publican ideal, would it not have been wiser to encounter the storm rather than permit the continuance of a law which, was gnawing away at the vitals of Republicanism, in the very hour of its apparent triumph? * Whatever the cause of his silence, that silence was one of the great forces of American history. That he was sincere in his Republicanism, that it was the ruling passion of his life, ought not to be questioned to-day by any competent student of history. Indeed, it is probable that it was precisely because of his devotion to the people that he was guilty of such apparent inconsistencies. To put as much power as possible in the hands of the people, was the great aim of his public life. If he had been the radical doctrinaire, the fanatical visionary, his opponents thought him, he would have risked everything to secure his complete ideal. But, as he was a statesman, it seemed to him wiser to take some steps toward the realization of his ideal than to go in the contrary direction because he could not reach his goal. In speaking of the portion of the judiciary system recently erected, he referred to a law passed by the Federalists in 1801 (February 13). Before its of 1801. The passage the judiciary system consisted of Judiciary Act one Supreme Court with six judges, and of fifteen District Courts, each having a single judge. United States was divided into three circuits. judges of the Supreme Court held two terms a year at The *Cf. Henry Adams, I, 254-261. Washington, and twice a year made the tour of their circuits. The law of 1801 provided for one Supreme Court of five judges, when the first vacancy occurred; six Circuit Courts, each having three judges, excepting one circuit which was to have but one; and twenty-three District Courts, each with a single judge as before. The increased expense caused by the new law amounted to about thirty thousand dollars a year. To save this expense was the point to which Jefferson called attention as the reason for repealing it. QUESTIONS. 1. What reason did Jefferson assign for substituting a message for the speeches which his predecessors had delivered to Congress? What was the true reason? 2. What reason did he assign for recommending the repeal of internal taxes? What was the true reason? 3. Jefferson said that the general government was charged with the external and mutual relations only of the state. What did he mean? 4. What was his strongest objection to the Federalist theory of government? 5. Why did he not state it? 6. What objection did Jefferson make to the judiciary system in his message? What in his private correspondence? 7. Why did he not state his whole thoughts in his mes sage? 8. Show that the judiciary system of the United States is not in harmony with Democracy. 9. How would it have to be reformed to make it so? 10. What was the Judiciary Act of 1789, and in what way was it inconsistent with the opinions of Jefferson? 11. Why did not Jefferson recommend its repeal? 12. What was the Judiciary Act which was passed in 1801? 1 CHAPTER XXVI. NORTHERN DEMOCRATS AND SOUTHERN REPUBLICANS. HE Congress which met in December, 1801, passed THE three important laws: One, providing for an annual appropriation of $7,300,000 to be devoted to the payment of the public debt; another, repealing the internal taxes: a third, repealing the Judiciary Act, passed laws. in the last month of Adams' administration. Three important The first two it is unnecessary to say, were a part of Gallatin's financial policy. That policy, as we know, aimed to accomplish political objects which might justly be said to be revolutionary in their character. But as the message of the President had recommended these measures on financial grounds only, it was on these grounds only that they were advocated by his followers in Congress. Measures which were a part of a system which was intended to give the United States a unique place in the history of the world, and Jefferson's administration a unique place in the history of the United States, were defended on the sole ground of their expediency from a financial point of view. It is probable, indeed, that a majority of the men who voted for them were influenced by nothing but financial considerations. As Jefferson was both a States Rights Republican and a Democrat, his party was composed of States Rights Republicans and Democrats. Followers of Jefferson, States Rights Republicans and Democrats. But while Jefferson united both characters in himself, many of his followers, particularly in the north, were Democrats without being Republicans. His followers in the north agreed with him in his estimate of the political capacity of the people, in desiring to abolish all property qualifications for voting, and in opposing all aristocratic ceremonies, but they did not agree with him in regarding banking systems and national debts as tending towards monarchy, or in thinking that the general government was the foreign branch of our governmental system. They were opposed to the Federalists because the Federalists were aristocratic and conservative; they were followers of Jefferson because he was democratic and progressive, because he wished to put as much power as possible in the hands of the people, but not because they were in sympathy with, or even understood his peculiar ideas as to the functions of the national and state governments. A perception of this fact undoubtedly had something to do with the reticence of Jefferson and those of his followers who were in his confidence, as to the ultimate scope of his measures. He and they felt that the strongest, if not indeed the only recommendation of Gallatin's financial policy to many of Jefferson's followers, was that it proposed to pay the debt quickly and at the same time tax the people lightly. The same influence made itself felt in the debate on the repeal of the Judiciary Act. The administration Giles' speech on Judiciary. leader in the House, William Branch Giles, was an extreme Republican. But those who heard his speech in the judiciary debate were by the repeal of the no means made acquainted with the attitude of the Republicans towards the judiciary. His speech was rather a bitter arraignment of the Federalists, than an exposition of the policy of his own party. He began by saying that men have always been divided as to the best form of government to enforce obedience and insure happiness, some preferring monarchy, and others a republic. It was to differences of opinion on this point that the two political parties owed their origin. In order to increase the power of the Executive, the Federalists wished to place in the hands of the President all the patronage it was possible to create for the purpose of protecting him "against the full force of his constitutional responsibility to the people." The Republicans, on the contrary, "contended that the doctrine of patronage was repugnant to the opinions and feelings of the people, * and that the highest energy the government could possess would flow from the confidence of the mass of the people, founded upon their own sense of their common interests." Hence, the Federalists relied on "patronage or the creation of partial interests for the protection and support of government." To this end, the debt of the United States was funded, and the state debts were assumed, a war with the Indians was made an excuse for creating |