CONGRESS. HOUSE OF R£PK£S£XTATII'£S- Tuesday, 20. Debate on the Refolntion offered by Mr. Pltz- Cinons, on the 19th, refpe&ing a Reduc tionof the Public Debt «Scc. (CONCLUDLD.) MR. Ames. IT is so falhionable to introduce the funding fyftem upon every occasion ; it would per haps appear llrange to fay, that it is out of order up.in any. To my mind and probably to molt gentlemen' present, it will be difficult to per ceive, that the question before us bears any relation to that iubjeit, or to the frontier-bill, the excise, the perpetual taxes, the encourage ment of manufactures, and many other topics, which, somehow or other, have been interwo ven with the debate. At this late hour of the day, and in so wearisome altage of the question, I may be .permitted to decline any further no tice of thel'e auxiliary fubjeiSs. The great end we have in view, is the paying off the public debt—This obje&, truly import ant in itfelf, unites the best sense and ftrongell wishes «f the country. It is oUr duty to provide means for the aecomplifament of this end. All agree that a plan is neceflary. Tt must be fram ed with wisdom tnddigeiied with care, so as to operate with the greatest effect, till the whole debt ihall be extinguished. The true question is, which is the best mode of framing this system. Several modes have been preferred by different persons—some advocate the appointment ot a i'eledt committee of thishoufe, others insist that the hoafe in committee of the whole, is the on ly proper mode, while others who defend the original motion, delirc to have apian prepared, and submitted by the fecrctary of the treasury. It may obviate the force of many of the argu ments we have heard to remark, that it is not asserted that either of the several modes is iri trinfically incapable of effe&ing the purpose. It would be improper to fay, that a commit tee could not be formed who would be able to collet the materials for an exact knowledge of the fubjeJt; and who, after acquiring that knowledge, would be able to form a found judgment. Neither would it be just or relpe«sl ful to deny, in the abftradt, the capability of the house in committee to digest such a plan. But the question Hill returns, which of the three methods is the best to begin with ? Neither this house nor a fele& committee are pretended to l>e already poffelTcd of the knowledge which is requisite to the framing a fyftcm for a finking fund. The*very materials from which this know ledge is to be gleaned, are not in the possession of this house—they are in the treasury depart ment. Neither the curiosity nor the legislative duty of members leads them to resort daily to the treasury to iriveftigatc official details; and - even if it were so, the officer at the head of the department, having his mind incessantly occu pied with his official bufincfs, must be admitted to possess a more familiar and ready, if not a more ample, knowledge of the fubjed:. Indeed the situation of the secretary of the treasury isip evidently favorable to his digesting the plan of a finking fund, that it seems unne ceifary to urge it even to thofewho areoppofed to ihe reference For their obje&ions, imply the preference of the mode in point of expediency as strongly as thofewho explicitly, recommend it. They fay, the plan of the secretary will come forward with too much advantage. Members, fay they, not having the aid of those means of information which the secretary pofTelfes, will not be able to resist the train of reasoning with which he will introduce his plan. It is even expressly admitted, that the informa tion of the treasury department i 6 necessary and must be called for; but they would not receive it with the reafouing of the secretary. Without wafting time to prove this point, common sense will decide instantly, that the knowledge *>f our financial affairs, and of the means of im proving them, is ro be obtained the most accu rately from the officer whose duty it is made by our own law to understand them; who is ap pointed and commissioned for that very purpose, and to whom every days pra&ice in his office must ;..Tord some additional information of offi cial details, as well as of the operation of the laws. The arguments on both fides end in the fame point, that the information of the secre tary would be ufeful. Our obje& being to pre fer that mode of preparing a plan, which is a dapted to present us the best ; the argument might end here, if it were not that the constitu tion is alledged to forbid our resorting to the secretary, I reverence the conflitution, and I readily ad mit that the frequ«nt appeal to that as a stand ard pioceeds from a refpe&ful attachment to it. So far it is a source of agreeable reflection. But I feel very different emotions, when J find it almost daily refortcd to on questions of little im portance V\ hen by strained and fanciful con ftru&ions it is made an inflrument of casuistry, it is to be feared it may lofc fjmething in our minds in point of certainty, and more in point of dignity. And what is the clause of the constitution op toofed to the receiving a pi: of a finking fund from the feeretary ? Bills for r.iifm* revenue Jh,ll in tbit teuft. I verily believe the mem bers of this hotife, and th? citizeps at large, would be very much furprifedto hear this clause of the conHitution formally and gravely ftitei 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 con stitutional objection, it will be fuflicient to de- fine terms. Wkat is a bill ? it is a term of technical im port, and surely it cannot need a definition; it is an a& 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 {hall be introduced by a motion