UNITED STATES, _December_ 12, 1791.
FRIDAY, December 16.
_The Post Office Bill._
The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House, on
the bill "for establishing the Post Office and Post Roads within the
United States."
[The following is a condensed view of the arguments made on
striking out the section which gives to members the
privilege of franking.]
When the bill under consideration is once passed into a law, it is
presumable that no gentleman will ever ask a member to frank for him, as
he cannot grant the request consistently with his honor; the
apprehension entertained of the existence of abuses, and of their
increasing with the increase of numbers, would be an argument equally
valid against every law; for no law can be framed, as that the people
will not find means to evade it. But still the Legislature will have the
power of correcting the abuses, as soon as discovered, by passing new
laws to check them. The committee who drafted the bill, had before them
all the acts of the British Legislature, respecting the post office;
they saw the abuses and how they had been remedied; and with such light
to guide their steps, they had proceeded in the execution of their task.
The privilege of franking they had introduced into the bill, upon mature
considerations; to take it away would be leveling a deadly stroke at the
liberty of the press; the information conveyed by franks, may be
considered as the vital juices, and the channels of the post office as
the veins; and if these are stopped, the body must be destroyed; it is
treading on dangerous ground, to take any measures that may stop the
channels of public information, especially of that which relates to
matters in which the people are interested; to check the circulation
even of foreign intelligence may be dangerous; but it is highly so, to
deprive the people of information respecting the measures of the General
Government; nor ought the members to complain of being obliged to read
so many letters and petitions as come to their hands in consequence of
the exemption from postage. If any gentleman thought this a heavy task,
he ought to remember that it was only his duty, and a task which every
member had undertaken when he accepted a seat in the House.
The privilege of franking was granted to the members, not as a personal
advantage, (for in fact it proved rather a burden), but as a benefit to
their constituents, who, by means of it, derive information from those
who are best qualified to give it, as they are the persons chosen to
administer the General Government. The members also receive useful
information through the same channel. When the impost law and the excise
law were under consideration, many persons who were better acquainted
with the operation of such laws, transmitted to the House much valuable
information on those subjects; and to such information the House ought
ever to be open; as, on the other hand, the motives for adopting certain
measures, ought always to be explained to influential characters in the
different parts of the Union. Such conduct will produce the most
salutary effects in reconciling the people to the measures of
Government, when the principles upon which every law is framed, are
explained to them, as well by the correspondence of the members, as by
their debates, published in the newspapers. It is the duty of the
members to disperse the newspapers among those people who cannot,
perhaps, otherwise obtain them, under the protection of franks. Even
along the post roads, the common packets of newspapers are not safe from
depredation; but when once they get into the interior parts of the
country, there is hardly any chance of their escaping; whereas, under
the cover of a frank, they are sure to reach their destination in
safety.
If the privilege were confined, during the session, to letters sent from
and received at the seat of Government, and the members limited to
their own letters, and obliged to write the whole superscription, the
increase of the apprehended abuses would be prevented; if it were
further restricted, by limiting to those letters only what are sent to
or come from the State to which the member belongs, this would convince
the people, that the privilege was intended for the benefit, not of the
members, but of their constituents.
Further, it was observed, that every argument, which might be adduced in
favor of withdrawing the privilege from the members of Congress, might
be used with equal force in the cases of President, Vice President, and
every other public officer, mentioned in the same section. If the
allowance of six dollars per day was a reason for subjecting the members
to the payment of postage, every public officer ought also, on the same
principle, to pay for his letters, as they were all compensated with
equal liberality. If abuses were apprehended from the members, others
were as likely to introduce them as they; if an increase of revenue was
contemplated, the postage of all letters to and from the President, the
Vice President, the Secretaries of State, of the Treasury, of the
Department of War, &c., would contribute to that increase; but, on the
other hand, those gentlemen must have their compensations increased, if
their letters were to be taxed; for they could not be expected to pay
for them at their own expense. If the privilege can be guarded against
abuse, with respect to those officers, it can also be guarded in the
case of members of Congress.
The establishment of the post office is agreed to be for no other
purpose than the conveyance of information into every part of the Union;
and a greater portion of that had been conveyed into many of the
interior parts of the country, by the newspapers sent by the members of
the House, than could be conveyed by other means, excepting on the main
roads on which stages go. That information had proved highly serviceable
to the present Government; for wherever the newspapers had extended, or
even the correspondence of the members, no opposition has been made to
the laws; whereas, the contrary was experienced in those parts to which
the information had not penetrated; and even there, the opposition
ceased, as soon as the principles on which the laws had been passed,
were made known to the people.
As long as the privilege can be thus used for the general advantages of
the citizens, it ought not to be relinquished by the members merely
through fear of its being thought a personal privilege; it might be
confined to members actually attending the session; they might be
obliged to write the whole superscription, and even to add the date. In
short, the wisdom of the House, it was hoped, would prevent all the
evils apprehended from it, and retain the advantages.
The question being taken on the motion, for withdrawing the privilege
from the members, it passed in the negative; yeas 21, nays 35.
TUESDAY, December 20.
_Post Office Bill._
The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on
the bill for establishing the Post Office and Post Roads within the
United States.
