TUESDAY, December 14.
JEREMIAH VAN RENSSELAER, from New York, and THOMAS HARTLEY, from
Pennsylvania, appeared and took their seats.
FRIDAY, December 17.
JOHN HATHORN, from New York, and JOHN SEVIER, from North Carolina,
appeared and took their seats.
BENJAMIN BOURNE, a member returned from Rhode Island, produced his
credentials, and took his seat.
MONDAY, December 27.
_Public Lands._
The House then went into Committee of the Whole on the state of the
Union, Mr. LIVERMORE in the chair.
The report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the establishment of land
offices for the disposal of the vacant lands belonging to the United
States was taken up; when
Mr. BOUDINOT offered the following resolution:
_Resolved_, That it is the sense of the committee that a
Land Office be established at the seat of the General
Government, under the direction of ---- Commissioners.
Mr. SCOTT wished the House to take a general view of the business before
they went into the particulars of the Secretary's report. Upon the
whole, he was pleased with the plan drawn up by that officer; one part,
however, he objected to--that part of the report which provided for the
distribution of the land. He did not approve of setting apart tracts for
particular descriptions of purchasers. As an amendment, he offered seven
propositions, which he wished, for the present, to lie on the table, and
which he proposed to offer as substitutes to different parts of the
Secretary's report, as they came before the House. His principal object
was to let the tracts which Congress proposed to sell be
indiscriminately located.
Mr. BOUDINOT thought the committee could not then enter into the minutiæ
of the business. It was enough to fix the general principles, viz:
Whether there shall be a General Land Officer and two subordinates?
Whether they shall be under the direction of Commissioners? And whether
certain tracts of land should be reserved by Congress for certain
purposes? And then to appoint a committee to bring in a bill on those
principles, and to take into consideration the minutiæ of the business.
Mr. SCOTT moved as a substitute his second proposition, that such
districts as shall be set apart for sale, shall include the actual
settlements, and be left to be indiscriminately located. He said it was
improper to set aside different tracts for different modes of
location--some in large tracts, others in small lots. He conceived it
would be the interest of Government to let every one purchase where he
pleased, and as much or as little as he chose. From experience, he knew
that those parts were always settled with the most celerity that were
not bound down to any of those restrictions. For his part, he could see
no good argument in favor of them.
He wished some of the gentlemen who approved of this mode would give him
some reasons for preferring it. There could be no fear of individual
settlers scattering and losing themselves in the backwoods; there was a
sufficient check to prevent it--the Indians would keep them compact much
more effectually than any regulations Congress could make. If, after
granting certain scattered tracts to individual settlers, a considerable
tract, including these, was wanted, he could see no inconvenience in
granting it, reserving to the former settlers their rights.
Mr. WILLIAMSON rose to give the gentleman last up one reason for
opposing indiscriminate location. Hitherto, he owned, much mischief had
not arisen from this mode of settlement; but now there were persons rich
in securities and cash, ready to take up considerable quantities of
land, which, if they were permitted to select here and there, would
select every choice tract they could; and those who might not have the
same means of purchasing immediately at command, could only obtain the
indifferent parcels. Many, he knew, had it in contemplation to do this,
if the opportunity offered. He instanced North Carolina as an example of
the injurious tendency of this liberty; where many tracts are unsaleable
owing to this circumstance. If these tracts were to be purchased by
actual settlers, the case would be different; they would only be taken
up by persons under the name of actual settlers. Such a practice would
be an impediment to such companies of Europeans as might wish to settle
among us.
Mr. SCOTT said he expected the gentleman would have offered more solid
objections to his plan, and more forcible arguments in favor of the
other. Though the first settlers had the choice of the land, yet he
conceived the remaining part would acquire a considerable additional
value from the surrounding settlements. As for the European companies
who might be tempted to settle among us, he did not contemplate it as
an object so desirable. A body of French people settling in that way
would preserve their language and manners two thousand years perhaps.
This would not be for the true interest of the country; all its
inhabitants should, by mutual intercourse, become assimilated, and no
name be known but that of Americans.
Mr. BOUDINOT was against indiscriminate location. He had seen the bad
effects of it in the State from which he came. Persons had bought up the
low lands, and sold them again to such as absolutely needed a water lot
to their farms, at enormous prices. He mentioned another objection to
the plan--the tendency it had to create lawsuits. He said more money had
been spent at law, in disputes arising from that mode of settlement, in
New Jersey, than would have been necessary to purchase all the land of
the State. The late Congress, he was informed, had adopted a method to
obviate the inconveniences of the former mode--the lands were laid out
into a mile square; these were divided into four equal squares, and in
that form sold.
Mr. SCOTT said there were tracts of land which it is impossible to sell,
even by offering good parcels with them. Between Philadelphia and his
home there were spots which were only intended by nature for the birds
and beasts--that could be of no value for cultivation. He could not see
much probability that the best land would be picked out. The difficulty
of exploring a wild and uncultivated desert opposed a considerable
barrier to such attempts.
Mr. SCOTT's amendment was lost.
TUESDAY, December 28.
_Land Offices._
The House then went again into a Committee of the Whole on the state of
the Union, Mr. BOUDINOT in the chair. The report of the Secretary of the
Treasury on the subject of a Land Office being under consideration.
Mr. SCOTT said, he was ready to give some information relative to the
extent of the seven ranges. He produced a map of them, from which it
appeared that they included thirty-five lots, each six miles square. The
tract is in the shape of a triangle, of which one leg measured about
sixty, and the other forty-two--in all, about twelve hundred square
miles. His amendment was agreed to.
The next article was agreed to, with a trifling amendment, without
debate.
Then the following was read:
"That the price shall be thirty cents per acre, to be paid
either in gold or silver, or public securities, computing
those which shall bear an immediate interest of six per
cent. as at par with gold and silver, and those which shall
bear a future or less interest, if any there be, at a
proportional value."
Mr. SCOTT moved that thirty cents should be struck out.
Mr. SHERMAN was in favor of inserting fifty cents per acre. He said
there was every reasonable probability the lands would be worth that sum
in a few years.
Mr. LAWRENCE said, that as the quality of the land would vary, it
appeared proper to fix on two prices at which they should be sold, viz:
That the price shall not be more than ----, nor less than ----. He
submitted the idea to the consideration of the committee.
Mr. SEDGWICK preferred the insertion of a sum below which the lands
should not be sold.
Mr. WILLIAMSON suggested the propriety of making a difference in the
price to those who purchase large quantities, from the price to those
who purchase small quantities.
The motion for striking out was lost.
Mr. SEDGWICK then moved to amend the clause, by inserting "that the
price per acre shall not be less than thirty cents."
Mr. STONE objected to the motion. He said the operation of it would be
to leave it discretionary with the Surveyors to fix the price of the
various tracts. This would be to constitute a tribunal in a measure
independent of the Government. He thought the policy of the Government
should be to fix on a price, which shall be so reasonable, that persons
may feel every inducement to pay it before they take up the lands; for
it has been found by experience, that when once a tract of distant
country is taken possession of, you never can get any thing more than
the settlers are willing to pay. He insisted that it was impracticable
to fix the relative value of unlocated lands--it had been repeatedly
tried without effect. He asked if any of the States had ever established
various rates for their lands? He knew of none.
Mr. SEDGWICK answered the inquiry respecting the relative value of lands
being ascertained in the several States. He said, that so far as his
information extended, which respected only the States of New York, New
Hampshire, and Massachusetts, this had invariably been the case. Every
man knows there is a most essential difference in the value of lands.
Those on navigable rivers may be ten times as valuable as those on the
top of a mountain. This every individual is so sensible of, that a
difference in the price is constantly made; and why the Government
should not make a difference, it is impossible to say. Any man, by
casting his eye upon the map, can at once determine that some part of
the land is unspeakably more valuable than other parts. He was certain
that vesting a discretionary power, in the disposal of the lands, would
be productive of the greatest advantage to the United States, and on
this principle he could not conceive why the Surveyors should not
determine the relative quality, that the United States may stand some
chance of getting the value of this property.
Mr. LIVERMORE was in favor of Mr. SEDGWICK's motion, and enlarged on the
unreasonableness of fixing a particular price.
Mr. JACKSON was opposed to investing a discretionary power to determine
the price with any persons whatsoever. It had been productive of
mischievous consequences in the State of Georgia. He was for fixing a
price, and the highest price--the best the land would bear; when that is
sold, if the revenue will not bear the price established, it can then be
reduced.
Mr. SCOTT objected to the motion. He stated several difficulties; the
principal was, that foreigners would be deterred from adventuring, owing
to the uncertainty in the price; for when they arrive in the country to
settle, they must purchase, and they will then lie at the mercy of
speculators.
