%m ready to revive them.-»-Surely those who urgilhat t'neaccounts
will not be fettled, do not propose to fulfil their own prophecy.
It is ccrtain therefore, that if there is a disposition in this houfc
to prevent proper measures being adopted to procure a settlement,
it will be diiappointcd—l wish to remove this ground of objec
tion, by urging the bufin fs of liquidation forward. Ifthen'pro-
Vision is to be made for liquidating tbc accounts, the arguYnefit
•which I deduced from it remains in full force. All pretence of
inequality is removed by it. It is a full anfv/er to frveral other
objc&ions— it becomes unnecellary to ask whether State notcj re
main debts against this government after they Have been received
into the State treasuries,; whether the United States are obliged to
afTume before the balances arc found on a settlement : and whe
ther the debts were wifely or on wifely contra&ed ? It becomes
immaterial to calculate how many parts in an hundred New-
Haniplhire, and Ijow many Connecticut will pay ; and how much
Virginia has paid, and will now have to pay. What was wrong
in the distribution of the burdens of the war will be rectified ;
and as to future payments, all the citizens will be upon a footing.
As the gentleman from Virginia reafohs with great candor, I am
lure he will be sorry that in his observations he has wholly ne
glected, ccrtainly through inadvertency, to notice an argument
which seems on both (ides, to be as absolutely conclu
sive. When I fay that both fides allow this argument to be ccn
clufive, I pre fume my meaning, is underllood as I formerly ex
prefTea it. For the answer to it is, that the accounts will not be
fettled ; which admits the force oi the reason, and rcfts the deci
sion upon a point of fact.
Perhaps for the fake of simplicity and perjpicuity, I ought not
to pjrfue the enquiry as to the jufticc of the afTumption any fur
ther. Tho' I mean to rely upon the argument I have llattd, it
will furmfh an answer to some objections to urge another. It is
said these arc State debts, Congress has nothing to do with them.
When the war commenced, Congress had neither money, nor
troops. They were so far from having a right to tax the States
that they had neither the powers of a government, nor a rule by
which to require contributions. They appealed to the good wil
and patriotism of the States, and entreated them to furnifh Sup
plies to the extent of their power. The calls upon the States were
not taxes or debts—but advances or loans to the public. This is
explicitly and formally declared by the refojves of Congress. I
have made some attempt to examine thejoumals in order to (h;w
from them how totally unfounded the altcrtioo is that these confti-
tuted debts agairifl the States. But I found that the titles only 61 the
Tefolves would fill a Qieet of paper. Nothing can be nore fully
C wed than the contrary, not only by the letter of the. resolves,
by the condu& of Congreb. In some cases, no regard was
to the conjectural ratio by which the States ought to furnilh
and Supplies. In other instances some of the States were
'Vholly omitted, and not unfrequently a single Slate was called
•f>on forfupplies. Oneofthemoft signal proofs, however, is
•<b*lin tHbrefolve of Feb. 9, 1780. It is exprrfsly stipulated that
if the Slates fhoujd furnifli more than they are called upon for,
the United States willftand charged with it. The refolveof ]an
5, 1733, even in terms, "cognizes the troops whom the States
were to fettle with a« the creditors ofthe union, for whom good
(ecurity must be provided.
• This ii'an enquiry into the iuftice of the afTumption. I rejefl
therefore the forms ofthe tranfadion,and alk, whether, if the war
had been confined to a corner, instead of spreading over the con
-tiapot, and one State had incurred the whole debt ot 80 millions,
it would be just to leave the burthen upon that State ? Confidently
■with the resolves I have mentioned, and the known fqnfeof Ame
rica, could it be called a State debt ? I am lure of my answer, for
the question extorts difference between the cafe I have
supposed, and that which is in.doisw i> only in degree—there it
none in the principle.
It will be atil-wercd, perhaps, that it is true we owe the States.
They are not finally to hear the burthen—let them pay what they
owe and we,will pay them—This is a dangerous concrffion to
those who make it, if the accounts aie never ty be fettled, at it is
urged by,thofe who contend against the aflumption. for it a
moOnts to this—the debt is binding and yet it will never be paid.
It presents them a choice of difficulties, it forces them to confefi
cither that the jlTumption will not wrong you. or that the non
afliimption vyill end in cheating such of the Slates at are your cre
ditors.
It. will be said it is true hoWtver, that, the United States (land
indebted to the States, but tht Creditors of the States have no iuft
claim upon the United Statei/
Thenni a great difference MUleen the justice t'lat will be done
by rhfttwmption to the Statewtod to their creditors.
TheStMa were called upon afltirig the war to nuke advances.