Mr. WADSWORTH moved an amendment, to withdraw the privilege of franking
from the members of both Houses of Congress.
In support of this motion, it was said, that the grand security which
the people of the United States have in their Representatives is, that
those Representatives are subject to the same regulations as their
constituents. In the article of postage, this was not the case.
Congress, in this case, assume to themselves a privilege, which they
refuse to the people; they took money from their constituents, and paid
none themselves. The people viewed this privilege with a jealous eye,
and could not be pleased to see it enjoyed by Congress, whilst neither
the members of the State Assemblies, nor even the Governors were
indulged in it. Congress enjoys only chartered rights; and all rights
not expressly mentioned in the charter, are of course excluded. The
constitution is their charter; the Convention, who framed it, had, no
doubt, well considered the whole subject of privileges and accurately
defined all such as they wished the Legislative body should enjoy
distinct from their constituents. In the enumeration of those
privileges, there is not a syllable tending to exonerate them from their
share of the common burden of postage; they have no constitutional claim
to such an immunity, and if they assumed it they would increase the
burden on their constituents. The post office, if unable to maintain
itself, must derive its support from other sources of revenue. Already
the members of both Houses send and receive, during their session, as
many letters through the General Post Office as all the other
inhabitants of Philadelphia; those letters, if paid at the usual rates,
would amount to half the postage of the United States. The number and
bulk of the franked letters and packets excluded the newspapers from the
mail, and thus prevented the circulation of intelligence; if the evil
increased (and there was no probability of its being diminished, except
by the utter abolition of the privilege) it would eventually prove the
ruin of the post office. The example of Britain showed to what an
enormous height the abuse of such a privilege may be carried; and though
similar abuses may not as yet have taken place here, yet it could hardly
be doubted that many unnecessary letters were daily sent by the post,
which never would have been written if subject to postage; those letters
are not only unproductive, but an actual expense to the post office, as
the postmaster receives a certain percentage on these, as well as upon
other letters. The privilege of franking is moreover unequal in its
operation; while some members use it only for the purpose of
transmitting political information to their constituents, others,
absent perhaps during the whole session, use it for very different
purposes: to men in trade it was a considerable advantage, amounting
probably, in some instances, to a hundred dollars a year. It would be
better to take away the privilege entirely, and reduce the general rates
of postage one-half, or to allow the members, at the close of each
session, to make a charge for all letters on public business, from their
constituents, or to make them an allowance in gross to defray the
expense of postage; better, even, if necessary, to make an addition to
the compensation which the members receive for their services, if the
present one be found incompetent to their honorable support.
On the other hand, it was observed, that the privilege of franking was
not assumed by the members for their own private accommodation, but for
the benefit of their constituents, to transmit to them every necessary
information respecting the operations of the General Government, and to
receive from them such information as they might have to communicate.
Petitions are frequently enclosed to members; and if these were to be
subject to the payment of postage, the privilege of petitioning the
House, would be in a great measure destroyed. The diminution of revenue
which the post office might in some instances suffer from the privilege
of franking, ought not to be deemed a sufficient reason for abolishing
that privilege; since it is allowed, that the object contemplated in the
establishment was the general convenience, and an easy and speedy mode
of disseminating public and private intelligence. Revenue was but a
secondary consideration. Although the citizens who live at the seat of
Government, and have daily opportunities of learning from the newspapers
what public measures are going forward, may not be materially affected
by the abrogation of the privilege, yet the case would be widely
different with those who live at a distance, especially when fiscal
operations were on foot; those who are informed, will make a prey of
those who are ignorant, and destructive speculation will enrich the few,
at the expense of the many. In a government of opinion (which is the
Government of America) much greater reliance is to be placed on the
confidence of the people than upon any other circumstance: that
confidence can only be the result of the fullest information; but if the
privilege of franking were taken away, the avenues of information would
be, in a great measure, closed, for the members could not undertake, at
their own private expense, to transmit intelligence to every part of the
Union; yet the citizens have a right to expect information, not only of
the acts of Government, but also the principles upon which they were
grounded. The abuses of the privilege, that have prevailed in England,
do not prevail here; and its abolition would give general
dissatisfaction, particularly in the more distant parts of the Union,
where information would be subject to a very high tax, if circulated
through the post office, at the ordinary rates of postage. Of those
bundles of letters received and dispatched by members of Congress, many
(though far from being unnecessary, as had been said) would perhaps
never be written, if they were not to pass free of postage; and thus
that free communication of sentiment between the Representative and
constituent, which is so essential in a Government like this, would be
in a great measure cut off; and the post office would gain little or
nothing by it, as those packets of newspapers, bills, reports, &c.,
would either be sent by private hand, or not sent at all; even here an
inequality would prevail, as the people who live near the seat of
Government, and all along the main road, could, from the greater
frequency of opportunities, receive such packets with more ease and
regularity, whilst those in more remote situations could seldom or never
receive them, unless by the mail. The expense arising from the
percentage to the postmaster on the free letters, is but trifling, as in
such cases he receives no more for a packet of two ounces than for a
single letter; and as to the idea of allowing the members to make a
charge for their letters, this would be no better than receiving with
one hand and paying away with the other. If, however, it were found
absolutely necessary to take precautions against the abuses that were
apprehended, this might be done by limiting the number or weight of
letters that should go free by any one post, without entirely preventing
the interchange of sentiments between the Representative and his
constituents.
