Title: Import Duties, [28 April] 1789
From: Madison, James
To:

[28 April 1789]

   Goodhue, Gerry, and Thatcher of Massachusetts objected to the six-cent duty on molasses as ruinous to the Massachusetts fishing industry and rum distillers and burdensome to the poor.

Mr. Madison. I shall make no observation, Mr. Speaker, upon the language of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Thatcher) because I do not conceive it expresses either the deliberate temper of his own mind, or the good sense of his constituents. I am more inclined to try this measure by the rule of justice, than on the imaginary effects which gentlemens apprehension fear it will produce. I do not find from what has been said, yesterday or this morning, that the arguments have taken a different turn, or that the opposition is supported on any other principles than it was on a former debate; the subjects that were before discussed have been repeated and amplified, but no new matter has offered, nothing has been said to invalidate the former decision of the committee; we are told again that the consequence of so high a duty on molasses, will be the destruction of one part of our commerce important to our allies, and essential to a considerable manufacture, that without this branch of commerce our fisheries cannot be carried on. I should have supposed that, in order to make good this doctrine, the gentlemen in opposition ought to have shewn what disadvantage the manufacture of rum would be exposed to greater than it used to be when the molasses stood clear of duty, but had the competition of West-India rum also without duty. I find before the revolution, that the quantity of molasses annually imported, amounted to 3,580,144 gallons—the quantity of rum manufactured within the same period was 2,534,252 gallons—at this time West-India rum was subjected to no duty, and molasses paid one penny sterling per gallon, nearly equal to three cents, or half the present duty. Now if the manufacture was carried on with profit (and the extent of it proves that it was productive) when it had to contend with a duty of 15 per cent. on the value of the raw material, against a superior liquor imported duty free, is it to be imagined that this trade is to be destroyed by a duty only double on molasses, when the competition is supported by an impost, 50 fold of what it was before, against foreign rum? I think it can be demonstrated from calculation, that if the duty was extended to 15 cents per gallon, it would still receive encouragement superior to what it had before the revolution. If we compare the state of the manufacture since the revolution, we shall find it labouring under greater disadvantages than what can arise from the proposed duty. In almost all the states it has been considered and treated as foreign rum, yet even under the disadvantage which this must have occasioned, we find that the exportation to the several parts of the United States amount annually to 5 or 600,000 gallons—a certain proof that it is able to carry on a successful competition in America with West-India rum, without the aid of government; and that the preference given by this revenue system, and by the new constitution which permits its free entry into every state, will enable the manufacture to rise into an importance hitherto unknown to it.
We are told that molasses is not merely used in the distilleries, but that it enters into the subsistance of the inhabitants as an article of food, and that in this light it bears harder upon the poor than upon the rich; I will not deny but the consumption of molasses in substance is greater in the eastern states than in the others; but I do presume that this disproportion of consumption is productive of an equalization in the system: If we compare the consumption of the northern and southern states, as it respects the articles of sugar and molasses, we shall find that the duty on molasses does not bear harder upon the one than sugar does upon the other; for reduce a gallon of molasses to weight, in order to make the comparison fairly, you will find it weighing at least 8 lb.; now 8 lb. of this article taxed at 6 cents cannot be so much as 8 lb. of sugar at 1 cent per lb. so that on the ground of equality, I do not see there is any room for the opposition to maintain themselves. It has been said that the duty will be burthensome on the merchants, and require greater capitals than they possess, or will necessarily lessen their operations; there may be some weight in this consideration, but let me ask the gentlemen if it does not apply to our duties in general; but will they say, that the objection is sufficient to deter us from this mode of taxation? I apprehend it will not be said, because it has been constantly admitted in this house, that although it is an inconvenience, yet it is such an one as must be submitted to, to avoid a greater, either we must derive a revenue from this source, or take a mode much more exceptionable.
But how will it affect the fisheries? It is said that if rum is indirectly taxed through molasses, it will ruin this interest, yet at the same time the state of Massachusetts collects near 17 cents per gallon from rum; then there must be a draw-back allowed on what is consumed in that business; but I am informed there is no draw-back allowed, so that the fisheries at present labour under greater discouragement from the policy of Massachusetts, than they will be exposed to from the policy of the United States. The gentlemen have told us that the duty cannot be collected, from a supposition that the officers will neglect their duty, or that the high impost furnished such a temptation that the people cannot with-stand it, and must of consequence engage in an illicit trade; if this supposition is warrantable, how can the duty affect the fisheries? If it is not warrantable can it be supposed that a duty of three-fourths of a cent on a lb. of sweetening in the form of molasses, will mortally affect the terms on which the fishermen carry on their business; and will it contribute to the success of other nations engaged in the same employment? When gentlemen so repeatedly tell us, it will be impossible to guard against smuggling, I own it has some impression on my mind; I fear we shall encounter difficulties in this part of our regulations, but I trust they will not be greater, as they respect the collection of a duty on molasses than on other articles—the bulk and weight of which, added to the smallness of its value, will rather deter people from engaging in a clandestine trade of this kind, than almost any other; I believe more just apprehensions may be entertained with respect to tea, a lb. of which is taxed at 20 cents. I do not therefore conceive that the arguments drawn from the danger of smuggling molasses are of an insuperable nature.
It has been suggested to the house, that there would be more propriety and convenience in substituting an excise in lieu of part of the impost duty; for my part I consider such a tax inexpedient if not impolitic; it will not be necessary to go into a discussion of its expediency, for it is a question not before the house; it will be time enough to enter upon the subject when it has been proved by experience that the impost is ineffectual. At present I will content myself with observing, that an excise, in my opinion, would be received with indignation in some parts of the union, and it is not for this government to disgust any of its citizens if it can be avoided.
It has been said, that the duty agreed to by the committee is higher than has been laid by any particular state upon molasses. Granted, but are gentlemen unacquainted with this circumstance; all the rum imported from New-England into those states were subjected to a heavy duty, and the duty on the rum answered the purpose which the committee had in contemplation when they agreed to 6 cents per gallon on molasses. The states have now disqualified themselves from this mean of self defence; if the general government therefore does not defend them they will be abandoned altogether, to the effects of a torrent poured in upon them by the Massachusetts distillers. Surely gentlemen who are in favor of reducing the impost on molasses, do not consider the effect it will have upon the revenue; when it stands at 6 cents it leaves a bounty of several cents to favor a competition with West-India rum. We have been witnesses to the great quantity manufactured even when the raw material had a high duty upon it, and had to contend with foreign rum which was duty free. I have no doubt but under this favorable regulation the manufacture will encrease; if the duty shall be reduced we bid fair to lose the great revenue we expect from West-India rum, and have its place supplied with a baser spirit. Thus the interests of 3,000,000 of our fellow citizens are to be sacrificed to the establishment of a few distilleries.
If on a general view of the system, gentlemen had proved that Massachusetts would be injured, they might with propriety contend for the reduction of this article; but I think I can say with truth, and support the position, that that end of the continent will not bear a greater proportion of the public burthen than the other—there are, as has been often remarked before, parts of this system which bear harder upon some states than others, but take the whole together the duties will not be unequal; those states that raise less produce, export less, consequently they import less, and consume in the same proportion—if so, they must pay less impost than other states. It is on these principles I contend against a reduction of the duty, and I think the house upon a strict examination of the subject, will be found to have shewn a great degree of liberality to their eastern brethren, when they were satisfied with carrying the impost on molasses no higher than 6 cents.

   Cong. RegisterThomas Lloyd, comp., The Congressional
          Register; or, History of the Proceedings and Debates of the First House of
          Representatives … (2 vols.; New York, 1789; Evans 22203–4)., I, 156–60 (also reported in Gazette of the U.S., 2 May 1789).

   Thatcher had remarked: “Suppose a member from Massachusetts was to propose an impost on negroes; what would you hear from the southern gentlemen, if 50 dollars was the sum to be laid? and yet this is not more than the proportion laid upon molasses” (Cong. RegisterThomas Lloyd, comp., The Congressional
          Register; or, History of the Proceedings and Debates of the First House of
          Representatives … (2 vols.; New York, 1789; Evans 22203–4)., I, 153).

[28 April 1789]

   Ames had spoken against the molasses duty, mainly in reply to JM’s previous remarks.

Mr. Madison. The gentleman from Massachusetts has endeavoured to prove that no advantage the general government can give to New England rum, will bring it into use; he proves this by the observations I made the other day relative to the effect produced in Virginia, where French brandy is imported in certain vessels free of duty; I shall add nothing more on this point than stating what is well known to be the case. In Virginia the habits of the people are so strong in favor of rum, both foreign and domestic, that it requires the greatest exertion to change them; they consume vast quantities of this article; if we lay the duty low, the more of it will come within their power, and the transition from one kind of rum to another is more easy.
It was asked, if the business of distillation was able to support itself under the discouragement of government, why it would not do as well when it received encouragement? To this it was replied, that some of the channels of the trade are dried up, and some obstacles now occur in procuring the raw material. But is not the population of the United States encreased? And is not the home market daily extending by natural means? What then is to be expected from the encouragement given but an enlarged demand? But after all the embarrassments which the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Ames) has detailed, it does not appear that the number of distilleries are lessened; nor did we hear any thing in reply to the observation I made respecting the use of this article in the fisheries; can they suffer more under the policy of the United States than what they are subjected to by the state of Massachusetts? The hardships which our regulations expose them to, are not greater than those of every other part of the continent.
Another argument was urged to shew, that the state of Massachusetts did not contribute in proportion to other states. It was stated, that where the produce was small, the exports and imports were in the same proportion. Compare the imports of Massachusetts with those of Virginia, and you will find they do not exceed one-third of what the latter amounts to; then of consequence, under a system of impost, they do not pay in proportion either to their population or representation. The southern states import many articles which the eastern states do not, many things that are necessary to the poor, and why may we not with equal justice colour our reasoning by a description of our sufferings? May not public exclamations be excited, and the children, for want of clothes, be taught to breathe a vindictive spirit? But let me ask gentlemen, why these apprehensions for one part of the union more than the other? Are the northern people made of finer clay? Do they respire a clearer air? Do their breasts burn with a more generous ardor for their rights as men, or for their country’s happiness and glory? Are they the chosen few? Are all others to be oppressed with accumulated burthens, and they to take their course easy and unrestrained? No; I trust the general government will equally affect all; they were instituted for the protection [of] all, and it is expected they will accomplish the end for which they were appointed; but it can only be done by acts of justice and impartiality, and on this ground I rest the decision to the house.

