# Debates in the Several State Conventions/Volume 5/Congress Feb. 1783

Layout 4
Philadelphia: Lippincott, pages 44–62
Saturday and Monday.
No Congress.
Tuesday, February 4.
An indecent and tart remonstrance was received from Vermont against the interposition of Congress in favor of the persons who had been banished, and whose effects had been confiscated. A motion was made by Mr. HAMILTON, seconded by Mr. DYER, to commit it Mr. WOLCOTT, who had always patronized the case of Vermont, wished to know the views of a commitment Mr. HAMILTON said his view was, to fulfil the resolution of Congress which bound them to enforce the measure. Mr. DYER said his was, that so dishonorable a menace might be aa quickly as possible renounced. He said General Washington was in favor of Vermont; that the principal people of New England were all supporters of them; and that Congress ought to rectify the error into which they had been led, without longer exposing themselves to reproach on this subject It was committed without dissent.
Mr. WILSON informed Congress that the legislature of Pennsylvania, having found the ordinance of Congress, erecting a court for piracies, so obscure on some points that they were at a loss to adapt their laws to it had appointed a committee to confer with a committee of Congress. He accordingly moved, in behalf of the Pennsylvania delegation, that a committee might be appointed for that purpose. After some objections, by Mr. MADISON, against the impropriety of holding a communication with Pennsylvania through committees, when the purpose might be as well answered by a memorial, or an instruction to its delegates, a committee was appointed, consisting of Mr. Rutledge, Mr. Madison, and Mr. Wilson.
The report proposing a commutation for the half-pay due to the army was taken up. On n motion to allow five and a half years' whole pay in gross to be funded and bear interest,—this being the rate taken from Dr. Price's calculation of annuities,—New Hampshire was, no; Rhode Island, no; Connecticut, no; New ​Jersey, no; Virginia, ay, (Mr. LEE, no;) other states, ay; so the question wad lost. Five years was then proposed, on which New Hampshire was, no; Rhode Island, no; Connecticut, no; New Jersey, no: so there were but six ayes, and the proposition was lost. Mr. WILLIAMSON proposed five and a quarter, and called for the yeas and nays. Messrs. WOLCOTT and DYER observed, that they were bound by instructions on this subject. Mr. ARNOLD said the case was the same with him. They also queried the validity of the act of Congress which had stipulated half-pay to the army, as it had passed before the Confederation, and by a vote of less than seven states. Mr. MADISON said that he wished, if the yeas and nays were called, it might be on the true calculation, and not on an arbitrary principle of compromise; as the latter, standing singly on the Journal, would not express the true ideas of the yeas, and might even subject them to contrary interpretations. He said that the act was valid, because it was decided according to the rule then in force; and that, as the officers had served under the faith of it, justice fully corroborated it, and that he was astonished to hear these principles controverted. He was also astonished to hear objections against a commutation come from states, in compliance with whose objections against the half-pay itself this expedient had been substituted. Mr. WILSON expressed his surprise, also, that instructions should be given which militated against the most peremptory and lawful engagements of Congress, and said that, if such a doctrine prevailed, the authority of the Confederacy was at an end. Mr. ARNOLD said that he wished the report might not be decided on at this time; that the Assembly of Rhode Island was in session, and he hoped to receive their further advice. Mr. BLAND enforced the ideas of Mr. Madison and Mr. Wilson. Mr. GILMAN thought it would be best to refer the subject of half-pay to the several states, to be settled between them and their respective lines. By general consent the report lay over.
Mr. LEE communicated to Congress a letter he had received from Mr. Samuel Adams, dated Boston, December 22, 1782, introducing Mr. ———, from Canada, as a person capable of giving intelligence relative to affairs in Canada, and the practicability of uniting that province with the confederated states. The letter was committed.
In committee of the whole on the report concerning a valuation of the lands of the United States,—
A motion was made by Mr. RUTLEDGE, which took the sense of Congress on this question—whether the rule of apportionment, to be grounded on the proposed valuation, should continue in force until revoked by Congress, or a period be now fixed beyond which it should not continue in force. The importance of the distinction lay in the necessity of having seven votes on every act of Congress. The Eastern States were, generally, for the latter, supposing that the Southern States, being impoverished by the recent havoc of the enemy, would be underrated in the first valuation. The Southern States were, for the same reason, interested in favor of the former. On the question there were six ayes only, which produced a dispute whether, in a committee of the whole, a majority would decide, or whether seven votes were necessary.
In favor of the first rule, it was contended by Mr. GORHAM and others, that in committees of Congress the rule always is, that a majority decides.
In favor of the latter, it was contended that, if the rule of other committees applies to a committee of the whole, the vote should be individual per capita, as well as by a majority; that in other deliberative assemblies the rules of voting; were not varied in committees of the whole, and that it would be inconvenient in practice to report to Congress, as the sense of the body, a measure approved by four or five states, since there could be no reason to hope that, in the same body, in a different form, seven states would approve it; and, consequently, a waste of time would be the result.
The committee rose, and Congress adjourned.
Wednesday, February 5, and Thursday, February 6.
In order to decide the rule if voting in a committee of the whole, before Congress should go into the said committee, Mr. BLAND moved that the rule should be to vote by states, and the majority of states in committee to decide. Mr. WILSON moved to postpone Mr. Bland's motion, in order to resolve that the rule be to vote by states, and according to the same rules which govern Congress. As this general ​question was connected, in the minds of members, with the particular question to which it was to be immediately applied, the motion for postponing was negatived chiefly by the Eastern States. A division of the question on Mr. Bland's motion was then called for, and the first part was agreed to, as on the Journal. The latter clause—to wit, a majority to decide—was negatived; so nothing as to the main point was determined. In this uncertainty, Mr. OSGOOD proposed that Congress should resolve itself into a committee of the whole. Mr. CARROLL, as chairman, observed that, as the same difficulty would occur, he wished Congress would, previously, direct him how to proceed. Mr. HAMILTON proposed that the latter clause of Mr. Bland's motion should be reconsidered, and agreed to, wrong as it was, rather than have no rule at all. In opposition to which it was said, that there was no more reason why one, and that not the minor, side should wholly yield to the inflexibility of the other, than vice versa; and that, it they should be willing to yield on the present occasion, it would be better to do it tacitly than to saddle themselves with an express and perpetual rule which they judged improper. This expedient was assented to, and Congress accordingly went into a committee of the whole.
The points arising on the several amendments proposed were, first, the period beyond which the rule of the first valuation should not be in force. On this point Mr. COLLINS proposed five years, Mr. BLAND ten years, Mr. BOUDINOT seven years: New Jersey having instructed her delegates thereon. The Connecticut delegates proposed three years. On the question for three years. New Hampshire, no; Massachusetts, no; Rhode Island, ay; Connecticut, ay; all the other states, no. On the question for five years, all the states ay, except Connecticut.
The second point was whether, and how far, the rule should be retrospective. On this point the same views operated as on the preceding. Some were against any retrospection, others for extending it to the whole debt, and others for extending it so far as was necessary for liquidating and closing the accounts between the United States and each individual state.
The several motions expressive of these different ideas were at length withdrawn, with a view that the point might be better digested, and more accurately brought before Congress; so the report was agreed to in the committee, and made to Congress. When the question was about to be put, Mr. MADISON observed that the report lay in a great degree of confusion; that several points had been decided in a way too vague and indirect to ascertain the real sense of Congress; that other points involved in the subject had not received any decision; and proposed the sense of Congress should be distinctly and successively taken on all of them, and the result referred to a special committee, to be digested, &c. The question was, however, put, and negatived, the votes being as they appear on the Journal. The reasons on which Mr. Hamilton's motion was grounded appear from its preamble.
Friday, February 7.
On motion of Mr. LEE, who had been absent when the report was yesterday negatived, the matter was reconsidered. The plan of taking the sense of Congress on the several points, as yesterday proposed by Mr. Madison, was generally admitted as proper.
