In the course of a recent debate in the United States Senate, Mr. Calhoun remarked that a moment's attention to the seat of government in the different countries of the world, would show that they very rarely oc cupied a central position. They were generally situated on the frontier that was most exposed; near to those places where the armies would be required to be encamped for the protection of the country against invasion. Look over Europe-where was London situated? Near the southeast frontier. Where was the capital of France? Far from central. Where was the capital of Russia? Upon the frontier; and the same locality will be found to prevail, and very properly so, in regard to capitals throughout the world. And, if it were true in general, it was eminently true in respect to our confederation.

Mr. Allen said that "the example of the monarchies of Europe was not to be followed by us, for the location of their capital was dependent on the location of their forts and fortifications, and not in convenience in other respects." This was certainly not the case with Russia or Prussia. The advantage of having the government near to protect the commerce of the country, is to be observed by circumstances of daily occurrence. It is probably on the coast that our principal fighting will be done, and it is certainly here that the most unexpected and sudden assaults will be made, requiring immediate action. It is from Europe that our enemies will be most likely to come in time of war, and it is with the States of Europe that, in time of peace, we are likely to have the most complex relations. It is of the highest importance that our legislators and execu tive officers should be so near the commercial sections of the country as to enter understandingly upon those discussions in which practical knowledge is of the utmost importance; and it is certain that there will be hundreds called into the public service, from time to time, whose first impres sions of the merits of the navy, or the extent of the merchant service, will be formed by actual inspection at our commercial cities-and, while the Western agricultural interests are subserved by whatever contributes to enlarged and liberal commercial views, and the protection of the sea-coast, our Western frontier will be far more easily fortified by government when at a distance; the principal enemies we are ever likely to suffer from there, being the Indians, the power of which unfortunate race is daily dwindling away before the good or bad, but inevitable effects of Anglo-Saxon progress.

But, we were further told by Mr. Allen, that "the location of our seat of government in the vicinity of our great commercial cities, gave to those cities a preponderating influence in the proceedings of this government of, at least, a hundred to one over the influence excited by a corresponding number of people in the vast interior. There were no committees of farmers from the banks of the Missouri, the Mississippi, or even the Ohio, entering the lobbies of those halls, and endeavoring to influence the legislation of Congress. There were no combinations of individuals from the interior, delegated to the capital with a view of obtaining the passage of laws, the object of which was to administer to individual wants, instead of the wants of the mass of the nation. There were no such delegations here." Does the senator suppose that the lobbying committees from commercial cities, of which he hints, would not follow the government wherever it went? The interests of commerce enter too widely into all the ramifications of society for mere

time and space to prevent those interested in their advancement from laboring assiduously on their behalf, wherever the government may be. Mr. Allen's argument applies equally to the good and the bad projects. The only difference would be that, were the government placed in the interior, they would have legislators not so well informed, more blinded by section. al prejudices than they even now are, less capable of appreciating those enlarged plans which comprise the good, and more easily imposed upon by the advocates of more limited systems which are bad. It has been objected that the Eastern States secure to themselves greater benefits in the way of congressional and legislative patronage for office; but we apprehend that this source of jealousy has been greatly overrated. Is it not rather the section of country from which the Executive comes, that governs in this matter? But, admitting it to be an evil, it is one which must always exist, to a greater or less extent, to the injury of different parts of the Union, wherever the government may be; since, as was remarked in the Congress of 1790, the capital cannot remain, for any considerable length of time, at the actual centre of territory, that centre being as variable as the centre of population.

The necessity or propriety of disfranchising the seat of government, is not at first view quite apparent, and has been the subject of some discussion. If we consider the extent to which party feeling was carried in the canvass that immediately preceded Mr. Jefferson's election, when pri vate social relations were, in some instances, almost entirely suspended between families of different political parties, we can feel the force of the reasoning given for this measure, and can realize what a serious evil such a state of things would be at the capital, should it again recur, and be fostered by continual local elections, accompanied with all the excitement and misrepresentation which we now see every four years in the principal cities of the Union, and in the midst of which, it is not too much to suppose that the position of public officers might subject them to annoyance and insult in a thousand ways, even without actual violence. And, from similar experience, it is obvious that the votes of those in the public employ might be directly or indirectly controlled by the government, so that there would be, in reality, little freedom of choice. Other positions assumed in these discussions will be adverted to in the course of our remarks on the progress of the city.

