assurances would be, and what his acts would be, throughout his administration.

In the memorable debate which arose on Mr. Jefferson's proposal to abolish the Courts, (House of Rep., Feb. 1802,) Mr. Giles's speech disclosed the hostility which the Jeffersonians entertained towards all federal measures from the first institution of the government. Mr. Bayard, in his masterly reply to Mr. Giles, states what the executive policy had already shown itself to be in dismissing worthy officers, and in appointing mere partisans. Mr. B. said: "If the eyes of the gentleman are delighted with victims, -if objects of misery are grateful to his feelings,—let me turn his view from the walks of the Judges to the track of the present executive. It is in this path that we see the real victims of stern, uncharitable, unrelenting power. It is here we see the soldier who fought the battles of the revolution, who spilt his blood, and devoted his strength to establish the independence of his country, deprived of the reward of his services, and left to pine in penury and wretchedness. It is along this path that you may see helpless children crying for bread, and gray hairs sinking in sorrow to the grave! It is here, that no innocence, no merit, no truth, no services can save the unhappy sectary, who does not believe in the creed of those in power."

That which the people of the United States ought to regard with abhorrence, in a President, is the implied invitation given by Mr. Jefferson to all political adversaries, to abandon their creeds and adopt his own; and the clearly implied promise of reward for apostacy. This was a well-known mode of strengthening party, long before there were white Americans. Mr. Jefferson has the distinction of having introduced it into our republic. He carried it to its full extent, officially and privately. In no nation, no, not even in Rome, in its most corrupt days, has this demoralizing seduction been more effective than in our own land, since Mr. Jefferson became President.

Opinions, long entertained, as to men and measures, and as to creeds in religion, are sometimes honestly and honorably aban

doned, and opposite ones adopted. But a change cannot be honest or honorable, where there is no new fact, nor any reason for viewing facts, before admitted, in any new light. Surely no change can be so, where the sudden convert realizes benefits, not to be had without apostacy.

The distinction between parties was so marked in Mr. Jefferson's time, that there could be no half-way change. The convert could do nothing short of what is done by a deserter from an army. Those who went over to Jeffersonism had the only merit of being ashamed of their desertion. To cover this, and to prove their sincerity, they resorted to the bitterest condemnation of their former principles and associates. The most malignant libellers of federal men and of federal measures, were those who had been federalists themselves. Sustained by the salaries of office, and raised by titles above those they had deserted, they could clearly see how base, plotting, and traitorous some of their fellowcitizens were, with whom, but yesterday, they were proud to rank, and most zealous to uphold as worthy patriots. Trace such men through to the end, and how has it fared with them? By adroit and timely desertions they may have found, for a while, office and emolument. But, how is it with them, when they come to the searching question, what do my fellow-men think of me? A Cæsar, an Augustus, a Napoleon cannot evade this question. The long list of dishonest deserters, which could be furnished, would show that few, in the revolutionary action of party, secured the good they sought; and that all of them planted a thorn in conscience, which never withers, nor ceases to prick. This was one of the practical uses of Mr. Jefferson's "exhortation to harmony and affection in social intercourse."

| There were instances of departure from the federal side, distinguishable from such as have been mentioned, and which did not deserve reproach. There were timid men, who did not entirely approve of federal views of the national policy; others, who thought themselves not to have been sufficiently valued and respected by their federal associates; and some, who were by nature

and inclination Jeffersonians, and who originally mistook their side, and very properly went over where they belonged. When one leaves the true line, circumstances force him further and further from it, and he must go over to the adversary finally, as there is no intermediate tenure. But in all cases of such change of opinion, there seems to have been a feeling, not unlike that in political changes of the present day. One, who goes over from the opposition to the Jackson ranks, feels that he has a defence to make; while one who abandons Jacksonism holds his head up, and feels that he has done an act for which he may respect himself. Thus in politics, as in morals, there is a sense of right and wrong, which men are alive to, whether they admit its influence or not. There are few Jackson men in the United States, (who can pretend to good sense and sound principle,) who do not feel a degree of shame that they are such.

