# Debates in the Several State Conventions/Volume 5/Congress Nov. 1782

Layout 4
Philadelphia: Lippincott, pages 1–9
DEBATES
in the
CONGRESS OF THE CONFEDERATION,
FROM NOVEMBER 14, 1782, TO FEBRUARY 13, 1783.
In Congress, Monday, November 4, 1782.
Elias Boudinot was chosen president, by the votes of New Hampshire, represented by John Taylor Gilman and Phillips White; Rhode Island, by Jonathan Arnold and David Howell; Connecticut, by Benjamin Huntington and Eliphalet Dyer; New Jersey, by Elias Boudinot and John Witherspoon; Pennsylvania, by Thomas Smith, George Clymer, and Henry Wynkoop; Delaware, by Thomas M'Kean and Samuel Wharton; Maryland, by John Hanson, Daniel Carroll, and William Hemsley; the votes of Virginia, represented by James Madison, and Theodorick Bland, and of South Carolina, represented by John Rutledge, Ralph Izard, David Ramsay, and John Lewis Gervais, were given to Mr. Bland; the vote of New York, represented by James Duane and Ezra L'Hommedieu, to Abner Nash; the vote of North Carolina, by Abner Nash, Hugh Williamson, and William Blount, to John Rutledge. Massachusetts, having no delegate but Samuel Osgood, had no vote. Georgia had no delegate.
A letter, dated October 30, 1782, from General Washington, was read, informing Congress of his putting the army into winter-quarters, and of the sailing of fourteen ships of the line from New York, supposed to be for the West Indies and without troops.
A letter, dated July 8, from Mr. Carmichael, at St. Ildefonso, informing Congress of the good effect, in Europe, of the rejection of the proposal of Carleton by Congress and the states; that the king of Spain, speaking of the news at table, praised greatly the probity of the Americans, raising his voice in such a manner that all the foreign ministers might hear him. Mr. Carmichael adds, that he had discovered that the Imperial and Russian ministers, by directions from their courts, had renewed their offered mediation to His Most Catholic Majesty, and that he suspected England was at the bottom of it. Quære.
A letter, dated Nantz, September 5, from Mr. Laurens, notifying his intention to return to America; that, being so advised by his friends, he had applied to the court of London for a passport via Falmouth; that Cornwallis had interested himself therein, and that the passport had been promised.
Tuesday, November 5.
A resolution passed, authorizing General Washington to obtain the exchange of two foreign officers, notwithstanding the resolution of the 16th of October, declaring that Congress will go into no partial exchanges until a general cartel be settled on national principles. This measure passed, without due consideration, by the votes of New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, and South Carolina. On the motion of Mr. OSGOOD, it was reconsidered, in order to refer the case to the secretary of war and General Washington, to take order. By Mr. MADISON opposition was made against any partial exchange in the face of the solemn declaration passed on the 16th of October, as highly dishonorable to Congress, especially as that declaration was made, in order to compel the enemy to a national convention with the United States. All exchanges had been previously made on the part of the former by the military authority of their generals. After the ​letter of General Carleton and Admiral Digby, notifying the purpose of the British king to acknowledge our independence, it was thought expedient by Congress to assume a higher tone. It was supposed, also, at the time of changing this mode, that it would be a test of the enemy's sincerity with regard to independence. As the trial had been made, and the British commander, either from a want of power or of will, had declined treating of a cartel on national ground, it would be peculiarly preposterous and pusillanimous in Congress to return to the former mode. An adjournment suspended the vote on the question for referring the case to the secretary and general to take order.
Wednesday, November 6.
No Congress.
Thursday, November 7.
On the reconsideration of the resolution for exchanging the two foreign officers, its repeal was unanimously agreed to.
