Chapter XI: Independence in Congress (2)

If the murder by Nash were a crime, it is one "not provided for by the Constitution"; if it were not a crime, "yet it is the precise case in which his surrender was stipulated by treaty" which the President, alone, must execute. That in the Executive decision "judicial questions" must also be determined, argued nothing; for this often must be the case, as, for instance, in so simple and ordinary matter as issuing patents for public lands, or in settling whether vessels have been captured within three miles of our coasts, or in declaring the legality of prizes taken by privateers or the restoration of such vessels--all such questions, of which these are familiar examples, are, said Marshall, "questions of political law proper to be decided by the Executive and not by the courts."

This was the Nash case. Suppose that a murder were "committed within the United States and the murderer should seek an asylum in Great Britain!" The treaty covered such a case; but no man would say "that the British courts should decide" it. It is, in its nature, a National demand made upon the Nation. The parties are two nations. They cannot come into court to litigate their claims, nor can a court decide on them. "Of consequence," declares Marshall, "the demand is not a case for judicial cognizance."

"The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations"; therefore "the demand of a foreign nation can only be made on him. He possesses the whole Executive power. He holds and directs the force of the nation. Of consequence, any act to be performed by the force of the nation is to be performed through him. He is charged to execute the laws. A treaty is ... a law. He must, then, execute a treaty, where he, and he alone, possesses the means of executing it."

This, in rough outline, is Marshall's historic speech which helped to direct a new nation, groping blindly and with infinite clamoring, to a straight and safe pathway. Pickering immediately reported to Hamilton: "Mr. Marshall delivered a very luminous argument on the case, placing the 27th article of the treaty in a clear point of view and giving constructions on the questions arising out of it perfectly satisfactory, but, as it would seem, wholly unthought of when the meaning of the article was heretofore considered. His argument will, I hope, be fully and correctly published; it illustrates an important national question."[1072]

The Republicans were discomfited; but they were not without the power to sting. Though Marshall had silenced them in Congress, the Republican press kept up the attack. "_Mr. Marshall_ made an ingenious and _specious_ defence of the administration, in relation to executive interference in the case of _Robbins_," [_sic_] says the "Aurora," "but he was compelled to admit, what certainly implicates both the President and Judge Bee.... He admitted that an American seaman was justifiable, in rescuing himself from impressment, to put to death those who kept him in durance.... Robbins [_sic_] claimed to be an American citizen, and asserted upon his oath, that he had been impressed and yet his claim was not examined into by the Judge, neither did the President _advise_ and _request_ that this should be a subject of enquiry. The enquiry into his citizenship was made _after_ his surrender and execution, and the evidence exhibited has a very suspicious aspect.... Town clerks may be found to certify to anything that Timothy Pickering shall desire."[1073] Nevertheless, even the "Aurora" could not resist an indirect tribute to Marshall, though paying it by way of a sneer at Samuel W. Dana of Connecticut, who ineffectually followed him.

"In the debate on _Mr. Livingston's_ resolutions, on Friday last," says the "Aurora," "Mr. Marshall made, in the minds of some people, a very satisfactory defense of the conduct of the _President_ and _Judge Bee_ in the case of _Jonathan Robbins_ [_sic_]. Mr. Dana, however, thought the subject exhausted, and very _modestly_ (who does not know his _modesty_) resolved with his inward man to shed a few more rays of light on the subject; a federal judge, much admired for his wit and humour, happened to be present, when Mr. Dana began his flourishes.

"The judge thought the seal of conviction had been put upon the case by Mr. Marshall, and discovered symptoms of uneasiness when our little Connecticut Cicero displayed himself to catch Mr. Speaker's vacant eye--'Sir,' said the wit to a byestander, 'what can induce that man to rise, he is nothing but a shakebag, and can only shake out the ideas that have been put into the members' heads by Mr. Marshall.'"[1074]

Marshall's argument was conclusive. It is one of the few speeches ever delivered in Congress that actually changed votes from one party to the other in a straight-out party fight. Justice Story says that Marshall's speech "is one of the most consummate juridical arguments which was ever pronounced in the halls of legislation; ... equally remarkable for the lucid order of its topics, the profoundness of its logic, the extent of its research,[1075] and the force of its illustrations. It may be said of that speech ... that it was '_Réponse sans réplique_,' an answer so irresistible that it admitted of no reply. It silenced opposition and settled then and forever the points of international law on which the controversy hinged.... An unequivocal demonstration of public opinion followed. The denunciations of the Executive, which had hitherto been harsh and clamorous everywhere throughout the land, sunk away at once into cold and cautious whispers only of disapprobation.

