution was clearly the work of a party rather than of the whole people. In the ranks of the Federalist party were the wealth and intelligence which made possible concerted and rapid action. The leaders.h.i.+p fell naturally to those who had been accustomed to public life. From this point of view, the adoption of the Const.i.tution was the triumph of a ”natural aristocracy.”

Meantime, Congress nearing its end made testamentary provision for its heir. After much wrangling and vacillation, it fixed upon New York as the seat of the new Government and summoned the States to choose presidential electors, Senators, and Representatives. The new national legislature was to a.s.semble on the first Wednesday in March, which fell upon the 4th. To this summons, two States turned a deaf ear. Not having ratified the new Const.i.tution, North Carolina and Rhode Island were strangely circ.u.mstanced. Of all the States which had entered into the ”firm league of friends.h.i.+p,” they alone remained loyal--loyal, but discredited.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

Full accounts of the work of the Federal Convention may be found in the histories of Bancroft and Curtis; briefer accounts, in the volumes already cited, by McMaster, Fiske, McLaughlin, and Channing. A succinct narrative is given by Max Farrand, _The Framing of the Const.i.tution_ (1913). A suggestive volume, treating of the Const.i.tution as the resultant of conflicting economic interests, is C. A. Beard's _An Economic Interpretation of the Const.i.tution of the United States_ (1913). Among the special studies of the ratification of the Const.i.tution may be mentioned, O. G. Libby, _The Geographical Distribution of the Vote of the Thirteen States on the Federal Const.i.tution, 1787-1788_ (1888); McMaster and Stone, _Pennsylvania and the Federal Const.i.tution, 1787-1788_ (1888); S. B. Harding, _The Contest over the Ratification of the Federal Const.i.tution in the State of Ma.s.sachusetts_ (1896); and F. G. Bates, _Rhode Island and the Formation of the Union_ (1898). The most illuminating notes of the debates in the Convention were those taken by James Madison, which are printed in the _Records of the Federal Convention_ (3 vols., edited by Farrand, 1911). The most valuable commentary on the Const.i.tution is still _The Federalist_, written by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay.

CHAPTER III

THE RESTORATION OF PUBLIC CREDIT

”The people have been ripened by misfortune for the reception of a good government,” Was.h.i.+ngton wrote to Jefferson, in the midsummer of 1788.

”They are emerging from the gulf of dissipation and debt into which they had precipitated themselves at the close of the war. Economy and industry are evidently gaining ground.” There is, indeed, abundant evidence that thrift and enterprise were steadily banis.h.i.+ng hard times.

The task of establis.h.i.+ng the new government was made incomparably easier by the confidence inspired by returning prosperity.

Already West India commerce had resumed very nearly its old volume. Both France and Spain had made concessions to vessels which came to the island ports laden with American produce. The Dutch and the Danish islands had always been kept open to American trade; and evidence is not wanting that the needs of British West India planters were stronger than their respect for orders in council. At all events, by hook or crook, American farm products and lumber found their way to British planters as well as to their French compet.i.tors. But something more than the resumption of the West India traffic was needed to restore prosperity.

Necessity drove American sea captains to longer voyages and larger ventures. American vessels found their way in increasing numbers through the Baltic to Russia, and around Cape Horn to the Pacific ports, to China, and to the East Indies. One of the pioneers of this traffic to the Far East was Captain Robert Gray, of Boston, who, in his s.h.i.+p, the Columbia, doubled the Cape of Good Hope and completed the first American voyage around the world.

While hardy seamen were seeking new markets, American ingenuity was trying to reproduce the machinery which was coming into use in England for the manufacture of textiles. In the year 1789, Pennsylvania was manufacturing cotton cloths, hats, and ”all articles in leather,” while Ma.s.sachusetts was making cordage, duck, and gla.s.s. ”The number of shoes made in one town, and nails in another, is incredible,” wrote Was.h.i.+ngton. When Hamilton made his famous report on manufactures two years later, he described some seventeen industries which had already attained considerable proficiency, though nearly all of these were carried on in the household.

