the stability, character, and success of the Government, and so immediately interesting to the department intrusted to his care, that he felt himself irresistibly impelled by a sense of duty, as well to the Chief Magistrate as to the community, to make this full communication.

"An inflexible adherence to these principles may have an air of rigor. The general rules of property, and all those which form the links of society, frequently involve particular hardships and injuries: yet the public order and general happiness require a steady conformity to them."

As to the delicacy of the President's opposition, he remarked, “that in a case where so few were concerned, it would be less likely to have disagreeable consequences than where it should affect many; and the prevention of an ill precedent might prove a decisive obstacle to other cases of greater extent and magnitude, and of a more critical tendency. That the momentary dissatisfaction would be removed by the plan he had suggested, and that the majority in the Senate was only of two votes."

That he felt an unreserved confidence in the justice and magnanimity of the President, who would "impute this representation to an earnest and anxious conviction of the truth and importance of the principles supported by the Secretary, and of the inauspicious tendency of the measure, to which he objects; co-operating with a pure and ardent zeal for the public good, and for the honor and prosperity of the administration of the Chief Magistrate."

To control the action of the House of Representatives; to exhibit himself t once as dominant in the Councils of the President; to gain a large popularity with the late army; and to recover for Madison the ground he had lost, were motives too powerful for Jeffer son to resist.

His Cabinet opinion being asked, he wrote to Washington. "By the Common Law of England (adopted in Virginia)," he stated, "the conveyance of a right to a debt, whereof the party is not in possession, is not only void, but severely punishable under the laws of maintenance and champerty. The Law Merchant allows the assignment of a bill of exchange; but this is an exception to the general rule.

"The other exceptions were Notes and Bonds. In all other cases assignments were void; and, the debts of these soldiers not having been put in either of these forms, the assignments of them were void. The Resolutions of Congress are not retrospective. They only direct their treasurer not to give validity to an assignment, which it had not before, until he, in whom the legal property is, shall order it in such a form as to show he is apprised of the sum he is to part with. If he acquiesce in the fraud, he is only to execute the power. Actual payment in this case, is an important act. If made to the assignee, it would put the burthen of proof and process on the original owner. If made to that owner, it puts it on the assignee, who must then come forward, and show that the transaction had been that of an honest man. The Resolutions merit approbation." Washington was not a lawyer. Jefferson had been a codifier of the laws of Virginia.

The President could not imagine he would mislead him on a question involving a grave official duty. Yet, so it was. In the first important Cabinet opinion given by him, he deliberately misstated the law. That the ancient doctrine of strict law forbade the assignment of a chose in action, is true; but this strictness had long since given place to a sense of justice. Indeed, "Courts of Equity from the earliest times, thought the doctrine too absurd VOL. IV.-9

for them to adopt; and, therefore, always acted in direct contradiction to it." *

Nor did the courts of law choose to be hampered by so rigid a rule. An exception was first made in favor of the Crown. Even during the tyranny of Henry the Eighth, a more liberal view was taken. A similar opinion prevailed in the reign of Charles the Second; † and, four years before the Declaration of Independence, the right of the Assignee was confirmed by all the judges of England. Yet, to attain his object, the Secretary of State thus palmed upon the President, as the existing law, an obsolete, arbitrary, and iniquitous technicality.

CHAPTER LXI.

THE length of the debate on the proposed discrimination of duties caused a postponement of the discussion on the Finances, until the nineteenth of May, when the bill making provision for the Debt was again considered.

Early in this renewed debate, and as it would seem, with a view to defeat the whole Funding system, a motion was made to expunge the section which contained a specific provision for the current public service.

This motion was strongly opposed on the ground, that it struck at the principle of the bill, which contemplated a sacred appropriation for the Public creditors, any violation of which would defeat the whole object in view. It was rejected by a large vote. The clause authorizing a loan to be made by the Secretary of the Treasury, was so modified, on the motion of Madison, as to confide that trust to the President; and a proposition for such a modification of this clause as that the power to borrow, should devolve upon the President, agreeably to the Constitution, and not by Law, was rejected. He was also, by an amendment to the bill, to direct the application of the loan to the several objects, for which it was to be effected. A clause was inserted to fund the continental bills of credit, at the rate of one hundred dollars for one specie dollar. The exchangeable rate per acre of the Western Land was

raised from twenty to thirty cents, and a proposition, tc fund the interest accruing to non-subscribers, was negatived.

On reading the twelfth section of the bill, which provided for the appointment of Commissioners of Loans in each State-a motion was made by Gerry, to insert a clause for the Assumption of the State Debts. In support of this amendment, he alleged, as one ground, that the observations of Madison had not been made until the moment previous to their adjournment, and therefore could not be replied to; that it appeared to several members of the House, that his arguments were unfounded, and required not only investigation, but contradiction. Since which time, documents had been received to show the relative exertions of the several States from which the arguments for the assumption would derive new force, if any additional force was wanting.

A very animated debate arose upon this motion. Its opponents insisted, that the Funding bill should be completed without a provision for the State Debts. Its friends objected, that if that bill was completed without such provision, all hopes of the Assumption would be at an end.

It was considered by the Secretary of the Treasury, as an essential part of his plan. Some of the States would be wholly unable to discharge their debts, and others could not do it without burthening the people with very oppressive Taxes.

The opponents of the Assumption had been repeatedly called upon to give their views upon this subject, and to indicate the funds they intended to appropriate to this object. But they had been called upon in vain. They did not disclose what part of the funds appropriated by the States they meant to invade. To separate these subjects, would be to form two Funding systems, and to render