of a single state out of the twenty-four that would bear the experiment of having its component parts submitted to the people and separately decided on? "What the fate of the Constitution of the United States would be, if a small proportion of the states could expunge parts of it particularly valued by a large majority, it can have but one

answer.

"The difficulty is not removed by limiting the doctrine to cases of construction. How many

cases of that sort, involving cardinal provisions of the Constitution, have occurred? How many now exist? How many may hereafter spring up? How many might be ingeniously created, if entitled to the privilege of a decision in the mode proposed?

"It is certain that the principle of that mode would not reach further than is contemplated. If a single state can of right require three-fourths of its co-states to overrule its exposition of the Constitution, because that proportion is authorized to amend it, would the plea be less plausible that, as the Constitution was unanimously established, it ought to be unanimously expounded?

"The reply to all such suggestions seems to be unavoidable and irresistible; that the Constitution is a compact, that its text is to be expounded according to the provisions for expounding it making a part of the compact; and that none of the parties can rightfully renounce the expounding provision more than any other part. When such a right accrues, as may accrue, it must grow out of abuses of the compact releasing the sufferers from their fealty to it.

"In favor of the nullifying claim for the states, individually, it appears, as you observe, that the proceedings of the Legislature of Virginia, in 1798 and 1799, against the Alien and Sedition Acts, are much dwelt upon.

"It may often happen, as experience proves, that erroneous constructions, not anticipated, may not be sufficiently guarded against, in the language used; and it is due to the distinguished individuals, who have misconceived the intention of those proceedings, to suppose that the meaning of the Legislature, though well comprehended at the time, may not now be obvious to those unacquainted with the contemporary indications and impressions.

"But it is believed, that by keeping in view the distinction between the governments of the states, and the states in which they were parties to the Constitution; between the rights of the parties, in their concurrent and in their individual capacities; between the several modes and objects of interposition against the abuses of power, and

401

especially between interpositions within the purview of the Constitution, and interpositions appealing from the Constitution to the rights of nature paramount to all constitutions; with an attention, always of explanatory use, to the views and arguments which were combated, the Resolutions of Virginia, as vindicated in the Report on them, will be found entitled to an exposition, showing a consistency in their parts, and an inconsistency of the whole with the doctrine under consideration.

The

That the Legislature could not have intended to sanction such a doctrine, is to be inferred from the debates in the Houses of Delegates, and from the address of the two Houses to their constituents, on the subject of the resolutions. tenor of the debates, which were ably conducted, and are understood to have been revised for the press by most, if not all, of the speakers, discloses no reference whatever to a constitutional right in an individual state, to arrest by force the operation of a law of the United States. Concert among the states for redress against the Alien and Sedition Laws, as acts of usurped power, was a leading sentiment; and the attainment of a concert the immediate object of the course adopted by the legislature, which was that of inviting the other states to concur in declaring the acts to be unconstitutional, and to co-operate by the necessary and proper measures in maintaining unimpaired the authorities, rights, and liberties reserved to the states respectively, and to the people.'* That by the necessary and proper measures to be concurrently and co-operatively taken, were meant measures known to the Constitution, particularly the ordinary control of the people and legislatures of the states, over the Government of the United States, cannot be doubted; and the interposition of this control, as the event showed, was equal to the occasion.

"It is worthy of remark, and explanatory of the intentions of the Legislature, that the words 'not law, but utterly null, void, and of no force or effect,' which had followed, in one of the resolutions, the word unconstitutional,' were struck out by common consent. Though the words were in fact but synonymous with unconstitutional;' yet to guard against a misunderstanding of this phrase as more than declaratory of opinion, the word unconstitutional' alone was retained, as not liable to that danger.

"The published Address of the Legislature to the people, their constituents, affords another con

* See the concluding resolution of 1798.

Stoddert took charge of the department on June 18.*

Several times Presidents Washington and Adams had urged the importance of national defence and naval preparation.† By the acts of June 23 and 24 and July 1, 1797, Congress authorized the President to provide for fortifications, to call out the militia, and to increase the force of revenue cutters. In 1797 the revenue cutter service consisted of about 15 small vessels, mostly tugs and schooners. On March 27, 1797, an act was passed providing for the equipment of the frigates United States, Constellation and Constitution. first of these vessels to be placed in commission was the United States, which was launched at Philadelphia May 10. She was followed on September 7 by the Constellation at Baltimore and on October 21 by the Constitution at Boston.||

The

Report of Secretary James McHenry, American State Papers, Naval Affairs, vol. i., pp. 28, 32. See also Allen, Our Naval War With France, p. 48; McMaster, vol. ii., p. 323, et seq.; J. F. Cooper, History of the Navy of the United States, vol. i., p. 152; Maclay, History of the Navy, vol. i., pp. 158-159. There is a variance in the date of the launching of the United States and the Constitution, some giving July 10 and others Septemtember 20. Lossing, War of 1812, p. 100, says the Constitution was launched September 20 and on p.

