Great Events in the History of North and South America

by Charles A. Goodrich

On the other hand, it was contended that, as it was made the duty of the president to see the laws faithfully executed, he ought to have the power of dismissing those agents who were unfaithful; otherwise, how, in many supposable cases, could he secure a faithful execution of the laws? It was further urged, that the mal-conduct of an officer might require his immediate dismission, before the senate—a body scattered over the states—could be convened. True, the power might be abused, and, in the hands of an ambitious man, perhaps would be; but such abuse would, in due time, be rebuked by the people, and the abuser of this delegated power, be displaced with dishonor. "The danger," said Mr. Madison, "consists in this: the president can displace from office a man whose merits require that he should be continued in it. What will be the motives which the president can feel for such abuse of his power, and the restraints to operate to prevent it? In the first place, he will be impeachable by this house, before the senate, for such an act of mal-administration; for I contend, that the wanton removal of meritorious officers, would subject him to impeachment, and removal from his own high trust."

The difference of opinion on this great question, gave rise to warm and protracted debates. A majority of both houses, however, at length decided, that the power of removal is in the president alone. Several who had been members of the convention which framed the constitution, were, at this time, members of the house of representatives. They were equally divided on the question—Mr. Madison and Mr. Baldwin, supporting the construction finally adopted by congress: Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Gerry, opposing it.

Amendments of the Constitution.—The states of New York and Virginia, although they ratified the constitution, were solicitous to have certain amendments adopted, which, in separate memorials, they presented to congress, and urged that body to call another convention for their adoption. Congress, however, had no authority to call a convention. Mr. Madison submitted to the house several amendments, which, together with those presented by several of the states, were referred to a committee, consisting of one member from each state. This committee, at length, reported several amendments; twelve of which, after various alterations, were agreed to by both branches of congress, and sent to the states. These amendments related to religion—keeping or bearing arms in time of war—quartering soldiers, citizens, &c., &c. Ten of these articles were at length ratified by the state legislatures, and became a part of the constitution.

Establishment of a Judiciary.—"A national judiciary was also established during this session, consisting of a supreme court, circuit, and district courts. The bill for carrying this part of the constitution into effect, originated in the senate, and was drawn up by a committee, of which Mr. Ellsworth was chairman. The district courts were to consist of one judge in each state. The states were divided into circuits, in each of which, one of the judges of the supreme court, and the district judge of the state in which the court was held, constituted the circuit courts. In certain cases, this court had original jurisdiction, and also took cognizance of appeals from the district courts. The supreme court was composed of a chief justice and five associate judges, and was to hold two sessions annually, at the seat of government. This court had exclusive jurisdiction in certain cases, and appellative jurisdiction from the circuit courts, and also from the state courts, in cases where the validity of treaties, and the laws of the United States were drawn in question. This organization of the federal judiciary, has remained nearly the same to the present time, except for a short period, when a different system, relative to the circuit courts, was established, but which was soon abolished, and the old system restored."[62] John Jay was appointed chief justice; John Rutledge, James Wilson, William Cushing, Robert H. Harrison, and John Blair, associate judges of the supreme court, and Edmund Randolph, attorney general.[63]

Assumption of Debts.—The second session of the first congress began on the 6th of January, 1790. At the close of the preceding session, the secretary of the treasury had been directed to prepare a plan for providing for the adequate support of the public credit, and to report the same at the next meeting of congress. On the 15th, in obedience to the foregoing requisition, Mr. Hamilton submitted his report. Having dwelt with great ability upon the importance of a nation maintaining the public credit, he proposed, as the means of supporting that of the United States, a system of assuming or funding not only the public debt, but also the state debts, and of making provision for the payment of the interest by taxes imposed on certain articles of luxury, and on spirits distilled within the United States.

The debates on this report were exciting beyond precedent. While not much difference existed as to funding the foreign debt, a strong opposition arose, on the part of the democratic party, against discharging, in full, the domestic debt, and the assumption of the state debts. The federalists advocated the measure. The contest between the two rival parties was strong, spirited, and even virulent. The very foundations of the government were shaken; and a writer has justly remarked, that to the differences which were then created, and the excitement which sprung up during the debates, may be ascribed "the origin of that violent spirit which for years arrayed one part of the American community against the other."

The division of sentiment among the members of congress in relation to the full, or only a partial payment of the domestic debt, arose from this. A considerable proportion of the original holders of public securities had been compelled to sell them at greatly reduced prices—even as low as two or three shillings on the pound. These securities had been purchased by speculators, with the expectation of ultimately receiving the full amount. "The federalists were with Hamilton, in favor of making no difference between the present and original holders of the continental bills, maintaining that the government ought not to interfere with transfers. The republican party advocated the discrimination; contending that it was unjust to the veterans of the Revolution, who had been obliged to receive this paper in lieu of gold and silver, and were afterwards compelled to part with it at a small part of its nominal value, now to be condemned to poverty, while the speculator was receiving the reward of their blood and service."

The assumption of the state debts was also violently opposed. The advocates of assumption claimed that the debts incurred by the state, were not for their own benefit, but for the promotion of the common cause, and that therefore it was right that the whole nation should be responsible. The debts of the states most active in the war, were the greatest: those of Massachusetts and Carolina amounted to ten millions and a half, while those of all the other states were not more than fifteen millions. Was it just to impose such a burden on the people of these two states? They had already been great sufferers in the privations they had endured and in the blood they had lost.