A motion was made, by Mr. OSGOOD, to assign an early day for filling up the vacancy in the Court of Appeals. It was opposed on the principle of economy, and the expedient suggested, by Mr. DUANE, of empowering a single judge to make a court until the public finances would better bear the expense. In favor of the motion it was argued, first, that the proceedings of the court were too important to be confided to a single judge; secondly, that the decisions of a single judge would be less satisfactory in cases where a local connection of the judge subsisted with either of the parties; thirdly, that a single judge would be more apt, by erroneous decisions, to embroil the United States in disputes with foreign powers; fourthly, that if there were more than one judge, and one formed a court, there might, at the same time, be two interfering jurisdictions, and that, if any remedy could be applied to this difficulty, the course of decisions would inevitably be less uniform, and the provision of the Confederation for a court of universal appellant jurisdiction so far contravened; fifthly, as there was little reason to expect that the public finances would, during the war, be more equal to the public burdens than at present, and as the cases within the cognizance of the court would cease with the war, the qualification annexed to the expedient ought to have no effect. The motion was disagreed to, and a committee which had been appointed to prepare a new ordinance for constituting the Court of Appeals was filled up, and instructed to make report On the above motion, an opinion was maintained by Mr. RUTLEDGE that, as the court was, according to the ordinance in force, to consist of three judges, any two of whom to make a court, unless three were in actual appointment, the decisions of two were illegal.
Congress went into the consideration of the report of the committee on the case of Captain Asgill, the British officer allotted to suffer retaliation for the murder of Captain Huddy. The report proposed,—
"That, considering the letter of the 29th of July last, from the Count de Vergennes to General Washington, interceding for Captain Asgill, the commander-in-chief be directed to set him at liberty."
Previous to the receipt of this letter from the Count de Vergennes, Congress had been much divided as to the propriety of executing the retaliation, after the professions on the part of the British commanders of a desire to carry on the war on humane principles, and the promises of Sir Guy Carleton to pursue as effectually as possible the real authors of the murder; some supposing that these circumstances had so far changed the ground that Congress ought to recede from their denunciations,—others supposing that, as the condition of the menace had not been complied with, and the promises were manifestly evasive, a perseverance on the part of Congress was essential to their honor; and that, moreover, it would probably compel the enemy to give up the notorious author of the confessed murder. After the receipt of the letter from the Count de Vergennes, Congress were unanimous for a relaxation. Two questions, however, arose on the report of the committee. The first was, on what considerations the discharge of Captain Asgill ought to be grounded. On this question a diversity of opinions existed. Some concurred with the committee in resting the measure entirely on the intercession of the French court; alleging that this was the only plea that could apologize to the world for such a departure from the solemn declaration made both by Congress and the commander-in-chief. Others were of opinion that this plea, if publicly recited, would mark an obsequiousness to the French court, and an impeachment of the humanity of Congress, which greatly ​outweighed the circumstance urged in its favor; and that the disavowal of the outrage by the British general, and a solemn promise to pursue the guilty authors of it, afforded the most honorable ground on which Congress might make their retreat. Others, again, contended for an enumeration of all the reasons which led to the measure. Lastly, others were against a recital of any reason, and for leaving the justification of the measure to such reasons as would occur of themselves. This last opinion, after considerable discussions, prevailed, and the resolution was left as it stands on the Journals. The second question was, whether this release of Captain Asgill should be followed by a demand on General Carleton to fulfil his engagement to pursue with all possible effect the authors of the murder.
On one side, it was urged that such a demand would be nugatory, after the only sanction which could enforce it had been relinquished; that it would not be consistent with the letter of the Count de Vergennes, which solicited complete oblivion; and that it would manifest to the public a degree of confidence in British faith which was not felt and ought not to be affected.
On the opposite side, it was said that, after the confession and promise of justice by General Carleton, the least that could be done by General Washington would be to claim a fulfilment; that the intercession of the Count de Vergennes extended no farther than to prevent the execution of Captain Asgill and the substitution of any other innocent victim, and by no means was meant to shelter the guilty; that, whatever blame might fall on Congress for seeming to confide in the promises of the enemy, they would be more blamed if they not only dismissed the purpose of retaliating on the innocent, but at the same time omitted to challenge a promised vengeance on the guilty; that, if the challenge was not followed by a compliance on the part of the enemy, it would at least promulge and perpetuate, in justification of the past measures of Congress, the confessions and promises of the enemy on which the challenge was grounded, and would give weight to the charges both of barbarity and perfidy which had been so often brought against them.
In the vote on this question, six states were in favor of the demand, and the others either divided or against it.
Friday, November 8.
The preceding question having been taken again, on a further discussion of the subject, there were, in favor of the demand. New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and of the other states some were divided.
