rundti& of France was very different from
what was to have been wished, as well as
f:um v '.at was contemplated by the mar
qua, la Fayette, *ho had patronized tiie
iuteieii oi tl.de hlbennrn, yet that the
prujeft of tempting tht ro to emigrate had
origina ed in Gtvat-I'.ritain, and was a
counUr-prujcC on the part of France. How
ttw happened to omit the an
tecedent attempt of Great-Britain, and
thereby exaggerate that of France, Mr.
M. did not undertake to explain : but it
wjs the more extiaoidir.ary, at. the whole
acixmnt of the tranfaclion was contained
in the fame page of the report, nay in the
fame paragraph, from which the gentle
man hrfd extracted "his information.
Hero lie read thepaflage m that report,
am! produced the British llatute, inviting
the whale lithe.man, by an offer of tcr
ta a privileges to emigrate to Great Bri-
A further charge again (I the Secretaiy
of St*te is, that in his flattmeut of the
tonnage of the United States employed
in tn. A trade with the French and Bntilh
dominions, he founded it,net on the aSual
number of Jbift, but on the number of en
tries. This charge was as lingular as it
was uncandid.
The re-port Hated the fad, that the A
mencan ton nage mitring our ports from
the several nations with which the United
loded, was so and so; and in this
ilaumcat, it pursued the official returns
made or. the fubjeft. What more was to
be required ?
In giving the tact, the secretary irr.pof
ed «.;i no one, because he Hated the ton
ua 0 to be entry tonnage, as it really
He followed the best guide that ex -
illrd, an official icturn from the proper
No return of the aftuai tonnage, as dif-
from the entry tonnage, had
at the time, ever been made from any of
fice, or ca'ied tor by any act of Con
gress.
The firft return ever made In the latter
form, was called for tince the refolutious
on the table were proposed.
TKeleconfideratichsmigh? have re ft rain
ed the gentleman from this unwarrant
ed attack on the accuracy of ths report.
Bui he ought at leatf to have been lure,
th \ whftft h * was charging the Secretary
\*;':i following an erroneous guide, he
\ t him ft If following one that was noter
-1 ' ous. The examination of this point
i" Ived facts which iperited the particu-
.1 atie.ition of the committse,
he statement of the ettby tonnage of
the V M.'ted States in foreign trade for I 792
lately called for and reported, 15415,331
t. -'W.
for the fame year is 289,394 toHs.
On comparing t'nefe two quantities, it
was evident that both could not be right.
If the entry tonnage was no more than
was (lated, it was inconceivable that the
afiual tonnage could be as much as was
ftp.ud. It would allow the veflels in the
Kuropean and Weft India trades together
but (omcwhat more than one voyage and
a third a year. It could never l»e suppos
ed, thai this corresponded with the fa&.
liow then was the inconsistency in the
two ftatemcnts to be explained ?
Mr. M. said, as he did not know by
what rule the achial tonnage was made
up, he would form no cor.jedhire on the
fhl ject. He hoped,and wished that some
gcn'leman more conversant with it, Would
{llvc the phenonenoon. He did not call
011 the gentleman from South Carolina,be
cause he moll of all, must he puzzled to
account for it ; having stated that onr ves
sels in the trade to Europe make two voy
ages, and in the Weft India trade four
voyages a year.
Betides the evidence contained in this
companion of the aggregate tonnage in
the two different forms, in which it had
heen reported,the exiitence of error some
where, and probably in the acconnt of
the a&ual tonnage resulted from a compa
rative view of our exports to the British
dominions, for the two years of 1790
and 1792, and of the whole tonnage A
rr - itHn and British employed in convey
%
ing titCßi*
In the former year the exports were
f,363,416 dollars. Intlirlatter 8,269,495
dollars; the txceft for 1790, 1,093,921
iuflars.
Tlie entry tonnage, British and Ame
rican for 1790, was 272,580 tons.
The British miry tonnage for 1792.
was 206, $84 tons. The aßual American
to->n"V T < for 1792, was according to t<ie
official llateir.cnt, 66,581 tons; which
turned into entry tonnage, according to
the proportion of the whole actual, to
the whole enti-y tonnage for that year,
mikes the American entry tonnage, in
the trade to Great Britain about 95,000
tons.
Adding this to the Britilh entry ton
nagt of 296,384 tor:3 > the Britilh and
American together for 1792, amounts to
301,384 tons ; which exceeds the ton
nage of 1790 no lcfs thai> 27,804 tons.
According to this calculation, which
embraces the actual tonnr.gc as ltated to
die house, there would be 27,804 tons
more,employed in tranfpoiting 1,193,921
dollars Ids; making our tonnage to in
crease in that proportion as the employ
ment of itdecrcafed.
There was a pollibflity, Mr. M. ob
fened, that the course of trade in the
two years, might be such that more of
the vessels employed in the expertations
to Great Britain might be entered in 1790
as coming from some other country, than
in 1792 i but as there was no knov.n cir
cumftar.ee which authorized this folutior,
and as it seemed denionltiable in general,
that error existed somewhere in the flate
ments, and molt probably in thofc of the
actual tonnage, he concluded that it ought
to be referred to that source ; and confe
qnently, that the guide followed by the
Secretary- of State, to wit, the entry
tonnage, the only one he had to follow,
was not more inaccurate, than the a<stual
tonnage would have been, which guided
the member from South Carolina.