The committee then rose, without taking the question on the amendment.
THURSDAY, December 22.
_Election of President, &c._
The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House on the
bill sent from the Senate, entitled "An act relative to the election of
a President and Vice President of the United States, and declaring the
officer who shall act as President, in case of vacancies in the offices
both of President and Vice President."
The bill was read by the Clerk. The first section being again read by
the Chairman,
Mr. TUCKER moved to amend this clause by striking out these words,
"except in cases in which an extraordinary election of President and
Vice President shall take place, as hereinafter specified." This motion
was agreed to.
Mr. SEDGWICK made some general observations on the great objects of the
bill, and adverting to the term proposed for the choice of Electors of
President and Vice President, observed that he had his doubts whether it
would not be best to give a longer time. He enlarged on the disagreeable
consequences which would probably ensue, in case there should not be a
choice by the Electors; as the matter must then be determined by the
House, voting according to the constitution, by States. He descanted on
the pernicious consequences which might result from the collision of
parties, and the working of passions in the breasts of men whose ardor
would probably be excited to the greatest degree on such an occasion;
every reasonable measure should be adopted to prevent the evils which he
deprecated; he therefore moved that the words "thirty days" should be
struck out, in order to give the people a longer time to give in their
votes for Electors.
Mr. WHITE objected to the motion. He conceived it was calculated to
produce the very mischiefs the gentleman appeared to deprecate. If it
had been possible, he could have wished that the Electors should meet
and give in their votes on the very day of their being chosen; he wished
as much as the gentleman to adopt measures to prevent the evils he
mentioned; but did not think the motion would conduce to that object; he
thought the time should rather be contracted than extended.
Mr. DAYTON also objected to the motion; he thought fourteen days would
be a more proper time; it was the design of the constitution, though it
is not expressed, that the President should not know the characters to
whom he is indebted for his election.
Mr. SEDGWICK observed, that the objections would be very proper was it
certainly known that the Electors would always agree in a choice; but
this he conceived, it was hardly possible should always be the case; and
what will then take place? The election devolves on this House, and the
Electors will then be known, and liable to all that intrigue and cabal
which has prevailed in other countries. He left it to the consideration
of the committee to determine on the immense importance of providing in
season against the evils of a contested election, in the case now before
them.
Mr. BALDWIN objected to the motion; but said if it was struck out, he
should then move to insert a clause which should assign different
periods according to the circumstances of the several States, so that
the Electors should meet as nearly as possible at the same time in all
the States.
Mr. NILES objected to the motion; and the question being put it was
negatived.
The clause which makes it the duty of the Executive of the several
States to cause the names of the Electors to be certified, was objected
to.
Mr. NILES observed that no person could be called upon to discharge any
duty on behalf of the United States, who had not accepted of an
appointment under their authority. He thought that this was opening the
door too wide, and involves a blending of the respective powers and
duties of each, which is not warranted by the constitution; and he
observed that he should be sorry that the Government of the United
States should attempt to exercise a power which they are not competent
to carry into execution. He moved that the clause should be struck out.
Mr. SEDGWICK observed that if Congress were not authorized to call on
the Executives of the several States, he could not conceive what
description of persons they were empowered to call upon.
Mr. NILES said he considered this section as degrading to the Executive
of the several States; and inquired, what is to be done in case those
Executives should refuse to comply with the requisition?
Mr. CLARK said, it appeared to him that the committee was creating
difficulties where none before existed. He observed that the choosing
these Electors was a privilege conferred on the people, and that this
was merely pointing out the mode of exercising this privilege; he
thought the clause stood very well and would create no uneasiness
whatever.
Mr. HILLHOUSE said, he considered the provision improper. It imposed a
duty on the Supreme Executives of the several States, which they might
or might not execute; and thus the necessary certificates may not be
made. He seconded the motion to strike out the clause, and proposed a
substitute making it the duty of the Electors to procure for themselves
the necessary certificates.
Mr. LIVERMORE spoke in favor of the clause; he did not consider it
either as an undue assumption of power, or degrading to the Executives
of the respective States.
Mr. BARNWELL said, a small addition to the clause would in his opinion
obviate every difficulty; the words he proposed to insert were--"or such
person as the Executive may appoint."
Mr. STURGES moved to strike out "Executive," and insert "the
Legislature."
Mr. J. SMITH said, it appeared to him that the proposed alteration would
amount to exactly the same thing; for the duty of giving the certificate
would eventually devolve on the Executive.
The motion for striking out the clause was negatived.
The ninth section provides, that in case of vacancies in the offices of
President and Vice President, the President of the Senate _pro tem._, or
the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall act as President.
Mr. WHITE moved the section should be struck out. He said the House had
formerly discussed the subject and could not agree; the first part of
the bill is necessary; this is not of immediate importance to be
attended to.
Mr. FITZSIMONS said, he supposed the question must be determined some
time or other, and he knew of no reason why it should not be decided at
this time; to strike out the clause would, in effect, be to declare that
the House could not agree.
Mr. WILLIAMSON was in favor of striking out.