Mr. LAWRENCE.--The people have great dependence on the Western territory
as a fund to extinguish their debt; it therefore becomes the duty of the
Government to obtain the best price they can for it. The question is,
whether we shall fix a price, or adopt the plan proposed by the
gentleman from Massachusetts. He was in favor of the latter, and said he
doubted not it would be easy to make a discrimination in the relative
qualities of the lands. This difference in price may render it worth
while for the Commissioners to have the land of a particular district
explored. He replied to the objection from the want of integrity in the
surveyors. Admitting the full force of the objection, it was probable
that the United States would gain by it; at any rate, it would not lose;
and it was probable that, to avoid suspicion, if the surveyors should be
interested in the tract surveyed, they would give more than thirty
cents. With respect to foreigners, after they arrive in this country,
they then will be on the same footing with our own citizens. He adverted
to the mode which had been adopted by New York--they had sold lands in
every way, at a certain price, at auction, and are now selling them at
the discretion of Commissioners, at a rate not below a certain sum.
Mr. STONE objected to the mode of leaving the price unfixed, as it would
involve a complex system, subjecting the purchasers to great
inconvenience, perplexity, and uncertainty. He reprobated the system
adopted by New York, and asked the gentleman (Mr. LAWRENCE) whether New
York had not been subjected to great loss and vexation in consequence of
the plan they had pursued? He wished the system of New York should be
fully understood, in order that the United States may avoid it. He
concluded by saying, that he was in favor of fixing a price, and
supposed that the Western Territory, sold at thirty cents per acre,
would sink the whole of the national debt.
Mr. LAWRENCE replied to Mr. STONE. He said, that when the State of New
York sold their lands at a fixed price, there had been complaints on
account of the best tracts being taken up. When they had sold them at
auction, the value of the lands had been generally realized in
proportion to the quality. With respect to the last mode adopted, the
result was not yet known.
Mr. WHITE said, if gentlemen had proposed the amendment to the clause
which respects large purchases, he should not have objected to it. He,
however, objected to it in the present case, and, in order to show that
a fixed price was most eligible for small quantities, he instanced the
practice of Lord Fairfax, who had been a great proprietor in Virginia;
and also the practice of the first proprietors of Pennsylvania. These
sold their lands, good and bad, at one price; their experience for such
a length of time, near a century, he thought sufficient to show that
mode to be the most eligible. He would not object to fixing that
condition to special contract.
Mr. SEDGWICK obviated the objection in the first instance, by saying
that the officers will be able to determine, with very considerable
precision, what will be for the interest of the United States. He said
experience had proved that there were no insuperable difficulties in the
case.
Mr. MOORE observed, that the actual value of the best lands in that
territory was about thirty cents per acre. When all of that description
is sold, the next will bring the same price; from whence he inferred,
that there could be no difficulty or loss attending fixing the price. He
stated some difficulties which would result from adopting the mode
proposed.
WEDNESDAY, January 5.
_Duties on Spirits._
The House, agreeably to the order of the day, resolved itself into a
Committee of the Whole, Mr. BOUDINOT in the chair, and took into
consideration the bill repealing, after a certain time, the act laying
duties on distilled spirits, &c., and imposing others in their stead.
Mr. JACKSON moved to strike out the essential part of the first clause.
He stated his objections at large against the principles of the bill,
and reprobated the funding system, and an excise in particular, as an
auxiliary to it.
The tenor of his observations was to show that this mode of taxation was
odious, unequal, unpopular, and oppressive, more particularly in the
Southern States; in which he observed its unequal operation would be
most sensibly felt, as the citizens of those States have no alternative
to adopt by which they can diminish the weight of the tax; no breweries
or orchards to furnish a substitute for spirituous liquors; hence they
become a necessary article. He contended that they were not only
necessary, but salutary in the Southern regions. This, he said, had been
acknowledged by an Eastern author, _Mr. Morse_, an authority which he
presumed would not be disputed by the Northern gentlemen, especially
when it was considered he was a clergyman. Mr. M. declares that grog is
a necessary article of drink in the Southern States.
Mr. J. took notice of the petition of the College of Physicians, which
had lately been read in the House on the subject of distilled spirits.
He disapproved highly of their interfering in the business. He thought
they might with equal propriety interpose their offices to prevent the
use of many other articles which were deemed pernicious or of a
poisonous quality. He instanced mushrooms; they might petition Congress
to pass a law interdicting the use of catsup, because some ignorant
persons had been poisoned by eating mushrooms.
Mr. J. then gave a short sketch of the history of excises in England. He
said they always had been considered by the people of that country as an
odious tax, from the time of _Oliver Cromwell_ to the present day; even
_Blackstone_, a high prerogative lawyer, has reprobated them. He said,
he hoped this country would take warning by the experience of the people
of Great Britain, and not sacrifice their liberties by wantonly
contracting debts which would render it necessary to burden the people
by such taxes as would swallow up their privileges. We are, said he, too
much in the habit of imitating that country; and I plainly perceive that
the time will come when a shirt shall not be washed without an excise.
He then expatiated on the unequal operation of excises, and instanced
the experience of this State. A few counties, said he, approximate to
the capital, have borne the weight of the whole, while the distant parts
of the State did not feel the burden; and, by an indication of several
particulars, he showed its unequal operation in the Southern States. It
will deprive the mass of the people of almost the only luxury they
enjoy, that of distilled spirits. He did not see the necessity of
passing this law the present session. The amount of the produce of the
duties laid last session is not yet known, nor is it yet ascertained
whether the citizens will subscribe to the assumption. Let us not lay a
tax for a purpose which may never exist; for my part, I hope they never
will subscribe. He then adverted to the excess of duties already laid,
and the probability of a great increase of that excess; and urged the
propriety of waiting at least another quarter to see what that excess
may amount to. These observations he enforced by recurring to the recent
transactions of the States of Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina;
and he expected to hear very shortly that the Assembly of Georgia had
expressed similar opinions with the latter States on the business of the
assumption. He concluded by expressing a general disapprobation of the
various parts of the bill.
Mr. PARKER said, he had seconded the motion of the gentleman from
Georgia, not because he was more averse to this particular clause than
to the subsequent parts of the bill. He exceedingly disliked the several
provisions contained in it. He then adverted to the general process of
the revenue business the last session; and observing on the conduct of
the mercantile interest, to which so much credit had been given, said,
he thought they were not entitled to the liberal encomiums which had
been bestowed on them for their promptitude in paying the duties, as
the certainty and increase of the revenue had served to enhance the
value of the public securities, of which it is well known they hold a
very considerable portion.
He then touched on the subsequent parts of the bill, which he reprobated
as hostile to the liberties of the people, as contrary to the general
sentiment; not only as partial and unequal in the mode of assessment,
but particularly on account of the mode of collecting the tax. It will,
said he, convulse the Government; it will let loose a swarm of harpies,
who, under the denomination of revenue officers, will range through the
country, prying into every man's house and affairs, and like a
Macedonian phalanx bear down all before them. And though the Government
has proceeded with a degree of prosperity and success beyond the most
sanguine expectations, yet he very much doubted the policy of trying its
strength by an experiment of this nature.
Recurring to the actual and probable produce of the duties already laid,
he attempted to show that the additional sum of upwards of eight hundred
thousand dollars, contemplated to be raised by this bill, is not
necessary. He controverted the policy of the measure, and contended that
it would, in all probability, rather diminish than increase the revenue
of the United States. For the mercantile part of the community, who have
been applauded for acting so honorably in making their entries, and
paying the impost, will find it for their interest to alter their
conduct; they will combine to defeat the excise, which will in its
operations bear so unequally on them.
He objected very particularly to the bill on account of its tendency to
promote smuggling. Mr. P. said, no man was more heartily disposed than
he was to give his approbation to every just measure for supporting the
public credit, and doing every thing in his power to support the
constitutional operations of the Government; but this mode of raising a
revenue he considered as particularly odious to the people; and at the
present moment he was not satisfied that such an increase to the public
burdens is necessary.
Mr. STONE said, he had no objection to the design of the bill so far as
additional revenue was necessary; but the mode of raising it by excise
he exceedingly disliked. He had no doubt that other means might be
devised; but at present he thought the committee was not sufficiently
informed respecting the actual and probable amount of the revenue from
the duties already imposed, to determine the necessity of an addition to
the revenue. He therefore moved that the committee should rise without
any further discussion of the bill at this time, and that a select
committee should be appointed to make the necessary previous inquiries
upon the subject, and report to the House.
Mr. FITZSIMONS observed that there was already on the table a statement
from the proper officers of the product of the revenue, from September,
1789, to September, 1790.