A motion was made by Mr. RUTLEDGE, of South Carolina, "That the commander-in-chief, and of the southern department, be respectively directed, whenever the enemy shall commit any act of cruelty or violence, contrary to the laws and usage of war, on the citizens of these states, to demand adequate satisfaction for the same; and in case such satisfaction shall not be immediately given, but refused or evaded under any pretext whatsoever, to cause suitable retaliation to be forthwith made on British officers, without waiting for directions from Congress on the subject."
When this motion was first made, it was espoused by many with great warmth, in particular by the delegates of North Carolina and South Carolina, as necessary to prevent the delays and uncertainties incident to a resort by the military commanders to Congress, and to convince the enemy that, notwithstanding the dismission of Captain Asgill, the general purpose of retaliation was firmly retained.
Against the motion it was objected, first, that the time and place in which it stood would certainly convey an indirect reprehension of General Washington, for bringing before Congress the case of Captain Asgill and Huddy; secondly, that it manifested a distrust in Congress, which, however well founded it might be with respect to retaliation, ought not to be proclaimed by themselves; thirdly, that political and national considerations might render the interference of the supreme authority expedient, of which the letter from the Count de Vergennes, in the late case, furnished an instance; that the resort of the military commanders to the sovereign for direction in great and difficult cases, such as those of retaliation would often prove, was a right of which they ought not to be deprived, but in the exercise of which they ought rather to be countenanced. These objections reduced the patrons of the motion to the delegates of North Carolina and South Carolina alone, or nearly no. In place of it, the declaratory motion on the journal was substituted. This again was objected to, as implying that, in the cases of retaliation taken up by the ​military commanders, they had proceeded on doubtful authority. To remove this objection, the amendment was proposed limiting the preamble to the single act of discharging Captain Asgill, This, however, was not entirely satisfactory, because that particular act could have no constructive influence on the reputed authority of the generals. It was acceded to by the votes of several who were apprehensive that, in case of rejecting it, the earnestness of some might obtrude a substitute less harmless, or that the resolution might pass without the preamble, and be more offensive to the commander-in-chief. The first apprehension was the prevailing motive with many to agree to the proposition on the final question.
This day a letter was received from General Washington, enclosing one, of the 25th of October, from Sir Guy Carleton, relative to the demand made on him for a liquidation of accounts, and payment of the balance due for the maintenance of prisoners of war, in which the latter used an asperity of language so much the reverse of his preceding correspondence, that many regard it as portending a revival of the war against the United States.
Saturday and Monday.
No Congress.
Tuesday, November 12.
The reappointment of Mr. Jefferson, as minister plenipotentiary for negotiating peace, was agreed to unanimously, and without a single adverse remark. The act took place in consequence of its being suggested, that the death of Mrs. Jefferson had probably changed the sentiments of Mr. Jefferson with regard to public life; and that all the reasons which led to his original appointment still existed, and, indeed, had acquired additional force from the improbability that Mr. Laurens would actually assist in the negotiation.
"A motion was made by Mr. RUTLEDGE, declaring that when a matter wax referred to any of the departments to take order, it was the sense and meaning of Congress that the same should be carried into execution." On this motion some argued that such reference amounted to an absolute injunction; others insisted that it gave authority, but did not absolutely exclude discretion in the executive departments. The explanation that was finally acquiesced in, as most rational and conformable to practice, was, that it not only gave authority, but expressed the sense of Congress that the measure ought to be executed; leaving it so far, however, in the discretion of the executive department, as that, in case it differed in opinion from Congress, it might suspend execution, and state the objections to Congress, that their final direction might be given. In the course of debate it was observed, by Mr. MADISON, that the practice of referring matters to take order, especially where money was to be issued, was extremely exceptionable, inasmuch as no entry of such proceedings was made on the journals, but only noted in a memorandum book kept by the secretary, and then sent to the department, with the reference to take order endorsed by the secretary, but not signed by him; so that the transaction, even where public in its nature, never came before the public eye, and the department was left with a precarious voucher for its justification. The motion was, in the end, withdrawn; the mover alleging that, as he only aimed at rendering an uncertain point clear, and this had been brought about by a satisfactory explanation, he did not wish for any resolution on the subject.
Wednesday, November 13.
No Congress.
Thursday, November 14.