   Cong. RegisterThomas Lloyd, comp., The Congressional
          Register; or, History of the Proceedings and Debates of the First House of
          Representatives … (2 vols.; New York, 1789; Evans 22203–4)., I, 166–67 (also reported briefly in Gazette of the U.S., 2 May 1789). The duty on molasses remained at six cents. The House on this day completed consideration of the committee’s report, except for the tonnage clauses, which were postponed. The House resolutions on impost duties are printed in DHFCLinda Grant De Pauw et al., eds., Documentary History of the First Federal Congress of the United States of America (3
        vols. to date; Baltimore, 1972—)., III, 35–37.


Title: To James Madison from John Walker, 29 April 1789
From: Walker, John
To: Madison, James

Letter not found. 29 April 1789. Calendared in the lists probably kept by Peter Force (DLC: Madison Miscellany). The two-page letter was offered for sale in the Stan. V. Henkels Catalogue No. 694 (1892), which listed items from the McGuire collection of JM’s papers.


Title: To James Madison from Edmund Pendleton, 3 May 1789
From: Pendleton, Edmund
To: Madison, James

Letter not found. 3 May 1789. Acknowledged in JM to Pendleton, 17 May 1789. The list probably kept by Peter Force (DLC: Madison Miscellany) notes that Pendleton wrote a two-page letter to JM from Virginia on this day. The summary reads: “Organization of the new government. Mr. Madison’s proposition for making provision for revenue. Virginia’s disqualifying act. Anti-federal State Elections. Mr Henry.”


Title: Tonnage Duties, [4 May] 1789
From: Madison, James
To:

[4 May 1789]

   Before this day’s debate began, JM gave notice that on 25 May he would introduce the subject of amendments. “He thought it necessary thus early to mention the business, as it was weighty and important” (Gazette of the U.S., 6 May 1789). The postponed tonnage clauses were then taken up. Laurance moved to strike out the discrimination between countries having a commercial treaty with the United States and those that did not.

Mr. Madison. I conceive, Mr. Speaker, that we must consider this as a general question involving these points—How far it is expedient, at this time, to make a discrimination between foreign nations and the United States, for the purpose of promoting and accelerating the improvement of the American navigation? And how far it is expedient to make such a discrimination between foreigners, as may induce them to permit us to extend our own navigation on principles of reciprocity? For I imagine these subjects will be found to be connected. The arguments offered against the measure are founded on a maxim of impolicy. It is stated, that as we have not got vessels enough of our own to transport the produce of the country, and as this produce sells low, we ought not to enter into regulations that will encrease the price of freight; the plain meaning of which I take to be, let us employ those vessels that will do our business cheapest, making no kind of discrimination whatever: If this argument has weight it goes against discriminating in favor of our own shipping. I admit, that laying 50 cents on foreign vessels and but six on our own, is a regulation by which the owners of American shipping will put a considerable part of the difference into their pockets. This, Sir, I consider as a sacrifice of interest to policy; the sacrifice is but small, but I should not contend for it, if we did [not] stand in need of maritime improvements; was it not for the necessity we are under of having some naval strength, I should be an advocate for throwing wide open the doors of our commerce to all the world, and making no kind of discrimination in favor of our own citizens. But we have maritime dangers to guard against, and we can be secured from them no other way, than by having a navy and seamen of our own; these can only be obtained by giving a preference. I admit it is a tax, and a tax upon our produce, but it is a tax we must pay for the national security. I reconcile it to the interest of the United States, that this sacrifice should be made; by it we shall be able to provide the means of defence, and by being prepared to repel danger, is the most likely way to avoid it: This tax therefore may prevent the horror of a war, and secure to us that respect and attention which we merit.
I am a friend to the navigation of America, and shall be always ready to go as great lengths in favor of that interest as any gentleman on this floor. I have in contemplation to propose a distant time to be fixed, at which these high duties on tonnage shall begin to operate; by which means the interests of that part of the community, employing foreign shipping, will be unaffected for the present, and the other part will have time to encrease its tonnage, so as to answer for the transportation of the produce of all America.
With relation to the discrimination proposed to be made between foreigners, I think nothing new has been offered now—it has not been denied, and therefore I take it to be tacitly admitted, that the public sentiments are friendly to such a discrimination as is proposed. I do not think it necessary therefore to relate particularly some facts which would have shewn that almost all the states in the union have manifested their opinion on this subject, and decide that a discrimination ought to be made, and ought to operate particularly on Great Britain. A discrimination of this kind first appeared in New-Hampshire, the influence of its example expanded the whole extent of the union, and state after state adopted regulations for the salutary purpose of checking a power that was monopolizing our trade—but finding, from fatiguing experience, that their separate efforts were ineffectual, they united in forming the government under which we deliberate. I will not say only, that if in the first act of Congress we abolish this favorite distinction, we disappoint the expectations of the warmest friends and advocates of the constitution, but we shall also disappoint the expectations of its enemies and the people of Britain.
The policy manifested by that nation toward us since the revolution must evince to every thinking mind, the necessity of extending our commerce to other channels, and no longer suffer her to regulate and limit us in this particular: The policy of her parliament has been on the watch to seize every advantage which our weak and unguarded situation exposed; she has bound us in commercial manacles, and very nearly defeated the object of our independence.
We all know there was a time when Britain shewed a disposition to form the treaty we wish for; this resulted from an apprehension, that the United States possessed both the power and inclination to do themselves justice. The moment she discovered we had not the power to perform our contracts, her disposition changed. Now, for my part, I can discover no motive for that nation to alter its conduct; if now that we have the power we want the inclination. She will persevere in her selfish interest and narrow policy, to exclude us from a reciprocal share of trade; they will continue the ability to the executive magistrate to regulate the intercourse by circumstances as they arrive, but ever studious of their own interest alone. The gentleman from New-York seems to apprehend, that if we commence commercial hostilities, we shall suffer by reprisals. For my part, I am not afraid of suffering in the contest; her interests can be wounded almost mortally, while ours are invulnerable. She is sensible of this; and the people of America are not unacquainted with the natural advantages possessed over her—if it was necessary, and means of a pacific nature were not immediately successful, America could defend herself. Suppose Great Britain not pleased with our regulation, but disposed to counteract and oppose us with other restrictions, and we proceed to do each other all the injury which commercial prohibitions can produce—which, let me ask, of the parties are most vulnerable? How we could sustain our wounds I will not say; those who know our country well will have but little uneasiness on that head; but though I do not say how we could sustain our wounds, I can point out how we could inflict most deadly ones. If we were to say, that no article should be exported from America to the West-Indies, but what went in our own bottoms, we should soon hear a different language from any that has ever been held out to us on the subject of commercial regulations. It may be said, the British West-Indies could draw supplies from the mother country; but this is only precarious. There are always times when they must be dependent upon us, even for the necessary subsistance to save them from destruction.
Now, let me ask, what article it is that we are dependent upon Great Britain for, that is necessary for our subsistance? If it be said there are articles of convenience we must have from her, I beg gentlemen to look round and observe, that those materials for manufactures which she supplies us with, and fabricates in the highest perfection, are to be found in the United States, and within these few years we have made rapid advances in manufacturing ourselves; this must eventually lessen the imports from Britain, and her independent situation arises from the flourishing condition of her manufactures and commerce; I have therefore no fears of entering in a commercial warfare with that nation. If fears are to be entertained they lay on the other side. I could go more largely into this subject, and demonstrate clearly that we have infinite advantages over her. Even at this moment we hear the cry of distress from one part of her dominions, which can only be relieved by the resources they have in this country. But I will not take up the time of the committee longer on this subject, nor dilate upon the nature and extent of the direct trade carried on between foreigners and us, and the circuitous one through Great Britain, from which she derives great advantages; nor shew the comparative motives we have for making a discrimination between her and other foreign nations. Whale oil is prohibited in Britain, at least subjected to a duty amounting to a prohibition; but it is admitted into France. I need not remark the value which we ought to set upon this part of our commerce—fisheries are perhaps the best nurseries for seamen of any employment whatever. Rice is also an article received by them, and enters considerably into the consumption of the people; these articles are making their way through that country, and will open a considerable vent for the surplus that we have. In this point of view, it is important not to take any steps that check that spirit which seems disposed to favor the commerce and interests of America. Tobacco is also consumed in considerable quantities in France; undoubtedly it is our interest that a direct trade should be carried on with that kingdom in this article. Eighty or ninety thousand hogsheads of this article have been shipped to Great-Britain, of which scarce 15,000 are consumed there, the remainder is sent off to other countries, 20,000 hogsheads of this very tobacco is consumed in France; it is not the fault of our merchants that this supply does not go direct to that kingdom, as good policy would dictate. I need not repeat the advantages to be derived from a direct intercourse with those nations, whose inhabitants consume the staples of our country. I conceive where no special reason to the contrary exists, we may consider trade in its natural channel, when the articles are carried immediately to the consumer. Considering our trade in this point of view, a great part of ours is extremely diverted from the course it ought to pursue; but a small proportion of it flows in any other than in that between Great Britain and us; our policy therefore, as I stated on a former occasion, ought to be calculated to give it that impulse which nature directs. I wish that any general principle would permit us to make a distinction between Spain and Britain; but I do not know there is such a general principle; there is none in the possession of this house for us to avail ourselves of; we must consider Spain as a nation not having formed a treaty of commerce with us; if they are disposed to make such a treaty, they will only be subjected for a short time to the inconvenience which the proposed measure will inflict. Admitting that the duty on tonnage is not very agreeable to every part of the union, yet their momentary inconvenience must give way to considerations of greater importance. I have no reason to suppose, that the sense of the house will lead us to disagree to the measure. I have made these remarks, not because I thought they would influence the vote of any gentleman, but because I thought it decent to shew the principles upon which our determination is founded. I trust there will be a majority, and a large majority too, in favor of the proposed discrimination; indeed the question stands predetermined—we have made a discrimination on the article of spirits upon the same principle—it would be a violation of propriety therefore to suppose a contrary decision in this case.

