MARCH, 1792.] Defeat of the Army under General St. Clair. case. He said the House ought to deliberate well, before they requested the President to do a thing which he had it not in his power to do. It was evident that the object of a Court Martial or Court of Inquiry must be to elucidate facts which would require the presence of officers, who could not possibly give their attendance in season to meet the object of the resolution. He made some further remarks, and then the question on the resolution was put, when A division of the said motion was called for; and the question being put, that the House do agree to the first clause thereof, in the words following: "Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to institute an inquiry into the causes of the late defeat of the Army under the command of Ma [H. OF R. Jonathan Sturges, Peter Sylvester, Thomas Tredwell, Ordered, That Mr. FITZSIMONS, Mr. GILES, Mr. STEELE, Mr. MERCER, Mr. VINING, Mr. CLARK, and Mr. SEDGWICK, be appointed the said committee. Ordered, That the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of War return the petitions presented to this House by invalids and others, whose cases are comprehended in the provision of any act of the present session, with the papers accompanying the said petitions, which have been referred to them, and are now in their respective It passed in the negative—yeas 21, nays 35, as offices; and that the several petitioners have leave follows: to withdraw their petitions. jor General St. Clair:" The House proceeded to consider the report of the committee to whom was referred the petition of the officers of the levies late in the service of the United States. Whereupon, YEAS.-John Baptist Ashe, Elias Boudinot, Abraham Clark, William Findley, William B. Giles, Benjamin Goodhue, Daniel Heister, Aaron Kitchell, Richard Bland Lee, Nathaniel Macon, John Page, Josiah Parker, Cornelius C. Schoonmaker, Joshua Seney, Thomas Sumpter, Peter Sylvester, George Thatcher, Thomas Tred-lowing: well, Abraham Venable, Artemas Ward, and Francis Willis. NAYS.-Fisher Ames, Abraham Baldwin, Robert Barnwell, Egbert Benson, Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, John Brown, Thomas Fitzsimons, Nicho las Gilman, James Gordon, Andrew Gregg, Samuel Griffin, William Barry Grove, Thomas Hartley, James Hillhouse, Daniel Huger, Philip Key, Amasa Learned, Samuel Livermore, James Madison, John Francis Mercer, Andrew Moore, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, William Vans Murray, Nathaniel Niles, Theodore Sedgwick, Jeremiah Smith, Israel Smith, William Smith, John Steele, Samuel Sterrett, Jonathan Sturges, John Vining, Alexander White, and Hugh Williamson. And so the said motion was rejected. Another motion was then made and seconded, that the House do come to the following resolution: Resolved, That a committee be appointed to inquire into the causes of the failure of the late expedition under Major General St. Clair; and that the said committee be empowered to call for such persons, papers, and records, as may be necessary to assist their inquiries." And the question being put that the House do agree to the same, it was resolved in the affirmative-yeas 44, nays 10, as follows: That part of the said report in the words fol "That the said officers are entitled to a similar bounty allowed to the officers of the regiments, for each recruit by them enlisted; and that a special provision be made therefor," being read, was, on the question put thereupon, disagreed to by the House. Resolved, That the said petition be rejected. WEDNESDAY, March 28. Mr. FITZSIMONS, from the committee to whom were referred the Treasurer's accounts of receipts and expenditures of the public moneys, from the 1st October to the 31st December, 1791, inclusive, lie on the table. made a report; which was read, and ordered to The SPEAKER laid before the House a Letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, accompanying the returns of duties arising on imports and tonnage for one year, ending the 30th September last, and a return of exports to the same period; which was read, and ordered to be committed to Mr. PARKER, Mr. KEY, and Mr. GILMAN. The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole House on the Report of the Secretary of the Treasury respecting the Public Debt; and, after some time spent therein, the Committee North Carolina." YEAS.-John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Baldwin, Shear-reported progress, and had leave to sit again. A message from the Senate informed the House jashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, John Brown, Abra- that the Senate have passed the bill entitled "An ham Clark, William Findley, Thomas Fitzsimons, William B. Giles, Nicholas Gilman, James Gordon, An-act for finishing the light-house on Baldhead, at drew Gregg, Samuel Griffin, William Barry Grove, the mouth of Cape Fear river, in the State of Thomas Hartley, Daniel Heister, Daniel Huger, Philip Key, Aaron Kitchell, John W. Kittera, Richard Bland Lee, Samuel Livermore, Nathaniel Macon, James Madison, John Francis Mercer, Andrew Moore, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, William Vans Murray, Natha- Mr. SEDGWICK, from the Committee appointed, niel Niles, Josiah Parker, Theodore Sedgwick, Joshua presented a bill authorizing a grant and convey Seney, Jeremiah Smith, John Steele, Samuel Sterrett, lance of certain lands to the Ohio Company of THURSDAY, March 29. Associates, on the terms therein expressed; which was received, and read twice and committed. Mr. STEELE, from the committee to whom was referred the report of the Attorney General on the petition of Andrew Jackson, made a report; which was read, and ordered to lie on the table. Mr. VINING, from the committee to whom was referred the Report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the petitions of the Minister and Trustees of the Lutheran Church in Rheland township, Chester county, in the State of Pennsylvania; of the Wardens