Mr. OTIS'S proposition returned, the question on which was put and
negatived--55 to 27.
Mr. SEWALL made the motion which he had suggested when he was last up,
viz: to add the words, "between which and the United States shall exist
a state of war."
Mr. OTIS hoped this motion would not prevail, as he thought it would
deprive the resolution of every good feature which it at present
possessed; for it would prevent the exercise of the power in any other
case than in a state of war; and as all the expressions were future, it
supposed that such a state did not exist at present. He confessed he set
no value at all upon any law, unless it was adapted to the present
exigencies of the country. Gentlemen might talk as they pleased about
permanent regulations; he believed they ought to provide against the
residence of alien enemies existing in the bosom of the country, as the
root of all the evil which we are at present experiencing, and he could
not conceive any mode of doing this, but by applying the remedy
immediately to the evil. Gentlemen talk about a declaration of war. No
such thing scarcely ever precedes war. War and the declaration of war
come together, like thunder and lightning. Indeed, if France finds she
can enfeeble our councils by refraining to declare war, and that we will
take no measures of effectual defence until this is done, it is probable
she will not declare it, but continue to annoy us as at present. He
therefore thought, if the select committee had not been ripe for making
a report fully on this subject, they ought to have delayed it until they
were.
Mr. SEWALL explained.
Mr. SITGREAVES said, he had suffered no little from finding the
difference of opinion which existed between the chairman of the
committee who made the report on this subject, and gentlemen who usually
voted with him. He saw that difference of opinion was essential and
radical. He did not mean to go into the subject, but merely to make a
proposition, and call the yeas and nays upon it. It was to add the
words, "or shall declare hostility against the United States."
Mr. DAVIS moved a postponement of this question till to-morrow, as he
wished time to consider of it. He had some doubts as to the
constitutionality of such a provision.
Mr. SITGREAVES had no objection to a postponement, if time was wanted
for consideration; but he could not see on what constitutional ground
this motion could be objected to.
Mr. GALLATIN was in favor of the postponement. He would suggest to his
colleague that part of the constitution which might be in the way of
this motion. A distinction was made by it between actual hostility and
war.
If it had only gone to have made a difference between declared and
actual war, by striking out the word "declare," it would have removed
the objection. If there be a difference between a state of war and of
actual hostility, there is also a difference in the relation between
alien subjects of a nation with whom we are at war, and those of a
nation with whom we are in a state of actual hostility. If this
distinction be correct, by turning to the 9th section of the
constitution, it is found that the migration of such persons as any of
the States shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by
Congress, prior to the year 1808. He understood it, however, to be a
sound principle that alien enemies might be removed, although the
emigration of persons be not prohibited by a principle which existed
prior to the constitution, and coeval with the law of nations. The
question was, therefore, whether the citizens or subjects of nations in
actual hostility can be considered as alien enemies. The term "actual
hostility," is vague in its nature, and would introduce doubt as to its
true import. He should, therefore, be in favor of the postponement,
except the mover would consent to have the word "declare" struck out in
the way he had mentioned.
The question for a postponement was put and carried; and the two first
resolutions were referred to a select committee, to report a bill or
bills accordingly.
FRIDAY, May 4.
_Presents to Ministers._
Mr. BAYARD called for the order of the day on the resolution from the
Senate granting leave to Mr. Pinckney, our late Ambassador to Great
Britain and Spain, to receive certain presents from those courts, on his
taking leave. The House accordingly went into a Committee of the Whole
on the subject, and the resolution having been read,
Mr. BAYARD moved that the committee concur.
Mr. MCDOWELL said, this was a new subject, and, as it struck him, of
importance. Notwithstanding he felt as much disposed as any member of
the committee to do every thing respectful to our late Minister to
London and Madrid, yet, when he looked upon the constitution, and
reflected upon the intention of the clause which forbids the receiving
of presents by our Ministers, and the consequences which must flow from
a precedent of this kind, he could not easily bring himself to consent
to it, unless some gentleman could show the propriety or necessity of it
in a stronger light than he at present saw it. If we allow our Ministers
to receive presents from foreign courts, on their taking leave, we must
also calculate upon giving presents to all the foreign Ministers who
come here, and these we have every reason to expect, will be constantly
increasing. Besides, he objected to the principle of these presents.
What are they given for? He supposed it was to gain their friendly
offices and good wishes towards the country who gave them. He thought
this improper; and he believed it would be well now to put a stop to the
business, as a fairer opportunity could never occur of trying the
principle, for if it ever could be allowed, in consideration of public
services, it could not be better deserved than in the present case; but
believing the principle to be a bad one, he should, therefore, be
opposed to it.
Mr. BAYARD said, every constitutional objection must vanish on a single
view of the article, because it allows that presents may be received, if
the consent of Congress is obtained; and, so far from the constitution
insinuating that it would be bad policy to allow these presents to be
received, it proves that they might be received if inconvenience in
receiving them could be avoided. He supposed the constitutional
provision was meant to oblige Ministers to make known to the world
whatever presents they might receive from foreign courts, and to place
themselves in such a situation as to make it impossible for them to be
unduly influenced by any such presents. Indeed, he supposed those
presents would produce a directly contrary effect, for when a Minister
was known to have received a present of this kind, he would naturally
be particularly careful of all his actions, lest he should be supposed
to be improperly biased. If presents were allowed to be received without
number, and privately, they might produce an improper effect, by
seducing men from an honest attachment for their country, in favor of
that which was loading them with favors; but any evil of this kind was
securely avoided by the notoriety of the act.
What, said Mr. B., is this present? It is a gold snuff-box, a gold
chain, a picture, or some trifling thing which could have no possible
operation upon any man. It was necessary, he believed, to attend to
these little civilities and ceremonies, as the want of attention to them
often produced hostility between nations. He had some doubt from the
constitution, whether it was necessary in this case, to have applied to
Congress at all for leave to have received these presents, as the office
of this gentleman had expired before they were offered. Under the old
articles of Confederation, a like provision was in being, only that the
receipt of presents by our Ministers was positively forbidden, without
any exception about leave of Congress; but their being allowed to be
received under the present Government, by consent of Congress, shows
that they might be received in certain cases. He had, indeed, been
informed that, notwithstanding the prohibition under the former
constitution, presents were frequently received by Ministers; for,
though persons holding offices were forbidden to receive presents, the
moment their office ceased, and they became private individuals, they
were no longer prohibited from receiving any presents which might be
offered to them. Under these circumstances he thought the resolution
ought to be agreed to.
Mr. W. C. C. CLAIBORNE hoped the present resolution would not be
adopted. When this subject was first brought into view, he felt inclined
to favor the request. This first impression arose from his great
personal respect for the applicant, and the desire he felt to gratify
his wishes. But, upon a little reflection, it appeared to him that
policy dictated the propriety of rejecting the present resolution. So
far as relates to the constitutionality of receiving the presents in
question, he thought no member would join in opinion with the member
from Delaware last up. By recurring to the letter of the gentleman from
South Carolina, (Mr. PINCKNEY) it would appear that these presents were
offered to him when he was about to take leave of the courts to which he
was Minister. He was, of course, at that time, the Minister of the
United States, and came within the constitutional prohibition.
