Gazette of the United-States. (New-York [N.Y.]), 1790-02-20 00:00:00

Gazette of the United States.
PUBLISHED WEDNESDAYS AND SATURDAYS BY JOHN FENNO, No. 9, MAIDEN-LANE, NEW-YORK.
[No. XC.]
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1790.
PRICE THREE DOLLARS PR. ANN.
THE TABLET.
No. XC.
"Legislators by overlooking facts, sometimes trouble themselves to settle principles, when there is no occasion for them."
THE first object to be regarded in the examination of a practical subject, is to ascertain all the facts which relate to it. If this rule were strictly observed, many of the debates which take place in public assemblies would be avoided. There is no error to which men are more liable, than taking things for granted, which are not true. Mistakes of this kind expose people to much painful reflection, and produce a warmth and altercation of debate to no useful purpose. Why should one perplex himself to assign a cause for an effect which exists only in imagination? why should we attempt to apply a remedy to an evil, before we examine the facts, and determine whether the evil we propose to redress, has any existence. A man must feel in an awkward situation, who having employed several days in the discussion of principles, should find that the case, to which he meant to apply them, was merely a creature of fiction.
I can better illustrate my ideas by a specific example, than by general reflections. The very important question discussed in a respectable assembly is not remote from the purpose. I allude to the discussion relative to a discrimination between original and purchasing holders of public certificates. It does not come within the design of my speculations to enter into political disputes, and I shall wave a consideration of the principles that were adduced, in support of either side of the question. The debates on the occasion discovered good talents at investigation. The remarks were judicious, and the reasoning ingenious. But it was evident that the speakers were not generally acquainted with those facts that were the ground work of the whole business.
The point to be determined was, whether original creditors had any demand in justice for the indemnification of the losses incurred by the transfer of their certificates. It was pretended that the assignee ought to relinquish part of the sum expressed on the face of the certificate, for the benefit of the original holder. A compromise, it was urged, ought to be made between them, and the property divided. This pretence was founded on two premises, which many of the speakers conceived to be facts, without any enquiry into the matter.
One of these supposed facts is, that original holders have generally sold their securities at about one eighth part of their nominal value.
The other is, that they were compelled by necessity thus to dispose of their securities.
Few of the speakers, in the examination of the subject, expressed any doubt of the propriety of taking these suppositions for undisputed facts. By a misconception of the real state of the case, there was a most anxious effort to reconcile a difference of opinion, which would not have existed at all, had the facts been previously examined.
It may be proper in the first place to enquire who have been the principal losers by the fluctuating price of public securities.
And, secondly what were the causes that generally induced original creditors to transfer their certificates.
To the first of these points, I reply that if the government pays the possessor of a certificate, the amount expressed on the face of it, no class of creditors will suffer an undue proportion of loss. In such a decision all the creditors whether real or imaginary should be put into classes, and an opinion formed upon an aggregate view of each class. Some individuals in each division will no doubt be found to have been distinguished sufferers; but I believe if the losses are fairly stated among the several classes, the difference will be too little to agitate the public mind with devising a mode of redress. For setting aside the question of the justice or injustice of an interference of the government, the cases of real injury are too few to constitute any claims for general remedy. It is not probable that a twentieth part of the domestic debt is held under such circumstances as to render it a doubt, viewed either on principles of justice, or sentiments of generosity, whether any persons, but the present holders, should receive the payment.
It admits of a tolerable degree of demonstration, that the original creditors, who have alienated their securities, have sold them on an average of twelve shillings and six pence on the pound. As they have a long time had the benefit of the money, their situation is not less favorable than the present holders. It will here be observed, that many persons have in fact sold securities at two shillings and six pence on the pound; and it may be asked what description of persons sold at this low rate. This point is easily made clear. It should first be understood that not more than a tenth part of the domestic debt was in circulation, at the low flag of depreciation. Those who sold at the lowest ebb of stocks, and sustained the principal loss, were generally early purchasers and not original holders .
(To be continued.)
CONGRESS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 15.
(CONTINUED.)
IN Committee of the whole on the report of the Secretary of treasury. Mr. Madison's motion for a discrimination under consideration.
Mr. Lawrance observed, that the proposition of Mr. Madison derived force from the talents and knowledge of that gentleman in public transactions; but that, on examination, it would be found to contain doctrines very repugnant to the interest and prosperity of the union.
Mr. Lawrance stated, that the debts contracted by the United States were for loans of money, supplies of articles necessary for the public wants, and for actual service rendered in different employments. These debts were ultimately adjusted and reduced to their present transferable form. Every part of the contract was essential to it: The negotiation was a material part; and the nature of the contract was frequently recognized by the late government. That in 1783, Congress recommended certain funds to be established to pay the interest and put the principle in a course of discharge. This recommendation was unequivocal, as to the nature of it, and made no discrimination between the possessor and the original holder. The subsequent conduct of that body was conformable to this recommendation. They annually called on the States to furnish money to pay the interest, without discriminating between the original holder and present possessor. They paid interest on the securities, without making any discrimination. Provision has been made for holders of loan-office certificates, that were subject to liquidation, to have them cancelled and others issued for the specie value. And the holders of certificates were enabled to have them registered to guard against accidents; & no distinction was made between the original holder and the alie-
nee. The transferable nature of the claim was for the benefit of the creditor, because it gave it an active value. He consented to take it, and consulted his own advantage. The conduct of the late Congress, since the war, has been uniform in the support of this contract, and they have done no act to impair its obligation according to the terms of it. This contract is valid against the government; for, notwithstanding the truth of Mr. Madison's observation, that the nation was the same tho' the bodies that administered the government were different—there is yet a far greater security; and to remove all doubt, a clause is inserted in the constitution, that made all debts and engagements, valid against the United States under the late general government, valid against the present.
Mr. Lawrance further observed, that this contract having descended upon the government, there is no right in the legislature to impair the force of it. The particular governments are restrained from passing laws impairing the obligations of contract. This interference would be a violation of the contract between the individuals when the certificates were transferred; and it will not be pretended that the States are prohibited, and the general government has power to do it.
Mr. Lawrance adverted to the principles of Mr. Madison, to rest the obligation of the public on the original holder; and observed that the same principles are in favor of the present possessor. That public justice requires a performance of contracts, when there is no fraud on the part of the holder. The possessor has been guilty of no fraud, no deception: the contract between him and the original holder was fair, and a hazard and risk attended the purchase adequate to the advantage; and nothing short of a revolution in government could have produced payment. If there was an imposition, the public occasioned it; and, between the original holder and the public, there might be a claim for retribution. Public faith is as sacredly pledged to the bearer, or present possessor, as to the original creditor. Public credit results from fair and upright conduct; and the government, to support it, must perform its contracts. This is a contract recognized by them, and as such should be discharged. The situation we have been in made it proper for us to be cautious on this subject; and even at present people doubt our disposition to establish our credit. This would give a fatal blow to it. Much has been said about public opinion. Public opinion is difficult to be ascertained; gentlemen have different modes to determine it. He supposed it was better ascertained by the acts of public bodies, than by squibs in the newspapers, or by a pamphlet written by any individual. The uniform conduct of men, deputed by the particular States to represent them in the late general government, was a standard; and their opinion, from 1783, was in favor of the present possessor. The conduct of the particular States is another circumstance: I do not know of any discrimination made by them, tho' it has been attempted: The general opinion of men of property is against it; and these sources of public opinion are most certain and unequivocal.
