Sedgwick of Massachusetts made a strong speech to the same effect.  “Make your officer responsible,” he said with prophetic vision, “and the presumption is, that plans and information are properly digested; but if he can secrete himself behind the curtain, he might create a noxious influence, and not be answerable for the information he gives.”

The weight of the argument was heavily on the side of the supporters of the clause, and it looked as though the group of objectors would again be beaten.  But now a curious thing happened.  Fitzsimmons remarked that, if he understood the objection made to the clause, “it was a jealousy arising from the power given the Secretary to report plans of revenue to the House.”  He suggested that “harmony might be restored by changing the word ‘report’ into ’prepare’.”  Fitzsimmons was esteemed by the House because of his zealous support of the War of Independence and also because he stood high as a successful Philadelphia merchant, but he did not, however, rank as a leader.  Early in the session Ames described him as a man who “is supposed to understand trade, and he assumes some weight in such matters.  He is plausible, though not over civil; is artful, has a glaring eye, a down look, speaks low, and with apparent candor and coolness.”  He was hardly the man to guide the House on a matter pertaining to the organization of public authority.

While the removal issue was before the House, Madison had been prominent in debate, and had spoken with great power and earnestness; but up to this time he had said nothing on the issue now pending.  He now remarked that he did not believe that the danger apprehended by some really existed, but twice in his speech he admitted that “there is a small possibility, though it is but small, that an officer may derive a weight from this circumstance, and have some degree of influence upon the deliberations of the legislature.”  In its practical effect the speech favored the compromise which Fitzsimmons had just proposed; in fact, the only opposition to the change of phrasing now came from a few extremists who still clamored for the omission of the entire clause.  The decisive effect of Madison’s intervention was a natural consequence of the leadership he had held in the movement for the new Constitution and of his standing as the representative of the new Administration, of his possessing Washington’s confidence and acting as his adviser.  Washington, then being without a cabinet, had turned to Madison for help in discharging the duties of his office, and at Washington’s written request Madison had drafted for him his replies to the addresses of the House and the Senate at the opening of the session.  It was a matter of course in such circumstances that the House accepted Fitzsimmons’ amendment,—­“by a great majority,” according to the record,—­and thus the Secretary of the Treasury was shut out of the House and was condemned to work in the lobby.