Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

NOVEMBER, 1792.]

The President's Speech.

H. OF R.

and I readily admit that the frequent appeal to has not yet been perverted to such a degree as to that as a standard proceeds from a respectful at- assert any such thing; and yet the constitutional tachment to it. So far it is a source of agreeable objection implies opinions no less. I rely upon reflection. But I feel very different emotions it, that neither the letter of the Constitution, nor when I find it almost daily resorted to on ques-any meaning that it can be tortured into, will tions of little importance, when, by strained and support the objection which has been so often fanciful constructions, it is made an instrument of urged with solemn emphasis and persevering casuistry. It is to be feared it may lose something zeal. in our minds in point of certainty, and more in point of dignity.

And what is the clause of the Constitution opposed to the receiving a plan of a Sinking Fund from the Secretary? Bills for raising revenue shall originate in this House. I verily believe the members of this House, and the citizens at large, would be very much surprised to hear this clause of the Constitution formally and gravely stated as repugnant to the reference to the Treasury Department for a plan, if they and we had not been long used to hear it.

To determine the force of this amazing constitutional objection, it will be sufficient to define terms. What is a bill? It is a term of technical import, and surely it cannot need a definition; it is an act in an inchoate state, having the form but not the authority of a law. What is originating a bill? Our Rules decide it. Every bill shall be introduced by a motion for leave, or by a com

mittee.

If the Constitution be admitted, therefore, to authorize the reference to the Secretary, why should not the mode which is proved to be the most expedient be immediately adopted? Here we meet another objection. It is said, that the Legislative and Executive branches of Government are to be kept distinct, and this reference will produce an improper blending of them. It is a truth that these Departments are to be kept distinct; but the conclusion drawn from it is altogether vague. The execution of every trust requires some deliberation, and many of them call into action the highest powers of the human mind, and the most intense and persevering application of them; yet these trusts are to be Executively performed, and it by no means follows, that the officer charged with them invades the deliberative functions of Congress. On the other hand, many laws are the result of plain principles or parts of the Constitution, and Congress, by enacting them, only executes the Constitution. Yet, here is no encroachment It may be said the plan of a Sinking Fund, re- upon the Executive branch. The truth is, the ported by the Secretary, is not in technical, or Constitution has allotted powers to the several even in popular language, a bill-not by the Rules branches of the Government, and by that rule we of the House or those of common sense is this are to jugde of their several limits. The PRESIDENT motion the originating a bill. By resorting to the proposes measures to the Legislature, in conformispirit of the Constitution, or by adopting any rea-ty to the Constitution; yet no one ever supposed sonable construction of the clause, is it possible to that his doing so is a departure from a just theory; make it appear repugnant to the proposition for nor has it, as far as I know, been ever insinuated referring to the Secretary? The opposers of this till of late, in this or any other country, that the proposition surely will not adopt a construction calling for information from officers, any more than of the Constitution. They have often told us we the calling for testimony from witnesses, amounts are to be guided by a strict adherence to the let- to a transfer of our Legislative duty. It is very ter; that there is no end to the danger of con- easy to conceive how much increased information structions. The letter is not repugnant; and will may aid us in deliberating, but it is hard to discern it be seriously affirmed that, according to the spirit how we are to profit by the want of it. It is true and natural meaning of the Constitution, the Re-it is our peculiar province to deliberate, but neither port of the Secretary will be a revenue bill, or the letter of the Constitution, nor the law estaany other bill, and that this proposition is origin-blishing the Treasury Department, nor the reason ating such a bill? If it be, where shall we stop? of the case, have restrained us from calling for offiIf the idea of a measure which first passes through cial information. It is not true in fact, that the the mind be confounded with the measure subse- deliberative and Executive Departments are blendquent to it, what confusion will ensue! The ed by referring to the Secretary. Any objections President, by suggesting the proposition, may as deduced from an over-refining theory, and not well be pretended to originate a revenue bill; warranted by the Constitution, might need an even a newspaper plan would be a breach of the answer if we were now framing a Government, exclusive privilege of this House; and the liberty but can have no force in the administration of one. of the press, so justly dear to us, would be found Indeed, it is a very scholastic, and very imposing unconstitutional. Yet, if, without any order of mistake, to abandon the letter and meaning of the the House, the draft of an act were printed, and plan of Government we act under, and to undera copy laid before every member in his seat, no take to reason independently, as if we were now person will venture to say that it is a bill, that it settling the institutes of a political treatise. is originated, or can be brought under the cognizance of the House, unless by a motion in conformity to the Rules and Orders. The Report of the Secretary in regard to manufactures, so often adverted to, has not yet been acted upon; does that appear on our Journals as a bill? Language