"Whoever reads that speech, even at this distance of time, when the topics have lost much of their interest, will be struck with the prodigious powers of analysis and reasoning which it displays, and which are enhanced by the consideration that the whole subject was then confessedly new in many of its aspects."[1076]

The Republican leaders found their own members declaring themselves convinced by Marshall's demonstration and announcing their intentions of voting with the Administration. Gallatin, Livingston, and Randolph had hard work to hold their followers in line. Even the strongest efforts of these resourceful men would not rally all of their shattered forces. Many Republican members ignored the pleadings of their leaders and supported Marshall's position.

This is not to be wondered at, for Marshall had convinced even Gallatin himself. This gifted native of Switzerland was the Republican leader of the House. Unusually well-educated, perfectly upright, thorough in his industry, and careful in his thinking, Gallatin is the most admirable of all the characters attracted to the Republican ranks. He had made the most effective argument on the anti-Administration side in the debate over the Livingston resolutions, and had been chosen to answer Marshall's speech. He took a place near Marshall and began making notes for his reply; but soon he put his pencil and paper aside and became absorbed in Marshall's reasoning. After a while he arose, went to the space back of the seats, and paced up and down while Marshall proceeded.

When the Virginian closed, Gallatin did not come forward to answer him as his fellow partisans had expected. His Republican colleagues crowded around the brilliant little Pennsylvania Swiss and pleaded with him to answer Marshall's speech without delay. But Gallatin would not do it. "Answer it yourself," exclaimed the Republican leader in his quaint foreign accent; "for my part, I think it unan_swer_able," laying the accent on the _swer_.[1077]

Nicholas of Virginia then tried to reply, but made no impression; Dana spoke to no better purpose, and the House ended the discussion by a vote which was admitted to be a distinctively personal triumph for Marshall. The Republican resolutions were defeated by 61 to 35, in a House where the parties were nearly equal in numbers.[1078]

For once even Jefferson could not withhold his applause for Marshall's ability. "Livingston, Nicholas & Gallatin distinguished themselves on one side & J. Marshall greatly on the other," he writes in his curt account of the debate and its result.[1079] And this grudging tribute of the Republican chieftain is higher praise of Marshall's efforts than the flood of eulogy which poured in upon him; Jefferson's virulence toward an enemy, and especially toward Marshall, was such that he could not see, except on rare occasions, and this was one, any merit whatever in an opponent, much less express it.

Marshall's defense of the army law was scarcely less powerful than his speech in the Robins case; and it reveals much more clearly Marshall's distinctively military temper of mind.

Congress had scarcely organized when the question came up of the reduction of the army. On this there was extended debate. Nicholas of Virginia offered a resolution to repeal the act for the provisional army of which Washington had been the Commander-in-Chief. The expense of this military establishment greatly alarmed Nicholas, who presented an array of figures on which his anxieties fed.[1080] It was nonsense, he held, to keep this army law on the statute books for its effect on the negotiations with France.

Marshall promptly answered. "If it was true," said he, "that America, commencing her negotiation with her present military force would appear in the armor which she could only wear for a day, the situation of our country was lamentable indeed. If our debility was really such ... our situation was truly desperate." There was "no cheaper mode of self-defense"; to abandon it "amounted to a declaration that we were unable to defend ourselves." It was not necessary to repeal the law entirely or to put it, "not modified," in full effect. Marshall suggested a middle ground by which "the law might be modified so as to diminish the estimated expense, without dismissing the troops already in actual service."[1081]

Answering the favorite argument made by the opponents of the army, that no power can invade America, he asked: "What assurance have gentlemen that invasion is impracticable?" Who knows the real conditions in Europe?--the "effect of the late decisive victories of France?... It was by no means certain" that these had not resulted in the release of forces which she "may send across the Atlantic."

Why be precipitate? asked Marshall; by the opening of the next campaign in Europe we should have more information. Let us look the situation in the face: "We are, in fact, at war with France, though it is not declared in form"; commerce is suspended; naval battles are being fought; property is "captured and confiscated"; prisoners are taken and incarcerated. America is of "vast importance to France"; indeed, "the monopoly of our commerce in time of peace" is invaluable to both France and England "for the formation of a naval power."