of the Calvanist Church in Vincent township, in the county and State aforesaid; and of the Trustees of the Grammar school and Academy of Wilmington, in the State of Delaware, made a report; which was read, and ordered to lie on the table. [MARCH, 1792. cluded by saying, he hoped that a principle which would be so fatal to the United States would be rejected, by adopting the proposition he offered. Mr. AMES offered various estimates, by which he demonstrated that funding the debt on the principle now opposed would not incapacitate the Government from discharging it; on the other hand, it would facilitate the object greatly. Mr. LAURANCE observed, that the opposers of the proposed system, after offering various motions, appear at last to be agreed in a specific object. He denied that the consequences which it had been said resulted from the funding system of Great Britain had taken place. Adverting to the operation of the system in this country, he said the observations were no better founded. With respect to the irredeemable quality, it was not a novel circumstance: under the old Con The SPEAKER laid before the House a Letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, accompany-gress foreign loans had been made on a similar ing his report on the petition of William Smith, of the town of Baltimore; which was read, and ordered to lie on the table. THE PUBLIC DEBT. The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole House on on the Report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the subject of the Public Debt. Mr. GILES proposed a clause to be added to the first proposition offered by Mr. FITZSIMONS, the object of which was to preclude the admission of the irredeemable principle in the debt hereafter to be subscribed to the loan of the United States. Mr. G. supported his motion by adducing sundry reasons. The creditors, by not availing themselves in season of the chance of subscribing under the terms of the first subscription, the Government are under no obligation to renew those terms. He said his motion was to have a subsequent operation, and therefore cannot be considered as an infraction of existing contracts. The irredeemable principle, he observed, is an exotic, and appears to have been adopted without a due consideration of its applicability to our circumstances. The funding system of Great Britain has prostrated that Government. The prosperity of that country is not owing to its financial arrangements; Great Britain is in its decay; this Government is in its youth. It is improper for us to use such stimulants as may be necessary to induce vigor in age. The irredeemable quality is the result of necessity in the funding system of Great Britain; and that principle will operate its ruin. The argument drawn from a violation of contracts applies as well to the first system as to that now proposed; the reduction of the interest was a violation of the original contract. He then entered into a consideration of the principle of equality, and showed from the present state of the debt, part of it being in the hands of those who were inimical to the cause which this debt was contracted to support, the obligation of the Government to add to the gift, which in fact has already been made to these people, by infusing this irrredeemable quality, may well be questioned. He added some further remarks, and con principle. It is well known that the old Congress contracted a debt which they could not discharge under ten years; and the payments then could be only made by instalments. No fault had ever been found with this transaction. He then entered into a general defence of the funding system; and, adverting to its operation, he showed what had been done. The credit of the country had been raised from the lowest ebb, and a larger sum of the debt had been paid off than any man in the country had any conception of. Here he noticed some remarks which had been made yesterday by a gentleman, who had said that the Secretary had insulted the House by his propositions; and said, in his opinion, such reflections were not merited by an officer who had done so much for his country. He defended the irredeemable principle, and showed the advantages which the country derived from it. He further remarked, that the Government was not precluded from exerting its faculties in discharging the debt to as great a degree as any person had proposed, or as had been considered prudent; and while the United States are thus circumstanced, the douceur to the creditors, in the principle now opposed, is in fact no possible disadvantage to the Government. Mr. MERCER said the funding system was not understood by the country at large, and he was not surprized when he found it was not understood in this House. He was glad, therefore, to hear observations thrown out, which served more fully to develop this system. The irredeemable quality he was astonished to hear advocated by any gentleman in this House; for sure he was that no measure of the Government was more odious elsewhere, or more universally execrated. He adverted to some of the financial operations of the British Government, and drew a comparison which placed the funding system of this country in a less eligible point of view than that of Great Britain. He said that by an easy process it could be made to appear that one-half, or at least one-third, of the six per cents might have been paid off, viz: by borrowing at three or four per cent. This is the mode which the British minister adopted. He showed, from certain state ments, that this irredeemable quality operated to the injury of the holders of the three per cents of the United States. The British three per cents were at 100 per cent. for a number of years together. He denied that the loans which had been made by the old Government were on the irredeemable principle. He said the terms were in favor of the borrower on exactly similar principles with the contracts in common life. He introduced some observations of those who had