   Cong. RegisterThomas Lloyd, comp., The Congressional
          Register; or, History of the Proceedings and Debates of the First House of
          Representatives … (2 vols.; New York, 1789; Evans 22203–4)., I, 183–87 (also reported in Gazette of the U.S., 6 May 1789; reported briefly in N.Y. Daily Gazette, 5 May 1789).

   According to the Daily Gazette, JM spoke “with animation” during this debate.

[4 May 1789]
Mr. Madison. I believe a few considerations that lay in a small compass, will be sufficient to guide us in our determination on the present occasion. Although it is an old maxim, that trade is better left to regulate itself; yet circumstances may and do occur to require legislative interference; the principles which have actuated us in laying the duties on several articles of impost are founded upon this necessity. Our commerce with France and Great Britain, may be considered in the same point of view: the one is depressed beyond what its nature deserves, and the other enhanced beyond its due proportion; the justice of this remark is too flagrant to be disputed. A considerable quantity of our produce goes through Great Britain into France; does not this demonstrate that our commerce flows in an improper channel, and calls loudly on us to give it a different direction. I think the good policy of fostering the trade of France cannot be doubted; we must make the other nation feel our power to induce her to grant us reciprocal advantages. Gentlemen will not contend, that we ought to allow her every thing, and trust to her gratitude; they say it is a slender obligation; for my part I have no hopes from that source; because I have all along observed her seizing to herself every advantage in commerce that presented to her view by all the ingenuity she could devise. Gentlemen admit, that we are now in a different situation from what we were when she declined entering into treaty with us, and they expect she will now come forward with generous offers. But permit me to ask gentlemen, if it is not the same thing whether we want the power or the will to compel them to do us commercial justice? Yet do not the gentlemens arguments tend to create an opinion that we have not the power? They teach us to be afraid of reprisals. If she really believes us to be afraid on this head, will she not act in the manner she has hitherto done when we really did not possess the power? When I hear remarks of this nature, the more convinced I am of the necessity there is of making a discrimination to convince her of our power, and make her see that her interest is concerned in being on terms of friendship with us. It will be the most likely way to obtain from her the advantages we contend for—I have no doubt in my own mind but what it will have this effect. Can it be expected that she will shut her ports against us, when she re-exports the greater part of what she takes from us—instance tobacco? Will she refuse to receive this article, when she does not consume the tenth part of what she carries from the United States? Will she shut her ports to the raw materials necessary for her manufactures? I think her dependence, as a commercial and manufacturing nation, is so absolutely upon us, that it gives a moral certainty that her restrictions will not, for her own sake, be prejudicial to our trade.
Gentlemen who fear any ill effect upon the agricultural interest, apprehend it from a supposition that the discrimination will be high. Now, I profess, it is not so much for a high duty as for the policy of the measure that I advocate it. I shall be content with a small preference, and surely no doubt can be entertained of its justice or propriety.

   Cong. RegisterThomas Lloyd, comp., The Congressional
          Register; or, History of the Proceedings and Debates of the First House of
          Representatives … (2 vols.; New York, 1789; Evans 22203–4)., I, 194–95. Laurance’s motion to eliminate the discrimination clause was defeated “by a considerable majority” (N.Y. Daily Advertiser, 5 May 1789).


Title: To James Madison from the Reverend James Madison, 5 May 1789
From: Madison, James (Reverend)
To: Madison, James

Dear Col.May 5h 1789. Williamsburg
Mr. Peter Carr will deliver this. He has taken the opportunity of the Spring Vacation, to visit New York, but is apprehensive you may not immedy. recollect him, & has therefore desired me to notify him to you.

I am greatly obliged for your Favour of the 19h. Apl., and am happy to find, you have not only entered upon the arduous Task of legislating for this extended Continent, but that there will be less Discordancy between the different Parties than might have been expected. I shd. suppose the Subject of Impost, will in the Progress of it’s Discussion pretty fully evince how far the different States, can be brought to acquiesce in one general Plan of commercial Regulation, or perhaps in a National Government. But Doubts must now be laid aside; we are fairly in for the Experiment, & that should be made in its full Extent.
Mr. Ellicott, who is a particular Friend of mine, requested me to recommend him to yourself & the President, as a proper Person to succeed Mr Hutchins shd. the Post he holds, become vacant. I can assure you with great Truth, that I believe no one upon the Continent is better qualified to discharge the Duties of that office than Mr Ellicott. He is a Man of great Skill & Industry—& who might be really useful in the office of Geog. Genl. We shd. by his Labours, I think stand the best Chance of obtaining the necessary Principles for a correct Map of those Parts of Ama. wh. he might visit, & whose Situations are as yet but imperfectly known. With the sincerest Wishes for your Happiness I am yr. affe.
J Madison


Title: To James Madison from George Washington, 5 May 1789
From: Washington, George
To: Madison, James

My dear Sir,New York May 5th 1789
Notwithstanding the conviction I am under of the labour which is imposed upon you by Public Individuals as well as public bodies—Yet, as you have began, so I would wish you to finish, the good work in a short reply to the Address of the House of Representatives (which I now enclose) that there may be an accordance in this business.
Thursday 12 O’clock, I have appointed to receive the Address. The proper plan is with the House to determine. As the first of every thing, in our situation will serve to establish a Precedent, it is devoutly wished on my part, that these precedents may be fixed on true principles. With affectionate regard I am, ever Yours
Geo Washington


Title: Tonnage Duties, [5 May] 1789
From: Madison, James
To:

[5 May 1789]

   Jackson moved to lower the proposed duty on vessels from nations having commercial treaties with the United States from thirty to twenty cents, pointing out the burden high tonnage duties placed on the agricultural exporting states of the South.

Mr. Madison. I believe every gentleman who hears the observations from the different quarters of this house, discovers great reason for every friend of the United States to congratulate himself upon the evident disposition, which has been displayed to conduct our business with harmony and concert.
We have evinced a disposition different from what was expected to arise from the different interests of the several parts of the union. I am persuaded that less contrariety of sentiment has taken place than was supposed by gentlemen, who did not chuse to magnify the causes of variance; every thing we have hitherto done, tends to make this evident; the importance of the union is justly estimated by all its parts; this being founded upon a perfect accordance of interest, it may become perpetual. I know that the point before us has often been selected as a proof, that there was an incompatibility of interests in the United States. On this opinion I beg leave to remark, that the difference in point of capacity in the several states to build ships, and furnish seamen, is much less than has generally been supposed. From the extremity of the northern states until we reach South-Carolina, materials of all sorts for ship-building can be obtained in abundance from the bounty of nature; even Georgia abounds with materials of superior quality; although their population disqualifies them for ship-building at present, yet their advantages are such as to enable them in a short time to rival the most prosperous state. In the next place, I may remark, that so far as the encouragement of our own shipping will be given, at the expence of the people of the United States, it will diffuse and equalize its operations in every part. The ships belonging to one place will, like the people, seek employment in another where better wages are obtained, and this in its operations will level any inequalities supposed to arise from legislative interference.
With respect to the particular article before the house, I do not think it requires the discussion that has been gone into. If we consider the small proportion of shipping belonging to nations in commercial alliance with the United States, a duty of 30 cents per ton will be found to affect, in a very small degree, the interest of any particular state; if it encreases a supply from that quarter, the burthen will lighten in proportion. With respect to the clause which follows, I have in view to make a proposition to obviate the complaints of the southern states. I mean that the duty shall be light until the 1st of January 1791, when it shall be encreased; this will give a considerable opportunity for those states that are able, to make gradual preparations to fill up the vacancy that will be left by the withdrawing of foreigners. The more I have been able to collect and compare facts, with respect to American and foreign shipping, the more I am persuaded that it is in our power, in a very short time, to supply all the tonnage necessary for our own commerce. It was said that the foreign tonnage consisted of two-thirds of what we employed; the facts before me warrant a result more favorable to the navigation of America. It appears from the returns of Massachusetts, that she employs in her commerce 76,857 tons of American, and but 8,794 foreign; New-York 55,000 American, and 30,000 foreign; Pennsylvania 44,089 tons of her own vessels, and 28,012 belonging to various other nations; Maryland gives employment to 35,671, 1–2 tons, the property of citizens of the United States, and 26,061, 1–2 belonging to foreigners; Virginia employs rather more foreign vessels, namely, 29,567 tons, and less American, viz. 26,705; South-Carolina has engaged in her trade 31,904 American, and 25,073 foreign; and Georgia employs but 6,500 American, and 13,500 foreign; so that, beside this latter, no state employs so great a proportion as two-thirds foreigners. New Hampshire, Connecticut, New-Jersey, and Delaware I have not been able to ascertain, but I think there is good reason to believe, that the proportion in those states is considerably in favor of American vessels. The tonnage employed in the seven states I have enumerated, amounts to 437,641 tons, of which 160,907 are all that is owned by foreigners. If I can draw any conclusion from this statement of facts, it is that we have a greater proportion of shipping than has been supposed. This circumstance, annexed to our capacity of encreasing the quantity of our tonnage, gives us a favourable presage of our future independence.
It has been said that the eastern states have not vessels to transport our produce. I believe, from a variety of circumstances, that the vessels of Massachusetts have not been so readily employed in the southern commerce as could be wished; this will perhaps continue to be the case, except our own citizens carry on our trade. At present it is almost exclusively in the hands of British merchants, and as long as their vessels are upon an equality with ours, they will naturally be inclined to give a preference to their own; but I hope to see this matter soon rectified, and the citizens of one state enabled to assist those of another and receive mutual benefits and advantages. To accomplish this, without doing an injury to any part of the union, I would propose to reduce the duty only to 25 cents, and encrease it at the end of the next year to 60 cents.