The Republicans, he said, had "urged not only that the army is useless," but that we could not afford the expense of maintaining it. "Suppose this had been the language of '75!" exclaimed Marshall. "Suppose a gentleman had risen on the floor of Congress, to compare our revenues with our expenses--what would have been the result of the calculation?" It would have shown that we could not afford to strike for our independence! Yet we did strike and successfully. "If vast exertions were then made to acquire independence, will not the same exertions be now made to maintain it?"

The question was, "whether self-government and national liberty be worth the money which must be expended to preserve them?"[1082] He exposed the sophistry of an expensive economy. It should never be forgotten that true economy did not content itself with inquiring into the mere saving of the present moment; it should take an enlarged view of the subject, and determine, on correct calculations, whether the consequence of a present saving might not be a much more considerable future expenditure.

Marshall admitted that the reduction of the army would certainly diminish the expense of the present year, but contended that the present saving would bear no proportion to the immense waste of blood, as well as treasure, which it might occasion.[1083] "And consider," he exclaimed, "the effect the army already had produced on the mind and conduct of France. While America was humbly supplicating for peace, and that her complaints might be heard, France spurned her contemptuously and refused to enter on a discussion of differences, unless that discussion was preceded by a substantial surrender of the essential attributes of independence."

"America was at length goaded into resistance," asserted Marshall, "and resolved on the system of defense, of which the army now sought to be disbanded forms a part." What was the result? "Immediately the tone of France was changed, and she consented to treat us as an independent nation. Her depredations indeed did not cease; she continued still to bring war upon us; but although peace was not granted, the door to peace was opened."

If "a French army should be crossing the Atlantic to invade our territory," would anybody insist on disbanding our army? "Was it wise, then, to do so while such a probability existed?" In a few months we should know; and, if danger should disappear, "the army expires by the law which gave it being." Meantime the expense would be trifling.[1084]

In a private letter Marshall states, with even more balance, his views of the conflicting questions of the expense involved in, and the necessity for, military equipment. He regrets that a loan is "absolutely unavoidable"; but "attention must be paid to our defenses":--

"The whole world is in arms and no rights are respected but those that [are] maintained by force. In such a state of things we dare not be totally unmindful of ourselves or totally neglectful of that military position to which, in spite of the prudence and pacific disposition of our government, we may be driven for the preservation of our liberty and national independence.

"Altho' we ought never to make a loan if it be avoidable, yet when forc'd to it much real consolation is to be deriv'd from the future resources of America. These resources, if we do not throw them away [by] dissolving the union, are invaluable. It is not to be doubted that in twenty years from this time the United States would be less burthen'd by a revenue of twenty millions than now by a revenue of ten. It is the plain & certain consequence of our increasing population & our increasing wealth....

"The system of defence which has rendered this measure necessary was not [only] essential to our character as an independent nation, but it has actually sav'd more money to the body of the people than has been expended & has very probably prevented either open war or such national degradation as would make us the objects of general contempt and injury.

"A bill to stop recruiting in the twelve additional regiments has been brought in and will pass without opposition. An attempt was made absolutely to disband them, but [it] was negativ'd. It has been so plainly prov'd to us that french aggression has been greatly increased, & that their contemptuous refusal even to treat with us as an independent nation has been entirely occasioned by a belief that we could not resist them; & it is so clear that their present willingness to treat is occasioned by perceiving our determination to defend ourselves, that it was thought unwise to change materially our system at the commencement of negotiation.

"In addition to this it had much weight, that we should know in a few months the facts of our negotiation & should then be able to judge whether the situation & temper of France rendered an invasion pro[bable]. Then would be the time to decide on diminishing [or] augmenting our military forces. A French 64 has it is said arrived in the west indies & three frigates expected."[1085]

Although the debate dragged on and the army was attacked and defended with brilliant ability, Marshall's argument remained the Gibraltar of the Administration, upon which all the assaults of the Republicans were centered unavailingly. For his army speech was never answered. Only once more during this debate did Marshall rise and then but briefly, to bring his common sense to bear upon the familiar contention that, if the country is in danger, its citizens will rise spontaneously to defend it. He said that it would be absurd to call men to arms, as had been done, and then "dismiss them before the service was performed ... merely because their zeal could be depended on" hereafter. He "hoped the national spirit would never yield to that false policy."[1086]

The fourth important subject in which Marshall was a decisive influence was the National Bankruptcy Law, passed at this session of Congress. He was the second member of the committee that drafted this legislation.[1087] For an entire month the committee worked on the bill and reported it on January 6, 1800.[1088] After much debate, which is not given in the official reports, the bill passed the House on February 21 and the Senate March 28.[1089]

While the "Annals" do not show it, we know from the testimony of the Speaker of the House that Marshall was the vital force that shaped this first National Bankruptcy Act. He was insistent that the law should not be too extensive in its provisions for the curing of bankruptcy, and it was he who secured the trial by jury as to the fact of bankruptcy.

