V.

CHAPTER ered to draw the whole fourteen millions thither, had they seen occasion to do so. Two out of the fourteen millions 1793. were expressly designed to be used in the United States, and nowhere else. The shipments made to St. Domingo on account of the French debt more than exceeded the excess over the two millions. So far from there being no need of money for the purposes of the Sinking Fund, most of the purchases actually made by that fundpurchases which had been very useful in raising the price of the stock, and thus preventing its transfer abroad at a rate below par-had been made by means of this very money drawn from Holland, though the amount had since been replaced, and more, from domestic resources. to any allegations that the secretary had exceeded or disregarded the orders of the president, that was a matter for the president's judgment, not for that of the House. With respect to the failure charged upon him to communicate to the House or the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund information as to his drafts from abroad, as neither the House nor the commissioners were in any way responsible for the custody of the public money, it was quite time enough to communicate information to them when they had asked for it.

As

The only shadow of a case upon any of the nine resolutions was the doubtful legality of the fusion of the two loans; and that was a mere technical question, no way involving the good judgment, much less the integrity of the secretary, which had been made the subject of such envenomed attacks. Even on that point the full strength of the opposition could not be carried. The fifth resolu tion obtained only fifteen votes; the third and fourth received twelve votes; the sixth and seventh, eight votes; the eighth, seven votes. Madison voted with Giles throughout for all the resolutions. The result of the

V.

business was, however, much to raise the character of the CHAPTER Secretary of the Treasury by convincing the great body of impartial men, capable of understanding the subject, 1793. that, both as regarded talent and integrity, he was admirably qualified for his office, and that the multiplied charges against him had been engendered by envy, suspicion, and ignorance.

While this investigation into Hamilton's conduct employed the House, his plan for paying off the public debt was suffered quietly to drop, after a few hours' consideration in Committee of the Whole. The change was very remarkable which the great zeal of the opposition on this subject underwent from the moment they had an opportunity to do any thing in the matter. To talk about paying the public debt seemed to be much more congenial than to vote money for that purpose.

The movement commenced during the former session by the officers of the Massachusetts Continental line, to obtain, out of the savings of the funding system, a compensation for their losses on the certificates in which their dues had been discharged, was seconded during the present session by memorials from the officers of most of the other state lines. Gerry, Giles, Madison, Mercer, and Hartley were disposed to favor this claim. It was opposed by Sedgwick, Boudinot, and others, on the ground that there was, in fact, no such saving of interest as the officers imagined, the delay assured in the redemption of the debt being a consideration for the reduction of the interest. The equal claim of the soldiers was also urged, and the new avenue to speculation of the worst kind which would thus be opened; and, indeed, the claim of all the other Continental creditors, losers by the depreciation of the public stocks. On a motion by Clark to refuse the prayer of the memorial, there were only ten dissenting votes.

CHAPTER

V.

An important act regulated the surrender of fugitives from justice and the restoration of fugitives from service, 1793. as provided for in the Constitution.

Fugitives from justice, on the demand of the executive of the state whence they had fled upon the executive of any state in which they might be found, accompanied with an indictment or affidavit charging crime upon them, were to be delivered up and conveyed back for trial. This part of the act still remains in force.

In case of the escape out of any state or territory of any person held to service or labor under the laws thereof, the person to whom such labor was due, his agent, or attorney, might seize the fugitive, and carry him before any United States judge, or before any magistrate of the city, town, or county in which the arrest was made; and such judge or magistrate, on proof to his satisfaction, either oral or by affidavit before any other magistrate, that the person seized was really a fugitive, and did owe labor as alleged, was to grant a certificate to that effect to the claimant, this certificate to serve as sufficient warrant for the removal of the fugitive to the state whence he had fled. Any person obstructing in any way such seizure or removal, or harboring or concealing any fugitive after notice, was liable to a penalty of $500, to be recovered by the claimant.

This act, which originated with the Senate, seems to have passed the House without any debate. At the time of its passage, and for many years after, the above provisions attracted little attention. At a later period, they were denounced not only as exceedingly harsh and peremptory, opening a door to great abuses, but as unconstitutional, in subjecting that most important of all juridical questions, the right of personal liberty, to a summary jurisdiction, without trial by jury, or any appeal on

V.

points of law. Availing themselves of a decision of the CHAPTER Supreme Federal Court as to the want of power in Congress to impose duties on state officers, most of the free 1793. states passed acts forbidding their magistrates, under severe penalties, to take any part in carrying this law into execution; and it was thus substantially reduced to a dead letter. It remains to be seen what success will attend a recent attempt (1850) to revive and re-enforce it, by provisions still more open to objection than those contained in the original act.

The appropriations for the service of 1793, exclusive of the interest on the public debt, but including the first installment of $200,000 to the Bank of the United States, amounted to near $1,900,000, requiring, with the interest on the debt, an income of about $4,850,000. In anticipation of the receipts of the year, a temporary loan was authorized from the bank, not exceeding $800,000.

Shortly before the termination of the session, the Supreme Court of the United States decided the first great constitutional question brought before it. One Chisholm, being a citizen of another state, had brought an action against the State of Georgia to recover a sum of money alleged to be due to him from that state. Though the Governor of Georgia had been duly served with a copy of the writ, no appearance had been entered to the action, whereupon the counsel for the plaintiff moved for a judg. ment by default. This raised the question whether the states were liable to be sued by individual citizens of other states. The affirmative was maintained by Randolph, the attorney general, who appeared for the plaintiff. Instead of making an argument in reply, the counsel retained for the State of Georgia put in a written protest denying the jurisdiction of the court. The case seemed to be plain enough, since, by the terms of the Constitu

CHAPTER tion, the jurisdiction was given in so many express words V. The idea, however, of being sued by individuals had ex1793. cited a great fluttering in many of the states, none of

which had been remarkably prompt in paying their debts. The objection had been started that, as the states were sovereign, they could not be sued. Judge Iredell, who seemed to lean against the jurisdiction, wished to escape a decision on an objection to the form of the action. The other judges held that the form of the action was well enough; and that, as the United States constituted one nation, the alleged sovereignty of the separate states must be considered to be so far modified thereby as to subject them, under the terms of the Constitution, to suits in the national courts. Before the above decision was given, Johnston had resigned his seat on the bench. Patterson, of New Jersey, was soon after nominated as his

successor.

The day after this decision was pronounced, Sedgwick offered a resolution in the House of Representatives for an amendment to the Constitution protecting the states against suits by individuals. No action was had upon this motion at this time, but subsequently such an amendment prevailed-another exemplification of the old maxim, that the net of the law is only strong enough for the small flies.

An act to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indians laid the foundations of that system which the United States have ever since pursued. An account of it, as subsequently extended and modified, will be given hereafter. General Lincoln, Pickering, the postmaster general, and Beverly Randolph, late governor of Virginia, were appointed commissioners for holding the proposed treaty with the Northwestern Indians. Little was hoped from that negotiation; yet it was deemed very essential