Читать книгу Albert Gallatin - John Austin Stevens - Страница 9

Table of Contents

Political revolutions are the opportunity of youth. In England, Pitt and Fox; in America, Hamilton and Gouverneur Morris; in Europe, Napoleon and Pozzo di Borgo, before they reached their thirtieth year, helped to shape the political destiny of nations. The early maturity of Gallatin was no less remarkable. In his voluminous correspondence there is no trace of youth. At nineteen his habits of thought were already formed, and his moral and intellectual tendencies were clearly marked in his character, and understood by himself. His tastes also were already developed. His life, thereafter, was in every sense a growth. The germs of every excellence, which came to full fruition in his subsequent career, may be traced in the preferences of his academic days. From youth to age he was consistent with himself. His mind was of that rare and original order which, reasoning out its own conclusions, seldom has cause to change.

His political opinions were early formed. A letter written by him in October, 1783, before he had completed his twenty-third year, shows the maturity of his intellect, and his analytic habit of thought. An extract gives the nature of the reasons which finally determined him to make his home in America:—

“This is what by degrees greatly influenced my judgment. After my arrival in this country I was early convinced, upon a comparison of American governments with that of Geneva, that the latter is founded on false principles; that the judicial power, in civil as well as criminal cases, the executive power wholly, and two thirds of the legislative power being lodged in two bodies which are almost self-made, and the members of which are chosen for life—it is hardly possible but that this formidable aristocracy should, sooner or later, destroy the equilibrium which it was supposed could be maintained at Geneva.”

The period from the peace of 1783 to the adoption of the federal Constitution in 1787 was one of political excitement. The utter failure of the old Confederation to serve the purposes of national defense and safety for which it was framed had been painfully felt during the war. Independence had been achieved under it rather than by it, the patriotic action of some of the States supplying the deficiencies of others less able or less willing. By the radical inefficiency of the Confederation the war had been protracted, its success repeatedly imperiled, and, at its close, the results gained by it were constantly menaced. The more perfect union which was the outcome of the deliberations of the federal convention was therefore joyfully accepted by the people at large. Indeed, it was popular pressure, and not the arguments of its advocates, that finally overcame the formidable opposition in and out of the convention to the Constitution. No written record remains of Mr. Gallatin's course during the sessions of the federal convention. He was not a member of the body, nor is his name connected with any public act having any bearing upon its deliberations. Of the direction of his influence, however, there can be no doubt. He had an abiding distrust of strong government—a dread of the ambitions of men. Precisely what form he would have substituted for the legislative and executive system adopted nowhere appears in his writings, but certainly neither president nor senate would have been included. They bore too close a resemblance to king and lords to win his approval, no matter how restricted their powers. He would evidently have leaned to a single house, with a temporary executive directly appointed by itself; or, if elected by the people, then for a short term of office, without renewal; and he would have reduced its legislative powers to the narrowest possible limit. The best government he held to be that which governs least; and many of the ablest of that incomparable body of men who welded this Union held these views. But the yearning of the people was in the other direction. They felt the need of government. They wanted the protection of a strong arm. It must not be forgotten that the thirteen colonies which declared their independence in 1776 were all seaboard communities, each with its port. They were all trading communities. The East, with its fisheries and timber; the Middle States, with their agricultural products and peltries; the South, with its tobacco; each saw, in that freedom from the restrictions of the English navigation laws which the treaty of peace secured, the promise of a boundless commerce. To protect commerce there must be a national power somewhere. Since the peace the government had gained neither the affection of its own citizens nor the respect of foreign powers.

