by his constitutional title. Thus, in effect, settling the question between the Houses, as the Senate at length pursued the same

course.

It is intimated in the life of General Peter Muhlenberg, pages 315-318, that General Washington was in favor of an additional title to be bestowed on the President, and that he was supposed to favor that of High Mightiness, a title applied to the Stadtholders of Holland. This opinion of Mr. Muhlenburg, was grounded merely on an inference on his part; for on the occasion referred to, General Washington expressed no opinion on the subject. In a letter of General Washington's, to Doctor Stuart, of Virginia, written in July, 1789, and published in the tenth volume of Sparks' publications, it is stated by him that he was opposed to an additional title; and he further stated that the truth is, the question was moved before I arrived, (at New York,) without any privity or knowledge on my part, and urged, after I was apprised of it, contrary to my opinion. (See note as to his letter.)

In the fourth volume of the life of Washington, by Washington Irving, it is stated that Washington was opposed to conferring on the President an additional title; but it is added, that the inauguration was delayed on account of the difficulty or contention on the subject. This is a mistake. See the subject of titles treated of in the journal.

It may be remarked that the letter of Mr. Adams, written in January, 1792, and printed in the eighth volume of his works pages 512-13, presents but a partial view of his course on the subject of titles. It does not appear that the opinion of General Washington in opposition to titles was generally known in the Senate whilst the matter was pending before the Senate; for after the debate in that body was concluded, Mr. Maclay made a memorandum to the effect that he had endeavored to ascertain the sentiments of the President on the subject, but had not succeeded.

Mr. Maclay felt a strong desire to have the seat of government on the Susquehanna. This measure appears to have failed in the

NOTE.-It is to be lamented that he (meaning Mr. Adams) and some others have stirred a question which has given rise to so much animadversion, and which, I confess, has given me much uneasiness, lest it should be supposed by some, unacquainted with facts, that the object they had in view was not displeasing to me. The truth is, the question was moved before I arrived, without any privity or knowledge of it on my part, and urged, after I was apprized of it, contrary to my opinion; for I foresaw and predicted the reception it has met with, and the use that would be made of it by the adversaries of the Government. Happily, this matter is now done with, I hope never to be revived.

Senate by reason of opposition by Robert Morris. He was at first desirous for its location at the Falls of the Delaware; but failing in that, he endeavored to have it established in a district around Germantown, contending that it ought to be near to a commercial place. The Susquehanna measure passed the House of Representatives and was agreed to in the Senate, but Germantown was afterwards substituted in the Senate, through the pertinaceous efforts of Mr. Morris. It was agreed to in the House, but at the instance of Mr. Madison an amendment, perhaps immaterial, was made in the House, providing for the operation of the laws of Pennsylvania in the district until supplied or altered by Congress. This amendment ren

dered necessary the return of the bill to the Senate, where, it would appear, there was a majority opposed to Germantown; and on the 28th of September, 1789, the bill was postponed.

In relation to this measure, Mr. Maclay raised his warning voice against yielding the Susquehanna, intimating that at the next session of Congress the seat of government would be fixed on the Potomac. His voice was prophetic; and at the next session, through an arrangement between Mr. Hamilton and certain members from Virginia and Pennsylvania, the funding bill was passed, and also the bill fixing the permanent seat of government in the District of Columbia. It does not certainly appear from the journal of Mr. Maclay that General Washington, as has been elsewhere intimated, interposed his influence in favor of the Potomac whilst the bill was pending before the first Congress; but it is not improbable that he expressed a preference for its location on the Potomac during the second session. Mr. Madison, however, appears to have been decided in favor of its location on the Potomac, before General Washington was inaugurated. In relation to members from Pennsylvania supporting the measure which passed for the removal from New York, it was said that certain of them supposed it probable, if the Government were settled at Philadelphia for the period of ten years, that Congress would be so pleased with the city as to be disinclined to remove from it. It may also be remarked that if Mr. Morris had acceded to the vote in favor of locating the seat of Government on the Susquehanna, after the designating of that position by a majority vote in both Houses, it would probably have received the official approval of the President. And if Mr. Maclay had agreed to Germantown as its seat, it might have been carried by his vote and influence after the return of the bill, with the amendment made on motion of Mr. Madison. Thus it is probable that Pennsylvania lost the permanent seat through the disagreement between her Senators. Harrisburg was not formally proposed in

the Senate as the permanent seat by Mr. Maclay, but it was most probably much desired by him for its position, he having there about one hundred and eighty acres of land, on part of which the present State Capitol is now built.

The first bill passed by the Senate related to the administration of oaths.