The prohibition in the constitution appeared to him to be bottomed on
sound policy, and of great importance to the security, the happiness,
and freedom of the nation. [Mr. C. read the clause.] The object of this
clause appeared to him very different from what had been stated to be
its object by the gentleman from Delaware. He believed it was intended
to lock up every door to foreign influence, to the influence of courts
and monarchies, which could not but prove baneful to every free country.
He had been told that it was the custom of Europe, when a favorite
Minister was about to take his departure, not only to present him with
presents, but also to confer a title upon him; and if the leave now
asked was granted, a precedent would be established which he apprehended
would, at a future day, bring the question before Congress, whether
leave should be given for a citizen of this country to receive a title
from a foreign monarch, and thus all the folly and vices of European
courts will be brought up for discussion before the Congress of the
United States; and he had no doubt characters might be found who would
desire such a distinction, and others who would advocate the granting of
it. On the contrary, he was persuaded that, if the vote of this House
negatived the present resolution, no future application would be made on
this subject. The reason, in his opinion, which induced the insertion of
a clause in the constitution that presents might be received when leave
of Congress was obtained, was this: That in the course of events, a case
might exist, in which it might be proper for a citizen of the United
States to receive a present from a foreign Government. Many, perhaps,
might be named; he thought of one: Suppose an officer of our navy were
to render essential service to the vessel of a foreign power in distress
on the high seas, it might be proper, in such a case, for Congress to
permit the officer to receive any suitable present as a reward for his
service and benevolent exertions in the clause of the unfortunate. But,
he believed, in all ordinary cases, every present ought to be rejected.
Mr. OTIS saw no ground for the apprehensions which the gentleman from
Tennessee had manifested, as to the effects to be produced by concurring
in the resolution now before them. When every present to be received
must be laid before Congress, no fear need be apprehended from the
effects of any such presents. For, it must be presumed, that the
gentleman who makes the application has done his duty, as he, at the
moment he makes the application, comes before his country to be judged.
In the present case, he supposed no idea could be entertained that our
Minister had not done his duty, or that he had been bribed by a foreign
power, as a reason for not granting the request. But it was strange that
gentlemen should assert that, if presents were allowed to be received,
Congress might next be asked to consent to the introduction of titles;
for the constitution expressly says, presents may be received, but, with
respect to titles, it says, "no title of nobility shall be granted."
Mr. O. said it was altogether a matter of discretion in the gentleman
from South Carolina, whether or not he had asked consent to receive the
presents in question; for he is at present no officer of the United
States, and he might receive them as a private citizen. He believed he
had a perfect right to do so, though it might not consist with the
delicacy of his character. Mr. O. said he had it from the best
authority, that, even under the old Confederation, though presents were
unconditionally prohibited, Dr. Franklin, Mr. Jefferson, and Mr.
Laurens, received the customary presents on their departure from the
foreign Courts at which they were employed. They, to be sure,
communicated the fact to Congress after they had received them. And they
received them for a good reason, because they could not refuse them
without giving umbrage to the Courts which presented them. He,
therefore, thought it very improper for gentlemen to suggest
difficulties of the kind which had been brought forward, as if the
gentleman making the application was personally concerned--it could not
be considered as any object to him. The question was merely whether we
would conform or not to the customs and usages of other nations, with
the presents in question; in which there certainly could be nothing
either dangerous or alarming.
Mr. MACON had no doubt Congress had a right to grant leave to receive
the presents in question, and believed the determination in this case
would fix the usage in future. He believed an application could never be
made to the House, in which there could be less objection to the
applicant, than in the present case. He was convinced that the gentleman
from Massachusetts need not to have said that this was no object to the
gentleman from South Carolina. He was sure no one thought so. He
believed it was improper to bring any personal considerations into the
question. He was sure there had not been a more popular act done for
this country for a long time than the treaty which that gentleman had
concluded with Spain. But the committee were told that this resolution
ought to be adopted, because it was a European custom. If, said he, we
adopt this custom, we must adopt another--that of paying foreign
Ministers who come here. And he owned he should not be willing to see
any of them carry off the money of his constituents, because he did not
think the conduct of any of them was deserving of such a fee.
Mr. BAYARD remarked that the gentleman from Tennessee seemed to be
greatly alarmed, lest the agreeing to this resolution should destroy the
liberties of the country; and that a precedent of leave being given to a
Minister to accept of a gold snuff-box or a gold chain, should hereafter
be brought as a sanction to the granting of titles of nobility. But he
asked the gentleman, as a lawyer, whether he conceived that a precedent
for granting permission to a Minister to receive a snuff-box could be
adduced as a precedent for granting titles of nobility? It certainly
could not. Therefore, as to precedent, the gentleman might feel himself
perfectly at ease. There could be no doubt but that the Congress of the
United States might give their consent to a citizen receiving a title
from a foreign power; but he could not apprehend that they would ever do
so. Was this, then, to be brought as an argument against allowing a
gentleman--against whose conduct the most slanderous tongue had never
said a word--from receiving the customary trifling presents, on his
leaving a foreign Court? He trusted not. He allowed it would be a
precedent for the future in this respect, and that Congress might expect
to be called upon hereafter for similar permissions. But he did not
think there was any thing alarming in this--the amount would be very
trifling; and he did not know that having a few additional gold
snuff-boxes in the country could produce any material effect. As to the
constitutional question, he thought it was as he had already stated it.
Mr. VENABLE wished that every thing which was said upon this subject
might be said without reference to the gentleman making the application,
but that it might be considered as establishing a general principle
which was to operate hereafter. It was said that it was necessary to
accept of these presents as a point of etiquette, and that refusal to
accept of them might give offence. He did not believe this could be the
case, as it was well known to the European Courts that our Government is
established on principles totally different from theirs; and when our
Ministers informed them that their Government did not permit them to
receive presents, it must be a satisfactory reason for not accepting
them. He knew that these presents were sometimes made in pictures,
sometimes in snuff-boxes, and sometimes in money. And, said he, if these
presents were not sanctioned by custom, would it not appear an
indelicate thing to offer these things to a Minister of a foreign
country? It certainly would. If the origin of the custom was, therefore,
a bad one, the United States ought not to adopt it, since they had now
the choice of doing so or not. He hoped the United States would always
make sufficient provision for their own Ministers, and not permit them
to receive any thing from a foreign Court. A contrary custom, to say the
least of it, would prove a very troublesome and disagreeable one.
Mr. W. CLAIBORNE submitted to the gentleman from Delaware, as a lawyer,
whether the committee could gather, from any thing before the House,
that these presents made by foreign Courts consisted of chains or
snuff-boxes? He owned he could draw no such conclusion for himself. But
whatever the present may be, it was immaterial to him in the present
question, because he was convinced that nothing which a European monarch
had it in his power to give, could lessen the patriotism of our late
Minister, or alienate his affections from his country. It was not to the
amount of the present; and whether it was a snuff-box, or any thing
else, which was a thing of no consequence, and ought not to have been
named. He objected to the principle of our foreign Ministers receiving
presents at all from European monarchs. This principle he looked upon
as the more dangerous, because it opened an avenue to foreign
influence--an influence among monarchs--which has always proved the
destruction of Republics.