The expediency of this question of referring to the Secretary, which is brought into dispute, involves many others which will admit of none. In framing the plan of a Sinking Fund is the officer at the head of our finances to have any agency? If it be said he is not, then, it may be demanded, why

[blocks in formation]

is an idle officer and an useless office kept up? The sense of mankind as well as the practice of nations, seems to show that where there are finances there should be a financier; that he should possess at least common talents, and more than common industry in the application of them to his duty.

This is not a point to be proved now for the first time. The law of the old Congress and their practice were conformable to this motion. We hear often of the people being opposed to these references. So far as I have been informed the opposition is a novelty. The law establishing the Treasury Department, passed by a great majority, expressly makes it the duty of the Secretary to prepare and report plans of finance. Scarce a whisper of objection was then heard in the House, and not one, I believe, in the country. Our own practice of referring has passed unresisted till of late. Gentlemen now opposed to this reference, in one instance, if I recollect rightly, referred to the Attorney General to revise a plan of the Judicial Department, and on another to require the Secretary of State to report on the means for improving our trade and navigation. These objects partake as much of legislation, and are as incommunicable as the subject of discussion. The former votes and arguments of gentlemen opposed to the present reference, afford some proof of its fitness as well as constitutionality.

The intrinsic reasonableness of this practice is not less than its authority from law and precedent, and what is more, the precedent of its opposers.

[NOVEMBER, 1792.

to adopt plans for reducing this great mass into system and order.

Is it to be denied that in consequence he will possess some means of information which this House or a committee must acquire only by slow and laborious investigation? In pursuing it the time might fail, and the materials get confused. Yet, allowing it effected, they have gained no more than it is his duty to furnish on the order of this House, and this is what we are contending for. If we call for it and he is not able to give it, we shall thus expose his incapacity or negligence. The public opinion, thus enlightened, will soon displace the officer, and a fitter man will succeed him. In this way, the people will exercise an effective control over their servants.

Be the information given by the officer what it may, the sources from which his inferences are drawn, his facts and reasonings, are publicly exposed. They are equally in possession of every member, who is thus placed on an equal, and on the best footing to attack or defend the report. As much cannot be said of the report of a select committee or a Committee of the Whole. It has been intimated, that in framing a report, the Secretary would be liable to misinformation, to some local or other attachments. This is possible, for he is a man; but will the Committee be free from it? The Secretary is answerable for his conduct to the nation, and certainly he is not more subject to local partialities than members are to their respective districts. The advantage of impartiality in the first concoction of a report seems to be evidently in favor of a reference.

It has been said, on the other side, information may be wanted, it is true, from the Secretary; but let the House first make progress in the business, and then receive it by a committee advising with the Secretary. If this may be done, what becomes of the constitutional difficulties and all we have heard of the transfer of our deliberative power?

But, if we are to have the official information, why should we set out without it? why should it not be given openly, so as to put all the members on an equality, and before prepossessions are formed with regard to plans, which might make a late report from the Treasury appear to come in aid of one party or another? Would the style of declamation be less vehement against the secret communications of a Secretary with the Committee, than against a report made in the face of day, and subject to the criticism not only of this House, but of an enlightened nation?

