known, the militia ordered to be raised to garrison them,
who were not in actual service, were discharged.

* * * * *

NOTE--No. IV. _See Page 370._

In the formation of this treaty, a question came on to be considered
and decided which involved a principle that on an after occasion, and
in a different case, excited a ferment never to be forgotten by those
who took an active part in the politics of the day.

The whole commerce of the Creek nation was in the hands of
M'Gillivray, who received his supplies from a company of British
merchants, free from duty, through the territories belonging to Spain.
This circumstance constituted no inconsiderable impediment to the
progress of the negotiation. M'Gillivray derived emoluments from the
arrangement which he would not consent to relinquish; and was not
without apprehensions, that Spain, disgusted by his new connexions
with the United States, might throw embarrassments in the way of this
profitable traffic. In addition to this consideration, it was, on the
part of the United States, desirable to alter the channel through
which the Indians should receive their supplies, and thereby to render
them more dependent on the American government. But it would be
necessary to exempt the goods designed for the Indian nation from the
duties imposed by law on imported articles, and the propriety of such
an exemption might well be questioned.

With that cautious circumspection which marked his political course,
the president took this point into early consideration, and required
the opinion of his constitutional advisers respecting it. The
secretary of state was of opinion that the stipulation for importing
his goods through the United States, duty free, might safely be made.
"A treaty made by the president with the concurrence of two-thirds of
the senate, was," he said, "a law of the land," and a law of superior
order, because it not only repeals past laws, but can not itself be
repealed by future ones. The treaty then will legally control the duty
act, and the act for licensing traders in this particular instance.
From this opinion there is no reason to suppose that any member of the
cabinet dissented. A secret article providing for the case was
submitted to the senate, and it has never been understood that in
advising and consenting to it, that body was divided.

* * * * *

NOTE--No. V. _See Page 394._

This question