written on the subject of finance. He said that funding systems had uniformly operated to the destruction of the common people; the principle has raised a splendid superstructure on no foundation whatever. He contrasted the situation of the modern with the ancient Dutch Republic. He stated the enviable situation of the Swiss Cantons; this, he said, was an eulogium on the steady produce of labor and industry. [H. of R. reverse of all this, he said, were facts; credit between man and man is lessened; extravagance and immorality have spread their baneful influence. He then adverted to the system generally, and reprobated it as a departure from the original contract-that contract which was most solemnly guaranteed by the Constitution. What is the obligation of the Government in respect to the residue of the debt? He conceived that the present Congress was perfectly clear to act agreeably to the principles of the original contract, as much so as the first Congress. In providing for the residue, he said the Government was bound to provide for it by a provision to pay six per cent., but not to pay interest on interest. Here he entered into a consideration of the policy of funding the facilities. This he reprobated, as unnecessarily increasing the public debt; and he could conceive of no other reason but that of inMr. GERRY stated his ideas on the irredeemable creasing the debt which gave rise to this meaprinciple. He defended it on the grounds of jus-sure-a measure which ought not to have been tice and policy. He then adverted to the opera-adopted, and ought to have been prevented by the tion of the funding system. It had changed the States doing their duty. He denied the right of whole face of our affairs-had transformed us one Congress to say that another shall not provide from the vassals of foreign creditors to freemen- for paying off the whole of the debt, or of any had revived the trade, agriculture, and manufac- part of it; for this reason he considered it uncontures of the country, and placed the credit of the stitutional, and should vote against the irredeemUnited States on an equality with that of the able quality. He had no doubt of the right of most flourishing European Governments, and in Congress to alter the funding system in regard to a situation much superior to some of them. this principle, and that they would do it whenever they thought proper. Mr. HEISTER, in a speech of some length, opposed the irredeemable principle, and the funding system in general. The question being put on Mr. GILES's motion, it was negatived-32 to 25. And then the House adjourned. FRIDAY, March 30. Mr. PARKER, from the committee to whom was referred the Letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, accompanying returns of the amount of duties arising on imports and tonnage for one year ending the 30th September last, and a return of exports for the same period, made a report; which was read, and ordered to lie on the table. The House proceeded to consider the report of the Committee to whom was referred the Report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the petitions of the Minister and Trustees of the Lutheran church, in Rheland township, Chester county, in the State of Pennsylvania; of the Wardens of the Calvinist church in Vincent township, in the county and State aforesaid; and of the Trustees of the Grammar School and Academy of Wilmington, in the State of Delaware: Whereupon, Mr. FINDLEY said he was opposed to the irredeemable quality; he doubted whether it was not going beyond what is allowed by the Constitution. He had heard it often said, that principle was infused into the system on the idea of its being an equivalent for a reduction of the interest; this idea seems to be assumed by gentlemen, but he had not heard any of them adduce any reason in support of it. He did not think it in any degree an equivalent, nor did he think the creditors considered it in any such light. He was not unacquainted with many of the public creditors; they did not consider this as an equivalent; the debtors, in this case, assumed the office of judges, and they only considered what was an equivalent. He admitted that the debt was above par; but common interest had not declined; it was in fact higher than at any period during the war; this, he said, showed that the irredeemable quality was not an equivalent. Hence, he inferred the credit of the country was not supported by the funding system; the present credit of the country is a nominal and destructive credit; therefore, he insisted that, admitting the residue of the creditors to loan on this principle, will not be giving them an equivalent. He considered the funding system, from the first, as tending to the interest, not of the citizens, but of foreigners; it has given rise to one Ordered, That a bill or bills be brought in purbubble after another, which have deluded our citi-suant thereto, and that Mr. VINING, Mr. MERCER, zens to their destruction. He denied that it had and Mr. ASHE, do prepare and bring in the same. increased the specie, or circulating medium, or A message from the Senate informed the House raised the value of the lands, or promoted the that the Senate have passed the bill, entitled "An manufactures or industry of the country. The act more effectually to provide for the national de That part of the said report, in the words following, was agreed to by the House, "That the sum of viz: be allowed for the use of the Grammar School and Academy of Wilmington, in the State of Delaware, and that provision by law be made for that purpose." fence, by establishing an uniform Militia throughout the United States," with several amendments; to which they desire the concurrence of this House. THE PUBLIC DEBT. [MARCH, 1792. and the American mind thoroughly informed on the prominent features at least-the irredeemable quality, and the deferred stock. Called upon to act, a mind in which nature had implanted the seeds of justice, would first well The House again resolved