Page images
PDF
EPUB

to it; that as the two subjects were, in some degree, connected, as means of restoring public credit, and inseparably connected in the minds of many members, it was but reasonable to admit one as well as the other to a share of attention; that if a valuation of land should be found, on mature deliberation, to be as efficacious a remedy as was by some supposed, it would be proper at least to combine it with the other expedient, or perhaps to substitute it altogether; if the contrary should become apparent, its patrons would join the more cordially in the object of a general revenue.

Mr. HAMILTON Concurred in these ideas, and wished the valuation to be taken up, in order that its impracticability and futility might become manifest. The motion passed in the affirmative, and the report was taken up.

The phraseology was made more correct in several instances.

A motion was made by Mr. BOUDINOT, seconded by Mr. ELLSWORTH, to strike out the clause requiring a return of "the names of the owners," as well as the quantity of land. Mr. ELLSWORTH also contended for a less specific return of the parcels of land. The objection against the clause was, that it would be extremely troublesome, and equally useless. Mr. BLAND thought these specific returns would be a check on frauds, and the suspicion of them. Mr. WILLIAMSON Was of the same opinion, as were also Mr. LEE, Mr. GORHAM, and Mr. RAMSAY.* The motion was withdrawn by Mr. BoUDINOT.

* Mr. DYER ludicrously proposed, as a proviso to the scheme of referring the valuation to the States, "that each of the States should cheat equally."

SATURDAY and MONDAY.

No Congress.

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4TH.

An indecent and tart remonstrance was received from Vermont against the interposition of Congress in favor of the persons who had been banished, and whose effects had been confiscated. A motion was made by Mr. HAMILTON, seconded by Mr. DYER, to commit it. Mr. WOLCOTT, who had always patronized the case of Vermont, wished to know the views of a commitment. Mr. HAMILTON said his view was to fulfil the resolution of Congress which bound them to enforce the measure. Mr. DYER said his was, that so dishonorable a menace might be as quickly as possible renounced. He said General Washington was in favor of Vermont; that the principal people of New England were all supporters of them, and that Congress ought to rectify the error into which they had been led, without longer exposing themselves to reproach on this subject. It was committed without dissent.

Mr. WILSON informed Congress that the Legislature of Pennsylvania, having found the ordinance of Congress erecting a court for piracies so obscure on some points that they were at a loss to adapt their laws to it, had appointed a committee to confer with a committee of Congress. He accordingly moved, in behalf of the Pennsylvania delegation, that a com

mittee might be appointed for that purpose. After some objections by Mr. MADISON against the impropriety of holding a communication with Pennsylvania through committees, when the purpose might be as well answered by a memorial, or an instruction to its Delegates, a committee was appointed, consisting of Mr. RUTLEDGE, Mr. MADISON, and Mr. WILSON.

The Report proposing a commutation for the halfpay due to the army was taken up. On a motion to allow five and a half years' whole pay in gross to be funded and bear interest-this being the rate taken from Dr. Price's calculation of annuities-New Hampshire was, no; Rhode Island, no; Connecticut, no; New Jersey, no; Virginia, aye (Mr. LEE, no;) other States, aye: so the question was lost. Five years was then proposed, on which New Hampshire was, no; Rhode Island, no; Connecticut, no; New Jersey, no: so there were but six ayes, and the proposition was lost. Mr. WILLIAMSON proposed five and a quarter, and called for the yeas and nays. Messrs. WOLCOTT and DYER observed, that they were bound by instructions on this subject. Mr. ARNOLD said They also queried

the case was the same with him. the validity of the act of Congress which had stipulated half-pay to the army, as it had passed before the Confederation, and by a vote of less than seven States. Mr. MADISON said that he wished, if the yeas and nays were called, it might be on the true calculation, and not on an arbitrary principle of compromise; as the latter, standing singly on the Journal, would not express the true ideas of the yeas, and might even subject them to contrary interpretations. He said that the act was valid, because it was de

cided according to the rule then in force; and that, ! as the officers had served under the faith of it, justice fully corroborated it, and that he was astonished to hear these principles controverted. He was also astonished to hear objections against a commutation come from States in compliance with whose objections against the half-pay itself this expedient had been substituted. Mr. WILSON expressed his surprise, also, that instructions should be given which militated against the most peremptory and lawful engagements of Congress, and said that if such a doctrine prevailed the authority of the Confederacy was at an end. Mr. ARNOLD said that he wished the report might not be decided on at this time; that the Assembly of Rhode Island was in session, and he hoped to receive their further advice. Mr. BLAND enforced the ideas of Mr. MADISON and Mr. WILSON. Mr. GILMAN thought it would be best to refer the subject of half-pay to the several States, to be settled between them and their respective lines. By general consent the Report lay over.

Mr. LEE communicated to Congress a letter he had received from Mr. Samuel Adams, dated Boston, December the twenty-second, 1782, introducing Mr. from Canada, as a person capable of giving intelligence relative to affairs in Canada, and the practicability of uniting that province with the confederated States. The letter was committed.

In Committee of the Whole on the Report concerning a valuation of the lands of the United States

A motion was made by Mr. RUTLEDGE, which took the sense of Congress on this question, whether the rule of apportionment, to be grounded on the VOL. I.-21

proposed valuation, should continue in force until revoked by Congress, or a period be now fixed, beyond which it should not continue in force. The importance of the distinction lay in the necessity of having seven votes on every act of Congress. The Eastern States were, generally, for the latter; supposing that the Southern States, being impoverished by the recent havoc of the enemy, would be underrated in the first valuation. The Southern States were, for the same reason, interested in favor of the former. On the question there were six ayes only, which produced a dispute whether, in a Committee of the Whole, a majority would decide, or whether seven votes were necessary.

In favor of the first rule it was contended by Mr. GORHAM, and others, that in committees of Congress the rule always is that a majority decides.

In favor of the latter it was contended, that if the rule of other committees applies to a Committee of the Whole, the vote should be individual per capita, as well as by a majority; that in other deliberative assemblies the rules of voting were not varied in Committees of the Whole, and that it would be inconvenient in practice to report to Congress, as the sense of the body, a measure approved by four or five States, since there could be no reason to hope that, in the same body, in a different form, seven States would approve it; and, consequently, a waste of time would be the result.

The Committee rose, and Congress adjourned.

« PreviousContinue »