The dawn of the 4th of March was saluted by the guns at the Battery in New York and by the ringing of church bells. This day was to witness the inauguration of the new Government. Delusive expectation! The dilatory habits of a decade were not so readily unlearned. To the amus.e.m.e.nt of ill-wishers, barely a score of Congressmen appeared in the city; and the carpenters were still at work remodeling the old City Hall into a fitting habitation for the new Federal Congress. It was not until the 30th that enough Representatives were in attendance to make up a quorum and to permit the House to organize. Another week pa.s.sed before the Senate could organize.

On the 6th of April, the Senate summoned the House to attend the counting of the electoral votes. It then appeared that George Was.h.i.+ngton had received the highest number (69) and John Adams the next highest (34). This happy result had not been achieved without some concerted action among the Federalist leaders. The great personal influence of Was.h.i.+ngton was needed, indeed, to give dignity to the new office. While messengers were hastening to inform Was.h.i.+ngton and Adams of their election, the members of Congress had ample opportunities to look each other over. If they were not well known to each other, they were at least conspicuous in their respective communities. Nearly every man had held public office under his State Government and a large proportion had sat in the state conventions which had ratified the Const.i.tution. Over two thirds of the Representatives counted themselves Federalist, or at least friends of the new Const.i.tution.

[Map: Distribution of Population 1790 (Indian Tribes beyond the settled area)]

On the 30th of April, the Senate and House in joint session received the President-elect. With simple ceremonies as befitted the occasion, the inauguration of our first President was consummated. Stepping from the Senate chamber upon the balcony, Was.h.i.+ngton looked out upon the crowds which thronged Wall Street. The Chancellor of New York administered the oath, the populace shouted, ”Long live George Was.h.i.+ngton, President of the United States!” and then the President withdrew to deliver his inaugural address.

When the minutes of the Senate were read next day an incident occurred, which, trivial as it seems, was indicative of a spirit that may be truly characterized as American. The President's address was referred to as ”His most gracious Speech.” In a moment the doughty Maclay, of Pennsylvania, sprang to his feet with a vigorous protest. These were words which savored of kingly authority and which were odious to the people. He moved that they be struck out. Vice-President John Adams remonstrated mildly; he saw no objection to borrowing the practices of a government under which we had lived so long and happily. Senator Maclay was on his feet at once with the declaration that the sentiments of the people had undergone a change adverse to royal government. Such a phrase on the minutes of the Senate would immediately be represented as ”the first rung of the ladder in the ascent to royalty.” Maclay had his way and the offensive phrase was erased. Much the same republican spirit appeared in the debate on t.i.tles. The Senate would have preferred to address the President as ”His Highness, the President of the United States and Protector of their Liberties”; but the House insisted on having the plain t.i.tle, ”President of the United States.”

Even before the inauguration, the House of Representatives had entered upon its first tariff debate, for an immediate revenue was needed if the wheels of government were to move. Madison was ready with a scheme of customs duties patterned very largely after the ill-fated project of 1783. On all sides it was agreed that taxes should be external rather than internal, upon foreign rather than domestic commerce. Madison advocated duties upon ”articles of requisition likely to occasion the least difficulty,” such as spirituous liquors, mola.s.ses, wines, tea, coffee, cocoa, pepper, and sugar. But almost at once the idea was broached that indirect aid should be given to certain industries. The clash of opposing sectional interests appears even in this first debate.

In the end Madison's simple revenue measure was set aside. Specific duties were levied on more than thirty articles, and _ad valorem_ duties ranging from five to fifteen per cent on all others. Revenue was still the main object, but protective duties were deliberately grafted upon the bill. Tonnage dues were fixed in a separate act, while still another act laid the foundations of our national fiscal administration. In every State, side by side with local officials, yet independent of state control, there were to be collectors, surveyors of ports, inspectors, weighers, gaugers, measurers,--in short, so many living witnesses to the existence of a self-sufficient central government.

