the Constitution in 1788, a period of eleven years, as well as five years afterward, and must have known what powers the States possessed; and, from presiding over the Convention, must have understood what powers it was intended to part with. From the adoption of the Constitution to the close of his life, he struggled to restrain the national Government within these bounds, and to sustain the States in all their rightful supremacy. When called upon as the presiding officer of the Senate, in 1811, to give the casting vote as to the recharter of the first Bank of the United States (1791), he assigned briefly his reasons for voting against it, and, among other things, said:

"In the course of a long life, I have found that government is not strengthened by an assumption of doubtful powers, but by a wise and energetic exertion of those which are incontestable; the former never fails to produce suspicion and distrust, while the latter inspires respect and confidence."

These are words of wisdom, and a clear illustration of pure Democratic principles-principles which had ever given impulse to and controlled his action. George Clinton was a soldier of energy and valor, and without fear. As a statesman, he was wise and farseeing; and, as a patriot, his heart throbbed only for his country's good. As a man, he was honest and just; and as a citizen and Christian, he loved all mankind. His life was devoted to knocking off the shackles and clearing away the obstacles which obstructed the path of men pursuing happiness in their own way, according to the principles of democracy. Such a man we hesitate not to declare to be ONE OF NATURE'S NOBLEMEN.

17.-PROPOSITION TO IMPEACH MR. JEFFERSON.

There has never been a case of impeachment under the Constitution except of Federal judges who held life offices—Pickering, District Judge of New Hampshire; Chase, Associate Judge of the Supreme Court; Peck, District Judge of Missouri; and Humphrey, District Judge of Tennessee-and no convictions except Pickering, whose drunkenness produced insanity, and Humphey, who joined the secessionists. In Blount's case it was held that a Senator was not impeachable, and he was removed for cause

But two impeachment guns have been fired at the Executive. The last was aimed at President Johnson, but failed, from insufficiency of powder. The other was aimed at Mr. Jeffer son, and originated in his firm and inflexible resolution to enforce the embargo laws. Nearly all the hard words in our vocabulary had been raised against him several times over by Senators and members, Mr. Dana, of Connecticut, claiming that they should be given up because they could not be enforced. They all seemed ready to pounce upon the President and tear him to pieces. Rival orators seemed to contend who should be the most severe in words. It was, however, left to Mr. Quincy, Massachusetts' favorite son among the Federalists, to propose his utter annihilation. On the 26th of January, 1809, he said he had arisen "to perform a painful duty." It was a "painful" duty, but the "occasion called for it." Every member "who had reason to believe that a high crime or misdemeanor had been committed was bound to state that opinion to the House, and move such an inquiry as the nature of the supposed offence demanded." The crime or misdemeanor was, that Benjamin Lincoln, one of the oldest major-generals of the Revolutiorary War, a decided Federalist, who had been appointed collector of the port of Boston, by General Washington, in 1789, and some two years before had asked leave of Mr. Jefferson to resign, he being too old and infirm to discharge his duties, and Mr. Jefferson had put him off without accepting it, and that the Government had paid him $5,000 a year, which he did not really earn. Such cases of crimes are few and far between in our office-loving country. The like has not since been heard of in our country. It was a provoking disproval of another crime often imputed to Mr. Jefferson, that of removing all Federalists from office, and appointing his political friends. It was further charged that Mr. Jefferson intended, just before going out of office, to appoint General Dearborn, his Secretary of War, to the office of collector, or to secure it at the hands of Mr. Madison, his successor. The day of voting on Mr. Quincy's motion arrived. Whether the planets behaved as badly that day as when Peter Stuyvesant fought the great battle at Christiana Creek, the careless historians of the time have not told us; but certain it

is that the clerk called and called again, and but one vote was given for the resolution, and that by Mr. Quincy himself! Whether Mr. Jefferson and his friends, or Mr. Quincy and his friends, "breathed freer, deeper, and easier," is not recorded in the journal. Whether this bold movement of the redoubtable man of Massachusetts has deterred all other Presidents from like cases of offending, no one can say with confidence; but this is well known-proved over and over again—that no President has since subjected himself to impeachment for the crime of retaining a political adversary in a high and profitable office two years too long. Such a case is not likely ever to occur again, after Mr. Quincy's bold assault upon such a heinous crime. It seems that it was not then known or suspected that a President could be impeached for what he intended to do. The people then were not as wise as those of the present day. If they had been so, Mr. Quincy would have carried his point on the latter ground.