Another position of the Secretary of
State on which a charge is founded, is,
" that the greater part of what Great
Britain receives from the United States is
re-exported." This, polition, Mr. M.
reminded the committee, related to Great
Britain without comprehending the Weft
India iflanda, which formed a diltinCt
branch in the Secretary 3 ! report. How
far it was liable to the exceptions taken
againlt it, would appear from an exami
tion of facts.
To obviate critieifms, Mr. M. said he
would take for The baiis of his calcula
tions, the ilatement given in detail by the
gentleman himfelf, of the exports for
1790, to the -French and British domi
nions ; which though not' extended to
every item, approached so near to a fuOl
view of the tiade, as to be adequate to
the purpose.
In this ftatcment the exports to Great
Britain (land at dollars j from
which must be iubtra&eu, for the compa
rison, the amount of the fcveral re-exper
tations as far as they can be liquidated.
Tobacco. It appears from an official
document, that the tobacco exported to
Gteat Britain in 1791, was 67,216 hogs
heads. A return for another year Hates
the quantity to be 52,505 hogsheads. It
appeared from the revenue returns of
Great Britain, that the consumption of
this article amounted to 9,600 hogsheads.
The proportion re-exported might then
be reafpnably set down at four-fifths of the
quantity imj>orted.
Rice. To obtain the proportion of
rice re-exported, we may take the medi
um quantity imported for three years,
immediately preceding the revolution,
which, accordingly to a table in Ander
fon's Hiflory of Commerce, was 486,543
cwt. By another table for the fame pe
riod, the medium quantity exported was
349,653 cwt. Tbe difference marks the
confamption, and is 136,890 cwt. The
quantity exported to Great Britain from
the United States in 1792, was 58,978
barrels, equal to 294,890 cwt. Compar
ing the quantity consumed with this quan
tity, it appears that more than half, tho'
less than two thirds, is re-exported—call
the re-exportation one half only qf the
present importation.
Indigo. According to a statement in
Anderi'on, the medium importations into
Greal-Britain, for three years immedi
diately preceding the revolution, were a
bout thrice the medium quantity re-ex
portei'. Call the proportion re-exported
now, however, one-fifth only, which it
probably below the faA.
From these proportions, and the data
furnilhed by the gentleman's own state
ments, results the following juftification
of the report of the Secretary on this
point.
Dollars.
Exports to Great Britain 6,651,429
Dollars.
Tobacco 2,754,493
Consumed 1-5 550,898
Re-exported
2,205,395
R!ce 773> 8 5*
Cunfumed 1-2 386,926
Re-exported 386,926
Indigo 473» 8 3°
Conlumed4-5 379,064
Re-exported
Wheat and flour, per
haps the whole re-ex
ported :—And more
was carried to Great-
Britain, in the two
succeeding years, tho'
the aggregate exports
thither were left than
in the year here ta
ken : Say, however,
that one fourth was
consumed, and let the
amount Hand accord
ingtothegentleman's
ftatenjent —at
94.766
1,087,840
Confumcd 1-4 271,960
Re-exported
815,880
Here, then, it appears, that the re-ex
portations of the four articles alone, of
Tobacco, Rice, Indigo and Wheat, are
greater than the wlu>le confuroption in
Great Britain, of the articles imported
from the United States, although the
most unfavorable year has been taken, for
the enquiry ; and, consequently, that the
position of the Secretary of State, was
well founded.
( Speech to ie continued.)
Mr. Fenno,
You are requested to give the inclosed
remarks made by Mr. Giles, a place in
your paper as soon as may consist with the
arrangements of your prefj—it is the ra
ther requested, beeaufe the manner in
which you have dated the tranlaflion, to
which they relate, was not calculated to
convey the truth of the cafe. *
From the General Arlvert'tfer.
Substance of the remarks made by Mr.
Giles, in the House of Representatives,
on the 24th of February, 1794 ; —upon
a motion for entering into the coniidera
tion of the resolutions proposed in the
early part of the fefiion ; requiring an ex
amination into the (late of the Treasury
Department, by committee.
Mr. Giles observed that very shortly af
ter the meeting of Cengrefs, he had laid
this resolution on the table, under a con
viction of the propriety of the meaftire,
and the hope of a speedy decision upon it.
An occurrence took plate a few days af
terwards, which produced a temporary
delay. An individual pre&nted a memori
al to Congress, containing some suggesti
ons again (I the official conduct of the gen
tleman at the head of the Department;
and to have pressed the enquiry into the
general state of the Treasury, during the
pendency ofthofe suggestions, might have
been deemed a violation of delicacy and
propriety: Very soon after the imputa
tions from that source, were done away,
by report of a committee ; lie" had called
up the resolution ; but the House acting
under the impreflions produced by the de
licate crisis of our external affairs, refufed
to enter into the coufideration of the fub
jeft at that time.