The first question proposed in committee of the whole by Mr. MADISON, was: Shall a valuation of land within the United States, as directed by the Articles of Confederation, be immediately attempted?—Eight ayes; New York, only, no. The states present were New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina; Rhode Island, one member; Maryland, one.
By Mr. WILSON—
Q. Shall each state be called on to return to the United States, in Congress assembled, the number of acres granted to, or surveyed for, any person, and also the number of buildings within it?—Eight ayes; North Carolina, no—supposing this not to accord with the plan of referring the valuation to the states, which was patronized by that delegation. A supplement to this question was suggested as follows:—
Q. Shall the male inhabitants be also returned, the blacks and whites being therein distinguished?—Ay; North Carolina, no—for the same reason as above Connecticut divided.
​By Mr. MADISON—
Q. Shall the states be called on to return to Congress an estimate of the value of their lands, with the buildings and improvements within each, respectively?
After some discussion on this point, in which the inequalities which would result from such estimates were set forth at large, and effects of such an experiment in Virginia had been described by Mr. Mercer, and a comparison of an average valuation in Pennsylvania and Virginia, which amounted in the latter to fifty per cent, more than in the former,—although the real value of land in the former was confessedly thrice that of the latter,—had been quoted by Mr. Madison, the apprehensions from a reference of any thing more to the states than a report of simple facts increased; and on the vote the states were as follows: New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, no—Mr. Bland, ay; Mr. Lee, silent; Connecticut, North Carolina, South Carolina, ay; New York, divided: so it passed in the negative.
By Mr. MADISON—
Q. Shall a period be now fixed, beyond which the rule to be eventually established by Congress shall not be in force?—ay, unanimously.
By Mr. MADISON—
Q. What shall that period be? Connecticut was again for three years; which being rejected, five years passed unanimously.
By Mr. MADISON—
Q. Shall the rule so to be established have retrospective operation, so far as may be necessary for liquidating and closing the accounts between the United States and each particular state?—ay; Connecticut, no. Mr. DYER and Mr. MERCER understood this as making the amount of the several requisitions of Congress, and not of the payments by the states, the standard by which the accounts were to be liquidated, and thought the latter the just quantum for retrospective appointment. Their reasoning, however, was not fully comprehended.
Saturday, February 8.
Committee of the Whole.
Mr. MERCER revived the subject of retrospective operation, and after it had been much discussed, and the difference elucidated which might happen between apportioning, according to the first valuation which should be made, merely the sums paid on the requisitions of Congress, and apportioning the whole requisitions, consisting of the sums paid and the deficiencies, which might not be paid until some distant day, when a different rule, formed under different circumstances of the states, should be in force, the assent to the last question, put yesterday, was reversed, and there was added to the preceding question, after "five years,"—"and shall operate as a rule for apportioning the sums necessary to be raised for supporting the public credit and other contingent expenses, and for adjusting all accounts between the United States and each particular state, for moneys paid or articles furnished by them, and for no other purpose whatsoever." On this question there were six ayes; so it became a vote of the committee of the whole.
Monday, February 10.
For the report of the committee on the resolutions of Virginia, concerning the contract under which tobacco was to be exported to New York, and the admission of circumstantial proof of accounts against the United States, where legal vouchers had been destroyed by the enemy, see the Journal of this date.
Mr. MERCER informed Congress that this matter had made much noise in Virginia; that she had assented to the export of the first quantity, merely out of respect to Congress, and under an idea that her rights of sovereignty had been encroached upon; and that, as a further quantity had been exported without the license of the state, the question was unavoidable, whether the authority of Congress extended to the act. He wished, therefore, that Congress would proceed to decide the question.
Mr. FITZSIMMONS, in behalf of the committee, observed that they went no further than to examine whether the proceedings of the officers of Congress were conformable to the resolution of Congress, and not whether the latter were within the power of Congress.
​Mr. LEE said, the report did not touch the point; that the additional quantity had been exported without application to the state, although the first quantity was licensed by the state with great reluctance, in consequence of the request of Congress, and of assurances against a repetition; and that the superintendent and secretary of Congress ought, at any rate, to have made application to the executive before they proceeded to further exportations.
Mr. RUTLEDGE said, the report went to the very point, that Virginia suspected the resolutions of Congress had been abused by the officers of Congress, and the report showed that no such abuse had taken place; that if this information was not satisfactory, and the state should contest the right of Congress in the case, it would then be proper to answer it on that point, but not before. He said, if the gentleman (Mr. Lee) meant the committee, authorized by Congress on the 29th day of May, 1782, to make explanations on the subject to the legislature of Virginia, had given the assurances he mentioned, he must be mistaken; for none such had been given. He had, he said, formed notes of his remarks to the legislature; but, according to his practice, had destroyed them after the occasion was over, and therefore could only assert this from memory; that nevertheless his memory enabled him to do it with certainty.
Mr. LEE, in explanation, said he did not mean the committee; that the abuse complained of was not that the resolutions of Congress had been exceeded, but that the export had been undertaken without the sanction of the state. If the acts were repeated, he said, great offence would be given to Virginia.
The report was agreed to, as far as the tobacco was concerned, without a dissenting voice; Mr. Lee uttering a no, but not loud enough to be heard by Congress or the Chair. The part relating to the loss of vouchers was unanimously agreed to.
Committee of the Whole.
The report for the valuation of land was amended by the insertion of "distinguishing dwelling-houses from others."
The committee adjourned, and the report was made to Congress.
Mr. LEE and Mr. GERVAIS moved that the report might be postponed to adopt another plan, to wit,—
"To call on the states to return a valuation, and to provide that, in case any return should not be satisfactory to all parties, persons should be appointed by Congress, and others by the states, respectively, to adjust the case finally."
On this question New Hampshire was divided; Massachusetts, no; Rhode Island, ay; Connecticut, no; New York, divided; New Jersey, no; Pennsylvania, no; Virginia, no; Mr. Madison and Mr. Jones, no; Mr. Lee and Mr. Bland, ay; North Carolina, ay; South Carolina, ay: so the motion failed.
Tuesday, February 11.
The report made by the committee of the whole having decided that the mode to be grounded on the return of facts called for from the states ought now to be ascertained,—
Mr. RUTLEDGE proposed, seconded by Mr. GILMAN, that the states should be required to name commissioners, each of them one, who, or any nine of them, should be appointed and empowered by Congress, to settle the valuation. Mr. Gorham was against it, as parting with a power which might be turned by the states against Congress. Mr. Wolcott against it; declares his opinion that the Confederation ought to be amended by substituting numbers of inhabitants as the rule; admits the difference between freemen and blacks; and suggests a compromise, by including in the numeration such blacks only as were within sixteen and sixty years of age. Mr. WILSON was against relinquishing such a power to the states; proposes that the commissioners be appointed by Congress, and their proceedings subject to the ratification of Congress. Mr. MERCER was for submitting them to the revision of Congress; and this amendment was received. Mr. PETERS against the whole scheme of valuation, as holding out false lights and hopes to the public. Mr. RUTLEDGE thinks commissioners appointed by the states may be trusted, as well as commissioners appointed by Congress, or as Congress themselves. Mr. WILSON observes that, if appointed by the states, they win bring with them the spirit of agents for their respective states; if appointed by Congress, they will consider themselves as servants of the United States at large, and be more impartial.
​Mr. GORHAM, seconded by Mr. Wilson, proposes to postpone, in order to require the states to appoint commissioners to give Congress information for a basis for a valuation. On the question. New Hampshire, no; Massachusetts, ay; Rhode Island, ay; Connecticut, ay; New York, ay; New Jersey, ay; Pennsylvania, ay; Virginia, no; North Carolina, no; South Carolina, no: so it was decided in the negative.