66

Maryland and Virginia had previously, by acts passed in 1788 and 1789, authorized their representatives to make the necessary cessions. The first section of this act is in these words :—“ Be it enacted, &c., that a district of territory, not exceeding ten miles square, to be located, as hereafter directed, on the river Potomac, at some place between the mouth of the Eastern Branch and Connogocheague, be, and the same is hereby accepted for the permanent seat of government of the United States.'

The word "temporary," in the title of the act, refers to Philadelphia, where the Congress were to hold their sessions until 1800; when, as Mr. Wolcott expressed it, they were "to go to the Indian place with the long name, on the Potomac.'

It may be well to allude here to a discussion which has arisen under the article of the constitution and this act, in reference to the powers of Congress to remove the seat of governinent at any future time. Mr.

1

John Carroll Brent, of Washington city, in a pamphlet* relative to the interests of the District of Columbia, dedicated to the members of the Na. tional Institute, has summed up the principal arguments in opposition to any such claim of right. He contends:-1st. That the constitution gave Congress limited powers in the premises; and that body, as a mere agent, is bound by instructions and limitations, and can, under no circumstances, exercise more authority than is given to that effect by the constitution. 2d. That a change of the seat of government would be a violation of the implied contract between the Federal government and the States of Maryland and Virginia, which never would have made the necessary grants, had not permanency been guaranteed by the solemn act of Congress. 3d. That the right and reasonable expectations of the original proprietors, the purchasers, and inhabitants of this District, would be trifled with and destroyed by such a move towards transferring the metropolis elsewhere, on the part of those who falsely imagine themselves clothed with the necessary power and capacity.

The introduction of the word "permanent "in contradistinction to "temporary," in the title of the act, is regarded by him as significant of the views of Congress and the proprietors on the subject, viz: "that cer tain powers were given, certain acts required, and Congress, in the execution of this commission, was confined within fixed limits, was to accept a specified amount of territory; and by the acceptance, and the act estab lishing a permanent seat of government, in accordance with the requisitions of the constitution, bound itself to that instrument, to Maryland and Virginia, the owners, purchasers, and inhabitants of the district in question, and the people at large, by a positive engagement, to make the metropolis of the Union durable and unchangeable.'

In the report of a committee of the House on the 25th February, 1846, on the petition for the retrocession of Alexandria, this objection is thus answered:

"There is no more reason to believe that the power in this case, when once exercised and executed, is exhausted, than in any other of the long list of enumerated powers to which it belongs, and which it is provided that Congress shall have.' The phraseology of the grant is the same, and as much reason seems to exist for the continuance of the right to exercise this power, as in most of those contained in the list to which we have referred. If this construction be true, when Congress had once fixed the seat of government, it could no more be removed, although it should prove to be unsafe from foreign invasion, or so unhealthy as to endanger the lives of the members of the government, or so located as to be inconsistent with a due regard to the facilities of access to our whole population, or to their convenience; and yet it is manifest that some of these considerations might make the removal of the seat of government a matter of necessity. To have excluded the conclusion that the framers of the constitution had regarded considerations so manifest and reasonable, there must have been terms so precise and accurate as to have left no doubt of their intention to make the act irrevocable when the power was once exercised. As some proof that the framers of the constitution did

Letters on the National Institute. Smithsonian Legacy. The Fine Arts, and other matters connected with the interests of the District of Columbia. Washington: J. & G. S. Gideon.

not overlook these considerations, we may advert to the fact that Mr. Madison moved to strike out the word 'permanent' from the act establishing the seat of government, because the constitution did not contain it. Nor is this the only difficulty involved by this construction-the same section gives a like power relative to forts and arsenals; and, contrary to reason and the usages of Congress, this power, when once exercised, would be thus considered as executed and exhausted.

"It might be replied that this word 'permanent' meant only an indefinite period; that it was designed merely to require the removal to be made by law, and not by resolution of the two Houses; or it might well be said that Congress could not, by contract, part with a power reposed in them by the constitution for wise purposes; but, in point of fact, the history of the transaction does not sustain this view of the contract. Neither Virginia nor Maryland, by their acts of cession, made the permanence of the seat of government a condition of the grant."

The view taken by the States and proprietors is, we think, well expressed in the language of the Supreme Court per Story, Judge.* They might, and, indeed, must have placed a just confidence in the government, that, in founding the city, it would do no act which would obstruct its prosperity, or interfere with its great fundamental objects or interests. It could never be supposed that Congress would seek to destroy what its own legislation had created and fostered into being. The city was designed to last in perpetuity, "capitoli immobile saxum."