itself into a Commit-examine the right, and then cautiously consider the policy. tee of the Whole House on the Report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the subject of the Public Debt. The following resolution of Mr. FITZSIMONS, being under consideration, viz: "Resolved, That the term for receiving on loan that part of the domestic debt of the United States which yet remains unsubscribed, be extended to the first day of next, on the same terms as was provided by the Act making provision for the Public Debt of the United States:" That Congress have the right at all of mortgaging the revenues of the Union, or laying a tax irrepealable or unalterable by a future Congress, is at least questionable. In speaking of a right, Í mean what can or cannot be rightfully done. I exclude all idea of force, violence, or breach of public faith. On a question of right, these considerations are withdrawn. If they can rightfully do it, they rightfully bind a next Congress; who cannot, if they ought not, either alter or annul the obligation. But if this right does exist, it does not extend to the admission of the principles of this resolution. That a deferred stock and an irredeemable quality are in violation of natural right, and of the Constitution of the United States, can, I think, be easily demonstrated. Mr. MERCER rose and offered a proposition to the Committee to the following effect: That the unsubscribed debt of the United States should be admitted to subscription on the following principles: "That subscribers should be entitled to stock of the United States for their principal debt, bearing Our natural reason, independent of the written an interest quarterly at the rate of five per cent. Constitution, will tell us, that a Legislative Body, per annum, and, for the interest due thereon to the deriving authority from the same source, and untime of subscription, stock bearing an interest pay-der the same grant, must continue equal in power able quarterly at the rate of three per cent. per annum, until redeemed;" which being seconded by Mr. PARKER, Mr. MERCER proceeded to observe, that the resolution of the honorable member of Pennsylvania now before the Committee, and to which this was offered as an amendment, involved two questions, which, however united in form and blended in discussion, certainly required, by the just order of deliberation, a separate vote. The first question was, Whether we should now propose a subscription on loan of the unsubscribed debt of the United States? And then the second would be, Whether we should pursue principles originating in speculative theory, and an experiment abandoned equally by bold projectors and blind admirers? such as those of the present Funding System. through every period of its existence. Different sessions have equal rights. If a preceding session could make laws which a subsequent session could not repeal, the Legislative power would be gradually abridged by the exercise, and eventually annihilated. The power of repeal is the renewing principle essential to its existence; and, although the mutability of human affairs may not require, and convenience may have suggested the rule that it should not be exercised during the same session, yet this rule does not destroy the right: it still is frequently and always will be exercised whenever occasion shall require it. But this right of repeal has never been doubted as applying to a subsequent session, except in the singular case of mortgaging revenues or laying an irrepealable tax. As this is the most important of all Legislative powers, and The House was now free to act for the benefit that which in fact includes all others, it demands of the United States. The holders had not come serious attention. The existence of a nation dein by the time limited in the first proposal for sub-pends on the possession of resources. These have scription. They remained now creditors of the United States on the terms of the original contract, and if the United States proposed a new contract, they were at liberty to offer such as a full consideration of the subject and the benefits of experience now recommended. The chief merit or demerit of the proposition before the Committee rested on the leading features of the old system. The funding a debt or transferring by way of mortgage to a particular class of persons, whether citizens or foreigners, the public resources, was, in its simplest form, a momentous measure; but, when complicated by principles unalterable and irrevocable by ourselves or posterity, it assumed an awful aspect. Such principles had hitherto been adopted in a great measure without inquiry, and swallowed without hesitation, but they included all that was dear to society. They should be now developed, their natural limits, beyond which they cannot be extended. A Legislative power of anticipating the public resources, or transferring the revenue, has no limits defined or prescribed until it arrives at the physical inability to raise more supply. They who anticipate are the judges of the exigencies of the State, and the extent of the funds required. But as exigencies will happen hereafter as well as now, and as Government will always have the natural right of subsisting itself, and providing for future exigencies, as they arrive, they will find the necessity, and with it the natural right of reversing the system ultimately, and of repealing the mortgages already made, to the extent that the necessity, in their judgment, may require. The right existing to undo what was done, decides this question, that nothing can have been rightfully done by the preceding Legislature, which the succeeding Legislature cannot as rightfully undo. A power then of mortgaging the public revenue or laying an irrepealable tax, being repugnant to natural reason, will, I trust, not be found in the letter of the Constitution of the United States, and will appear utterly inconsistent with its spirit. [H. of R. ing as it was before, so that there can