To make the resolution more clear, after the words "or any nine of them," the words "concurring therein" were added. Mr. RUTLEDGE says, that subjecting the acts of the commissioners to the revision of Congress had so varied his plan that he should be against it. On the main question. New Hampshire, ay; Massachusetts, ay; Rhode Island, ay; Connecticut, ay; New York, no; New Jersey, no; Pennsylvania, ay; Virginia, ay, (Mr. Madison, no;) North Carolina, ay; South Carolina, ay: so it was agreed to; and the resolution, declaring that a mode should now be fixed, struck out, as executed. The whole report was then committed to a special committee, consisting of Mr. Rutledge, Mr. Gorham, and Mr. Gilman, to be formed into a proper act.
Wednesday, February 12.
The declaration of Congress as to general funds, passed on January the 29th, appears on the Journals; and Congress resolved itself into a committee of the whole, in order to consider the funds to be adopted and recommended to the states.
On motion of Mr. MIFFLIN, the impost of five per cent. was taken into consideration. As it seemed to be the general opinion that some variations from the form in which it had been first recommended would be necessary for reconciling the objecting states to it, it was proposed that the sense of the committee should be taken on that head. The following questions were accordingly propounded:—
Question 1. Is it expedient to alter the impost as recommended on the ——— day of ———, 1781?
Mr. LEE said the states, particularly Virginia, would never concur in the measure unless the term of years were limited, the collection left to the states, and the appropriation annually laid before them.
Mr. WOLCOTT thought the revenue ought to be commensurate, in point of time as well as amount, to the debt; that there was no danger in trusting Congress, considering the responsible mode of its appointment; and that to alter the plan would be a mere condescension to the prejudices of the states.
Mr. GORHAM favored the alteration for the same reason as Mr. Lee. He said private letters informed him that the opposition to the impost law was gaining ground in Massachusetts, and the repeal of Virginia would be very likely to give that opposition the ascendance. He said, our measures must be accommodated to the sentiments of the states, whether just or unreasonable.
Mr. HAMILTON dissented from the particular alterations suggested, but did not mean to negative the question.
Mr. BLAND was for conforming to the ideas of the states as far as would, in any manner, consist with the object.
On the question, the affirmative was unanimous, excepting the voice of Mr. WOLCOTT.
Question 2. Shall the term of duration be limited to twenty-five years?
Mr. MERCER professed a decided opposition to the principle of general revenue; observed that the liberties of England had been preserved by a separation of the purse from the sword; that, until the debts should be liquidated and apportioned, he would never assent, in Congress or elsewhere, to the scheme of the impost.
Mr. BLAND proposed an alternative of twenty-five years, or until the requisitions of Congress, according to the Articles of Confederation, shall be found adequate. On this proposition the votes were, of New Hampshire, divided; Rhode Island, no; Connecticut, no; New York, no; New Jersey, no; Pennsylvania, no; Virginia, ay; North Carolina, divided; South Carolina, ay: so the proposition was not agreed to.
On the main question for twenty-five years, it was voted in the affirmative.
Question 3. Shall the appointment of collectors be left to the states, they to be amenable to, and under the control of, Congress? — Ay; several states, as New York and Pennsylvania, dissenting.
Thursday, February 13.
The committee report to Congress the alterations yesterday agreed on with respect to the five per cent. impost.
​The deputy secretary at war reported to Congress the result of the inquiry directed by them, on the 24th of January, into the seizure of goods destined for the British prisoners of war, under passport from General Washington. From this report, it appeared that some of the seizors had pursued their claim under the law of the state; and that, in consequence, the goods had been condemned and ordered for sale. The papers were referred to a committee, consisting of Mr. Rutledge, Mr. Gorham, and Mr. Lee, who, after having retired for a few moments, reported that the secretary of war should be authorized and directed to cause the goods to be taken from the places where they had been deposited; to employ such force as would be sufficient; and that the Duke de Lauzun, whose legion was in the neighborhood, should be requested to give the secretary such aid as he might apply for.
This report was generally regarded by Congress as intemperate, and the proposed recourse to the French legion as flagrantly imprudent Mr. HAMILTON said, that if the object had been to embroil the country with their allies, the expedient would have been well conceived. He added, that the exertion of force would not, under these circumstances, meet the sense of the people at large. Mr. GORHAM said, he denied this with respect to the people of Massachusetts.
Mr. LEE, on the part of the committee, said that the Duke de Lauzun had been recurred to as being in the neighborhood, and having cavalry under his command, which would best answer the occasion; and that the report was founded on wise and proper considerations.
Mr. MERCER, Mr. WILLIAMSON, Mr. RAMSAY, Mr. WILSON, and Mr. MADISON, strenuously opposed the report, as improper altogether, as far as it related to the French legion, and in other respects so until the state of Pennsylvania should, on summons, refuse to restore the articles seized.
Mr. RUTLEDGE, with equal warmth, contended for the expediency of the measures reported.
Mr. MERCER and Mr. MADISON at length proposed that Congress should assert the right on this subject, and summon the state of Pennsylvania to redress the wrong immediately. The report was recommitted, with this proposition, and Mr. Wilson and Mr. Mercer added to the committee.
The speech of the king of Great Britain on the 5th of December, 1782, arrived and produced great joy in general, except among the merchants who had great quantities of merchandise in store, the price of which immediately and materially fell. The most judicious members of Congress, however, suffered a great diminution of their joy from the impossibility of discharging the arrears and claims of the army, and their apprehensions of new difficulties from that quarter.
Friday, February 14.
Mr. Jones, Mr. Rutledge, and Mr. Wilson, to whom had been referred, on Tuesday last, a letter from Mr. Jefferson, stating the obstacles to his voyage, reported that they had conferred with the agent of marine, who said there was a fit vessel ready for sea in this port, but was of opinion the arrival of the British king's speech would put a stop to the sailing of any vessels from the ports of America until so nothing definitive should take place; and that if Congress judged fit that Mr. Jefferson should proceed immediately to Europe, it would be best to apply to the French minister for one of the frigates in the Chesapeake. The general opinion of Congress seemed to be that, under present circumstances, he should suspend his voyage until the further order of Congress; and on motion of Mr. GORHAM, seconded by Mr. WOLCOTT, the secretary of foreign affairs was accordingly, without opposition, directed to make this known to Mr. Jefferson.
The report of the committee for obtaining a valuation of land was made and considered. See the Journal of this date.
Monday, February 17.
The report respecting a valuation of land being lost, as appears from the Journal, was revived by the motion of Mr. DYER, seconded by Mr. MERCER, as it stands the appointment of commissioners by Congress for adjusting the quotas being changed for a grand committee, consisting of a delegate present from each state, for that purpose.
​A motion was made to strike out the clause requiring the concurrence of nine voices in the report to Congress; and on the question, Shall the words stand? the states being equally divided, the clause was expunged. It was therefore reconsidered and reinserted.
The whole report was agreed to, with great reluctance, by almost all—by many from a spirit of accommodation only, and the necessity of doing something on the subject. Some of those who were in the negative, particularly Mr. Madison, thought the plan not within the spirit of the Confederation; that it would be ineffectual, and that the states would be dissatisfied with it.
A motion was made by Mr. HAMILTON, seconded by Mr. FITZSIMMONS, to renew the recommendation of the ——— February, 1782, for vesting Congress with power to make abatements in favor of states, parts of which had been in possession of the enemy. It was referred to a committee.
Tuesday, February 18.
Committee of the Whole, on the Subject of general Funds.
Mr. RUTLEDGE and Mr. MERCER proposed, that the impost of five per cent., as altered and to be recommended to the states, should be appropriated exclusively, first to the interest of the debt to the army, and then, in case of surplus, to the principal. Mr. Rutledge urged, in support of this motion, that it would be best to appropriate this fund to the army as the most likely to be obtained, as their merits were superior to those of all other creditors, and as it was the only thing that promised, what policy absolutely required, some satisfaction to them.
Mr. WILSON replied, that he was so sensible of the merits of the army, that if any discrimination were to be made among the public creditors, he should not deny them perhaps a preference, but that no such discrimination was necessary; that the ability of the public was equal to the whole debt, and that before it be split into different descriptions, the most vigorous efforts ought td be made to provide for it entire; that we ought first, at least, to see what funds could be provided, to see how far they would be deficient, and then, in the last necessity only, to admit discriminations.