While the force of these remarks must be admitted, and while it is certain that justice to the proprietors, and good policy, forbid that any light or trivial considerations should break in upon the arrangements then made, the conclusions of Mr. Brent will, we fear, not receive a ready assent. The proprietors could hardly have been warranted in the conclusion that their interests would be consulted in opposition to those of the whole Union, if it should happen that the welfare of the nation imperatively required such a change, and it should be called for by a majority of the people.

The proprietors entered into their agreement subject to the risk of such a contingency's occurring; in which case, the most that they could claim, would be a right to compensation for the depreciation in the value of property which must ensue. This proposition seems to have been generally admitted in the discussions which took place in Congress on the question of removal after the war of 1812. What contingency would justify such a removal, will be considered in a subsequent chapter.

Art. II. THE LIFE OF MAJOR SAMUEL SHAW,
THE FIRST AMERICAN CONSUL AT CANTON.†

(WITH A PORTRAIT.)

AMONG the discordant materials of which our army of the Revolution was composed, those men were not wanting who are commonly the early victims of great popular struggles ;-men, moderate and firm in the council, prudent and fearless in the field; not selfish in their ambition, not ran

* Van Ness and wife, vs. City of Washington and the United States, 4 Peters, p. 280. + The Journals of Major SAMUEL SHAW, the first American Consul at Canton. With a Life of the Author, by Josiah Quincy. Boston: Wm. Crosby and H. P. Nichols.

corous in their patriotism; in whom a pure conscience and a clear intellect rule with an equal and a harmonious supremacy. Such men, impatient of injustice and of corruption, are usually foremost in those acts of resistance in which every revolution begins; but, as the contest goes on, they are thought to move too slowly. Their virtues are not understood. If they are in the senate, their motives are suspected; if in the army, their courage is questioned. Fiercer and less scrupulous spirits, more nearly akin to the heightened passions of the people, press forward and take their place; and the old scene is again enacted, of a nation, risen in arms against its oppressors, only to be desolated by anarchy and bound anew in servitude.

It was the good fortune of America, or rather-if we may read, in the events of this world's history, the motives of its Ruler-it was the blessing of God on America, that, in her Revolution, such men as we have described maintained their control to the end. They were the leaders of the army, for it had been the plan of England to shut them out from the high offices of state. They were beloved by the army, for their peculiar virtues found daily exercise in the long train of disaster that makes up the story of the war. Washington was at their head; and the qualities that distinguished them shone forth, in him, with a still brighter lustre. They were the interpreters of his spirit to the people; and, doubtless, if ever his wonderful equanimity failed, and he became like other men, he gathered fresh courage and renewed strength from their intelligent sympathy.

Of these men, holding a rank in the army suited to his age and experience, Samuel Shaw was one. Like most men of his time, he acted various parts in the changing drama of life. In his youth, an active and gallant soldier; in his manhood, a sagacious and enterprising merchant; for a short period, filling an office of trust in the Department of War; for several years, representing his country, as consul, abroad; and at all times maintaining a lofty character for talents and integrity, it is not to be doubted that his early death alone prevented him from reaching a station more marked and eminent.

His memoir, before us, is written by one who, in early youth, enjoyed "the privilege of his acquaintance and correspondence ;" and who, after the lapse of more than fifty years, passed in constant intercourse with mankind, says, that he has "never known an individual of a character more elevated and chivalric, acting according to a purer standard of morals, imbued with a higher sense of honor, and uniting, more intimately, the quali ties of the gentleman, the soldier, the scholar, and the Christian." With the memoir are interwoven many letters, written by Major Shaw from the camp to his friends at home. These are so selected and arranged, as to indicate the character, as well as the passing emotions of the man. Apart from their personal interest, they form a valuable commentary upon those memorials of the times, which have been collected, with so much zeal and judgment, by the historian of Washington.

66

To the Memoir are appended the journals of Major Shaw's first two voy. ages to Canton. "These Journals of Major Shaw," says the Preface, came, after his death, into the possession of his nephew and legal representative, Robert Gould Shaw, of Boston. Their publication has often been solicited, but has hitherto been withheld; the present proprietor doubting if a work not originally designed for the press could with propriety be given to the public. He has, however, now yielded to the urgency