Private affairs prosper by skill, economy, and industry, in the management of them. The finances of a nation, though infinitely more important, require nothing more than economy upon a great scale. Let the moneyed affairs of a country be made everybody's business, and nobody will do it. Would you have them prosper, let them be confided to one man, who, however, shall be under the strict control of the law, and rigidly responsible for his doings. That man, if he loves an honest reputation as much as a man of common sense and feeling may be expected to do, will make the public business his own; he will put his character at risk: his time and all his talents will be devoted to the public. Such will be his dispositions; now what will be his opportunities to render service? He will have, at one view before him, the whole arrangements of finance: the imports and exports, the receipts and expenditures, the operation of the law, the means of improving it; the frauds committed or attempted on the revenue, and the checks to guard it: the well founded objections against It is not my present design to ask for what purthe law and the prejudices which time or concilia-pose of argument or of candor it is so often insinutory conduct may efface, the appropriations of the ated, that the question really is, whether this revenue the places where and terms on which House shall legislate, or whether it shall transfer loans may be obtained, as well as the state of fo- the power of making laws to the Secretary of the reign trade; the regulations of foreign nations, and Treasury? perhaps it may be added, in subordination to the Chief Magistrate, the state of treaties and negotiations. It will be seen that the ordinary discharge of his duty, as well as that which will oblige him sometimes to conflict against prejudices, and sometimes against fraud, will render the details of finance familiar to him, and will almost force him

With all this official information previously before us, are we less qualified or worse disposed to deliberate? It would be extravagant to affirm that, in proportion as our means of information are made complete, we are worse situated to legislate; and, as to the spirit of inquiry, I do not remember that the reports of the Secretary have blunted it. From

[blocks in formation]

the manner in which they have been discussed heretofore, those gentlemen will confide in the assurance I venture to give them, that they will be thoroughly sifted. They have not always passed unaltered, and never without passing through the fire of a debate.

We may repeat it, therefore, what color is there for saying that the Secretary legislates? Neither my memory nor my understanding can discern any. I am well aware that no topic is better calculated to make popular impressions; but I cannot persuade myself that the people will charge us with neglect or violation of duty, for putting ourselves into a situation to discharge it in the best and most circumspect manner.

There is another ground of objection, which is urged against the reference. It is said, it gives undue influence to the Treasury. The reasonings of the Secretary, which accompany his reports, are alleged to excite an influence which cannot be resisted. There are two sorts of influence one, which arises from weight of reason and the intrinsic merit of a proposition; the other, personal influence. As to the former, it is hard to conceive of the influence of reasoning which cannot be analyzed and made capable of exact estimation by the reasoning faculties of those to whom it is submitted; and that estimation, be it what it may, ought to obtain. No one can wish to see it underrated.

[H. of R.

and very irregular mode of repealing a law. The advantages of this practice of referring, are manifest and great: more information is obtained, and more order, intelligence, and system, are preserved in the administration of the finances. The old Congress and the several States have exhibited expensive and deplorable proofs of the evils incident to want of order, as well as to the number of systems of finance and financiers. With this mass of evidence before our eyes, it cannot be believed that we shall take any step which will tend to introduce disorder and inefficiency into our finances. Mr. MADISON closed the debate with a few powerful observations. He insisted that a reference to the Secretary of the Treasury on subjects of loans, taxes, and provision for loans, &c., was, in fact, a delegation of the authority of the Legislature, although it would admit of much sophistical argument to the contrary. The arguments which he had heard, he said, were not satisfactory to his mind; and he peremptorily denied that the plans of that officer came into the House in either an equitable or unbiassed manner. A plan from the Senate might fairly be styled a constitutional one, because it came unsupported by any labored train of argument, and left the House at liberty to exercise its judgment pro and con., whilst those of the Secretary of the Treasury were accompanied by a force of reasoning not on both sides, but on one only. This, he insisted, was in opposition But we are told by the opposers of a reference, to Mr. AMES's doctrine; and, after making a few that it is incredible that one man, be his official other remarks, concluded by declaring that it was opportunities what they may, should possess more evident the Secretary's plans were not introduced inforination than the members of this House, col-in such manner as to leave the House the freedom lected from every district of the country. Then I answer, with inferior information, it would be impossible his reasoning should overpower and confound the superior information of the House. The members will be in the less danger from this officer, if, as we are told, he is misinformed by correspondents, and has repeatedly discovered on subjects of revenue and finance, a princely ignorance. This, we are told, however, by gentlemen who urge the danger of losing our independence and our faculties of discernment, as soon as we suffer a report, with its reasonings, to be made to the House.

