JANUARY, 1793.] Loans and Finances. [H. of R actual application of the moneys to the discharge of the debt; and it is evident that from the times the loans are respectively created, to the times of the actual application of the moneys borrowed, the United States are paying the usual interest upon the debt intended to be redeemed, and the stipulated interest upon the moneys borrowed for the redemption. This remark is equally applica-marked that there is a regular and continual inble to the payments of other foreign debts with the payments of the debt to France. The third resolution has arisen from calculations drawn partly from the last page of the printed report, and from the original Bank book of the United States, from which it appears that the balances in Bank in favor of the United States were as follows: In Bank, Philadelphia, 30th May, 1792, and 16th June, same year, in branch banks 1792, June 30th, in all banks in the July 28th and 31st, in all $676,952 55 upon the receipt of such bills, although the moneys may not actually be in Bank for some time after the credit is entered, and hence it is inferred that the Bank-book does not conclusively show the real sum in Bank, not to mention that such bills answer all the purposes of cash, and ought therefore to be credited upon the receipt of them. It is to be reflux of moneys into the Bank by the operation of these bills. It is not very material whether a bill lodged in Bank to-day, should be paid to-day, provided something like the same sum should be paid in consequence of a bill lodged in Bank one or two months ago, and the bill of to-day should be paid one or two months hence. The following statement will, in some measure, explain this idea, by exhibiting half-monthly the balances of public money in all the banks, about the middle and end of each month, beginning with May, 1792, and ending with December of the same year: 555,271 22 May May 511,423 91 June June July 740,903 87 July December 22, and January $340,322 11 332,116 35 776,107 65 523,272 22 441,637 13 521,426 91 On the 1st of June, a loan was negotiated with the Bank of the United States on the part of the United States, for $100,000, at 5 per cent. per annum. On the 1st of July, another loan was made upon the same terms for the like sum. On the 1st of August, another loan was made upon the same terms for the like sum. On the 1st of September, another loan was made upon the same terms for the like sum. It appears from the last page of the printed Report, that there had been drawn into America, from the 15th of December, 790,642 11 1790, to the 27th of January, 1792, of the moneys The fourth resolution has arisen from that part borrowed abroad, the sum of 2,663,621 florins, 2 of the printed Report which remarks that the restivers, and 6 deniers. If this sum were unex-sidue of the sum drawn from Holland, amounting pended, and lodged in the bank at the times of to $1,668,188 27 is applicable to the purchase of making these loans, (and Congress have never yet the public debt. It is known that the sum of been informed of any deficiency of revenue,) the $1,374,656 40, being the surplus of the revenue up United States will, of consequence, have paid upon to the end of December, 1790, was originally apthe moneys borrowed from the Bank of the Uni-propriated to the Sinking Fund; that the surplus ted States, from 15 to 17 per cent. per annum, to wit: they will have paid 5 per cent. upon the original debt to France, 5 per cent. upon the moneys borrowed for its redemption, exclusive of douceurs and other charges, and 5 per cent. upon the sum borrowed of the bank, which may be deemed part of this deposite made in the Bank by the United States. But, discarding these inferences, it must at least be admitted that the United States are paying 5 per cent. for the loan of moneys from the Bank, when a sum larger than the loan itself, is actually deposited in Bank. It is here to be remarked, that a balance of cash is admitted, by the Treasurer's return, to have been in his hands on the 31st of December, 1790, amounting to $973,342 43, and in July 30, 1791, the sum of $582.189 54. I am informed that bills are often drawn in favor of the Bank for moneys in the hands of the revenue officers in distant parts of the United States, and that credit is entered in the Bank book of other appropriations have been applied to this fund, and that the interest of the debt purchased has also been wholly appropriated to its increase. It is also known that between $1,100,000 and $1,200,000, and no more, of the original appropriation, have been really invested in the purchase of the debt; it is, therefore, somewhat unaccountable that so large a sum as $1,668,188 should be drawn from the loans abroad, when the Sinking Fund has always overflowed from domestic resources, and when the probability of purchasing is extremely lessened by the rise in the price of paper and the limitations of the last act of Congress upon that subject. It would not be deemed an economical arrangement to make a loan of so large a sum of money upon terms by no means honorable or advantageous, and appropriate it to the purchase of the debt under limitations which would forbid its investiture. The information called for in this resolution may possibly explain these difficulties. The fifth and last resolution has arisen from that part of the