FISHER AMES, 1758-1808.

FEW statesmen of this or any other country have passed through the perilous arena of politics with a character and reputation so unsullied as Fisher Ames. He was the youngest son of Dr. Fisher Ames of Dedham, Massachusetts, and was born in that ancient town April 9th, 1758. He was but six years old when he lost his father; but his mother, as if "anticipating the future lustre of the jewel committed to her care," struggled hard with her narrow circumstances in order to give him a literary education. She lived to be a witness of his eminence, to receive the expressions of his filial piety, and to weep over his grave.

At the completion of his twelfth year, he was admitted to Harvard College, where he distinguished himself, young as he was, for his studious habits and his classical attainments; and he passed through that ordeal, so trying for young men, with a character unstained by any vice. After leaving college, deeming himself too young to enter at once upon the profession he had chosen-the law-and desirous of aiding his mother in her efforts to maintain the family, he engaged in the business of instruction, and for three or four years employed his time partly in teaching others, and partly in reviewing his studies and adding new stores to his stock of knowledge. At length he entered the office of Wm. Tudor, Esq., of Boston, as a student of law, and in the autumn of 1781 commenced practice at Dedham.

Mr. Ames entered upon his professional career at a very eventful period of our history. Though the contest with the mother country had not ended, yet the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown gave clear indications of what would be the issue of the conflict, and that we should soon be called to frame for ourselves a constitutional government, "to form a more perfect union and secure the blessings of liberty," and to take our place among the nations of the earth. From the outset of his career he was ever the warm, consistent, and able friend of constitutional liberty; and when resistance to law, in Massachusetts, broke out into open rebellion, he wrote a series of essays in the "Independent Chronicle," published in Boston, under the signatures of "Lucius Junius Brutus” and “Camillus," to animate the government to decision and energy. These pieces were at once pronounced to be the production of no common mind, and when traced to Mr. Ames the eyes of leading men in the State were turned to him as one destined to render the most important services to his country.

In 1788 he was chosen as a member of the Massachusetts Convention for ratifying the Federal Constitution. In this body he displayed so much talent and sound political wisdom, that he was selected by the friends of the then new government to assist in its organization, and he was accordingly chosen the first representative to Congress from the district of Suffolk, which included the capital of the State. During the whole of Washington's administration, he continued a member of the House of Representatives; and though his health was feeble, he took an active and responsible part in every important question, and gave all his time and all his powers to public business; and such were his talents, and such his practical wisdom, united to sound moral and Christian principles, that no member of the House exerted a greater influence. The greatest speech that he delivered in that body, and indeed the speech of that session of the fourth Congress, was that on the appropriation for the British treaty, more generally known as "Jay's treaty." For many months he had been sinking under weakness, and though he had attended the long and interesting debate on a question which involved the Constitution and the peace of the United States, it was feared he would be unable to speak. He himself had no design of speaking, feeling himself utterly unable for the effort. But when the time came for taking a vote so big with consequences, his emotions would not suffer him to be silent; and, pale, weak, and emaciated as he was, he rose and delivered that speech, which, for its chaste diction, argumentative reasoning, high-toned morality, and impassioned eloquence, has not its superior in our legislative history. "His appearance, his situation, the magnitude of his subject, the force and the pathos of his eloquence gave this speech an extraordinary power over the feelings of the dignified and numerous assembly who heard it. When he had finished, a member in opposition moved to postpone the decision on the question, that they might not vote under the influence of a sensibility which their calm judgment might condemn."

At the close of the session, in the spring of 1796, Mr. Ames travelled for his health, which he regained so far as to enable him to attend the next session of Congress; after which he declined another election, and retired to his favorite residence, "to enjoy repose in the bosom of his family, and to unite, with his practice as a lawyer, those rural

1

It was delivered April 28, 1796, in support of the following motion :'Resolved, That it is expedient to pass the laws necessary to carry into effect the treaty lately concluded between the United States and the King of Great Britain." For an account of the nature and character of this celebrated debate, see Note 2 at the bottom of the next page.

occupations in which he delighted." His interest in public affairs, however, did not cease; and his pen was almost constantly employed in writing political essays for the papers of the day, in defence and support of the principles of the Federal party, of which he was one of the most distinguished members; and when Washington, the illustrious head of that party, died, Mr. Ames pronounced his eulogy before the Legislature of Massachusetts.

In 1804, Mr. Ames was chosen President of Harvard College, but his feeble health would not allow him to accept the high honor. At length his disease began to make more rapid strides. With great calmness and Christian resignation he saw his end approaching. He was fully prepared to die. He had lived the life of a Christian, and his faith grew stronger and stronger as his body grew weaker; and on the morning of the 4th of July, 1808, the birthday of that country which he so ardently loved, and for whose best interest he had so faithfully labored, he resigned his spirit into the hands of Him who gave it.