This statement was read.
The motion for the committee's rising was put and lost.
The question on Mr. JACKSON's motion for striking out the clause was
put, and negatived by a great majority.
THURSDAY, January 6.
_Duties on Spirits._
The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the
bill repealing after the last day of ---- next, the act laying duties on
distilled spirits, &c., and imposing others in their stead. Mr. BOUDINOT
in the chair.
The twelfth section, which specifies the rates of duties, being read,
Mr. PARKER moved that it should be struck out, in order to admit a
substitute which should provide for a different mode of raising the
requisite additional revenue; the proposition he had in view, he said,
was a duty on molasses. This, he observed, would answer every purpose,
without being liable to the objections which had been offered against
the plan of the bill.
Mr. MADISON observed, that he had felt the force of the objections which
had been urged against the bill. He was in general principled against
excises, but of all excises, that on ardent spirits he considered the
least exceptionable. The question now to be determined, he conceived,
was this--is an addition to the present amount of the revenue necessary?
It had appeared that an addition is necessary; for his own part, he
should prefer direct taxation to any excises whatever; but he conceived
this would be contrary to the sentiments of a majority of the people of
the United States; and he was fully convinced that it was contrary to
the opinion of a great majority of the House. If, said he, any mode
could be adopted, without having recourse to excises, he would be the
last that would give them support; but he conceived there was none, and
the plan proposed was divested of the most exceptionable provisions
usually connected with an excise system.
Mr. JACKSON observed, that his defeat yesterday should not deter him,
while he had a monitor within, from rising in his place to do his duty,
in opposition to a system unfriendly to the liberties of the people. He
said, he was not the first on this floor who had been outvoted by silent
majorities; gentlemen of superior abilities had met with similar
treatment. He, however, felt so much respect for himself as to suppose
that this silence proceeded from an inability to answer the arguments
which he had the honor to offer against what he considered a most
ruinous and mischievous system of taxation.
He then stated certain particulars respecting the produce of the
revenue, to show that so great a sum as is proposed to be raised by
excise is unnecessary.
He doubted not other resources of revenue might be explored which would
be more palatable; he instanced a tax on salaries, pensions, and
lawyers, and in these particulars, he wished that the example of Great
Britain might be followed.
He then dilated on the practice of smuggling, which he contended would
be promoted by this bill; also the difficulties and opposition which
were justly to be expected, by which the dignity of the Government would
be insulted. Can this Government, said he, protect its officers from the
resentment of any one State in the Union? He reprobated the idea of
placing the Government in such a situation.
Mr. LAWRENCE observed, that he doubted not every gentleman's mind was
open to conviction, and he hoped and expected that every question would
be treated dispassionately. He did not rise yesterday to answer the
gentleman, because he was not impressed with the force of his arguments
in the manner the gentleman supposed the House was. He then adverted to
the act of the last session, by which the debts of the particular States
were assumed. Having taken this debt upon ourselves, the consequence is
obvious, nor can we ever get over the dishonor of not making the
necessary provision for paying it. He then adverted to the statements
which had been submitted to the House by the officer to whom the Union
had intrusted the direction of its finances. From these it fully
appeared that a much greater deficiency in the revenue existed than some
gentlemen appeared willing to allow. If this deficiency exists, and if
the United States are bound to make provision for the debts they have
assumed to pay, the duties contemplated by the bill appear the most
obvious for the Government to recur to. He adverted to the idea of
direct taxation, and inquired, on what principle will gentlemen consent
to this mode of raising the necessary supplies? Will they make the
representation of the several States the rule by which it shall be
apportioned? He doubted whether direct taxes on this principle would be
agreeable, even to the gentlemen who have mentioned them. He then
remarked on the objections to an excise, on account of the mode of
collection. He said a rigorous collection would bear hard only on the
dishonest, while it would protect the fair trader from bearing an undue
proportion of the public burdens.
He observed on the uneasiness which is said to prevail in some of the
States; and to obviate the force of these reflections he instanced the
harmony and peace that prevailed in those States which bear a much
greater proportion of the public burdens than those which complain, as
was abundantly evident from the documents in possession of the House.
Mr. STEELE stated his objections at large to an excise; he adverted to
the particular situation of affairs in some of the Southern States,
especially North Carolina. The Assembly of that State had rejected the
proposal of taking an oath to support the Constitution of the United
States, with scorn; they had also refused to admit Continental prisoners
into their jails; and another circumstance more hostile to the General
Government than either of the foregoing had taken place, which he
forbore to mention. He said such was the present state of the public
mind, in various parts of the Union, that he should dread taking any
measures which might serve to increase the fermentation which the people
are in. An excise he considered of this nature; it would in its
operations produce the worst consequences. A more exceptionable mode of
taxation he conceived could not be devised. A direct or poll tax, he
supposed, would not be so odious; and though, for his own part, he
should prefer an excise to either of the former taxes, yet such was the
aversion of the people to it, that he should prefer almost any other
alternative. He thought other objects might be found from which the
necessary revenue could be raised. He instanced duties on inland
navigation, law proceedings, legal conveyances, &c.
He then adverted to the operation of an excise, especially in the State
of North Carolina, and said that the consumption of ardent spirits in
that State was so great that the duty would amount perhaps to ten times
as much as in the State of Connecticut. On the whole, he hoped, if the
section is not struck out, that the excise will be reduced.
Mr. SHERMAN observed, that the subject now before the committee was
thoroughly discussed the last session; and as nothing new or of weight
or importance had been offered the present session against it, he
thought it would be a useless waste of the time of the House to go into
a particular reply to the objections offered against the bill. This he
thought a sufficient answer to the charge of carrying questions by
silent majorities.
He then entered into a short consideration of the subject generally, and
defended the system from the charges which had been adduced respecting
its unequal operation.
Mr. LIVERMORE was in favor of the bill. He said he considered it as an
equal and just mode of taxation; and, as such, will be agreeable to the
people--they will consider it as drinking down the national debt. So
far, said he, as my observations have extended, I have not found a
single individual who has objected to it. He then obviated the
objections to the bill, which he conceived arose principally from the
word excise. He thought the term very improperly applied on the present
occasion, for the duty cannot be said to be an excise. He then gave a
description of what had been considered in times past as an excise,
which, to be sure, is a very unequal tax, inasmuch as it fell on the
poor only, who were obliged to purchase in small quantities; while the
rich, by storing their cellars, escaped the duty. But this bill provides
that the duty shall fall equally on the rich and poor. It is to be paid,
or secured, by the importer of foreign spirits, and on the still-head on
domestic spirits. This will equalize the burden, and leave no room for
complaint. He then adverted to direct taxation; and by a variety of
particulars, showed that it was utterly impossible to lay a direct tax
that would not prove unjust, unequal, and grievously oppressive.
Mr. BLOODWORTH spoke against the bill. He dilated largely on the present
uneasiness which prevailed in the State of North Carolina. His
experience, he said, was directly contrary to that of the gentleman from
New Hampshire; the people to the southward universally condemned an
excise.
Mr. SEDGWICK said, he was unhappy to hear that discontents prevailed in
any part of the United States. He could assure gentlemen that he did not
contemplate the execution of the laws by military force. He was sure
that in no part of the Legislature were entertained designs inimical to
the public liberty. In framing the present bill, great attention had
been paid to prevent its being attended with those qualities which, in
other countries, rendered taxation by excise justly obnoxious to popular
resentment. He relied on the good sense and well-informed understandings
of the people in every part of America, for the execution of such
systems for the support of public credit, and for the diminution of the
national debt, as should be devised by the wisdom of their
Representatives. For the same purposes, he said, he confided in the
patriotism of the gentlemen who came from those districts of country
where uneasiness was said to exist. He believed there was indeed
considerable deficiency to be provided for, for the support of
Government and of the public credit. This belief was founded in his
confidence in the information received from the Secretary of the
Treasury. But if there was no deficiency, his disposition to support the
bill would be the same; for he had never believed that a public debt was
a public benefit. Is it not, then, the duty of those to whom the people
have delegated the important trust of guarding their prosperity, in a
season of profound peace, to liberate them from the burden and pressure
of debt? Therefore the only question to be determined is, whether the
proposed duties are a proper source from whence we might derive the
necessary aids to provide for the payment of the interest, or the
diminution of the principal of our debt? He believed that of all the
subjects of revenue which were within the power of Congress, none was so
proper as the duty on ardent spirits, contemplated by the bill. In this
sentiment, he believed he concurred with that of the great body of the
people. The several species of taxation may be divided into the four
following: by impost; a tax on internal negotiations; direct taxes; and
that now under consideration, excise. The impost duties had been
extended as far as was, in the opinion of any gentleman, dictated by
sound policy. The tax on internal negotiations, which could not be
carried on to any considerable extent without the intervention of
stamps, was subject to the objection brought against the present bill,
and that in a degree incomparably beyond it, of being opposed by public
opinion. Direct taxes are still more objectionable on that account, at
least in every part of the country to which his knowledge extended. They
are of all taxes the most unequal, and in this country would be found
the most oppressive. They are unequal, because with whatever exactness
they might be apportioned upon capital or income, the only two
principles on which an apportionment can be made, they may, and will be,
very unequal as to the burden imposed; because a man's ability to pay
taxes is not in proportion either to his capital, his property, or his
income, but to that part of his income which is over and above his
necessary expenses, according to the usual manner of living for persons
of his degree in the community. They will be oppressive in this country,
because in many of the States the plentiful circulation of money, and
the facility of obtaining it, does not extend to the interior parts, nor
could it be obtained by many of our citizens without a great sacrifice
of property. It may be added, that from the extent of our settlements
compared with the number of our citizens, the expense of collection
would be immense.