When Congress addressed itself to the work of establis.h.i.+ng the executive departments, questions of const.i.tutional interpretation thrust themselves into the foreground. Experience under the Confederation proved the need of at least the three departments of foreign affairs, war, and treasury. Bills to establish these departments were at once framed and favorably considered, but exception was taken to the provisions making the heads of these departments, who were appointed by the President and Senate, removable by the President alone. It was finally agreed to a.s.sume that the President had the power to remove from office. The act was therefore made to read, ”Whenever said princ.i.p.al officer shall be removed by the President.” In this wise, by legislative construction, the Const.i.tution was expanded at many points in the early years of the new Government.

The bill to establish the Treasury Department was drawn in accordance with the ideas of Hamilton, for it was expected that he would be the first inc.u.mbent of the office. It may have been his well-known partiality for British inst.i.tutions that caused the House to mistrust the phrase which made it the duty of the Secretary ”to digest and report plans for the improvement and management of the revenue, and the support of the public credit.” ”If we authorize him to prepare and report plans,” argued Tucker, of Virginia, voicing that fear of executive authority which was then instinctive, ”it will create an interference of the executive with the legislative powers; it will abridge the particular privilege of this House.... How can business originate in this House, if we have it reported to us by the Minister of Finance?”

The House was not minded to make Alexander Hamilton a Chancellor of the Exchequer. The bill was amended to read, ”digest and prepare.”

Subsequently the House showed unmistakably its determination to a.s.sume direction of the national revenues and expenditures.

One of the first concerns of Congress was to give substance to the colorless statement of the Const.i.tution that there should be one supreme court and such inferior courts as Congress should ordain and establish.

On the day following its organization, while the House was grappling with the question of revenue, the Senate appointed a committee to bring in a bill to establish the federal courts. The chairman of this committee was Oliver Ellsworth, of Connecticut, who had sat on the bench of the Court of Appeals under the Confederation and who had been an influential member of the Federal Convention. The bill reported by the committee was substantially his work. It provided for a supreme court bench of six judges--a chief justice and five a.s.sociates; for thirteen district courts, each with a single judge; and for three circuit courts, each of which was to consist of two justices of the Supreme Court and a district judge. Lengthy provisions in the act carefully delimited the jurisdiction of these courts, and laid down the modes of procedure and practice in them. Of great importance was the twenty-fifth section, which provided for taking cases on appeal to the Supreme Court from the lower federal and state courts. The words of the act, by a fair implication, would seem to confer upon the Supreme Court the power to review the decision of a state court holding an act of the United States unconst.i.tutional. It would seem to follow logically that the Supreme Court might do also directly what it might do indirectly--declare an act of Congress void by reason of its repugnance to the Const.i.tution.

Ellsworth, at least, held that in the discharge of their ordinary duties, the judges of the federal courts would have the right to p.r.o.nounce acts of Congress void when they stood in conflict with the Const.i.tution. Attempts were made, in the course of the debate on the Judiciary Act, to strip the federal courts of all jurisdiction except in admiralty and maritime cases. Many members of Congress agreed with Maclay in thinking that the Judiciary Act was calculated to draw all law business into the federal courts. ”The Const.i.tution is meant to swallow all the state const.i.tutions, by degrees,” averred the worthy Senator from Pennsylvania; ”and this [bill] to swallow, by degrees, all the state judiciaries.”

The wisdom of the new President appeared in his appointments to office.

Concerned solely with the fate of the federal experiment, he sought consistently the support of those who would add weight to the new Government, and who were Federalists in politics. Not only personal fitness but sectional interests had to be taken into consideration.

Was.h.i.+ngton was solicitous to draw ”the first characters of the union”