Mr. Giles remarked, that whilfl on the
one hand, he was desirous of looking into
a fubjeft which he deemed important to
the public welfare, as well as to gratify
an officer in a requcfl, which he conceiv
ed, had been impelled by the delicacy of
his situation ; he was not unwilling on the
other hand, to yield to the opinion of the
House, which induced an immediate at
tention to our affairs with foreign nations.
The fubjefts of commercial regulations,
and the naval armament, being now out
of the view of the House, at leall for some
days, he hoped the chasm would be filled
by the consideration of the resolution he
had proposed. He could not help re
marking, that at an early period of the
feflion, this resolution had been termed
the torch of discord. He thought if it
could be viewed with impartiality, and
according to its own design, it would no
be found to poflefs that charaAer. The
primary object of the resolution, is to af-*
certain the boundaries of discretion and
authority, between the Legidature, and
the Trcafury Department. To effcft this
* If there has been any nufreprrfentation
of this fubjed, in this Gazette, it Is unlnvwn
to the Editor.
objeS, it becomes neteffary to have a
knowledge of the state of iKe Treasury
Department; This appeared to him, an
obvious duty of the House of Representa
tives, operating equally upon every indivi
dual of whom it is compoltd j it therefore
seemed strange to him, that an attempt to
discharge an essential duty, (hould be con
ftrucd into a design to interrupt the har
mony of deliberation.
If to require a full and comprehensive
view of the public finances, and the modes
in which they are contributed, and distri
buted ; be conflrued into an effort at dis
cord: it must arise either from the opini
on, that Congress already poflelis this vie#,
or from the principle that they ought not
to poflefs it ; but that the whole know
ledge of this fubjeft (hould be left to th«
Treasury officers. If this doiSrine be con
tended for, he thought it ought to (Simu
late the exertions of those, who believed
it to be fubterfive of the primary principle
of the constitution.
He icquclied the House to accompany
him in making a few reflections upon this
fubjeft.
3,-01,067
The debt of the United States, forms
an important item of legislation : Its fyf-
U-m is intricate; its extent unknown ; it
embraces the interefls of a very sagacious
and powerful class of citizens: It is made
by the constitution, the peculiar province
of the Representatives, immediately cho
sen by the people, to superintend the con
tributions, and the attributions of all
public monies. This may be deemed the
highest duty of the Representatives. It
may be allied, how this mo!l important
of duties, can be underltandinglyperform
ed, but by a knowledge of the whole ma
chinery of the Treasury Department ?
There can be no prospect of ading -jjifely,
where there are no means of judging rightly.
The omiflion to discharge this important
legislative fun&ion, by the Representatives,
will neccflarily cause it to be performed
by the Head of the Department. A spe
cies of laws will grow out of an inatten
tion to, and a consequent ignorance of this
fubjeA, which may be called, the rules of
office ; theforms of the Treasury ; the prac
tical conJlruSiors 'f laws,contravening the
legal conftru£lions. Iu all conflicts between
this species of laws, and the laws pro
nounced by the constitutional tribunal,
the advantage would he in favor of the
Treasury system : Because this would be
the practical, that the theoretic system of
legislation. An inattention to this fub
jeft, which is an intricate and complicat
ed one, and a confequertt ignorance of it,,
might in a course of time, leave to the Le
gislature, the mere right of regifttrinjj
'I'reafury edidb. It may be said, that this
is not the cafe at prefetit: It is not pro
posed to giye any opinion on this point;
the remarks have been intended to (hew
the probable tendency of intruding this
important branch of legislation, to the
Treasury Department; which would be
the infallible confequeiice of the ignorance
of the Legislature, of the Treasury pro
ceedings.
The propriety of placing confidence, in
the Executive Officers, is an argument
very familiar to this House. To a certain
extent, it is in every refpeft proper. It
is proper, so long as the officer confines
himfelf to his legal aefignated functions :
If in any cafe, he (hould exceed these, it
becomes the duty of the Lcgiflature, to
notice the proceeding. It is also the duty
of the Legillrtuir to afcertoin his functions
by law, and to limit his discretion. *9his
argument of confidence in the executive
officers, may easily be carried to a danger
ous exctfs. The people have confidence
in their Representatives ; they bellow on
them certain trusts, and impose on them
certain duties. The reprelentatitves have
confidence in the executive officers. They
transfer to them, these trusts and thele
duties. What would be the result ? A
complete and radical change in the mod
essential chara&er of the government:.
In Ilea J of the Legislature prcfcribing
rules of conduit to the people, the execu
tive officers would prescribe them ; and
the Legislature would be of no other use
than to legjdife executive proceedings.
This would be a desertion of the trust re
posed in the "representative. The consi
deration of individaal ease, would always
operate in fivor of this idea. The argu
ment of individual interell might poflibly
aid it in some inllances, and the argument
of policy in others ; for there may be some
individuals, who might poflibly prefer that,
to the constitutional (late of things. These
remarks had been made to flievr, in very