Accordinglytliey procured foirttthing by taxes, and still more
■was procured by paper rooncv, iMltth died in the hands ot the
pofleffor. They havealfo paid fom* part since the peace. So far
the States as fuch,»ftua)ly made advances— But the principal part
•was obtained ciltier by boriowing, or f.mnt; priva'.e property,
or by drafting men. So far the advances wr? made by indivi.
duals—and-at periods-fo critical, and under Inch circumstances of
violence and fiardllaip, as to give a peculiar fanftion to their
claim upon the justice and honor of their countrv.
Juflice plainly requiris that tbefe per tons fliould be repaid,
their interest at lead, in all events, anil without dJay. Tneir
claims, in every view, are perfca-moft of them are original
holder*. But neither the jullice of the cafe, nor the engagements
of Congtefs require that the Statrs Ihould b; re-pud till the extent
of their demand ran be known. For 1 readily adtnil that nothing
more than the balances of their aflnaf advarii.es are due from the
United States to the individual States. This has been ur<»ed a
gainst the alfumption, hut without foundation—lf a Siat" paid
more than its proper (hare the surplus (hould be repaid. But it a
payment was only ptomif d and is still to be made iuflicc is du<-
to the creditors and not to the State. The idea may be illustrated
by confidcritig the States as agents or contractors for the union
•what they paid ihev claim for theml'clves, what they barely p:o
---mifrd (hould be paid by their employers, who had the benehi of
the debt, cfp-cially if the agent cannot or will not pay—l cannot
think it neceffarv to give any further answer to the question so
logically proposed with regard to the jiature of the debts when
redeemed, and in the State treasuries.
What remains Hue ought to fall not unequally upon States, but
noon the who'e fociety—lt ought if not paid foouer, to fjll'upon
poftrrity. 1 f fame States should lose wealth and people, and'o
thers intrea.fr, if new States should join the union, or spring ud
•within it, and the western wildern. fs he thronged with [elpe
the burthen will bi equalized upon all the citizens.—L'berty and'
independence were procured lor the whole, and for poflenty —
why then fhrtuld noCall contribute tolhe price ?
As it refpefis the army debt, the very terms of the bargain bind
ihe United States* Congress promised to pay the men, but called
upon the States to raise them. Ast rwards, when the paper fail
ed, the Stales were requrftrd to make up the depreciation—State
notes were given for it. which remain due. Ph.l,ably a n t |, e
States cannot pay. In this instance not only jullice, but your
plghted futh require you to pay them; you have aflced their fer
viccs, and had them ; you have promised to reward them and
they remain (IntcVardfd. I have already fup'pofcd the cafe of'
the whole debt being thrown upon one State". If i ifteid n f t^ e
■whole debt, ; ts zeal or t! « neceflity of its affairs had puffed a State
forward to exceed, and in its diftrrfsto difregvd, its abilityto
pay, ar.d accordingly had run in debt three times as much as it
tan pay—that the war had scattered lt« citizens and wafted its
property—are the officers and soldiers who expelled the enemy,
and who did not care which State line they served in, to be told'
OU served the United S'atrs ; but you are the creditors ofSo:ithl
Carolina ? It is (rut, you shed your blood for us—by yourvalour,
* r r " litre—vc hive ftxn your wrongs, and when it would do
you no good, because We had no power, we told th;
deeply we lamented them. But go home and ftarve-Would not
this wring dropfjrom their hearts, md plant thorns in our ovv " •
The like rcafoning will apply to another description of the
debts to bef afTumed—to the certificates given by lhc /r com , rn ' l "
Caries and other officers of the United State*, andlince aliumea >y
the particular states. You cannot deny you* own by ca ling tlu m
state debts—A great part of the debt of-Soutli-Carolnu ii laid tope
of that kind. Is that state to be crushed with a weight which it
cinnot bear, Or are the creditors to be ruined because the ltate wil
be undone, if they are not ? Or how will this comport with the
principle admitted on both fidts ot equalizing the expences ol the
war ?
The best fund of the states, and hitherto the only one of the uni
on, the impost has been taken away by adopting the constitution.
Let the debts follow the funds. Let the world ju'dge whether
the generous confidence of the state creditors in the public justice
ought to be abused, and whether they, ought to be made to repent
the cordial support whichtliey gave ro the new constitution. Ihe
force of this argument may be inferred from the uncommon pains
which have been taken to destroy it. The fafcl is denied, and the
i.Tue of the queftioo has been boldly rrfted upon this point, that
t-ie states most urgent for the aflumption were not incapacitated
from providing for their debts by the furrendcr of the impost.