Mr. Lawrance further observed, that altho' he believed Mr. Madison supposed no advantage would be derived to the United States, from this discrimination, yet much would arise. Part of the army had been composed of foreigners; many had left the country, others are dead and their relatives; all their part would be unclaimed. That certificates were issued to public officers to a great amount, and were paid by them to persons from whom they purchased. The difficulty of making proof of the original creditor will be great; and from this circumstance great sums would be gained to the public. There are persons enough who would have facility to discern this; and they would doubt the purity of the public motive should the Gentleman's plan be adopted.
Mr. Lawrance adverted to the circumstance of the new credit or receiving paper: that this paper might be subject to another liquidation on the same principle as the present. That it would introduce doubt and distrust of public engagements; and there would be no greater security, although a fund was pledged, than there is at present; for whenever the public pleased, they might destroy the obligation.
Mr. Lawrance observed, that arguments were improperly addressed to their feelings; but that however hard it may be for the original creditor, who had parted with his certificates, to contribute to pay the debt; yet it would be equally hard on him who had been injured by continental money, who had been plundered by the enemy, who had his property burned by them in the course of the war; and instances of this kind were numerous.
Mr. Lawrance adverted to the doctrine of the high court of equity; and urged that this court must be governed by principle. Was the committee this high court, and the United States' original creditor and present possessor before them; If there appeared no fraud on the part of the possessor, the original creditor would have no just claim on him. Between the United States and original creditors, the United States were in fault; and the claim, if good would be against them.
Mr. Lawrance also noticed the resolution of Congress of 10th April, 1780, relative to the depreciation of pay to the army; and declared that this was limited to persons then in service: those who had left it, even the day before, had not this justice done them: But this case was between the United States, and the persons rendering them service. The act did not affect third persons; it did not take from one and give to another, as the present measure proposes and was therefore dissimilar.
Mr. Lawrance further observed, that his objection to the amendment was on the ground of the contract; yet he would mention some instances to show the impracticability of the scheme. In many cases a State has sold lands, for low value in these certificates. By the law of this State, creditors residing within the British lines during the war, had received by law these certificates, at their nominal value, from their debtors. British and domestic creditors have received from their debtors large sums at their nominal value. Foreigners are possessed of large sums of the registered debts, in their names, for alienated certificates. These and many other instances which might be mentioned, will shew the difficulty of devising a scheme, with the checks and exceptions that would be proper to render it in any manner feasible. It has been objected to the Secretary's report, that it proposes a reduction of interest. He observed, that there is a material difference in a plan that made the consent of the creditor necessary, and one that reduces his capital without his consent. This part is not now under consideration; but the scheme of the gentleman from Virginia will add a considerable sum to the provision proposed by the Secretary, from the increased interest to be provided for, and the additional number of officers to be appointed to carry his plan into execution.
Mr. Lawrance observed, that he was still open to conviction; but that he was, at the time of speaking, against Mr. Madison's proposition.
Mr. Smith (S. C.) next rose and remarked, that it was necessary and proper the house should give the subject the most ample discussion. The question had long agitated the public mind, and the people should know that it had occupied the serious atten-
tion of their representatives, and be made acquainted with the principles of their decision. For his part, having bestowed on it the most attentive consideration, he could assert, that the more he contemplated it the more he was impressed with a conviction that the proposition was unjust, impolitic and impracticable. It consisted of two parts: the one was to take away the property of one person; the other was to give that property to another: and this by a voluntary interposition of the house, by a mere act of power, without the assent of the former, or without even the application of the latter; for it was remarkable that the original holders, who had alienated their certificates, had not come forward with this demand; and it is presumable that, had they applied for redress, they would reject any indemnification which was the result of such manifest injustice. To prove that this was taking away the property of a citizen by force, he observed, that the purchaser had, by a fair purchase, acquired a right to a full amount of the sum expressed in the certificate, which it was not within the power of the house to divest him of. No tribunal on earth could lawfully deprive a man of his property, fairly obtained. The purchaser bought under the act of Congress making the securities transferable; and having given the market price, without fraud or imposition, he was by virtue of such purchase vested with the complete and absolute ownership of the certificate, as fully as the original holder; and had as much right to demand full payment as the original holder would have had, had the security been still in his hands. Even should the house refuse, by an act of power, to pay him more than half, his demand for the other half would still remain against the public; it could not be extinguished; the debt would continue to haunt them; the creditors would loudly clamour for justice, and looner or later the balance would be paid. Then would they incur all the odium of a violation of private rights, without deriving to the public any advantage whatever. He considered the measure as doing a certain evil that a possible good might result from it: this was not, in his opinion, the proper mode of doing good. Justice cannot be founded on injustice; and to take money out of the pocket of one man to put it into that of another, is a precedent which may justify future interferences. This step would lead the house to others: for if the principle be a just one, then the government should look into all the transactions and speculations of individuals, in order to correct them, and make retribution to every individual according to his losses. He was persuaded that the true policy of a legislative body, was to pursue the broad road of justice clearly marked out before them; for it was an undeniable truth, that whenever they deviated into these by-roads and trackless paths, without any other guide than their own imaginations, they would get bewildered in a labyrinth of difficulties, and rejoice to trace back their steps and regain the plain line of conduct. Now the plain line of conduct was, to do strict justice, such as is enforced in judicial tribunals between man and man in a similar case. The debtor is bound to pay the debt to the holder of the security; the contract, between the giver of the bond and the person to whom it was given, is done away the moment the latter assigns it to another person. If A. gives a bond to B. who parts with it to C. there is no longer any obligation on the part of A. to pay to B. but he must pay it to C. A. has nothing to do with the private negotiations between B. and C. nor to inquire what consideration was given for the security. All that he has to enquire is, whether he really signed it and had value received for it and the amount of it: he cannot say to the holder, you gave but 50 dollars for this security of 100, and I will pay you only 50; for the law will compel him to pay the 100. This is law and justice between man and man: is there another sort of law and justice for the government? By what rule is the government to square its conduct, if not by those sacred rules which form the basis of civil society, and are the safeguard of private property?
These observations fully refute the remarks of the gentlemen from Virginia, that the original holders still have a claim on the government, notwithstanding they have transferred their securities; and that in cases of individuals bearing an analogy to the present, a court of equity would interpose and give redress. The direct contrary was the fact; there never was an instance of a court of equity assuming such power. In cases of bankruptcy, which are under the superintendence of courts of chancery, the debts of the bankrupt are paid in equal proportions to all the creditors, whether original holders or assignees, and the court never enquires into the terms of the alienation. It cannot be said that the original holder has any claim of justice on the government; his claim must be addressed to our humanity; but the House have no authority to gratify their humane inclinations at the expence of justice, and by a sacrifice of private rights. If the project was unjust in itself, the application of the property to relieve the distresses of the original holder cannot change its nature; it must still be unjust; the mode of appropriation cannot alter the rectitude or turpitude of the measure. If therefore Congress have the right to take away the property of the present holders, they may apply the savings to public purposes; and what appearance would such a scheme have to the world? Would it not ruin forever our national character?