In regard to excises, Mr. S. said, that in all insensible modes of
taxation, it should be observed, that a much greater sum would be
obtained from an individual than by any mode of direct imposition: this,
without entering into a discussion of the reasons upon which it was
founded, is demonstrated by fact. He instanced the porters of London,
from whom, in the single article of beer, was drawn ten times as much as
could be procured by the most rigorous mode of direct taxation. With
regard to the proposed duties, though the well-meant consideration of
morality which had been urged by some gentlemen weighed but little with
him, because he doubted whether it was well founded, yet, if the
consumption should be lessened, he did not believe it would be attended
with any sensible inconvenience. The consumption, at present, amounts to
an enormous quantity; from these considerations, as the measure is
dictated by sound policy, he hoped and believed it would be supported by
a good degree of unanimity.
Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) adverted to the funding system, to show
that the faith of the United States was pledged to raise a sufficient
revenue to discharge the debt, which, by that system, they have engaged
to pay. The Secretary's statements point out a deficiency; those
statements, he had no doubt, were as accurate as the nature of things
would admit. Gentlemen who find fault with the proposed plan do not
offer a substitute. He then entered into a defence of the bill, and
showed in what respects it differed from the English plan of an excise.
He said, the present bill was not so exceptionable on account of its
violating private property as the collection law.
He instanced, in a particular clause of that law, the power of entering
houses by warrant from a justice of the peace--trial by jury is secured
by this bill, and other provisions friendly to personal rights are
added.
Direct taxes are as much objected to by North Carolina as the excise;
and though direct taxes are mentioned, no plan is offered.
He then enlarged on the importance of punctuality in paying the interest
of the public debt, and of having a surplus revenue in the Treasury. He
doubted not the gentlemen in favor of the bill were as patriotic as
those who are averse to it. Difference of opinion is to be expected; but
he had a better opinion of the good sense of the community than to
suppose they would be led away by a sound; they will see and judge for
themselves; and when they see that the law is free from all those
obnoxious qualities which have been suggested, they will submit to it
without complaint, especially when they realize that the tax is equal,
and the only effective resource within the present command of the
Government. The General Government is authorized to lay excises--North
Carolina knew this when she adopted the constitution. The opposition, he
suspected, was against the object to which the money is to be
appropriated.
Mr. GILES said, the sentiments of the people of the Southern States have
been so differently represented from what he conceived to be the state
of facts, that, in justice to them he conceived himself bound to take
some notice of the observations which had fallen from gentlemen. He then
stated certain principles on which taxation should be formed. Taxes
should be necessary, and raised on a plan consistent with the principles
of liberty. He adverted to the necessity, which, he observed, was
abundantly apparent from the report of the Secretary of the Treasury;
but he did not confine his opinion to what had fallen from him. He
instanced other reasons which would occasion a necessity for
replenishing the public Treasury. The expediency of the present mode he
argued from the impost's being carried to the utmost; from the
approbation of this mode by a majority of the people; and though
uneasiness might prevail in some of the Southern States, he considered
them as originating altogether from want of due information. Possessed
of that information, he could pledge himself to the committee that they
would cheerfully acquiesce in whatever the Legislature should decide to
be for the general interest.
With respect to the bill's being agreeable to the principles of liberty
and republicanism, this would more properly come into view when that
part of the bill which designates the mode of collection comes under
consideration. At present he would only say, that he had observed with
pleasure, that there appeared to be a universal disposition in the
members of the House to manifest the most scrupulous attention, in all
their deliberations, to the liberties of the people.
On the whole, he had no doubt that, on mature reflection, the people
would acquiesce in the present plan, when the honor, security, and peace
of the United States appeared to be essentially connected with a
further provision for the public exigencies.
Mr. STONE particularly alluded to the statement offered by Mr. JACKSON,
by which it appears that only the sum of 146,000 dollars was
wanting--whereas the Secretary's report calls for the enormous sum of
800,000 dollars. He called on gentlemen to show the errors of the
statement offered by the gentleman. It had not been done.
He then adverted to the number of people that would probably be wanted
in order to make the duty productive. He believed they would be so
numerous as to be sufficient to constitute an army.
Mr. FITZSIMONS read an estimate of the actual and probable produce of
the present impost and tonnage for the current year, by which it appears
there will be a deficiency of upwards of 300,000 dollars; but taking
into consideration certain contingencies, which, should they take place,
will diminish the amount of the present duties, it appeared that the
deficiency would be much larger than the sum mentioned; but even in case
of a surplus being produced by this bill, there are objects to which it
can be applied highly beneficial to the United States. He instanced
sinking the deferred stock, and the three per cents. The reduction of
the public debt is an object which ought never to be lost sight of.
MONDAY, January 10.
_Vacancy in the Presidency._
In Committee of the Whole on the bill, declaring what officer, in case
of vacancy [by death, removal, or inability] in the offices of President
and Vice President, shall act as President, Mr. BOUDINOT in the chair.
The first clause of the bill was read, which contains a blank to be
filled up, designating the person who shall act as President.
Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) observed that, by the constitution, the
vacancy is to be filled with an officer of the United States. This
narrows the discussion very much. But he conceived there was a previous
question necessary to be determined; and that was, whether the person
appointed to supply the vacancy should hold the office during the time
for which the President and Vice President were elected, or whether he
was to hold the office only till a new election could take place. He
thought that, by the constitution, a new election was not to take place
till the term for which the President and Vice President had been
elected was expired.
He then descanted on the respective offices of the Chief Justice,
Secretary of State, and Secretary of the Treasury; and, by several
particulars, showed that the appointment would most naturally devolve on
the Secretary of State. He accordingly moved that the blank be filled
with the words "The Secretary of State."
Mr. LIVERMORE observed, that in considering this question, he thought no
reference should be had to the officers which had been mentioned, for,
as it was supposed that the case contemplated would not happen once in
a hundred years, he conceived that the present characters, who now hold
the above offices, would be entirely out of the question. He had in view
a different person, and that was the President of the Senate, _pro
tempore_, and moved that the blank be filled with this person.
Mr. WHITE observed, that the constitution says the vacancy shall be
filled by an officer of the United States. The President, _pro tempore_,
of the Senate, is not an officer of the United States. Besides, this
will give one branch of the Legislature the power of electing a
President. This, he conceived, was contrary to the constitution, as both
branches have a right to an equal voice in the appointment in this case.
This will introduce the very evil intended to be guarded against.
Mr. WILLIAMSON said, the motion was directly repugnant to the
constitution. Why not choose the Speaker of this House?
Mr. LIVERMORE said, he was well aware of the objections offered by the
gentlemen. He could have wished the constitution had pointed out the
person. But he conceived that the Senate was the only body that could do
this business. If either of the officers mentioned should be the person
designated to supply the vacancy, it would be in the power of the Vice
President, by virtue of the power of removing officers, absolutely to
appoint a successor, without consulting either branch of the
Legislature.
Mr. SHERMAN observed that this matter is left with the Legislature. The
whole power of the people, in case of vacancy, devolves on the
Legislature. The particular officer is not pointed out; it lies with
Congress to say who it shall be. The President of the Senate is an
officer of the United States. In case of the death of a Governor and
Lieutenant Governor, it is common in the several States, for the oldest
councillor to preside. He instanced the case of the abdication of James
II. Adverting to the constitution, he showed that the appointment of
Vice President, in certain cases, devolves on the Senate. The vacancy
may be filled for a longer or shorter time, and this appears to be a
question previous in its nature to be determined.
