H. OF R.]

The Militia Law.

[NOVEMBER, 1792.

of time to repeat arguments so often and so ably urged. I neither expect nor wish more than temporary expedients from the present representation. I look to the succeeding session, when ultimate and final arrangements, remedying the injustice of the present funding systems and concomitant evils, will take place.

After a few words from Mr. BALDWIN and Mr. PAGE, the question for striking out the latter part of the resolution was called for, and there rose in the affirmative 25, and 31 in the negative. The Committee then rose, reported the resolution, and the House adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, November 21.

Ordered, That the said petition be referred to the Secretary of War, with instruction to examine the same, and report his opinion thereupon to the House.

Ordered, That a committee be appointed to prepare and bring in a bill or bills to establish a uniform system on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States; and that Mr. WILLIAM SMITH, Mr. BOUDINOT, Mr. LAURANCE, Mr. WHITE, and Mr. GERRY, be the said committee.

he ought to do) cotemporary exposition, and to expound the law by the Constitution, he thought he could reconcile them. The Constitution had divided the delegated powers of the people among the three branches, Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary, neither of which could alter or transfer the powers so vested. The Legislative was the first, and the source which brought into activity the other two. The law must be made by them; it must be expounded and supplied by the Judiciary, and executed by the Executive; the two last, by the nature of things, flow from, and so far are dependent on the first, as the only source. Thus the Constitution speaks of Heads of Departments and inferior tribunals: it does not describe their duties; when the Legislature describes their duties, they A petition of Thomas Faulkner and Edward must be expounded as Executive or Judiciary Faulkner was presented to the House and read. duties, accordingly as they may respect or apper- praying that compensation may be made to them tain to either branch. The Heads of the Depart-out of the unappropriated lands in the Western ments are the inferior organs of the Executive country, for the quantity to which they are entipower. The Constitution permits the head of tled, as refugees from Nova Scotia, under a resothat branch to propose plans; it may be proper, lution of the late Congress, of the 13th of April, then, that the different Secretaries may prepare 1785. such plans as are within their respective Departments, which the Chief Magistrate may propose to the Legislature, if he sees fit; and when so done, it is constitutional, and the Legislature may, or may not, at their discretion, take them up. Any other exposition is unconstitutional and idle. They are also the expositions of the documents and in formation that arise in the administration of Government which this House may require of the Executive Magistrate, and which he will communicate as he sees fit. The House may go too far in asking information. He may constitutionally deny such information of facts there deputed as are fit to be communicated and may assist in legislation I always wish for. But I want no opinions resulting from him. If they are to influence me, they are wrong; if not to influence, they are useless. This mode of procedure, of originating laws with Mr. MURRAY said he still had hopes, though his the Secretary, destroys all responsibility; it throws first motion had failed. The present motion was it on a man not elected by the people, and over to repeal the clause which he hoped to prove obwhom they have no control. Men will go in a noxious. As it was more limited than the former crowd, and glide down a current, embarked in a one, and as he did not mean by this to go into a system which no one of them would have dared general revision of the whole law, but confine the to propose. That practice has proved the theory, repeal and substitute to the arming clause, he let the Executive law evince. Originating with imagined many gentlemen would support his inthe Secretary, it met little opposition; and I do tentions, who yesterday were averse to opening the not believe that any one member, relying on his whole law to revision. The clause in question was individual responsibility to his constituents, would obnoxious to his constituents; a late and most inhave openly, in this House, originated the design. timate knowledge of his district had enabled him A cavil, however, is raised on that part of the with great confidence to say so; and he had reason Constitution which confines the originating money to believe that unless an alteration in the law took bills to this House exclusively. It is said, by some, place, no act of the Legislature of Maryland would a bill is not originated until it has passed the give it the desired operation in that State. The House. Suppose a bill goes through one or two clause was disagreeable to his constituents, because readings here, and is rejected on a third; will any it was oppressive in principle and impracticable in man say, such a bill never originated? Surely its operation. It was a principle of political justhe first application of general principles to a par- tice, which no occasion could dispense with, that ticular subject, is the origination, and no subse-protection and taxation should be commensurate. quent stage can be affixed. Some say the Secretary's Reports are like Smith's Treatise on the Wealth of Nations. We do not come here to go to school, or hear lectures from the Secretaries on finance or any other subject. It would be waste

THE MILITIA LAW.

