value of the domestic debt sunk down to about one tenth of its nominal amount.1

258. In February, 1786, congress determined to make another and last appeal to the states upon the subject. The report adopted upon that occasion contains a melancholy picture of the state of the nation, "In the course of this inquiry (said the report) it most clearly appeared, that the requisitions of congress for eight years past have been so irregular in their operation, so uncertain in their collection, and so evidently unproductive, that a reliance on them in future, as a source, from whence monies are to be drawn to discharge the engagements of the confederation, definite as they are in time and amount, would be no less dishonourable to the understandings of those, who entertained such confidence, than it would be dangerous to the welfare and peace of the Union." "It has become the duty of congress to declare most explicitly, that the crisis has arrived, when the the people of these United States, by whose will and for whose benefit the federal government was instituted, must decide, whether they will support their rank, as a nation, by maintaining the public faith at home or abroad; or whether, for want of a timely exertion in establishing a general revenue, and thereby giving strength to the confederacy, they will hazard, not only the existence of the Union, but of those great and invaluable privileges, for which they have so arduously and so honourably contended." After the adoption of this report, three states, which had hitherto stood aloof, came into the measure. New-York alone

12 Pitk. Hist. 185.

2 Journals of Congress, 1786, p. 34 to 36; 1 Amer. Museum, 282, &c. – The Committee, who made the Report, were Mr. King, Mr. Pinckney, Mr. Kean, Mr. Monroe, and Mr. Pettit.

refused to comply with it; and after a most animated debate in her legislature, she remained inflexible, and the fate of the measure was sealed forever by her solitary negative.1

§ 259. Independent, however, of this inability to lay taxes, or collect revenue, the want of any power in congress to regulate foreign or domestic commerce was deemed a leading defect in the confederation. This evil was felt in a comparatively slight degree during the war. But when the return of peace restored the country to its ordinary commercial relations, the want of some uniform system to regulate them was early perceived; and the calamities, which followed our shipping and navigation, our domestic, as well as our foreign trade, convinced the reflecting, that ruin impended upon these and other vital interests, unless a national remedy could be devised. We accordingly find the public papers of that period crowded with complaints on this subject. It was, indeed, idle and visionary to suppose, that while thirteen independent states possessed the exclusive power of regulating commerce, there could be found any uniformity of system, or any harmony and cooperation for the general welfare. Measures of a commercial nature, which were adopted in one state from a sense of its own interests, would be often countervailed or rejected by other states from similar motives.

12 Pitk. Hist. 184. 222; 5 Marsh. Life of Washington, 62, 63, 124; 1 Tuck. Black. App. 158.-The speech of Col. Hamilton, the in legislature of New-York, in February, 1787, contains a very powerful argument in favour of the impost; and a statement of the extent, to which each of the states had complied with, or refused the requisitions of congress. During the past five years, he says, New-Hampshire, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia had paid nothing; Connecticut and Delaware, about one third; Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Maryland, about one half; Virginia, three fifths; Pensylvania, near the whole; and New-York, more than her quota. 1 Amer. Museum, 445, 448.

If one state should deem a navigation act favourable to its own growth, the efficacy of such a measure might be defeated by the jealousy or policy of a neighbouring state. If one should levy duties to maintain its own government and resources, there were many temptations for its neighbours to adopt the system of free trade, to draw to itself a larger share of foreign and domestic commerce. The agricultural states might easily suppose, that they had not an equal interest in a restrictive system with the navigating states. And, at all events, each state would legislate according to its estimate of its own interests, the importance of its own products, and the local advantages or disadvantages of its position in a political or commercial view. To do otherwise would be to sacrifice its immediate interests, without any adequate or enduring consideration; to legislate for others, and not for itself; to dispense blessings abroad, without regarding the security of those at home.1

§ 260. Such a state of things necessarily gave rise to serious dissensions among the states themselves. The difference of regulations was a perpetual source of irritation and jealousy. Real or imaginary grievances were multiplied in every direction; and thus state animosities and local prejudices were fostered to a high degree, so as to threaten at once the peace and safety of the Union.2

1 New Jersey early felt the want of a power in Congress, to regulate foreign commerce, and made it one of her objections to adopting the articles of confederation, in her representation to congress.—2 Pitk. Hist. 23, 24; 1 Secret Journ. 375; The Federalist, No. 38.