Mr. GORHAM agreed with Mr. Wilson. He said an exclusive appropriation to the army would, in some places, be unpopular, and would prevent a compliance of those states whose citizens were the greatest creditors of the United States, since, without the influence of the public creditors, the measure could never be carried through the states; and these, if excluded from the appropriation, would be even interested in frustrating the measure, and keeping, by that means, their cause a common one with the army.
Mr. MERCER applauded the wisdom of the Confederation in leaving the provision of money to the states; said that when this plan was deviated from by Congress, their objects should be such as were best known and most approved; that the states were jealous of one another, and would not comply unless they were fully acquainted with, and approved, the purpose to which their money was to be applied; that nothing less than such a preference of the army would conciliate them; that no civil creditor would dare to put his claims on a level with those of the army; and insinuated that the speculations which had taken place in loan-office certificates might lead to a revision of that subject on principles of equity; that if too much were asked from the states, they would grant nothing. He said that it had been alleged, that the large public debt, if funded under Congress, would be a cement of the Confederacy. He thought, on the contrary, it would hasten its dissolution; as the people would feel its weight in the most obnoxious of all forms—that of taxation.
On the question, the states were all no, except South Carolina, which was ay.
A motion was made by Mr. RUTLEDGE, seconded by Mr. BLAND, to change lie plan of the impost in such a manner as that a tariff might be formed for all articles that would admit of it; and that a duty, ad valorem, should be collected only on such articles as would. not admit of it.
In support of such alteration, it was urged that it would lessen the opportunity of collusion between collector and importer, and would be more equal among the states. On the other side, it was alleged that the states had not objected to that ​part of the plan, and a change might produce objections; that the nature and variety of the imports would require necessarily the collection to be ad valorem on the greater part of them; that the forming of a book of rates would be attended with great difficulties and delays; and that it would be in the power of Congress, by raising the rate of the article, to augment the duty beyond the limitation of five per cent, and that this consideration would excite objections on the part of the states. The motion was negatived.
A motion was made by Mr. HAMILTON, seconded by Mr. WILSON, that, whereas Congress were desirous that the motives and views of their measures should be known to their constituents in all cases where the public safety would admit, when the subject of finances was under debate, the doors of Congress should be open. Congress adjourned, it being the usual hour, and the motion being generally disrelished. The Pennsylvania delegates said, privately, that they had brought themselves into a critical situation by dissuading their constituents from separate provision for creditors of the United States, within Pennsylvania, hoping that Congress would adopt a general provision, and they wished their constituents to see the prospect themselves, and to witness the conduct of their delegates. Perhaps the true reason was, that it was expected the presence of public auditors, numerous and weighty, in Philadelphia, would have an influence, and that it would be well for the public to come more fully to the knowledge of the public finances.
A letter was received from Mr. William Lee, at Ghent, notifying the desire of the emperor of Austria to form a commercial treaty with the United States, and to have a resident from them. Committed to Messrs. Izard, Gorham, and Wilson.
Wednesday, February 19.
The motion made yesterday by Mr. HAMILTON, for opening the doors of Congress when the subject of the finances should be under debate, was negatived Pennsylvania alone being ay.
A motion was made by Mr. HAMILTON, seconded by Mr. BLAND, to postpone the clause of the report, made by the committee of the whole, for altering the impost, viz., the clause limiting its duration to twenty-five years, in order to substitute a proposition declaring it to be inexpedient to limit the period of its duration; first, because it ought to be commensurate to the duration of the debt; secondly, because it was improper in the present stage of the business, and all the limitation of which it would admit had been defined in the resolutions of ———, 1782.
Mr. HAMILTON said, in support of his motion, that it was in vain to attempt to gain the concurrence of the states by removing the objections publicly assigned by them against the impost; that these were the ostensible and not the true objections; that the true objection on the part of Rhode Island was the interference of the impost with the opportunity afforded by their situation of levying contributions on Connecticut, &c., which received foreign supplies through the ports of Rhode Island; that the true objection on the part of Virginia was her having little share in the debts due from the United States, to which the impost would be applied; that a removal of the avowed objections would not therefore remove the obstructions, whilst it would admit, on the part of Congress, that their first recommendation went beyond the absolute exigencies of the public; that Congress, having taken a proper ground at first, ought to maintain it till time should convince the states of the propriety of the measure.
Mr. BLAND said, that as the debt had been contracted by Congress with the concurrence of the states, and Congress was looked to for payment by the public creditors, it was justifiable and requisite in them to pursue such means as would be adequate to the discharge of the debt; and that the means would not be adequate, if limited in duration to a period within which no calculations had shown that the debt would be discharged.
On the motion, the states were—New Hampshire, divided; Massachusetts, no; Rhode Island, ay; Connecticut, divided; New York, ay; New Jersey, ay; Pennsylvania, ay; Virginia, no, (Mr. Bland, ay;) North Carolina, ay; South Carolina, ay. Mr. RUTLKDGE said ho voted for postponing, not in order to agree to Mr. Hamilton's motion, but to move, and he accordingly renewed the motion made in committee of the whole, viz., that the impost should be appropriated exclusively to the army. The motion was seconded by Mr. LEE.
​Mr. HAMILTON opposed the motion strenuously; declared that, as a friend to the army as well as to the other creditors and to the public at large, he would never assent to such a partial distribution of justice; that the different states, being differently attached to different branches of the public debt, would never concur in establishing a fund which was not extended to every branch; that it was impolitic to divide the interests of the civil and military creditors, whose joint efforts in the states would be necessary to prevail on them to adopt a general revenue.
Mr. MERCER favored the measure, as necessary to satisfy the army, and to avert the consequences which would result from their disappointment on this subject. He pronounced, that the army would not disband until satisfactory provision should be made, and tint this was the only attainable provision; but he reprobated the doctrine of permanent debt supported by a general and permanent revenue, and said that it would be good policy to separate, instead of cementing, the interests of the army and the other public creditors; insinuating that the claims of the latter were not supported by justice, and that the loan-office certificates ought to be revised.
Mr. FITZSIMMONS observed, that it was unnecessary to make a separate appropriation of the impost to one particular debt; since, if other funds should be superadded, there would be more simplicity and equal propriety in an aggregate fund for the aggregate debt funded, and that, if no other funds should be superadded, it would be unjust and impolitic; that the states whose citizens were the chief creditors of the United States would never concur in such a measure; that the mercantile interest, which comprehended the chief creditors of Pennsylvania, had by their influence obtained the prompt and full concurrence of that state in the impost; and if that influence were excluded, the state would repeal its law. He concurred with those who hoped the army would not disband unless provision should be made for doing them justice.
Mr. LEE contended, that, as every body felt and acknowledged the force of the demands of the army, an appropriation of the impost to them would recommend it to all the states; that distinct and specific appropriation of distinct revenue was the only true system of finance, and was the practice of all other nations who were enlightened on this subject; that the army had not only more merit than the mercantile creditors, but that the latter would be more able, on a return of peace, to return to the business which would support them.
Mr. MADISON said, that, if other funds were to be superadded, as the gentleman (Mr. Rutledge) who made the motion admitted, it was at least premature to make the appropriation in question; that it would be best to wait till all the funds were agreed upon, and then appropriate them respectively to those debts to which they should be best fitted; that it was probable the impost would be judged best adapted to the foreign debt, as the foreign creditors could not, like the domestic, ever recur to particular states for separate payments; and that, as this would be a revenue little felt, it would be prudent to assign it to those for whom the states would care least, leaving more obnoxious revenues for those creditors who would excite the sympathy of their countrymen, and could stimulate them to do justice.
Mr. WILLIAMSON was against the motion; said he did not wish the army to disband until proper provision should be made for them; that if force should be necessary to excite justice, the sooner force was applied the better.