The federal Constitution was adopted September 17, 1787. The first State to summon a convention of ratification was Pennsylvania. No one of the thirteen original States was more directly interested than herself. The centre of population lay somewhere in her limits, and there was reasonable ground for hope that Philadelphia would become once more the seat of government. The delegates met at Philadelphia on November 2. An opposition declared itself at the beginning of the proceedings. Regardless of the popular impatience, the majority allowed full scope to adverse argument, and it was not until December 12 that the final vote was taken and the Constitution ratified, without recommendations, by a majority of two to one. In this body Fayette County was represented by Nicholas Breading and John Smilie. The latter gentleman, of Scotch-Irish birth, an adroit debater, led the opposition. In the course of his criticisms he enunciated the doctrines which were soon to become a party cry; the danger of the Constitution “in inviting rather than guarding against the approaches of tyranny;” “its tendency to a consolidation, not a confederation, of the States.” Mr. Gallatin does not appear to have sought to be a delegate to this body, but his hand may be traced through the speeches of Smilie in the precision with which the principles of the opposition were formulated and declared; and his subsequent course plainly indicates that his influence was exerted in the interest of the dissatisfied minority. The ratification was received by the people with intense satisfaction, but the delay in debate lost the State the honor of precedence in the honorable vote of acquiescence—the Delaware convention having taken the lead by a unanimous vote. For the moment the Pennsylvania Anti-Federalists clung to the hope that the Constitution might yet fail to receive the assent of the required number of States, but as one after another fell into line, this hope vanished.

One bold expedient remained. The ratification of some of the States was coupled with the recommendation of certain amendments. Massachusetts led the way in this, Virginia followed, and New York, which, in the language of the day, became the eleventh pillar of the federal edifice, on July 26, 1788, accompanied her ratification with a circular letter to the governors of all the States, recommending that a general convention be called.[1]

The argument taken in this letter was the only one which had any chance of commending itself to popular favor. It was in these words: “that the apprehension and discontents which the articles occasion cannot be removed or allayed unless an act to provide for the calling of a new convention be among the first that shall be passed by the next Congress.” This document, made public at once, encouraged the Pennsylvania Anti-Federalists to a last effort to bring about a new convention, to undo or radically alter the work of the old. A conference held at Harrisburg, on September 3, 1788, was participated in by thirty-three gentlemen, from various sections of the State, who assembled in response to the call of a circular letter which originated in the county of Cumberland in the month of August. The city of Philadelphia and thirteen counties were represented; six of the dissenting members of the late convention were present, among whom was Smilie. He and Gallatin represented the county of Fayette.

Smilie, Gallatin's earliest political friend, was born in 1742, and was therefore about twenty years his senior. He came to the United States in youth, and had grown up in the section he now represented. His popularity is shown by his service in the state legislature, and during twelve years in Congress as representative or as senator. In any estimate of Mr. Gallatin, this early influence must be taken into account. The friendship thus formed continued until Smilie's death in 1816. From the adviser he became the ardent supporter of Mr. Gallatin.

Blair McClanachan, of Philadelphia County, was elected chairman of the conference. The result of this deliberation was a report in the form of a series of resolutions, of which two drafts, both in Mr. Gallatin's handwriting, are among his papers now in the keeping of the New York Historical Society. The original resolutions were broad in scope, and suggested a plan of action of a dual nature; the one of which failing, resort could be had to the other without compromising the movement by delay. In a word, it proposed an opposition by a party organization. The first resolution was adroitly framed to avoid the censure with which the people at large, whose satisfaction with the new Constitution had grown with the fresh adhesions of State after State to positive enthusiasm, would surely condemn any attempt to dissolve the Union formed under its provisions. This resolution declared that it was in order to prevent a dissolution of the Union and to secure liberty, that a revision was necessary. The second expressed the opinion of the conference to be, that the safest manner to obtain such revision was to conform to the request of the State of New York, and to urge the calling of a new convention, and recommended that the Pennsylvania legislature be petitioned to apply for that purpose to the new Congress. These were declaratory. The third and fourth provided, first, for an organization of committees in the several counties to correspond with each other and with similar committees in other States; secondly, invited the friends to amendments in the several States to meet in conference at a fixed time and place. This plan of committees of correspondence and of a meeting of delegates was simply a revival of the methods of the Sons of Liberty, from whose action sprung the first Continental Congress of 1774.