Mr. MURRAY called for the resolution which he laid on the table yesterday, "that a committee be appointed to repeal that clause of the Militia law which relates to the arming the Militia:" this being read

That wherever a tax was levied for the protection of society, its apportionment among individuals should be as exactly as possible correspondent with the property of each individual. There is so much justice in this, that he did not suppose it would be

NOVEMBER, 1792.]

The Militia Law.

[H. of R.

convinced the clause in question was as impracticable as it was oppressive, and he hoped to have a committee appointed. He felt, that whatever might be the event, he had discharged the duty he owed to his fellow-citizens, and obeyed his own opinions.

Mr. WILLIAMSON strongly reprobated the idea of making the arming of the militia a public expense, as involving a most unequal and oppressive species of taxation, especially as it is conceded that more than one half of the militia are already armed.

Mr. KITTERA said he was opposed to the motion. By a calculation which he offered, he said, the expense of arming the militia at the public charge would amount to forty-two millions of dollars, rating the expense at £20 per man, according to the estimate of a gentleman from Maryland. He reprobated the idea of making any alteration in the law, before any experience of its effects had taken place.

controverted. The oppression that will be felt in the operation of this clause, flows from the violation of that principle. The obligation to arm in a particular manner, as it will produce a uniform expense on men of unequal property, will prove a tax that will act unjustly, because unequallymen will not pay agreeably to their property. To illustrate this is easy, and the plainest mode of showing the truth. By the law, he who has passed his forty-fifth year is exempt from militia duty. It must often happen that men of large fortune will thus contribute nothing towards this species of protection, while the man of very small fortune will be obliged to furnish largely to it, if the father of a family, capable and of age to bear arms. For the sake of harmony and a ready disposition to fall into a patriotic impulse, he much doubted whether his constituents would have murmured much at the violation of the principle; but the impracticability of this clause obliges them to seek relief through their Representatives. The law, in the district he came from, he much feared could not Mr. MERCER Supported the estimate he had be executed. Each militia-man is to come into made of the individual expense; and if it amountthe field with a musket or firelock, a bayonet, car-ed, said he, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania touch-box, and other equipments. These, he verily has said, to forty-two millions of dollars, was the believed, could not be had. If the citizens-even expense lessened by its being imposed in the most those who would think lightly of the burden-unequal and oppressive manner? He said he could not procure these accoutrements, the law never had any idea of the Government's incurring must be violated. Congress, he hoped, would not such an expense. He had no conception of the force his well-inclined fellow-citizens to violate policy of a militia amounting to seven hundred and the law; but if the law could not possibly be exe-fifty thousand men; he never wished to see a micuted, because impracticable, the Legislature would be answerable for the indignities it brought upon itself, by thus prescribing unnecessary hardships. It was, then, to shield Congress, and the dignity of legislation, from the shame of imposing impossible obligations, as well as to redress the citizen, that Mr. PAGE was opposed to the motion. He obhe wished the clause altered. Several modes pre-jected particularly to Mr. MERCER's idea of arming sented themselves. The most obvious is, the fur- so small a part of the militia, and pointed out the nishing of the arms at the public expense; and difficulties which would naturally take place in another is, the furnishing of the arms to such as consequence of different principles being adopted in might, in the opinion of certain officers, be too respect to the arming of the militia. He remarked poor conveniently to find them. Congress might that the difficulties which had presented themleave it with either the officers of the militia, or selves in the former discussion of this matter now with the deputy marshals. The disposition once felt occurred in full force, and would involve the to relieve, would presently designate its mode of House in all the perplexities which had heretofore accomplishing redress. Fines, too, would prove a attended the subject. perpetually accumulating fund, which could in a few years either be applied to the further purchase of arms, and further exoneration of the poorer class, who might not fall within the idea of the most rigid poverty, or to a reimbursement of the public for the arms first purchased. At all events, it could do no harm to hear what a committee could report on this subject; and when the House reflected that this was the wish of a populous district, and he verily believed of the whole State of Maryland, he did not doubt of at least a sober regard to such claims. A matter of great importance it certainly was, that, as far as is consistent with the good of the whole, the interests and wishes of a part should be attended to. In this case, his constituents argued from no partial views or local motives, but from the fundamental principles of property and taxation, equally applicable to all who thought themselves aggrieved. He was