Mr. WILSON was against the motion of Mr. Rutledge; he observed that no instance occurred in the British history of finance in which distinct appropriations had been made to distinct debts already contracted; that a consolidation of funds had been the result of experience; that an aggregate fund was more simple, and would be most convenient; that the interest of the whole funded debt ought to be paid before the principal of any part of it; and, therefore, in case of surplus of the impost beyond the interest of the army debt, it ought, at any rate, to be applied to the interest of the other debts, and not, as the motion proposed, to the principal of the army debt He was fully of opinion that such a motion would defeat itself; that, Of dividing the interest of the civil from that of the military creditors, provision for the latter would be frustrated.
On the question on Mr. Rutledge's motion, the states were—New Hampshire, no; Massachusetts, no; Connecticut, no; New Jersey, no; Virginia, no; (Mr. Lee and Mr. Mercer, ay;) North Carolina, no; South Carolina, ay.
On the clause reported by the committee of the whole, in favor of limiting the impost to twenty-five years, the states were — New Hampshire, ay; Massachusetts, ay; ​Connecticut, divided; (Mr. Dyer, ay; Mr. Wolcott, no;) New York, no; New Jersey, no; Pennsylvania, ay; (Mr. Wilson and Mr. Fitzsimmons, no;) Virginia, ay; Mr. Bland, no; North Carolina, ay; South Carolina, ay: so the question was lost.
On the question whether the appointment of collectors of the impost shall be left to the states, the collectors to be under the control of, and be amenable to, Congress, there were seven ayes; New York and Pennsylvania being no, and New Jersey divided.
Thursday, February 20.
The motion for limiting the impost to twenty-five years having been yesterday lost, and some of the gentlemen who were in the negative desponding of an indefinite grant of it from the states, the motion was reconsidered.
Mr. WOLCOTT and Mr. HAMILTON repeat the inadequacy of a definite term. Mr. RAMSAY and Mr. WILLIAMSON repeat the improbability of an indefinite term being acceded to by the states, and the expediency of preferring a limited impost to a failure of it altogether.
Mr. MERCER was against the impost altogether, but would confine his opposition within Congress. He was in favor of the limitation, as an alleviation of the evil.
Mr. FITZSIMMONS animadverted on Mr. Mercer's insinuation yesterday touching the loan-office creditors, and the policy of dividing them from the military creditors; reprobated every measure which contravened the principles of justice and public faith; and asked, whether it were likely that Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, to whose citizens half the loan-office debt was owing, would concur with Virginia, whose citizens had lent but little more than three hundred thousand dollars in any plan that did not provide for that in common with other debts of the United States. He was against a limitation to twenty-five years.
Mr. LEE wished to know whether by loan-office creditors were meant the original subscribers or the present holders of the certificates, as the force of their demands may be affected by this consideration.
Mr. FITZSIMMOMS saw the scope of the question, and said that, if another scale of depreciation was seriously in view, he wished it to come out, that every one might know the course to be taken.
Mr. GORHAM followed the sentiments of the gentleman who last spoke; expressed his astonishment that a gentleman (Mr. Lee) who had enjoyed such opportunities of observing the nature of public credit should advance such doctrines as were fatal to it. He said it was time that this point should be explained; that if the former scale for the loan-office certificates was to be revised and reduced, as one member from Virginia (Mr. Mercer) contended, or a further scale to be made out for subsequent depreciation of certificates, as seemed to be the idea of the other member, (Mr. Lee,) the restoration of public credit was not only visionary, but the concurrence of the states in any arrangement whatever was not to be expected. He was in favor of the limitation, as necessary to overcome the objections of the states.
Mr. MERCER professed his attachment to the principles of justice, but declared that he thought the scale by which the loans had been valued unjust to the public, and that it ought to be revised and reduced.
On the question for the period of twenty-five years, it was decided in the affirmative, seven states being in favor of it; New Jersey and New York only being no.
Mr. MERCER called the attention of Congress to the case of the goods seized under a law of Pennsylvania, on which the committee had not yet reported, and wished that Congress would come to some resolution declaratory of their rights, and which would lead to an effectual interposition on the part of the legislature of Pennsylvania. After much conversation on the subject, in which the members were somewhat divided as to the degree of peremptoriness with which the state of Pennsylvania should be called on, the resolution on the Journal, which is inserted below, was finally adopted; having been drawn up by the secretary, and put into the hands of a member, the resolution passed without any dissent.
Resolved, That it does not appear to Congress that any abuse has been made of the passport granted by the commander-in-chief for the protection of clothing and other necessaries sent from New York, in the ship Amazon, for the use of the British and German prisoners of war.
Resolved, That the goods imported in the said ship Amazon, and contained in the returns laid before Congress by the assistant secretary at war, are fully covered and protected by the said passport, and ought to be sent with all expedition, and without any let or hinderance, to the prisoners for whose use they were designed.
[The evening of this day was spent at Mr. Fitzsimmons's by Mr. Gorham, Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Peters, Mr. Carroll, and Mr. Madison. The conversation turned on the subject of revenue, under the consideration of Congress, and on the situation of the army. The conversation on the first subject ended in a general concurrence (Mr. Hamilton excepted) in the impossibility of adding to the impost on trade any taxes that would operate equally throughout the United States, or be adopted by them. On the second subject, Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Peters, who had the best knowledge of the temper, transactions, and views of the army, informed the company, that it was certain that the army had secretly determined not to lay down their arms until due provision and a satisfactory prospect should be afforded on the subject of their pay; that there was reason to expect that a public declaration to this effect would soon be made; that plans had been agitated, if not formed, for subsisting themselves after such declaration; that, as a proof of their earnestness on this subject, the commander was already become extremely unpopular, among almost ail ranks, from his known dislike to every unlawful proceeding; that this unpopularity was daily increasing and industriously promoted by many leading characters: that his choice of unfit and indiscreet persons into his family was the pretext, and with some the real motive; but the substantial one, a desire to displace him from the respect and confidence of the army, in order to substitute General ******* as the conductor of their efforts to obtain justice. Mr. Hamilton said, that he knew General Washington intimately and perfectly; that his extreme reserve, mixed sometimes with a degree of asperity of temper, (both of which were said to have increased of late,) had contributed to the decline of his popularity; but that his virtue, his patriotism and firmness, would, it might be depended upon, never yield to any dishonorable or disloyal plans into which he might be called; that he would sooner suffer himself to be cut to pieces; that he, (Mr. Hamilton,) knowing this to be his true character, wished him to be the conductor of the army in their plans for redress, in order that they might be moderated and directed to proper objects, and exclude some other leader who might foment and misguide their councils; that with this view he had taken the liberty to write to the general on this subject, and to recommend such a policy to him.]
Friday, February 21.
Mr. MERCER made some remarks tending to a reconsideration of the act declaring general funds to be necessary, which revived the discussion of that subject.
Mr. MADISON said, that he had observed, throughout the proceedings of Congress relative to the establishment of such funds, that the power delegated to Congress by the Confederation had been very differently construed by different members, and that this difference of construction had materially affected their reasonings and opinions on the several propositions which had been made; that, in particular, it had been represented by sundry members that Congress was merely an executive body; and, therefore, that it was inconsistent with the principles of liberty and the spirit of the constitution, to submit to them a permanent revenue, which would be placing the purse and the sword in the same hands; that he wished the true doctrine of the Confederation to be ascertained, as it might, perhaps, remove some embarrassments; and towards that end would offer his ideas on the subject.
He said, that he did not conceive, in the first place, that the opinion was sound, that the power of Congress, in cases of revenue, was in no respect legislative, but merely executive; and, in the second place, that, admitting the power to be executive, a permanent revenue collected and dispensed by them in the discharge of the debts to which it should be appropriated would be inconsistent with the nature of an executive body, or dangerous to the liberties of the republic.