printed Report (page 5) which states the whole sums drawn from Holland to amount to $2,304,769 13; but neither immediately presents to view the balance on hand, nor informs where that balance is deposited. It appears by the Bank-book, that the whole deposite of the United States in Bank at this time, from all resources, amounts to $790,642 11. Hence, it will appear from a statement partly conjectural, and partly founded upon the statements in the printed ed Report, and some official documents, that $1,554,851 43 remain unaccounted for, as will appear from the following account: Sums which ought to be in the Treasury. Whole moneys drawn from Hol Bonds payable in December, 1792 [JANUARY, 1793. land, as stated in the printed Report, page 5 $2,304,769 Deduct paid for St. Domingo, as stated in printed Report, page 5 Bonds payable in December, if ap- 460,126 00 400,000 00 Leaves a balance of 4,224,389 54 1,859,506 Deduct to foreign officers, if paid 191,316 Balance in favor of the Treasu- The papers from which I have collected these statements may be deceptive in themselves, or may be subject to explanations from others. Candor, however, induces me to acknowledge that impressions resulting from my inquiries into this subject, have been made upon my mind, by no means favorable to the arrangements made by the gentleman at the head of the Treasury Department. But I shall keep myself open to conviction, in case of any sufficient explanation which may be hereafter given, and I now avow that my acknowledgment of mistake shall be at least commensurate to any conviction produced. I cannot help remarking, before I sit down, that In this last estimate, cents have not been taken we have been legislating for some years without into calculation, which makes an inconsiderable competent official knowledge of the state of the variation in some of the sums. Treasury, or revenues; in the course of which Another circumstance appears somewhat sin-time, we have been engaged in the most importgular: in the printed Report, 2,986,000 florins are stated to have been drawn from Holland in the year 1792. In the Bank-book, it appears from the list of bills drawn, that 8,695,237 florins were drawn for in the same time. This difference, I presume, may admit of explanation probably from the manner of negotiating this matter, or from some casual mistake. It deserves, however, to be explained. ant fiscal arrangements; that we have authorized a loan of the Bank of the United States for more than $500,000, when probably a greater sum of have passed a vote this session, authorizing a public money was deposited in the Bank; that we further loan for $800,000, and that we were upon the point of authorizing a loan abroad for $2,000,000, without knowing the extent of the authorities at present existing for borrowing, the loans already made, or the application of the moamount of moneys on hand in consequence of It appears from another statement, made up to the 1st of April, 1793, that there ought to be at that time a sufficient sum of money in the Trea-neys which may have been used; and I conceive sury to reimburse the loan of 2,000,000 dollars to it is now time that this information be officially the Bank, and to answer all the other purposes Government. States as shall have balances due to them upon a final settlement of accounts with the United States. Mr. WILLIAMSON's proviso was taken into consideration. Mr. MACON offered another, in lieu of Mr. WILLIAMSON's; the purport specifying particularly certain notes of the State of North Carolina, which that State had proscribed, and which he proposed should be excluded from the loan now under consideration. The certificates are those issued at Warrenton, in 1786; certificates to pay for a militia expedition against the Indians in 1788; and certificates signed Patrick Travers. Mr. WILLIAMSON withdrew his motion, and that moved by Mr. MACON was agreed to. Several other amendments were moved, but not agreed to. The Committee, having gone through with the discussion of the bill, rose, and reported it, with sundry amendments. The House took the same into consideration, and agreed thereto. Mr. MERCER then renewed his motion for a proviso respecting assignments or transfers of State certificates. The object is, to exclude from the loans all certificates so transferred or assigned, from the first day of January, 1793, to the first day of June following. Some further debate took place. It was urged in support of the motion, that the provision now to be made for a certain description of creditors, is merely a benefit; in conferring which, the Government had a right to annex what conditions they thought proper; that it was the duty of the Legislature to take measures to prevent those at a distance from the Seat of Government from be ing speculated upon, to their great injury and loss; that imputations have been thrown upon the members of the Legislature, in respect to the advantages taken of the uninformed on the first assumption; and therefore, as an opportunity is now offered to the House to purge themselves of all suspicions of improper motives, the amendment ought to take place. In answer to the objection on the proviso's being retrospective, it was said, that it had relation to such assignments or transfers only, as have taken place since this act originated. In opposition to the proviso, it