The bill for providing for the protection of the commerce of the United
States was read a third time, and the blank for filling up the number of
men to be employed in the cutters, was filled up with thirty; on the
question being about to be put on the passing of the bill,
Mr. NICHOLAS said some statements had been received from the War
Department, and ordered to be printed. He had not seen a copy of them,
but was informed there were yet wanting $197,000 to complete the
frigates. He wished information on the subject.
Mr. PARKER read an extract from the account which had been printed.
Mr. NICHOLAS wished to know how it happened that in four months so great
a mistake could have occurred as to the expense of finishing these
vessels. When the last appropriation of $170,000 was made, they were
told that sum would be sufficient to make them fit to receive the men on
board, but now they were called upon for $197,000 more. He thought this
matter ought not to pass over without inquiry, as he did not like to be
drawn from step to step to do what, if the whole matter had been seen at
first, they might not have consented to. He trusted this was not
intentionally done, but he owned it looked very suspicious.
Mr. PARKER believed the estimate of last session was only to make the
vessels ready to receive the guns on board, and did not include the
guns.
Mr. GALLATIN said, as he meant to vote against the passage of the bill,
he would briefly state his reasons for doing so. He knew only of two
arguments in favor of the bill; the first, that it was necessary during
a time of peace to lay the foundation of a navy; the other was, that,
the frigates being built, it would be proper to man them. As to the
propriety of having a navy, he did not mean to go generally into the
subject, but he would make a few observations as to our situation for
engaging in an establishment of this kind. Suppose that navies were
necessary in European nations, to increase their power or to protect
their commerce, these considerations did not apply to our present
circumstances. In order to prove this, it was only necessary to take a
view of our revenue, and the expense of a fleet.
The amount of revenue from the 1st of April, 1796, to the 1st of April,
1797, received into the Treasury, was $7,400,000--a sum which by far
exceeded that of any former year; and he did not think that the
permanent revenue of the United States could be well extended beyond
that sum. For instance, he did not think that nine millions could be
raised from the people without oppression. Indeed, by the best
calculations on the quantity of circulating medium in the country, it
was not allowed to exceed eight millions: and he did not believe that
any nation could raise a larger sum in taxes than was equal to the
amount of their circulating specie.
[Here Mr. Gallatin produced a detailed statement to show
the expense of building the three frigates, to wit:
$1,014,450, and the sum of $350,000 for the yearly expense
of keeping them in service, repairs inclusive.]
This statement showed, Mr. G. said, that these frigates had cost about
£2,000 sterling a gun, though the common calculation in Great Britain
was only half that sum. If, from building the frigates, they turned to
the expense of manning them, the same conclusion would be drawn. They
found that the pay of an able-bodied seaman in the British navy had
lately been raised from 26s. 6d. to 30s. sterling a month, which was $6
66-2/3; but, by the present law, $15,000 a month were allowed for the
pay of the petty officers, midshipmen, seamen, ordinary seamen, and
marines, which averaged from 16 to 17 dollars a man.
When he heard gentlemen stating the advantages of the naval strength of
Denmark and Sweden to those countries, he could not agree with them
altogether, though he agreed they had some weight; but it was well known
that the Grand Navy of Portugal had no weight whatever in the scale of
the large navies of Europe; it did not even enable her to protect her
trade: for, if either France or Great Britain had the superiority in the
Mediterranean, she was under their control. He believed Denmark and
Sweden had thirty sail of the line each, and he wished gentlemen to
calculate how much it would cost us to have such a navy. A fleet of a
few vessels would not then be able to afford protection to our trade;
and it was wholly out of our power to have a fleet equal to that of
Denmark or Sweden.
Mr. SWANWICK believed the expense of these frigates had been much
greater than any future ones would be. When they were told they had cost
£2,000 sterling a gun, it was evident there must have been great
extravagance in the expense, as merchant vessels might be built as
cheaply in this country as in any other. He supposed the extra expense
had been owing to the want of some regular establishment to overlook the
business, and because it had been undertaken at a time when other
nations were at war, and of course when materials were very high.
Sixteen thousand dollars worth of hemp had indeed been burnt by accident
at Boston. As to the terms of seamen, though they might at first be
high, when the service was known he doubted not they would fall.
Mr. J. WILLIAMS said, he had always opposed the establishment of a navy,
and was the question now whether or not we should commence a navy he
should certainly be against it; but, as the frigates were so far
advanced, he thought they ought to finish them, especially when they
considered the present critical situation of our affairs; for, if a
general peace did not take place in Europe, the war would probably
become a maritime war, and we might be involved in it. But he was still
of opinion that if we must go into an expensive naval establishment for
the protection of our commerce, we had better have none. But, say
gentlemen, where will you find revenue? He believed, though we had no
armed force, a considerable commerce would still be carried on,[18] and
those who declined it would turn their attention to agriculture and
manufactures, from which any deficiency of revenue would readily be
supplied.