for lejve, or by a committee. It may be said the plan of a finking fund, re ported by the fecrctary, is not in tflhukal, or even 4 in popular language, a bill —nor, by the rules of the house or those of common fenle, is this motion the originating a bill. By resorting to the fpir it of the constitution, or by adopting any reasonable cotiftruilion of the clause, is it poflibleto make it appear repugnant to the pro portion for referring to the secretary ? The op pofers of this proposition surely will not adopt a conllrudlion of the constitution. They have often told us, we are to be guided by a ftri& adherence to the letter; &that there is no end to the danger of conftrucSlioiw. The letter is not repugnant; and will it he seriously affirmed, that, according to the spirit and natural meaning of the constitution, the report of the secretary will be a revenue bill, or any other bill, and that this proposition is originating such a bill ? If it be, where shall we stop ? If the idea of a measure which firfl partes through the mind, be confounded with the measure subsequent to it, what confufion will ensue ? The President, by fuggelting the proposition, may as well be pre tended to originate a revenue bill; evert a news paper plan would be a breach of the exclusive privilege of this house, aud the liberty of press, so julUy dear to us, would be found un constitutional. Yet, if, without any crder of the house, the draught of an a& were printed and a copy laid before every member in ais feat, no person will venture to fay, that it is a bill, that it is originated or can be brought urder the • cognizance of the house, unless by a m>tion in conformity to the rules and orders. The report of the secretary in regard to manufa&ires, so often adverted to, has not yet been a&ert upon, does that appear on our journals as a bill? Lan guage has not yet been perverted to fucn a de gree, as to afTert any such thing; and jet the constitutional obje&ion implies opinions no less extraordinary. I rely upon it, that neither the letter of the constitution, nor any meaning that it canoe tor tured into, will support the objection which has been so often urged with solemn emphalis and perfevaring zeal. If the constitution be admitted, therefore, to authorize the reference to the why should not the mode which is proved to be the most expedient be immediately adopted ? Here we meet another obie&ion. It is said that the legislative and executive branches of gO\ftJrnment are to be kept diftinit, and this reference will produce an improper blending of them. It is a truth that these departments are to be kept dif tin& ; but the conclusion drawn from it is alto gether vague. The execution of every trust re quires some deliberation, and many of them call into a&ion the highest powers of the h\iman mind, and the-moft intense and persevering ap plication of them—yet these trusts are to be ex ecutively performed, and it by no mi/aiw follows that the officer charged with them invades the deliberative congress. On the other hand, many laws are the result of plain princi ples or parts of the constitution, and co"hgrefs, by ena&ing them only execute the constitution Yet here is no encroachment upon the executive branch. The truth is, the constitution has allot ted powers to tfhe several branches of the go vernment, and by that rule we are to judge of their several limits. The President proposes measures to the legiflaturc in conformity to the constitution—yet no one ever supposed that his doing so is a departure from a just theory ; notf has it., as far as I know, been ever insinuated till of late, in this or any other country that the calling for information from oncers, any more than the calling for testimony from witnelfes a mounts to a transfer of our legislative duty, It is veryeafy to conceive how much increased in formation may aid us in deliberating, but it is hard to difcernhow we are to profit by the want of it. It is true it is our peculiar province to de liberate, but neither the letter of the constituti on, nor the law cftablifhing the treasury depart ment, nor the reason of the cafe have restrained us from calling fqr official information. It is not true in fa& thatthe deliberative and execu tive departments are blended by referring to the Secretary. Any obje&ions tlcduced from ah over-refining theory, and not warranted by the constitution, might need an answer if we were now framing a government, but can have ho force in the administration of one. Indeed, it is a very scholastic, and very imposing mistake to abandon the letter and meaning of thj plan of government we a& under, and to undertake to reason independently, as if we were now fett ling the institutes of a political treatise. The expediency ef this question of referring to the Secretary, which i« brought iutcHliJptrte involves in it many others which will admit of none. In framing the plan of a fluking fund is the officer at the head of our finances to have a ny agency ? If it be said he is not, then, it may be demanded—why is an idle officer and an use lef< office kept up ? The sense of mankind as well as the practice of nations seems to {hew that where there are finance" there (hould be a finan cier; thatbefhouldpolTefs atleafl common talents, and more than common industry in the applica tion of them to his duty. .This is not a point to be proved now for the firft time. The law of the old Congress and their practice were conformable to this motion. We 210 hear very often of the people being opposed to these references. So far as I have been inform ed the opposition is a novelty. The law estab lishing the treasury department, pafled by