was said, that the present bill was not merely a bounty or benefit conferred on the creditors; it is a measure just, reasonable, and proper in itself; and on this principle only it is to be justified. It was further urged, that the proviso was unconstitutional, having a most manifest retrospective operation, interfering with contracts which the parties at the time had a most undoubted right to make, and thus altering the value of their property; it was reviving the principle of discrimination between the original holders and the assignees, a principle that had been so pointedly reprobated by a large majority of the Legislature on a former occasion. A motion was then made, and seconded, further to amend the said bill, and debate arising thereupon, an adjournment was called for, and the House adjourned. 2d CON.-28 THURSDAY, January 24. [H.of R. BALANCES DUE CERTAIN STATES. The House resumed the consideration of the bill to authorize a Loan in the certificates or notes of such States as shall have balances due to them, upon a final settlement of accounts with the United States; whereupon, a motion was made, and the question being put, further to amend the said bill, by adding, to the end of the second section, the following proviso, to wit: "Provided, That no such notes or certificates shall be subscribable in any name, other than that of the original owner, if living, or if dead, of his legal representative, and except such as are, or may be, transferred by executors, administrators, or assigns, under any bankrupt act, unless accompanied with an affidavit, certified by a magistrate, that the transfer or assignment to the party, in whose name and behalf the subscription is offered, was not made at any time between the first day of January and the first day of June next, and that such party is the true and bona fide proprietor thereof:" It passed in the negative-yeas 30, nays 33, as follows: YEAS.-John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Baldwin, Abraham Clark, Jonathan Dayton, William Findley, William B. Giles, Christopher Greenup, Andrew Gregg, Samuel Griffin, William Barry Grove, Daniel Heister, Israel Jacobs, Aaron Kitchell, Richard Bland Lee, Nathaniel Macon, James Madison, John Francis Mercer, John Milledge, Andrew Moore, Nathaniel Niles, Alexander D. Orr, John Page, Josiah Parker, Cornelius C. Schoonmaker, John Steele, Thomas Tredwell, Abraham Venable, Alexander White, Hugh Williamson, and Francis Willis. NAYS.-Fisher Ames, Robert Barnwell, Egbert Benson, Elias Boudinot, Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Thomas Fitzsimons, Elbridge Gerry, Nicholas Gilman, Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon, Thomas Hartley, James Hillhouse, Daniel Huger, Philip Key, 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, Samuel Sterrett, Jonathan Sturges, Thomas Sumpter, George Thatcher, Thomas Tudor Tucker, Jeremiah Wadsworth, and Artemas Ward. A motion was then made, and the question being put, further to amend the said bill, by inserting, after the word "State," in the second section, the words "for services rendered, or supplies furnished, during the late war:" it passed in the negative; yeas 29, nays 30, as follows: YEAS.-John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Baldwin, Elias Boudinot, Abraham Clark, Jonathan Dayton, William Findley, William B. Giles, Christopher Greenup, William Barry Grove, Daniel Heister, Aaron Kitchell, NaJohn Milledge, Andrew Moore, Frederick Augustus thaniel Macon, James Madison, John Francis Mercer, Muhlenberg, William Vans Murray, Nathaniel Niles, Alexander D. Orr, John Page, Josiah Parker, Cornelius C. Schoonmaker, Jeremiah Smith, John Steele, Thomas Tredwell, Abraham Venable, Alexander White, and Hugh Williamson. NAYS.-Fisher Ames, Robert Barnwell, Egbert Benson, Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Thomas Fitzsimons, Elbridge Gerry, Nicholas Gilman, Benja H. OF R.] Balances due certain States. [JANUARY, 1793. Christopher Greenup, Andrew Gregg, Samuel Griffin, William Barry Grove, James Hillhouse, Israel Jacobs, Aaron Kitchell, John Wilkes Kittera, Amasa Learned, Richard Bland Lee, Samuel Livermore, James Ma min Goodhue, James Gordon, Thomas Hartley, James Hillhouse, Daniel Huger, Israel Jacobs, John Wilkes Kittera, John Laurance, Amasa Learned, George Leonard, Samuel Livermore, Theodore Sedgwick, Peter Sylvester, William Smith, Samuel Sterrett, Jona-dison, John Milledge, Andrew Moore, William Vans than Sturges, Thomas Sumpter, George Thatcher, Thomas Tudor Tucker, Jeremiah Wadsworth, Artemas Ward, and Francis Willis. Ordered, That the further consideration of the said bill be put off until to-morrow. FRIDAY, January 25. Murray, Alexander D. Orr, John Page, Josiah Parker, Cornelius C. Schoonmaker, Theodore Sedgwick, Jeremiah Smith, Israel Smith, William Smith, Samuel Sterrett, Jonathan Sturges, Thomas Sumpter, Abraham Venable, and Alexander White. NAYS.