The impost, collettcd in New-Hamp(hire is called the amount of
that state's contribution to the union, and the ratio by which ftie
>ught to contribute is taken from her prcfent reprcfentation. I
wave, at this moment, all comment upon the nnfairuefs and fallacy
of this mode of computation. I proceed to observe, that an un
common use is made of the result. According to her number of
reprcfematives, that state ought to pay one twentieth, and yet no
more than an huudreth part of the impost of the union is paid by
t>iat ftdte, or rather collected in it—of course, it i* gravely said, it
will save four-fifths of the sum which it would have had to pay, if
the debt had been afleffed Jpon the union before the constitution
was framed, and this saving to the state may apply to the dif
hargeof its debt. But',fir,fuch requisitions never were paid,and ne
ver could have been paid by the states. Experience had taught us,
that it was not to be cxpe&ed, nor was it in their power.--This
indeed was one of the principal reafonsfor adopting the constitu
tion. Are we seriously addrefled, when we are told, that the fav
•ngs of a revenue, which did not extft, that four-fifths of nothing
may be applied to pay the state creditors ? Without further re
garding the ridicule of the argument, let us trace the fact. The
aebt of New-Hampshire U fa id to be about 230,000 dollars—The
yearly interest at 4 per cent, is upwards of 9000 dollars. The im
post and tonnage collc&ed in that state from August to December,
ii near B,oco dollars. So that the impost of that state, fho' far
short of her a&ual contribution to the commontreafury, will, in
the whole year, greatly exceed their interest which afluming her
debt wil) throw upon the United States. Here then the fund sur
rendered by that state is more than adequate to the debt which
ought to follow it. The whole caufehas been hazarded on the
fad; and here the fact is against him who appealed to it. Ma/ I
be permitted toaflc, whether it is not to be lamented, that, thro'
iuadvertencyor mistake, the whole fact was not mentioned ? May
I demand why the non-importing states were preferred to the im
porting states for calculating the impost ? Maflachufetts collected
under a state law near 150,000 dollars impost yearly. This falls
ftiort of her present cohesion under the law of the union, which
is nearly rqual to the interest of her debt. Theexcife would have
supplied the deficiency,and 4hat fund you are about to invade. It
would be wrong to take away funds, tho* inferior to the discharge
of interest, and yet to leave the whole debtupon the state. If the
funds surrendered were equal to the debts, it hat been admitted
that the union ought to take the debts also. The injustice of ri
jecting the debts, and taking the impost to a less amount, differs
only in degree.—But why was New York paflrd over in silence !
The interest of the debt of that state would not equal the import
callotted within it. What will you fay to that state ?
The candour and impartiality of the committee will he exer
cised in deciding whether the arguments so often urged ;n favour
of the aflumption, t hat you ought to take the debts with the impost,
has loss any thing of its force b> this inveftigauon of fa&s : What
is aflcrted on one fide, and denied on the other, after a find en
quiry, ends in the fame point.
(Tc be continued.)
THURSDAJT, JUNE 24.
Sketch tf the Deiatt
In Committee ofthe whole on the report of the felrft Commit-
Mtee, on the Memorial of the OHiccri ol the N»»y.
R. SHERMAN observed, that by tlie memo
'V 3 , 1 ' a '>d the reporr, it a PP ea| s, that the
Memorialiits do not pretend to have any claim
on the public by virtue of any existing resolu
tions of Congrcfs. The fubjeci is very fully be
fore the Committee—it lays with Congress there
fore to determine, what is proper to be done in
fuch circumstances. The application itands en
11 ' ely on thebafis of its own merits, and he could
conceive of no difficulty in deciding on it.
Mr Stone observed, that it is true there is no
claim by virtue of any antecedent contractor
pronnfe-nor was Commutation,he believed, pro
nufed to the officers of the army. I n this view
the officers of the navy st and exactly upon the
fame footing with those of the army. lf e then
entered into a confutation of the merits, servi
ces and fuffenngs of the Officers of the Naw
and from these and other couf,derations, urged
the juft.ee of their claim, as he could fee no rea
™ « c } lffe, ence that had been made
Mr. Huntington said, there is but a little con
s.deration necellary to recoiled the reason of the
diffe.ence between the officers of the naw ami
hi' I he . officers of the army were firft in
the public service—the navy was not formed till
sometime after hostilities commenced—the offi
cerso. the navy were put on the fame footing
in refpedi to pay as the army-the former has
some advantages in point of rank—and thevwem
entitled to a of their captures
He then gave an account ofthe origin of r„,n
mutation which was granted on account oS
peculiar exigences of affairs at that time-D
mg the time this bulinefs was in agitation rho
were very few navy officers in tlielubcL• C
and no application was made by them for half
pay or commutation—They were »a alf '
many of them had retired to civil
son therefore why they were not included;
Commutation was, there did appear h • C
any necelfityfor themeafure, as the United Sr?"
