tal, but always and obviously
reasonable, and often presenting a brief argument for the change
proposed. In these days of woman's rights it is curious to read "Th. J.
to Mr. Gallatin. The appointment of a woman to office is an innovation
for which the public is not prepared, nor am I."

Gallatin suggested a weekly general conference of the President and the
secretaries at what is now styled a cabinet meeting, and private
conferences of the President with each of the secretaries once or twice
a week on certain days and at fixed hours. The business to come before
the House was also to be considered, and the policy to be pursued
determined upon. Unfortunately in this case again Jeffersonian theory
did not accord with Jeffersonian practice. Even erratic Randolph
complained of the want of system at these cabinet meetings, where each
was at liberty to do and say as he chose; a severe trial, this, to
Gallatin. In 1845 Mr. Gallatin wrote to Edward Coles that it was "quite
unusual to submit to the cabinet the manner in which the land or naval
forces authorized by Congress, and for which appropriations had been
made, should be employed," and added that on no occasion, in or out of
cabinet, was he ever consulted on those subjects prior to the year 1812.

In the difficulty which arose with the Barbary powers Mr. Gallatin
earnestly urged the payment of an annuity to Tripoli, if necessary for
peace. He considered it a mere matter of calculation whether the
purchase of peace was not cheaper than the expense of a war. This policy
was to be continued for eight years, at the end of which he hoped that a
different tone might be assumed. In a note on the message of 1802,
Gallatin expressed the hope to Jefferson that his administration would
"afford but few materials for historians." He would never sacrifice
permanent prosperity to temporary glitter.

Mr. Gallatin's counsel was sought, and his opinion deferred to, on
subjects which did not fall directly within the scope of administration.
Even on questions of fundamental constitutional law his judgment was not
inferior to that of Madison himself. In one notable instance he differed
from Mr. Lincoln, the attorney-general, whom he held in high esteem as
a good lawyer, a fine scholar, "a man of great discretion and sound
judgment." This was in 1803, when the acquisition of East Louisiana and
West Florida was a cabinet question. Mr. Lincoln considered that there
was a difference between a pow