a great majority, and that expressly makes it the duty of the Secretary to prepare and report'plans of finance : Scarce a *'hifper of objection was then heard in the house, and not one, I believe, in the country. Our own practice of referring has pafled unrefifted till of late. Gentlemen now opposed tD this reference, have contended open ly and ftrenuoull) for references, in one in fiance, if I recolleil rightly, to the Attorney-General to revise a plan of the judicial department, and on another to require the Secretary of ft ate to report on the means for improving ourtrade and navigation. Th.'fe obje&s partake as much of legislation, and are as incommunicable as the fubje& in difcuflion. The former votes and ar guments of the gentlemen opposed to theprefent reference, afford some proof of its fitnefs as well as constitutionality, The intrinsic reasonableness of this pra&ice is not less than its authority from law and prece dent, and what is more the precedent of its op- posers. Private affairs prosper by skill, economy, and intjuftry ia the management of them. The fi nances of a nation, though infinitely more im portant, require nothing more than economy up on a great scale. Let the monied affairs of a country be made every body's bufinef-, and no body will do it:—Would you have them pros per, let them be confided to one man, who how ever shall be under the ftri<sfc controul 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 ex pe&ed to do, will make the public business his own, he will put his chara&er at rilk—his time and all his talents will be dev»ted to the public. Such will be his dispositions—now what will be his opportunities to render service? He will have atone view before him the whole arrangements of finance—the imports and exports, the receipts and expenditures, the operation of the laws, the obstacles that impede the colle<stion, and the means of improving it; the frauds committed or attempted on the revenue, & the checks to guard it—the well-founded obje&ions against the law, and the prejudices which time or conciliatory conduct may efface, the appropriations of the revenue—the places where and terms on which loans may be obtained, as well a the state of fo reign trade; the regulations of foreign nations, and 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 wilj oblige him sometimes to conflitft against preju dices, and sometimes against fraud, will render the details of finance familiar to him, and will almost force him to adopt plans for reducing this great mass into system and order. Is it to bed nicd that, in confluence, he will poflefjs fotne mfeans of information which this house or a committee mud acquire only by flow and laborious investigation? In piirfuing it the time might fall, and the materials get confufed. Yet,allowing it cffe&ed, they have gained no more than it is his duty to furnifh 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 giveit, we shall thus expose his incapacity or negligence. The public opinion, thus enlightened, will soon displace the officer, and a fitter man will suc ceed him. In this way, the people will exercise an effective controul over their servants. Be the information given by the officer what it may, the sources from which his inferences are drawu, his fa&s and reasonings are publicly ex posed. They are equally in poffefiion 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 fe le& committee or a committee of the whole. Thole who arc opposed to receiving plans from the secretary, mention the firft; impofc a£t as a fuccefsful instance of proceeding without the as sistance of the treasury. To this it is replied, that there is no analogy between that cafe and this in debate. Then the treasury law had not passed, and if that department had been then or ganized, it could not have given the kind of in formation which is requisite at present. The re ceipts, expenditures and appropriations, all our systems and all our experience have occurred since that time. We had, in forming the im port, smooth ground to pass over, and the aid of all th« local knowledge and local feelings of a representative body : yet it will not be said that the success of the proceeding affords much en couragement to adopt a similar courfy on this occasion. We began that a<st in April, and tho* we were losing revenue every day, we did not complete it till near August: the cmbarralTment was pot less than the delay. the want of accurate information produced errors and revisions, and incefiant struggles; and parts of the a & were re pealed, it is well known, soon after its passage. It has been intimated, that in framing a report the Secretary would be liable to mifinformationß to some local or other attachments. Thij is pos sible, for he is n man—but will the committee be free from it? The Secretary is answerable for his conduvsl to the nation, and certainly he is not more fubjeA to local partialities than members are to their refpe&ive diftri<fls. The advantage of impartiality in the fir.ft concoction of a report ieemsto be evidently in favour of a reference. It has been said on the other fide, information may be wanted, it is true, from the Secretary, but let the house firlt make progress ill the busi ness, and then receivc it by a committee advis ing with the Secretary. If this may be done, what becomes of the conflitutioHal difficulties and all we have heard of the transfer of our deliberative power ? But, if we are to have the official information, why fliou'd we set out without it? why ftould it not be given openly, so as to put all the mem bers oil an equality, and before prepofleffions are formed with regard to plans, which might make * late report from-the treasury appear t0 Mtn . m aid of one party or another? Would the ft v e of declamation be less Vehement against the k ex communication, of a secretary with the commit tee, than agamtt a report made in the face of dav and fubjetf to the criticilm not only of this lo,ufc' but of an enlightened nation ? ' ' It is not to my present design to ask for what pnrpofe of argument or of candour it is so often mfinuated that the queflion really is, whether this hct.fe fliall legislate, or whether it fliall tranf fer, the powei of making laws, to the secretary of the treasury. 