of the estimate for the ensuing year, was not founded on any previous information in its favor, but against every intimation on the subject, and was dictated entirely by our necessities; so that if even no part of the requisitions from the States should be denied or diverted, the support of the war, the primary object, might be but deficiently provided for; that if this example, which violated the right of appropriation delegated to Congress by the Federal Articles, should be set by Pennsylvania, it would be both followed by other States, and extended to other instances; that, in consequence, our system of administration, and even our bond of union, would be dissolved; that the enemy would take courage from such a prospect, and the war be prolonged, if not the object of it be endangered; that our national credit would fail with other powers, and the loans from abroad, which had been our chief resource, fail with it; that an assumption, by individual States, of the prerogative of paying their own citizens the debts of the United States out of the money required by the latter, was not only a breach of the federal system, but of the faith pledged to the public creditors, since payment was mutually guarantied to each and all of the creditors by each and all of the States; and that, lastly, it was unjust with respect to the States themselves, on whom the burden would fall, not in proportion to their respective abilities, but to the debts due to their respective citizens; and that at least it deserved the consideration of Pennsylvania whether she would not be loser by such an arrangement.

On the side of the other Committee it was answered,

that the measure could not violate the Confederation, because the requisition had not been founded on a valuation of land; that it would not be the first example, New Hampshire and New York having appropriated money raised under requisitions of Congress; that if the other States did their duty in complying with the demands of Congress, no inconvenience would arise from it; that the discontents of the creditors would prevent the payment of taxes; Mr. Hill finally asking whether it had been considered in Congress, how far delinquent States could be eventually coerced to do justice to those who performed their part? To all which it was replied, that a valuation of land had been manifestly impossible during the war; that the apportionments made had been acquiesced in by Pennsylvania, and therefore the appropriation could not be objected to; that although other States might have set previous examples, these had never come before Congress; and it would be more honorable for Pennsylvania to counteract than to abet them, especially as the example from her weight in the Union, and the residence of Congress would be so powerful, that if other States did their duty the measure would be superfluous; that the discontents of the creditors might always be answered by the equal justice and more pressing necessity which pleaded in favor of the army, who had lent their blood and services to their country, and on whom its defence still rested; that Congress, unwilling to presume a refusal in any of the States to do justice, would not anticipate it by a consideration of the steps which such refusal might require, and that ruin must ensue, if the States

suffered their policy to be swayed by such distrusts. The Committee appeared to be considerably impressed with these remarks, and the Legislature suspended their plan."

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5TH.

Mr. Lowell and Mr. Read were elected Judges of the Court of Appeals. Mr. P. Smith, of New Jersey, had the vote of that State, and Mr. Merchant, of Rhode Island, the vote of that State.

The resolutions respecting Vermont, moved by Mr. McKEAN on the twenty-seventh day of November, were taken into consideration. They were seconded by Mr. HAMILTON, as entered on the Journal of this day. Previous to the question on the coercive clause, Mr. MADISON observed, that, as the preceding clause was involved in it, and the Federal Articles did not delegate to Congress the authority about to be enforced, it would be proper, in the first place, to amend the recital in the previous clause by inserting the ground on which the authority of Congress had been interposed. Some who voted against this motion in this stage having done so from a doubt as to the point of order, it was revived in a subsequent stage, when that objection did not lie. The objections to the motion itself were urged chiefly by the Delegates from Rhode Island, and with a view in this, as in all other instances, to perplex and protract the business. The objections were-first, that the proposed insertion was not warranted by the act of New Hampshire, which submitted to the judgment

of Congress merely the question of jurisdiction; secondly, that the resolutions of August, 1781, concerning Vermont, having been acceded to by Vermont, annulled all antecedent acts founded on the doubtfulness of its claim to independence. In answer to the first objection the act of New Hampshire was read, which, in the utmost latitude, adopted the resolutions of Congress, which extended expressly to the preservation of peace and order, and prevention of acts of confiscation by one party against another. To the second objection it was answered-first, that the said resolutions of August being conditional, not absolute, the cession of Vermont could not render them definitive; but secondly, that prior to this accession, Vermont having, in due form, rejected the resolutions, and notified the rejection to Congress, the accession could be of no avail, unless subsequently admitted by Congress; thirdly, that this doctrine had been maintained by Vermont itself, which had declared, that, inasmuch as the resolutions of August did not correspond with their overtures previously made to Congress, these had ceased to be obligatory; which act, it was to be observed, was merely declaratory, not creative, of the annulment.

The original motion of Mr. McKEAN and Mr. HAMILTON was agreed to, seven States voting for it, Rhode Island and New Jersey in the negative.

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 6TH.

An ordinance, extending the privilege of franking letters to the Heads of all the Departments, was

reported and taken up. Various ideas were thrown out on the subject at large; some contending for the extension proposed, some for a total abolition of the privilege, as well in Members of Congress as in others; some for a limitation of the privilege to a definite number or weight of letters. Those who contended for a total abolition represented the privilege as productive of abuses, as reducing the profits so low as to prevent the extension of the establishment throughout the United States, and as throwing the whole burden of the establishment on the mercantile intercourse. On the other side it was contended, that, in case of an abolition, the Delegates, or their constituents, would be taxed just in proportion to their distance from the seat of Congress; which was neither just nor politic, considering the many other disadvantages which were inseparable from that distance; that as the correspondence of the Delegates was the principal channel through which a general knowledge of public affairs was diffused, any abridgment of it would so far confine this advantage to the States within the neighbourhood of Congress; and that as the correspondence at present, however voluminous, did not exclude from the mail any private letters which would be subject to postage, and if postage was extended to letters now franked, the number and size of them would be essentially reduced, the revenue was not affected in the manner represented. The ordinance was disagreed to and the subject recommitted, with instruction to the Committee, giving them ample latitude for such report as they should think fit.

A Boston newspaper, containing, under the Provi