The gentleman from Virginia had said, that justice and good faith were the substratum of public credit: but he was persuaded that the justice and good faith held out by this plan, would be a substratum of sand, a foundation too weak to support our public credit, which would soon crumble to pieces. If the object of the gentleman be to afford relief to the distressed, without impairing legal rights, let enquiry be made into the cases of those original holders who sold from absolute distress—let those cases be selected and brought forward, and he would yield to no member in his alacrity to give them every adequate compensation, and to indemnify them for their sufferings;—but he could not assent to a proposition which blended together the cases of all the original holders, and gave them the property of others. That there were various classes of original holders; some had sold for purposes of speculation or trade; and had probably made good bargains, and were now in a better plight than if they had still retained their securities; others got rid of their securities because they had no confidence in the government: these the public are not bound to indemnify; this plan would place them on a better footing than those who having confidence in the general government had, notwithstanding their distresses, kept their securities; for supposing the former sold eight years ago for 4s. in the pound, it was not improbable they had by this time doubled their money, and in addition to that they were to get 10— which would give them 18s. whereas the latter would be able to sell their securities at the market for 15 or 16s. after they were funded. Some had exchanged their securities for bonds of individuals, of which the real value cannot be ascertained, or for land or other property, which may have risen considerably in value. Some present holders have received their securities by way of legacy—Are these to have one half taken off?—is their patrimonial estate to be torn from them? Had their parent been still living, he would receive 20s. in the pound, but the circumstance of his death is to strip the child of one half.
The gentleman from Virginia had said, that giving the present holders, by alienation, the highest market price, would be doing them ample justice; but did the public mean to defraud them the

money they had actually advanced? No—they were to receive this ample justice by a bit of paper nominally for 10s. but which this very measure would instantly depreciate to 8s. or 6s. They would have this consolation, that, according to the gentleman's reasoning, they would still have a claim against the government for the balance; for if the original holder, by selling his certificate for 4s. has now a just claim against the government for the balance of 16s. which it is asserted he has, of course the alienee, to whom the public should now acknowledge a debt of 10s. which he should sell for only 6s. would hereafter have a just demand against the public for 4s. This reasoning might be carried further, for it would follow that whenever the public shall pay in paper which shall depreciate, the seller will have a demand against the government for the difference.
From the distance of time at which these securities were issued, it may be reasonably supposed that many of the original holders are now dead: the average life of man is estimated at seven years, according to the most accurate calculation on insurance of lives. Some of them are dispersed in foreign countries, or settled in the western territory; and it would be right before the House took such a step as this, to understand clearly to what amount these alienations had been made; at present they were uninformed on the subject, and had no documents before them. If these alienations were inconsiderable, this project would be dangerous, even admitting its justice. History affords no precedent for the measure. The gentleman from Virginia, whose industry was equal to his ability, would have produced some similar case, had any existed. The South-Sea scheme was totally inapplicable: there the directors of the company having been guilty of the most enormous frauds and villainous practices, the government confiscated their estates and bestowed them on the company which they had been the means of ruining, instead of promoting their interests of which they had been appointed the guardians. Were the purchasers of securities chargeable with any crimes for which they merited confiscation? Were they appointed by law the guardians of the property of the original holders?
Nor was the other instance, respecting the depreciation of pay made good to the officers during the war, more in point, for there the public paid them with the public money, and not with that of individuals.
The constitution itself, he said, was opposed to the measure, for it was an ex post facto law, which was prohibited in express terms. The transference of public securities was lawful at the time these alienations were made; an attempt therefore to punish the transferees, is an attempt to make an ex post facto law, by making that now unlawful which was lawful at the time it was done; it alters the nature of the transaction, and annexes the idea of guilt to that which, at the moment of commission, was not only perfectly innocent, but was explicitly authorised and encouraged by a public act of Congress. By that act those who had money were invited to purchase of those who held securities; and now they were called upon to punish the purchasers who bought under that invitation. The constitution restrains the states from passing any laws impairing the force of contracts: a fortiori , is the legislature of the union restrained. What an example to hold up to the judiciary of the United States! How could they annul a state law, when the state would be able to plead a precedent on the part of Congress; The right of property was a sacred right; no tribunal on earth, nor even legislative body, could deprive a citizen of his property, unless for a fair equivalent, for the public welfare. The purchaser was vested, by the sale, with an absolute right to the full amount of the security, and it was beyond their authority to divest him of it. They might, indeed, by an act of power, declare that he should be paid only half; but his right to the other moiety would not be extinguished. It had been said that the original holder still had a claim against the public, because he had received only 2s. 6d. for services worth 20s. On the same principle, and with more justice, the present holder would still have a claim for 10s. because he has the public bonds for 20s. No ingenuity can overcome these stubborn principles of law and justice; they are immutable and must ultimately prevail. The house had been told, that if the government had defrauded the original holders out of their dues, it was fit the public should rectify the fraud: the former government was not deficient in inclination to do them ample justice, but from the imbecility of the confederation had not the means. In those days of democratic enthusiasm, the people were afraid of an energetic government: having so recently experienced the severity of their former one, the citizens of these states were cautious in trusting any government with power; and it is not improbable, that some of the original holders, who suffered these embarrassments from the want of a government competent to the payment of its debts, would themselves have opposed the vesting Congress with powers adequate to this object. Even the present constitution, which is a mild one, met with considerable opposition: had it been rejected, the public securities would have never been paid.
Public opinion had been mentioned, as favoring the plan: nothing was so difficult to attain, as a knowledge of public opinion; but as far as he had been able to collect the public opinion, it was against the measure. Publications in newspapers appeared indeed on both sides, but a greater number against it. The legislature of his state had strongly expressed their sentiments, by rejecting almost unanimously a similar project; and in society he had met with but few advocates for it.
Tho' it had been admitted that no instance of a similar nature had ever existed in other countries, yet it was asserted that this was because the depreciation of public securities in Europe bore no comparison with those in the United States. The securities in England had fallen to 70 per cent. without occasioning an interposition of the government, and there was no reason to assert, that a greater depreciation would have induced an interference; if the measure was unjust in the one case it was equally so in the other; the increased rate of depreciation could not justify it; for where would it cease to be unjust and begin to be just? What is the precise point of depreciation at which the government could be warranted in stepping in and depriving the holders of their rights? Right and wrong cannot depend on the amendment of depreciation; they are fixed principles which cannot fluctuate.
The hardship of requiring those who have lost four sixths of their due to contribute to the payment of taxes has been noticed. When they sold their certificates they thought that the person to whom they sold would one day or other receive something for it; and they knew that he could receive nothing unless the debt were funded, and that in such case they would be compelled to contribute their proportion of taxes. If they, on the other hand, were impressed with the idea that the purchaser would never be paid, then the bargain was not a fair one on their part, for they took the purchaser's money and gave him what in their belief was not equivalent.
The impolicy of the measure is evident, because it will check the negotiability of public securities; will enhance the terms of future loans, and injure the public credit. Public debts were said by some to be public benefits; doubtful as this doctrine may be, it is acknowledged universally that without a negotiable quality, instead of being of any utility, they would be a most grievous burden to the community. Who would purchase when he had before his eyes the terrors of a discrimination; a future occasion may arise, when, from the expenses of a war or other emergency, a similar attack might well be apprehended. Purchasers therefore will be rare, and the risk they will run restrain them from giving the full value of the public securities. This will operate then as a considerable injury to the original holders who never alienated their certificates, and who ought not to be involved in the pernicious consequences of this measure. With respect to impracticability it was not the strongest objection with him, because if he were persuaded that it was both just and politic, he would go every length in endeavouring to accomplish it; but, even on this head, difficulties innumerable appeared. Some which were un-
answerable had been mentioned, and it had been clearly shown, that it was absolutely impossible to trace the original holders. He had chosen to combat the measure on its principle, because he thought it was not a just one, and the establishment of it might lead hereafter to future interferences and unhappy consequences.