Title: From James Madison to Benjamin Hawkins, 5 May 1789
From: Madison, James
To: Hawkins, Benjamin

Letter not found. 5 May 1789. Acknowledged in Hawkins to JM, 1 June 1789. Encloses draft of the House of Representatives’ address to President Washington.


Title: To James Madison from George Nicholas, 8 May 1789
From: Nicholas, George
To: Madison, James

Dear sirKentuckey May 8th. 1789
It was with great pleasure that I received the accounts of your election; this satisfaction has been made compleat by finding so great a majority of friends to the new Government in the list of members. Do not its enemies acknowledge this to be a sufficient evidence of the disposition and sentiments of the people at large? I am more fully satisfied every day that the opposition proceeded in a Great measure from a fear in particular characters of a loss of power and consequence. Upon what other principle can the difference in opinion between our legislature and the body of the people be accounted for: a difference the more remarkable as the opinion of the latter has been formed in opposition to all the influence of the former.
I have adhered to the resolution I informed You I had made not to interfere in the politicks of this Country and shall steadily persist in it but think it not inconsistent with that line of conduct to state to you my observations and the information I have received as to the parties and real situation of this Country. It is stated in your papers that the leading men in this Country are for a total seperation from the union and that Mr. Brown is included in that number. They deny the charge and say that all they wished was that as Congress and our assembly had both declared that it was proper and necessary to indulge the district with a seperate government that the district should set their government in motion without waiting for the formal assent of Congress. They supposed that the district would be more likely to be received into the Union after such a step than on an application from her as a part of the state of Virginia and that they would have less to fear in that situation than in their present one from Northern Politicks. These are the sentiments sent to the district by Mr. Brown after Congress had referred the matter to the new Government and such as he now avows. Previous to the choice of this last Convention in the district an alarm had gone forth that those who were for assuming the powers of government immediately were also for a total seperation from the other states, and in consequence of it some of the leading characters were left out of the Convention altogether and others dropped the subject from a conviction that the district was at least too much divided in opinion to give any probability of success to such an attempt. They remained silent in the Convention and have continued so since. It is said that most of them are now opposed to a seperation from Virginia. They declare they are so from a dislike of the alterations introduced into the terms by the last act of Assembly but their enemies say it is only a pretext used to prevent a seperation by consent in order that they may pave the way for a total seperation. I beleive it is certain that it has been given out in the district that if this was an independent state spain would grant her the free use of the river and many other commercial advantages. A Colonel Connoily has also on the part of the British offered if a seperation should take place to afford this Country any aid she might require to assert her rights. These circumstances I think prove that the situation of this Country is critical and may require not only all her wisdom but that of the General Government to prevent her from getting into such a situation as may be finally prejudicial to both. I beleive a majority of the District wish a seperation from Virginia but to remain a member of the Union and I am satisfied that a few proper steps being taken by the General Government will make it more popular here than in any part of America.
Let the proper steps to assert the right and procure the enjoyment of a free navigation be pursued. The right is unquestionable and no principle can justify the government in being silent about it. If the Delaware was blocked up would they not interfere?
Let the General Government take the proper steps to defend the country from the Indians. The same expence that they are now at in the Western Country if properly applied would go a great way towards affecting it. No people will remain long under a Government which does not afford protection much less will they agree to live under one where an armed force is kept up but expressly forbid to attack their enemies even when coming to or returning from an attack on their country unless they actually commit hostilities on the troops themselves. Besides the disaffection which the with-holding this defence will cause here it will depopulate this country and carry most of the people to the Spanish settlements. It is not now the question whether the settlement in the western Country shall be encouraged but whether such steps shall be taken as will fill the Spanish territory with American Citizens. The emigration from this country to that is already alarming and unless greater security can be given to the settlements here there is no saying where it will stop. I know fifty families of Dutch who have been repeatedly driven by the Indians from their settlements, and are now living on rented land who are determined unless they can return with safety to their own land to go to the spanish Country where they are offered land and protection without paying for either. If this support was given effectually Congress would gain more by the advanced price they would obtain for their lands than their expences would amount to. It is falsely asserted by some that the inhabitants of this country are the aggressors in the disputes with the Indians; this is sufficiently disproved by the mischiefs always being done on our side of the Ohio.
If the federal Courts are to have Jurisdiction between Individuals let an inferior Tribunal be fixed here in such a way as will give content to the people. Mr. Brown will explain fully the necessity of this and I shall only add it as my opinion that if it is not adopted Kentuckey will renounce the government within three months from the time she gets the information.
I fear that a proper idea as to the importance of this country has not yet been taken up. Be assured that no great length of time will elapse before her inhabitants will be more numerous than those of all the other parts of Virginia. Beleive too that the Western Country will all unite in demanding what I have stated above and that they will live under any Government to obtain them. These things if done will have the greater effect as the people here have been taught to beleive that they are to expect nothing but oppression and a sacrifice of their dearest rights from the new Government.
Let me conjure you then my dear sir to exert yourself to obtain for us these reasonable demands. You know my attachment to the union but I declare freely to you if I am disappointed in my expectations from the justice and policy of the new Government that I shall be ready to join in any other Mode for obtaining our rights. That government which with-holds from us the necessary defence and suffers our most valuable rights to be taken from us by another nation has no right to expect our support.
These points are so essential to our well-being that all delays in establishing them will be dangerous. Recollect how willingly Great Britain would have acceded to the terms first demanded by America after she had in vain attempted to subjugate her. Reasonable terms when once rejected will not give satisfaction.
You may perceive that I am much attached to this Country indeed I think it the most eligible situation in our world for a man who has a numerous family to provide for and who can bring himself to sacrifice some of the gratifications of the palate to their welfare. The soil beggars all description and nothing is wanting but the just and proper aid of government and a turn given to the industry of the people towards manufactures. The first we look up to you for and the second we have in contemplation to attempt as you will learn from Mr. Brown. If the general government consider us as enemies or aliens, at least let us be treated as men and told what we have to expect from her. She may fix in her interest this people as one man who will always be ready to oppose any improper attempts that may be made by any other states. I may be too sanguine but I do not think any part of America can boast so large a proportion of independent men who will be desirous of giving up to government all necessary power and will ask at their hands nothing but what freemen and fellow-citizens have a right to demand.
In the state that I have given you of parties here, I have not neither do I mean to give any opinion of my own as to their intentions, it is sufficient I think to know that there is a possibility that danger may arise even if it has not taken place, to induce a wise Government to take the proper steps to guard against it: Here, timely applications may prevent, but none will be effectual enough to cure the disorder.
I have not yet had leisure to consider your observations; as soon as I have I will write you on the subject. I am with every sentiment of respect and esteem Dear sir yr. obt. servt.
G: Nicholas


Title: Reply of the President to the House of Representatives, [8 May] 1789
From: Washington, George
To: House of Representatives

Gentlemen,[8 May 1789]
Your very affectionate Address produces emotions which I know not how to express. I feel that my past endeavors in the service of my Country are far Overpaid by its goodness: and I fear much that my future ones may not fulfill your kind Anticipation. All that I can promise is, that they will be invariably directed by an honest and an ardent zeal. Of this resource my heart assures me. For all beyond, I rely on the wisdom and patriotism of those with whom I am to cooperate, and a continuance of the blessings of Heaven on our beloved Country.