Mr. LIVERMORE objected to the motion; he said no two subjects could
possibly be more intimately connected; and the provisions of the bill
are such as to render the intermission, during which this regency was
to take place, as short as possible; he hoped the clause would not be
stricken out.
Mr. WHITE added some further objections to the section; he said it was
distinct from the bill, and though a majority of the committee were in
favor of the characters nominated, yet he thought it would be best to
make it the object of another bill, and of an independent discussion.
Mr. SEDGWICK said, he hoped the section would not be struck out,
especially if there is a majority of the committee in favor of it. He
observed, that last session there was no decision in the case; he
conceived it necessary that the business should be now decided on; and
adverting to the particular characters named, he said they were as far
removed from any influence of the Executive as any persons that could be
possibly pointed out.
Mr. BARNWELL was in favor of going into a discussion of the subject at
this time. He said there was a large number of the present House who had
not heard the observations offered in the last Congress; he supposed the
present as proper a time to consider the subject as any that could
occur. If gentlemen who are opposed to the section will offer their
objections, he should be glad to hear them; if they were conclusive, he
should vote to strike out the section. If nothing was offered, he should
vote against the motion.
Mr. STURGES mentioned several objections to the section, which in his
opinion rendered it unconstitutional; he could not find that the Speaker
of the House, or President of the Senate _pro tem._ were officers of the
Government in the sense contemplated by the constitution. The
compensations of the President and Vice President are settled by the
House; the Speaker would have to decide on those compensations; this he
said rendered him evidently improper. He further observed that the
consequence would be caballing and electioneering in the choice of
Speaker.
Mr. WHITE said, the Speaker was not a permanent officer, if he could be
considered as one in any point of view; but he was of opinion, that he
was no more an officer of the Government than every other member of the
House.
The question for striking out the section was negatived.
Mr. STURGES then moved to strike out the words, "the President of the
Senate _pro tempore_, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives."
Mr. GILES stated the reasons which he conceived fully proved the
unconstitutionality of the clause. The characters referred to he did not
think were officers. If they had been considered as such, it is probable
they would have been designated in the constitution; the constitution
refers to some permanent officer to be created pursuant to the
provisions therein contained. These persons are not permanent; a
permanent officer was contemplated; the subject was not to be left to
any casuality, if it could possibly be prevented.
Mr. SEDGWICK said, he did not know what officer could with propriety be
said to be permanent; offices are held during good behavior in some
instances, and in others during pleasure; but it will be impossible to
say that any officer is a permanent officer, for the expression is very
extensive. He was surprised to hear the idea controverted, that the
Speaker of the House, or the President of the Senate _pro tem._, is not
an officer. In common parlance he was sure there was no difficulty in
the matter.
Mr. GERRY observed, that some gentleman had said the Speaker is not an
officer; but if he is not an officer, what is he? He then read a clause
from the constitution, which says that the House shall choose their
Speaker _and other officers_. He hoped, however, that the Speaker of the
House of Representatives would be struck out, in order to avoid blending
the Legislative and Executive branches together. He considered this
measure as a political stroke of the Senate; but he hoped that the House
would never consent to making their Speaker an amphibious animal. He
moved therefore that the words "Speaker of the House of Representatives"
should be struck out.
Mr. HILLHOUSE objected to any officer appointed by the Executive being
inserted. He said, if that should be the case, the appointments would in
most cases be made with reference to that object; and hence important
offices would often be filled with improper and incompetent persons.
Besides, it was taking away the choice from the people, and thus
violating the first principle of a free elective Government. The Senate
are appointed by the people, or their Representatives, and hence, in his
opinion, filling the vacancy would devolve with the greatest propriety
on that body.
Mr. WILLIAMSON was in favor of the motion for striking out both the
characters. He observed, that this extensive construction of the meaning
of the word officer, would render it proper to point out any person in
the United States, whether connected with the Government or not, as a
proper person to fill the vacancy contemplated.
Before taking the question upon the amendment, the committee rose.
TUESDAY, January 10.
A memorial of George Turner, one of the Judges in and over the territory
of the United States north-west of the Ohio, was presented to the House
and read, praying a revision of the ordinance for the government of the
said territory, and also an increase of compensation to the Judges
thereof. Referred to Mr. LIVERMORE, Mr. LAURANCE, Mr. WHITE, Mr.
WILLIAMSON, and Mr. SMITH, (of South Carolina); that they do examine the
matter thereof, and report the same, with their opinion thereupon, to
the House.
On a motion made and seconded,
"That the Secretary of War be instructed to lay before this
House an accurate statement of all ascertained balances of
pay, which appear by the books of the United States to be
due to the officers and soldiers of the late Army of the
United States, and which still remain either unclaimed, or
claimed and unpaid, together with the reasons for
withholding payment from those who may have respectively
entered claims therefor;"
_Ordered_, That the said motion be referred to Mr. WADSWORTH, Mr. GILES,
and Mr. SMITH, (of New Hampshire;) that they do examine the matter
thereof, and report the same, with their opinion thereupon, to the
House.
The House proceeded to fill up the remaining blanks in the bill to
establish the Post Office and Post Roads of the United States; which was
then read a third time and passed.
_Petition of Catharine Greene._
The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House, on the
Report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the petition of Catharine
Greene, relict of the late General Greene.