It was the wisest policy of governments to adhere strictly to their pledged faith, when it was in their power to do so, even should such strict adherence work an injury to some part of the community: this was the practice with nations in the case of a treaty, which, when made by competent authority, they considered themselves bound to observe, although they deemed it disadvantageous to them, at least a refusal should deter other nations from treating with them in future; it is by this line of conduct that public credit can alone be supported. Whatever may be the merits of the alienors, or the speculations of the alienees of public securities, it was not the business of government to interpose; there are the contracts—they must be paid as far as the public resources will extend. The claim of those unfortunate creditors whose distress drove them to the necessity of sacrificing their certificates, was a claim on the humanity of Congress; and he should not be opposed to giving them relief, provided the funds were taken out of the public treasury, and not in the manner proposed. In whatever light he viewed the project under consideration, he felt a strong conviction that it was such a one as ought to be rejected.
Mr. Ames agreed with Mr. Madison in regard to the validity of the debt. There was propriety in saying the nation is the same, tho' the government is changed. The debt is the price of our liberties, and cannot be diminished a farthing the gentleman says—and why—because the government, as one of the contracting parties cannot annul, or vary the bargain, without the consent of the other. If the measure proposed by that gentleman corresponds with that sound principle, he should have the pleasure of agreeing with him on the ultimate decision—but if the measure should be found, on a fair discussion, to be subversive of that principle, it would not merit the countenance of the committee.
A claim upon our justice is made on behalf of the original holders of securities who have transferred them. There is a benevolent prejudice in their favor. Does the pledged faith of the country stand charged to pay the difference between the price their securities sold for in the market and the nominal sum? In order to make the affirmative appear, the worthy gentleman has said, that the paper is the only evidence of a prior debt—and while the paper was sold, the residuary right to the debt still remained in the seller. Supposing this novel doctrine to be true, which cannot be conceded, it will not warrant any conclusion in prejudice of any purchaser of the loan office debt. For the paper was given when the loan was made. As no prior debt existed, the paper is the very debt. The gentleman ought therefore to confine his motion to the army debt, as his principle seems inapplicable to any other. And even on liquidating the army debt, the certificate extinguished the prior debt—otherwise the public would be twice charged—As when one man owes another on account, and gives his bond for the balance, the account is no longer of force. By the terms of the certificate, the person transferring has lost his claim against the public. He has freely transferred—for if violence or fraud were practised, the law will afford him redress. In society, as well as in a state of nature, property is changed by the consent of the last occupant. He may dispose of it by gift, or at half price—and give a complete title. Nor will the pretence that this transfer was free only in appearance, avail—for the motives which disposed the owner to sell cannot affect the right of the purchaser. Every such creditor risked something—either that government would not pay him at all, or not in due season. The risk computed in free and open market will be near right. It is a kind of insurance against these risks, and the insurers and insured will calculate the rate of insurance better than government can do it. If there is a new risk of government interposing, it seems that the purchaser, who may be called the insurer, did not rate his risk high enough. It seems pretty clear, therefore, that there is no claim on the stipulated justice of the country.
Another sort of justice is set up—a different sort from that which we were taught in the schools and churches. It is called abstract justice, and is said to demand allowance for the loss sustained by the failure of public payments. No man respects more than I do the merit of the army. But the soldiers, at least, had something towards justice by their bounty.
Stock has sold in England at 50 pr. cent. discount, and yet no retribution has been made.—Where then does this new line of justice begin? It can scarcely be denied that their claim, if they have any, is not a debt. The arguments alledged by the gentlemen are addressed merely to the compassion and generosity of the government.—Nor do I know that there is any ground for saying that public opinion is in their favor. It will be allowed that if justice is to be done, it should be impartial justice. Partiality would be more cruel than total neglect.—Will you refuse to make amends for paper money, for property taken by our army in Canada, for losses sustained during the war, for towns burned? In this last case, it is to be observed, that government has promised protection—and inability to protect it as much a debt as the case in question. The intermediate holders who bought at 6/8, and despairing of government sold out at 2/6, have an equal claim. Are all these to be excluded?—Let us not break contracts for half justice. The example of paper
money is adduced to shew that the public made up losses—but this is an example of the public fulfilling its contract—not annulling it. Paper money is a bad source to draw examples from.
But is it true that justice requires the public to pay for all the losses sustained in times of calamity? I think not—for by fraud the government would be obliged to pay for more than was lost. The resources of the sufferers will more easily repair such losses than the government can make them good—and besides, in extreme cases, it would extend and prolong the evil. If an army should invade England, and the city of London should be burned, and the country laid waste by order of the King, all Europe could not pay for it. What is justice—a line of public conduct which necessarily tends to utility. No pretence of abstract justice can be valid, if it tends to evil rather than good.
But if there subsists a claim on the public justice, it cannot impair the debt in the hands of the present holder for which the public faith is pledged. It is alledged that the seller, who sold for a trifle, will be taxed to pay the purchaser. He certainly ought to fare as other citizens do. But taxes are in proportion to property. If he has property then the plea of necessity is destroyed. If he has none then his taxes will be a mere trifle.
The project is not justice, even to those whom it pretends to relieve. If you allow less to the purchasers than they gave, it is downright robbery. If you allow more, it is half way justice to those who have sold. I would not risk every thing to do justice, as it is called, and then not do it.
But this fragment of justice cannot be given to some, without wronging others. You impair the property in the hands of the present original holders. It is not supposed that the alienated property is near equal to that which is still in the hands of the first holders. Be that as it may, I believe with confidence that it would be cheaper for the present holders to pay the market price of the paper proposed to be given to the former holders, than to suffer the shock which this measure would give to the credit of their paper. I will not enter now into the merits of the Secretary's plan, but I think it not difficult to shew that he proposes better justice to the present original holders than is contained in the motion, and that the debt funded on his plan would sell for more in the market. Great sums have been lent to the public by trustees who acted for others, and only lent their names. Many original creditors were not first holders—supplies were furnished to contractors for the army, who got credit, and afterwards paid in paper, as they received it of the public. Many towns hired soldiers for a gross sum, and agreed to take the wages—Private debts have been paid at par.—A man in embarrassed circumstances, instead of compounding with his creditors for ten or a dozen years forbearance, paid them at par, or near it, in public paper, which in that period was supposed to be as likely to be paid as his private note. No less a sum than 214000 dollars were paid in this way to one mercantile house, at about 15s. in the pound. Compare the gross injustice of these cases with the pretended justice of the motion—consider that it pretends to pay the purchaser.—But loan office certificates have sold from 15s. and 18s. in the pound to 5s. Foreign purchasers gave more than our market price. Before they bought, they got certificates of the nature of the debt, that it was not liable to any deduction, and that the transfer would be valid. People in the first offices in this country and abroad signed them. 50000 dollars were bought for one Dutch house, and registered, and the partners in the sum have divided the certificates by giving their own bonds. What will be the effect? Justice or injustice? In these cases, the gentleman will admit, that the rights of these people are perfect. The debt he says himself cannot be diminished a farthing.—Property is sacred. The right to a single dollar cannot be violated. Let the gentleman then acknowledge that he must give up his project, or his principles.