Mr. SEDGWICK said he should be in favor of the motion of the gentleman
from New Hampshire, if it was not for the express provision in the
constitution, which says, the office shall be filled by an officer of
the United States. Should the vacancy now happen, there would be no
officer of the Senate that could be appointed.
He mentioned that the office of Chief Justice was considered as next to
that of President, and therefore on the whole, he considered him as the
most proper person to fill the vacancy. He thought the bill respecting
the votes for President and Vice President should be first determined.
He moved, therefore, that the committee should rise, and take up the
next bill.
Mr. CARROLL and Mr. LIVERMORE objected to the motion for the committee's
rising.
Mr. MADISON was also opposed to the motion. He enlarged on the subject,
and said he thought it a duty urged by a variety of considerations,
important in themselves, and more so, perhaps, in their consequences,
that the decision should now be made.
Mr. SMITH started a variety of objections to Mr. LIVERMORE's
proposition. He thought it unconstitutional, as it would, in its
operation, deprive a State of a vote in the Senate.
Mr. BOURNE said he seconded the motion for the committee's rising,
because he conceived there was other business of more immediate
importance to be considered; and he saw no necessity for coming to a
decision on this question at the present time.
Mr. LAWRENCE supposed that the blank could be filled up in the House; he
was, therefore, in favor of the committee's rising.
The motion for the committee's rising was negatived.
Mr. BENSON was in favor of filling up the blank with the Chief Justice.
He observed that the objection arising from the Vice President's having
it in his power to name his successor, in case the Secretary of State is
inserted, does not apply to the Chief Justice. He is independent of the
Executive.
He pointed out several particulars, in which there was an
incompatibility in the offices of Secretary of State, and that of
President. He observed that the appointment to the Regency, in all
countries, is generally of the first law officer.
Mr. JACKSON objected to the Chief Justice, and said the Speaker of the
House of Representatives was, in his opinion, the next officer in point
of dignity to the President and Vice President.
Mr. MADISON objected to the Chief Justice, as it would be blending the
Judiciary and the Executive. He objected to the President _pro tem._ of
the Senate. He will be a Senator of some particular State, liable to be
instructed by the State, and will still hold his office--thus he will
hold two offices at once. He adverted to the other objections which had
been offered against the Secretary of the State, and showed the
compatibility of the two offices.
Mr. STONE stated sundry difficulties respecting all the officers that
had been named; but, on the whole, thought there were fewer against the
Secretary of State than any other officer that had been mentioned.
Mr. SENEY was opposed to coming to any decision at the present time. He
thought more important business was before the House. He was not for
making any decision that would give umbrage to any officer of the
Government. The Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury
were equally entitled to public notice.
Mr. CARROLL was in favor of coming to a decision; and if nothing more
could be offered against the motion for filling up the blank with the
Secretary of State, he presumed the committee were ripe for a decision.
He referred to the situation of countries who had not, in season, made
provision for a Regent, &c.
Mr. SHERMAN said, he was in favor of the committee's rising and
reporting the bill, and leaving the blanks to be filled up in the House.
Mr. WHITE was in favor of filling up the blank in the committee--he saw
no reason for a delay. The officers mentioned are as well known now as
they will be three days hence. The President and Vice President being in
health, is a reason why the subject should now be considered; it can be
done with coolness and freedom from all warmth.
Mr. LAWRENCE said, he thought there was no necessity for precipitating
the decision. With respect to every person that has been named,
difficulties have been started. The subject is important, and time
should be given to deliberate on the several officers that have been
named. He hoped, therefore, that the committee would rise and report the
bill, and leave the blank to be filled up at another time.
Mr. BURKE was in favor of the committee's rising. He observed, that the
members in general appeared to be very much undetermined. This is the
first day the subject has been under consideration. He hoped the members
would not be precipitated to vote on the occasion.
Mr. CARROLL said, if the committee should rise, he hoped the bill would
not be reported, but that they would sit again.
Mr. BURKE said, he hoped the committee would sit again.
The question on the committee's rising and reporting progress, was
carried in the affirmative.
THURSDAY, January 13.
_Vacancy in the Presidency._
In Committee of the Whole, on the bill declaring the officer who, in
case of vacancy in the offices of President and Vice President, shall
exercise the office of President of the United States, Mr. BOUDINOT in
the chair.
The motion for filling up the blank with "the Secretary of State for the
time being," was renewed by Mr. CARROLL.
Mr. LIVERMORE observed, that the character of the gentleman who fills
that office should have no weight in determining the question, because
the House was about to provide for a case that might not happen before a
number of years were elapsed. The House should fix on the officer who
would, from the nature of his office, most naturally succeed. He hoped
they would not determine in favor of an officer of their own creating,
and of which no mention is made in the constitution. The Chief Justice,
he remarked, had been spoken of: one great objection he mentioned
against him--the provision which the constitution makes in case the
President is impeached, viz: that he should preside. As this was an
elective Government, he wished its principles preserved, and not to see
the Chief Magistracy filled by an officer not the choice of the people.
The President of the Senate _pro tem_, appeared to him a much fitter
officer to fill that station: he was originally chosen by the people to
the Senate.
When amendments to the constitution came to be thought of, perhaps it
would be proper to provide for this case by a special clause in it,
empowering the Electors who had chosen the President and Vice President,
in case of vacancy, to meet again, and make another choice; only,
however, for the remainder of the four years; because, at the end of
that time, the power of choosing the Electors should return to, and be
exercised by the several States.
If the motion before the committee was negatived, he gave notice that he
would bring in his, viz: to fill up the blank with the person last
antecedently chosen President of the Senate.
Mr. BALDWIN said, that he should vote for the present motion, because he
conceived that the constitution is express, that an officer of the
Government, designated either by the law or the constitution, should be
appointed to fill this vacancy. He stated some objections against the
Chief Justice. He is an officer who ought to be entirely detached from
all political agitations whatever--his mind ought to be kept calm and as
unembarrassed as possible. He quoted the precedent established in the
law instituting the Governor of the Western Territory--there the
Secretary is to succeed the Governor. The Secretary of State is an
Executive officer, an assistant to the President, and must be supposed,
from his situation, to be the most proper person to supply the vacancy.
Mr. SHERMAN was of opinion, that putting the Chief Magistracy into the
hands of a subordinate officer, was by no means proper. As to the
observations made by the gentleman last up, on the arrangements in the
Government of the Western Territory, he did not think they could be
applied to the present case. That Government is a subordinate one, and a
kind of legislative power is vested in the Governor of selecting, from
the laws and regulations of the different States, such as he thought
requisite for the Government of those he had under his care.
He was in favor of giving the supreme Executive, in case of accident, to
the President of the Senate. The Government would certainly suffer fewer
inconveniences by that arrangement than if the head of a department was
put in. The Vice President, by the constitution, succeeds to the
President--the President of the Senate to the office of the first; it is
therefore very natural that he should also exercise the duties of the
second in case of a vacancy.
To designate any officer as possible successor to the President, would
be giving him too much dignity, and raising him, in a manner, even above
the Legislature.
Mr. CARROLL observed, that the vacancy might happen in the recess of the
Legislature, or in the absence of the President of the Senate; the
Secretary of State would always be at the seat of Government. Besides,
the constitution declares the vacancy shall be filled by an officer of
the Government. The President of the Senate is only an officer _pro
tem_. If the framers of the constitution had intended the vacancy should
be filled by an officer named in it, they could have designated him; but
this they had not done; he therefore supposed they had in view some
officer not then in existence.
Mr. GERRY regretted that the subject should have been taken up at this
moment, when so much important business is before Congress. He adverted
to the motion, and said, that the character which now fills the office
of Secretary of State undoubtedly possessed the confidence of the
Legislature in the fullest manner, and very justly; but when the
exigency shall arrive for which we now are about to provide, a character
may fill that office who would be a scourge to the Union. Besides, said
he, if the office of Vice President was now to be filled, the Secretary
of State would be ineligible, coming from the same State with the
President. He stated other objections from the constitution. He thought
the nomination should not be confined to officers of the United States.
He supposed the views of Government may be extended even to officers of
the several States. He, however, wished the whole business postponed;
but if this idea is overruled, he suggested the propriety of filling the
blank with the constitutional clause respecting the highest candidates
who are primarily voted for as President and Vice President.
Mr. SMITH remarked, that there appeared to be so great a diversity of
opinion on the subject before the House, that he doubted the possibility
of procuring a majority for either of the motions that had been made.
There would be objections, he conceived, to any proposition that could
be offered; but the committee should determine on that to which there
were fewest. To the Secretary of State he thought there were less than
to any other officer proposed. Those against the Chief Justice he
thought unanswerable. Indeed, the gentleman who proposed him had not
offered any answer to the objections made to that officer.