Title: From James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, 9 May 1789
From: Madison, James
To: Jefferson, Thomas

Dear SirNew York May 9. 1789
My last was of the 29th. March. A few days ago I had the pleasure of yours of the 12. Jany. I thank you for your attention to the works of the Abbè Barthelemy and the Marquis Condorcet, And wish much that your attempts to procure me a genuine copy of the King of Prussia’s may succeed.
I send you herewith the first No. of the Congressional Register, which will give you some idea of the discussions in the new Legislature. You will see at once the strongest evidences of mutilation & perversion, and of the illiteracy of the Editor. The following nos. shall go after it, as conveyances occur, unless they should be found wholly unworthy of it. The deliberations of the H. of Representatives have been cheifly employed on the subject of an Impost. Opinions have been considerably divided on the quantum of duties that would be practicable, and in some instances on the ratio of different duties likely to operate differently in different States that would be just. In general the interests and ideas of the Northern & Southern States have been less adverse than was predicted by the opponents or hoped by the friends of the new Government. Members from the Same State, or the same part of the Union are as often separated on questions from each other, as they are united in opposition to other States or other quarters of the Continent. This is a favorable symtom. The points on which most controversy has been raised are 1st. the duty on Molasses. 2 the discri[mi]nation between nations in, & those not in treaty. The arguments agst. what appears a proportionate duty on Molasses to that on rum, turned on its disproportion to the value of the article—the effect on the trade in it which yields the only market for certain exports from the Eastern States—the effect on the fisherys in which both rum & molasses are consumed, and finally the effect on the poor in that part of the Union where the latter enters into their ordinary diet. The opposite arguments have been that a proportion to the duty on rum was essential to the productiveness of the fund as well as to the rules of justice as applied to different States, some of which consume foreign & some country rum, that if the proportion was not violated the trade in Molasses could not be affected, nor the distilleries injured, that the effect on the fisheries would be too small to be felt, and that the poor who consume molasses would escape the burden falling on the poor who consume sugar. By the inclosed printed resolutions you will see the rates on these articles as they yet stand. It is not improbable that further efforts will be made to reduce that on Molasses. Some of the other rates have been altered since they were printed! I do not note them because they are not yet in their final State. It will become a serious question whether a general reduction of the rates shall be made or not, on the idea of the danger of smuggling. The discrim[in]ation between Nations in & not in Treaty, has given birth to three distinct & urgent debates. On the last the minority was very small for putting G. B. at once on the same footing with the most favored nation. This policy tho’ patronized by some respectable names is cheifly abetted by the spirit of this City, which is steeped in Anglicism. It is not improbable from the urgency of its representative that a further effort may be yet made.
Not knowing how far the present conveyance may be a certain one, I decline, on reflection, inclosing the Register untill a more direct opportunity offers when I will add sundry matters which I have not time now to put in Cypher. Inclosed is the Speech of the President with the Address of the House of Reps. & his reply. You will see in the caption of the address that we have pruned the ordinary stile of the degrading appendages of Excellency, Esqr. &c. and restored it to its naked dignity. Titles to both the President & vice President were formally & unanimously condemned by a vote of the H. of Reps. This I hope will shew to the friends of Republicanism that our new Government was not meant to substitute either Monarchy or Aristocracy, and that the genius of the people is as yet adverse to both. Accept my ardent wishes for your happiness. Yrs affectly.
Js. Madison Jr.


Title: To James Madison from Joseph Jones, [10 May] 1789
From: Jones, Joseph
To: Madison, James

Dr. Sr.[10 May 1789]
No safe opportunity offering, the letter for Mr. Nelson has not been forwarded, and I shall now reserve it for him untill the chancery term commences which will be in a day or two—those from Mr. Jefferson have been attended to, the one to Dr. Currie I have delivered, that for Mr. Lewis met a ready conveyance by Mr. Bob Nelson who was here, when it came to hand, on his way to Charlottesville, and the other for Mr. Eppes I shall commit to the care of Mr. Dl. Hylton, who being connected with the family, will take proper care of it. The Generals journey to N. York shews the people still retain the same respect and veneration for his person and Character they heretofore entertained and altho’ he is little captivated by ceremonial distinctions yet he could not fail of being sensibly gratified by such universal demonstrations of affection as were exhibited through his progress, among them none I conceive could be more pleasing than his reception at Trenton bridge. The papers inform us the Committee of the whole had gone through the system of impost—although in the progress of the business some instances of local attachment were exhibited and it is to be expected will always be exhibited yet upon the whole it appears to have been conducted with temper and moderation and such middle ground generally taken as will probably in the Outset prevent clamour and submit to time and the conviction of experience such changes as shall be found for the common welfare. R. Island not being subject to the regulations & so convenient a Place to the eastern and N. York States may interpose difficulties to the faithfull collection of the revenue and North Carolina in this quarter wod. do the same but for the obstacles to navigation—these interruptions will be only temporary as I presume they cannot long remain out of the Union. The organization of the Judiciary which the Senate has undertaken will I apprehend be found a labour of great difficulty—one important object should be invariably pursued which is not to incur more expence than is indispensably necessary for moving smoothly forward the great machine. Offices and emoluments when found necessary may be easily established, when established although found to be of little use they are not so easily abolished. A circuit plan seems to be essential to the extent of the Country for dispatch and accommodation, as well for civil as criminal prosecutions. The point is to make the judges ride such distances as may be conveniently executed withot. hazarding delay and disappointment in the business. Capt. Lindsey has I hear Been in N. York soliciting his being continued in the office to which he was lately appointed by the Executive here. He is I think pretty well known to you and therefore it will be unnecessary to say any thing in his favor—supposing the President not to be so well acquainted with his private character and situation as I was I took the liberty when I heard he had moved on to New York to address a few lines to him and to mention Mr. Lindseys situation. I hope he received it as I very truly wish Lindsey to be continued and think him a worthy honest man and capable of discharging the duties of the Office. The Trade here doubt the right of the State to gather duties on imported articles after the period fixed for the commencement of the new government—they give bond but protest agt. the Power or right to demand duties. The Constitution prohibits the States levying imposts and vests the power of doing so in Congress but has not expressly provided for the interval unless under those words which declares if such duties are laid they shall go to the general Treasury—here indeed is room for dispute between The general and particular governments but of which I think the Traders cannot avail themselves. If the point should be disputed between the two governments I am inclined to think the decision will be in favour of the State as the particular regulations must be presumed to exist under the Authority of the State untill the general regulations under the laws of the new government operate their repeal—besides it wod. perhaps be impolitic in the general Government to agitate the question as it wod. generally disgust the commercial States tho’ it may not improbably be deemed an object with those not commercial or but so in a small degree. Yr friend & Servt
Jos: Jones


Title: To James Madison from Thomas Jefferson, 11 May 1789
From: Jefferson, Thomas
To: Madison, James

Dear SirParis May 11. 1789.
My last to you was of the 15th. of March. I am now in hourly expectation of recieving my leave of absence. The delay of it a little longer will endanger the throwing my return into the winter, the very idea of which is horror itself to me. I am in hopes this is the last letter I shall have the pleasure of writing you before my departure.
The madness of the king of England has gone off, but left him in a state of imbecillity and melancholy. They talk of carrying him to Hanover. If they do, it will be a proof he does not mend, and that they take that measure to authorize them to establish a regency. But if he grows better they will perhaps keep him at home to avoid the question Who shall be regent? As that country cannot be relied on in the present state of it’s executive, the King of Prussia is become more moderate: he throws cold water on the fermentation he had excited in Poland. The K. of Sweden will act as nobody not even himself can foresee: because he acts from the caprice of the moment, and because the discontents of his army & nobles may throw him under internal difficulties while struggling with external ones. Denmark will probably only furnish it’s stipulated aid to Russia. France is fully occupied with internal arrangement, so that on the whole the prospect of this summer is that the war will continue between the powers actually engaged in the close of the last campaign, and extend to no others. Certainly it will not extend this year to the Southern states of Europe. The revolution of France has gone on with the most unexampled success hitherto. There have been some mobs occasioned by the want of bread in different parts of the kingdom, in which there may have been some lives lost, perhaps a dozen or twenty. These had no professed connection generally with the constitutional revolution. A more serious riot happened lately in Paris in which about 100 of the mob were killed. This execution has been universally approved, as they seemed to have no view but mischief & plunder. But the meeting of the states general presents serious difficulties which it had been hoped the progress of reason would have enabled them to get over. The nobility of & about Paris have come over as was expected to the side of the people in the great question of voting by persons or orders. This had induced a presumption that those of the country were making the same progress, and these form the great mass of the deputies of that order. But they are found to be where they were centuries ago as to their disposition to keep distinct from the people, & even to tyrannise over them. They agree indeed to abandon their pecuniary privileges. The clergy seem at present much divided. Five sixths of that representation consists of the lower clergy, who being the sons of the peasantry are very well with the tiers etat. But the bishops are intrigueing & drawing them over daily. The tiers etat is so firm to vote by persons or to go home, that it is impossible to conjecture what will be the result. This is the state of parties, as well as we can conjecture from the conversation of the members, for as yet no vote has been given which will enable us to calculate on certain ground. Having formerly written to you on the subject of our finances I inclose you now an Abstract of a paper on that subject which Gouverneur Morris communicated to me. You will be a better judge of it’s merit than I am. It seems to me worthy good attention. I have a box of books packed for you which I shall carry to Havre & send by any ship bound to N. York or Philadelphia. I have been so inexact as to take no list of them before nailing up the box. Be so good as to do this, and I will take with me my bookseller’s account, which will enable us to make a statement of them. They are chiefly Encyclopedies from the 23d. to the 30th. livraison. Paul Jones has desired me to send to yourself and Colo. Carrington each his bust. They are packed together in the same box. There are 3. other boxes with 2 in each for other gentlemen. I shall send them all together & take the liberty of addressing them to you. I rejoice extremely to hear you are elected in spite of all cabals. I fear your post will not permit me to see you but in New York, & consequently for a short time only. I shall much regret this. I am with sentiments of sincere attachment & respect dear Sir Your friend & servt
Th: Jefferson

