FRIDAY, JANUARY 24TH.

Some days prior to this, sundry papers had been laid before Congress by the War Office, showing that a cargo of supplies which had arrived at Wilmington for the British and German prisoners of war, under a passport from the Commander-inChief, and which were thence proceeding by land to their destination, had been seized by sundry persons in Chester county, under a law of Pennsylvania, which required in such cases a license from the Executive authority, who exposed to confiscation all articles not necessary for the prisoners, and referred the question of necessity to the judgment of its own magistrates. Congress unanimously considered the violation of the passport, issued under their authority, as an encroachment on their constitutional and essential rights; but, being disposed to get over the difficulty as gently as possible, appointed a Committee, consisting of Mr. RUTLEDGE, Mr. WOLCOTT, and Mr. MADISON, to confer with the Executive of Pennsylvania on the subject. In the first conference, the Executive represented to the Committee the concern they felt at the incident, their disposition to respect and support the dignity and rights of the Federal Sovereignty, and the embarrassments in which they were involved by a recent and express law of the State to which they were bound to conform. The Committee observed to them, that the power of granting passports for the purpose in question being inseparable from the general power of war delegated to Congress, and being essential

for conducting the war, it could not be expected that Congress would acquiesce in any infractions upon it; that as Pennsylvania had concurred in the alienation of this power to Congress, any law whatever contravening it was necessarily void, and could impose no obligation on the Executive. The latter requested further time for a consideration of the case, and laid it before the Legislature then sitting; in consequence of which a Committee of their body was appointed, jointly with the Executive, to confer with the Committee of Congress. In this second conference the first remarks made by the Committee of Congress were repeated. The Committee of the Legislature expressed an unwillingness to entrench on the jurisdiction of Congress, but some of them seemed not to be fully satisfied that the law of the State did so. Mr. Montgomery, lately a member of Congress, observed, that although the general power of war was given to Congress, yet that the mode of exercising that power might be regulated by the States in any manner which would not frustrate the power, and which their policy might require. To this it was answered, that if Congress had the power at all, it could not, either by the Articles of Confederation or the reason of things, admit of such a controlling power in each of the States; and that to admit such a construction would be a virtual surrender to the States of their whole federal power relative to war, the most essential of all the powers delegated to Congress. The Committee of the Legislature represented, as the great difficulty with them, that even a repeal of the law would not remedy the case without a retrospective law,

which their Constitution would not admit of, and expressed an earnest desire that some accommodating plan might be hit upon. They proposed, in order to induce the seizors to waive their appeal to the law of the State, that Congress would allow them to appoint one of two persons who should have authority to examine into the supplies, and decide whether they comprehended any articles that were not warranted by the passport. The Committee of Congress answered, that whatever obstacles might lie in the way of redress by the Legislature, if no redress proceeded from them, equal difficulties would lie on the other side; since Congress, in case of a confiscation of the supplies under the law, which the omission of some formalities required by it would probably produce, would be obliged, by honor and good faith, to indemnify the enemy for their loss out of the common treasury; that the other States would probably demand a reimbursement to the United States from Pennsylvania, and that it was impossible to say to what extremity the affair might be carried. They observed to the Committee of the Legislature and Executive, that although Congress was disposed to make all allowances, and particularly in the case of a law passed for a purpose recommended by themselves, yet they could not condescend to any expedient which, in any manner, departed from the respect which they owed to themselves and to the Articles of union. The Committee of Congress, however, suggested that, as the only expedient which would get rid of the clashing of the power of Congress and the law of the State, would be the dissuading the seizors from their appeal to the latter, it was probable that

if the seizors would apply to Congress for redress, such steps would be taken as would be satisfactory. The hint was embraced, and both the Executive and the Committee of the Legislature promised to use their influence with the persons of most influence among the seizors for that purpose. In consequence thereof a memorial from John Hannum, Persifor Frazer, and Joseph Gardner, was sent in to Congress, committed to the same Committee of Congress, and their Report of this day agreed to, in which the President of Pennsylvania is requested to appoint one of the referees. It is proper to observe that this business was conducted with great temper and harmony; and that President Dickinson, in particular, manifested, throughout the course of it, as great a desire to save the rights and dignity of Congress as those of the State over which he presided. As a few of the seizors only were parties to the memorial to Congress, it is still uncertain whether others may not adhere to their claims under the law, in which case all the embarrassments will be revived.

In a late report, which had been drawn up by Mr. HAMILTON, and made to Congress, in answer to a memorial from the Legislature of Pennsylvania, among other things showing the impossibility Congress had been under of paying their creditors, it was observed, that the aid afforded by the Court of France had been appropriated by that Court, at the time, to the immediate use of the army. This clause was objected to as unnecessary, and as dishonorable to Congress. The fact also was controverted. Mr. HAMILTON and Mr. FITZSIMMONS justified the expediency of retaining it, in order to justify ConVOL. I.-18

gress the more completely in failing in their engagements to the public creditors. Mr. WILSON and Mr. MADISON proposed to strike out the words "appropriated by France," and substitute the words "applied by Congress to the immediate and necessary support of the army." This proposition would have been readily approved, had it not appeared, on examination, that in one or two small instances, and particularly in the payment of the balance due to Arthur Lee, Esquire, other applications had been made of the aid in question. The Report was finally recommitted.

A letter from the Superintendent of Finance was received and read, acquainting Congress that as the danger from the enemy, which led him into the Department, was disappearing, and he saw little prospect of provision being made, without which injustice would take place, of which he would never be the minister, he proposed not to serve longer than May next, unless proper provision should be made. This letter made a deep and solemn impression on Congress. It was considered as the effect of despondence in Mr. Morris of seeing justice done to the public creditors, or the public finances placed on an honorable establishment; as a source of fresh hopes to the enemy when known; as ruinous both to domestic and foreign credit; and as producing a vacancy which none knew how to fill, and which no fit man would venture to accept. Mr. GORHAM, after observing that the administration of Mr. Morris had inspired great confidence and expectation in his State, and expressing his extreme regret at the event, moved that the letter should be committed. This was opposed, as unnecessary and nugatory, by