The formation of such an organization would surely have led to disturbance, perhaps to civil war. During the progress of the New York convention swords and bayonets had been drawn, and blood had been shed in the streets of Albany, where the Anti-Federalists excited popular rage by burning the new Constitution. But the thirty-three gentlemen who met at Harrisburg wisely tempered these resolutions to a moderate tone. Thus modified, they recommended, first, that the people of the State should acquiesce in the organization of the government, while holding in view the necessity of very considerable amendments and alterations essential to preserve the peace and harmony of the Union. Secondly, that a revision by general convention was necessary. Thirdly, that the legislature should be requested to apply to Congress for that purpose. The petition recommended twelve amendments, selected from those already proposed by other States. These were of course restrictive. The report was made public in the “Pennsylvania Packet” of September 15. With this the agitation appears to have ceased. On September 13 Congress notified the States by resolution to appoint electors under the provisions of the Constitution. The unanimous choice of Washington as president hushed all opposition, and for a time the Anti-Federalists sunk into insignificance.

The persistent labors of the friends of revision were not without result. The amendments proposed by Virginia and New York were laid before the House of Representatives. Seventeen received the two thirds vote of the House. After conference with the Senate, in which Mr. Madison appeared as manager for the House, these, reduced in number to twelve by elimination and compression, were adopted by the requisite two thirds vote, and transmitted to the legislatures of the States for approval. Ratified by a sufficient number of States, they became a part of the Constitution. They were general, and declaratory of personal rights, and in no instance restrictive of the power of the general government.

In 1789, the Assembly of Pennsylvania calling a convention to revise the Constitution of the State, Mr. Gallatin was sent as a delegate from Fayette County. To the purposes of this convention he was opposed, as a dangerous precedent. He had endeavored to organize an opposition to it in the western counties, by correspondence with his political friends. His objections were the dangers of alterations in government, and the absurdity of the idea that the Constitution ever contemplated a change by the will of a mere majority. Such a doctrine, once admitted, would enable not only the legislature, but a majority of the more popular house, were two established, to make another appeal to the people on the first occasion, and, instead of establishing on solid foundations a new government, would open the door to perpetual change, and destroy that stability which is essential to the welfare of a nation; since no constitution acquires the permanent affection of the people, save in proportion to its duration and age. Finally, such changes would sooner or later conclude in an appeal to arms—the true meaning of the popular and dangerous words, “an appeal to the people.” The opposition was begun too late, however, to admit of combined effort, and was not persisted in; and Mr. Gallatin himself, with practical good sense, consented to serve as a delegate. Throughout his political course the pride of mastery never controlled his actions. When debarred from leadership he did not sulk in his tent, but threw his weight in the direction of his principles. The convention met at Philadelphia on November 24, 1789, and closed its labors on September 2, 1790. This was Gallatin's apprenticeship in the public service. Among his papers are a number of memoranda, some of them indicating much elaboration of speeches made, or intended to be made, in this body. One is an argument in favor of enlarging the representation in the House; another is against a plan of choosing senators by electors; another concerns the liberty of the press. There is, further, a memorandum of his motion in regard to the right of suffrage, by virtue of which “every freeman who has attained the age of twenty-one years, and been a resident and inhabitant during one year next before the day of election, every naturalized freeholder, every naturalized citizen who had been assessed for state or county taxes for two years before election day, or who had resided ten years successively in the State, should be entitled to the suffrage, paupers and vagabonds only being excluded.” Certainly, in his conservative limitations upon suffrage, he did not consult his own interest as a large landholder inviting settlement, nor pander to the natural desires of his constituency.

