ion on the part of the
legislature to resist it. The appointment of a minister plenipotentiary
to Prussia, with which we had little or no commercial intercourse,
offered an opportunity to determine this limitation. Harper said that
this was a renewal of the old charge that foreign intercourse was
unnecessary, and the old suggestion that our commerce ought to be given
up or left to shift for itself. Mr. Gallatin laid down extreme theories
which have never yet found practical application. He took the question
at once from party or personal ground by admitting that the government
was essentially pure, its patronage not extensive, or its effect upon
the legislative or any other branch of the government as yet material.
The Constitution had placed the patronage in the executive. There he
thought it was wisely placed. The legislature would be more corrupt
than the executive were it placed with them. While not willing at once
to give up political foreign intercourse, he thought that it should by
degrees be altogether declined. To it he ascribed the critical situation
of the country. Commercial intercourse could be protected by the
consular system. He then argued that the power to provide for expenses
was the check intended by the Constitution. To this Griswold answered
that this doctrine of checks contained more mischief than Pandora's box;
Bayard, that the checks were all directed to the executive, and that
they would check and counter-check until they _stopped the wheels of
government_.[6] When the President was manacled and at the mercy of the
House they would be satisfied. He held the executive to be the weakest
branch of the government, because its powers are defined; but the limits
of the House are undefined.

As the debate advanced, Nicholas declared that the purpose of the
Republicans was to define the executive power and to put an end to its
extension through their power over appropriations. Later he would bring
in a motion to do away with all foreign intercourse. Goodrich answered
that the office of foreign minister was created by the Constitution
itself, and the power of appointment was placed in the President. The
House might speculate upon the propriety of doing away with all
intercourse with foreign powers, but could not decide on it, for
political intercourse did not depend on the sending of ministers abroad.
Foreign ministers would come here and the Constitution required their
reception. The idea that we should