If it be personal influence, independently of reason and evidence, which is apprehended by gentlemen opposed to the reference, for whom do they apprehend it? For themselves, or for us who advocate the motion? Surely, if they do not feel, we do not fear it; we know how to respect their independence of spirit; they would disdain an imputation of the sort; their candor will permit us to say, if it be a neighborly concern they feel for us, there is no occasion for it.

On the whole, if we regard the Constitution, we find not the least color for bringing it into question on this debate. The law and usage of the old Congress corresponded with this motion. Our own Treasury law expressly makes it the duty of the Secretary to prepare and report plans; and shall the practice of one branch run counter to that which is made the course of his duty by the law of the land? It would be an uncommon

of exercising their own understandings in a proper constitutional manner.

When Mr. MADISON sat down, the question was taken on striking out the latter part of the motion, to wit: for referring to the Secretary of the Treasury to report a plan, &c., and it passed in the negative-yeas 25, nays 32, as follows:

YEAS.-John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Baldwin, Abraham Clark, William Findley, William B. Giles, Christopher Greenup, Samuel Griffin, William Barry Grove, Daniel Heister, Richard Bland Lee, Nathaniel Macon, James Madison, John Francis Mercer, Andrew Moore, Nathaniel Niles, Alexander D. Orr, John Page, Josiah Parker, Cornelius C. Schoonmaker, Thomas Sumpter, Thomas Tredwell, Thomas Tudor Tucker, Abraham Venable, Alexander White, and Francis Willis.

NAYS.-Fisher Ames, Robert Barnwell, Egbert Benson, Elias Boudinot, Shearjasbub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Jonathan Dayton, Thomas Fitzsimons, Elbridge Gerry, Nicholas Gilman, Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon, Thomas Hartley, James Hillhouse, Daniel Huger, Israel Jacobs, Aaron Kitchell, John Wilkes Kittera, John Laurance, Amasa Learned, George Leonard, Samuel Livermore, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, William Vans Murray, Theodore Sedgwick, Peter Sylvester, Jeremiah Smith, William Smith, John Steele, Jonathan Sturges, George Thatcher, and Arte

mas Ward.

And then the main question being put, that the House do agree to the said third resolution, as reported by the Committee of the Whole House, it was resolved in the affirmative.

H. OF R.]

THURSDAY, November 22.

Registering of Vessels.

Another member, to wit, JOHN MILLEDGE, returned to serve in this House for the State of Georgia in the room of ANTHONY WAYNE, whose seat was declared vacant, appeared, produced his credentials, and took his seat in the House.

The House proceeded to consider the fourth resolution reported on Tuesday last by the Committee of the Whole House on the Speech of the President of the UNITED STATES; and the same being again read, was, on the question put thereupon, agreed to by the House, as follows:

"Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be directed to report the plan of a provision for the reimbursement of the loan made of the Bank of the United States, pursuant to the eleventh section of the act, entitled An act to incorporate the Subscribers to the Bank of the United States."

Ordered, That a bill or bills be brought in pursuant to the first resolution reported by the Committee of the Whole House and agreed to yesterterday, and that Mr. PARKER, Mr. MACON, and Mr. HEISTER, do prepare and bring in the same.

Ordered, That a bill or bills be brought in pursuant to the second resolution reported by the Committee of the Whole House and agreed to yesterday, and that Mr. SEDGWICK, Mr. DAYTON, and Mr. LEARNED, do prepare and bring in the

same.