The proceedings were confined to the report of the committee on the case of Vermont, entered on the journal. As it was notorious that Vermont had uniformly disregarded the recommendation of Congress of 1779, the report, which ascribed the evils prevalent in that district to a late act of New York, which violated that recommendation, was generally admitted to be unjust and unfair. Mr. HOWELL was the only member who openly supported it. The delegates from New York denied the fact that any violation had been committed on the part of that state. The temper of Congress, on this occasion, as the yeas and nays show, was less favorable to Vermont than on any preceding one—the effect probably of the territorial cession of New York to the United States. In the course of the debate, Mr. HOWELL cited the case of Kentucky as somewhat parallel to that of Vermont; said that the late creation of a separate court by Virginia, for the former, resembled the issuing of commissions ​by New York to the latter; that the jurisdiction would probably be equally resisted, and the same violences would follow as in Vermont He was called to order by Mr. MADISON. The PRESIDENT and the plurality of Congress supported and enforced the call.
No Congress till
Monday, 18th, and Tuesday, 19th, November.
The Journals sufficiently explain the proceedings of those days.
Wednesday, November 20.
Congress went into consideration of the report of a committee, consisting of Mr. Carroll, Mr. M'Kean, and Mr. Howell, on two memorials from the legislature of Pennsylvania. The memorials imported a disposition to provide for the creditors of the United States, within the state of Pennsylvania, out of the revenues allotted for Congress, unless such provision could be made by Congress. The report, as an answer to the memorials, acknowledged the merit of the public creditors, professed the wishes of Congress to do them justice; referring, at the same time, to their recommendation of the impost of five per cent., which had not been acceded to by all the states; to the requisition of one million two hundred thousand dollars, for the payment of one year's interest on the public debt; and to their acceptance of the territorial cession made by New York. After some general conversation, in which the necessity of the impost, as the only fund on which loans could be expected, and the necessity of loans to supply the enormous deficiency of taxes, were urged, as also the fatal tendency of the plan intimated in the memorials, as well to the Union itself as to the system actually adopted by Congress, the report was committed.
A motion was made by Mr. RUTLEDGE, seconded by Mr. WILLIAMSON, to instruct the committee to report the best mode of liquidating the domestic debts, and of obtaining a valuation of the land within the several states, as the Article of Confederation directs. The first part of the instruction was negatived, provision having been previously made on that head. In place of it, the superintendent of finance was instructed to report the causes which impede that provision. The second part was withdrawn by the mover. A committee, however, was afterwards appointed, consisting of Mr. Rutledge, Mr. Nash, Mr. Duane, Mr. Osgood, and Mr. Madison, to report the best scheme for a valuation.
Thursday, November 21.
A report was made by a committee, to whom had been referred several previous reports and propositions relative to the salaries of foreign ministers, delivering it as the opinion of the committee, that the salaries allowed to ministers plenipotentiary, to wit, two thousand five hundred pounds sterling, would not admit of reduction; but that the salary allowed to secretaries of legations, to wit, one thousand pounds sterling, ought to be reduced to five hundred pounds. This committee consisted of Mr. Duane, Mr. Izard, and Mr. Madison, the last of whom disagreed to the opinion of his colleagues as to the reduction of the two thousand five hundred pounds allowed to ministers plenipotentiary.
Against a reduction, it was argued that not only justice, but the dignity of the United States, required a liberal allowance to foreign servants; that gentlemen who had experienced the expense of living in Europe did not think that a less sum would be sufficient for a decent style; and that, in the instance of Mr. Arthur Lee, the expenses claimed by him, and allowed by Congress, exceeded the fixed salary in question.
In favor of a reduction were urged the poverty of the United States, the simplicity of republican governments, the inconsistency of splendid allowances to ministers whose chief duty lay in displaying the wants of their constituents, and soliciting a supply of them; and, above all, the policy of reconciling the army to the economical arrangements imposed on them, by extending the reform to every other department.
The result of this discussion was a reference of the report to another committee, consisting of Mr. Williamson, Mr. Osgood, and Mr. Carroll.
A motion was made by Mr. HOWELL, seconded by Mr. ARNOLD, recommending to the several states to settle with and satisfy, at the charge of the United ​States, all such temporary corps as had been raised by them respectively, with the approbation of Congress. The repugnance which appeared in Congress to go into so extensive and important a measure, at this time, led the mover to withdraw it.