The object of the petition is to obtain an indemnification from the
United States against certain engagements which were entered into by her
husband, the deceased Major General Nathaniel Greene, while commanding
officer in the Southern department; and for the circumstances on which
it is founded, refers to a representation of the 22d August, 1785, which
was then made by the said General Greene to Congress.
The petition is accompanied by a number of vouchers, arranged in
alphabetical order by the Secretary of the Treasury in his Report; from
all which he draws the following conclusion:
"That strong and extraordinary motives of national
gratitude for the very signal and important services
rendered by General Greene to his country, must serve to
give a keener sting to the regret, which ought ever to
attend the necessity of a strict adherence to claims of
public policy, in opposition to claims founded on useful
acts of zeal for the public service, if no means of
protecting from indigence and penury the family of that
most meritorious officer shall, upon examination, be found
admissible."
Mr. WAYNE rose and gave his reasons for supporting the petition, as
follows:
Mr. Chairman: It may not be improper to mention the motives that impel
me to wish a fortunate issue to the _claim_ now under consideration of
this committee, which I must also offer as an apology for the part I
have taken, or that I may eventually take, in support of the claim. From
my first interview with General Greene until the moment of his
dissolution, we always lived in the strictest habits of friendship and
confidence. He was an officer with whom I had participated in almost
every vicissitude of fortune, (in many a well-tried field,) from the
frozen waters of the North to the burning sands of the South. He was a
man whose virtues and talents I knew and revered; his noble soul would
have revolted at the idea of imposition. He never would have offered in
a _claim_ to Congress, but upon the purest principles of honor and
justice. I was a witness to the pressing necessity that _compelled_ him
to become the surety, for which indemnity is now claimed. He did what I
would have done, (as second in command,) had he been absent at that
trying crisis. The claim I _know_ to be just, and I am decidedly of
opinion that he was drawn into that security from the situation in which
he was placed by Congress, as Commander-in chief of the Southern
Department. Under these impressions, I beg leave to submit to the
consideration of this committee the resolutions now in my hand, and
doubt not of their concurrent support.
"_Resolved, as the opinion of this Committee_, That the
estate of the late Major General Nathaniel Greene ought to
be indemnified for and on account of the engagements
entered into by that General with certain persons in the
State of South Carolina, for the purpose of obtaining
supplies for the American Army, in the year 1783, and that
---- be granted to the Executors of the estate of the late
Major General Nathaniel Greene, for that purpose.
"_Resolved_, That a committee be appointed to bring in a
bill in conformity to the foregoing resolution."
Mr. BOUDINOT said, there was no greater friend to the memory of General
Greene than he was, nor any person more anxious to have justice done to
his widow and family; but he was apprehensive that the resolution
proposed by the worthy gentleman who had first brought forward this
subject was not drawn up in such a manner as to ensure it a passage
through both Houses of Congress. He wished, therefore, that it should be
so expressed as to prevent any tedious discussion, and at the same time
do ample justice. The Report of the Secretary of the Treasury puts the
subject on the best footing. The motives which led him to make the
contract were, first, the public good; and perhaps, secondly, to serve
his friend, Mr. Burnett, because he was his aide-de-camp, and he wished
to put him in the way of being established in business after the war;
but Mr. Burnett was never in any other way connected with General Greene
than as a young man brought up in the family, whom he wished to
patronize.
After a few other observations, Mr. BOUDINOT moved to strike out the
preamble of the resolution proposed by Mr. WAYNE, and to adopt words
nearly in substance as follows:
"_Resolved_, That it is becoming the dignity of Congress to
make compensation for the widow and orphans of the late
Major General Greene, who so gloriously served his country;
and that they be indemnified for the loss which his estate
is likely to sustain by his having entered into certain
bonds for supplying the Southern army with rations and
clothing, at a time when they were threatening to
disperse."
Mr. FINDLAY observed, that on the question as it is now stated, the
committee have a choice of three alternatives; the claim may be
rejected, a pension or gratuity may be granted to the amount, or the
claim of the petition may be granted as a matter of right, upon the
footing of its own merits by a special law, as all authorized claims
which Congress grant are given. Claims for which the standing laws are
competent, do not come before us. I am in favor of the last alternative.
I am against rejecting the petition; because, as the facts are stated in
the Report of the Secretary of the Treasury, General Greene putting
himself in this situation of risk was from the most public-spirited
motive; it was to support the public interest at a most important
crisis, when the well-being, if not the existence of the Southern army
was at stake, as well as the security of the inhabitants. If a
commander-in-chief of an army may be ruined in his private affairs by
making an unauthorized exertion to save his army or his country, the
precedent may be dangerous; it may teach commanders lessons of prudence,
which may have ruinous effects. It is true the necessity of the case
must be such as will justify the unauthorized measure: from the Report,
this appears to have been the case in the subject of the present debate.