Mr. THATCHER was in favor of the resolution. Gentlemen seemed opposed to
it on the ground of its establishing a precedent for the future. He did
not think this objection well founded; for, as the constitution does not
absolutely forbid the receiving of presents, the discussion on the
propriety of allowing it in future would not be prevented by the present
decision. Future Houses could refuse or grant leave to receive these
presents. Mr. T. said, it was the natural right of every citizen who
served the country as a Minister to receive presents, and the
constitution did not absolutely take away the right. He considered the
gentleman who now applied to Congress as having a natural right to
receive a present, except some reason was shown to the contrary.
Gentlemen allow they know of no special reason; they allow the applicant
has done the business with which he was entrusted, well. He supposed,
therefore, that gentlemen must themselves vote for it, except they
abandon their own ground.
Mr. R. WILLIAMS hoped, by the vote of this day, the House would get rid
of future applications of this kind. When the subject was first
introduced, he was opposed to it; but, if the question had gone off
without debate to-day, he intended to have voted for it. From the
discussion which had taken place, however, he was convinced it was a
subject upon which they ought not to legislate, since the acting upon it
would produce greater evils than the constitution had provided against.
He believed they ought here to put a stop to the business. If not, he
would rather that our Ministers should be at liberty to receive all the
presents offered to them, than the thing should stand upon its present
footing.
Mr. BAYARD would tell the gentleman from Tennessee on what authority he
informed the committee that the presents in question consisted of what
he had mentioned. Being upon the committee to whom this subject was
referred, he made some inquiry as to what were the usual presents from
the European Courts, and found, that in Holland, it was customary to
give a gold chain and medal; in France, a gold snuff-box; and in Spain,
a picture. It was on this ground that he said these things were of no
consequence. Mr. B. then remarked, upon what had fallen from Mr. R.
WILLIAMS with respect to the expense incurred in discussing this
subject, and said it had been owing to gentlemen opposing the resolution
that so long a discussion had taken place. As to the law which that
gentleman proposed to introduce, he must see that the constitution would
not admit of such a law.
Mr. RUTLEDGE said, that, being closely connected in the bonds of
friendship with his colleague, who made the present application, he did
not intend to have said a word upon the subject; but, when he heard
things of a personal nature introduced into the debate, he could not
avoid rising. And, with due submission to the chair, he must say, that
every thing of a personal nature, introduced on this occasion, was, in
his opinion, wholly out of order; particularly when it was said by a
member, "If the gentleman from South Carolina is not satisfied with what
he has received for his services, I am willing to pay him more." The
constitution has said, that the customary presents from European Courts
shall not be received without the consent of Congress; and, accordingly,
when these presents were offered his colleague at the two Courts at
which he was Minister, he declined receiving them, saying, that he would
lay the matter before Congress on his return home. He had done so, and
he could not see any ground of alarm in this. He felt none of that
Republican jealousy which caused his mind to revolt at these civilities.
He rose to dissipate, if possible, those ideas of danger which seemed to
be apprehended from the adoption of the present resolution--the
apprehension that it would break down the barriers which were to keep
out corruption from our Government, and introduce a variety of evils.
Mr. GALLATIN said this question might be considered either as of a
personal, or of a general nature. He had heard gentlemen, arguing both
in support of and against the resolution, speak of the important
services rendered by the gentleman from South Carolina in having
accomplished the treaty with Spain. Nor did he conceive this to be out
of order. He believed, however, the gentleman himself was perfectly
indifferent as to the fate of the question.
Mr. G. had some doubt with respect to the construction of the
constitution on this point. If he was well acquainted with the fact
relative to this business, it stood in this way: When Mr. Pinckney was
sent as Envoy Extraordinary to Spain, he still remained Minister
Plenipotentiary at the Court of Great Britain; therefore he was
altogether precluded from accepting of the present offered to him by the
Spanish Government on his taking leave from that Court; but, with
respect to the present offered to him by Great Britain, it appeared to
him that the moment a Minister receives his letters of recall, and has
taken his leave, he is no longer an officer of the government; and, in
such case, both under the present constitution, and under the old
Confederation, presents have been received. So far, therefore, as
relates to Great Britain, he did not think it was necessary to apply to
Congress for their consent.
He had said, that after a Minister has received his letters of recall,
there was nothing to prevent him from accepting of a present. He might
be told the constitution is lame in that respect; but it was more so
with respect to private citizens, because any private citizen might
receive either presents or titles from a foreign power. It has not,
therefore, effectually shut out corruption. Officers may receive
presents by consent of Congress; but any officer, or member of Congress,
might accept of presents, either in secrecy, or wait till they are out
of office and receive them publicly. Nothing could prevent this but the
infamy that would attach to such an act. Therefore, so far as it was
contended that a disagreement to this resolution would shut out a source
of corruption, it had little effect upon his mind.
But there was another point of view on this subject, which would induce
him to give his vote against the resolution. He considered that if
Congress gave its assent to this proposition, it would be saying that
they approve of the act, and that it is in itself proper that a foreign
Minister should receive presents. If it was, in their opinion, proper to
accept of these presents, the resolution would be affirmed; but if they
were of opinion, that the practice is a bad one; that it is useless in
itself, and ought to cease, they had nothing to do but refuse to
authorize it. He owned it was proper to keep up civilities, when it
could be done by conforming to custom of an inoffensive nature; but when
the constitution stood in the way, it ought always to be respected.
The question on the resolution was put, and negatived--44 to 38.
The committee then rose and reported their disagreement to the
resolution of the Senate; when the question was taken on concurring with
the Committee of the Whole in their disagreement, and decided in the
affirmative--yeas 49, nays 37, as follows:
YEAS.--George Baer, jun., David Bard, Bailey Bartlett,
Lemuel Benton, Thomas Blount, Richard Brent, Nathan Bryan,
Stephen Bullock, Dempsey Burges, Thomas Claiborne, William
Charles Cole Claiborne, John Clopton, Thomas T. Davis, John
Dawson, John Dennis, George Dent, Lucas Elmendorph, Thomas
Evans, William Findlay, John Fowler, Albert Gallatin, James
Gillespie, John A. Hanna, Carter B. Harrison, Jonathan N.
Havens, Joseph Heister, Walter Jones, Matthew Locke,
Matthew Lyon, James Machir, Nathaniel Macon, Blair
McClenachan, Joseph McDowell, John Milledge, Anthony New,
Josiah Parker, James Schureman, Thompson J. Skinner,
William Smith, Richard Sprigg, jun., Richard Stanford,
Thomas Sumter, Thomas Tillinghast, Abram Trigg, John Trigg,
Phillip Van Cortlandt, Joseph B. Varnum, Abraham Venable,
and Robert Williams.
NAYS.--John Allen, Abraham Baldwin, James A. Bayard, David
Brooks, John Chapman, Samuel W. Dana, William Edmond, Abiel
Foster, Dwight Foster, Jonathan Freeman, Henry Glenn,
Chauncey Goodrich, Roger Griswold, William Barry Grove,
Robert Goodloe Harper, William Hindman, David Holmes,
Hezekiah L. Hosmer, James H. Imlay, Samuel Lyman, William
Matthews, Daniel Morgan, Lewis R. Morris, Harrison G. Otis,
John Rutledge, jun., Samuel Sewall, William Shepard, Thomas
Sinnickson, Samuel Sitgreaves, Nathaniel Smith, Samuel
Smith, George Thatcher, Richard Thomas, Mark Thompson, John
E. Van Allen, Peleg Wadsworth, and John Williams.
SATURDAY, May 5.
