Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

that, before the United States commenced hostile operations against the Indians, they had killed, wounded, or taken, one thousand and five hundred men, women and children, and had carried off two thousand horses, and other property to a large amount. The troops of the United States stationed in that region merely to occupy some forts, and for pacific purposes, were also attacked, and many of them killed by the hostile tribes, during this period. Col. Pickering held a treaty with them in 1791, when he made known the humane intentions of the federal government; and General St. Clair, gave similar assurances to the Delawares and others, when he first advanced into that territory to protect the inhabitants. At this period, the Governor of Pennsylvania, also requested a military force, of the President of the United States, for the purpose of giving protection to the inhabitants of that State, who lived in the northwest parts, and who were in great and continual danger from the hostile tribes of Indians. There seems to have been an imperious call for the energetic measures then adopted by Congress, and recommended and approved by Washington, in employing troops, at that time, on the frontier settlements.

At the opening of this session of Congress, (which was in October, 1792,) the President, in his public message to the Senate and Representatives, referred to various subjects of a public nature, which he deemed important for the consideration of the national legislature-among which were, -the public debt, and the necessity of further provision for supporting the credit of the United States-the exposed situation of the western frontiers; and the omission, on the part of Great Britian, to withdraw their troops from the forts within the national boundaries, formerly belonging to that power, but stipulated, by the treaty of 1783, to be given to the United States. For so long as the fortresses on lake Erie, at Detroit, or any of the branches of the Ohio river, were in the hands of the British, the western settlements were exposed to depredations from the savage tribes. It could hardly be supposed, that the British government, authorized their military officers in those forts to encourage the Indian assaults and murders; but it was evident, that while they held those posts the tribes were embolden, if not instigated by individuals, to commit depredations on the citizens of the United States. This conduct of the British ministry was considered highly improper, though they apologized for it, by pretending to a right to hold the forts, till the United States had made express and ample provision for paying certain claims, made by the refugees from America, at the beginning of the Revolutionary war. Some of the States made such provision promptly, as to that class of the refugees embraced in the treaty of 1783; but other States had declined making any provision for that purpose. It was this conduct of the British government, which was in plain violation of the treaty, that threatened a war with England in 1793; but which the firmness and prudence of Washington happily averted.

In November, 1792, Mr. Ames, of Massachusetts, presented a memorial of W. Mifflin and others, on the subject of Negro Slavery, which was read and laid on the table. Two days after, Mr. Ames called up the memorial, when a warm dispute arose. The members from the Southern States, deprecated the consequences of such memorials. One of them moved, that it be returned to the memorialists, and the entry of it on the journal erased. The motion for returning the memorial was unanimously adopted; but the motion to erase the entry on the journal was withdrawn. This agitating subject had been previously introduced in Congress on presentation of a petition from some citizens of Pennsylvania. It has often since been brought forward, and served always to produce a warm and sometimes an angry discussion. The Constitution must be altered to justify Congress in legislating on the subject. And the interference of the non-slaveholding States, is not only useless, but altogether unjustifiable, from political, if not from moral considerations.

By an Act of Congress, in 1792, encouragement was given to the Codfisheries, followed chiefly in the eastern States; and in lieu of a drawback of the duty on salt and a bounty on fish exported, previously allowed, a bounty was now granted on the vessels employed in this business, according to their tonnage. Fish was a great article exported from the New England States, and it was also deemed important to give encouragement and support to this branch of business, as a means of having good seamen for a navy, when it should become necessary for national defence. The tonnage of vessels employed in the fisheries, and coasting trade, in 1792, was 152,000 tonsin 1813, 490,300-in 1828, 930,200-in 1832, 753,400.*

* The whole tonnage of vessels in the United States, registered, enrolled, and licensed, was, in 1789, 201,560-1800, 972,500-in 1810, 1,424,780in 1820, 1,280,170-in 1830, 1,210,250, and in 1832, 1,440,430.