I have endeavored to shew what sort of abstract justice this is. But if it should be allowed that there is a claim of justice, what then? Let them claim justice of those who have done them injustice, not of the fair purchaser.
Let us examine the claims of the purchasers. The gentleman's argument on this point merits attention—if it is right, for it's novelty in Congress—if wrong, for it's tendency. Here I think it necessary to apologize—not for my sentiments—their apology must spring from their propriety—but for the manner in which I express them.—My zealous conviction may seem to arraign the opinions of other gentlemen—whom I respect as I ought. I know that men of the best intentions entertain a favorable opinion of a discrimination. There is a wish to do more than justice to the one, and the heart, betrayed by it's sympathy, consents to injustice to the others. But, Sir, I cannot claim the merit of moderation on this point. I will not pretend that I doubted first and then decided. The principles of my education, and the habits of my life, predisposed me to believe, and my short experience and reading have confirmed

it, that nations cannot admit cunning into their councils without its shedding a malignant influence on their affairs. Experience teaches government, as well as men, that nothing is safe that is wrong. We have endured tender laws, and the pitiful expedients of a trickish policy. Our experience has cost us dear. The old Congress, however, were guided by other maxims—with little power, and scarce retaining the mock representation of it during the whole year, they protected the objects of an honest policy with a zeal, which repulses and despair could not extinguish. They could say with FRANCIS the 1st. after the battle of Pavia, we have lost all except our honor . They resolved against discrimination, and foreigners, as well as citizens, bought securities under the public faith—But when the Constitution was framed, adopting the debts as valid, restraining ex post facto laws, and laws impairing contracts—who entertained any suspicion? The speech of the President, and the resolutions of the House in favor of public credit banished it. Does this look as if public opinion was hostile to these purchasers? If it really is, it is more a duty on government to protect right when it may happen to be unpopular. That is what government is framed to do. If instead of protecting, it assumes the right of controlling property, and disposing of it at its own pleasure, and against the consent of the owner, there is a cheat in the compact.
It will be admitted that there is a right vested in the purchaser—government cannot diminish it a farthing, says the gentleman—but he says we cannot pay both. Then abide by your word of honor—prefer perfect rights by solemn compact to claims on your compassion.—The claims of the present holders you say are just—are the others more than just? Treat all just claims alike, and do not rob on the high way to exercise charity—why make one creditor pay another? He says, government is to get nothing by this—and yet he says, we owe these people, and our creditors shall pay them. Is paying a debt getting nothing? He talks of rival claims; there is no rivalry—the sellers agreed that there should be none.—If government is bankrupt, compound with your creditors—will this act of violence console the sufferers? Will they enjoy, as a favor, the violation of the rights for which they fought? The South Sea and Mississippi schemes have been adduced as examples—In the former, government interposed to fulfil the contract; the Mississippi is not parallel—what the gentleman calls public justice, I am sure he would not practice in his own case.
I have chosen to consider the principle of the motion—but it cannot be carried into execution—we have seen that justice in the abstract will not be done, nor can the measure proposed be effected; we may very properly suppose that innumerable difficulties will arise in practice which cannot be foreseen—but so many appear as ought to deter us.—The detail will be endless—an account must be opened for each claimant, public offices must be opened, officers multiplied, and great expense incurred—there is no clue by the records to the cases of money deposited by agents for other people—I have enquired and am told that it is not possible. Will you admit oral evidence—and of persons interested—will you fill the land with discontent, corruption, suits and perjury? The new paper, if not transferable, will be no great relief—if transferable, there will be a new harvest of speculation—the after crop will be more abundant than the first cutting.—A purchaser keeps his note for 20s. By law, you make it a note for 10s. How many frauds will be practised on the unwary? If the mind balances on these points let policy turn the scale.
Will not this measure shake government? Instead of doing as it has promised, government is to do as it pleases.—Right is to depend, not on compact, and sacred faith, and the constitution, but on opinion, on a major vote, where nothing, not even right, is fixed, will not the government be liable to perpetual commotion?
How will it affect our national character? How will it effect public credit? We shall have to pay for meddling, if we in future should have any credit. The famous Colonel Chartres said, he would give one hundred thousand pounds for a character—not for its own sake, but because he could get two hundred thousand by it—Henry VIII borrowed money on his personal security, and his base parliament voted that as he had done great things for the realm and church, he should be discharged from those obligations. Charles the second shut up the exchequer—What was the consequence? King William paid 14 per cent. on annuities, and at the rate of 10 and 12 per cent. interest—but by good faith, in 5 or 6 years, money fell to 5 per cent. interest.—By breach of faith, we vote the government into a state of pupilage, and deprive it of its powers.
I have thus endeavored to show that there is not a debt subsisting against the public in favor of the original holders, who have sold out—that the motion is chargeable with partiality—and is inadequate to its pretended objects—that it will do injustice to many, and violate the sacred rights of property—that the purchasers are secured by the contract, by the faith of government and by the constitution—that the measure is not practicable,
and will produce confusion, corruption and expense, and that it will weaken, disturb and disgrace the government and impair its credit.
I have made this recapitulation of my argument in order to bring it into one view—if it is just, or only plausible, let us ask what will be the effect? Is this what was expected under the new constitution? Did we expect it? Is there one here who has not told the people that an end would be put to tender acts and paper money, and the ruinous effects of government's interposing in contracts? Who, in or out of Congress, did not suppose that the letter and spirit of the constitution laid as much? The spirit of the times said more.—Will not the people charge us with violating the constitution and the rights of property? If we plead necessity, they will demand, how came it that we were ignorant of it, and, if it exists, what is there that breach of faith can save, that good faith would lose? or what will that be worth which may be secured by a measure that will tarnish our national honor, and transmit to our children an inheritance of reproach? Is there no refuge but in dishonor? We have borne adversity before, and we had rather submit to the worst events of an honest policy—and this project is not to relieve any burdens, for government is to rob, not for plunder, but to get the reputation of justice.
If our own citizens say thus, what will foreigners say? They will not be restrained, either by the opinion of their fellow countrymen, or by attachment to our prosperity. They will detail their losses, and the arts by which their confidence was gained—they will think that we have been taught a species of immoral philosophy—that we administer government by a kind of cunning logic which confounds right and wrong—they will rejoice that the Mahrattas and Americans are at a distance; the ocean has not hitherto proved a barrier against our depredations.—An American abroad will be obliged to deny his country.
However, I still believe that justice is a law to Congress—but if justice and public faith and honor have ceased to be things, let them cease to be names—let them be blotted from the vocabulary of our nation. If they have no being, why should they be made use of to conjure up church yard terrors, to haunt the hypochondriac imagination?
I will not be so un candid as to charge the worthy gentleman with such intentions. I think so highly of his probity and patriotism, that if he can be made to see that these consequences will follow, or only be apprehended, he will give up his scheme: but if government has this right, what right of private property is safe? In the East, government is said to be the sole owner of property and may resume it at pleasure.—This absurd doctrine will not find advocates—for it would not do for practice even where it may not be denied to be true, human nature revolts against it—It would shock the morality of Botany Bay, it would exasperate, beyond sufferance, the patient slavery of Indostan—and who can give good reason why one sort of property should be more sacred than another?