_Additional Revenue._
On motion of Mr. HARPER, the House went into a Committee of the Whole on
the report of the Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. DENT in the chair,
when the three following resolutions being read, viz:
_Resolved_, That it will be expedient to raise an
additional revenue of ---- dollars annually, by a direct
tax.
_Resolved_, That the said tax ought to be laid by uniform
assessment, on lands, houses, and slaves.
_Resolved_, That the apportionment of the said tax ought to
be made among the several States according to their
respective number of inhabitants, as ascertained by the
last census.
Mr. HARPER moved to fill the blank in the first resolution with two
millions.
The question was put and carried--47 to 25.
The resolution was then agreed to as amended, as was also the second.
The third resolution being under consideration,
Mr. DAYTON moved to strike out the words "last census," as it might be
determined when the bill came in whether the number of inhabitants
should be ascertained by the last census, or a new one should be taken.
Mr. BAYARD said, the words of the constitution were, "within every term
of ten years;" so that a greater period than ten years could not be
suffered to pass without taking a census, but it might be taken every
year if it were necessary. He believed it would be very proper to have a
new census taken before the tax was assessed, otherwise from the great
increase in the population of some of the States, since the last census
was taken, the tax would not be constitutionally collected, since it is
directed to be laid according to the number of inhabitants.
Mr. HARPER said, he should be glad to see a new census taken at an early
period, so as to relieve the States from any inequality which might
arise from the variation of population which has taken place since the
last census; but he trusted it would not be thought necessary to do this
before the proposed tax was assessed. The carrying a law of this kind
into effect, let it be done in whatever way may be adopted, would be
found a tedious business, and the amount to be produced by it, would
have to be anticipated by loans; and if a new census was to be taken
before the tax could be assessed, it could not be said, with any kind of
certainty, when an effectual revenue was to be raised. He hoped,
therefore, when so great an inconvenience would be incurred by delaying
the tax until a new census was taken, that, though for one year some of
the States would have to pay a little more than was justly their
portion, they would consent to do so rather than subject the country to
so great an inconvenience as would be experienced by such a delay.
Mr. J. WILLIAMS supposed, if the amendment obtained, the tax must be
apportioned according to a new census; and, if so, he apprehended the
resolution would be disagreed to. Though a new census might be taken
within the ten years, he believed that term ought to be nearly expired
before a census was renewed. It was true that some of the States are
greatly increased in population; but it could not be supposed that
States increased in riches in proportion to their increase of
inhabitants, as the people who emigrate are mostly persons of little
property, who settle upon the back lands. This being the case, he
thought it was a wise provision of the constitution which directs that
the census shall be taken only once in ten years. If these words were
struck out, no tax ought to be laid until the time comes for taking the
new census.
Mr. BAYARD would not be in favor of striking out these words, if he
thought it would prevent the collection of the tax; but it would be
necessary, before the tax could be laid, that an assessment of lands,
houses, and slaves, should be made, and he could not see why the number
of inhabitants could not be ascertained at the same time.
Mr. R. WILLIAMS wished to know whether the new census proposed to be
taken was to affect the representation as well as the tax?
Mr. DAYTON answered in the affirmative. The return of the enumeration of
the inhabitants, he said, might be made at the first meeting of the next
Congress, by which means the number of Representatives to which each
State will then be entitled might be ascertained in time for the
succeeding election. If the order was not made at this session for
taking a new census, the enumeration could not be returned before the
last session of next Congress, which would be too late for the election
of the following Congress.
Mr. SITGREAVES said, it would be better for the mover of this amendment,
and others who wished to have this tax collected, to suffer the
resolution to stand as at present, so that the tax might be immediately
assessed by law, and provide at the same time for taking a new census,
which no one would object to; and, if it could hereafter be shown that
the new census could be taken without prolonging the collection of the
tax, it might be done; if not, the tax must be laid according to the
present census. The best way would be to strike out the resolution
altogether, and then make a provision for taking a new census.
Mr. DAYTON consented to vary his motion so as to meet the ideas of the
gentleman last up, by adding after the word "that," in the first line,
"until a new census shall be taken," and to the end of the resolution
these words: "and that provision ought to be immediately made by law for
taking a census of the inhabitants of the several States, agreeably to
the constitution."
Mr. GALLATIN believed this amendment consisted of two parts; he
therefore called for a division of it. He should vote in favor of the
first. The other part he thought perfectly a distinct subject, and not
at present under consideration. If a new census was to be directed to be
taken, he thought it ought to be done in a separate bill, and not
entangled with this subject.
The question on the first part of the amendment was put and carried,
without a division.
On the second, some observations were made, chiefly expressive of a wish
to have the provision for a new census separate from the present
subject; after which the question was put upon it, and carried, 39 to
29.
The committee then rose, and reported the amendments to the resolutions
as agreed to; which being confirmed by the House,
Mr. D. FOSTER moved to strike out the word "annually" in the first
resolution.
Mr. GALLATIN was in favor of the motion. It was his intention to have
made some general observations on this subject whilst under
consideration in the Committee of the Whole; but whilst he was putting
down some figures on paper, the question was taken; as they would be
equally applicable, he should now make them. They would go to show that
this tax was not wanted as a permanent revenue, but solely to meet the
present exigencies. He should show that the present revenues of the
Union are sufficient to meet the current expenses, and to meet the
instalments of deferred and Dutch debt due after the year 1801.
The report of the Secretary of the Treasury states that it is probable
there will be a deficiency of $1,796,705; but supposing that, from the
present situation of the country, our expenses may be greatly increased,
and our revenue defalcate, the certainty of a great augmentation in the
ordinary expenses by the deferred debt, and the increasing instalments
of the foreign debt, the Committee of Ways and Means do not think it
safe to contemplate an additional revenue from permanent sources of
taxation to a less amount than two millions of dollars.
In looking into the statements of the Secretary of the Treasury, it
would be found that most of the objects of expense brought forward to
show the necessity of a permanent tax are of a temporary nature. He has
estimated the expenditures for the year 1798 to be $6,926,460; in order
to ascertain what will be the permanent expenditures of the Union after
the year 1800, it is necessary in the first place to deduct from the sum
those items which are not of a permanent nature; and, as he would add a
sum for the Dutch debt due after 1801, Mr. G. said he would also deduct
the instalment of $80,030 due for the present year. The first item of a
temporary nature was a sum reported for deficiencies in the Military
Establishment of $164,000. Every gentleman who had attended to this
subject, when it was lately before the House, must be convinced that
sufficient sums had been appropriated under this head, and that
deficiencies must be considered as extraordinaries not likely again to
occur. Second, $103,000 were set down for diplomatic expenses; the
permanent establishment was now fixed at $63,000, and $40,000,
therefore, were a temporary expense. Finally, the following items were
stated by the Secretary himself as temporary, viz: for light-houses, in
addition to the usual appropriation, for expenses incident to the
treaties with Great Britain and Spain, and for reimbursing the unfunded
and registered debts, and for the payment of old accounts, a sum of
$546,000. The last item not yet agreed to by this House. These several
articles amount to about $830,000, which, deducted from the expense of
1798, as calculated by the Secretary of the Treasury, will leave a
balance of about $6,100,000 for the permanent ordinary expenses, civil,
military, contingent, and relative to the present debt. To this must be
added $1,146,370 for the interest and extinguishing annuity of the
deferred debt, payable in 1801, and also the sum necessary to pay the
principal of the Dutch debt after that year. The Committee of Ways and
Means have reported the foreign debt which will become due in 1802, 1803
and 1804; but, by taking the aggregate of all the years, it will be
found that an average sum of $800,000 a year will pay the whole of that
debt in twelve years. This last item, the $1,146,000 for the deferred
debt, and the $6,100,000 for ordinary expenses, makes the aggregate of
$8,046,000 for the permanent expenditures of the Union after the year
1801, including provision for paying the whole of the principal of the
foreign six per cent, and deferred debt according to contract.
