the same year. Previously to this
discreditable act, the Department of State had committed one of
imbecility. It had issued a circular to the different local authorities
of the Union with avowed reference to the finance controversy. Its
purport was a request for them to furnish information in regard to the
amount of public expenditures over which they had control. Against this
course Cooper protested at once in a long and vigorous letter to the
American people, written on the 10th of December, 1832, from Vevay,
Switzerland, and first printed in the Philadelphia "National Gazette."
He took the ground that in such a discussion local burdens ought not to
be included. It was, in fact, by confusing various kinds of taxation,
and taxation for various objects, that the French government party had
been able to make any showing for their own side. The letter was widely
circulated, and seems to have served its purpose in suppressing the
information that had been asked.

[Footnote 1: I express no opinion on the merits of
this controversy, for I have seen very slight
summaries only of the articles that appeared in the
_Revue Britannique_. But it is proper to say that it
was the opinion of the French liberals, that Cooper
utterly demolished his antagonists in the
controversy.]

Unfortunately it was not the administration alone that displayed a lack
of proper sentiment in this controversy. It is far from being a
creditable thing in the history of the country that Cooper was subjected
to constant attack, and even abuse, in the American newspapers, for his
conduct in this finance discussion. He had been particularly careful to
confine his remarks to the cost of government in the United States. He
had not touched at all upon the cost of government in France. Yet he
was charged with having overstepped the reserve imposed upon (p. 115)
foreigners, and of having attacked the administration of a friendly
country. The accusation was constantly made against him that he went
about "flouting his Americanism throughout Europe," and in this
particular case that he had overrated the importance of the controversy,
and also the importance of the part he had taken in it. He had, in fact,
aroused the hostility of that section of Americans, insignificant in
number and ability, but sometimes having social position,