-Elias Boudinot, Abraham Clark, Thomas Fitzsimons, Elbridge Gerry, Benjamin Goodhue, Thomas Hartley, Daniel Heister, Daniel Huger, John Laupre-rance, George Leonard, Nathaniel Macon, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, Nathaniel Niles, Peter Sylvester, John Steele, George Thatcher, Thomas Tredwell, Thomas Tudor Tucker, Artemas Ward, and Hugh Williamson. Mr. AMES, from the committee appointed, sented a bill to authorize the adjustment of a claim of Joseph Henderson against the United States; which was read twice and committed. The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole House on the bill granting further compensation to certain Receivers of Continental taxes; and, after some time spent therein, the Chairman reported that the Committee had had the said bill under consideration, and made no amendment thereto. And on the question, that the said bill be engrossed and read the third time, it passed in the negative-yeas 22, nays 24, as follows: YEAS.-Egbert Benson, Benjamin Bourne, Thomas Fitzsimons, Elbridge Gerry, William B. Giles, Samuel Griffin, Thomas Hartley, Daniel Huger, Amasa Learned, Richard Bland Lee, Samuel Livermore, James Madison, John Milledge, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, John Page, Josiah Parker, Theodore Sedgwick, Peter Sylvester, Samuel Sterrett, Thomas Sumpter, Abraham Venable, and Alexander White. NAYS.-John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Baldwin, Elias Boudinot, Shearjashub Bourne, Abraham Clark, Jonathan Dayton, Nicholas Gilman, Benjamin Goodhue, Andrew Gregg, William Barry Grove, Daniel Heister, James Hillhouse, Israel Jacobs, Aaron Kitchell, John Wilkes Kittera, George Leonard, Nathaniel Macon, Andrew Moore, Jeremiah Smith, Israel Smith, William Smith, George Thatcher, Thomas Tredwell, and Artemas Ward. So the said bill was rejected. The SPEAKER laid before the House a Letter from the Secretary of War, accompanying his report on the petition of John Manly; which were read, and ordered to lie on the table. BALANCES DUE CERTAIN STATES. The House resumed the consideration of the bill to authorize a Loan in the certificates or notes of such States as shall have balances due to them upon a final settlement of accounts with the United States. Whereupon, A motion was made, and the question being put, further to amend the said bill as follows, to wit: strike out, in the first section, the words "within — months," and, in lieu thereof, after the word "same," insert "to commence on the first day of January. 1794," it was resolved in the affirmative-yeas 39, nays 20, as follows: YEAS.-Fisher Ames, John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Baldwin, Robert Barnwell, Egbert Benson, Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Jonathan Dayton, William Findley, William B. Giles, Nicholas Gilman, And on the question that the said bill be engrossed and read the third time, it was resolved in the affirmative, the House being equally divided, to wit: yeas 32, nays 32, and the SPEAKER declaring himself with the yeas. The yeas and nays are as follows: YEAS.-Jonathan Trumbull, Speaker, Fisher Ames, Robert Barnwell, Egbert Benson, Elias Boudinot, Shearjashub Bourne, Benjamin Bourne, Jonathan Dayton, Thomas Fitzsimons, Elbridge Gerry, Nicholas Gilman, Benjamin Goodhue, James Gordon, Thomas Hartley, James Hillhouse, Daniel Huger, John Wilkes Kittera, John Laurance, Amasa Learned, George Leonard, Samuel Livermore, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, Theodore Sedgwick, Peter Sylvester, William Smith, Samuel Sterrett, Jonathan Sturges, Thomas Sumpter, George Thatcher, Thomas Tudor Tucker, Jeremiah Wadsworth, Artemas Ward, and Alexander White. NAYS.-John Baptist Ashe, Abraham Baldwin, Abraham Clark, William Findley, William B. Giles, Christopher Greenup, Andrew Gregg, Samuel Griffin, William Barry Grove, Daniel Heister, Israel Jacobs, Philip Key, Aaron Kitchell, Richard Bland Lee, Nathaniel Macon, James Madison, John Francis Mercer, John Milledge, Andrew Moore, William Vans Murray, Nathaniel Niles, Alexander D. Orr, John Page, Josiah Parker, Cornelius C. Schoonmaker, Jeremiah Smith, Israel Smith, John Steele, Thomas Tredwell, Abraham Venable, Hugh Williamson, and Francis Willis. SATURDAY, January 26. The SPEAKER laid before the House a Letter from the Treasurer of the United States, accompanying his account of expenditures for the War Department, from the 1st of October, to the 31st of December, 1792, inclusive; which was read. and ordered to lie on the table. MONDAY, January 28. BALANCES DUE CERTAIN STATES. An engrossed bill to authorize a Loan in the certificates or notes of such States as shall have balances due to them, upon a final settlement of accounts with the United States, was read the third time, and the bill being on its passage Mr. HARTLEY said: I have attended to the debates on this bill, and considered the subject, and am fully convinced that the bill should pass. By the act for settling the accounts between the United States and individual States, the balances were assumed to be paid to the creditor States. The bill under consideration gives the alternative to the State (which shall be found a creditor) either to receive the balance herself and pay it to her citizens, or suffer them to fund their certificates with the General Government. I believe it will be found, on experience, most convenient to the creditor, and least expensive to the people, for the creditors to subscribe to a loan with the General Government. This, however, will rest in a great measure upon the individual States. Two taxes will be more expensive to collect than one; and if money is to go through two hands instead of one, in general it is attended with a double charge. It is said, that the bill will offer a new field for