From the whole state of the facts before us, General Greene appears not
to have had his own interest in view in this transaction, if the proof
of this only lay between Banks and him. The established character of
General Greene, not only as an officer, but as a man of integrity and
public spirit, certainly cannot sink when laid in the balance with the
secret insinuation of an unprincipled speculator. Such has been my own
opinion of General Greene's character, that I would certainly require
other proofs than this before I would even indulge suspicions: but it
does not rest upon this. We have Banks's own testimony to the contrary,
and his partner, and we know it would have been the interest of Banks &
Co. to have made the contrary appear: nay, we have such a cloud of
witnesses, all concurring to the same point, as appears sufficient to
remove doubts from the most scrupulous mind. Unauthorized accounts are
admitted in settlements between the United States and the individual
States, upon the principles of equity. I consider this as a case of the
same nature, and will vote for it agreeably to this precedent. I
consider granting the prayer of the petition in this manner, as an act
of justice, not only to his estate, but to the memory of his character.
But I object to granting the relief in the indirect way of a pension; it
is not so safe to the public, nor so honorable to the heirs of General
Greene. To the public it is highly dangerous as a precedent; it will
operate as an opening wedge to other claims without limitation. Few
indeed can have an unauthorized though just claim as commanders-in-chief
of an army reduced to such a dilemma as originated the present question;
but merit and distress are not confined to commanders alone; they are to
be found in every rank of citizens. The struggles during the late
revolution produced abundance of merit; we cannot look around in this
House, nor in any large collection of citizens, but our eye meets with
those who have claims of merit. We can scarcely be acquainted in any
neighborhood, but we must be acquainted with such as have been reduced
to distress by their meritorious exertions, either in the camp, in the
cabinet, or by granting supplies. How many who have aided the public
with their substance, have been obliged to part with the evidences of
their meritorious claims for a temporary relief. Many of the aged, many
widows and orphans, to my knowledge, labor in penury, and mourn in
secret, on the account of such meritorious aids not being recompensed
when they ought to have been; though this was owing to the public
misfortune, yet the merit and sufferings were not the less. I am very
sensible of the great merit of General Greene; it is so well known, and
so generally acknowledged, on all hands, as to render it improper for me
to enlarge thereon. But, superior as his merit was, if we grant a
pension or relief not founded on a just claim, merit of a lower order
must be also admitted: there is no distinguishing the shades. I have
heard of claims on the footing of merit brought before Congress,
supported by such arguments as would induce a stranger to think that
nearly all the merit of accomplishing the revolution was centred in the
claimant. If merit is to be rewarded by pensions, we shall soon have
claimants in abundance. In the exercise of supreme command, difficulties
often arise which render exertions necessary for which general rules
cannot be provided; these have been generally treated as objects of
indemnification. Many claims are now before Congress; they are various
in their nature, and no doubt a number of them will be admitted; but
from every view I have taken of the claim before us, I think the present
as strongly addresses our justice and sympathy as any of them.
Mr. WAYNE thought it necessary to make some observations on what had
fallen from the gentleman on his right, (Mr. BOUDINOT.) In order to
place this subject in a proper point of view, he begged leave to mention
certain circumstances previous to the evacuation of Charleston. Some of
the first characters in South Carolina obtained a flag from General
Greene, to meet a deputation of merchants and others under a flag from
the British lines. Those merchants were anxious to remain after the
army, for the purpose of disposing of their stock in trade, and wished
for a reasonable time to transact that business; this indulgence was
readily granted, for it was thought an object of consequence to retain
supplies for the use of the country as well as for the army; and they
were permitted to continue in the place for the space of _twelve months_
after the abandonment should take effect. Assurances were also given
them for the inviolable protection of their persons and property for
that period. Thus sanctioned, they were probably induced to speculate
upon such stores as the British army could spare, (for that army was
redundantly supplied,) whilst the Americans were experiencing almost
every possible distress for want of the common necessaries of life.
About this time hopes were entertained of the speedy appearance of a
superior marine force from the French West Indies, to that of the
British; and the operating army under my command was advanced to the
quarter-house, in a position to prevent the enemy from embarking with
impunity, and to protect the town and its inhabitants from depredation
and insult. This manoeuvre had the desired effect; it created a
jealousy in the British General for the safety of his rear, and General
Leslie was, in a manner, compelled to come into a convention, more
resembling a _capitulation_ than an _abandonment_, for he was under the
necessity to "agree not to commit any insult upon the inhabitants, or
depredation upon their property, or damage to the city, at or _after_
his embarkation." The word _after_ caused some demur; but it was
insisted upon and complied with, in consequence of the orders I had
previously received from General Greene; a measure which at once
afforded security to the inhabitants, and a flattering prospect of full
supplies, as well for the citizens as for the army.
The gentleman (Mr. BOUDINOT) says--How are we to distinguish between the
articles and necessaries that were actually made use of by the army, and
of the other goods purchased of the British merchants? This may be fully
answered and explained by mentioning this fact: that those merchants
took advantage of their situation, and would not dispose of any article
suitable for the army unless _their whole stock were purchased
together_; having but twelve months to dispose of their goods and
collect their debts. Nor could the necessary articles be obtained at the
point of the bayonet, as the merchants were protected by a compact made
under the sanction of a flag. Nor would they trust the contractor
_Banks_ with their property, unless General Greene became his security;
by which act, in their opinion, the _United States_ would be bound in
honor to fulfil a contract made by their commanding officer; nor did
General Greene come into the measure until compelled by dire necessity,
to prevent a mutiny and dissolution of the army. And such was the
exhausted situation of the country in the vicinity of Charleston, that
the Executive and the Legislature found it expedient to send a distance
into the country to obtain supplies for themselves and the refugee
families who were returning to the city after the evacuation: in fact,
we were under the necessity of taking part of these very provisions, to
prevent an instantaneous revolt.
