ty with France; but neither that
treaty, nor the favours shown to that nation, had produced any
correspondent advantages. The license to sell ships could not be of
this description, since it was well known that the merchants of the
United States did not own vessels enough for the transportation of the
produce of the country, and only two, as was believed, had been sold
since the license had been granted. The trade with Great Britain,
viewed in all its parts, was upon a footing as beneficial to the
United States as that with France.

That the latter power had claims upon the gratitude of America was
admitted, but that these claims would justify premiums for the
encouragement of French commerce and navigation, to be drawn from the
pockets of the American people, was not conceded. The state of the
revenue, it was said, would not admit of these experiments.

The observation founded on the extensiveness of the trade between the
United States and Great Britain was answered by saying, that this was
not a subject proper for legislative interposition. It was one of
which the merchants were the best judges. They would consult their
interest as individuals; and this was a case in which the interest of
the nation and of individuals was the same.

At length, the bills passed the house of representatives, and were
carried to the senate, where they were amended by expunging the
discrimination made in favour of the tonnage and distilled spirits of
those nations which had formed commercial treaties with the United
States.

These amendments were disagreed to; and each house insisting on its
opinion, a conference took place, after which the point was
reluctantly yielded by the house of representatives. The proceedings
of the senate being at that time conducted with closed doors, the
course of reasoning on which this important principle was rejected can
not be stated.

This debate on the impost and tonnage bills was succeeded by one on a
subject which was believed to involve principles of still greater
interest.

[Sidenote: On the President's power of removal from office.]

In organizing the departments of the executive, the question in what
manner the high officers who filled them should be removeable, came on
to be discussed. Believing that the decision of this question would
materially influence the character of the new government, the members
supported their respective opinions with a degree of earnestness
proportioned to the