As to the first opinion, he observed that, by the Articles of Confederation, Congress had clearly and expressly the right to fix the quantum of revenue necessary for the public exigencies, and to require the same from the states respectively, in proportion to the value of the land; that the requisitions thus made were a law to the states, as much as the acts of the latter for complying with them were a law to their individual members; that the Federal Constitution was as sacred and obligatory as the internal constitutions of the several states; and that nothing could justify the ​states in disobeying acts warranted by it, but some previous abuse and infraction on the part of Congress; that as a proof that the power of fixing the quantum, and making requisitions of money, was considered as a legislative power over the purse, he would appeal to the proposition, made by the British minister, of giving this power to the British Parliament, and leaving to the American assemblies the privilege of complying in their own mode, and to the reasonings of Congress and the several states on that proposition. He observed, further, that by the Articles of Confederation was delegated to Congress a right to borrow money indefinitely, and emit bills of credit, which was a species of borrowing, for repayment and redemption of which the faith of the states was pledged, and their legislatures constitutionally bound. He asked whether these powers were reconcilable with the idea that Congress was a body merely executive. He asked what would be thought in Great Britain, from whose constitution our political reasonings were so much drawn, of an attempt to prove that a power of making requisitions of money on the Parliament, and of borrowing money, for discharge of which the Parliament should be bound, might be annexed to the crown without changing its quality of an executive branch, and that the leaving to the Parliament the mode only of complying with the requisitions of the crown would be leaving to it its supreme and exclusive power of legislation.
As to the second point, he referred again to the British constitution, and the mode in which provision was made for the public debts; observing that, although the executive had no authority to contract a debt, yet, that when a debt had been authorized or admitted by the Parliament, a permanent and irrevocable revenue was granted by the legislature, to be collected and dispensed by the executive; and that fills practice had never been deemed a subversion of the constitution, or a dangerous association of a power over the purse with the power of the sword.
If these observations were just, as he conceived them to be, the establishment of a permanent revenue—not by any assumed authority of Congress, but by the authority of the states at the recommendation of Congress, to be collected and applied by the latter to the discharge of the public debts—could not be deemed inconsistent with the spirit of the Federal Constitution, or subversive of the principles of liberty; and that all objections drawn from such a supposition ought to be withdrawn. Whether other objections of sufficient weight might not lie against such an establishment, was another question. For his part, although for various reasons he had wished for such a plan as most eligible, he had never been sanguine that it was practicable; and the discussions which had taken place had finally satisfied him, that it would be necessary to limit the call for a general revenue to duties on commerce, and to call for the deficiency in the most permanent way that could be reconciled with a revenue established within each state, separately, and appropriated to the common treasury. He said, the rule which he had laid down to himself, in this business, was to concur in every arrangement that should appear necessary for an honorable and just fulfilment of the public engagements, and in no measure tending to augment the power of Congress, which should appear to be unnecessary; and particularly disclaimed the idea of perpetuating a public debt.
Mr. LEE, in answer to Mr. Madison, said the doctrine maintained by him was pregnant with dangerous consequences to the liberties of the confederated states; that, notwithstanding the specious arguments that had been employed, it was an ​established truth that the purse ought not to be put into the same hands with the sword; that like arguments had been used in favor of ship-money in the reign of Charles the First, it being then represented as essential to the support of the government; that the executive should be assured of the means of fulfilling its engagements for the public service. He said, it had been urged by several in behalf of such an establishment for public credit, that without it Congress was nothing more than a rope of sand. On this head he would be explicit; he had rather see Congress a rope of sand than a rod of iron. He urged, finally, as a reason why some states would not, and ought not, to concur in granting to Congress a permanent revenue, that some states (as Virginia) would receive back a small part by payment from the United States to its citizens; whilst others (as Pennsylvania) would receive a vast surplus, and, consequently, be draining the former of its wealth.
Mr. MERCER said, if he conceived the federal compact to be such as it had been represented, he would immediately withdraw from Congress, and do every thing in his power to destroy its existence; that if Congress had a right to borrow money as they pleased, and to make requisitions on the states that would be binding on them, the liberties of the states were ideal; that requisitions ought to be consonant to the spirit of liberty; that they should go frequently, and accompanied with full information; that the states must be left to judge of the nature of them, of their abilities to comply with them, and to regulate their compliance accordingly; he laid great stress on the omission of Congress to transmit half-yearly to the states an account of the moneys borrowed by them, &c., and even insinuated that this omission had absolved the states, in some degree, from the engagements. He repeated his remarks on the injustice of the rule by which loan-office certificates had been settled, and his opinion that some defalcations would be necessary.
Mr. HOLTON was opposed to all permanent funds, and to every arrangement not within the limits of the Confederation.
Mr. HAMILTON enlarged on the general utility of permanent funds to the federal interests of this country, and pointed out the difference between the nature of the constitution of the British executive and that of the United States, in answer to Mr. Lee's reasoning from the case of ship-money.
Mr. GORHAM adverted, with some warmth, to the doctrines advanced by Mr. Lee and Mr. Mercer, concerning the loan-office creditors. He said the union could never be maintained on any other ground than that of justice; that some states had suffered greatly from the deficiencies of others already; that, if justice was not to be obtained through the federal system, and this system was to fail, as would necessarily follow, it was time this should be known, that some of the states might be forming other confederacies adequate to the purposes of their safety.
This debate was succeeded by a discharge of the committee from the business of devising the means requisite for restoring public credit, &c. &c., and the business referred to a committee, consisting of Mr. Gorham, Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Madison, Mr. Fitzsimmons, and Mr. Rutledge.
No Congress till
Tuesday, February 25.
In favor of the motion of Mr. GILMAN, (see the Journal of this date,) to refer the officers of the army for their half-pay to their respective states, it was urged that this plan alone would secure to the officers any advantage from that engagement; since Congress had no independent fund out of which it could be fulfilled, and the states of Connecticut and Rhode Island, in particular, would not comply with any recommendation of Congress, nor even requisition, for that purpose. It was also said that it would be satisfactory to the officers; and that it would apportion on the states that part of the public burden with sufficient equality. Mr. DYER said, that the original promise of Congress on that subject was considered, by some of the states, as a fetch upon them, and not within the spirit of the authority delegated to Congress. Mr. WOLCOTT said, the states would give Congress nothing whatever, unless they were gratified in this particular. Mr. COLLINS said, Rhode Island had expressly instructed her delegates to oppose every measure tending to an execution of the promise out of moneys under the disposition of Congress.
On the other side, it was urged that the half-pay was a debt as solemnly contracted as any other debt, and was, consequently, as binding, under the 12th article of the Confederation, on the states, and that they could not refuse a requisition made for that purpose, ​that it would be improper to countenance a spirit if that sort by yielding to it; that such concessions on the part of Congress would produce compliances on the part of the states, in other instances, clogged with favorite conditions; that a reference of the officers to the particular states to whose lines they belong would not be satisfactory to the officers of those states who objected to half-pay, and would increase the present irritation of the army; that to do it without their unanimous consent would be a breach of the contract by which the United States, collectively, were bound to them; and, above all, that the proposed plan, which discharged any particular state which should settle with Its officers on this subject, although other states might reject the plan, from its proportion of that part of the public burden, was a direct and palpable departure from the law of the Confederation. According to this instrument, the whole public burden of debt must be apportioned according to a valuation of land; nor could any thing but a unanimous concurrence of the states dispense with this law. According to the plan proposed, so much of the public burden as the half-pay should amount to was to be apportioned according to the number of officers belonging to each line; the plan to take effect, as to all those states which should adopt it, without waiting for the unanimous adoption of the states; and that, if Congress had authority to make the number of officers the rule of apportioning one part of the public debt on the states, they might extend the rule to any other arbitrary rule which they should think fit The motion of Mr. OILMAN was negatived. See the ayes and noes on the Journal.
Wednesday, December 26.