In an account of this convention, written at a later period, Mr. Gallatin said that it was the first public body to which he was elected, and that he took but a subordinate share in the debates; that it was one of the ablest bodies of which he was ever a member, and with which he was acquainted, and, excepting Madison and Marshall, that it embraced as much talent and knowledge as any Congress from 1795 to 1812, beyond which his personal knowledge did not extend. Among its members were Thomas McKean, signer of the Declaration of Independence and president of the Continental Congress, Thomas Mifflin and Timothy Pickering, of the Revolutionary army, and Smilie and Findley, Gallatin's political friends. General Mifflin was its president.

But mental distraction brought Mr. Gallatin no peace of heart at this period, and when the excitement of the winter was over he fell into a state of almost morbid melancholy. To his friend Badollet he wrote from Philadelphia, early in March, that life in Fayette County had no more charms for him, and that he would gladly leave America. But his lands were unsalable at any price, and he saw no means of support at Geneva. Some one has said, with a profound knowledge of human nature, that no man is sure of happiness who has not the capacity for continuous labor of a disagreeable kind. The occasional glimpses into Mr. Gallatin's inner nature, which his correspondence affords, show that up to this period he was not supposed by his friends or by himself to have this capacity. In the letter which his guardian wrote to him after his flight from home, he was reproached with his “natural indolence.” His good friend, Mademoiselle Pictet, accused him of being hard to please, and disposed to ennui; and again, as late as 1787, repeats to him, in a tone of sorrow, the reports brought to her of his “continuance in his old habit of indolence,” his indifference to society, his neglect of his dress, and general indifference to everything but study and reading, tastes which, she added, he might as well have cultivated at Geneva as in the new world; and he himself, in the letter to Badollet just mentioned, considers that his habits and his laziness would prove insuperable bars to his success in any profession in Europe. In estimation of this self-condemnation, it must be borne in mind that the Genevans were intellectual Spartans. Gallatin must be measured by that high standard. But if the charge of indolence could have ever justly lain against Gallatin—a charge which his intellectual vigor at twenty-seven seems to challenge—it certainly could never have been sustained after he fairly entered on his political and public career. In October, 1790, he was elected by a two thirds majority to represent Fayette County in the legislature of the State of Pennsylvania; James Findley was his colleague, John Smilie being advanced to the state Senate. Mr. Gallatin was reëlected to the Assembly in 1791 and 1792, without opposition.

Among his papers there is a memorandum of his legislative service during these three years, and a manuscript volume of extracts from the Journals of the House, from January 14, 1791, to December 17, 1794. They form part of the extensive mass of documents and letters which were collected and partially arranged by himself, with a view to posthumous publication. Here is an extract from the memorandum:—

“I acquired an extraordinary influence in that body [the Pennsylvania House of Representatives]; the more remarkable as I was always in a party minority. I was indebted for it to my great industry and to the facility with which I could understand and carry on the current business. The laboring oar was left almost exclusively to me. In the session of 1791–1792, I was put on thirty-five committees, prepared all their reports, and drew all their bills. Absorbed by those details, my attention was turned exclusively to administrative laws, and not to legislation properly so called. … I failed, though the bill I had introduced passed the House, in my efforts to lay the foundation for a better system of education. Primary education was almost universal in Pennsylvania, but very bad, and the bulk of schoolmasters incompetent, miserably paid, and held in no consideration. It appeared to me that in order to create a sufficient number of competent teachers, and to raise the standard of general education, intermediate academical education was an indispensable preliminary step, and the object of the bill was to establish in each county an academy, allowing to each out of the treasury a sum equal to that raised by taxation in the county for its support. But there was at that time in Pennsylvania a Quaker and a German opposition to every plan of general education.

“The spirit of internal improvements had not yet been awakened. Still, the first turnpike-road in the United States was that from Philadelphia to Lancaster, which met with considerable opposition. This, as well as every temporary improvement in our communications (roads and rivers) and preliminary surveys, met, of course, with my warm support. But it was in the fiscal department that I was particularly employed, and the circumstances of the times favored the restoration of the finances of the State.