It is the disease of republics, that they give life and action to craving, knavish pretenders to integrity and patriotism. They are the humble servants of any power that has anything to bestow. They are incompetent to gain their daily bread in any of the industrious orders of social life; and must, therefore, be where they can catch the droppings of the treasury. Political chevaliers d'industrie, they are ready to profess and to do anything that promises gain and power. But, such patriots must keep careful reckonings, and make accurate observations. They change their course once too soon or too late, and blunder; and then all eyes are turned to the course which they have run. The wreck that follows has no one's sympathy or compassion. They learn, too late, that honesty is the best policy, no less in political, than in common affairs. There is rarely a Talleyrand among them. There is one hope for such men; that is-if the republic can be converted into despotism, while they happen to be in favor, they may acquire a stability of position in supporting a tyranny, which will support them.

Mr. Jefferson's followers have already made some improvements on his theories. They have advanced now to the point, that the

President, no, the man, who has been imposed upon the nation to hold that office, is "The Government." The laws, Congress, the judiciary, the constitution, are all nothing; the MAN is everything. How far are we from a political Augustan age?

From the 4th of March, 1801, to the 7th of December, when Congress met, Mr. Jefferson had ample time to consider and determine, in what manner he would carry his will into effect, so far as legislative aid was thereto indispensable. He lost no time in disclosing, though with his accustomed plausibility, that all the fears which his opponents had entertained as to his policy, foreign > and domestic, were to become realities; and that all his dreaded purposes were to be enforced, in the full vigor of official power.

It was common, thirty years ago, to charge Mr. Jefferson with deliberate wickedness in his office; and to consider him as intending to disregard all the obligations which honorable, moral men acknowledge. This was, probably, an injustice. It is more reasonable to suppose, that he had either a singular obliquity of perception, as to right and wrong, both as a man and as an officer; or that he had undergone some strange perversion from that rank of moral agents, to which he was by nature destined. His adversaries made no such apologies for him. They believed that he did wrong, knowing that it was wrong, and because he meant to do wrong. Accordingly they portrayed him in the public prints, at full length. Some of his friends had the indiscretion to introduce some of the sketches to the notice of the House of Representatives in Massachusetts, at the session in January, 1805. The newspaper, in which the commentaries alluded to appeared, was published by the printers of the House. The object of the motion was to have the printers dismissed. It did not succeed. If these delineations of Mr. Jefferson were to go down as authentic proofs of the character of the man, he would fare but indifferently with that cool judgment of posterity, to which he confidently appeals. It is not intended to revive these personal criminations. Whether the assertions so made, were mere calumnies, or truths, modified as they may have been,

is immaterial to the present American public. His official conduct is most material, not only to the community of this day, but, it is to be feared, that it may be so to every community, which is hereafter to arise in our country.

LETTER XL.

JUNE 30, 1833.

MR. JEFFERSON's opinions on the Judiciary were among the most mischievous of any which he entertained. He had a rooted dislike to courts; particularly to those which were established at the recommendation of his friend, John Adams, as barriers against such encroachments as Mr. Jefferson was supposed to intend. These courts were not only constitutionally independent, but the judges, who had been placed therein, were nearly all federalists.

If there be anything, which is capable of sustaining popular governments, and keeping their action within legitimate constitutional boundaries, it is a learned, self-respecting, independent judiciary. To make the administration of justice, and all questions on the excess of power, dependent on popular excitement, is to assume, that mere human passion is the best arbiter of right and wrong. On this subject, Mr. Jefferson entertained and disseminated the most exceptionable doctrines. This seems to have been his theory: The people are the sovereign; whatsoever they will is the law; they choose me to declare their will. My will is the law; because the people's will can be no otherwise disclosed than by expressing my own. He seems to have been incapable of conceiving, that the people established judicial courts to control all of their own number, who should violate their own laws; and to control their own legislators, if they exceeded the limits of authority which the people had assigned to them by the constitution.