It was true, as had been stated, that they had been called upon from
time to time for additional sums to complete these frigates, and he knew
not when these calls would end.
Mr. GILES was obliged to the gentleman last up for his speech against
the present bill, though he meant to vote for it; he would rather,
however, that he had _spoken_ in favor, and _voted_ against the bill.
Mr. G. said he should vote against the passing of the bill, and for the
reasons assigned by that gentleman. He thought a navy would be a great
evil for this country. Our great interests lay in the soil; and if ever
the vitals of the country were to be drawn together for the purpose of
protecting our commerce on the sea, he should greatly lament it. He
believed the despotism of nations kept pace with the ratio of expense of
their Governments. He was sorry to say that he was more and more
convinced that it was the constant aim of some gentlemen in that House
to increase the expenses of our Government. The propriety of
establishing a navy had scarcely ever been seriously considered; it was
first begun under an alarm, and it had been continually carried on by
the same means.
Mr. HARPER said gentlemen seem to abandon their objections to this bill
by admitting that there was no probability it would not pass. But why?
Because a majority of the House either think the measure is proper in
itself, or from the particular circumstances of this country. It was
surely a singular instance of modesty in gentlemen, after this
concession, to argue against the passing of the bill.
Mr. H. did not admit that these frigates were commenced from an idea of
laying the foundation of a large Navy Establishment, but from particular
circumstances; and, said he, shall we, at a time when we are threatened
with danger, abandon them? He trusted not; such conduct would be absurd
in the extreme, and imply a character of imbecility which he hoped their
councils would never deserve.
Mr. ALLEN said, he had some objection to the passing of the bill, but
his objections were to the amendments which had been introduced into it,
yet he did not know but he should vote for it. He thought there was a
provision in the bill which went to prostrate this Government. He
alluded to that part of it which directed the manner in which this force
should be used. He considered this as a violation of the constitution,
besides carrying upon the face of it an idea that one of the branches of
this Government could not be trusted with the exercise of its power. Was
it possible, he asked, for a Government to exist, when this confidence
was refused to one of its branches? What were the people of the United
States, and abroad, to think of this? Would not the people of this
country think it their duty to destroy a power which could not be
trusted; and would not foreigners despise it? It seemed as if this were
the intention of gentlemen.
Mr. A. also objected to the clause limiting the duration of this bill;
since this went to say that they not only distrusted the other branches
of the Government, but themselves. A thing which must in its nature be
perpetual, was there limited. He deprecated the idea of expense being an
objection to this measure. Our emancipation from the chains of Great
Britain, he said, was attended with a great expense; but was it not
believed that the liberty and independence of this country were of
superior value to money? He trusted they were. He could only suppose,
therefore, that men who objected against the expense, must themselves
be sordid and avaricious. If these frigates had been provided four years
ago, he believed all our present difficulties would have been prevented,
and a sum vastly less than that of which we had been robbed would have
done the business. Mr. A. denied that ships of war could now be built in
England for £1,000 a gun; that was formerly the price, but they now cost
£1,500 per gun.
Mr. NICHOLAS had always been of opinion, that the expense of these
frigates was a useless expense; he did not believe a case could happen,
except within our own jurisdiction, where these vessels could be of
advantage to us; but notwithstanding this was his opinion, he should
vote for the passing of this bill, because he saw the sentiments of that
House and the public were strongly in its favor, from a persuasion that
the measure was necessary, and that the thing would be a continual topic
of dispute until it was carried into effect.
He was willing, therefore, to let the vessels go to sea, believing that
nothing short of actual experience would convince the supporters of this
measure that it was useless, expensive, and injurious; and hoping that
by one year's experience of the plaything, finding that money was of
greater value than the frigates, all parties would concur in
relinquishing it.
The question was then taken on the passing of the bill, and decided in
the affirmative--yeas 78, nays 25, as follows:
YEAS--John Allen, George Baer, jr., Theophilus Bradbury,
David Brooks, Nathan Bryan, Dempsey Burges, Christopher G.
Champlin, James Cochran, William Craik, Samuel W. Dana,
James Davenport, Thomas T. Davis, John Dennis, George Dent,
George Ege, Lucas Elmendorph, Thomas Evans, Abiel Foster,
Dwight Foster, John Fowler, Jonathan Freeman, Nathaniel
Freeman, jr., James Gillespie, Henry Glenn, Chauncey
Goodrich, William Gordon, Roger Griswold, William B. Grove,
John A. Hanna, Robert Goodloe Harper, Carter B. Harrison,
Thomas Hartley, William Hindman, David Holmes, Hezekiah L.