did not then want a navy—whereas fht. ?, cs
exigence, with relpe* so the .SywerEftS
506
as rendered the resolution for the Commiuatf
to them absolutely neceflary_lie howevertho" u h'
the claim of the Navy Officers founded on iuftV
—and justice said he is the strongest plea that '■ '
be urged in fnpport of any demand whatever**"
Mr. Hartley supported the memorial, h e
the officers great credit for their bravery, for
ces and attatchment to the cause of their count v
—he dilated on the hardships and fufferiiigj
endured—he adverted to the advantages they dp
rived from captures —which he Hated to be v e r
inconsiderable—their claims said he, app ear
me to be founded on the ftridiift and molt partial
juftice—hehopedthereforethat the report
be accepted, and a committee appointed to brins.
.in a bill accordingly.
Mr. Baldwin, who was one of the felert coir
mittee which made the report, stated some o fthe
reafous which influenced the committee alio the
confederations which were supposed to have led
to the difliniflion between the navy and army in
refpecl to commutation—one of which wa&
the officers ofthe navy were in the line of their
particular calling, and which they were enabled
to pursue with perhaps greater advantages than
they ever did before. Other circumfonces
were mentioned by him tending to invalidate
their claim.
Mr. Sherman observed, that if this report is a
dopted, it will open a very wide door indeed to
applications for lialf-p3y or commutation. He
then gave a history of the origin of commutation
or half-pay—which he said was considered at the
time, as a tneafure of necessity—and not of jus
tice—and has been very much complained of
by several of the States. The above neces
sity did not exist with refpedl to the officers of
the navy—as at the time there were but 2 ors
ffiips in service. From this llate of faifts he in.
fered that no precedent could be drawn in favor
of extending the Commutation to the officers of
the navy. He thought that their cafe was enti
tled to the confederation of the Legislature onthe
principles of equity—he lhould therefore be for
the Committee's making full enquiry into the
circumstances of the whole business—and making
such provision as justice ffiould point out— but
he was against the report in its prelent latitude.
Mr. Burke replied to the observations of Mr,
Baldwin, refperting the officers of the navy being
in the way of their profeffion—and from the na
ture of the service he (hewed, that there was lit
tle weight in the observation—their circumstan
ces were very much altered for the worse—and
that they were now left in a very deftitnte fixa
tion—whereas the officers of the army are enjoy
ing ports and places of honor and profit. Their
silence on the fubjetfl had been mentioned.—He
observed that their dispersed si iuat ion had been the
pi incipul reason of tlieir not coming forward with
their petition before. Mr. Burke observed,
that the officers of the navy were not treated like
oilier prilnneis, when they were taken, theyfuf
lered peculiarly, not as prifoilers of war, but were
treated like rebels, whose crimes were of the
blackest nature.
Mr. Seney said he was, and always had been,an
advocate forthe claims of the officers of the navy
—he thought their memorial founded on theftnet
eft justice—he introduced the representation to
Congi e!'s ofthe " illuftrions" commander in chief
of the late army 011 the fubjecft of half-pay and pen
nons, which he read.
fie then entered into a comparative view ofthe
relative merits ofthe army and navy—and said it
was well known that many of them made as great
iacrificesasthe other description of officers. With
1 e'pell to prize money, he doubted whetherthey
liatl ever been benefited by ir. ]n some inftanccs
where they had the moll; they had,
thiough the failureof agents, received only a cer
tificate worth about five (hillings in the pound;
and that received only for apart ofwhat wasdue.
lie replied to the several objedii ons which had
>een offered, and concluded by (aying, it would
be nnjuft and impolitic not to grant tlieirriaims.
Mr. Sedgwick observed that no gentleman in
the committee had deeper impressions made up
on him, by the grateful recollection of the me
rits and services of those brave men, to whom
America owed its freedom, than hinifelf. Yet
under the present circumstances of the country,
he thought it a duty he owed the people who had
confided their interest to hi 9 management, to
examine, on principle, the demands which were
made upon the government for pecuniary grants.
he applicants in the present instance did not
place their demand on the ground of contrast.
>r the contrail under which the services had
been rendered, bad been complied with accord
"ig to the fpecifyed terms, and performed to the
extent of the powers of the government, in die
v. a *j C nia,lner as other claims of a fiinilar nature
d been fatisfied. It was further, he said, to be
noticed, that during the time those services were
perf-orming, no diflatisfatflion had been niani
fefted by the present memorialists. From these
observations then, it clearly followed, that in
point of contrail, the claims of the officers of the
navy were in all refpe<3s fiinilar to those of every
other individual in the community, who had re
ceived fatisfallion by the fame means. It'W'ou!