This, in time of peace, would be the extent of our expenses, especially
as there are a number of items which might be reduced, and in that
calculation no reduction is introduced in the Naval, Military, or
Diplomatic Departments, or in the Civil List. If the current revenue be
examined, it will be found to exceed this amount. The amount of revenue,
as calculated by the Secretary of the Treasury, for the present year, is
$8,011,897. But to this must be added the deduction of $549,649, which
he has made from the duties on imposts and tonnage, from an apprehension
of a defalcation in this part of the revenue, on account of capture, and
which was of course to be considered as temporary. To this there should
also be added the duty on salt, laid at the last session, which could
not make any part of this estimate. That duty was eight cents per
bushel, and calculating the quantity of salt imported at three millions
of bushels, it will amount to about $250,000. There was also a number of
additional duties, laid during the last session of the last Congress,
which would not raise less than $350,000, viz: two and-a-half per cent,
on all white cotton goods imported, and an additional duty on tea, brown
sugar, and molasses. These two sums make $600,000, and added to the
above $500,000, deducted this year on account of captures, would make
the permanent revenue, in time of peace, equal to $9,111,897, which
would exceed our expenses by $1,000,000. This is clear from the papers
before the committee. It was suggested that some of his deductions for
expenses were improper, or that he might be mistaken in his expectations
of revenue on some items, yet this surplus million, which was equal to
one-eighth of the whole expenditure, would certainly cover any mistakes
of that kind. Besides, there is every reason to believe some of the
branches of the revenue will be more productive, on account of the
increase of population in 1801, than now. Mr. G., therefore, agreed with
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. VARNUM) that the present revenues
of the nation are equal to all its expenditures, including therein the
redemption of the public debt, except in case of war. The gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. SMITH) seemed to be of the same opinion, and, indeed, the
Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means had formerly made a similar
declaration. It would, therefore, be improper to vote a permanent tax,
when the objects for which it was wanted were not of a permanent nature.
Two years ago, Mr. G. said, he was in favor of a permanent land tax, as
he then thought it would be wanted to meet the demands which would come
against the Government in the year 1801. He was of that opinion, because
he did not wish to see the list of indirect taxes swelled beyond what it
was; but Congress were of a different opinion, and had, since that time,
laid indirect taxes on salt, sugar, stamps, &c., to the amount of
$800,000 a year, and have so far diminished the necessity of a direct
tax.
There was another thing in which he had been agreeably disappointed. The
mistake was common to almost every individual, as well as to himself. It
was in relation to the amount of duties which would probably arise from
imposts and tonnage, and which were productive beyond the most sanguine
expectations. The estimates of the Secretary of the Treasury then fell
short of the real amount by upwards of a million of dollars, and the
same thing had taken place last year. If, however, in the year 1801, a
diminution should take place in the product of those duties, the land
tax might then be made permanent.
Mr. G. concluded by saying the tax of two millions was already agreed to
for one year, though he thought it too large a sum. He could see no
objection to its being made an annual tax as in Great Britain, as it
could not be doubted that if the money was wanted for another year, the
act would be annually renewed.
Mr. HARPER confessed himself very much alarmed at this motion. He saw in
it, and in the arguments of the gentleman from Pennsylvania in support
of it, the second leaf of the book for keeping this country in an
utterly defenceless state--and another attempt made to render those
measures which had been taken nugatory, by effectually tying our hands;
and therefore it was that he saw this motion made with grief and
astonishment, by his friend from Massachusetts, whose motives he could
not suspect.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania, said Mr. H., reasons as if we were in a
state of profound peace, and as if we had nothing to apprehend from
abroad; as if all our disputes were settled, and we had nothing to do
but pay the expense of the preparations of defence gone into, and then
at all future times we should rest in security. This was the basis of
his speech, and he could not entertain so low an opinion of his
understanding as to believe he thought it a good one. That gentleman
must know, every one must know, that this country is not in a settled
state of things, but that we are threatened, and speedily, with a war.
No longer ago than yesterday the House was informed that our Ministers
had presented their final memorial, and that if they did not soon
receive an answer to it, they should give up their mission and return
home. Far from desisting from her attacks upon our commerce, France goes
on increasing them. Her former violations of right have been greatly
increased. They had been told by the papers on the table of the
subjugation of our country, of the fate of Venice and of Hamburgh. She
talks of sending frigates against us, of ravaging our coasts; she has
spoken of internal divisions, of a party in this country on which she
can rely. We had heard, though not officially, that orders had been
issued for taking all our vessels, and executing our citizens as
pirates, yet gentlemen sit down with counting-house exactness to
calculate the amount which it will take to defend ourselves. This was,
however, perfectly consistent with the rest of the conduct of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, because he has constantly set his face
against every measure of effectual defence, though he has constantly
talked of being willing to concur in what he considered measures of
defence.
But will the House thus be acted upon? He trusted not. He could not
relinquish the pleasing persuasion that a majority of this House is
determined to defend this country against a foreign foe, that they are
desirous of protecting their property, their wives, and their children,
and that they will rend from their eyes the veil which the gentleman
from Pennsylvania has endeavored to cast over them. That they will
defend themselves against a foe who relies upon our weakness, upon our
calculations of avarice, upon the exertions of men among us who are to
paralyze all our efforts to defend ourselves, and upon a prostrate
colonial spirit in this country. The existence of this spirit would be
confirmed were the present motion adopted. Why? Because the complete
defence of the country is not to be effected by two millions of dollars.
Mr. H. recapitulated what had been done by way of defence; but said
these amounted to nothing, they were only measures of precaution a
commencement of defence, and if those events take place which all think
probable, a much larger sum of money will be wanted. Mr. H. said it
would be seen, by the report of the Committee of Ways and Means, that
they did not take into view the expense which might be incurred for the
military defence of the country, either by a provisional army, or by
detachments of militia. And would any one say that it would be proper to
rise without providing a military defence for the country? Or could they
say that no part of the 80,000 militia, ordered to be held in readiness,
would not be called into service? Or would it be proper to sit down,
satisfied that our enemy will not invade us, though they see we are not
prepared to meet them? He hoped not.
Mr. OTIS wished to inquire of his colleague, before he proceeded to make
any observations, whether he would consent to withdraw his motion, and
admit of another in its place; but as he did not see him in his place,
he would state what his proposition was. He supposed it was the object
of his colleague to prevent the tax from being permanent. He knew that
gentleman too well to believe he wished to render the tax futile. He
proposed, therefore, instead of this amendment, to retain the word
"annually," and to add "until all loans that may be authorized by law on
the credit of such tax be reimbursed."