speculation. It is possible that, to a certain degree, there may be weight in the observation; but after the experience we have had, the holders of certificates will not be easily imposed upon; and if the certificates of the individual States would be equalized, I am led to believe, that it would be of service to the community. They might, in a considerable degree, act as a medium in commerce, and in the transfer of property; but whilst they remain at different values, they will be mere objects of speculation. I regret exceedingly the great inequality of fortune, which has arisen among citizens, by the speculations in our paper; but in a great and mighty revolution, some partial evils must be expected, to obtain a general good. We are bound to pay our debts. I do not think that a large national debt is a blessing, but it is of high importance that the Government which is in debt should so dispose of it, as to do as little injury as possible, and if the same is practicable, produce a partial good. In Pennsylvania our affairs appear to be in the highest state of prosperity; the farmer compensated for his labor; the mechanic every where fully employed and amply paid; commerce flourishing. Objections have been made against the law; yet I imagine if it is published, and the reasons for enacting it known, the public opinion of the State I represent, will be in favor of it. If we pass the act this session, we shall save the next Congress from much trouble and perplexity. We act now upon principle, without knowing how the balances will operate. If the creditor and debtor States were known, it would be found exceedingly difficult to reconcile the several interests. Remember the Representative bill; the Government had like to have been dissolved, on account of the various interests. Much has been said about the interested motives of members. I may here say that I do not belong to that class called aristocrats, (if such there is among us.) I have always supported the rights of the people, according to the best of my judgment and abilities. I have almost in every instance received their approbation of my public conduct. In the present question I am not more interested than any other citizen; I have no certificates, I am no public creditor of any sort. I [H. or. R. mean to act upon principle, and vote for the passing of the bill. Mr. PAGE, having moved the previous question, said that, in consequence of his aversion to waste the time of the House, which he always regarded as precious, he generally waited for the question, without troubling the House with his reasons for his vote, always satisfied if what occurred to him in support of it was offered by any other member, who might be better heard and understood-but that, when the names of the voters were to be held up to the public view, and when the vote he meant to give had been represented by some members, for whom he had the highest respect, as injurious to public creditors, as retrospective, and therefore unconstitutional in its operation, he thought himself bound to endeavor to justify his vote. If the creditors, Mr. SPEAKER, who are the object of the bill before you, were, by the amendment, excluded from an application to their debtor, or were the General Government the only body to whom they could look for payment or common justice, I would most scrupulously avoid interfering with their claims; or, did the bill extend its influence to all the creditors of the States impartially, I might listen to some objections which have been made to a discrimination, said to be produced by the amendment. But, sir, granting all that has been objected to have its full force, I only find that such creditors of creditor States (for no others are to be benefited by this bill) as may not be able to establish their claims founded on a speculation, which was grounded on a supposition that this bill would pass, without the amendment now proposed, will only be left where they are, and where, in my opinion, they ought to be left-that is, to look to their original contract; and I do not contribute to seduce them from their attachment to their State, and from their reliance on its plighted faith. I wish not to see them deluded into an acceptance of four per cent. interest from the General Government of the United States, instead of six from their respective States, which I believe are willing and able to comply with their engagements. But, sir, if I were even an advocate for the assumption and for the complicated Funding System, I should vote for the amendment now proposed; because I think with my colleagues [Messrs. MADISON and GILES] and the member from Maryland [Mr. MERCER] that it is not only well calculated to prevent an improper scramble among speculators for the supposed benefit of the bill, but is proper to rescue the members of Congress from temptation, as well as from suspicion of speculating on their own laws. I therefore think, sir, I can honestly and conscientiously vote for the amendment. Whilst I am up, (said Mr. P.,) I will take the liberty of remarking that those gentlemen who so loudly and warmly replied to the member from Maryland, and supposed they were vindicating the honor of the House, in my opinion were greatly mistaken; their conduct tended to check free debate and bold investigation, and their remarks respecting newspaper information might be a dan |