"It [the Bankruptcy Law] is far from being such an one as I wished," writes Sedgwick. "The _acts_ in curing bankruptcy are too restricted, and the trial of the question Bankrupt or not, by jury, will be found inconvenient, embarrassing & dilatory. The mischief was occasioned by Virginia Theory. It was the whim of General Marshall; with him a _sine qua non_ of assent to the measure, & without him the bill must have been lost, for it passed the House by my casting vote."

"Besides the bankrupt bill, we have passed [only] one more of great importance," writes the Speaker of the House in a review of the work of the session.[1090] Much of the Speaker's summary is devoted to Marshall. Sedgwick was greatly disappointed with the laws passed, with the exception of the Bankruptcy Bill "and one other."[1091] "All the rest we have made here are, as to any permanently beneficial effects, hardly worth the parchment on which they are written. The reason of this feebleness is a real feebleness of character in the house." Sedgwick lays most of this at Marshall's door, and in doing so, draws a vivid picture of Marshall the man, as well as of Marshall the legislator:--

"Marshall was looked up to as the man whose great and commanding genius was to enlighten & direct the national councils. This was the general sentiment, while some, and those of no inconsiderable importance, calculating on his foolish declaration, relative to the alien & sedition laws, thought him temporizing while others deemed him feeble.

"None had in my opinion justly appreciated his character. As his character has stamped itself on the measures of the present session, I am desirous of letting you know how I view it.

"He is a man of a very affectionate disposition, of great simplicity of manners and honest & honorable in all his conduct.

"He is attached to pleasures, with convivial habits strongly fixed.

"He is indolent, therefore; and indisposed to take part in the common business of the house.

"He has a strong attachment to popularity but indisposed to sacrifice to it his integrity; hence it is that he is disposed on all popular subjects to feel the public pulse and hence results indecision and _an expression_ of doubt.

"Doubts suggested by him create in more feeble minds those which are irremovable. He is disposed ... to express great respect for the sovereign people, and to quote their opinions as an evidence of truth.

"The latter is of all things the most destructive of personal independence & of that weight of character which a great man ought to possess.

"This gentleman, when aroused, has strong reasoning powers; they are almost unequalled. But before they are excited, he has frequently, nearly, destroyed any impression from them."[1092]

Such was Marshall's work during his six months' service in Congress, the impression he made, and the estimate of him by his party friends. His "convivial habits, strongly fixed," his great good nature, his personal lovableness, were noted by his associates in the National House of Representatives quite as much as they had been observed and commented on by his fellow members in the Virginia Legislature and by his friends and neighbors in Richmond.

The public qualities which his work in Congress again revealed in brilliant light were his extraordinary independence of thought and action, his utter fearlessness, and his commanding mental power. But his personal character and daily manners applied a soothing ointment to any irritation which his official attitude and conduct on public questions created in the feelings of his associates.

So came the day of adjournment of Congress; and with it the next step which Fate had arranged for John Marshall.

FOOTNOTES:

[993] Sedgwick to King, Dec. 29, 1799; King, iii, 163.

[994] Cabot to King, Jan. 20, 1800; _ib._, 184.

[995] _Annals_, 6th Cong., 1st Sess., 187.

[996] Wolcott to Ames, Dec. 29, 1799; Gibbs, ii, 314.

[997] _Annals_, 6th Cong. 1st Sess., 194. The speech as reported passed with little debate.

[998] Wolcott to Ames, Dec. 29, 1799; Gibbs, ii, 314. And see McMaster, ii, 452.

[999] Levin Powell to Major Burr Powell, Dec. 11, 1799; _Branch Historical Papers_, ii, 232.

[1000] _Annals_, 6th Cong., 1st Sess., 194.

[1001] _Annals_, 6th Cong., 1st Sess., 194-97.

[1002] _Ib._, 194.

[1003] Wolcott to Ames, Dec. 29, 1799; Gibbs, ii, 314.

[1004] _Annals_, 6th Cong., 1st Sess., 198.

[1005] The Federalists called the Republicans "Democrats," "Jacobins," etc., as terms of contempt. The Republicans bitterly resented the appellation. The word "Democrat" was not adopted as the formal name of a political party until the nomination for the Presidency of Andrew Jackson, who had been Jefferson's determined enemy.