A motion was made by Mr. MADISON, seconded by Mr. JONES,
"That the secretary of foreign affairs be authorized to communicate to foreign ministers, who may reside near Congress, all such articles of intelligence received by Congress as he shall judge fit; and that he have like authority with respect to acts and resolutions passed by Congress; reporting, nevertheless, the communications which, in all such cases, he shall have made."
It was objected, by some, that such a resolution was unnecessary, the secretary being already possessed of the authority; it was contended by others that he ought, previously to such communication, to report his intention to do so; others, again, were of opinion that it was unnecessary to report at all.
The motion was suggested by casual information from the secretary that he had not communicated to the French minister the reappointment of Mr. Jefferson, no act of Congress having empowered or instructed him to do so.
The motion was committed to Mr. Williamson, Mr. Madison, and Mr. Peters.
Friday, November 22.
A considerable time previous to this date, a letter had been received by Congress from Mr. Henry Laurens, informing them of his discharge from captivity, and of his having authorized in the British ministry an expectation that Earl Cornwallis should in his turn be absolved from his parole. Shortly after, a letter from Dr. Franklin informed Congress that, at the pressing instance of Mr. Laurens, and in consideration of the offer of General Burgoyne for Mr. Laurens by Congress, as well as the apparent reasonableness of the thing, he had executed an instrument setting Cornwallis at liberty from his parole, until the pleasure of Congress should be known. These papers had been committed to Mr. Rutledge, Mr. Montgomery, and Mr. Madison, who reported in favor of the ratification of the measure, against the opinion, however, of Mr. Rutledge, the first member of the committee. The report, after some discussion, had been recommitted, and had lain in their hands until, being called for, it was thought proper by the committee to obtain the sense of Congress on the main question, whether the act should be ratified or annulled; in order that a report might be made correspondent thereto. With this view, a motion was this day made by Mr. MADISON, seconded by Mr. OSGOOD, that the committee be instructed to report a proper act for the ratification of the measure. In support of this motion, it was alleged that, whenever a public minister entered into engagements without authority from his sovereign, the alternative which presented itself was either to recall the minister, or to support his proceedings, or perhaps both; that Congress had, by their resolution of the 17th day of September, refused to accept the resignation of Mr. Laurens, and had insisted on his executing the office of a minister plenipotentiary; and that, on the 20th day of September, they had rejected a motion for suspending the said resolution; that they had no option, therefore, but to fulfil the engagement entered into on the part of that minister; that it would be in the highest degree preposterous to retain him in so dignified and confidential a service, and at the same time stigmatize him by a disavowal of his conduct, and thereby disqualify him for a proper execution of the service; that it was improper to send him into negotiations with the enemy, under an impression of supposed obligations; that this reasoning was in a great degree applicable to the part which Dr. Franklin had taken in the measure; that, finally, the Marquis de la Fayette, who, in consequence of the liberation of Cornwallis, had undertaken an exchange of several officers of his family, would also participate in the mortification; that it was overrating far the importance of Cornwallis, to sacrifice all these considerations to the policy or gratification of prolonging his captivity.
On the opposite side, it was said that the British government having treated Mr. Laurens as a traitor, not as a prisoner of war, having refused to exchange him for General Burgoyne, and having declared, by the British general at New York, that he hid been freely discharged, neither Mr. Laurens nor Congress would be bound, either in honor or justice, to render an equivalent; and that policy absolutely required that so barbarous an instrument of war, and so odious an object to the people of the United States, should be kept as long as possible in the chains of captivity; that as the latest advices rendered it probable that Mr. Laurens was on his return to America, ​the commission for peace would not be affected by any mark of disapprobation which might fall on his conduct; that no injury could accrue to Dr. Franklin, because he had guarded his act by an express reservation for the confirmation or disallowance of Congress; that the case was the same with the Marquis de la Fayette; that the declaration against partial exchanges, until a cartel on national principles should be established, would not admit even an exchange antecedent thereto.