litia which should exceed thirty thousand. The plan of arming such an immense mass of militia was, in his opinion, the most absurd idea that could be imagined, and amounted to a relinquishment of all hope of an efficient militia.

Mr. DAYTON made a few remarks on the motion. He was opposed to it, and reprobated in strong terms any plan of arming the militia which should give either the State or General Government a right to dispossess them of their arms on any occasion.

Mr. MURRAY added some further remarks, and then the question was determined in the negative; yeas 6, nays 50, as follows:

YEAS.-Benjamin Bourne, Philip Key, John Francis Mercer, William Vans Murray, Thomas Sumpter, and Francis Willis.

NAYS.-Fisher Ames, John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Baldwin, Robert Barnwell, Egbert Benson, Shearjashub Bourne, Abraham Clark, Jonathan Dayton, Thomas Fitzsimons, Elbridge Gerry, William B. Giles, Nicholas Gilman, Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon, Christopher Greenup, Samuel Griffin, William Barry Grove, Thomas Hartley, Daniel Heister, James Hillhouse, Daniel Hu

tioning this was in order to bring the subject fairly before the House. With respect to the redemption of the public debt, he presumed every member in the House wished it to be accomplished as fast as possible. And the receiving information from the Secretary could not affect their judgments any more than a plan drawn up by the Clerk of the House could: they were always left free to adopt or reject those plans.

Mr. GERRY added a few remarks in favor of the reference.

Mr. FINDLEY was against it. He was one of those to whom the gentleman from New York alluded as wishing to redeem the debt as fast as possible, and also to receive information even from the Secre

The House proceeded to consider the resolutions reported yesterday by the Committee of the Whole House on the Speech of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; which were read, as fol-tary of the Treasury; but I distinguish (said Mr. lows:

NOVEMBER, 1792.]

The President's Speech.

[H. of R.