[Enclosure]
Plan of American Finance.
Preliminary. Consider all requisitions heretofore made by Congress on the states, as if they had never been made.
This gets rid of the adjustment of Quotas for the past.
The Contributions in money, provisions &c made by each state to the Union, become a debt from the Union to the respective state. Deduct from this all monies advanced to that State by the Union; the balance will constitute the debt of the Union to the state.
Let that debt bear an interest of 6. per cent.
With that interest each state may pay annually the interest of the debts they owe, and the annual expences of their government.
They will then have no occasion for taxes, & consequently may abandon all the subjects of taxation to the Union.
I. Let the Union lay an Impost of 5. pr. cent on Importations. Suppose it worth from 1½ to 2. millions of Dollars.
Open a loan in Europe sufficient to pay the foreign debts, & to support the government a year or two. Suppose this to be of 12. millions of dollars at 5. per cent interest. = 600,000 Doll. a year.
Appropriate this Impost
1. to pay the interest of the new loan, suppose about 600,000 Doll. a year.
2. the Surplus to form an Aggregate fund.
II. Lay a Direct tax of 1/20 of all produce, paiable in kind, but commutable for half it’s worth in money.
Should this produce more than the state’s quota, let the surplus belong to the state.
The state legislature may then be entrusted with fixing the objects on which it is to fall, their value, the places of delivery, sale of the produce, conduct of the receivers &c.
Appropriate it
1. to the military and naval establishments
2. to pay the interest of the debts of the Union to the respective states.
3. the Surplus to form an Aggregate fund.
III. Postages and a tax on Civil process may form a third fund.
Appropriate it.
1. to the Civil list
2. the Surplus to the Aggregate fund.
The Aggregate fund thus formed of the residuary parts of all taxes
Appropriate it
1. to pay the interest of the Domestic debt
2. to contingencies.
3. to be applied as a sinking fund to pay off the capital of the general debts of the Union.
Fix such an order of paiment as will ensure the sinking the whole capital in time.
But leave a portion of the sinking fund free, to be employed by the Executive at their discretion in buying up the general debts at their market price.


Title: To James Madison from George Washington, 11 May 1789
From: Washington, George
To: Madison, James

My dear Sir,May 11th 1789
The enclosed were communicated to me (as you will perceive) to make a Confidential use of. Upon receipt of the first letter I expressed a desire to be informed (if there was nothing improper in it) through what channel the report came, and what reliance could be placed in the authenticity of it. This produced the sec’d letter. As you are upon business which requires every information of the State of the Union and knowledge of our relative situation with G. Britain I give you the perusal of them, at your leizure as I am in no immediate want of the Papers. I am always Your Affect’e
Geo Washington


Title: Title for the President, [11 May] 1789
From: Madison, James
To:

[11 May 1789]

   The debate concerned a title for the executive office. Should the House appoint a committee to confer with a Senate counterpart on the proper title for the president? The House had already indicated its disapproval of majestic titles to the Senate, but the senators refused to accept this decision. A Senate committee had recommended on 9 May that the president be addressed as “His Highness the President of the United States of America and Protector of the Rights of the Same” (DHFCLinda Grant De Pauw et al., eds., Documentary History of the First Federal Congress of the United States of America (3
        vols. to date; Baltimore, 1972—)., III, 32, 45, 55; Maclay JournalThe Journal of William Maclay, United
          States Senator from Pennsylvania, 1789–1791, Introduction by Charles A. Beard (1927;
        New York, 1965 reprint)., p. 25; JM to Jefferson, 23 May 1789).

Mr. Madison. I may be well disposed to concur in opinion with gentlemen that we ought not to recede from our former vote on this subject, yet at the same time I may wish to proceed with due respect to the Senate, and give dignity and weight to our own opinion so far as it contradicts theirs by the deliberate and decent manner in which we decide. For my part, Mr. Speaker, I do not conceive titles to be so pregnant with danger as some gentlemen apprehend. I believe a President of the United States cloathed with all the powers given in the constitution would not be a dangerous person to the liberties of America, if you were to load him with all the titles of Europe or Asia. We have seen superb and august titles given without conferring power and influence or without even obtaining respect; one of the most impotent sovereigns in Europe has assumed a title as high as human invention can devise; for example, what words can imply a greater magnitude of power and strength than that of high mightiness; this title seems to border almost upon impiety; it is assuming the pre-eminence and omnipotency of the deity; yet this title and many others cast in the same mould have obtained a long time in Europe, but have they conferred power? Does experience sanctify such opinion? Look at the republic I have alluded to and say if their present state warrants the idea.
I am not afraid of titles because I fear the danger of any power they could confer, but I am against them because they are not very reconcilable with the nature of our government, or the genius of the people; even if they were proper in themselves, they are not so at this juncture of time. But my strongest objection is founded in principle; instead of encreasing they diminish the true dignity and importance of a republic, and would in particular, on this occasion, diminish the true dignity of the first magistrate himself. If we give titles, we must either borrow or invent them—if we have recourse to the fertile fields of luxuriant fancy, and deck out an airy being of our own creation, it is a great chance but its fantastic properties renders the empty fantom ridiculous and absurd. If we borrow, the servile imitation will be odious, not to say ridiculous also—we must copy from the pompous sovereigns of the east, or follow the inferior potentates of Europe; in either case, the splendid tinsel or gorgeous robe would disgrace the manly shoulders of our Chief. The more truly honorable shall we be, by shewing a total neglect and disregard to things of this nature; the more simple, the more republican we are in our manners, the more rational dignity we acquire; therefore I am better pleased with the report adopted by the house, than I should have been with any other whatsoever.

The Senate, no doubt, entertain different sentiments on this subject. I would wish therefore to treat their opinion with respect and attention. I would desire to justify the reasonable and republican decision of this house to the other branch of Congress, in order to prevent a misunderstanding. But that the motion of my worthy colleague, (Mr. Parker) has possession of the house, I would move a more temperate proposition, and I think it deserves some pains to bring about that good will and urbanity, which for the dispatch of public business, ought to be kept up between the two houses. I do not think it would be a sacrifice of dignity to appoint a committee of conference, but imagine it would tend to cement that harmony which has hitherto been preserved between the Senate and this House—therefore, while I concur with the gentlemen who express in such decided terms, their disapprobation of bestowing titles, I concur also, with those who are for the appointment of a committee of conference, not apprehending they will depart from the principles adopted and acted upon by the House.


Title: To James Madison from Edward Carrington, 12 May 1789
From: Carrington, Edward
To: Madison, James

My dr sir,Richmond May 12. 1789
I had the pleasure to receive your favor of the 8th. Ult. inclosing the application of William Mason. I did transmit to Colo. Merewether certain papers of this Man and long ago informed him that they were insufficient to establish his claim which recd. no aid from the Muster Rolls of the Army. I do not now recollect signing the Rect. of which he sends a Copy, but it is highly probable I did, when he gave me the papers. It will be to no purpose for him to repeat his application here.
Our Antifederal districts have become perfectly calm and generally shew a disposition to acquiesce in whatever may be the fate of the proposed alterations, relying upon their meeting with due consideration. I find by the papers that your House has agreed upon the several duties and Tonage which are to be collected. A discrimination between our own & Foreign Bottoms, is the only principle upon which we can expect to grow into any degree of importance as a Maritime people, and it is an object which has long interested my mind—but perhaps the difference made in the present arrangement may be too great. It may lead to combinations between American & Foreign Merchants to evade the Law. Upon this I will not venture an opinion being at all times willing to waite for the issue of such experiments as it may be thought well to try. Present me to your worthy Colleagues and beleive me to be with the greatest sincerity your Affe Freind & Hl St
Ed Carrington


Title: To James Madison from George Washington, 12 May 1789
From: Washington, George
To: Madison, James

My dear Sir,New York, May 12. 1789.
To draw such a line for the conduct of the President as will please every body, I know is impossible; but to mark out and follow one (which by being consonant with reason) will meet general approbation, may be as practicable as it is desireable. The true medium I conceive must lye in pursuing such a course as will allow him time for all the official duties of his station. This should be the primary object. The next, to avoid as much as may be, the charge of superciliousness, and seclusion from information by too much reserve and too great a withdraw of himself from company on the one hand, and the inconveniences as well as reduction of respectability by too free an intercourse, and too much familiarity on the other.
Under these impressions I have submitted the enclosed queries for your consideration, and would thank you for your sentiments thereon with the return of the paper. For the remarks which it contains, it is necessary that some plan should be adopted by the President for his mode of living; that the pecuniary estimates for the department may have an eye thereto; and though secondary, it is a motive for my bringing the matter before you at this time. I am your affectionate friend and obedient servant.
G Washington.


Title: Import Duties, [12 May] 1789
From: Madison, James
To:

[12 May 1789]

   The committee had resumed consideration of the impost bill. The question was whether to strike out the six-cent duty on molasses. Ames suggested that an excise on country rum was preferable to a duty on molasses.