“The report of the Committee of Ways and Means of the session 1790–91 was entirely prepared by me, known to be so, and laid the foundation of my reputation. I was quite astonished at the general encomiums bestowed upon it, and was not at all aware that I had done so well. It was perspicuous and comprehensive; but I am confident that its true merit, and that which gained me the general confidence, was its being founded in strict justice, without the slightest regard to party feelings or popular prejudices. The principles assumed, and which were carried into effect, were the immediate reimbursement and extinction of the state paper-money, the immediate payment in specie of all the current expenses, or warrants on the treasury (the postponement and uncertainty of which had given rise to shameful and corrupt speculations), and provision for discharging without defalcation every debt and engagement previously recognized by the State. In conformity with this, the State paid to its creditors the difference between the nominal amount of the state debt assumed by the United States and the rate at which it was funded by the act of Congress.

“The proceeds of the public lands, together with the arrears, were the fund which not only discharged all the public debts, but left a large surplus. The apprehension that this would be squandered by the legislature was the principal inducement for chartering the Bank of Pennsylvania, with a capital of two millions of dollars, of which the State subscribed one half. This, and similar subsequent investments, enabled Pennsylvania to defray, out of the dividends, all the expenses of government without any direct tax during the forty ensuing years, and till the adoption of the system of internal improvement, which required new resources.

“It was my constant assiduity to business, and the assistance derived from it by many members, which enabled the Republican party in the legislature, then a minority on a joint ballot, to elect me, and no other but me of that party, senator of the United States.”

Among the reports enumerated by Mr. Gallatin, as those of which he was the author, is one made by a committee on March 22, 1793, that they … are of opinion slavery is inconsistent with every principle of humanity, justice, and right, and repugnant to the spirit and express letter of the Constitution of the Commonwealth. Added to this was a resolution for its abolition in the Commonwealth.

The seat of government was changed from New York to Philadelphia in 1790, and the first Congress assembled there in the early days of December for its final session. Philadelphia was in glee over the transfer of the departments. The convention which framed the new state Constitution met here in the fall, and the legislature was also holding its sessions. The atmosphere was political. The national and local representatives met each other at all times and in all places, and the public affairs were the chief topic in and out of doors. In this busy whirl Gallatin made many friends, but Philadelphia was no more to his taste as a residence than Boston. He was disgusted with the ostentatious display of wealth, the result not of industry but of speculation, and not in the hands of the most deserving members of the community. Later he became more reconciled to the tone of Pennsylvania society, comparing it with that of New York; he was especially pleased with its democratic spirit, and the absence of family influence. “In Pennsylvania,” he says, “not only we have neither Livingstons, nor Rensselaers, but from the suburbs of Philadelphia to the banks of the Ohio I do not know a single family that has any extensive influence. An equal distribution of property has rendered every individual independent, and there is amongst us true and real equality. In a word, as I am lazy, I like a country where living is cheap; and as I am poor, I like a country where no person is very rich.”

Hamilton's excise bill was a bone of contention in the national and state legislatures throughout the winter. Direct taxation upon anything was unpopular, that on distilled spirits the most distasteful to Pennsylvania, where whiskey stills were numerous in the Alleghanies. To the bill introduced into Congress a reply was immediately made January 14, 1791, by the Pennsylvania Assembly in a series of resolutions which are supposed to have been drafted by Mr. Gallatin, and to have been the first legislative paper from his pen. They distinctly charged that the obnoxious bill was “subversive of the peace, liberty, and rights of the citizen.”

Tax by excise has always been offensive to the American people, as it was to their ancestors across the sea. It was characterized by the first Continental Congress of 1774 as “the horror of all free States.” Notwithstanding their warmth, these resolutions passed the Assembly by a vote of 40 to 16. The course of this excitement must be followed; as it swept Mr. Gallatin in its mad current, and but for his self-control, courage, and adroitness would have wrecked him on the breakers at the outset of his political voyage. The excise law passed Congress on March 3, 1791. On June 22 the state legislature, by a vote of 36 to 11, requested their senators and representatives in Congress to oppose every part of the bill which “shall militate against the rights and liberties of the people.”