If we pursue another kind of policy, such as the preamble to the constitution declares to be the objects of the government; this government and this country may expect a more than Roman fortune.—The government may have more credit, the people more knowledge, and the blessings of peace a longer duration than the world has ever experienced. That gentleman helped to frame the constitution—I have no doubt it is the better for his eminent abilities—I hope that his love of his own work and his zeal for the cause which he has so ably supported, will induce him to abandon a measure, which tends so fatally to disappoint the first wishes of his own heart, and the hopes of his country.
WEDNESDAY, FEB. 17.
The bill for a uniform rule of naturalization, was read a second time and referred to a committee of the whole on Tuesday next.
The bill to encourage the useful arts was also read a second time, and referred to a committee of the whole on Wednesday next.
Several petitions were read from persons praying compensation for services.
Also a petition from John Ingraham, praying relief against the seizure of his vessel and cargo made in the port of New-York, he being ignorant of the laws relative thereto.
On motion of Mr. Sedgwick, the petition of Lucas Lincoln was read a second time, and referred to the Secretary at War. Mr. Sedgwick presented the petition of Jehoika Thompson, one of the Oneida Indians, setting forth that he had served under General Sullivan in the western country, guided him in his marches, and fought by his side; that he had received a certificate for his services, but on his way homeward he was obliged to cross rivers, whereby he wet his pack, and lost the said certificate; praying, that as he believed Congress to be very wise and just, they would grant him an order on their money keeper, &c.
The order of the day was then called for: Mr. Madison's motion for a discrimination being under consideration.
Mr. Page advocated the motion; and Mr. Boudinot opposed it, in a speech of two hours and a half. The committee then rose, and the House adjourned.
THURSDAY, FEB. 18.
On motion of Mr. Goodhue, the petition of Hannah Treat was read the second time, and referred to the Secretary at War.
The petition of Jehoika Thompson, was read the second time and referred to a committee consisting of Mr. Sedgwick, Mr. Van Rensselaer and Mr. Moore.
In committee of the whole on the Report of the Secretary of the Treasury; Mr. Madison's motion for a discrimination under consideration.—A number of speakers pro and con this day—which terminated without any decision.
FRIDAY, FEB. 19.
A message from the Senate was received by their Secretary, with
the bill providing for the enumeration of the inhabitants of the United States—returned with sundry amendments.
In committee of the whole on the report of the Secretary of the Treasury—Mr. Madison's motion for discrimination under consideration.—Mr. Scot and Mr. Sneyd spoke in favor of the proposition—Mr. Livermore, Mr. Gerry, Mr. Bland and Mr. Burke against it—the discussion of the subject was continued till near the moment of adjournment—the committee rose without coming to a vote—and are to resume the business on Monday next.
A letter was read from the commissioners for settling accounts between the United States and individual States, respecting the diminished rate at which the Clerks were employed in this business are paid—compared with the salaries in the other offices, and requesting the interposition of Congress—that they may be placed on an equality.
The resolution of the Senate for appointing three commissioners pursuant to the memorial of Hon. Robert Morris, late superintendent of finance, was read.
After some debate whether it should be referred to a select committee, it was ordered, that it lie on the table.
Adjourned till Monday 11 o'clock.
ERRATUM.—In Mr. Sedgwick's Speech in our last, 5th paragraph from the top, for "latter species" read former species.
FOR THE GAZETTE OF THE UNITED STATES.
THE Legislature of every State have authority to act in a three-fold capacity.
1. They have authority to make laws for the good government of the people of the State, and to alter or repeal them as they may think fit.
2. They have authority as agents for the State, to grant or transfer public property in behalf of the State; and to make contracts binding on the State; but they have no authority to revoke, impair or alter any such grant or contract fairly made and obtained, without the consent of the other party.
3. When any question shall come before them respecting the construction or fulfilment of such contracts, they have authority to decide thereon in a judicial capacity: and are in duty bound to be governed in their judgement by the same principles as a court of law or equity, as the nature of the case may require; nor are the individuals composing the legislature, any more interested in such decision, than the judges of the courts of law. When a State or the United States are plaintiffs in a cause against an individual, the case is to be decided by a court of law; but when an individual has a demand against a State or against the United States, the claimant could not have an adequate remedy in the ordinary courts of law or equity, because their judgement could not be executed against a State or against the United States; therefore when no provision is made by law for the liquidation or satisfaction of such claims, the claimant has no remedy but by a petition of right to the legislature; and such cases often occur. The duty of the legislature in such cases is more fully pointed out and inculcated in the following extract from an election sermon delivered before the Legislature of the State of Connecticut, in May, 1787, viz:
"REMEMBER, Gentlemen, that while you are examining the rights of individuals, and their claims on one another, or on the public, you drop the character of legislators, and should act by the same fixed rules of law and equity, as the judge on the bench. In causes of a judicial kind, your high character of sovereignty will not excuse an arbitrary decision, or denial of justice, any more than the same may be excused in the lowest executive court."
"In granting favours, you are only to consider, whether they are equitable and consistent with the good of the community; but in doing justice you have no sovereign discretion. No wise man thinks his life and estate safe in the hand of a tyrant, bound by no restraint of law; Excuse me, gentlemen, when I add, that the discretion of a popular assembly, acting by no fixed and known rules of equity, is a different expression, but the same in effect, as the will of a despot. Sovereign power should never be perverted to acts of unrighteousness: Let not therefore the notion of omnipotence, and of being above controul, insensibly insinuate itself into your deliberations, and lead to a different determination, from what you would give in a different character. With deference to your high stations, I am warranted with all boldness to assure you, in the fear of God the Almighty and Eternal Judge, that the consideration of not being accountable to an higher court on earth, should be one of the most forcible motives, to engage you to the greatest uprightness and impartiality, not only between subject and subject, but especially between the subject and the public. Remember that as there is in this world an appeal from a lower to a higher court, so when the most sovereign and uncontroulable court on earth gives an unrighteous sentence and wickedly perverts judgement, there is immediately entered in the high court of Heaven an appeal, which in the great day of general assize, will be called, and must be answered. Then you, my honorable auditors, and all the kings and judges of the earth shall appear, and give an account of your conduct while you acted in the character of Gods on earth."
NEW-YORK, FEBRUARY 20.
Yesterday arrived here in 10 weeks from Plymouth, England, a Sloop of War, with dispatches for Lord Dorchester, and Sir John Temple.
Extract of a letter from Boston, February 3.
"I thank you for the Secretary's Report. I like it—and believe the House won't mend it—therefore with it may be adopted; at least, that Congress may not make any alterations, but such as the Secretary shall approve—that he may feel his responsibility, and exert himself accordingly. I like a HEAD to every department, and that every head should have ample powers, and be responsible. Such a system of government will at once be EFFICIENT AND FREE.—You will see by our papers the influence of certain volatile and giddy characters—their inconsistency and folly keep the ignorant members gaping, and waste the time of the Court, which ought to be employed in important business. Such conduct serves to evince the importance and necessity of the General Government. How wretched would be our situation without it."
"THE REPUBLICAN, No. 3," "NECKAR," and a "POETICAL ESSAY" are received.
To be LET, And possession given the 1st of April, for one or more years, (two miles and half from this city, on the Greenwich road,)
THAT New TWO STORY HOUSE—four Rooms on a floor; with six fire places; a new Barn, and Well of excellent Water; a young Orchard of Fruit Trees, with 7 1/2 acres of Land, the most part Meadow. For particulars enquire at No. 7, Maiden-Lane. New-York, February 20.