reposed in us, for obvious reasons, which I will But, passing many arguments worthy of reply, not at this time detain the House with explaining. I shall offer a few observations upon what has And indeed the constitutional principles involved been much dwelt upon and so often repeated rein this question have been so very ably investi- specting the advantages and disadvantages of the gated already by several gentlemen, that more from different modes contended for. We are told that me on that ground is not necessary; nor could I referring to the Secretary for revenue systems improve upon what they have expressed. But an will secure public credit, by giving stability and argument of another kind has been frequently re- system to our revenue, &c.; and the gentleman peated, and much urged by the gentleman last up, from New York has told us, that to this method [Mr. GERRY,] viz: that the law which organizes of originating revenue laws, we are indebted for the Treasury Department has made this mode of the advantages of our present situation; that we originating business our duty; that breaking this are indebted thereto for our prosperity and wealth. law would be setting a dangerous example of dis- Certainly, if this is true, it proves too much. It obedience to the citizens, &c. The law in ques- proves that we are not capable of discharging the tion doubtless gives the Secretary a legal capacity trust reposed in us; in short, that the Republican of originating money bills, or plans, and makes it form of Government under which we are is not his duty when called upon. How far the law is suitable for us; if so, it is better to change openly right is another question. But does the law make than in this indirect manner. But, Mr. SPEAKER, it our duty to refer this subject to him? I trust I ask, if, with all the increase of power and means not. Had the last House of Representatives a possessed by the present Government, it is supright to originate revenue systems before this posable that Congress would not have exercised transferring law was enacted? Surely not. Had the powers, nor applied the revenues to proper the House of Representatives power to alienate purposes? Would they have wholly overlooked or abridge our rights? This is the strange doc- the contracts and debts of the United States, if trine that is avowed, but it is equally extravagant the Secretary had not originated the system? and mistaken. This House has equal powers Surely this is not a supposable case. I wish he with that which the first House at any time pos- would give a few instances of what we could do; sessed, and the next House will have as much as and if we did wrong, the gentlemen would be furthis. I have as much power as any other mem-nished with new arguments in favor of their plan. ber ever had, and the exercise of that power is only subject to the control of the Constitution and the Rules of Order. Will the gentlemen say that I have not a right just now, or at any time, to propose a plan for the very object in question, or for any other revenue purpose? Yes, sir, I have; and if I have, every other member on this floor has; and if the members individually have the right of proposing an original plan, surely the House in its collective capacity has. It is the members of this House who are sworn to the discharge of this duty, and they only are responsible to their constituents. But we are told that referring to the Secretary renders him responsible. Some have said that it even involves the responsibility of the PRESIDENT. I have sometimes thought that the idea of responsibility was the political idol of the times; however, responsibility properly placed is one of the greatest securities in Government. In the Executive Department much of the duty as well as responsibility of office may be tranferred or divided; but in the Legislature, where there can be no transfer of duty or trust, there can be no transfer of responsibility. How can a Secretary be responsible for originating either the substance or form of laws? To whom is he accountable for the discharge of this trust? Not to the PRESIDENT, (by whom he is appointed, and on whom only he is dependent for his continuance in office:) no, for this is not an Executive trust. He is not responsible to the people; he is neither intrusted nor chosen by them. He is not responsible to us, for he is not our officer. It is not he, but us, will bear the blame, while we boast of the security arising from responsibility; by improperly dividing Legislative business, we lose the advantages thereof.

2d CON.-24

But the same gentleman has told us that the Secretary, digesting the plan. has no more influence on the subject than our Clerk's inserting a clause in a bill would have; that they are equally under our control. I think this is not very consistent with the eminent advantages he has suggested that we have derived from the Secretary's origination of revenue plans. However, I apprehend the difference is very great. The Clerk is wholly dependent on us; he has no patronage, no means of influence annexed to his office, nor would he be permitted to intrude his arguments in support of his plans. But, sir, if we are not capable of giving the first form to our revenue systems without such aid, the better way would be to apply for such an amendment to the Constitution as would enable the House of Representatives to appoint an officer wholly dependent on themselves for that purpose. Surely this would be more proper than to employ an Executive officer over whom we have no official control.

Much has been said of the security arising from our own virtue and discernment being a security against undue influence. I have no doubt but the most venal public bodies would boast as much as we; but our own self-confidence will never justify us in breaking down the constitutional guards which suppose a possibility of undue influence, and provides against the appearance of it.

But we have been repeatedly charged by the gentleman from Massachusetts with endeavoring to introduce the confusion of the old Government. What confusion does the gentleman mean? Is it a confusion of powers? I grant that, though the old Congress did not possess power enough, yet it possessed, in a degrée, every kind of This power. we certainly do not aim at; for it is an unauthor

H. OF R.]

The President's Speech.

ized exercise of this confusion of power which we oppose. However, that Government had no efficient revenue powers; and, by the restricted majority necessary to do business with them, and the bad attendance of members, they were perhaps necessarily induced to refer the originating of much of their business to the Boards who were Heads of Departments; from this source I believe it was that the practice was introduced by the new House of Representatives, though the circumstances and powers of the two bodies were essentially different. This method of referring I consider as a part of the confusion of the old Government, which I hope we will no longer tolerate. Surely this method of transferring so influential a part of our Legislative trust was not contemplated by the Convention which formed the Constitution, nor by the State Conventions which adopted it. It is not agreeable to the practice of the State Legislatures, which were the models of the Constitution of the Union: nor is it agreeable to the obvious design of the Constitution itself, or the impressions of the citizens.