But the gentleman (Mr. BOUDINOT) says that General Greene's private
friendship for Major Burnett, who had been his aide-de-camp, was a
peculiar inducement for his entering into that security, and that Major
Burnett had mortgaged an island to General Greene as a collateral
security. This, indeed, was an act of private friendship; but it was a
subsequent transaction, and noways connected with the former, nor is it
amongst the charges. This was a private purchase by Major Burnett from
Mr. John M'Queen, a gentleman well known in South Carolina; and it was
thought to be a very advantageous purchase for Major Burnett at the time
it was made, (although it has turned out otherwise,) but it was
necessary for him to obtain security, previous to receiving _titles_. He
applied to General Greene to become his security upon that occasion,
which was complied with; and in that act he certainly displayed a
superior degree of private friendship, and such as has already been
found extremely injurious to his family; but it is by no means connected
with the claim now under consideration.
The danger of establishing a precedent in future, unsupported by
previous authority obtained from Congress, is also mentioned as an
objection. Mr. Chairman, there never can be any danger of drawing this
circumstance into precedent; for the page of history never did before,
nor I believe ever will again, produce a similar precedent, _i. e._ an
army facing and surmounting every difficulty and danger through a long
and bloody contest, badly clothed and worse paid, and frequently
destitute of the common necessaries of life. Sir, it is for the honor of
General Greene that we contend; and I am warranted in asserting, that he
was not interested in the contract of Mr. Banks, otherwise than from the
pure and virtuous motives of serving and saving his country. I therefore
feel myself interested, and bound in honor to support and defend the
character of my departed friend, and to demand this claim as a matter of
_right_, and not of _grace_; and I have a confidence that the candor and
justice of this committee will induce them to adopt the principles of
the resolutions submitted to their consideration.
Mr. SUMTER.--With respect to the resolution as it now stands, I feel
myself obliged to oppose it. Nothing that has fallen from the gentleman
over the way (Mr. WAYNE) has convinced me that the measure is proper or
just. It is necessary to be cautious in the manner of discussing a
matter of so much delicacy. I rise, not to make any pointed objections
that can in any degree injure the reputation of the officer, whose
abilities I respect, or to hurt the feelings of his family or
connections. I suppose that no gentleman will decide in favor of the
resolution without examining the merits of the case. The committee will
have that information which they shall deem to be requisite on the
occasion. I am sorry to differ in opinion with the gentleman from
Georgia, and am therefore disposed to make sacrifices of my own feelings
of past injuries, and will not suffer them to warp my judgment, but will
endeavor to decide in conformity with the opinions of the people of the
State of South Carolina, and in particular of the district which I have
the honor to represent. In going into the investigation of this matter,
I will give my reasons why I do not think the country, although in
extreme distress, was in that deplorable situation which has been
represented; neither was its credit reduced so low but that relief might
have been obtained, and that so small an army might have been
accommodated, had a proper application been made in time to the
Government. The gentleman must therefore be mistaken in stating those
circumstances; for if the proper documents be examined, it will appear
that the army received very ample supplies from the same source, some
months previous to the contract made by Mr. Banks, which must have been
in November, or early in December, and previous to the evacuation of
Charleston. Whether it was better to adopt the means used by General
Greene, or those within the power of the Government, I shall not pretend
to determine; but I have no doubt that the Government possessed both the
means and the inclination to find supplies. The contract was first made
by Banks in November or December, and General Greene did not become the
guarantee until the April following; whether there were any reasons for
preferring this mode to that of an application to Government, will
perhaps appear in the course of the investigation.
Mr. Chairman, this contract has been considered to have operated rather
as a misfortune, although it may have afforded a temporary relief; it
was the occasion of much complaint, vexation, and distrust, rather than
of conciliation; and that this discontent ran through the army is within
the knowledge of several officers whose names could be mentioned. It is
therefore necessary to bring the matter into the full view of the
committee, and to have recourse to the files of the public offices,
before we agree to the resolution on the table. At the same time, it is
my sincere wish to render justice to the family of the deceased in every
reasonable accommodation; but it does not appear to me that the family
is reduced to that disagreeable situation which has been represented.
The large grants that have been made by the States of Georgia, North and
South Carolina, are still in the possession of the heirs of the
deceased, and I have been informed that a gentleman offered $30,000 for
that granted by North Carolina, so late as last summer; neither have I
heard that any distress has been levied upon any of these estates, or
that they are so much affected, in reality, but that the claims made
against them are rather of a nominal and visionary nature. But admitting
that General Greene was security for the United States, and that the
operation had been beneficial, (which I deny;) does it appear that
executions have been levied to any considerable amount, or to such an
extent as to justify the present application? To me it does not appear
this has been the case, neither do I believe that the estate has been
reduced in the manner represented; and, whilst I say it, I honestly and
sincerely hope it; under which impression, I can never accede to the
resolution on the table.