be no such claim on the original contract. But it may be further said, that they have made a new contract, since the adoption and on the faith of the new Government. Then let them show under what part of that Constitution, either in letter or spirit, they can expect this mortgage, this irrepealable tax, in their favor. Having thus examined the letter, let us advert to the spirit. Generally speaking, the Legislative power is conferred on the Congress of the United States; each succeeding session being equal to the Congress of the United States with the preceding, must derive equal rights from a grant confined and limited to no particular session. And in no particular Every free Constitution made for the use of part of the Constitution is any such power ex- man, infers that the various necessities and unforepressed or implied. It is not in the power of lay-seen events which characterize human affairs foring taxes; because this is laying taxes without bid the irrepealable quality of laws. By our Conrepeal, and there is no such additional clause institution, and that of every Government that really the Constitution. The power of laying taxes is granted in the same manner as all the other specified powers. If they can exercise this rightfully without a power of repeal or modification, they may exercise all the powers in the same manner-they are all given in the same terms: this will not, I suppose be contended for. contemplates the rights of freemen, the grant and distribution of taxes, or the public contributions, is confined to the Representatives of the people. When I speak of the Representatives of the people, I do not speak according to the new fashioned doctrines of the day, that the Executive and Senate are Representatives of the people; they only represent the people in my idea, whom the people themselves deputise to represent them. If persons elected by the people elect others, they are not the Representatives of the people; they may be Representatives of the Representatives of the people, which is a very different thing in form and effect. The power of laying taxes, the burden of which must fall on the great mass of the industrious poor, who feel every deduction from the fruits of their labor as a diminution of the sources of life, should rest with those immediate Representatives, over whom these persons have a constant control, to whom they are responsible and whom they may frequently remove. But if one weak or corrupt set of Representatives, could, by an imprudent or wicked act, transfer all the attainable resources of society in such a manner that a future set of Representatives could have no power over them without the concurrence of the Executive and Senate, then all this principle of the Constitution is utterly evaded, Is such a power included in the power of paying the debts of the United States? I apprehend not. If Congress had the money, they might pay the debts, no doubt; but if they have not, and are obliged to resort to taxes to raise the money-as it is physically impossible to raise by their authority all the money, without interfering with the rights of a future Congress-all that is incumbent on them to do, is to raise as much as they can, and then the unperformed obligation descending upon the succeeding Legislature with equal force, constitutes the true and only real principles of public credit in a free Government; for, no theory will admit the position, nor will practice support the idea, that the principles of morality and the force of public faith will be confined to one session. Reason and experience show it, that these principles will aid a future Legislature as well as ourselves; they then will do as we have done, contrive to pay as much as they can. On this credit-a credit founded on the terms of the Constitution-the United States are empowered to borrow money; the Constitu- But it may be said, that exigencies of State will tion is admitted as of notoriety; well understood arise-wars may happen, when it will not be posby the money lenders. The same power was given sible to raise the necessary supplies within the to the old Congress, to borrow money on the credit year. What is to be inferred from this? Only of the United States; they confessedly had no that we must anticipate, not borrow. This power power of mortgaging the resources of the Govern-is certainly given to the new Government, and ment, and laying an irrepealable tax, for they notoriously had no power of laying a tax at all. Yet they borrowed money abroad, before we could be considered as a nation, in the midst of a war, that shook the credit of an old established and opulent adversary; and they sustained a credit at home, which, however productive of individual losses, carried us triumphantly through a contest that cost our enemies one hundred and ten millions sterling. was to the old it is not denied; but it has been explained. Is it intended that we cannot borrow without pledging particular resources or laying irrepealable taxes? Surely no; because we have certainly borrowed without, still do it, and all nations do it; and unless this can be proved, no right can be inferred; for a right not expressly given, is only to be inferred from necessity. If it should be said that we cannot borrow on such good terms, this quits the ground of right, and dwindles into a It may be said, they contracted a debt that we question of expediency and convenience, on which are now called on to pay. Admitted, and that it I shall observe; but, for the present, it is to be reis a sacred debt; but the original holders, who have marked, that exigencies and wars may happen certainly as much claim as any subsequent pur- hereafter, and at all times as well as now, and at chasers, trusted to the old Constitution without any other time: and on these principles, will be this power, and the sixth article of the new Consti- found as sound arguments for the right of repeal tution places this debt precisely on the same foot-and revocation as of anticipation. |