The western counties of Pennsylvania—Westmoreland, Fayette, Washington, and Allegheny—lie around the head-waters of the Ohio in a radius of more than a hundred miles. At this time they contained a population of about seventy thousand souls. Pittsburgh, the seat of justice, had about twelve hundred inhabitants. The Alleghany Mountains separate this wild region from the eastern section of the State. There were few roads of any kind, and these lay through woods. The mountain passes could be traveled only on foot or horseback. The only trade with the East was by pack-horses, while communication with the South was cut off by hostile Indian tribes who held the banks of the Ohio. This isolation from the older, denser, and more civilized settlements bred in the people a spirit of self-reliance and independence. They were in great part Scotch-Irish Presbyterians, a religious and warlike race to whom the hatred of an exciseman was a tradition of their forefathers. Having no market for their grain, they were compelled to preserve it by converting it into whiskey. The still was the necessary appendage of every farm. The tax was light, but payable in money, of which there was little or none. Its imposition, therefore, coupled with the declaration of its oppressive nature by the Pennsylvania legislature, excited a spirit of determined opposition near akin to revolution.

Unpopular in all the western part of the State, Hamilton's bill was especially odious to the people of Washington County. The first meeting in opposition to it was held at Red Stone Old Fort or Brownsville, the site of one of those ancient remains of the mound-builders which abound in the western valleys. It was easily reached by Braddock's Road, the chief highway of the country. Here gathered on July 27, 1791, a number of persons opposed to the law, when it was agreed that county committees should be convened in the four counties at the respective seats of justice. Brackenridge, in his “Incidents of the Western Insurrection,” says that Albert Gallatin was clerk of the meeting. One of these committees met in the town of Washington on August 23, when violent resolutions were adopted. Gallatin, engaged at Philadelphia, was not present at this assemblage, three of whose members were deputed to meet delegates from the counties of Westmoreland, Fayette, and Allegheny, at Pittsburgh, on the first Tuesday in September following, to agree upon an address to the legislature on the subject of excise and other grievances. At the Pittsburgh meeting eleven delegates appeared for the four counties. The resolutions adopted by them, general in character, read more like a declaration of grievances as a basis for revolution than a petition for special redress. No wonder that the secretary of the treasury stigmatized them as “intemperate.” They charge that in the laws of the late Congress hasty strides had been made to all that was unjust and oppressive. They complain of the increase in the salaries of officials, of the unreasonable interest of the national debt, of the non-discrimination between original holders and transferees of the public securities, of the National Bank as a base offspring of the funding system; finally, in detail, of the excise law of March 3, 1791. At this meeting James Marshall and David Bradford represented Washington County.

In August government offices of inspection were opened. The spirit of resistance was now fully aroused, and in the early days of September the collectors for Washington, Westmoreland, and Fayette were treated with violence. Unwilling to proceed to excessive measures, and no doubt swayed by the attitude of the Pennsylvania legislature, Congress in October referred the law back to Hamilton for revision. He reported an amended act on March 6, 1792, which was immediately passed, and became a law March 8. It was to take effect on the last day of June succeeding. By it the rate of duty was reduced, a privilege of time as to the running of licenses of stills granted, and the tax ordered only for such time as they were actually used.

But these modifications did not satisfy the malcontents of the four western counties, and they met again on August 21, 1792, at Pittsburgh. Of this second Pittsburgh meeting Albert Gallatin was chosen secretary. Badollet went up with Gallatin. John Smilie, James Marshall, and James Bradford of Washington County were present. Bradford, Marshall, Gallatin, and others were appointed to draw up a remonstrance to Congress. In order to carry out with regularity and concert the measures agreed upon, a committee of correspondence was appointed, and the meeting closed with the adoption of the violent resolutions passed at the Washington meeting of 1791:—

“Whereas, some men may be found among us so far lost to every sense of virtue and feeling for the distresses of this country as to accept offices for the collection of the duty.