Mr. Madison Said his mind was incapable of discovering any plan that would answer the purpose the committee have in view, and not produce greater evils than the one under consideration. He thought an excise very objectionable, but as no actual proposition for entering into such a system was before the committee, he forbore to say any thing further about it. He admitted an excise would obviate in part some of the difficulties; but he did not think the answer given to his argument altogether satisfactory; yet there was another argument he urged on a former occasion [that] remained unanswered—it was, that, at this moment, the fisheries, distilleries, and all its connections, were laboring under heavier duties than what is proposed; true, the duty is collected in a different mode, but it affects the consumer in the same manner. The gentlemen have said, to be sure, that the duty is evaded, but if half is collected, it amounts to more than 6 cents per gallon.
It is said, that a tax on molasses will be unpopular, but not more so than a tax on salt: Can gentlemen state more serious apprehensions in the former than the latter case? Yet the committee did not forego a productive fund, because the article was a necessary of life, and in general consumption. If there is the disposition, that is represented, for people to complain of the oppression of government, have not the citizens of the southern states more just ground of complaint than others? The system can only be acceptable to them, because it is essentially necessary to be adopted for the public good.
Gentlemen argue, that a tax on molasses is unpopular, and prove it by experience under the British government; if this is to be adduced as a proof of the popularity of a measure, what are we to say with respect to a tax on tea? Gentlemen remembered, no doubt, how odious this kind of tax was thought to be throughout America, yet the house had, without hesitation, laid a considerable duty upon it. He did not imagine that a duty on either of those articles were in themselves objectionable; it was the principle upon which the tax was laid, that made them unpopular under the British government.
It is said that this tax is unjust; now he had not a single idea of justice, that did not contradict the position. If it was considered as it relates to rum, he was certain the consumers of foreign rum paid a larger proportion of revenue into the treasury than the consumers of country rum; they paid more than equal distributive [justice] required—if it was considered as it respected molasses, there would appear no injustice; molasses was consumed in other states, but if it was not, sugar was used in its stead, and subject to a duty full as high as that on molasses. But dismissing both these considerations, and even admitting the whole weight to fall upon the northern states, it would not be disproportioned, because in the long list of enumerated articles subject to a high duty, she imported few or none; indeed the articles were pretty generally taxed for the benefit of the manufacturing part of the northern community—see loaf sugar, candles, cheese, soap, &c. He hoped gentlemen would not infer from this observation, that he thought the encouragement held out by the bill to manufactures improper, far from it; he was glad to see their growing consequence, and was disposed to give them every aid in his power. From this view of the subject, he was inclined to adhere to the bill, and not make any reduction.


Title: From James Madison to James Monroe, 13 May 1789
From: Madison, James
To: Monroe, James

Dear SirN. York May 13. 89.
I have been favored with yours of April . The newspapers will have given you some idea of our proceedings, though in a state always mutilated, and often perverted. The Impost is still the subject of deliberation. The general quantum of duties has at some periods been a source of discussion. At others, the ratio of particular duties, have produced still more of it. The proper one between rum & Molasses has been the last & the longest question of that sort. I fear it will not be possible to establish a due & politic proportion without admitting excises so far as to reach the distilleries. The dilemma between that expedient and a palpable inequality in the burden, and injury to the Treasury is a perplexing one.
I have no late letter from Mr. Jefferson. A British packet arrived a day or two ago, but without news that has come to my knowledge. She brings young Vanberkel in the character of a Public Minister. Your friends in B. way are well. I am Dr. Sir yours sincerely
Js. Madison Jr.


Title: To James Madison from Eliza House Trist, 15 May 1789
From: Trist, Eliza House
To: Madison, James

Letter not found. 15 May 1789. Acknowledged in JM to Eliza House Trist, 21 May 1789. Reports illness of her son, Hore Browse Trist.


Title: To James Madison from Gustavus Scott, 16 May 1789
From: Scott, Gustavus
To: Madison, James

Letter not found. 16 May 1789. Calendared in the lists probably kept by Peter Force (DLC: Madison Miscellany). The three-page letter was offered for sale in the Stan. V. Henkels Catalogue No. 694 (1892), which listed items from the McGuire collection of JM’s papers.


Title: To James Madison from George Washington, [17 May] 1789
From: Washington, George
To: Madison, James

Sunday—7’Oclock AM. [17 May 1789]
Mr. Madison having been so obliging as to draw the answer to the Address of the House of Representatives—GW. would thank him for doing the same to that of the Senate. If he receives it any time this day or tomorrow morning it will be sufficient.


Title: To James Madison from Edmund Randolph, 19 May 1789
From: Randolph, Edmund
To: Madison, James

My dear friendWmsburg May 19: 1789.
While I acknowledge the receipt of your favor of the 10th. instant, I must assign as my apology for forgetting to answer the legal question, that a variety of family sickness has taken away a cool attention to business. The deed, to which the inclosed memorandum relates was executed in France. The following extract from a law of the revised code, intituled an act for regulating conveyances, will shew, in what manner it is to be recorded. “If the party, who shall sign and seal any such writing (that is any deed for lands) reside not in Virginia, the acknowledgment by such party, or the proof by the number of witnesses requisite (that is three) of the sealing and delivering of the writing before any court of law, or the mayor, or other chief magistrate of any city, town or corporation of the county, in which the party shall dwell, certified by such court, or mayor, or chief magistrate, in the manner such acts are usually authenticated by them, and offered to the proper court to be recorded (that is to the supreme court of Kentucky, or the court of the county, in which the lands lie) within eighteen months after the sealing and delivering, shall be as effectual as if it had been in the last mentioned court” (that is in the proper court). Altho’ the 18 months may have expired the deed is binding against the party making it, but not against creditors or subsequent purchasers. If Mr. Blagden &c. should refuse to change the date, let him reacknowledge the same deed before the proper person abovementioned, and that re-acknowledgement will answer the purpose of him, who claims the land, at all times, after it is committed to record.
We had received a confused account of the committee of titles, before your accurate information reached me. In it R. H. L. was represented, as having publickly holden a discourse with A. L and some of the representatives, asserting the superior pretensions of the senate to distinction. The simple but dignified address from your house, in which we discover your pen, is a subject of general approbation, and, is supposed to have drawn the best answer, which the president has yet given. Great indeed will be the astonishment of R. H. L’s confederates here. Richmond now resounds with the report of his opinions, brought hither by young Mr. Randolph. And yet it is an unmerciful style of proceeding, that we should enter so heartily into the condemnation of a man, in public office, without having any ground to insinuate any thing against his integrity in discharging it.
The elections seem tolerably judicious. Mr. H——y is said to have made a great parade in refusing to be reelected; but reelected he is, and will serve.
Messrs. Pendleton, Wythe and Blair have declined the completion of the revisal. The first is urgent, that I should undertake it singly; but as upon mature reflection I consider the laws which have been enacted from the code, as productive of very little benefit, if not of real harm in many instances, I shall decline interposing in it, farther than to make some supplements to them. The law of descents is in practice often found to be most unrighteous and difficult of execution. Nay I might say, that it is almost contradictory sometimes.
The judges have returned from their ridings, and bring accounts of a general satisfaction with the district law. But a murmur is now beginning to run against the execution law, which by accumulating at market large quantities of property is beginning to operate the effects, which you predicted on its passage. Negroes sell at the auctions of sheriffs for ⅕ of their value. Lands have scarcely any price at all. But justice in this part of the world goes forward briskly and equably, and tho’ it purges the debtors with hyssop, it will finally make us clean.
I wish, that by communicating with a friend, I could forget the situation of my wife. She suspects and I fear truly, that she has a cancer in her mouth. She supposes, that she feels all the acknowledged symptoms of that cruel ulcer, and that it has advanced most rapidly for a month past. In this country real aid is unattainable; nay even that species of aid, which can merely flatter, is unattainable. I have resolved, if the alarm should prove decidedly true, to carry her to Europe or Philadelphia. The former holds out the best source of hope; but I see no chance of converting property into sterling money. The latter would be visited with more ease. But as I should be obliged almost to become a resident there, should I go upon such an errand, pecuniary difficulties would be equally great. An effort, however, must be made, even at the risque of my whole fortune. Indeed I have sometimes seriously thought of attempting something professional, should I be compelled to visit Philadelphia without being able to raise money from my estate. In that case, a new revolution would take place with me. For if I found that I could live there, I should emancipate my slaves, and thus end my days, without undergoing any anxiety about the injustice of holding them. But I really do not know, why I have troubled you with this detail, unless I am imperceptibly led to unbosom myself to you without reserve; being always Yrs. mo. sincerely & afftely.
E. R.


