Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

By Mr. MADISON,

Q. What shall that period be? Connecticut was again for three years; which being rejected, five years passed unanimously.

By Mr. MADISON,

Q. Shall the rule so to be established have retrospective operation, so far as may be necessary for liquidating and closing the accounts between the United States and each particular State?-aye; Connecticut, no. Mr. DYER and Mr. MERCER understood this as making the amount of the several requisitions of Congress, and not of the payments by the States, the standard by which the accounts were to be liquidated, and thought the latter the just quantum for retrospective appointment. Their reasoning, however, was not fully comprehended.

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 8TH.

Committee of the Whole.

Mr. MERCER revived the subject of retrospective operation, and after it had been much discussed, and the difference elucidated which might happen between apportioning, according to the first valuation which should be made, merely the sums paid on the requisitions of Congress, and apportioning the whole requisitions, consisting of the sums paid and the deficiencies, which might not be paid until some distant day, when a different rule, formed under different circumstances of the States, should be in force, the assent to the last question, put yesterday, was

reversed, and there was added to the preceding question, after "five years,"-" and shall operate as a rule for apportioning the sums necessary to be raised for supporting the public credit and other contingent expenses, and for adjusting all accounts between the United States and each particular State, for moneys paid or articles furnished by them, and for no other purpose whatsoever." On this question there were six ayes; so it became a vote of the Committee of the Whole.

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10TH.

For the Report of the Committee on the Resolutions of Virginia, concerning the contract under which tobacco was to be exported to New York, and the admission of circumstantial proof of accounts against the United States, where legal vouchers had been destroyed by the enemy, see the Journal of this date.

Mr. MERCER informed Congress that this matter had made much noise in Virginia; that she had assented to the export of the first quantity, merely out of respect to Congress, and under an idea that her rights of sovereignty had been encroached upon; and that, as a further quantity had been exported without the license of the State, the question was unavoidable, whether the authority of Congress extended to the act. He wished, therefore, that Congress would proceed to decide the question.

Mr. FITZSIMMONS, in behalf of the Committee,

observed that they went no further than to examine whether the proceedings of the officers of Congress were conformable to the resolution of Congress, and not whether the latter were within the power of Congress.

Mr. LEE said, the report did not touch the point, that the additional quantity had been exported without application to the State, although the first quantity was licensed by the State with great reluctance, in consequence of the request of Congress, and of assurances against a repetition; and that the Superintendent and Secretary of Congress ought, at any rate, to have made application to the Executive before they proceeded to further exportations.

Mr. RUTLEDGE said, the report went to the very point, that Virginia suspected the resolutions of Congress had been abused by the officers of Congress, and the report showed that no such abuse had taken place; that if this information was not satisfactory, and the State should contest the right of Congress in the case, it would then be proper to answer it on that point, but not before. He said, if the gentleman (Mr. LEE) meant the Committee authorized by Congress on the 29th day of May 1782 to make explanations on the subject to the Legislature of Virginia, had given the assurances he mentioned, he must be mistaken; for none such had been given. He had, he said, formed notes of his remarks to the Legislature, but, according to his practice, had destroyed them after the occasion was over, and therefore could only assert this from memory; that, nevertheless, his memory enabled him to do it with certainty.

VOL. I.-21*

Mr. LEE, in explanation, said he did not mean the Committee; that the abuse complained of was not that the resolutions of Congress had been exceeded, but that the export had been undertaken without the sanction of the State. If the acts were repeated, he said, great offence would be given to Virginia.

The Report was agreed to, as far as the tobacco was concerned, without a dissenting voice; Mr. LEE uttering a no, but not loud enough to be heard by Congress or the Chair. The part relating to the loss of vouchers was unanimously agreed to.

Committee of the Whole.

The Report for the valuation of land was amended by the insertion of "distinguishing dwelling-houses from others."

The Committee adjourned, and the Report was made to Congress.

[ocr errors]

Mr. LEE and Mr. GERVAIS moved that the Report might be postponed to adopt another plan, to wit, "to call on the States to return a valuation, and to provide that, in case any return should not be satisfactory to all parties, persons should be appointed by Congress, and others by the States, respectively, to adjust the case finally.' On this question New Hampshire was divided; Massachusetts, no; Rhode Island, aye; Connecticut, no; New York, divided; New Jersey, no; Pennsylvania, no; Virginia, no; Mr. MADISON and Mr. JONES, no; Mr. LEE and Mr. BLAND, aye; North Carolina, aye; South Carolina, aye; so the motion failed.

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 11TH.

The Report made by the Committee of the Whole having decided that the mode to be grounded on the return of facts called for from the States ought now to be ascertained

Mr. RUTLEDGE proposed, seconded by Mr. GILMAN, that the States should be required to name commissioners, each of them one, who, or any nine of them, should be appointed and empowered by Congress to settle the valuation. Mr. GORHAM was against it, as parting with a power which might be turned by the States against Congress. Mr. WOLCOTT against it; declares his opinion that the Confederation ought to be amended by substituting numbers of inhabitants as the rule; admits the difference between freemen and blacks; and suggests a compromise, by including in the numeration such blacks only as were within sixteen and sixty years of age. Mr. WILSON was against relinquishing such a power to the States; proposes that the commissioners be appointed by Congress, and their proceedings subject to the ratification of Congress. Mr. MERCER was for submitting them to the revision of Congress; and this amendment was received. Mr. PETERS against the whole scheme of valuation, as holding out false lights and hopes to the public. Mr. RUTLEDGE thinks commissioners appointed by the States may be trusted, as well as commissioners appointed by Congress, or as Congress themselves. Mr. WILSON observes, that if appointed by the States they will bring with them the spirit of agents for their respective States; if

« ZurückWeiter »