22 Pitk. Hist. 192, 214, 215; 1 Amer. Museum, 272, 273, 281, 282, 288; The Federalist, No. 22.—1 Amer. Mus. 13 to 16; 2 Amer. Mus. 395 to 399; The Federalist, No. 7; 1 Elliot's Debates, 75; I Tucker's Black. Comm. App. 159, 248, 249.—Mons. Turgot, the Comptroller General of

§ 261. These evils were aggravated by the situation of our foreign commerce. During the war, our commerce was nearly annihilated by the superior naval power of the enemy; and the return of peace enabled foreign nations, and especially Great Britain, in a great measure to monopolize all the benefits of our home trade. In the first place, our navigation, having no protection, was unable to engage in competition with foreign ships. In the next place, our supplies were almost altogether furnished by foreign importers or on foreign account. We were almost flooded with foreign manufactures, while our own produce bore but a reduced price. It was easy to foresee, that such a state of things must soon absorb all our means; and as our industry had but a narrow scope, would soon reduce us to absolute poverty. Our trade in our own ships with foreign nations was depressed in an equal degree; for it was loaded with heavy restrictions in their ports. While, for instance, British ships with their commodities had free admission into our ports, American ships and exports were loaded with heavy exactions, or prohibited from entry into British ports.2 We were, therefore, the victims of our own imbecility, and reduced to a complete subjection to the commercial regula

the Finances of France, among other errors in our national policy, observed, that in the several states, "one fixed principle is established in regard to imposts. Each state is supposed to be at liberty to tax itself at - pleasure, and to lay its taxes upon persons, consumptions, or importa tions; that is to say, to erect an interest contrary to that of other states.”1 Amer. Museum, 16.

1 5 Marsh. Life of Washington, 69, 72, 75, 79, 80.

2 1 Tuck. Black. App. 157, 159; 5 Marsh. Life of Wash. 77, 78; 2 Pitk. Hist. 186 to 192; 1 Amer. Museum, 282, 288; 2 Amer. Museum, 263 to 276; Id. 371 to 373; 3 Amer. Museum, 554 to 557, 562; North American Review, Oct. 1827, p. 249, 257, 258.

tions of other countries, notwithstanding our boasts of freedom and independence. Congress had been long sensible of the fatal effects flowing from this source; but their efforts to ward off the mischiefs had been unsuccessful. Being invested by the articles of confederation with a limited power to form commercial treaties, they endeavoured to enter into treaties with foreign powers upon principles of reciprocity. But these negotiations were, as might be anticipated, unsuccessful, for the parties met upon very unequal terms. Foreign nations, and especially Great Britain, felt secure in the possession of their present command of our trade, and had not the least inducement to part with a single advantage. It was further pressed upon us, with a truth equally humiliating and undeniable, that congress possessed no effectual power to guaranty the faithful observance of any commercial regulations; and there must in such cases be reciprocal obligations.1 "America (said Washington) must appear in a very contemptible point of view to those, with whom she was endeavouring to form commercial treaties, without possessing the means of carrying them into effect. They must see and feel, that the Union, or the states individually, are sovereign, as best suits their purposes. In a word, that we are a nation to-day, and thirteen to-morrow. Who will treat with us on such terms?" 2

§ 262. The difficulty of enforcing even the obligations of the treaty of peace of 1783 was a most serious national evil. Great Britain made loud complaints of infractions thereof on the part of the several states, and

15 Marsh. Life of Wash. 71, 72, 73; 2 Pitk. Hist. 189, 190; 3 Amer. Museum, 62, 64, 65.

2 5 Marsh. Life of Wash. 73; North American Review, Oct. 1827, p. 257, 258; Atcheson's Coll. of Reports, p. 55.