the spirit of inquiry, and given an animation to the debate.  The public attention has been quickened to mark the progress of the discussion, and its judgment, often hasty and erroneous on first impressions, has become solid and enlightened at last.  Our result will, I hope, on that account, be safer and more mature, as well as more accordant with that of the nation.  The only constant agents in political affairs are the passions of men.  Shall we complain of our nature—­shall we say that man ought to have been made otherwise?  It is right already, because He, from whom we derive our nature, ordained it so; and because thus made and thus acting, the cause of truth and the public good is more surely promoted.

The treaty is bad, fatally bad, is the cry.  It sacrifices the interest, the honor, the independence of the United States, and the faith of our engagements to France.  If we listen to the clamor of party intemperance, the evils are of a number not to be counted, and of a nature not to be borne, even in idea.  The language of passion and exaggeration may silence that of sober reason in other places, it has not done it here.  The question here is, whether the treaty be really so very fatal as to oblige the nation to break its faith.  I admit that such a treaty ought not to be executed.  I admit that self-preservation is the first law of society, as well as of individuals.  It would, perhaps, be deemed an abuse of terms to call that a treaty, which violates such a principle.  I waive also, for the present, any inquiry, what departments shall represent the nation, and annul the stipulations of a treaty.  I content myself with pursuing the inquiry, whether the nature of this compact be such as to justify our refusal to carry it into effect.  A treaty is the promise of a nation.  Now, promises do not always bind him that makes them.  But I lay down two rules, which ought to guide us in this case.  The treaty must appear to be bad, not merely in the petty details, but in its character, principle, and mass.  And in the next place, this ought to be ascertained by the decided and general concurrence of the enlightened public.

I confess there seems to be something very like ridicule thrown over the debate by the discussion of the articles in detail.  The undecided point is, shall we break our faith?  And while our country and enlightened Europe, await the issue with more than curiosity, we are employed to gather piecemeal, and article by article, from the instrument, a justification for the deed by trivial calculations of commercial profit and loss.  This is little worthy of the subject, of this body, or of the nation.  If the treaty is bad, it will appear to be so in its mass.  Evil to a fatal extreme, if that be its tendency, requires no proof; it brings it.  Extremes speak for themselves and make their own law.  What if the direct voyage of American ships to Jamaica with horses or lumber, might net one or two per centum more than the present trade to Surinam; would the proof of the fact avail any thing in so grave a question as the violation of the public engagements?