pension of the habeas corpus act, at his instigation, was voted by the Senate, and would have become a law but that the House were not yet so subservient. Touching their policy as tending to increase or diminish the popularity of the federal party, but little need be said. The leaders of that party was not men who very highly valued their popularity, when the safety of the institutions they had erected were concerned. The acts unquestionably offered to the opposition new and fatal points of attack; but they secured the object sought in them, a far. greater one than the mere possession of power. They drove out the horde of locusts who threatened to make that power not worth holding. The good effects of the alien acts were perceived, even before their passage, in the flight of some of the most notorious of the incendiaries. "The threatening appearances from the alien bills," says Mr. Jefferson, "have so alarmed the French who are among us, that they are going off. A ship chartered for this purpose, will sail within a fortnight for France with as many as she can carry. Among these, I believe, will be Volney, who has in truth been the principal object aimed at by the law."a Another of these was Collot, who, it will be remembered, had signalized himself in the spring of 1796. The passage of these laws was in fact their only execution.

The sedition law was never enforced except against a few, and those of the most reckless and infamous of their class; of whom, Callender, an alien and a fugitive from justice, was an example. This individual had been fostered and supported by Mr. Jefferson himself, and it is a striking instance of retributive justice, that the pen which, at his instance, was directed against the federalists, was afterwards turned with added venom against himself. The refusal of an office, when Mr. Jefferson attained the

a Jefferson's Writings, III.

object of his own hopes, led to Callender's apostacy, notwithstanding that Mr. Jefferson had remitted the fine imposed by the court on his conviction. For once, the mercenary fought without pay.

That there was a necessity at least for the laws regarding aliens, a few facts will demonstrate. There were at this time computed to be about 30,000 Frenchmen in the United States, some of them emissaries of note, most of them associated even at this time in clubs, all animated by strong national feelings, and entirely devoted to the interests of France. The number of British born subjects was still greater. Many of these were fugitives from justice for political, or other offences, and possessed with a deep hostility to their own country. Great numbers of the United Irishmen had fled to America in the year 1795 and subsequently, and they too were organized in associations. The same was the fact as to the bodies of German

emigrants. The whole of this multitude of foreigners were attached to France from various motives, and were the active instruments of all her machinations. Their numbers, their factiousness, and the perfect state of their organization, rendered them most justly a subject of general alarm among all classes of Americans, who were not themselves regardless of the peace and welfare of their country. A single instance, furnished by a letter from Governor Mifflin of Pennsylvania, himself a Jeffersonian, to the President, dated June 27th, and transmitted on the same day to Congress, will serve as an illustration. The letter contained information, that on the evacuation of Port-au-Prince by the British troops, a very great number of French white men and negroes, were put on board of transports and sent to America. Some of the vessels made an attempt to land at Charleston; two of them arrived at Philadelphia, and the remainder were daily expected in different ports of the United States. Gov. Mifflin wisely prevented their landing at Philadelphia, but the limited

jurisdiction of the state, the facility of evading its regulations by disembarking the negroes elsewhere, and the probable necessity of extending the prohibition to whites, induced him to request the interposition of the Federal authority. It was ascertained that these men were nearly 4000 in number, many without funds, a considerable number of them slaves, that had been trained to arms, and were attached to their master's interest, and fully ripe for any turn which might be taken with regard to France.

Wolcott's own opinion of the sedition law appears in a letter to Mr. King, written a number of years after. He

says:

"The sedition law, I never thought a wise measure, though it is absurd to pretend that it is unconstitutional. It [the pretence of unconstitutionality] was occasioned by the metaphysical doctrines of some Virginia lawyers, who persuaded Judge Chase that the United States had no common law, though they admitted it to be a rule of decision in the state courts. The constitution of Virginia contains a declaration equivalent to that in the constitution of the United States, in favour of the liberty of the press, and THE SEDITION LAW IS MERELY A COPY FROM A STATUTE OF VIRGINIA IN OCTOBER, 1776; but, say the Doctors, different rules of construction are to be adopted in expounding the two instruments."

The subject of these acts was afterwards considered, in a report made by a committee at the succeeding session, to whom a number of petitions for their repeal, were referred. The report in a masterly manner defended their constitutionality, and the grounds on which Congress were justified in passing them. The petitions solicited the repeal of the alien act and of the sedition act, on the several grounds of their being "unconstitutional," "oppressive," and "impolitic."

On the unconstitutionality of these laws, the argument of the committee is believed to be conclusive.

Respecting the first of them, it was contended that the asylum given to foreigners was a matter of favor, dependent on the public will, as attested by the common practice

of all nations. The right of removing them as an incident to the power of peace and war, belonged to the national government. To remove from the country, in times of hostility, dangerous aliens, who might be employed in preparing the way for invasion, was a measure necessary for the purpose of preventing invasion, and of course one which Congress was authorized to adopt. The opponents of the law had insisted upon its unconstitutionality as contravening the 9th section of the 1st article, which provides that the migration and importation of such persons as any of the States shall think proper to admit should not be prohibited by Congress prior to 1808. To this it was answered, First, That the section was adopted solely to prevent Congress from prohibiting, until after a fit period, the importation of slaves, and referred to slaves alone. Secondly, That to prevent emigration in general, was a very different thing from sending off, after their arrival, such emigrants as might abuse the indulgence, by rendering themselves dangerous to the peace or safety of the country; and that if the Constitution in this particular, should be so construed, it would prevent Congress from driving a body of armed men from the country, who might land with views evidently hostile. Thirdly, That as the Constitution had given to the States no power to remove aliens during the period of limitation, there would be no authority in the country empowered to send away such as proved dangerous; a doctrine which could not be admitted. The section therefore, could not be considered as restricting the power of the United States, to send away such aliens at a time of actual or threatened hostility, and although at the time of passing this act, the country was not in a state of declared war, it was in a state of hostility.

Again, the law was said to violate that part of the Constitution which provided, that "the trial for all crimes except in cases of impeachment, should be by jury;"

whereas, this act invested the President with power to send away aliens on his own suspicion, and thus to inflict punishment without trial by jury.

It was answered in the first place, that the Constitution was made for citizens, not for aliens, who by consequence have no rights under it, but remain in the country and enjoy the benefit of the laws, not as a matter of right, but merely as matter of favor and permission, which favor and permission might be withdrawn whenever the government, charged with the general welfare, should judge their further continuance dangerous. In the second place, that the provisions in the Constitution relative to trial by jury, do not apply to the revocation of an asylum given to aliens. These provisions solely respect criminals; and the alien may be removed without having committed any offence, merely from motives of policy or security. The citizen, being a member of the society, has a right to remain in the country, of which he cannot be disfranchised, except for offences first ascertained on presentment and trial by jury. In the third place, that the removal of aliens, though it might be an inconvenience to them, could not be considered as a punishment, but as the withdrawal of an indulgence which there was danger of their abusing, and which we were not bound to continue.

The Sedition Law contained provisions of a two-fold nature-first against seditious acts, and second, against libellous and seditious writings. Against the validity of the first, there could be no objection; it applied solely to

the second.

The first ground assumed was, that Congress have no power by the Constitution, to pass any act for punishing libels-no such power being expressly given, and all powers not so given to Congress being reserved to the States respectively, or to the people thereof.

To this objection, the committee replied, that a law to punish libels upon the government, with intent to stir up