18.-WHY THE EMBARGO WAS ABANDONED.

Mr. Jefferson was clearly right in his theory, that if the Embargo Law were faithfully carried into effect, it would compel the British Government to do us justice without our sustaining the losses, expenses, and havoc of a war. But it was scarcely executed at all, and lasted only about fourteen months in all. As was clearly foreseen, war followed in a little over three months from its repeal. At this distance of time, it seems strange that such a measure should have fallen in the house of its friends, to be followed by such consequences to our country. But it had its causes, and the result naturally followed. We have seen that the whole anti-Democratic or Federal party were opposed to the law, sought to defeat its execution and purposes, and that at least one branch of the Massachusetts Legislature had indorsed the actions and feelings of its political friends.

Most of the New England Governors and State Legislatures, if not active, harmonized in feeling with the enemies of the law, and neither lent a helping hand nor encouraged others in its execution. Insurrections and civil war were imminent, as the natural consequences of the actions and feelings of the Federal party,

and it became known that British emissaries and the Federal leaders had agreed upon, or were maturing, a plan for defeating the law altogether in New England, and for throwing off the authority of the national Government, at least to that extent, if they did not sever and disavow all connection with the Union. The Federalists were so infatuated by party feeling as to appoint a committee to confer with British emissaries.

Mr. Jefferson's friend Nicholas, in the House (January 25, 1809), moved a resolution to the effect, that we ought not to delay the repeal of the Embargo Law beyond

day of

and then to resume navigation on the high seas, and to defend ourselves against all nations. This was subsequently changed, so that if by a day certain the obnoxious orders and decrees were not repealed, then letters of marque and reprisal should be issued against the powers complained of after the 1st of June, 1812.

This resolution occasioned a very exciting debate. Some of Mr. Jefferson's friends became alarmed, and especially those from New England, at the indications of insurrection in their own States. Against the wishes of the mover, the date when the embargo should cease was changed from the 1st of June to the 4th of March.

Although not then publicly known, there was more cause for alarm than was generally apprehended. Mr. John Quincy Adams, who had previously acted with the Federal party, and knew much of the acts and of the intentions of its leaders, yielding to the convictions of duty, disclosed to Mr. Jefferson, and subsequently to the public, facts which came to his knowledge on this subject. Among other things, he stated;

"He (Mr. Adams) urged that the continuance of the embargo much longer would certainly be met by forcible resistance, supported by the Legislature and, probably, by the judiciary of the State (Massachusetts). That to quell that resistance, if force should be resorted to by the Government, it would produce a civil war; and that, in that event, he had no doubt that the leaders of the party would secure the coöperation with them of Great Britain. That their object was, and had been for several years, a dissolution

of the Union, and the establishment of a separate confederation, he knew from unequivocal evidence, although not provable in a court of law; and that, in case of a civil war, the aid of Great Britain to effect that purpose would be as surely resorted to as it would be indispensably necessary to the design."

In an article in the Boston Putriot, in 1809, Mr. Adams fur ther stated:

"They (Mr. Ames's principles) are the principles of a faction which has succeeded in obtaining the management of this Commonwealth, and which aspired to the government of the Union. Defeated in this last object of their ambition, and sensible that the engines by which they have attained the mastery of the State are not sufficiently comprehensive, nor enough within their control to wield the machinery of the nation, their next resort was to dismember what they could not sway, and to form a new confederacy, to be under the glorious shelter of British protection."

At a subsequent period, it became known that the Governor of Canada dispatched one John Henry to New England, to open communications with the disaffected Federal leaders, and to secure arrangements between them and England, which should defeat the laws and intentions of the nation, and prostrate Mr. Jefferson and his party, and destroy the Union, and thus secure to England and the Federalists a triumph.

Concerning the mission of Henry, Mr. Jefferson, in a letter to John Adams, dated 20th April, 1812, said:

"Of this mission of Henry, your son had got wind in the time of the embargo, and communicated it to me. But he had learned nothing of the particular agent, although of his workings, the information he had obtained appears now to have been correct. He stated a particular which Henry has not distinctly brought forward, which was, that the Eastern States were not to be required to make a formal act of separation from the Union, and to take part in the war against it; a measure deemed much too strong for their people: but to declare themselves in a state of neutrality, in consideration of which, they were to have peace and free commerce, the lure most likely to insure acquiescence." The effect of these malign influences in New England, upon