Mr. LEE observed to Congress, that it appeared, from the newspapers of the day, that sundry enormities had been committed by the refugees within the state of Delaware, as it was known that like enormities had been committed on the shores of the Chesapeake, notwithstanding the pacific professions of the enemy; that it was probable, however, that if complaint were to be made to the British commander at New York, the practice would be restrained. He accordingly moved that a committee might be appointed to take into consideration the means of restraining such practices. The motion was seconded by Mr. PETERS. By Mr. FITZSIMMONS the motion was viewed as tending to a request of favors from Sir Guy Carleton. It was apprehended by others that, as General Washington and the commanders of separate armies, had been explicitly informed of the sense of Congress on this point, any fresh measures thereon might appear to be a censure on them; and that Congress could not ground any measure on the case in question, having no official information relative to it. The motion of Mr. LEE was negatived; but it appearing, from the vote, to be the desire of many members that some step might be taken by Congress, the motion of Mr. MADISON and Mr. MERCER, as it stands on the Journal, was proposed and agreed to, as free from all objections.
A motion was made by Mr. HAMILTON to give a brevet commission to Major Burnet, aid to General Greene, and messenger of the evacuation of Charleston, of lieutenant-colonel; there being six ayes only, the motion was lost; New Hampshire, no; Mr. Lee and Mr. Mercer, no.
The committee, consisting of Mr. Lee, &c., to whom had been referred the motion of Mr. HAMILTON, recommending to the states to authorize Congress to make abatements in the retrospective apportionment, by a valuation of land in favor of states whose ability, from year to year, had been most impaired by the war, reported that it was inexpedient to agree to such motion, because one state (Virginia) having disagreed to such a measure on a former recommendation to (Congress, it was not probable that another recommendation would produce any effect; and because the difficulties of making such abatements were greater than the advantages expected from them.
Mr. LEE argued in favor of the report, and the reasons on which it was grounded. The eastern delegations were for leaving the matter open for future determination, when an apportionment should be in question.
Mr. MADISON said, he thought that the principle of the motion was conformable to justice, and within the spirit of the Confederation; according to which, apportionments ought to have been made from time to time, throughout the war, recording to the existing wealth of each state; but that it would be improper to take up this case separately from other claims of equity, which would be put in by other states; that the most likely mode of obtaining the concurrence of the states in any plan ​would be to comprehend in it the equitable interests of all of them; a comprehensive plan of that sort would be the only one that would cut off all sources of future controversy among the states; that as soon as the plan of revenue should be prepared for recommendation to the states, it would be proper for Congress to take into consideration, and combine with it, every object which might facilitate its progress, and for a complete provision for the tranquillity of the United States. The question on Mr. Hamilton's motion was postponed.
The letter from Mr. Morris, requesting that the injunction of secrecy might be withdrawn from his preceding letter, signifying to Congress his purpose of resigning, was committed.
Thursday, February 27.
On the report of the committee on Mr. Morris's letter, the injunction of secrecy was taken off without dissent or observation.
The attention of Congress was recalled to the subject of half-pay by Messrs. DYER and WOLCOTT, in order to introduce a reconsideration of the mode of referring it separately to the states to provide for their own lines.
Mr. MERCER favored the reconsideration, representing the commutation proposed as tending, in common with the funding of other debts, to establish and ​
perpetuate a moneyed interest in the United States; that this moneyed interest would gain the ascendance of the landed interest; would resort to places of luxury and splendor, and, by their example and influence, become dangerous to our republican constitutions. He said, however, that the variances of opinion and indecision of Congress were alarming, and required that something should be done; that it would be better to new-model the Confederation, or attempt any thing, rather than to do nothing.
Mr. MADISON reminded Congress that the commutation proposed was introduced as a compromise with those to whom the idea of pensions was obnoxious, and observed, that those whose scruples had been relieved by it had rendered it no less obnoxious than before, by stigmatizing it with the name of a perpetuity. He said, the public situation was truly deplorable. If the payment of the capital of the public debts was suggested, it was said, and truly said, to be impossible; if funding them and paying the interest was proposed, it was exclaimed against as establishing a dangerous moneyed interest, as corrupting the public manners, as administering poison to our republican constitutions. He said, he wished the revenue to be established to be such as would extinguish the capital, as well as pay the interest, within the shortest possible period, and was as much opposed to perpetuating the public burdens as any one; but that the discharge of them in some form or other was essential, and that the consequences predicted therefrom could not be more heterogeneous to our republican character and constitutions than a violation of the maxims ​of good faith and common honesty. It was agreed that the report for commuting half-pay should lie on the table till to-morrow, in order to give an opportunity to the delegates of Connecticut to make any proposition relative thereto which they should judge proper.
The report of the committee, consisting of Mr. Gorham, Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Madison, Mr. Rutledge, and Mr. Fitzsimmons, was taken up. It was proposed that, in addition to the impost of five per cent., ad valorem, the states be requested to enable Congress to collect a duty of one eighth of a dollar per bushel on salt imported; of six ninetieths per gallon on all wines, do; and of three ninetieths per gallon on all rum and brandy, do.
On the first article it was observed, on the part of the Eastern States, that this would press peculiarly hard on them, on account of the salt consumed in the fisheries; and that it would, besides, be injurious to the national interest by adding to the cost of fish: and a drawback was suggested.
On the other side, it was observed that the warmer climate and more dispersed settlements of the Southern States required a greater consumption of salt for their provisions; that salt might and would be conveyed to the fisheries without previous importation; that the effect of the duty was too inconsiderable to be felt in the cost of fish; and that the rum in the North-Eastern States being, in a great degree, manufactured at home, they would have greater advantage, in this respect, than the other states could have in the article of salt; that a drawback could not be executed in our complicated government with ease or certainty.
Mr. MERCER, on this occasion, declared, that, although he thought those who opposed a general revenue right in their principles, yet, as they appeared to have formed no plan adequate to the public exigencies, and as he was convinced of the necessity of doing something, he should depart from his first resolution, and strike in with those who were pursuing the plan of a general revenue.
Mr. HOLTEN said, he had come lately into Congress with a predetermination against any measures, for discharging the public engagements, other than those pointed out in the Confederation, and that he had hitherto acted accordingly; but that he saw now so clearly the necessity of making provision for that object, and the inadequacy of the Confederation thereto, that he should concur in recommending to the states a plan of a general revenue.
A question being proposed on the duties on salt, there were nine ayes; New Hampshire alone being no; Rhode Island not present.
It was urged, by some, that the duty on wine should be augmented; but it appeared, on discussion, and some calculations, that the temptation to smuggling would be rendered too strong, and the revenue thereby diminished. Mr. BLAND proposed, that instead of a duty on the gallon, an ad valorem duty should be laid on wine; and this idea, after some loose discussion, was agreed to, few of the members interesting themselves therein, and some of them having previously retired from Congress.
Friday, February 28.
A motion was made by Mr. WOLCOTT and Mr. DYER, to refer the half-pay to the states, little differing from the late motion of Mr. Oilman, except that it specified five years' whole pay as the proper ground of composition with the officers of the respective lines. On this proposition the arguments used for and against Mr. Gilman's motion were recapitulated. It was negatived, Connecticut alone answering in the affirmative, and no division being called for.
On the question to agree to the report for a commutation of five years' whole pay, there being seven ayes only, it was considered whether this was an appropriation, or a new ascertainment of a sum of money necessary for the public service. Some, were of opinion, at first, that it did not fall under that description, viz., of an appropriation. Finally, the contrary opinion was deemed, almost unanimously, safest, as well as the most accurate. Another question was, whether seven or nine votes were to decide doubts; whether seven or nine were requisite on any question. Some were of opinion that the secretary ought to make an entry according to his own judgment, and that that entry should stand unless altered by a positive instruction from Congress. To this it was objected, that it would make the secretary the sovereign in many cases, since a reversal of his entry would be impossible, whatever that entry might be; that, particularly, he might enter seven votes to be affirmative ​on a question where nine were necessary, and if supported in it by a few states it would be irrevocable. It was said, by others, that the safest rule would be to require nine votes to decide, in all cases of doubt, whether nine or seven were necessary. To this it was objected, that one or two states, and in any situation six states, might, by raising doubts, stop seven from acting in any case which they disapproved. Fortunately, on the case in question, there were nine states of opinion that nine were requisite; so the difficulty was got over for the present.