These considerations were, no doubt, with some, the sole motives for their respective votes. There were others, however, who at least blended with them, on one side, a personal attachment to Mr. Laurens, and on the other, a dislike to his character, and a jealousy excited by his supposed predilection for Great Britain, by his intimacy with some of the new ministry, by his frequent passing to and from Great Britain, and by his memorial, whilst in the Tower, to the Parliament The last consideration was the chief ground on which the motion had been made for suspending the resolution which requested his continuance in the commission for peace.
In this stage of the business, a motion was made by Mr. DUANE, seconded by Mr. RUTLEDGE, to postpone the consideration of it; which being lost, a motion was made by Mr. WILLIAMSON to substitute a resolution declaring that, as the British government had treated Mr. Laurens with so unwarrantable a rigor, and even as a traitor, and Cornwallis had rendered himself so execrable by his barbarities, Congress could not ratify his exchange. An adjournment was called for, in order to prevent a vote with so thin and divided a house.$^2$
No Congress till
Monday, November 25.
A letter from the lieutenant-governor of Rhode Island was read, containing evidence that some of the leaders in Vermont, and particularly Luke Nolton, who had been deputed in the year 1780 to Congress, as agent for that party opposed to its independence, but who had since changed sides, had been intriguing with the enemy in New York. The letter was committed. (See November the 27th.)
The consideration of the motion for ratifying the discharge of Cornwallis was resumed. Mr. WILLIAMSON renewed his motion, which failed. Mr. M'KEAN suggested the expedient of ratifying the discharge, on condition that a general cartel should be acceded to. This was relished at first by several members, but a development of its inefficacy, and inconsistency with national dignity, stifled it.
A motion was made by Mr. RUTLEDGE, seconded by Mr. RAMSAY, that the discharge should be ratified in case Mr. Laurens should undertake the office of commissioner for peace. This proposition was generally considered as of a very extraordinary nature, and, after a brief discussion, withdrawn.
In the course of these several propositions, most of the arguments stated on Friday lost were repeated. Colonel HAMILTON, who warmly and urgently espoused the ratification, as an additional argument, mentioned that some intimations had been given by Colonel Laurens, of the army, with the privity of General Washington, to Cornwallis, previous to his capitulation, that he might be exchanged for his father, then in the Tower.
The report of the committee, on Mr. MADISON'S motion, on the 21st instant, relative to the secretary of foreign affairs, passed without opposition.
Tuesday, November 26.
No Congress, but a grand committee composed of a member from each state.
The states of New Hampshire and Massachusetts, having redeemed more than their quota of the emissions prior to the 18th of March, 1780, had called on Congress to be credited for the surplus, on which the superintendent of finance reported, that they ought to be credited at the rate of one dollar specie for forty of the said emission, according to the act of March aforesaid. This report, being judged by Congress unjust, as the money had been called in by those states at a greater depreciation, was disagreed to. Whereupon, a motion was made by Mr. OSGOOD, that the states who had redeemed a surplus, should be credited for the same according to its current value at the time of redemption.
This motion, with a letter afterwards received from the state of Massachusetts on the same subject, was referred to the grand committee in question.
​The committee were unanimous that justice required an allowance to the states who should sink a surplus, to be apportioned on the different states. The different expedients were—
That Congress should renew their call on the states to execute the act of the 18th of March, 1780, and leave it to the states to levy the money by negotiations among themselves. This was Mr. HAMILTON'S idea. The objections against it were, that either nothing would be done in the case, or the deficient states would be at the mercy of the hoarding states; although the former were, perhaps, prevented from doing their part by invasions, and the prosperity of the latter enabled them to absorb an undue proportion.
By Mr. MADISON it was proposed that Congress should declare that, whenever it should appear that the whole of the bills emitted prior to the 18th of March, 1780, shall have been collected into the treasuries of the several states. Congress would proceed to give such credit for any surplus above the quotas assigned as equity might require, and debit the deficient states accordingly. In favor of this expedient, it was supposed that it would give a general encouragement to the states to draw the money outstanding among individuals into the public treasuries, and render a future equitable arrangement by Congress easy. The objections were, that it gave no satisfaction immediately to the complaining states, and would prolong the internal embarrassments which have hindered the states from a due compliance with the requisitions of Congress.