Soon after the late despatches from our Ministers were read to this
House, and the common sense of the community was convinced of the
necessity there was for immediately going into measures of defence,
speaking of the agreeable unanimity which seemed to prevail in the
House, it was prophesied to him, by men who had been much longer in this
body than himself, that, notwithstanding all this appearance, yet
certain gentlemen in the House would take care so to embarrass the
detail of the business, that they might just as well have refused to
assent to the principle. [Mr. DANA hoped these remarks were not meant to
apply to the mover of the present proposition.] Mr. O. said he felt some
difficulty in speaking on this subject, from the motion coming from the
quarter whence it came; but he trusted his friend would not apply these
remarks to himself. [Mr. VENABLE hoped the gentleman did not mean to
insinuate that any gentleman was actuated by improper motives. The
SPEAKER said it was improper to speak of motives.] Mr. O. added, that
his object was to show that the opposition made to this tax would have
nearly the same effect as voting against it in the first instance; for
he doubted whether a shilling could be got upon it, if passed in this
way. Perhaps many wish that this should be the case; they may think the
money is not wanted. If there was any wisdom in thus acting, he could
not see it, and therefore could not give gentlemen that credit for their
actions which they may think they deserve. Mr. O. expressed his
astonishment that gentlemen who were two or three years ago in favor of
a land tax, should now be wholly opposed to it. He also added that he
had heard another prophecy, which was that many gentlemen who were
always averse to a land tax would not now agree to it, but attempt to
defeat it, however willing they were to go into measures of defence for
the country, when those measures were unconnected with the raising of
money. He hoped this would not come true.
Mr. R. WILLIAMS observed, it was a fortunate circumstance that the
present motion was made by the gentleman from Massachusetts, though,
even that circumstance could not secure gentlemen from abuse; for though
his friends cannot but allow the mover's motives are pure, yet they have
imputed the worst views to those who support it.
The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. HARPER) has, as is usual with
him, consumed one-half of his speech in censuring the conduct of members
of this House, because they do not agree with him in opinion as to what
is the proper defence of this country, and in recounting what France has
done in Europe.
As to what that gentleman had said with respect to motives, he believed
every gentleman had a right to deliver his sentiments freely, without
being subject to the lash of that gentleman, or any other. How could it
be fairly argued, because gentlemen desired to limit the duration of
this law, that they were unwilling to defend their country? No such
conclusion could be drawn. He believed the people of this country would
always be found ready to defend themselves, as far as their own
interests and the interests of the country required; but not to defend
other nations. The gentleman from South Carolina never spoke on the
subject of defence, but he went into Europe, to tell the House what was
going on there. He thought enough had been said on this subject.
The gentleman had talked much of national honor and national dignity;
but he wished him to recollect that national honor and national dignity
were national interest. But the dignity and honor, which were too often
spoken of, were mere phantoms; and what is looked upon as disgraceful in
one country, may be looked upon as honorable in another. But the dignity
and honor which he spoke of were the same in all countries; they were
the interest of the people. He believed that some gentlemen would even
account it honorable to go into Europe, and endeavor to raise up all the
crowned heads which had fallen in the course of the present war. He
liked no such honor.
The gentleman from South Carolina has not only to-day, but often,
reprobated the idea of introducing calculation into our debates when
measures of defence have been under consideration; whereas it appeared
to himself the true ground upon which they ought to act. He believed, if
nations in general were to sit down and count the cost before they went
to war, one-half the blood and treasure which are now caused to flow,
would in such case be spared. Wherever a nation was about to enter into
a war to support its rights without its jurisdiction, it was perfectly
right to sit down and calculate the expense of doing it; he agreed,
when a country was attacked upon its own territory, that was not the
time to talk about expense. It appeared to him, in such a situation, our
defence would not so much consist of money as of individual exertion. In
his opinion, free men fought for liberty, and slaves for money.
The House was told, that if this money was not wanted, it would be safe
in the Treasury, or applied to the reduction of the public debt; but he
believed it would not be in the power of the gentleman from South
Carolina to convince him, or the people of this country, that the money
will not remain as safe in the pockets of the people, until it is
wanted, as in the Treasury. He believed the willingness of the people to
give the money when it is wanted cannot be questioned; and if that
gentleman had all the reliance upon the people which he pretends to
have, he would not wish to take their money when he was not certain it
would be wanted.
As to our late despatches, containing the conversations of X, Y, and Z,
which gentlemen seemed so much to rely upon, he confessed his opinions
had not been at all changed by them. He believed, before they were
communicated, that this country had been greatly injured by France, and
he was not ready to take any step now that he was not ready to take
before. He believed that he, and others who voted with him, should be as
willing to defend the country, in case of danger, as those gentlemen who
are continually raising up military phantoms for the purpose of knocking
them down again. He hoped the amendment would be agreed to.
A motion was made and carried to adjourn, without the question being
taken.
MONDAY, May 7.
_Presents to Ministers._
Mr. PINCKNEY said, he rose to request leave to withdraw the resolution
which had yesterday been laid upon the table by his colleague, Mr.
HARPER, without his knowledge, respecting a business which had already
been decided relative to himself, as it was founded upon a ground which
was at least doubtful, and he thought out of order.
The SPEAKER interrupted Mr. P. to say that he would save him the trouble
of any farther observations, by saying that he deemed the motion out of
order.
Mr. PINCKNEY hoped, notwithstanding, he should be permitted to make a
few remarks on the subject.
The SPEAKER replied, that any remarks upon a business already decided
would not be in order, and could not be admitted without general
consent. A pretty general cry of "I hope the gentleman will be permitted
to proceed," being heard, Mr. PINCKNEY went on.
He said, it was with reluctance he took up the time of the House a
moment in a matter relating to himself, particularly at present, when so
much important business pressed for consideration; but he wished to
state his reasons for wishing this motion to be withdrawn, lest it
should seem to have been brought forward by his consent. He was grateful
for the good intentions of his colleague, because he doubtless thought
the vote which had passed on the preceding day might cast some
imputation upon his, Mr. P.'s, character. But he also wished it to be
withdrawn, because it was founded on at least a doubtful suggestion,
viz: that it is not customary for the United States to make presents to
foreign Ministers leaving this country. He believed it was customary to
do so. But another reason for wishing it to be withdrawn was, that the
discussion of it might not subject him to a species of trial as to his
public conduct, in which he should not be at liberty to make his
defence. He should never shrink from any authorized investigation of his
conduct; but he should wish to avoid any unauthorized proceeding of that
kind.
But his principal reason for troubling the House was to assign his
reasons for addressing a letter to Congress on this subject, apparently
of so trifling a nature. With respect to the present offered to him by
the Court of Spain, it would have been improper for him, under any
construction of the constitution, to have received it, as he was at that
time also Minister to Great Britain. Upon this ground it was that he
wrote to the Spanish Minister declining the acceptance of the present
offered to him from that Court, except he should obtain leave of
Congress to do so. This being the case, whatever might have been the
propriety of accepting of the present offered to him by the Court of
Great Britain, there would have been at least an appearance of
inconsistency to have received a present from one Court and not from the
other. He therefore gave the same answer to both.