[1006] Marshall to James M. Marshall, Philadelphia, Dec. 16, 1799; MS.

[1007] _Annals_, 6th Cong., 1st Sess., 203.

[1008] Marshall appears to have been the first to use the expression "the American Nation."

[1009] The word "empire" as describing the United States was employed by all public men of the time. Washington and Jefferson frequently spoke of "our empire."

[1010] _Annals_, 6th Cong., 1st. Sess., 203-04.

[1011] _Ib._, 204.

[1012] Marshall to Charles W. Hannan, of Baltimore, Md., March 29, 1832; MS., N.Y. Pub. Lib.; also Marshall, ii, 441.

[1013] These were: On the bill to enable the President to borrow money for the public (_Annals_, 6th Cong., 1st Sess., 632); a bill for the relief of Rhode Island College (_ib._, 643); a salt duty bill (_ib._, 667); a motion to postpone the bill concerning the payment of admirals (_ib._, 678); a bill on the slave trade (_ib._, 699-700); a bill for the additional taxation of sugar (_ib._, 705).

[1014] _Ib._, 521-22.

[1015] _Annals_, 6th Cong., 1st Sess., _House_, 522-23, 527, 626; _Senate_, 151.

[1016] _Ib._, 633-34.

[1017] _Ib._, 662. See _ib._, Appendix II, 495, 496. Thus Marshall was the author of the law under which the great "Western Reserve" was secured to the United States. The bill was strenuously resisted on the ground that Connecticut had no right or title to this extensive and valuable territory.

[1018] _Ib._, 532. On this vote the _Aurora_ said: "When we hear such characters as General Lee calling it _innovation_ and _speculation_ to withhold from the Executive magistrate the dangerous and unrepublican power of _proroguing_ and dissolving a legislature at his pleasure, what must be the course of our reflections? When we see men like General Marshall voting for such a principle in a Government of a portion of the American people is there no cause for alarm?" (_Aurora_, March 20, 1800.)

[1019] _Annals_, 6th Cong., 1st Sess., 504-06.

[1020] _Annals_, 6th Cong., 1st Sess., 623-24.

[1021] See _infra_, 458 _et seq._

[1022] "Copy of a letter from a gentleman in Philadelphia, to his friend in Richmond, dated 13th March, 1800," printed in _Virginia Gazette and Petersburg Intelligencer_, April 1, 1800.

[1023] _Annals_, 6th Cong., 1st Sess., 668-69.

[1024] _Ib._, 229.

[1025] _Ib._, 231.

[1026] _Ib._, 230-32.

[1027] _Annals_, 6th Cong., 1st Sess., 233.

[1028] _Ib._, 234.

[1029] _Ib._, 235.

[1030] _Ib._, 240.

[1031] _Ib._, 245.

[1032] Concerning a similar effort in 1790, Washington wrote: "The memorial of the Quakers (and a very _malapropos_ one it was) has at length been put to sleep, and will scarcely awake before the year 1808." (Washington to Stuart, March 28, 1790; _Writings_: Ford, xi, 474.)

[1033] _Annals_, 6th Cong., 1st Sess., Resolution and debate, ii, 404-19.

[1034] Bassett, 260.

[1035] Ellsworth to Pickering, Dec. 12, 1798; Flanders, ii, 193.

[1036] Adams: _Gallatin_, 211. And see Federalist attacks on Marshall's answers to "Freeholder," _supra_.

[1037] _Annals_, 6th Cong., 1st Sess., 29.

[1038] James Keith Marshall.

[1039] _Annals_, 6th Cong., 1st Sess., 520, 522.

[1040] At this period the Senate still sat behind closed doors and its proceedings were secret.

[1041] _Annals_, 6th Cong., 1st Sess., 105. This led to one of the most notably dramatic conflicts between the Senate and the press which has occurred during our history. For the prosecution of William Duane, editor of the _Aurora_, see _ib._, 105, 113-19, 123-24. It was made a campaign issue, the Republicans charging that it was a Federalist plot against the freedom of the press. (See _Aurora_, March 13 and 17, 1800.)

[1042] _Ib._, 146.

[1043] For a review of this astonishing bill, see McMaster, ii, 462-63, and Schouler, i, 475.

[1044] _Annals_, 6th Cong., 1st Sess., 670.

[1045] Marshall's substitute does not appear in the _Annals_.

[1046] _Annals_, 6th Cong., 1st Sess., 674.

[1047] _Ib._, 678.