The duties of the President of the Senate, and those of the President of
the United States, appeared to him incompatible. The first was the
Representative of a particular State, and bound to obey the instructions
of it. If he was to be deprived of his seat in the Senate, his State
would lose a vote there, and the balance of that branch of the
Legislature would be destroyed.
He recapitulated the objections that had already been made to the Chief
Justice's filling the chair. His power of expounding treaties would be
improperly mixed with that of making them; that of condemning for
offences, with a power of granting reprieves and pardons. Then the Chief
Justice could not act with propriety as Commander-in-Chief of the army
and navy. It had been said, he observed, that the Judiciary business
might go on for some time without the assistance of the Chief Justice.
He thought not; there were three Circuit Courts, and two Judges for
each, including the Chief Justice. If he was absent, the business of one
of the circuits could not proceed; besides, he should preside in the
Supreme Court.
He concluded by saying, that the office of Secretary of State and the
duties of President were analogous. He was a kind of assistant to the
Chief Magistrate, and would, therefore, very properly supply his place;
besides, he was always at the seat of Government.
Mr. BURKE said, that he had consulted a gentleman skilled in the
doctrine of chances, who, after considering the subject, had informed
him, that there was an equal chance that such a contingency would not
happen more than once in eight hundred and forty years. He hoped,
therefore, that the committee would not spend any more time upon the
subject, but postpone it altogether.
Mr. GILES conceived, that the probability of the event taking place was
much greater than Mr. BURKE seemed to think. According to the doctrine
of politics, he said, it was not more than fifty to one that it would
not happen in two months. However, even if the chance was much less, it
was the duty of the House to make provision for the accident before it
occurred. If it was left till the case actually took place, it would
then be too late to think of remedying the evil; for it was to be
provided for by a Legislative act, which could not be made complete
without the President's approbation and signature, and could therefore
not be obtained when the chair was vacant. Then, if the event should
happen before it was provided for, there would be, he conceived, an end
to this Government.
He used another argument to urge the necessity of a speedy provision.
Suppose, said he, the Vice President should die, then the fate of this
Government would remain in the hands of the President, who, by
resigning, would destroy its organization, without leaving a
constitutional mode of filling the vacancy.
In addition to the loss of this Government, would not every member of
the Legislature, he asked, lose his character, credit, and reputation?
Having shown the necessity of making immediate provision for a case of
so much importance to the very existence of the Government, Mr. GILES
declared he was in favor of filling up the blank with the Secretary of
State. He chiefly rested his opinion on the idea, that if the
constitution had not intended that the vacancy should be filled by some
officer not there mentioned, they would have determined who it should
be.
Mr. SEDGWICK was sorry that the business had been brought forward, and
more so that gentlemen should discover a zeal on the occasion which
indicated too much of taking a personal interest in the question.
He did not apprehend the consequences which would follow, if the
accident should occur, would be so dreadful as the gentleman last up
appeared to think. There was more danger, he conceived, in ruffling
men's tempers now, by designating one officer heir apparent (if he might
be allowed the expression) to the office of Chief Magistrate.
He objected to filling up the blank with the Secretary of State; it
would be putting in the hands of the President (or of the Vice
President) a power of appointing his successor. The authority with which
the Chief Justice is vested, the respect which his station commands, and
his independence, induced him, he said, at first to think him the most
proper person to be at the head of affairs, in case of vacancy in the
Chief Magistracy. However, if it could not be agreed to postpone the
business, he should now vote for the President of the Senate _pro tem_.
Mr. BENSON said, that an honorable gentleman (Mr. SMITH) had remarked
that he had not attempted to answer the objections which were made to
the Chief Justice's being designated to fill the vacancy, and had drawn
the conclusion that the objections were unanswerable. He was sensible
that there might and would be objections to any officer that could be
mentioned; but those against the Chief Justice he did not think
unanswerable. It had been objected that there would be an impropriety in
his condemning as Chief Justice, and pardoning as President. But
something like this is frequently the case. He supposed that whoever
exercised the office of Chief Magistrate would for the time resign his
first office. He only mentioned this to show that the objections made to
the Chief Justice had not been answered because they were deemed
unanswerable. But his wish was to see the vacancy filled by an
independent officer; he had, therefore, no objection to the President of
the Senate _pro tem_.
Mr. JACKSON moved that the consideration of this business be postponed,
which was agreed to. The committee rose and reported.
FRIDAY, January 21.
_Duty on Spirits._
The House resumed the consideration of the new Revenue Bill.
Mr. JACKSON proposed an amendment, by adding a clause to prevent
inspectors, or any officers under them, from interfering, either
directly or indirectly, in elections, further than giving their own
votes, on penalty of forfeiting their offices.
This being seconded,
Mr. SHERMAN said, he should propose an addition to the amendment, and
that was to extend the prohibition to every other person whatever. He
supposed that to practise the arts of electioneering would be as
criminal in persons in general as in the officers of the revenue; but if
any provision is necessary in the case, he thought it might be made in
some other bill.
Mr. LIVERMORE approved the motion. These officers, said he, will hold
their places under the Government, and, from the duties assigned them,
will acquire such a knowledge of persons and characters, as will give
them great advantages, and enable them to influence elections to a great
degree. He thought the proposition important, and merited the attention
of the House.
Mr. VINING observed, that the motion went to disfranchise a great number
of citizens of the rights of suffrage. It appeared to him, also, to be
unconstitutional, as it will deprive them of speaking and writing their
minds; a right of which no law can divest them. He offered some
observations on the eligibility of the duty now contemplated, in
preference to direct taxes; and then urged the bad policy of rendering
the law odious, by fixing a stigma on the officers appointed to execute
it.
Mr. JACKSON replied to the observations against his motion. He said the
experience of Great Britain showed the propriety of the prohibition. He
read a section from a law passed in the reign of William and Mary on the
subject. A law was found necessary in that country to prevent the
interference of excise officers in elections, though the excise law then
in existence was only for ten years, and that now before us is a
perpetual law; for it is to exist till the whole State debts are
extinguished. He denied that it was a disfranchisement of the citizens;
they will have the same right to vote at the elections as other
citizens; it only goes to defining an offence, which may be of
pernicious consequence. Did I consider it as depriving the citizens of
the rights of suffrage, I would be the last to vote for it. He adverted
particularly to the dangerous influence that some future President would
acquire, by virtue of the power which he will possess of removing these
officers. He read some clauses from the British Excise Law, to show its
resemblance to the law now under consideration. He added some strictures
on the bill, and regretted that it had not been recommitted; but to
render it less odious and mischievous he strongly urged the necessity of
the section he had proposed.
Mr. BENSON said, there appeared to him to be an absurdity to say a man
shall forfeit an office which he holds during pleasure.
Mr. GERRY objected to the motion, because he thought it did not go far
enough; it ought to extend to all other revenue officers. He gave a
short account of the nature of civil government; no form, said he, is
stationary, they are always verging either to Democracy or Monarchy, or
to Aristocracy and Despotism. From hence, he drew an inference favorable
to a provision which should tend to abate and lessen the influence of
the Executive power in certain cases.
Mr. AMES objected to the motion. He said, the circumstances of this
country and Great Britain were not similar. That country is without a
constitution; the United States are blessed with one, which defines the
rights of the electors and the elected; rights of which they cannot be
deprived. The law which the gentleman referred to was not passed till
the abuses it was intended to remedy had arisen to an enormous height.
If ever there should be a necessity for a similar law in this country,
which he by no means expected, it will then be time enough to make the
regulation; but this clause will muzzle the mouths of freemen, and take
away the use of their reason.
Mr. BLOODWORTH replied to Mr. AMES. He observed, that corruptions had
taken place; elections have been influenced, and human nature being the
same, the same evils are to be expected. He thought it would be best to
prevent the evil if possible by enacting a law in season, and not wait
till the mischief is done.
Mr. SENEY was in favor of the clause. He thought it would be a salutary
provision, and no infringement on the rights of the people, as it would
be optional to accept the offices or not, with this restriction.
Mr. STONE was in favor of the motion. He observed, that it was a painful
consideration that a number of citizens should be disfranchised, and
deprived of their reason and speech, but this is a dilemma to which we
shall be reduced by means of this excise law; we must either deprive the
excise officers of this privilege of interfering, or give up the freedom
of elections.
Mr. VINING controverted the oft-repeated observation, that there was an
analogy between the two countries, Great Britain and America. He urged
an acceleration of the bill; delays he thought did not produce
conviction, they only serve to inflame; he hoped the clause would not be
agreed to, nor the bill recommitted.