Hosmer, James H. Imlay, John Wilkes Kittera, Edward
Livingston, Samuel Lyman, Matthew Lyon, James Machir,
William Matthews, John Milledge, Daniel Morgan, John
Nicholas, Harrison G. Otis, Josiah Parker, Elisha R.
Potter, John Read, John Rutledge, jr., James Schureman,
Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Thomas Sinnickson, Samuel
Sitgreaves, Jeremiah Smith, Nathaniel Smith, William Smith,
of Charleston, Richard Sprigg, jr., John Swanwick, George
Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thomson, Abram Trigg, John
Trigg, John E. Van Allen, Philip Van Cortlandt, Peleg
Wadsworth, John Williams, and Robert Williams.
NAYS--Abraham Baldwin, David Bard, Thomas Blount, Richard
Brent, Thomas Claiborne, Matthew Clay, John Clopton, Joshua
Coit, John Dawson, Albert Gallatin, William B. Giles,
Andrew Gregg, Jonathan N. Havens, Walter Jones, Matthew
Locke, Nathaniel Macon, Blair McClenachan, Joseph McDowell,
Anthony New, Tompson J. Skinner, William Smith, (of
Pinckney District,) Richard Stanford, Thomas Sumter, Joseph
B. Varnum, and Abraham Venable.
The title was altered from "An act for the protection of the trade of
the United States," to "An act providing a Naval Armament."
MONDAY, June 26.
LEWIS R. MORRIS, from Vermont, and LEMUEL BENTON, from South Carolina,
appeared, produced their credentials, were qualified, and took their
seats.
_Stamp duties_: _Naturalization certificates_: _Lawyer's licenses_:
_Conveyances_.
The House went into a Committee of the Whole on the bill for laying
duties on stamped vellum, parchment, and paper; when, the first section
being under consideration,
Mr. KITTERA moved to add, "any certificates of naturalization ----
dollars," as he thought foreigners, who were admitted to all the rights
of citizens under this Government, could not be against paying a small
tax on their admission to this right.
Mr. MACON thought this tax would fall very heavy upon persons who came
into this country to live by their labor--many of whom were not able to
pay their passage, but were indented by those who brought them for a
number of years; and who, if this tax were paid, would have so much
longer to serve.
Mr. BROOKS did not see this objection, as such persons might labor all
their lives without becoming naturalized.
Mr. GORDON said, that by the naturalization act, no foreigner could be
admitted to the rights of a citizen until he had been five years in the
country, and therefore the objections of the gentleman from North
Carolina could not have any weight.
The amendment was carried.
Mr. SWANWICK moved to strike out five dollars, and insert ten, for
licenses to practise as a counsellor, attorney, &c. He thought, if these
gentlemen were taxed at all, ten dollars would be as low a sum as they
could well fix upon for the purpose.
Mr. VARNUM thought the tax should be much higher, if imposed at all. He
spoke of the high tax laid upon the professors of the law in
Massachusetts.
The amendment was carried, there being 53 in favor of it.
Mr. COCHRAN wished the tax to extend to lawyers who practised in the
State Courts, as well as to those who practised in the Courts of the
United States.
Mr. NICHOLAS objected to this proposition. The lawyers, in some of the
States, were already very highly taxed; besides, he doubted the right of
the United States to tax the lawyers of the State Courts, as they were
necessary in the State Governments.
Mr. SWANWICK did not expect any objection could have been made to a tax
so reasonable, especially when the bill proposed to tax merchants so
heavily; they would not be able to turn themselves without a stamp, and
surely the lucrative profession of the law could not think much of
paying this low tax. It was said, indeed, that the merchant did not
ultimately pay the duty, but the consumer; and he doubted not the
lawyers would not fail to find out a way of making their clients pay the
duty.
Mr. DENNIS objected to this tax on the same ground with the gentleman
from Virginia. If a tax of this kind, he said, were laid upon the
lawyers of the State Courts, it might be extended to any other officer
of the Government, and thereby annihilate the State Governments.
Mr. LIVINGSTON was in favor of the amendment, because he thought the
State lawyers a fair object of taxation. He denied that it would be
unconstitutional, or that it would operate hardly upon a particular
class of men. It was not laid upon any particular class; but upon an
instrument which, indeed, to exercise their professions, lawyers would
be obliged to have; but it might as well be said that the tax upon rum
and sugar would fall heavily upon the sellers of those articles, and
that therefore no rum or sugar would be sold. The one tax fell upon the
consumer, and the other upon the client. In the State of New York, Mr.