“Resolved, therefore, that in future we will consider such persons as unworthy of our friendship; have no intercourse or dealings with them; withdraw from them every assistance, and withhold all the comforts of life which depend upon those duties that as men and fellow citizens we owe to each other; and upon all occasions treat them with that contempt they deserve; and that it be, and it is hereby, most earnestly recommended to the people at large, to follow the same line of conduct towards them.”

If such an excommunication were to be meted out to an offending neighbor, what measure would the excise man receive if he came from abroad on his unwelcome errand?

These resolutions were signed by Mr. Gallatin as clerk, and made public through the press. Resolutions of this character, if not criminal, reach the utmost limit of indiscretion, and political indiscretion is quite as dangerous as crime. The petition to Congress, subscribed by the inhabitants of western Pennsylvania, was drawn by Gallatin; while explicit in terms, it was moderate in tone. It represented the unequal operation of the act. “A duty laid on the common drink of a nation, instead of taxing the citizens in proportion to their property, falls as heavy on the poorest class as on the rich;” and it ingeniously pointed out that the distance of the inhabitants of the western counties from market prevented their bringing the produce of their lands to sale, either in grain or meal. “We are therefore distillers through necessity, not choice; that we may comprehend the greatest value in the smallest size and weight.”

Hamilton, indignant, reported the proceedings to the President on September 9, 1792, and demanded instant punishment. Washington, who was at Mount Vernon, was unwilling to go to extremes, but consented to issue a proclamation, which, drafted by Hamilton, and countersigned by Jefferson, was published September 15, 1792. It earnestly admonished all persons to desist from unlawful combinations to obstruct the operations of the laws, and charged all courts, magistrates, and officers with their enforcement. There was no mistaking Hamilton's intention to enforce the law. Prosecutions in the Circuit Court, held at Yorktown in October, were ordered against the Pittsburgh offenders, but no proof could be had to sustain an indictment.

The President's proclamation startled the western people, and some uneasiness was felt as to how such of their representatives as had taken part in the Pittsburgh meeting would be received when they should go up to the legislature in the winter. Bradford and Smilie accompanied Gallatin; Smilie to take his seat in the state Senate, and Bradford to represent Washington County in the House, where he “cut a poor figure.” Gallatin despised him, and characterized him as a “tenth-rate lawyer and an empty drum.” Gallatin found, however, that although the Pittsburgh meeting had hurt the general interest of his party throughout the State, and “rather defeated” the repeal of the excise law, his eastern friends did not turn the cold shoulder to him. He said to every one whom he knew that the resolutions were perhaps too violent and undoubtedly highly impolitic, but, in his opinion, contained nothing illegal. Meanwhile federal officers proceeded to enforce the law in Washington County. A riot ensued, and the office was forcibly closed. Bills were found against two of the offenders in the federal court, and warrants to arrest and bring them to Philadelphia for trial were issued. Gallatin believed the men innocent, and did not hesitate to advise Badollet to keep them out of the way when the marshal should go to serve the writs, but deprecated any insult to the officer. He thought “the precedent a very dangerous one to drag people such a distance in order to be tried on governmental prosecutions.” Here the matter rested for a season.

At this session of the legislature Gallatin introduced a new system of county taxation, proposed a clause providing for “trustees yearly elected, one to each township, without whose consent no tax is to be raised, nor any above one per cent. on the value of lands,” which he hoped would “tend to crush the aristocracy of every town in the State.” Also he proposed a plan to establish a school and library in each county, with a sufficient immediate sum in money, and a yearly allowance for a teacher in the English language.