[1048] _Annals_, 6th Cong., 1st Sess., 691-92.

[1049] _Ib._, 687-710.

[1050] _Ib._, 179.

[1051] _Ib._, 182.

[1052] Jefferson to Livingston, April 30, 1800; _Works_: Ford, ix, 132.

[1053] Sedgwick to King, May 11, 1800; King, iii, 237-38.

[1054] Adams: _Gallatin_, 232.

[1055] United States _vs._ Nash _alias_ Robins, Bee's _Reports_, 266.

[1056] Jefferson to Charles Pinckney, Oct. 29, 1799; _Works_: Ford, ix, 87.

[1057] _Aurora_, Feb. 12, 1800.

[1058] _Annals_, 6th Cong., 1st Sess., 511.

[1059] _Ib._, 515-18. Nash himself confessed before his execution that he was a British subject as claimed by the British authorities and as shown by the books of the ship Hermione.

[1060] _Ib._, 526.

[1061] The Republicans, however, still continued to urge this falsehood before the people and it was generally believed to be true.

[1062] _Annals_, 6th Congress, 1st Sess., 532-33.

[1063] _Ib._, 541-47.

[1064] _Ib._, 548.

[1065] _Annals_, 6th Cong., 1st Sess., 558.

[1066] This, in fact, was the case.

[1067] _Annals_, 6th Cong., 1st Sess., 565.

[1068] Marshall to James M. Marshall, Feb. 28, 1800; MS.

[1069] _Annals_, 6th Cong., 1st Sess., 595-96.

[1070] Pickering to James Winchester, March 17, 1800; Pickering MSS., Mass. Hist. Soc. Also Binney, in Dillon, iii, 312.

[1071] See Moore: _American Eloquence_, ii, 20-23. The speech also appears in full in _Annals_, 6th Cong., 1st Sess., 596-619; in Benton: _Abridgment of the Debates of Congress_; in Bee's _Reports_, 266; and in the Appendix to Wharton: _State Trials_, 443.

[1072] Pickering to Hamilton, March 10, 1800; Pickering MSS., Mass. Hist. Soc.

[1073] _Aurora_, March 10, 1800.

[1074] _Aurora_, March 14, 1800.

[1075] Marshall's speech on the Robins case shows some study, but not so much as the florid encomium of Story indicates. The speeches of Bayard, Gallatin, Nicholas, and others display evidence of much more research than that of Marshall, who briefly refers to only two authorities.

[1076] Story, in Dillon, iii, 357-58.

[1077] Grigsby, i, 177; Adams: _Gallatin_, 232.

[1078] _Annals_, 6th Cong., 1st Sess., 619.

[1079] Jefferson to Madison, March 8, 1800; _Works_: Ford, ix, 121. In sending the speeches on both sides to his brother, Levin Powell, a Virginia Federalist Representative, says: "When you get to Marshall's it will be worth a perusal." (Levin Powell to Major Burr Powell, March 26, 1800; _Branch Historical Papers_, ii, 241.)

[1080] _Annals_, 6th Cong., 1st Sess., 247-50.

[1081] _Ib._, 252.

[1082] _Annals_, 6th Cong., 1st Sess., 253-54.

[1083] _Ib._

[1084] _Annals_, 6th Cong., 1st Sess., 254, 255.

[1085] Marshall to Dabney, Jan. 20, 1800; MS. Colonel Charles Dabney of Virginia was commander of "Dabney's Legion" in the Revolution. He was an ardent Federalist and a close personal and political friend of Marshall.

[1086] _Annals_, 6th Cong., 1st Sess., 395-96.

[1087] _Ib._, 191.

[1088] _Ib._, 247.

[1089] _Ib._, 126; see law as passed, 1452-71.

[1090] Sedgwick to King, May 11, 1800; King, iii, 236.

[1091] The act requiring the Secretary of the Treasury to lay before Congress at each session a report of financial conditions with his recommendations. (_Annals_, 6th Cong., 1st Sess., Appendix, 1523.) The Speaker thought this law important because it "will give splendor to the officer [Secretary of the Treasury] and respectability to the Executive Department of the Govt." (Sedgwick to King, _supra_.) Yet the session passed several very important laws, among them the act accepting the cession of the Western Reserve (_Annals_, 6th Cong., 1st Sess., Appendix, 1495-98) and the act prohibiting American citizens "or other persons residing within the United States" to engage in the slave trade between foreign countries (_ib._, 1511-14.)

[1092] Sedgwick to King, May 11, 1800; King, iii, 237.