While in this day and generation we may wonder at the doubts which so perplexed Jefferson in 1803 and at his estimate of the limitation of our fundamental law, and may be startled when we reflect that if they had been allowed to control his action we might have lost the greatest national opportunity which has been presented to our people since the adoption of the Constitution, we can not fail at the same time to be profoundly grateful that these doubts and this estimate were those of a man sincere enough and patriotic enough to listen to wise and able counselors and to give his country the benefit of his admission of the fallibility of his judgment. Thomas Jefferson never furnished better evidence of his greatness than when, just before the submission of the treaty to the Senate, he wrote to a distinguished Senator who differed with him on this question: "I confess that I think it important in the present case to set an example against broad construction by appealing for new power to the people. If, however, our friends shall think differently, certainly I shall acquiesce with satisfaction, confiding that the good sense of our country will correct the evil of construction when it shall produce ill effects." A recent writer on American diplomacy, who is not suspected of partiality for Jeffersonian political doctrine, gave in strong and graceful terms a good reason for our gratitude to-day, when, in referring to this subject, he wrote: "It was fortunate for the future of America that we had at the head of affairs a man of such broad views of our country's future. A less able President, with the same views as entertained by Jefferson as to the constitutionality of the measure would have put aside the opportunity. Jefferson put aside his preconceived views as to the fundamental law; or subordinated them to the will of the nation and welcomed the opportunity to open up the continent to the expansion of American democracy and free institutions." We are glad at this hour that Jefferson was wrong in his adverse construction of the Constitution and glad that he was liberal minded enough to see that he might be wrong. And yet may we not profitably pause here long enough to contrast in our thoughts the careful and reverent manner in which the restrictions of our fundamental law were scrutinized a hundred years ago with the tendency often seen in later times to flippantly attempt the adjustment of our Constitution to the purposes of interest and convenience?