Mr. LIVERMORE made some ingenious remarks upon this subject; amongst which, he said that if it was a violation of the Constitution to permit the Executive officers of Government to propose plans, then the President of the United States had been guilty of this breach. He argued ironically, but was against striking out the latter part of the

motion.

Mr. GILES and Mr. LAURANCE each rose to explain certain points wherein they had respectively engaged in this debate.

716

[NOVEMBER, 1792.

Some advocate the appointment of a select committee of this House; others insist that the House in Committee of the Whole is the only proper mode; while others, who defend the original motion, desire to have a plan prepared and submitted by the Secretary of the Treasury. It may obviate the force of many of the arguments we have heard to remark, that it is not asserted that either of the several modes is intrinsically incapable of effecting the purpose. It would be improper to say that a select committee could not be formed who would be able to collect the materials for an exact knowledge of the subject, and who, after acquiring that knowledge, would be able to form a sound judgment. Neither would it be just nor respectful to deny, in the abstract, the capability of the House in Committee to digest such a plan. But the question still returns, Which of the three methods is the best to begin with? Neither this House nor a select committee are pretended to be already possessed of the knowledge which is requisite to the framing a system for a Sinking Fund. is to be gleaned are not in the possession of this The very materials from which this knowledge House-they are in the Treasury Department. Neither the curiosity nor the Legislative duty of members lead them to resort daily to the Treasury to investigate official details; and even if it were so, the officer at the Head of the Department, having his mind incessantly occupied with his official business, must be admitted to possess a knowledge of the subject. Indeed, the situation more familiar and ready, if not a more ample, favorable to his digesting the plan of a Sinking of the Secretary of the Treasury is so evidently Fund, that it seems unnecessary to urge it even to those who are opposed to the reference. For their objections imply the preference of the mode, in point of expediency, as strongly as those who explicitly recommend it. They say the plan of the Secretary will come forward with too much aid of these means of information which the Seadvantage. Members, say they, not having the cretary possesses, will not be able to resist the train of reasoning with which he will introduce his plan. It is even expressly admitted that the information of the Treasury Department is necessary, and must be called for; but they would not receive it with the reasoning of the Secretary. Without wasting time to prove this point, common sense will decide instantly that the knowledge of our financial affairs, and of the means of improving them, is to be obtained the most accurately from the officer whose duty it is made, by our The great end we have in view is the paying and commissioned for that very purpose; and to own law, to understand them; who is appointed off the Public Debt. This object, truly important whom every day's practice in his office must afford in itself, unites the best sense and strongest wishes some additional information of official details, as of the country. It is our duty to provide means well as of the operation of the laws. The argufor the accomplishment of this end. All agreements on both sides end in the same point, that that a plan is necessary. It must be framed with the information of the Secretary would be useful. wisdom and digested with care, so as to operate with the greatest effect, till the whole debt shall be extinguished. The true question is, Which is the best mode of framing this system? Several modes have been preferred by different persons.

Mr. AMES rose at a late hour in the debate, but before he would pretend to intrude upon the patience of the House, (a motion for taking the question being then under consideration,) he requested to know whether it was most agreeable to put the question? A general desire to hear his arguments, however, prevailed, and he proceeded nearly in substance as follows:

It is so fashionable to introduce the Funding System upon every occasion, it would perhaps appear strange to say that it is out of order upon any. To my mind, and probably to most gentlemen present, it will be difficult to perceive that the question before us bears any relation to that subject, or to the frontier bill, the excise, the perpetual taxes, the encouragement of manufactures, and many other topics, which, somehow or other, have been interwoven with the debate. At this late hour of the day, and in so wearisome a stage of the question, I may be permitted to decline any further notice of these auxiliary subjects.

Our object being to prefer that mode of preparing a plan which is adapted to present us the best, the argument might end here, if it were not that the Constitution is alleged to forbid our resorting to the Secretary. I reverence the Constitution,