Fisher Ames was a truly great man. None of our statesmen have united, to talents and attainments of so high an order, a private character of greater purity, or a sense of moral and religious obligation more deep. He was a great student of the Bible, an admirer of our translation for the purity of its English, and deeply lamented the growing disuse of it in our schools. He thought that children should be made acquainted with its important truths, and said: "I will hazard the assertion that no man ever did or ever will become truly eloquent without being a constant reader of the Bible, and an admirer of the beauty and sublimity of its language." "It is happy for mankind," says his biographer, "when those who engage admiration deserve esteem; for vice and folly derive a pernicious influence from an alliance with qualities that naturally command applause. In the character of Mr. Ames, the circle of the virtues seems to be complete, and each virtue in its proper place."

THE OBLIGATIONS OF NATIONAL FAITH.

Mr. Chairman: The question before us seems at last to resolve itself to this: SHALL WE BREAK THE TREATY?" The treaty

Read the Life of Mr. Ames, prefixed to his Works, by the Rev. Dr. Kirkland, President of Harvard University-one of the best written pieces of biography in our language. Also, "Works of Fisher Ames, with a Selection from his Speeches and Correspondence. Edited by his son, Seth Ames." 2 vols. Boston.

* The debate in the House of Representatives upon Jay's celebrated treaty

is bad, fatally bad, is the cry. It sacrifices the interest, the honor, the independence of the United States, and the faith of our engagements to France. If we listen to the clamor of party intemperance, the evils are of a number not to be counted, and of a nature not to be borne, even in idea. The language of passion and exaggeration may silence that of sober reason, in other places; it has not done it here. The question here is, whether the treaty be really so very fatal as to oblige the nation to break its faith.

I lay down two rules, which ought to guide us in this case. The treaty must appear to be bad, not merely in the petty details, but in its character, principle, and mass; and in the next place, this ought to be ascertained by the decided and general concurrence of the enlightened public. I confess, there seems to me something very like ridicule thrown over the debate, by the discussion of the articles in detail.

The undecided point is, shall we break our faith? and while our country and enlightened Europe await the issue, with more than curiosity, we are employed to gather piece-meal, and article by article, from the instrument, a justification for the deed, by trivial calculations of commercial profit and loss. This is little worthy of the subject, of this body, or of the nation. If the treaty is bad, it will appear to be so in its mass. Evil, to a fatal extreme, if that be its tendency, requires no proof; it brings it. Extremes speak for themselves, and make their own law. Few men of any reputation for sense, among those who say the treaty is bad, will put that reputation so much at hazard as to pretend that it is so extremely bad as to warrant and require a violation of the public faith.

In the next place, will the state of public opinion justify the deed? No government, not even a despotism, will break its

is perhaps the most memorable that ever occurred in that body, and, we may add, one of the most important; for the great question was discussed, whether a treaty would be valid without the approbation of the House. Those who were in the affirmative of this question argued, from the Constitution, that the treaty was already made, and could not be broken without breaking the faith of the nation; for the Constitution vests the power of making treaties in the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Those in the negative argued that if the President and Senate could make treaties without the assistance of the House, they might absorb all legislative power. The treaty itself, too, was made a subject of great animadversion by one party. For a comprehensive account of the whole debate, see "Pitkin's Political and Civil History of the United States," vol. ii., page 442. Suffice it to say that mature reflection has shown that the treaty obtained as much for us as, from all circumstances, we could expect, and that the power of making treaties is wholly independent of the popular branch of the legislature.

faith without some pretext, and it must be plausible—it must be such as will carry the public opinion along with it. Reasons of policy, if not of morality, dissuade even Turkey and Algiers from breaches of treaty in mere wantonness of perfidy, in open contempt of the reproaches of their subjects. Surely, a popular government will not proceed more arbitrarily, as it is more free; nor with less shame or scruple in proportion as it has better morals. It will not proceed against the faith of treaties at all, unless the strong and decided sense of the nation shall pronounce, not simply that the treaty is not advantageous, but that it ought to be broken and annulled.

Why, Mr. Chairman, do the opposers of this treaty complain that the West Indies are not laid open? Why do they lament that any restriction is stipulated on the commerce of the East Indies? Why do they pretend that if they reject this, and insist upon more, more will be accomplished? Let us be explicit more would not satisfy. If all was granted, would not a treaty of amity with Great Britain still be obnoxious? Have we not this instant heard it urged against our envoy that he was not ardent enough in his hatred of Great Britain? A treaty of amity is condemned because it was not made by a foe, and in the spirit of one. The same gentleman, at the same instant, repeats a very prevailing objection, that no treaty should be made with the enemy of France. No treaty, exclaim others, should be made with a monarch or a despot; there will be no naval security while those sea-robbers domineer on the ocean : their den must be destroyed; that nation must be extirpated.

I like this, sir, because it is sincerity. With feelings such as these, we do not pant for treaties. Such passions seek nothing, and will be content with nothing, but the destruction of their object. If a treaty left King George his island, it would not answer-no, not if he stipulated to pay rent for it. It has even been said, the world ought to rejoice if Britain was sunk in the sea; if, where there are now men, and wealth, and laws, and liberty, there was no more than a sandbank for the seamonsters to fatten on; a space for the storms of the ocean to mingle in conflict.

PATRIOTISM.

What is patriotism? Is it a narrow affection for the spot where a man was born? Are the very clods where we tread entitled to this ardent preference, because they are greener? No, sir; this is not the character of the virtue, and it soars