The second bill introduced into Congress was a bill for levying imposts on imported goods. It is stated by Mr. Benton, in his abridgment of the debates of Congress, that Congress in its passage of that act had no positive reference to the encouragement of domestic manufactures; that the object of. Congress was revenue only, and that the encouragement of manufactures was merely incidental to the revenue object. Let the matter be examined. The subject of the collection of duties on foreign importations was introduced into the House of Representatives by Mr. Madison on the 8th of April, 1789. The bill eventually agreed on was passed in the House on the 16th of May, and was received in the Senate on the 18th of that month, and was passed by that body on the 11th of June, with amendments. Under that date, after the action of the Senate on that bill, Mr. Maclay made the following memorandum: "The Senators from Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland in every act seemed desirous of making the impost productive, both as to revenue and effective for the encouragement of manufactures; and seemed to consider the whole of the impost (salt excepted) much too low. Articles of luxury many of them would have raised one half. But the members both from the North and still more particularly from the South. were ever in a flame when any articles were brought forward that were in any considerable use among them."

It will also appear from the extract of debates in the House of Representatives that a majority of the House were favorable to the encouragement and protection of such establishments.

As to Protection.

On the 8th April, 1789, Mr. Madison introduced into the House of Representatives a proposition declaring it as the opinion of the Committee of the Whole that duties should be laid on certain importations, viz: On rum and other spirituous liquors; on molasses; on wines, a specific duty per gallon; on teas; on pepper; on sugar; on cocoa and coffee, a specific duty per pound; and on all other articles a per centum duty on their value at the time and place of importation.

The object of the measure was revenue only, and it was to be of a merely temporary character, and was intended to affect the spring importations.

After he and others had addressed the House, Mr. Fitzsimmons, of Pennsylvania, remarked that he observed from what had been said that the proposed plan of revenue is viewed by them as a temporary system, to be continued only until proper materials are brought forward, and arranged in more perfect form. But that he carried his views on the subject much further, and earnestly wished such a one as, in its operation, would be in some way adequate to the present situation as respects our agriculture, our manufactures, and our commerce. He offered an amendment that duties ought to be imposed on certain enumerated articles, including beer, ale, porter, steel, writing and wrapping paper, castings of iron, and on slit or rolled iron.

After others had spoken, Mr. Madison remarked that from what had been suggested he was led to apprehend that they should be under the necessity of traveling further into the investigation of principles than he had supposed to be necessary, and had in contemplation, when he offered the propositions to the House.

He perceived that however much we may be disposed to promote domestic manufactures, we ought to pay some regard to the present policy of obtaining revenue. It may be remarked, also, that by fixing on a temporary expedient for this purpose, we may gain more than we shall lose by suspending the consideration of the other subjects until we obtain fuller information of the state of our manufactures. He further remarked that notwithstanding the deference and respect paid to the interests of different sections of the United States, we must limit our consideration on this head, and consider the general interest of the Union, for this is as much every gentleman's interest to consider as is the local or State interest; and any system of impost that this committee may adopt must be founded on the principles of mutual concession. Gentlemen will be pleased to recollect that those parts of the Union which contribute more under one system than the others, are also those parts more thinly planted, and consequently stand more in need of national protection. He further observed that there is another consideration. The States that are most advanced in population, and ripe for manufactures, ought to have their particular interests attended to, in some degree. While these States retained the power of making regulations of trade, they had the power to protect and cherish such in. stitutions. By adopting the present constitution, they have thrown the exercise of this power into other hands. They must have done

this with an expectation that those interests would not be neglected here.

In the course of the proceeding on the bill, Mr. Lee, of Virginia, moved to strike out the proposed duty on steel; observing that the consumption was very great, and essentially necessary to agricultural improvements.

Mr. Tucker, of South Carolina, joined in this.

Mr. Clymer, of Pennsylvania, replied that the manufacture of steel in America was rather in its infancy; but as all the materials necessary to make it were the produce of almost every State in the Union, and as the manufacture was already established and attended with considerable success, he deemed it prudent to emancipate our country from the manacles in which she was held by foreign manufacturers.

Mr. Madison thought the object of selecting this article to be solely the encouragement of manufacture, and not revenue; for on any other consideration it would be more proper, as observed by the gentleman from Carolina, Mr. Tucker, to give a bounty on the importation. He thought it best to reserve this article to the nonenumerated ones, where it would be subject to a five per cent. ad valorem.

Mr. Fitzsimmons thought if gentlemen would not get rid of local considerations, the committee would make little progress, &c. The matter was further debated.

Mr. Moore, from Virginia, declared the southern States well calculated for the cultivation of hemp, and from certain circumstances well inclined thereto. He conceived it the duty of the committee to pay as much respect to the encouragement and protection of husbandry, (the most important of all the interests of the United States,) as they did to manufactures.

Next, Mr. Burke, of South Carolina, thought it proper to suggest to the committee what might be the probable effect of the proposed measure in the State he represented, and the adjoining one-Georgia. The staple products of that part of the Union were hardly worth cultivating, on account of their fall in price. The planters were, therefore, disposed to pursue some other. The lands are certainly well adapted to the growth of hemp, and he had no doubt but its culture would be practiced with attention. Cotton is likewise in contemplation among them; and if good seed could be procured, he hoped it might succeed. But the low, strong, rich lands would produce hemp in abundance-many thousand tons even this year, if it was not so late in the season. He liked the idea of laying a low duty now, and encouraged against the time when a supply might be had from our own cultivation.