LETTER.—No. I.
SIR,
I HAVE seen in the papers accounts of large Associations, and applications to government for the abolition of slavery. Religion, humanity, and the generosity natural to a free people, are the noble principles which dictate these measures. Such motives command respect, and are above any eulogium words can bestow.
Altho' I fully applaud, and join in the wish to see slavery abolished, I must however confess, that what I have collected, on the means for obtaining the end, out of those channels has given me no satisfaction.
The subject is in my opinion, of higher moment than has been represented: Slavery is not only contrary to the feelings of freemen, but to the principles of a free government; it not only vitiates it, but it must also be considered, that in America the evil is a deep-rooted and daily increasing one; that to effect a cure, palliatives are dangerous, and no more applicable to it, than they are in the mortification of gangrenated bodies; that to heal this political and moral evil, and to do strict justice on all sides, is a difficult task: For which reason, I presume, that this matter must only be considered, and even decided, on the ground of philosophical and political argument. On this very scale I shall try to state the nature of the question, and the measures for a radical cure of the evil.
Agreeable to the order mentioned, I shall take up the subject, first on philosophical ground. Innumerable are the beings on the globe, yet the eternal wisdom has classed them all, gradually descending from animated to inanimatized nature; distinguishable differences of form, size, strength, weakness, ferocity, mildness, sensibility, inertia, inanimation, are evident. Those differences have been proved by philosophical enquiry, to proceed by gentle tints and shadows, till observation on those subjects is set at nought.
No less wonderful is a something similar order in the vegetable and mineral kingdoms: In those we find also, well divided classes, graduated, connected, yet all marked out in different characters; such instances are numerous, but beyond my strength to investigate, and beyond the limits of this paper; however, in order to throw light on the ideas I have communicated, I will select, and consider at large, a few examples out of the animal kingdom.
From the elephant to the smallest insect, visible to the eye by a microscope only, what a graduation of sizes, of animals, does there stand between those two extremes; strength, sagacity, and temper, are objects no less gradually diminishing, and form distinct characters, between individuals of the great sum of animated beings.
An other graduation is remarkable; nature goes not from one species of animals abruptly to the next; there are beings who separate one sort from the other, and partake in their form, and habit, something of both; those I call intermediate beings.
Examples of this description are plentiful: for instance amphibious; of these, the sea-lion, the sea-cow, the sea-horse, the sea-dog, the beaver, the otter, &c. partake at once of the nature of fish, and of some land animal which have resemblance to. Only one more of these I beg leave to mention: on the Cape of Good Hope, a duck, at once fish and fowl, is often met with, the form is that of a common wild duck, but the wings are constructed like the fins of a fish; those ducks fly horizontally over the water to hunt the fish swifter in swimming than they are; but their power of flying is over as soon as their wings become dry; they lay their eggs in cliffs on shore, and there breed their young ones; this I presume is one of the intermediate beings, between fowl and fish.
In several species of animals, altho' likeness is apparently great, how different is their nature: This we will exemplify by the lion, and a large dog, of which there is in Asia a species of a kind and shape, almost next to the lion, called the lion-dog: Ancient history records that such an one was given to Alexander, King of Macedonia; this needs no further description, for even to this day the breed is not extinct; the Mogul, and other Asiatic Princes, hunt the lion still with them; a single one, armed with a steel collar, and breast harness, fights on equal chance, and two of these vanquish the lion easily. The bull-dog, and the wolf with the short muzzle, the small spannel with the fox, the domestic cat with the tiger, have all striking resemblances, but how different are they in character, habit and temper.
Among animals avowed to be of the same kind, the differences are no less perfectly ascertained. This field is as extensive as the former: It would tire the attention to walk thro' all the images it is able to furnish; hence I shall keep within short bounds of the most common objects. From the beforementioned Asiatic lion-dog, to the little long-haired delicate Spanish dog, which lies snarling in the lap of a lady, or cowardly barks out of a basket, lined with cotton, what a difference of character, strength &c. and how many sizes, and species, stand between these two dogs. The noble Arabian horse, the swift tartarian, the barb, the English hunter, the heavy and large offries and the dwarf Norwegian horse, are all horses, yet how differently are they marked out.
In the human species, differences are no less striking and absolute. The Patagonian giants, the dwarfs of Lapponia, the elegantly proportioned figure, and beautiful color of our ladies, and of some European nations; the Chinese; the copper-colored men; the blacks with long hair; the white negro with red spots and white hair, called kakerlak by the Dutch; the African, and southern Papoe negro, with short woolly hair, are all of the species called mankind, but how greatly do they differ, not alone in color and figure, but also in original character.
Plinius gives a description of men, living in the interior parts of Africa; they have ears standing upwards, like horses' ears, their mouth is a long shaped wolf's muzzle, and they have nails like a bear, standing stiff at the end of their fingers. This kind of men carried on bloody wars against the Ethiopians, and were finally rendered tributary by the latter: they have been seen, in the armies of the Ethiopians, in their wars with the Egyptians, and Romans. When I travelled in the Asiatic southern Hemisphere, a Prince, sovereign of one of those islands, gave me a description of the same kind of men, living in some islands next to him: This Prince was a stranger to Plinius's account, and the unprovoked narrative, and perfect resemblance of his description was the first confirmation I obtained that Plinius had told no tale; but I have since, in Europe, seen a female of that monstrous species, brought from Africa to Marseilles. This creature was thought to be of the monkey kind, but her knees confirmed me in the belief, that she was of the intermediate beings, by which nature goes from one species to another, and probably those creatures stand between mankind and the monkey species: The knees of this female stood forwards, like those of men, but in general all quadrupeds have the knees of their hind legs standing backwards: She answered also the description given by Plinius, and by the Asiatic Prince.
From this perusal, little doubt can remain that all those quoted distinctions are explanatory proofs of the immutable order of the universe, instituted by the infinite wisdom of the Almighty: Can human law change the system, or by intermixing species, overthrow the fixed order of nature, and improve the original? Is it in the power of men, to make out of a cur a bull dog; out of a Norwegian dwarf-horse, a noble Arabian; out of the voracious wolf, a companionable Newfoundland dog; out of the wild musk-bull, a domestic ox, to till his ground; out of the Lapponian dwarf, a Patagonian giant? If this can be done, then he can also make out of the sheep-hairy African negroe, a spirited, noble, and generous American Freeman!
My next letter I shall make shorter; the length of this I could not well avoid. RUSTICUS.
PARISIAN INTELLIGENCE.
PARIS, Nov. 26. Frosty Nights.
M. DUPONT, a Member of the National Assembly, is a great advocate for the Caisse d'Escompte. He pretends that it never stopped payment; on the contrary, he affirms, with confidence, that it daily pays now between three and four hundred thousand livres, and refuses no bills or notes. He farther remarks, that the Bank of England, so renowned for its exactness, when the Pretender was in Scotland did not cease payment, it is true; but discharged its notes in shilling
and sixpenny pieces; which operation went on so slowly in the payments, that not a thousand pounds sterling were paid in a day. And yet, says M. Dupont, it was never asserted, that the Bank of England had become bankrupt. The said member insists, that the nation ought in justice and gratitude, either pay what she owes to the Caisse, or aggregate it to the National Bank, according to M. Necker's plan.