Mr. WADSWORTH.--The gentleman last up has said many things to me utterly
unintelligible, and others which directly militate with what has been
said by the gentleman from Georgia. He has, however, declared that no
real or supposed personal injury shall influence him in giving his
opinion or vote. I hope, sir, he will not now feel or resent those real
or supposed injuries. I do believe they are not real; and from my long
and intimate acquaintance with General Greene, I had good opportunity to
know him; a better man I never did know. That he had enemies is not to
be wondered at; the nature of his command to the southward was
important, critical, and difficult, and he might be constrained to do
things that necessity only would justify. If he has injured any man, he
has atoned for it; neither the tongue nor pen of malice have been able
to affix a stigma on his character. If I ever knew a man whose heart was
pure and without guile, it was General Greene. Yet he had enemies; no
man deserved them so little. More honest fame is due to no man. And if
his fortune is to be sacrificed, and his family beggared, it is a
consolation that his good name will last for ever. Being one of his
executors, I know something of his affairs; but it was with reluctance I
rose, as my attachments to him and concern for his family render it
extremely difficult for me to enter on the subject. The gentleman from
South Carolina has told us he is acquainted with the affairs of the
estates in the Carolinas, and has said they are without any executions
against them, the bonds on good credit, and the family in no danger of
poverty, &c. I can hardly allow, sir, that he is acquainted with the
affairs of General Greene, even in South Carolina and Georgia; but if he
is, I will ask him if he does not know that all the negroes from the
South Carolina estate are sold, and that the land is totally
unproductive? that Mr. Rutledge has prevented executions from taking the
Georgia estate by his personal interference? that all the estates in
Rhode Island and New Jersey are sold? and that the hope of the justice
we now ask for has delayed the sale of all the rest, to satisfy his
creditors--his Southern creditors?
The proofs and documents alluded to by the gentleman (Mr. SUMTER) have
been before Congress for several years, and the friends and executors of
General Greene have challenged his enemies, in every part of the Union,
to disprove them; and I hope no delay will now take place. The subject
is fully before Congress. I hope justice will be done to the widow and
orphans of the late General Greene, and that the investigation will now
be finished, his honest fame vindicated and established, and his family
saved from the ruin that awaits them.
Mr. HARTLEY, in support of Mr. WAYNE's motion, observed, that he had
paid some attention to the report and the documents referred to in it,
as well as the objections made to the resolutions under consideration.
Many of the objections, said he, have been answered by gentlemen who
were nearer to the scene of action than myself; I shall strive to
obviate others. The mode of conducting our affairs in South Carolina
does not seem to have been agreeable to the gentleman opposite to me
from that State, (Mr. SUMTER,) and he expresses his high disapprobation
of many parts of it. When I disagree with that gentleman, I do it with
great reluctance; for no one on this floor has a greater respect for him
than myself. In a hazardous and difficult situation, or in carrying on
war, or even in great political questions, the best friends may differ
in the mode of conducting them; and it has too frequently happened, that
such difference has tended to lessen the friendship which formerly
existed. Upon the whole, our arms to the southward were crowned with
success; we must presume the means generally used were right. If
supplies could have been furnished by the State of South Carolina, it is
a pity they were not granted. I say, it is possible General Greene might
have pursued a different mode to obtain clothing and provisions. He did
not. He was of opinion no other plans could have been successfully
followed but those which were adopted. The idea of his being a partner
with Banks & Co., seems to be given up by the opposition. The mere
insinuation of Mr. Banks and some others can have no influence against
such a cloud of evidence and documents. These are so strong for the
General, that they would work conviction on the greatest infidel. I
shall barely advert to a part of them, as mentioned in the report, and
on this head give a few observations of my own. And, first, the
application to the Legislature of South Carolina, in order to create a
competition: Had he been concerned as a partner, or intended to be so,
no competition through that channel would have been proposed. If he was
to be a partner, the more secret the transaction, the higher the
advantage. The bond of indemnity to General Greene, oaths of Banks and
Hunter, certificate from Major Forsyth, Nathaniel Pendleton's oath,
Charles C. Pinckney's oath, (now Governor of South Carolina,) and the
certificates of the two Chancellors of South Carolina, who were both
high in the Executive, when these transactions should have happened.
Besides, sir, if we consider how many partners there were concerned with
Banks in the different transactions, had General Greene been one of the
company, it must long since have been manifested to the world. The
secret could not have been kept; nor can we possibly think that General
Greene, who was undoubtedly a man of understanding, would have expressed
himself in the manner he has done, in the close of his letter from
Newport, dated the 24th of August, 1785, had he been a partner. He says
there, "Thus have I given your Excellency a short narration of the
origin and situation of this matter, and have only to add on this
subject, that I never held any commercial connection with the company,
other than what concerned the public, either directly or indirectly, or
ever received one farthing profit or emolument, or the promise of any
one from them; and my bond of indemnity expressly declares that I have
no interest, connection, or concern, in the debts for which I became
bound, all which I am willing to verify on oath." Would he have pledged
his honor, his reputation, had he been interested? No, it is impossible!
He would have been silent had he been a culprit, and not have challenged
the world, as the power of detection would have laid with so many, and
the shaft of envy always ready. I hope every man must be satisfied that
the General was no partner.