[NOVEMBER, 1792.

treating of Peace with the Creek Indians, and that Mr. AMES, Mr. TUCKER, and Mr. JEREMIAH SMITH, be the said committee.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a Letter

from the Secretary of the Treasury, accompanying his Reports on sundry petitions; which were severally read, and ordered to lie on the table.

REGISTERING OF VESSELS.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole House, on the bill concerning the registering and recording of ships or vessels:

Mr. PAGE opposed the clause which referred to "ships or vessels captured in war." He moved that it should be struck out, as countenancing a savage practice, now exploded and laid aside by civilized nations; that it would be time enough when the United States shall be so unfortunate as to be involved in a war, to make provision for the case now alluded to; that no inconvenience could arise from adopting the motion; that indeed it highly became the Legislature of the United States to adopt it, as they would thereby show their approbation of the liberal and benevolent sentiments now adopted by the greatest and most enlightened nations of Europe, abolishing the inhuman practice. That he supposed the clause had been inserted in the bill, because it was drawn before this circumstance of the benevolent disposition of the nations of Europe were generally known. He hoped therefore that his motion would be agreed to.

A Message was received from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, with an abstract of a supplementary arrangement which has been made by Mr. TUCKER Seconded the motion, and supporthim, pursuant to the acts of the 3d day of March, ed it by arguments similar to Mr. PAGE's; remark1791, and the 8th day of May, 1792, for raising a ing, that the French nation, though now engaged revenue upon foreign and domestic distilled spirits, in an extensive war, did not permit the capture of in respect to the subdivisions and officers which merchant vessels; prohibiting that practice as inhave appeared to him necessary, and to the allow-human and unbecoming a civilized nation. ances for their respective services to the Supervisors, Inspectors, and other officers of inspection, together with estimates of the amount of compensations and charges.

The said Message, and papers therein referred to, were read, and ordered to lie on the table.

Ordered, That the Report of the Secretary of the Treasury containing estimates of the sums necessary to be appropriated for the service of the year 1793, which lay on the table, be referred to the consideration of a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole House, on the Report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the petition of Joseph Henderson; and, after some time spent therein, the Chairman reported that the Committee had had the said Report under consideration, and made some progress therein.

Ordered, That the Committee of the Whole House be discharged from the further proceeding on the said Report, and that it be committed to Mr. AMES, Mr. BENJAMIN BOURNE, and Mr. CLARK, with instruction to examine the same, and report their opinion thereupon to the House.

Ordered, That a committee be appointed to prepare and bring in a bill or bills to reimburse certain extra expenses of the late Commissioners for

Mr. GOODHUE, in reply, said, that the motion seemed to look to a state of perpetual peace, but for his part, as he did not think the millenium was begun, he should vote against the motion.

Mr. PAGE replied, that he did not expect the millenium in his day any more than the gentleman did who had endeavored to ridicule his motion. That he was not a little surprised to find that a motion which had a tendency so benevolent, and was in itself so rational, expressed too with modesty and deference to the framers of the bill, should meet with such a reception. He then repeated the substance of what he had before said, as he supposed he had not been heard, and insisted on it that the clause he moved to be struck out was not not only unnecessary in the bill, but was an improper adoption of a practice now condemned as savage by the enlightened nations of the world.

Mr. SEDGWICK remarked in opposition to the motion, that the clause ought not to be struck out, because it was not confined to merchant vessels which might be captured, but extended to ships of war, which, if taken by the United States in any future war, ought certainly to come within the view and benefit of the act.

The question was then put, and carried in the negative without a division.

NOVEMBER, 1792.]

Foreign Coins.