The Constitution declares that there should not be more than one Representative in Congress for every thirty thousand inhabitants of each State: and that there should be an enumeration at an early day, under the federal government. A census was ordered to be made in 1790; and after the result was officially made known to Congress, a question arose what the ratio should be thereafter. Some proposed forty thousand, and some thirty three thousand. But others, again, were in favor of a plan altogether different, and such as many believed not authorized by the Constitution; which was to take the whole number of inhabitants, which the census gave, throughout the United States, and to have the number of Representatives equal to every thirty thousand. And as some States would have a large fraction beyond one for every thirty thousand, to add one Representative to eight of the largest States. This plan was proposed by the Senate; and was concurred by a majority of the House of Representatives, though several members of this branch of the legislature were opposed to it. The objection was, that the Constitution could not be fairly construed as giving support to such a procedure; and that it tended to, and would soon destroy the federal government, and produce a consolidation of the States, and all distinct lines of separate State governments. It was insisted, that the Representatives must be chosen by the people of each State separately considered, and not by fractions of two or three States united to elect one. And in fact, that no State could have more than one Representative for every thirty thousand inhabitants, contained in it, but must lose any excess of that number, however large the fraction might be. The discussion on this subject was continued many days in the House of Representatives, before the bill was passed. And when it was submitted to the President for his approbation, he declined giving it his signature. His objections were stated as follows:-"The Constitution has prescribed, that Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, and there is one proportion, or divisor, which, applied to the respective numbers of the States, will yield the number and allotment of Representatives proposed by the Bill. -The Constitution has also provided that the number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand; which restriction is, by the context, and by fair and obvious construction, to be applied to the separate and respective members of the States; and the bill allots to eight of the States, more than one for thirty thousand." The act which was soon after passed on this subject, provided for one Representative for every thirtythree thousand, and restricted each State accordingly. The view taken by the President, and his construction of the Constitution relating to this point, were very generally approved, especially by those who wished to keep the several States as distinct as could be consistently with the federal compact, and to prevent their consolidation. His opinion is worthy of great regard, both with the friends of the Union, and of State rights. No one was more in favor of the former, or of consolidating or preserving it in all proper ways, and in all reasonable measures, than Washington: yet he was equally careful to guard against encroachments on State rights, and to avoid destroying their distinctive character.

In 1791, President Washington, gave notice to Congress, of his having directed the minister, at the Court of London, from the United States, to learn, informally, what was the disposition of the British, on the subject of a commercial intercourse between the two countries: In April, 1792, he communicated the correspondence between the British minister near the federal government, and the American Secretary of State, on that subject. The British minister had transmitted to the Department of State, a part of a Statute of Parliament, and gave notice also, that the British would carry the order into execution; which, being of equivocal signification, the President thought proper to lay before Congress. In its restricted sense, which was avowed by the British minister, and from recent indications of a friendly disposition in the British government, towards the United States, he said, it could give no cause of alarm. The interdicting clause, instead of prohibiting commercial intercourse with all British ports, as appeared at first to be intended, related only to our exclusion from the islands of Jersey and Guernsey. -Such was the construction of the British Envoy, then in the United States. And his express opinion to that effect, gave satisfaction to the President, at that time; disposed as he was to believe, that the declaration made by the British, of a friendly spirit towards the United States, were sincere. This Act of Parliament forbid the importation into any British ports of goods and products of Africa, Asia, and America, except in vessels owned and manned by British subjects; and had a principal design to prevent the importation of tobacco, which was said to be landed in large quantities in the islands of Guernsey and Jersey, and thence conveyed to ports in England.

The conduct of the British government at this time, gave indications of a jealous, not to say, unfriendly spirit, towards the United States. The detention of the forts within the federal territory, contrary to an express article in the treaty of 1783, could not be justified; and all propositions for commercial intercourse, on terms of a real reciprocity, had been rejected or evaded. And the effect was, an opinion, very generally formed, that the British ministry was arbitrary and monopolizing in its views, and ready to take all the advantage, in the intercourse between the two countries, which their power would support. Thus it became necessary, and the federal Executive had sufficient national spirit, to insist on the fulfilment of the treaty, and to require that consideration due to an independent nation.

7

« AnteriorContinuar »