L. said, the lawyers were not taxed at all.
Mr. MCDOWELL said, when he seconded the motion for striking out "five"
for the purpose of inserting "ten" he did not intend the tax to be
extended to the practisers in State Courts; nor did he think the
constitution would warrant such an extension of it.
Mr. SITGREAVES was in favor of the amendment; he wished to fix the
principle. He thought that the State lawyers were a fair object of
taxation, and that the profits of their business would very well bear
it. But there was reason for making a distinction between the two cases.
He thought there would be a hardship in extending the tax to practisers
in county courts, as that would cause it to fall in some places very
heavily. For instance, in Pennsylvania, there must be a separate
admission into every court of every county; so that one man would
probably have to pay to the amount of from two to three hundred dollars
on account of this tax. He hoped the motion would be postponed for the
present, and modified. He would do it himself, if time were given.
The motion was withdrawn.
Mr. SITGREAVES said, he understood that deeds for the conveyance of
lands would have been amongst the articles taxed. He thought such a tax
would be an eligible one, and in order to learn what were the objections
to it, he proposed to add to the bill, "any deed for the conveyance of
real estate ---- dollars."
Mr. R. WILLIAMS said, this proposition had been rejected in the
Committee of Ways and Means, on the ground that such a tax would clash
with the jurisdiction of the States. He had the same objection to this
that he should have to laying a tax upon the State lawyers. To say a
deed, which was legal by the laws of a State, could not be received in
evidence, except it was stamped, would be tantamount to the repealing of
a State law.
Mr. W. SMITH said, this subject had been frequently under discussion,
both in the Committee of Ways and Means, and in that House. On this
occasion, the majority of the Committee of Ways and Means was against
laying a tax on deeds. He was in the minority. There was a provision,
Mr. S. said, which declared that no paper upon which a duty was imposed
by this act should be admitted in evidence; but there was afterwards a
clause which allowed them to be admitted, on payment of ten dollars over
and above the duty thereupon payable. He thought the tax would be a very
good and a very profitable one.
Mr. COIT thought this was a tax which should be gone into with great
caution, since, if it were carried, it might be the means of losing the
whole bill. He thought the bill would be better passed without this
provision; and if it were found expedient, it might be added hereafter.
Mr. GILES was opposed to this amendment, as interfering with the
governments of the several States. All lands (except such as had been
sold by the United States) were held from the States; and if this tax
were to be agreed to, he believed the State courts would not refuse to
admit a deed in evidence which was not stamped. Nothing would give so
much alarm to the States as a subject of this sort.
Mr. SEWALL did not understand the distinction made between titles to
land and titles to money. He thought the objection made to a tax on a
deed, might be made with equal propriety to a tax on a bond or note. If
they had a right to say these should not be received in evidence in a
State court, unless they were stamped, they had a right to say the same
with respect to a deed. Except it could be shown that the farmer was
less able to pay than the merchant, he thought no other objection had
any weight.
Mr. R. WILLIAMS thought there was a great difference between a note of
hand and a deed. The State had nothing to do with the former, but much
with the latter; since every State held grants of its lands, and a man
must show his title from the original grant, before his title could be
said to be a good one. He did not doubt the people being able to pay the
tax; it was the principle which he contended against, which, if carried
into effect, would cause a clashing of the authorities of the two
Governments. If the United States could lay a tax of this sort, they
might lay a tax upon every commission issued by a State.
Mr. NICHOLAS did not see the smallest difference between the two cases
which had been stated. And when they came to the 13th section, he should
endeavor to prove that to say a piece of paper should not be received in
evidence in a court, which was lawful to be received by the laws of the
State, would be a violation of State sovereignty. He was not of
opinion, with the gentleman from Connecticut, that they should take up
the subject partially, rather than not pass the bill. He thought it best
to consider a tax upon its broadest basis. It was not fair to exclude
any thing which stood upon the same ground. He wished the principle to
be thus fairly tested. He should, therefore, vote for the tax on deeds.
Mr. LYON hoped, that if this tax was agreed to, purchases of a small
amount would be excluded.
Mr. SWANWICK said there would doubtless be a difference made in the duty
between large and small purchases. He also disagreed with the gentleman
from Connecticut. The principle, he said, was either right or not; if it
were right, it should be made general: if not, it ought not to be
adopted.
The question was put, and negatived--47 to 32.
On motion, the committee rose, and had leave to sit again.
TUESDAY, June 27.
_Stamp duties._