Mr. LAWRENCE was sorry that there were so many impediments thrown in the
way of this bill. He could wish that the clause might be deferred, and
made the subject of a separate discussion. He objected to it as not
extensive enough. It ought to include all the officers of the
Government. At present, he should waive any further remarks, but hoped
the motion would not be agreed to at this time, but wished that the bill
might be finished.
Mr. SEDGWICK opposed the motion. He said, the natural tendency would be
to render the law odious; to deprive the Government of the services of
the best men in our country. Let me ask gentlemen, if they, or any of
their connections, would accept an appointment under this law, with such
an exceptionable clause in it? He observed on the total difference in
the circumstances of this country and those of Great Britain; and asked,
shall we transplant the corrupt maxims of that country to this? I hope
we shall not.
Mr. GERRY replied to the several objections which had been offered
against the motion. It will be too late, said he, when the evil takes
place to apply the remedy. The President will then have it in his power
to influence the elections in such manner as to procure a Legislature
that would not consent to a law for applying a remedy.
Mr. AMES reprobated the motion in very pointed terms, as impolitic in
respect to the law, as repugnant to the constitution, and as degrading
to human nature. Besides, he observed, that it was nugatory in itself,
because it goes to deprive the citizens of an inalienable right, which
you cannot take from them, nor can they divest themselves of it.
Mr. JACKSON made a short reply to Mr. AMES. He observed, that he had
always supposed that the English nation possessed a constitution, and
that the violation of the freedom of elections was the greatest
infringement on that constitution.
Mr. SHERMAN observed, that this motion went to create a positive
offence. He said he could not conceive any reason why this offence
should be chargeable on one description of officers only; he thought it
ought to go through, and include every class. He replied to the several
objections arising from the influence of the President; and observed,
that fixing such a stigma would oblige the President to appoint mean and
ordinary characters--characters fit to make tools of; for persons of
credit and respectability will not accept of appointments under such a
disqualification.
The question was determined in the negative, the yeas and nays being as
follows:
YEAS.--Messrs. Ashe, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Brown, Burke,
Floyd, Gerry, Grout, Hathorn, Heister, Jackson, Livermore,
Mathews, Moore, Parker, Rensselaer, Seney, Sylvester,
Stone, Tucker, and White--21.
NAYS.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Boudinot, Bourne, Cadwalader,
Carroll, Clymer, Fitzsimons, Foster, Gale, Gilman, Goodhue,
Griffin, Giles, Hartley, Huntington, Lawrence, Lee,
Leonard, Madison, P. Muhlenberg, Schureman, Scott,
Sedgwick, Sevier, Sherman, Sinnickson, Smith, (of
Maryland,) Smith, (of South Carolina,) Steele, Sturges,
Thatcher, Trumbull, Vining, Wadsworth, Williamson, and
Wynkoop--37.[38]
THURSDAY, January 27.
_Duty on Spirits._
The engrossed bill, repealing, after the last day of June next, the
duties heretofore laid on distilled spirits imported from abroad, and
laying others in their stead, and also upon spirits distilled within the
United States, and for appropriating the same, was passed by a majority
of fourteen.
The yeas and nays being called for, were as follows:
YEAS.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Boudinot, Bourne, Cadwalader,
Carroll, Clymer, Fitzsimons, Floyd, Foster, Gerry, Gilman,
Goodhue, Griffin, Grout, Huntington, Lawrence, Lee,
Leonard, Livermore, Madison, Partridge, Schureman,
Sedgwick, Sherman, Sylvester, Sinnickson, Smith (of South
Carolina), Sturges, Thatcher, Trumbull, Vining, Wadsworth,
White, and Wynkoop--35.
NAYS.--Messrs. Ashe, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Brown, Burke,
Giles, Hartley, Hathorn, Heister, Jackson, Mathews, Moore,
Muhlenberg, Parker, Van Rensselaer, Seney, Smith (of
Maryland), Steele, Stone, Tucker, and Williamson--21.
TUESDAY, February 1.
_Bank of the United States._
The bill sent from the Senate, to incorporate the subscribers to the
Bank of the United States, was read the third time; and, the question
being on the passage of the bill,
Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) observed, that the bill being taken up
rather unexpectedly yesterday, gentlemen did not appear prepared to
discuss the subject. It therefore was suffered to be read in Committee
of the Whole, and passed to the third reading, in his opinion, rather
informally; as the members were thereby deprived of giving their
sentiments in the usual manner on a bill of the greatest importance. He
thought it susceptible of various amendments. [The SPEAKER having
observed, that the bill, agreeably to the rules of the House, could not
be amended without being recommitted,] Mr. S. moved, that the bill
should be recommitted, for the purpose of making sundry alterations, and
removing objections which he thought the bill liable to. He then
enumerated several objections. Those who are to receive the
subscriptions, he said, by the bill, are not obliged to give any bonds
for their fidelity. He thought the clause which excludes foreigners from
voting by proxy exceptionable; and the time in which subscriptions are
to be received, he thought too contracted.
Mr. JACKSON said he was in favor of the motion for a recommitment; but
not for the reasons offered by the gentleman from South Carolina. He was
opposed to the principle of the bill altogether. He then adverted to the
situation of the United States, and observed, that it was so different
from that of Great Britain, at the time the Bank was established in that
country, that no reason in favor of the institution can be deduced from
thence. He adverted to the arguments arising from the facility which
banks afford of anticipating the public resources in case of emergency.
This idea of anticipations he reprobated, as tending to involve the
country in debt, and an endless labyrinth of perplexities. This plan of
a National Bank, said he, is calculated to benefit a small part of the
United States, the mercantile interest only; the farmers, the yeomanry,
will derive no advantage from it; as the bank bills will not circulate
to the extremities of the Union. He said he had never seen a bank bill
in the State of Georgia, nor will they ever benefit the farmers of that
State, or of New Hampshire. He urged that there was no necessity for
instituting a new bank. There is one already established in this city,
under the style of the Bank of North America. This proposed institution
is an infringement of the charter of that bank, which cannot be
justified. He urged the unconstitutionality of the plan; called it a
monopoly; such a one as contravenes the spirit of the constitution; a
monopoly of a very extraordinary nature; a monopoly of the public moneys
for the benefit of the corporation to be created. He then read several
passages from the _Federalist_, which he said were directly contrary to
the assumption of the power proposed by the bill. He hoped, therefore,
that it would be recommitted; and he could not help hoping, also, that
it would be deferred to the next session.
Mr. LAWRENCE observed, that the friends of the institution proposed had
been unjustly charged with precipitating the bill; but, he said, it had
long been in the hands of the members; they have had time to consider
it; the usual forms have been observed in its progress thus far; and if
those who are opposed to the bill did not see proper to come forward
with their objections, it surely is their own fault, and the advocates
of the bill are not justly chargeable with precipitancy. He then
particularly replied to the objections offered by Mr. SMITH, of South
Carolina; and after considering them, said, that those objections did
not, in his opinion, constitute sufficient reason to induce a
recommitment of the bill. He then noticed the constitutional objections
of Mr. JACKSON, and said, the Government of the United States is vested
by the constitution with a power of borrowing money; and in pursuance of
this idea, they have a right to create a capital, by which they may,
with greater facility, carry the power of borrowing on any emergency
into effect. Under the late Confederation, the Pennsylvania Bank, called
the Bank of North America, was instituted. He presumed that it will not
be controverted, that the present Government is vested with powers equal
to those of the late Confederation. He said, that he had no doubt its
operation would benefit, not only the centre, but the extremities also
of the Union. The commercial, mechanical, and agricultural interests of
the United States are so combined, that one cannot be benefited without
benefiting the other. He concluded by observing, that he thought the
Legislature of the United States could not better answer the purposes of
their appointment, than by passing this bill. He hoped, therefore, that
it would not be recommitted, but that it would now pass.
Mr. LEE observed, that having been confined by sickness, he was
precluded from attending the House yesterday; but sick as he was, had he
supposed that there was a prospect of a bill of such magnitude and
importance passing without a discussion of its principles, he certainly
would have attended, and offered his objections to various parts of it,
which he thought very exceptionable. He hoped, therefore, it would now
be recommitted; that a bill which is so unequal and so partial may
undergo a thorough discussion.
Mr. TUCKER was in favor of a recommitment. He acknowledged that those
who had their objections to the bill were certainly blamable for not
coming forward with them yesterday. He then stated sundry objections to
the bill. The time allowed to receive the subscriptions, he said, is too
short, and will benefit those only in the vicinity of the Bank. The
clause which authorizes the loaning of one hundred thousand dollars to
the Government, without express provision by law, he thought
exceptionable, as the Executive will be able, by this means, to borrow
at any time, without being authorized, to almost any amount, of the
Bank. The loan of two millions of dollars by the United States to the
Bank, he objected to; as diverting that sum from the particular object
for which it was borrowed. There is no appropriation, he said, of the
half yearly dividend of profits accruing to the United States, which, he
observed, was a very essential defect. Mr. T. stated other objections,
as reasons for a recommitment.
