According to the opinion I hazarded to you a little before your departure, we have had almost an entire change in the body of Congress.  The unpopularity of the compensation law was completed, by the manner of repealing it as to all the world except themselves.  In some States, it is said, every member is changed; in all, many.  What opposition there was to the original law, was chiefly from southern members.  Yet many of those have been left out, because they received the advanced wages.  I have never known so unanimous a sentiment of disapprobation; and what is remarkable, is, that it was spontaneous.  The newspapers were almost entirely silent, and the people not only unled by their leaders, but in opposition to them.  I confess I was highly pleased with this proof of the innate good sense, the vigilance, and the determination of the people to act for themselves.

Among the laws of the late Congress, some were of note:  a navigation act, particularly, applicable to those nations only who have navigation acts; pinching one of them especially, not only in the general way, but in the intercourse with her foreign possessions.  This part may re-act on us, and it remains for trial which may bear longest.  A law respecting our conduct as a neutral between Spain and her contending colonies, was passed by a majority of one only, I believe, and against the very general sentiment of our country.  It is thought to strain our complaisance to Spain beyond her right or merit, and almost against the right of the other party, and certainly against the claims they have to our good wishes and neighborly relations.  That we should wish to see the people of other countries free, is as natural, and at least as justifiable, as that one King should wish to see the Kings of other countries maintained in their despotism.  Right to both parties, innocent favor to the juster cause, is our proper sentiment.

You will have learned that an act for internal improvement, after passing both houses, was negatived by the President.  The act was founded, avowedly, on the principle that the phrase in the constitution, which authorizes Congress ’to lay taxes, to pay the debts and provide for the general welfare,’ was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, you know, was the federal doctrine.  Whereas, our tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only land-mark which now divides the federalists from the republicans, that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action:  consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money.  I think the passage and rejection of this