This he hoped would account satisfactorily for having troubled Congress
with any application on this subject. It was from a respect which he
thought due to the Court of Spain, from the favorable treatment he had
received from them, and being fully satisfied with all their conduct
towards him, that he thought it proper to make the application. The
other, respecting Great Britain, was involved with it.
Mr. P. said, he did apprehend there would have been a propriety in this
House, at the time they rejected the resolution sent from the Senate, to
have assigned a reason why they did so. He would say why he thought so.
He thought the constitution expressly allows, that, in some cases,
presents may be received from a foreign power, but that the power of
deciding upon this shall be left in the hands of the Legislature, as a
check upon officers that they may not improperly receive any presents
from a foreign power. But, considering this power to have been intended
as a check upon the improper conduct of officers, it must strike the
minds of the public when they are told that an officer was refused this
privilege, that he had not done his duty, especially if the refusal was
unqualified, and unaccompanied with any reason for the refusal, and that
the refusal was intended as a censure upon his conduct.
It was in this point of view, that he conceived the conduct of the
person to whom this privilege was refused, was implicated, without an
opportunity of being heard in his defence. He should be far from wishing
any resolution to be entered into approving of his conduct; but there
was a great distinction between approving and disapproving; between
censure and applause; and although he did not desire applause, he could
have wished to have avoided censure. All that he wished had been done
was, that the House should have stated something of this kind, "deeming
it improper that the diplomatic agents of the United States should
receive a present from any foreign Prince or State, the request cannot
be complied with;" as, without this, the natural inference must be, that
there has been some misbehavior in the officer, or the usual privilege
would not have been refused. He called it usual, because whenever it had
heretofore been applied for, it had been invariably granted, and the
rejection of the resolution from the Senate, must, therefore, be looked
upon as establishing an imputation upon his character. It was saying to
the world, "Every other person in a similar situation, has been
permitted to accept of these presents, but you, and you alone are an
exception; you cannot receive them." Such a person may have been worthy
of condemnation; he may have betrayed the interest of his country; but
it was injustice to that person to condemn him without a trial.
Mr. P. said, he thought it necessary, in justice to himself, to make
these observations before the House, from a regard which he felt, in
common with other gentlemen, for his reputation--more particularly as
this matter would appear upon the journals of the House, and might not
only reflect upon himself, but upon his children after him; they might
be pointed at by the finger of scorn, as the offspring of a man who had
betrayed the interests of his country. It was under the impression of
these ideas that he had been led to trouble the House, and he trusted he
should stand excused for having done so.
Mr. MCDOWELL rose, but was prevented from speaking by the SPEAKER, who
declared that nothing more could be admitted on a subject which was not
before the House.
Mr. HARPER rose. He was also checked by the SPEAKER, but not before he
had declared he brought forward the motion in question without the
knowledge of his colleague.
_Additional Revenue._
The House then proceeded to the order of the day, when the SPEAKER
having stated the question to be to strike out the word _annually_ in
the first resolution,
Mr. D. FOSTER rose, and observed that, for a justification of himself to
those who knew him, he need not declare that the motion, which had
caused so much agitation, was made with good intentions; that it was not
designed to embarrass the measures of Government, or with a view to
prevent a provision of revenue adequate to the present or probable
future exigencies; or from any reluctance on his part to concur in every
measure requisite for an effectual defence of our country. To the
uniform tenor of his conduct, on all occasions, since he had the honor
of a seat in this House, he would cheerfully appeal. Those with whom he
associated knew that nothing was more dear to his heart than the honor,
the dignity, the liberty, and the independence of his country. He did
not, therefore, consider many of the remarks which had been made on this
subject, as applicable to himself, nor should he take any measures
whatever to repel them. If his friends intended he should make a
personal application, their object was lost. Alike indifferent to
censure as applause, when unmerited, he had ever done, and, as far as he
could be informed, he would continue to do, what, at the time, appeared
to be his duty.
He was as deeply impressed as any gentleman of this House could be, with
a sense of the necessity and importance of sufficient and productive
sources of revenue. Measures for defence must be expensive; without the
means to carry them into effect, all our acts and resolutions are vain
and futile.
Protection to our commerce, defence to our frontiers and sea-coasts,
security to our rights as a nation, energy and respectability to the
operations of Government, are not to be obtained without money, and if
the present revenues are not sufficient, more must undoubtedly be
provided.
Although he did not mean to pledge himself that he would vote for it, he
should be glad to see a bill before the House, that opportunity might be
given to examine the subject in detail. Since the motion he had
submitted had been thought so exceptionable, he was willing for the
present to modify it. If gentlemen would concur with him in a
substitute, he would withdraw the motion to strike out the word
"annually," and propose to add, as an amendment at the end of the
resolution, the following words:
"To be collected for a term not exceeding -- years;
provided the Legislature of the United States shall at all
times be at full liberty to substitute other duties or
taxes of equal value in lieu thereof, for the purpose of
discharging any debts or loans which may be contracted on
the credit of said tax."
Mr. HARPER rose to second the motion, because it concurred with his
ideas on the subject, that the revenues ought to be commensurate with
the debts incurred. He need not repeat, he said, that he had always been
opposed to a land tax, except in the case of a war, or of preparation
for war; but he now believed it necessary.
Mr. MACON hoped this motion would not prevail. In the State from which
he came, they had an annual land tax, and found no inconvenience from
its being annual. He had no idea of a permanent tax on land, as all the
State Governments collected their revenues from this source, or from a
capitation tax, every other object having been seized upon by the United
States. The idea of the tax being laid for a number of years, would make
it more unpopular than any thing else. All our revenue laws are
temporary. But it was said it was necessary that this tax should be
permanent, in order to obtain loans upon it. He believed loans might
very well be obtained upon it, though it were passed annually; for
certainly those who loaned the Government money would have so much
confidence in it as to believe that it would pay all its contracts
fairly and honorably. He did not believe that all the money appropriated
could be expended before the next session of Congress. Besides, there is
a surplus million in the Treasury, ready for any purpose which the
Executive may think proper to apply it to.
But it had been said, advantage ought to be taken of the present moment
to get this tax. The same thing was said with respect to the Navy. He
did not think it necessary to take advantage of the present enthusiasm
of the people to collect a tax; the people would always obey the laws.
Mr. FINDLAY said, it was admitted, on all hands, that it depended on a
contingency whether this tax would be wanted at all. For his own part he
was under no apprehension of any formidable invasion of this country
taking place before Congress meets again. If France is desirous of
making conquests, there are more preferable objects to this country
nearer home. The difficulties which have so long agitated Europe are not
yet so far settled as to suffer France to send out any formidable force
here. Let the conduct of the French Government have been as bad as it
can be painted, it cannot be said that it has ever wholly lost sight of
its own interest, and it would not be her interest to make an invasion
of this country at this time; and, therefore, there is no necessity for
going into measures as if an invading army was immediately expected
amongst us.
A land tax was with him a favorite tax. He had long wished it. He was
for adopting it some time ago, and for taking advantage of a low market,
to bring up the public debt. But when he came to inquire into the
subject, he found that many of the States had laid direct taxes for the
support of their own Government. There is now an appearance of necessity
for this tax; but being a new tax under the General Government, and not
likely to be very satisfactory to some parts of the Union, it would be
proper to make the law of short duration. Upon constitutional ground he
was against continuing a direct tax longer than two years; every
Congress ought to pass a vote upon it; but, in the present instance, he
believed the law would be best if passed for one year.