It was lastly proposed, by Mr. FITZSIMMONS, that the commissioners appointed to traverse the United States, for the purpose of settling accounts, should be empowered to take up all the outstanding old money, and issue certificates to be apportioned on the states as part of the public debt; the same rule to determine the credit for redemptions by the states. This proposition was, on the whole, generally thought by the committee least objectionable, and was referred to a sub-committee, composed of Mr. Rutledge, Mr. Fitzsimmons, and Mr. Hamilton, to be matured and laid before the grand committee. One consideration suggested by Mr. HAMILTON in its favor was, that it would multiply the advocates for federal funds for discharging the public debts, and tend to cement the Union.
Wednesday, November 27.
The report of the committee on the letter from the lieutenant-governor of Rhode Island (see November 25) was made, and taken into consideration.
It was moved by Mr. M'KEAN, to insert, in the first clause on the journal, after directing the apprehension by General Washington, "in order that the persons may be brought to trial." The reason urged for the motion was, that it might appear that the interposition was not meant to supersede civil process further than the necessity of the case required. Against the motion it was urged, that it would lead to discussions extremely perplexing and dilatory, and that it would be more proper after the apprehension should have taken place. The motion was lost, six states only being for it. (See p. 31.)
With respect to the main question, it was agreed on all sides, that it was indispensable to the safety of the United States that a traitorous intercourse between the inhabitants of Vermont and the enemy should be suppressed. There were, however, two modes proposed for the purpose, viz.: the direct and immediate interposition of the military force, according to the report; and, secondly, a reference in the first instance to the acting authority in Vermont, to be followed, in case of refusal or neglect of justice on the offenders, by an exertion of compulsive measures against the whole body.
In favor of the first mode it was said, that it would be the only effectual one, and the only one consistent with the part Congress had observed with regard to Vermont since a reference to the authority of Vermont, which had itself been suspected and accused, would certainly be followed at the best by a mere mock trial; and would, moreover, be a stronger recognition of its independence than Congress had made or meant to make.
In favor of the second mode it was alleged, that the body of the people in Vermont were well attached to the revolution; that a sudden march of military force into the country might alarm them; that if their rulers abetted the traitors, it would disgrace them in the eyes of their own people, and that Congress would be justified, in that event, to "split Vermont up among the other states." This expression, as well aa the ​arguments on this side, in general, came from Mr. HOWELL, of Rhode Island, whose object was to render the proceedings of Congress as favorable as possible to the independence of Vermont.
In order to compromise the matter, Mr. ARNOLD moved that the commander-in-chief should be directed to make a previous communication of his intentions, and the evidence on which they were founded, to the persons exercising authority within the district in question.
It was suggested by Mr. MADISON, as a better expedient, that he should be authorized to make the communication, if he should deem it conducive to the more certain apprehension of the suspected persons.
The delegates from New York said they would agree, that, after the apprehension should have been effected, the commander might give notice thereof to the persons exercising authority in Vermont.
It was finally compromised as it stands on the Journal.
In the course of the debate, Mr. CLARK informed Congress that the delegates of New Jersey could not vote for any act which might oppose force to the authority of Vermont, the legislature of that state having so construed the resolutions of the 7th and 20th of August as to be incompatible therewith, and accordingly instructed their delegates.
The communication directed to the states on this occasion, through the commander-in-chief, was objected to by several members as an improper innovation. The object of it was to prevent the risk of discovery, if sent before the plans which might be taken by General Washington were sufficiently advanced, of which he was the proper judge.
Thursday, November 28.
No Congress.
[Mr. Livingston, secretary of foreign affairs, called upon me, and mentioned his intention to resign in a short time his office; observing, that as he ultimately was decided to prefer his place of chancellor in New York to the other, and the two had become incompatible by the increase of business in the former, he thought it expedient not to return to Philadelphia, after a visit to New York, which was required by this increase. In the course of conversation, he took notice that the expense of his appointment under Congress had exceeded his salary about three thousand dollars per annum. He asked me whether it was probable Mr. Jefferson would accept the vacancy, or whether he would accept Mr. Jay's place in Spain, and leave the vacancy to the latter. I told him, I thought Mr. Jefferson would not accept it himself, and doubted whether he would concur in the latter arrangement; as well as whether Congress would be willing to part with Mr. Jay's services in the negotiations of peace; but promised to sound Mr. Jefferson on these points by the first opportunity.]