When the bill was reported, Mr. PAGE renewed his motion for striking out the clause, &c., repeating nearly his former arguments, adding that as to the objection made to his motion on account of its interfering with the case of ships of war which may be captured. He said he felt for the United States when such a case was mentioned; he felt himself depressed and dispirited at the idea of his country being so perplexed by the expenses of a trifling war with the Indians, and yet looking forward to the capture of ships of war. That surely if that be the object of the clause, as it looks to a case which cannot happen till a future distant day, it will be time enough for some future Legislature to consider it; that for his part, he hoped never to see the United States possessed of a navy; at all events, till they had one, it would be unnecessary to make regulations respecting their prizes. He assured the House, he would not have renewed his motion, if he did not think it his duty to persist in his attempt to show the propriety of uniting in sentiments and endeavors with the great enlightened nations of the world, to put a stop to a savage practice which had been too often a great inducement to enter into wars. He wished to take away every possible temptation to enter into a war, and whenever his country should be so unhappy as to be involved in one, he wished, by the amendment proposed, to lessen the number of unavoidable evils attending wars.

The bill was then ordered to be engrossed, and read a third time on Monday next.

[blocks in formation]

The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole House, on the bill sent from the Senate, entitled "An act regulating Foreign Coins, and for other purposes."

Mr. PAGE said, he wished to be informed whether there really was the difference between the French and British coins stated in the bill; if so, how that difference has been ascertained. That a few years since he had examined hydrostatically the different gold coins named in the bill, and a variety of coins of the German Empire; and that although he readily discovered that the specific gravity of the latter was so little as to justify the low value at which they were generally rated, he remembered well, that there was by no means such difference between the specific gravity of the former as could justify the discrimination made in the bill. He added, that he doubted whether, if there really should appear to be that difference between the coins, it would be proper to introduce the distinction by a law of the General Government, as it might be attended with some inconveniencies, and might be construed into a partiality to British commerce. He therefore, to take the sense of the Committee, moved to amend

[H. of R.

the clause, so as that the gold coins of Great Britain, France, Spain, and Portugal, should be payable at the same rates.

Mr. TUCKER seconded Mr. PAGE, and supported his motion with similar arguments.

Mr. FITZSIMONS said, he should vote against the amendment, because, he believed that the distinction proposed in the bill was really that which did exist in the intrinsic value of the coins alluded to.

Several other members opposed the motion, because, said they, we have no doubt that the Senate, who originated the bill, had considered the subject fully, and had made the proper estimate, on full information, of the real value of the different coins, Mr. PAGE replied, that since he had only heard the opinions and suppositions of gentlemen opposed to his opinion, and no satisfactory proof offered to support the bill against his amendment, he should persist in his motion; for, said he, although I will not be so dogmatical as to assert that I am right, and the Senate wrong; yet, in a matter of this nature, which admits of positive proof and demonstration, and which, as far as my own actual experiments have gone, establish my opinion, I cannot give it up, till I have been convinced by other arguments than such as I have heard. Had I been told that the different coins alluded to had been examined hydrostatically, or had been assayed by proper persons appointed for that purpose, I should have acquiesced. I might possibly, however, have supposed that they were of a different coinage or emission from those which I had examined. I think the clause under consideration is of such imto the world, that it has not been adopted without portance as to require full and satisfactory proof thorough investigation of the truth and propriety of the discrimination it establishes between the

a

coins of the nations with which we have such a considerable commercial intercourse. With that proof, I should be satisfied, and would defy the invidious suspicion of our being influenced by improper motives; but till such proof be afforded, I must think it would be better to amend the bill as I proposed, which would leave those coins on their present footing during only the short term to which their circulation is limited by the bill.

From what fell from some gentlemen, he said, it appeared that they thought the examination of the relative value of coins could only be ascertained by an assayer. He affirmed that any person acquainted with the use of an hydrostatic balance might easily examine them. That it was with reluctance he said any thing which might look like a scientific parade, but he thought it his duty to bring forward the inquiry he made; and what had fallen from some gentlemen compelled him to explain and support his motion.

To explain what he had said respecting the hydrostatic experiment, he observed, that it had pleased Nature, or rather the Great Author of Nature, to annex to most bodies, and particularly to metal, a different weight. Happily each species of substances have different weights, which, with propriety, are called specific gravities. That, most happily for our purpose, a cubic foot of water

« AnteriorContinuar »