Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

from the engagements. He repeated his remarks on the injustice of the rule by which loan-office certificates had been settled, and his opinion that some defalcations would be necessary.

Mr. HOLTEN was opposed to all permanent funds, and to every arrangement not within the limits of the Confederation.

Mr. HAMILTON enlarged on the general utility of permanent funds to the federal interests of this country, and pointed out the difference between the nature of the Constitution of the British Executive and that of the United States, in answer to Mr. LEE's reasoning from the case of ship-money.

Mr. GORHAM adverted, with some warmth, to the doctrines advanced by Mr. LEE and Mr. MERCER, concerning the loan-office creditors. He said the Union could never be maintained on any other ground than that of justice; that some States had suffered greatly from the deficiencies of others already; that if justice was not to be obtained through the Federal system, and this system was to fail, as would necessarily follow, it was time this should be known, that some of the States might be forming other confederacies adequate to the purposes of their safety.

This debate was succeeded by a discharge of the Committee from the business of devising the means requisite for restoring public credit, &c., &c., and the business referred to a committee, consisting of Mr. GORHAM, Mr. HAMILTON, Mr. MADISON, Mr. FITZSIMMONS, and Mr. RUTLEDGE.

No Congress till

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25TH.

In favor of the motion of Mr. GILMAN, (see the Journal of this date,) to refer the officers of the army for their half-pay to their respective States, it was urged that this plan alone would secure to the officers any advantage from that engagement; since Congress had no independent fund out of which it could be fulfilled, and the States of Connecticut and Rhode Island, in particular, would not comply with any recommendation of Congress, nor even requisition, for that purpose. It was also said that it would be satisfactory to the officers; and that it would apportion on the States that part of the public burden with sufficient equality. Mr. DYER said, that the original promise of Congress on that subject was considered, by some of the States, as a fetch upon them, and not within the spirit of the authority delegated to Congress. Mr. WOLCOTT said the States would give Congress nothing whatever, unless they were gratified in this particular. Mr. COLLINS said Rhode Island had expressly instructed her Delegates to oppose every measure tending to an execution of the promise out of moneys under the disposition of Congress.

On the other side it was urged, that the half-pay was a debt as solemnly contracted as any other debt; and was, consequently, as binding under the twelfth Article of the Confederation on the States, and that they could not refuse a requisition made for that purpose; that it would be improper to countenance

a spirit of that sort by yielding to it; that such concessions on the part of Congress would produce compliances on the part of the States, in other instances, clogged with favorite conditions; that a reference of the officers to the particular States to whose lines they belong would not be satisfactory to the officers of those States who objected to half-pay, and would increase the present irritation of the army; that to do it without their unanimous consent would be a breach of the contract by which the United States, collectively, were bound to them; and, above all, that the proposed plan which discharged any particular State which should settle with its officers on this subject, although other States might reject the plan, from its proportion of that part of the public burden, was a direct and palpable departure from the law of the Confederation. According to this instrument, the whole public burden of debt must be apportioned according to a valuation of land; nor could any thing but a unanimous concurrence of the States dispense with this law. According to the plan proposed, so much of the public burden as the half-pay should amount to was to be apportioned according to the number of officers belonging to each line; the plan to take effect, as to all those States which should adopt it, without waiting for the unanimous adoption of the States; and that, if Congress had authority to make the number of officers the rule of apportioning one part of the public debt on the States, they might extend the rule to any other arbitrary rule which they should think fit. The motion of Mr. GILMAN was negatived. See the ayes and noes on the Journal.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26TH.

Mr. LEE observed to Congress, that it appeared, from the newspapers of the day, that sundry enormities had been committed by the refugees within the State of Delaware, as it was known that like enormities had been committed on the shores of the Chesapeake, notwithstanding the pacific professions of the enemy; that it was probable, however, that if complaint were to be made to the British Commander at New York, the practice would be restrained. He accordingly moved that a committee might be appointed to take into consideration the means of restraining such practices. The motion was seconded by Mr. PETERS. By Mr. FITZSIMMONS the motion was viewed as tending to a request of favors from Sir Guy Carleton. It was apprehended by others, that, as General Washington and the commanders of separate armies had been explicitly informed of the sense of Congress on this point, any fresh measures thereon might appear to be a censure on them; and that Congress could not ground any measure on the case in question, having no official information relative to it. The motion of Mr. LEE was negatived; but it appearing, from the vote, to be the desire of many members that some step might be taken by Congress, the motion of Mr. MADISON and Mr. MERCER, as it stands on the Journal, was proposed and agreed to, as free from all objections.

A motion was made by Mr. HAMILTON to give a brevet commission to Major Burnet, aid to General

Greene, and messenger of the evacuation of Charleston, of Lieutenant-Colonel; there being six ayes only, the motion was lost; New Hampshire, no; Mr. LEE and Mr. MERCER, no.

The Committee, consisting of Mr. LEE, &c., to whom had been referred the motion of Mr. HAMILTON, recommending to the States to authorize Congress to make abatements in the retrospective apportionment, by a valuation of land in favor of States whose ability, from year to year, had been most impaired by the war, reported that it was inexpedient to agree to such motion, because one State (Virginia) having disagreed to such a measure on a former recommendation to Congress, it was not probable that another recommendation would produce any effect; and because the difficulties of making such abatements were greater than the advantages expected from them.

Mr. LEE argued in favor of the Report, and the reasons on which it was grounded. The Eastern Delegations were for leaving the matter open for future determination, when an apportionment should be in question.

Mr. MADISON said, he thought that the principle of the motion was conformable to justice, and within the spirit of the Confederation; according to which apportionments ought to have been made from time to time, throughout the war, according to the existing wealth of each State. But that it would be improper to take up this case separately from other claims of equity, which would be put in by other States; that the most likely mode of obtaining the concurrence of the States in any plan, would be to VOL. I.-23*

« ZurückWeiter »