On a reconsideration of the question whether the duty on wine should be on the quantity or on the value, the mode reported by the committee was reinstated, and the whole report recommitted, to be included with the five per cent, ad valorem, in an act of recommendation to the states.
* ↑ This was an oblique allusion to Mr. Lee, whose enmity to the French was suspected by him, &c.
* ↑ Virginia—Mr. Jones, Mr. Madison, Mr. Bland, no; Mr. Lee, Mr. Mercer, ay.
* ↑ The result proved that mildness was the soundest policy—the legislature, in consequence, having declared the law under which the goods were seized to be void, as contradictory to the Federal Constitution. Some of the members, in conversation, said that, if Congress had declared the law to be void, the displeasure of the legislature might possibly have produced a different issue.
* ↑ Among other reasons, privately weighing with him, he had observed that many of the most respectable people of America supposed the preservation of the Confederacy essential to secure the blessings of the revolution, and permanent funds for discharging debts essential to the preservation of union. A disappointment to this class would certainly abate their ardor, and, in a critical emergency, might incline them to prefer some political connection with Great Britain, as a necessary cure for our internal instability. Again, without permanent and general funds, he did not conceive that the danger of convulsions from the army could be effectually obviated. Lastly, he did not think that any thing would be so likely to prevent disputes among the states, with the calamities consequent on them. The states were jealous of each other, each supposing itself to be, on the whole, a creditor to the others. The Eastern States, in particular, thought themselves so with regard to the Southern Slates. (See Mr. Gorham, in the debates of that day.) If general funds were not introduced, it was not likely the balances would ever be discharged, even if they should be liquidated. The consequence would be a rupture of the confederacy. The Eastern States would, at sea, be powerful and rapacious; the Southern, opulent and weak. This would be a temptation; the demands on the Southern States would be an occasion; reprisals would be instituted; foreign aid would be called in by, first, the weaker, then the stronger side; and, finally, both be made subservient to the wars and politics of Europe.
* ↑ He had in view the following objects: First, the abatements proposed by Mr. HAMILTON. Second, a transfer, into the common mass of expenses, of all the separate expenses incurred by the states in their particular defence. Third, an acquisition to the United States of the vacant territory. The plan, thus extended, would affect the interest of the states as follows, viz.: New Hampshire would approve the establishment of a general revenue, as tending to support the Confederacy, to remove causes of future contention, and to secure her trade against separate taxation from the states through which it is carried on. She would also approve of a share in the vacant territory. Having never been much invaded by the enemy, her interest would be opposed to the abatements and throwing all the separate expenditures into the common mass. The discharge of the public debts from the common treasury would not be required by her interest, the loans of her citizens being under her proportion. See the statement of them. Massachusetts is deeply interested in the discharge of the public debts. The expedition to Penobscot alone interests her, she supposes, in making a common mass of expenses; her interest is opposed to abatements; the other would not peculiarly affect her. Rhode Island, as a weak state, is interested in a general revenue, as tending to support the Confederacy, and prevent future contentions; but against it, as tending to deprive her of the advantage, afforded by her situation, of taxing the commerce of the contiguous states. As tending to discharge, with certainty, the public debts, her proportion of loans interest her rather against it. Having been the seat of war for a considerable time, she might not, perhaps, be opposed to abatements on that account. The exertions for her defence having been previously sanctioned, it is presumed in most instances she would be opposed to making a common mass of expenses. In the acquisition of vacant territory, she is deeply and anxiously interested. Connecticut is interested in a general revenue, as tending to protect her commerce from separate taxation from New York and Rhode Island, and somewhat as providing for loan-office creditors. Her interest is opposed to abatements, and to a common mass of expenses. Since the condemnation of her title to her western claims, she may, perhaps, consider herself as interested in the acquisition of the vacant lands. In other respects, she would not be peculiarly affected. New York is exceedingly attached to a general revenue, as tending to support the Confederacy, and prevent future contests among the states. Although her citizens are not lenders beyond the proportion of the state, yet individuals of great weight are deeply interested in provision for public debts. In abatements New York is also deeply interested; in making a common mass, also, interested; and since the acceptance of her cession, interested in those of other states. New Jersey is interested, as a smaller state, in a general revenue, as tending to support the Confederacy, and to prevent future contests, and to guard her commerce against the separate taxation of Pennsylvania and New York. The loans of her citizens are not materially disproportionate. Although this state has been much the theatre of the war, she would not, perhaps be interested in abatements. Having had a previous sanction for particular expenditures, her interest would be opposed to a common mass. In the vacant territory, she is deeply and anxiously interested. Pennsylvania is deeply interested in a general revenue, the loans of her citizens amounting to more than one third of that branch of the public debt. As far as a general impost on trade would restrain her from taxing the trade of New Jersey, it would be against her interest. She is interested against abatements, and against a common mass, her expenditures having been always previously sanctioned. In the vacant territory she is also interested. Delaware is interested, by her weakness, in a general revenue, as tending to support the Confederacy and future tranquillity of the states; but, materially, by the credits of her citizens. Her interest is opposed to abatements, and to a common mass. To the vacant territory she is firmly attached. Maryland having never been the seat of war, and her citizens being creditors below her proportion, her interest lies against a general revenue, otherwise than as she is interested, in common with others, in the support of the Confederacy and tranquillity of the United States; but against abatements, and against a common mass. The vacant lands are a favorite object to her. Virginia, in common with the Southern States, as likely to enjoy an opulent and defenceless trade, is interested in a general revenue, as tending to secure to her the protection of the Confederacy against the maritime superiority of the Eastern States; but against it, as tending to discharge loan-office debts, and to deprive her of the occasion of taxing North Carolina. She is deeply interested in abatements, and essentially so in a common mass; not only her eccentric expenditures being enormous, but many of her necessary ones having received no previous or subsequent sanction. Her cession of territory would be considered as a sacrifice. North Carolina is interested in a general revenue, as tending to insure the protection of the Confederacy against the maritime superiority of the Eastern States, and to guard her trade from separate taxation by Virginia and South Carolina. The loans of her citizens are inconsiderable. In abatements, and in a common mass, she is essentially interested. In the article of territory, she would have to make a sacrifice. South Carolina is interested, as a weak and exposed state, in a general revenue, as tending to secure to her the protection of the Confederacy against enemies of every kind, and as providing for the public creditors, her citizens being not only loan-office creditors beyond her proportion, but having immense unliquidated demands against the United States. As restraining her power over the commerce of North Carolina, a general revenue is opposed to her interests. She is also materially interested in abatements, and in a common mass. In the article of territory, her sacrifice would be inconsiderable. Georgia, as a feeble and opulent frontier state, is peculiarly interested in a general revenue, as tending to support the Confederacy. She is also interested in it somewhat by the creditors of her citizens. In abatements she is also interested, and in a common mass essentially so. In the article of territory, she would make an important sacrifice. To make this plan still more complete, for the purpose of removing all present complaints, and all occasions of future contests, it may be proper to include in it a recommendation to the states to rescind the rule of apportioning pecuniary burdens according to the value of the land, and to substitute that of numbers, reckoning two slaves as equal to one freeman. STATE OF THE LOAN-OFFICE DEBT. Specie Dollars. Specie Dollars. New Hampshire 336,579 58 7 Delaware 65,820 13 7 Massachusetts 2,361,866 66 5 Maryland 410,218 30 0 Rhode Island 699,725 37 4 Virginia 313,741 82 3 Connecticut 1,270,115 30 0 North Carolina 113,341 11 1 New York 919,729 57 5 South Carolina 90,442 10 1 New Jersey 658,883 69 0 Georgia . . . . . Pennsylvania 3,948,904 14 4 This, it is to be observed, is only the list of loan-office debts. The unliquidated debts, and liquidated debts of other denominations due to individuals, will vary inexpressibly the relative quantum of credits of the several states. It is to be further observed, that this only shows the original credits, transfers having been constant; heretofore they have flowed into Pennsylvania. Other states may hereafter have an influx.