Mr. WILLIAMSON was in favor of the recommitment, to give those who say
they have not had an opportunity of offering their objections, time to
do it; and if the motion be not agreed to, he should not give his vote
for the bill. He then adverted to the objections deduced from the
constitution, and explained the clause respecting monopolies as
referring altogether to commercial monopolies.
Mr. SHERMAN objected to the recommitment. He said, that though the bill
could not be amended without its being recommitted, yet it was open to
discussion and objection previous to taking a vote on its passage. He
did not think the objections offered afforded sufficient reasons for a
recommitment. He replied to the observations offered by several
gentlemen who had spoken in favor of the motion.
Mr. GERRY expressed his surprise at the observations of gentlemen who
had neglected to offer their objections to the bill before, and said it
could only be imputed to their own neglect, and not to any precipitancy
on the part of the friends of the bill. Mr. G. noticed several
objections which had been offered, and said, if nothing more important
could be offered, he thought it would be unjustifiable in the House to
go into a committee.
Mr. MADISON observed, that at this moment it was not of importance to
determine how it has happened that the objections which several
gentlemen now say they have to offer against the bill were not made at
the proper time. It is sufficient for them, if the candor of the House
should lead them now to recommit the bill, that in a Committee of the
Whole they may have an opportunity of offering their objections.
Mr. AMES replied to Mr. MADISON. He said, he did not conceive that the
appeal now made to the candor of the House was in point. The gentlemen
who object to the bill had an opportunity to offer their objections;
the customary forms have been attended to; and the whole question for
the recommitment turns on the force of the objections which are now
offered to the general principles of the bill altogether. The candor of
the House, he conceived, was entirely out of the question, and therefore
not to be appealed to; but the justice due to their constituents in the
proper discharge of the duty reposed in them. He said, it appeared to
him absurd to go into Committee of the Whole to determine whether the
bill is constitutional or not. If it is unconstitutional, that amounts
to a rejection of it altogether.
Mr. MADISON thought there was the greatest propriety in discussing a
constitutional question in Committee of the Whole.
Mr. STONE and Mr. GILES were in favor of the recommitment. They objected
to the unconstitutionality of the bill, and to several of its particular
clauses.
Mr. VINING said, he thought it was a subject of congratulation that the
bill was in its present situation; it had happily passed to the third
reading without that tedious discussion which bills usually receive. The
subject has been a considerable time before the House, and gentlemen
have had time to contemplate it. The bill is now in the stage to which
gentlemen very usually reserve themselves to state their objections at
large, and he hoped they would now do it. He was not perfectly satisfied
as to the constitutional point. He therefore hoped gentlemen would state
their objections, that those who are satisfied on that point may offer
their reasons.
Mr. BOUDINOT stated the process of the business yesterday. He observed
that he had then the honor to be in the chair. He had read the bill very
distinctly and deliberately, with proper pauses; he thought that the
fullest opportunity had been offered for gentlemen to come forward with
their objections. He was opposed to the recommitment, as it would, he
feared, issue in a defeat of the bill this session. He had one
difficulty, however, respecting the unconstitutionality of the bill,
which he hoped to have removed; and he hoped that a full discussion of
its general principles would take place.
The motion for a recommitment was lost, as follows:
YEAS.--Messrs. Ashe, Baldwin, Bloodworth, Bourne, Brown,
Burke, Carroll, Contee, Gale, Grout, Giles, Jackson, Lee,
Madison, Mathews, Moore, Parker, Smith, (of Maryland,)
Smith, (of South Carolina,) Stone, Tucker, White, and
Williamson--23.
NAYS.--Messrs. Ames, Benson, Boudinot, Cadwalader, Clymer,
Fitzsimons, Floyd, Foster, Gerry, Gilman, Goodhue, Hartley,
Hathorn, Heister, Huntington, Lawrence, Leonard, Livermore,
Muhlenberg, Partridge, Rensselaer, Schureman, Scott, Seney,
Sherman, Sylvester, Sinnickson, Steele, Sturges, Thatcher,
Trumbull, Vining, Wadsworth, and Wynkoop--34.
WEDNESDAY, February 2.
_Bank of the United States._
The House resumed the consideration of the bill sent from the Senate to
incorporate the subscribers to the Bank of the United States.
The bill being on its passage,
Mr. MADISON began with a general review of the advantages and
disadvantages of banks. The former he stated to consist in, first, the
aid they afford to merchants, who can thereby push their mercantile
operations further with the same capital. Second, The aids to merchants
in paying punctually the customs. Third, Aids to the Government in
complying punctually with its engagements, when deficiencies or delays
happen in the revenue. Fourth, In diminishing usury. Fifth, In saving
the wear of gold and silver kept in the vaults, and represented by
notes. Sixth, In facilitating occasional remittances from different
places where notes happen to circulate.
The effect of the proposed Bank, in raising the value of stock, he
thought had been greatly overrated. It would no doubt raise that of the
stock subscribed into the Bank; but could have little effect on stock in
general, as the interest on it would remain the same, and the quantity
taken out of the market would be replaced by bank stock.
The principal disadvantages consisted in, first, banishing the precious
metals, by substituting another medium to perform their office. This
effect was inevitable. It was admitted by the most enlightened patrons
of banks, particularly by _Smith on the Wealth of Nations_. The common
answer to the objection was, that the money banished was only an
exchange for something equally valuable that would be imported in
return. He admitted the weight of this observation in general; but
doubted whether, in the present habits of this country, the returns
would not be in articles of no permanent use to it.
Second. Exposing the public and individuals to all the evils of a run on
the Bank, which would be particularly calamitous in so great a country
as this, and might happen from various causes, as false rumors, bad
management of the institution, an unfavorable balance of trade from
short crops, &c.
It was proper to be considered, also, that the most important of the
advantages would be better obtained by several banks, properly
distributed, than by a single one. The aids to commerce could only be
afforded at or very near the seat of the Bank. The same was true of aids
to merchants in the payment of customs. Anticipations of the Government
would also be most convenient at the different places where the interest
of the debt was to be paid. The case in America was different from that
in England: the interest there was all due at one place, and the genius
of the Monarchy favored the concentration of wealth and influence at the
metropolis.
He thought the plan liable to other objections. It did not make so good
a bargain for the public as was due to its interests. The charter to the
Bank of England had been granted for eleven years only, and was paid for
by a loan to the Government on terms better than could be elsewhere got.
Every renewal of the charter had, in like manner, been purchased; in
some instances, at a very high price. The same had been done by the
banks of Genoa, Naples, and other like banks of circulation. The plan
was unequal to the public creditors; it gave an undue preference to the
holders of a particular denomination of the public debt, and to those at
and within reach of the seat of Government. If the subscriptions should
be rapid, the distant holders of evidences of debt would be excluded
altogether.
In making these remarks on the merits of the bill, he had reserved to
himself the right to deny the authority of Congress to pass it. He had
entertained this opinion from the date of the constitution. His
impression might, perhaps, be the stronger, because he well recollected
that a power to grant charters of incorporation had been proposed in the
General Convention and rejected.
Is the power of establishing an incorporated bank among the powers
vested by the constitution in the Legislature of the United States? This
is the question to be examined.
After some general remarks on the limitations of all political power, he
took notice of the peculiar manner in which the Federal Government is
limited. It is not a general grant, out of which particular powers are
excepted; it is a grant of particular powers only, leaving the general
mass in other hands. So it had been understood by its friends and its
foes, and so it was to be interpreted.
As preliminaries to a right interpretation, he laid down the following
rules:
An interpretation that destroys the very characteristic of the
Government cannot be just.
Where a meaning is clear, the consequences, whatever they may be, are to
be admitted--where doubtful, it is fairly triable by its consequences.
In controverted cases, the meaning of the parties to the instrument, if
to be collected by reasonable evidence, is a proper guide.
Contemporary and concurrent expositions are a reasonable evidence of the
meaning of the parties.
In admitting or rejecting a constructive authority, not only the degree
of its incidentality to an express authority is to be regarded, but the
degree of its importance also; since on this will depend the probability
or improbability of its being left to construction.
Reviewing the constitution with an eye to these positions, it was not
possible to discover in it the power to incorporate a bank. The only
clauses under which such a power could be pretended, are either:
1. The power to lay and collect taxes to pay the debts, and provide for
the common defence and general welfare; or,