Mr. F. concluded by observing, that if this law was passed for one
year, he could confidently rely on future Congresses to renew it, if the
situation of the country should require it. It would not hereafter be
convenient for him to take any farther share in the public councils, but
he should not distrust the wisdom and patriotism of those who might
follow him; and to do away the charges continually made against himself
and others, that they were not willing to defend the country, he should
call the yeas and nays upon every question of defence which came before
the House.
Mr. S. SMITH did not like the amendment; but he should vote for it,
because, if he could not get all he wished, he would get all he could.
If the blank was to be filled with two or three years, (as had been
intimated,) it would not go far enough to induce moneyed men to rely
upon it as a permanent security.
There seemed to be no difference of opinion as to the propriety of
laying a direct tax; it only seemed to be as to the length of time which
it ought to be laid. He agreed with those gentlemen who assert that
money cannot be borrowed, except a permanent fund be provided. But
gentlemen say, where are your expenses? Certain expenses have been
agreed to, which are proposed to be met by a direct tax of two millions;
but could it be supposed that the proceeds of this tax could be brought
into the Treasury in less than eighteen months? They could not, and
something must be done in the mean time to raise the money already
voted, whether any war takes place or not. How was this to be done? By
loans alone. But what inducement will there be to moneyed men to lend
money, except a permanent revenue be made the security? You hold out the
credit of the United States, which has not heretofore been injured. This
is true. But heretofore we have not been engaged in war; we have had
nothing to impede our revenue. But if a war takes place, it is possible
our revenue may suffer very materially; and Congress are about to
provide a fund which, in the opinion of some, will leave no permanency,
and in the opinion of others, very little. And would it not require a
great degree of patriotism in gentlemen to lend twenty shillings for
twenty shillings, when they can go into the market and purchase them
with sixteen. The difference of opinion on this subject, he was
convinced, arose from the different pursuits of the members of that
House. Certain gentlemen believed moneyed men would advance money
without a permanent tax as a security. He believed the contrary; for,
however great a confidence they may have in the honor of future
Congresses, they would wish to see this Congress do something for their
security. He feared gentlemen were not in earnest when they spoke of
defending the country. We have men, said he, but we want money. He did
not agree with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. WILLIAMS) that
slaves fought for money, and freemen only for liberty. If he commanded a
regiment of militia, he believed they would expect to be paid, and he
could not believe he would term them slaves. Money must be had.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania was afraid of making the revenue
permanent, because, as our revenue increased, it had been usual, not to
repeal our revenue laws, but to increase our expenses. Whence did he
collect this information? Not from the documents on the table; for there
he would find that there was an unexpended surplus of one million nine
hundred thousand dollars, which were in 1797 applied by the
Commissioners of the Sinking Fund to the reduction of the public debt.
We have, said he, gone on decreasing our expenses. It was true, that our
dispute with Algiers, and a war with the Indians, had cost a great deal
of money; but when the war with the latter was at an end our expenses
were decreased. And now an income of expense is asked for to repel
threatened danger, and gentlemen have voted measures of defence; but now
they come to touch the expense, they flinch. Men may moralize and talk
about defence as much as they please, it will avail nothing without
money.
Mr. VARNUM hoped the motion under consideration would be negatived. The
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. S. SMITH) gave two reasons on Saturday
against striking out the word annually. One was, that it was necessary
the tax should have some permanency, in order that money might be
borrowed upon it; and another, that it might be a substitute for
indirect taxes. That gentleman allowed, and he perfectly agreed with him
in opinion, that in case of war, the defalcation in our revenue, he did
not suppose, would be large, and that in our present situation he had no
idea of a defalcation. If, then, a defalcation of our revenue was not to
be expected, he thought he should be able to make it appear that the
proposed tax is not necessary at all; and, of course, that it will not
be right to pass it for more than one year. But the gentleman from
Maryland says the people ought to be relieved from indirect taxes,
because, for every 12-1/2 per cent. duty, the consumer pays 27-1/2. Does
that gentleman wish, then, that the merchant should be deprived of a
profit of 15 per cent. on the duties which he now pays? If so, this
might be very well effected, without doing away the duty, and
substituting a land tax in its place, by the merchants lowering the
price of their goods 15 per cent.
But the gentleman added another reason for passing the law for a number
of years, viz: that this tax might be at any time repealed. But,
although this House might consent to a repeal of this tax, it was by no
means certain that the other House would consent to its repeal. Indeed,
it was his opinion, that if this tax was established as a permanent tax,
that the people of this country would not be relieved from it for many
years. Many objects, he had no doubt, would be found out by gentlemen,
ever fruitful in this respect, upon which to expend any surplus which
might arise from this tax.
The gentleman from South Carolina, on Saturday, brought into view our
situation with respect to France, and our liableness to an attack from
that nation. He alluded to the conversation which took place between our
Envoys and X, Y, and Z, and thence inferred that it was probable that
this country would be attacked by France. He could not say that all the
propositions made by these unauthorized persons were not from the
Directory; but there was no evidence of this, and therefore he could not
believe it, especially as the agents themselves declared they were not.
He thought, therefore, if we wished to preserve peace with France, that
we ought not to be too forward in believing all which was said by X, Y,
and Z, was authorized by the French Government. He hoped it would prove
to be the contrary, and that when the Directory shall discover what has
been done, they will punish these persons for their conduct.
The question was put and negatived--46 to 35.
Mr. D. FOSTER then renewed his motion to strike out the word "annually,"
which was carried, there being sixty votes for it.
The question on the amendment providing for the taking of a new census,
was put and carried, there being 57 votes for it.
Mr. READ moved an amendment, which went to strike out the provision
which proposes that the tax should be laid by a uniform rule through all
the States, with the view of inserting in its place the following words:
"And upon such other estates within each particular State
as are taxable according to the established rule of direct
taxation in each State."
The motion was negatived, there being only twenty-one votes for it.
The report was referred to the Committee of Ways and Means, to report
bills accordingly.
TUESDAY, May 8.
_Naturalization Law._
Mr. SEWALL called for the order of the day on the third resolution
reported from the Committee of the Whole, on the subject of aliens, and
the consideration of the following amendment being resumed, viz to add
to it these words:
"Between which and the United States, there shall exist a
state of declared war:"
It was agreed to; and referred to the select committee on commerce and
defence, to report a bill accordingly.
The following is the resolution as amended by the House:
"_Resolved_, That provision be made, by law, for the
apprehending, securing or removing, as the case may
require, of all aliens, being males, of the age of fourteen
years and upwards, who shall continue to reside, or shall
arrive within the United States, being natives, citizens,
or subjects, of any country between which and the United
States there shall exist a state of declared war, or the
Government of which shall threaten, attempt, or perpetrate,
any invasion or predatory incursions upon their territory,
as soon as may be, after the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
shall make proclamation of such event; providing, in all
cases where such aliens are not chargeable with actual
hostility, that the period settled by any treaty with such
hostile nation, or other reasonable period, according to
the usage of nations, and the duties of humanity, shall be
allowed, for the departure of such aliens, with all their
effects, from the territory of the United States; and
excepting all cases of such aliens to whom passports or
licenses of residence may be granted, consistently with the
public safety."
THURSDAY, May 10.
_Provisional Army._