Title: To James Madison from Hugh Williamson, 19 May 1789
From: Williamson, Hugh
To: Madison, James

Dear sirSuffolk 19th May 1789
At Baltimore & Norfolk and wherever I touched since I left New York I have heard Complaints that Molasses was to be taxed six Cents. This is what I did not expect in southern States, but they say that Molasses is a necessary Part of food for the Poor. In Virginia the Complaints I have heard are very loud that the Vessels of Foreigners not treating are only taxed 50 Cents. This trifling Tax they say will not stop a single British Bottom & will not make it worth while to build a single American Ship. This is what I did expect notwithstanding the Declamations of some southern Gentlemen aided by New York—usual associates. Let me risque a Conjecture. The mercantile Interest thinking that they are sacrificed to the avidity of Planters who are afraid of paying six Pence ⅌ Hhd more for the freight of Tobacco or Rice will take ample Revenge by smugling. That Tax must fall on the Planters. In Order to prevent Smugling as much as possible I think that Ship Owners should be encouraged as much as possible. You will forgive this Opinion from the Citizen of a foreign State. From Baltimore I came to Norfolk by the Packet & am to proceed in the morning to morrow for Edenton by the Stage.
Will you be so good as [to] send the inclosed to Mrs Seabring at the Corner of Crown Street & broad Way. Mrs Williamson will direct her Servant occasionally to call there for Letters. If any Letters are for me in the Post Office be so good as [to] inclose them & send me withal any Acts that may have passed or other material Intelligence. I am Dr sir Your most obedt servt:
Hu Williamson


Title: Removal Power of the President, [19 May] 1789
From: Madison, James
To:

[19 May 1789]

   The House took up the establishment of executive departments. JM moved the creation of foreign affairs, treasury, and war departments. The debate centered on the clause vesting in the president alone the power to remove the officers heading these departments. Smith (South Carolina) contended that impeachment was the only constitutional means of removal.

Mr. Madison Did not concur with the gentleman in his interpretation of the constitution. What said he would be the consequence of such construction? It would in effect establish every officer of the government on the firm tenure of good behaviour, not the heads of departments only, but all the inferior officers of those departments would hold their offices during good behaviour, and that to be judged of by one branch of the legislature only on the impeachment of the other. If the constitution means this by its declarations to be the case we must submit, but I should lament it as a fatal error interwove in the system and one that would ultimately prove its destruction. I think the inference would not arise from a fair construction of the words of that instrument.
It is very possible that an officer who may not incur the displeasure of the president, may be guilty of actions that ought to forfeit his place; the power of this house may reach him by the means of an impeachment, and he may be removed even against the will of the president; so that the declaration in the constitution, was intended as a supplemental security for the good behaviour of the public officers. It is possible the case I have stated may happen; indeed it may perhaps on some occasion be found necessary to impeach the president himself; surely therefore it may happen to a subordinate officer, whose bad actions may be connived at or overlooked by the president; hence the people have an additional security in this constitutional provision.
I think it absolutely necessary that the president should have the power of removing from office; it will make him, in a peculiar manner, responsible for their conduct, and subject him to impeachment himself, if he suffers them to perpetrate with impunity high crimes or misdemeanours against the United States, or neglects to superintend their conduct, so as to check their excesses. On the constitutionality of the declaration I have no manner of doubt.

   Cong. RegisterThomas Lloyd, comp., The Congressional
          Register; or, History of the Proceedings and Debates of the First House of
          Representatives … (2 vols.; New York, 1789; Evans 22203–4)., I, 351–52.

[19 May 1789]

   Bland thought the Senate should have the same role in removing as it did in appointing. Jackson favored impeachment, giving the president only a suspending power.

Mr. Madison Did not conceive it was a proper construction of the constitution to say, that there was no other mode of removing from office than that by impeachment; he believed this, as applied to the judges, might be the case, but he could never imagine it extended in the manner which gentlemen contended for. He believed they would not assert, that any part of the constitution declared, that the only way to remove should be by impeachment. The contrary might be inferred, because congress may establish offices by law; therefore, most certainly, it is in the discretion of the legislature to say upon what terms the office shall be held, either during good behaviour, or during pleasure. Under this construction the principles of the constitution would be reconcileable in every part; but under that of the gentleman from South-Carolina, it would be incongruous and faulty. He wondered how the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jackson) would reconcile his principles so far as to permit the president to suspend the officer. He begged his colleague (Mr. Bland) to consider the inconvenience his doctrine would occasion, by keeping the senate constantly sitting, in order to give their assent to the removal of an officer; they might see there would be a constant probability of the senate being called upon to exercise this power, consequently they could not be a moment absent: now, he did not believe, the constitution imposed any such duty upon them; why then, said he, shall we enjoin it, especially at such an expence of the public treasure?

   Cong. RegisterThomas Lloyd, comp., The Congressional
          Register; or, History of the Proceedings and Debates of the First House of
          Representatives … (2 vols.; New York, 1789; Evans 22203–4)., I, 354–55.

[19 May 1789]
Mr. Madison. I look upon every constitutional question, whatever its nature may be, of great importance; I look upon the present to be doubly so, because its nature is of the highest moment to the well being of the government. I have listened with attention to the objections which have been stated, and to the replies that have been made; and I think the investigation of the meaning of the constitution, has supported the doctrine I brought forward. If you consult the expediency, it will be greatly against the doctrine advanced by gentlemen on the other side of the question. See to what inconsistency gentlemen drive themselves, by their construction of the constitution. The gentleman from South-Carolina, (Mr. Smith) in order to bring to conviction and punishment an offender in any of the principal offices, must have recourse to a breach of the common law, and yet he may there be found guilty, and maintain his office, because he is fixed by the constitution. It has been said, we may guard against the inconveniency of that construction, by limiting the duration of the office, to a term of years, but during that term, there is no way of getting rid of a bad officer, but by impeachment. During the time this is depending, the person may continue to commit those crimes for which he is impeached, because if his construction of the constitution is right, the president can have no more power to suspend than he has to remove.
What fell from one of my colleagues (Mr. Bland) appears to have more weight, than any thing hitherto suggested. The constitution at the first view, may seem to favor his opinion; but that must be the case only at the first view, for if we examine it, we shall find his construction incompatible with the spirit and principles, contained in that instrument.
It is said, that it comports with the nature of things, that those who appoint, should have the power of removal, but I cannot conceive that this sentiment is warranted by the constitution; I believe it would be found very inconvenient in practice. It is one of the most prominent features of the constitution, a principle that pervades the whole system, that there should be the highest possible degree of responsibility in all the executive officers thereof; any thing therefore which tends to lessen this responsibility is contrary to its spirit and intention, and unless it is saddled upon us expressly by the letter of that work, I shall oppose the admission of it into any act of the legislature. Now, if the heads of the executive departments are subjected to removal by the president alone, we have in him security for the good behaviour of the officer: If he does not conform to the judgment of the president, in doing the executive duties of his office, he can be displaced; this makes him responsible to the great executive power, and makes the president responsible to the public for the conduct of the person he has nominated and appointed to aid him in the administration of his department; but if the president shall join in a collusion with this officer, and continue a bad man in office, the case of impeachment will reach the culprit, and drag him forth to punishment. But if you take the other construction, and say, he shall not be displaced, but by and with the advice and consent of the senate, the president is no longer answerable for the conduct of the officer; all will depend upon the senate. You here destroy a real responsibility without obtaining even the shadow; for no gentleman will pretend to say, the responsibility of the senate can be of such a nature as to afford substantial security. But why, it may be asked, was the senate joined with the president in appointing to office, if they have no responsibility? I answer, merely for the sake of advising, being supposed, from their nature, better acquainted with the characters of the candidates than an individual; yet even here the president is held to the responsibility he nominates, and with their consent appoints; no person can be forced upon him as an assistant by any other branch of the government.

There is another objection to this construction, which I consider of some weight, and shall therefore mention to the committee. Perhaps there was no argument urged with more success, or more plausibly grounded, against the constitution, under which we are now deliberating, than that founded on the mingling of the executive and legislative branches of the government in one body. It has been objected, that the senate have too much of the executive power even, by having a controul over the president in the appointment to office. Now, shall we extend this connection between the legislative and executive departments, which will strengthen the objection, and diminish the responsibility we have in the head of the executive? I cannot but believe, if gentlemen weigh well these considerations, they will think it safe and expedient to adopt the clause.

   Cong. RegisterThomas Lloyd, comp., The Congressional
          Register; or, History of the Proceedings and Debates of the First House of
          Representatives … (2 vols.; New York, 1789; Evans 22203–4)., I, 360–62. By a large majority the Committee of the Whole declared in favor of the president’s having the sole power of removal.


Title: To James Madison from Hugh Williamson, 21 May 1789
From: Williamson, Hugh
To: Madison, James

Dear sirEdenton 21st May 1789
I am just informed by Govr Johnston that a Treaty is to be held on the 24th Inst at french Broad by the Indian Agent for the southern Departmt & the three Commissioners from the States of Georgia South Carolina & North Carolina. That Sevier lately called Governor of an insurgented State has submitted to the Govt of North Carolina and taken the accustomed Oaths. There is an End to the new, so called, State. Our Governor and Council have prepared a very pretty Address to the President of the U. S. which may possibly pass through your Hands.
Our People near the Sea Coast are in gr[e]at Pain on the Idea of being shut out from the Union. They say that unless they can continue in the Coasting Trade without the Alien Duty they must starve with their Families or remove from the State. Can no Exception be made in favour of such apparent Aliens for so long as to the first of Jany next?
Be so good as [to] give furtherance to the inclosed & oblige Dr sir Your most obedt servt
Hu Williamson


Title: To James Madison from Daniel Carroll, 22 May 1789
From: Carroll, Daniel
To: Madison, James

Friday morning 22 May 89.
Mr. Carroll presents his complits to Mr. Madison returns him the inclosed estimate, & is much obliged to Mr. Madison for the perusal of it.
Quere how the deficiency on this branch of revenue is to be made good? Would not an excise on ardent spirits, foreign & domestic be adviseable? Stamp duties I hope may be collected to defray the expence of the federal Judiciary.