403

On April 27 the President was empowered to build, purchase, and hire not more than twelve vessels, none of which should carry more than 22 guns, $950,000 being appropriated to construct, or purchase, arm, equip and man them. On May 4 authority was given to build or purchase not more than ten galleys; on June 22 the revenue cutter system was ordered to be increased; and on June 30 twelve additional vessels were authorized.t Of the 24 vessels provided by the acts of April 27 and June 30, 12 were to carry from 20 to 24 guns each, six not

#

436 says October 21. In speaking of the creation of the navy, Gallatin said: "I am sensible that an opinion of our strength will operate to a certain degree on other nations, but I think a real addition of strength will go farther in defending us than mere opinion. If the sums to be expended to build and maintain the frigates were applied to paying a part of our national debt, the payment would make us more respectable in the eyes of foreign nations than all the frigates we can build. To spend money unnecessarily at present will diminish our future resources, and, instead of enabling us, will perhaps render it more difficult for us, to build a navy some years hence. Perhaps I may be asked if we are then to be left without protection. I think there are means of protection which arise from our peculiar situation, and that we ought not to borrow institutions from other nations, for which we are not fit. If our commerce was increased, notwithstanding its want of protection; if we have a greater number of seamen than any other nation except England this, I think, points out the way in which commerce ought to be protected. The fact is, that our only mode of warfare against European nations at sea is by putting our seamen on board privateers, and covering the sea with them: these would annoy and distress them more than any other mode of defence we can adopt."Adams, Life of Gallatin, p. 170.

* Winsor, Narrative and Critical History, vol. vii., p. 362; Maclay, History of the Navy, vol. i., p. 162.

Cooper, Naval History, vol. i., pp. 152-153.

404

less than 32 guns, and six not more than 18 guns. On July 16 an act was passed directing the completion of the three frigates authorized in 1794. These were named the President, Congress, and Chesapeake, the first of 44 guns and the other two of 36 each. The act of June 30 provided that vessels be constructed with money advanced by citizens on the credit of the United States, and under this provision were constructed the Philadelphia and New York, 36's; the Essex, 32; the Boston and John Adams, 28's; the Merrimack, 24; the Maryland and Patapsco, 20's; and the Richmond, 18. Under the acts of April 27 and June 30 several other vessels were built or purchased and converted into war vessels; the General Greene and Adams, 28's and the George Washington, Trumbull, Connecticut, Portsmouth and Ganges, 24's. There were nearly 20 vessels of smaller size. On February 25, 1799, an act was passed authorizing six ships of the line of 74 guns each and six sloops of 18 guns each, but these provisions of the act were never carried out.*

Supplementing the regular navy were numerous privateers. The act of June 25, 1798, provided that merchant vessels might arm to protect themselves from attack by French cruisers or privateers, capture the aggressors if possible, and recapture

* Allen, Our Naval War With France, pp. 5557. See also Cooper, Naval History, vol. i., pp. 152-153; Winsor, Narrative and Critical History, vol. vii., pp. 362-363.

American vessels taken by the French. The act of July 9 authorized the President to grant special commissions to private armed ships, and such vessels, when duly commissioned, should have the same license and authority as public armed vessels to subdue, seize or capture French armed vessels. Under this act 365 private armed vessels were placed in commission before March 1, 1799. Of these, 129 came from New England, principally Massachusetts. New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland furnished over 60 each, the rest coming from the South. Most of these vessels were armed only for defense, and carried but a small force of men and few guns. They would have little to do, since they could not attack the enemy's commerce, but only armed vessels; and the less so because French commerce had been almost entirely swept from the sea by British war vessels.*

During the French hostilities of 1798-1801, the naval force of the United States consisted of 45 vessels, of which 21 were built for the service, 11 were purchased, 5 were captured during the war, and 8 were transferred from the Treasury Department There were about the same number of revenue cutters held ready for harbor defense, and 9 galleys built for the navy were utilized in the same service. Of the naval vessels, three were rated as 44's and six as 36 gun frigates;

* Allen, Our Naval War With France, pp. 58–59.