A new plan of a National bank has been proposed by a M. Cabains; it is very concise, and in all probability will be adopted. It excludes the Caisse d'Escompte, which will be reimbursed.
A very generous present was sent to the National Assembly by the Nuns of Maubeuge. They are sorry, they say, in the letter that accompanies the gift, that it is not in their power to send any plate (they gave it all to Louis XV) to encrreate the specie; but, to make amends, they offer to the nation an annual income of 147,000 livres (61251.) The national Assembly received it with demonstrations of gratitude and joy.
There is a scheme of melting the bells of all the churches. They may be of some service.
Since the Members of the National Assembly gave their buckles, no silver ones are to be seen in the streets. It is true, that the apprehension of being stopped by some daring fellows, who, under pretence of serving their country, strip you of whatever visible silver or gold they can find on you, does not a little contribute to render almost every individual generous. I have sent mine, and my sister her gold ear-rings, and thimble to the Mint.
Yesterday, as it was reported, was the day appointed by the Aristocratic party to produce a counter-revolution. All the districts were under arms from midnight till ten o'clock in the morning. Thank God, it was a false alarm; and I do not imagine we shall experience another shock within this year. The national Assembly begins to acquire a consistency, and the provinces in general seem satisfied, and adopt all the articles passed at the National Assembly with seeming satisfaction. His Majesty remains in statu quo, and there is no probability of his hunting this autumn. The Duke of Bourbon and his son have left Turin.
NATIONAL ASSEMBLY.
Thursday, Nov. 19.
We have already mentioned the Articles of the Constitution decreed this day.
A Report was read from the Committee of War, the beginning of which deserves to be noticed. "Although it be neither the interest of France, nor the wish of Frenchmen to make conquests, we must nevertheless have an army always on foot, and ready for action, to resist the attacks of powerful and armed neighbours, &c."
To keep up such an army, two methods are proposed. First, Personal service by every Frenchman, without distinction, for four years, at least once in his life; allowing such only as are incapable of personal service to find substitutes. Second, Volunteers willing to serve for pay, to open a field for those whose inclination may lead them to the profession of arms. No man, after serving once, to be ordered out a second time, but by his own consent; and in case of war, bachelors, to take the field before married men.
This report was ordered to be printed. [The business of Friday is related in the former part of this letter.]
Saturday, Nov. 21.
The Canons of St. Genevieve having offered to present their magnificent library to the city of Paris, it was this day proposed to ratify the gift; but the Assembly declined giving any opinion on the subject.
The Baron de Comere, who has long been employed on calculations of finance, presented a plan, which he requested leave to read at the bar. This could not be granted; but the plan was referred to the Committee of Finance, with an instruction to take it into immediate consideration.
Wednesday, Nov. 25.
The following articles of Constitution were decreed:
"The present municipalities of all cities, towns, parishes, or communities, under whatever title or qualification, are suppressed and abolished; and, in the mean time, Magistrates now in office shall continue their functions, till others be appointed in their room.
On a petition from the City of Metz, setting forth that the Parliament, by a new arrar, had acknowledged that liberty and union surrounded the King and National Assembly, and professing their sincere repentance for the error into which report had led them, the Assembly decreed, that the attendance of the Members of that Parliament at the bar should be dispensed with; and the petition from the City in their behalf printed in the minutes.
A discussion took place on the necessity of defining, in clear and precise terms, the crime of treason against the State; but as this will make part of the labours of the Committee of Constitution, the matter was referred to that Committee.
The first part of the pension list, containing twenty four quarto pages, is published. The
plan of the work, is to divide the whole into seven parts; the first to contain, in alphabetical order, the names of all those who enjoy pensions of 20,000 livres and upwards, with the age of the pensioner, the date of the pension, and the reasons for which it was given; the second, from 8,000 livres to 20,000; the third, from 2,400 to 8,000; and so on.
The result of the first part, which is said to be very incorrect, is that eighty-six persons share among them annually 2,895,623 livres. Of these ten are Ladies; fifteen superannuated, or discharged Ministers; twenty six persons, whose services were never heard of; five whom the nation would recompence more liberally, and thirty, for whose zeal and talents ten thousand livres would be a liberal reward. The reasons most commonly assigned for granting these pensions are, to make good a pension no longer paid by some foreign Prince, or to reward political services.
Marshal Broglio enjoys four several pensions, making together 70,000 livres.
Thursday, Nov. 26.
The sitting in the morning of this day was remarkable for the extraordinary progress made in the organization of the primary and intermediate Assemblies.
A Deputy from Guadalupe proposed, in the name of the West India Deputies, to appoint a Committee of planters and merchants to receive and examine all plans of Constitution for the Colonies; to which, he observed, the principles of Constitution for the Continent where not properly applicable. The consideration of this proposition was postponed.
A decree was passed, forbidding all persons holding or exercising public offices to receive any present or gratification of any kind or nature, on pain of being punished as guilty of extortion; and it was ordered to be presented immediately for the Royal sanction.
The consideration of M. Necker's plan for a National Bank was resumed.
The prevailing opinion seemed to be, that the general state of the finances is not yet sufficiently investigated to enable men to judge of the advantages or disadvantages of such a plan.
The Assembly ordered the Committee of Finance, in concert with the first Minister, to draw up a detailed account of the demands that require ninety millions over and above the actual revenue for the year 1790, with an estimate of ways and means for raising that sum; and adjourned the further discussion till Saturday.
The Bishop of Treguier has published a second mandate, in which he retracts all that he said in his former against the revolution and the proceedings of the National Assembly. In consequence of this recantation, the same indulgence has been solicited for him that was granted to the parliament of Rouen and Metz, but hitherto without effect.
Saturday, Nov. 28.
M. Guillotin called the attention of the Assembly to some amendments which he conceived highly necessary to be added to the provisional reform of criminal jurisprudence. These were the same penalties for criminals of all ranks and conditions; the same punishment for all capital offences; a decapitation by a machine constructed for the purpose, instead of an executioner; and the proscription of the absurd prejudice which extends the infamy of a criminal to his family. It was agreed to consider them on Tuesday next.
A report was read from the Committee of Finance, containing the state of the public treasury on the first of November, and an estimate of the probable receipt from that time to the end of the present year, which including the plate carried to the Mint, and the subscriptions to the loan of eighty millions, did not exceed forty millions of livres.
L O N D O N, Dec. 3.
The affairs of Europe never wore so singular and even whimsical an aspect as at present:
The Head of the House of Austria oppressing the Catholic Church; and the Catholic Church offering the riches of the Sacred Temples at the shrine of Liberty! The Patriots of Holland Refugees in Brabant, and the Patriots of Brabant Refugees in Holland! Prussia the restraint of Dutch, and the hope of Flemish freedom! The great Protestant Alliance of England, Prussia, and Holland, considered as the shield of the most zealous Catholics in the world.
The campaign is now intirely finished in the North. The Swedish fleet is returned to Charlscroon, and the Russian to Revel. The troops too, of both the powers, in Finland, are put into winter quarters.
A very extraordinary circumstance occurred on Wednesday night, at the entrance of Covent-Garden Theatre. A gentleman, who made an unsuccessful attempt to gain admission, was returning home, and on putting his hand into his pocket for his handkerchief, discovered a purse with eight guineas and some silver. This must have happened through the mistake of one of the light fingered gentry, who, in the pressure of the crowd, mistook the gentleman's pocket for his own.