7 With all this official information, previouflv before Us, are we less qualified, or worse dri'oof eel to deliberate ? It would be extravagant to af firm; that in proportion as oUr means of infor mation arc made complete, we are worfc situat ed to legiilate ; and as to the spirit of enquiry, I do not lemcoiber that the reports of the secre tary have blunted it. From the manner in which they have been difcufled heretofore, those Gentle men will confide in the aflfurancc I venture to give them, that they will be thoroughly'fifted. They have not always passed unaltered and ne ver without palling through the fire of a debate. We may repeat it, therefore, what cdiour so there for faying that the secretary legislates? neither my memory nor my underllandihg can discern any. lam wdl aware, that no topic is better calculated to make popular impreflions; but I cannot persuade myfelf, that the people wil| charge us with negled or violation of duty, for putting ourselves into a situation to discharge ic in the best and mod circumfpeft manner. There is another ground of obje&ion which i 3 urged against the reference : —it is said, it gives undue influence to the treasury. The reasonings* of the secretary, which accompany his reports, are alledged to excite an influence which cannot berefifted. There are two forts oF influence one, which arises from weight of reason/and the Intrinsic merit of a proportion ; the other, per sonal influence. As to the former, it is hard te conceive of the influence of reasoning, which can not be analysed and made capable of exad es timation by the reasoning faculties of those to whom it is submitted; and that eflimation, be it what it may, ought to obtain. No one can wiih to fee it under-rated. But we are told, by the oppofers of a refer ence, that it is incredible that one man, be his official opportunities what they may, fhouldpof fefs more information than the members of this house, colle<fted from every diflri<9: of the coun try. Then I answer, with inferior information, it would be impoflible his reasoning should over power 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 mifinformed by correspondents, and has re peatedly discovered, on fubje&s 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 dis cernment, as soon as we fuffer a report, with its reasonings, to be made to the house. If it be personal influtnee, independently of reason and evidence, which is apprehended by gentlemen opppfed 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 refped their independence of spirit; they would difdaia an imputation of the fort: theircandor will per mit us to fay, 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 leafl colour for bringing it into queflion on thi# debate : the law and usage of the old Congrcfs corresponded with this moti on. Our own treasury law expressly makes it the duty of the secretary, to prepare and report plans; and faall the pra&icc of one branch run counter to that which is made the course of his duty by the law of the land? It would be ao uncommon and very irregular mode of repealing a law. The advantages of this pra&icc of re ferring, are manifeft and great: more informa tion is obtained, and more order, intelligence and system are preserved in the administra tion of the finances. The old Congress and the several exhibited txpenfirc and "de plorable proofs of the evils incident to the want of order, as well as to the number of fyftemsof finance and financiers. With this mass of evi dence before our eyes, it cannot be believed that we shall take any step which will tend to intro duce disorder and inefficiency into our finances. WEDNESDAY, November 2?. Mr. prefer*ted the petition cf John Pray others, collectors of the duty on distilled spirits luting, that thev have beea employed in ti»e public fef vice fifteen montn', for which their compenfution amounts to the sum of about 90 dollars only, each—and pray ing relief—was»Cad,and referred to the Secre tary of the Treaiury. The petition of Ludwick Kuhn was read praying a frttlemert of his accounts, and ror.:, penfation for money and supplies furniflie the army of the United States during the late war ; referred to the Secretary of the Trea i ury. . Mr. Gerry presented a petition of Shaw, Consul of the United States for Canton —-it was read, the prayer of which is,tlint t ie duties on a quantity of teas, imported row China to New-York, via Oliend, by an voidable necefnty, may be paid fit 'the ame rate as if the skid teas were imported direco from China : Referred to Meflrs. Gerry, HiH houfe, and Kittera. The petition of Abigail Heart, ow the late Major Jonathan Heart, was pie en by Mr. Wadfwortfy and read; the P' a - e the petition is, that Ihe may receive a ' V iimilar to thole granted to the widows 0 cers who were killed during; the late 3 referred to a felcft committee, con filing Meflrs. Wadfworth, Govdov, and N l l l Mr. Boudiflpt presented a petition oik • am L-Jtkway, a ibldicv iu the late war, pr«.
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers